sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alfred Barry, Bachelor of Divinity, Bampton Lectures, Chancel, Crosslinks, Donald Coggan

                 

  !"#$" %"& '!

               %& ( )!*# ' +!,

%! # )-.$"*&*/'$"0$"1-$1/' "*2/('*&, )/3 -&!4$#/' ‘ANGLICAN IN 1897-1953’ The thesis explores the spectrum of Evangelical (Anglican) doctrine taught at Moore Theological College and the Diocese of Sydney, under three historically significant heads of the College – Nathaniel Jones (1897-1911), DJ Davies (1911-1935) and TC Hammond (1936-1953). The principles underlying their thought as well as their specific doctrinal views are explored in historical context. Part I surveys pertinent nineteenth century intellectual and ecclesiastical challenges and the response of contemporary Evangelical thinkers. The development of the College’s tradition is recounted in the light of its founder’s intention. Part II attempts to define Principal Jones’s place in the Evangelical spectrum of the day, including the two additions of the latter half of the nineteenth century, namely a premillennial expectation of Christ’s return and the holiness teaching of Keswick. A fresh examination of the sources does not find the narrow outlook usually attributed to him and to his legacy. Part III, on Principal Davies, locates him in the Evangelical spectrum as broadened by the liberal theological ideas prevalent in at the turn of the nineteenth century. It explores for the first time the degree and limits of his liberal convictions. It notes the tensions created, which culminated in a noteworthy election of a new in 1933, and resistance to him in his early years. Part IV examines the thought of Principal Hammond, whom it locates in the same part of the Evangelical spectrum as Jones, and as sharing with him the Keswick holiness addition, but not premillennialism. His broad-ranging thought and scholarship was not characterised by a sectarian outlook, nor by the same emphasis on piety as Jones. His focus was on what was biblical and Anglican. The thesis concludes that the thought and influence of the three principals was in clearer harmony, or less, with the College founder’s intention, as each represented a more conservative part of the Evangelical spectrum, or more liberal. These case studies not only caste light on evangelicalism more generally. Since the College played a key role, they also throw light on the Anglican character of the Diocese of Sydney. Table of Contents

Acknowledgments...... iii Abbreviations...... viii Introduction...... 1 Part I. Evangelicalism at Moore College Chapter 1. Challenges Intellectual and Ecclesiastical...... 29 Chapter 2. Evangelical Responses to the Challenges...... 69 Chapter 3. Moore Theological College 1856-1953...... 129 Part II. Nathaniel Jones (1861-1911): Pietist Evangelical Chapter 4. Evangelicalism Embraced – Formation of a Scholar-Pastor...... 165 Chapter 5. Evangelical Doctrine Stated.... 201 Chapter 6. Evangelicalism Maintained...... 247 Part III. David John Davies (1879-1935): Liberal Evangelical Chapter 7. Liberal Evangelicalism Embraced – Formation of an Historian...... 295 Chapter 8. Liberal Evangelicalism Stated and Applied...... 335 Chapter 9. Liberal Evangelicalism Maintained...... 383

Part IV. Thomas Chatterton Hammond (1877-1961): Reformation Evangelical Chapter 10. Evangelicalism Embraced – an Apologist-Pastor...... 433 Chapter 11. Evangelical Doctrine Defended and Expounded – to 1935...... 471 Chapter 12. Evangelicalism Maintained and Applied...... 525 Conclusion...... 599

Bibliography...... 615

i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was motivated first by Janet West’s Moore College Library Lecture of 1988 on DJ Davies. The Revd Dr Bill Lawton’s work on Nathaniel Jones motivated me to find out more, and he personally informed me of important Masonic Lodge source material for Davies. Dr Cornelius Van Til, of Westminster Theological Seminary, by his teaching of apologetics when I was a student of , was my incentive for more critically examining TC Hammond’s thought. The late Archbishop and were unstintingly generous in correspondence and interview time. Mrs Carl Hammond, widow of the late Revd Carl Hammond, son of TC Hammond, and Mr William (Bill) Andersen, active in the Sydney University Evangelical Union in the early 1940s, recalled their memories of TC Hammond. The late Dr Stuart Babbage kindly supplied his personal memories of Hammond and Archbishop Mowll. The Revd Noel Pollard of Cambridge located the service books of Holy Trinity Church and helped me record the entries for DJ Davies. I must also mention that Mrs Stephanie Bennett of Newtown, Victoria, granddaughter of Nathaniel Jones, provided me with copies of important published sermons and

iii addresses by her grandfather. Also in Victoria, Darrell Paproth provided me with material he had written on turn of the nineteenth century evangelical movements in that state. David Dockrill supplied me some material on TC Hammond’s engagement with Professor John Anderson of Sydney University. Emeritus Professor Brian Fletcher did me the favour of recommending the History faculty at the University of . Professor John Gascoigne has been an unfailing help and encourager, who insisted on my finding an overall structure for writing up this research, and patiently pointed to what needed to be done. Geoff Treloar also gave encouraging guidance and invaluable insights as a co-supervisor and, before I had even thought of enrolling, me his expertise in the field for my visit to the libraries in and Ireland. Dr Bruce Winter and his wife Lyn at Tyndale House, and Dr David L Baker and Elizabeth, kindly allowed us the use of their residences during our research in Cambridge, and extended warm hospitality, as did Stuart and Mee Judge in . At the Irish Church Missions office in , the superintendent, the Revd Eddie Coulter, was much help in tracing source material on Hammond. Also in Ireland, the Revd Warren Nelson supplied a copy of some unpublished

iv material to do with Hammond’s first major book, and (with his wife) gave warm hospitality to my wife Diana and me in their home. Librarians have been unfailingly helpful. They include, in , the librarians of Moore Theological College Library, especially Kim Robinson with his knowledge of the Library’s archival resources; also the librarians of the Leeper Library, Trinity College in the University of . In England, I received help from the staff of the library and the library of the Wren Library of Trinity College, Cambidge, in the Bodleian and Radford libraries at the ; in Ireland, the staff of the Manuscript Department of the library of , of the Church Representative Body Library and of the Catholic Library, Dublin, have all helped willingly. Bill Breeze of the College’s IT department has been of great help in keeping the technological side of writing going smoothly. Especially must I thank my wife, Diana, for her diligent help in the search for material in the British and Irish libraries and in the Moore College Library microform material, and for proof-reading the final drafts. Her encouragement and patience has been unfailing.

v The research could hardly have been done without the support of Dr , when still principal of Moore College. He made me a visiting fellow of the College, which entailed full faculty library privileges and, initially, financial help. The College continued to set aside payments while I was for nine months earning as acting at St Andrew’s , Sydney. This money funded my visit to libraries in England (, Cambridge, Oxford and Birmingham) and Ireland (Dublin). That research had been done before I decided to enroll in the PhD programme of the University of New South Wales. I have enjoyed encouragement and indications of interest from many. They have included Stuart Piggin, who invited me to attend his post-graduate seminars at Macquarie University, and to the Evangelical History Association for affording me the opening to present papers at their conferences, and to Geoff Treloar again, for the opportunity to publish a paper in Lucas. Fellow post-graduate history students of the Intellectual History group brought together by Uraiwan Keodora have provided stimulus and offered comments on material I have written on the subject of the thesis. Most recently I am grateful to Miss Heather McLeod, who in her retirement kindly agreed to

vi take on the onerous task of typing up the Bibliography, by searching through all the footnote references.

vii ABBREVIATIONS ACR Australian Church Record ACQR Australian/Australasian Church Quarterly Review ACL Anglican Church League ADEB Australian Dictionary of Evangelical Biography AEGM Anglican Evangelical Group Movement AV Authorised Version of the Bible BDE Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals DNB Dictionary of National Biography DSCHT Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology EQ Evangelical Quarterly FEC Fellowship of Evangelical Churchmen ICM Society for Irish Church Missions ICQ Irish Church Quarterly IVF Inter-Varsity Fellowship MitchLib Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales NIDCC New International Dictionary of the Christian Church ODCC Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church RV Revised Version of the Bible SDM Sydney Diocesan Magazine SMAMoore Samuel Marsden Archives, Moore Theological College Library, Newtown, New South Wales

TCD Trinity College Dublin TSLR Transactions of the Sydney Lodge of

viii Research USydArch University Archives, WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

ix INTRODUCTION

Moore Theological College, Sydney, and the Diocese of Sydney together represent a unique phenomenon in the history of Anglican evangelicalism (hereinafter Evangelicalism), at least in English-speaking countries, and certainly in Australia. The Diocese is well known as ‘Evangelical’, and in the view of some therefore less than ‘Anglican’, though it was never in fact ‘monochrome’. Many would contend that a sound Evangelicalism is truest to the intent of the English Reformers. No one doubts that the College has been Evangelical for most of its history, but there is as yet no thorough analysis of its Evangelicalism, of what kind or kinds it was. Of the thought and influence of the principals of the College no overall analysis and assessment of any one man has yet appeared. None at all has been attempted for the second subject of this study, David John Davies (1879-1935). Among the College’s eleven principals to the present time (1856-2013), the three subjects of this study held office in succession from 1897- 1953, a span of more than half a century. In these years occurred a series of changes in the Evangelicalism taught in the College and represented in the Diocese. In England, a liberal Evangelical movement appeared and became very influential, for example, at Ridley Hall,

1 Cambridge and Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, in the Church Society, and on the ’s episcopal bench. Moore College and the Diocese of Sydney experienced a succession of different kinds of Evangelicalism, including this self-styled ‘Liberal Evangelicalism’, in the persons of its principals and . In the period here studied the succession was from a late nineteenth century conservative kind to an early to mid- twentieth century liberal variant, followed by a centrist conservative form. Bishop Barker, the first Evangelical bishop of the Diocese, founded the College in 1856 to be a place of Evangelical training to help him in his goal of a predominantly Evangelical diocese. From the first its principals were set against ‘rationalism and ritualism’. For long most of the in the Diocese were trained elsewhere, mainly in England and Ireland. Not until the last part of the era under study did graduates of Moore College form the majority of Sydney clergy. Ever since Moore College’s foundation, however, it has been an important, and in the long run came to be almost the exclusive theological institution for training the ordained ministry of the Diocese of Sydney. The Diocese has always been numerically the largest in the country. Over its history, the College has also trained some clergy for other dioceses. These have included especially Melbourne at first, as well

2 those dioceses carved out of Sydney in the nineteenth century – Bathurst and Goulburn (from which came also Riverina). All three of these began with Evangelical . Moore College also educated clergy who served as (most with the Church Missionary Society of Australia), played a role in the training of deaconesses, and provided training to lay candidates (men and women) for the Church Missionary Society of Australia. To explain the changes Moore College underwent and so became the institution it was by 1953 the story of what these three principals believed and taught, and of their influence, needs to be told. Each principal was the dominant figure in the College, which was small until after World War II. He was also an important figure in the Diocese while principal (the first two studied here died in office), and afterwards. For each left his own living legacy – the men (and women) taught in the College (and associated Deaconess House from 1891) – as well as literary remains. Perhaps the most important example of a living legacy will be seen in the events of more than two decades after Nathaniel Jones’s death. A group of his former students then took decisive action such that it re-established in the Diocese and in the College central features of the Evangelicalism their revered teacher had represented. Just what were the ideas and convictions that motivated them is

3 less than well understood and will be examined in what follows. More than ever now the thought and influence of these principals needs to be recounted, and accurately. From towards the end of the twentieth century the history of Evangelicalism in Sydney has attracted scholarly historical interest and attention. Much of it lacks much more than an outline knowledge of what the several principals believed, and yet can be confidently adverse in judgment. Among the most negative writers are some of the most recent, who also appear to have the sketchiest knowledge – in one instance even to be seriously mistaken. Some writers focus on the era subsequent to that of Jones, Davies and Hammond, that is, on the latter twentieth century and early twenty-first. By attributing much to the influence of DB Knox, principal of Moore College from 1959 to 1985, their verdicts serve to point up a certain long- standing antipathy on the part of certain Anglicans to the Evangelical tradition of Moore College and Sydney. One factor might be, once the Constitution of the Anglican Church in Australia came into force in 1962, that the debates and decisions of General Synod sharpened differences. One issue, but not the only one, has been that of the of women as presbyters, which was supported by an Evangelical archbishop of Melbourne () and a prominent

4 Evangelical theologian (Leon Morris), formerly principal of Ridley College, Melbourne. Another issue has been the attitude to active homosexuality. In part, these are only symptoms. A theologically liberal factor has long been present, if not so obvious. David Hilliard is correct when he writes of ‘the new chasm’ that has opened since the 1960s between ‘those who are labelled “liberal”’ and ‘those who see themselves as “traditional” or “orthodox”’, a chasm which ‘slices across’ the old divide between Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic.1 This factor affects the debates and decisions of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia. Three works exemplifying the depth of the new chasm have claimed attention in recent years – those by (2004),2 Chris McGillion (2005),3 and Muriel Porter (2006).4 In Tom Frame’s view, these have ‘not always helped the cause of

1David Hilliard, Ch 3. ‘Dioceses, Tribes and Factions: Unity and Disunity in Australian ’, in Tom Frame and Geoffrey Treloar, Agendas of Australian Anglicans: Essays in Honour of Bruce Kaye (Adelaide: ATF Press, 2006), 65.

2Peter Carnley, Reflections in Glass: Trends and Tensions in the Contemporary Anglican Church (Pymble, NSW: HarperCollins, 2004).

3Chris McGillion, The Chosen Ones: The Politics of Salvation in the Anglican Church (Sydney: Allen, Allen and Unwin, 2005).

4Muriel Porter, The New Puritans: The Rise of in the Anglican Church ( Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2006).

5 greater understanding or widened scope for empathy’.5 Archbishop Carnley of Perth, Primate of Australia, 2000-2005, came to believe that Principal TC Hammond had taught an Arian, that is, a subordinationist, view of Christ’s position in the Godhead. This heresy, indeed Hammond’s ‘methodological outlook’, he thought, lay at the root of the Sydney Doctrine Commission’s justification for not ordaining women as presbyters.6 Bishop Tom Frame’s research revealed that Carnley’s mistake came from a misapprehension of information received in a telephone conversation. He has recounted this and the subsequent debate in some detail.7 Chris McGillion, a , formerly on the editorial staff of The Sydney Morning Herald, wrote as a senior lecturer in print journalism at Charles Sturt University. His The Chosen Ones attempts to explain how it was that the Diocese of Sydney ‘took a sharp turn toward a more extreme

5Tom Frame, Anglicans in Australia (Sydney, NSW: University of New South Wales Press, 2007), 1-2.

6Peter Carnley, Reflections in Glass, 234-235, 241; and ‘Was TC Hammond an Arian?’, a paper given at the ‘Colloquium on Subordinationism and the Doctrine of the Trinity’, Friday 20 August 2004 at Trinity College, the , published in St Mark’s Review No 198 (July 2005).

7Tom Frame, Ch 6. ‘The Dynamics and Difficulties in Debate in Australian Anglicanism’ in Tom Frame and Geoffrey Treloar (eds), Agendas for Australian Anglicanism, 146-159.

6 and conservative form of Protestantism’.8 He makes no analysis of the historical background, or of the less ‘extreme’ and less ‘conservative form of Protestantism’ that he assumes preceded it. Frame applauds McGillion’s ‘conscious attempt to remain impartial’, but thinks his ‘prior commitment to liberal humanist ideals’ hides ‘in the shadows’.9 Muriel Porter, a cradle Anglican who grew up in a Sydney parish but now lives in Melbourne, is married to an Anglo-Catholic clergyman, and is a member of General Synod. She declares her hand: ‘My aim in this book is not to report on Sydney objectively and even-handedly’. She, like McGillion, talks of Sydney’s ‘extreme form of evangelicalism’.10 Frame faults all three writers: In sum, the books are distorted accounts of what the Church does, because a prior commitment to social progressivism blurs each author’s vision of the internal nuances of some Anglican belief. . . .11

His own critique of Dean Phillip Jensen’s St Andrew’s Cathedral Sydney website presentation is at points telling, as are to some extent his

8Chris McGillion, The Chosen Ones: The Politics of Salvation in the Anglican Church (Crows Nest, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin, 2005, xi.

9Frame, Anglicans in Australia, 7-8.

10Porter, The New Puritans, 42.

11Frame, Anglicans in Australia, 11.

7 strictures on the current Evangelicalism in the Diocese.12 His overall characterisation of Sydney Evangelicalism is balanced by a positive assessment of principals TC Hammond and DB Knox and ‘the present teaching faculty at Moore College’.13 Frame also notes, however, Stuart Piggin’s point, that Australian Anglicans appear to have a very undeveloped sense of their own identity. They have little memory and little sense of tradition.14

Insofar as this is true, it is a contributory justification for undertaking a close study of three past Moore College principals. There have been two recent histories of the Anglican Church in Australia and one of the Diocese of Sydney. Bruce Kaye has edited a wide- ranging history of Anglicanism in Australia.15 It contains little, however, about Moore College and its principals in the period before DB Knox. In

12Tom Frame, A House Divided: A Quest for Unity within Anglicanism (Brusnswick East, Victoria: Acorn Press, 2010), Ch 1. ‘Tradition or Tribe? Evangelicalism’, 16-21.

13Frame, A House Divided, 29-30.

14Tom Frame, Anglicans in Australia, 13 (ref Stuart Piggin ‘Towards the renewal of the Anglican Church of Australia: an historical and sociological evaluation of Bruce Kaye’s Strategies’ (unpublished paper given at Australian Anglican History Seminar, Sydney, 27-28 September 1997), 2 (author’s permission to quote obtained).

15Bruce Kaye (ed), Anglicanism in Australia: A History (Carlton South, Victoria: Melbourne University Press, 2002). (Associate editors: Tom Frame, Colin Holden and Geoff Treloar.)

8 his earlier book, A Church without Walls, Kaye faults the Moore College of Nathaniel Jones as ‘consolidating a very conservative kind of pietistic Evangelicalism’.16 This verdict derives from William Lawton’s pioneer reading of Jones. He based it on a good part of the Jones primary material in pursuance of a wider research question. He concluded that Jones was a source of ‘ardent millennialists’, who dominated Evangelical Anglican teaching in the Diocese. They neglected concern with society to focus their attention on the inner life of believers, of the ‘Little Flock’.17 ML Loane, however, the only historian of the College,18 its principal (after Hammond) and finally archbishop of Sydney, knew personally the key Jones graduates. He severely questioned the two elements of Lawton’s conclusion.19 Lawton also concluded that under Jones, Moore College ‘fashioned a clergy . . . who failed to interpret [God’s mind] to a secularised society’,20 without

16Kaye, A Church without Walls, 32.

17William Lawton, The Better Time to Be: Utopian Attitudes to Society Among Sydney Anglicans 1885-1914 (Kensington, NSW: New South Wales University, 1990), 2, 210, 211.

18Marcus L Loane, A Centenary History of Moore Theological College (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1955).

19Marcus L Loane, review of Lawton, The Better Time to Be, in Lucas: An Evangelical History Review, No 11 (Apr 1991), 42-43.

20William Lawton, Ch 19. ‘Nathaniel Jones, Preacher of Righteousness’, in PT O’Brien and David G Peterson (eds), God Who is Rich in Mercy: Essays presented to Dr DB Knox

9 explaining what that interpretation might have meant. More recently he has surveyed Australian Anglican theology, in Anglicanism in Australia. While ignoring Loane’s criticism of his ‘Little Flock’ theory, a theory which he reiterates, he points very usefully to Archbishop Mowll’s desire to prioritise preaching for by his clergy.21 Lawton also faulted the Moore College under Jones for inculcating a Kantian intuitionist ethical theory.22 He did not note that such instruction was probably from the vice-principal (from 1904-1911), GA Chambers, who had received his of Arts in philosophy from the University of Sydney under the idealist, Professor Francis Anderson. Chambers’ thesis was ‘The Idea of Development as Applied to Religion’.23 The one history of the Diocese, that by Judd and Cable mentions all three principals here studied, Judd being the author of the chapters relevant for this study. His account of Jones and Moore College under him (‘pietistic pursuit of holiness’, ‘separatist adventism’ – both problematic analyses) and of the Diocese (‘the

(Homebush West, NSW: Lancer, 1986), 374.

21Bill [William] Lawton, Ch 8. ‘Australian Anglican Theology’ in Kaye (ed), Anglicanism in Australia, 183-185, 187-188, 190.

22 Lawton, The Better Time to Be, 84-85.

23Nancy de SP Sibtain in collaboration with Winnifred M Chambers, Dare to Look Up: A Memoir of Bishop George Alexander Chambers (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1968), 8- 9.

10 Church was becoming more self-contained’) assumes Lawton’s conclusions.24 Judd mentions Principal Davies (a ‘liberal Evangelical’) for his difficulties with the College Committee,25 his failed nomination of (the Liberal Evangelical) Joseph Hunkin to be elected archbishop in 1933, and his consequent disillusion with the Anglican Church League, of which he had been President. He gives no account of Davies’s thought, recording only the ‘freedom of enquiry and study’ that his new Anglican Fellowship stood for.26 Judd rightly draws attention to his successor, Principal Hammond’s emphasis on Scripture and on the Reformation, together with his outstanding intellect and scholarship. He notes that under Mowll and Hammond working in tandem things changed in the College and in the Diocese. But Judd’s account does not touch the root issue that Mowll and Hammond perceived as implicit in the ‘Memorial’ episode (1938), even if he is right in his judgment that their reaction was heavy-handed.27 The ‘Memorial’ was the protest of Liberal Evangelicals and others, who sensed that

24Stephen Judd (and) Kenneth Cable, Sydney Anglicans: A History of the Diocese (Sydney: Anglican Information Office, 1987), 155-156.

25See Janet West, ‘A Principal Embattled’ (Moore College Library Lecture, 1988, unpublished).

26Judd and Cable, Sydney Anglicans, 227, 232-234 (ch 14).

27Judd and Cable, Sydney Anglicans, 233-234, 239-240.

11 they were now being shut out from their previously significant roles in the Diocese under the comprehensive policy of Archbishop Wright (1909- 1933). One wonders, however, whether Judd, has notg overlooked Mowll’s eventual reply,28 as well as his admiration for Bishop Barker’s goal. The Archbishop’s emphasis on evangelism later that year in Synod accords well with this aim, towards which Barker had founded Moore College and chosen its first three principals. Kaye’s A Church without Walls, following Judd and Cable, correctly implies that the Jonesian influence in the Diocese brought both and TC Hammond.29 From a non-Evangelical lay point of view Brian Fletcher, retired Foundation Bicentennial Professor of Australian History at Sydney University, has written a scholarly while succinct history of Anglicanism in Australia. He usefully focusses on Australian Anglicanism’s societal and national role in the twentieth century. This entails his giving some account of ‘the difficult and complex problems arising from the diversity of belief that lies at the heart of Anglicanism’.30

28Marcus L Loane, Archbishop Mowll: The Biography of Howard West Kilvinton Mowll, Archbishop of Sydney and Primate of Australia (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960), 147-148.

29Bruce Kaye, A Church without Walls: Being Anglican in Australia (North Blackburn, Victoria: Dove, 1995), 32.

30 Brian H Fletcher, The Place of Anglicanism in Australia: Church, Society and Nation (Mulgrave, Victoria: Broughton Publishing, 2008), iii.

12 He does not mention Jones, but acknowledges Davies as ‘the liberal-minded intellectual Principal of Moore College’, who in his Moorhouse Lectures of 1917 was concerned to present the relevance of the church’s message to ‘the plain man’.31 On Hammond, he recognises his ‘fine intellect and an unexcelled reputation as a debater,’ but sees him as ‘imprisoned within a narrow form of Puritanism that had been shaped by his experience in Ireland.’32 He seems to be unaware of the breadth and depth of Hammond’s reading and writing, or of just where he stood and why. The latter question (where and why?) also applies to his remarks on Davies, for these matters await the research here essayed. As a historian who is not a theologian, Fletcher makes no attempt to critique the thought of Hammond, or of Davies. He is rightly positive, however, about Hammond’s role in achieving an agreed Constitution.33 The only history of Moore College so far, that written by Marcus Loane, ends with Hammond’s retirement in 1953. It has a chapter on each principal to that date and gives sufficient information about them to attract a closer look. He speaks of Nathaniel Jones’s ‘turn[ing] the true Keswick teaching into daily life and habit’, and

31Fletcher, Anglicanism in Australia, 82 (reference n99, The Church and the Plain Man (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1919 [given as ‘Melbourne, 1917’]).

32 Fletcher, Anglicanism in Australia, 126.

33Loane, Centenary History, 188.

13 records Archbishop Wright’s praise of ‘his sainted life and rich stores of theological knowledge’,34 but adds nothing further. Loane’s later illuminating vignettes of clergy associated with Archbishop Mowll include seven who were taught by Jones, among them his own father-in-law, whom he had often heard preach. His accounts of these men illustrate the long-lasting impact of Jones on the ministry in the Diocese, but do not focus on their theological inclinations.35 Of Davies’s convictions (Loane was a student in the College under Davies) he says only that he was ‘a Protestant in churchmanship, a Liberal in scholarship’, while also being ‘a man of fatherly interest and great kindness, . . . one whose friendly counsel is still gratefully remembered’.36 The only clue he gives to Hammond’s thinking is that his introductory lecture (Loane was then tutor – later vice-principal from 1939-1953) – was (as he remembered) on ‘Transcendentalism’.37 Years later he wrote, perhaps questionably, that Hammond’s ‘approach to Theology always emanated from the background of Philosophy’, like the German and Scottish theologians, rather than being

34Loane, Centenary History, 98-99, 112-113.

35Marcus L Loane, Mark These Men: A Brief Account of Some Evangelical Clergy in the Diocese of Sydney Who Were Associated with Archbishop Mowll (Canberra: Acorn Press, 1985).

36Loane, Centenary History, 137.

37Loane, Centenary History, 140.

14 ‘rooted in sound ’ as were the English writers.38 That was certainly Loane’s impression. He also records something of the effect of Hammond’s intellectual stimulus on the students and his influence on committees and in Synod, and notes his generosity, wit and love of humanity. His further sketches of clergy include five who were taught by Hammond. Again, he does not advert to Hammond’s impact on them.39 Loane explicitly denied that he himself was a theologian,40 which may account for his apparent lack of interest in more than generalisations about the thought of the principals. Marcia Cameron’s doctoral study serves to underline the gap in knowledge of Moore College’s principals. She has done some valuable digging into the history of Anglican theological education in Australia.41 As a historian and a lay-person, not a theologian, she is strong on the influence of Moore’s principals, but only touches on their thought, and not always reliably. Her earlier study of Moore College under Jones includes her own primary source research and gives informative

38 Loane, Mark These Men, 71.

39Loane, Centenary History, 152-153; ; and Loane, These Happy Warriors: Friends and Contemporaries (Blackwood, South Australia: New Creation, 1988.

40Conversation with ML Loane. Date not recorded.

41Marcia Helen Cameron, ‘Aspects of Anglican Theological Education in Australia: 1900-1940, with particular reference to four colleges’ (PhD dissertation, Macquarie University, 1999).

15 details about the institution. But it has only a little, while accurate, on his doctrinal views, more on his thinking about the spiritual development of the students.42 Stuart Piggin, though trained in theology, is necessarily sketchy on both Davies and Hammond in his 1997 essay, which traces the history of theological education in Australia.43 Later, in the revised edition of his history of evangelicalism in Australia, he repeats Lawton’s stance with regard to Jones’s ‘futurism’ (his premillennial view of Christ’s return), and seemingly assumes the validity of Lawton’s view of the kingdom of God, which rather contrasts with that of Jones.44 He mentions Davies (with Dean AE Talbot) only for his debating ‘the underlying causes of the economic malaise’ of his times, his making ‘pronouncements on social issues’, and supporting ‘radical and political changes’45 – the last being more applicable to Dean

42M Cameron, ‘Moore College Under Nathaniel Jones 1897-1911’, in G Treloar (ed), The Furtherance of Religious Beliefs: Essays on the History of Theological Education in Australia. A Special Combined Edition of Lucas: An Evangelical History Review, nos 19/20 (1995-96): 96-123. Same issue in book form – (. . . . Sydney: Centre for the Study of Australian Christianity, for the Evangelical History Association of Australia, 1997).

43Stuart Piggin, ‘A History of Theological Education in Australia’, in G Treloar (ed), The Furtherance of Religious Beliefs, 31, 35.

44Stuart Piggin, Spirit of a Nation: The Story of Australia’s Christian Heritage (Sydney: Strand Publishing, 2004), 76-77.

45Piggin, Spirit of a Nation, 88.

16 Talbot than to Davies. But he gives many details on Hammond, relating that, along with the evangelical CH Nash (Anglican) in Melbourne and Principal GH Morling (Baptist) in Sydney, he countered sinless perfectionism with ‘withering logic’,46 and thought Walter Marshall’s The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification (1692) was (‘according to Geoffrey Bingham’) ‘spot on’.47 (Bingham was one of the abler students in Moore College in Hammond’s last years.) Piggin calls Hammond ‘“a genuinely Anglican theologian in the evangelical tradition”’,48 notes that he was critical of Karl Barth, had a ‘strong objective Calvinist theology’,49 and that In Understanding Be Men was his ‘systematic theology for non-theologians’.50 This essentially sound description of Hammond piques one’s curiosity for further and fuller analysis. But it also confirms that Jones, and Davies, too, warrant a much closer look into their own writing for an accurate understanding of just

46Piggin, Spirit of a Nation, 107, 115, 116, 120, 122.

47Piggin, Spirit of a Nation, 150, citing G Bingham, interviewed by Ian Pennicook, 9, 10 July 1986, C[entre for the ]S[tudy of ]A[ustralian ]C[hristianity]; Walter Marshall, The Gospel-Mystery of Sanctification (London: Printed for T. Parkhurst, 1692).

48Piggin, Spirit of a Nation, 131 (quoting Robert Banks, ‘Fifty Years of Theology in Australia, 1915-`1965, Part One’, Colloquium 9.1 (1976), 40).

49Piggin, Spirit of a Nation, 135.

50Piggin, Spirit of a Nation, 136.

17 what each believed and taught, and of the critical difference between Davies and the other two. In a specialised study, Benjamin Edwards has documented some of Hammond’s public engagement in Sydney with Roman Catholicism. Although without analysis of Hammond’s motivation, he usefully gives examples of things he said.51 Treloar has added an article on Hammond as a controversialist, with regard not only to Roman Catholicism, but also to the ‘Memorial’ episode of 1938 and to the ‘Red Book’ Case of the 1940s.52 He has emphasised his Irish Protestant-Roman Catholic background in controversy, but omits his firm engagement with liberal theology and with High Church-Anglo- Catholic notions of episcopal authority and ritualism before he came to Sydney. The biographical studies confirm the need for greater knowledge. Even Loane’s biography of Archbishop Mowll, which narrates his leadership of the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union in the matter of the authority of Scripture, gives only a sketch of the problems. He says little more on Mowll’s convictions, except to mention his affirmation of ‘the doctrine of Justification by Faith only’ at his public welcome, March 13th,

51Benjamin Edwards, WASPS, Tykes and Ecumaniacs: Aspects of Australian Sectarianism (Brunswick East, Vic: Acorn Press, 2008), 96-97, 127, 130-2, 133, 135, 157-58.

52Geoffrey R Treloar, ‘TC Hammond the Controversialist’, Anglican Historical Society Journal 51:1 (June 2006), 20-35.

18 1934, and of the role of the Bible as ‘the principal means of grace in the hands of the Holy Spirit’.53 David Garnsey has provided an informative biography of his father, Arthur Garnsey, Warden of St Paul’s College (an Anglican college within the University of Sydney), 1916- 1944. He tells of the liberal theological views of this close friend of Principal Davies, but throws no light on the latter’s beliefs except by implication. On Hammond, Arthur Garnsey showed no sympathy with his thought, and seems to have lacked any knowledge or appreciation of the reasoning that underlay it.54 Nelson’s biography of Hammond, written for his Irish Bible College students, does not aim to be a full account, but his careful research deserves a wide readership. He has provided a useful, even indispensable basis for a complete biography. His chapter on Hammond’s most important books constitutes a valuable overview of his theological convictions. It includes an excellent start to a complete list of Hammond published works. Altogether it invites a deeper as well as a more comprehensive analysis of the Hammond ouevre.55

53Loane, Archbishop Mowll, 59-60, 133, 143.

54David Garnsey, Arthur Garnsey: A Man for Truth and Freedom (Sydney: Kingsdale Press, 1985), 74, 145, 151, 157.

55Warren Nelson, T.C. Hammond: His Life and Legacy in Ireland and Australia (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994), [Ch.] ‘Books and Theology’, 131-144.

19 The dictionary articles confirm the need for more investigation. In The Australian Dictionary of Evangelical Biography (1994) Brian Dickey supplied the entry on Nathaniel Jones, depending only on Lawton’s work. Stephen Judd wrote on David Davies there and in the Australian Dictionary of Biography, adding nothing as to his thought to what he had written in Sydney Anglicans. In ADEB Nelson summarised his biography of Hammond just mentioned.56 Kenneth Cable’s contribution on Hammond (1996) in the ADB is accurate on his influence, but gives no account of his theology. In contrast with the opinions of some others above, Cable thought that Hammond produced well-trained clergy.57 The best dictionary article on Hammond is by GR Treloar, in the Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals. Like Piggin, he mentions Hammond’s ‘moderate Calvinism’, ‘strongly objective theology’, and his handling of the Memorial episode and the ‘Red Book’ case.58

56The Australian Dictionary of Evangelical Biography, ed Brian Dickey (Sydney: Evangelical History Association, 1994), svv ‘Jones, Nathaniel’, ‘Davies, David John’, and ‘Hammond, T(homas) C(hatterton)’; in Australian Dictionary of Biography, sv ‘Davies, David John’.

57Cable, KJ, sv ‘Hammond, Thomas Chatterton (1877- 1961)’, in Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol 14.

58GR Treloar, sv ‘Hammond, Thomas Chatterton’, in Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, ed Timothy Larsen (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2003).

20 Nothing written about the views of these three principals seems to have been specifically related to the intellectual currents flowing in the British Isles of the latter nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Nor has there been any detailed examination of what confronted (or supported) each of them in their university education and environment, except what Nelson has done for Hammond. Nor have the subsequent developments that they addressed been recounted in order to throw light on their work. The question remains: What else was going on in the world of theology in their day? The greatest lack is the examination, with a theological eye, of the written remains of each of these Evangelical principals. To date, generalisations have been made from limited knowledge. Lawton and Cameron have made a start on Jones. No analysis of Davies’s published works has yet appeared – let alone a representative survey – and none of his unpublished papers, such as those given at meetings of ‘The Heretics’. Hammond’s In Understanding Be Men is a familiar volume to Nelson, Treloar and Piggin. His controversy with Roman Catholic teaching is frequently mentioned, but no detail of the key issues as he saw them. Of his published speaking and writing before coming to Moore College a more complete account than Nelson undertook in his biography now seems fitting. The same applies to

21 the substance of his major works from 1936 to 1953, 1953 being the year he retired as principal. Before listing the questions about these Evangelical principals that need an answer today, there is a prior historical question: What was evangelicalism (in general) and Evangelicalism (Anglican)? No modern study can ignore the very fruitful, indeed seminal (in modern parlance) definition of ‘evangelicalism’ that the English Baptist historian David Bebbington has offered. He has usefully defined the nature of that evangelicalism common to Anglican, Nonconformist and Scottish Presbyterian (Church of and derived) churches – indeed across all the British churches from the 1730s to the 1980s. His is necessarily a broad-brush approach, covering a wide variety of ‘evangelicalisms’, from conservative to liberal. He calls his defining summation ‘a quadrilateral of priorities’: There are four qualities that have been the special marks of Evangelical religion: conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed, activism, the expression of the gospel in effort, biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible, and what may be called crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.59

Bebbington has since offered a more theological order – biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism

59David Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 2-3. (First published – London: Unwin Hyman/Routledge, 1989).

22 and activism, and explained them carefully as they apply to the second half of the nineteenth century.60 Historians of modern Christianity today speak of ‘the Bebbington quadrilateral’. Of course, the High Church school in Anglicanism also required conversion, and Anglo-Catholics might also be said to be crucicentric and activist. But did Evangelicalism’s need to resist the Anglo- Catholic school make some difference to itself? With that question in mind for the three principals, the historian may take these four qualities together as distinguishing the Evangelical from other Anglican schools. The South African-born New Zealand Baptist, Brian Harris, who lives and works in Perth, Western Australia, has critiqued the most recent trends in evangelicalism broadly.61 But his view applies less aptly to Moore College from the late 1890s to the early 1950s, and hardly since. This study will attempt to elucidate the Evangelicalism of Moore College’s principals with the ‘quadrilateral’ in mind, while noting also the dynamics that shifted the emphasis as between its

60 David W Bebbington, The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody (Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 2005), 23-61. This is Volume 3 of the five-volume series, A History of Evangelicalism: People, Movements and Ideas in the English-speaking World, edited by David W Bebbington and Mark A Noll.

61Brian Harris, ‘Beyond Bebbington: The Quest for an Evangelical Identity in a Post-Modern Era’, The Churchman, vol 122.3 (2008), 201-219.

23 elements.62 Within Bebbington’s broad-brush definition, the questions suggested in the title of this work are: ‘What was the particular part of the Evangelical spectrum that each principal believed true, taught to his students, and promulgated by his preaching and writing? What was the background – experiential and intellectual — that brought each to his own convictions and led him to reject others? And what was the lasting influence of each man (as far as it can be determined) on the generation of future clergy he taught, preached to or wrote for? What were the historical consequences in Moore College and the Diocese of Sydney of the perceived incompatibility of one Evangelical portion of its spectrum with another? This work, therefore, essays to fill a lacuna in the theological history of Moore College by focussing on the three successive Evangelical principals, Nathaniel Jones (1897-1911), David John Davies (1911-1935), and Thomas Chatterton Hammond (1936-1953). Their era largely coincided with that of the three successive archbishops of Sydney who chose them – William (1890-1909), John Charles Wright (1909-1933), and

62Mark A Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield and the Wesleys (Leicester, Eng: Apollos, 1904), 17-18; David Bebbington, ‘About the Definition of Evangelicalism . . .’ (review of Kevin T Bauder, R Albert Mohler Jr, John G Stackhouse Jr, and Roger E Olsen, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 2011), in Evangelical Studies Bulletin, Issue 83 (Fall 2012), 5.

24 Howard West Kilvinton Mowll (1933-1958). Jones, Davies and Hammond each represented a variant of Evangelicalism, though that of Jones and Hammond was very similar in important respects while having different emphases. Just what the variation was, more fully and more exactly, is the central question of this research.

25 PART I. EVANGELICALISM at MOORE COLLEGE: CHALLENGE and CHANGE Chapter 1 CHALLENGES INTELLECTUAL and ECCLESIASTICAL

Introduction In the mid-nineteenth century Evangelicals were quite aware of both ritualistic innovations and rationalistic infidelity amongst Anglican clergy. Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and Ridley Hall, Cambridge would be set up to resist them. By the turn of the century Nathaniel Jones, David John Davies and Thomas Chatterton Hammond, like the Church of England as a whole, could observe appreciable Christian religious life, even revival, yet also a deepening secularising process. Morality and thought were becoming dissociated from a system of ultimate beliefs and moral values associated with the Christian faith. The process was attendant on an accelerating modernisation.1 The secular ideal of rational demonstration and empirical investigation – within a framework of assumed human autonomy – remained a challenge to historic Christianity.2 Many of the more educated embodied a further revolt against Christian theism itself, firmly resisted by some

1John Wolffe, ‘Introduction: Victorian Religion in Context’, in John Wolffe (ed), Religion in Victorian Britain, Vol 5, Culture and Empire (: Manchester University, 1997).

2W Andrew Hoffecker (ed), Understanding the Flow of Western Thought: Revolutions in Worldview (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009), 227.

29 theologians, adjusted to by others.3 The process existed among the general populace but was not especially manifest until the end of the nineteenth century.4 Even then it was mostly among the more highly educated and intellectual segment.5 Indeed, Callum Brown proposes that it was only suddenly in the 1960s that the general British public ceased to think of themselves as living Christian lives, even if only nominally had they remained Christian. Until the 1960s: men and women were able to draw upon a Christian-centred culture to find guidance about how they should behave and how they should think about their lives. . . .6

In the nineteenth century there were some able self-educated promoters of anti-Christian secularism among the working classes. There was also a succession among them of those who returned to active Christian faith.7 Among prominent highly educated non-believers, also, there were some who

3Richard Lints, Ch 9. ‘The age of Intellectual Iconoclasm: The Nineteenth Century Revolt against Theism’ in Hoffecker, The Flow of Western Thought, 281-317.

4Wolffe, ‘Introduction: Victorian Religion in Context’, in Wolffe (ed), Religion in Victorian Britain. Vol V. Culture and Empire, 9-10.

5Cf Timothy Larsen, Crisis of Doubt: Honest Faith in Nineteenth Century England (Oxford: Oxford University, 2006), ch 1. ‘Crisis of Faith’.

6Callum G Brown, The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation, 1800-2000 (London: Routledge, 2009), 193.

7Larsen, Crisis of Doubt, ch 1.

30 turned back. The philosopher and statesman, AJ Balfour (1848-1930) published Foundations of Belief,8 a philosophical prolegomena to the study of theology, whose eighth edition (not the last) appeared in 1901, when Hammond had already begun, and Davies was about to begin university study. TS Eliot (1888-1965), CS Lewis (1898-1963) – for whom a later work of Balfour was influential9 – and WH Auden (1907-1973) were converted in mature adulthood in the early twentieth century. Evangelical historians contemporary with our three principals have told how they saw the era. Strangely, GR Balleine’s history of the Evangelical party,10 hardly touches on nineteenth century thought in England, except for the rise of Tractarianism. Five years later, however, Vernon Storr dealt with English theological developments to 1860 in some depth.11 In 1936, the year following Davies’s death, the liberal Evangelical, LE Elliott-Binns (1885-1963), an Emmanuel College

8AJ Balfour, The Foundations of Belief: Being Notes Introductory to the Study of Theology (London: Longmans, Green, 1895).

9AJ Balfour, Theism and Humanism (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915), sv ‘Arthur James Balfour’, in The CS Lewis Readers’ Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).

10GR Balleine, A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England (London: Church Book Room, 1908).

11Vernon F Storr, The Development of English Theology in the Nineteenth Century 1800-1860 (London: Longmans, Green, 1913).

31 student when Davies was teaching there, noted that by the end of the century ‘[the Church’s] point of view could no longer be taken for granted’,12 at least for intellectuals. He quotes Mrs Sidney Webb’s observation in the mid-1920s, that the last decade of the nineteenth century formed the watershed between the metaphysic of the Christian Church . . . and the agnosticism . . . which was destined, during the first decades of the twentieth century, to submerge all religion based on tradition and revelation. . . .13

Yet for many others the Christian message was still alive, even though not always well. In the as well as in Australia, movements promoted by Evangelicals, especially the Church Missionary Society, greatly expanded after 1860. In England there were also great and successful evangelistic campaigns which benefited the national Church. Movements for the promotion of the personal Christian life, such as Keswick, flourished, also in Australia.14

12LE Elliott-Binns, Religion in the Victorian Era (London: Lutterworth, 2nd ed 1946 [1936]), 495.

13Elliott-Binns, Victorian Era , 54-55 (quoting Webb, My Apprenticeship (London: Longmans, 1926).

14John Pollock, The Keswick Story: The Authorised History of the Keswick Convention (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1964); Stuart Braga, A Century of Preaching Christ: Katoomba Christian Convention 1903-2003 (Sydney: Katoomba Christian Convention, 2003); Stephen Neill, A History of Christian Missions, rev for 2nd ed by Owen Chadwick (Harmondsworth, Eng: Penguin Books, 1984); David W Bebbington, The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of

32 The Challenges Five main challenges demanded response from the Evangelicals, for whom their biblicism and crucicentrism proved to be at stake. First and most basic was the rise of a new concept of God and, related to that, of revelation. The second was the question, therefore, of the nature of the Bible and how it should be understood in the light of the new historical criticism and the new natural sciences. A third challenge was posed by rejection of what could be called ‘the church doctrine of the atonement’. Darwinian explanation for the development of species, which was that of materialism, posed a fourth. A fifth development was in-house to the Church of England and the (independent after 1869), namely the Tractarian or Anglo-Catholic movement (also called ), its doctrines and associated ritualism. The first four developments affected all churches in England, Scotland and Ireland, as well as elsewhere in the English- speaking world, including Australia. The Anglo- Catholic movement became pervasive within the Church of England at home and abroad (including to some extent in the Diocese of Sydney), though much less so in the Church of Ireland, for it had enjoyed a period of Evangelical ascendancy from

Spurgeon and Moody (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 2005), 196-97.

33 about 1845 to 1895.15 TC Hammond was a son of the Church of Ireland.

Challenge 1: The concept of God and revelation – philosophy and doctrine The most basic challenge to Evangelicals was to the concept of God, and with that, of his revelation as Holy Scripture. Many were ‘moderate’ Calvinists, like Ryle, Litton and Moule, and their doctrine of God the Holy Trinity was wholly orthodox (like that of many in the other Anglican schools), as was also their doctrine of the deity and humanity of Christ and of his atoning work on the cross. But as the century wore on many were increasingly inclined to adopt a greater or lesser Semi-Pelagian or Arminian tendency with regard to the doctrines of salvation. In this they became like the old- fashioned High Churchmen, and the Wesleyans or Methodists. The shift implicitly compromised their notion of God with regard to the nature of his sovereignty.16 In addition, as a modern Anglican Calvinist has stated, since their focus was on salvation, they by-passed other questions,17

15Alan Acheson, History of the Church of Ireland 1691- 2001, 2nd rev ed (Dublin: Columba, and APCK, 2002), 180- 182.

16Cornelius Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge ([Philadelphia]: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969), 12.

17JS Reynolds, The Evangelicals at Oxford 1735-1871: A Record of an Unchronicled Movement, with the record extended to 1905 and an essay on Oxford evangelical

34 or tended to. In apologetics, Calvinists (inconsistently) and others continued to rely on the High Churchman, Bishop ’s Analogy and Sermons (1736) and William Paley’s Evidences of Christianity (1795). They were required reading at Cambridge and Oxford, and Trinity College Dublin, in the nineteenth century and into the twentieth. Evangelicals twice edited new editions of the Evidences, High Churchmen twice the Analogy.18 By 1855, the year of ’s consecration as Bishop of Sydney, several years before the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) and of (1860), Matthew Arnold was saying that the time was already an age of doubt.19 ‘[A]ll intellectual theories, including those of morality, were

theology by the Revd Dr J.I. Packer (Appleford, Abingdon, Oxford: Marcham Manor, 1975), [‘record extended’] Ch 3. ‘The Oxford Evangelicals in Theology’, 92-93.

18Canon [TR] Birks (ed), A View of the Evidences of Christianity (London: Religious Tract Society, 1853, ‘New Edition’ 1870s, repr 1900); and EA Litton (ed), A View of the Evidences of Christianity (London: Christian Evidence Committee of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1872, last edition 1914); William Gladstone (ed), The Works of Joseph Butler, Vol 1: The Analogy of Religion Natural and Revealed to the Constitution and Course of Nature; Vol II: Sermons (Oxford: Clarendon, 1896), and JH Bernard (ed), The Works of Bishop Butler (London: Macmillan, 1900).

19Matthew Arnold, ‘Stanzas from the Grande Chartreuse’ (1855), 85-88 (cited in Walter E Houghton, The Victorian Frame of Mind 1830-1870 (New Haven: Yale University, 1969 [1957]), 10).

35 insecure.’20 Questions like, whether God exists, and if he does whether he is personal or not, whether there is a heaven or a hell, whether Christianity is the true religion, and if so, which kind of Christianity, also ‘invaded ethical theory and the conception of man. . . .’21 The leading thinkers and writers raised questions about free-will and conscience. As already noted, this was true for the most part of the more highly educated. At Oxford to the 1880s, EA Knox felt the philosophy of Comte and JS Mill (along with the teaching of DF Strauss and Ernest Renan, Bishop Colenso’s attack on the Pentateuch, and ‘the conclusions drawn from Darwinism’) to be amongst the leading challenges to Christian faith.22 Mill was committed to seeking truth by means of reason alone, rejecting the need of a divine perspective of special revelation, to be found in Scripture.23 His arguments against the traditional natural theology (sc Butler and Paley) ‘admit[ted] the existence of God as creator and designer,’ but not

20Arnold, ‘Stanzas’, in Houghton, Victorian Frame of Mind, 10-11.

21Arnold, ‘Stanzas’, in Houghton, Victorian Frame of Mind, 11-12.

22EA Knox, Reminiscences of an Octogenarian, 1847-1934 (London: Hutchinson and Co, [1934]), 112.

23John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion I.V-VI.

36 as omnipotent and wholly benevolent.24 The future archbishop of Sydney, John Charles Wright, and the future principal of Moore College, Nathaniel Jones, were Oxford students in the first half of the 1880s. JS Mill (like Hobbes), significantly, put his finger on ‘selfish objects of desire’. He conceded that religion provided the motivational corrective.25 This was later an important theme for DJ Davies Over in Cambridge, Thomas Rawson Birks (1910-1883), an Evangelical, was Knightbridge professor of moral philosophy, (1872- 80), in succession to FD Maurice. He had expounded and critiqued Mill and his utilitarian predecessors in the year following his appointment.26 By the end of the century, the Materialist philosophy of (1820-1903), no longer attracted so much attention.27 TH Huxley (1825-95) denied he was a Materialist (and coined his self-descriptive term, ‘agnostic’). But the

24Storr, English Theology in the Nineteenth Century, 392; John Passmore, A Hundred Years of Philosophy (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1984 [1967]), 33, ref Mill, Three Essays on Religion (1874).

25JS Mill, Utility of Religion (p 109 of 2nd ed of Essays, 1874, cited in Storr, English Theology in the Nineteenth Century, 391.

26Thomas Rawson Birks, Modern Untilitarianism, or the Systems of Paley, Bentham, and Mill Examined and Compared (London: Macmillan, 1874).

27LE Elliott-Binns, English Thought 1860-1900: The Theological Aspect (London: Longmans, Green, 1956), 6-67.

37 ‘text-book of post-Darwinianism . . . still widely read’, of Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), would keep Materialism very much alive.28 The idea of Materialism was that all life, even human consciousness itself, found its origin purely in the matter of which the universe consists. It crops up both in Davies and Hammond as a challenge that Christians faced. Most important in the philosophical environment for Davies and Hammond (Jones makes no mention of philosophy), was idealism, which was still alive in the 1940s. Earlier in the century the Romantic poet and philosopher-theologian, ST Coleridge, was an important figure for the theological developments in the century. He used philosophical idealism as a means of reconciling himself (and others) to an apparently orthodox Christian faith. His influence concerning the inspiration of Scripture was through his impact on Matthew Arnold, on FD Maurice (especially), on FJA Hort and (indirectly?) on BF Westcott.29 It extended to succeeding generations,30 including

28Passmore, A Hundred Years of Philosophy, 42, ref Ernst Haeckel, The Riddle of the Universe at the End of the Nineteenth Century ([London]: Watts, 1899).

29Arthur , F.D. Maurice and the Conflicts of Modern Theology (Cambridge: University, 1951), 13-20, 102-5. Ramsey cites FJA Hort, Cambridge Essays (London: JW Parker, 1855 [1856?]), on Coleridge, in Ramsey, F.D. Maurice, 15 fn1.

30Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (London and Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Sons), Vol. I, 180; FW

38 that of TC Hammond and DJ Davies. On the doctrine of God, critical was Coleridge’s modification implicit in his understanding of divine immanence: He regarded Christianity not as something absolutely supernatural in antithesis to the human, as the germs of it lie in the nature of man himself and are brought to their perfection by Christianity.31

Yet he was not a pure immanentist, that is to say, to the point of monism.32 Coleridge profoundly influenced Julius Hare (1795-1855) and he, in turn, FD Maurice’s thought through his lectures on Plato interpreted along the lines of FDE Schleiermacher’s reading.33 Maurice became Hare’s close friend and brother-in- law. It was in Maurice’s theology and social ideas that William Cunningham of Trinity College (an important teacher of Davies) ‘found a guide . . . and remained his disciple . . . throughout his life’.34 BF Westcott shared with Maurice a like Platonic caste of mind. The widespread adoption

Farrar, The History of Interpretation (London: Macmillan, 1886), 422-23 ( for 1885), cited in Elliott-Binns, English Thought 1860-1900, 8.

31Otto Pfleiderer, The Development of Theology in Germany since Kant, and its Progress in Great Britain since 1825 (London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1893), 308.

32Bernard MG Reardon, Religious Thought in the Victorian Age: A Survey from Coleridge to Gore (London: Longman, 1995 [2nd ed]), 53-54.

33Torben Christensen, The Divine Order: A Study in FD Maurice’s Theology (Leiden: EJ Brill, 1973), 295.

34A Cunningham, William Cunningham, Teacher and (London: SPCK, 1950), 22.

39 of idealism can in part be attributed to the standard reading of Plato in the Classical education of the time.35 At Oxford, published a famous translation, with commentary, of Plato (1871). Idealism became the dominant school until the early twentieth century, to the mid-century for many. Like the interest in Immanuel Kant earlier, that in GWF Hegel (1770-1831) in later nineteenth century Britain was seen as a means of restoring Christian faith over against JS Mill’s materialism. It certainly fulfilled ’s expectation of having ‘an important influence on the development of our liberal form of Christianity’.36 Jowett’s colleague at Balliol College, Thomas Hill Green (1836-1882), a fellow (from 1860) and tutor (from 1866), was Whyte’s professor of moral philosophy from 1878. While not accepting Hegel’s methods for arriving at it, Green ‘was more than ready to accept what he took to be Hegel’s main conclusion’ concerning ‘the one spiritual self-conscious being’ expressed in the world, and human beings as ‘partakers in some inchoate measure of [that] self-consciousness’.37 This was a view reminiscent of Coleridge, and far from that of the historic Christian doctrine of

35Colin Brown, Philosophy and the Christian Faith (London: Tyndale, 1968, repr Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, nd), 123.

36JH Stirling, in his The Secret of Hegel (1865), as quoted in Passmore, A Hundred Years of Philosophy, 51.

37Passmore, A Hundred Years of Philosophy, 57.

40 God. In theological circles it was called immanentism. Green ‘embodied and shaped late-Victorian Oxford.’38 His ‘interest in [philosophy] was “wholly religious”’,39 but although a son of an Evangelical parsonage he was far removed from orthodoxy.40 He died in early 1882. But [Green’s] powerful intellectual and moral force . . . would be found, from about 1880 to about 1910, penetrating and fertilizing every part of the national life.41

Not the least of his influence was that on the Lux Mundi (1889) school, that is, on a liberal Anglo-Catholicism, especially as found in the person of .42 The Liberal Anglo-Catholic, , amongst others, ‘contended all his life’ for the adaptability of

38Lawrence Goldman, Dons and Workers: Oxford and Adult Education since 1850 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 50.

39Green to Scott Holland, in Stephen Paget, Henry Scott Holland: Memoirs and Letters (London: John Murray, 1921), 65.

40Elliott-Binns, English Thought, 69, 70, citing J Bryce, Studies in Contemporary Biography (1903), 95, 99.

41Passmore, A Hundred Years of Philosophy, 56, quoting RG Collingwood, Autobiography (1939, no page ref).

42Michael Ovey, Ch 1. ‘Is Christ's Incarnation the Culmination of the Cosmic Process?’, in ‘The Word became flesh’: Evangelicals and the Incarnation. Papers from the Sixth Oak Hill College Annual School of Theology (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2003); RG Collingwood, An Autobiography (1939) cited by Passmore, A Hundred Years of Philosophy, 56; see also Stephen Paget, Henry Scott Holland, fn 39 above.

41 an orthodox faith to ‘the spiritual needs of the age.’43 Nathaniel Jones began his degree studies in Theology at the end of the year Green died, but makes no reference to him. At Cambridge William Cunningham, so important for Davies’s views, said that Green was ‘the man whom I looked on as my master in all that I care about in philosophy.’44 In the year that Hammond was in Dublin preparing to enroll at Trinity College, CF d’Arcy’s later famous Donellan Lectures were published. D’Arcy pointed out that Green’s Prolegomena to Ethics had only laid bare, not solved, ‘the real problem’ of evil in man.45 This was a topic of interest to Evangelicals. Hammond had just graduated with the gold medal in Logic and Ethics (1903) and was studying to complete his Divinity Testimonium when another series of Donellan lectures (1903-04) was given.46 The third of them, ‘The Influence of Coleridge upon Modern Theology’, focussed on Coleridge and his followers’ ‘unceasing . . . proclamation of

43Reardon, Coleridge to Gore, 10.

44A Cunningham, William Cunningham: Teacher and Priest, 50 (quoting from a letter written soon after Green’s death).

45Charles F d’Arcy, Idealism and Theology: A Study of Presuppositions. The Donellan Lectures, delivered before the University of Dublin, 1897-98 (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899).

46FW Macran, English Apologetic Theology (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905), 97.

42 the great . . . truth, of the Divine Immanence in Nature, and especially in man.’47 Hammond would later publish on this theological issue. Doubtless the thoroughly anti-Reformation character of Coleridgian thought with regard to original sin and the atonement,48 if not already known to him, would soon be so. Davies, in Ridley Hall (1904-05), would have found support for the idea of a sacramental universe in the poet’s idea of the Divine Immanence – that ‘external Nature’ is to be conceived of as ‘having a spiritual significance’, the antithesis of a purely materialistic view of the world.49 We can assume that another two of the above Donellan lectures, ‘Theology and Evolution’ and ‘The Moral Significance of Evolution’,50 are likely to have attracted Hammond’s critical attention.

Challenge 2: The new concept of the Bible, and ‘critical-historical method(s)’ applied to its literature and religious teaching. The authority of the Bible, being central for Evangelicals’ bibliocentrism, was of major concern for all three Moore College principals of this

47Macran, English Apologetic Theology, 114.

48Macran, English Apologetic Theology, 103-4.

49Macran, English Apologetic Theology, 100-1.

50Macran, English Apologetic Theology, Lecture V. ‘Theology and Evolution’ and Lecture VI. The Moral Significance of Evolution’.

43 study. The way had been opened by Coleridge for a new critical approach, followed by DF Strauss’s left-wing Hegelian-myth interpretation of Christ. It was after Essays and Reviews (1860), however, that matters such as the authority of Holy Scripture, of the Old Testament and the New, moved more to the centre of debate. While much light was cast on the meaning of the text by criticism, much of the scholarly work assumed human intellectual autonomy and the religious neutrality of the research. Evangelicals as well as the conservatives among the old High Churchmen and the newer Tractarians were aroused. The criticism of the Bible in Essays and Reviews was premised on the essayists’ view of reality. Two hundred years earlier, Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), in the Tractatus Theologicus, had questioned the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and advocated a historical-critical approach to Scripture on rationalist presuppositions.51 The Tractarian, EB Pusey (1800- 82), Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, had studied in Germany (1825-27), and for a time had embraced such a ‘critical’ approach. Subsequently he noted the rationalistic spring from which the

51ODCC (1966), sv ‘Spinoza’; Colin Brown, Christianity and Western Thought: A History of Philosophers, Ideas and Movements. Vol 1: From the Ancient World to the Age of Enlightenment (Leicester, Eng: Apollos, 1990), 185, and 388 n30 (references the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus [1670], 8).

44 negative conclusions of the German biblical critics flowed.52 With regard to the contributors to Essays and Reviews (1860), he made the claim that disbelief had been the parent, not the offspring of their criticism.53 About the later similar development in the Scottish Free Church, Carlyle was said to have ‘wryly observed’ in a rhetorical question: Have my countrymen’s heads become turnips when they think that they can hold the premises of German unbelief and draw the conclusions of Scottish Evangelical Orthodoxy?54

The questioning of Scripture in Essays and Reviews was followed by that of the Anglican missionary bishop of Natal from 1853, John William Colenso (1814-1883). He was Maurician in theology and of liberal presuppositions. A Cambridge graduate in mathematics, he attempted to analyse the numerical data in the Pentateuch. In 1862 he

52EB Pusey, An Historical Enquiry into the Probable Causes of the Rationalist Character lately predominant in the Theology of Germany, Pt I (1828), Pt II (1830).

53EB Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford (Oxford; London: (sold by) James Parker; (sold by) Rivingtons, 1864), ‘Preface’.

54NM de S Cameron, sv ‘Believing Criticism’, in DSCHT; NM de S Cameron, Biblical Higher Criticism and the Defense of Infallibilism in Nineteenth Century Britain. Texts and Studies in Religion, Vol 33 (Lewiston, NY and Queenston, Ont: Edwin Mellen, 1987), 204, citing John Macleod, Scottish Theology in relation to Church History since the Reformation, 3rd ed (Edinburgh, 1974), 310.

45 questioned both its historicity and its Mosaic authorship.55 Similarly inspired criticism of the gospels had appeared in Germany in the late eighteenth century.56 Its roots went back to the English deists and their assumptions.57 English translations by George Eliot (Marian Evans) of DF Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (1846), and Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity (1854)58 became part of the heavy armory of some leading freethinking advocates of the day.59 An earlier, cheap translation of Strauss’s book, had been widely circulated.60 Thus all three of the future Principals of Moore College of 1897-1953 grew to adulthood in this era. The educated, at least, were aware that

55JW Colenso, The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua Critically Examined (London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts and Green, 1862-79), 7 vols.

56By Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768), his Apologie oder Schützscrift für die vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes, publ (in part) by GE Lessing as Wolfenbüttel Fragments (1774-78).

57Henning Graf Reventlow, The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), esp Pt III. ‘The Climax of Biblical Criticism in English Deism’.

58DF Strauss, Leben Jesu (1835-36) tr Marian Evans, The Life of Jesus (1846) and LA Feuerbach, Wesen des Christentums (1841) tr Marian Evans, The Essence of Christianity (1854).

59Larsen, Crisis of Doubt, 78 (and passim).

60Storr, Development of English Theology, 168 n3.

46 the new historical approach, on the premises adopted, could and did induce skepticism with regard to the Christian message. Christian theism as the necessary presupposition of thought was a priori ruled out. The scholar examined the past in the light of its time and culture, with strict attention to documentary evidence – but as perceived within a rationalist framework. Underlying assumptions included ongoing human moral autonomy and intellectual progress, and the methodological need to exclude the supernatural.61 Matthew Arnold, who made these same assumptions, nevertheless inveighed against the resulting relativism and individual assertion of private judgment. For an answer he could only appeal to ‘Culture’, that is, to the ‘intuitive judgment, by a man of wide learning and flexible intelligence.’62 Such were Arnold’s ‘great men of culture’,63 his version of Carlyle’s ‘BOOK OF REVELATION . . . by some named HISTORY’,64 which, added to the traditional books, nature and Scripture, became a third book of revelation – an

62Houghton, Victorian Frame of Mind 17, citing Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy (1869), ch 1.

63Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, sv ‘culture’ II5, quoting Mattew Arnold, Literature and Dogma (1876).

64Houghton, Victorian Frame of Mind, 314, quoting Carlyle, Sartor Resartus [1834], ed CF Harrold, (New York, c1937), Bk II, Ch 8, 177.

47 idea which Davies took up. These writers all presupposed that human reason must be self- legislating: it must not depend on any external authority, but follow Immanel Kant’s maxim ‘sapere aude’, ‘dare to be wise!’.65 Davies adopted this same principle of rejecting an external authority. There could be no infallible revelation of God’s mind in Scripture. With regard to the Old Testament, there were two fundamental approaches, which the negative critics inter-connected. First was the assumed historical development of the religion of Israel, on the analogy of the non-Christian religions with a Hegelian template presupposed, which included a presumed moral development. The second approach was the documentary analysis (the Wellhausen Hypothesis) to ascertain the sources of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. The two approaches were integrated to estimate the relative dating of the sources. A further issue was the historicity, or historical truth, of the Old Testament narratives, and the truth of prophecy, the latter both as ‘forthtelling’ and ‘foretelling’.

65 Horace, Odes I.II.40 (cf Gen 3:5b), quoted in Immanuel Kant, What Is Enlightenment? (1784), see Paul Guyer (ed), The Cambridge Companion to Kant (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1992): Onora O'Neill, Ch 9. ‘Vindicating reason’, 299; JB Schniewind, Ch 10. ‘Autonomy, obligation, and virtue: An overview of Kant's moral philosophy’, 309, 310.

48 There was no combination of scholars of quite the stature and ability of the Cambridge Triumvirate (BF Westcott, JB Lightfoot, FJA Hort) and at Trinity College Dublin, to do for the Old Testament the holding operation done for the New. The trend of thought, the shift in worldview, gave increasing weight to the more moderately stated negative criticism of SR Driver (1846-1914). He was made Regius professor of Hebrew and at Oxford in 1883, in student Nathaniel Jones’s second year. HE Ryle (1856- 1925), a proto-liberal Evangelical, was Hulsean professor of Divinity at Cambridge, 1881-1900. Neither the miracles nor the history narrated was the fundamental issue. Rather it was whether the religion required of Israel (not Israel’s condemned aberrations) by the Old Testament (or that of the New) was supernaturally revealed or a natural historical development,66 like that of the other Near-Eastern religions. At least until Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus (Eng 1910), the substantial reliability of the New Testament gospels’ witness to Christ seemed secure. What remained under debate was how to interpret it, especially with regard to the doctrines of the person of Christ and his work. Both the meaning

66For GWF Hegel see Claude Welch, Protestant Thought in the Nineteenth Century: Volume 1, 1799-1870 (New Haven and London: Yale University, 1974 [1972]), 96, 97, 99.

49 of his death, especially, and the reality of his miracles had a long nineteenth century history of debate.67 In the year Jones went up to Oxford (1882), the conservative Anglo-Catholic, (1843-1911) became the first Oriel professor of the interpretation of Scripture. In the same year, William Sanday, was made the Dean Ireland’s professor of exegesis. He was not yet the more radical theologian of later days. For Davies and Hammond the first volume of VH Stanton’s study of the New Testament gospels appeared while they were students.68 Over in Dublin, the Divinity School of TCD, the redoubtable George Salmon, ‘hammer of the Germans’, was still an authority on the historical reliability of the gospels. The author of their standard New Testament introduction, he supplemented it by his substantial work on the gospels, finished shortly before his death.69

67See eg: JK Mozley, The Doctrine of the Atonement, Ch VI. ‘Reformation and Post-Reformation Concepts’ (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1915); Colin Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1984), Ch III. ‘The Legacy of the Nineteenth Century’; HD McDonald, Theories of Revelation: An Historical Study 1860-1960 (London: Allen & Unwin, 1963).

68VH Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, Vols 1-3 (Cambridge: The University, 1903, 1909, 1920).

69George Salmon, An Historical Introduction to the Books of the New Testament, 9th ed (London: John Murray, 1904); and George Salmon, The Human Element in the Gospels: A Commentary on the Synoptic Narrative (London: John Murray, 1907).

50 Challenge 3: The Nature of the Atonement. In his Theological Essays (1853), FD Maurice ‘claimed that a traditional understanding of the atonement “outrages the conscience”’.70 Benjamin Jowett’s essay, ‘The Doctrine of the Atonement’, in his commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans, similarly assumed that the autonomous moral conscience must accuse the traditional doctrine of being ‘horrible and revolting’ and ‘inconsistent with truth and morality’;71 ‘God, if he transcend our ideas of morality, can yet never be in any degree contrary to them.’72 In 1889, Lux Mundi, on the atonement rejected the penal substitutionary view of Christ’s death, as open to the objection that ‘the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty is unjust’.73 A decade later in Cambridge, James M

70Andrew Atherstone, ‘Benjamin Jowett’s Pauline Commentary: An Atonement Controversy’, Journal of Theological Studies, NS Vol 54, Pt 1 (April 2003), 139 (citing Frederick Denison Maurice, Theological Essays. Cambridge, 1853 [London: James Clarke, 1957], 138 [107].

71Benjamin Jowett, The Epistles of St Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians and Romans. Vol 2: Essays and Dissertations (London: John Murray, 1855), 474, quoted by Atherstone, ‘. . . : An Atonement Controversy’, 141.

72Jowett, The Epistles of St Paul, 472, quoted by Atherstone, ‘. . . : An Atonement Controversy’, 141.

73Arthur Lyttleton, Essay VII. ‘The Atonement’, in Charles Gore (ed), Lux Mundi: A Series of Studies in the Religion of the Incarnation, 10th ed (London: John Murray, 1890), 309.

51 Wilson’s Hulsean Lectures, which had primarily the undergraduates in mind, also dismissed the historic doctrine. Grounded in an immanentistic, presumably idealist, notion of God and the world, he offered a view of the atonement as ‘the indwelling of a Divine life in man, proved by Christ’s life and death’.74 At the opening of the twentieth century the idealist emphasis on personality was utilised by RC Moberly to put forward a theory of Christ’s vicarious repentance. It became a work of wide influence, arguing for more than a merely subjective atonement, but dependent on ‘his special view of Christ’s penitence’.75 The meaning of Christ’s atoning death appears to have been one of the major challenges around the turn of the century that encouraged the formation of a liberal Evangelical movement, the Group Brotherhood in 1906.

74JM Wilson, How Christ Saves Us: Or the Gospel of the Atonement. Hulsean Lectures 1898-99 (London: Macmillan, 1905 [1899]), 93.

75RC Moberly, Atonement and Personality (London: , 1901); JK Mozley, The Doctrine of the Atonement (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1915), 193-95.

52 Challenge 4: Darwin’s Theory of Evolution ’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of

53 Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life76 appeared in November 1859. Essays and Reviews came out in the following February. The great didactic poem of Lucretius (ca 94-55 BC), De Rerum Natura, contains the Epicurean doctrine of the natural development of living species in a random universe by the survival of the fittest.77 All Oxford and Cambridge Classics students of Darwin’s day would have known something of this great literary work. Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, believed in evolution, a purposive evolution. Geological discovery had already caused some to question a literalist reading of the Biblical record of Creation and the Flood (or ‘Deluge’). Even as Darwin was finishing at Cambridge, ’s Principles of Geology (1830-33) had begun publication. Proposing a uniformitarian theory as sufficient explanation of geological history – as opposed to catastrophe – Lyell’s work was opposed by some leading scientists, including the Woodwardian professor of geology at Cambridge,

76Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London: John Murray, 1859).

77Lucretius (ca 94-55 BC), De Rerum Natura, V; see Oxford Classical Dictionary (1970), svv ‘Lucretius’ and ‘Epicurus’.

54 . But Owen Chadwick says that by the 1840s even a child in an educated church-going family learn[ed] at mother’s knee that the seven days of Genesis Chapter 1 were not to be taken literally, and Noah’s flood too for it would not have covered the whole earth. We [the child] should think of the earth as very old . . . for already we should have children’s picture-books about dinosaurs and pterodactyls. . . . We should feel no tug between school-learning and religious practice.78

The knowledge from geology that the earth had a very long history could only serve to strengthen the acceptance of Darwin’s new theory. Before Darwin, evolution was strongly advocated in the anti-religious propaganda of the ‘plebeian radicals’, along with Baron d’Holbach’s System of Nature79 and Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason (1794- 95)80. Combined with Charles Darwin’s explanation, d’Holbach’s System of Nature confirmed the

78Owen Chadwick, The Secularization of the European Mind in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 182 (English ‘should’ in Australian usage ‘would’).

79[Paul HT d’Holbach], The System of Nature; or the Laws of the Moral and Physical World, 3 vols, Eng tr of French (London: Kearsley, 1797).

80Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason: Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology (London, 1795).

55 majority of the radicals in their thoroughgoing materialism.81 What was new about Charles Darwin’s late 1859 publication, however, was the mechanism proposed in its title: ‘by Means of Natural Selection’. He offered the hypothesis that new species of life had arisen by the natural selection of incremental chance variations due to the survival of the fittest. Exactly how this might exceed the variety within species achieved by the animal- breeder’s deliberate selection, however, was not understood. Did this book, followed in 1871 by his The Descent of Man, put a large question mark against Paley’s argument for God from the evidence of design in the world?82 Darwin ‘proposed . . . purely mechanistic operation’,83 which was a materialistic concept. ‘Natural selection’ was contrasted with God’s purposive action, which was more analogous to the farmer’s breeding efforts. Darwin was not suddenly purposing to refute the Book of Genesis. . . . The very idea of a Struggle for Life had come

81Cf Larsen, Crisis of Doubt, 247.

82William Paley, View of the Evidences of Christianity (1794).

83Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present (New York: Harper Collins, 2000), 570; cf Jacques Barzun, Marx, Darwin, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage, 2nd ed (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1958), ‘Introduction’, 10, and Ch 1. ‘The Biological Revolution’.

56 to him . . . from Malthus’s Essay on Population published sixty years before.84

For it was not belief in evolution was new, but the systematising of the data around the central concept of natural selection. For most, Darwin’s book now made the notion of purpose in the creation and in human life a question,85 not an assumption. Perhaps a majority of scientists were not convinced, and Darwin himself saw the problems. TH Huxley, however, professor of natural history at the Royal School of Mines, embraced and published the theory widely (with certain doubts), as did Herbert Spencer, George Henry Lewes, the Americans Asa Gray and John Fiske, and the German philosopher EH Haeckel.86 Especially the views of Herbert Spencer and Thomas Huxley on the matter were commonly canvassed and well-known. And the translation of Haeckel’s book as The Riddle of the Universe, ‘text-book of post-Darwinian naturalism’,87 had sold 100,000 copies (popular edition) by 1900.88 A new edition of Darwin’s

84Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner, 28 (ref Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834), An Essay on the Principle of Population (London, 1798-1817). 85Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner, 28.

86 Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner, 33.

87Passmore, Hundred Years of Philosophy, 42.

88Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), The Riddle of the Universe at the Close of the Nineteenth Century; transl Joseph McCabe [from German Die Welträthsel, 1899] (New

57 Descent of Man had come out in 1901,89 the year Davies had begun and Hammond was well into university study. In England the liberal biblical scholars did not ease the challenge for Evangelicals. Liberal Anglo-Catholics thought that the ‘facts of sin and the disorder of the world’ could be accounted for without the Fall recorded in Genesis 3, as did a liberal biblical scholar like SR Driver.90 Professor G Henslow (of the Royal Horticultural Society) wrote of man having been ‘on a uniformly low level of barbarism for an incalculable length of time’.91 The Australian public was made well aware of almost everything talked about in ‘the Home Country’ by both the local secular press and the church magazines. Many able graduates of British universities took up positions in Australia. People read the books published in England and Scotland. There was no lack of thought and discussion arising from Darwin’s theory of natural

York; London: Harper & Brothers, 1900); Chadwick, Secularisation of the European Mind, 177.

89Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man in Relation to Sex, (London: John Murray, 1901 [1872]).

90Cited in James Orr, Sin as a Problem Today (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910), 141 as: Charles Gore, in Expository Times, April, 1897; JR Illingworth, Personality Human and Divine (London: Macmillan, 1894 [1904?])], 143ff, 154ff); Dr [SR] Driver, [The Book of] Genesis [(London: Methuen, 1906)], 56-7.

91G Henslow, in The Liberal Churchman: A Quarterly Review [Modern Churchman’s Union] 1:3 (June] 1905, 222-23.

58 selection.92 Church leaders and scholarly clergy addressed the matter.93 The attitudes of leading clergy were important in the culture, and a few had even been educated in the sciences. Clearly the sheer materialism of conclusions drawn from Darwin’s theory was a challenge to Evangelicals, as to others. Not only did it challenge the notion of creation’s design. It was also inconsistent with God’s changeless holiness in his relations with man, the possibility of obedience to his moral law, and sin as voluntary departure from rectitude.

Challenge 5: The Rise of the the Tractarian or Oxford Movement.94 The Evangelicalism of the first chaplains to NSW, the Revds Richard Johnson (1755-1827) and Samuel Marsden (1765-1838), antedated the rise of the Oxford Movement with John Keble’s Assize sermon in July 1833. The second archdeacon, however, a Crown appointment in 1829, was a High Churchman, William Grant Broughton (1788-1853),

92TF Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin in Australia (Sydney: University of New South Wales, 2009).

93A deQ Robin, , Bishop of Melbourne: The Challenges of a Colonial Episcopate (Nedlands, Western Australia: University of Western Australia, 1967), 131; Stephen Judd (and) Kenneth Cable, Sydney Anglicans: A History of the Diocese (Sydney: Anglican Information Office, 1987), 118-19 and 126-27.

94Cf Owen Chadwick, The Victorian Church: Part I. 1829-1859, 3rd ed (London: A&C Black, 1971).

59 who was consecrated bishop of the diocese of Australia in 1836. The Evangelical beginnings of Sydney came to the fore again with the arrival of Broughton’s successor, Frederic Barker. A convinced Evangelical in the tradition of Charles Simeon of Cambridge, he took up office in May 1855, and in the following year founded Moore College. The immediate occasion for Keble’s historic sermon was the 1832 Reform Bill (of the Whig government), which reduced the number of Church of Ireland bishoprics. Keble, who feared an Erastianism that might also abolish bishops, viewed the legislation as in principle an act of ‘National Apostasy’.95 The worldwide presence within Anglicanism of Anglo-Catholicism, the heir of the Oxford Movement, whether theologically conservative or liberal, is proof of the historic nature of Keble’s sermon. The long-term effect of the movement was twofold – doctrinal and liturgical. The basic doctrinal issues were to become the meaning and means of the sinner’s justification, sacramental doctrine (Christ’s ‘real presence’ in the elements consecrated at the Lord’s Supper, and the analogous efficacy of Baptism) and the apostolic succession of bishops. The last idea denied the validity of the ministry of the other Protestant

95John Keble, Sermons Academical and Occasional (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1848), Sermon VII. ‘National Apostasy’, 149-72.

60 churches, as had the old school High Church doctrine. The followers of the movement were dubbed ‘Tractarian’ (from the series of tracts they published), and from 1838, ‘Anglo-Catholic’. Later they were also characterised as ‘Ritualists’. The ‘historic High Churchmen’, to many of whom the new movement appealed, were in fact ‘Protestant’ in doctrine. The Caroline bishop, (1553-1626) had explicitly denied the ‘real presence’ of Christ within the bread and of the Holy Communion, and the doctrine that ‘Christ . . . . made from bread is offered in sacrifice.’96 Even Archbishop (1573-1645) had denied ‘the Sacerdotal conception of the “Apostolical Succession”’, affirming rather that the Church Fathers meant something ‘tied to verity of doctrine.’97 As the Evangelical put it, the teaching of the Anglo-Catholics on the vital necessity of Episcopacy, on Justification, on Regeneration, and on the nature of the Eucharistic Presence was not that . . . even of Andrewes and Laud, nor of Beveridge.’

96W Prescott Upton, The Churchman’s History of the Oxford Movement (London: Church Bookroom, 1933), 16, citing Andrewes’ Responsio [to Cardinal Bellarmine] (Anglo-Catholic Library edition. Oxonii: Parker, 1851), 251.

97Upton, The Oxford Movement, 17, citing Archbishop William Laud, Conference with Fisher the Jesuit, xxxix, 7, 8 (Oxford, 1839), 320-25.

61 The names Moule mentioned were old school High Churchmen.98 Historians do not always note, however, that these same High Churchmen, or orthodox party, in principle leaned back Romeward by their Arminian (ie, Semi-Pelagian) tendencies in soteriology. The Evangelical historian, Prescott Upton, for example, omits the High Churchman, Bishop Bull’s confusion about justification by faith.99 Indirectly, this was the origin of Davies’s notion of the doctrine. These Protestant old school High Churchmen were hard-line episcopalians, though not claiming a tactual succession. In 1662 they removed the New Testament passages equating ‘elders’ with ‘bishops’ (1 Tim 3 and Acts 20) from the ‘The Form and Manner of Ordering of ’ set in the Prayer Book from 1552 on.100 When Bishop Barker arrived in Sydney, the Tractarian movement, to which Bishop Broughton had inclined, was only two decades old. Even so, all

98Handley CG Moule, The Evangelical School in the Church of England: Its Men and Its Work in the Nineteenth Century (London: James Nisbet, [1901]), 29.

99Upton, The Oxford Movement (London: Church Book Room, 1933); George Bull (1634-1710), Harmonia Apostolica (1669-70).

100Cf ‘The Form and Manner of . . . Ordaining . . . Priests’ in the 1662 with that in the 1552 book.

62 the city clergy, except Archdeacon Cowper, were at least High Churchmen and ‘unsympathetic to Barker’s evangelicalism’.101 Nathaniel Jones, later to be principal of Barker’s college, had gone up to Oxford in good time for the semi- centenary of Keble’s sermon of July 1833. One of his professors of Divinity, however, had delivered the 1845 Bampton lectures on justification102 in reply to ’s attempt to reinterpret the doctrine. It was republished while Jones was a student.103 Ritualism was the second and not unrelated issue. Actions being so obvious, it could have more impact than words. The early Tractarians themselves introduced no new liturgical practices, and some never adopted any. Nevertheless, the movement was fully congruent with Tractarian sacramentalism. Warre Cornish points out that until the nineteenth century ‘the practice [in the Church of England] was the leanest ritual’.104 He observes tellingly:

101GS Maple, sv ‘Barker, Frederic’ in ADEB, 23.

102Charles Abel Heurtley, Justification: Eight Sermons Preached before the University of Oxford in the Year 1845 ([Sl]: John Henry Parker, 1846).

103John Henry Newman, Lectures on Justification (London: Rivingtons, 1838 [2nd ed 1840, 4th ed 1885, 7th ed 1897]).

104Francis Warre Cornish, A History of the English Church in the Nineteenth Century, Part I (London: Macmillan, 1910), 64.

63 Ritual is the expression of doctrine. . . . When the growth of the High Church school of thought . . . had brought high eucharistic and sacramental doctrine forward, and when the mediaeval church became an object of veneration, it was to be expected that a revival of ritual should take place; the more so because symbolism of all kinds was attracting more and more attention.105

In England and in Ireland there had long been a few (exceptional) precedents,106 believed by the ritualists to be required by the Prayer Book rubrics. Newman adopted some ritualist practices in 1837-38. In 1839, while the future Bishop Frederic Barker was still a parish , Neale and others founded the Cambridge Camden Society (renamed ‘the Ecclesiological Society’ in 1845), ‘ostensibly “to promote the study of Ecclesiastical Architecture and Antiquities . . .”’ In practice it promoted the restoration of the Gothic of 1260 to 1360 and English pre-Reformation ritual. The Society’s journal, the Ecclesiologist, by 1842 was mandating ‘the building of chancels’ (for an east-end communion table and a ), and the substitution of [stone] for TABLES’.107 The

105Warre Cornish, English Church in the Nineteenth Century, Part II, 1.

106Nigel Yates, Anglican Ritualism in Victorian Britain, 18-1910 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 10-39.

107Peter Toon, Evangelical Theology 1833-1856: A Response to Tractarianism (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1979), 47-48, 66-69, citing JF White, The Cambridge

64 churches built by the first chaplains in Sydney, and some afterwards, had no chancels. AWN Pugin (1812-52), designer of the present English Houses of Parliament, was ‘the inspirer and initiator of the “Gothic Revival”’ (and a convert to Roman Catholicism).108 Under Bishop Broughton’s influence, the design of St Andrew’s Cathedral, Sydney, followed Gothic precedent.109 By the first decade of the twentieth century ritualism had had an impact on virtually every diocese in England and Wales, [but] its manifestations were patchy. . . . . [But] . . . was clearly beyond [being] successfully controlled.110

Some of the extremes reached by the turn of the century in England included: Sacrifice of the Mass, elevation and reservation of the sacrament, extreme unction, the doctrine of purgatory, prayers for the dead, invocation of saints, and “the whole body of Tridentine doctrine”.111

Movement: The Ecclesiologists and the Gothic Revival (Cambridge: CUP, 1962), (no page reference).

108ODCC, sv ‘Pugin, AWN’.

109SM Johnstone, The Book of St Andrew’s Cathedral Sydney. (Sydney: Edgar Bragg and Sons, 1937), 21, and photograph opp p 12.

110Yates, Anglican Ritualism, 292.

111Warre Cornish, The English Church in the Nineteenth Century, Part II, 1.

65 Some ritualists encouraged fasting before Communion and even auricular confession. A complicating factor, no doubt, was Cranmer’s retention of the word ‘priest’ (from the Greek word meaning ‘elder’). Possibly he hoped that retaining the term would make easier a wide acceptance of his new Reformation services. In historically Evangelical Sydney, Moore College came briefly and inadvertently under a ritualist principal (1885-88). Two city parish churches became flag-bearers of ritualism – St James’, King Street and (in 1885) Christ Church Saint Laurence, near Central Railway, Sydney. Ritualism remained a live issue in the Diocese and hence for all three Moore College principals of this study. In the writer’s memory are tales of Anglican lay people, who on moving to the country from Sydney Evangelical parishes, found a local Baptist church more comfortable. The anti-Catholic feeling of 1828-29 had risen again in 1850 with the restoration in England and Wales of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Hence the general public’s opposition to the perceived ‘Romanising’ ritualism was not wholly motivated by their biblicist concern for purity of worship. The ritualists themselves were the first to organise, and to resort to the courts. They established the English Church Union in 1860 to defend and maintain unimpaired the doctrine, discipline and ritual of the Church

66 of England . . . and to combat Erastianism, Rationalism and Puritanism.112

They tried to prosecute the Evangelical Bishop Waldrave for heresy, and the Evangelical clergy who held popular services in theatres to attract non-churchgoers.113 Since the Church of England was established by law, only Parliament could legislate for changes in its form of worship. Parliament was virtually the synod of the National Church, the bishops being members of the House of Lords. Violations of church law could be enforced in a civil court, or be ignored. Questions of interpretation could go as high as the Privy Council. Some ritualists accepted imprisonment rather than obey the courts, whose ‘Erastian’ authority over the Church they did not recognise. Martyrdom only aroused popular sympathy. The Royal Commission of 1904-06 recommended that in non-doctrinal matters the Prayer Book might well be adjusted to modern needs. For various reasons the Evangelicals did not take advantage of this.114 In 1915 at the Convocation of York, the Evangelical Bishop Moule reluctantly

112Warre Cornish, The English Church in the Nineteenth Century, Part II, 108-9 (ref Roberts, History of the English Church Union).

113Yates, Anglican Ritualism, 151.

114Balleine, History of the Evangelical Party, 254 (‘Appendix I 1900-1950’ by GW Bromiley).

67 capitulated to Anglo-Catholic pressure by effectively casting the deciding vote in favour of permitting full Mass vestments.115 A proposal for a revised Prayer Book, following Parliament’s creation of the National Assembly of the Church of England in 1919, contained concessions to Anglo- Catholic doctrine and practice. After ‘a stormy time in Convocation and Church Assembly’ and having ‘already aroused considerable controversy in the country at large’ the so-called Deposited Book was twice defeated in Parliament – in 1927 and 1928 – to Bishop EA Knox’s great surprise and relief.116 In Sydney the ‘1928 Prayer Book’ was never authorised for use. Moore College used only the 1662 Book of Common Prayer until the Australian General Synod authorised An Australian Prayer Book in 1978 (and the preceding trial services). Important for the background of the Irish clergy who came to Sydney in the nineteenth century, and to TC Hammond in the twentieth, was the Irish Book of Common Prayer of 1878, a slightly modified version of the 1662 book. Its object was to prevent the liturgical chaos of ritual innovation then threatening in the English Church. It added wording from the Thirty-nine Articles (XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper) to the

115Knox, Reminiscences, 311-12.

116Knox, Reminiscences, 323.

68 Catechism to clarify the manner in which the Body and Blood of Christ are received – ‘only after a heavenly and spiritual manner’. It accommodated, however, the old school High Church tradition within the Irish Church on the meaning of regeneration in Baptism.117

Conclusion Thus nineteenth century Evangelicals experienced a series of challenges – philosophical, theological, historical, scientific and doctrinal-liturgical – to their understanding of the nature of God and what he did in Christ, the interpretation and authority of the Bible, of the doctrine and Prayer Book, and of Prayer Book liturgical principle. Evangelicals were never a single, united, organised body within the Church of England, nor in the Church of Ireland. How they responded to the above movements of thought and practice will be described in the next chapter.

117Alan Acheson, A History of the Church of Ireland 1691-2001, 207-210 (ref Journal of the General Convention of the Church of Ireland. First Session 1870 (Dublin, 1870).

69 Chapter 2 EVANGELICAL RESPONSES TO THE CHALLENGES

Introduction The course of Evangelicalism in Sydney in general and at Moore College in particular from the 1890s to the 1950s reflected the responses of Evangelicals in England (and Ireland) to the challenges described above. As the thought of Christian thinkers, like that of philosophers1 bore the stamp of the intellectual trends of their times, so did that of the Evangelical Principals of Moore College in the period 1897-1953. By the mid-nineteenth century the older leaning to a postmillennial expectation of Christ’s return was being replaced with the rise of a premillennial hope. In the second half of the century came the holiness movement, most notably associated with its Keswick form. Both additions to the tradition of the Thirty-nine Articles cum Prayer Book widened the spectrum of doctrinal thought of many Evangelicals. They caused little disturbance of unity of mind and ethos. But a liberal trend concerning biblical authority stretched the Evangelical spectrum in a different way. It introduced a difference in

1Lord Acton, ‘Inaugural Lecture on the Study of History', in Lord Acton, Lectures on Modern History, ed J N Figgis and R V Lawrence (London: Macmillan, 1906; Fontana Library reprint, with Introduction by Hugh Trevor- Roper, 1961), 35.

69 principle, which had implications for other questions of doctrine.2 Principal Jones included in his conservative Evangelical convictions both a premillennial expectation and Keswick holiness doctrine, Hammond only the latter. Principal Davies soon made his liberal principle that of the teaching at Moore College. The Evangelical spectrum of the College would return from this shift to the left only when Archbishop Mowll appointed Principal Hammond.

God and Revelation The Christian doctrine of God entailed the concept of God’s revelation, both in creation and in Scripture, the latter for the interpretation of the former. ‘Moderate Calvinists’ (not accepting a definite atonement) theologians like Edward Arthur Litton and Handley CG Moule and more popular writers like JC Ryle there might be. Yet Calvinists (and others) of all the churches continued to rely on the High Church (and so Arminian) Bishop Joseph Butler’s Analogy of Religion (1736) and the broad church William Paley’s Evidences of Christianity (1795). Their doctrine of God the Holy Trinity might be wholly orthodox, and their doctrine of the deity and humanity of Christ. But as the century wore on

2GW Bromiley, Appendix I ‘1900-1950' in GR Balleine, A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England, New Edition (London: Church Book Room, 1951 [1908]), 262.

70 some Evangelicals inclined to a Semi-Pelagian or Arminian shift with regard to ‘free will’,3 possibly in reaction to Huxley’s mechanistic notion. This implicitly compromised their notion of God with regard to his sovereignty over all things.4 Most seemed not to realise this. One who appears to have done so was Thomas Rawson Birks (1810-1883), vicar from 1866 of Holy Trinity Church, Cambridge, and Knightbridge professor of moral philosophy, casuistry and moral theology from 1872 to 1878. A student at Cambridge during Birks’s early tenure at Holy Trinity Church was Mervyn Archdall (BA 1870), an important figure in Sydney from 1882 to 1917. Birks engaged with JS Mill’s thought in his early critique, Modern Utilitarianism5 (of which Nathaniel Jones purchased a copy in Sydney in 1906).6 This penetratingly exposed Mill’s rejection of the need of divine perspective and of God as omnipotent and wholly benevolent:7

3David Bebbington, The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody (Leicester, Eng: Inter- Varsity, 2005), 130; Record, ca 1900, passim.

4Cornelius Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge ([Philadelphia]: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969), 12.

5Thomas Rawson Birks, Modern , or the Systems of Paley, Bentham, and Mill Examined and Compared (London: Macmillan, 1874).

6Jones’s dated personal copy (SMAMoore).

7See Vernon Storr, The Development of English Theology, 392, and John Passmore, A Hundred Years of Philosophy (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984 [1967]), 33,

71 Utilitarianism, whenever it is advanced as a complete theory . . . must involve a negative Theology . . . the worship of blind Chance, of blind Fate, or of a personal Divinity, omnipotent and supreme, but lawless and arbitrary, and devoid of all moral perfections.8 Birks then laid down the doctrine of God necessary for an intelligible ethics: ‘But when once we acknowledge a true and living God, the Holy Governor of a moral universe, the true limits of the doctrine are restored.’9 Consistent with this less neutral apologetic also was Birks’s ‘Introduction’ to Paley’s Evidences10 and, pace Bebbington, his last major work also seems to indicate the same.11 Did Jones or even Hammond clearly grasp this transcendental critique of non-Christian systems of thought? EA Litton, an Oxford Evangelical and near contemporary of Birks, also addressed both Mill’s logic and, especially, his theism.12 He gave some

quoting Mill’s Three Essays on Religion (1874).

8Birks, Modern Utilitarianism, 240.

9Birks, Modern Utilitarianism, 240.

10TR Birks, ‘Introduction, Notes, and Supplement’ to William Paley, The Evidences of Christianity: In Three Parts. New edition (London: Religious Tract Society, 1853 [and 1870-1900]), 7-12.

11TR Birks, Supernatural Revelation; or, First Principals of Moral Theology (London: Macmillan, 1879), Ch III; cf Bebbington, Dominance of Evangelicalism, 110-11.

12JS Mill, Essay on Theism (1874) and System of Logic, 10th edition (1879 [1843]).

72 attention to questions other than salvation13 in his magnum opus.14 He noted, too, the figures important for his day – David Hume,15 Immanuel Kant,16 Henry Mansel,17 William Hamilton,18 and the Danish Lutheran dogmatician, Hans Martensen.19 Litton did not overlook Baden Powell on ‘Evidences’ in Essays and Reviews,20 or Benjamin Jowett’s earlier ‘Essay on Natural Religion’ (1855).21

13Pace JI Packer, in JS Reynolds, The Evangelicals at Oxford 1735-1871 A Record of an Unchronicled Movement, with the record extended to 1905, and an essay on Oxford evangelical theology by the Revd Dr J.I. Packer (Appleford, Abingdon, Oxford: Marcham Manor, 1975), [‘record extended’], Ch 3. ‘The Oxford Evangelicals in Theology’, 92-93.

14Edward Arthur Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology: On the Basis of the XXIX Articles of the Church of England, Second Edition [of Introduction to Theology: On the Basis of. . . . (1882, 1892)] with an Introduction by (London: Eliot Stock, 1902), 52-66.

15David Hume, Treatise of Human Nature.

16Immanuel Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft.

17Henry Mansel, Limits of Religious Thought.

18William Hamilton, Lectures on Metaphysics.

19Hans Lassen Martensen, Christian Dogmatics (Eng tr 1866).

20Baden Powell, ‘On the Study of the Evidences of Christianity’, in Essays and Reviews (London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1860).

21Benjamin Jowett, The Epistles of St Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians and Romans: with Critical Notes and Dissertations. Vol 2 (London: John Murray, 1859 [1855]), 480-494.

73 Evangelicals writing on the Scriptural doctrine of God the Holy Trinity were clear and explicit on the omnipresence of God in his creation, and everywhere assumed his distinctness in being as Creator. Some did more. TP Boultbee quoted the critique by Francis Jeune, Evangelical Bishop of , listing ‘Material Atheism’, ‘Pantheism’ (from Hegel), ‘Positivism’, ‘Suicide of Philosophy’, and ‘Destruction of Morality’ (Spinoza).22 Handley CG Moule’s Outlines of Christian Doctrine also drew attention to the problem raised by philosophical idealism,23 namely ‘Pantheism’, and to Agnosticism.24 The Scot and Presbyterian, James Orr, whom Hammond had met, more fully distinguished God as distinct from his creation. Orr ‘stressed to advantage the importance of presuppositions and of one’s starting point’, even if he also allowed some intrusion of idealistic and rationalistic elements into his thought.25 CF d’Arcy, Hammond’s

22TP Boultbee, A Commentary on the Thirty-nine Articles: Forming an Introduction to the Theology of the Church of England, 7th ed (London: Longmans, Green, 1884 [1871]), 5-6, quoting ‘a charge’ of Bishop Francis Jeune, of Peterborough (1864-1868).

23TH Green (1836-1882), Prolegomena to Ethics (1883); Bernard Bosanquet (1848-1923), Knowledge and Reality (1885).

24Handley CG Moule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine, in the Theological Educator series, ed W Robertson Nicoll, 4th ed rev (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1894 [1889]), 14-16.

25Robert D Knudsen, Ch XIV. ‘Progressive and Regressive Tendencies in Christian Apologetics’ in ER

74 fellow Irishman, explicitly treated the transcendence and immanence of God, both in his Donellan Lectures of 1897-98 and in The Anglican Church Handbooks series edited by WH Griffith Thomas.26

Criticism of Scripture This became, perhaps, the key presenting issue. Evangelicals, too, responded to the negative biblical criticism that was brought to notorious prominence by Essays and Reviews (1860) and Colenso’s The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua Critically Examined (1862). Much of it presupposed, as JI Packer has succinctly put it, ‘that the Bible may contain falsehoods purporting to be truths’.27 In the early 1870s, the American and a Presbyterian, Charles Hodge (1797-1878) had trenchantly noted (Anglicans not so fully): . . . most of the objections . . . are founded on unscriptural views of the relation of God to the world, or on the peculiar philosophical

Geehan (ed), Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Theology and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til (Sl: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971), 281-282, cf James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World (Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot, 1893).

26Charles F d’Arcy, Idealism and Theology (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899), and Christianity and the Supernatural (London: Longmans, Green, 1909), one of The Anglican Church Handbooks series, edited by WH Griffith Thomas.

27JI Packer, ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God: Some Evangelical Principles (Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity, 1958), 140-141.

75 views of the objectors as to the nature of man or of his free agency.28

Soon after Essays and Reviews, EA Litton examined ‘whether it can be satisfactorily made out that the Bible is from God, and is sufficient to instruct us in the way of life’.29 He rejected what he understood to be ‘the older theory [of inspiration]. . . which regards the sacred writers as merely amanuenses . . . of the Spirit’ (what Coleridge meant by ‘mechanical dictation’? – a phrase much used by Principal Davies). Litton distinguished between the revelation received by prophets (for example) and the Holy Spirit’s special inspiration that ‘supernaturally preserved [the writers] from error, and enabled [them] to transmit . . . the original revelation as they received it’30 (italics added). He could thus allow for the true report of the alleged errors in Stephen’s speech,31 and so retain the notion of ‘plenary inspiration’.32

28Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (London and Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1875), I:168.

29Edward Arthur Litton, A Guide to the Study of Holy Scripture (London: Seeley, Jackson, and Halliday, 1871 [1861]), Ch 1. ‘The Inspiration of Holy Scripture’, 108- 126.

30Litton, Study of Holy Scripture, 110.

31Citing William Lee, The Inspiration of Holy Scripture: Its Nature and Proof, 2nd ed (London: np, 1857), 527. [3rd ed 1864; 4th ed 1865; 5th ed 1882.]

32Litton, Study of Holy Scripture, 124.

76 In 1882, the year Nathaniel Jones enrolled at Oxford, Litton had argued similarly – that ‘[t]he Holy Ghost made use of natural or acquired faculties, but effectually guarded the result from adulteration’ – that of human error.33 The statements in the Psalms that ‘seem to jar our feelings as Christians’, are not to be attributed to their inspired collector but taken as ‘a warning that even the most exalted rapture of devotion’ does not exclude some human failing.34 Not all Evangelicals adopted this approach to the imprecatory Psalms.35 Evangelicals did not entirely neglect what remained the chief critical problem until the early twentieth century – the Old Testament. TP Boultbee addressed the moral problems in a relatively early lecture series,36 and Litton had touched on one. But by 1900 Charles Henry Hamilton Wright (1836-1909), a Church of Ireland Evangelical, criticised ‘the apathy of the Evangelical party in the Churches as to the

33Litton, Dogmatic Theology, 23.

34Litton, Dogmatic Theology, 25.

35Cf GT Manley, The Gospel in the Psalms: Being a Study of the Commission to Evangelize the World as Foreshadowed in the Psalms (London: Church Missionary Society, 1908), Appendix II. ‘Moral Difficulties of the Psalms’, 124-125.

36Thomas Pownall Boultbee, The Alleged Moral Difficulties of the Old Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1872).

77 necessity of higher theological education’. There was a need of more ‘scholars properly trained in Biblical science and able to uphold the truth as taught by Christ and His Apostles.’37 This must have ‘rung a bell’ in TC Hammond’s acute mind as he studied for his Divinitatis Testimonium examinations. Wright, widely read in the literature, English, German and French, and careful in his evaluations, was stringently critical of the negative approaches, but also cautioned against misrepresenting them. On the other hand, he made no mention of the Hegelian theory underlying the Graf-Kuenen-Wellhausen development hypothesis.38 Evangelical attempts to meet the negative Old Testament scholarship included a number of works. In Lex Mosaica (1894), Robert Sinker (1838-1913), librarian at Trinity College, tutor in Old Testament at Ridley Hall and friend of its principal, Handley Moule, wrote on the contested date of Deuteronomy.39 Other contributors were the professor of Assyriology at Oxford, AH Sayce, and George Rawlinson, former Camden professor of

37Introduction to the Old Testament, Preface to the Fourth Edition (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1900), vii.

38Wright, Introduction to the Old Testament, Preface to the First Edition, xxi (included in 5th edition).

39Robert Sinker, ‘The Seventh Century’, in Lex Mosaica: Or the Law of Moses and the Higher Criticism, ed Richard Valpy French (London: Eyer and Spottiswoode, 1894), 449-90.

78 ancient history at Oxford, two Presbyterians, and Henry Wace (1836-1924). The late Evangelical bishop of Bath and Wells, Lord Arthur Hervey (1808-1894), concluded from his own analysis of the Pentateuch ‘that in the Pentateuch we have either true history, or a most ingenious, skilful, and unique fiction’. If ‘a true history . . . the Law . . . must have left a distinct mark upon the whole future national life of the people.’40 Wace’s Summary showed how ‘a school of criticism . . . flatly denies’ the traditional belief concerning the Law (ceremonial) and the subsequent history of Israel. But the evidence showed that such theories were ‘extremely precarious’.41 Robert Sinker’s own book, “Higher Criticism” (1899),42 may well have provided one basis for the stance of Howard Mowll and other students in the CICCU on the inspiration and authority of Scripture in 1910-11. Sinker had read with advantage The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch (1896) by William Henry Green (1825-1900) of Princeton,43 and was well-read in the German as

40‘Introduction’, Lex Mosaica, xxxiv-xxxv.

41Lex Mosaica, 610, 617.

42Robert Sinker, “Higher Criticism”: What Is It, and Where Does It Lead Us? (London: James Nisbet, 1899), published first as articles in the Record.

43William Henry Green, The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1896), cited in Sinker, “Higher Criticism”, 39, 48, 100.

79 well as the English literature on both sides of the controversy. Critiquing the Wellhausen (et al) development hypothesis of Israel’s religion, Sinker noted James Robertson’s ‘masterly book’,44 The Early Religion of Israel,45 which Henry Wace also admired. Early in 1902, the Bible League (instituted 1892), whose Vice-Presidents included Bishop Handley Moule and Principal WH Griffith Thomas of Wycliffe Hall, initiated a Conference held at Oxford and chaired by Wace.46 The speakers, he explained, were ‘cordially welcoming [of] critical and archeological investigations’, and not motivated ‘by the least hostility to criticism’ (as such). The real question was ‘whether, in the main, the story of the course of Divine revelation from Abraham onwards is trustworthily narrated in the course of the Old Testament.’47 Wace hoped that better criticism would eclipse that of Wellhausen, even as it had driven out that of FC Baur on the New Testament. He quoted the Old

44Sinker, “Higher Criticism”, 70.

45James Robertson, The Early Religion of Israel as set forth by Biblical Writers and by Modern Critical Historians: The Baird Lecture for 1889 (Edinburgh & London: William Blackwood, 1892).

46Henry Wace (ed), Criticism Criticised (London: The Bible League, 1902).

47Wace (ed), Criticism Criticised, 12.

80 Testament critic, August Dillman (1823-1894),48 who had maintained that ‘the main course of the Old Testament narratives is substantially true.’49 But did Wace then walk his reader along the edge of an apologetic precipice in citing (again)50 Joseph Butler’s rationalist dictum? – Let reason be kept to, and if any part of the scripture (sic, Butler) account of the redemption of the world by Christ can be shown to be really contrary to it, let the scripture, in the name of God, be given up.51

Wace’s German reading since 1894 appears to have overlooked Ernst Troelstch, who in 1898 had set forth another principle of analogy – that of all historical events,52 which was the ground also of

48August Dillman, Handbuch der Alttestamentliche Theologie (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1895).

49Wace (ed), Criticism Criticised, 10.

50Cf Wace, Ch XIV. ‘Summary’, in Lex Mosaica, 611.

51Joseph Butler, Analogy, Pt II, Ch V, §24, in WE Gladstone (ed), The Works of Joseph Butler (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896), 275.

52Ernst Troeltsch, ‘Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology’ (1898), in Religion in History, tr James Luther Adams and Walter F Bense (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 11-32.

81 Adolph Harnack’s rejection of New Testament miracles.53 Strong contributors to Criticism Criticised included DS Margoliouth (1858-1937), Laudian professor of Arabic at Oxford (since 1889), JJ Lias and RB Girdlestone, and CHH Wright (on ‘The Book of Daniel and Modern Criticism’ – a point of contention later in the Diocese of Sydney and at Moore College under Hammond). One may assume that the student Hammond noticed Criticism Criticised in 1902, and James Orr’s The Problem of the Old Testament and Orr’s The Bible Under Trial in the early years of his ordained ministry.54 Each of these touches on the worldview assumptions that necessarily constrain the methodology of a critic.55 Herbert Ryle, Hulsean professor of divinity at Cambridge from 1888 to 1901, a son of the well- known Evangelical JC Ryle, represented the new

53Adolph von Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, Vol I, 1st ed (Freiburg i[m] B[reislau]: Mohr, 1889), 50 n4 (quoted in James Denney, Studies in Theology (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899), 259 (Note D); Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol 1 (New York: Dover, nd), 65 n3 (republ of Adolph von Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol 1, tr of 3rd ed by Neil Buchanan. London: Williams & Norgate, 1894).

54James Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament (London: James Nisbet, 1907); and James Orr, The Bible Under Trial: Apologetic Papers in view of Present-day Assaults on Holy Scripture, 3rd ed (London: Marshall, nd [1st ed 1907]).

55Orr, Problem of the Old Testament, Ch 1. ‘Introductory: The Problem Stated’; The Bible Under Trial, Ch 3. ‘Presuppositions’ in Old Testament Criticism’, 56- 60.

82 liberal broadening of the Evangelical spectrum of theological conviction. But he was ‘welcomed by the CICCU, for he preached a clear evangelistic message.’56 In his The Canon of the Old Testament,57 which followed upon SR Driver’s Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (1891), Ryle’s ‘Preface’ welcomes ‘the additional evidence which the results of modern criticism have placed at our disposal.’ He adds that those who charge all Biblical critics with ‘repudiating Revelation and denying the Inspiration of Scripture’ show either . . . want of acquaintance with the literature . . . or their disinclination to distinguish between the work of Christian scholars and that of avowed antagonists to religion.

He is confident that mistakes due to ‘rashness, love of change, or inaccuracy of observation’ will be corrected by ‘the Christian scholarship of another generation’.58 Ryle did not broach the prior issue of worldview. One is tempted to think that Robert Sinker included this Cambridge contemporary as among those

56JC Pollock, Cambridge Movement (London: John Murray), 146.

57Herbert Edward Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament: An Essay on the Gradual Growth and Formation of the Hebrew Canon of Scripture (London: Macmillan, 1892).

58Ryle, Canon of the Old Testament, ‘Preface’, viii- ix.

83 “Higher Critics”, reared in the old beliefs . . . who make desperate efforts to blend their neo-critical conclusions with their old beliefs, . . . to the amazement or amusement, one would judge, of some of their Continental allies. . . .59

It was concerning the authority of Scripture, among other issues, that some Evangelicals were beginning to think towards ‘a newer type of Evangelicalism which should be positive, and active, and liberal in outlook.’60 Thus was formally inaugurated in 1907, with Archdeacon John Charles Wright of Manchester as chairman, the private ‘Group Brotherhood’, which later (1923) called itself the ‘Anglican Evangelical Group Movement’. Their members included HLCV de Candole, the vicar of Holy Trinity Church, Cambridge, and AJ Tait, about to become principal of Ridley Hall. Soon afterwards, one presumes, de Candole’s curate, DJ Davies, joined the Brotherhood.61 By the first decade of the twentieth century the New Testament was less secure against negative higher criticism. James Orr could write in 1907:

59Sinker, “Higher Criticism”, 4-5.

60Leonard Elliott Binns, The Evangelical Movement in the English Church (London: Methuen, 1928), 70.

61Photograph ‘“The Brothers” – Conference of Evangelical Clergy at St. Aidan’s College, Birkenhead, 15th, 16th, 17th July, 1909’, supplied with names by DJ Davies, including his own in (signed) ‘D.J.D.’, ‘Our Late Archbishop’, Sydney Diocesan Magazine, March 1933 (following Archbishop Wright’s death), 10.

84 Only folly could imagine that it was possible to stand permanently with an advanced liberal leg in the Old Testament and a conservative leg in the New.62

The men of the Group Brotherhood, however, believed that they could so stand. They found supporting scholarship in Professor VH Stanton.63 None of the Evangelicals, liberal or not, seems to have noticed, with regard to Scripture, Abraham Kuyper’s recently published Encyclopaedia of Sacred Theology,64 and his notion of the antithesis between the thinking that characterises the regenerate Christian mind and human autonomy. Hammond may have noticed Kuyper’s book, and probably the strictures of Geerhardus Vos of Princeton on the current dangerous tendency to relegate the works of God to the background by focussing on the human experience recorded in the Bible, ‘hand in hand’ with naturalism.65

62Orr, The Bible Under Trial, 150.

63VH Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, Part One. The Early Use of the Gospels (Cambridge: University Press, 1903).

64Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology: It Principles. ‘Introduction’ by BB Warfield (NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1898; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899).

65Geerhardus Vos, ‘Christian Faith and the Truthfulness of Bible History’, The Princeton Theological Review 4 (1906):288-305. An address delivered at the ‘Religious Conference’ held in Princeton, October 10-12, 1905. Reprinted in Richard Gaffin, ed, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), 458-74.

85 Among Sydney Anglicans, biblical criticism was addressed on at least one diocesan occasion, the synod of 1897. Nathaniel Jones was newly arrived at Moore College. The Lambeth 1897 reports contained that of bishops Saumarez Smith, , BF Westcott, and EA Knox on ‘the Critical Study of Holy Scripture’. They stated that ‘the Bible in historic, moral, and spiritual coherence, presents the Revelation of God, progressively given’ (‘progressively’ not defined), and were convinced that the critical study of the Bible would produce gains for the New Testament comparable with those already achieved for the Old. The key words for Christian believers, they said, were ‘Reverence, Patience, Confidence’. ‘[A] careful and sober-minded criticism’ as opposed to ‘a rash and unduly speculative sort, has proved itself the handmaid of faith and not the parent of doubt.’66 Worldview assumptions were not mentioned, despite Orr’s recent work.67 Archdeacon Günther (presiding), summing up to Synod even more optimistically, said inter alia: I may state that the results of . . . what is known as higher criticism, need cause no alarm. . . . The Holy Scriptures, as inspired and authoritative declarations, are admitted

66‘Report of the Committee appointed . . . to consider . . . the Critical Study of Scripture’, in Randall T Davidson (director of compilation), The Five Lambeth Conferences (London: Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, 1920), 218-221.

67Orr, Christian View of God and the World (1893).

86 by all who have carefully studied these subjects.68

One can only wonder what conversation between Nathaniel Jones and Mervyn Archdall would have ensued. Back in the British Isles, Evangelicals were responding to yet another challenge.

The Atonement The essentially Anselmic view of Christ’s death (in Cur Deus Homo), ‘of course as corrected’,69 was that of the Roman and of the churches of the Reformation.70 It underlay the Book of Common Prayer service of the Lord’s Supper as well as the Articles of Religion. It was tied to accepting ‘from the threshold . . . the inspiration and consequent authority of Scripture.’71 In the nineteenth century, the Congregationalist, RW Dale’s famous The Atonement saw new editions in the student years of Jones, Davies (almost) and Hammond).72 It addressed the

68‘Presidential Address’, Proceedings of the Third Session of the Tenth Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, New South Wales, September 25-30th, 1897, 31-32.

69BB Warfield, ‘Modern Theories of the Atonement’ (in The Princeton Theological Review 1 (1903):81-92, repr in BB Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950), 375.

70Litton, Dogmatic Theology, 229-233.

71James Denney, The Atonement and the Modern Mind (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1903), 6.

72RW Dale, The Atonement (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1875 [9th ed 1884, 21st ed 1900); London:

87 rise of liberal views on the atonement. TR Birks had written briefly on the doctrine, and Handley CG Moule and EA Litton had given extensive space to the Anselmic view.73 In 1892 James Orr examined critically (while also appreciatively) the views of the main figures challenging the long received doctrine – FDE Schleiermacher,74 Horace Bushnell,75 Albrecht Ritschl76 – all of whom recognised only a subjective element, a moral influence. He also reviewed FD Maurice,77 who recognised some objective ground for God’s forgiveness in Christ’s work, then M’Leod (McLeod) Campbell78, and a number of Continental writers.79 Orr’s summary statement

Congregational Union,188?, 26th ed 1914).

73TR Birks, The Difficulties of Belief, in connexion with the Creation and the Fall, Redemption and Judgment, 2nd ed, enlarged (London: Macmillan, 1876); Moule, Outlines, 75-92; Litton, Dogmatic Theology, 225-239.

74Friedrich Schleiermacher, Der Christliche Glaube (tr HR Mackintosh and JS Stewart, The Christian Faith. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928).

75Horace Bushnell, Vicarious Sacrifice (1866).

76Albrecht Ritschl, Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versönung (tr ed HR Mackintosh and AB Macaulay, Justification and Reconciliation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1900).

77FD Maurice, Theological Essays (London: Macmillan, 1881 [1st ed Cambridge: Macmillan, 1853]).

78John McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement and its relation to Remission of Sin and Eternal Life, 5th ed (London: Macmillan, 1878).

79Orr, The Christian View, 299-314.

88 attempted to include the ‘elements of truth in every one of them’.80 TC Hammond’s Scottish Presbyterian connections (through his wife) need to be remembered. BB Warfield’s overview appeared in 1903, another by him in 1909.81 The task of fully elaborating exegetically what the New Testament taught was taken up by Orr’s colleague, James Denney. He wrote his famous Death of Christ82 simply to lay out the historical fact of the New Testament teaching, without assuming Scripture’s inspired authority. His wife had drawn his attention to CH Spurgeon’s writings, and Christ’s atoning death was ‘his absorbing theme’.83 He found ‘the simplest expression’ of the Atonement possible in words to be: ‘Christ died for our sins.’ These tell us . . on the basis of an incontrovertible experience . . . that the forgiveness of sins is for the Christian mediated through the death of Christ.84

80Orr, The Christian View, 316-318.

81Warfield, ‘Modern Theories of the Atonement’, 81-92; ‘Chief Theories of the Atonement’ in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol 6:249-356.

82James Denney, The Death of Christ (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1902).

83KR Ross, sv ‘Denney, James’ in DSCHT.

84James Denney, The Atonement and the Modern Mind (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1903), 10-11

89 The student TC Hammond probably read also the essay by Geerhardus Vos that addressed the atonement with regard to the modern theories.85 Liberal Evangelicals rejected the Anselmic for an Abelardian or moral influence theory, for reasons reflecting their own assumptions. JK Mozley, who appears in the photograph of a Group Brotherhood ‘Conference’, revealed them. He found the views of such as EA Litton (and Charles Hodge) ‘morally disquieting’.86 He did not realise that to one holding the satisfactionist view, this judgment was ‘an arraignment of the moral character of the Scriptures’, its source.87 The American Baptist, William Newton Clarke (1841-1912), an Evangelical Liberal (the American term), vigorously set forth the moral influence theory in his much reprinted and long-used textbook for theological students.88 It may well have been DJ Davies who had the work listed for the education of prospective Anglican clergy in

85Geerhardus Vos, ‘The Scriptural Doctrine of the Love of God’, in PRR 13 (1902):1-37, reprinted in Richard Gaffin, ed, Redemptive History, 425-457. (Hammond’s copy of PRR vols 12-13 is in the Moore College Library.)

86JK Mozley, Doctrine of the Atonement (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1915), 177.

87BB Warfield, review of JK Mozley, The Doctrine of the Atonement (New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1916), in The Works of Benjamin Warfield, Vol X Critical Reviews (New York: Oxford University, 1932; repr Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker, 1991), 74; repr from PTR 15(1917), 467-476.

88WN Clarke, An Outline of (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902 [1898, et seqq], 340-68.

90 Australia from 1913.89 When the Group Brotherhood became the AEGM in 1923, the moral influence theory was the public position of Liberal Evangelicals.90

Evangelicals and Science ‘The Evangelical response to the new ideas on Scripture and science from 1855 onwards has yet to be written.91 Nicolaas Rupke has recently surveyed the response of some Christian thinkers to the ‘cognitive dissonance’ about cosmogony, ‘the disappearance of the language of design from scientific discourse’, and the monism promoted by EH Haeckel. He does not detail the important responses of the ablest evangelicals.92 That they said significant things with regard to the new ideas on Scripture and science from the mid- nineteenth century is clear from contemporary sources.

89‘List of Suggested Books’ [for] ‘Th.L.’, [subject of] ‘Doctrine’, The Australian College of Theology MANUAL for the year 1913 (Sydney: WA Pepperday, 1913), 42.

90RT Howard, in Members of the Church of England, Liberal Evangelicalism: An Interpretation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1923), Ch VI. ‘The Work of Christ’.

91Peter Toon, Evangelical Theology 1833-1856: Response to Tractarianism (London: amarshall, Morgan and Scott, 1979), 207.

92See Nicolas A Rupke, Ch 11. ‘Christianity and the Sciences’, in Sheridan Gilley and Brian Stanley (eds) Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol 8: World Christianities c1815-c1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2006) for a recent account.

91 Geology Hugh Miller (1802-1856), concerned in his Footprints of the Creator (1849) and The Testimony of the Rocks (1857) to uphold the idea of God as Creator, was a devout evangelical of the Church of Scotland.93 EA Litton had already dismissed the idea that Scripture might be intended ‘to convey accurate knowledge’ on matters of natural science. He pointed out that it was nonsensical to criticise Scripture for its phenomenal language that spoke of the earth as stationary.94 The amazingly learned and premillennial Evangelical, AR Fausset said that the language of Genesis was not scientific description. He added that the real discoveries of science cannot be opposed to revelation, but would resolve in time with a better understanding of Scripture, as had proved to be the case with the Copernican theory. His own single-handed Critical and Expository Bible Cyclopaedia took the discoveries of geology into account. The biblical Flood, for example, had to be a local, if vast event, not universal.95 In Sydney, the Revd William Branwhite Clarke (1798-1878), a student at Cambridge (BA 1821) in the days of Charles Simeon, had attended the

93JAH Demster, sv ‘Miller, Hugh (1802-56)’ in DSCHT.

94Litton, Study of Holy Scripture, 124.

95AR Fausset, The Englishman’s Critical and Expository Bible Cyclopaedia (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1878), sv ‘Flood’.

92 lectures of Adam Sedgwick, Woodwardian professor of geology. An Evangelical and the of North Sydney (1844-1871), Clarke became the ‘Father of Australian Geology’. He was offered but did not accept a professorship in geology and mineralogy in 1856 at the fledgling University of Sydney (founded 1851).96 He was careful to distinguish the claims of Scripture from those of science.

Evolution The response of theologians to Darwin was cautious. In 1870 the conservative Tractarian HP Liddon, and in 1871, the old fashioned High Churchman, Bishop E both cautiously withheld judgement. AR Fausset, on the other hand, concluded – from a theistic point of view – that The plan of creation is progressive development modified by continual superintendence and occasional interpositions of the Creator just at the points where required to make the theory of Darwin possible.97

EA Litton argued that theories of evolution impugned God’s miraculous agency but were as yet ‘only theories, which do not explain all the

96Mozley, Ann, sv 'Clarke, William Branwhite (1798–1878)', in Australian Dictionary of Biography, (Melbourne University Press, 1969), Vol 3.

97Fausset, Bible Cyclopaedia, sv ‘Creation’.

93 facts.’ An antiquity of man stretching back 20,000 years was not a problem for him, though the hypothesis of several independent centres of origin was unconvincing. He made another point: the difference of the human from an ancestor must be a religious difference, and that not an accident.98 Litton was writing scarcely more than a decade after Darwin’s The Descent of Man (1871) had appeared. By 1889 Handley CG Moule could allow that Genesis Chapter 1 was written in the form of symbolic representations of a non-mechanistically imagined process. The observed phenomena cannot exclude ‘a properly “new departure”’ for man as ‘at once spiritual and material, who should resemble, know and love the Creator’. At the same time, ‘not one word’ of Scripture rules out man’s being ‘moulded of the same matter . . . and on the same plan’ as his ‘predecessors and coevals.’ On Herbert Spencer’s agnostic-evolutionary philosophy,99 ‘which swept the world’,100 Moule noted its ‘general prevalence’, also among so many men of science. He insisted that the observers of ‘verifiable phenomena’ passed beyond their

98Litton, Dogmatic Theology, 81, 115-17; 1st ed of Vol I was 1882.

99Herbert Spencer, System of Synthetic Philosophy (1862-93), especially the opening volume, First Principles (London: Williams & Norgate, 1862).

100Passmore, Hundred Years of Philosophy, 40.

94 competence as observers ‘to say that the beast can be true ancestor of the man’.101 In the Australian local secular press and church magazines, and the books from England, the general public was made well aware of discussion in ‘the Home Country’. Church leaders and scholarly clergy addressed the public on Darwin’s theory of natural selection.102 A naturalistic theory of evolution, they thought, did present a problem. Bishop Charles Perry of Melbourne, a senior wrangler as well as highly placed in classics at Cambridge (BA 1828), was cautious. His first of three public lectures (1860) concluded that Darwin was mistaken; the third and last (1869) found unanswerable objections to the idea of natural selection. But noting that the hypotheses were ‘fluid’ he suspended judgment.103 In Australia ‘clergy typically adopted a “wait and

101Moule, Outlines, 153-155.

102See A deQ Robin, Charles Perry, Bishop of Melbourne: The Challenges of a Colonial Episcopate (Nedlands, Western Australia: University of Western Australia, 1967), 131; Stephen Judd and Kenneth Cable, Sydney Anglicans: A History of the Diocese (Sydney: Anglican Information Office, [1987]), 118-19 and 126-27; TR Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes (Sydney: University of New South Wales, 2009), Ch 6. ‘Scientific Disagreement in the Antipodes’ and Ch 7. ‘Religious Responses’.

103Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes, 112-114 (quoting Perry’s lectures published in the Church of England Record, IV (1860), 140, Charles Perry, Science and the Bible (Melbourne, 1869), the Church of England Newspaper, 8 September, 1870; and deQ Robin, Charles Perry, Bishop of Melbourne, 140-46.

95 see” attitude’.104 But there was a general public acceptance of Darwin’s theories by the 1880s.105 Back in England the Christian Association of University College (London) organised a broad- ranging series of addresses in 1903. They focussed on the rationalism and materialism of the day that was associated with Darwin’s theories. They touched on the key point – the presupposed worldview. In a vote of thanks, Lord William Thomas Kelvin (1824-1907), a devout Scottish Prebyterian, stated that while Cicero’s expression ‘the fortuitous concourse of atoms’ was ‘not wholly inappropriate for the growth of a crystal’, it ‘is utterly absurd in respect to the coming into existence, or the growth, or the continuation of molecular combinations presented in the bodies of living things.’ He concluded: ‘If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to belief in God’.106 This short speech, reported in

104Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes, 109-114, citing (on p 114) Walter Phillips, ‘Religious Response to Darwin in the Nineteenth Century’, Journal of Australian Studies, no 26 (May 1990), 37-51.

105Colin Finney, Paradise Revealed: Natural History in Nineteenth Century Australia (Melbourne: Museum of Victoria, 1993), 97-112; Ann Moyal, A Bright & Savage Land: Scientists in Colonial Australia (Sydney: Collins, 1993 [1986]), 140ff.

106Seton, WW (ed), Christian Apologetics: A Series of Addresses Delivered before the Christian Association of University College, London, by George Henslow, Henry Wace, DS Margoliouth, RE Welsh, George T Manley, Cecil Wilson. With an introduction by GW Maclaren (London: John Murray, 1903), 25.

96 The Times of London, generated considerable correspondence.107 Another address, was by GT Manley, later important in the Inter-Varsity Fellowship of Evangelical Unions. His ‘Materialism or Christianity’, considered Huxley’s term ‘agnosticism’,108 and a quotation from Herbert Spencer’s First Principles: ‘Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion’ (etc). With this he thought he had ‘said enough to prove abundantly . . . that Agnosticism . . . is . . . a purely materialistic presentation of human knowledge.’109 The following year, WH Griffith Thomas, close friend of Nathaniel Jones, summarised part of the common stock of Christian thought about science. He concluded that ‘Evolution at the most only indicates a precise method’ (italics added) ‘of origination’; ‘a gradual unfolding of the universe and the development of one or more primordial germs is a magnificent conception’ but does not set aside the need for a Creator. Even if this working hypothesis ‘should prove the one and only

107Orr, The Bible Under Trial, 205.

108Henslow (et al), Christian Apologetics, 106-107, citing Huxley, Science and Christian Tradition, 233 (no other details).

109Henslow (et al), Christian Apologetics, 107-08, citing Spencer, First Principles, 44-54 (no other details).

97 method, “in the beginning God” would still stand as needed.’110 In the public mind, Darwin’s ideas still needed to be addressed. The distinguished provost of Trinity College, Dublin, George Salmon, also struck a theistic note: [N]o presumption against God’s working is caused by our being able to trace the prevalence of a law which universally dominates in God’s natural world. . . .111

In Sydney, Everard Digges La Touche, MA, Litt D (TCD), diocesan missioner and lecturer 1913-1914, also lectured at Moore College under David Davies. Converted from acute doubt by the instrumentality of TC Hammond while a student (1901-04),112 in 1910 he published Christian Certitude. It was a learned Butlerian probability treatment of Christian evidences. Both history and scientific theory had given ‘immense antiquity’ to man but, (making the same point as Griffith Thomas), the unfortunate confusion of the fact that God made man with the methods which He employed . . . did much to give the newer learning a hostile bias towards Christianity.113

110WH Griffith Thomas, The Catholic Faith: A Manual of Instruction for Members of the Church of England (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1904), 65-66.

111George Salmon, Evolution and Other Papers (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1906), 7.

112Sv ‘La Touche, Everard Digges’, by Hubbard in ADEB.

113Digges La Touche, Christian Certitude, 20.

98 In fact, he wrote, ‘the theory of evolution reveals an order’ which has revealed ‘the unutterable rationality of the universe.’114 His Sydney pamphlet, Is Christianity Scientific?,115 added something more clearly consistent with his Christian theism. Explaining that since perfect knowledge would require omniscience, which only God has, he insisted that just as in theology, faith had a place in modern science. For the possibility of scientific enquiry necessarily presupposed the omnipotent and omniscient creator of an orderly universe, and man’s capacity for knowledge.116

Tractarianism and Ritualism, or Anglo-Catholicism Most of the early responses of Evangelicals to Tractarianism were published before either Frederic Barker sailed for Sydney to be installed as bishop in 1855, or William Hodgson arrived in early 1856 to be the first principal of Moore College.117 Before Lux Mundi (1889) was published there were great areas of agreement between Tractarians

114Digges La Touche, Christian Certitude, 30.

115E Digges La Touche, Is Christianity Scientific? Australian Church Manuals (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, [1913]).

116Digges La Touche, Is Christianity Scientific?, 5-7.

117Peter Toon, Evangelical Theology 1833-1856, 232-235.

99 and Evangelicals (also evangelicals in the other British churches): . . . on the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture, the catholic doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Person of Christ, the need to pursue holiness both in the visible Church and in the individual life, the blessed hope of the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting.118

Later in the century, a self-professed liberal minister of the Dutch national church, Abraham Kuyper (referred to above), a theologian of some significance for Hammond, was helped to recover his Calvinist church tradition by the Anglo- Catholic writer, Charlotte Yonge’s novel, The Heir of Redclyffe (1853).119 In the twentieth century, an Evangelical Sydney clergyman, successor to Hammond at Moore College, found fellowship with the conservative Anglo-Catholic, Bishop in New Guinea during World War II.120 Today, Evangelicals still use hymns written by Tractarians such as John Keble and Frederick Faber, or translated by John Mason Neale.121

118Toon, Evangelical Theology 1833-1856, 203.

119James Bratt (ed), Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader (Grand Rapids, Mich/Cambridge, UK; Carlisle, Eng: Eerdmans; Paternoster, 1998), 51-55.

120JR Reid, Marcus L Loane: A Biography (Bruswick East, Victoria: Acorn Press, 2004), 24.

121Eg, John Keble, ‘Blest are the pure in heart’, Frederick Faber, ‘My God, how wonderful Thou art’, and John Mason Neale, ‘A great and mighty wonder’.

100 Nevertheless, by 1840 most Evangelicals were definitely opposed to the Tractarians for their use of ‘Tradition’, their doctrine of the Church, and of the Sacraments.122 In that same year, supported by old school High Churchmen, Evangelicals founded the Parker Society ( being an Elizabethan archbishop of ). From 1841 to 1855 this society republished fifty-four works of the English Reformers. Several Evangelicals were among the editors and translators of the Calvin Translation Society (founded 1843), which published chiefly Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion and biblical commentaries. The Evangelical organs, Christian Observer (founded 1802, replaced by The Churchman in 1879) and the more distinctly Calvinistic Record (founded 1828), addressed the issues Tractarian teaching raised. John Henry Newman’s Lectures on Justification (1838) provoked no little reaction. Such was especially true of his Tract XC (1841), which advocated an interpretation of the Thirty-nine Articles which made them generally in accordance with the decrees of the Council of Trent. In the year that Newman was received into the Church of Rome, Charles Abel Heurtley (1813-1897), not ‘a party-man’ but effectively an Evangelical, delivered his Bampton

122Caroline Fry, The Listener in Oxford (1840), 173 (cited in Toon, Evangelical Theology 1833-1856, 45).

101 Lectures on justification.123 In 1853 he became Lady Margaret professor of Divinity at Oxford and was still teaching when Nathaniel Jones was a student in the 1880s. On arrival in Sydney, Bishop Frederic Barker felt the matter acutely because the High Church incumbents of the parishes near the centre of the city were opposed to Evangelicalism. But like Evangelicals in England and Ireland, Barker and the clergy he recruited could find confirmation of the authentic Anglican-ness of their Evangelical convictions in the theological learning of such as William Goode (1801-1868).124 A Calvinist, and perhaps the ablest English anti-Tractarian writer of his period, Goode was admired by EA Litton (1813-1897)125 and HCG Moule (1841-1920).126 By

123Charles A Heurtley, Justification: Eight Sermons preached before the University of Oxford in the Year 1845 (Sl: John Henry Parker, 1846).

124William Goode, The Doctrine of the Church of England as to the Effects of Baptism in the case of Infants (London: J Hatchard, 1849); A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Church of England on the Validity of the Orders of the Scotch and Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches (London: Thomas Hatchard, 1852); Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853 [1842]); The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the (London: T Hatchard, 1856).

125Edward Arthur Litton (1813-1897), A Sermon on John iii.5 [in re Gorham decision] (London: 1850); The Church of Christ in its idea, attributes and ministry, with particular reference to the controversy between Romanists and Protestants (London: 1851).

126HCG Moule, The Evangelical School in the Church of England: Its Men and its Work in the Nineteenth Century

102 1897, when Nathaniel Jones came to Moore College, Handley CG Moule’s textbook of doctrine (1889), written for Nonconformists as well as Anglicans, had already sold many thousands of copies,127 and Litton (an Oxford graduate) had completed his Introduction to Theology (1892).128 Nathaniel Jones can hardly have missed the publication of Part I (1882), nor John Charles Ryle’s books, which sold well, and numerous tracts, which were very widely distributed.129 In 1897, TP Boultbee’s textbook on the Thirty-nine Articles was also still in print.130 Handley Moule’s verdict in 1901 has been noticed in the previous chapter. He emphasised that Tractarian (or Anglo-Catholic) teaching ‘on the vital necessity of Episcopacy, on Justification, on Regeneration, and on the nature of the Eucharistic Presence’ was not that of the

(London: James Nisbet, 1901), 32-33.

127Moule, Outlines (‘twelfth thousand’ by 1894); Litton, Dogmatic Theology.

128Republished as Introduction to Dogmatic Theology (1902).

129Especially, John Charles Ryle, Knots Untied: Being plain statements on disputed points in Religion from the standpoint of an Evangelical Churchman (London: 1874 [30 plus editions by 1977]); Light from Old Times (London: Charles J Thynne and Jarvis, 1890).

130Boultbee, Theology of the Church of England (London: Longmans, Green, 1871-1895 & 1910), new title in 1910 – A Commentary on the Thirty-nine Articles: Forming an Introduction to the Theology of the Church of England.

103 early High Churchmen.131 With the turn of the century WH Griffith Thomas published his Oxford DD thesis, ‘A Sacrament of Our Redemption’.132 The work aimed to prove that ‘the Holy Supper’ was ‘a memorial of our redemption, a pledge of a covenant, a means of grace, a bond of brotherhood, a testimony to the world, a message of hope’, and that it ‘proclaims . . . and offers for our appropriation by faith, the Lord Jesus Christ in all the fulness of redeeming love and grace’. It opposed the errors against which ‘the Reformation made strong and vigorous protest’.133 Thus, many Evangelicals knew well the intention of the English reformers as formulated doctrinally in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and expressed liturgically in The Book of Common Prayer. Jones as well as Hammond exemplified the learned Evangelical tradition that valued the English Reformation and understood the issues. It was less true of Davies.

131Handley CG Moule, The Evangelical School, 29. The ‘Prefatory Note’, March 1901.

132WH Griffith Thomas, ‘A Sacrament of Our Redemption’: An Enquiry into the Meaning of the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament and the Church of England (London: Bemrose, [1904]); repr London: The Church Book Room, 1920.

133Griffith Thomas, ‘A Sacrament of Our Redemption’ (1920), 119, 120.

104 Ritualism The anti-Roman Catholic feeling of 1828-1829 rose again in 1850 with the restoration in England and Wales of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, for most Englishmen thought of England as Protestant. This was the background to public concern with the ‘Romanising’ ritual pressed by Anglo-Catholics. Concern for purity of worship, however, implicitly doctrinal motivated those like EA Litton (1854) to respond verbally.134 Evangelicals formed the Church Association (1865) only after the Tractarian and ritualist motivated English Church Union (founded 1859) tried to prosecute Evangelicals. That was in 1860, for holding mission services in theatres, in 1862 for heresy (the bishop of Carlyle), then appeal to Parliament to legislate. In 1865 they Evangelicals established the Church Association to appeal to the courts to establish what the law of the Church of England was, and to engage in publicity. In 1877 and 1879 they founded Wycliffe Hall in Oxford and Ridley Hall in Cambridge, both of them to resist both rationalism and ritualism.135 The most learned Evangelical to defend The Book of Common Prayer (1662) as the liturgical

134Edward Arthur Litton, The Gospel Not a Ceremonial Law (2 Cor 3:17)(Oxford, 1854); see Reynolds, Evangelicals at Oxford, 127.

135FWB Bullock, The History of Ridley Hall Cambridge, Vol I: To the End of A.D. 1907 (Cambridge: Printed for the Council or Ridley Hall, University, 1941), 120-21.

105 expression of Reformation doctrine was Nathaniel Dimock (1825-1909), an Oxford man. Before Jones went up, Dimock had already published two anti- ritualist works.136 His further labours against Anglo-Catholic innovations were readily available when Davies and Hammond were students.137 TW Drury (Principal of Ridley Hall, 1899-1907) was another significant Prayer Book scholar, in Hammond and Davies’s early years.138 In Sydney one of Barker’s last handpicked men from England (in 1882) was Mervyn Archdall (1846- 1917), who became a close associate of Nathaniel Jones. He founded the Protestant Church of England Union (1898) in Sydney to preserve the historic Reformed character of the doctrine and liturgy of the Church of England. He also

136Nathaniel Dimock, On Eucharistic Worship in the English Church, by an English Presbyter, (London: Haughton, 1876); Nathaniel Dimock, Confession and Absolution in the Church of England: A Letter to His Grace the Lord . . . . (London: Hardwicke, 1877).

137Nathaniel Dimock, Vox Liturgiae Anglicanae (London: Elliot Stock, 1897); Light from History on Christian Ritual, published under the direction of the Council of the National Protestant Church Union (London: Charles Murray, 1900); and Some Notes on the Conference Held at Fulham Palace in October 1900, on the Doctrine of the Holy Communion and its Expression in Ritual [chs 1 & 2 publ prev in the Record] (London: Elliot Stock, 1901).

138Thomas Wortley Drury, How We Got Our Prayer Book (London: Nisbet, 1901); TW Drury, Two Studies in the Book of Common Prayer (London: Nisbet, 1901); TW Drury, Principles of the Book of Common Prayer (London: Longmans, Green, 1909).

106 published his passionate Liturgical Right and National Wrong (1901).139 One issue he treated would come up for Archbishop Mowll and hence for Hammond – the ‘recognition’ (at Lambeth, 1897) of the bishop’s ‘jus [ius] liturgicum’, the claim that a bishop might alter or modify services beyond what the Act of Uniformity Amendment Act of 1872 allowed.140 When Nathaniel Jones had been principal of Moore College for nearly a decade and DJ Davies and TC Hammond were only recently ordained, the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline (1904-06) produced its report.141 This ‘justified the complaints of the Evangelicals and vindicated their position’,142 [but] ‘left action largely in the hands of the bishops.’143 Action in the

139Mervyn Archdall, Liturgical Right and National Wrong: A Vindication of the Rights of the Church, and a Criticism of Wakeman’s History and other Books approved by Bishops, and by the Fellows of the “Australian College of Theology” (London: Church Association, 1900).

140Mervyn Archdall, Liturgical Right and National Wrong, 19-22, 60-63, 72-74; The Protestant Dictionary: Containing Articles on the History, Doctrines, and Practices of the Christian Church. New Edition (London: Harrison Trust, 1933 [1904], sv ‘Rites and Ceremonies’ [1904], 609. 141Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline (London: HMSO, 1906).

142Balleine, History of the Evangelical Party, 253 (‘Appendix I 1900-1950’ by GW Bromiley).

143Martin Wellings, Evangelicals Embattled: Responses of Evangelicals in the Church of England to Ritualism, Darwinism and Theological Liberalism 1890-1930 (Carlisle,

107 Diocese of Manchester was taken by Bishop EA Knox, who used his licensing authority to exclude any clergy who insisted on the Eucharistic vestments and associated practices that the Ritualists contended for.144 Two successive archbishops of Sydney were admirers of Knox. John Charles Wright had been one of his students at Oxford and his archdeacon in Manchester. Howard WK Mowll had been ordained by Knox in 1913. He corresponded with him for advice until his passing in January 1937. Wright implemented the policy of Knox in Manchester on arrival in Sydney. His strictly constitutional approach satisfied the rigorous Archdall.145 Jones, Davies and Hammond were all in agreement with Wright’s policy on ritual, which Mowll continued. The liturgical standpoint of these two archbishops and of Jones, Davies and Hammond had the support of substantial Evangelical thought and learning, produced both in England and in Sydney.

UK: Paternoster, 2003), 120.

144EA Knox, Reminiscences of an Octogenarian 1847-1934 (London: Hutchinson, [1934]), 253-254, 304, 307.

145DWB Robinson, ‘Anglican Church League’, Lucas Nos 21 & 22 (Jun & Dec 1996), 156-57, citing ‘the PCEU Handbook published 1910’.

108 Premillenialism, and Holiness. ‘Outside medieval studies, the significance of millennialism has been consistently underestimated in the scholarly analysis of human thought and society.’146 Some attempt to estimate its significance for Jones and Moore College needs to be made. Bebbington has helpfully encapsulated recent research on the subject across evangelicalism in general.147 The following discussion views the Anglican side. The English Book of Common Prayer (1552-1662) and the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion quietly assumed without stating the Augustinian view, that the thousand years of Revelation 20:1-6 stood for the interval between Christ’s resurrection and his advent in glory. During the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) and the years when Archbishop William Laud in tandem with Charles I was resisting the Puritans, the Cambridge biblical scholar Joseph Mede (1586-1638) expounded the premillennial view (also found among some Church Fathers of the second and third centuries). Christ would first return to establish his reign of a thousand years

146Crawford Gribben, and Timothy CF Stunt, ‘Introduction’, in Gribben and Stunt (eds), Prisoners of Hope? Aspects of Evangelical Millennialism in Britain and Ireland, 1800-1880 (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 2004), 1.

147Bebbington, Dominance of Evangelicalism, 179-188.

109 before the Last Judgment.148 The Continental Pietists, notably the famed New Testament commentator, Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752),149 followed by the Wesleys in England, was premillennial in outlook.150 In apparently more hopeful times than Mede’s, an Oxford-trained scholar, Daniel Whitby (1638- 1726), convinced many throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries of a postmillennial view – that with time the whole world would turn to Christ, and, the Jews being restored to Palestine (the pope, and the Turks – representing Islam – being defeated), a ‘millennium’ of peace and righteousness would ensue before the Last Judgment.151 But the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars made the premillennial view attractive to some in the Church of England (and the Church of Scotland). By 1815 it began to be adopted by Evangelicals152 and was being eloquently reinforced

148Joseph Mede, Clavis Apoclayptica (1627), (Eng transl 1631, 1643).

149Johann Albrecht Bengel, Gnomon Novi Testamenti (1742), translated by John Wesley as Explanatory Notes on the New Testament (London: William Bowyer, 1755).

150Gribben and Stunt, Prisoners of Hope?, 8.

151Daniel Whitby, Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament (2 vols), 1703.

152James Hatley Frere, A Combined View of the Prophecies of Daniel, Ezra and St John (London: For John Hatchard, 1815); Basilicus [Lewis Way], Thoughts on the Scriptural Expectations of the Christian Church

110 by the Church of Scotland minister, Edward Irving, then preaching in London. The originally High Church ordained Anglican (Church of Ireland), JN Darby (1800-1882), developed the version later known as Dispensationalism. This was widely popularised by the Scofield Reference Bible, (1909) – the Authorised Version (pace Bebbington)153 with Scofield’s references and notes added.154 Writing in 1907-08 the historian of the Evangelical party in the Church of England stated that most Evangelicals did not adopt a Premillennial interpretation.155 But even by the 1880s, when Jones was at Oxford, some of the leading Evangelical churchmen, clerical and lay, held a premillennial view.156 EB Elliott had produced his ‘high-water mark of historicism’.157

(Gloucester: Hugh and Pace, 1823 [repr from The Jewish Expositor]).

153Bebbington, Dominance of Evangelicalism, 187.

154CI Scofield (ed), The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments: Authorized Version, with a new system of connected topical references to all the greater themes of Scripture . . .(New York: Oxford University, 1909; London: Henry Frowde, 1909).

155Balleine, History of the Evangelical Party, 164-65.

156Eg, Bishop EH Bickersteth and Ashley Cooper, the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury.

157EB Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, or a Commentary on the Apocalypse, Critical and Historical: Including also an Examination of the Chief Prophecies of Daniel, 4 vols (London: Seeley, Jackson & Halliday 5th ed 1862 [1844]); noted in David Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern

111 AR Fausset’s Biblical Cyclopaedia (1878), noted above, confidently set forth a premillennial scheme.158 In London, William Pennefather (1816-1873) of Mildmay had established in his parish (1864-73) annual prophetical conferences. The speakers included convinced premillennialists such as (in 1878) AR Fausset, WR Fremantle, then Dean of Ripon, and the Earl of Shaftesbury.159 At least two Evangelical bishops were of premillennial conviction – John Charles Ryle (1816-1900) and Edward Henry Bickersteth (1825- 1906). Ryle (bishop of Liverpool 1880-1900) early taught and preached a premillennial expectation of Christ’s return, though reserved as to detail, in his Expository Thoughts.160 In the years before his collected sermons, Coming Events and Present Duties (1867), events supporting Ryle’s pessimistic this-world expectations would have included the 1848 Continental revolutions, the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny (both in the 1850s), and the American Civil War (1860s). In

Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 85-86.

158Fausset, Bible Cyclopaedia, sv 'Dispensations'.

159Mildmay Conference,‘Our God Shall Come’: Addresses on the Second Coming of the Lord (London: Shaw, [1878]).

160JC Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels for Family and Private Use (London: CJ Thynne, 1856), at Matthew, Ch 24.

112 the sphere of religion and the church, he had seen not only the rise of ‘Romanising’ doctrine and ritualism in the Church of England, but the skepticism so prominent in Essays and Reviews (1860). So while urging that no one should ‘neglect present duties’ (a view Nathaniel Jones would also urge later),161 Ryle could also confidently while pessimistically say in 1867: I doubt much whether there ever was a time in the history of our country, when the horizon on all sides, both political and ecclesiastical, was so thoroughly black and lowering. . . . Happy is he who has learned . . . to look steadily for Christ’s appearing!162

Coming Events and Present Duties saw four editions in fourteen years.163 By the third edition of his Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (1879) there had been the Franco-Prussian War and forced unification of Germany under Prussia, and much domestic disturbance in England – despite the Evangelical activist Shaftesbury’s social reforms. Edward Henry Bickersteth (1825-1906), the other premillennial bishop (, 1885-1901),

161See on Jones’s thought in Part II of this study below.

162[JC Ryle], Coming Events and Present Duties: Being Miscellaneous Sermons on Prophetical Subjects. Arranged, Revised and Corrected by ... JC Ryle (London: [William Hunt?], [1867]), Preface, xiii-xiv.

163[JC Ryle], Coming Events and Present Duties, 4th ed 1881.

113 was a poet and accomplished hymn writer.164 His premillennial epic poem (Yesterday, To-day and Forever) covered the history and future of redemption in the customary twelve books of blank verse. Like Ryle’s Coming Events, it was written against the background of ‘the solemn events’ of his time.165 Twenty-three editions in twenty-seven years (1866-93) demonstrate the attractiveness of this perspective to the Victorian Christian public. TR Birks, his brother-in-law, published fifteen premillennial works on prophecy.166 Indeed, the Christian hope became a live public issue. In June to August 1887 the new, ‘Advanced Liberal’ religious newspaper, The British Weekly, published a ‘discussion’ on the different expectations, between David Brown (1803- 1897), a postmillennialist, AR Fausset167 and the Grattan Guinnesses (husband and wife),168 all three

164See Hymnal Companion to the Book of Common Prayer (London: Low, Marston, Low and Searle, 1872); John Julian (ed), A Dictionary of Hymnology (London: John Murray, 1907), 141, 142.

165Edward Henry Bickersteth, Yesterday, To-day and For Ever: A Poem in Twelve Books, 11th ed (London: Rivingtons, 1878 [1866]), Preface, [v]. (384pp, plus 135pp of notes.)

166AF Munden, sv ‘Birks, Thomas Rawson’ in BDE.

167Robert Jamieson, AR Fausset and David Brown, A Commentary Critical, and Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments (Glasgow: W Collins, 1863-70).

168Cf Dr and Mrs H Grattan Guiness, The Divine Programme of World History (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1888; London: Harley House, 1892).

114 premillennialists, and two others. This attracted so much attention and correspondence, that the paper published the discussion in book form.169 Grattan Guinness (1835-1910), an international evangelist, saw evidential value for the truth of the Bible in fulfilled prophecy: Providence, by many, is denied. History we are boldly taught, is but a blind evolution. The ages drift without aim. . . . Prophecy [however] is none other than history written in advance.170

His astronomical studies (inspired by biblical prophecy) led to his being made a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society. His world-historicist view set no date for Christ’s return but did predict that 1917 (and 1948) would be years of special significance for the Jews.171 It was a factor behind the ‘Balfour Declaration’ (2 November 1917). Allenby took Jerusalem a little more than five weeks later (9 December), which

169‘British Weekly’ Extras, No II. The Second Advent: Will it be before the Millennium? (London: Office of the ‘British Weekly,’ 1887), Prefatory Note, November 1887).

170Guinness, The Divine Programme of the World’s History, ‘Preface’, iii.

171DJ Dowling, sv ‘Guinness, Henry Grattan’ in BDE. The Guinnesses’ works (‘by the Revd and Mrs H Grattan Guinness’, or ‘by Dr and Mrs H Grattan Guinness’, or equivalent) included The Approaching End of the Age (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1878), Light for the Last Days (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1886), and The Divine Programme of the World’s History above.

115 inspired the immediate formation of ‘The Advent Testimony and Preparation Movement’.172 In 1889 Handley Moule had carefully stated, without preference, the various positions in his Outlines of Christian Doctrine. He underlined the profound agreement of all on the central truths concerning the person of Christ, and counselled students against ‘unloving mutual criticisms’.173 After the War, Moule openly professed the premillennial view.174 If premillennial Evangelicals were a minority, they were no insignificant one. We assume that the above Evangelical names stand behind the convictions of Nathaniel Jones at Moore College. EA Litton, an ‘amillennialist’, in 1892 included a critique of premillennialism in his Introduction to Theology. But he requested that it be omitted from its reprint, which was his Dogmatic Theology (1902).175 The post-millennial view did not die. The postmillennialist and Presbyterian, David Brown (above), for example, published a large book that

172Ian M Randall, Spirituality and Social Change: The Contribution of FB Meyer (1847-1929) (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster, 2003), 141; also www.pwmi.org, website of Prophetic Witness Movement International (PWMI), initially ‘The Advent Testimony and Preparation Movement’.

173Moule, Outlines (1894), 114 (at least three more editions to 1905 listed in COPAC.

174Randall, Spirituality and Social Change, 136.

175Henry Wace, ‘Introductory Remarks on the Study of Dogmatic Theology’in Litton, Dogmatic Theology (1902), xv.

116 saw many editions. It expected a universal spread and influence of Christian truth to usher in an unprecedented ‘millennium’ of world transforming peace before the Judgment.176 In the early twentieth century, Henry Wace, published Prophecy: Jewish and Christian. Without even a footnote to acknowledge the premillennial position, his postmillennial view included a ‘great apostasy’ before Christ’s return.177 Hammond purchased a copy in Sydney at some time.178 The budding Liberal Evangelical movement, the Group Brotherhood men, were not, of course, premillennialists. Their Liberal Evangelicalism even contained a critique of a ‘small book of this type’,179 (ie, premillennial) by JW Hunkin, a future nominee for archbishop of Sydney. His essay would have a ‘modernist’ ring to it in the ears of some Sydney synodsmen in 1933. Leading graduates of Moore College under Jones were premillennial in outlook, but (most) ‘didn’t bang

176David Brown, New Testament Millennarianism: Or, the Kingdom and Coming of Christ as Taught by Himself and His Apostles, 7th ed (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882 [1846]), xvi and 468 pages.

177Henry Wace, Prophecy Jewish and Christian: Considered in a Series of Warburton Lectures at Lincoln’s Inn (London: John Murray, 1911), 127, 183-4, 188-9.

178In Moore College Library.

179JW Hunkin, Ch VIII. ‘The Kingdom of God’, in Members of the Church of England, Liberal Evangelicalism: An Interpretation (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1923).

117 the drum.’180 They did not make it a cause of division among Evangelicals, which is what Moule had counselled.

Keswick Holiness ‘The Victorian frame of mind’ included a surge of moral earnestness in society.181 This manifested itself within all three major parties of the Church of England – High Church (in its Tractarian form), Broad Church, and Evangelical. Amongst Evangelicals it took the form of an emphasis on holiness of life. David Bebbington has said that ‘Holiness was intimately bound up with the spirit of the age,’ and that the new teaching found fertile soil in Romanticism and was in turn influenced by it.182 Instructed Evangelical believers within the Church of England like Jones knew well that the Thirty-nine Articles spoke of an abiding inborn inclination to evil in the believer, and condemned any claim to a sinless life. The Articles also stated that justification by faith alone was not by a faith that was alone.183 They prayed each

180DWB Robinson, Interview with JA McIntosh.

181Walter E Houghton, The Victorian Frame of Mind (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969 [1957]), Ch 10. ‘Earnestness’.

182David Bebbington, Holiness in Nineteenth Century England (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2000), 5, 78-86.

183Articles IX. ‘Of Original or Birth-sin’, XV. ‘Of Christ alone without Sin’, and XVI. ‘Of Sin after

118 Sunday both for God’s forgiveness and his enablement to ‘live a godly, righteous and sober life’. They were exhorted to beseech God for ‘true repentance, and his Holy Spirit’ for a ‘pure, and holy’ life pleasing to God.184 The best historian of Evangelicalism (in DJ Davies’s view), GR Balleine, thought that the need for teaching on holiness arose in response to dissatisfaction felt at the quality of Christian life evident in many of the new converts of the Moody-Sankey campaign of the mid-1870s.185 But earlier, and possibly as important for Nathaniel Jones as Keswick might have been, was the work of William Pennefather (1816-1873). He was educated at Trinity College Dublin, was of premillennial conviction, and was concerned for the poor. Already in 1856 in his parish of Barnet near London, he had instituted a non-denominational conference for the purpose of promoting ‘personal holiness, brotherly love, and increased interest in the work of the Lord’. It moved with him to Mildmay (also near London) in 1863, and continued

Baptism’, XI. ‘Of the Justification of Man’, and XII. ‘Of Good Works’.

184‘The General Confession’ in Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer, The Book of Common Prayer.

185GR Balleine, History of the Evangelical Party, 237.

119 into the twentieth century.186 Nathaniel Jones’s wife was a Mildmay trained deaconess-nurse. Between 1859 and 1874 the American New School Presbyterian, WE Boardman’s The Higher Christian Life,187 sold sixty thousand copies in England (from one publisher) before 1874.188 According to Warfield it contended that ‘full salvation’ was received by ‘full trust’ in Jesus our ‘full Saviour’ by ‘two distinct acts of faith.’189 Two other Americans, Mr and Mrs Robert Pearsall Smith, who preached a similar formula for moral victory, were in England in 1874-75.190 A convention in September 1874 in Oxford was attended by about a thousand, including ‘a large number of Evangelical clergy’,191 among whom was Canon Harford-Battersby, formerly a Tractarian. For him the address by the Evangelical, Evan Hopkins (1837-1919) was decisive

186M Smith, sv ‘Pennefather, William (1816-1873)’ in BDE.

187WE Boardman, The Higher Christian Life (London: Sampson Low, 1859).

188BB Warfield, ‘The “Higher Life” Movement’, PTR 16 (1918), 572-622, and PTR 17 (1919), 37-86, republished in Perfectionism, ed Samuel G Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1958), Ch V. ‘The “Higher Life” Movement’, citing at fn30 (p 226) Mrs William Edwin Boardman, The Life and Labours of the Rev. W.E. Boardman (New York: D Appleton, 1887), 104-105.

189Warfield, Perfectionism, 227.

190Balleine, History of the Evangelical Party, 238; Bebbington, Dominance of Evangelicalism, 194-95.

191Balleine, History of the Evangelical Party, 238.

120 for the future. He returned to his parish of Keswick in the Lake District to begin in 1875 the ‘Keswick Convention’. At the meetings at Brighton of June 1875, addressed by the Pearsall Smiths, the future German missions thinker and historian, Gustav Warneck, professed finding ‘freedom’ and ‘true joy in Christ’.192 The new ‘holiness by faith’ of Keswick was definitively expounded by Evan Henry Hopkins in his The Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life.193 It emphasised a ‘crisis’, a step of faith in Christ for the power of his imparted life, to enable the believer to refrain from sin. It was a permanent enhancement of Christian life, needing to be maintained, however, by a process of moment by moment trust in Christ. It was a second, distinct step, additional to one’s initial turning to Christ for forgiveness.194 ‘Keswick’ was initially led by Evangelicals (Anglican), but later leaders included Nonconformists, especially

192Hans Kasdorf, ‘Gustav Warneck 1834-1910: Founder of the Scholarly Study of Missions’, in Gerald H Anderson et al (ed), Mission Legacies: Biographical Studies of Leaders of the Modern Missionary Movement. American Society of Missiology Series No 19 (Mary Knoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1994), 375 .

193Evan H Hopkins, The Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life (London: Marshall Bros, 1884).

194Alexander Smellie, with Introductory Chapter by HCG Moule, Evan Henry Hopkins: A Memoir (London: Marshall Bros, [1920]), Ch VII. ‘What He Taught’.

121 Baptists.195 By the early years of the twentieth century it drew six thousand annually. JC Ryle thought its particular emphases were (in JI Packer’s summarising words) ‘unbalanced, shallow, unrealistic and dangerous to spiritual well-being.’196 Ryle had nevertheless long been deeply convinced that practical holiness and entire self- consecration to God are not sufficiently attended to by modern Christians in this country.197

At first ‘most orthodox Evangelical clergy’ also regarded the teaching with suspicion.198 Handley CG Moule reviewed Hopkins’s book negatively for the Record. But after meeting and hearing him Moule expressed his deep satisfaction. It was Hopkins’s convincing disavowal of perfectionism, his challenge of self-surrender to Christ, elevation of the divine promises, and balanced doctrine of the union of the believer with Christ that persuaded him.199 Moule told

195Cf Randall, Spirituality and Social Change, 63, 84.

196JI Packer, ‘Preface’ to JC Ryle, Holiness (Welwyn, Hertfordshire: Evangelical, 1985 [1979]), xi; repr of JC Ryle, Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties, and Roots (London: W Hunt & Co, 1879 [1877]).

197Ryle, Holiness, ‘Introduction’, xvii.

198Balleine, History of the Evangelical Party, 239.

199Alexander Smellie, Evan Henry Hopkins: A Memoir, with Introductory Chapter by HCG Moule (London: Marshall Bros, [1920]), 121-124.

122 Eugene Stock that ‘he had learned to trust God in prayer’, including the prayer to ‘keep us this day without sin’.200 Perhaps Ryle and Hopkins were not so far apart. Moule incorporated his new understanding into both his Outlines of Christian Doctrine and his second, expository, commentary on Romans at chapter 7.201 Modern Evangelical commentators have remained critical of that period of Keswick, even while appreciating its merits.202 But many incorporated Keswick holiness, like the premillennial hope, into their Evangelical spectrum of thought. With respect to holiness they included the young TC Hammond. The effect on Sydney Anglicanism preceded, but was then firmly set, by the mission of the Church of Ireland evangelist sent by Keswick, the Reverend George C Grubb in 1891-92. In Melbourne Hussey Burgh Macartney Jr was vicar of St Mary’s Caulfield (Melbourne), 1868-98. Influenced by

200Smellie, Evan Henry Hopkins, 122-123, and Moule’s ‘Introduction:– Some Recollections’, 9-15.

201HCG Moule, The Epistle of St Paul to the Romans. The Expositor’s Bible (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1894 [9th ed 1907]); cf HCG Moule, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: With Introduction and Notes. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: University Press, 1879).

202John Murray, review of Steven Barabas, So Great Salvation: The History and Message of the Keswick Convention (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H Revell Company, nd [c 1952]) in Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1992), IV:281-5; JI Packer, ‘Preface’ to Ryle, Holiness (1979); JI Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984), 148-63.

123 Christian Brethren in who had started convention movements there in January 1873, and by his reading of the Oxford and Brighton events, Macartney introduced the teaching at a conference in St Mary’s in 1874 and organised similar conventions elsewhere in Victoria.203 In 1889 an interdenominational group of ministers formed ‘The Band’, which came to include Macartney. A Day of Prayer, 3rd October 1889, led to the suggestion of a convention in Geelong, Victoria, with George Grubb as the main speaker.204 Grubb preached evangelistically in both Melbourne and Sydney, emphasising the possibility of personal holiness. There were long-term results, including the formation of a Church Missionary Association in both states. Important for this study was the effect on men who would one day be influential clergy in Sydney and its result in a Keswick-type convention (Katoomba) near Sydney, in which Principal Nathaniel Jones would play a key part in establishing. As for the (as later self-designated) Liberal Evangelicals in England, at least one of their

203Darrell Paproth, ‘Hussey Burgh Macartney Jr: Mission Enthusiast’, 8 (paper read at First Biennial TransTasman Conference at Australian National University: ‘ANZ Missionaries, At Home and Abroad’, December 2004. (Paproth references Margaret Lamb, Correspondence, June 1992), quoted by permission.

204Darrell Paproth, ‘The Deeper Life Movement in Victoria 1880-1914’ (in his Macquarie University PhD, ‘The Character of Evangelism in Colonial Melbourne’ (2012).

124 founding members, HLCV de Candole, was at first a speaker at Keswick.205 His curate, DJ Davies, however, never. Later the Liberal Evangelicals offered their own attempt ‘to think out anew . . . “the Keswick message” in the light of scientific facts and in terms of modern psychology’.206 Principal TC Hammond, however, would be an important speaker at the several ‘Keswick’ conventions in Australia.

Conclusion The varying response of Evangelicals to the challenges of the century resulted in changes to the Evangelical spectrum of thought. These were at both the conservative and liberal ends. They would directly impact Moore Theological College and the Diocese of Sydney. Many among the conservative Evangelicals embraced a world-historicist premillennial eschatology, and with this many added a Keswick piety. None, except for TR Birks, applied the effects of sin on knowledge to the workings of the mind in scholarship.207 Most seemed to assume that

205Randall, Evangelical Experiences, 19-20, citing JB Figgis, Keswick from Within (1916), 160.

206Members of the Church of England, The Inner Life: essays in Liberal Evngelicalism. Second Series (London: Hodder and Stoughton, [1924]), vii-viii.

207Cf Jacob Klapwijk (et al) ed, Bringing Into Captivity Every Thought: Capita Selecta in the History of Christian Evaluations of Non-Christian Philosophy (Lanham,

125 reason and revelation were two independent sources of knowledge – that the facts of this world could be truly known for what they truly are apart from the perspective of the special revelation of Scripture. The doctrine of the authority of Scripture, for some, was the more easily affected by the new historical criticism, especially of the Old Testament, but then also of the New. Those of a liberal inclination moved away from the church doctrine of an objective atonement. Conservative Evangelicals examined the issues and refined their statements on both the atonement and Scripture. If geology and Darwinian evolution occasioned much discussion and debate, there was no movement resembling the ‘Creationism’ of recent decades. Leading Evangelical writers then were cautious in their statements, and were accepting of fresh readings of the literary nature of the first chapters of Genesis. Although affected by philosophical idealism, the Liberal Evangelicals did not, certainly not at first, compromise their doctrine of God’s transcendence. Under the influence, perhaps of Romanticism, some Evangelicals, including liberal Evangelicals, accepted a measure of the

Md: University Press of America, 1991), Ch 6. ‘John Calvin’; Roy A Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories (Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame, 1991), Ch 6. ‘The Idea of Religious Control’.

126 ritualists’ agenda. Others, like Davies of Moore College, firmly resisted it.

127 Chapter 3 MOORE THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE 1856-1953

Frederic Barker (1808-1882), the second Bishop of Sydney (1855-1882), founded Moore College in 1856 to be an institution of the Evangelical school of thought and churchmanship to train clergy for his diocese. From the very beginning the bishop virtually had the controlling say in the selection of the principal, for he must license him. Each principal therefore would reflect the particular bishop’s preference (or intention!) with regard to churchmanship. All three of Bishop Barker’s appointees were Evangelicals much like himself. As the spectrum of Evangelicalism represented by successive bishops shifted with the bishop or archbishop, so did that of the principals appointed. Beginning with Barker, all the Sydney diocesans except Barker’s immediate successor were Evangelicals, and have been since. The exception was Bishop Alfred Barry, the last Crown appointee (1882-1889), ‘a Low Churchman of liberal opinions, speculative but orthodox’.1 The new principal who came in 1885, however, turned out to be a covert Tractarian ritualist, and had to go once this came to light. The Synod elected the next bishop, William Saumarez Smith (1889-1911), a centrist

1Kenneth Cable, sv ‘Barry, Alfred (1826-1910)’, ADB, Vol 3.

129 Evangelical. He appointed first an old school High Churchman (1891), then Nathaniel Jones (1897- 1911), the first of the three subjects of this study. Jones, DJ Davies and TC Hammond together represented both the extension and the broadening of the Evangelical spectrum recorded in the previous chapter. The principal of the College, as its stringent finances permitted, could seek the help of other clergy qualified to teach particular subjects. The average student enrolment in the College until mid-way through Hammond’s time was usually no more than thirty, and often much less. The principal would sometimes have a vice-principal to assist him, sometimes not. The principal was responsible to the trustees, who met twice yearly. At least from Jones’s time (1897), the principal reported annually to the Sydney Diocesan Synod. In 1919 a Committee was constituted by Synod to manage and control the College, thus reducing the Principal’s independence. It consisted of the three trustees (who included Archbishop Wright) and the principal – all four ex officio – five clergymen and five laymen elected by the Standing Committee on behalf of the Synod, plus a clergyman and a layman appointed by the archbishop.2 What of the College’s effect on a student’s doctrinal views and liturgical practice? One

2Sydney Diocesan Directory (1920), 447.

130 cannot take for granted that every individual graduate of the College had begun, finished or afterwards continued holding convictions like those of his principal. Some enrolled with views already set, whether Evangelical or other. Not all were either wholly or permanently convinced by the teaching at the College. On the other hand, the evidence will show that the principals did have much influence on many if not most of the students.

The Diocese of Sydney to 1897: Evangelical and other traditions When the recently consecrated Bishop Barker arrived in Sydney, he had come to a place where the first chaplains to the new penal colony – its garrison, convicts and free settlers – had been Yorkshire Evangelicals. They were appointed through the influence of William Wilberforce. The first chaplain, the Reverend Richard Johnson (BA Cantab, 1784), was an Evangelical who had possibly come under the influence of the mild Calvinism of Charles Simeon (Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge, and Vicar of Holy Trinity Church, 1782- 1836). He came to Sydney with the , in 1788. The second chaplain, Samuel Marsden (1765- 1838), was a student at Cambridge but left before graduating in order to join Johnson in 1793. He used Simeon’s sermon outlines in his long

131 ministry.3 The chaplains in the colony were under the authority of the Governor. A third chaplain, William Cowper, also an Evangelical from the north of England, responded to Marsden’s appeal (when on leave in England 1806-1809), and came to Sydney in 1809, as a chaplain and the incumbent of St Philip’s Church, Sydney.4 His son, William Macquarie Cowper (1810- 1902), was born in Sydney and studied at Oxford (BA 1835). He became a significant and long- serving Evangelical figure in the Diocese, and for Moore College. He was the acting principal in its first six months. In 1825 episcopal supervision of the whole of Australia was placed under the distant bishop of Calcutta, Heber, who died in 1826 and was followed by Daniel Wilson. Both were Evangelicals. Archdeacon in Sydney since 1829, William Grant Broughton was a High Churchman, a crown appointment, he was consecrated bishop of Australia in 1836. The initial Church of England impulse in Sydney, in Australia, had been

3Charles Simeon (1759-1836), Horae Homileticae, 20 vols 1796-1833 (BDE, sv ‘Simeon, Charles’).

4Peter Bolt, William Cowper (1778-1858): The Indispensable Parson: The Life and Influence of Australia's First Parish Clergyman (Camperdown, NSW: Bolt Publishing, 2009).

132 Evangelical,5 but things could change at imperial whim.

The first Bishop and Theological Education Being sympathetic with the new Tractarian movement in England, Broughton added to Sydney that new element to the High Church impulse, especially in the city parishes. During his episcopate the Diocese of Australia was divided (1847) into four new sees: Newcastle, under the High Churchman, William Tyrrell; Melbourne (and all Victoria), under the Evangelical, Charles Perry; Adelaide (and all South Australia), under the Tractarian-leaning High Churchman, Augustus Short, and Sydney, under Broughton. He established the first Anglican theological institution in Australia, St James’ College, Sydney. It opened in 1845, and reflected the bishop’s doctrinal predilections, but after 1848 it fades from the records.6 A permanent place of theological instruction in the Diocese would be founded almost a decade later.

5See Stuart Piggin, Ch 1. ‘Going into All the World’ of his Spirit of a Nation (Sydney: Strand Publishing, 2004; 2nd ed of Evangelical Christianity in Australia. Melbourne: Oxford University, 1996).

6Loane, Centenary History, 13.

133 The Second Bishop, Frederic Barker (1855- 1882), and Moore College 1856-1884. The appointment of Frederic Barker would prove decisive both for the future of the Diocese and the character of theological education within it. Barker graduated from Jesus College, Cambridge, in 1831 without academic distinction, but having come under the influence of the Evangelicals associated with Charles Simeon in his last years. From the first Barker faced a shortage of clergy, and needed to supplement those he could recruit from England and Ireland and the few that went back from Australia to Oxford or Cambridge and returned. The University of Sydney (established 1850, inaugurated 1852) permitted no education in theological subjects. Barker followed recently established English precedent for training non-university graduates and quickly established Moore College on the generous property bequest left by Thomas Moore. This was at the township of Liverpool, some twenty-five miles or forty kilometres south-west of Sydney. The estate and will of the English settler, Thomas Moore (1762-1840), made it possible.7 The three trustees of the estate (who might include the diocesan bishop) were the ‘governing board’ of the College.

7Marcus L Loane, A Centenary History of Moore Theological College (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1955), 7- 10, 16-19; Peter G Bolt, Thomas Moore of Liverpool: One of our Oldest Colonists: Essays and Addresses to Celebrate 150 years of Moore College (Camperdown, NSW: Bolt Publishing, 2007), 1-6, 105-114.

134 A model was ready to hand – St Aidan’s College, Birkenhead (across the Mersey from Liverpool), founded in 1847,8 of which Barker had been a visitor. In 1854 the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, , an Evangelical, had praised the quality of St Aidan’s graduates.9 Barker invited his friend in England, the Reverend William Hodgson (1809-1869), to be founding principal. He was a graduate of College, Cambridge (1832), in the same era as Barker himself. Academically very able, at graduation he was bracketed with E Harold Browne, later Norrisian professor of divinity at Cambridge (1854), (1864), then of (1873).10 Hodgson was experienced both as a parish man and as a teacher of new clergy under him, and he shared Barker’s Evangelical convictions.11 Pending his arrival Barker appointed William Macquarie Cowper as principal pro tem. Later the younger Cowper became a trustee of the College (1877-1902), as well as being the archdeacon of

8David A Dowland, Nineteenth-century Anglican Theological Training: The Redbrick Challenge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), ch 4.

9FWB Bullock, A History of Training for the Ministry of the Church of England and Wales from 1800 to 1874 (St Leonards-on-Sea: Budd and Gillatt, 1955), 86-87.

10ODCC, sv ‘Browne, Edward Harold (1811-1891)’.

11Loane, A Centenary History, ch 2.

135 Sydney and dean of the new St Andrew’s Cathedral from 1858 until his death. Hodgson served Moore College for eleven years (1856-1867) before returning to England. At the farewell events Barker expressed unqualified satisfaction with his friend’s ministry. Hodgson affirmed that he had ‘endeavoured to guard those within the sphere of my influence alike from ritualistic innovations and from the old and oft- refuted objections of rationalistic infidelity.’12 These challenges were the same two concerns of Charles Perry in the founding of the Evangelical institutions, Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and Ridley Hall, Cambridge in the late 1870s.13 Both of the following principals that Barker appointed were, like Hodgson, Cambridge educated Evangelicals. Robert Lethbridge King (1823-1897), born at sea on his family’s voyage from Australia to visit England, graduated in mathematics (BA 1846), but also had a ‘critical knowledge of the Greek Testament, and scientific tastes’.14 He was a convinced Evangelical, with twenty years of

12Australian Churchman, 21 and 25 Dec 1867, cited in Loane, Centenary History, 32 (nn 42,43).

13A deQ Robin, Charles Perry: Bishop of Melbourne: The Challenges of a Colonial Episcopate, 1847-76 (Nedlands, Western Australia: University of Western Australia Press), 83-84; FWB Bullock, The History of Ridley Hall, Cambridge. Volume I: To the End of AD 1907 (Cambridge: CUP for the Council of Ridley Hall, 1941).

14Australian Churchman, 14 Dec, 1867, cited in Loane, Centenary History, 35 n3.

136 parish experience behind him. He was principal of the College from 1868 to 1878, then served again in Sydney parishes and as archdeacon of Cumberland.15 Arthur Lukyn Williams (1853-1943), a Hebrew scholar, budding authority on Judaism, and a New Testament commentator, came out from England and was principal from 1878 to 1884. He was the first principal of the College to have taken his degree in the new Cambridge Theology Tripos (BA 1875, with first class honours). He had been recommended by BF Westcott, Regius professor of Divinity (1870), and JB Lightfoot, Hulsean professor of Divinity (1861). Their biblical scholarship and stance towards rationalism and ritualism were perceived to be fully supportive of Evangelical concerns.16 When Lukyn Williams was at Cambridge, the learned and clear-thinking Evangelical, TR Birks, was both vicar of Holy Trinity Church and Knightbridge professor of moral philosophy (successor to FD Maurice),17 and very active in the University affairs. At that time, too, Handley CG Moule, was a fellow and the dean of Trinity College (1873-1877), later the first principal of Ridley Hall (1880-1899), then Norrisian professor of divinity, and finally . Moule and Birks represented

15ADEB, sv ‘King, Robert Lethbridge’.

16Cf Robin, Charles Perry: Bishop of Melbourne, 184.

17BDE, sv ‘Birks, Thomas Rawson’.

137 respectively the holiness and premillennial extensions to the spectrum of Evangelicalism. Lukyn Williams identified as an Evangelical, then and in his later years.18 Thus from its inception in 1856 to 1884 (when Williams returned to England), Moore College’s tradition became one of scholarly Evangelical Anglican theological instruction. The previous chapter recounted the challenges to which Evangelicals responded as adverted to by Hodgson. There were critical developments for nineteenth century Anglicanism as well as for Christianity in England more broadly: Keble’s historic Assize sermon (1833) for Cowper and Hodgson; Newman’s going over to Rome (1845) for King; Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859), and Essays and Reviews (1860), published only a decade or so before Lukyn Williams went up to Cambridge. Both Church and secular press kept the public in Australia well-informed of home events. All three early principals, Hodgson, King, and Williams, as well as William Macquarie Cowper, archdeacon and dean, were Evangelicals fully aware of the challenges. One of the last clergy Barker recruited on a visit back to England in 1882 was a firm anti- ritualist and scholarly Evangelical theologian, Mervin Archdall (1846-1917). He had graduated in

18Cf Bullock, History of Ridley Hall, Cambridge. Volume I: To the End of AD 1907, 293.

138 1870 (Corpus Christi College, Cambridge), when TR Birks was vicar of Holy Trinity Church). As well as normally reading his Bible in Hebrew and Greek, Archdall could and did read theology in several European languages. He brought with him to Sydney his new bride, Martha, daughter of a German Lutheran pastor in the Pietist tradition.19 They would complement the ministry of Nathaniel and Mrs Grace Jones. The College suffered when the stream of students from Melbourne dried up in the late 1870s, despite the best efforts of Lukyn Williams. Bishop Perry had warmly appreciated the training at Moore College under Hodgson and King, but returned to England in 1874, and there was a feeling in Melbourne against a Sydney institution.20 This was quite apart from the fact that Perry’s successor, Bishop Moorhouse, was not an Evangelical. There had never been a large enough pool of suitably educated young men in Sydney and the other New South Wales dioceses, for these alone to make the College viable financially. Williams was also disappointed in

19See ADEB, sv ‘Archdall, Martha Caroline’, and ADB, sv ‘Archdall, Mervyn’, the latter by DWA Baker, for whom see ADEB, sv ‘Baker, Donald’.

20Keith Cole, History of the Diocese of Bendigo 1902- 1976: An Anglican Diocese in Rural Victoria (Bendigo: Keith Cole Publications, 1991), 123 (from sermon by Bishop Perry).

139 his attempt to establish higher scholarly standards with the students he had.21 Nevertheless, by 1884 Moore had trained fifty ordinands for Sydney, fifty seven for Melbourne (until 1879), eight for Goulburn (separated from Sydney in 1866), nineteen for Bathurst (separated in 1872), ten for (separated from Melbourne in 1875), seven for work in the Diocese of North (inaugurated in 1870), plus a few others.22 Of course, with the creation of the new dioceses of Goulburn and Bathurst the Moore graduates in them no longer exercised a direct influence in Sydney, except the few who returned to the Diocese. Nevertheless, fully one-third of the Sydney clergy listed in 1886 had been trained at Moore College.23 Not all graduates of the College, of course, were Evangelicals, whether in Sydney or other dioceses.

Sectarianism Did this training include an anti-Roman Catholic emphasis? Barker had come to a city and environs likewise containing a considerable proportion of Roman Catholics. In Australia this was largely a product of the transportation of

21Loane, Centenary History, ch 4.

22Loane, Centenary History, 180-184 (years, names and dioceses of ordination).

23The Sydney Diocesan Directory for the Year of Our Lord 1886 (Sydney: Joseph Cook, 1886).

140 Irish convicts, to whom, until 1820, a Roman Catholic priest had been denied. Barker had had previous experience of Irish Catholicism, both direct and indirect. His grandfather, an Englishman, had served in the Church of Ireland as dean of Raphoe. Barker himself had made a vigorous one-month preaching tour of Ireland in 1834 under the auspices of the Church of Ireland’s Church Mission. There were many Irish immigrants in the Liverpool area in the , where he ministered before coming to Sydney. He had published (1838) two anti-Roman Catholic sermons, reflecting both this context and the Catholic Emancipation Act (1829) as well as his commitment to the English Reformation and the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion. These he saw correctly as defining the doctrine of the Church of England over against some of the doctrines of the Council of Trent.24 Yet if Barker ‘made no secret of his opposition to the Roman Catholic Church’,25 there seems to be no evidence that such an emphasis was especially inculcated at Moore

24Grant Maple, sv ‘Barker, Frederic’ in BDE (Leicester: IVP, 2003), and in ADEB (Sydney: Evangelical History Association, 1994). See ‘On the Rise of the Errors of the Church of Rome’ and ‘The Supposed Sacrament of Penance’ in Frederic Barker, A Course of Sermons Preached in St Andrew’s Church, Liverpool by Ten Clergymen of the Church of England (London, 1838).

25Judd and Cable, Sydney Anglicans, 70.

141 College then or later, not even under the Irish principal, TC Hammond (1936-1953).26 There was in the Colony, as in England, much sectarian feeling. This was to be expected if one keeps in mind the large presence of Irish Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church in Sydney. On the other hand, in the early years of Barker’s episcopate, The Sydney Morning Herald, a politically liberal Sydney broadsheet with a large circulation, was unequivocally opposed in principle to church establishment as such and to state-aid to churches. Its editorial policy was anti-sectarian, while giving considerable space to religious issues.27 In their study of the Thirty- nine Articles of Religion, of course, the students in Bishop Barker’s day would have at least noticed their references to Roman Catholic doctrine.

A Broad Church Bishop; a crypto-Tractarian Principal The close connection between the nature of the College’s instruction and the theological and liturgical intentions of the diocesan bishop

26Pace Benjamin Edwards, Wasps, Tykes and Ecumaniacs: Aspects of Australian Sectarianism 1945-1981 (Brunswick East, Victoria: Acorn, 2008), and see below chapters on Hammond.

27Stuart Buchanan Johnson, ‘The Shaping of Colonial Liberalism: John Fairfax and the Sydney Morning Herald, 1841-1877’ (University of New South Wales PhD thesis, 2006), Ch 3. ‘The Editorial Stance of the Herald: State- Aid to Churches; Roman Catholicism; Education; Proposed Temperance and Sabbath Observance Legislation.’

142 continued under Alfred Barry (1826-1910). He had been principal of King’s College, London and was succeeded there by Henry Wace. He remained in Sydney for only five years (1884-1889). In 1885 Barry announced a plan to move the College from the country to Newtown, adjacent to St Paul’s College (established 1854), which was within the University of Sydney. The move was not fully accomplished until after the bishop had resigned and returned to England early in May 1889. To replace Lukyn Williams, Barry had sought through his commissary in England someone ‘of the school of Lightfoot or Westcott who would refuse to identify himself with either [High or ] party’.28 But Thomas Ernest Hill (1853-1923), turned out to be a ritualist, which was hardly acceptable in the Diocese as a whole or to Bishop Barry. Hill, having begun in September 1885, left in mid-1888. Of the ‘thirteen students altogether [who] came under his teaching’, only four became clergy in the diocese.29

A Second Evangelical Bishop; a High Church Principal Bishop (Archbishop from 1897) William Saumarez Smith, arrived in Sydney in September 1890. He was a cultured Cambridge Evangelical with a

28Loane, Centenary History, 68, citing ‘Trustees Minute Book No. 2’, p 256.

29Loane, Centenary History, 70-71.

143 distinguished academic record (BA 1858, 1st class in the Classical Tripos, and in the theological examination 1859, BD 1872, and DD 1889). He had just completed some twenty years as the successful second principal (1869-1889) of St Aidan’s College, Birkenhead, earlier so well known to Barker. He was ‘clearly evangelical,30 but showed signs of adjustment to the new Cambridge theology of Lightfoot and Westcott,’ meaning the acceptance in principle of a degree (so the present writer would qualify) of ‘reverent higher criticism’.31 In addition, certain matters of doctrinal controversy, such as the effectualness of baptism, which the Gorham case had resolved in strict Evangelical favour (as Mervyn Archdall would have insisted), were apparently not essential in his mind. Unlike Bishop JC Ryle of Liverpool, or even Charles Simeon of earlier Cambridge, he seems to have embodied an attenuation among Evangelicals of those Reformation emphases sometimes characterised as ‘Calvinism’. This variation in the spectrum of Evangelicalism might be said to have been a kind of ‘mere Christianity’, which in doctrine was conservative but attenuated, and more open to the Arminianising trend that was evident in the Record

30See W Saumarez Smith, The Blood of the New Covenant: A Theological Essay (Cambridge: Macmillan and Bowes, 1889).

31GR Treloar, sv ‘Smith, William Saumarez’, in ADEB.

144 of the time.32 Not that Saumarez Smith was any the less opposed to Roman Catholicism – in part due to the teaching of the Thirty-nine Articles, in part, possibly, to his experience of Irish Catholicism in the Liverpool region. Possibly thinking as a clergyman of the Church of England ‘established by law’ (though not in Australia!), he insisted on his precedence as Primate of the Church of England in Australia over the Roman Catholic archbishop of Sydney at the Federation of Australia Celebrations in 1901. (Cardinal Moran consequently declined to be present.)33 But what were Saumarez Smith’s considerations when he chose the young (b 1859) Bernard Schleicher in 1891, a High Churchman, to be principal of Moore College? Was it because Smith held a comprehensive view of the Church of England? Was it dismay over ‘disunity in his Church’,34 indeed in his Diocese? Was Bernard Schleicher an Evangelical-leaning High Churchman? Was it because Schleicher’s elderly father, John Theophilus Schleicher (1819-1892), educated in Berlin, a former SPG missionary in India (where Saumarez Smith had been in the 1860s), was

32Cf CS Lewis, Mere Christianity (1952).

33Colin Bale, ‘The Commonwealth Celebrations of 1901: Sectarianism and the Symbolic Unity of Federation’, Lucas 27 & 28 (June & December 2000), 90-107.

34Kenneth Cable, sv ‘Smith, William Saumarez (1836- 1909)’, ADB, Vol 11.

145 formerly an incumbent in Sydney, now retired?35 Was it also because the younger Schleicher could be re-united with his elderly parents (and his sister – a deaconess in the Diocese)? And was his tuberculosis and short life-expectancy (d 1897) already known? Whatever the answer, Saumarez Smith reopened the College in 1891 with the appointment of ‘a High Churchman of the old school, one who held and taught the doctrine of baptismal regeneration’.36 He was distinguished academically – in Hebrew and Aramaic, and learnedly opposed, like EB Pusey, to negative Old Testament criticism.37 He was also ‘a man of great charm and gentleness . . . [whose] personal character could not fail to endear him to all his students’.38 Bishop Saumarez Smith imposed the educational requirement on students that they should have attained university matriculation level. Schleicher permitted them to enter as probationers until they achieved that standard. Soon his illness grew worse. He could not teach at all in the first term of the academic year 1896-97. He

35Sv ‘Schleicher, Theophilus John’, Crockford’s Clerical Directory, 1885.

36Loane, Centenary History, 92.

37Rev BA Schleicher, ‘The Results of Recent Criticism on the Old Testament’, The Official Report of the Church Congress: Held at on January 23rd, 24th, 25th, and 26 th, 1894 (Tasmania: Diocesan Book Depot, 1894), 18- 19.

38Loane, Centenary History, 92.

146 resumed only for the Michaelmas term, and died in February 1897. Several Sydney clergy, none graduates of Moore, helped with lectures to finish the Lent term.39 The College had collapsed again. Of the students of 1891-1897, twelve were ordained for Sydney, three for Bathurst, and one each for Goulburn and Grafton-and-Armidale.

Conclusion on the College to 1897 Following upon its first three decades, the College under Bishop Barry was turned away from the Evangelical tradition established by William Hodgson, Robert Lethbridge King, and Lukyn Williams. It remained less seriously so turned in the endearing person of Bernard Schleicher (1891- 1897). By then a majority of Sydney clergy were still not trained at Moore College. It had, however, contributed widely – to Sydney, Melbourne, Ballarat, Bathurst, and Goulburn dioceses – and a few to others.40 Though most graduates would have been Evangelicals, we may be certain that ‘old school High Church’ students also would have been welcome at the College during both Alfred Barry and William Saumarez Smith’s episcopates. We do not know of Barker’s policy in this matter.

39Loane, Centenary History, Ch 7. ‘Bernard Schleicher 1891-1897’, and Ch 8. ‘Nathaniel Jones 1897-1911’.

40See Loane, Centenary History, 180-84.

147 With regard to the clergy in Sydney, we must assume that both the High Church and the Tractarian elements in the Diocese were now strengthened as the end of the century drew near. The historian cannot confidently estimate the profile of the lay members of Sydney’s synod. Some at least, like the majority of the clergy, would have come from England, Ireland and a few, from Wales, bringing their convictions and churchmanship preferences with them.

The Diocese and Moore College 1897-1953 Moore College would continue to go through theological changes, from now on Evangelical changes, pari passu with the Evangelicalism of each archbishop. Saumarez Smith’s next choice would be an Evangelical, and one of those in the extended later nineteenth century Evangelical spectrum. He would be a premillennialist (like the Earl of Shaftesbury and Bishop JC Ryle). He would also, like Handley CG Moule, be one who accepted Keswick holiness teaching – one moreover, ‘who had turned [it] into daily life and habit.’41

Saumarez Smith’s second appointee (1897), an Evangelical Principal Now an archbishop (title granted from Lambeth in 1897), Saumarez Smith needed again to revive the College. He appointed a principal much more

41Loane, Centenary History, 99.

148 in sympathy with Bishop Barker’s intention, Nathaniel Jones. As with his choice of Schleicher, several possible motives present themselves: a large Evangelical body of both laity and clergy in his flock may not have been pleased with another High Churchman; the stalwart Evangelical, William Macquarie Cowper, was not only his archdeacon of Sydney and dean of the Cathedral, but also a long-serving trustee of the Moore estate, and therefore of the College; the strong anti-ritualist Evangelical, Mervyn Archdall was at the height of his powers and influence in the Diocese. There was also the impact of the Keswick-inspired George Grubb mission of 1891-92, both in Melbourne, where it was particularly great,42 and in Sydney, where it touched the person of the archbishop himself. According to Cable, Saumarez Smith was an Evangelical ‘recently imbued with a deep sense of interior piety and spiritual perfectionism’ (if ‘perfectionism’ be the correct term) ‘of the “Keswick” movement.’43 Nathaniel Jones had graduated from Oxford with first class honours in theology (1886) at the time of theological transition from The Origin of

42Stephen Judd and Kenneth Cable, Sydney Anglicans: A History of the Diocese (Sydney: Anglican Information Office, 2000), 150-152; Stuart Piggin, Spirit of a Nation: The Story of Australia’s Christian Heritage (Sydney: Strand Publishing, 2004), 57-58.

43KJ Cable, sv ‘Smith, William Saumarez (1835-1909)’ ADB Vol 11, 675-677.

149 Species (1859) and Essays and Reviews (1860) to Lux Mundi (1889). The negative criticism of the Old Testament was being felt. Jones was the second principal with an Oxford degree, and the second (after Lukyn Williams) with his degree in theology as such. By 1897 he had had some eleven years altogether of parish experience in Victoria, much of it combined with teaching stipendiary lay- readers in preparation for their ordination. He had published regular pieces in The Victorian Churchman, and had been supportive of the Norman Grubb mission of 1891-92. It is hard to imagine that Bishop Goe of Melbourne did not talk about a clergyman of Jones’s qualities when meeting with his fellow Evangelical Bishop Saumarez Smith at annual episcopal meetings. Jones also had close friendship connections in Sydney and in Melbourne. He was well-known in Evangelical circles of both places as a shining Christian personality. Jones was to begin a new era in the influence of Moore College principals on Sydney and beyond by restoring the College more or less to Barker’s vision. ‘More or less’, because although doctrinally a definite and firm Evangelical, he belonged to an extension of the older Evangelical spectrum just described. Like his new archbishop, who seems to have exemplified some dilution of the English Reformation theology, Jones was uncertain at one point. Nevertheless, more important for him than for Saumarez Smith were his firm

150 doctrinal faithfulnes to the Articles and strictly lawful liturgical practice. Like Smith, Jones was a strong supporter of home and foreign missions. With regard to the College, he always found his archbishop, who had been the virtual re-founder of St Aidan’s College, Birkenhead, a source of valuable advice.44 When Saumarez Smith died in April 1909, Moore College had been rejuvenated under Jones. In numbers of students it had enjoyed twelve mostly good years, though always burdened financially. Some of those trained under Jones were to play leading roles in the Diocese, critically in the election of the conservative Evangelical, Howard Mowll, as Archbishop of Sydney in 1933. Even Jones’s very last years, 1910-1911, were to produce some Evangelical clergy whose presence in the Diocese would be of great assistance to Archbishop Mowll.

A Liberal Evangelical Bishop and his appointee Meanwhile, however, through the astute campaigning of Canon Francis Bertie Boyce, a Moore College graduate from the last year of Hodgson and the first of King, the Synod elected one from the liberalising or broadened spectrum of Evangelicals to be archbishop of Sydney in 1909. Nathaniel Jones’ nominee was defeated. He was the more

44Loane, Centenary History, 111, citing Proceedings of Synod of Diocese of Sydney, 1909.

151 theologically minded and more conservative Evangelical, WH Griffith Thomas, principal of Wycliffe Hall. Wright was known to include social concern in his outlook. Bishops and clergy of Sydney before had expressed themselves on socio- political issues, notably Bishop Barry and Archbishop Saumarez Smith. But Bertie Boyce perhaps exceeded them all in zeal, and in 1909 was determined that a new archbishop be not only an Evangelical but also a supporter of the concerns of Boyce’s social conscience.45 John Charles Wright (BA with 2nd class honours in history, Oxford, 1884), had been tutored by EA Knox at Merton College. Since ordination he had served under Knox, now , and had become an archdeacon. He was determined to follow Knox’s example of standing firm against illegal ritual practices, of being a strict constitutionalist. In doctrine he was more comprehensive in outlook. The new archbishop had also been the first chairman (1907) of the newly organised Group Brotherhood mentioned in the previous chapter. These were men of a new liberal broadening of the Evangelical spectrum, looking for a fresh, as yet undefined, approach to the

45[FB Boyce], Fourscore Years and Seven: Memoirs of Archdeacon Boyce, for over Sixty Years a Clergyman of the Church of England in New South Wales ([Sydney]: Angus and Robertson, 1934).

152 issues of the day.46 Wright himself was determined to bring in support for addressing the social problem (sic) in Sydney, as well as men who were at least open to theologically liberal perspectives. Wright’s first presidential address to Synod (December 1909) was his position statement. He was explicitly inclusivist of all major schools – High (not excluding Tractarian), Broad, and of course, Evangelical. Clearly informed of the tensions in Sydney (so lamented by Saumarez Smith), he encouraged synodsmen to look for ‘the possibility of deep spiritual unity beneath the diversity of theological standpoint’, and declared it ‘a sin . . . for any man to utter or even think suspicion of those who differ from himself.’47 Was he alluding to the rector of St Mary’s, Balmain, Mervyn Archdall and his stringent critique of the bishops controlling the Australian College of Theology?48 Jones, together with other like-minded Evangelical members of Synod, must have perceived

46Leonard Elliott-Binns, The Evangelical Movement in the English Church (London: Methuen, 1928), 69.

47[John Charles Wright], ‘Presidential Address’ in ‘Proceedings fo the First Session of the Fifteenth Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, NSW, Dec 6th-Dec 10th, 1909’, Sydney Synod Reports (Sydney: William Andrews, 1910), 36.

48Mervyn Archdall, Liturgical Right and National Wrong: A Vindication of the Rights of the Church: And a Criticism of Wakeman’s History and other Books approved by the Fellows of the “Australian School (sic) of Theology” (London: Church Association, 1900).

153 a mere rump of the gospel they believed in Wright’s declaration of his Evangelicalism: [T]he great principles of the [Evangelical] school [are]: the direct right of approach to God possessed by the individual soul, the supremacy of Holy Scripture, and the right of private judgement.49

Compared with that of the late JC Ryle of Liverpool, this was a bare and minimalist statement, without doubt deliberately so framed. It lacked any crucicentric or conversionist note, to say the least.50 When Jones died (June 1911) Wright set about bringing two young Liberal Evangelical (self- designated thus) graduates of Cambridge to the two key positions in the Diocese of Sydney. David John Davies (BA 1904, History) began as principal of Moore College in November 1911. Albert (BA 1904, Theology) came to St Andrew’s Cathedral as dean in the middle of 1912, only the second dean in its history. Davies was an early member of the Group Brotherhood, as also was Talbot.51 Both men had a concern for social issues. In matters of doctrine, Davies had

49[Wright], ‘Presidential Address’, ‘First Session of the Fifteenth Synod, 1909’.

50See Elisabeth Jay, Faith and Doubt in Victorian Britain (London: Macmillan Education Ltd, 1986), 13-15, quoting JC Ryle, Evangelical Religion: What It Is, and What It Is Not (1867), 10-13.

51Stephen Judd, sv ‘Talbot, Albert Edward’ in ADEB.

154 accepted in principle the modern approach to authority, Scripture and the atonement. Under him the College shifted to the new liberal theological part of the Evangelical spectrum, but remained uncompromising, like Wright in its stance toward Anglo-Catholic ritual. Unwittingly, perhaps, Wright had set Davies a hard task, theologically and otherwise. Part of his difficulty would be the rising influence in the diocese of some of Jones’s very able former students. Three of the five clergy that the standing committee of synod elected to the Moore College Committee in 1919 were graduates of the College under Jones and at least two of the lay members were similarly disposed laymen.52 By that time their conservative stance had probably been consolidated after Jones’s death by their association with two other Evangelicals, both learned and conservative. The Evangelical Irish theologian, Everard Digges La Touche, had been in Sydney from 1912 to 1915, and Mervyn Archdall, a friend of Jones, had lived in retirement in suburban Sydney from 1913 until his death in 1917. By 1933 the representation of Jones graduates and like-minded Evangelical laymen on the College Committee was even stronger.53 Another part of

52The Sydney Diocesan Directory for 1920, 447.

53The Sydney Diocesan Directory for 1934, 276.

155 Davies’s difficulty were the chronic financial straits of the College. Like that of two former principals, Williams and Jones, Davies’s tenure would overlap the time of his next archbishop by two years. Some one hundred and sixty students of the College in his twenty-four years were ordained in Sydney, including a number of traditional Evangelicals, some of whom continued the premillennial and holiness teaching, held also by Jones. Towards the end of his life, Wright was perhaps more interested in ensuring the continuance of the centre of the Evangelical spectrum in his diocese. Otherwise he had represented a concern for unity similar to but broader than that of Saumarez Smith in the disparate, even fissiparous, Church of England in Australia, and within his own diocese. The tension within the Evangelicalism spectrum as between the majority of the College committee and Davies did not prevent it from granting him leave of absence in 1920-21. He had just been awarded the coveted Cambridge BD, but there was already some concern for his health. Again in February 1934 they granted him leave, for two terms, his health being now in serious decline. Their other decision at the same meeting is puzzling and seems a great pity. In 1927 they had consented to Mrs Davies being employed to tutor first-year students in English and History (and

156 she had lectured gratis in Church History for some years). Now they thought it ‘not in the best interest of the College that any Lady should conduct lectures or teaching in connection with Moore College’.54 The reason is not known. What is known is that ‘the Diocese was split from top to bottom over questions of Modernism. All this lay behind the attitude of the College Committee.’55 It was nearly twelve months since Mowll had been elected, and he was about to arrive in Sydney.

A Bp Barker Redivivus? Howard West Kilvinton Mowll With the election of a new archbishop in April 1933, following Wright’s death in the February, another new era in the Evangelical tradition in the history of the Diocese of Sydney and of its theological college was about to open. Howard West Kilvinton Mowll (1890-1958) was a characteristic conservative Evangelical of his day.56 He resembled Frederic Barker both in tallness of body and conviction of mind, only his Evangelicalism was touched like that of Jones, by Keswick holiness teaching. It was also honed by

54Loane, Centenary History, 133, (citing Committee Minute Book, No 2, 76).

55Marcus Loane, letter to the writer, dated March 1994.

56David Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Unwin Hyman, 1988; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 2-4.

157 his experience of liberalism. Coincidentally, also like Barker, he would preside over the appointment of three principals of Moore College. He was like John Charles Wright in two respects: his degree was in history (BA 1912), but from Cambridge. Mowll was also like Wright in having a close association with Bishop EA Knox, who had suggested Mowll’s name (along with two others) for Sydney in 1933. Mowll remained in correspondence with Knox until the latter’s death in 1937.57 At Cambridge Mowll had heard the lectures of some of the same divinity professors as Principal Davies (Swete and Gwatkin), and like him had spent a year at Ridley Hall, but under Arthur J Tait. Tait was one of the new Group Brotherhood of Liberal Evangelicals.58 But Mowll was unlike both Wright and Davies in the one critical respect – his place in the spectrum of Evangelicalism. ‘It was in the CICCU that his theology took shape.’59 Most important was his experience of the CICCU’s disaffiliation in 1910 from the Student Christian Movement, which had moved in principle onto a theologically

57Marcus L Loane, Archbishop Mowll: The Biography of Howard West Kilvinton Mowll Archbishop of Sydney and Primate of Australia (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960), 140; Marcus L Loane, Makers of Our Heritage: A Study of Four Evangelical Leaders London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1967), 140.

58Loane, Archbishop Mowll, 41-42.

59Loane, Archbishop Mowll, 60.

158 liberal footing. CICCU’s decision had hinged on the doctrine of the inspiration and authority of Scripture.60 In marked contrast with Wright’s statement to Synod in 1909, also, was Mowll’s public announcement of his Evangelical stance in 1934. Immediately following his induction as Archbishop of Sydney, He . . . affirmed with great simplicity his desire to uphold the doctrine of Justification by Faith only. It was as if Sydney Churchmen might know that here was a Bishop who would take up his stand on the divine authority of the Scriptures alone.61

His biographer also records: ‘[Mowll’s] declared aim was to leave the diocese more evangelical than he found it’, and that he had Barker’s main achievements as his own goal.62 We can be confident that the historian in Mowll ensured that he read the history of Barker’s episcopate.63 Stuart Babbage (1914-2012), the Dean of St Andrew’s Cathedral from 1947 to 1952, remembered that Mowll personally stressed to him (ie, to

60Loane, Archbishop Mowll, ch 2; and see JC Pollock, A Cambridge Movement (London: John Murray,1953), chs XIII and XIV.

61Loane, Archbishop Mowll, 133.

62Loane, Archbishop Loane, 133.

63WM Cowper, The Episcopate of the Right Reverend Frederic Barker, DD: A Memoir (London: Sn, 1888).

159 Babbage) that he (ie, Mowll) was ‘a conservative Evangelical’.64 On Principal Davies’s death in June 1935, Archbishop Mowll was persuaded by the other two trustees (Bp Kirkby and Mr HL Tress) to invite Thomas Chatterton Hammond to be the next principal. Before he was invited, Marcus L Loane, a graduate of Moore College under Davies in 1933, was made resident tutor and chaplain (doubtless Mowll’s decision) in 1935, in Davies’s last months. Loane had close ties with DJ Knox, an admirer of Nathaniel Jones, under whom he had trained. Loane was to continue on as resident tutor under Hammond until 1938, when he married Patricia, a daughter of DJ Knox. He became the College’s vice-principal from 1939 until Hammond’s retirement, then principal from 1953 to 1958. Hammond took up the reins as principal in April 1936. With the strong support of Archbishop Mowll the College began to flourish again. Men of the Jones tradition, who by 1933 entirely dominated the College Committee, had found themselves comfortable with Hammond’s more centrist Evangelicalism with its Reformation emphasis in 1926.65 The same was true from 1936. He was neither doctrinally indifferent nor a

64Stuart Barton Babbage, Heretics Club paper, ‘Archbishop Mowll and Some Personal Reminiscences’ (privately sent to this writer, Oct 2001), emphasis original.

65See ch 11 below on Hammond.

160 liberal. They admired his great learning, and valued both his defence of the more central doctrines that they held dear and his reasoned opposition to Anglo-Catholic teaching and ritualism. When he retired in 1953 the great majority of the clergy in the Diocese of Sydney, by then some two hundred men, had been trained at Moore under Hammond.66 Fifty, even sixty years later, there were clergy still living who remembered and cherished his teaching.

66Loane, Centenary History, 152.

161 PART II. NATHANIEL JONES (1861-1911): PIETIST EVANGELICAL

‘Faithful to the Doctrine of our Church’ (Sydney Diocesan Magazine, June 11, 1911) Chapter 4 EVANGELICALISM EMBRACED – FORMATION OF A SCHOLAR-PASTOR

Introduction Nathaniel Jones’s appointment in 1897 came at a critical time in the history of both the College and the Diocese. It was a restoration to Sydney of the Evangelical tradition fostered by Barker but interrupted by the episcopate of Alfred Barry. The tradition was not at first restored to the College by William Saumarez Smith, but his appointment of Jones did so. Only it was now an Evangelicalism manifesting the addition both of an explicitly premillennial expectation of Christ’s return and of ‘the true Keswick teaching’.1 It would fit well in a Sydney impacted by the George Grubb mission of 1891- 92. Except for his premillennialism, Jones’s outlook was in fact close to that of Handley CG Moule at the time, who was representative of the Evangelical school. Only late in his life while bishop of Durham, did Moule adopt a premillennial hope.2 He

1ML Loane, A Centenary History of Moore Theological College (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1955), 98.

2HCG Moule (1841-1920), The Hope of the Near Approach of the Lord’s Return and its Influence upon Life: An Address under the Auspices of the Advent Preparation Movement at Cannon Street, London, Jan 29, 1919 (Sl: sn, 1919?); ref Crawford Gribben and Timothy CF Stunt (eds), Prisoners of

165 had earlier come to a ‘Keswick’ view of sanctification. Jones was distinctly ‘Evangelical’ in the Anglican usage of the word. Like Moule, he adhered to the theology of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and to The Book of Common Prayer (1662), both of which he understood (except, perhaps, for one of the Articles) in full accord with their historic provenance – the sixteenth century Reformation in England. Also in accord with this, he demonstrated a practical loyalty to the Church of England in Australia, while at the same time warmly embracing fellowship with other evangelicals. He exhibited an emphasis on personal piety and holiness, as also did Moule. The following is based on a fresh examination of what he wrote, both published and unpublished.3

Hope: Aspects of Evangelical Millennialism in Britain and Ireland, 1800-1880 (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 2004), 91.

3See also Marcia Cameron, ‘Moore College Under Nathaniel Jones 1897-1911’ in GR Treloar (ed), The Furtherance of Religious Beliefs: Essays on the History of Theological Education in Australia. A Special Combined edition of Lucas: An Evangelical History Review 19/20 (1995-6), 96-123.

166 Embracing Theology and Piety (to Ordination) Nathaniel Jones was born on the 1st of June, 1861, eldest son of John Jones,4 a farmer whose land was a few miles north of Oswestry (pop 4,000)5 in Shropshire, a few miles east of the mountains of north Wales. Unlike his near contemporary fellow ‘Shropshire lad’, AE Housman (1859-1936), the young Nathaniel came to a clear faith in Christ, possibly not long after DL Moody’s evangelistic campaign of 1873-74. The Reverend Frederick Cashel, educated at Trinity College Dublin, was the incumbent of Holy Trinity Church, the second of two parishes in Oswestry. Cashel’s influence was that of the Evangelical tradition within the Church of England and the Church of Ireland. Jones’s later close friend, WH Griffith Thomas (1861-1924), who lived in town, experienced a definitive conversion in 1878, and was active in this parish.6 As yet, it would

4As under ‘Marriages’, in The Argus (Melbourne, Victoria), 15 February, 1888.

5Handbook for Shropshire and Cheshire (London: John Murray, 1879, 74) gives 4,000 (cited in William James Lawton, The Better Time to Be: Utopian Attitudes to Society Among Sydney Anglicans 1885-1914 (Kensington, NSW: New South Wales University, 1990), 68.

6M Guthrie Clark, William Henry Griffith Thomas 1861- 1924: Minister, Scholar, Teacher, Author (London: Church Book Room, 1949), 16 (cited in Lawton, The Better Time to Be, 70).

167 appear, they did not come to know each other until later.7 Possibly at Cashel’s suggestion and in preparation for his studies, Jones made a detailed outline of ‘Robinson's Christian System’ (as headed in his notes), a clear Evangelical moderate Calvinist statement of basic Christian doctrine8 by a late eighteenth century Evangelical.9 At some time Jones also made careful notes from the book ‘Our God Shall Come’, Addresses on the Second Coming of the Lord, which recorded the Mildmay Park10 conference addresses of 1878.11 That Jones kept these notes possibly indicates their formative importance for him. Sponsors and speakers at Mildmay 1878 included

7See below.

8Thomas Robinson (1749-1813), The Christian System: Unfolded in a Course of Essays on the Principal Doctrines and Duties of Christianity. New edition with memoirs of the author (Glasgow: D Mackenzie, 1830 [London: Printed for the author and sold by FC and J Rivington and J Hatcher, 1805]).

9GR Balleine, A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England, (London: Church Book Room Press, 1951 [1908]), 95-96. Gerald T Rimmington, ‘Thomas Robinson: Evangelical Minister in Leicester, 1774-1813’ in Transactions of the Leicestershire Archeological Society, 75 (2001), 106-7 (accessed 15 April 2013 at www.ac.uk/downloads/lahs/2001/GRimmington/LAHS/2001).

10See above, Chapter 2. ‘Evangelical Responses’. 11‘Our God Shall Come.’ Addresses on the Second Coming of the Lord, Mildmay Park, Feb. 26-28, 1878 (London: John F Shaw and Co, nd [1878]).

168 notable premillennialist evangelicals (most of them Anglican): WR Fremantle (Dean of Ripon), Prebendary Auriol, H[oratius] Bonar, the Earl of Shaftesbury, J Hudson Taylor, and HW Webb-Peploe (later a prebendary of St Paul’s Cathedral, London). It will become clear that Jones held to the so-called historicist premillennial view as defined by the well-known Evangelical, scholarly biblical commentator writer, AR Fausset.12 It was not the futurist, Dispensationalist premillennialism of JN Darby.13 More controversial for some Evangelicals was the holiness doctrine of release by faith from the reigning power of sin in the life of the Christian believer. A like doctrine was associated with Pennefather at Mildmay Park some years before rise of the Keswick and like conventions that stemmed from the 1874 Oxford meetings. It seems likely that Cashel had pointed Jones in both the holiness and premillennial directions. Very probably Jones was already a pietist Evangelical before he pursued study for ordination.

12AR Fausset, The Englishman's Critical and Expository Bible Cyclopaedia (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1878), svv ‘Dispensations’, ‘Millennium’.

13JN Darby, Collected Writings (repr), ed William Kelly, Volume 1, Ecclesiastical No 1(Oak Hill Park, Ill: Bible Truth Publishers, 1971), 124-30.

169 To Oxford to Prepare for the Ministry In late 1882 Jones left his family’s farm and went up to Oxford to enroll in the Honour School of Theology. He was just in time to hear DL Moody, who came on from great results at Cambridge to hold a brief mission to the University of Oxford. Like other sons of farmers with modest means (and many sons of clergy), Jones enrolled as a non-collegiate student for Michaelmas Term, in October 1882.14 In June 1886 he graduated BA in theology with first class honours and was well up in the list.15 Jones must have found much at Oxford to support him in his tradition as well as much to challenge. Yet even though it was then a place of doubt and loss of faith on the part of many,16 Jones nowhere mentions the skeptical intellectual life going on. He would have at least heard that Utilitarian philosophy (JS Mill) was a strong cause.17 Benjamin

14‘Jones, Nathaniel’ under ‘Unattached Students’ (indicating which term the student began), Oxford University Calendar (Oxford: Clarendon, 1883), 246-47.

15‘Jones, Rev. Nathaniel’ (Oxford University Calendar (Oxford: Clarendon, 1887), 316.

16See Mrs Humphry Ward, Robert Elsmere (London: Macmillan, 1888).

17EA Knox, Reminiscences of an Octogenarian 1847-1934 (London: Hutchinson, [1935]); TH Aston (gen ed), The History of Oxford University, Vol 7. Nineteenth-century Oxford, Part 2, ed MG Brock and MC Curthois (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 95 and nn140, 141.

170 Jowett, of Essays and Reviews (1860) notoriety, was Regius professor of Greek, Master of Balliol, and vice-chancellor of the University. His rationalist- idealist colleague at Balliol from 1860, Thomas Hill Green (1836-1882),18 had only just died. He had been Whyte’s professor of moral philosophy from 1878, was an inspiring teacher, and had a long-lasting influence. More directly challenging to a young Evangelical, perhaps, was the growing influence of the Tractarian (or Anglo-Catholic) Movement, just fifty years old. Green’s great impact was now producing the new liberal Tractarian or Anglo- Catholic thought that would be set out in the apologetically intended Lux Mundi.19 The book was published two years after Jones arrived in Melbourne. All of the liberalising Anglo-Catholic Lux Mundi group were already teaching at Oxford colleges when Jones enrolled. One of them, Francis Paget (1851-1911), author of the Lux Mundi Essay X. ‘Sacraments’, became Regius professor of pastoral theology in 1885, and could be sympathetic to Evangelicals.

18‘Mr Grey’ in Ward, Robert Elsemere.

19Charles Gore (ed), Lux Mundi: A Series of Studies in the Religion of the Incarnation (London: John Murray, 1889), ‘Preface’.

171 Not belonging to this group at Oxford was the moderately critical Old Testament scholar, SR Driver, Fellow of Trinity since 1870, who was to succeed the strongly anti-rationalist, conservative Tractarian, EB Pusey (d 1882) as Regius professor of Hebrew in 1883.20 A contemporary wrote of Driver: [N]othing can exceed his scorn for those who betray any lack of acquaintance with the utterances of German critics, who never has condescended . . . to state what, in his opinion, are to be considered sound and safe principles of investigation. . . .21

In New Testament, almost certainly Jones's own special focus, the moderately critical (later a Modernist) William Sanday, who also could be sympathetic to Evangelicals, joined Driver as a new professor in the year Jones went up.22 He lectured on the Epistle to the Romans. Other challenges to his Evangelical tradition would have been John Ruskin (1819-1900), reinstated 1883-1884 as Slade professor of fine arts. Ruskin hated the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and like FD Maurice and BF Westcott explicitly

20ODCC, sv ‘Driver, Samuel Rolles’.

21JJ Lias, ‘The Witness of the Historical Books to the Accuracy of the Pentateuch’, The Record, March 1899, 284.

22ODCC, sv ‘Sanday, William’; JS Reynolds, The Evangelicals at Oxford (Appleford, Abingdon, Oxford: Marcham Manor), ‘Additional Contents’, 67-68.

172 disavowed belief in a substitutionary atonement.23 Edwin Hatch (1835-89), reader in ecclesiastical history from 1884, had recently propounded his well- known thesis (1880 Bampton lectures) that Jesus had never intended to found the episcopate,24 which might have worried High Churchmen and Anglo-Catholics, but not most Evangelicals. Even while trying to remain Christian, the Oxford of the mid-1880s was on the cusp of moving to predominantly liberal and negative positions, as foreshadowed by Essays and Reviews (1860).

The Course of Study The syllabus for the ‘honour school of theology’ reflects what the University considered the necessary foundations for the field, and to some extent addressed the current challenges. The course was accepted by bishops as a qualification for ordination. No more than the Ordinal in The Book of Common Prayer did it presuppose that a clergyman was

23David L Larsen, The Creative Company: A Christian Reader's Guide to Great Literature and Its Themes (Grand Rapids, Mich: Kregel, 1999), 536, citing Derek Leon, Ruskin: Great Victorian (London: Archon Books, 1969), 488; FD Maurice, Theological Essays (London: Macmillan, 1854), Essay IX. ‘On Justification by Faith’; BF Westcott, The Victory of the Cross: Sermons Preached During , 1888, Hereford Cathedral (London: Macmillan, 1888).

24Edwin Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches (London: Macmillan, 1881).

173 obliged to understand the contemporary needs of society from the point of view of socio-political theory. Rather, the rigorously academic course did presuppose that the theologically educated presbyter should pastor his flock as an informed and skilled expositor of Scripture, within the tradition of Western catholicism, including and the Reformation. The student should have a thorough knowledge of the contents of the Bible, understand the great dogmatic issues of the ancient past as well as those of the Reformation – as resolved in the Creeds and the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion. He must also be adequately grounded in the worship of the Church of England as laid down in the The Book of Common Prayer, know the rational grounds for the Christian faith, and have some understanding of church history. The examination syllabus for Jones in 1886 gives an idea of the rigor demanded. There were six fields:25 I Biblia Sacra: subject matter of certain Old Testament books (Hebrew or Septuagint), Luke and

25University of Oxford, The Examination Statutes: for the Degrees of B.A., B.Mus., B.C.L., and B.M. Together with the Decrees of Convocation and Regulations of the Boards of Studies and Boards of Faculties, at present in force relating thereto. Revised to the end of Trinity Term ... / (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1885 [1877-1968].

174 John, Romans or James, Jude, and I and II Peter (Greek required).

II Theologia Dogmatica atque Symbolica: alternatives: the Doctrine of the Trinity; of the Incarnation; or the Doctrine of Grace (Augustine and the Pelagian controversy). Required reading included Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, St Leo, the Chalcedonian Definition, Augustine (three works), the Canons of Second Council of Orange (all in original Greek or ), Hooker, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity V, Pearson, Exposition of the Creed, and Browne26 on the 39 Articles.27

III Historia Ecclesiastica et Patristica: alternatives: the Antenicene Church, the Church of the First Four Councils, the Church of the Middle Ages (required reading of sources in the Greek or Latin), or the Age of the Reformation (Leopold von Ranke, History of the Popes, Vols I, II; Hooker, ‘Preface’ to Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity; Edward Cardwell, Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England: Being a Collection of Injunctions, Declarations Orders, Articles of Inquiry etc from the Year 1546 to the Year 1716 with Notes Historical and Explanatory (1844); and Charles Hardwick, A History of the Articles of Religion (1859).28

26See Loane, Centenary History, 19.

27John Pearson, Exposition of the Creed [1659], newly edited by Robert Sinker (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1882); Bp Harold Browne, Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles [12th ed] (London: Longmans, Green, 1882).

28CH Hardwick, A History of the Articles of Religion (Cambridge, 1859 [1851]).

175 IV Apologetica: either Natural Theology or Revelation (works by Augustine, Butler); Date of the Canonical Books of the New Testament (BF Westcott, Canon of the New Testament, , Greek New Testament); Miracles (JB Mozley Eight Lectures on the Miracles of Our Lord (1865, 6th ed 1883), Joseph Butler, Analogy and Sermons, Abp RC Trench, Notes on the Miracles (12th ed rev 1884); and Prophecy (passages controversial for future fulfilment or messianic import).

V Liturgica: Ancient Greek and Latin liturgies and The Book of Common Prayer (‘its sources and successive modifications’).

VI Critica Sacra: New Testament introduction; the ‘exact criticism’ of Matthew and 1 Corinthians (FHA Scrivener, Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 3rd ed (rev and enl, 1883) was set), or the ‘exact criticism’ of Hosea and 1 Samuel.

One may presume that Jones elected ‘Reformation’ under III. Historia, above. There was no course or reading prescribed of general history, politics or socio-economic issues. It was a study of theology that the honours school demanded. Part of its context was Tractarianism, and the outflow from Essays and Reviews (1860). The syllabus did not appear to come to grips with how philosophy might impinge on the understanding of doctrine, as TH Green’s philosophy (and Hegel’s) did and was soon to be evident in Lux Mundi (1889). More radically, Green’s ‘Essay on Christian Dogma’ (undated),

176 foreshadowed modern ‘demythologisation’.29 Books on personal piety and devotion were no part of the course, though students were required to attend daily chapel services and Sunday worship. The degree was designed to be scientific, and so ‘to squeeze the last drop of religion out of it’ and ‘make it historical.’30 The honour school course required critical ability, a good reading grasp of Latin and Greek (plus Hebrew for a first class). Jones completed it in the four academic years, October 1882-June 1886. The final examination papers that Jones sat reveal their intellectual demand.31 Students like Jones, whether Evangelical, old school High Church, or Anglo-Catholic, could well have found Pusey’s anti-rationalist apologetic for the authority of the Old Testament supportive. Other Oxford professors were also positive. The professor of ancient history, George Rawlinson, had defended both the Bible and historic Christian

29The Works of Thomas Hill Green, ed RL Nettleship (Green’s successor), Vol III (London: Longmans, Green, 1889), 161-85, cf R Bultmann’s essay, ‘New Testament and Mythology’ (1941).

30See Owen Chadwick, The Victorian Church. Part II, 1860- 1901 (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1972 [1970]), 451. 31Oxford University Examination Papers. Second Public Examination [1886]. Honour School of Theology. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1880-87).

177 positions;32 the Assyriologist AH Sayce (1845-1933) had just published the first of his several books on the Bible;33 and Monier Monier-Williams (1819-99), expert in Sanscrit, Hinduism and Buddhism, was supportive of biblical reliability.34 For the New Testament, the High Churchman, John Wordsworth, the new and first Oriel professor of New Testament interpretation (1883-85), was ‘very conservative in his approach to higher criticism’.35 The critical scholarship of Westcott and Lightfoot (an ‘Anglican Coleridgean liberal, but on the right wing’)36 was also reassuring for those looking for a positive

32George Rawlinson, The Alleged Historical Difficulties of the Old and New Testaments, and the Light Thrown on Them by Modern Discoveries (London, 1871); George Rawlinson, The Antiquity of Man Historically Considered (London: Religious Tract Society, 1883), among other works.

33AH Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments: A Sketch of the Most Striking Confirmation of the Bible, from Recent Discoveries in , Palestine, Assyria, Babylonia, Asia Minor (London: [Religious Tract Society], 1883).

34Monier Monier-Williams, The Bible and the Sacred Books of the East: Four Addresses (London: Seeley, 1887).

35Peter Hinchcliff, Ch 3. ‘Religious Issues, 1870-1914’, in Aston, TH (gen ed), The History of Oxford University, Vol 7. Nineteenth-century Oxford, Part 2, ed MG Brock and MC Curthois (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 100.

36Geoffrey R Treloar, Lightfoot the Historian: The Nature and Role of History in the Life and Thought of J.B. Lightfoot (1828-1889) as Churchman and Scholar. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament: 2. Reihe).

178 critical37 approach to the gospels; and the work of Westcott and Hort on New Testament textual criticism had just been finished.38 Dr William Ince (1825-1910) was Regius professor of Divinity (from 1878). An old school High Churchman, he was ‘a rather convinced upholder of the reformed character of the Church of England’. He was also favourably impressed by the Moody-Sankey mission to the University in Jones’s first term, Michaelmas, 1882.39 One biographer writes of him as ‘inclining , especially in his latter days, to evangelical interpretation, and rejecting ritualism alike in form and doctrine.’40 His older colleague and friend was Charles Abel Heurtley (1806-1895), Lady Margaret professor of divinity (since 1853), and an authority on the creeds. He had been noted earlier for his 1845 Bampton lectures,

37Cf EB Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, 2nd ed (Oxford: John Parker, 1867 [1864]).

38Bible: The New Testament in the Original Greek, the text revised by , DD and Fenton John Anthony Hort, DD, ‘Introduction’ and ‘Appendix’ (Cambridge: Macmillan, 1881).

39Reynolds, Evangelicals at Oxford: 1735-1871. . . . With an essay on Oxford Evangelical theology by the Revd Dr JI Packer, 36, citing The Official Report of the Church Congress in 1883, ed C Cunkley (1883), 329, quoting VHH Green, Religion at Oxford and Cambridge, 314. 40The Dictionary of National Biography. Supplement Jan 1901-Dec 1911, sv ‘Ince, William’ by ‘A.C.’ (Andrew Clark).

179 Justification.41 Though ‘not a party man’ he conceived the position of the Church of England ‘mainly on the lines of the evangelical party’. If he ‘deplor[ed] hasty and unmeasured condemnation of the “higher criticism”’,42 he finally cautioned against its excesses, like Wace (and Hammond). Reynolds sees him as among the ‘undoubted champions of the evangelical cause’.43 Also in Oxford were such as EA Knox, Fellow of Merton until 1885, David Samuel Margoliouth (1858-1937), Fellow of New College from 1881 and Laudian professor of Arabic from 1889.44 Some listed teachers of required subjects, such as Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889) for Prophecy,45 provided a background against which an Evangelical student like Jones could find resources for retaining confidence in his own tradition, without naively ignoring other views potentially threatening to his own. , already famous for his best-selling Life of Christ,

41A Heurtley, Justification: Eight Sermons (Oxford: Parker, 1849), cf JH Newman, Lectures on Justification (1838).

42 DNB, sv ‘Heurtley, Charles Abel’ by ‘T.B.S-G.’.

43Reynolds, Evangelicals at Oxford, 1873-1871, 92 and n10.

44Reynolds, Evangelicals at Oxford 1871-1905, 8.

45Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (London: Longmans, Green, 1883). See Oxford University Gazette XIII, 1882-83, lecture notices.

180 delivered the 1885 Bampton lectures, History of Interpretation,46 dedicated to Benjamin Jowett. It embodied a critical approach intended to be an apologetic for the abiding message of the Bible.47 Did abler students like Jones attend them? How did an Evangelical like Principal Girdlestone of Wycliffe Hall48 respond? Jones kept some notes on Christian evidences that he took down from tutorials given by him (Girdlestone).49 Girdlestone’s father and an uncle were Evangelical clergy who were both active in the interests respectively of industrial and rural social reform.50 Jones, the son of a small farmer, had very likely heard of this. The ministry at the Evangelical churches in Oxford that students attended also provided

46Frederic W Farrar, The Life of Christ (London: Cassell, Petter and Galpin, 1874?), and his History of Interpretation (London: Macmillan, 1886).

47Farrar, History of Interpretation, ix-xi.

48FWB Bullock, The History of Ridley Hall, Cambridge, Vol 1, chs 1ff; A deQ Robin, Charles Perry, Bishop of Melbourne: The Challenges of a Colonial Episcopate, 1947-1876 (Nedlands, WA: University of Western Australia, 1967), 183-184. See this thesis, Ch 2. ‘Evangelical Responses’ above.

49Nathaniel Jones Papers, 1886-1911 (SMAMoore), Diary.

50Father, the Revd Charles Girdlestone; uncle, the Revd Edward Girdlestone, incumbent of Halberton, North Devon (1862-1872).

181 nurture.51 Notable rectors included Alfred Millard William Christopher (1819-1911) at St Aldate's (from 1859), and Francis James Chavasse at St Peter-le- Bailey (from 1878). Like Jones at Moore College later, Christopher was remembered for his radiant Christian personality.52 Jones’s conversionism later is perhaps illuminated by a saying of Canon Christopher, that trying to turn unconverted young men into good ones . . . he found that without God’s grace it could not be done, and that he himself learned to trust no longer in his own power, but in a crucified Saviour.53

Christopher was a friend of JC Ryle, the then Bishop of Liverpool. He disseminated Ryle’s many tracts and other writings among the students. As recorded earlier Christopher had supported the 1874 Oxford conference on holiness and accepted the Keswick

51St Aldate’s, St Clement’s, St Ebbe’s, St Peter-le- Bailey, and St Thomas’s.

52‘The Rev Canon Jones, MA: An Appreciation’ (anon), Sydney Diocesan Magazine (June 1, 1911), 16-17.

53Arthur Cleveland Downer, A Century of Evangelical Religion at Oxford (London: Church book Room), 28.

182 teaching. Ryle was always critical of it,54 but Jones followed Christopher and Moule. The scholarly Francis James Chavasse (1846-1928) conducted a Greek Testament class for undergraduates.55 Jones may have attended, but it seems certain that St Aldate’s under Canon Christopher was his spiritual home. The Saturday evening meetings in his rectory enabled men to hear Evangelical clergy such as William Haslam, converted by his own sermon on repentance. Such guests would preach the next day at St Aldate’s.56 Canon Christopher was also convinced of the Keswick message, and Handley Moule came out in favour of it in 1884 when Jones was in mid-stream. But Christopher’s friend, JC Ryle, always had strong reservations, as noted above.

54Reynolds, Evangelicals at Oxford, ‘Additional Contents 1. Ministrations Mainly Parochial, 1871-89’, 9-10, 16-17, citing Balleine, History of the Evangelical Party, and John Pollock, The Keswick Story: The Authorised History of the Keswick Convention (London: Hodder and Stoughton,1964); see ‘Preface’ by JI Packer and Ryle’s own ‘Introduction’ to JC Ryle, Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties and Roots, (Welwyn, Hertfordshire, Eng: Evangelical Press, 1979 [London: W Hunt, 1879]), x-xi and xvii-xxviii.

55Reynolds, Evangelicals at Oxford, ‘Mainly Parochial, 1871-1889’, 24-26.

56Reynolds, The Evangelicals at Oxford [Pt 1]), 136-37.

183 In 1884 Jones began a close friendship with WH Griffith Thomas,57 then a student at King’s College London. There his friend sat at the feet of Henry Wace,58 Principal Alfred Barry (consecrated Bishop of Sydney in that year), and possibly AW Momerie (1848- 1900), a pioneer of the radical ‘New Theology’.59 Griffith Thomas would later encourage Jones to write a commentary on the Articles and a work on the Prayer Book. We must conclude that Jones left Oxford in June 1886 retaining both the convictions and piety characteristic of many in the spectrum of Evangelicalism that was his. Now, however, his intellectual grasp of Christian doctrine, especially with regard to the authority of Holy Scripture, was tried and deepened. He was confirmed in the necessity of conversion and of the active expression of faith. He was a convinced premillennialist and a firm adherent of the authentic Keswick doctrine of sanctification, without a lessened adherence to Reformation doctrine. Such was the nature of his Evangelicalism.

57Notes by Jones for speech in 1909 Sydney election synod (‘Nathaniel Jones Papers, SMAMoore); pace Lawton, A Better Time to Be (70-71).

58Wace, Henry (1846-1924), professor of Ecclesiastical History (see A Atherstone, ‘Wace, Henry’, BDE).

59DNB, sv ‘AW Momerie’.

184 II. The Forming of an Evangelical Principal Ordained in 1886 he began to serve under the Reverend Dr Mitchell (previously a physician), an Evangelical, in the parish of New Wortley, a suburb of Leeds.60 Very soon Jones experienced a health problem that would lead him to move to Australia, where he would play a decisive role in the history of Evangelicalism in Sydney. Perhaps because New Wortley was very near a railway junction Jones soon experienced serious throat trouble. A lung problem was also detected. So early in 1887 he set sail for the more favourable climate of Victoria, Australia. There the newly consecrated (24 February 1887) Field Flowers Goe (1832-1910), an Evangelical, was about to be installed (14 April) as the third bishop of Melbourne (1887-1902). On board ship he met Gracie, a deaconess-nurse trained at Mildmay Park; they married on 13th January, 1888.61 As a deacon, Jones served as assistant to the vicar in the parish of Portarlington, south-west of Melbourne across Port Philip Bay. In May, 1888, ordained presbyter by Bishop Goe, he accepted the

60Sv Joseph Mitchell, MRCS (Lond), MRCP (Edin) in Crockford’s Clerical Directory (1886).

61‘Marriages’, The Argus (Melbourne daily), 15 February, 1888.

185 parish of Tarnagulla (with Newbridge), about 45 kilometres (30 miles) west of Bendigo. He combined rural parish duties with teaching stipendiary lay-readers with a view to their ordination, an initiative of the first bishop of Melbourne, Charles Perry. He moved in late July 1893 to the parish of White Hills (on the north side of Bendigo) to start Perry Divinity Hall (named after the Bishop) to continue teaching lay- readers now in residence. Perry Hall moved into Bendigo itself in 1894.62 This ministry turned out to be the preparation for a call to be principal of Moore College that came in 1897. The syllabus at Perry Hall, which he seems to have used for teaching his stipendiary lay-readers before the move from Tarnagulla, was that required by the Universities Preliminary Theological Examination.63 It had been drawn up chiefly by BF Westcott in 1874,64 and Jones would introduce it at Moore College.

62Victorian Churchman, August 18th, 1893, 507-09; September 28th, 1894 (Bishop Goe’s address to Synod).

63‘Church of England Assembly. The President’s [Bp Goe’s] Annual Address’, The Argus, 28 September, 1897, 6.

64FWB Bullock, A History of Training for the Ministry of the Church of England 1800-1874 (St Leonards-on-Sea: Budd & Gillatt, 1955), 123-125.

186 Parish Experience 1886-1893(7?)65 1. His Reading The Jones diaries provide the information. On the voyage out Jones had a lot to do with the Plymouth Brethren captain, who conducted shipboard services. It must have been he who loaned him some of JN Darby’s works ( not given). Gracie lent him Dombey and Son (1847-48), with its moving account of Dombey’s repentance. Dickens remained an interest all his life.66 The novelist’s deliberate and stated aim (in his prefaces), to motivate change in Victorian institutions,67 would have meshed with Jones’s awareness of Shaftesbury’s role in parliamentary reform legislation. In Tarnagulla he read (1860-61) and also ’s social-conscience arousing Alton Lock (1850), his Two Years Ago (1866), and Hypatia, or New Foes with an Old Face (1853). Jones’s Evangelical theology and piety did not isolate him from the literature depicting social distress. Clearly not all Evangelicals rejected novel-reading in

65Jones Diaries, in ‘Nathaniel Jones Papers’, SMAMoore.

66‘The Rev Canon Jones, MA: An Appreciation’ (anon), Sydney Diocesan Magazine (June 1, 1911), 18.

67Yasmine Gai Swifte, ‘Charles Dickens and the Role of Legal Institutions in Social and Moral Reform: Oliver Twist, Bleak House, and Our Mutual Friend’ (Sydney: University of Sydney PhD in English Literature, 2006), Abstract. [http://hdl.handle.net/2123/409]

187 principle. Other authors he read, hardly known today, included ALOE,68 AK Dunning,69 Pansy,70 and Sir Walter Besant (1836-1901), on which last, ‘Trashy’ was Jones’s emphatic comment.71 He also read the classic history of England by JR Green, most likely his Short History of the English People, 1874,72 not the full four-volume work. All the above is hardly the reading of one preoccupied with Christ’s Advent in glory to the exclusion of interest in this world’s social issues!73 Theological works he read reflect in part his sermon preparation, in part the issues of his day, and those for teaching his stipendiary lay-readers preparing for ordination. Jones read (again?) the standard works of RC Trench and JB Mozley on miracles,74 the latter, like Pusey on Daniel,

68ALOE [Mrs C Tucker], Prisoners of Pride (London: Nelson, 1860).

69AK Dunning, Hampered: Or the Hollister Family and their Trials (London: SW Partridge, [1886].

70Pansy [Isabella Alden], A King's Daughter (London: SW Partridge [1880?]).

71Walter Besant, All Sorts and Conditions of Men (London: Chatto and Windus, 1882); Jones Diary 28 August, 1890 (‘Jones Papers’, SMAMoore).

72John Richard Green, A Short History of the English People (London: John Murray, 1874); condensed from John Richard Green, History of the English People, 3 vols (London: John Murray, 1878-80).

73Pace Lawton, A Better Time to Be, passim.

74RC Trench, Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord (1846); JB Mozley (1813-1878), Eight Lectures on Miracles, Preached before the University of Oxford in the Year

188 seeing the essential issue as presuppositional.75 Jones also read the standard work of CA Row on Christian evidences, presumably his recent apologetic Manual [1886],76 and not the Bampton lectures.77 For use in his own sermons as well, no doubt, he at least dipped into FB Proctor, Classified Gems of Thought.78 He must have himself used JC Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on Luke and John’s gospels. He assigned them to be read for sermons (in 1890) when his voice was nearly or completely unusable for a long period. He also assigned readings from DL Moody’s Bible Characters79 and The Life of Faith,80 and at least one chapter, ‘Abide –

MDCCCLXV, 6th ed (London: Rivingtons, 1883 [1866?]).

75Colin Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind (Grand Rapids, Mich; Exeter, Devon: Eerdmans; Paternoster, 1984), 160.

76CA Row, A Manual of Christian Evidences (London: Hodder and Stoughton, [1886] 10th ed 1899), in The Theological Educator series, ed W Robertson Nicoll. See also The Australian College of Theology, Manual for the Year 1899, 14; and Manual for the Year 1900.

77CA Row, Christian Evidences Viewed in Relation to Modern Thought, Bampton Lectures for 1877, 5th ed (London: Norgate, 1888).

78FB Proctor, Classified Gems of Thought from the Great Writers and Preachers of All Ages: A Dictionary of Ready Reference on Religious Subjects. With a Preface by Henry Wace (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1886 [1885]); Jones, Diary, 10 Jan 1890 (‘Jones Papers’, SMAMoore).

79DL Moody, Bible Characters (Chicago: Moody Press c1888).

80DL Moody, The Life of Faith (publisher not traced).

189 by faith’, from Andrew Murray, the Scottish Presbyterian-Dutch Reformed holiness-writer in the Keswick tradition.81 Earlier, while assisting on the Bellarine Peninsula, he read Evan Henry Hopkins’ new book, The Walk That Pleases God.82 Jones also used (and loaned some to his parishioners) biographies illustrating Christian conversion and life. One was the well-known William Haslam’s autobiography, which recounted his conversion from a merely formal to a living faith that was Evangelical in conviction and message. It had huge sales (125th thousand printed in 1887).83 Another was the biography of the Church of Ireland Archdeacon of Waterford, (d 1886).84 Not only is Jones’s evangelical conversionism and holiness commitment evident here, but so also is his Reformation heritage as an Evangelical. Jones’s diary for 1893 (there being none for 1891-92) records his preparation for teaching the Book of Common Prayer and early church history to

81Probably Abide In Christ (1882), see Jones’s diary for Friday [17th July, 1890] (‘Jones Papers’, SMAMoore).

82Evan H Hopkins, The Walk That Pleases God (London: Marshall Bros, [1887]).

83William Haslam, From Death Into Life: Or Twenty Years of My Ministry, (London: Jarrold and Sons, 1887 [Marshall & Scott, 1880]).

84[Deborah Alcock], Walking with God: Memoir of the Venerable John Alcock, late Archdeacon of Waterford. By his daughter (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1887).

190 his two stipendiary lay-reader students. On church history he read FW Farrar,85 a ‘Broad Church Evangelical’86 and future (1893- 1903); on the Prayer Book, he read Daniel Evans, a moderate High Churchman.87 In 1893, too, he records that the Victorian Churchman has asked him to review a ‘pamphlet on The Church of God as Bride, Body and Building, the last chapter having caused some to leave the church and shaken others.’88 Neither the review nor the pamphlet seems to be extant to throw light on Jones’s idea of the church.

2. Preaching in Parish Jones’s sermons and week-day Bible studies in parish ministry perhaps show the influence of Canon Christopher. They are almost wholly on two broad themes: the gospel demand of repentance and faith (conversion), and holy living in the life of

85Probably FW Farrar, The Early Days of Christianity (London: Cassell, 1884).

86ODCC, sv ‘Farrar, Frederic William’.

87FW Farrar, Darkness and Dawn: Or Scenes from the Days of Nero (London: Longmans and Green, 1892); Evan Daniel, The Prayer-book: Its History, Language and Contents (London: Wells Gardner, Darton and Co, 1877 [16th ed]).

88Jones Diary, Saturday, January 28, 1893 (‘Jones Papers’, SMAMoore). Cf Elisabeth Wilson, ‘Rowland Edwards, an itinerant Brethren evangelist’ (MA thesis), her email 6 July, 2012), and Roland Edwards, “Doing” or “done” and other addresses (Melbourne: Jas Gardiner, [1893]).

191 faith.89 There was an occasional reference to Anglo-Catholic ritualism, as the doctrine touched the true nature of saving faith. His topic for Palm Sunday, 1888, for example, was ‘Religious Sentimentalism’, and his address to the choir(?) at Newbridge (in the Tarnagulla parish) told them of the conversion of the Tractarian clergyman, William Haslam.90 Only a little more frequent than references to ritualism were sermons on eschatological topics. One such as (12th August 1888) was ‘The Great Multitude’ of the redeemed in heaven (Rev 7:9 and 19:1-8). From his early Tarnagulla days Jones preserved one sermon outline, a funeral sermon, which on John 3:18-36 (v 24): “Saved and Condemned, Already” was a challenge to his hearers to ensure that they turned and ‘received the kingdom of God as a little child.’.91 The extant diary records for those years show only a very few sermons devoted to Christ’s atoning death. In his confirmation classes (1890), his topics ‘The virgin Mary’, and ‘The ’ suggest a cautioning against Anglo-Catholic teaching, an

89Jones Diary, Thursday, 20th September 1888 (‘Jones Papers’, SMAMoore); Reynolds, The Evangelicals at Oxford [Pt 1]), 136-7; Downer, Evangelical Religion in Oxford, 31.

90William Haslam, From Death into Life (London: Morgand and Scott, 1880).

91Jones Diary, Sunday, 19th August, 1888 (‘Jones Papers’, SMAMoore).

192 emphasis needed in that parish. Jones had an English Reformation understanding of Christian doctrine and ritual. Beginning in June 1890, he began a three- monthly series for The Victorian Churchman on Christian holiness, a fitting preparation of readers for the George Grubb Mission of 1891. His topics set out the teaching, explaining the typical Keswick contrast of ‘the rest of forgiveness’ with ‘the rest of deliverance from sin’s dominion’ and the need of ‘entire self- surrender’.92 Following the mission he contributed a series, ‘Texts Often Misunderstood’.93 At the ensuing Convention of 1895 he preached on the power of the Holy Spirit.94 The years at Tarnagulla included tragedy and health difficulties. Four of Nathaniel and Grace’s children died in infancy.95 They moved to Moore College, Sydney, in May 1897, having with them only their second-born, Maisie, and their last, Stephen. Early on at Tarnagulla Jones experienced hoarseness (the earlier throat

92The Victorian Churchman, 6 June, 1890, 12 September, 1890, 7 November 1890, 12 February 1892.

93The Victorian Churchman, only 20 May 1892 and 14 October, 1892 traced.

94The Victorian Churchman, 5 July, 1895.

95Printed card commemorating the four deceased infants, shown to author by Jones’s granddaughter (daughter of the Revd Stephen Jones), Stephanie Bennett of Newtown, Victoria.

193 trouble?), which by November 1889 began seriously to impede his sermon delivery. It became mostly impossible for him to preach from January 1891 to March 1893. Finally he found a doctor in Melbourne who was able to remove the growth on his larynx.96 In this interval he prepared sermons for his stipendiary lay-readers to read out at the various services, or assigned JC Ryle's Expository Thoughts on the Gospels97 for particular gospel readings, and selected from DL Moody’s works for them to read. The latter’s recently published sketches of bible characters, specifically those on ‘Daniel the Prophet’98 provide an impression of what ‘worldliness’ consisted of for Evangelicals like Jones. Moody held up the young Daniel as the model for the young Christian for resisting temptation and an encouragement to avoid moral and spiritual compromise; Daniel by his character and trust in God was a shining light, like his three young companions who were thrown into the furnace. In addition to a not too obtrusive emphasis on the premillennial perspective, Moody made an occasional evangelistic appeal, and urged the

96Diaries for 1887-90 and 1893, ‘Diary for the Year of Grace 1893’ (SMAMoore).

97Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (1873).

98Moody, Bible Characters.

194 relatively new idea,99 heard at Keswick, taught neither by HCG Moule nor Evan Henry Hopkins,100 but today nearly canonical in Sydney: that every Christian be a verbal evangelist.101 Moody’s moral ideas probably illustrate Jones’s concept of separation from the world. Moody first warned against the danger of the wrong start ‘the first game of chance; . . . the first night spent in evil company.’102 As things to renounce he listed making ‘gods’ out of money and position in society, religious compromise, fraud in business, falsehood, dishonest gain, blasphemy, talking as if you did everything in your own power, setting one’s heart and affections on a place in society, even at the cost of moral principle. It was typically the exemplarist, moralistic preaching of that time. It was much to the point, but ungrounded either in direct thankfulness to Christ for salvation or motivation in the hope of the life of the world to come. Positively, Moody instanced willingness to be

99David W Bebbington, The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody (Leicester, Eng: Inter- Varsity), 33, quoting the chief American Baptist newspaper, Examiner and Chronicle (2 January 1868).

100HCG Moule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1889); Alexander Smellie, Evan H Hopkins: A Memoir (London: Marshal Brothers, [1920]).

101Moody, Bible Characters, 15-16 (the millennium), 40 (evangelistic appeal), 60 (personal evangelism).

102Moody, Bible Characters, 10.

195 unpopular, daring to be honest come what may, showing mercy to the poor, personal love and personal praise (needed in the church), being blameless in life, having moral courage, standing firm under persecution, willingness to be thought eccentric (for example, by being a teetotaller), but pleasing God. ‘Temperance’ (teetotalism) was a commitment that many liberal clergy of all Protestant denominations committed to in the face of the consequences of alcohol abuse. The commitment was not unknown in Roman Catholic circles. An address given in England by Handley Moule was reported in The Victorian Churchman at this time, ‘The Christian’s Relationship to the World’. Moule defined ‘[t]he World, as the Scripture unfolds it’. It was ‘in its idea and essence, the antithesis’ to all that ‘the Christian and his life purpose’ is. Concretely, it is men, who do not believe in and receive Jesus Christ with the heart as Saviour, and do not yield themselves to him, their King, as His possession. This was, course, Johannine.103 Moule was more nuanced than Moody, acknowledging that the principle of separation involves difficulties of application in detail, according to circumstance. In essence, he went on, the Christian must become

103Gospel according to John, and John’s Epistles.

196 more and more sensitive to the pain and loss of whatever breaks communion with Christ, whatever impedes the longed-for growth of conformity to Him.104 The basic idea was virtually that of the biblical requirement that God’s people be spiritually and morally distinct. We do not know whether Jones was closer to Moule or to Moody in this early period. Being true to the Thirty-nine Articles, JC Ryle was a Calvinist in doctrine (as was Moody, also). Like Moody, Ryle was also plain-speaking, if somewhat more refined in expression!105 He intended his Expository Thoughts on the gospels for private and daily use in the home, and so wrote ‘in the position of one who is reading aloud to others and must arrest their attention if he can.’106 It was the Expository Thoughts on Luke and John, both especially rich in the commentaries consulted, old and new, that Jones assigned for use in church.107

104‘Paper read before the Church Congress at the Devotional Meeting held in the Park Hall, Cardiff’, reported in the Victorian Churchman of March 14th, 1890, 70-71.

105Ryle’s schoolboy son, Herbert, in ML Loane, John Charles Ryle, 1816-1900 (London, Sydney, Auckland and : Hodder and Stoughton, 1983), 71.

106Ryle, ‘Preface’, Expository Thoughts on the Gospel of St Matthew, iv.

107Jones Diaries for 1890 and 1893 (‘Jones Papers’, SMAMoore).

197 Even in these years, Jones was being well- prepared to become principal of a theological college. He was filling out his Oxford degree in theology by subsequent reading, diligent pastoral work and preaching, tutoring of stipendiary lay- readers, and maintenance of his personal piety. (He recorded and evaluated many of his daily early morning times of prayer.) His Evangelical convictions were those of the tradition first formed by the Reformation – biblicist and crucicentric – then given a more decidedly overtly conversionist and activist character by the Wesleyan-Whitefield revival, whose roots also stretched back into the Reformation. Now a premilliennial hope and a new holiness emphasis had been added.

Conclusion

An attentive reading of his diaries reveals that by the end of nearly ten years of conscientious pastoral cum teaching experience, Nathaniel Jones (and Gracie) had experienced moving country, marriage, the trials and tragedies of their parishioners, as well as those of their own young family.108 He had applied his Evangelical convictions both in parish preaching

108Marcia Cameron, ‘Aspects of Anglican Theological Education in Australia, 1900-1940: With Particular Reference to Four colleges’ (PhD thesis, Macquarie University, 1999).

198 and in teaching candidates for the ministry in rural Victoria. On coming to Sydney he would return the instruction at Moore College to the scholarly Evangelicalism of its first three principals. Now, however, it was an Evangelicalism extended since their day by a premillennial hope and by the Keswick holiness teaching. By the late nineteenth century this was place of many in the Evangelical spectrum of the day.

199 Chapter 5 EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE STATED

Introduction When Dean William Macquarie Cowper, one of the three trustees of the College, wrote the note inviting him to head Moore College,1 Nathaniel Jones was already an experienced, tried and proven man. He was well known to prominent Evangelical clergy in both Melbourne and Sydney, such as Henry Archdall Langley, trained at Moore College, now working in Melbourne diocese, and the older brother, John Douse Langley, also trained at Moore College, now rector of St Phillip’s, Sydney and archdeacon of Cumberland. Bishop Saumarez Smith, chairman of the trustees of the College, had regular contact with Bishop Goe at the annual meetings of bishops, and could hardly have invited Jones (through Cowper) without first consulting his fellow Evangelical diocesan. Some idea of Jones’s evangelicalism has been arrived at in the previous chapter. Did Jones’s fourteen years as principal restore the Evangelical tradition in the College interrupted by the hiatus of 1884 to 1897? Or did he largely emphasise the premillennial hope with a focus on the ‘little flock’ of the converted, as in a putative Brethren assembly, cultivating personal holiness in expectation of the near

1‘Nathaniel Jones Papers, 1886-1911’, SMAMoore.

201 return of the Lord?2 As noted earlier, such an analysis and its alleged influence on the character of the Diocese of Sydney has been widely accepted but also strongly questioned.3 But what sort of Evangelical would a cultured, Cambridge educated (MA, BD, DD), theologically well-informed Evangelical like Archbishop William Saumarez Smith appoint to train the clergy for his diocese? What is the evidence from Jones’s own hand? As in England, so in the Diocese of Sydney (also in Melbourne), many conservative Evangelicals had added, or were embracing, a premillennial hope and Keswick holiness doctrine. But this did not necessarily change their basic doctrinal commitment to the Thirty-nine Articles – most certainly not that of Jones. Like the archbishop and a majority of the other clergy in the diocese, he firmly accepted the Thirty-nine

2WJ Lawton, ‘The Better Time to Be: The Kingdom of God and Social Reform. Anglicans and the Diocese of Sydney, 1885-1914’ (PhD thesis, University of New South Wales, 1985); A Better Time to Be: Utopian Attitudes to Society Among Sydney Anglicans, 1885-1914 (Kensington, NSW, Australia: University of New South Wales, 1990); ‘Nathaniel Jones--Preacher of Righteousness’ in Peter T O’Brien and David G Peterson (eds), God Who is Rich in Mercy: Essays Presented to Dr DB Knox (Homebush West, NSW, Australia: Lancer Books, ANZEA Publishers, 1986), 361-75; Brian Dickey, sv ‘Jones, Nathaniel’, ADEB; David Bebbington, The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 2005), 181-182 .

3ML Loane, review of ‘W J Lawton, The Better Time to Be: Utopian Attitudes to Society Among Sydney Anglicans, 1885-1914. University of New South Wales, 1990’ in Lucas: An Evangelical History Review 11 (Apr 1991), 41-42.

202 Articles of Religion, and in their Reformation sense, as grounded in Scripture (sola scriptura). On arrival at Moore College, Jones put in place the requirements of the Universities Preliminary Theological Examination, which demanded, inter alia, a knowledge of the Articles. Was Nathaniel Jones indeed ‘faithful to the doctrine of our church’? How did his Evangelicalism respond to his new context?4 The Diocese of Sydney near the turn of the century was affected, more than in Bishop Barker’s latter years, by the rising Anglo-Catholic challenge experienced at home in England. Stronger, too, was the challenge of liberal views, particularly of the authority of Scripture. The main period of Jones’s literary work in Sydney was 1900-1908, the heart of his fourteen years as principal. His writing falls into two main groups – small hardcover books and pocket- sized booklets of a few thousand words each, appearing first in church newspapers.5 That Jones was within the conservative Evangelical spectrum of his day, intelligently expounding and defending it, is at all times apparent. In view of the notion of ‘Brethren’ influence, the real Anglo-

4Cf GA Rawlyk, ‘Introduction’, in Aspects of Canadian Evangelical Experience, ed G A Rawlyk (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University, 1997), xiv-xvii.

5Scattered between Moore College Library, the Mitchell Library (State Library of NSW), and Jones’s grandchildren.

203 Catholic thrust, the large Roman Catholic presence in Sydney, and the challenge of liberal thought, his exposition, The Teaching of the Thirty-nine Articles (1904), receives priority in this chapter.

The Teaching of the Thirty-nine Articles.6 Jones’s aim was a merely introductory exposition. His reading for it was not exclusively Anglican. He acknowledged7 his indebtedness to the still standard commentary on the Articles by Bishop Harold Browne, his required text at Oxford,8 to the respected pioneering Evangelical work on them by TP Boultbee,9 (Prebendary of St Paul’s Cathedral, London) and the new work by the Liberal Anglo-Catholic scholar, Edgar CS Gibson.10 He also used HCG

6Nathaniel Jones, The Teaching of the Thirty-nine Articles. A Plain Exposition of the Doctrines of the Articles of the Church of England, with their Scripture Proofs (Sydney: WM Madgwick and Sons, 1904).

7Jones, Teaching of the Articles, ‘Preface’.

8Edward Harold Browne, Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles: Historical and Doctrinal, 14th ed (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1894, [1858]).

9TP Boultbee, A Commentary on the Thirty-nine Articles: Forming an Introduction to the Theology of the Church of England, 7th ed (London: Longmans, Green, 1884).

10Dr Edgar CS Gibson, The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England: Explained with an Introduction, 3rd ed (London: Methuen, 1902).

204 Moule’s textbook on Christian doctrine11 and Charles Hardwick’s classic answer to Newman’s Tract XC.12 At Oxford, Professor CA Heurtley, the acknowledged expert on the early creeds, was an Evangelical (though not a ‘party man’). Before writing on the Articles himself, Jones had already appealed to the Australian College of Theology against certain of its set books. They were such extreme ‘party’ presentations13 that ‘loyal Churchmen of whatever party’ could not feel able to support its Licentiate of Theology syllabus.14 He intended his ‘short and simple exposition of the doctrines of the Church of England’ for ‘Lay Readers, Bible Class Teachers, and Churchmen generally’, as well as to prepare Lay Reader and Deaconess candidates for their examination.15 He purposely omitted any history of controversies, and ‘confined himself to a plain exposition of the

11Handley CG Moule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1889 [many subsequent editions]).

12Charles Hardwick, A History of the Articles of Religion, 3rd ed (London: John Deighton; Cambridge: Rivington University, 1876 [1851]).

13GF Maclear, An Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles (London: Macmillan, 1896). See The Australian College of Theology, Manual for the Year 1899 (Sydney: Pepperday, 1899), 13.

14Nathaniel Jones,‘Appeal’ to the Australian College of Theology, undated MS ‘Nathaniel Jones Papers’, Box 1, Bundle h), SMAMoore.

15Jones, Preface, Teaching the Articles, [6].

205 doctrines of the Articles with their Scripture proofs.’ He set out the articles to show their ‘scientific order’ (ie, their systematic relationship one with the other), as in his student notes from Oxford:16 I. ‘Fundamental Religion’; II. ‘The Rule of Faith’, III. ‘The Salvation of the Individual’, IV. ‘The Church: Its Ministers and Sacraments’, and V. ‘National Religion’.17 He introduced each group with an outline of the topics they treated and their inter-relation. The tone is moderate and measured. Nowhere, nor in any of his other publications, is there a hint of anything distinctively Brethren.18 The Open Brethren or Christian Brethren, among whom he had a number of friends, were moderate Calvinists. Their premillennial hope did not include the Darbyite ‘secret rapture’,19 but was only that then widely believed among all Protestant denominations. Jones’s basic method was to show the biblical foundations of every phrase. He paraphrased to clarify this or that expression, and gave the

16Jones, Oxford student notes, ‘Nathaniel Jones Papers’, SMAMoore; Jones, Teaching of the Articles, [6].

17Cf Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 9, 37, 45,79, 117.

18Pace Lawton, ‘Nathaniel Jones--Preacher of Righteousness’.

19William Blair Neatby, A History of the Plymouth Brethren (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1902 [1901 1st ed], 227-28.

206 Scriptural basis either in full or by reference. Generally speaking, he kept close to the Augustinian intention of the English reformers.20 He neither glossed lightly over the articles that reject Roman Catholic teaching nor especially highlighted them. This was even though in Sydney a large proportion of the population was Roman Catholic, chiefly of Irish extraction or from migration. As noted in the previous chapter, there had been a public dispute over precedence at the Australian Federation celebrations in Sydney of January 1901, between Archbishop Smith and the Roman Catholic cardinal. Moreover, just at the time of his writing, some Anglo-Catholics in England had become more stridently positive towards Rome. Again, liberal theology was making itself felt in Sydney, especially in the Presbyterian College in the University.

Jones’s Exposition of the Articles Group I. ‘Fundamental Religion’ (Articles I-V) ‘deals with the fundamental doctrines laid down in the Creeds’, namely the Doctrine of God, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, on which the Reformation churches accepted the ecumenical creeds. Jones is totally orthodox, explaining the necessary limitation of man’s creaturely, finite

20Cf WH Griffith Thomas, Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Theology of the Thirty-nine Articles (London: Longmans, Green, 1930), passim.

207 understanding of God. He accepts the natural theology (sc Butler and Paley) universal in his day, that ‘[t]he unity of God may be argued from human reason’.21 He does not touch on the challenge from philosophical idealism, but does warn, with regard to the ‘The Doctrine of the Son’ (Artt II-IV), first, against the ‘prevailing tendency of thought’ (in liberal theology), which tends to lose sight of the Divine in the earthly Christ. He therefore rejected the current motivation for social reform that was grounded in the liberal view of the human Christ – ‘man’s leader in social reform’. Nor did he accept a limitation of Christ’s knowledge (like Charles Gore’s kenosis Christology) that disqualified ‘His testimony to the authenticity and authority of the Old Testament writings’.22 He warned, secondly, against the erroneous Roman Catholic opposite tendency to lose sight of the human in the glorified Christ, and hence to desire some mediator (the Virgin or the Saints) between man and Him.23 Still on Article II, Jones brought in the meaning of Christ’s death, then a matter of

21Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 10.

22Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 18; Charles Gore, ‘The Holy Spirit and Inspiration’, in Lux Mundi (10th ed, 1890), 358-361.

23Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 19.

208 intense debate. He grounded his students in a biblical crucicentrism: This is the great central doctrine of the Christian faith. Everything in Scripture converges on it. . . . The Old Testament read apart from the death of Christ becomes ‘a porch without an edifice, a cypher without a solution.24

Abreast of the literature, he quoted the slightly exaggerated statement of James Denney in The Death of Christ (a work respected by the Anglican theologian JK Mozley):25 The doctrine of the death of Christ and its significance was not St Paul’s [speculative] theology, it was his Gospel. It was all he had to preach.26

The still common error today,27 that ‘reconciliation in the Bible (Rom 5:10, etc) speaks of a change in man’s attitude to God, not God's to him’, Jones corrected in some detail.28 He examined the usage of ‘reconcile’ in Scripture, then argued that Scripture ‘represents sin as an obstacle that must be dealt with before God can

24Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 19.

25JK Mozley, The Doctrine of the Atonement (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1915), 47, 52, etc.

26James Denney, The Death of Christ, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1902), 109; James Denney, The Death of Christ, ed RVG Tasker (London: Tyndale, 1951 [1902]), 66.

27‘Thanksgiving 3’ and ‘Thanksgiving 4’ of ‘The Holy Communion Second Order’, in A Prayer Book for Australia ([Sydney]: Broughton Books, 1995), 133, 136.

28Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 21-24.

209 act in grace toward the sinner’.29 His archbishop had found the same doctrine in Scripture.30 In rebutting the notion that this represents God as ‘less ready to forgive than an earthly father’, Jones argued the seriousness of the moral issue of sin for God, and quoted another Presbyterian contemporary: [The problem] is to be eternally just, and also the eternal justifier of the unjust. . . . It is a problem for God, and a problem fit for a God.31

Jones was well aware, too, of the prevailing denial of the ‘substitutionary character’ of Christ’s death, denied on the grounds that his mission was to proclaim the Divine love. His martyr’s death resulting from the hostility of men then became ‘a great appeal of Divine love’32 (an appeal central to DJ Davies’s preaching of the cross). But for Jones ‘the dread which filled Christ’s mind at the approach of death’, was hardly a ‘supreme example of martyrdom’.33 And God’s forsaking ‘His most faithful servant in the

29Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 22.

30William Saumarez Smith, The Blood of the New Covenant: A Theological Essay, (Cambridge: Macmillan & Bower, 1889), 15-16, 39-40.

31Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 23, quoting Patrick Carnegie Simpson (1865-1947), The Fact of Christ (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1901 [1900]), ‘Preface’.

32Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 24.

33Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 24.

210 hour of his deepest need’ was contrary to the Christian martyr’s usual experience of God’s sustaining presence.34 Jones did not, however, trace the liberal notion of the atonement to its root in the elevation of man’s supposedly growing moral consciousness above scriptural authority. Nevertheless, his readers doubtless found reason here later to resist Davies’s liberal teaching and preaching on the subject. Christ’s resurrection (Article IV) enjoyed (so Jones) the status of ‘no better attested fact in history’. His apologetic approach was that of his time – evidentialist without engaging with the presupposed anti-supernaturalism of unbelief. He listed the testimony of Mary Magdelene and ‘the other pious women’ in the gospels, cited the ‘many infallible proofs’ of Jesus’ appearances to the Apostles, and recounted the witness of St Paul. The College used the traditional evidences textbook, whose defence Jones also used to rebut the old allegation of fraud,35 and the hypothesis of hallucination.36 The rapid growth of the

34Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 24.

35Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768), Schutzschrift... (Apology/Defense for the rational worshippers of God), a part published in GE Lessing, The Wolfenbüttel Fragments (1774-78).

36CA Row, A Manual of Christian Evidences, in The Theological Educator series, ed W Robertson Nicoll (London: Hodder and Stoughton, [1886] 10th ed 1899), Ch X.

211 Christian church was otherwise ‘absolutely unaccountable’.37 This approach was no doubt reassuring and convincing to those presupposing the Creator-Sustainer and saviour God of the Bible and the creeds. On the last sentence of Article IV (‘Until He return to judge all men at the last day’), Jones stated his distinctly premillennial position in the spectrum of Evangelicalism. It was the standard historic (not Dispensational) interpretation, which also held, however, to a literal future ‘thousand years of Christ’s reign over the earth’.38 Many well-read evangelicals of all Protestant churches had made this ‘paradigm shift’39 to this interpretation of Revelation 20:1- 6. It was to be found also in some of the early Church Fathers. In his published work, at least, Jones omitted all speculation. It is not evident that this outlook of itself discouraged the working for social reform in Sydney. The premillennial hope did focus evangelical activism

‘The Resurrection of Jesus Christ an Objective Fact’.

37Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 28. (Cf also BF Westcott, The Gospel of the Resurrection (London: Macmillan, 1865 [4th ed 1879]), Ch. I. ‘The Resurrection and History’, [pt] II. ‘The Special Evidences of the Resurrection’; William Milligan, The Resurrection of Our Lord (London: Macmillan, 1881 [4th ed 1896].

38Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 32-33.

39TS Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (New York: 1962-1996).

212 on evangelism at home and abroad,40 but Jones was very far from making either this hope or Keswick holiness teaching a reason for Christians to abandon ordinary callings in life.41 He made no mention of other theories of Christ’s coming again, or of the liberal social gospel. Presumably because it was not an issue, once Christ’s resurrection was accepted, Jones felt no need to say how Christ’s ascension should be understood in a Copernican-Newtonian universe, though Westcott had.42 He does emphasise its doctrinal importance.43 The third division under Group I ‘Fundamental Religion’ is Article V. ‘The Doctrine of the Holy Ghost’.44 Jones explains clearly the principle of subordination between the Persons of the Trinity, such that maintains their co-eternity and co- equality of nature.45 It was no new doctrine. He concludes firmly against any (Sabellian or modern

40Dana L Robert, ‘Premillennialism’, in EDWM.

41See below.

42BF Westcott, The Historic Faith: Short Lectures on the Apostles’ Creed (London: Macmillan, 1904 [1883]), Lectures VI, VII.

43Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 31-32.

44Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 34-36.

45Quoting Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity V.LI.1 (on the distinct personality of the Holy Ghost).

213 liberal) misapprehension that the Holy Spirit is but an ‘influence’.46

Jones’s Group II of the Articles, ‘The Rule of Faith’, covers Articles VI-VIII. They deal with the authority and canon of Holy Scripture (the sola scriptura of the Reformation), the Old Testament in relation to the New, and the authority of the three (ecumenical) creeds and their relation to Scripture. Jones did not address here the negative higher criticism, which his friend Mervyn Archdall had done learnedly for the Old Testament a year earlier,47 nor advert to his own recent address on the issue.48 His biblicism silently assumed the full reliability of Scripture for its authority.49 He thought rather of the Reformation watchword, sola scriptura as over against Roman Catholic and Anglo-Catholic inclusion of ‘tradition’. Thus, on Article VI he focused on the source of divine revelation. The Articles (and Lutheran and Reformed confessions) insisted that Scripture was ‘the primary and

46Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 36; cf Moule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine, 27, 150.

47Mervyn Archdall, The Analytical Higher Criticism (Sydney: WM Madgwick & Sons, 1903).

48By the Rev Canon Jones, M.A., ‘The Manifestation of God to Those Who Keep His Word’. Address to Petersham Conference, August 4th, 1903 (Sl: np, nd).

49Contrast WH Griffith Thomas, The Catholic Faith: A Manual of Instruction for Members of the Church of England (London: Church Book Room, 1952 [1904]), 224-25).

214 absolute norm’ for what needed to be believed as an article of faith, and not also the ‘unwritten traditions’ of Roman Catholic teaching.50 Such by itself was ‘sufficient to constitute the Church of England a Protestant Church’, and formed ‘its most distinguishing doctrine against Rome.’51 As usual, Jones cited the New Testament support for the Article. On Article VII, the relation of the two Testaments and of the authority of the Mosaic law for the Christian, he states briefly that the New Testament shows salvation by Christ alone to be the theme of the Old, which itself makes more than earthly promises. His view of the Christian’s relation to the Mosaic Law was standard: the moral law, which Christ came ‘not to destroy but to fulfil (Matt v. 17)’, remained binding on the Christian.52 On Article VIII, concerning the three [ecumenical] creeds, he needed only to note that their authority was subordinate to and dependent on their agreement with Holy Scripture. Thus Jones has upheld here two of the four rallying cries common to Lutheran and Reformed

50The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Fourth Session, April 8, 1546, ‘Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures’) endorsed in The Dogmatic Decrees of the [first] Vatican Council, Sess. III, cap. II, April 24, 1870 – see Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom . . . , Vol II. The Greek and Latin Creeds, with Translations. New York: Harper and Bros, 1919 [1877]), 80, 241.

51Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 38-39.

52Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 42-3.

215 branches of the Reformation:53 Scripture alone (sola scriptura), and Christ alone (solus Christus). The other two, by faith alone (sola fide) and by grace alone (sola gratia) he will especially affirm in his treatment of his Group III, the articles on ‘The Salvation of the Individual’. The Teaching of the Articles has illustrated already that Bebbington’s ‘quadrilateral’ requires acknowledgment of the Reformation roots behind the eighteenth century revival, for the Anglican form of evangelicalism at least. The challenge of Anglo-Catholicism in England (and of Roman Catholicism, especially in Ireland) sufficiently accounts for Evangelical emphasis on the Articles, and the Prayer Book. Jones’s exposition of Group III. Articles IX- XVIII is important for three reasons. First, it reveals how he understood the clarification of the gospel gained by the Reformation (again). Again, it shows the background to his teaching on holiness, and with that, his view of the freedom of the will. Finally, it demonstrates that he believed that the articles on justification (XI) and predestination (XVII), together with that on the sacrifice of the mass (XXXI, in Group IV) were critical. If ‘burned into the soul’, Jones thought, they would remove a cause of basic

53Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Leicester, Eng: Apollos, 1988), 120.

216 conflict from the Church of England.54 In the twentieth century Reformation formulations were most important for the internal tensions with Anglo-Catholicism. He explained Articles XI-XVIII under four heads: Man’s Sin, Justification and Works, Holiness and indwelling Sin, and the Predestinating Love of God, plus the anathema of Article XVIII (‘Of obtaining salvation only by the name of Christ’) against any who would deny the solus Christus. All these are Reformation formulations that exhibit the characteristics of all centrist evangelicals. The articles on Man’s Sin (IX and X), so Jones, pronounced respectively on ‘Man’s lost condition by nature’ and ‘His helplessness apart from grace’. He did not point out the connection of this inability with the remaining articles of this group. On the phrase ‘original sin’ in Article IX he noted that it came from Augustine,55 and that the Article defined it accordingly as universally inherited from Adam, not acquired ‘by imitation’ of him (the Pelagian view). In tune with his holiness emphasis was his comment on the

54Jones, in Australian Churchman, Nov 8, 1902, 5.

55Augustine, Confessions, I.7; V.9; IX.6, as cited in Reinhold Seeberg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines, Vol I. History of Doctrines of the Ancient Church (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker, 1952 [German ed 1895]), 338.

217 words ‘the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit’56 of the article: man’s sinful nature is in antagonism to . . . the new and Divine nature, and to the Holy Ghost, its author; they stand eternally opposed to one another.57

Jones acknowledged the fact of ‘indwelling sin’ in the (regenerate) Christian, on the two grounds of personal experience and the exhortations of Scripture to believers. Sinless perfection was not a realisable goal. Article X prepares for Article XI (on justification) by stating first man’s own moral- spiritual total inability even to prepare himself (against Rome’s teaching) for faith in God. ‘The whole of Scripture shows the helplessness of man’s natural state’.58 The article therefore affirmed the necessity of God’s prior enabling grace. This first inclined the will of the unbeliever to turn to God in faith, and hence to act out of love for him. Further, it empowered the believer, who now has this renewed will, in all actual obedience.59 Nevertheless, Jones did not seem to apply the will’s bondage consistently later, to Article XVII, on predestination and election.

56Ref Gal 5:17.

57Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 48.

58Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 51.

59Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 51-52.

218 Against Roman Catholic and Anglo-Catholic understandings, Jones is careful to clarify the New Testament use of ‘grace’ as ‘God's unmerited favour towards sinners in saving them' and ‘the effect of this same favour within man.’60 In this latter sense of God’s ennabling power it occurred frequently in the Book of Common Prayer.61 The Article ‘teaches that the first impulse towards a Christian life must proceed from God.’62 The second effect of grace (in the sense of power), ‘working with us when we have that will’, that is ‘co-operating’ grace63 he understands as the regenerate believer’s ‘constant dependence upon God in every step of the Christian life’.64 Jones moved straight to the application: the believer must consciously trust in God for this moral empowerment. This would be central in his teaching on holiness. Aware of the contemporary cultural context, Jones reminded his (mostly young) readers of the relevance of Articles IX and X against an evolutionary worldview (probably TH Huxley) assumption that humanity is ‘gradually rising . . . towards perfection’, and the pure Pelagianism of

60Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 52.

61Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 52.

62Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 52.

63Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 53.

64Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 53.

219 ‘many novelists’ seeking ‘to idealize human nature, and show that man is, after all, at the bottom, good.’65 He stressed that ‘[m ]an is by nature a lost sinner. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh”.’66 At the same time he fully acknowledged (not always clearly heard in the Diocese of Sydney today) what Calvin called God’s ‘common grace’: ‘The flesh may be cultivated and educated; it may be amiable flesh, benevolent flesh, aesthetic flesh’. This, of course, was not sanctification.67 Man is also, Jones adds, ‘by nature helpless to recover himself. . . . Salvation from beginning to end is all of God and of grace.’68 He reminds his reader that in the Book of Common Prayer (1662) ‘the Collects are full of the confession of man’s weakness and helplessness.’69 Jones was a Prayer Book Anglican. Yet, it appears that in accordance with the tendency of his age Jones’s exposition of ‘Article XVII. Of Predestination and Election’ leans toward the Wesleyan Evangelical Arminian view.70 Not

65No references supplied.

66John 3:6.

67Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 53.

68Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 53 (italics original).

69Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 53.

70LE Elliott-Binns, Religion in the Victorian Era (London: Lutterworth, 1936), 55.

220 following Ryle, Moule and Litton, he seems almost in tune with the contention for free-will in the Churchman of the recent years,71 and the position the Liberal Evangelicals would adopt. Some student notes by him at Oxford from his unnamed lecturer reveal a typically rationalist anti- Reformed approach to Calvin’s teaching as well as to Article XVII. The lecturer seems to have taken for granted an autonomous definition of free will – ‘the self-determination of the will as the source of action’.72 Jones himself does not make clear the distinction between the experience of free will when making choices that do not involve conflict with one’s basic moral-spiritual disposition, and the impotence of the will to choose contrary to that disposition. In Jones’s student days, TH Huxley had notoriously affirmed that he believed that human beings were conscious automata.73 Handley Moule (1889), doubtless alluding also to JS Mill’s empiricism (strong at Oxford), spoke not only of the ‘even agonizing perplexity to many hearts dear to God’, but also of ‘a strong drift of modern thought [that] favours “necessitarianism,” under which, in

71Cf William Sinclair (the editor), ‘St Augustine of Hippo’, Churchman 13 (April 1899), 374-387.

72‘Nathaniel Jones Papers’, SMArch.

73TH Huxley, ‘Science and Morals’ (1886), reprinted in Essays Upon Some Controversial Questions (1892), as cited in J Passmore, A Hundred Years of Philosophy (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968, repr 1984), 39.

221 effect, man’s will is but a phantom’.74 Enlightenment assumptions of human autonomy (Kant’s ‘sapere aude’)75 were generally presupposed. The Evangelical dogmatician EA Litton had written in the year that Jones enrolled at Oxford: ‘Man still has a will, but it is biassed by tendencies which he has no power to overcome. . . .’76 Even so, Litton himself was cautiously equivocal.77 Jones’s teaching on this point could not fore-arm his readers against the philosophical idealist emphasis on personality78 of his Liberal Evangelical successor. The second head under ‘Group III. The Salvation of the Individual’, was ‘The Justification of Man’, so central to Evangelical concerns. It links Evangelicalism unbreakably to the Reformation and the sola scriptura and sola gratia. Here lay a focal point of difference with

74HCG Moule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine, 43; cf also John Passmore, A Hundred Years of Philosophy, 101, and Antony Flew (ed), A Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed (New York: St Martin's, 1984), sv ‘freewill and determinism’.

75Immanuel Kant, What is Enlightenment? (1784).

76Edward Arthur Litton, Introduction to Theology: On the Basis of the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England, Part I (London: Eliot Stock, 1882), referencing combined Volumes (Parts) I and II (1892), .... Second Edition with an Introduction by Henry Wace (London: Elliott Stock, 1902), 125.

77Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, 182.

78JR Illingworth, Personality Human and Divine (London: Macmillan, 1902 [1894]), 227.

222 other schools in the Church of England. Liberal Anglo-Catholics and Liberal Evangelicals, DJ Davies too, would struggle with this doctrine.79 Jones’s exposition was fully consistent with ‘justification’ as being ‘accounted righteous before God’, excluding, thereby, the Romish understanding of being ‘made righteous’. In Scripture, ‘to justify’ meant to acquit, to pronounce a person ‘not guilty’, as just. It was the opposite of ‘to condemn’, or pronounce guilty. Roman theology confused justification with sanctification, ‘a progressive work’.80 Jones’s analysis of Rome on justification was not quite precise, however, for the Council of Trent, like Augustine, included both remission (forgiveness) of sins and inward renewal. So did Luther and Melancthon,81 but they highlighted the former, while Rome emphasised the latter, virtually to the exclusion of the former. Hammond, of course, would improve on Jones’ analysis, while Davies would go in yet another direction. The ground of justification, explained Jones, is in the merit of Christ alone, in total

79See below in discussion of DJ Davies.

80Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 54-56, 58.

81Council of Trent, Sixth Sess 13 Jan 1547. Decree on Justification. Chs I-X (esp III, IV, VI, VII). Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter (De Spiritu et Littera); Philip Melancthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, on Article IV [Justification].

223 exclusion of our own.82 Faith is the means, ‘the empty hand of the heart which receives God’s free gift.’ He quoted Cranmer’s ‘Homily of Salvation’ (‘Homily of Justification’, sic in the Article), which adds that from sure trust in God’s promises ‘doth follow a loving heart to obey His commandments.’83 On the ‘salutary’ (Article XI, ‘wholesome’) nature of the doctrine Jones added a touch from his experience of ‘the carnal mind’ in evangelism and preaching for holiness: It is no easy thing to break down (sic) man's pride and self-will and to get him to admit the helplessness and hopelessness of his natural condition.84

Does this necessarily suggest emotionally coercive methods at the College, as has been imaginatively interpreted from a letter of Jones?85 But it was his vice-principal, George Chambers, who was the speaker on the occasion, and his biographer gives

82Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 56, quoting (no reference) JB Lightfoot’s paraphrastic translation of Galatians 3:10a in The Epistle of St Paul to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1900 [1865]).

83Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 57, quoting ‘The Third Part’ of Cranmer’s ‘An Homily of the Salvation of Mankind by only Christ our Saviour from Sin and Death Everlasting’ in First Book of Homilies (1547), in THL Parker (ed), English Reformers. Library of Christian Classics Vol. XXVI (London: SCM, 1966), 264.

84Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 58.

85Lawton, ‘A Better Time to Be: The Kingdom of God and Social Reform’, 81 (quoting letter of Jones to WH Griffith Thomas, 16 July 1905).

224 Chambers’ own account of a seemingly quite different while yet spontaneous response.86 On the doctrine’s ‘consoling’ efficacy (‘very full of comfort’ in Art XI), Jones noted that it gives assurance of salvation to those ‘conscious how imperfect their best efforts are’.87 There was no tendency to sinless perfectionism. Articles XII and XIII explain the true relation of ‘good works’ to justification, and Jones again contrasted them with Trent.88 As Calvin and Luther also taught,89 the good works of the believer ‘can never be our title to heaven . . . [but] will win for us a reward at the judgment seat of Christ (see 2 Cor v. 10)’; ‘They are the necessary proof of [saving] faith.’90 Before justification, however, works neither made men fit to receive God’s saving grace nor fit to deserve it (Art XIII), for they are as ‘dead before God’.91 Jones gave the reason: ‘Apart from Christ our

86Nancy de S P Sibtain in collaboration with Winifred M Chambers, Dare to Look Up: A Memoir of Bishop George Alexander Chambers (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1968), 7- 8.

87Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 58.

88Parker, English Reformers, 264.

89Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 59 (no reff).

90Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 60 (emph orig).

91‘An Homily or Sermon on Good Works Annexed unto Faith’, quoting Augustine, Enarr in Ps XXXI, ii.4, in Parker, English Reformers, 283, 284, and n 91.

225 righteousness, the taint of sin is in all our actions.’92 But this was not to say that there was no taint at all left in the actions of the justified. ‘The Christian’s Relation to Holiness and to Sin’ (Articles XIV-XVI), was a major emphasis in Jones’s ministry. He sums up the thrust of these Articles: (a). No Christian can exceed God's standard of holiness [Art xiv. 'Of Works of Supererogation']. (b). No one can even reach it, for no one in this life can attain to absolute sinlessness [Art xv. 'Of Christ alone without Sin']. (c). A Christian may sin grievously and yet be restored [Art xvi. 'Of Sin after Baptism'].93

He counters the Roman Catholic idea that ‘counsels of perfection’ (things over and above what God asks of the Christian such as poverty and celibacy) ‘secure an excess of merit’.94 ‘God's standard of holiness is so high that none can attain it, much less go beyond it,’ for which he instanced the commandment to love God with all one’s heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12: 30).95 Indwelling sin remained lifelong. Jones was concerned faithfully to represent the Articles in the Australian Christian context.

92Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 61.

93Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 62.

94Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 63.

95Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 62-63.

226 Under Article XVI, that sin committed after baptism is not unpardonable, he examined various scriptural passages, using the recent Revised Version (NT, 1881), and a well-known English commentary for certain texts (Heb 6:4-6; 10:26- 29).96 A pastoral note concluded his commentary on ‘the unpardonable sin’, that the ‘very anxiety’ of the troubled person ‘is an evidence that God’s Holy Spirit is still dealing with him . . . therefore he is not beyond the reach of forgiveness.’97 The final sentence of Article XVI, contrary to what ‘[m]ost expositors contend’ (including his lecturer at Oxford referred to above), did not condemn the doctrine of final perseverance, ‘that a real Christian cannot finally be lost’. It only affirmed that the true believer by God’s grace ‘may arise again and amend his life.’98 Here Jones resists the semi-Pelagian inclination of his Oxford teacher. Jones has seen in the Articles two doctrines that the old school High Churchman (which John and Charles Wesley were before their ‘conversion’) did not fully grasp: man’s total moral inability to please God apart from his grace in Christ, and

96WJ Conybeare and JS Howson, The Life and Epistles of St Paul (London and New York: Longmans, Green, 1892 [1852]), 798 fn 7.

97Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 68-69.

98Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 69.

227 (implicitly) the final perseverance of the true Christian. This was in accordance with Robinson’s Christian System and the standard Evangelical works that he consulted, the most recent being that of Moule.99 Jones began well on ‘Predestination’: In Article XVII we stand at the top of the ladder which reaches from earth to heaven, just as in Articles X and XI we stand at the bottom. . . .100

Because Jones did not see, however, that the antinomy (as it seems to human logic) was between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility101 he thought the mystery lay between God’s sovereignty to save and man’s freedom. To encapsulate the basis of his conversionism, therefore, he quoted perhaps the finest of the Tractarian dogmatic theologians, HP Liddon (1829-1890), not long departed from Oxford when Jones went up. Semi- Pelagian inclined, Liddon had written: ‘the Divine sovereignty must not merely be compatible with, but must even imply the perfect [sic!] freedom of created wills.’102

99Moule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine, 46-47.

100Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 70.

101JI Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Chicago, Ill: Inter-Varsity, 1961), 22.

102Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 73, quoting HP Liddon, Some Elements of Religion (London: Rivingtons, 1872), 191.

228 Jones tried to steer a course between the High Church ‘Ecclesiastical predestination’ of the baptized (as well as the Arminian or Methodist ‘foreseen good works’) and the Calvinist unconditional (better, gracious) choice of God to save. He suggests an analogy – that we are like ‘insects creeping across some vast cathedral floor’ suspecting the building’s unity but seeing only ‘unconnected pillars’; one day we will see the great roof that connects them all.103 Jones correctly pointed out that the Article insists that predestination neither excluded the need to offer salvation to all,104 nor the obligation of all believers to obey God. Only by obedience, the evidence of the fruit of the Spirit in the self, can one’s election to life be known.105 In his following discussion Jones used the order of salvation, (effectual) calling, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification (‘everlasting felicity’), of Romans 8:28-30. Again he was very firm on the doctrine of the ‘final perseverance [in faith and obedience] of the saints’, clearly taught in Scripture (John 10:27, 28). Of course, this assurance did not apply to the person who ‘lives

103Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 73.

104Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 72.

105Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 78.

229 in sin’.106 Hence Article XVII spoke of the ‘comfort’ to believers to be found in predestination because of the assurance of faith it brought and the fervent love for God it enkindled. Jones aptly quoted Scripture in support.107 Jones’s commentary on the last of this group of articles on the salvation of the individual, Article XVIII (‘Salvation only by the Name of Christ’), applied its statement of the Reformation watch cry, solus Christus, ‘Christ alone’. It condemns, he observed, the Latitudinarian (he might have said ‘Broad Church’) spirit, which maintained that sincerity and general moral uprightness were sufficient for salvation. The Article insisted on Christ as the uniquely required object of faith that is saving. Jones did not connect this insistence with home or foreign missionary obligation. Jones’s exposition of his Group IV of the Articles under ‘The Church, its Ministers and Sacraments. Articles XIX.-XXXIV’ is important for two reasons. First, it shows how an Evangelical of the time needed to and might rebut Anglo- Catholic claims. In his early days at Oxford, the fiftieth anniversary of John Keble's sermon, National Apostasy (July 1833), was celebrated. At

106Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 75.

1072 Tim 1:12; Rev 7:10; Ps 115:1.

230 chapel services and in lectures and conversation he could have hardly avoided contact with Anglo- Catholic views. Their liberalised form would soon be expressed in Lux Mundi (1889). In Sydney two city churches, St James’ Church, King Street, and Christchurch St Lawrence, Central, had already adopted Anglo-Catholic doctrine, ritual and associated vestments.108 Secondly, his exposition of this group of the Articles demonstrates that he was far from being influenced by some Brethren doctrine of the church.109 The current New Testament scholarship knew perfectly well the meaning ‘assembly’ for the word (Gk ekklesia) usually translated ‘church’. It did not assume that ‘assembly’ was always the precise meaning in the New Testament usage. Jones’s Brethren friends used the term ‘assembly’, perhaps to avoid appearing to claim that their own assembly comprised the whole of the ‘church’ in any particular locality,110 but basically in fidelity to the Greek term.111

108See David Garnsey, Arthur Garnsey: A Man for Truth and Freedom (Sydney: Kingsdale, 1985), 8; Judd and Cable, Sydney Anglicans, 161-62.

109Pace Lawton, A Better Time to Be, 72-73.

110Cf F Roy Coad, A History of the Brethren Movement ([Exeter, Devon, UK]: Paternoster, 1968), 126 n*.

111PW Petter, Assembly Service (London and Edinburgh: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, [1930]), Ch II. ‘Local Churches or Assemblies’.

231 Article XXI ‘defines the Visible Church, and lays down the marks by which any particular Church can be known’?112 Here at last, possibly, is Jones’s answer to Rowland Edwards’ pamphlet, Bride, Body and Building, mentioned in the previous chapter.113 The confusion of people about the Church, he explained, ‘arises from the fact that they do not take account of the different senses [of] . . . [t]he term . . . “Ecclesia”’ as it is applied in the New Testament.114 Following EA Litton, he writes that in its ‘application’115 to the universal aspect of the Church, to ‘the whole company of believers in all times and places’, it is ‘sometimes called the invisible Church’, of which a part is already in heaven. On earth its membership is known only to God, ‘who alone can read the heart.’116 Following Litton again, Jones thought that ‘ideal’ was a better term than ‘invisible’ to describe the Church ‘as it now exists in the mind and purpose of God’.117 Did this express

112Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 79.

113At fn 89 in ch 4 above.

114Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 80.

115Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, 364.

116Moule, Outlines, 202-4, quoting in extenso Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity III.i.2.

117Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 80-81; Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, 365; Edward Arthur Litton, The Church of Christ (London: James Nisbet & Co,

232 philosophical idealism, taken from CA Auberlen’s presumed Kantian idealist thought?118 On the contrary, Jones took the term ‘ideal’, like ‘application’, from Litton.119 Moule used it in exactly the same sense: ‘in Ephesians . . . that ideal which is also in this matter the ultimate real’ Church, that is, consisting of those persons joined to Christ by the Holy Spirit. Moule was expressing Richard Hooker’s notion of the distinction within the Article.120 It is not apparent anywhere that Jones was a philosophical idealist. His friend Mervyn Archdall, the promoter of CA Auberlen, was explicitly not.121 Jones writes that also, the visible counterpart, ‘the definitely ordered society’ (not ‘meeting’!), which can ensure its own dissemination (following AR Fausset),122 is ‘very

1898 [1851]), 70-71, 74, 152.

118Lawton, The Better Time to Be, 72-73; cf Carl August Auberlen, The Divine Revelation: Essays in Defence of the Faith (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,1874), 25, 200-201 and 278.

119Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, 363-65, 368; Litton, The Church, 158.

120Moule, Outlines, 204-206, quoting Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity II.i.2; also Litton The Church, 77n, 158-159, 164.

121Henry Kingsley Archdall (compiler), Mervyn Archdall: A Memorial of the Late Reverend Canon Mervyn Archdall, M.A. (Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1922), Ch I. ‘Authority of Jesus Christ’, 23, and Ch II. ‘The Doctrine of the Church’, 43-46 (quoting Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity).

122AR Fausset, Englishman's Critical and Expository Bible Cyclopaedia (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1878), sv

233 frequently’ designated Church [ekklesia] in the New Testament. It is applied both to ‘a particular body of Christians’ either in a city or in a house;123 and sometimes it ‘embrac[es] all living Christians in one great society’.124 Thus, ‘it is clear that the Church, taken as the aggregate of all living professing Christians, is regarded in the New Testament as one.’125 Jones was mainstream biblicist Evangelical. Similarly when defining ‘faithful’ in this Article he indicated that even in New Testament times the Churches were a mixture, as Article XXVI stated.126 He illustrated this mixed and universal character from the Book of Common Prayer and the Canons.127 Jones held the Reformation Anglican view of the Church as visible (as contrasted with the

‘Church’.

123Teaching of the Articles, 82 (reff 1 Cor 1:2; Rom 16:5).

124Teaching of the Articles, 81, quoting Gal 1:13 and 1 Cor 12:28.

125Teaching of the Articles, 81. Cf Fenton John Anthony Hort, The Christian Ecclesia (London: Macmillan, 1897), 118-122 (‘The many Ecclesiae and the one'), and Mervyn Archdall, ‘The Doctrine of the Church: Being the Introduction to a pamphlet entitled: “The Church and the Churches, or Church and Churchdom”’ (1912), repr in HK Archdall, A Memorial of the Late Reverend Canon Mervyn Archdall, 46-47.

126Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 82.

127Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 82, citing the Prayer for all Conditions of Men, the Bidding Prayer before a sermon (from the Canons of 1604 – Canon 55), and the Prayer for the Church Militant.

234 Church as invisible), which was the common heritage of the Reformation churches. It was the view common to Evangelicals in Sydney until the dynamic ‘church-exists-in-meeting’ concept was taught at Moore College after the time of TC Hammond.128 As against both High Church and Tractarian views, on the marks, or notes,129 of a true Church, Jones proved conclusively that the Church of England never intended ‘to refuse to non-episcopal organisations any place, as societies, in the visible Church.’ The Article did not make church order (so important in High Church and Anglo- Catholic thought) a mark of the church. In The Bidding Prayer (of the Canons of 1604) included the Church of Scotland, which was Presbyterian.130 He did not mention William Goode.131 Perhaps he even had the separatistic and fissiparous Plymouth

128DWB Robinson, sv ‘Church’ in New Bible Dictionary (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1962); ‘“The Church” Revisited: An Autobiographical Fragment’, Reformed Theological Review 48 (1989): 4-14; Peter G Bolt and Mark D Thompson, eds, Donald Robinson: Selected Works, 3 vols (Camperdown, NSW: Australian Church Record, 2008), sv ‘church’ (Index).

129Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 82-84.

130Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 82, also Archdall, The Church and the Churches, ‘Introduction’ (in HK Archdall, Mervyn Archdall, 44).

131William Goode, A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Church of England on the Validity of the Orders of the Scotch and Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches (London: Thomas Hatchord, 1852).

235 Brethren in mind132 when he insisted that in no Church could the word of God be preached without ‘some admixture of error, since the ministry is committed to weak and fallible men.’ ‘[O]f necessity’ it would often be done ‘in an imperfect way.’133 Since no one in Sydney could be unmindful of the Church of Rome, when the Article stated that it had ‘erred not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith’, Jones must comment. The ‘Homily for Whitsunday’ (Pentecost) tested Rome by the three notes of the Church (doctrine, sacraments, and ecclesiastical discipline) and found it wanting. ‘On the other hand,’ he added, ‘many of the Reformers recognised Rome as part of the Church’. He quoted Hooker’s conclusion, that touching those main parts of Christian truth wherein they constantly still persist, we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ.134

A later principal, TC Hammond, would be careful to acknowledge the extent of biblical truth embodied in decrees of the Council of Trent.135 Articles XX-XXII describe the authority of the Church. Jones here established this authority

132See Coad, History of the Brethren Movement, 116-19.

133Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 84.

134Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 85; Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, III.i.10 quoted (ref not given).

135See chapters below on TC Hammond’s thought.

236 (contrary to Anglo-Catholic teaching) as that of the particular or National Church, not of the Universal Church expressed in General Councils. On rites or ceremonies, the New Testament principle was the edification of the believer and God’s glory; only occasionally did it lay down a rule (1 Cor 10:14-16, 34). The regulatory principle was spelled out by the Church’s relation to Scripture, that of ‘witness and keeper’. Hence, negatively, no rites or ceremonies contrary to Scripture might be decreed. He thus excluded Anglo-Catholic ritualism. Positively, teaching about what a person must believe for salvation must ‘directly rest on the authority of Scripture.’136 Jones was as biblicist as the Articles also on Articles XXI. ‘Of the Authority of General Councils’ and XXII. ‘Of Purgatory’ [etc]. These both adduced the biblical criterion in noting the errors of the Synod of Ariminium (AD 359) and the Second Council of Nicaea (AD 787).137 Jones cites the witness of Scripture against them. Under Articles XXIII and XXIV, on ministry in the church, Jones defended the principle of a regular ministry as against his Brethren friends’ beliefs. But he was also careful to distinguish ‘ministering in the congregation’ from ‘preaching

136Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 88.

137Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 89.

237 or teaching . . . in an unofficial capacity’,138 which he defended as having New Testament support.139 For a lay person presiding at the Lord’s Supper he even-handedly argued for the same liberty as for lay baptism – irregular but not therefore invalid. For this he quoted the first commentator on the Thirty-nine Articles, Thomas Rogers, Chaplain to the High Church Archbishop Bancroft. He thus hoisted a High Churchman among his students on his own petard: We think not (as some do) that the very being of the Sacraments dependeth on . . . whether the baptizer, or giver of the bread and wine, be a minister or no.140

The New Testament gave no clear information: ‘The right of administering these Sacraments was vested in the Church, not in any order in the Church.’141 Jones appealed to the well-known New Testament commentator and Dean of Canterbury, Henry Alford (1810-71). The minister’s acts of consecration were not by his own authority, ‘but only as the representative of the whole Christian congregation’.142 Jones’s High Church Oxford

138Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 91.

139Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 91, citing Acts 11:19, 20 and 18:26.

140Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 91 (no ref).

141Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 91.

142Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 91-92, quoting H Alford, The Greek Testament: with a Critically Revised Text ... and a ... Commentary (Cambridge; London: Deighton Bell and Co; Rivingtons, (1881-84 [1st ed 1849-61]), at 1

238 Professor, William Ince, had written to similar effect on this matter.143 Jones thinks that ‘Apostles and elders presided . . . [only] from a sense of fitness’. A Christian neglecting this rule would hardly be breaking ‘the institution of Christ. The Sacrament . . . would be decidedly irregular, but not invalid.’144 Strident Anglo-Catholics used Article XXIII to support their claim that episcopal ordination was a sine qua non of valid ministry. Jones countered that it was only an in-house rule: the Church of England ‘refuses to judge other bodies of Christians.’145 To Articles XXV-XXXI, on the sacraments, Jones gives almost a sixth of his exposition. As noted above, he viewed Article XXXI (with Articles XI and XVII), which needed to be ‘burned into the soul’, as critical for the divisive issue presented by Anglo-Catholicism. He did not spell it out that English Reformation theology was essentially at one with the other Reformed (ie, Calvinist) churches on the Lord’s Supper. He did hew closely to the original meaning of the wording of Article XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ

Cor 10:16.

143See William Ince, The Scriptural and Anglican View of the Function of the Christian Ministry. A Sermon (Oxford: Parker, 1895), 10.

144Jones, Teaching of the Articles,92.

145Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 92.

239 finished upon the Cross, and its source in the final authority, Scripture. Jones kept out any ex opere operato or like misunderstanding of how grace relates to sacrament. Following Moule on the words ‘as by an instrument’ in Article XXVII (‘Of Baptism’), he quoted the able Anglican anti-Deist theologian, Daniel Waterland (1683-1740), whose covenantal or ‘deed of [property] conveyance analogy’, clearly distinguished the ‘legal instrument’ (sc ‘sacrament’) from the ‘real estate’ (sc ‘the grace’) conveyed by it, the latter conveyed only to the person duly qualified to receive it, (namely, the believer).146 The work of the Evangelical, Nathaniel Dimock, The Doctrine of the Sacraments,147 was possibly not available to him in Sydney. The challenge of non-paedobaptist evangelical believers in Sydney (Baptists, and his Christian Brethren friends) and elsewhere, and the High Church and Anglo-Catholic views of baptismal regeneration demanded that he discuss whether and how young children could be the fit subjects of

146Daniel Waterland, Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist (1737), ch 7.

147By an English Presbyter [Nathaniel Dimock (1825- 1909)], The Doctrine of the Sacraments in Relation to the Doctrines of Grace: As Contained in the Scriptures, Taught in Our Formularies, and Upheld by Our Reformers (London: W Macintosh, 1871).

240 Baptism.148 He provided a clear and convincing treatment. Following Moule (after Waterland and Ussher)149 Jones adopted the covenantal approach. He argued from the analogy of Jewish circumcision, and the whole-family baptism of proselytes into Judaism; from Peter’s ‘the promise is to you and to your children’ (Acts 2:39); from the baptism of whole households; and from the inclusion of children in the exhortation passages to the church (Eph 6:1; Col 3:20); and from Christ’s words about receiving little children (Matt 19:14). Critically (contra his High Church or Anglo- Catholic reader), the language ‘this child being regenerate’ was that of ‘faith and charity’, for ‘the whole Liturgy is constructed on this same model; those who profess and call themselves Christians, are treated as such.’150 A later principal of the College, DB Knox (1916-1994), son of Jones’s student, DJ Knox (1875-1960), adopted the same legal-instrument analogy.151

148Boultbee, Commentary on the Articles, 236-38.

149Moule, Outlines, 238-41, 245-46 (citing Archbishop Ussher [1581-1656], Body of Divinity, ch xlii).

150Teaching of the Articles, 106-107.

151DB Knox, Thirty-Nine Articles: The Historic Basis of Anglican Faith. Christian Foundations series 20 (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1967), 37; Knox, Thirty-Nine Articles (Sydney: Anglican Information Office, 1976 [rev ed]), 31 (reprinted in Kirsten Birkett (ed), D Broughton Knox: Selected Works, Vol II. Church and Ministry (Kingsford, NSW: , 2003), 134.

241 Articles XXVIII-XXXI defined the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (‘Eucharist’). Since the matter involved not only the complete once-for-allness of Christ’s atoning work and justification by faith, but also the very nature of a sacrament, the teaching of Article XXVIII had been critical for the English Reformation. Devoting five pages to it, Jones treated it under four heads – ‘The Meaning of the Lord’s Supper’, ‘The Conditions of Right Reception’, The Manner in Which Christ’s Body and Blood are Given’, and ‘Certain Superstitions and Errors Condemned’. With regard to the meaning, he wrote that an important but inadequate view was that the Lord’s Supper was the sacrament of the unity of believers in Christ.152 ‘Its more distinctive meaning’, however, was that it was ‘a Sacrament of our redemption’, linked to the Atonement, for in it ‘We see . . . Christ dying as our substitute; we hear Him cry “It is finished:” and it brings assurance to our souls.’153 It ‘is a “certain sure witness” (Art XXV)’ that ‘stirs up and strengthens our faith’, for it ‘appeals to the eye’ just as the preached word ‘appeals to the ear.’154 Jones rehearsed the three grounds of the rejection of by Article XXVIII: the words of Scripture, the nature of a sacrament,

152Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 108.

153Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 108.

154Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 108.

242 and the unscriptural ritual resultants of the error – the reservation, procession, elevation, and worshipping of the Sacrament,155 all rejected by the final paragraph of the Article, as Article XXX rejected the denial of the cup to the laity.156 As for Christ’s words, ‘This is my body’, ‘This is my blood’ he noted ‘the common usage of Scripture’ in phrases like ‘I am the door’.157 Christ’s disciples, as Jews, would have found His words, ‘Drink this’, quite intelligible from King David’s words: ‘Shall I drink the blood of these men who have put their lives in jeopardy?’158 David clearly meant the water ‘obtained at the risk of their life-blood’. The Article also excluded ‘the popular theory’ (among the Anglo-Catholics of the time) that the consecrated elements conveyed ‘the present glorified body of Christ’.159 Rather, ‘We feed on a crucified Saviour, when we can say in faith, “He died for me.”’160

155Chs V and VI of the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Vol III, 131-33.

156Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 113.

157Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 111 (quoting John 10:9).

158Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 112 [2 Sam 23:17].

159Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 111-12.

160Jones, The Teaching of the Articles, 111-12. See Moule, Outlines, 261-62; Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, 460-61 (referencing Bp Edward Harold Browne, Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, 2 vols 1850-53, and the Tractarian, Robert Isaac Wilberforce, The Doctrine

243 Article XXXI161 was the third Article (with those on justification and predestination) that he wished ‘burned into the soul’. It ‘affirms the doctrine of the one oblation of Christ finished upon the cross’, and he gave the scriptural grounds.162 He justified the Article’s condemnation of ‘the sacrifices of Masses’: these ‘did insult to the completeness of His finished work’ and ‘held out a hope of pardon which had not warrant in Holy Scripture.’163 Here again is the bibliocentrism and crucicentrism of Evangelicals and, one might add, of the sixteenth century Reformers as a whole.

Conclusion Nathaniel Jones had spelled out an Evangelical interpretation, scholarly and accessible, of English Reformation doctrine. He retained, along with catholic Trinitarian orthodoxy, the Reformation emphases on the sole authority of Scripture and Christ’s objective atonement. Justification (defined as ‘being accounted righteous’), was by faith (defined as ‘a sure trust’ in God’s promise of salvation by Christ). He seems equivocal on the freedom of the will. On

of the Holy Eucharist (1853), ch 5).

161Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 113. (Jones on Articles XXXII-XXXIX not surveyed.)

162Heb 9:28; 10:12, 17, 18.

163Jones, Teaching of the Articles, 113.

244 a millennium, a subject on which the Articles were silent, Jones revealed his location on the spectrum of Evangelicalism as added to by giving, on Article IV, a premillennial meaning to ‘the last day’. Many Evangelicals of his and the previous generation had already adopted this extension. The Teaching of the Articles placed the tradition of Moore College well and truly back on the track laid down by its first three principals under Bishop Barker. Perhaps its significance for those who valued Jones’ teaching is indicated by its reprinting forty years on.164 In the context of Sydney and its large Roman Catholic population as well as the Anglo-Catholic presence in the Diocese, the book planted Reformation distinctives clearly in the mind of its readers. Jones’s emphasis on Reformation doctrine was acknowledged near the end of his life by one who had long since moved in a liberal direction.165

164Nathaniel Jones, The Teaching of the Thirty-nine Articles (Sydney: Church Missionary Society, [1944]).

165FJA Fraser, I Remember, I Remember: An Autobiography of a Nonagenarian (Sydney: Dolphin, 1977).

245 Chapter 6 EVANGELICALISM MAINTAINED

In The Teaching of the Articles Jones advocated his doctrinal convictions for those preparing for some form of official ministry. He also published a good deal to maintain and promulgate the application of biblical teaching to personal piety and daily living. Shining through all these efforts is his commitment to the Reformation’s sole authority of Scripture and to the doctrinal system of the Thirty-nine Articles. Prominent also is his love of The Book of Common Prayer, and his devotional and practical application of it. Most notable in this second part of his oeuvre is his series of addresses given in the very early years of what became the Katoomba Christian Convention. In addition he published three expository studies of Prayer Book liturgy, and a number of occasional addresses and sermons. His place in the Evangelical spectrum, including its two additions or extensions (eschatology and Keswick holiness), is manifest, especially the latter.

247 Jones’s Katoomba Addresses of 1904 and 1905. Marcus Loane wrote that Jones taught and lived ‘the true Keswick doctrine’.1 The nine studies in A Handful of Corn upon the Mountains2 (Ps 72:16) state what he believed it to be and how it applied. They show a consistent exegetically careful biblicism and scholarship, albeit lightly worn. On passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews, for example, his authority was Westcott’s great commentary on the Greek text.3 His application was often activist, but always biblically grounded as well as practical and devotional. The theology was very close to that of HCG Moule, a careful exegete trained by JB Lightfoot. Moule had accepted the Keswick doctrine as expounded by Evan Hopkins (with some refinements) in 1884.4 He included the teaching in his standard textbook of doctrine. There he defined the sum of Christian ethics as a total abstinence in Christ’s name from admitted sinning, of motive and act, and

1ML Loane, A Centenary History of Moore Theological College (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1955), 98.

2Nathaniel Jones, A Handful of Corn Upon the Mountains: Bible Readings and Addresses (Sydney: WM Madgwick, 1905).

3Brook Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays. London: Macmillan, 1892 [1889]).

4HCG Moule, ‘Introduction: Some Recollections’, in Alexander Smellie, Evan H Hopkins: A Memoir (London: Marshall Brothers, [1920]), 12-14.

248 positively, a true and entire dedication of ‘spirit, soul, and body’ to the will of God.5

He drew a parallel with regard to the role of faith in justification. Faith was ‘the restored man’s equipment, in Christ, for his holy purpose of sanctification’, precisely the same faculty as that exercised in the act of receiving remission (sc of sins) and acceptance (sc with God) . . . but it now takes another direction.6

Since Christ indwelling the believer and ‘overcoming . . . by the Holy Spirit’ was ‘the true secret for internal moral purity’, therefore, ‘our part is to believe’.7 This faith he defined as ‘humble reliance on God’, as opposed to ‘a process of discipline and labour’.8 Yet, ‘the Scripture doctrine of Sanctification teaches no effortless passivity’.9 In an early Bible study (1890), ‘The Old Yoke and the New’ (Matt 11:29,30), Jones had drawn the same parallel of justification (‘the rest of

5HCG Moule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1890 [1889]), 190-201 (quot at 191).

6Moule, Outlines, 191 (reff Acts 15:9; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 6:16, and ‘probably’ Acts 26:18).

7Moule, Outlines, 191.

8Moule, Outlines, 193.

9Moule, Outlines, 193-94, cf JC Ryle, Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties and Roots (Hertfordshire, Eng: Evangelical Press, 1979 [repr of 1879 ed]), 47-49, and Ch 4. ‘The Fight’, 50-65.

249 forgiveness’) with sanctification (‘the rest of deliverance’). To have the latter you must also: ‘take Him as your Conqueror’, in ‘undisputed sway over your whole being’; ‘as your Master’, in ‘submission to His will’; ‘as your Teacher’, learning of Him by imitating the ‘pattern [of] “His meek and lowly Self”’. It is by ‘a voluntary act’ of ‘consecration’ that ‘you find rest by dedicating yourself to God (Rom 12:1).’ And you can do this only by the power of the Holy Spirit.10 Typical Keswick words – ‘yielding’ and ‘rest’ – are prominent here. Jones’s series in The Victorian Churchman, ‘Texts Often Misunderstood’, which followed upon the missions in Australia of the Revd GC Grubb and his party in 1891-1892, has been noted in chapter 4 above. The positive effect of the missions pleased an English Church Missionary Society observer.11 A Handful of Corn upon the Mountains is the mature expression of Jones’s main ideas on holiness. The first address was foundational, ‘The Christian’s Ground of Glorying’ (Rom 5:1-11). The Letter to the Romans, he said, excluded all self-glorying (Rom 3:27), since ‘salvation from beginning to end is of God’. Yet now the believer

10The Victorian Churchman (June 6th, 1890), 138.

11Eugene Stock, Editorial Secretary of the Church Missionary Society, as reported in The Victorian Churchman (November 24th, 1893).

250 glories in three things – in the future hope (Rom 5:2) of the restored ‘glorious image of God stamped on man at his creation’, in tribulations, their resulting ‘patience’ (‘persistent spirit’), ‘probation’ (‘temper of the veteran’), and in ‘hope’ (‘of final victory’) (Rom 5:3,4). Ultimately, the hope is grounded in ‘the great inspiring consciousness of the love of God’ received from the Holy Spirit (v 5). The Christian’s boast is in ‘God Himself’ (v 11), ‘in the knowledge of the Father’s [loving] heart’ manifested in Christ’s cross (vv 8), not just in his gift of justification (vv 9,10).12 Such was the foundation for a living, cross-centered faith that embraced holiness. In the second address, ‘On Working out our own Salvation’ (Philipp 2:12,13) Jones ruled out the idea of ‘passivity’ (later found in ‘Keswick’ teaching at Oxford).13 He sums up the theme of his text pithily – ‘You work out, as He works in’, an aphorism reiterated at each major point. He argues (here) from the sovereign power of God to the believer’s responsibility – ‘man’s response to God’s ability.’ Pentecost will not be repeated, but let the Spirit ‘take full control; and then do you work out as He works in’. This was not by heroic volunteering for China or India (these

12Jones, A Handful of Corn, 10-13.

13JI Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984), 146, 147, 155-157.

251 conventions had a missionary emphasis), but, as he had said to Sydney tertiary students,14 ‘by doing your ordinary duties just where God has placed you.’15 A call to ‘a larger sphere’ may come, but meanwhile, show God’s power in you by living a life of holy contentment, of gentle forbearance, of watchful consistency and of faithful testimony just where you are.16

The words ‘faithful testimony’ might, though not necessarily, be read today as urging all to be verbal evangelists, a mid-nineteenth century novelty in Evangelical history, adopted at Keswick. The third address, ‘St Peter’s Call to Holiness’ (1 Peter 1:13-21), was basically a call to the moral separation from the world entailed in consecration to God. Only God is holy, and ‘[holiness] belongs to men so far as they cleanse themselves from all defilement, and come into harmony with His mind and will.’17 ‘Salvation’ in the text, was ‘a wide word’, having reference to past sins, present temptations, and the future redemption of the body.

14See below.

15Cf the Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer.

16Jones, A Handful of Corn, 14-20.

17Jones, A Handful of Corn, 21.

252 Holiness was God’s work, but ‘we must see that we are in a right attitude before Him’18 (an echo of his address to students), the attitude of ‘a controlled mind’, ‘of (emotional) sobriety’, ‘of a fixed hope’ in Christ’s second coming, and ‘of a new allegiance’ (‘to God, and not the self- life’).19 The perfection required20 was a ‘right adjustment of soul’,21 as we trace Christ’s ‘life of absolute surrender, spotless purity, and perfect trust’ in ‘“every instance of behaviour”’ (so the Greek of v 15).22 The passage contained a threefold motivation – the command of God’s word, the nature of God’s future judgment on his own children, and the cost of the believer’s redemption, which was Christ’s own blood.23 ‘The Life of Perfect Love’ (1 Sam 18:1[-4; 19:1-7, [etc]), the fourth study, was an exemplarist use of the story of Jonathan's love for David (a divinely appointed foreshadowing of Christ). Jonathan ‘beautifully illustrates . . . the Christian who is taken up with the Person of

18Jones, A Handful of Corn, 24-25.

19Jones, A Handful of Corn, 25-26.

20Matthew 5:48 (reference not given).

21See again below, address ‘The Ideal Life’.

22Jones, A Handful of Corn, 24-27.

23Jones, A Handful of Corn, 28.

253 the Saviour.’24 The emphasis was Christo-centric. The (Keswick) phrase, ‘Higher Christian life’25 meant ‘[t]he experience of the Christian who has looked beyond the gift to the Giver.’26 We, like Jonathan, ‘[w]hen . . . full of love to Christ we are bound to overflow’ in speaking of Christ. We will ‘know no reservations’, will ‘rejoice if we are counted worthy to suffer’ for him, and ‘can look beyond this time of his rejection, and hail that crowning day that is coming’. Jones looks to Christ’s future Advent: ‘Will [Christ] be able to bear the testimony to our great love for him that David bore to Jonathan?’27 The fifth study, ‘Three Aspects of Christ in His Own Nature’ in the New Testament ‘Letter to the Hebrews’, was aimed at motivating the above ‘loving adoration’ of Christ.28 Jones began with the high Christology of the first two chapters of the epistle – Christ’s ‘eternal relation to God’. He followed Westcott, and the new Revised Version (1881).29 He again provided a memorable aphorism

24Jones, A Handful of Corn, 31-32.

25WE Boardman, The Higher Christian Life (Boston; New York; Edinburgh; London, 1859).

26Jones, A Handful of Corn, 30-32.

27Jones, A Handful of Corn, 34-35 (ref 2 Sam 1:26 not given).

28Jones, A Handful of Corn, 45.

29Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews; New Testament Revised Version (NT 1881) – against the Authorised Version

254 on the believer’s coming to Christ ‘Crowned with Glory and Honour’, that Hebrews 1:6 set forth ‘the dignity of man as God originally created him. . . . not one remove above the apes, but one remove below the angels.30 Christ at the right hand of God was ‘the pattern and pledge of what we shall be.’ This hope was a motivation to loving worship.31 In his sixth study, ‘The Rest of God’ (Hebr 3:7-4, 11), he spelled out the theme that present salvation (in addition to initial forgiveness) was ‘to be enjoyed day by day’. The salvation of the Shepherd’s crook (Ps 23) was ‘salvation through our listening to His voice, and yielding to His will.’32 ‘[F]aith has linked us to the company of obedient hearers.’ The promised rest [that] the Israelites ‘failed to enter into’33 was ‘a spiritual rest now . . . to be enjoyed by Christians in this life . . . an experience of liberty, fellowship, and joy.’ There was no need to remain ‘fretted with worry and anxiety, overcome by temptation, burdened with sin’, excusing yourself with ‘O wretched man that I am,

of 1611.

30Jones, A Handful of Corn, 43 (italics added).

31Jones, A Handful of Corn, 44-45.

32Jones, A Handful of Corn, 45-46.

33Psalm 95:11.

255 who shall deliver me?’34 This was in accordance with Moule’s Keswick interpretation of Rom 7:24 in his expositional commentary.35 ‘St Paul’s View of the Future’ (2 Cor 5:1-10), the seventh study, demonstrates that even if some of Jones’s students, like Herbert Begbie (1871- 1951) and Harry Howe (1867-1932), were rather preoccupied with the thought of the Lord’s return and even its date,36 Jones himself was not. He understood that Paul here only thought it ‘probable’ (subsequently ‘possible’) that ‘he [would] be alive at the Lord’s return, when the first resurrection would take place’.37 Jones himself greatly valued ‘[t]his blessed hope of the Lord’s return, and the putting on of the glorified body’ as ‘a practical power in our lives’ (2 Cor 5:1-5). An immediate return of the Lord was no certainty – so the hope does not call for us . . . to allow our earthly affairs to get into disorder, or to neglect making provision for those dependent

34Jones, A Handful of Corn, 51-53.

35HCG Moule, The Epistle of St Paul to the Romans. The Expositor’s Bible (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1894).

36HGJ Howe (1867-1932), The Dawning of That Day (Sydney editions 1922-1928; 5th ed, rev and enl, London: Advent Testimony and Preparation Movement, [1930?]). See also Stuart Braga, A Century of Preaching Christ: Katoomba Christian Convention 1903-2003 (Sydney: Katoomba Christian Convention Ltd, 2003), 55.

37Jones, A Handful of Corn, 55. Cf Nathaniel Jones, The Teaching of the Articles, 30-33.

256 upon us. . . . [W]e may have to pass through the dark valley of the Shadow of Death.38

Quite certain, however, was the future judgment of Christians (1 Cor 5: 9-10) that ‘will take account of their works’, with degrees of reward for their service of Christ, ‘all we have ever done,’ even ‘the thoughts of our hearts’.39 Far from God’s grace relieving Christians ‘of all sense of responsibility,’ the fact of future judgment will make a very great difference in our lives if they are lived in the light of that coming day. . . . May we make it our aim, our ambition . . . to be well pleasing to Him.40

Jones’s expectation of the return of Christ is here quite silent as to a millennium. His eighth and penultimate study (Matt 19:3- 12) was on the need to be reconciled with an offended neighbour before engaging in worship. The Christian believer should ‘look back’,41 to see whether ‘some unkind word, or thoughtless action’ had offended a Christian brother.42 He cautioned against either ‘forc[ing] on God an offering He does not want’ or ‘still[ing] their conscience’ by thinking (with typical Jones humour), ‘At all

38Jones, A Handful of Corn, 59.

39Jones, A Handful of Corn, 62 (italics original).

40Jones, A Handful of Corn, 64.

41Jones, A Handful of Corn, 66-67.

42Jones, A Handful of Corn, 67.

257 events I don’t claim to be one of those “higher life” people’! Scripture promised fulness of joy if you ‘put the wrong right . . . and then come and offer you gift’. The young Australians bound for the Boer War, ‘march[ing] through the streets rejoicing’,43 were an example of joy in sacrifice. The final study, ‘The Lord’s Supper[:] A Witness to Central Truth’44 was fitting for the concluding convention celebration. His piety was centred on Christ’s cross. Aware that his audience knew ‘diversity of formal worship’ in their various Protestant communions, he drew their minds to the ‘one central doctrine from which all others radiate; and one central act of worship and fellowship.’45 The meeting place of God and sinner, and ‘the meeting place of brethren of widely differing views’46 was this ‘Central Ordinance of Worship’ which ‘in its ceremonial is a silent witness to [the] central truth’ of ‘the living Christ who was dead.’47 Breaking the bread, Jones stated, ‘bears witness to the doctrine of Christ for us, the

43Jones, A Handful of Corn, 69.

44Jones, A Handful of Corn, 71-78.

45Jones, A Handful of Corn, 71-72.

46Jones, A Handful of Corn, 71-72.

47Jones, A Handful of Corn, 73-74.

258 ground of our justification.’48 Eating the broken bread ‘bears witness to our identification with Christ in His death, the secret of our sanctification’, for ‘a dead man (Rom 6:2,6,7,11) cannot respond to temptation . . . cannot feel a slight or resent an injury’.49 Our attitude at the table should be that of ‘looking upward’. In the text (1 Cor 11:26), ‘“till He come” we have the doctrine of the second coming of Christ, the hope of the Church.’50 Thus ‘the great truths of justification, sanctification, and future redemption are all set before us in this service’51 (which quotes this text). The bread – one loaf or slice – ‘represents many in one. Here we have’, he wrote, ‘the doctrine of the Church’, and he was reminded of the Keswick watchword, ‘All one in Christ Jesus’.52 Finally, Jones said, Our attitude toward the world must be one of separation, for we could hardly ‘be looking and longing for [the Lord’s] return and be identified with the ungodly in their

48Jones, A Handful of Corn, 75; hymn ‘I hear the words of love’ by Horatio Bonar (Free Church of Scotland minister).

49Jones, A Handful of Corn, 75-76.

50Jones, A Handful of Corn, 76.

51Jones, A Handful of Corn, 77.

52Jones, A Handful of Corn, 77-78.

259 tastes and pleasures’.53 The tenor of his ‘separation’ holiness was nothing other than that of Handley Moule at the 1890 Church Congress in England and noted above,54 not withdrawal from society. What historian of Australia could claim that ‘the world’ of Sydney in 1904-05 was unlike ‘the world’ that Moule had described in 1890 – one of self-centred taste for reputation and the pleasures of wealth condemned in the gospels? Two of Jones’s successors at Moore College, principals TC Hammond and Marcus Loane, would become speakers at the Katoomba Convention over many years, and members of its council.55 Former students of Jones later on the council included Herbert S Begbie, Harry GS Howe, and RB Robinson.56

Writings and Addresses touching on Holiness in Society Three additional pieces of evidence show that Jones, the premillennial Keswick holiness preacher, by no means discouraged Christian participation and exercise of influence in society.

53Jones, A Handful of Corn, 79.

54HCG Moule, ‘Paper read before the Church Congress at the Devotional Meeting held in the Park Hall, Cardiff’, republished in The Victorian Churchman, March 14th, 1890, 70-71 (noted also in ch 4 above).

55Braga, A Century of Preaching Christ, 159, and Index, sv ‘Speakers’, 171.

56Braga, A Century of Preaching Christ, 159.

260 The first, alluded to in the exposition of his second Katoomba address above, was Jones’s address to tertiary students, ‘The Ideal Life and How to Live it’. The Victorian Churchman had carried ‘the substance’.57 The ideal was, like Christ to do the will of God (Hebr 13:21), in whatever ‘state of life into which it has pleased God to call me.’58 By quoting thus from the Catechism of The Book of Common Prayer, he attributed a real value to the professions as vocations for Christians. He explained the perfection required in the text (Hebr 13:21): ‘Now the God of peace . . . make you perfect in every good work to do his will’. This, he said, ‘confronts us at the very beginning of the ideal life.’ The aorist tense of the Greek verb translated ‘make you perfect’ (AV) indicated the prior ‘condition’ for doing God’s will, ‘something which must be done straight away’. From Bishop Westcott’s explanation of the Greek translated ‘make you perfect’,59 Jones concluded that the perfection ‘amounts to . . . “right adjustment of soul” . . . to God’s will.’ Christians must ‘put right at once’ any of their being ‘out of gear’, or of their neglect of prayer or of the study of God’s Word (ie, Scripture), put

57The Victorian Churchman (August 11th, 1899), 287- 288.

58‘Catechism’, Book of Common Prayer.

59Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews at Hebr 13:21.

261 right the ‘harbouring of some secret sin’, or allowing the rush of life to ‘hustle’ them ‘out of their spirituality’. This was holiness applied by Jones to the context of ‘whatever state of life it pleased God to call them’.60 Such practical pastoral teaching, grounded in a careful reading of the Greek New Testament and guided by such as Handley GC Moule, was surely what he must have taught his students to minister to their parish congregations. The second additional example of Jones’s attitude to social matters was his sermon preached at the consecration of his friend, John Douse Langley, in St Paul’s Cathedral, Melbourne in 1907. While rector of St Philip’s, Sydney (Church Hill), Douse’s activism had established, during the deep depression of the 1890s, his Church Labour Home – to provide ‘simple work for the unemployed’ – to the resentment of trades unions. In his sermon Jones insisted that a bishop focus his activism biblically. Quoting the first apostles (at Acts 6:4: ‘We will devote ourselves to prayer and the ministry of the word’), he first highlighted what the Consecration of Bishops rite in the Prayer Book therefore stated – that the bishop’s task was primarily one of teaching and exhorting, rather than61 (so Jones) being

60The Victorian Churchman (August 11th, 1899), 191- 192.

61Emphasis added.

262 an ecclesiastical statesman, a good administrator, one who can finance his diocese well and who can organise all kinds of work in a successful way. . . . the man of business, the ideal chairman of committees, the social reformer.62

The Apostles had protested: ‘It is not reason (sic AV) that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables’ (Acts 6:2). In addition, Jones (an experienced Sydney synodsman) did not exclude social concern from the organised church’s task, as distinct from that of its chief pastors: ‘The church has to confront problems, political, social, educational and financial’ (and he refers to the great educational controversy then still going on in England).63 ‘This is the Church’s work’, and ‘it must be done, but not by our chief pastors’. The bishop needed to-day was the man who realises that the great essential work of his office is the spiritual work, the man who will be the centre of all the spiritual force and spiritual fire in his diocese.64

This was no eschatologically or holiness- motivated unconcern for society by the church as

62The Victorian Churchman (February 8, 1907).

63Cf Edmund Arbuthnott Knox, Reminiscences of an Octogenarian, 1847-1934 (London: Hutchinson, [1934]), Chapter XIII.

64The Victorian Churchman (February 8, 1907).

263 the body of believers.65 What he said here in 1907 was entirely in tune with the report of a sermon of 1905, which he had cut out and kept among his papers: [T]he Principal of Moore College, preaching from the text John 1.42, ‘He brought him to Jesus,’ pointed out that ‘the various social methods adopted – the cricket club, the debating class, the church club’, were absorbing the time of the clergy, taking them from their proper work, which was the ministry of the Word.

And the editor had strongly agreed.66 Jones was hardly more than reiterating the words of Handley Moule at the Church Congress of 1890 (referred to above), when he graphically outlined the evils of society as he saw them and the need for Christians to be ‘separate’ by way of godly contrast.67 For this they needed godly instruction from their bishops and clergy. For Jones, the teacher of future clergy, such was their proper, that is, biblically grounded, task as set out in ‘The Making, Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests [Presbyters], and ’ in The Book of Common Prayer.

65Pace Lawton, A Better Time to Be, 70-79.

66The Australian Churchman, (December 16, 1905).

67The Victorian Churchman (March 14th, 1890), 71.

264 Jones’s Publications on Prayer Book Liturgy His ordination vows committed Jones to using the forms of The Book of Common Prayer. Although well aware of non-liturgical forms of worship, he retained a profound appreciation, theological and pastoral, also devotional, even aesthetic, of and for his English Reformation tradition. He commended the devotional value of Prayer Book doctrine at the Church Congress of 1894 in Hobart.68 Shortly before he moved to Moore College from Perry Hall, Bendigo, he had read a paper on the same subject to the Evangelical Churchmen’s Association in Melbourne.69 Jones there began by emphasising the necessary conjunction of devotion with doctrine: Doctrine without devotion too often degenerates into a sort of theological sword exercise. . . . Devotion without doctrine . . . is like a ship without a rudder.

Thus the Prayer Book was valuable as a manual of devotion ‘because it insists . . . that healthy devotion must spring from the root of sound doctrine.’ It duly recognised ‘the character of God. . . . His holiness, His power, and His love’. The Prayer Book also had a ‘clear grasp of the

68The Official Report of the Church Congress: Held at Hobart on January 23rd, 24th, 25th, and 26th (Tasmania: Diocesan Book Depot, 1894), 253-55.

69Nathaniel Jones, ‘The Value of the Prayer Book as a Manual of Doctrine’, read at the Quarterly Meeting of the ECA [Evangelical Churchman’s Association], Melbourne’ (The Victorian Churchman, May 7th, 1897).

265 work of Christ’, as against ‘recent theology’s emphasis on the Incarnation.’ Again, the Prayer Book assumed ‘a deep sense of our need of the help of the Holy Spirit’, especially in the collects. These stressed God’s power and promise ‘to turn the sinner’s “I cannot,” into His “I can.”’ His second point was ‘the prominence [the Prayer Book] assigns to the reading of the Holy Scriptures. The devotional life needs food.’ Using the Prayer Book calendar, by which the whole Old Testament is to be read once a year, the New Testament twice, and the Psalter twelve times,70 was no waste of time for clergy. Thirdly, the Prayer Book was adaptable, fitted ‘to every aspect and need of the devotional life’, meeting the ‘very needs’ which nonconformists tried to supply. The weekly Holy Communion, for example, was an ideal service for the purpose of consecration. In his conclusion Jones suggested that Morning or Evening Prayer not to be seen ‘as a sort of introduction to the sermon’, which would be better placed immediately following the New Testament reading. While elaborate musical performances might well be avoided, services might still be made ‘bright and full of life’ by the singing of certain parts of it. ‘What the Church of England

70See ‘The Order how the Psalter is appointed to be read’ and ‘The Order how the rest of holy Scripture is appointed to be read’ in The Book of Common Prayer.

266 needs to make her the glory of all the churches is the spirit of her own services.’71 Our Daily Sacrifice,72 was an exposition of the services of Morning and Evening Prayer with the above in mind. Jones truly valued Prayer Book teaching. He was a Reformation Evangelical first and foremost. Here he wrote for the lay person to explain the services familiar as the main Sunday public worship, Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer. He wanted doctrine and devotion to combine. It was part and parcel of his pietism evident in A Handful of Corn. The very title, ‘Our Daily Sacrifice’, focussed on the New Testament concept of worship as one’s daily life before God. Analogies with music appeared as a motif, revealing an aesthetic dimension to his thought. He was writing ‘to help Church of England people to enter into the spirit of the services.’ Living faith must entail its living exercise in corporate worship. His Reformation doctrine shone through his application to piety and holiness. He spelled out the structure of the two services in five parts, three being ‘worship itself’:73

71Jones, ‘The Value of the Prayer Book as a Manual of Doctrine’ (no reference given for quotation).

72N Jones, Our Daily Sacrifice (Melbourne: H Rayward, [1900]).

73Jones, Our Daily Sacrifice, 6.

267 I. The ‘penitential introduction’ was like the tuning of an instrument before playing: ‘we seek to have our hearts put in tune’, first by hearing the words ‘from God’s own Book’ concerning the proneness even of ‘regenerate man’ to sin, and ‘the readiness of God to forgive.’ Secondly, the Exhortation therefore insisted on ‘the need of confession . . . especially when we meet’ together for ‘united praise and prayer’ in ‘the Presence Chamber of the Holy One.’ Next, therefore, ‘we . . . cry out in the Confession “there is no health in us . . . have mercy upon us . . . restore us, according to Thy promises.”’ Indwelling sin bore fruit, making daily confession necessary.74 Fourthly, the Absolution, ‘the assurance of pardon and peace’, which ‘stands at the opening of our service, [was] like the of Burnt Offering at the door of the Tabernacle.’75 It spoke both to those who have not yet repented and believed, and to those who ‘have been reconciled to God’, for they also ‘have sin’ in them (1 John 1:8).76 Finally, now we could therefore ‘look up and say “Our Father”, before . . . the service of praise which is to follow.’77 Jones’s exposition of heartfelt worship continued on this note.

74Jones, Our Daily Sacrifice, 6-8.

75Jones, Our Daily Sacrifice, 9.

76Jones, Our Daily Sacrifice, 10-11.

77Jones, Our Daily Sacrifice, 11.

268 II. Having sought ‘cleansed lips . . . now we ask for opened lips’ in this second ‘great part of worship’ – Praise, and pray that they may also be ‘kept lips’. Again Jones brought in his motif of music: Thus, with our hearts in tune, and our lips prepared . . . the music begins. . . . First, like the prelude before the anthem . . . we strike a few comprehensive chords of praise, which indicate the theme of the coming chorus – ‘Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.’78

[T]he congregation was like a surpliced choir ‘with robes washed white in Christ’s Blood’ summoning to praise. ‘[T]he Invitatory Psalm’ [Ps 95, at Morning Prayer] invited us to praise God, ‘the Great Creator and Ruler of the Universe’, who ‘car[es] for us individually’. The Psalms followed which ‘in all ages have gladdened and comforted the hearts of God’s people.’ He noted the examples from David to Luther, and quoted Richard Hooker in praise of the psalms.79 Jones faced the problem Psalms. Those of ‘warlike tone’ could be used: ‘in the light of Eph vi. 12, “Our wrestling is . . . against the principalities, against the powers” . . . .’ Those of ‘vindictive tone’ were to be understood

78Jones, Our Daily Sacrifice, 13.

79Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity V.xxxvii.[2] (second qutation only).

269 in the light of the ‘progressive revelation’ idea. He quoted the previous bishop of Melbourne: Such Psalms . . . are . . . mementoes of that gradual and stately progress of revelation through which . . . the Law was made our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.80

Jones did not seem to find it a problem that presumably sub-Christian sentiments should have Christian use. He appears not to have adopted the hypothesis that ‘the inspired collector’ may have included these Psalms ‘as a warning’ that ‘exalted rapture of devotion is no safeguard against an admixture of human infirmity’.81 He did not know Calvin’s thought that the psalmist was speaking ‘not in his own cause but in that of God’.82 Jones found bright relief in singing at the end of each Psalm, the Gloria ‘to the God of love, redemption

80Jones, Our Daily Sacrifice, 23 (abbreviated), quoting ‘Moorhouse, Charges on Church Work’ – almost certainly (Bishop) , Church Work, Its Means and Methods (London: Macmillan, 1894).

81EA Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology on the Basis of the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England, 2nd ed (London: Elliott Stock, 1902), 25.

82Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Vol II. [edited] James Anderson (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845-49 [vols I-V], 337). Cf Derek Kidner, Psalms 1-72: Introduction and Commentary (Leicester, Eng; Downer's Grove, Illinois, USA: Inter-Varsity, 1973); Michael Wilcock, The Message of the Psalms 1-72: Songs for the People of God (Leicester, Eng: Inter-Varsity, 2001), and Meredith G Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority. Revised Edition (Hamilton, MA: Meredith G Kline, 1989), 161-162.

270 and grace’, following ‘the incomplete revelation . . . to them of old.’83 III. The second ‘great part of worship’ – is Instruction, in God’s Word. ‘First, from the Old Testament, we read of God’s love foreshadowed in type and prophecy, or manifested in providential dealing with the old fathers.’ Again he brought in the motif of music as he expounded the congregation’s response in the Te Deum:84 . . . that glorious old hymn . . . of praise to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. . . . Secondly . . . to our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . [F]inally . . . [we] pray [to] be kept daily from sin, and conclude with the shout of triumph, ‘O Lord, in Thee have I trusted, I shall never be confounded.’

Jones likewise highlighted the theme of God's love in the second, the New Testament reading, which told of ‘God’s love fulfilled’. The responding Song of Zacharias85 thanked God for the arrival of the salvation he promised. Similarly, ‘hymns of grateful thanksgiving’, Mary’s and Simeon’s songs,86 followed the New Testament readings.87

83Jones, Our Daily Sacrifice, 23-24.

84Te Deum laudamus (‘We praise, Thee, O God’).

85Luke 1:68-79.

86Luke 1:46-55 (Mary); Luke 2:29-32 (Simeon).

87Jones, Our Daily Sacrifice, 27.

271 IV. The Incentive to Worship was the corporate confession of faith in the words of the Apostles’ Creed. It summed up the ‘the great truths of the whole Bible.’88 Jones quoted both Augustine of Hippo, ‘arm yourselves with your creed’, and Bishop James Moorhouse’s words, on the ‘conscious relation of belief and trust towards God’ indicated by the ‘I’-form of the Creed.89 He quoted (in full) the memorable summary of the Catechism, of belief ‘“in God the Father, Who hath made me . . . in God the Son, Who hath redeemed me . . . in God the Holy Ghost, Who sanctifieth me. . . .”’90 V. The ‘third and last great division of the service’ was Prayer, in which ‘the predominating element’ of praise ‘appears again’ – in the General Thanksgiving. Jones wrote as though this were used every Sunday. He concluded by quoting ‘By Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his Name’ (Heb 13:15).91 A blend of warm feeling with clear mental understanding, of faith that was personal trust characterises Jones’s exposition – heart as well

88Jones, Our Daily Sacrifice, 29.

89Jones, Our Daily Sacrifice, 29, citing ‘Moorhouse, Charges on Church Work’ [Moorhouse, Church Work].

90Jones, Our Daily Sacrifice, 30-31.

91Jones, Our Daily Sacrifice, 32.

272 as mind, doctrine and devotion. This goal for Prayer Book worship harmonised with his commitment to the biblically grounded Reformation doctrine of justifying faith, faith that was personal trust, as enshrined in the Thirty-nine Articles. The same scholarly underlay is evident in his other two expositions of English Reformation liturgical riches contained in The Book of Common Prayer. Arise; Shine,92 was his coat-pocket study of the collect, epistle and gospel (read at the Lord’s Supper) for the Epiphany season. His London-published (doubtless by Griffith Thomas’s agency) Eastertide study, Resurrection Life,93 evidences the same mind. If he wrote something for the season of Advent it is lost. Jones the ‘preacher of righteousness’,94 as Lawton so aptly called him, was ‘struck with the connection between the facts of the Gospel and the bearing of those facts upon the lives of Christians’ in the ‘Collects, Epistles, and Gospels in our Prayer-book’.95 In Arise; Shine he

92Canon N Jones, Arise; Shine: An Epiphany Study for the New Year (Sydney: Madgwick Print, nd [post 1902]).

93Nathaniel Jones, Resurrection Life: A Prayer Book Study for Tide, (London: Elliot Stock, 1909), hardback format.

94William J Lawton, ‘Nathaniel Jones: Preacher of Righteousness’, in Peter T O’Brien and David G Peterson (eds), God Who Is Rich in Mercy: Essays presented to Dr. D.B. Knox (Homebush West: Lancer Books, 1986), 361-75.

95Jones, Arise; Shine, 1.

273 makes use of this connection ‘between the teaching of the Epiphany and that of the Sundays that follow’.96 The Epiphany (Sunday) itself ‘commemorates the fact of Christ’s manifestation to us’. On the Sundays following, the collect, epistle and gospel struck the keynote, ‘How to Shine’. They show ‘how they who shine for Jesus now, will shine with Him in the glory of the life to come.’97 Keswick teaching informed his application. The starting point, ‘doing the will of God’, began with ‘entire self-surrender’ (the First Sunday).98 On the following Sundays there was ‘shin[ing] for Jesus in the home’ with ‘practical holiness;’99 shining ‘in the midst of a hostile world’, ‘by living gentle, blameless, peaceable lives, while we commit our cause to God;’100 ‘shining as members of the Church’ (the Fifth Sunday) by forbearing even with ‘mere professing believers’.101 Most striking in view of the widely adopted misperception of Jones was his exposition of the Fourth Sunday – ‘Shining in our Relation to the State’. This is the third additional piece of

96Jones, Arise; Shine, 1.

97Jones, Arise; Shine, 4.

98Jones, Arise; Shine, 6.

99Jones, Arise; Shine, 8.

100Jones, Arise; Shine, 10.

101Jones, Arise; Shine, 13-14.

274 evidence that Jones did not exclude social responsibility from the Christian’s obligation. He included it. His perspective is remarkably similar to that of Henry Wace, ‘The Gospel and Politics’ (1910).102 Jones explicitly rejects the notion of ‘many good people who think that the Christian should have nothing to do with politics’ on the grounds that they are ‘passing through’ a world at present ‘under Satan’.103 Rather, ‘Satan’s authority is usurped, and as subjects of the rightful king we should not let him have all his own way.’ That we are pilgrims and strangers in the world ‘is no reason why we should not try to make the world a better place.’104 The State is the ‘divinely-appointed institution’ by which God restrains evil (a Reformation ‘common grace’ theme) through the governing authorities, who are ‘His ministers.’ Christians, therefore, must ‘recognise their authority, and render to all their dues’ (the Epistle, Rom 13:1-7). ‘Every Christian who has a vote is a little bit of the Emperor.’ Therefore, as well as praying for good governance, we must, by a wise exercise of the franchise, do what lies in our power for the furtherance

102Jones, Arise; Shine, 10-12; Henry Wace, ‘The Gospel and the Political World’ (repr from The Record of 1910) in Henry Wace, Some Issues of the Day, (London: James Nisbet, 1912), 88-98.

103Jones, Arise; Shine, 10.

104Jones, Arise; Shine, 11 (emphasis added).

275 of that object. The man who neglects to use his vote as a talent from God commits a sin of the same kind as a neglectful ruler. But positively, [I]n so far as we exercise [these responsibilities] for the glory of God, we shall shine for Jesus in our political life. . . . We must use the power we have to influence our rulers for righteousness. . . .105

(The voting franchise had been universal for adult males in New South Wales since 1858, and for women as well in the new Commonwealth of Australia, since June 1902.) At the same time, ‘we cry to the “Only ruler of princes,” “Save us, or we perish.”’106 (The Gospel for the Sunday was Jesus’ stilling of the storm and the healing of the Gadarene demoniac).107 In Jones’s thinking, the individual’s life of faith was not without its political responsibility. Jones must have taken the manuscript of Resurrection Life108 to England with him in 1908, where he stayed in the home of WH Griffith Thomas, now principal of Wycliffe Hall. Thomas commended

105Jones, Arise; Shine, 11-12.

106Jones, Arise; Shine, 12.

107Matt 8:23-34.

108Nathaniel Jones, Resurrection Life: A Prayer Book Study for Easter Tide (London: Eliot Stock, 1909).

276 it warmly in his ‘Introductory Note’.109 Very probably it was this small book (if not also Our Daily Sacrifice and Arise; Shine) that caused Thomas to encourage Jones to write a larger work on the Prayer Book. In Resurrection Life Jones expounds the holiness thrust of the sets of the collects (pointing out their scriptural allusions), the epistles and gospels appointed for the Lord’s Supper on Easter Even, Easter Day, and the five Sundays After Easter. The first study, on Easter Even, was ‘Resurrection Life: Its Starting-point’. The Collect indicated the starting point of the life of sanctification, that Christians ‘died with [Christ] in order that we might rise with Him and walk in newness of life’ (Rom 6:4). We are therefore to ‘share the power of his resurrection’. With good reason (see below) he passed over the words in the Collect, ‘continually mortifying’.110 The second study, ‘Resurrection Life: Its Nature’ (on Easter Day), he called the ‘present experience’ of the risen life, defined by the Collect as one ‘in which good desires are brought

109WH Griffith Thomas, ‘Introductory Note’ to Jones, Resurrection Life, 5-6.

110Rom 8:13.

277 to good effect.’111 Jones elucidated the tension between the ‘good desires’ and the bringing of them to ‘good effect’ by the Moulean (Keswick) contrast between the ‘fruitless good desires’ (Rom 7:19, 22, 24) and the ‘self’ supplanted ‘by the indwelling Christ’ (Rom 8).112 The key to the victory ‘lies in the words “in Christ Jesus”’ (Rom 8:1). ‘The resurrection life of the believer is a joyful, victorious, overcoming life’,113 he concluded. The Epistle for Easter Day (Col 3:1-7) described the resurrection life by its call ‘for lofty aspirations.’114 He quoted ‘Dr Moule’: ‘[to] “seek the things which are above is to go out in spirit towards a Christ triumphant and reigning”’.115 In the command of ‘a decisive act’ (contra, correctly, the Collect for Easter Eve’s ‘continually’) to ‘“mortify . . . your members”’,116 namely ‘[their] carnal functions’,

111Jones, Resurrection Life, 12.

112Jones, Resurrection Life, 13-14.

113Jones, Resurrection Life, 14; Moule, The Epistle of St Paul to the Romans (1894), 192-193.

114Jones, Resurrection Life, 14.

115Jones, Resurrection Life, 14-15. (Reference in Moule not given; not found in HCG Moule, The Epistles to Colossians and to Philemon (Cambridge: University Press), Moule, Thoughts on Christian Sanctity (London: Seeley & Co, 1885), Moule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine, or Moule Colossian Studies (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1898).

116Jones, Resurrection Life, 15 quoting Colossians 3:5.

278 “fornication, uncleanness,” etc’, lay ‘the secret of walking in separation from sin.’ Memorable if not convincing today was his striking analogy. He contrasted Jesus’ laid-aside grave-clothes (Gospel for Easter-Day, John 20:1-10) with those of Lazarus (John 11:44b): ‘Too many Christians are like Lazarus – bound hand and foot with grave- clothes.’117 The five Sundays after Easter spelled out the characteristics of this resurrection life. The first was ‘Purity’ (the Collect for the First Sunday after Easter: ‘pureness of living and truth’). He noted how the English Reformers safeguarded the devotional with doctrine, believing with Luther that ‘purity can only be the portion of those who have already found peace.’ The Collect’s words ‘Christ died for our sins, and rose again for our justification’ referred to Romans 4:25, the inference of which ‘follows in the very next verse (Rom 5:1): “Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”’ Thus (theologically questionable), ‘the foundation of reconciliation with God’ was the condition for trying to ‘raise the structure of a holy life’.118 The Collect referred to the first of the Easter Day sentences (1 Cor 5:7,8): ‘put away the

117Jones, Resurrection Life, 16.

118Jones, Resurrection Life, 18-19; Moule, The Epistle of St Paul to the Romans, 141-42.

279 leaven of malice and wickedness.’ The Jews, wrote Jones, customarily searched their houses with a lighted candle to remove any food-scraps that might contain leaven. This ‘furnish[ed] a striking image’ of thorough removal of moral corruption. We must prayerfully search ‘every secret corner of the heart’ with ‘the candle of the Word’.119 Again Jones was characteristically Reformational and Evangelical, emphasising the role of the Word in the spiritual-moral growth of the Christian believer. To make clear the Greek tense, he reworded the Collect’s ‘is sacrificed’ to ‘once for all sacrificed’ for us. Analogously, ‘sin is to be put away permanently’.120 Jones saw the Epistle (1 John 5:4-12) as ‘further enforcing’ the theme of purity. He quoted Westcott’s commentary to define the ‘world’ that faith overcomes: ‘the sum of all the limited transitory powers opposed to God which make obedience difficult.’121 ‘[W]hatsoever is born of God’ (v 4) Jones saw as virtually equivalent to being raised with Christ, and so, ‘as partakers of Christ’s life, victory is our portion.’ Faith was (pre-)condition of victory – believing that Jesus

119Jones, Resurrection Life, 19-20.

120Jones, Resurrection Life, 21 (emphasis added).

121Jones, Resurrection Life, 22; BF Westcott, Commentary on the Epistles of St John (London: Macmillan, 1883) at I John 5:4-5.

280 is the Son of God.122 The Gospel for this First Sunday after Easter (John 20:19-23), he admitted, bore only indirectly on the theme of purity: Jesus’ presence in the midst ‘carries with it the obligation of continual purity.’123 For the Second Sunday after Easter, the resurrection-life characteristic was ‘Christ- likeness’. Jones carefully noted that the Collect insisted on the priority of justifying faith – ‘that we most thankfully receive that His inestimable benefit’ (of his sacrifice for sin) – before attempting to follow his example of godly life.124 Not passivity but ‘effort’ (‘time’ and ‘trouble’), a continuous ‘daily thing’, was required.125 Here again was the complementary ‘he works in – do you work out’ noticed earlier. The Epistle (1 Pet 2:19-25) was the source of the Collect’s language, and clarified what Christlikeness meant. The Greek word translated ‘example’ (hypogrammon) in the Epistle (v 21) denoted a pencil-drawing provided by the teacher for the pupil to trace over in ink. Christ’s life was for Christians ‘diligently to follow each

122Jones, Resurrection Life, 23; Henry Alford, The Greek Testament Vol IV, ad loc.

123Jones, Resurrection Life, 23.

124Jones, Resurrection Life, 25.

125Jones, Resurrection Life, 26.

281 detail’126 – no guile in their speech, not reviling back when reviled. When scourged, the believer should take sufferings to be self dying daily on the cross that we may ‘“live unto righteousness”.’127 The last verse of the Gospel (John 10:11-16), ‘there shall be one fold (RV “flock”] and one shepherd’, referred to the Great Shepherd [in] his Resurrection . . . standing by our side . . . as we strive to plant our feet in the footprints of His life of patient suffering.128

The believer ‘looks up at the Great Shepherd, and cries: “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; thy rod and thy staff comfort me.”’129 Griffith Thomas, though few other readers, surely knew of Jones and his wife’s loss of four infant children in Tarnagulla, and his friend’s present life-threatening frailty. The ‘Consistency’ of Christians’ life with their professed faith was the subject of the Collect for the Third Sunday after Easter (‘eschew those things . . . contrary to their profession, and follow such . . . as are agreeable to the same’). Remarks on the Epistle (I Pet 2:11-17) show that Jones was no kill-joy. He wished only

126Jones, Resurrection Life, 26-27.

127Jones, Resurrection Life, 28, quoting 1 Peter 2:24.

128Jones, Resurrection Life, 29-30; .

129Jones, Resurrection Life, 29-30.

282 to sensitise his readers to their responsibility, and to motivate them to be ‘strangers and pilgrims in this world’, as ‘citizens of heaven. . . . [Who] soon must . . . hasten homewards.’130 He defended the ‘appetites and desires implanted in us by a wise Creator’. It was (only) ‘unlawful and inordinate gratification which converts them into lusts hostile to the soul’.131 Believers’ ‘good works’ would command admiration and esteem, and constrain unbelievers ‘to acknowledge the worth of our religion’.132 On the Gospel for the day (John 16:16-22) he quoted Westcott again to explain that Jesus’ words ‘ye now therefore have sorrow’ meant ‘that the suffering was “the necessary condition and preparation for joy”’.133 For the Fourth Sunday after Easter Jones pointed to ‘Fixity of Heart’ (from the Collect’s words, ‘that . . . our hearts may surely there be fixed’). He referred back to the Epistle for Easter Day to explain how that might be: ‘set your affections on the things that are above.’134 He denies that this ‘would involve the neglect of

130Jones, Resurrection Life, 33.

131Jones, Resurrection Life, 34.

132Jones, Resurrection Life, 35-36.

133Jones, Resurrection Life, 36, quoting BF Westcott, The Gospel According to St John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes (London: Murray, 1908), Vol 2, 230.

134Col 3:2; Jones, Resurrection Life, 38.

283 practical duties’.135 But, given the Collect’s reference to ‘unruly wills and affections’ and ‘sundry and manifold changes of the world’, how could the heart ‘be fixed in heaven’?136 The Epistle (Jas 1:17-21) and Gospel (John 16:5-15) gave the answer. James brought before believers ‘the character of the God with whom we have to do’, ‘the unchanging God’ (James 1:11),137 who was ‘a God of unchanging grace'.138 That he gave the greatest gift of all (John 3:16) was proof that ‘[t]he God who changes not is love.’139 Moreover, ‘Our regeneration is proof of His unchanging grace. “Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth.”’140 This was Jones's biblicist Thirty-nine Articles ‘Calvinism’, as also was his quotation ‘He which hath begun a good work in us, will perform it until “the day of Jesus Christ”’.141 Jones was pastorally encouraging. Change from prosperity to adversity, friends failing us, or a state of health ‘bring[ing] on ‘physical depression’ would never

135Jones, Resurrection Life, 40.

136Jones, Resurrection Life, 41.

137Jones, Resurrection Life, 41.

138Jones, Resurrection Life, 42.

139Jones, Resurrection Life, 42.

140Jones, Resurrection Life, 42-43; James 1:18.

141Jones, Resurrection Life, 43 (Philipp 1:6 – ref not given).

284 destroy spiritual serenity ‘if we could look away from them to our unchanging God whose face of love ever shines upon us and who will never leave us or forsake us.’142 The Gospel (John 16:5-15) told how God will ‘order our unruly wills’ (Collect): through the indwelling Holy Spirit, which Jesus promised by pointing to Pentecost: ‘I will send the Comforter’ (John 16:7). He ‘comes to control the will and re-create the heart’, as God promised (Ezekiel 36:26). ‘This is how God makes us love the thing which he commands, so that our hearts are fixed in Him,’143 thus recurring to the Collect. The Fifth Sunday after Easter set forth ‘Reality’ as a characteristic of resurrection life. Jones grounded ‘heavenly mindedness’ in ‘earthly usefulness.’ The Collect’s words, ‘that by thy holy inspiration’, inspiration which derived from ‘the heavenly atmosphere’, was ‘with a view to action’.144 The Epistle (Jas 1:22-27) emphasised action (‘Be ye doers’ v 21), but which must ‘spring out of hearing’ (vv 19, 21). Many, however, ‘make no effort to break off their own besetting sins’, like the love of money. Jones spelled out ‘reality’ lists from the Epistle: ‘The control of the tongue’; ‘[s ]ympathy with the

142Jones, Resurrection Life, 43.

143Jones, Resurrection Life, 43-44.

144Jones, Resurrection Life, 45.

285 afflicted’, that is to say, ‘relieving the wants of the poor’ as opposed to religious ritual and sacrifices; and keeping oneself ‘[u ]nspotted from the world’: God was not served now (that is, since Christ’s resurrection) ‘with elaborate vestments; the garb of purity is what we have to wear.’145 The Gospel (John 16:23-33) gave ‘good encouragement’ by telling us of ‘the efficacy of prayer’ as well as of ‘the Father's love for us’ and ‘of Christ's victory over the world.’146 Like Arise; Shine, his Resurrection Life demonstrates his concern for biblical devotion and his theologico-pastoral insight into the riches of the liturgical year enshrined in the Book of Common Prayer (1552-1662). He always remained grounded in biblical Reformation doctrine, with which he integrated devotional application and elements of Keswick teaching. In all he also ‘looked for . . . the life of the world to come’,147 without tying this to a specifically premillennial expectation. Such was his pietism.

A Brief Conspectus of Some Pocket Tracts These show something of the scope of Jones’s thinking. A few related to his concern for holiness as the fruit of justification by faith.

145Jones, Resurrection Life, 46-49.

146Jones, Resurrection Life, 49-50.

147Niceno-Constantinopolitan (‘Nicene’) Creed (AD 381).

286 Some applied to current issues in Sydney, others were for particular occasions and situations. They illustrate points of his position on the conservative part of the Evangelical spectrum of his day. God’s Way of Justification148 was singled out for mention in ‘An Appreciation’ published on his death. Its writer remembered, too, that Jones ‘loved the Church of the Reformation with its loyalty to the pure Word of God and the Sacraments ordained by Christ.’149 Thus, a sermon in Moore College Chapel, ‘Touch Me Not.’ An Examination of a Popular Theory of the Sacraments,150 critiqued as unbiblical the Anglo-Catholic notion that in the sacraments ‘“man in his double nature is put into . . . complete . . . contact with the Incarnate Glorified Lord. . . .”’151 At an anniversary of the Protestant Church of England Union (against ritualism), he preached on Our Priestly Privileges

148N Jones, God’s Way of Justification, as set forth in The Epistle to the Romans. An Outline of the Argument of Chs. I. to V.11 (Sydney: ‘Australian Churchman’ Office, nd).

149‘The Rev. Canon Jones, M.A., An Appreciation’ in Sydney Diocesan Magazine IV.6 (June 1, 1911), 17.

150N Jones, “Touch Me Not” [John 20:17]. An Examination of a Popular Theory of the Sacraments: A Sermon Preached in Moore College Chapel” (Sydney: ‘Australian Churchman’ Office, nd).

151Jones, “Touch Me Not.”, 7, correcting ‘His’ to ‘his’, (ref to [F Paget Ch 10. ‘Sacraments’] in Charles Gore (ed), Lux Mundi: . . . The Religion of the Incarnation (London: John Murray, 1889).

287 (Hebrews 13:9-16).152 He integrated the Reformation insight into God’s grace and the believer’s ‘altar’ as the ‘crucified Saviour’ with a ‘continuous experience’ of its ‘power in our daily life’.153 His Protestantism, always firm, was never merely ‘cerebral’. He criticised a sacerdotal view of the Christian ministry in his sermon on John 20:22-23, The Church’s Commission.154 Against sacerdotalist claims, Roman and Anglo-Catholic, only God could forgive sins.155 A strong supporter of missionary work his Partners with the Holy Ghost addressed the annual meeting of the Gleaners’ Union (the youth organisation of the Church Missionary Association of New South Wales).156 Expecting his young hearers to rise to the challenge, he boldly argued the grounds for translating the Greek of Hebrews 6:4 as ‘partners with’, not ‘partakers of’ the Holy Spirit (AV).157 He then highlighted the

152N Jones, Our Priestly Privileges . . . A Study of Hebrews xiii. 9-16 (Sydney: “Australian Churchman” Office, nd; reprinted from The Australian Churchman, June 7, 1902).

153Jones, Our Priestly Privileges, 13.

154N Jones, The Church’s Commission (Sydney: “Australian Churchman” Office, nd).

155Jones, The Church’s Commission, 14-15 (cf Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Sess xiv., Canon ix.).

156Canon Jones, Partners with the Holy Ghost (Sydney: Madgwick, 1904).

157Jones, Partners with the Holy Ghost, 2-6.

288 importance and ‘practical advantages’ of that partnership in missionary work and missionary decision.158 His sermon, The New Cart,159 is interesting for its moralistic exposition of the compromised return of the Ark of the Covenant to the Tabernacle in Jerusalem (1 Chron 15:13 [RV]). He criticised ‘going to the world to borrow methods’ (for church money-raising), and thus ‘ignoring the rules laid down in Holy Scripture,’160 which he cited from the Corinthian epistles. An address, The Manifestation of God to those Who Keep His Word (1903) was a defense of Scripture against negative criticism, given at a Grubb mission-inspired ‘Annual Christian Conference’.161 Jones gave an intelligent, exegetical and theological argument for the full authority of both the New Testament and the Old Testament. He applied this authority to the holiness purpose of the conference.162 ‘He Is Ever

158Jones, Partners with the Holy Ghost, 6-11.

159N Jones, The New Cart (Sydney: “Australian Churchman” Office, nd).

160Jones, The New Cart, 9.

161Canon Jones, The Manifestation of God to those Who Keep His Word. An Address given at the Petersham Conference on Tuesday Evening, August 4th, 1903 ([Sydney]:np, [1903]); report in Sydney Morning Herald, 7th August 1903, 6.

162Jones, The Manifestation of God, 12-15.

289 the Same’163 and Jesus Only164 were pastoral addresses, both applying to holiness of life. ‘He Is Ever the Same’ expounded Psalm 23. Here was the Good Shepherd’s ‘all-sufficing presence’, his ‘abundant provision’ and ‘restoring guidance’, whether in the dark of its last three verses or the light of the first three.165 Jesus Only told how, after Christ’s Transfiguration, the disciples saw ‘Jesus only’ (Matt 17:8). He alone, Jones wrote, ‘is all sufficient’ for ‘justification from my past sins’, ‘power to meet present temptations’, and ‘our prospect for the future’.166 There was no premillennial note sounded. Jones thus represented a position on the Evangelical spectrum of thought that cannot be characterised as ‘anxious’167 or even pre-eminently one of premillennial hope. His sermons and addresses on various subjects proclaimed his sustained and scholarly commitment to basic Reformation themes – the sole authority of Scripture and the exclusive role of faith in Christ to receive God’s forgiveness. To this he

163Nathaniel Jones, ‘He Is Ever the Same’: An Exposition of the Twenty Third Psalm (Sydney: “A.C. World” Office, nd).

164N Jones, Jesus Only: A Message for the Unsettled (Sydney: Australian Churchman Office, [1902]).

165Jones, ‘He is Ever the Same’, 15.

166Jones, Jesus Only, 13.

167Brian Dickey, sv ‘Jones, Nathaniel’ in ADEB.

290 had added the Keswick doctrine of holiness as defined by Moule and Hopkins. His emphasis on holiness of life empowered by living faith shone out from all his devotional writings, not least from those on Prayer Book liturgy. It also characterised his life.168 Jones’s thought represented the Evangelical spectrum as extended. His Evangelicalism was pietist, but by way of an emphasis – on holiness of life and depth of devotion. Neither this emphasis nor his premillennial hope ever altered or diminished his commitment to the Reformation foundation of the Church of England. The above confirms Loane’s assessment that ‘he was . . . in the finest school of evangelical thought’.169 This was his legacy to Moore College, its students, and its diocese.

168Marcus L Loane, A Centenary History of Moore Theological College (Sydney: Angus and Robertson), 98-99 and 111-12.

169Loane, Centenary History of Moore College, 98.

291 PART III. DAVID JOHN DAVIES (1879-1935): LIBERAL EVANGELICAL

‘They were determined to do better than their parents . . . and to live in the spirit of the restless decades of the twentieth century.’ (EA Knox, Reminiscences of an Octogenarian, 300) Chapter 7 LIBERAL EVANGELICALISM EMBRACED – FORMATION OF A HISTORIAN

Introduction David John Davies, (‘Ben’) as he was known to his students, was the personal choice of Archbishop John Charles Wright to head Moore College. The new principal brought with him the broadening spectrum represented by the liberal Evangelicalism of the ‘Group Brotherhood’.1 This was to dominate the College’s training for nearly a quarter of a century, and have definite impact on the Diocese of Sydney.

Youth (1879-1901) Davies was born (12 Feb 1879) at Elerch, Cardiganshire, Wales, the first-born of Sarah Davies (née Pugh) and David Davies, both schoolteachers.2 In 1886 his father gained his BA from Trinity College Dublin in the days when Professor George Salmon was at the peak of his powers (as a mathematician, New Testament scholar, and critic of Roman Catholic infallibility). He was then ordained in the Church of England (and Wales). After serving briefly in Monmouthshire, he moved in 1897 to the Diocese of Ripon

1See Ch 2 above.

2Janet West, ‘D.J. Davies: A Principal Embattled’ (Moore College Library lecture 1988).

295 (Yorkshire), to a parish just outside Bradford.3 The younger Davies thus had an early Welsh upbringing and education (leaving school at age fourteen), in a relatively poor while devout Evangelical clerical home. Marcus Loane remembered Davies as having long passages from the gospels off by heart.4 He saw first hand the economic distress of urban industrial England.5 He had outstanding musical gifts and played both the piano and the pipe organ. We do not know what impact the 1859 Welsh revival may have had on his parents in their own early childhood and youth.6 Nothing remains of what Davies himself thought of the evangelist RA Torrey’s great British campaign of 1903 to 1905, or of the revival in Wales in 1904-05, which added so many to the churches.7 And as for the premillennial hope of Christ’s personal return, a

3Crockford’s Clerical Directory for 1900, sv ‘Davies, David’.

4Author’s interview with Marcus Loane, 5th June 2001.

5West, ‘A Principal Embattled’.

6Cf David Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker, 1992 [orig London; Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989]), 117.

7Stuart Piggin, Firestorm of the Lord: The History and Prospects for Revival in the Church and the World (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 2000), 9, citing RO Roberts (ed), Glory Filled the Land: A Trilogy on the Welsh Revival of 1904-1905 (Wheaton, IL: International Awakening, 1989), 5.

296 feature of many Evangelicals’ piety at that time, we get no hint that it touched him. Nor do we find any acknowledgment of the Mildmay circle's holiness emphasis, or that of Keswick. Having become a pupil-teacher in his teens, he studied for his matriculation while teaching, and entered Trinity College Cambridge in September, 1901, aged twenty-two. He received the Elland Society’s Jetson Exhibition, and hence had very probably met the Reverend John Charles Wright of Leeds (Diocese of Ripon), an active member of that Evangelical society.8 We know no details of what reading he may have done before going up. The Evangelical weekly, the Record, would very likely have come into his parents’ home, possibly also the Churchman.

Student and early teaching years, 1901-1911 On the 1st of September 1901, Davies enrolled in Trinity College, the largest college in the University, for the History Tripos. His tutor was Canon Reginald St John Parry (1858-1935), a classicist,9 and joint editor of the Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools [and Colleges], and author of several in the series. Davies now found himself in the midst of a galaxy of the famous or

8‘Our Late Archbishop’, Sydney Diocesan Magazine 14.3 (March, 1933), 9 (signed, ‘D.J.D.’).

9Jonathan Smith (of the Wren Library, Trinity College, Cambridge), letter to the author, 9 April 2005.

297 famous-to-be in the world of thought and science. In turn-of-the-century Cambridge many of the ideas and discoveries were germinating and growing that would influence the twentieth century. Unlike the Oxford of Jones’s student days, Cambridge did not offer any notable theologically conservative anchors. Handley CG Moule, Principal of Ridley Hall, then briefly Norrisian Professor of Divinity, had just been consecrated Bishop of Durham (October 18th, 1901). In the fields of philosophy and history some of the outstanding figures were not professing Christians of any kind, and those in theology, whether Evangelical or High Churchmen of the old school or Tractarians, were theologically liberal to some degree at least. The Cambridge Intercollegiate Christian Union (CICCU) was soon to face a crisis with regard to its future stance – whether it would embrace not only liberal but also Anglo- Catholicising perspectives.10 Ridley Hall itself, after Moule’s promotion to a professorship in 1899, was imperceptibly inclining in a new direction. The intellectual and spiritual environment Davies entered was favourable only to the formation of a liberal Evangelical, if one was to remain Evangelical at all. A brief survey of some of the leading academic figures will give a

10Oliver R Barclay, The Jesus Lane Lot, Ch 4. ‘1900- 1910: The battle for the truth’ (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 1977).

298 sense of the Cambridge intellectual milieu. This ambience throws light on the Group Brotherhood, whose manifesto, Liberal Evangelicalism would list under its liberal ‘heredity’ the modern world’s ‘historical method, its philosophy of personality, and its scientific view of the universe.’11

Philosophy, and Mathematics There was a brilliant coterie of publishing philosophers in Cambridge in Davies’s years there, which did not leave him untouched. The ‘eminent agnostic’12 personal idealist, though ‘hostile critic of Christianity’,13 John McTaggart (1866- 1925), a fellow of Trinity since 1891, published his semi-popular Some Dogmas of Religion in 1906. His Studies in the Hegelian Dialectic (1896) had appeared before, and Studies in Hegelian Cosmology (1901) in the year Davies enrolled. The lectures of the former Knightbridge professor of moral philosophy, Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900), on the ethics of Green, Spencer and Martineau were

11TG[uy]R[ogers], ‘Introduction’ in Members of the Church of England, Liberal Evangelicalism: An Interpretation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1923), v.

12Christopher NL Brooke, A History of the University of Cambridge, Volume IV. 1870-1990 (Cambridge: University, 1993), 118.

13John Passmore, A Hundred Years of Philosophy, 2nd ed (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984 [Duckworth, 1968), 76 fn*.

299 published early in Davies’s student days.14 Sidgwick, also a Trinity man and perhaps the last utilitarian, was an economist and political theorist too. Other products of Trinity and still present were GE Moore (1873-1958), once ‘a fervent admirer of McTaggart’,15 and Bertrand Russell (1872-1970). In 1903, the year Davies finished Part I of the History Tripos, Moore published his Principia Ethica, his ‘Prolegomena to any future Ethics that can pretend to be scientific’ (my emphasis). It attacked the naturalistic ethics of Herbert Spencer and the metaphysical ethics of TH Green.16 In this same year, Russell, now weaned off Hegelianism through Moore, produced ‘probably his greatest work,’17 The Principles of Mathematics,18 as well as his explicitly anti-Christian essay, ‘A Free Man's Worship’.19

14Henry Sidgwick, Lectures on the Ethics of TH Green, Mr Herbert Spencer, and J Martineau, London: Macmillan and Co, 1902.

15Brooke, University of Cambridge . . . 1870-1990, 440.

16Brooke, University of Cambridge . . . 1870-1990, 439 (citing Moore, Principia Ethica, ix, xii-xxvii).

17Anthony Quinton, sv ‘Russell, Bertrand Arthur William’ in Alan Bullock and RB Woodings (eds), The Fontana Biographical Companion to Modern Thought (London: Collins, 1983.

18Bertrand Russell, The Principles of Mathematics (Cambridge: University, 1903).

19Bertrand Russell, ‘A Free Man’s Worship’ in Independent Review (December 1903), and in Russell,

300 Closer to the Christian side was Professor James Ward (1843-1925), a fellow of Trinity College since 1875, successor to Sidgwick, twice Gifford Lecturer (1896-1898 and 1907-10).20 Against Herbert Spencer and company, Ward ‘was regarded as one of the most acute critics of naturalism and one of the most powerful defenders of theism.’21 Bernard Muscio (1887-1926), a graduate of the University of Sydney and a future professor of philosophy there (1922-1926), probably a Christian believer and known to Nathaniel Jones and his vice-principal, GA Chambers, began his postgraduate work under James Ward22 in Davies’s last year in Cambridge. Another theist was WR Sorley (1855-1935), who came to Cambridge in 1902. His point of departure was moral experience, which Davies would later emphasise. Both Ward and Sorley are likely to

Mysticism and Logic, and Other Essays (London: Longmans, Green, 1918; republ in Mysticism and Logic, and Other Essays (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1954).

20James Ward, Naturalism and Agnosticism (2 vols), Gifford Lectures 1896-1898 ([London]: Black, 1899); James Ward, The Realm of Ends, or Pluralism and Theism, Gifford Lectures 1907-10 (Cambridge: University, 1911).

21John Macquarrie, Twentieth-Century Religious Thought (London: SCM, 1988), 64 (on Ward).

22SA Grave, A History of Philosophy in Australia (St Lucia, Queensland: , 1984), 37- 38; WM O’Neill, sv ‘Muscio, Bernard’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol 10 (Melbourne: Melbourne University, 1986).

301 have appealed to the budding historian Davies by their conception of history as a science, plus its distinguishing mark as such: the taking into account of ethical value by its investigating of persons. Their ‘experience (my emphasis) of moral values was no less objective than our knowledge of natural facts.’23 Hence history could be scientific, a view which Davies firmly adopted. In Sydney, Davies would later contribute a paper on one of Sorley’s books to ‘The Heretics’. Also a fellow of Davies’s college (1884-1910) was another mathematician and future philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947). He was Russell’s tutor, and collaborator with him in their joint Principia Mathematica (1910-1913). He was also one of Eddington’s teachers.24 Davies would show an awareness of mathematics and of philosophy in the future. The two older universities were not isolated from each other. Over near Oxford, now in a rectory, was John Illingworth (1848-1915), one of the Lux Mundi contributors. Illingworth was

23Macquarrie, Twentieth-Century Religious Thought, 68-69 (on Sorley), citing WR Sorley, Moral Values and the Idea of God (1918).

24JJ O’Connor and EF Robertson, ‘Arthur Stanley Eddington’, at http://www-history.mcs.st- and.ac.uk/Bibliographies/Eddington.html (accessed 20th Feb, 2014).

302 putting out idealist (with qualifications)25 philosophical theology, emphasising personality, like FR Tennant at Cambridge,26 an emphasis adopted also by the future Liberal Evangelicals.27 At the University of Oxford itself, the neoplatonic William Ralph Inge (1860-1954) was Lady Margaret professor of Divinity from 1907 to 1911 (Davies’s last years in Cambridge), and later Dean of St Paul’s, London. He was a double contributor to a work that could be viewed as aiming to be constructive in succession to Essays and Reviews, namely, Contentio Veritatis. JK Mozley recorded in 1910 that ‘he has asserted himself on the side of Evangelical Protestantism’ and of only the slightest ‘sympathy with the Modernist revolt’, while also ‘steeped . . . in Greek philosophy’.28 The philosophical idealist, Hastings Rashdall

25Michael Ramsey, From Gore to Temple: The Development of Anglican Theology between Lux Mundi and the Second World War 1989-1939 (London: Longmans, Green and Co, 1960), 24.

26JR Illingworth, Personality Human and Divine (London: Macmillan, 1903 [1894]); Macquarrie, Twentieth- Century Religious Thought, 38-39 (on Illingworth), 73 (on Tennant).

27Members of the Church of England, Liberal Evangelicalism: An Interpretation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1923), ‘Introduction’, v.

28JK Mozley, ‘Religious Life and Thought at Cambridge’, ACQR I.1 (Oct 1910), 28.

303 (1858-1924), also contributed.29 Thus philosophical idealism was still part of the intellectual environment of Davies’s student days.

Not since TR Birks in the 1870s had there been an Evangelical among the Christian philosopher- theologians in Cambridge. Christians did include William Cunningham (1849-1919), who looked on TH Green, a friend, as ‘my master in all that I care about in philosophy’. He was also a disciple of FD Maurice in theology and social questions,30 which was significant for DJ Davies. Cunningham was a fellow of Trinity and the Archdeacon of Ely, and was Davies’s mentor in Economic History (Part II of the History Tripos). He contributed the substantial Essay 1. ‘The Christian Standpoint’ to the Cambridge Theological Essays,31 which came out the year after Davies graduated. Cunningham affirmed the widely accepted Kantian doctrine, that ‘the personal religious consciousness refuses

29Six Oxford Tutors, Contentio Veritatis: Essays in Constructive Theology (London: John Murray, 1902), WR Inge, Essay II. ‘The Person of Christ’ and Essay VII. ‘The Sacraments’; H Rashdall, Essay I. ‘The Ultimate Basis of Theism’.

30Audrey Cunningham, William Cunningham – Teacher and Priest (London: SPCK, 1950), 22, 50.

31Henry Barclay Swete (ed), Essays on Some Theological Questions of the Day by Members of the University of Cambridge [Cambridge Theological Essays](London: Macmillan, 1905).

304 to submit to any intellectual authority outside itself’.32 This would be Davies’s position, especially with regard to Scripture. It defines him as ‘liberal in scholarship’, however close he may have kept to catholic orthodoxy.

Theology The young Davies would come into contact with the theologically distinguished and advanced, but all, like Cunningham, liberal to varying degrees. The philosophically-minded Frederick Robert Tennant (1866-1957), already mentioned, published work on God and science and on the doctrine of sin in Davies’s time at Cambridge.33 He returned to Cambridge as a lecturer in the University in 1907. Tennant attempted to be strictly empirical in his method. His ethical theism took ‘the realization of personality and of moral values to be the raison d'être of the world’,34 a notion that Davies

32William Cunningham, Essay I. ‘The Christian Standpoint’ in Swete (ed), Cambridge Theological Essays)(London: Macmillan, 1905), 22.

33Frederick Robert Tennant, The Origin and Propagation of Sin (Cambridge: University, 1902, [republ 1906, 1908]); Tennant, The Sources of the Doctrine of the Fall and of Original Sin (Cambridge: University, 1903); Frederick Robert Tennant, Essay 2. ‘The Being of God, in the light of Physical Science’, in Swete (ed), Cambridge Theological Essays, 55-146.

34FR Tennant, Philosophical Theology, Vol II. The World, the Soul, and God (Cambridge: University, 1930), 258.

305 would echo.35 The chaplain of Trinity College, Edward Harrison Askwith (also a mathematician), had published works on the New Testament epistles and on Christian holiness.36 He contributed ‘Sin, and the Need of Atonement’ to Cambridge Theological Essays.37 Davies would largely follow the chaplain’s non-propitiatory, moral-influence cum governmental view of the atonement. Though not first a theologian, yet to be included here, is the name of Ernest William Barnes (1874-1953), a brilliant graduate (second wrangler, 1896) and London Fellow of Trinity College, later Doctor of Science (1906) and Fellow of the Royal Society (1909). Davies never forgot the kind personal touch Barnes showed to him, a young financially poor student, sitting his Entrance Examination in 1901. To the surprise of many in the University, Barnes had professed Christian faith as an undergraduate, and sought ordination in Davies’s student days (d 1902, p

35See David J Davies, The Church and the Plain Man (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1919), passim.

36EH Askwith, The Destination and Date of the Epistle to the Galatians (1899); Askwith, Introduction to the Thessalonian Epistles (1902); Askwith, The History and Value of the Fourth Gospel (1910); Askwith, The Christian Concept of Holiness (1900).

37EH Askwith, Essay 5. ‘Sin, and the Need of Atonement’, in Swete (ed), Cambridge Theological Essays, 175-218.

306 1903).38 Barnes contributed to the Anglican Evangelical Group Movement’s first self- identifying volume, Liberal Evangelicalism,39 but at the same time was also prominent in the Modern Churchmen’s Union.40 He exemplifies the oneness in principle of theological conviction found between the Liberal Evangelicals and the Modern Churchmen. As the new (1924) Bishop of Birmingham he became notorious not only for suppressing ritualist extremism41 but also for his radical modernist theological views.42

Biblical Studies An exception to the liberal mainstream was the librarian of Davies’s college and lecturer in Old Testament at Ridley Hall, Robert Sinker DD. He had written on Scripture and related matters, as noted in a previous chapter. He was a long-time friend of the former principal of Ridley, HCG Moule. Not long before Davies entered Trinity

38‘Bishop Barnes. Personal Memories and Impressions’ (‘by Cantab’), Sydney Morning Herald, 13 Feb 1926, 9.

39EW Barnes, Essay XIV. ‘The Future of the Evangelical Movement’, in Liberal Evangelicalism.

40ODCC, sv ‘Modern Churchmen’s Union’; cf also The Modern Churchman, 1911-.

41Davies’s ‘by Cantab’ letter at fn 36 supra.

42GF Duffield, sv ‘Barnes, Ernest William’ in The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church; cf Ernest William Barnes, Should Such a Faith Offend? (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928).

307 College, Sinker’s critique of negative higher criticism, originally a series in The Record, had appeared as a book. Its conclusion encapsulated a centrist Evangelical approach to higher criticism: We are not prepared to be dragged at the wheel of those who would give us a discredited Old Testament, an emasculated New Testament, a fallible Christ.43

Sinker published three more books on the Old Testament before retiring from Trinity College in 1907.44 Davies later stated that he had made a special study of the historicity of the gospels, and the following indicates something of the context.45 Frederic Henry Chase, Norrisian professor of Divinity (in succession to Moule), wrote the essay on the New Testament gospels in Cambridge Theological Essays.46 Vincent Henry Stanton (1846- 1924), Ely professor of Divinity, was writing his three-volume magnum opus on the gospels, which

43Robert Sinker, ‘Higher Criticism’: What Is It, and Where Does It Lead Us? (London: James Nisbet, 1899), 184.

44Robert Sinker, Essays and Studies (1900); Sinker, Daniel and the Minor Prophets. Temple Bible (1904); Sinker, Saul and the Rise of the Hebrew Monarchy (1904).

45See below Chapter 9. ‘Liberal Evangelicalism Maintained’.

46Frederick Henry Chase, Essay 10. ‘The Gospels, in the light of historical criticism’, in Henry Barclay Swete (ed), Cambridge Theological Essays, 371-419.

308 began to appear as Davies completed his History Tripos (1903).47 The conservative Princeton theologian, J Gresham Machen, would later find positive use for Stanton’s work.48 Henry Barclay Swete (1835-1917) was Regius professor of Divinity, having succeeded BF Westcott in 1890. James Franklin Bethune-Baker, lecturer in Divinity at Pembroke College (since 1891), was the future Lady Margaret professor of Divinity (1911-1935), and later ‘a central figure in the Anglican modernist movement’.49 Also at Cambridge was the Syriac scholar, (1864- 1935). He was Norrisian professor of divinity from 1905 and a modernist. He was one of the pioneers of gospel form criticism, and his work on gospel history came out in 1906.50 In the work of EH Askwith on John,51 Stanton on the gospels and Burkitt on form criticism, Davies had plenty of background scholarship for his own gospel

47Henry Vincent Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, Vol 1 (Cambridge: University, 1903), Vol 2 (1909), Vol 3 (1920).

48J Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ, 2nd ed (New York: Harper, 1932 [1930]), viii, 29, etc.

49Brooke, University of Cambridge . . . 1870-1990, 146.

50FC Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its Transmission (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1906).

51See above, Askwith, The History and Value of the Fourth Gospel.

309 historical research. About a year before he left for Australia, another volume, Cambridge Biblical Essays came out.52 One who was a fellow ‘Group Brother’ at that time noted the varying critical positions reflected in it, including Burkitt’s essay, ‘The Eschatological Idea in the Gospel’.53 Having ordination in view, Davies was required to attend some of the courses offered by the Divinity School. He attended those of three professors: FH Chase on ‘Acts of the Apostles’; HM Gwatkin on ‘Early Church History’, and AJ Mason on ‘I Peter 3:18-4:21’. By May 1905 he could list (among a few others, and apart from ‘many text- books I have used’) as having read ‘wholly or in part’ the standard New Testament biblical commentaries (listing Alford’s Greek Testament, and Conybeare and Howson’s Life and Epistles of St Paul), and G Salmon’s Introduction to the New Testament. On the Old Testament he mentioned only AH Sayce’s Early History of the Hebrews (critical of the Wellhausen documentary hypothesis). For doctrine he had read Handley Moule (Outlines of Christian Doctrine), Boultbee (Evangelical) and Maclear and Williams (Anglo-Catholic) each on the

52Henry Barclay Swete (ed), Cambridge Biblical Essays, by Members of the University of Cambridge (London: Macmillan, 1909).

53JK Mozley, ‘Religious Life and Thought at Cambridge’, Australasian Church Quarterly Review I.1 (Oct 1910), 26-29.

310 Thirty-nine Articles, Richard Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, (the critical Volume V), and sermons of the Reformation bishop, , and of Jeremy Taylor, an early High Church bishop. He had also read, in philosophical theology, Illingworth’s Personality, Human and Divine.53 How much of these mostly orthodox works he may have read in his father’s library before going up, or during university vacations, we do not know. In any case, his Bible studies given at Holy Trinity Church, Cambridge, while curate (from 1905), showed that he had moved to a liberal position by then, if not before.

History Cambridge was distinguished by its historians, secular and ecclesiastical. This being Davies’s chosen field, it suggests that the historical methodology he learned formed his approach to the Bible. Since the natural sciences dominated the Cambridge of 1890-1910,54 it is not surprising that the empirical method was claimed in the other disciplines, including history, and defended by Sorley above. Lord Acton (1834-1902), a liberal

53‘Diocese of Ely. Candidates for Ordination’, Question 9, as answered by Davies. (Photocopy supplied by the Keeper of Diocesan Records, Department of Manuscripts, Cambridge University Library).

54Brooke, University of Cambridge . . . 1870-1990, 155-157.

311 Roman Catholic, the second Regius professor of history at Cambridge (1895-1902), ‘helped immeasurably to establish history as a serious academic discipline, and to make the Cambridge school a branch of European learning.’ He believed that history was ‘the judgment seat, a source of moral understanding’.55 In Davies’s second year (1902-03), JB Bury, an atheist, came from Trinity College Dublin to succeed Acton. On January 26, 1903, he delivered his famous inaugural, ‘The Science of History’.56 Its main contention would remain a conviction of the budding Liberal Evangelical, David Davies. Bury insisted that history was ‘a science, no less and no more’,57 (as opposed to being a statesman’s storehouse of past analogies for present decision, or of being a literary art). It must bring ‘reason and critical doubt to bear on the material’, aiming at ‘a scrupulously exact conformity to facts’, which ‘the critical method was one of the means to secure it.’58 Bury added that the ‘idea of human development’ enabled

55Brooke, University of Cambridge . . . 1870-1990, 233, 422.

56JB Bury, An Inaugural Lecture, delivered in the Divinity School, Cambridge, on January 26, 1903 (Cambridge: University, 1903).

57Bury, Inaugural Lecture, 7.

58Bury, Inaugural Lecture, 9-11.

312 history ‘to define her scope’.59 Moreover, history that was true ‘can be ascertained only through the discovery, collection, classification, and interpretation of facts – through scientific research.’60 But of course, Bury’s final centre of reference for knowledge of the meaning of facts lay a priori in man, not God as understood in Christian theism. But no one would have taught Davies this last. He would easily have related Bury’s standpoint positively to the criticism of the biblical books as historical sources, and to the notion of ‘progressive revelation’. In Davies’s first student year, the well-known historian , became Master of Peterhouse, and was, with Acton, the main planner of the Cambridge Modern History (1901-1912), as well as its chief editor.61 The first of two successive Dixie professors of Ecclesiastical History was, from 1884 to 1891, no less than Mandel Creighton (1843-1901), ‘one of the true founders of Cambridge history’.62 The second, from 1891 to 1916 was Henry Melvill Gwatkin (1844-

59Bury, Inaugural Lecture, 17.

60Bury, Inaugural Lecture, 23-24.

61Brooke, University of Cambridge . . . 1870-1990, 233.

62Brooke, University of Cambridge . . . 1870-1990, 146.

313 1916), a Fellow of St John’s, whose lectures on Early Church history Davies attended in his undergraduate years. For Gwatkin, too, history was a scientific discipline. He ‘laid his mark on’ no less than a future Regius professor of Divinity, Charles E Raven,63 who became Dean and Fellow of Emmanuel in 1909, and on the student of Emmanuel and future church historian, Leonard Elliott Binns (later LE Elliott-Binns). Elliott-Binns graduated in Davies’s last years at ‘Emma’, a liberal Evangelical in his views.64 Gwatkin, an authority on Arianism,65 became equally well-known for his 1903-05 Gifford Lectures.66 Davies admired and used both Gwatkins’ historical and theological work, and would have heard, like Elliott-Binns, his oft-repeated stricture, that the older Evangelicals had ‘abstained from learning like the beasts of the field’.67 Davies was clearly not one such. Neither was his predecessor at Moore

63Brooke, University of Cambridge . . . 1870-1990, 146.

64Leonard Elliott-Binns, The Evangelical Movement in the English Church (London: Methuen, 1928), ix.

65HM Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, 2nd ed (Cambridge: Deighton Bell, 1900 [1882]); HM Gwatkin, The Arian Controversy (London: Longmans, Green, 1896).

66Henry Melvill Gwatkin, The Knowledge of God and Its Historical Development (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906 [3rd ed 1908, repr 1931]).

67Elliot-Binns, The Evangelical Movement, 142.

314 College, Nathaniel Jones, nor his successor, TC Hammond. Davies’s director of studies at Trinity for part I of his History Tripos may have been none other than George Macaulay Trevelyan (1876-1962),68 Assistant Lecturer in Modern History. He left Cambridge for London in 1903, but later returned to succeed Bury as Regius professor of Modern History. His mentor, if not his tutor in Part II of the History Tripos, William Cunningham, was ‘the real founder of Economic History as a discipline’.69 Cunningham had rooms in Whewell’s Close, Trinity College, and ‘took trouble to know his pupils personally’.70 His convictions in several respects are important for understanding Davies’s outlook. For one thing, he (in his daughter’s words) could not accept ‘the fundamental principle [of the Christian Social Union]71 that Christian law would be the ultimate authority on social practice’. Christ’s teaching had a different social context,

68Jonathan Smith, Wren Library, letter 9 April 2005; GM Trevelyan, note congratulating Davies, 1903 in ‘David J Davies Papers, 1902-1935’ (SMAMoore), Box 2.

69FR Salter, ‘Preface’ to A Cunningham, William Cunningham, x.

70A Cunningham, William Cunningham, 78.

71Canon Scott Holland, The Ground of Our Appeal (quoted in William DP Bliss (ed), The (English) Social Union, (Sl: sn, nd), 205.

315 and aim – ‘a spiritual aim as supreme in earthly life’, whereas ‘the growth of material prosperity did not necessarily promote virtue, nor a high standard of living arouse the spirit of self- sacrifice.’72 Moreover, he followed FD Maurice’s teaching ‘that it was not for the Church to direct the State in political or social affairs’. But it was ‘the definite duty of Christians as individual citizens to take their part in the good government of the realm,’73 an emphasis noted of Nathaniel Jones above! Cunningham also pointed out (like his fellow Scot, James Denney) that Socialism relied on compelling people by civil law to do what was right, whereas Christianity relied on moral suasion.74 Another important conviction was his opposition to free-trade, a conclusion which he had come to in stages by 1903.75 Davies

72A Cunningham, William Cunningham, 71-72.

73A Cunningham, William Cunningham, 99, citing The Times, 28th August, 1914.

74Kitson Clark, Churchmen and the Condition of England 1832-1885: A Study in the Development of Social Ideas and Practice from the Old Regime to the Modern State (London: Methuen, 1973), 337 (citing A Cunningham, William Cunningham, 21-22 and 71, and William Cunningham, Socialism and Christianity (London: SPK, 1910), 12-14. See also James Denney, The Church and the Kingdom (London: Hodder and Stoughton, [1910]).

75Cunningham, William Cunningham, 98-99, citing British Association Report, (Southport, 1903), 751; William Cunningham, The Case against Free Trade, (London: John Murray, 1911 and 1914), 135.

316 followed him in these views, as he did in the common Kantian rejection of external intellectual authority, noted of Cunningham above. But also important for Davies’s thought would be his mentor’s conviction that the historian could not explain the facts of history deductively, that is, by applying, in the case of economic history, the principles of economic theory,76 rather he must work inductively, producing a general explanation from the ascertained facts (the scientific method in history). Thus one could not condemn socialism a priori, as did the laissez-faire theorists.77

Notable Significant Fellow Students The brilliant mathematics graduate (BA 1904), John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), tutored by AN Whitehead, an agnostic and member (with Moore and Russell) of the ,78 would become a world influence in the application of economics. A future household name in natural sciences, Arthur Stanley Eddington (1882-1944), was a Christian (Society of Friends). He entered Trinity College in 1902 and was Senior Wrangler in

76David Ricardo (1772-1823), Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, 1817.

77Kitson Clark, Churchmen and the Condition of England, 298-299; Cunningham, William Cunningham, chs VII and VIII.

78Brooke, University of Cambridge . . . 1870-1990, 128.

317 1904. By 1913 he was Plumian professor of astronomy. He gave the Gifford Lectures of 1927.79 He and Davies were both from families of very limited means. They became personal friends, remaining sufficiently close for Davies to stay with him in Cambridge during his final trip back to England in 1934. Other outstanding students would feature in Davies’s future life and work. Another Trinity College man, Albert Edward Talbot (1877-1936), gained double firsts in the Theology Tripos (1904, 1905). He served briefly (1907-09) under Bishop EA Knox in the Diocese of Manchester, and thereby, presumably, became known to Archdeacon John Charles Wright. After teaching at the CMS College in Islington, he followed Davies to Australia to be Dean of Sydney (1912-1936). JW Hunkin, at Gonville and Caius, graduated twelfth wrangler (1908), and later became vice-principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. He was archdeacon of Rugby when Davies and Talbot nominated him for archbishop of Sydney in 1933. He was consecrated on June 11th, 1935, less than three weeks before Davies’s death. Hunkin made his mark as a liberal biblical scholar and, like EW Barnes, contributed an essay to Liberal

79Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1928 [also London: Dent ‘Everyman’s Library’, 1928]).

318 Evangelicalism,80 and moved close to the Modern Churchmen’s Union. More junior to Davies than Hunkin was Howard West Kilvinton Mowll (1890- 1958), of Kings (Second Class in parts I and II of the History Tripos, 1911, 1912). The future archbishop of Sydney was president (Lent Term 1911 to May 1912 – five terms)81 of the Cambridge Inter- Collegiate Christian Union (CICCU). These were the days following its disaffiliation (March 1910) from the Student Christian Movement. Davies’s own convictions led him always to support the SCM. The doctrinally broader president of the CICCU in 1909-1910 was an Emmanuel student, ACB Bellerby, later the secretary of Church Missionary Society when in 1922 it split over the authority of Scripture.82

Junior Cleric and Cambridge Don 1905-11 In this period appear the basic historical, socio-economic and theological ideas that will characterise him at Moore College and in Sydney. Davies’s papers, Bible study series and sermons are within the spectrum of Evangelicalism, but at

80JW Hunkin, Essay VIII. ‘The Kingdom of God’, in Liberal Evangelicalism (1923).

81Marcus L Loane, Archbishop Mowll: The Biography of Howard west Kilvinton Mowll Archbishop of Sydney and Primate of Australia (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960), 45-46.

82JC Pollock, A Cambridge Movement, (London: John Murray, 1953), 170-74; see below on Hammond (ch 10).

319 the liberalising end. They still claimed the name ‘Evangelical’ and continuity with the eighteenth century revival under Whitefield and Wesley. But Davies was biblicist and crucicentric in a theologically liberal way. His concept of the Christian message was different. His Evangelical activist tradition would later express itself in advocacy of a Liberal Evangelical outlook on the Bible and the atonement, as well as on socio- economic matters. On March 3rd, 1910, Davies gave a paper, ‘Socialism and Society’, to the Cambridge University Adam Smith Club. The first decade of the century was a time of industrial strife and the rise of the Labor Party in Britain. Davies had first hand knowledge of industrial workers’ districts (as well as having been himself a penurious student). He had studied Economic History under William Cunningham. His basic early diagnosis of the social problem was poverty (physical, mental and moral), and the desirable Christian social goal – for this world to be a kingdom of righteousness. The means of achieving it was by the moral persuasion of ‘the corporate consciousness’, not the enlightened self-interest of classical economic theory.83

83David J Davies, ‘Socialism and Society’, in ‘David J Davies Papers’, Box 2 Bundle 1 (SMAMoore); also published in The Australasian Church Quarterly Review III.4 (Dec 1913), 304-320.

320 His interests included also the spread of Christianity abroad. A century of Protestant missionary enterprise in ‘the heyday of colonialism’ had climaxed with the World Missionary Conference in the summer of 1910 in Edinburgh. On November 18th, 1910, Davies addressed the Cambridge and District Clergy Union on a missionary theme, ‘The Need of India’.84 His teacher, William Cunningham, had visited India in 1881-82, and from his own visit had made some observations on Christian missions there.85 Theologically speaking, most revealing of Davies’s broadened Evangelicalism were his three Wednesday evening ‘Studies in the Book of Isaiah’ in January 1908, and his Sunday sermons expounding the Epistle to the Romans in September of that year. Both series were given in Holy Trinity Church during the build-up, as it happened, to the disaffiliation of the CICCU from the SCM.86 In the Romans series he adumbrated themes that would appear in his later work. In particular on justification by faith, ‘one of the watchwords of

84‘David J Davies Papers’, Box 2 Bundle 1, ‘The Need of India’ [January 1906] (SMAMoore).

85A Cunningham, William Cunningham, Teacher and Priest (London: SPCK, 1950), 38, 48-49.

86Pollock, A Cambridge Movement, Ch XIII. ‘Controversy’.

321 the [Evangelical] party’:87 instead of using Handley Moule’s commentaries88 or that by James Denney,89 he used the liberal Anglo-Catholic, Charles Gore’s exposition,90 and accepted his notion of justification. (Gore was appreciated by all Evangelicals for his apologetic writings in the conflict with open modernists like HDA Major.)91 Gore had adopted the reinterpretation of the seventeenth century High Churchman, Bishop George Bull (1634-1710):92 that God imputes righteousness to the believer in Christ in anticipation of what he will become. It is reminiscent of the Kantian view and was favoured by the Oxford philosopher TH Green, who had influenced the Lux Mundi Anglo-Catholics.93 The

87Vernon F Storr, The Development of English Theology in the Nineteenth Century 1800-1860 (London: Longmans, Green, 1913), 69.

88Handley CG Moule, The Epistle of to the Romans. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: University, 1879); Moule, The Epistle of St Paul to the Romans. The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1894).

89James Denney, Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Expositor's Greek Testament, Vol II (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1900).

90Charles Gore, The Epistle to the Romans: A Practical Exposition (London: John Murray, 1900 [1899]).

91Note from Geoffrey R Treloar (June 2013).

92George Bull, Harmonia Apostolica (1669-1670).

93James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World as Centring in the Incarnation (Edinburgh: Andrew Eliot,

322 assumption of human moral autonomy (Arminian High Church, Kantian-Greenian) probably underlay this rejection of the historic forensic notion, which was characterised as ‘a fiction’ by its opponents.94 It is an index to Davies’s theological outlook. Both justification and the related central issue, the atonement, were measured against the supposedly growing moral consciousness of modern man. Davies combined the notion of Christ’s death as a motivating example (which no one denied) with the governmental view, in order to link the atonement with justification. Justification was, Davies explained, ‘in virtue of a new attachment under which our life has passed. . . . [But] of course this preliminary acquittal is provisional.’95 He explained further: The law of God must be set in the light of day and must be acknowledged by the sinner before

1893 [many reprints]), 466, citing TH Green, [The] Works [of Thomas Hill Green, ed by RL Nettleship], Vol 3[. ‘Miscellanies and a Memoir’], 3rd ed? (London: Longmans Green, 1891)], 202 .

94William Sanday and Arthur C Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902 [1895]), (Detached note) The Righteousness of God, 36.

95ODDC sv ‘Gore, Charles’; Gore, Epistle to the Romans, 26ff; also BJ Kidd, The Thirty-nine Articles (London: Rivingtons, 1899).

323 God can pardon the sinner with beneficial moral effect’ [italics added].

The death of Christ was to this end. It ‘was a solemn and striking manifestation of God’s justice, of the punishment which sin deserved.’96 Man ‘can share in the benefits of Christ’s death by faith, by self-surrender to Christ, an act of the whole man, reason, heart, will.’ It is, therefore, ‘no legal fiction’.97 Later, under the heading, ‘Being Justified by Faith. Rom. 5:1,2’, he argued that God pointed to ‘Calvary and the Empty tomb, both historic facts,’ saying ‘If you trust me I will for Christ’s sake accept you as righteous. . . . I will by my Spirit make you righteous.’98 Quite ignoring Denney, Moule and Litton99 (to say nothing of Article II of the Thirty-nine Articles), Davies

96DJ Davies, ‘Studies in Romans’, B. The Remedy. ‘God's own gift of righteousness through faith’ (on Rom 3: 21-26), in ‘David J Davies Papers’, Box 2, bundle iv (SMAMoore).

97Davies, ‘Studies in Romans’.

98Davies, ‘Studies in Romans’.

99James Denney, the Death of Christ: Its Place and Interpretation in the New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905 [1902]), 143-147; Moule, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, and Moule, The Epistle of St Paul to the Romans, both at Rom 5:10; Handley CG Moule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1889), 79-80; EA Litton, Introduction to Dogmatics, 2nd ed, with an Introduction by Henry Wace (London: Elliot Stock, 1902), 232.

324 followed with an extended quotation from a sermon by HM Gwatkin. He expressed the man-oriented Ritschlian interpretation of ‘reconciliation’: Christ died for us while we were yet enemies of God. This assurance is the atonement, which means the reconciliation of our heart to God: and there is no other atonement for sin.100

On the terms ‘atonement’, ‘reconciliation’, and ‘redemption’, Davies used Sanday and Headlam’s commentary, saying that the words ‘express ideas that spring from the death of Christ considered as a sacrifice for the sin of mankind’, the idea of sacrifice being integral to the ‘religion of the New Testament’.101 This was an FD Maurice theme.102 But terms such as ‘propitiation’, being ‘inspired by the Holy Ghost’, must be left ‘to Him to interpret.’103 On ‘propitiation’ he quoted Sanday and Headlam again:

100HM Gwatkin, The Eye for Spiritual Things (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907 [1906]), 237 (Sermon XXI. Free Forgiveness. Luke vii. 41), emphasis added; Albrecht Ritschl, The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1900).

101Sanday and Headlam, Romans, (Detached note) The Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice, 92.

102FD Maurice, The Doctrine of Sacrifice: Deduced from the Scriptures (London: Macmillan, 1893 [1854]), and FD Maurice, Theological Essays (London: Macmillan, 1904 [1853]).

103Sanday and Headlam, Romans, (Detached note), The Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice, 94.

325 Sufficient for us to know that through the virtue of the One Sacrifice . . . there is a ‘sprinkling’ which makes us free to approach the throne of grace.104

Davies himself concludes that ‘being declared righteous by faith’ means that ‘in the end the righteousness which was only potential in us at first becomes actual and our salvation is complete.’ Any present who turned to the back of their Prayer Book must have seen the discrepancy with Articles II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very man (‘to reconcile his Father to us’) and XI. Of the Justification of Man (‘accounted righteous . . . only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour’). Was Davies’s different understanding of justification by faith known to Archbishop Wright when he called Davies to Moore College? Perhaps it had already been canvassed among the Group Brotherhood. Wright’s own copy of Gore’s Romans is held in Moore College Library, and he has marked it where Gore discusses ‘propitiation’ and rejects a substitutionary atonement. In his first months in Sydney (1912), Davies preached three Lenten sermons from the Epistle to the Romans at

104Sanday and Headlam, Romans, (Detached note), The Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice, 94.

326 the morning service of St Andrew’s Cathedral, Sydney.105 One assumes he used this same material. His three ‘Studies in Isaiah’ on Wednesday evenings earlier (January 1908) at Holy Trinity Church, Cambridge, were based on the influential commentary by the Presbyterian, George Adam Smith (1856-1942). This book ‘more than any other, [gave] currency in English-speaking lands to the idea that the second section of Isaiah is the product of [Israel’s] exile’.106 The underlying presupposition of the prophecy’s fragmentation was the nineteenth century rejection of the possibility of predictive prophecy, an issue of a Christian theistic worldview. On that subject, Davies never made any allusion to the work of either James Orr or Abraham Kuyper, both published by well-known British firms and that not long before Davies enrolled for his degree.107 Smith, a firm adherent of the notion of ‘progressive

105‘Preachers for the Month’ (Feb 24), Sydney Diocesan Magazine 3.2 (Feb 1912), 3; ‘Preachers for the Month’ ([Mar 3 and 10]), Sydney Diocesan Magazine 3.3 (Mar 1912), 3.

106EJ Young, Studies in Isaiah (London: The Tyndale, 1955), 37 (ref George Adam Smith, The Book of Isaiah, 2 vols. The Expository Bible (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1888, 1890).

107James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World as centring in the Incarnation (Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot, 1893 [reprinted 1904, 1907]); Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899).

327 revelation’ (as explained in the first chapter on the nineteenth century above), believed that ‘the battle of modern criticism with the traditional theories of the Old Testament had been fought and won’.108 In 1901 he had been accused of undermining the authority of large sections of Scripture.109 In his series on Romans Davies had touched on the authority of Scripture, saying ‘Luther was a very advanced higher critic in some respects’, adding that while today ‘the whole Bible is subjected to merciless and often capricious criticism’, yet ‘[w]e must not fear knowledge that is knowledge indeed.’110 In his Isaiah studies he had accepted George Adam Smith’s higher critical approach. He also upheld the traditional Protestant and Evangelical right of private judgment.111 He announced that he would state what seemed to him ‘the salient points in the prophet’s message and so . . . allow you to exercise your

108George Adam Smith, Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1901), 73.

109RA Riesen, sv ‘Smith, George Adam’ in DSCHT.

110‘David J Davies Papers’, ‘Studies in Romans’, at ‘Prolegomena II’ (SMAMoore).

111Cf JC Ryle, Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion from the Standpoint of an Evangelical Churchman. New and improved edition (London: National Protestant Union and Charles Murray, 1898), Ch III. ‘Private Judgment’.

328 own judgment’, for ‘each of us is ultimately responsible for his or her position in matters joined ‘Emma’ in 1905, as director of studie religious’.112

Emmanuel College Davies s in history, and was appointed a University lecturer in history. We can hardly imagine that he was not one of the society of Junior Historians when they had their first formal meeting in January, 1911.113 At Emmanuel was a future archbishop of Melbourne (1929-1941), Frederick Waldgrave Head (First Class in the History Tripos, 1896), a fellow (1900), dean and tutor (1903), and senior tutor and chaplain (1907). Did Davies suggest he be nominated for archbishop in 1929 to friends in the Anglican Church League in Melbourne diocese? Within Emmanuel College, in 1909, occurred the ‘Chawner Affair’. The master, William Chawner, read a paper published as Prove All Things to the first meeting of the Religious Discussion Society of the College. He then printed and distributed it ‘to all the Undergraduates and nearly all the Fellows of the College and to about one hundred friends and acquaintances. . . .’ It reflected

112‘David J Davies Papers’: ‘Studies in Isaiah’ (the second, 8th Jan 1908) (SMAMoore).

113Brooke, University of Cambridge . . . 1870-1990, 235.

329 his rejection of ‘external authority’: ‘The canons of criticism require us to abandon as unhistorical . . . the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and Ascension’. Likewise, he protested against the ‘a priori reasoning’ used logically (in the traditional natural theology) to deduce ‘a series of propositions with regard to the infinite’ (lower case sic).114 Davies would apply these same themes in a paper to ‘The Heretics’ years later in Sydney, but within a theistic framework that did not deny miracle in principle. Prove All Things caused no little consternation within the College. It also caused a group of twelve undergraduates, led by CK Ogden (1889-1957), the later well-known philosopher and linguist, to form the Cambridge Society of Heretics (‘The Heretics’) on 7th December 1909.115 Chawner himself died unexpectedly while abroad in March 1911. Another Emma undergraduate at this time was the already mentioned Leonard Elliott Binns (First Class in part I of Theology Tripos, 1911, Second Class in part II, 1912). He enrolled at Ridley

114Sarah Bendall, Christopher Brooke, Patrick Collinson, A History of Emmanuel College, Cambridge (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1999), 432; William Chawner, Prove All Things, (Privately printed, 1909), 14.

115AH McNeile, ‘The Religious Situation in Cambridge’, The New Commentator [later, Comment and Criticism] I.1 (March 1913), 11; Shanyn Fiske, Heretical Hellenism: Women Writers, ancient Greece, and the Victorian Popular Imagination (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University, 2008), 1.

330 Hall (1912-1913) under Principal Tait, and became vice-principal (1913-1915). Not ‘a strong party man’, yet ‘a convinced Evangelical, but . . . also Liberal’,116 Binns (later Elliott-Binns) would write more than one work relevant to this study.117 The appointment of LE Binns at Ridley Hall and of JW Hunkin at Wycliffe points to the broadening or shift to the left in the Evangelical spectrum of which Davies was a part. In 1922 change would disturb the great flagship of Evangelicalism itself, the Church Missionary Society.118 The presence of JW Hunkin and EW Barnes within the Group Brotherhood (to become the Anglican Evangelical Group Movement in 1923) makes it clear that within Liberal Evangelicalism itself was a spectrum – there being no clear line drawn between them and the Modern Churchmen. Following study at Ridley Hall (for the academic year 1904-05), Davies was ordained to be curate (part-time) under the vicar of Holy Trinity Church, HLCV de Candole. De Candole, who taught

116Elliott-Binns, The Evangelical Movement, ix (‘Author’s Preface’).

117Elliott-Binns, The Evangelical Movement; Elliott- Binns, Religion in the Victorian Era (London: Lutterworth, 1936); Elliott-Binns, The Development of English Theology in the Later Nineteenth Century (London: Longmans, 1952); Elliott-Binns, English Thought 1860- 1900: The Theological Aspect (London: Longmans Green, 1956).

118Elliott-Binns, The Evangelical Movement, 70.

331 Pastoralia at Ridley Hall, was one of the foundation members of the Group Brotherhood, while yet for a time also a Keswick speaker. Davies preached and taught regularly from 1905 to 1911 at Holy Trinity church,119 (witness his Bible expositions above). He had also become secretary of the Cambridge Junior Clerical Society, where he exhibited a definite interest in Christian missions. On March 1, 1910, Davies was initiated in Isaac Newton Lodge at Cambridge,120 of which Cunningham was a member. He would become a very active Mason in Sydney. In 1911 he was made a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, Archdeacon William Cunningham then being president. The three things, his appointment at Emmanuel, his election to the Royal Historical Society, and his initiation into Isaac Newton Lodge, all indicate a close connection with Cunningham, for whom he also did some research.121

119Holy Trinity Church, Cambridge, Service Register, June 18, 1905 to August 24, 1911.

120Terry St Clair and June St Clair, ‘V Wor Bro Ven Archdeacon David John Davies MA, BD 1879-1935’ in Masonic Historical Society of New South Wales Bulletin 38 (October 1997), 10.

121‘Diocese of Ely. Candidates for Ordination’, note by Davies.

332 Liberal Evangelical Convictions Embraced By the time Davies arrived at Moore College in 1911 his convictions represented a broadened, a different Evangelical spectrum from that of Nathaniel Jones and such as Handley CG Moule, Robert Sinker, Henry Wace and EA Litton. The influence of his training in History as a science based on a critical sifting of evidence assuming the ‘continuity of events’ and a general record of progress – as set out in Bury’s inaugural – doubtless played a role. It keyed into the views of the theologians and biblical scholars at Cambridge already noted. Davies stopped short of rejecting Christ’s virgin birth and his resurrection. On the other hand, he had branched off into a different view of Christ’s atoning death and of justification. Very possibly he had joined the Group Brotherhood from its very beginning. He appears in a mid-1909 photo of the Group Brotherhood. John Charles Wright, their first chairman, was already the archbishop-elect of Sydney.122 In the Cambridge intellectual milieu of the day Davies’s beliefs were consonant with what he himself and many other Evangelicals believed they could hold and defend with integrity.

122Photo of ‘The Brothers’ conference 15-17th July 1909, Sydney Diocesan Magazine, 30.3 (March 1933), [10] (presented and annotated by Davies).

333 Conclusion Davies was part of the new liberal trend among younger English Evangelicals, who had recently formed the private ‘Group Brotherhood’. Only later did its leaders announce the ‘Anglican Evangelical Group Movement’ and define the (liberal) principles of their position,123 which probably never had strict boundaries. When John Charles Wright became Archbishop of Sydney (1909) he called two early ‘Brothers’, David John Davies and Edward Albert Talbot, to be Principal of Moore College (1911) and Dean of St Andrew’s Cathedral (1912) respectively. These three men self- consciously brought to Sydney – its diocese, theological college, and cathedral – their liberal broadening of the Evangelical spectrum.

123Liberal Evangelicalism, ‘Introduction’, v-viii.

334 Chapter 8 LIBERAL EVANGELICALISM STATED and APPLIED

A major consideration in the election of John Charles Wright as archbishop of Sydney in May 1909 was the synod’s evaluation of his awareness and concern for the social needs of a large city.1 He arrived to take up office in November 1909, and in June 1911 the passing of Nathaniel Jones provided the opportunity for him to find a new principal of the College. In England he had been chairman (1907-09) of the new Group Brotherhood, which had a ‘concern for pressing social and theological issues’.2 He now sought a principal who would share their outlook (which they later called ‘Liberal Evangelicalism’).3 Davies was recommended to Archbishop Wright by his commissaries in England and the well-known Evangelical, Francis James Chavasse. Formerly Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, in 1900 Chavasse had succeeded JC Ryle as Bishop of

1Cf John Charles Wright, Thoughts on Modern Church Life (London: Longmans, Green, 1909).

2Stephen Judd and Kenneth Cable, Sydney Anglicans (Sydney: Anglican Information Office, 1987), 160, 172 n1 (quoting ‘ to ?____Confidential circular, nd (January 1907)’, in Papers of the Group Brotherhood in the Anglican Evangelical Group Movement collection. The University Archives, Brynmor Jones Library, The ).

3Members of the Church of England, Liberal Evangelicalism: An Interpretation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1923).

335 Liverpool. As yet the difference of intellectual principle in the Group Brotherhood’s broadening, already actual in some, still nascent in others, was not widely perceived. Hence, one assumes, the theological mix of contributors (such as CF d’Arcy, FS Guy Warman with RB Girdlestone and W StClair Tisdall) to the series Anglican Church Handbooks, edited by WH Griffith Thomas.4 Wright had met Davies at Group Brotherhood meetings, and presumably before that in connection with the Elland Society’s granting of assistance for his study at Cambridge.5 When he received the invitation in July 1911, Davies, now thirty-two, had just married Grace Augusta Lawe, a cousin of his vicar, HLCV (‘Corrie’) de Candole. On 11th November, 1911, while their ship the Aeneas was briefly in Melbourne, Davies met with the principal of Ridley College, a fellow Liberal Evangelical. It was at a garden party for the first anniversary of this new (1910) Evangelical institution.6 Principal George Ellis Aickin (1869- 1937), was also a Cambridge graduate (St John’s,

4WH Griffith Thomas (ed), Anglican Church Handbooks (London: Longmans, Green, 1909-1912).

5DJ Davies, ‘Our Late Archbishop’ with photo identifying most in it, ‘“THE BROTHERS”– Conference of Evangelical Clergy at St. Aidan’s College, Birkenhead, 15th, 16th, 17th July, 1909’, SDM 24.3 (March 1933), 15; for Elland Society see GR Balleine, A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England (London: Church Book Room, 1951 [1908]), 64.

6The Argus (Melbourne), 13 Nov 1911, 11.

336 1891) and a fellow member of the Group Brotherhood in England. He had previously combined parish work with teaching at St Aidan’s College, Birkenhead, under AC Tait, a founding member of the Group Brotherhood, and who had become Principal of Ridley Hall in 1908.7 The Davies couple arrived in Sydney on 16th November, 1911.8 He found significant intellectual company in Sydney. At the University, the Oxford educated (BA 1888) Challis professor of history, George Arnold Wood, was ‘a reluctant agnostic’.9 Davies soon (1913) became Lecturer in History and Economics for the Sydney University Extension Board. Next door at St Paul’s College (within the University of Sydney) the warden was the scholarly Dr Lewis Bostock Radford (1868-1937), a fellow graduate of Cambridge, not an Evangelical. He was editor of the new (1910) Australasian Church Quarterly Review, to which Davies was to contribute generously. Davies would preach at his consecration as Bishop of Goulburn in 1915.10 Arthur Garnsey (MA in classics, University of

7ADEB, sv ‘Aickin, George Ellis’; PJH Adam and Gina Denholm (eds), Ridley College, Melbourne: Proclaiming Christ 1910-2010 (Parkville, Vic: Ridley Melbourne, 2010), 23.

8SDM 2.9 (Sep 1911), 9, and 2.12 (Dec 1911), 15.

9RM Crawford, ‘Wood, George Arnold (1865–1928)’, ADB, Vol 12 (1990).

10DJ Davies, The Pastoral Ideal and the Personal Touch: A Sermon (Sydney: WA Pepperday, 1915).

337 Sydney), ‘a liberal churchman of Catholic background’,11 succeeded Radford as warden at St Paul’s College (1916). The two neighbours, Davies and Garnsey, became friends, and Davies was made a Fellow of the College. By July 1912, AE Talbot (1877-1936), a fellow member with Davies of the Group Brotherhood, arrived to become dean of St Andrew’s Cathedral. The Reverend HN Baker, MA (Syd) in philosophy (earned under the idealist, Francis Anderson, professor of philosophy 1890 to 1921), would be an associate with Davies in work on ‘the social issue’. Professor Anderson’s idealism was sympathetic with ‘a doctrinally deliquescent Christianity’.12 Davies may have found his views on economics and socialism, and on personal realisation, to have been supportive.13 He probably found less affinity with the more conservative Evangelical intellectuals. The Irishman, Dr Everard Digges La Touche (1883-1915), had arrived in Sydney in 1912 just before EA Talbot, after a short a time in country New South Wales. In his student days at Trinity College Dublin he had become a friend of TC Hammond, who had been instrumental in his conversion from agnosticism. Already awarded the LittD by his

11David Garnsey, Arthur Garnsey: A Man for Truth and Freedom (Sydney: Kingsdale, 1985), 72.

12SA Grave, A History of Philosophy in Australia (St Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland, 1984), 25.

13Grave, Philosophy in Australia, 20-21.

338 alma mater for a published work,14 Digges La Touche had also given the recent Donellan lectures.15 Wright appointed him diocesan missioner, and Davies used him at Moore College to teach dogmatic theology (part-time). Much older was the redoubtable Canon Mervyn Archdall (b 1846), a friend of Nathaniel Jones, now rector of the rural parish of Penrith. He would retire in 1913 and move back to suburban Sydney, where he was available to younger clergy who wished to consult him,16 presumably on matters theological. The scholarly Samuel M Johnstone (b 1879 – exact contemporary of Davies), a Queen’s College, Belfast graduate ‘of a philosophic turn of mind’,17 was newly the rector of the important parish of . Outside the Anglican fold Davies joined with the Presbyterian, Congregational and Methodist teachers of theology in Sydney, becoming secretary of the Joint Board of Theological Studies they set

14E Digges La Touche, Christian Certitude: Its Intellectual Basis (London: James Clarke, 1910).

15Everard Digges La Touche, The Person of Christ in Modern Thought. The First Series of Donellan Lectures for the Year 1911-1912 (London: James Clarke, 1912).

16Henry Kingsley Archdall, Mervyn Archdall: A Memorial of the Late Reverend Canon Mervyn Archdall, MA (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1922), .

17Marcus L Loane, Mark These Men: A brief account of some Evangelical clergy in the Diocese of Sydney who were associated with Archbishop Mowll (Sydney: Acorn, 1985), 42, 43.

339 up in 1915. The Presbyterian Scots-Irish Samuel Angus (1881-1943) arrived in that year to be the professor of New Testament exegesis within the Theological Hall in St Andrew’s College, University of Sydney.18 He first suggested ‘the inauguration’, of ‘The Heretics’19, a club which met monthly from 1916, probably after meeting Davies. Limited to ten members, all graduates, it was otherwise akin to the ‘secret’ Cambridge discussion society, ‘The Apostles’,20 whose membership had included FJA Hort (1828-1892), one of the ‘Cambridge Triumvirate’.21 The new club’s name, however, reminds the reader of ‘The Heretics’ society set up in Cambridge following the Chawner affair at Emmanuel in 1910.22 ‘The Heretics’ in Sydney was a private dining club at

18Alan Dougan, A Backward Glance at the Angus Affair (Sydney: Wentworth Books, 1971), 7-8.

19Dougan, The Angus Affair, 23 (quoting letter of Angus to the Heretics of 21st September, 1943).

20Christopher NL Brooke, A History of the University of Cambridge, Volume IV. 1870-1990 (Cambridge: University, 1993), 127 referencing (inter al) W Lubenow, conversations; now see WC Lubenow, The Cambridge Apostles, 1820-1914: Liberalism, Imagination and Friendship in British Intellectual and Professional Life, (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1998).

21Sarah Bendall, Christopher Brooke, Patrick Collinson, A History of Emmanuel College, Cambridge (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1999), 423 n38.

22Ch 7 above; ‘The Religious Situation in Cambridge’, The New Commentator: A Quarterly Cambridge Paper for the Discussion of Religious and Theological Questions I.1 (March 1913), 11.

340 which members presented papers of mutual interest and intellectual stimulation.23 Here Davies joined with Angus, ‘essentially a Christian Unitarian in his theology’,24 and other liberals or modernists25 – with Arthur Garnsey, Dean Talbot, and GW Thatcher, warden of the Congregational theological college. He would sometimes read a coming public lecture for critical appraisal, otherwise a paper written only for the group. Davies’s Evangelical biblicism cum activism found expression in his being for many years part of the governance and advocacy of the work of the British and Foreign Bible Society. He was also twice elected President of the New South Wales Council of Churches (1931-1933). At the same time he continued his Freemasonic activity begun in Cambridge. He was a foundation

23KJ Cable, ‘The First and Second Book of Chronicles: A History of the Heretics Club Pt I: The First Book of Chronicles’, in William W Emilsen and Geoffrey R Treloar, The Heretics Club 1916-2006: Ninetieth Anniversary Papers (Sydney: Origen, 2009), 2-3.

24Ian Ellis-Jones, ‘The Relevance of Dr Samuel Angus for the Christian Church in Australia in the Twenty-first Century’ (Expanded version of a talk given on the 24th March 2010 at St Andrew’s College within the University of Sydney), 1 (accessed on-line 8th Aug 2012 at www.standrewscollege.edu.au/.../SRC20%talk. . .); Alan Dougan, A Backward Glance at the Angus Affair (Sydney: Wentworth, 1971), 12-14; Michael S Parer, Australia’s Last Heresy Hunt: The Angus Case (Sydney: Wentworth, 1971), 24-25.

25Cf J Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (New York: Macmillan, 1923; repr Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1956), 2.

341 member of three lodges – the Sydney Lodge of Research (1914), Lodge Enmore (Enmore a suburb not far from the College), and (as chaplain) of Lodge University of Sydney (1924).26 Some of his Sydney Lodge of Research addresses and sermons27 throw significant light on his view of Scripture and how it should be understood. A number of prominent and highly respected conservative Evangelicals in the Diocese of Sydney were Lodge members.28 His Evangelical activism also engaged him within the Anglican scene outside the College. In the latter half of 1913 he participated in the series of parochial conferences. At one of these his paper on the New Testament gospels (recounted below), resulted in a permanent break with those in a more conservative part of the Evangelical spectrum. He presented the Bible studies at the CMS summer school at Austinmer (near Sydney) in January 1915. A permanent member of the Sydney Diocesan Social Problem (sic) Committee, he lectured and published papers touching the problem (defined as poverty), its causes, effects and

26June and Terry St Clair, ‘V Wor Bro Archdeacon David John Davies MA, BD, 1879-1935’, The Masonic Historical Society of New South Wales Bulletin, 38 (October 1997), 10-11.

27In Transactions of the Sydney Lodge of Research (TSLR), most volumes from Vol III (1916) to Vol XIX (1932).

28Janet West, Innings of Grace: A Life of Bishop Hilliard ([Sydney: Trinity Grammar School], 1897), 64.

342 remedy. He made it the subject of his Moorhouse Lectures,29 delivered at the height of the Great War (in 1917). He published them as The Church and the Plain Man,30 his one book, for which he was awarded the Cambridge Bachelor of Divinity degree in 1920. He was active in the discussions of the Anglican General Synod committee for a national constitution and that on Prayer Book revision. He published thoughtful and well-informed articles on these two matters in the Sydney Diocesan Magazine (SDM), an initiative of Archbishop Wright, and in the Australian Church Record. The latter was essentially the voice of the Anglican Church League (in Sydney and Melbourne), representing all Evangelicals as Protestants opposed to Anglo- Catholic doctrinal and the ritualist pressure. Anglo-Catholics planned major centenary celebrations in Australia to celebrate the centenary of Keble’s historic Assize sermon of July 1833.31 In June 1933, Davies was guest of the Anglican Church League in Melbourne for a special lecture on the Thirty-nine Articles.32 The principal of Moore College was very active on a

29After Bishop James Moorhouse (1826-1915), bishop of Melbourne, 1876-1886.

30David J Davies, The Church and the Plain Man (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1919).

31John Keble, Sermons, Academical and Occasional, 2nd ed (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1848), Sermon VI. ‘National Apostasy’.

32Examined in Chapter 9 below.

343 broad front outside the classroom and chapel of the College. His literary contributions in the above areas are the source for examining the nature of his Liberal Evangelical convictions.

Davies’s First Moore College Period (1911-early 1920s): Christian Scholar, Social Thinker, and Freemason Davies began in 1912 with twenty-three students, many from the last year of Jones, then effectively under the acting principal, Sydney Kirkby, an able admirer of Jones. The following year Davies could rejoice in a distinguished and inclusive group of teachers in the College, even if most were part-time. They included JV Patton (vice-principal),33 Dean AE Talbot, Dr Digges La Touche, SJ Kirkby (a future bishop in the Diocese), HN Baker, and others. He himself seems to have lectured on the Thirty-nine Articles (after Digges La Touche finished at the end of 1914), on church history, and (at least in Marcus Loane’s time, the early thirties) on the Greek text of John’s gospel. He and his vice-principal were assisted by parish clergy. He regularly gave the chapel addresses in the daily College services. The new principal immediately introduced changes. He automatically enrolled the students

33Marcus L Loane, Centenary History of Moore Theological College (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1955), 119-120.

344 in the Student Christian Movement, and in the Church of England Men’s Society branches that he formed. To raise the academic standing of the College, he required first-year students to study for the university matriculation, and second-year students ‘to attend at least one course of lectures at the university.’34 The curriculum of the College now became that of the Australian College of Theology Licentiate of Theology (ThL). The College of Theology elected him (and GE Aickin) a Fellow (ThSoc) in 1916, its nearest equivalent to awarding an honorary doctorate. By the later 1920s, presumably on his recommendation, the much reprinted work of the American liberal evangelical Baptist, WN Clarke (1841-1912), Outline of Christian Theology,35 appeared in the ‘List of Suggested Books’ for ThL ‘Doctrine’ in the Manual of the Australian College of Theology. There were multiple numbered copies of Clarke’s book kept in the care of the Vice-Principal.36 Davies’s published oeuvre for this roughly twenty-year period was wide-ranging. He wrote reviews for the Sydney Diocesan Magazine, many pieces in Australian Anglican church newspapers, contributions to the new journal edited by Dr

34Loane, Centenary History, 114.

35William Newton Clarke, An Outline of Christian Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1898).

36Moore College Library catalogue, sv ‘Clarke, WN’.

345 Radford, Warden of St Paul’s College, and to the journal of the Sydney Lodge of Research.37 Unpublished materials include a number of fully written-out lectures for his Sydney University Extension teaching of History and Economics (not examined in this study), lectures on Scripture, some Bible exposition, a fully written out sermon (and many outlines). There are also lectures on the personalities of some early Evangelical leaders, and some of the papers he gave at ‘The Heretics’ meetings. All his statements on Scripture (or on the atonement) indicate a liberal outlook. His view of Holy Scripture soon became an issue in Sydney. It was evident in his review of fellow Cantabrian, EC Dewick’s 1908 Hulsean Prize Essay on New Testament eschatology.38 Dewick, a graduate of St John’s College (as was Radford), had passed through Ridley Hall under TW Drury in 1905-1906, the year following Davies’s study there. Dewick himself claimed orthodoxy, to hold the catholic doctrine of the person of Christ.39 He was broadly conservative in his exegetical conclusions, while being in principle liberal in

37The Australasian Church Quarterly Review (ACQR); and Transactions of the Sydney Lodge of Research (TSLR).

38EC Dewick, Primitive Christian Eschatology. Hulsean Prize Essay 1908 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1912); reviewed by DJ Davies in ACQR II.4 (Sept 1912), 372-376.

39Dewick, Primitive Christian Eschatology, 377.

346 his view of Scripture, including the Gospels.40 Dewick bore out a fortiori, as did Davies, what JK Mozley, then part of the Group Movement,41 had recently observed of WR Inge and FC Burkitt, that ‘the combination of even the most advanced cases of criticism with at least an appearance of strenuous orthodoxy is no impossibility’.42 Dewick completely ignored the premillennial eschatology held widely in his day by Evangelicals of scholarly calibre. He referred only to the liberal discussion. He even stated that during the latter part of the nineteenth century, the Doctrine of the Last Things seemed to be receding into the background of Christian teaching.43

Davies was glad, of course, that the author had countered the damage to Christianity from the ‘Consistent Eschatologist’, Albert Schweitzer, and the Roman Catholic Modernist, Father George Tyrrell.44 While Davies was no such radical

40Dewick, Primitive Christian Eschatology, 179.

41Davies, ‘Our Late Archbishop’ with photo identifying most in it, “THE BROTHERS”, SDM 24.3 (March 1933), 15.

42JK Mozley, ‘Religious Life and Thought at Cambridge’, ACQR I.1 (Oct 1910), 28.

43Dewick, Primitive Christian Eschatology, 1.

44Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965), The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, tr W Montgomery, with Preface by C Burkitt (London: Black, 1910); George Tyrrell (1861-1909), Christianity at the Cross-roads (London; New York: Longmans, Green and Co, 1909); cf ODCC sv ‘Tyrrell, George’; AR Vidler, A Variety of Catholic Modernists

347 modernist, he was liberal. Thus, where Dewick wrote that Jesus claimed authority to ‘alter’ the ‘teaching of the Old Testament where necessary’ (thus on Matt 5:17-48),45 Davies marked the sentence in his copy without demurral. He praised Dewick’s presentation of Christ’s eschatological teaching in the gospels, that ‘at its basis [was] a sublime optimism, a perfect faith in the final victory of good over evil’. This was ‘substantially the witness of the Gospel records’.46 Dewick had ‘clearly shown’ that Albert Schweitzer and others’ view, that Christ was a ‘man of his time’ and ‘expected an immediate and catastrophic end of all things’, simply ‘does not fit the facts of the case.’ Rather, Jesus showed ‘“sublime optimism”, . . . wise reticence as to details, . . . insistence on the call to a holy life’. These, wrote Davies, ‘constitute an appeal to the heart and conscience, as well as to the intellect’.47 Digges La Touche had devoted more than fifty pages of his Donellan lectures to the ‘consistent eschatologists’ such as Schweitzer, and the (Roman

(Cambridge: University, 1970.

45Dewick, Primitive Christian Eschatology, 138.

46Davies, ACQR II.4 (Sep 1912), 374.

47Davies, ACQR II.4 (Sep 1912), 375.

348 Catholic) Modernists.48 He must have had his own thoughts when he saw Davies’s review. Already, on May 22nd, 1913, the British Admiral Sir George King-Hall, whose ship was then in Sydney, had chaired the annual College Commemoration. Digges La Touche was present and would have seen Dean Talbot and Principal Davies, seated behind the chairman, look at each other ‘rather taken aback’ when the admiral ‘spoke very strongly on the accuracy of the Bible and held forth . . . showing how ignorant’ were some of the ‘so-called Higher Critics’. The students applauded the admiral ‘very much’.49 In the latter half of 1913, from concern about ‘the present intellectual atmosphere’, a committee under Everard Digges La Touche organised a series of parochial conferences. Their intention was to entirely change the intellectual atmosphere of Sydney from the present unfaith to that of rational conviction and belief in our Lord Jesus Christ.50

48E Digges La Touche, The Person of Christ in Modern Thought, 151-205.

49‘Diaries of Admiral Sir George Fowler King-Hall KCB, CVO’ (held by the Naval Museum at Portsmouth, England), at 22 May 1913 and 12 September 1913 (material kindly supplied by Dr Stuart Braga of Sydney, who accessed the diaries 15 December 2012 at https://sites.google.com/site/kinghallconnections/6900-g- cinc-australia).

50SDM 5.9 (Sep 1, 1913), 19, 22.

349 Speakers were, it seems, chosen not for a wholly conservative Evangelicalism but for their mental calibre and knowledge of their subject. The theme of the second conference, held at St Andrew’s Church, Summer Hill (a prosperous middle-class suburb of Sydney, the incumbent of which was a trustee of the College51), was ‘Progressive Revelation’. The topic for the evening of August 7, 1913 was ‘Christ the End of Revelation’, for which Davies read a paper, ‘The Certainty of Christ’. (The following evening Canon Mervyn Archdall and SM Johnstone read papers, on ‘The Authority of Christ’, and ‘The Authority of the Bible’.)52 The background to Davies’s topic and treatment was possibly the new volume, Foundations,53 particularly BH Streeter’s professedly tentative impression . . . of a few of the more important aspects of that portrait of the historic Jesus which modern scholarship is restoring to us.

Streeter had found ‘a strong presumption in favour of the substantial reliability’ of the Synoptic

51The Revd Canon John Vaughan (Loane, Centenary History), 177.

52SDM 5.9 (Sep 1, 1913), 20.

53Seven Oxford Men, Foundations: A Statement of Christian Belief in Terms of Modern Thought (London: Macmillan, 1912).

350 Gospels, especially with regard to Christ’s teaching.54 Davies’s paper appears to have moved Digges La Touche and others to ask him how the authority of Christ’s teaching was regarded in Moore College. Near the beginning of his manuscript55 Davies had distinguished ‘the aim of modern constructive criticism’ from ‘the destructive sort’. Defining neither, he had defended the former as ‘necessary’, as seeking to understand and not to destroy. He then noted that ‘an increasing number of men of learning . . . are criticising the church, the Bible, our Lord Himself, in a spirit of reverent yet searching inquiry’. In order ‘to meet that sober questioning spirit’, he would ‘try to put a few facts’ before his audience. Scripture, he went on to affirm, ‘is the documentary evidence’ of both the ‘history and human experience’ that attest ‘the fact of progressive revelation’ (undefined) and ‘contains [sic] the substance of God’s message to man’. Warning bells may have been ringing in the ears of Digges La Touche, Mervyn Archdall and SM Johnstone at this point. Davies had not defined

54BH Streeter, Essay III. ‘The Historic Christ’, in Foundations, 83-84.

55‘The Certainty of Christ’ (unpublished MS) in ‘David J. Davies Papers, 1902-1935’, MitchLib (Local Number: MLL MSS 3179, Box 1(1) in largest bundle of three). (Microform copy of these papers now held in Moore College Library).

351 his term ‘progressive revelation’,56 and he had said only that Scripture ‘contains’ the substance of God’s message to man. More positively Davies went on to refer to the multitude ‘whose lives have been shaped and transformed and renewed and glorified by what the Bible has taught them.’ Digges La Touche may have been somewhat reassured by Davies’s use of ‘the experimental proof’, which he himself used57 when he said in his own paper: ‘The Christian faith . . . is the religion of a Person’. That Person ‘is, not was, Christ.’ He is ‘our God, my God . . . a part of my own life, He has entered into my experience.’58 Davies thus brought in the idealist theme of personality, emphasised by the philosopher TH Green, and more lately by ,59 as well as by Illingworth and Tarrant, already mentioned.60 Davies claimed that the highest revelation of God was made not in nature, history or the Bible, ‘but in Jesus Christ’, in whose Personality lies our certainty, for ‘Personality is the highest form of

56Cf James Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament, 467- 78).

57Digges La Touche, Christian Certitude, 288-92; E Digges La Touche, Is Christianity Scientific? (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1913), 19-20 (pamphlet).

58Davies, ‘The Certainty of Christ’.

59William Temple, The Nature of Personality: A Course of Lectures (London: Macmillan, 1911).

60See Ch 7 above.

352 revelation. . . . It is in the Personality of Christ that we shall find that certainty’.61 Evangelicals at this conference, such as SJ Kirkby, and others such as Mervyn Archdall, SM Johnstone and Everard Digges La Touche, were also Christ-centered Evangelicals.62 But they made no dichotomy between the revelation of God in the person of Christ and the revelation of Christ as recorded in Holy Scripture. They would have been reassured, on the other hand, to hear Davies say, ‘Christ is the perfect revelation of God to men, because He was himself both’. At least he affirmed Christ’s deity. The remainder of Davies’s manuscript, ‘The Certainty of Christ’, was his defence of the ‘historic Christ’ against any skeptics present. He was sure, as a historian trained in and ‘using the recognised methods of historical science’, that Christ lived and died and rose again. The oral tradition ‘is reasonably unchanged and consistent’. The ‘documentary sources, especially the gospels’ were ‘very soon written down from the reports of eyewitnesses and hearers and in some cases by the eyewitnesses themselves.’ He added his own testimony: he ‘tries to be a scientific historian’ and had ‘for years carefully studied

61Davies, ‘The Certainty of Christ’.

62Marcus Loane, interview, 2004; Mervyn Archdall, ‘Hymns’ 1-3 and 8-12, in Henry Kingsley Archdall, Mervyn Archdall, 126-128, 133-137.

353 the documents of the New Testament’ and found them to be first-class historical authorities’; out of their ‘agreements we can construct the portrait of a Personality such as Christ claimed to be and such as Christians have believed Him to be.’ He was ‘a Personality, such as no human genius could invent . . . who stands out unique in history.’ Davies’s certainty of Christ was ‘attested by a cumulative probability,’ the traditional apologetic stemming from Butler’s Analogy.63 Digges La Touche’s own writing was explicitly aware of the role of the broadly Hegelian presuppositions underlying the negative assessment of the gospel data.64 Davies was aware of the role of naturalistic presuppositions in the negative Higher Criticism with regard to the miracles, the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection.65 A Cambridge ‘Catholic theologian’ (Anglican), EG Selwyn was about to point this out,66 presumably in response to BH Streeter’s chapters earlier in Cambridge Biblical Essays, and in Foundations noted above.

63Davies, ‘The Certainty of Christ’; Digges La Touche, Christian Certitude, Ch IX. ‘Conclusion.–Many Infallible Proofs’.

64Cf Digges La Touche, ‘Appendix: The Modern Criticism of the Gospels’, Christian Certitude, 293-300.

65See Ch 9 below on his Heretics paper, ‘Modern Scholastics’.

66EG Selwyn, ‘The Historic Christ’, in Comment and Criticism (initially The New Commentator above) II.2 (Aug 1914), 68-69.

354 Davies, Digges La Touche and others had already been in discussion on the matter of the gospels’ witness to Christ before the conference. Shortly afterwards, EHB Claydon, the rector of St Luke’s, Concord and Burwood, reminded Davies and the other members of ‘our Evangelical Group’ – an Australian ‘Group Brotherhood’? – to meet at Moore College on 1st September 1913.67 He referred to ‘the Cambridge Statement’ (which this writer could not trace). It may have been a development from the recent letter of the seventeen examining chaplains resident at Cambridge to the Archbishop of Canterbury. On the question in the Book of Common Prayer at the ordination of Deacons: ‘Do you unfeignedly believe all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments?’ the chaplains understood that its purpose was: to emphasise and maintain the unique position of the Scriptures . . . as being the inspired record of the progressive revelation of God which culminated in the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ, and . . . that . . . their ministers recognise the spiritual and moral authority of those sacred books.68

67E Claydon, 25 August, 1913, in ‘David J. Davies Papers’, (SMAMoore), Box 1, large bundle.

68‘The Month’ in the Churchman, xxviii.96 (Dec 1913), 882-883; Comment and Criticism: A Quarterly Cambridge Paper for the Discussion of Current Religious and Theological Questions, I.4 (Feb 1914), 87; (in Australia) The Church Standard, December 12, 1913, 4.

355 The published letter had occasioned much correspondence in the Cambridge Magazine, even letters from Bertrand Russell!69 But there must have been another so-called ‘Cambridge’ document in view in Claydon’s letter. The business of the ‘Group’s’ coming meeting was ‘Digges La Touche’s proposed amendment’ to ‘Cl 2 Sect II’ of the ‘Cambridge Statement’ (whatever that was), about the inspiration of Scripture: WHILE THE MIND AND WILL OF GOD ARE MADE KNOWN TO US IN NATURE AND EXPERIENCE(?)[sic] THEY ARE FINALLY REVEALED TO US IN THE PERSON AND WORK OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, THE ABSOLUTELY INERRANT TEACHER; THE DEFINITIVE AND AUTHORITATIVE RECORD OF WHOSE INERRANT TEACHING IS PRESERVED FOR US IN THE SACRED SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND NEW COVENANTS.-----70

It so happened that twelve months beforehand Digges La Touche had given, in Davies’s words, ‘helpful and outspoken messages at the opening services of the term’ (Michaelmas, 1912) at Moore College, and ‘[t]he discussion on “Inspiration” . . . had aroused keen interest.’71 On 12 September 1913 Claydon wrote again to Davies, whose own proposed amendment, sent to the

69‘Cambridge Notes’, Comment and Criticism I.4 (Feb 1914), 87.

70E Claydon, Letter (Typescript, upper case original), in ‘The Rev David J Davies Papers,’ (MitchLib) MLL MSS 3179 Box 1, largest bundle). Cf E Digges La Touche, The Person of Christ in Modern Thought, 388-400).

71DJ Davies, ‘Moore College Notes’, SDM IV.7 (July 1, 1913), 21.

356 August meeting of the ‘Evangelical Group’, Davies had now drawn up in another form, to be held over to the October meeting: While the mind and will of God have been, and are revealed through individual experience as also in history and nature, they are made known to us chiefly in Holy Scripture, which is the authoritative record of the final Self- revelation of God in the Person and Work of our Lord Jesus Christ, the absolutely inerrant Teacher. The presence of this divine element in Holy Scripture gives to it final authority in all matters of religious belief and conduct.

Davies has limited the absence of error to Christ’s teaching (as far as that could be established). There is no documentary record of further ‘Evangelical Group’ meetings in the Davies papers. But in May 1914, having previously written to Davies to seek assurance about his teaching in the College, several key men (members of the ‘Group’?) responded to his invitation to meet with him at the College – Canon Archdall, E Digges La Touche, J Young, HS Begbie, SM Johnstone and SE Langford Smith. They let him know beforehand of three ‘leading questions which the brethren intend to ask’: First, did he believe that Christ, ‘being God and man’, was ‘absolutely inerrant’, before and after his resurrection, when he spoke on any subject? Secondly, did he believe the Bible, Old and New Testaments, was so inspired of God as to be ‘truthful and finally authoritative’ for

357 the knowledge of God’s will and for saving faith in Christ? Thirdly, did he believe that the Holy Scriptures, ‘as interpreted by the Holy Spirit in the believer and in the Church are the absolute and final authority in matters of faith and practice?’72

Davies wrote out his response in full, on Moore College letterhead: ‘Memoranda, Disputation of brethren, May 21/14’. Pencilled notes done on the morning conveniently summarise it. First, he would assure them, ‘If it can be proved from Scripture that our Lord made a definite statement to a certain effect that statement would be accepted as final.’ Secondly, with regard to the ‘attitude towards Holy Scripture’, he simply noted ‘Article VI’. Thirdly, as to the authority of the Scriptures, they ‘as interpreted by the Holy Spirit in the believer and in the Church constituted the supreme authority in matters of faith and practice.’73 Davies’s ‘Memoranda’ begged the question, on what critical assumptions might something be ‘proved’? and what the meaning of ‘as interpreted by the Holy Spirit’ would be. Later in 1914, at an Anglican Church League function at St Andrew’s, Summer Hill, Digges La Touche publicly expressed

72Letter of SE Langford Smith to Davies, 18th May, 1914, in ‘Rev David J Davies Papers’, (MitchLib) MLL MSS 3179 Box 1, large bundle.

73‘Rev David J Davies Papers’, (MitchLib) MLL MSS 3179 Box 1, large bundle.

358 concern about the Principal’s doctrine of Scripture. Davies replied that as one of his teaching staff he was speaking out of place.74 The next year, against Archbishop Wright’s wish, Digges La Touche left with the ANZACs in 1915 as a sub-lieutenant and was killed not long after landing at Gallipoli. Davies continued to express his views on Scripture, but wrote also on other subjects. His basic Protestant outlook was public. We know that he thought quite well of the new Evangelical commentary on the Prayer Book.75 Its individual contributors included some well-known scholarly Evangelicals, including FS Guy Warman, later prominent among the Liberal Evangelicals. The Tutorial Prayer Book was still used in Moore College a half-century later. Davies thought well, too, of Sydney Carter’s contribution on the Reformation in the Anglican Church Handbooks series,76 and he praised GR Balleine’s history of

74Bishop Donald Robinson, interview 3 February 2005, recounting his father, RB Robinson’s memory of the event.

75Charles Neil and M Willoughby (eds), The Tutorial Prayer Book for the Teacher, the Student, and the General Reader (London: The Harrison Trust, 1913); reviewed by DJ Davies, SDM 4.5 (May 1913), 27-28.

76C Sydney Carter, The English Church and the Reformation (London: Longmans, Green, 1912); reviewed by DJ Davies in Sydney Diocesan Magazine 4.9 (Sep 1913), 24- 26.

359 the Evangelical party.77 He continued to contribute to church newspapers, addressing constitutional matters such as ‘the nexus’ between the Church of England in Australia and the parent body in England, and the issue raised by the rising assertiveness of Anglo-Catholicism. His Protestant stance (as opposed to Anglo-Catholic ritualism) was clear, which must have eased the tension with more conservative Evangelicals in the Diocese. Davies contributed articles and reviews to The Australasian Church Quarterly Review (two being already noted), to the Australian Church Record (ACR), which was virtually the organ of the Anglican Church League, and other Australian church (Anglican) papers such as the Church Standard, which was of a more High Church and Anglo-Catholic leaning. These and some unpublished papers further elucidate his theological outlook and doctrinal views. Early on also were his two articles on Puritanism in The Australasian Church Quarterly Review.78 They were appreciative while not

77GR Balleine, A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England (1908).

78DJ Davies, ‘Some Historical Aspects of Puritanism’, parts I and II in ACQR II.3 (Jun 1912), 242-258, and II.4 (Sep 1912), 324-336, referencing WH Frere, The English Church in the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I (1558-1625) (London: Macmillan, 1904) and , The English Church from the Accession of Charles I to the Death of Anne (1625-1714) (London: Macmillan, 1903).

360 uncritical of the movement, and rebutted the prejudice of both the influential Anglo-Catholic writer, WH Frere, and the conservative High Church historian, WH Hutton. There followed, before the above parish conferences of 1913, another article,79 which described the spiritual-moral deadness of eighteenth century England and the great benefits of the revival under the Wesleys (and Whitefield). The ‘Methodists’ were cast out, but within the Church of England the Evangelical movement bore much fruit. Davies’s public and published statements give an idea of the Protestant tone of his church history teaching in Moore College. From 1916 Davies contributed to the journal of the new (1914) Sydney Lodge of Research.80 His vice-principal, GC Glanville, a Nathaniel Jones graduate, and WG Hilliard (a parish clergyman also involved in the instruction of the College students, later a bishop), and SM Johnstone (on his College Committee set up in late 1919),81 were also Freemasons. A visiting lecturer on one occasion was another brother Freemason, HGJ Howe (also by then on his College Committee), a Jones graduate. Two lectures on Scripture, the Bible being called the ‘Volume of the Sacred Law’

79DJ Davies, ‘The English Church in the Eighteenth Century’, ACQR III.3 (Jun 1913), 217-233.

80TSLR (1914-195?).

81See below at end of chapter.

361 (abbreviated ‘VSL’ in Freemasonry) clarify the nature of Davies’s Liberal Evangelical biblicism. He had to confine himself to the Old Testament because of Freemasonry’s intention that all theists, including Jews, could be members of the Lodge. His very first lecture set out ‘The Literary History of the VSL’,82 ‘one of the greater lights of Masonry’ (‘greater lights’ being a Masonic term).83 His approach was that of the historian, to examine ‘the actual text’ in order that ‘it tell its own story’ rather than ‘fit it into preconceived ideas.’84 He sketched the history of the Hebrew text (as known before the Qumran discoveries of 1947), mentioned the various ancient versions and the other data usually given on the text and its language. He explained that much of the ‘enormous accumulation of materials’ discovered in modern times had ‘brought positive gains’ while necessitating the giving up of ‘[c]ertain traditional ideas’.85 He defended ‘Higher Criticism’ as ‘merely the attempt to determine the date, authorship, meaning and

82DJ Davies, ‘The Literary History of the VSL’, TSLR III (1916), 5-21.

83Davies, ‘The Literary History of the VSL’, TSLR III (1916), 5.

84Davies, ‘The Literary History of the VSL’, TSLR III (1916), 6.

85Davies, ‘The Literary History of the VSL’, TSLR III (1916), 13.

362 purpose of a book . . . where no external evidence is available.’86 On the historical side it ‘tries to value the contribution’ to history of the biblical books’ narratives of events, or ‘by their valuation as indicating processes of development either in progress or decay.’87 As before, he did not raise the question of the choice of prior assumptions which a historian might use in the Higher Criticism. Davies’s summary of the main results of ‘the modern methods of treatment’ included the documentary analysis of the ‘Hexateuch’ (Genesis to Judges). He emphasised, however, that ‘[t]he one purpose of the VSL is a religious purpose, to serve as the record of revealed truth – the record of the Most High making Himself known to men’.88 He also set forth a notion of progressive revelation. In the VSL, importantly, ‘we can see the picture of progress on the whole’, that is, of ‘moral development from a lower to a higher stage’, as in the ‘vast step between the atmosphere of Judges and that of Isaiah 53, or

86Davies, ‘The Literary History of the VSL’, TSLR III (1916), 16.

87Davies, ‘The Literary History of the VSL’, TSLR III (1916), 17.

88Davies, ‘The Literary History of the VSL’, TSLR III (1916), 18.

363 even of Ezekiel.’89 His conception of progressive revelation was still not clearly spelled out. But he reassured them of the VSL’s ‘exceeding great riches as literature, as a repository of moral guidance, and as the inspiration of all true progress’.90 There would be more of such for his Lodge brethren later, to be examined in the next chapter.

His Social Thought and Publications Similar developments in society to those in Britain were also occurring in Australia, where the first Labor Government in New South Wales was elected in 1910. The Premier was JST McGowen, an Evangelical layman91 very active in the inner- suburban parish of Redfern, where Francis Bertie Boyce was rector. Boyce himself was a clerical social-reform campaigner, and chief mover for the election of JC Wright as archbishop in 1909,92 as noted earlier. Davies and others had moved quickly on the matter of social issues. During

89Davies, ‘The Literary History of the VSL’, TSLR III (1916), 19.

90Davies, ‘The Literary History of the VSL’, TSLR III (1916), 19.

91Robert D Linder, ‘“Honest Jim” McGowen (1855-1922) As a Christian in Politics’, Lucas 15 (June 1993), 44-59; Robert D Linder, ‘McGowen, James Sinclair Taylor’, ADEB, and Kenneth Cable, ‘McGowen, James Sinclair Taylor’, ADB, Vol 10 (1986); Bede Nairn, ‘McGowen, James Sinclair’, ADB, Vol 7.

92Robert SM Wythycombe, ‘Boyce, Francis Bertie’, ADEB.

364 the Sydney Diocesan Synod of 1912 (30th September–4th October), but incidental to it, Archbishop Wright had presided over a ‘Conference of Churchmen’ which ‘discussed at length’, inter alia, ‘the growth of socialism, the estrangement of the masses from the church, the unequal distribution of wealth, and the various panaceas for the industrial evils’.93 Davies was among those presenting papers (his being on ‘the stages of the social system’), and he became one of the ten members of the Social Problem Committee that the Diocese then set up. Its purpose was ‘to educate a “Church conscience” on the subject, to secure an enlightened Christian opinion’, promote industrial peace and ‘a recognition of the truths of Christianity’ among ‘the masses’.94 Early the next year (1913) Davies adapted his paper to the Adam Smith Club (1910) to read to the Junior Clerical Society of Sydney.95 A series of seven evening lectures in the Chapter House of St Andrew’s Cathedral commenced with Davies on ‘the historical facts of the development

93‘The Social Question.’ Sydney Diocesan Magazine 3.11 (Nov 1912), 21.

94‘The Social Question.’ Sydney Diocesan Magazine 3.11 (Nov 1912), 21-22).

95David J Davies, ‘Socialism and Society. A paper read to the Sydney Junior Clerical Society at Christ Church St Laurence, April 21st, 1913’ , Australian Church Quarterly Review III.4 (Dec 1913), 304-321.

365 of capitalism’ (29th July, 1913).96 In 1917 he spelled out more fully his position in his Moorhouse Lectures (1917), published after the War as The Church and the Plain Man.97 He published a number of related articles and lectures.98 The Liberal Evangelical Davies was an activist in promoting his perspective on the social situation.

Moorhouse Lectures (1917) (The Church and the Plain Man (1919). These lectures were essentially an essay in practical theology by a socially concerned Liberal Evangelical. The themes of the Chapter House meeting during the 1912 Synod all appear. Davies combined a statement of his view of the practical problem facing all the churches in the Australia of that era, and of the Christian message and its application – as in principle a remedy for the social problem broadly considered. Perhaps through his mentor William Cunningham, TH Green’s idea that ‘I cannot realise good for myself without promoting the good of others in some degree’ underlay Davies’s whole appeal to co-

96‘The Social Problem Committee.’ SDM 4.8 (Sep 1913), 7-8.

97DJ Davies, The Church and the Plain Man (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1919).

98DJ Davies, The Labour Problem in Australia; Capitalism and Social Unity; and others.

366 operation, to which selfishness and competition were both opposed.99 ‘Things as They Are’ is the title of his first of seven lectures. Among the ‘broad facts’ Davies saw as giving shape to the problem for the churches was a prevailing indifference to ‘organised religion’.100 The following long lecture was his analysis of the causes of this indifference – a wide range of factors, including the materialism that bred selfishness, and the anti-social effects of city life. While praising positive Evangelical social achievements, he evenhandedly critiqued both the ‘mistake of exclusive pietism’, and the failure of both liberal and sacerdotal presentations of Christianity. In short, man-centred selfishness had led to religion being ‘centred in man rather than in God’.101 ‘Organized Selfishness’ was the subject of Lecture III. Its modern prevalence originated in the Industrial Revolution, and it had led to the

99Henry Sidgwick, Lectures on the Ethics of TH Green, Mr Herbert Spencer, and J Martineau (London: Macmillan, 1902), 56-57, ref TH Green, Prolegomena to Ethics (ed AC Bradley, 5th ed (Oxford: Clarendon, 1906 [1883]), Book III. ‘The Moral Ideal and Moral Progress’, Ch III. [‘The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideal’, § 199]; cf A Cunningham, William Cunningham: Teacher and Priest (London: SPCK, 1950), 57.

100Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, Lecture I. ‘Things as They Are’, 1-33.

101Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, Lecture II. ‘Causes Alleged’, 34-109.

367 dominance of the economic interest in politics. There had been material progress, but (Lecture II) ‘organized selfishness was not concerned with spiritual interests’. Relative poverty had increased. The Great War exemplified the outcome of the principle of mammon, which was organized selfishness.102 Lecture IV. ‘The Progress of Labour’ utilized Davies’s expertise in economic history to explain the origins of Trade Unionism, the wider movement of Socialism, and the still wider, then topical, movement called Syndicalism. All three, whatever their positive achievements, manifested organized selfishness. Labour had a religious aspect, in that it was a sacred cause, and gave scope for personal expression. Here was the Church’s opportunity to proclaim the life most worth living in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the Kingdom of Heaven here and now as the ideal state of society. Those who refused to enter it were making ‘the Great Refusal’. The Way into it was ‘the Great Surrender’ to the power of the Cross.103 In this Davies expressed both his Liberal Evangelical crucicentrism and conversionism. His following Lecture V, was ‘A Study in Personality. The Plain Man in His Environment’ – and his self-realisation (another theme in Davies’

102Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, Lecture II. ‘Organized Selfishness’, 110-151.

103Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, Lecture III. ‘The Progress of Labour’, 152-195.

368 thought, owed to TH Green and other idealists).104 He rejected both the ‘rationalist’ statement that people were outgrowing religion and the ‘obscurantist’ view that the world could not be won for Christ, so just ‘sit and wait for the consummation’. No more than ‘exclusive pietism’ (above), of course, was quietism of this kind the teaching of Nathaniel Jones. Davies gave an analysis of ‘1. The Plain Man’s Education’. The state school system, though dominated by ‘the secular’ interest, had several benefits, but it depreciated religious factors, and the economic interest dominated in its successful human products. As for ‘2. . . . Home Life’, modern industrialism disintegrated ‘family solidarity’. The atmosphere of dominant self- interest tended also to ‘the secularisation of marriage’. In ‘3. External Social Intercourse’, self-interest led often to indulgence in the ‘grosser vices’, as well as to ‘respectable self- indulgence’. ‘4. Fundamental Difficulties’ lying between the plain man and the Church were his personal moral deficiencies and his intellectual- moral environment. ‘5. What the Plain Man Responds to’ were ‘visible success’ and ‘the personal touch’ (a point of personal idealism)), which are a guide to ‘6. What the Plain Man

104GS Brett, sv ‘Green, Thomas Hill’ in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics VI (1913), 438 col i; CCJ Webb, A Study of Religious Thought in England from 1850 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1933), 141.

369 Wants’, which included a ‘moral lever’, Christ’s cross (the exemplary view of the atonement). These ‘wants’ were the very things that the Church could provide. The last two lectures, ‘VI. The Strength of the Church. The Available Resources’105 and ‘VII. Moving Forward’106 spelled out Davies’s convictions about the Church’s message, the men and machinery, and his proposals for reaching the plain man. These were in effect his manifesto for his labours as principal of the College, his work on the diocesan Social Problem Committee, indirectly for his Masonic lodge activity and his involvement in the Australian branch of the British and Foreign Bible Society. As for the Church’s message, it was dependent on the Bible, the church being the ‘“witness and keeper of Holy Writ”107 and not its creator.’ But Davies makes no statement at all of the content of the message. Instead he provides seventeen pages of a position statement on the Bible and its impact.108

105Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, Lecture VI. ‘The Strength of the Church’, 229-276.

106Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, Lecture VII. ‘Moving Forward’, 277-324.

107Article XX. Of the Authority of the Church.

108Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, Lecture VI. ‘The Strength of the Church’, 230-246.

370 This biblicism was explicitly Christo-centric: ‘Jesus Christ . . . is the final authority behind both Bible and Church’. It was, overall, a very positive example of liberal statement. It made a number of important points and gave an impression of a high, fairly conservative, appreciation of the Bible. Davies explicitly aimed to exclude not only the ‘obscurantist’ approach and the ‘irresponsible’ liberal criticism of Scripture, but also the Anglo-Catholic placing of the church’s authority over it. In principle, however, his position had not changed since the clash with Everard Digges La Touche and others in 1913-14. He would speak of the authority of Scripture as the (documentary) record of God’s self-revelation; the Bible ‘contained’ ‘the substance of [the Church’s] message’, without which ‘the Church has to rest on the shifting sands of uncertain tradition.’109 Davies was historian to the core: ‘No documents, no history, is the modern position.’110 Yet Davies omits to speak of the a priori assumptions of a naturalistic view of reality and the effect they have on assessing documentary evidence. In what he put forward as the authoritative Word of God he unquestioningly accepted the notion of so-called ‘double narratives’ of events that sometimes

109Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, 230.

110Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, 231.

371 ‘violently disagree’, such as the creation narratives of Genesis 1 and 2. On the other hand Davies wished to be thoroughly Christ-centered in his reading of Scripture, and he was not anti-doctrinal in principle, like more left-wing theological liberals: [T]he fact of Christ [is] a fact both historical and eternal. . . . Holy Scripture is the authoritative statement of the authoritative interpretation of the Person and Work of Christ.111

At the same time, he spoke only of ‘the substantial [italics added] agreement of the different writers’ on ‘the fact of Christ . . . the nature of His Person and the scope and meaning of His Work for man and in man unto God’.112 His grasp of the best in a more conservative approach than his was lacking. He believed that an intelligent reverence towards the Bible would eschew a ‘mechanical view of inspiration as a kind of dictation . . . a collection of oracles and proof texts’.113 It would also acknowledge ‘the

111Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, 233.

112Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, 234.

113Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, 235; for which see, for example, Reinhold Seeberg, Text-book of the History of Doctrines (rev), transl Charles E Hay (Philadelphia, Pa: Lutheran Publication Society, [c 1905]; Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker, 1952), Vol II, 395-96’; also Chapter 1. ‘Challenges Intellectual and Ecclesiastical’ above.

372 human element’ (undefined – erroneous?) in Scripture and ‘grasp the principle of progressive revelation’,114 the Liberal version of ‘biblical theology’ as embraced by modern evangelicals. In Davies’s time, Marcus Dods (1834-1909) equated the doctrine of verbal inspiration with ‘the mechanical or dictation theory’,115 which in fact had never been the church’s position. Certainly, Dispensational premillennialists had a worked-out schema of progressive revelation that was literalistic116 – and popular. ‘Progressive revelation’ in liberal theological usage meant not only the increasing completeness of revelation, but also the leaving behind of much error, moral and doctrinal. No one denied that literary analysis had brought many new facts to light and thus illuminated the meaning of the text. But when Davies conjoined such analysis with ‘critical investigation’ he seemed to believe that (except in the case of the rationalist, who like the obscurantist had ‘prejudices and a priori assumptions’) he was religiously neutral.117

114Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, 236.

115Marcus Dods, The Bible: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1905; [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912]), 107-118. Cf WN Clarke, The Use of the Scriptures in Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1905), 46- 47.

116Eg, Scofield Reference Bible (1909).

117Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, 236.

373 Davies cited no example. Neither the conservative scholars like Handley CG Moule, nor the others that Principal Nathaniel Jones had relied on, fell into either a ‘rationalist’ or ‘obscurantist’ camp. Digges La Touche had been at least as scholarly and critically aware as Davies. On the other hand, Davies was not unequivocal. Thus he could say: ‘If doubt is cast upon the record [of Christ in the Bible], that doubt falls upon the facts’. The Church’s message then lost ‘its note of certainty’. The Church’s ‘roots are set in historical facts’ he insisted. To which he immediately added that ‘modern historical science’ requires ‘documentary testimony’, for which ‘the witness of the Church is a vital factor in determining the authenticity and general (sic) veracity of Holy Scripture’.118 As thus authenticated, the Scripture either verified or corrected tradition.119 He rejected the Roman Catholic and Anglo-Catholic appeal to tradition as an independent source of revelation. ‘[T]he facts set forth in Holy Scripture’ set limits to the Church’s authority, for the supreme authority behind both Bible and Church was Jesus Christ. ‘The terms of [the Church’s] witness are recorded in the Bible, which the Church acknowledges and uses as the Word of God.’ Davies

118Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, 230-31.

119Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, 231.

374 nowhere else so nearly identified ‘Word of God’ with the Bible. But it was the ‘fragmentary memoirs’ of the first three gospels that were sufficient ‘to show what manner of man [Christ] was.’120 Specifically, on criticism, Davies stated here that ‘modern scholarship has confirmed’ the Church’s ‘general position’ that the biblical writings are ‘a true and trustworthy account of the deposit entrusted to the Church’. By criticism’s bringing out more clearly the human element in the sacred writings, the Divine element had also been brought out more clearly.121 This last position was typical among those who favoured the (negative) critical approach of supposedly neutral historical science. The representatives of Davies’s day included Marcus Dods and (especially) William Newton Clarke, whose books on the Bible that denied its infallibility were published in the year Davies completed Ridley Hall.122 Yet Dods seemed more confident than Davies on the reliability of the gospel records, for he included ‘all four accounts’, as giving ‘a consistent image of Christ’,123 whereas Davies

120Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, 233.

121Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, 234.

122Dods, The Bible: Its Origin and Nature; Clarke, The Use of the Scriptures, esp Ch IV.

123Dods, The Bible: Its Origin and Nature, 153.

375 spoke only of the three synoptic gospels. TC Hammond in Dublin probably saw Warfield’s review, which asked of Dods’s book: ‘Which Christ of the fallible Scriptures shall we be ultimately forced to put up with?’124 In Sydney, the admirers of Digges La Touche may well have wondered whether Davies had read the late Irishman’s own treatment of modern Christology in his Donellan Lectures.125 Davies’s paragraphs in The Church and the Plain Man on the right use of the Bible and the function of its ‘honest critical study’126 seem to reflect the views of Clarke and Dods above. First, on the right use. Reverence was to be emphasised more than intelligence. But the latter would reject both the notion of ‘oracles’ and ‘proof texts’ as well as ‘a hard literalism and a grotesque realism’, while not allowing subjectivism to run riot thus strange heresies and schisms to arise.127 Nathaniel Jones’s published work implies that nothing like the things Davies mentioned was encouraged at Moore College before him.

124BB Warfield in PTR iv (1906), 109-115; repr in BB Warfield, Critical Reviews (New York: Oxford University, 1932), 125.

125Digges La Touche, The Person of Christ in Modern Thought.

126Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, 235-241.

127Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, 235-236.

376 Davies’s paragraphs reveal verbal and notional similarities to WN Clarke, who wrote against the supposed ‘dictation theory’ as being still influential, saying that it was ‘high time to give an intelligent answer’ to questions like, ‘Are we at liberty to dissent from biblical statements? Are we in any true sense judges of the value of biblical statements?’128 The term ‘oracles’ (which Davies used) certainly reminds one of Marcus Dods’s identification of the traditional idea of inspiration with the oracular possession-states of ancient Greco-Roman culture.129 The Liberal Evangelical Davies sounded most like a traditional Evangelical when discussing the devotional inspiration afforded to the student of Scripture. It was the Spirit ‘working through the word’ as ‘but the instrument’ that brought the soul to God.130 The Bible was ‘an efficient instrument of communication between God and man’ in one’s ‘personal seeking after God and . . . personal appropriation of the Holy Spirit’s ever abiding presence’, that was the ‘personal touch’ aspect of the study of Holy Scripture.131

128William Newton Clarke, The Use of the Scriptures in Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1905), 46-47.

129Dods, The Bible: Its Origin and Nature, 107-110; Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, 236. Cf Warfield, Critical Reviews, 118-127.

130Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, 241.

131Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, 241-242.

377 Davies concluded this chapter with a social apologetic: the history of what the Bible had done in the world justified the claim he had made for its authority and benefit. Negatively, enemies of the Church had attempted to impugn its authority; and positively, its great power was traceable in the sixteenth century Reformation, the Evangelical revival of the eighteenth century, and the great missionary expansion of the nineteenth century.132 Davies’s summary of the strength of the Church in using the Bible’s authority reflects his own integration of both the phenomenon of personality and the importance of documentary historical witness. These were Liberal Evangelical themes, as already observed.133 He concluded a summing up of his salient points by saying: ‘The true final authority for Christians is Jesus Christ’.134 It was Dods’s book that explicitly emphasised that Christ, not the Bible, was the ultimate authority.135

132Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, 242-245.

133See Ch 7 above, citing TG[uy] R[ogers], ‘Introduction’, in Liberal Evangelicalism, v.

134Davies, The Church and the Plain Man, 245-246.

135Dods, The Bible: Its Authority and Nature, 59.

378 The Moore College Committee (1919) Highly significant for the ongoing role of the principal in the life of the College was the Moore Theological College Ordinance of 1919 (of the Sydney Diocesan Synod), which set up the Moore College Committee. It took over the managerial role of the trustees, and resulted in some loss to Davies of his independence.136 A remarkable feature of the committee is the identity of the men elected to it by the Standing Committee of the Diocese.137 It is possibly to be explained in the light of Davies’s theological reputation, earned in his very first years, confirmed to fellow Masons by his Sydney Lodge of Research statements (1916) and the Moorhouse lectures of 1917. We must presume some strength of conservative forces on the Standing Committee of Synod. Four of the five clergy they elected included three of the older Moore College graduates under Jones – GA Chambers, also vice-principal under Jones, though theologically somewhat broader,138 HGJ Howe, more emphatically premillennial than Jones, and (now Canon) SE Langford Smith. The fourth was SM Johnstone, who with Langford Smith, Archdall, and

136Loane, Centenary History, 122-23. 137The Sydney Diocesan Directory: For the Year of Our Lord, 1920 (Sydney: John Sands, 1920), 447.

138Nancy de SP Sibtain in collaboration with Winifred M Chambers, Dare to Look Up: A Memoir of George Alexander Chambers (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1968), 7.

379 Digges La Touche had confronted Davies over his view of Scripture in 1914. As noted above, Johnstone and Howe were fellow Masons with Davies. Sydney Langford Smith, ‘much more tolerant towards men who were more liberal in their outlook than was commonly recognised’, was a force in Synod. ‘[M]ore than any other single person he was responsible for the election of Bishop Mowll of West China’ as archbishop in 1933.139 SM Johnstone would later become a chief counsellor to Archbishop Mowll.140 One of the five laymen elected was HL Tress, a lawyer prominent in Synod, an active parishioner (Sunday School superintendent) of St Paul’s Chatswood, and a committed Evangelical. HGJ Howe was that parish’s first minister, and two other men trained by Jones were subsequent incumbents – DJ Knox (1924-1932) and RB Robinson (1933–1935). Tress became a trustee of the College (1928-42) and would strongly favour inviting TC Hammond to succeed Davies in 1935. Two other laymen were WJG Mann (future Chancellor of the Diocese) and CR Walsh, both members of the first CMS Federal Council of the Church Missionary Society of Australia.141 One

139Loane, Mark These Men, 25.

140Loane, Mark These Men, 43, 44.

141‘First Federal Council of CMS’, in Keith Cole, A History of the Church Missionary Society of Australia (Sl: Church Missionary Historical Publications, 1971), photo listing names, facing page 84.

380 may assume that both were conservatively Evangelical. The big issue with Davies was the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Those of Jones, Archdall and Digges La Touche’s cast of mind had not been persuaded to accept the liberal broadening of the Evangelical spectrum. It is hardly surprising that ‘there was always some degree of friction between Archdeacon Davies and the College Committee.’142 Davies was indeed, from 1919, ‘A Principal Embattled’.143 The election of JC Wright as archbishop had introduced Liberal Evangelicalism into the place that trained many of its clergy – a key institution for the character of the Diocese. That its principal from 1911 shared Wright’s comprehensive approach was shown in the part-time teachers that Davies engaged. Over his twenty- four years, however, the students would experience teaching mostly from those (including part-time assistants) within the liberal part of the Evangelical spectrum. Probably it was his Protestant overlap against ritualism with other Evangelicals (as well as his shared Masonic membership with some of them) that made relations workable between Davies and the Moore College Committee.

142Loane, Centenary History, 133; Janet West, ‘A Principal Embattled’ (Moore College Library Lecture, 1988).

143West, ‘A Principal Embattled’.

381 Chapter 9 LIBERAL EVANGELICALISM MAINTAINED

In the last fifteen years of his life Davies’s health and energy noticeably declined, especially in the 1930s. He nevertheless kept up all his commitments in the College and outside. He continued to speak on Scripture at the meetings of the Sydney Lodge of Research. On 16th May, 1922 a fellow Mason, as were many Evangelical clergy then, Brother HGJ Howe, read a lecture to the Sydney Lodge of Research. He was, with Herbert Begbie, among the enthusiastic premillennialist graduates of Moore College under Jones. He was now rector of the large suburban parish of All Souls’, Leichhardt, and a member of the College committee. He took his lecture, ‘The Plans of the GAOTU [Great Architect of the Universe] and their Approaching Consummation’, directly from his forthcoming book, The Dawning of That Day.1 Howe was sure, in view of the great crisis just past (the Great War) and the fulfilment of prophecy with the deliverance of Jerusalem by General Allenby in 1917, that ‘the

1HGJ Howe, ‘The Plans of the GAOTU and their Approaching Consummation’, Transactions of the Sydney Lodge of Research (TSLR) IX (1922), 9-22; HGJ Howe, The Dawning of That Day (Sydney: [HGJ Howe] Wilson Bros, 1922), Pt I. Chs 6-11. There was a fifth edition, HGJ Howe, The Dawning of That Day (London: Advent Testimony and Preparation Movement; Pickering and Inglis, [1930]).

383 Day of the Lord’, had already dawned.2 In the ‘Discussion’ afterwards, Davies questioned Howe’s historical points, view of history, and his hermeneutic of biblical prophecy. He took care to make some positive comment as well.3 The following month, June 1922, Davies addressed the King’s Birthday Convention at St Paul’s, Chatswood, where HGJ Howe had been rector until 1914, and where the lawyer, Mr HL Tress, another member of the College committee, was an active parishioner. Davies spoke on ‘The Interpretation of Scripture’.4 He reiterated his usual points: that the Bible contained ‘the record of the progressive revelation of God’, that the people of Israel were ‘God’s specialists in religion’, that the Bible was to be studied like any other literature,5 that Jesus put ‘devotion to Himself above devotion to a book’. If we studied it according to the historical method, then ‘God uses [the Bible] to speak to us’, and ‘yields to us the true secret of the only life really worth living’ which was the ‘life of service [through

2Howe, ‘The Plans of the GAOTU’, TSLR IX (1922), 21- 22.

3Davies, ‘Discussion’, TSLR IX (1922), 23-26.

4Report of the Convention in St. Paul’s Gazette, July 1922; DJ Davies, ‘The Interpretation of Scripture’, MS in ‘Rev David J. Davies Papers, 1902-1935,’ MitchLib (Local Number: MLL MSS 3179) Box 1(1), largest bundle.

5Benjamin Jowett, ‘The Interpretation of Scripture’, in Essays and Reviews (1860).

384 which] God chooses to extend His kingdom and build it up.’ Davies illustrated his method by applying it to the New Testament book, Revelation, a key work for premillennial expectation. He placed the book in the context of the emperor Domitian, and stated much of the standard historico-grammatical exegesis. Those present who remembered Howe’s teaching may have recognised the reference of ‘a patchwork of proof-texts’ that Davies condemned. Perhaps fewer understood what Davies meant by ‘the great fact of progressive revelation’. He did not explain it.6 Five years later (21 June, 1927) he gave a second lecture to the Sydney Lodge of Research on Scripture: ‘The Interpretation of the V[olume of the]S[acred]L[aw]’, the Bible, that is to say, in Masonic meetings, the Old Testament.7 He was keen to get Lodge members to read it profitably. The VSL, he said, ‘teaches us, as no other book does, to know God.’ It also had the ‘power of moral uplift and ethical inspiration.’ The Bible (quoting ST Coleridge’s phrase) ‘“finds” us’ and shows how absolutely necessary it is for us to know God. We learn in the VSL what God has done for us, what he will do for us, and what he expects from us.

6Davies, ‘The Interpretation of Scripture’.

7DJ Davies, ‘The Interpretation of the VSL’, TSLR XIV (1927), 31-42.

385 Appealing to the moral improvement purpose of Freemasonry he urged that ‘the serious study of the VSL brings into life a moral earnestness that no other study produces.’8 ‘[I]t is in truth . . . the written word of God, the word of the progressive revelation of God to man.’9 The main use of the Bible, ‘to teach us about God’, entailed methods of study that would promote our best interpretation. To be avoided, he went on, was ‘the frequent practice of picking bits here and there’ to put together to form ‘an incontrovertible proof’ of some teaching. This ‘patchwork of proof-texts’ ignored ‘the great fact of progressive revelation.’10 There were three methods of interpretation – first, and positively, the ‘literalist method’, which had a place, but would not do justice, for example, to ‘anthropomorphic descriptions of the Divine action’ and Divine nature.11 Secondly, there was the allegorical method, which was appropriate to obtain the meaning of, for example, the Book of Jonah – ‘that the God of Israel is the God of the whole earth’.12 It was (thirdly) the historical method, however, aiming to place the student in

8Davies, ‘The Interpretation of the VSL’, 33.

9Davies, ‘The Interpretation of the VSL’, 33.

10Davies, ‘The Interpretation of the VSL’, 35.

11Davies, ‘The Interpretation of the VSL’, 36.

12Davies, ‘The Interpretation of the VSL’, 37-38.

386 the original context, that would ‘help us to realise what the author . . . tried to say’.13 With Evangelical premillennialists such as Mr Howe in mind, no doubt, Davies took for his examples the New Testament Apocalypse (Revelation) and the Old Testament Book of Daniel. They were both ‘“tracts for hard times”’ (not, he implied, sources of any information about future history). To read the Bible profitably Davies wanted his fellow freemasons to ‘distinguish . . . the eternal truth from its circumstantial expression’, and ‘thus . . . to apply to ourselves the truth . . . and test ourselves thereby.’14 His thought on the Bible seems to accord with an idealist worldview. This stressed God’s immanence and progressive manifestation in the presumed developing religious and moral consciousness in man. It was typical of the liberal approach.

Chapel Talks of Michaelmas 1924 (the Atonement). Three years after his return from his leave of April 1920 to early 1921, Davies gave eight Communion addresses to his Moore College students, in the chapel.15 Back in Cambridge, he may have met again JK Mozley, at one time associated with

13Davies, ‘The Interpretation of the VSL’, 38.

14Davies, ‘The Interpretation of the VSL’, 41-42.

15David J Davies, ‘Communion Addresses’ [1924] (‘David J Davies Papers’, SMAMoore, Box 2.v.21).

387 the Group Brotherhood. Davies had already reviewed Mozley’s well-known work, The Doctrine of the Atonement, and found the final chapter ‘suggestive’.16 Cambridge would have meant re- association with and reaffirmation from other friends from within the Group Brotherhood. Their intention to publish a manifesto was very likely already in the wind. There was collaboration and mutual reading on the part of most of its authors in the preparation for their Liberal Evangelicalism (published in February 1923).17 Davies was probably the book’s unnamed reviewer in the Sydney Diocesan Magazine.18 The ‘Introduction’ showed that the Group brotherhood had now adopted a strong moral influence view of the Atonement and repudiated the church’s historic stance on the matter. The Liberal Evangelical sought rather to explore ‘the impact of the Cross upon personality’, meaning its moral influence.19 Indeed, RT Howard’s Essay VI. ‘The Work of Christ’,20 provides some immediate background for

16DJ Davies, review of JK Mozley, The Doctrine of the Atonement (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1915), SDM 7.7 (July 1916), 14-15.

17Members of the Church of England, Liberal Evangelicalism: An Interpretation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1923), ‘Introduction’, v.

18SDM 14.12 (Dec 1923), 14-16.

19Liberal Evangelicalism, vii.

20RT Howard, Essay VI. ‘The Work of Christ’, in Liberal Evangelicalism.

388 interpreting Davies’s expressed thought in 1924, and later. The author of the chapter claimed that his ‘Liberal Evangelical’ stance, was ‘true to the deepest teachings’ (emphasis added) of Scripture, indeed, true to the facts of human experience as we understand them in these modern days, continuous in line of development with the theories of the past.21

One notes the liberal reference to the autonomous moral consciousness or ‘human experience’ as the court of appeal. By 1923 the Liberal Evangelicals were writing as if EA Litton and HCG Moule were passé, to say nothing of James Denney. Howard, moreover, defined God in pure Ritschlian (ie, Modernist) terms: Our starting point is the nature of God. God is Love (Jn 6:63, 65). . . . We must go further, and say that God is only Love; all His attributes and activities are simply functions of his love.22

21Howard, ‘The Work of Christ’, 121.

22Howard, ‘The Work of Christ’, 122-23; cf Albrecht Ritschl, The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation (Edinburgh and New York: T&T Clark, and Charles Scribner's Sons, 1900), 273; also James Orr, The Ritschlian Theology (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1897), 112-119, 254-58, and Geerhardus Vos, ‘The Scriptural Doctrine of the Love of God’, Presbyterian and Reformed Review 13 (1902), 1-37, repr in Richard B Gaffin Jr (ed), Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), 425-57.

389 The notion of Christ’s being the ‘propitiation’ for our sins23 was true only in the sense that in actual experience, the vision of His Cross does . . . deal with the guilt [ie, guilt-feeling] of sin and assure men that they have been forgiven.24

This was the standpoint dominant in Davies’s 1924 Communion addresses in the Moore College chapel (which, presumably, he gave again to future students). Davies explained that Christ being the propitiation for our sins – that His blood symbolised by the wine – was assurance of free forgiveness and the power to live the godly life. . . . Here is the moral leverage to make the world a better place to live in.25

He gave no objective explanation at this point. Later in the series26 he included the Prayer Book (and biblical) terms ‘sacrifice’, together with ‘propitiation’ (at 1 Jn 2:1), adding ‘expiation’.27 His language just might have been hinting at retaining something of objective orthodoxy. Thus, on ‘expiation’, he stated that ‘this involves the idea of penalty, or satisfaction’ for gaining forgiveness, that Christ’s death removed some

23Book of Common Prayer, ‘Order of the Administration of the Lord’s Supper’ (quoting 1 John 2:2).

24Howard, ‘The Work of Christ’, 137.

25Davies, ‘Communion Addresses’, 5-6 (emphasis added).

26Davies, ‘Sacrifice – The Meaning of’ in ‘Communion Addresses’, 21-26.

27Mozley, Doctrine of the Atonement, 14.

390 obstacle in God. He seemed to be suggesting something more than mere subjective impact on human moral impotence. He went on to say: ‘[i]n some way we cannot adequately describe He made expiation for our sins, doing for us what we could not do for ourselves.’28 His treatment of ‘propitiation’ also might possibly have indicated an objective notion. He was, of course, at pains to deny this concept as found in ‘the cruder forms of heathenism’, which was, ‘to persuade or even compel a malevolent deity to go away. . . .’ He also wished to reject the ‘less ignoble idea . . . that a god . . . may require an offering to appease his wrath’ as in ‘many places in the Old Testament.’ But, (and here progressive revelation is revealed!) in the New Testament, the expression ‘[t]he wrath of God’ was borrowed from the Old Testament ‘to express the hatefulness of sin in the sight of God. God as a moral Being cannot condone evil doing.’ As ‘the Moral Governor of the Universe’ he ‘is responsible for the maintenance and vindication of the moral order.’29 Such wording, like his language earlier at Holy Trinity, Cambridge, fits a governmental view of the atonement like that of RW Dale (1829-

28Davies, ‘Communion Addresses’, 24.

29Davies, ‘Communion Addresses’, 24.

391 1895),30 and of JK Mozley. Mozley had conceded (in 1915) that the notion of a propitiatory sacrifice of Christ was found in the apostle Paul, in the sense that ‘God’s attitude to sin is made perfectly plain’.31 But one presumes that Davies, like Mozley, also found ‘morally disquieting’ the view of Hodge, Shedd and Strong, which was grounded in their ‘premisses as to the inspiration of Scripture’ and in their method.32 The modern (supposedly improved) moral consciousness overruled what the sixteenth century Reformers tried to enshrine in the Prayer Book and Thirty- nine Articles. The same applied to what HCG Moule and EA Litton (to mention only Anglicans) had ably expounded and defended as scriptural, and what TC Hammond would also defend.33 The governmental view allowed ‘no real satisfaction of justice, no real substitution, and no real enduring of the penalty of the law.’34 Yet Davies sometimes adopted beautiful language to describe the governmental

30RW Dale, The Atonement (London: Congregational Union of England and Wales, 1875).

31Mozley, Doctrine of the Atonement, 79.

32Mozley, Doctrine of the Atonement, 177.

33TC Hammond, Ch III. ‘The Significance of Christ’s Death’, in F Donald Coggan (ed), From the Manger to the Throne: Outstanding Events in the Life of Our Lord (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship of Evangelical Unions, [1935]), 39-49.

34Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol 2 (London and Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1875), 573.

392 view: ‘The Holy Communion is the memorial of that one redemptive act on Calvary, the Trysting place where perfect love and perfect justice meet.’35 Davies’s concluding and applicatory words of this chapel Holy Communion address, however, display his ultimate focus, which was his moral and social interest: FOR HERE IS A GREAT PRINCIPLE AT WORK.36 Sacrifice is the price of progress. . . . The Son of God yielded up his body to the cross to open up the highway for the spiritual progress of mankind. . . . We shall find ourselves up against the world spirit that measures success by personal gain.37

This is reminiscent of, or at least suggests, FD Maurice’s doctrine of sacrifice.38 Students of the College knew that in The Book of Common Prayer service the reception of the elements was immediately followed by the only prayer of sacrifice in the order of Holy Communion. It is a prayer of self-sacrifice in the words of Romans 12:1-2: Here we offer and present unto thee . . . ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee.

35Davies, ‘Communion Addresses’, 25?.

36Davies, ‘Communion Addresses’, 26 (upper case and emphasis original).

37Davies, ‘Communion Addresses’, 26.

38Torben Christensen, The Divine Order: A Study in F.D. Maurice’s Theology, (Leiden: EJ Brill, 1973), Ch 8. ‘Christ’s Death on the Cross’.

393 Ignoring Cranmer’s centre of interest, Davies derived from this the above ‘Great Principle’, that sacrifice was the price of the progress of mankind. Christ’s work on the cross remained in its intention only subjective for Davies, or virtually so. This Liberal Evangelical crucicentric focus on a broadly applied motivation would stand out in his public sermon in a non- Anglican church in the city seven years later.

‘ Meditation’ of April 3, 1931 This evinces the same crucicentrism in a Liberal Evangelical key – thoroughly moralistic – with a conversionist application. Davies gave the meditation at a united service in the Pitt Street Congregational Church, Sydney, on the text ‘Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews’ (Jn 19:19).39 It was little over a year into the Great Depression and was Davies’s last important extant sermon touching on the atonement. He did not mention the forgiveness of sins. But he described sin eloquently: ‘the hideous tragedy . . . of racial and religious animosity . . . pride . . . hatred and contempt’; also ‘worldliness’, the essence of which is ‘the selfish view of life.’ ‘Selfishness’ was the widely adopted liberal definition of sin.40

39DJ Davies, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews’, in ‘DJ Davies Papers’, Box 2.i (SMAMoore).

40Edward Harrison Askwith, Essay I. ‘Sin, and the Need of Atonement’, in Henry Barclay Swete (ed), Essays on Some Theological Questions of the Day [Cambridge Theological

394 WR Inge even found selfishness as the root of sin to be ‘the leading conception’ in the New Testament.41 In his meditation Davies said that Jesus’s ‘acceptance of the Cross was the true way out’, for ‘the Cross tells us’ what was true generally in history, ‘that the world is made better by sacrifice’. History was one of the sources of revelation for Davies. In conversionist mood, perhaps, Davies then made contact with fellow Freemasons in the congregation. Did he stop short of suggesting the deity of Christ, even if only allusively, because the doctrine was excluded from standard Freemasonic ritual. Davies said: The great Master Builder Himself gave His life for the world. The power of Jesus over the hearts and wills of men is derived from His sacrifice on their behalf.

This ‘power of Jesus’ became the lead into Davies’s climactic point – the world’s need of ‘the moral leverage of the Cross’: If God so loved, nay still loves us, we ought to love one another. The Cross of Jesus is

Essays] (London: Macmillan, 1905); WH Moberly, ‘The Atonement’, in Seven Oxford Men, Foundations: A Statement of Christian Belief in Terms of Modern Thought (London: Macmillan, 1912), 313.

41WR Inge, Personal Idealism and Mysticism: The Paddock Lectures for 1906, Delivered at the General Seminary New York (London: Longmans, Green, 1907), 173. (Moore College Library copy purchased by DJ Davies at Angus and Robertson, Sydney.)

395 the one moral lever that can lift a man out of himself.

The ‘worldliness’, that is, ‘the selfish view of life’, was why ‘the moral leverage of the Cross is needed’ – first of all to cast worldliness out of our own hearts and out of the Church and then we can begin that spring cleaning of our community which is so long overdue.

At this point he attacked the Australian ‘Protective Tariff’ of the time as un-Christian and ‘rotten economics’.42 Davies had shown here the centrality of the cross in the liberal sense unalloyed – the moral influence of Christ’s death. On this Good Friday his overriding concern was to apply Jesus’ obedient sacrifice of himself as a behavioural motive to the life of human society.

Conclusion on Davies’s View of the Atonement. On the atoning death of Christ, as on the Bible, Davies’s convictions were distinctly liberal. One can summarise his view of Christ’s death by quoting J Gresham Machen (1881-1937), an American conservative evangelical scholar, almost his exact contemporary: ‘The essence of [the

42DJ Davies, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews’, ‘DJ Davies Papers’, Box 2.I (SMAMoore).

396 modern conception] is that the death of Christ had an effect not upon God but only upon man.’43 Students at Moore College (and people in the pew) could only have felt unclear about what they should understand by the words they heard in the Prayer Book’s ‘Order for the Lord’s Supper’: ‘Who made there by his one oblation of himself once offered. . . .’ Immanuel Kant, filtered through ST Coleridge and FD Maurice, reinforced by Albrecht Ritschl and the reading of WN Clarke,44 reigned over Christ’s cross within and outside the College in the person of the Principal.

Heretics Club Papers45 One of Davies’s Heretics papers is especially important for understanding a controlling element in Davies’s thought as a professed Liberal Evangelical. Another illustrates his passing over of doctrines central to the Reformation. The formation of a society, ‘The Heretics’, by students in Cambridge in 1909, has been noted in a previous chapter, as also the club of the same name ‘The Heretics’, formed in 1916 in Sydney. The ‘most important rule’ of the Cambridge society

43J Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (New York: Macmillan, 1923; repr Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 119.

44William Newton Clarke, Outline of Christian Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clarke, 1898 et seqq), 332-349.

45‘Minute Book of “The Heretics” Club’. Sydney. Vol 1, 1916-1927 (USydArch).

397 was the ‘rejection of all appeal to authority in the discussion of religious questions.’46 Davies’s paper, ‘Modern Scholastics’,47 maintained this principle while also exhibiting an important limit to his liberal outlook. He read it to the Sydney Heretics on the eve of his departure on leave for Cambridge in 1920.48 The original objective of the Sydney Heretics was ‘the sharing of their research in theological scholarship.’49 In ‘Modern Scholastics’ Davies shared his thinking as a proponent of history as scientific. Cleverly, he chose to critique, on the same grounds, both a Christian – the high- profile, Liberal Anglo-Catholic, Bishop Charles Gore, recently retired – and an arch-agnostic natural scientist – a household name, Thomas Henry

46‘The Religious Situation in Cambridge’, AH McNeile, in The New Commentator (renamed Comment and Criticism from June 1913) I.1 (March 1913), 11.

47Title from CA Briggs, The Bible, the Church and the Reason (New York: Scriber’s Sons, 1892), cited in Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol 4. Studies in Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), 172 (no page ref).

48DJ Davies, ‘Modern Scholastics’, in ‘David J Davies Papers’, Box 1.iii.2, SMAMoore; see John Macintosh (sic for ‘McIntosh’), ‘“External Prop” or “Divine Fiat”? D.J.Davies and T.C.Hammond on the Authority of Scripture’, Lucas: An Evangelical History Review ns.2, no.2 (Spring 2010), 67-91.

49GW Thatcher, quoted by William W Emilsen, ‘The Heretics: An Anecdotal ’, in William W Emilsen and Geoffrey Treloar (eds), The Heretics Club 1916-2006: Ninetieth Anniversary Papers (University of Sydney: Origen, 2009), 75 n15.

398 Huxley (d 1895). Both were ‘obscurantists’,50 methodological ‘scholastics’ – Gore, ‘the Conservative Scholastic’, and Huxley, ‘the Natural Science Scholastic’. Each supported himself on an a priori, which Davies later called, with reference to religion, ‘an Infallible external authority’, ‘a prop to their faith’.51 Davies based his own argument on the ‘scientific method of investigation’. In historical study this aimed to tell, by ‘critical examination of the documents’ for first-hand evidence, ‘what actually happened without considering whether the facts as they occurred are for or against a particular point of view’.52 Such ‘searching investigation’, he said, ‘has shaken the foundation’ of the widely-held tradition that the introduced feudalism into England, and had ‘generally confirmed’ JB Lightfoot’s historical account, as opposed to the Roman/Anglo-Catholic theory, of the origin of bishops as a separate order of ministry.53 (A revised edition of Gore’s book on the ministry of the church had only just been published.)54

50Davies, ‘Modern Scholastics’, 11.

51Davies, ‘Communion Addresses’, Lecture VI.

52Davies, ‘Modern Scholastics’, 4.

53Davies, ‘Modern Scholastics’, 6-9.

54Charles Gore, The Ministry of the Christian Church, rev CH Turner (London: Rivingtons, 1919 [1889]).

399 Davies pointed out that Gore had written his chapter, ‘The Holy Spirit and Inspiration’ in Lux Mundi to ‘succour a distressed faith’ in the context of ‘modern knowledge, scientific, historical, critical’.55 It was especially with regard to the criticism of the Old Testament at that time. Although ‘one of the most favourable examples’ of the conservative type of modern scholastic, Gore was unscientific, said Davies. In his search for infallibility he had adopted an a priori fixed idea ‘that Christ must have laid down some plan or method of church organization’ and ‘external guarantee’ of its continuity and infallible authority.56 Protestant obscurantists looked for the same in Scripture. Gore’s book on the ministry failed as scientific history, because he had noticed only those events which suited his purpose. In an aside on the issue of authority, Davies stated that the notion of scientific history not only excluded the a priori method but also the goal of ‘complete certainty’. In the privacy of ‘The Heretics’ meeting Davies spoke in language he probably avoided in public. In the ‘old search for infallibility, the mistaking of cocksureness for reasonable certainty’, he said (one is

55Charles Gore (ed), ‘Preface to the Tenth Edition’, Lux Mundi (London: John Murray, 1890), xi.

56Davies, ‘Modern Scholastics’, 6-7.

400 reminded of Joseph Butler’s ‘probability’ argument), the obscurantists spend their time mainly in trying to save discredited ideas and traditions from the rubbish heap and in abusing people who differ from them.

Such were the conservative scholastics.57 Was he thinking of certain fellow Anglicans in Sydney on the Moore Theological College Committee so recently appointed by Synod? TH Huxley, however, the famous zoologist and expounder of Darwin’s theory of natural selection, was also a ‘scholastic’. This was possibly as much of a surprise to Davies’s fellow Heretics as Davies imagined it would have been to Huxley himself. Huxley illustrated the case of ‘scholastics’ who transfer the assumption or conclusions of one branch of study to another branch without considering whether they are really valid in or relevant to that other branch.

The scientist ‘who dabbles in theology’ (sc Huxley), taking for granted ‘the rigid uniformity of nature’, could forget that ‘the subject matter of theology included many things that were outside the ordinary scientific category’; also that in theology the scientist ‘is not dealing with dead matter or hypothetical abstractions but with human beings’.58 Davies added, inter alia, that a

57Davies, ‘Modern Scholastics’, 11-12.

58Davies, ‘Modern Scholastics’, 12.

401 ‘particular branch of science is not omniscience’, and that (with an eye to miracles) the uniformity of nature could not be proved, though ‘we can generally reckon upon it’. But finally, he said, we did not ‘know all the conditions’, and had not ‘tried all the combination of events that are possible.’ While the leading thinkers of that day did not hold ‘the idea of nature as a closed mechanical system’, the remaining ‘residual effect’ of that idea was what constituted the real but ‘purely scholastic objection to the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.’59 The Liberal Evangelical Davies was here orthodox, perhaps challenging fellow Heretics like Samuel Angus. Davies did not, like Ernst Troeltsch and JB Bury – and Angus and some others of ‘The Heretics’ – exclude all miracle in principle. He was more true to historic Christian theism. Huxley’s Science and the Christian Tradition,60 had been reissued in Davies’s undergraduate days. The scientist had concluded (so Davies) that miracles were incredible on any historical evidence.61 (Huxley had conceded, however, that ‘[t]he position that miracles are “impossible”

59Davies, ‘Modern Scholastics’, 12-13.

60Thomas Henry Huxley, Collected Essays, Vol 5. Science and Christian Tradition (London: Macmillan, 1894).

61Davies, ‘Modern Scholastics’, 14, 18.

402 cannot be sustained’).62 Henry Gwatkin, Davies’s professor of Ecclesiastical History, had given important attention to the question of history and the New Testament miracles in his Gifford Lectures, The Knowledge of God and Its Historical Development:63 there is no reason why [miracle] should not be decided on historical evidence like other historical questions, for we have found nothing of weight in the a priori assumption so often brought against it.64

Davies did not allude to this sentence, nor did he examine what his own a priori might be. He proceeded to apply the historical [scientific] method (on his assumptions) to the gospel miracles. He argued that the principle of uniformity was disturbed by man when he modified his environment (a familiar argument), and did so with purpose. A fortiori, then, ‘cannot God, the Creator and Sustainer . . . control nature to suit His purpose’ when the greatness of the occasion warranted, such as the Incarnation, and ‘the

62TH Huxley, Science and Christian Tradition [Collected Essays, Vol 5 (London: Macmillan, 1894)], 204, 207 (cited by GT Manley, Essay VI. ‘The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible’, in J Russell Howden (ed), Evangelicalism: By Members of the Fellowship of Evangelical Churchmen. London: Chas J Thynne & Jarvis, May 1925, 143-44).

63HM Gwatkin, The Knowledge of God and Its Historical Development. 2 Vols (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1931 [1906]), Vol 1, 168ff and 183-196; Vol 2, 6ff, 47ff and 279-290.

64Gwatkin, Knowledge of God, Vol 1, 196.

403 immense issue of . . . the moral reformation of the world’? Christ’s divinity was attested in documents that were ‘first class authorities’, reliable sources for ‘His character and personality’. If you established miracles like his Incarnation and Resurrection (both of which Samuel Angus denied), Jesus’ own miracles ‘are easily credible’.65 With regard to Jesus’ resurrection, Davies recalled a paper at Cambridge by Professor Silvanus P Thompson (a Quaker, and a physicist famous in his day).66 Thompson had ‘laid great stress on the transformation in the character and outlook of the apostles.’ Davies was saying that current objections to Christ’s miracles were due to Scholastic ‘method and mental habits’. Investigators needed to examine their presuppositions.67 No report of any discussion on this was recorded by the Heretics’ ‘scribe’, Arthur Garnsey.68 Davies’s own Liberal Evangelicalism never denied any articles of the (Apostles’?) Creed.69 Although his biblicism was qualified biblicism,

65Davies, ‘Modern Scholastics’, 15-17.

66Silvanus P Thompson (1851-1916), see Jane Smeal, and Helen G Thompson, Life and Letters of Silvanus Phillips Thompson (London: T Fisher Unwin, 1920).

67Davies, ‘Modern Scholastics’, 21.

68‘Minute Book of “The Heretics” Club’. Sydney. Vol 1, 1916-1927’ (USyd Arch, Series S 117, Box Number: 1), at April 1920.

69Marcus Loane, Interview, 5 June 2001.

404 like many nineteenth century orthodox defenders of miracle, he insisted on approaching miracles within a framework of belief about God. . . . [a]n implicit attack on the rationality of the secular view of the uniformity of nature.70

The Evangelical conversionism in Davies brought him to close this long ‘Heretics’ paper with a revealing paragraph: ‘The real objection to receiving the gospel story as true’ was its claim ‘upon the heart’s allegiance’. The evidence justified ‘the venture of faith’ and had never disappointed those who had made it honestly.71 His argument was close to the personal experience argument used by Everard Digges La Touche and others in the conservative part of the Evangelical spectrum of that day.72

On the Reformation Davies’s Protestantism was quite explicit. For the New South Wales Council of Churches he had written a pamphlet on Roman Catholic claims, bringing to bear his historical scholarship and

70Colin Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984; Exeter, Devon: Paternoster, 1984), 167-68.

71Davies, ‘Modern Scholastics’.

72E Digges La Touche, Christian Certitude: Its Intellectual Base (London: James Clarke, 1910), 291-92; E Digges La Touche, Is Christianity Scientific? (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1913), 19-20.

405 method of the interpretation of Scripture.73 To his fellow ‘Heretics’, in August 1926 he read a paper on RH Tawney’s Religion and the Rise of Capitalism.74 Though not extant separately, it seems likely that this was the anonymous review only just published in the Sydney Diocesan Magazine. Davies(?) expressed satisfaction in Tawney’s refutation of the ‘partisan fallacy’ that the Protestant Reformation was responsible for ‘the abuses of modern commercialism’.75 Three years later he wrote a paper (or letter?) which supported the motion before the Diocesan Synod of 1929, that November 3rd of that year be observed as ‘Reformation Sunday’. The year was ‘A Notable Quatercentenary’ – of the second Diet of Speier, February 1529, and of its ensuing ‘Protest’ (19th April, 1529), from which the name ‘Protestant’ had come. Davies spoke of Luther’s conscience being bound by Scripture, not by the authority of the Pope. The original ‘Protestants’ (in the Diet) had ‘rejected the absolute sovereignty claimed [by] the Pope’ over both state and church, and ‘appealed to God and to

73DJ Davies, The Roman Catholic Claims Tested by Scripture and History (Sydney: nd, but after 1919).

74‘Minute Book of “The Heretics” Club. Vol. 1’, at August 1926 (Davies’s MS not extant).

75Sydney Diocesan Magazine 17.7 (July 1926), 12-14, ‘Books to Read’: RH Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism: A Historical Study (London: John Murray, 1926).

406 conscience’ as transcending ‘man-made laws and institutions’. Against Anglo-Catholic claims, Davies gave the historical evidence for using the term ‘Protestant’ of the Church of England, and stated its meaning to be the opposite of ‘Roman Catholic’.76 To ‘The Heretics’ meeting in July 1929 he read ‘Gains and Losses of the Great Reformation’.77 Three years earlier, TC Hammond (mid-1926) had presented lectures in Sydney, focussing on various positive outcomes of the Reformation.78 In Davies’s paper we may presume that we hear the Liberal Evangelical note that he also sounded in the College church history lectures. His paper stated that, contrary to the Roman and Anglo-Catholic criticisms, the Reformation ‘was not . . . a breach of Catholicity’, not an Erastian ‘reduction of the Church into a Department of the State’, nor ‘the despotic imposition of a new system upon an unwilling people.’ Positively, it was ‘a great movement’ that ‘had to make headway against a system claiming the Divine right of prescription’, and

76DJ Davies, ‘A Notable Quartercentenary’, in ‘DJ Davies Papers’, Box 2.ii.35 (SMAMoore). No place of publication found.

77‘Minute Book of “The Heretics” Club, Vol. 2’ (USydArch), at July 1929; DJ Davies, ‘Gains and Losses of the Great Reformation’, in ‘DJ Davies Papers’, Box 2.ii.21 (SMAMoore).

78TC Hammond, Reformation and Modern Ideals ([Dublin]: Connellan Mission, 1927).

407 against a ‘vast mass of vested interest, buttressed by superstition’.79 Davies then turned to the losses. The Reformation did include ‘extravagances of reaction’ against medievalism, exhibited ‘a bewildering variety of doctrine and practice’ among the reformers, and also ‘much odium theologicum’– it was intolerant. ‘A more permanent limit . . . was the tendency to treat the imperfect beginnings as final solutions’, which became ‘as finally authoritative as any papacy ever claimed to be.’80 The doctrinal ‘fixed formulae’ of the Reformation created a tension between ‘an absolute supremacy of Scripture’ and ‘liberty of interpretation’. He recurred to the main (and Kantian) theme of his ‘Modern Scholastics’ paper – ‘external authority’: The Reformation was worshipped as a fetish by large numbers . . . who were looking for the kind of infallibility that the Reformation had really discredited.81

Referring to Luther’s comments on the Epistles of James and Jude as an example, he regretted that these ‘liberal views’ of the Reformers were exchanged for ‘a stiff, mechanical theory of

79Davies, ‘Gains and Losses from the Great Reformation’, 13-14.

80Davies, ‘Gains and Losses from the Great Reformation’, 16-17.

81Davies, ‘Gains and Losses from the Great Reformation’, 18.

408 inspiration . . . to set an infallible book against an infallible Pope.’82 Very likely with Frederic Farrar’s Bampton Lectures,83 and certainly HM Gwatkin’s Gifford Lectures,84 in mind, he went on to accuse later writers of using the Bible as a ‘repository of proof texts for previously conceived dogmas, without regard to the context’. But, he said, ‘solid gains . . . far outweigh the losses.’ The ‘open Bible’ influenced ‘the ideals and conduct of the people.’ The Reformation ‘also brought a purer faith’: Above all it swept away all the satellites who had crowded out the figure of Jesus . . . as Saviour and Lord . . . to whom every individual had the right of direct approach.85

Davies had here ignored the rich work of doctrinal formulation, including the Thirty-nine Articles, done from 1530 (Augsburg Confession) to the mid- seventeenth century (Westminster Confession of Faith). Instead, he refocussed the person and work of Christ to a liberal point of view: ‘[T]he

82Contrast Mark D Thompson, Assured Ground on Which to Stand: The Role of Authority and Interpretive Method in Luther’s Approach to Scripture. Foreword by Alister McGrath (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004).

83Frederic Farrar, History of Interpretation: Eight Lectures Preached before the University of Oxford in the Year MDCCCLV (London: Macmillan, 1886), Lecture VII. ‘Post- Reformation Epoch’, 357-394.

84Gwatkin, The Knowledge of God, Vol II, 220-240.

85Davies, ‘Gains and Losses from the Great Reformation’, 19-20.

409 Reformation was a return to the real unity of Christendom to be found in personal devotion to Jesus Christ’. Such a devotion Samuel Angus professed, but was it to the biblical Christ?86 Nothing in Davies’s paper questioned the radical views of fellow Heretics like Angus, or reflected a distinctively Evangelical satisfaction in the recovery of the biblical gospel in the sixteenth century.87 The last but ‘by no means least’ of the gains of the Reformation was that of a more personal and ethical religion, and ‘less a demonstration of external’ State power. Davies had here joined the Liberal Evangelical’s idealist themes of ‘personal’ and ‘personality’ with his appreciation of the church’s recovery of its ‘proper spiritual function’. In conclusion he noted, with the satisfaction of a Liberal Evangelical historian, that the Reformation where it prevailed had promoted political liberty and national development.88 Although in this paper there was an emphasis on Scripture, albeit clearly liberal, there was

86Cf Machen, Liberalism and Christianity, Ch V. ‘Christ’.

87Cf RB Girdlestone, ‘Reformation’ in his ‘Analytical Index’ to RB Girdlestone, HCG Moule, TW Drury, English Church Teaching on Faith Life and Order (London: Charles Murray, 1899 [3rd ed]), 260.

88‘Gains and Losses from the Great Reformation’, 21.

410 not even an implicit focus on the cross of Christ. Yet such was bound up with the Reformation watchwords, sola gratia, sola fide and solus Christus. Davies’s motivation for a Reformation Sunday could not have represented the motivation of all in the coming Synod. Some there would have imbibed Jones’s appreciation of the Reformation. They and others, indeed, may well have been inspired by Hammond’s teaching in 1926. Davies’s paper had noted neither the great evangelistic zeal released by the Reformation, nor the Reformers’ awareness of the effects of sin on the mind and human reasoning. By 1933 Davies’s health had reached a low point. Archbishop Wright’s sudden death in late February was a blow to him, and Mowll’s election in the first week of April a bitter disappointment.89 Happily, he could draw on much of his past teaching material for three efforts outside the College – in March, April and June. The second and third again touched on the Reformation. On 24th April, 1933, he read to The Heretics a second paper on the Reformation, ‘Martin Luther’s Contribution to the Religious Thought of the Sixteenth Century’.90 (Samuel Angus was probably

89Loane, Letter to author, March 1994.

90DJ Davies, ‘Religious thought in the Sixteenth Century’, ‘DJ DaviesPapers’, Box 2.ii.21 (SMAMoore); wording of title above from ‘Minute Book of the Heretics

411 absent, being under the pressures of his case was about to come before the New South Wales Presbyterian General Assembly in May.)91 Davies examined the four classic documents – Luther’s ‘Ninety-five Theses’ (1517) and his ‘Three Great Reformation Treatises’ (1520). The contrast between Davies’s presentation and the analysis given by Henry Wace (1836-1924) in the volume Davies used for his analysis of the documents is instructive.92 Wace had begun by placing Luther in the context of the medieval Western Church’s moral and religious power as derived from the terror and dread of hell,93 and the attendant abuses. The preaching of indulgences violated ‘the deepest principles which the Church had taught [Luther]’. These were ‘the inexorable character of the Divine

Club, Vol. 2’ (USydArch), at April 24, 1933.

91Cable, ‘The First and Second Book of the Chronicles’, in William W Emilsen and Geoffrey R Treloar, The Heretics Club (Sydney: Oregon, 2009), 14-15.

92Dr Wace, ‘On the Primary Principles of Luther’s Life and Teaching’, in Henry Wace and CA Buchheim (eds), Luther's Primary Works: Together with his Shorter and Larger Catechisms. Edited with Theological and Historical Essays . . . (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1896), 425- 448; the same as [Henry Wace and CA Buchheim (eds), First Principles of the Reformation or the Ninety-five Theses and the Three Primary Works of Dr Martin Luther. Translated in to English. Edited with Theological and Historical Introductions . . . (London: John Murray, 1883), ix-xxxvi]. (The page references, where different, to both editions are included in the following.)

93Dante’s Inferno.

412 law, the necessity and blessedness of the Divine discipline of punishment and suffering’, and ‘that the law of Christian life is that of lifelong penitence’.94 Having found the answer to these in God’s merciful offer of righteousness, Luther published his ‘Ninety-five Theses’ (for public disputation) on 31st October, 1517. Davies, however, made no mention of the issues of sin and forgiveness raised in the theses. Wace had noted that Anselm’s doctrine of Christ’s atoning death (a doctrine which Davies did not accept) did away with the notion of the Mass as an offering for sin.95 As for Luther’s treatise On Christian Liberty, even Wace had not noted the double nature of justification (from Augustine, The Spirit and the Letter) that Luther always assumed: both inward change, and objective status of forgivenness.96 This point aside, however, Davies’s exposition did not clarify the treatise, which Luther himself regarded as ‘a summary of the Christian Life in

94Wace, ‘On the Primary Principles’, in Wace and Buchheim, Luther's Primary Works, 429-430 [xiv-xv].

95Wace, ‘On the Primary Principles’, 434-435 [xx-xxi].

96Reinhold Seeberg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines. Revised by author; Eng Tr [from German] Charles E Hay. Vol 1 History of Doctrines in the Ancient Church; Vol 2 History of Doctrines in the Middle and Modern Ages. (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, [c 1905]; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966 repr), 2:233, 235, 260-1.

413 small compass’;97 neither did his attempt to draw its teaching together into a synthetic statement. Wace did both at some length, bringing out the role of faith in embracing the promises of God.98 Commenting on the Appeal to the German Nobility, Wace had made the important historical point, that Luther asserted ‘the central principles . . . equal rights of laity and clergy’ and ‘the soul’s independence of all human power, by virtue of the truth of justification by faith’. (Davies’s exposition of this treatise was fuller on this document than on Christian Liberty.) Luther had described three ‘paper walls’ of Romanist claims in the Appeal: (1) that the Spiritual Estate is above the temporal; (2) [that] no one may interpret the Scriptures but the Pope; (3) [that] no one can call a Council but the Pope.99

Largely, Davies let the text explain itself, whereas Wace had provided some historical context. In the third treatise, On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church,100 Luther had applied the principle of the authority of Scripture to

97Wace, ‘On the Primary Principles’ (citing Luther’s introductory letter to Pope Leo X.), 435 [xxi].

98Wace, ‘On the Primary Principles’, 435-443 [xxi- xxix].

99Davies, ‘Martin Luther’s Contribution to Religious Thought in the Sixteenth Century’ (‘Minute Book of “The Heretics” Club, 1928-1936’, at July 1929).

100Wace and Buchheim, Luther's Primary Works, 141-245.

414 critique the Romish system of seven sacraments. Wace had reminded his readers that Luther was appealing ‘to laity and clergy alike, on the ground of their spiritual freedom, to abolish the abuses of the Roman Church.’ Luther’s ‘primary principle’ was faith, that is, ‘a response to the word and promise of God.’ So, in distinction from the Anabaptist claim to their own inspiration on the one hand, and from the Romanist appeal to the authority of the Church on the other, Luther upheld the ‘rule of faith’, namely, ‘the due authority of the Scriptures’.101 Davies did not explain this, but concerning Luther’s attacks on the arguments for withholding the cup from the laity in the Holy Communion,102 he pointed out that Luther ‘goes back to the original Institution’ to assert ‘that the mass is neither a work nor a sacrifice but a promise of Christ, “the testament of Christ to those who believe in Him”.’103 Not to utter the words of institution openly in the Holy Communion, therefore, deprived the people of a promise for them to believe and therefore rendered it useless, for God dealt with men only by promise. Davies correctly interpreted Luther's position here as ‘assert[ing] direct

101Wace, ‘On the Primary Principles’, 443-444 [xxxi].

102Wace and Buchheim, Luther's Primary Works, 142-146, 148-155.

103Wace and Buchheim, Luther's Primary Works, 163.

415 dealing between God and individual human beings’. In this he also followed his teacher of church history, HM Gwatkin.104 Both Wace and Davies added a coda to their exposition of this document, each revealing their differing positions in the spectrum of the day’s Evangelicalism. Wace drew attention to the fact that ‘the general effect of Luther’s teaching upon the condition of the world’ was to restore to clergy and laity alike, complete independence of the existing ecclesiastical system, within the limits of the revelation contained in the Holy Scriptures.’

Moreover, ‘it established Christian Liberty. . . . [though not] absolute liberty. . . .’ Only Christian liberty ‘is really free.’105 Davies’s coda showed his Liberal Evangelical emphasis on personality, religious experience, a critical approach to Scripture, and ‘truth’. The personality of Martin Luther ‘typified and concentrated’ the ‘elements of [the] revolt’ of the Italian Renaissance, only in a positive form: ‘the spirit of criticism’ and the means for its effectiveness. These included the study of the Scriptures in their original languages, and their translation and publication, so that the people were able to challenge church authorities.

104Gwatkin, The Knowledge of God, II: 222.

105Wace, ‘On the Primary Principles’, 447-448 [xxxv- xxxvi].

416 ‘Luther’, he wrote, ‘had imbibed sufficient of the spirit of the New Learning to appreciate the self- evidencing power of truth’. He cited Luther on The Babylonian Captivity.106 One notes this claim for the authority of autonomous reason in Luther. An interesting statement of Davies confirms this reading: This is a remarkable anticipation of the function of intuition in the perception of truth, and it expresses a cardinal principle of the Reformation as a movement of thought.107

‘Intuition’ was presumably a reference to the epistemology of philosophical idealism dominant at Cambridge in his day, to which his personal friend, the astronomer Arthur Eddington, also adhered.108 Davies thus gave a fair condensation of The Babylonish Captivity, mainly in Luther’s own words. But his liberal interest showed in his inadequate treatment of Luther’s doctrine of Scripture and its authority.109 His view of justification and the atonement earlier described also affected his grasp of Luther’s contribution

106Wace and Buchheim, Luther's Primary Works, 228-229.

107Davies, ‘Religious Thought in the Sixteenth Century’.

108John Passmore, A Hundred Years of Philosophy, 2nd ed (Harmondsworth, : Penguin, 1984 [1966]), 332, 334.

109Cf Mark D Thompson, Assured Ground on which to Stand.

417 in these three Reformation documents. The contrast is marked, not only with Wace but also with his predecessor, Nathaniel Jones, and with his successors, TC Hammond, Marcus Loane and David Broughton Knox. Even if not ‘an Evangelical pur sang’,110 Wace shared the same appreciation of the Reformation watchwords.

Melbourne 1933 – ‘The Thirty-nine Articles’ In June of 1933, two months after the election of Howard Mowll, Davies journeyed to Melbourne to address a meeting (12th June), in the Chapter House of St Paul’s Cathedral. It was organised by the Anglican Church League, of which the strong Freemason and chairman of Ridley College’s council, Dr George Bearham, was president.111 Davies’s address, ‘The Thirty-nine Articles’, was occasioned by the coming world-wide Anglo-Catholic celebration of Keble’s historic Assize sermon, ‘National Apostasy’, of July 14th, 1833.112 (Despite his frail health, Davies also wrote several other historical pieces occasioned by this centenary.)113 An old Liberal Evangelical friend

110JK Mozley, Some Tendencies in British Theology: From the Publication of Lux Mundi to the Present Day (London: SPCK, 1952), 26.

111ACR July 20, 1933, 6.

112DJ Davies, ‘The Thirty-nine Articles’, in DJ Davies Papers, Box 2.ii.41 [28 pages] (SMAMoore).

113DJ Davies, ‘Some Points concerning the Oxford Movement’ (Heretics Club paper, 1932), in ‘DJ Davies

418 of Davies from Emmanuel College days, Frederick Waldegrave Head, had been archbishop of Melbourne since 1929. While at every point the careful historian, Davies’s distinctly Protestant stance and liberal place in the Evangelical spectrum was patent. Required for the study of the Articles, he began, was familiarity with the text and knowledge of its history. Several things made it necessary to study them. One was that The Articles were ‘the official confession of the faith of the Church of England’,114 another was ‘the proposal to celebrate the centenary of the Oxford movement’,115 another the ongoing attempt ‘to frame a comprehensive constitution for the Church of England throughout Australia’,116 also the ‘variety of interpretations put on them’.117 Thus, some Anglo-Catholic views were hostile towards them, some tried to give them a ‘Catholic’ interpretation (Newman, Tract XC),

Papers’ (SMAMoore); Centenary Essays of 1932-33 in Church Chronicle (Diocese of Brisbane), August 1932: DJ Davies, Essay VI. ‘From 1841 to 1845: “The Catastrophe”’; repr in John A Moses (ed) with KJ Cable et al, From Oxford to the Bush: Essays on Catholic Anglicanism in Australia (Canberra, ACT: Broughton Press; Adelaide: SPCK-Australia, 1997), 41-47.

114Davies, ‘The Thirty-nine Articles’, 1.

115Davies, ‘The Thirty-nine Articles’, 2.

116Davies, ‘The Thirty-nine Articles’, 3.

117Davies, ‘The Thirty-nine Articles’, 3.

419 others alleged they were an ‘eirenicon or henotikon between Catholic and Protestant.’118 He moved straight to Article 6. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation, ‘the heart of the Protestant position’. He explained it by way of contrast with the Council of Trent, which had insisted (chronologically earlier) that the ‘unwritten traditions’ from Christ through the apostles must play a role, though historically unreliable. From this was inferred the authority of the Apostles’ successors to interpret it.119 The Oxford or Tractarian Movement had attached ‘great importance to the tradition (sic)’, and to the authority of the Church’s ministry. This was contrary not only to Article 6, but also to Article 20. Of the Authority of the Church . His second criticism of Tractarianism was ‘one of the key principles of the Protestant Reformation . . . namely “Justification by Faith”’ (Article 10). He did not engage with Newman’s view as set out in his Tract XC (1841), where it is the same as Davies’s own, taken over from Charles Gore: ‘Faith, as being the beginning of

118Davies, ‘The Thirty-nine Articles’, 3-5.

119Davies, ‘The Thirty-nine Articles’, 6-7.

420 perfect or justifying righteousness . . . is said by anticipation to be that which it promises’.120 The parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11- 32), he stated, contained ‘the heart of it’, that ‘Personal trust in God is the only possible basis for a right relation with God’.121 He avoided the Pauline concept of ‘justification’ per se. This gospel passage (‘The Prodigal Son’) was his own ‘proof text’, as it was for the old liberal or modernist view, held by the Ritschlians like Samuel Angus.122 On the other hand, Davies reminded his hearers that on Article 13. Of Works before Justification, Newman and the Tractarians confused Justification and Sanctification.123 On Article 17. Of Predestination and Election, he chose the ‘non-committal’ interpretation, that it was ‘merely affirming the idea without elaborating it.’124 This permitted Davies’s own virtually Arminian position, as demanded by his

120John Henry Newman, [Tract XC]. Remarks on certain Passages in the XXXIX Articles, (Oxford: sold by JH and J Parker, [1841]), § 2. ‘. . . in what sense Faith only does justify’. Cf ch 7 above for Davies own view on justification.

121Davies, ‘The Thirty-nine Articles’, 11.

122Albrecht Ritschl, The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1900), 94-95, 535; Samuel Angus, Forgiveness and Life: Chapters from an Uncompleted Book: The Historical Approach to Jesus (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1962).

123Davies, ‘Thirty-nine Articles’, 11.

124Davies, ‘Thirty-nine Articles’, 11.

421 liberal outlook. ‘There is no inherent conflict between Arminianism and Evangelicalism’, he said, but it was the Calvinism of the majority of the Evangelicals ‘that formed a point of difference’ between them and the Tractarians, who ‘claimed to be followers of [the High Church] school’.125 On Articles 19-36 (on the Church), Davies’s Protestant, anti-Roman Catholic stance was just as firm as TC Hammond’s: ‘It is here that the cleavage was most apparent between the Reformers and the Romanists’, and so also ‘that the Tractarians were most severely criticised.’126 From this point on Davies’s lecture engaged in a kind of running debate with Newman’s Tract XC, analysing the Tractarian departure from the intention of the Articles. As an historian he could confidently conclude that the Articles did not, contra Newman, define the Church of England as a via media between Protestantism and Romanism: [A]n examination of the official documents has convinced me that the Church settlement under Elizabeth was definitely Protestant and not in any way a compromise between two extremes.127

The lecture bears out the verdict of Marcus Loane, a student under Davies in his last years: ‘A Protestant in churchmanship, a liberal in

125Davies, ‘Thirty-nine Articles’, 12.

126Davies, ‘Thirty-nine Articles’, 12.

127Davies, ‘Thirty-nine Articles’, 27.

422 scholarship’.128 His exposition was consistent with the evidence from his Cambridge days that he early represented the emerging liberal Evangelical broadening of the Evangelical spectrum of the early twentieth century.

His Apologetic Approach On Sunday, March 10, 1933, not long after Archbishop Wright’s death, and only few weeks before the election synod that voted for Mowll, Davies gave the first ‘Gunther Memorial Lecture’, in St Andrew’s Cathedral, Sydney. The lecture was to be on Christian evidence, and designed to appeal to the ordinary person of the community.129 Davies addressed the credal phrase, ‘I believe in God’, an issue possibly made more acute by the appointment in 1927 of the Scotsman, John Anderson, to Sydney University’s chair of philosophy. Anderson rejected all religion, including Christianity,130 which was rather different from even the tenuously Christian idealism of his earlier predecessor, Francis Anderson. Davies said that he had found the

128Marcus L Loane, A Centenary History of Moore Theological College (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1955), 137.

129Archdeacon Davies [DJ Davies], Gunther Memorial Lecture (Sydney: Robert Dey, Son and Co, 1933), 6.

130John A Passmore, ‘Philosophy’, in AL McLeod (ed), The Pattern of Australian Culture (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1963), 153-154.

423 substance of his lecture effective ‘in more than one “teaching mission”’.131 His text was: ‘For in Him we live and move and have our being’ (Acts 17:28). Davies believed in (ie, ‘I put my whole trust in’) God, and had a ‘definite sense of personal dependence on’ and ‘recognition of obligation and responsibility towards Him.’132 His approach was that of the traditional evidentialism, brought up to date. He pointed out that ‘pre-suppositions’ are necessary for every field of knowledge. We necessarily assumed ‘the reality of ourselves and of the world.’ Similarly, ‘we take for granted the fact of God and . . . it works out to be true.’133 He used Masonic terms like ‘Great Architect’134 (which did not necessarily, over against idealism, define God as the self-existent creator). Davies adduced also ‘the evidence of consciousness’135 (the sensus deitatis?), and ‘the moral argument’ (the one ‘proof’ that Kant allowed). He defended the sensitive human conscience as a thing not derivable by the evolutionary notion of a self- protective instinct.136 Evolution described the

131Davies, Gunther Memorial Lecture, 6.

132Davies, Gunther Memorial Lecture, 12.

133Davies, Gunther Memorial Lecture, 9-12.

134Davies, Gunther Memorial Lecture, 12.

135Davies, Gunther Memorial Lecture, 13-14.

136Davies, Gunther Memorial Lecture, 14-17.

424 process of cause and effect in the natural order; the sense of guilt belonged to another order.137 He then outlined the evidence of ‘God’s Three Books: Nature, History, and the Bible.’138 The Book of Nature demanded a First Cause, but required further revelation. The Book of History supplemented it, seeming ‘to indicate . . . a Power at work which makes for righteousness’. ‘[D]espite periods of decay and corruption’, history was ‘a tonic for drooping spirits.’139 But it was from the Bible that ‘most plainly and directly’ we learned about God. In it ‘we have the record of what earnest men have learned and felt and known and believed about God’ – a ‘progressive revelation . . . recorded in the Old Testament’, climaxing in ‘the New Testament which records the life of Jesus Christ and the Gospel. . . .’ The Bible was a world ‘best-seller’, and was its own best witness. It had ‘earned the title “The Word of God”’ by ‘its influence on human hearts and lives.’ Belief in God enabled us to read the Bible profitably, and helped us read the other two books (nature and history).140 This was a liberalised form of a traditional apologetic.

137Davies, Gunther Memorial Lecture, 16, citing Gwatkin, Knowledge of God, I:19.

138Davies, Gunther Memorial Lecture, 17-23.

139Davies, Gunther Memorial Lecture, 20-22.

140Davies, Gunther Memorial Lecture, 22-23.

425 Conclusion In April 1933, when the Sydney Synod met to elect an archbishop, the issue of Samuel Angus’s modernism was on the agenda of the coming General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in New South Wales, to be held in May.141 ‘The Diocese was split from top to bottom over questions of Modernism’, a fact which must also have affected the attitude of the College Committee towards Davies.142 Howard Mowll was elected on 7th April.143 Davies ‘was very upset’, Marcus Loane remembered from his second year as a student in the College, ‘. . . for Davies badly wanted Archdeacon Hunkin of Rugby . . . a Liberal like himself.’144 But the charge of ‘modernism’ had been made effectively against Hunkin, and possibly not unjustifiably, for his ‘standpoint was markedly liberal’.145 The AEGM theological leader, VF Storr, agreed that

141Alan Dougan, A Backward Glance at the Angus Affair (Sydney: Wentworth Books, 1971), 10-17.

142Loane to author, letter dated ‘March 1994’.

143Marcus L Loane, Archbishop Mowll: The Biography of Howard West Kilvinton Mowll, Archbishop of Sydney and Primate of Australia ([London]: Hodder and Stoughton, [1960]), 126.

144Loane, letter dated ‘March 1994’.

145Editor (RR Williams), The Liberal Evangelical VI.1 (Nov 1950): 349-350 (on Hunkin’s passing); Alan and John S Peart-Binns, Cornish Bishop (London: Epworth, 1977), 146-48; see JW Hunkin, The Gospel for Tomorrow (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, Eng: Penguin, 1941).

426 Modernism, as represented by the Modern Churchmen’s Union, and Liberal Evangelicalism, as represented by the Anglican Evangelical Group Movement stood for the same thing ‘in broad aim and ideal’, although they were different in emphasis.146 It is not clear whether Davies and Talbot were fully aware of how liberal Hunkin was. Talbot, the President, and Davies, the Vice- President, both resigned from the Anglican Church League, whose activities had effected Mowll’s election. Together with Arthur Garnsey and others, they formed ‘The Anglican Fellowship’, which then arranged for Garnsey to give a series of lectures, in the Chapter House of the Cathedral, on the relatively new form-criticism of the Gospels. Whether intentionally or not, the first two of the three lectures (27th February, 6th and 19th March, 1934)147 fell on either side of Mowll’s arrival (1st March).148 Davies had become ill in late 1933. After surgery and on doctors’ advice, in February, 1934, the College Committee

146VF Storr, Freedom and Tradition: A Study of Liberal Evangelicalism (London: Nisbet, 1940), 111.

147Garnsey, Arthur, How the Gospels Grew: Three Lectures delivered in the Chapter House, St Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney (Sydney: Sn, 1935), dates on title page.

148Loane, Archbishop Mowll, 132.

427 granted him six months leave to visit England.149 Mowll arrived just in time to attend his farewell. Davies died on 29th June, 1935, aged fifty-six, hardly more than a year after his return from leave. At his funeral service St Andrew’s Cathedral was packed with friends and former students. Students of all views remembered their principal’s ‘fatherly interest and great kindness’.150 The College Committee acted considerately towards his family.151 The years of a Liberal Evangelical principal, however, had not been without its tensions. He had maintained an attempt to broaden the Evangelicalism of the College and the Diocese to a liberal position – on Scripture especially, and on Christ’s atoning work. He had done so with scholarly integrity. Some were persuaded, and liberal opinion did not die out in Sydney after him. Of those students unpersuaded, Reginald Langshaw, remembered that he ‘still held Reformation principles and that sort of thing’, but had become more open to seeing the truth that Anglo-Catholics and others might hold.152 Another, and probably the most important for the future of

149Loane, Centenary History, 135.

150Loane, Centenary History, 137-138.

151Loane, Centenary History, 138.

152The Revd Reginald Langshaw, interviewed in late 2000 (day and month not recorded) .

428 the College and the Diocese, was the young Marcus Loane. He remembered that the few who came in as conservative evangelicals didn’t lose their evangelical spirit at all but they never developed the steel or the strength that one might have seen in them, because they didn’t get it in the College.153

Loane would become resident tutor and chaplain in 1935, when still only twenty-three (having been born in November, 1911). Afterwards he was vice- principal (1938), then principal (1954), co- adjutor bishop (1958) and archbishop of Sydney (1966). In him much of the tradition (less premillennialism) of Nathaniel Jones, that is to say, his place in the Evangelical spectrum, continued both in the College and the Diocese.

153Archbishop Marcus L Loane, interviewed 5 June, 2001.

429 PART IV. THOMAS CHATTERTON HAMMOND (1877-1961): REFORMATION EVANGELICAL

‘He enabled his students to accept the authority of the Bible in the light of scholarship ancient and modern.’ (Peter Jensen, ‘Presidential Address’ to 1st Ordinary Session of the 48th Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, on 17 October, 2008) Chapter 10 REFORMATION EVANGELICALISM EMBRACED: FORMATION OF AN APOLOGIST-PASTOR

Introduction TC Hammond was among the exceptions to a generalisation – that the energies and abilities of conservative Evangelicals were directed to pastoral ministries and evangelism rather than to basic intellectual challenges. At the same time he represented the Evangelical spectrum extended by the Keswick holiness teaching, but not by the premillennial expectation of Christ’s return. His mind was theologically penetrating and historically informed. Had he received the right academic appointment either in Ireland or England, Hammond might well have become the next guiding Evangelical theologian after Henry Wace. Instead, after many years in parish work (1903-1919) and spent a similar period with the Society for Irish Church Missions (1919-1936). Finally he was principal for another seventeen years (1936-1953) of a small theological college in the Antipodes. Before the last move he was not theologically unproductive. He constantly faced two major transitions in the Church of Ireland - the growing High Church and Anglo-Catholic thrust, and the challenges of liberal theology. A third change demanding the attention of his thought and writing came with the new status of the majority Roman

433 Catholic Church after Irish independence, which coincided with the beginning of his ICM work. His engagement on all three fronts resulted in his becoming a master of historical as well as theological issues, becoming, indeed, a kind of ‘compleat theologian’1 – a centrist Evangelical. He was an Evangelical stamped by the doctrinal outlook of the English Reformation, brought wholly up-to-date. His intellectual journey would reach a penultimate and important fruition in mid-1935. Almost simultaneously there came both the request to produce a handbook of Christian doctrine, and the invitation to head Moore College in the Diocese of Sydney.

Family, YMCA, street evangelism2 Hammond was not formed merely by his context in Roman Catholic Ireland, important though that was. His formative environment was both more complex and more complete. He was born in County , Ireland, on 20th February 1877. His father, Colman Hammond, from an old Anglo-Irish Cork family, was an Evangelical layman. For a few years in the early 1850s he had served with the Church Missionary Society in Sierra Leone, where his first wife died. He became a Master in the

1Cf Izaak Walton, The Compleat Angler (5th edition, 1676).

2See Warren Nelson, TC Hammond: His Life and Legacy in Ireland and in Australia (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1985).

434 Royal Navy, but had to take early retirement.3 He then took up farming, some distance from the city of Cork. He remarried, but died when young Thomas was only six years of age. His mother sold the farm, and he and two sisters moved with her into ‘a succession of modest houses in the city’ of Cork.4 Although the Ascendancy in Ireland were Church of Ireland, the majority of Church of Ireland people were not wealthy, which Hammond’s case illustrates. At thirteen, he had to leave school for employment on the railways. About that time, he joined the newly inaugurated Cork branch of the Young Men’s Christian Association, where he became very active, even organising a debating club. He met and heard visiting prominent evangelical Christians of the day. John McNay, a young Scottish Presbyterian businessman in the city, led the youth work of the Cork YMCA. Under him, Hammond experienced a Christian conversion that involved ‘three miserable months’.5 A factor in his concern for Roman Catholics, no doubt, was that about this time an older brother, James Henry Hammond, who had become a teacher in the order of the Christian Brothers, died aged twenty-seven. Another, probably, was that in Cork, his aunt, a Roman Catholic, and her

3Nelson, TC Hammond, 13.

4Nelson, TC Hammond, 30.

5Nelson, TC Hammond, 37.

435 husband, an agnostic, were both fond of discussion and debate. From ten years of age Thomas was learning to defend himself intellectually from the attacks of both.6 As a YMCA member he was involved in the street preaching in Cork, which was addressed primarily to the majority Roman Catholics. He became the notorious ‘Boy Hammond’.7

ICM college, TCD, parish, YMCA addresses 1907, journal articles. From this Evangelical background, it is not surprising that he enrolled in 1895 (aged eighteen) in the three-year training course for the Society for Irish Church Missions (ICM) at their college in Dublin.8 This voluntary society had been founded by English Evangelicals in 1849.9 Hammond ‘gained a thorough grounding in Scripture and Anglican theology’ – the Old and New Testaments, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and The Book of Common Prayer.10 He was also instructed in ‘the intricacies of Roman Controversy’ and ‘The One Hundred Texts’ (one of

6 Nelson, TC Hammond, 45.

7Nelson, TC Hammond, 39, citing TC Hammond, Memories Crowd Upon Me (London: sn, 1949).

8Nelson, TC Hammond, 46-51.

9AE Hughes, Lift Up a Standard: The Centenary Story of the Society for the Irish Church Missions (London: Irish Church Missions, 1948), 21.

10Nelson, TC Hammond, 50.

436 the early expositions of them).11 He was ‘trained to know, quote, and always verify [his] references.’12 ‘The One Hundred Texts’ had been selected at least as early as 1862 for the Christian educational ministry of the Society. They came to be used also for Scripture memorisation in the Sunday schools of churches in England and Ireland that supported the ICM. All from the New Testament, the texts provided a grounding in Christian doctrine, with which Roman Catholic doctrines that touched salvation were compared. After his arrival in Sydney, his own expanded edition with learned notes, now completed, was used in a number of the parishes.13 On the Articles, he may have been taught from Boultbee’s pioneering Evangelical Commentary, or from the more comprehensive HCG Moule’s Outlines.14

11Henry Cheetham, Bishop of Sierra Leone, The One Hundred Texts of the Irish Church Missions, Briefly Expanded, 2nd ed (London; Derby: Messrs Bemrose and Sons, 1887); or Henry Fishe, Questions and Answers on the One Hundred Texts taught in the Mission Schools of the Society for Irish Church Missions with Notes and Comments, 2nd ed (London; Dublin: Offices of Irish Church Missions, 1901 [1894?]).

12Nelson, TC Hammond, 47, 50.

13Nelson, TC Hammond, 47; T Brine, ‘Foreword’ to TC Hammond, The One Hundred Texts of the Society for Irish Church Missions (London: The Society for Irish Church Missions, and Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1939), v-vi.

14TP Boultbee, A Commentary on the Thirty-nine Articles: Forming an Introduction to the Theology of the Church of England (London: Longmans, Green, 1895 [1871]);

437 Hammond’s own copy of the latter, marked characteristically with blue pencil (in student days, one assumes), survives in the library of Moore College. During and following his training he engaged in actual itinerant evangelism with the ICM. In 1899, however, intending for ordination, he undertook the year’s independent study by which the University would allow him to sit the First Year examinations.15 Hammond entered Trinity College Dublin in January 1900.

Hammond’s TCD Education Trinity College was no intellectual backwater.16 The provost, George Salmon (1819- 1904) was a towering figure. He had a European reputation for his mathematical work, which had seen German, French and Italian editions.17 He was famous also for his work on the Gospels, and for his critique of the Church of Rome.18 The professor of modern history and Regius professor of Greek, was JB Bury, who in 1902 would succeed

Handley CG Moule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1894 [1889]).

15Nelson, TC Hammond, 52.

16RB McDowell and DA Webb, Trinity College Dublin, 1592-1952: An Academic History (Cambridge; London: Cambridge University, 1982), 283.

17George Salmon, On the Properties of Surfaces of the Second Degree which correspond to the Theorems of Pascal and Brianchon on Conic Sections (London: Taylor & Francis, 1844).

18See below.

438 Lord Acton (d June 1902) as Regius professor of history at Cambridge, where DJ Davies was reading that subject. Hammond himself started in history, then moved over into philosophy.19 Like Salmon, other TCD men were also polymaths: the professor of ancient history , and JH Bernard, the Archbishop King’s lecturer in divinity, both wrote in philosophy. Together they translated Kant’s Prolegomena (1889) and published a paraphrase and commentary on his Critique of Pure Reason.20 Bernard had himself translated Kant’s Critique of Judgment (1892),21 and had just published a new edition of Joseph Butler’s Analogy and Sermons.22 Again, the biblical scholar and commentator, Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, had also translated Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason (1898). It

19Nelson, TC Hammond, 54.

20JP Mahaffy and JH Bernard, Kant’s Critical Philosophy for English Readers. . . A New and Completed Edition (Vol 1. The Critique of Pure Reason Explained and Defended; Vol 2. The Prolegomena Translated with Notes and Appendices (London: Macmillan, 1889-).

21JH Bernard (ed), Kant's Critique [Kritik] of Judgement (2nd ed, rev ed) (London: Macmillan, 1914 [1892]); Thomas Kingsmill Abbott (tr), Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason and other Works on the Theory of Ethics, with a Memoir, 5th ed, revised (Longmans, Green, 1898 [1873]); TK Abbott, Kant’s Introduction to Logic (London: Longmans, Green, 1885).

22JH Bernard (ed) The Works of Bishop Butler: A New Edition with Introduction and Notes by JH Bernard (London: Macmillan, 1900).

439 became the standard English version. Thus, as at Cambridge for DJ Davies, philosophical idealism still reigned: Plato, Kant, Hegel and TH Green. Henry S Macran, elected Professor of moral philosophy in 1901 (initially not full-time), was a Hegelian. The challenges to the historic Christian faith so much before the public in the pre-World War I era were grounded both in philosophical idealism (particularly Absolute Idealism) and a non-theistic perspective on the advancing scientific knowledge. Most of the above philosophers, however, were Christians, and indeed, Church of Ireland clergy. A brilliant graduate and future senior churchman, was CF d’Arcy, whose Donellan Lectures (of 1897-98) had sought to answer philosophical idealism’s rejection of the supernatural in the Christian doctrine of God. They were published shortly before Hammond enrolled at Trinity College.23 Soon after Hammond finished his Divinity Testimonium, FW Macran’s Donellan Lectures usefully surveyed English Christian apologetic approaches – from the era of Deism to evolution.24 In his undergraduate days, Hammond was active in the Theological Society, which in November 1903

23Charles F d’Arcy, Idealism and Theology: A Study of Presuppositions (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899), v-vi, 143-145.

24FW Macran, English Apologetic Theology (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905), Donellan Lectures over New Year 1903-04.

440 awarded him its Special Certificate and Silver Medal for Composition.25 His education in philosophy and theology included his own early attention to the then current rationalist philosophical approach to theology.26 In May 1903 he read a paper, ‘The Creeds and Modern Thought’ (now lost?) to the student Theological Society. He is likely to have included in his view the recent volume by Oxford idealists, Contentio Veritatis.27 His effort evoked the praise of the Society’s reporter for ‘a profound and judicious paper’, for its ‘weighty tone’, and for an eloquence comparable with that of the divinity lectures of JH Bernard.28 He and other alert Evangelical students of Trinity College would not have missed the fact that earlier in this same month of May 1903, the London University College Christian Association had held a course of lectures defending Christianity. The main speakers included some Evangelicals – the Dean of Canterbury, Henry Wace, the Laudian professor of Arabic (Oxford), DS Margoliouth, and a teacher of theological students

25T.C.D.: A College Miscellany, Vol IX (1903), 139.

26Cf E Digges La Touche, The Need for an Evangelical Revival. Papers for Evangelical Churchmen, No 1 (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, [1914]), 2-3.

27Six Oxford Tutors, Contentio Veritatis: Essays in Constructive Theology (London: John Murray, 1902).

28T.C.D: A College Miscellany IX (1903), 100 (reporting the meeting of 25 May 1903).

441 in India with the Church Missionary Society, GT Manley (Senior Wrangler, 1893, formerly Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge). The series was reported in The Times, where it generated correspondence over a short speech-in-reply by the admired physicist and mathematician, Lord Kelvin. He had stated: ‘Science positively affirms Creative Power’.29 As well as hearing its own members’ papers, the TCD Theological Society listened to prominent visitors, such as Charles Gore (November 1900).30 Late in 1902, the year that James Denney’s definitive work on the death of Christ was published,31 GT Manley was one. He urged the students to have ‘well-grounded and settled convictions on the central fact of the Atonement of Christ.’32 Such would remain a feature of Hammond’s thought. Hammond won the prestigious Wray Prize for the best dissertation at the honours graduation examination in philosophy, and was awarded the gold medal in Logic and Ethics. Did he adapt

29WW Seton (ed), Christian Apologetics: A Series of Addresses delivered before the Christian Association of University College London (London: John Murray, 1903), xi, 25; also James Orr, The Bible Under Trial [1907], 205.

30T.C.D: A College Miscellany, Vol VI (1900), 141.

31James Denney, The Death of Christ: Its Place and Interpretation in the New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1902).

32TCD: A College Miscellany, Vol VIII (1902), 168.

442 ‘that ideal tendency with which Plato sought the abiding essence of things in a higher work of the supersensuous’ to his defense of theism?33 He also won the Downes Prize for Extempore Speaking. The Divinity School shared with Arts a distinguished reputation. As well, the ‘largely evangelical nature of the nineteenth century Church of Ireland’, or at least ‘low church’ if not openly Evangelical, was ‘well represented’ among its students and professors.34 In accordance with the dovetail arrangement with undergraduate Arts for future ordinands, Hammond had started some of the divinity classes before graduating BA.35 He had the benefit of his grounding at the ICM college. In the Divinity Testimonium syllabus Hammond was exposed to biblical scholarship that was liberal, though not radically so, in the persons of TK Abbott36 and the younger AH McNeile (b 1871). A few years later McNeile would go to Cambridge to be Fellow and Dean of Sidney Sussex College. JH Bernard, Archbishop King’s lecturer in divinity and dean of St Patrick’s Cathedral

33Cf Wilhelm Windelband, A History of Philosophy, Volume I: Greek, Roman and Medieval, repr (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958 [Macmillan, 1901, 2nd ed]), 211.

34Nelson, TC Hammond, 53; see also Alan Acheson, A History of the Church of Ireland 1691-2001, 2nd ed (Dublin: Columba & APCK, 2002.

35Nelson, TC Hammond, 52.

36TK Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1897).

443 (1902-1911), later Archbishop of Dublin, also author of a well-known commentary on the Gospel according to John,37 represented the High Church tradition. For books on the Reformation and Evangelical side, apart from HCG Moule’s Outlines of Christian Doctrine, the dogmatic thought of the late Edward Arthur Litton (1813-1897), was available in good time for Hammond. Litton’s revised The Church of Christ, useful for High Church and Anglo-Catholic issues as well as specifically for controversy with Rome, had recently appeared. So had a new edition of his Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, enriched with Henry Wace’s remarks, come out while Hammond was still an Arts student.38 For biblical studies, the Provost, George Salmon, though he ‘tended toward a liberal evangelicalism’ with regard to authority,39 was the ‘hammer of the Germans’, having famously refuted the sceptical Tübingen approach to the New Testament gospels. His substantial New Testament

37JH Bernard, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St John, ed AH McNeile (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928).

38Edward Arthur Litton, The Church of Christ in its Idea, Attributes and Ministry, with an Introduction by FJ Chavasse (London: James Nisbet, 1898 [1851]); Edward Arthur Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology on the Basis of the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England, with an Introduction by Henry Wace (London: Elliot Stock, 1902 [1882, 1892]).

39Kenneth C Bailey, A History of Trinity College, Dublin, 1892-1945, with a foreword by EH Alton (Dublin: The University: Hodges, Figgis, 1947), 229 (citing JH Bernard).

444 Introduction, was still in use.40 His last work, on the gospels, was published posthumously, only three years after Hammond finished his formal divinity studies.41 Salmon’s famous lectures to divinity students on the controversy with Rome, The Infallibility of the Church,42 remained unrefuted. In Old Testament studies the works of CHH Wright (1836-1909) were current. Wright, like other conservatives (Henry Wace, for example), accepted criticism in principle, but not an a priori naturalistic approach. His Introduction had seen a new edition in 1900,43 and his commentary on Daniel, a focus of Old Testament criticism at the time,44 would be published the year after Hammond finished his divinity studies. One must assume that SR Driver’s Introduction, which Wright himself called ‘indispensable for all

40George Salmon, A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament, 9th ed (London: John Murray, 1899, repr 1904), xxxi and 643.

41George Salmon, The Human Element in the Gospels (London: John Murray, 1908).

42George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church: A Course of Lectures Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Dublin, 2nd ed (London: John Murray, 1890).

43Charles HH Wright, An Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1900 [1890]), 6th ed 1904.

44Charles HH Wright, Daniel and His Prophecies (London: Williams and Norgate, 1906).

445 real students’,45 was also read.46 Wright (with Charles Neil) edited the first edition of The Protestant Dictionary, published while Hammond was still finishing his divinity studies.47 It seems significant for his Reformation Evangelicalism that Hammond purchased, presumably in these years, the last two volumes (bound) of the Presbyterian and Reformed Review, and received its replacement, the Princeton Theological Review.48 Both were edited by BB Warfield of Princeton Theological Seminary. Made deacon on 20 December 1903, Hammond began busy parish work. He was ordained presbyter on 26 March 1905, having completed the post-graduate Divinity Testimonium with second class honours (because not including Hebrew?). WH Griffith Thomas’s Oxford thesis on the Lord’s Supper49 was published even as Hammond concluded his formal divinity studies. Hammond would himself master Cranmer’s classic study on

45Wright, Introduction (4th ed), 227.

46SR Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1898 [1891]).

47Charles HH Wright and Charles Neil, The Protestant Dictionary... History, Doctrines, and Practices of the Christian Church (London: Harrison Trust, 1904).

48Hammond’s personal sets are in Moore Theological College Library.

49WH Griffith Thomas, "A Sacrament of our Redemption": An Enquiry into the Meaning of the Lord's Supper in the New Testament and the Church of England (London & Derby: Bemrose & Sons, [1905].

446 the Lord’s Supper and teach it at Moore College. A new edition of this Reformation work came out two years after Griffith Thomas’s thesis on the subject.50 In January 1906 Thomas Hammond married John McNay’s younger sister, Margaret, by whom he would have four children. He was curate assisting at St Kevin’s, Dublin, from December 1903, and in 1910 became the incumbent. In a majority Roman Catholic environment, his was a clear voice expounding a biblicist, crucicentric, conversionist message conforming to the Reformation tenor of the Thirty-nine Articles and The Book of Common Prayer.51

First Apologetic Theology Though busy with parish work Hammond undertook a series of public lectures, Modern Religious Developments (February to May 1907) for the Dublin YMCA. The first may be considered a landmark statement of his Evangelical approach. He made a pre-emptive critique of a forthcoming radical book, The New Theology,52 of which the author, RJ Campbell, had given a lengthy pre-publication

50Charles HH Wright (ed), Archbishop Cranmer on the True and Catholic doctrine and Use of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, with a preface by the Very Rev Henry Wace (London: Chas J Thynne, 1907).

51Cf Nelson, TC Hammond, 57-60.

52RJ Campbell (1867-1956), The New Theology (London: Chapman and Hall, 1907).

447 account, recently recorded in the Daily Mail.53 Attempting to achieve relevance for the church among modern intellectuals, Campbell had begun with a non-Christian concept of God’s immanence, that of Absolute Idealism. His approach was sympathetically viewed by some.54 Rejecting the doctrines of original sin, the expiatory atonement and the Deity of Christ, he looked for the revival of the church through social reform and moral action. Hammond was charitable while trenchant: Campbell’s divine immanence excluded any ‘real distinction between humanity and deity’.55 It was Spinozist, but inferior to Spinoza. Campbell’s doctrine of divine immanence did ‘not carry with it the possibility of a Divine Transcendence in any sense.’56 Hammond’s critique looked for the underlying worldview, thus gaining depth and penetration. He did not make explicit, however, that Campbell’s monistic worldview with its desire for autonomy, independence of God, must compromise the modern pursuit of truth. On the other hand, the high

53TC Hammond, ‘The New Theology’: An Examination and Criticism. A Lecture delivered in the City of Dublin Y.M.C.A., February, 1907 (Dublin: Irish Union of Young Men’s Christian Associations, [1907]), 5.

54See Thomas A Langford, In Search of Foundations: English Theology 1900-1920 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969), 33-38.

55Hammond, ‘The New Theology’, 4 (Campbell’s words as reported in the Daily Mail).

56Hammond, ‘The New Theology’, 10.

448 quality of his argument and scholarly mastery of the issues does not pale by comparison with Professor AC Headlam’s critique published soon after the book itself came out.57 Hammond’s depth of reading was evident. He referred confidently to Spinoza’s doctrine of man.58 (Spinoza was much more published in the nineteenth century than one might think from reading some histories of philosophy). He made use of TK Abbott’s edition of Immanuel Kant on ethics and the theory of religion.59 Like all students of theology of that time, he had been required to read Joseph Butler’s Analogy.60 He knew and made good use of James Orr’s much published Christian View of God and the World.61 He quoted, too, a Scottish ethical theist who was also a specialist on Bishop Berkeley.62

57AC Headlam, ‘The New Theology’, Church Quarterly Review, 59, no 128 (July, 1907), 79-109.

58Benedict de Spinoza, Ethics (Parts I and II); Hammond, ‘The New Theology’, 9-10.

59Abbott, in Kant’s Practical Reason, 347-52, and ‘Memoir of Kant’, lvi; Hammond, ‘The New Theology’, 15, 16.

60Bernard (ed), Works of Bishop Butler, Vol 2. The Analogy of Religion; Hammond, ‘The New Theology’, 16-17, 25.

61James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World: As centring in the Incarnation. The Kerr Lectures for 1890-91 (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans 1948 [Edinburgh: Andrew Elliott, 1893]), 169, 182; Hammond, ‘The New Theology’, 17-18, 19.

62Alexander Campbell Fraser (1819-1914), probably his Gifford Lectures, The Philosophy of Theism, 2nd ed (Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1899), cf John Passmore, A Hundred

449 The theologians he referred to were the Anglican, Handley CG Moule,63 and the Presbyterian, James Orr’s colleague, James Denney (on the atonement).64 As recent as Denney was an American, Edward H Griffin, whom Hammond found useful for his critique of Campbell.65 This 1907 lecture was a foretaste of his future apologetic writing, which lasted well into his Moore College years. The final lecture of this YMCA series, likewise exhibiting his training in idealist philosophy as well as in theology, was an assessment of Christian Science.66

Continued Defense against Idealism Books on the immanence of God kept appearing, some closer to, others more distant, from historic Christianity.67 Charles d’Arcy commented that the

Years of Philosophy, (Harmondsworth, Eng: Penguin, 1968), 539; Hammond, ‘The New Theology’, 16.

63Moule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine, 82; Hammond, ‘The New Theology’, 27.

64James Denney, The Death of Christ: Its Place and Interpretation in the New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1902).

65Edward H Griffin, ‘Personality the Supreme Category of Philosophy’, Presbyterian and Reformed Review XIII.52 (Oct 1902), 518; Hammond, ‘The New Theology’, 12.

66Christian Science: Its Merits and Defects. A Lecture Delivered in the City of Dublin Y.M.C.A., May 1907 (Dublin: Irish Union of Young Men’s Christian Associations [1907]).

67Charles F d’Arcy (Bishop of Ossory), Christianity and the Supernatural, 2nd ed (London: Longmans, Green, 1909), in The Anglican Church Handbooks series, edited WH Griffith Thomas; Joseph Warschauer, Problems of Immanence:

450 ‘idea of Immanence’ had ‘so dominated the minds of many schools’.68 It was an issue in the theological wrestling with the doctrine of Christ in these years.69 Hammond’s friend Everard Digges La Touche’s Donellan Lectures for the end of 1911 and the New Year of 1912 would speak of TH Green’s ‘almost, if not quite, pantheistic basis’ for treating the Incarnation.70 Hammond contributed a substantial Appendix: ‘Consciousness and the Sub- conscious’ to his friend’s book. It exhibited his competence in the work of William James and the psychological speculation in connection with the personality of Christ.71

On Immanence and Transcendence. The year before his appendix to Digges La Touche’s work, and about the time DJ Davies was receiving Archbishop Wright’s invitation to be principal of Moore College, Hammond published an

Studies Critical and Constructive (London: J Clarke, 1909).

68D’Arcy, Christianity and the Supernatural, v.

69Langford, In Search of Foundations, 66-67, 186-188 (and Chapter VIII).

70Everard Digges La Touche, The Person of Christ in Modern Thought (London: James Clarke, 1912), 122-123.

71TC Hammond, ‘Consciousness and the Sub-conscious’, Appendix to Everard Digges La Touche, The Person of Christ in Modern Thought (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912), 403-415, referencing William James, Principles of Psychology and Varieties of Religious Experience.

451 article on God’s immanence and transcendence.72 The subject was still theologically very topical. He noted that ‘most modern writers seem to take it for granted’ (influenced probably by the evolutionary school of philosophy), that the admission of a process in nature completed ‘the argument . . . which asserts a wholly immanent process.’73 Hammond had in his sights the influence of the agnostic TH Huxley’s Kantian doctrine (the idea that the power behind nature is unknowable) and Herbert Spencer’s materialism (reality is matter and motion). His concern was to establish that pure immanentism is impossible, and thus at the same time to rule out either the need for or the propriety of a ‘God of the gaps’ defence of miracle.74 Spinoza, Hammond retorted, did better than the modern immanentists, but even he was not a pure immanentist.75 The pure immanentist position failed to explain fully ‘the mental element in man’, to account for the interpreter. He cited Arthur James Balfour in support of the view that (in his own words) ‘[k]nowledge is in the last analysis a

72Thomas Chatterton Hammond, ‘Immanence and Transcendence’, Irish Church Quarterly (ICQ), Vol 4, No 15 (July 1911), 198-215.

73Hammond, ‘Immanence and Transcendence’, 200.

74Hammond, ‘Immanence and Transcendence’, 211-212.

75Hammond, ‘Immanence and Transcendence’, 203.

452 transcendent fact’.76 He did not use Charles d’Arcy’s work.77 Though not a monist, d’Arcy was (according to Hastings Rashdall later) a philosophical disciple of the Absolute Idealist, Herbert Bradley.78 Hammond argued from the analogy of man to God, who must be assumed to be personal. (Like Bishop Joseph Butler, he does not overtly start with the Creator-creature distinction; but he does assume it.) The [human] mind was indisputably transcendent in relation to everyday facts. Even more obviously, in pure thought ‘the knower remains distinct from the known even while all that is known is traceable to the activity of the knower.’79 ‘In the region of personal experience’, he was arguing, ‘there can be no true doctrine of immanence without a doctrine of transcendence.’80 Since this test ‘responds to all the features of rationality’ in man, it must ‘exhibit . . . its [same] essential characteristic’ when applied to ‘the Greater Spirit.’ He argued from natural revelation:

76Hammond, ‘Immanence and Transcendence’, 207 (referencing ‘a recent meeting at the British Association’).

77D’Arcy, Idealism and Theology; D’Arcy, Christianity and the Supernatural.

78Hastings Rashdall, The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology. Bampton Lectures 1915 (London: Macmillan, 1919), 469 n.

79Hammond, ‘Immanence and Transcendence’, 213.

80Hammond, ‘Immanence and Transcendence’, 214.

453 So it seems just . . . to regard [nature] as the expression of an intelligence, and hence as the immanent manifestation of a Transcendent Self.81

He concluded that in this way God’s immanence and transcendence were combined in one and have a moral end: So while all the truths associated with immanence may still be profitably maintained, it is possible to call back again morality, revelation, and hell. . . .82

Hammond was establishing himself as an articulate Evangelical apologist. He was different from both the conservative Nathaniel Jones (who was apparently hardly cognizant of philosophy) and the Liberal Evangelical DJ Davies, who was at least acquainted with idealism. This was Hammond’s initial constructive apologetic essay. It grappled with one of the major issues impinging on Christian faith, Roman Catholic and Protestant. Whereas Davies and the Group Brotherhood felt constrained to embrace a liberal position, Hammond worked towards a contemporary intellectual defence and exposition of historic Reformation evangelicalism. He brought to bear his education in philosophical and theological enquiry against contemporary liberal restatement (like RJ Campbell’s) on the one hand, and against the Anglo-Catholic renewal of pre-Reformation

81Hammond, ‘Immanence and Transcendence’, 214.

82Hammond, ‘Immanence and Transcendence’, 215.

454 doctrine, on the other. Liberal Evangelicals could not so clearly do this. On visiting Sydney in 1926 Hammond would have learned of Francis Anderson (1858-1941), the not- long retired (1921) Hegelian idealist professor of philosophy at the University of Sydney. Anderson was a Scot taught by , and for whom TH Green ‘was a constant inspiration’.83 To a monist, the historic Christian notion of God as creator, ontologically distinct from his creation (transcendent), was inadmissable. Ten years later (1936), when Hammond arrived at Moore College, Professor John Anderson, also a Scot, no idealist but just as much opposed to any ‘dualism’, so also a monist, had been in the philosophy chair since 1927.84 Hammond’s introductory lecture at Moore College, which Marcus Loane remembered as on ‘Transcendentalism’, was according to another’s recollection (then a student), ‘the transcendence of God’.85

83SA Grave, A History of Philosophy in Australia (St Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland, 1984), 21, 24.

84See Grave, Philosophy in Australia, 18-21, 24.

85Marcus L Loane, Centenary History of Moore Theological College (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1955), 140; Nelson, TC Hammond, 101.

455 ‘Authority in Religion’86 Hammond, of course, knew the nineteenth century discussion on the issue of authority. His two articles addressing this subject, were written in World War I Ireland, following the Easter Rising (1916). ‘Authority in Religion’, and ‘Authority in Religion II: The Place of Dogma’ are (to this writer) as intellectually impressive as they were important. They provided the basis for a statement by him of the authority of Scripture that would be published eventually by the Inter- Varsity Fellowship of Evangelical Unions.87 As noted in the case of DJ Davies, a Kantian rejection of ‘external authority’ sustained a liberal orientation with regard to Scripture as revelation. Hammond looked to answering the challenge while remaining securely on his conservative Evangelical, indeed, his Reformed base. He noted that the problem of authority in religion was one amongst many ‘suggested by the present war’88 (of 1914-1918) – itself an effect of the impact of idealist immanentism, an older

86TC Hammond, ‘Authority in Religion’ (hereinafter ‘Authority in Religion [I]’), ICQ Vol 9, No 36 (Oct 1916), 287-299; ‘Authority in Religion: II. The Place of Dogma’, ICQ Vol 10, No 37 (Jan 1917), 25-39.

87‘The Fiat of Authority’, in J Russell Howden (ed), Evangelicalism: By Members of the Fellowship of Evangelical Churchmen (London: Chas J Thynne & Jarvis, 1925), 156-206; repr as TC Hammond, Inspiration and Authority (London: IVF, nd).

88Hammond, ‘Authority in Religion [I]’, 287.

456 contemporary would add.89 Hammond considered that the ‘exacting task’ of inquiry into the grounds of authority was never more necessary.90 He alluded clearly to the Liberal Anglo-Catholic, AEJ Rawlinson’s essay, ‘The Principle of Authority’.91 Nor had he missed BB Warfield’s critical review of the book that contained it.92 He alluded less clearly to R Brook’s essay rejecting the external authority of an infallible Bible.93 He argued that while history showed that humanity’s progress required both submission to authoritative leaders and revolt from outward forms, the solution was not in anarchistic individualism. It was in ‘a truer apprehension of basal principles’,94 in ‘laying afresh the foundations.’95 How then could Individualism and Authority be reconciled?

89CCJ Webb, A Study of Religious Thought in England from 1850 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1933), 149 (with reference back to pages 141-148).

90Hammond, ‘Authority in Religion [I]’, 287.

91AEJ Rawlinson, Essay VIII. ‘The Principle of Authority’, in Seven Oxford Men, Foundations: A Statement of Christian Belief in Terms of Modern Thought (London: Macmillan, 1912), 361-422; Hammond, ‘Authority in Religion [I]’, 292.

92R Brook, Essay II. ‘The Bible’, in Foundations, 29- 30 and passim; BB Warfield, review of Foundations, in Princeton Theological Review XI (1913), 526-538.

93R Brook, Essay II. ‘The Bible’, in Foundations, 29- 30 and passim; Warfield, review of Foundations.

94Hammond, ‘Authority in Religion [I]’, 287.

95Hammond, ‘Authority in Religion [I]’, 292; cf Rawlinson, Essay VIII. ‘The Principle of Authority: I. Authority and Truth’, Foundations, 375-77.

457 Hammond introduced the argument, important in his future writing on religious authority, for the right of private judgment – properly understood. It was ‘not private in the sense of being mere individual eccentricity’, but ‘in the sense that it represents the spiritual answer to the individual’s need’.96 Thus, ‘the assent of the individual’ to ‘formal enunciations of belief’ (the Creeds) could be won by evidence that they represent facts which must . . . evoke his acknowledgment97 . . . and also represent satisfaction of the inner craving of his immortal nature.98

One reason why submission to such a higher authority had ‘never in fact become universal’ was that ‘a rational being is capable of development’.99 A second was that there were ‘differences in mental and moral insight.’ A third was ‘the fact of degeneration’ in the individual or nation, which might prevent development.100 Thinking perhaps of the Council of Trent, he cited the fact of ‘half-’101

96Hammond, ‘Authority in Religion [I]’, 293.

97Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, Article VIII. Of the Three Creeds.

98Hammond, ‘Authority in Religion [I]’, 294; contra Rawlinson, ‘The Principle of Authority’, 375.

99Hammond, ‘Authority in Religion [I]’, 294.

100Hammond, ‘Authority in Religion [I]’, 295.

101Cf Puritan expression ‘but halfly reformed’.

458 that ‘retard the advent of purer doctrine’.102 He did not mention the creature’s sinful desire for independence of the Creator – for autonomy. His fourth and final major point concerned the authority of Scripture, and it exhibited his commitment to Reformation principles. GE Lessing (1729-81) had ‘sneer[ed] at bibliolatry’, referring to ‘that veneration claimed for the books of the Bible, particularly the books of the New Testament’.103 The sneer, however, had ignored the claim of the Book to contain the thoughts of God, and supremely the communication of God manifested in the flesh. The ‘unforced submission of the will’ came when Holy Scripture was ‘recognised as the message of God to the soul.’104 Hammond capped off his discussion by quoting the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) on the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit to the authority of Scripture.105 The Confession, it should be remembered, was the work chiefly of clergy (Puritan) of the Church of England, and depended much on the work of , Archbishop of Armagh. Hammond was being an Anglican Reformation

102Hammond, ‘Authority in Religion [I]’, 295-296.

103GE Lessing (1729-1781), ‘Preface.’ ‘Bibliolatry’, in Cambridge Free Thoughts and Letters on Bibliolatry (London: Trubner, 1862), xxxix; Rawlinson, in Foundations (1912), 371-372.

104‘Authority in Religion [I]’, 298.

105‘Authority in Religion [I]’, 298-299, quoting Westminster Confession of Faith Ch I. ‘Of the Holy Scripture’, V.

459 theologian as he addressed the liberal challenges of his day. His sequel article, ‘Authority in Religion: II. The Place of Dogma’,106 again recalled the War, and the liberal claim that the old must go and be replaced by a ‘Realism’ that disliked to be called ‘New’.107 In 1915 the Scottish Presbyterian theologian at Cambridge, John Wood Oman (1860- 1930) had said, war is ever a kind of apocalyptic. . . . [I]deas that men had thought eternal are discovered to be only the fashion of a departing time.108

The Dean of Durham, Herbert (1863- 1947), had forecast that ‘men must face again the old questions’, for ‘[t]he traditional theology’ would again be ‘seen to be plainly inadequate to express the truth of religion as they must need (sic) perceive it.’109 Hammond thought differently: It is very doubtful if the war will change much. . . . The old answers will frequently arrest attention and dogma will come to its own again.

106Thomas C Hammmond, ‘Authority in Religion: II . The Place of Dogma’, ICQ Vol 10, No 37 (Jan 1917), 25-39.

107Hammmond, ‘Authority in Religion: II’, 37.

108John Wood Oman, The War and Its Issues (Cambridge: The University, 1915), 4-5 (cited in Langford, Foundations, 251).

109Hensley Henson, ‘The Church After the War’ in The Faith and the War, ed FJ Foakes-Jackson (London: Macmillan, 1915), 256 (cited in Langford, Foundations, 252).

460 The reason was that ‘sin and redemption move in a region inaccessible to modern artillery.’110 Indeed, the dogmas of ‘a faith as wide as the world’ were ‘formulated amid the birth-pangs of modern Europe’ and will not go under.111 Hammond’s confidence was later justified in part with the rise of the Inter-Varsity Fellowship in Britain after the War, and with the work for a re- implementation in Sydney of Frederic Barker’s ideal for a predominantly Evangelical Diocese. Both developments would owe much to Hammond, the articulate defender of his Anglican, that is to say, his English Reformation heritage. The essence of his defense of dogma was biblicist, namely, that while the authority of creeds was limited and provisional (not his term), they represented the fruit of the Church’s role as the keeper and interpreter of Holy Writ.112 ‘A Romanist and an intelligent member of the Brethren could equally, in good faith, subscribe to “the three ancient creeds”.’113 (Well to remember for Nathaniel Jones!) The Reformers did not, as ‘[s]o-called liberal theologians represent’, ‘cast away the authority of the Church and substitute the authority of the Bible.’114 They ‘merely

110Hammmond, ‘Authority in Religion: II’, 30.

111Hammmond, ‘Authority in Religion: II’, 30.

112Hammmond, ‘Authority in Religion: II’, 32.

113Hammmond, ‘Authority in Religion: II’, 33.

114Hammmond, ‘Authority in Religion: II’, 31.

461 professed to set in bold relief the revelation of God [in the Bible] and to control tradition by its explicit teaching.’115 It was ‘the ground on which [authority] is based’ that the Reformers changed.116 They were ‘the men of insight’ who contributed to historical development.117 ‘Reformed Theology’, he claimed, ‘wields a powerful influence’, which stems with ‘very definite content’ from a ‘coherence . . . due to its necessary deductions from certain established principles’ of its period. ‘Freedom from dogma can only mean, therefore, freedom from thought.’118 He drew parallels of science with Christian dogma. First, Science had its creed, which had been built up ‘in precisely the same manner’ as the Christian. And science, too, had ‘built up its creed slowly and admitted new articles or modified old ones with obvious reluctance’. Christianity, like science, had made rapid ‘advances in [its] application to practical life’.119 Hammond drew a further parallel: that of Christian dogma with science. As true science ‘must subject itself to nature,’ which ‘as an article of faith’ it holds to be one, so

115Hammmond, ‘Authority in Religion: II’, 31.

116Hammmond, ‘Authority in Religion: II’, 31-32.

117Hammmond, ‘Authority in Religion: II’, 33.

118Hammmond, ‘Authority in Religion: II’, 33.

119Hammmond, ‘Authority in Religion: II’, 34.

462 ‘Revelation is the quarry from which [Christian] dogma comes.’ In science, ‘subsequent research may modify to some extent the terms in which older truth was expressed, but can never invalidate that which is true.’ Likewise, ‘Whatever has been truly extracted’ from the quarry of revelation has abiding value. ‘Subsequent labour may fit and shape and polish as well as increase the store. But the substance must remain unaltered.’ Hence, both in science and religion, there are as it were, ‘buildings that require completion’, but ‘it is no longer possible to lay afresh the foundations.’120 Hammond insisted that re- statement of doctrine must therefore apply to ‘but a small proportion of the whole credal content.’121 The Church’s ministry was ‘to appeal to . . . hearts and consciences’ seeking ‘to give [the dogmatic] decisions’ of the past ‘their true value in relation to existing conditions.’122 Such was his reassurance to both the conservative High Churchman and the Evangelical in the Church of Ireland. Did then the right of private judgment ‘sweep away the true teaching office of the Church’? Rather, he affirmed, the right of private judgment based itself ‘upon the lessons of antiquity, indeed, but ever checking them’ by ‘fearless and

120Hammmond, ‘Authority in Religion: II’, 34-35.

121Hammmond, ‘Authority in Religion: II’, 35.

122Hammmond, ‘Authority in Religion: II’, 35.

463 independent study of God’s Word.’123 Dogma, ‘like any scientific formulation of experience’, Hammond maintained, ‘remains undisturbed’. It could be restated because it was approximation, but not so as to ‘negative the attainments of the past’; for that would be a repudiation of ‘the very notion of progress.’124 Hammond concluded with the proposition that ‘Authority is the compulsion of truth itself. Dogma is the expression of its binding force as truth’ as spoken in the past. But ‘the message of past and present must awaken an intelligent response in the individual soul.’ In his next words the reader finds a solution to external authority that escaped a Liberal Evangelical such as DJ Davies: It is through such a response that that which was formerly external becomes internal . . . the deepest conviction of our own heart. . . . Ever upon such rocks does [the Son of God] build His Church.125

His First Published Paper on Roman Catholicism Already in his Church of Ireland parish Hammond was known as a ‘sound Protestant’. He was also an activist Evangelical. He wrote to the newspapers to defend those ‘wronged on account of their faith’ (presumably Protestants) or other

123Hammmond, ‘Authority in Religion: II’, 36.

124Hammmond, ‘Authority in Religion: II’, 38.

125Hammmond, ‘Authority in Religion: II’, 38-39.

464 injustices.126 In 1915 he published a second article in The Irish Church Quarterly, ‘The Fascination of the Church of Rome.-A Reply’ (punctuation sic).127 Provoked by a previous article of Anglo-Catholic ritualist-leaning,128 it throws light on Hammond’s attitude toward ritualism. The writer of ‘The Fascination of the Church of Rome’ had argued, on the grounds of ‘the temperament and feeling’ of some, that the Church of Ireland should accommodate the demand of ‘the concrete mind’ for ‘a coherent system’, and ‘visible symbols’ for ‘the soul [that only by such can] rise to the Holy Place.’129 Hammond asked why the article did not weigh the ‘temperament’ of the Anglican Protestants. He questioned some of the generalisations, such as the effect of the Ne temere decree (1907, re marriage of Roman Catholics to non-Roman Catholics, on Protestant conversions to Rome, and the assumption that ‘the objective’ (as opposed to subjective) was always ‘the palpable’ (eg, the Mass). He critiqued that failure to define terms in the article which led to ‘inconsequence’, and the error of assuming ‘that temperament creates facts’. Temperament,

126Nelson, TC Hammond, 59.

127TC Hammond, ‘The Fascination of the Church of Rome.- A Reply’, ICQ Vol 8, No 29 (Jan 1915), 60-69.

128CP Price, ‘The Fascination of the Church of Rome’, ICQ Vol 7, No 28 (Oct 1914), 316-326.

129Price, ‘The Fascination’, 326.

465 moreover, was no ‘ultimate base’, but ‘a product of training’. Hence ‘[t]o say that the reality of worship is foreign to Protestant principle is the reverse of the truth.’ Finally, he noted that in the article the Bible was ‘found wanting’, being reticent, as it was, on ‘Episcopal government, Confirmation and Infant Baptism’. So also reticent, he replied, was history, ‘in defiance’ of which ‘Rome solves the problem by creating her own standard’.130 The dogmatician EA Litton had argued similarly.131

Resistance to Ritualism and Associated Doctrine Hammond was at one with both Nathaniel Jones and DJ Davies in this matter, and this was evident while he was rector (incumbent) of St Kevin’s from 1910. He repeatedly demonstrated his commitment to the Reformation character of the Church of England (and Church of Ireland). He spoke for the Anti-Ritualist Society, and wrote to the press to correct even the Archbishop King’s professor of Divinity, JH Bernard, on a point of liturgical use. He took determined action against a move by a Church of Ireland bishop to provide prayers for the dead.132 (There had been horrendous War casualties in

130Hammond, ‘The Fascination of the Church of Rome.-A Reply’, ICQ Vol 8, No 29 (Jan 1915), 69.

131Litton, The Church of Christ, 186-200 (episcopacy), 144-149 (infant baptism).

132Nelson, TC Hammond, 59-60.

466 1915.) His Evangelical biblicism, also, lay behind his public attempt to recall the Divinity School to ‘adequate Protestant and Evangelical instruction.’133 As a convinced Reformation theologian bound by his ordination vows, Hammond opposed the innovations of those pressing for a closer conformity of the Church of Ireland with Roman Catholicism or a reversion to pre- Reformation times. No weakening of Evangelical emphasis on the cross lay behind his address in Belfast to the Irish Church Union of Down, Connor and Dromore in 1917. The Cross on the Communion Table134 was rather his Reformation biblicism in crucicentric and activist mode. Another bishop had been proposing, also in the midst of sentiment aroused by the War, to have deleted from the Constitution of the Church of Ireland Canon 36, which forbade the placing of a Cross on the Communion Table.135 Hammond argued that the Church of Ireland had gained, not lost, spiritual power and missionary zeal since 1871,136 when the canon had been passed by a full and unanimous house of the General Synod. It was a

133Nelson, TC Hammond, 60, citing Minute Book of St Kevin’s Parish.

134TC Hammond, The Cross on the Communion Table (Belfast: [Irish Church Union], [1917]).

135Hammond, The Cross on the Communion Table, 2.

136Hammond, The Cross on the Communion Table, 4.

467 statement against ‘the Ritualist movement across the water’, which had by then succeeded in ‘rendering the English Church Services in some centres more Roman than the Romish Service itself.’137 In 1876, in England, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had ‘declared that a Cross erected behind the Communion Table was forbidden by law.’138 Hammond, who had begun his studies at TCD in history, was historically very well informed. He pointed out that the ‘sign of the Cross’ came early in the third century, and that of Caesaria had made much of the sign after the conversion of Constantine. But it was not until AD 423 that Sozomen mentioned the Cross being actually placed on the Table. At that time ‘sacerdotalism had gripped the imagination of the ministry’.139 He reminded his audience: ‘You are invited to reverse the mature judgment of the Reformation.’ The Reformers, who ‘were opposed by the keenest intellects of the Roman Communion’, were themselves ‘really studied’ men. Crosses were removed by the deliberate injunctions of the Council in Edward VI’s time, and later . . . [by] Queen Elizabeth supported by the whole Bench of Bishops.140

137Hammond, The Cross on the Communion Table, 6.

138Hammond, The Cross on the Communion Table, 8.

139Hammond, The Cross on the Communion Table, 9.

140Hammond, The Cross on the Communion Table, 10.

468 Moreover, the move proposed invited them ‘to break with God’s Word, which declares “Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image”’.141 More than once he referred to ‘the outraged feelings of humble parishioners’.142 A case that would similarly resonate with him came up later in Sydney. Hammond, married to a Presbyterian, appealed to the fact that the existing Canons had ‘permitted the son of the Puritan to join in worship with his less pronounced brother.’143 Unity in a common understanding of the gospel would always override denominational divide for this Reformation Evangelical. His resistance to Anglo-Catholic ritual innovation was principled and informed, and no mere mindless prejudice.

Conclusion Hammond’s Evangelicalism included both a Reformation stance toward the ecclesiastical challenge of his day, and a cogent critique of theological liberalism. If the shrinking Protestantism of the Church of Ireland hierarchy did not favour preferment for him, the Irish Church Missions would soon be keen to re-employ him, this time as a leader.

141Hammond, The Cross on the Communion Table, 11.

142Hammond, The Cross on the Communion Table, 1, 3, 12.

143Hammond, The Cross on the Communion Table, 12.

469 Chapter 11 REFORMATION EVANGELICALISM DEFENDED and EXPOUNDED

Introduction By the end of World War I things had changed in church and state in Ireland. The Easter Rising of 1916, the Irish War of Independence and ensuing Civil War issued ultimately in the establishment of the Irish Free State (1922-1923). Now the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland would have a new status. Early in 1919 Hammond was appointed Superintendent of the Irish Church Missions in Dublin. The first years were those of the civil troubles.1 One of his main tasks from was now the instructing of future workers of the Irish Church Missions. As Superintendent he was now the editor of the ICM monthly, The Catholic. Being also an Evangelical theologian and presbyter of the Church of Ireland he did not leave unmet the Anglo- Catholic and liberal trends within Anglicanism.

Challenging Roman Catholic Doctrine and Polemic Apart from the editorials for The Catholic (which are not surveyed here), Hammond wrote much else connected with this responsibility, and his

1Warren Nelson, TC Hammond: Irish Christian: His Life and Legacy in Ireland and Australia (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994), 65-66.

471 Reformation Evangelicalism was evident in all. Unfortunately, his essay, produced not long after becoming Superintendent, How the Roman Church Treats the Bible,2 is not extant. With the matter of Scripture went also his perception that certain Roman Catholic doctrines, together with Rome’s discipline, hindered a clear apprehension of saving faith. He never denied, of course, that Roman Catholics could be saved. Naturally, he was concerned to engage in print with the sometimes vigorous Romish polemic against a Reformation stance on the Christian faith. Appropriately he was a public defender also, in print, of the catholic as in the title, The Catholic, that is, orthodox truth of Protestantism. He put to use an encyclopaedic grasp of Christian dogma and history.

The Caxton Hall Discussion (1922) On one occasion he was called upon to exercise a public role when the arranged speaker could not attend. In London, in October 1922, at Caxton Hall, Hammond engaged in an advertised ‘discussion’ with a Mr Hand, a member of the Catholic Evidence Guild, but not himself a trained

2TC Hammond, How the Roman Church Treats the Bible (Dublin: Church of Ireland Printing and Publishing, 1921) – see Nelson, TC Hammond, 161.

472 theologian. Hand’s careful opening statement had been fully approved by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Francis Adolphus Bourne (1861-1934).3 The agreed subject was: ‘There is only One Church founded by Christ, and on earth the head of that Church is the Pope, the Vicar of Christ.’4 Hand argued that Christ founded this society (italics original) with divine authority to teach Supernatural truth, and has imposed upon the human race the obligation to hear and believe its teaching under pain of eternal damnation.5

God, through the relationship that Christ established between Himself and Peter . . . has actually appointed for all ages One who when He speaks, can, with the authority of Christ, bid the storms of controversy abate.6

3James F Caithness, ‘Prefatory Note’ to The Church of Christ: Minutes of a Discussion at a Meeting Held at Caxton Hall, Westminster, on Monday, October 9th, 1922. . . . [between] Mr Peter J Hand [and] Rev Thomas C Hammond, 3rd ed (London: Chas J Thynne & Jarvis, 1924), 4. 4The Church of Christ: Minutes of Discussion at a Meeting Held at Caxton Hall, Westminster, on Monday, October 9th, 1922. . . . [between] Mr Peter J Hand [and] Rev Thomas C Hammond, 3rd ed (London: Chas J Thynne & Jarvis, 1924), title page.

5Mr Hand’s Address, in The Church of Christ: Minutes of Discussion, 13.

6Hand, in The Church of Christ: Minutes of Discussion, 13.

473 Hand’s concern was ‘that the Church must be infallible in its expression of God’s laws in the supernatural order’.7 In the background were the decrees of the first Vatican Council (1870), which included the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope when speaking ex .8 Each speaker was permitted to add his ‘Addenda’ to the published record of what had been said. Hand stated: ‘The Holy Spirit dwells in the Church, so that when the Church speaks through the mouth of the Pope, the Holy Spirit guards him from error.’9 Hammond acknowledged his ‘cordial agreement’ with much that Hand had said, but was careful to distinguish the proposition ‘that our Lord founded one Church’ from the proposition that ‘on earth the head of that Church is the Pope, the Vicar of Christ.’ His argument comprehended dogma, history, the witness of Scripture (the basic concern), and the theologians – ‘the judicious Hooker’ (ca 1554-1600) of the Church of England,

7Mr Peter J Hand, ‘Addenda’ in The Church of Christ: Minutes of Discussion, 37.

8‘The Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council concerning the Catholic Faith and the Church of Christ (the Infallibility of the Pope), AD 1870’ in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes, Volume II. The Greek and Latin Creeds, with Translations, 6th ed (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1931), 234-272.

9Hand, ‘Addenda’ in The Church of Christ: Minutes of Discussion, 41.

474 and the Roman Catholic ‘Coryphaeus of controversialists’, Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621). By putting Papal claims in the context of church history he questioned their validity.10 Against Hand’s post-discussion ‘Addenda’ on the authority of the Pope, Hammond argued the case against Papal supremacy, and showed his careful reading of the primary sources, ancient and modern, including Cardinal John Henry Newman.11 He concluded by thanking Hand ‘for the manner in which he has conducted himself’, and the audience for ‘demeanour worthy of a great occasion.’ He hoped that as a result of the meeting all present might ‘be united in closer and deeper devotion to . . . the Lord who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood.’12 Hand replied in like kind.13 Afterwards Hammond published a small booklet of Comments on the Discussion.14 Again he cited

10‘Rev TC Hammond’s Address’ in The Church of Christ: Minutes of Discussion, 19-28.

11Rev TC Hammond, ‘Addenda’, in The Church of Christ: Minutes of Discussion, 45-50.

12Hammond, ‘Rev TC Hammond’s Reply’ in The Church of Christ: Minutes of Discussion, 37.

13Hand, in response to the chairman’s invitation following Hammond’s Reply, The Church of Christ: Minutes of Discussion, 37-38.

14TC Hammond, Comments on the Discussion at Caxton hall, Westminster Held October 9th, 1922: Hand v Hammond (London: Chas J Thynne, [1923]).

475 Newman on the Vatican Council. He compared Hand’s catena of New Testament texts and incidents for the Apostle Peter’s death in Rome15 with a catena for the Apostle Paul. Both fell short of compelling assent. He rebutted factually each of the eight points in Hand’s ‘Addenda’, and brought to bear much evidence from Irish Roman Catholic history on the matter of the Pope’s ‘personal’ infallibility.16 The whole was Hammond at his Reformation Evangelical best.

Doubts of the Sons (1924?) Probably not long after the Caxton Hall Discussion Hammond addressed ‘a defence of Romanism’ that was being ‘used largely to interest those whose feet are tending towards Rome.’17 Faith of Our Fathers, by Cardinal Gibbons (1834- 1921) of Boston, USA, had seen many editions and reprints. Claiming to have been carefully revised, it was reissued in 1920 (again in 1927).18

15Hand, The Church of Christ: Minutes of Discussion, 13- 16; Hammond, Comments on the Discussion, 10-16.

16Hammond, Comments on the Discussion, 16-24.

17Hammond, Doubts of the Sons: Being an Examination of the Much Advertised Book, ‘Faith of our Fathers,’ by Cardinal Gibbons ([Dublin]: Connellan Mission, nd [1924+]), 1.

18(Cardinal) James Gibbons, Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ (Baltimore, 1876- ; London: John Murphy, 1900- ).

476 Hammond’s critique, pointedly entitled Doubts of the Sons, was written for the educated public. It was important, for Cardinal Gibbons’ work had a ‘circulation [that was] enormous’.19 Hammond’s fifty-page refutation brought to bear the early Fathers’ medieval theology (especially Thomas Aquinas), and that of Roman Catholic theologians since the Reformation, notably Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621). Hammond had read many sources of intra-Roman discussion and ‘the authorised formularies and systematic defences of the Church of Rome’.20 He had checked standard encyclopaedic reference works and official government publications for accurate information. He appears to have overlooked no questionable assertion in Cardinal Gibbons’s defence of Rome, nor any unfavorable comparison of Protestant fruits with Roman Catholic.21 Hammond emerged from a ‘closely reasoned examination’ with a verdict that represented his anti-Roman polemic at its sharpest. The book, he said, presented so ‘plausible [a] case’ that it might tempt a Protestant reader ‘to imagine that the Roman system has been grievously

19Hammond, Doubts of the Sons, 49.

20Hammond, Doubts of the Sons, 49.

21Hammond, Doubts of the Sons, passim.

477 misrepresented.’22 But the more than four hundred pages of Faith of Our Fathers, he continued, ‘are all written in the same vein of rhetorical inaccuracy.’23 He had found it to be a ‘specious defence of Roman doctrines and practice’, whose ‘arguments are often almost inconceivably flimsy’. Hammond was confident that he had ‘established that Cardinal Gibbons persistently minimises the effect of certain Roman tenets’. He had shown (a point especially important for a Reformation Evangelical) that the Cardinal’s list of ‘Roman resemblances to New Testament doctrine . . . can be easily and most effectively retorted upon him.’ Hammond listed the cases of the Cardinal’s special pleading: ‘parading admitted examples’ of Papal sanctity while ‘ignor[ing] the evidences of scandal’; contradicting Cardinal Newman on ‘the relation between Apostolic and Papal guidance’ (a point in the Caxton Hall discussion); ‘pervert[ing] the criminal statistics of various countries to support his theory’ (of morally superior results of Roman Catholicism); minimising prayer to, and ‘the extravagant language’ used of, ‘the Blessed Virgin Mary’, ‘to a point far below’ what ‘doctors and saints of the Roman Church’

22Hammond, Doubts of the Sons, 49.

23Hammond, Doubts of the Sons, 41.

478 defended.24 He did not finish his critique without reference to Cardinal Gibbons’s claim of Scriptural support (John 6) for a literal eating of Christ’s flesh in the Mass. Hammond provided quotations from Jerome, Tertullian, and Athanasius, among ‘many more’ that he ‘could append’, to show the slender basis even in the Fathers for the more startling innovations which Cardinal Gibbons seeks to impose as veritable and ancient truths. . . .25

Very likely the informed Roman Catholic theologian today would want to distance himself or herself from much in Faith of Our Fathers, and agree with much that Hammond wrote, if not with his eloquently indignant tone.

Concerning Penal Laws That history remained a love for Hammond is clear from his disclaimer on ‘these studies written popularly’, which ‘make no claim to originality or profundity.’26 They were a series of eighteen articles in The Church of Ireland Gazette, in the centenary year of the Roman

24Hammond, Doubts of the Sons, 49-50.

25Hammond, Doubts of the Sons, 51.

26TC Hammond, Concerning Penal Laws [Reprinted from The Church of Ireland Gazette] (Dublin; London: Church of Ireland; Thynne, 1930), 6.

479 Catholic Emancipation, the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829. His account discloses some interesting aspects of a Reformation Evangelical theologian’s thought. The chapters are at once something of an anti-Roman polemic and a Protestant apologetic. Under the Irish Free State, Hammond was attempting ‘to supply fruitful lines of investigation’ into the history of the old Penal Laws of Ireland, which imposed ‘penal disabilities on account of religion’.27 The strong feelings awakened by the laws were grounded in ‘convictions, which, on examination, prove[d] to be very remotely related to the actual facts of the situation.’28 He desired to lend a historical perspective: The vacillation of great and good men in relation to . . . toleration indicates that as a matter of civil jurisprudence the problem presented perplexing situations.29

Thomas Aquinas, Lord Acton, Gibbon, Elizabeth (I) and Archbishop Whitgift all justified persecution under particular historical circumstances. It therefore, Hammond wrote, ‘strains credulity to believe that such varied minds . . . were alike

27Hammond, Penal Laws, 1.

28Hammond, Penal Laws, 1.

29Hammond, Penal Laws, 2.

480 governed by uncontrollable vindictiveness.’30 Hammond liked to think here, tentatively, that ‘the milder temper of to-day is . . . partly at any rate,’ a result of past experience of suffering. ‘The study of history [did] reveal a progress.’31 This reminds today’s reader of the Liberal Evangelical historian, DJ Davies, and the ‘Whig interpretation’ of history as progress, which was dominant in that day. One hundred years on from Emancipation, Hammond thought it was abundantly evident that the leaders of the destiny of English and Irish Roman Catholics had no small share in retarding their followers from entering on an inheritance of freedom.32

It was ‘the pressure of events’ that ‘forced a changed attitude on religious questions as they affected those outside the pale of the Roman communion.’33 He viewed ‘developments of ages’ as ‘the outworking of a Divine Providence’.34 Chapter I. ‘Penal Laws: Meaning and Early Christian History’ defined them as laws against

30Hammond, Penal Laws, 2-3.

31Hammond, Penal Laws, 4.

32Hammond, Penal Laws, 5.

33Hammond, Penal Laws, 5.

34Hammond, Penal Laws, 5.

481 religious ceremonies and beliefs, and traced their origin (for Christendom) to the inheritance of the Roman system of jurisprudence. Constantine the Great’s penalties for the dissentients from the Nicene Creed and enactments for the observance of Sunday ‘laid the foundation for those subsequent developments which have flooded the Statute Books of Christendom with Penal Laws.’35 Both sides, at the time and subsequently, consented to the policy of persecution.36 He used here the standard work of Davies’s teacher at Cambridge, HM Gwatkin’s Early Church History.37 The following chapters of Penal Laws recounted select episodes, including the ‘Donatist Dispute’ (Ch II), the Lateran Council (Ch IV), the ‘Elizabethan Legislation’ (Ch VII), ‘Ireland and the Reformation’ (Ch IX), the ‘Penal Code of William and Mary’ (Ch XI), and the ‘Internal Dissension amongst Roman Catholics’ (Ch XIV) that followed the Relief Act of 1778. This had granted English Roman Catholics ‘a liberal toleration of their religion and a security and free disposal of

35Hammond, Penal Laws, 11.

36Hammond, Penal Laws, 12.

37HM Gwatkin, Early Church History to AD 313, 2nd ed (London: Macmillan 1912).

482 their property’.38 In that same year the Protestant-dominated Irish Parliament passed a similar measure of relief for Irish Roman Catholics, conceded a measure of independence in 1782, and in 1793 ‘placed [them] in a more favourable position than [their] English or Scotch co-religionists or’ (with the exception of a seat in Parliament) ‘than the Protestant Dissenter in England.’39 When, however, there arose support in Ireland, North and South, for a French invasion of England, by 1798 the North was ranged against the South in ‘the outer darkness of civil strife.’40 At the end of Chapter XVI. ‘The Position in Ireland’, his language rose to the eloquence of deep sadness for his country: And so the dreams of philosophers, the intrigues of politicians, the perorations of patriots, the efforts of statesmen and the genuine struggles of seekers after a full and more Christ-like comprehension seemed destined to combine to work ruin for Ireland. . . . As often before her own sons hounded her to suicide.41

38Hammond, Penal Laws, 133, quoting the Earl of Shelbourne (from Hansard?), and Chapters XIV. ‘Internal Dissensions amongst the Roman Catholics’, and XV. ‘Berrington’s Roman Catholic Principles’.

39Hammond, Penal Laws, 161.

40Hammond, Penal Laws, 164.

41Hammond, Penal Laws, 164.

483 After 1798 came the Union which, in hope of the relaxation of Penal Laws, the Roman Catholic bishops welcomed ‘with outstretched arms’.42 But relief did not come until 1829. How, then, did this Reformation Evangelical respond to the ‘the common criticism made by Roman Catholic controversialists that the Reformers were themselves intolerant’?43 He commented that [s]uch writers do not seem to grasp the fact that the current theology of the sixteenth century reflects in this matter the teaching that prevailed in the Catholic Church . . . from the beginning of the fifth century.44

Moreover, he even thought (here again as the historian) that ‘in most cases’ it was ‘not desirable’ for ‘communities or individuals to divest themselves suddenly of age-long traditions’. In the case of the Reformers, it ought to be urged in their defence that a people trained to obedience under penalties would be likely to construe complete relaxation in a most unfavourable manner.45

Hammond does not mention that in England, at least, the Reformers seemed to take the view that

42Hammond, Penal Laws, 164.

43Hammond, Penal Laws, 37, citing Joseph Keating, SJ, Rome and the Heretic (Catholic Truth Society, 1928), 19.

44Hammond, Penal Laws, 37-38.

45Hammond, Penal Laws, 42.

484 the Christian ruler, like the kings of Israel, was under Divine obligation to exercise his power in favour of revealed truth and against error – Edward VI was called ‘the young Josiah’. He does note that in Richard Hooker’s position ‘there lay the germs of a wider tolerance’ – that possession by Christian Kings of ‘supreme power in ecclesiastical affairs’ was not ‘a principle of Divine Law’ but of ‘human right’.46 Again he insisted on keeping the circumstances in mind: ‘the new [Protestant] States . . . found themselves compelled to fight for their very existence.’ He listed some of the evidence – the ‘counter Reformation’ in Hungary, Spain’s attempt ‘to purge the Netherlands of the stain of dissent’, the massacre of Huguenots on St Bartholomew’s Day and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and the Bull against Henry of Navarre.47 ‘On the one hand, the reformed bodies still retained’ compulsory conformity to the State’s ecclesiastical system, by the civil magistrate and not by the Bishops.48 They administered this with ‘a measure of leniency’, for so many in their

46Hammond, Penal Laws, 46-47, citing Richard Hooker, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity VIII.ii.5.

47Hammond, Penal Laws, 49.

48Hammond, Penal Laws, 51.

485 communities opposed the reform.49 In Ireland, the fine for non-attendance at the Parish Church was ‘seldom exacted, . . . and perfect toleration and political equality existed . . . previous to the rebellion of 1641.’50 More severe Penal laws did come with the legislation to protect Protestant States against Pope Paul the Fourth’s Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (February 15, 1559), which deposed schismatic or heretical rulers. The Irish Penal Laws were ‘for the most part, copies of [those] made in England’, and were likewise administered leniently until the Pope’s action complicated things.51 Hammond knew the history.

Resisting Anglo-Catholic Pressures: Re-affirming Reformation and Biblical Doctrine As a convinced Reformation theologian also bound by his ordination vows, Hammond was against the ritual innovations of those pressing for a closer conformity of the Church of Ireland with Roman Catholicism. In this he was an Evangelical like Nathaniel Jones and David Davies. He acted

49Hammond, Penal Laws, 51.

50Hammond, Penal Laws, 52.

51Hammond, Penal Laws, 52-53.

486 to resist Anglo-Catholic inspired changes in the TCD Divinity School as early as 1911.52

Authority in the Church (1922) In the year World War I ended, Hammond became involved in a Church of Ireland synodical dispute that closely touched Reformation theology. At the time, the Divinity School of TCD was using the very ‘advanced’ work on the Prayer Book by Procter and Frere.53 It promoted Anglo-Catholic views such as that ‘God is localized in the Chancel for the purposes of worship’.54 The Primate, John Crozier, had ruled against a proposal before the Church of Ireland General Synod (of May 1918) that the synod have ‘a direct voice in the nature of the teaching given to intending candidates for Holy Orders in that Church’.55 The proposal had aimed to prevent each local diocesan bishop from autonomously determining the syllabus and what textbooks his ordination candidates were to study. This is what

52Nelson, TC Hammond, 59-61.

53Walter Howard Frere, A New History of the Book of Common Prayer . . . on the Basis of the Former Work by Francis Procter, MA (London: Macmillan, 1901).

54TC Hammond, The Cross on the Communion Table (Belfast: [Irish Church Union], [1917]), 6.

55TC Hammond, Authority in the Church: Being an Examination into the Position and Jurisdiction of Bishops in the (Dublin: Hodges, Figgis; London: Church Book Room, 1921), 1.

487 had happened at TCD. The archbishop of Dublin in 1918 was the High Churchman, JH Bernard, one of those in the Divinity School under whom Hammond had studied. In 1922 he was the provost of TCD. Hammond prepared an impressive historical study for Counsel for an appeal in the General Synod against the late Primate’s ruling against the proposal above. In his brief Hammond explained that he had endeavoured to confine [his] enquiry to the single issue regarding the authority of an individual Bishop, and the various limitations upon it which are revealed in the course of history.56

Hammond granted that the regulations for the theological requirements of candidates were unsatisfactory (Chapter I). He then outlined (Chapter II) the history of the reconstruction of the Church of Ireland after its disestablishment in 1869, and the powers of General Synod. The consequences of the late Primate’s ruling were on the side of ‘High Anglicanism’. He then adduced EA Litton’s ‘thoughtful testimony’ as to the (perhaps unintended) ‘exaltation of the order of Bishops at the expense of the others’. He noted, too, the lessons that could be learned from the disestablished Irish Church when there had been

56Hammond, Authority in the Church, Preface, iii.

488 ‘cordial co-operation of the different orders of clergy, and of the clergy and laity, each with recognized powers and duties’.57 He traced the ‘Checks upon Episcopal Authority’ (Chapter III) from the earliest times, for the community was always involved. With implications for ‘the whole conditions surrounding ordination’, the evidence established . . . beyond doubt that Bishops exercised from the first their important duties under the authority and by the control of the community at large.58

The testimony of the Reformation bishops Parker and Grindal, supported by the evidence of the early Councils, made it impossible to assent wholly to the opinion of Dr Bernard that ‘no one except a Bishop had a vote or a share in the decision that was the outcome of the conciliar deliberations.’59

After a study of the theory of Cyprian of Carthage (Ch V) in context, he traced the ‘Gradual Encroachments of Episcopacy’ (Ch VI) to the pre- Reformation era. With the advent of the Reformed Church (Ch VII. ‘The Reformation Break’), ‘the introduction of new methods [was] of real

57Hammond, Authority in the Church, 19, quoting Edward Arthur Litton, The Church of Christ, with an Introduction by FJ Chavasse (London: James Nisbet, 1898 Bk III. Ch II. Sec II.

58Hammond, Authority in the Church, 30.

59Hammond, Authority in the Church, 40 (ch IV).

489 significance’ – the downfall of the ‘Spiritual’ Courts and the reserving of all judicial power to the Crown. In 1877, even Bishop Christopher Wordsworth (a conservative High Churchman), had written to an inquirer (unnamed by Hammond) that while bishops and clergy derived their authority to preach or minister the sacraments. . . . from Christ alone ‘from whom all authority comes’, yet ‘the places’ where it is ‘exercised and applied’ and ‘the external jurisdiction by which [it] is supported, are from the laws of the realm.60

In Chapter VIII, ‘Problems in Jurisdiction’, Hammond carefully defined terms like ‘jurisdiction’ as he traced the position of the Church of Ireland. Although Authority in the Church was ‘a masterly argument’, not only did Archbishop (now Provost) Bernard have his way (the appeal was lost) but also, Nelson seems to imply, this study was long held against Hammond.61 The publisher’s notes in the Churchman called it ‘enlightening’ and ‘deserv[ing] careful study’ for ‘its bearing

60Hammond, Authority in the Church, 84, citing Christopher Wordsworth, Miscellanies [Literary and Religious], 3 vols (London: Rivingtons, 1879), 143-44 (no volume number referenced; italics as in quotation by Hammond from Wordsworth).

61Nelson, TC Hammond, 61.

490 on the whole future of the National Church’.62 Probably background to his part in the Bathurst ‘Red Book’ case (1943-1948), it was a useful preparation for his final achievement in Sydney - formulating in 1957 the successful version of a Constitution for the whole Church of England in Australia.63

The Prayer Book Debate in Parliament After the House of Commons first rejected the proposed ‘Deposited Prayer Book’, in December 1927, a modified version came before Parliament again in June, 1928. Before that date, Hammond wrote against an Anglo-Catholic representation – ‘to remove a sedulously propagated idea’ that the Articles did not condemn ‘the philosophically grounded and attested teaching’ of the Church of Rome on transubstantiation. He gave ‘a carefully reasoned account of the real meaning of the Scholastic doctrine’.64 It demonstrated his Reformation concern for a biblical crucicentrism. After examining the intricacies of Scholastic philosophy, especially the work of Thomas Aquinas,

62Churchman, April 1921, 221.

63See next chapter below.

64EA Knox, ‘Foreword’ to TC Hammond, Does the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Involve a Material Change? (London: Church Book Room, [March 1928], 4.

491 he showed that it was the metaphysical view of the Lateran Council (1215), defended by Thomas, which the Council of Trent had adopted. It was the idea of a ‘mutation in the material element’ with consecration, such that the natural bread and wine were non-existent. This was incontrovertibly the meaning that Article XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper (of the 39 Articles) rejected.65 Hammond was one of the many clergy, (including, notably Bishop EA Knox), who contributed to the success of Evangelical members in persuading the Commons to reject the proposed new book.

On the Thirty-nine Articles and 1933. Anglo-Catholic pressure continued to rise, however, as the centenary approached of Keble’s historic Oxford Assize sermon, ‘National Apostasy’, of 14 July 1833. In 1931 Hammond contributed A Safeguard Against Romanism to an Evangelical series, The Thirty-nine Articles.66 He was concerned to authenticate ‘the real significance of the Reformation note so clearly

65TC Hammond, Does the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Involve a Material Change? (London: Church Book Room, 1928), 6-7, 41.

66The Thirty-nine Articles: 1. Origin and History (Harold E Smith); 2. Authority and Character (C Sydney Carter); 3. The Appeal to Scripture (Ven JH Thorpe); 4. The Importance of Assent (W Dodgson Sykes); 5. A Safeguard Against Romanism (TC Hammond), (London: Church Book Room, 1931).

492 sounded in this confession of faith.’67 Even in Article II. Of the Word, or Son of God, Which was made very Man, Hammond traced ‘the earliest note of opposition to the Roman position’ (concerning Christ’s sacrifice) in the phrase, ‘also for all actual sins of men’. Taking that with Article XXXI. Of the Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross, and comparing it with Trent, he made clear its reference to the Roman pronouncements on Justification in 1547, Penance in 1551, the Mass in 1562, and Purgatory in 1563.68 These, he wrote, ‘unite in declaring’ that through ‘the Mass, Penance and Purgatory’ a degree of ‘satisfaction for actual sins’ can supplement ‘the one offering of Christ once made’ (Art XXXI). The phrase ‘for all actual sins of men’ was ‘the acid test by which systems of theology were appraised in the sixteenth century.’69 And so on with ‘Justification’, ‘Good Works’, ‘The Church’, ‘The Sacraments’, and ‘The Sacrifice of the Mass’ – Hammond compared the specific references in the Latin version of the Articles with the Latin of the Canons and Decrees of Trent.

67TC Hammond, A Safeguard Against Romanism, 3. 68Canons and Dogmatic Decrees of the Council of Trent (1574-1563), Sess VI. Canon 30, Sess XIV. Chs 1-3, Sess XXII. Ch 2), and Sess XXV.

69Hammond, Safeguard Against Romanism, 7.

493 The Articles were ‘that formulated system that exhibits the genius of the Reformed Creed.’70 Hammond, a Reformation Evangelical theologian, was motivated and able to achieve what the Keswick and Premillennial Evangelical like Nathaniel Jones did so well, but was not quite equally equipped to attempt. Davies’s lecture on the Articles examined in chapter 9 above shows that a Liberal Evangelical such as he did not value the Reformation for the same things.71

On the Oxford Movement as claimed as Revival Davies the historian did not ask about an alleged continuity of the Oxford Movement with Evangelicalism. Hammond, however, published on it shortly before the centenary celebrations of Keble’s historic Assize sermon. In answer to ‘voices . . . declaring that the Oxford Movement was “the completion” of the Evangelical Revival’,72 Hammond contrasted the two movements. The Evangelicals, in speaking of ‘sin, redemption, regeneration, justification and sanctification’ as ‘realities in personal experience’, brought ‘new motive-power’ into the moralist focus of ‘Low

70Hammond, Safeguard Against Romanism, 16.

71Cf ch 9 above.

72TC Hammond, ‘The Evangelical Revival and the Oxford Movement’, in Churchman 47.2 (April 1933), 1-12.

494 Churchism’ – which was mere ‘behaving well for the future’.73 He did not withhold criticism of the early Evangelicals. They had ‘revived much of the essential teaching of the Reformers’, but only ‘after a piecemeal fashion’. Of those who, unlike the Evangelical Arminian Methodists, did not separate from the Church of England, most ‘accepted the tenets of Calvinism.’ Only Charles Simeon, and later Dean Goode and Nathaniel Dimock, attempted theological formulation of their Reformation heritage.74 Hammond’s verdict on the majority of Evangelicals reminds the modern reader of Bishop DWB Robinson, vice-principal of Moore College 1959-72 and inspirer of much fine biblical scholarship,75 who denied expertise in systematic theology.76 Hammond wrote: ‘while strong Biblicists, [the Evangelicals] were, so far as Bible study permitted, undogmatic,’77 meaning, not dogmaticians.

73Hammond, ‘The Evangelical Revival’, 2, 4 (citing Butler, Analogy, Pt II, Ch 5, [§9].

74Hammond, ‘The Evangelical Revival’, 6.

75See Rory Shiner, Ch 2. ‘An Appreciation of D.W.B. Robinson’s New Testament Theology’, in Peter G Bolt and Mark D Thompson (eds), Donald Robinson: Selected Works, Vol 3. Appreciation (Newtown NSW: Australian Church Record/Moore College, 2008).

76In conversation with the author.

77Hammond, ‘The Evangelical Revival’, 6.

495 The Oxford Movement, on the other hand, Hammond viewed as ‘the outcome of incoherence’, which he found in its leading promoters. He listed JH Newman (his Apologia), the Anglo- Catholic ‘political star’, William Gladstone, who ‘retained his [political] power largely through the aid of Dissenters’, Hurrell Froude and Keble, who thought that ‘the suppression of ten Irish bishoprics marked the prelude to Disruption and Disintegration’.78 Then the influence of Charles Gore had then brought in the very ‘Liberalism against which Pusey fulminated’.79 Historically, Hammond went on, Tractarianism had been antagonistic to the Evangelical School. Not one person in the movement was ‘profoundly influenced by Evangelical thought’, not excluding Newman, who never outgrew his immature grasp of its doctrine.80 ‘From the outset it was the aim of Tractarianism to finish Evangelical Christianity.’81 There was ‘an essential antagonism between the two systems of thought.’82 Hammond also listed a catena of the

78Hammond, ‘The Evangelical Revival’, 8.

79Hammond, ‘The Evangelical Revival’, 10.

80Hammond, ‘The Evangelical Revival’, 9.

81Hammond, ‘The Evangelical Revival’, 9-10.

82Hammond, ‘The Evangelical Revival’, 10.

496 ways in which Tractarians had ‘weakened the witness of the Church of England.’83 In sum, he concluded that the Oxford Movement had ‘not completed the Evangelical Revival’, and thanked God ‘they ha[d] not finished it.’84 Evangelicals should therefore take heart and patiently ‘build more securely’ (than their forefathers).85 So Hammond in 1931. Five years later this Reformation Evangelical would be principal of Moore Theological College in the Diocese of Sydney. He would be welcomed with open arms by the veterans of the Nathaniel Jones era, who had got to know him in 1926.

Hammond and Protestant Liberalism In the years of his ICM work Hammond’s mind also engaged with basic issues that arose from the side of Evangelical Liberalism. His awareness of theologically liberal writers and grasp of the issues allowed him to speak to a wide audience, including evangelicals generally.

83 Hammond, ‘The Evangelical Revival’, 12.

84Hammond, ‘The Evangelical Revival’, 12.

85Hammond, ‘The Evangelical Revival’, 12.

497 ‘The Fiat of Authority’ (1925)86 This would become a landmark statement. The rising Liberal Evangelicalism (its self- designation by 1923) was noted at the opening of this chapter. They became powerful within Evangelicalism’s flagship, the Church Missionary Society. One of their number, CCB Bardsley (an Emmanuel College student in Davies’s time and key figure in the CICCU split from the SCM), had become the general secretary. In late 1917 some Group Brotherhood men on the Church Missionary Society’s General Committee had presented a Memorial urging a liberal broadening of the Society’s position on ‘revelation and inspiration’. Hammond became part of an Evangelical response to this liberalism, the Fellowship of Evangelical Churchmen, which formed on 22nd November, just under a year before the guns of World War I fell silent. Their central concern was ‘the essential deity’ of Christ and ‘the

86TC Hammond, Essay VII. ‘The Fiat of Authority’, in J Russell Howden (ed), Evangelicalism, by Members of the Fellowship of Evangelical Churchmen (London: Chas J Thynne, 1925), 156-206; republ as TC Hammond, Inspiration and Authority: The Character of Inspiration and the Problems of Authority. Inter-Varsity Papers No 3 (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship of Evangelical Unions, [1933?]). See this writer’s, ‘“External Prop” or “Divine Fiat”’ in Lucas: An Evangelical History Review, Series 2, No 2 (2010), 67-91.

498 infallibility of all his utterances as recorded in Holy Scripture’.87 The new FEC presented a counter-memorial, and a Concordat was adopted in February 1918,88 but proved unsatisfactory. At the meetings of the Committee from March to November 1922, the FEC members (who included Dean Henry Wace) attempted to return the Society to its original principles. But finally the CMS Committee refused to accept an amendment (formulated by Henry Wace, EA Knox and others) that would have bound it to ‘belief in the absolute truth of [Christ’s] teaching and utterances, and [belief] that His authority is final’. Anticipating this rejection, the FEC Committee had provisionally ‘called into existence the Bible Churchmen’s Missionary Society’. They announced its formation immediately after the amendment was lost.89 Today that society is called Crosslinks.

87DA Scales, ‘Illustrations of Compromise in Church History’, in Churchman 102.3 (1988), 229, and endnote 56 (citing Minute Book of the Fellowship of Evangelical Churchmen, 5).

88See Scales, ‘Illustrations of Compromise’, Churchman 102.3 (1988), 229.

89Scales, ‘Illustrations of Compromise’, 228-233; cf EA Knox, Reminiscences of an Octogenarian (London: Hutchinson, 1934), 329; see Gordon Hewitt, The Problem of Success: A History of the Church Missionary Society 1910-1942, Vol 1 (London: SCM, 1970), 461-73.

499 In that same November the Group Brotherhood was about to publish its coming-out volume, Liberal Evangelicalism (February 1923), announcing the Anglican Evangelical Group Movement.90 Clearly this book was in the mind of the FEC as they planned their own statement, Evangelicalism (1925), and in Hammond’s while he was writing his contribution, ‘The Fiat of Authority’.91 The essay acknowledges the advanced Liberal Anglo-Catholic, AE Rawlinson’s recent work on the subject.92 Its very title suggests the recent essay by Archbishop Charles d’Arcy, who insisted that ‘no controversy can be settled by the fiat of any man . . . or by the authority of any tradition’.93 Hammond’s reading included the Princeton Theological Review

90Members of the Church of England, Liberal Evangelicalism: An Interpretation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1923).

91T Guy Rogers, Chapter II. ‘Religious Authority’, and VF Storr, Chapter IV. ‘The Bible and its Value’, in Liberal Evangelicalism.

92Rogers, ‘Religious Authority’, 54 n2 (ref [AE Rawlinson,] Catholicism with Freedom: An Appeal for a New Policy, being a paper read at the Anglo-Catholic Congress at Birmingham, etc (London: Longmans, 1922); see also, AE Rawlinson, Essay 3. ‘Authority’ I. Authority as a Ground of Belief, in Edward (ed), in Essays Catholic and Critical (London: SPCK, 1926), 85-97.

93Charles F d’Arcy, Essay 1. ‘Christian Liberty’, in The Archbishop of Armagh (et al), Anglican Essays: A Collective Review of the Principles and Special Opportunities of the Anglican Communion as Catholic and Reformed (London: Macmillan and Co, 1923), 13 (emphasis added).

500 and its critical reviews by Benjamin Warfield and others. He had long known James Orr’s International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915), for which Warfield had written the articles ‘Revelation’ and ‘Inspiration’.94 A fellow contributor with Hammond was the well-known Canadian Evangelical, Dyson Hague (1857-1935).95 Hammond aimed to clarify by more precise definition (‘much of the objection to verbal inspiration arises from a wrong employment of words’)96 and to demonstrate the strength of his case by the evidence. Explicitly he wrote for those who with him assumed a personal God who has revealed himself in Scripture, ‘in so far as [it] is regarded as a human utterance under divine influence.’97 He argued that it was not completely correct to say (as had DJ Davies) that the church had

94BB Warfield, svv ‘Inspiration’, and ‘Revelation’ in International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Vols III:1473- 1483, and IV:2573-2582 (respectively).

95Dyson Hague, Essay IV. ‘Justification’, in J Russell Howden (ed), Evangelicalism, 79-106.

96TC Hammond, ‘Foreword’ to edition of his ‘The Fiat of Authority’, republished as TC Hammond, Inspiration and Authority: The Character of Inspiration and the Problem of Authority. Inter-Varsity Papers No 3 (London: IVF, [1933?]), iii.

97Hammond, ‘Fiat of Authority’, 156-157; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 7-8.

501 never defined inspiration, rather that it did not do so fully. Against the popular position that ‘the men were inspired, not their words’ Hammond offered a definition: ‘Inspiration must be regarded as the expression of the Divine will in human thought, to the extent that human thought can express it.’98 The ‘fundamental thought embodied in the word “Inspiration”’ was that God communicated his will through the medium of language. ‘It is eloquent of [the Divine] grace’, he wrote, ‘that He should control the medium he employs.’99 Perhaps for the benefit of Evangelicals like Bishop EA Knox, who had recently disowned ‘verbal inspiration’,100 Hammond explained that it implied neither the ‘ipsissima verba’101 quotation of the Old Testament in the New, nor the mechanical transmission of the Divine thought ‘like a gramophone record’.102 No doubt with Farrar’s

98Hammond, ‘Fiat of Authority’, 167; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 19.

99Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, iii.

100EA Knox, On What Authority: A Review of the Foundations of Christian Faith (London: Longmans, Green, 1922), chs 12 and 13.

101(Lat) ‘the identical words’.

102Hammond, ‘Fiat of Authority’, 168-169; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 21-22.

502 Bampton Lectures of 1885 in mind,103 he said that ‘verbal inspiration’ meant no more than that the language in which the Divine thought was ‘produced by normal rational processes’ was ‘an adequate vehicle for its communication’, a view ‘as remote from a mechanical theory as it can be.’104 Hammond’s immediate predecessor at Moore College, DJ Davies, assumed a mechanical notion in the term. Hammond rebutted the critical theories: that of ‘degrees of inspiration as between’, say, ‘the sayings of Christ and prosaic details of Old Testament history’.105 He also rejected Wellhausen’s Hegelian reconstruction of Israel’s history (often the liberal referent of ‘progressive revelation’). That made the Old Testament a book containing a verifiably ‘wholly erroneous view of national development with hopeless anachronisms discoverable by the wit of

103Frederic W Farrar, History of Interpretation (London: Macmillan, 1886).

104Hammond, ‘Fiat of Authority’, 171; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 23. Cf D Broughton Knox, ‘Propositional Revelation the Only Revelation’, Reformed Theological Review 19 (Feb 1960), 1-9, republished in Tony Payne (ed), D Broughton Knox: Selected Works, Vol I: The Doctrine of God (Kingsford, NSW: Matthias Media, 2000), 307-317.

105Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 173; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 26-27.

503 man’.106 Hammond allowed, of course, for forms of literature: fiction and parable ‘may be admitted’ to ‘teach Divine truth’, but not if they seemed to be ‘masquerading as facts’.107 In support he cited a scholar who rejected this view of inspiration but conceded that the aggregate of ‘errors of history and knowledge and defects in the text and its transmission’ was ‘so slight as to be practically negligible.’108 As for the variations between the gospel accounts of Christ’s words, the Synoptists (Matthew, Mark and Luke) exhibited ‘sufficient agreement to show that the records ultimately depend upon some common source’ and ‘enough difference to show that . . . the operating intelligence of the [writers] was not passive but active’.109 Hence ‘those who begin by denying verbal inspiration end by involving themselves in

106Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 178; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 32.

107Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 178; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 31-32.

108WA Curtis, sv ‘Infallibility’, in Hasting’s Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, quoted by Hammond in ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 179, and Inspiration and Authority, 32-33.

109Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 181; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 35.

504 a hopelessly mechanical form of word warfare’!110 He suggested several reasons for the distinctive character of the Gospel of John.111 The theory of original documents without minor discrepancies such as ‘possible misreading of numbers, misplacing of names and, in a few instances, the order of events . . . lacks complete cogency’.112 Nevertheless, ‘the phenomenon of inspiration appears as the activity of God upon men clothing the Divine ideas in human language.’ The notion of progressive revelation in the sense of divinely guided stages in men’s ascent to ‘the full apprehension of truth’ was, he argued, correct.113 But Divine control had lovingly restrained ‘the intrusion’ of any ‘residual effect of sin’ into ‘the area of vital concern.’ The dual nature of Christ, also called the Word of God, the Logos, he adds, ‘establishes once and for all the possibility of a perfectly human thought

110Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 182; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 36.

111Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 182; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 36.

112Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 184; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 38.

113Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 185; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 39.

505 exhibiting absolute harmony with the Divine purpose’.114 ‘Part II. Authority’, started from the character of inspiration thus defined. The two forms of this remaining question must not be confused: ‘How has the authority [of Scripture] demonstrated itself?’ and ‘What are the historic conditions under which the decision concerning inspiration manifests itself?’115 He first defused Immanuel Kant’s critical ‘abstract problem of authority’116 (which also underlay DJ Davies’s ‘external prop’). Neither the State nor the Church actually exerted a ‘purely external authority on the individual as such’. In the case of the Church, there was the common basis of revelation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit ‘in every true member.’117 Since the Church had not reached perfection, however, to suppress individual liberty of conscience was ‘the error of spurious Catholicity’; but to disregard

114Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 185-186; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 40.

115Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 186-187; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 41-42. (Italics added.)

116Immanuel Kant, Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone.

117Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 187-189; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 43-44.

506 the community was ‘the error of so-called Modernism.’118 Hence, Holy Scripture’s authority, as the Word of God, is of that ultimate nature which can indeed be made manifest to conscience . . . but cannot be made the subject of formal propositions, or supported by superior external attestation.119

He seems to be implying in other words the testimony of the Holy Spirit to Scripture, something that conscience can recognise, once regenerate.120 ‘That certain utterances are inspired is finally determined by the appeal to the conscience and its moral influence’,121 he continued. The conscience of the individual had absorbed its morality ‘from institutions and customs’ that were themselves the product of ‘precedent moral

118Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 189-190; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 44-45.

119Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 190-192; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 46-47.

120John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion I.VII.4-5; BB Warfield, ‘Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God’, Princeton Theological Review VII (1909), 219-325, [Part] III. ‘The Testimony of the Holy Spirit’, repr in Benjamin Beckenridge Warfield, (ed Samuel G Craig), Calvin and Augustine (Philadelphia, Pa: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1956), Pt One, Ch IV. ‘Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God’; Westminster Confession of Faith I. Of the Holy Scripture. V.

121Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 192; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 48.

507 consciousnesses.’122 But no individual might ‘impose on God’ his [own] stage of attainment123 (like the Modernists’ supposedly growing moral consciousness, one might add). Christ’s teaching with authority was not that of an external ‘ecclesiastical imprimatur’, but appealed to his word and his works and its ‘consonance with’ Moses, for example. The epistles indicated the work of the Spirit to create ‘a spiritual capacity for spiritual reception.124 What of ‘that school of interpreters’ which asserted that ‘the Church was before the Bible’? (One thinks of the Liberal Anglo-Catholic, Charles Gore, whom DJ Davies criticised for leaning on this ‘external prop’.) Hammond answered that the Church only ‘recognised the Sacred scriptures as being God’s message to man and published abroad its conviction’ based soundly on ‘the inherent power of the Scriptures themselves.’125 The second question was why was the scope of inspiration ‘limited to the circle of canonical

122Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 193-94; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 48-50.

123Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 193; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 49.

124Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 195-96; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 51-52.

125Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 199; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 56.

508 Scripture?’126 Hammond sought ‘to determine the principle under the guidance of which the Canon has been formed.’ One element ‘persistently ignored’, he wrote, but ‘prominent in the ancient discussions’ was the authority of Christ. It was therefore the authority of his words, of the apostle Paul and of his writings, of the first recipients, who had personal acquaintance with the authors. The same was true for Moses, and hence the authority of the Old Testament.127 Hammond argued that, rightly interpreted, the facts supported ‘the theory of immediate personal authority’ in the formation of the Canon. Thus, in place of initial ‘more or less imperfect gospel narratives’, ‘God supplied the Church’ with the present fuller narratives.128 The Old Testament Canon had been determined in the Jewish Church before Christ and was Jesus’ Bible, and that of the early Church. Writings excluded from the New Testament (eg the Didache) finally did not attract

126Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 199; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 56 (‘the decision with regard to’ edited to ‘this witness with regard to’).

127Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 200-201; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 58-59.

128Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 200-201; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 58-59; cf Luke 1:1-4.

509 ‘the reverence attached to the genuine writings of the apostolic age.’129 Moreover, the Canon, closely considered, exhibited ‘an inner principle of unity clearly revealed in the New Testament books’. It seemed ‘ill-advised . . . to revise the labours committed to the glowing period’ of ‘immediate contact with the Son of God’, or recent contact.130 The above is only a synopsis of Hammond’s eloquent and carefully crafted essay.

The Significance of the Death of Christ (1935) The Christian student world of the day faced the liberal dismissal not only of the inspiration of Scripture but also of the historic Reformation view of the cross of Christ. Warfield had called that ‘the established church-doctrine’.131 In the Prayer Book service of the Lord’s Supper the communicant always heard a summary of the doctrine of Christ’s death:

129Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 201-203; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 59-61.

130Hammond, ‘The Fiat of Authority’, 204-206; Hammond, Inspiration and Authority, 63-64.

131BB Warfield, (ed Samuel G Craig), The Person and Work of Christ (Philadelphia, Pa: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950), Ch X. ‘The Chief Theories of the Atonement’, 368; repr of BB Warfield, sv ‘Atonement’, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1908-1912), Vol VI:349-356; repr in The Works of Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield. 10 vols 1927- 1932, Vol 10, Studies in Theology, 261-279.

510 Who made there by his one oblation of himself once-offered a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, satisfaction and oblation for the sins of the whole world.132

This deliberately excluded the medieval Western doctrine as formulated in the Roman Catholic mass, while retaining the biblical notion of Christ’s death in place of sinful human beings for their forgiveness. Liberal thinkers, however, were troubled by what their consciences saw as a moral problem in this very idea. Hammond wrote a chapter for the small IVF book, From the Manger to the Throne: Outstanding Events in the Life of Our Lord.133 In 1902, the year of James Denney’s classic treatment of the New Testament evidence, he had heard GT Manley emphasise the importance of settled conviction on the doctrine of the atonement.134 Michael Ramsey once stated that the First World War led to

132‘Prayer of Consecration’ in ‘The Order of the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion’, The Book of Common Prayer (1662).

133TC Hammond, Ch III. ‘The Significance of Christ’s Death’, in F Donald Coggan (ed), From the Manger to the Throne: Outstanding Events in the Life of Our Lord (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship of Evangelical Unions, [1935]), 39- 49.

134J Denney, The Death of Christ (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1902); RVG Tasker (ed), J Denney, The Death of Christ (London: Tyndale Press, 1951). For Manley, see previous chapter above on Hammond.

511 deepened Anglican reflection on the Cross. Hammond was writing well into the post-War period. RC Moberly’s ‘great book’ (Michael Ramsey), Atonement and Personality,135 had been published while Hammond was a student. Its ‘central thesis’ was ‘Christ the Perfect Penitent’.136 Hammond had probably seen BB Warfield’s verdict, that it was a ‘high’ version of the moral suasion or governmental view, in which Christ performed a work ‘terminating immediately on God’ and secondarily on man.137 By the mid-1920s, however, many liberal writers thought of Christ’s death as terminating purely on man – able to persuade a person of the need to repent, and thus receive forgiveness by God, defined only as love. This was true of RT Howard’s chapter, ‘The Work of Christ’ in the position statement, Liberal Evangelicalism (1923).138 Howard had simply bypassed Denney’s treatment. KE Kirk’s essay

135Arthur Michael Ramsey, From Gore to Temple: the Development of Anglican Theology between Lux Mundi and the Second World War, 1889–1939 (London and New York: Longmans, Green, 1960), 46, referring to RC Moberly, Atonement and Personality (London: John Murray, 1901).

136Ramsey, From Gore to Temple, 46-47.

137Ramsey, From Gore to Temple, 46, 47, and fn 1 (ref McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement (1856)’; BB Warfield, ‘Atonement’, 366-367).

138RT Howard, Essay VI. ‘The Work of Christ’ in Guy Rogers (ed), Liberal Evangelicalism, 121-146.

512 ‘Atonement’ (1926), argued that (in Ramsey’s words) only the slenderest basis, if any, can be found for substitutionism in St Paul and that the New Testament doctrine may be best summed up in the admittedly non-Biblical word ‘reparation’.139

Dean Hastings Rashdall wrote from the standpoint of those ‘who feel how deeply the traditional views have libelled the view of God’s character’.140 The Liberal Evangelical LW Grensted (one of those nominated for archbishop of Sydney in 1933) had also published on the subject.141 There were also more popular presentations.142 The Australian-born Patrick Carnegie Simpson’s The Fact of Christ was supportive of the historic

139Ramsey, From Gore to Temple, 55; , Essay 8. ‘The Atonement’, in Essays Catholic and Critical, 3rd ed (London: SPCK, 1931 [1926]), 262-270.

140Rashdall, Hastings, The Idea of the Atonement in Christian Theology (London: Macmillan, repr 1925), 438, n 1. (Cf Ian Sellers, sv ‘Rashdall, Hastings’ in NIDCC.)

141LW Grensted, Short History of the Doctrine of the Atonement (London: Manchester University, 1920); LW Grensted (ed), The Atonement in History and in Life: A Volume of Essays (London: SPCK, 1929).

142John Douglas White, in Papers in Modern Churchmanship (London: Longmans, 1924 and foll) series, No 2. The Nature of Punishment and Forgiveness, and No 9. The Atonement; WR Maltby, The Meaning of the Cross (London: JA Sharp, 1920); Leslie D Weatherhead, The Transforming Friendship, 17th ed (London: Epworth, 1934).

513 doctrine.143 Hammond’s briefly stated case was soon to be buttressed in more detail by further Evangelical exposition.144 Meanwhile Hammond noted that the apostle Paul had met objections which, like those of modern theology, were ‘the issue of highly reflective minds’ trained in Greek philosophy. But Paul was conscious of a ‘real Divine intervention’ in the cross for ‘the ‘eternal salvation of men.’145 His preaching was ‘reproducing the thought of his Master’ who, when Peter objected to Jesus’ prediction of coming betrayal, had rebuked him with the words, ‘Thou savourest not of the things that be of God’.146 Together with Jesus’ other utterances foreshadowing his death, the rebuke indicated that he ‘regarded Himself as [one] whose earthly mission terminated in a sacrifice, conditioned by a special relation to sin.’147 It was his resurrection, ‘directly correlated to the crucifixion’, that ‘charged with profound meaning’

143Patrick Carnegie Simpson, The Fact of Christ (London: Hodder and Stoughton Expositor’s Library, 1924 [1900]).

144Eg, (Archdeacon) HE Guillebaud, Why the Cross (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1937).

145Hammond, ‘Significance of the Death of Christ’, 39.

146Hammond, ‘Significance of the Death of Christ’, 40 (quoting AV).

147Hammond, ‘Significance of the Death of Christ’, 40.

514 these utterances. Hence Peter’s interpretation of the events of Good Friday and Easter: forgiveness, ‘the primary need’, ‘now becomes possible’. This understanding pervaded the New Testament.148 Hammond replied to the objection that the New Testament writers were ‘steeped in Old Testament ideas of propitiatory sacrifice’: ‘The Man Christ Jesus was strongly imbued with the sacrificial doctrine of His people.’149 The above objection in fact, therefore, supported the New Testament writers’ presentation that ‘Without shedding of blood there is no remission.’150 Round this cluster all the great words of the Gospel: Remission, Atonement, Justification, Access to God, Eternal Life. . . . “The covering” of the unclean is sacrificial.151

No other elaboration of the significance of Jesus’ death lay open to his disciples. His death ‘had to do with sin. . . . [and] sin by way of forgiveness.’152 Hammond underlined this by multiple references showing that such was Jesus’ own understanding of himself and his task. To his followers the risen

148Hammond, ‘Significance of the Death of Christ’, 42.

149Hammond, ‘Significance of the Death of Christ’, 40.

150Hammond, ‘Significance of the Death of Christ’ (ref Heb 9:22), 44-45.

151Hammond, ‘Significance of the Death of Christ’, 45.

152Hammond, ‘Significance of the Death of Christ’, 45-46.

515 Lord gave this message of repentance and forgiveness of sins secured by his death. To interpret it they unlocked the very treasures of Greek thought and of Roman jurisprudence . . . to unfold for us something of the glory and the majesty of this sacrifice of the Eternal Son for the sons of men.153

Other objections to the historic doctrine from the New Testament needed to be met – the matter of Greek prepositions used to defend it, and some of the ‘great words’. Hammond reminds his reader that it is the message that matters, and the prepositions connect words to give meaning, a message. The great words ‘“Propitiation,” “Offering,” “The Just for the Unjust,” “Sin- bearing,” “The obedience of One”’ all had ‘a very definite content’. Thus ‘Propitiation’ compelled us to picture ‘outraged Justice and the great need of securing mercy.’154 Unifying ‘these amazing messages of love and grace’ was our union with Christ ‘adumbrated’ by such figures as the Bride and the Bridegroom.155 Hammond therefore concluded on a biblical note of triumph (Rom 8:1): ‘There is

153Hammond, ‘Significance of the Death of Christ’, 47.

154Hammond, ‘Significance of the Death of Christ’, 49.

155Hammond, ‘Significance of the Death of Christ’, 49.

516 therefore no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus.’156 A few years later in Sydney, perhaps with this chapter, Hammond would stimulate theologically, a young science teacher, Leon Morris, who was preparing himself for the ordained ministry. Morris later gained his Cambridge PhD (1951) for a thesis on some of the ‘great theological words’.157 He became an internationally respected New Testament scholar and authority on the biblical doctrine of Christ’s atoning death. Hammond’s Appreciation of his Reformation Tradition Hammond was invited to contribute to a conference of the Church of Ireland held in October 1932, the ‘3rd Session:- The Religious Witness of the Irish Church’. The conference was commemorating the 1500th anniversary of the landing of Patrick in Ireland. Hammond’s paper illustrated his love of Reformation theology, in a brilliant survey of the truly valuable in his own Church’s theological tradition. It was a crowded evening session. Hammond followed the Archbishop King’s professor of Divinity (at TCD) on the Irish

156Hammond, ‘Significance of the Death of Christ’, 49.

157Leon Morris, ‘Preface’, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (London: Tyndale, 1955); Leon Morris, ‘Foreword’ to Warren Nelson, TC Hammond: Irish Christian: His Life and Legacy in Ireland and Australia (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994).

517 church’s theological witness before the Reformation and gave his ‘Post-Reformation Theology in the Church of Ireland’.158 With condensed eloquence he led his audience to gaze through a window into a room crowded with great Irish theologians of the past. He brought them into view, one by one. His personal reading of their works shines out from them all, and he loses no opportunity to challenge High Church and Anglo- Catholic as well as liberal digressions. He began with ‘the incomparable Ussher’, whose masterful historical study of the Church Fathers in answer to the Jesuit challenge was a ‘salutary admonition to those who would talk glibly of “Catholic consent.”’ As a theologian, too, Ussher ‘commands the respect of all time.’ He ‘modelled his outlook upon the great questions on the Reformed interpretation of the sage of Hippo.’ For Ussher the regenerate person only was ‘alive unto God’, the unregenerate being unable to please God.159 In distinction from all human writings,

158TC Hammond, ‘Post-Reformation Theology in the Church of Ireland’, in W Bell and NC Emerson (eds), The Church of Ireland AD 432-1932: Report of the Church of Ireland Conference held in Dublin, 11th-14th October, 1932, to which is appended an account of the Commemoration by the Church of Ireland of the 1500th Anniversary of the Landing of St Patrick in Ireland (Dublin: Church of Ireland, 1933), 97-105.

159Hammond, ‘Post-Reformation Theology in the Church of Ireland’, 98, citing James Ussher, Answer to a Jesuit (Cambridge, 1835), 448.

518 ‘the Scriptures of God . . . are the proper object of faith’, and ‘justifying faith fixes itself solely on Jesus Christ and him crucified’.160 Ussher’s thought on the Church, the Sacraments, episcopal authority, and his contribution to the Westminster Assembly (1643-1649) all passed under Hammond’s view. Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667) next came into view, resident in Ireland from 1658. He ‘crowded great truths into the concentration of a sentence’, such as, ‘Christ’s Body is eaten only sacramentally by the body, but really and effectively only by faith, which is the mouth of the soul’.161 William Magee (1766-1831) on the atonement defended ‘the vicarious sacrifice and substitution in a masterly fashion’.162 James Thomas O’Brien (1792-1874) showed by his Greek scholarship that ‘faith signifies “a reliance on Christ, not blind or careless, but intelligent and cordial”’, and ‘that justification means “a judicial act by which the innocence of the person

160Hammond, ‘Post-Reformation Theology’, 98, citing Ussher, Answer to a Jesuit, 702, 721.

161Hammond, ‘Post-Reformation Theology’, 100, citing Jeremy Taylor, Real Presence (Oxford, 1836), 593.

162Hammond, ‘Post-Reformation Theology ’, 101-102, citing William Magee, Discourses and Dissertations on the Scriptural Doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice (Edinburgh[: A&C Black], 1842).

519 justified is established or declared”’.163 CHH Wright (1836-1909) also came into view.164 Climactically, George Salmon (1819-1904) appeared before the window. His Introduction to the New Testament ‘is still indispensable’, and his Infallibility of the Church ‘so complete’.165 Finally, Ussher reappeared, ‘greatest of the sons’ of the Church of Ireland, who borrowed from ‘the greatest son of another such house’, Augustine, the common ‘Rule of Faith’,166 namely, Holy Scripture. Hammond’s paper demonstrated his a high estimate of the Reformation and characteristic Evangelical focus on Scripture and Christ’s cross as atoning death. That was his place in the Evangelical spectrum. Nathaniel Jones would have warmed to his presentation. DJ Davies, Liberal Evangelical, would have desired a major

163Hammond, ‘Post-Reformation Theology’, 102-103, citing JT O’Brien, . . . the Nature and Effects of Faith (London: Macmillan, 1863 [1833]), 44, 61.

164Hammond, ‘Post-Reformation Theology’, 103, citing CHH Wright, The Intermediate State and Prayers for the Dead (London: J Nisbet, 1900).

165George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (London: John Murray, 1899 [3rd ed]); and citing George Salmon, An Historical Introduction to the Books of the New Testament (London: John Murray, 1894 [7th ed]).

166Hammond, ‘Post-Reformation Theology’, 105.

520 restatement of his view of the Bible and of the Cross and its appropriation, and more. Hammond’s standing among the editors of a new edition of The Protestant Dictionary (1933) was such that he contributed four new articles and one part article, and two supplementary notes to existing articles.167 These all reflect the same learned biblical and Reformation commitment shown in this chapter. Conclusion By mid-1935, when dictating In Understanding Be Men material for Douglas Johnson to edit for presenting to the university student, Hammond was clearly the accomplished Evangelical dogmatician. The call to Moore College came to one fully prepared. Meeting the challenges above had only confirmed in him the conviction that all that was central to Reformation doctrine was also agreeable to God’s Word. He had addressed the philosophical issues underlying the ‘New Theology’ as well as the importance of God’s being both transcendent and immanent. He could contend for his authority

167TC Hammond, svv ‘Conversations, Malines’, ‘Emancipation, Catholic’, ‘Irish Church’ (four paragraphs bringing CHH Wright’s article up to date), ‘Maynooth, the College of St Patrick’, ‘Moral Theology’ (‘Supplementary Note’), ‘Purgatory’ (‘Supplementary Note’), and ‘Unam Sanctam’ (Papal bull of 1302) in The Protestant Dictionary: Containing Articles on the History, Doctrines, and Practices of the Christian Church, New Edition, edited by Charles Sydney Carter and GE Alison Weeks (London: Harrison Trust, 1933).

521 expressed in Holy Scripture, for the meaning of Christ’s death and other key Reformation doctrinal positions over against liberal re-statements. He knew and understood the Patristic theology and that of the medieval Scholastics.168 He had read first-hand the Latin formulations of the Council of Trent, and was up-to-date with the challenges of High Church and Anglo-Catholic doctrines and their views of authority in the Church. He knew the discrepancy of ritualism with the intentions of the 1662 Prayer Book. He knew the history and theology behind all these things. He was an authority, too, on the theological history of the Church of Ireland. In all these areas he could communicate with the student, informed layperson and scholarly graduate.

168Cf also TC Hammond, Ch IV. ‘The Schoolmen of the Later Middle Ages (Abelard, Aquinas and Wyclif)’, in AJ Macdonald, The Evangelical Doctrine of Communion (Cambridge: W Heffer, 1933 [1930]; London: Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1936).

522 Chapter 12 REFORMATION EVANGELICALISM MAINTAINED

Introduction Hammond produced or completed five major works after receiving his call to Moore College in mid- 1935. They confirm his place in the spectrum of Evangelicalism as a centrist, Reformation Evangelical. His best-selling doctrinal handbook, In Understanding Be Men,1 has had the widest and longest influence. The One Hundred Texts2 had long been in process during his ICM work. After some last-minute work before he left Dublin he placed it in the hands of an editor to complete the details needed for final publication. It will not be reviewed in this study of his thought. Perfect Freedom3 and Reasoning Faith,4 and The New

1TC Hammond, In Understanding Be Men: An Introductory Handbook on Christian Doctrine (London: Inter-Varsity, 1936 [–1968]). References are to page numbers of 1967 Reprint of Fifth Edition (1954).

2TC Hammond (ed T Brine), The One Hundred Texts of the Society for Irish Church Missions (London: The Society for Irish Church Missions; Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1939).

3TC Hammond, Perfect Freedom: An Introduction to Christian Ethics (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship of Evangelical Unions, [1938], reset edition 194-?).

4TC Hammond, Reasoning Faith: An Introduction to Christian Apologetics (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship of Evangelical Unions, 1943, 1946).

525 Creation5 complemented what he called his doctrinal ‘booklet’.6 The published oeuvre of Nathaniel Jones and DJ Davies (who both had much shorter lives) cannot be compared with either the scope or the scholarship of Hammond’s. Lesser works of Hammond included Age-long Questions7 (his public lectures in 1938 on the philosophy of religion), Fading Light8 (war-time city lunch-hour talks on the roots of the conflict in German spiritual decline), journal articles, articles in the Australian Church Record, many pamphlets on various subjects, many ‘Case for Protestantism’ radio broadcasts clarificatory of the issues,9 addresses on Scripture to evangelical undergraduates (1937-1949), and his addresses to Christian conventions at Katoomba, New South Wales, at Upwey, Victoria, and in Adelaide, South

5TC Hammond, The New Creation (London: Marshal, Morgan & Scott, 1953).

6Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, ‘Preface to the Second Edition’ (1936).

7TC Hammond, Age-long Questions: An Examination of Some of the Problems of Religion. With a Foreword by the Archbishop of Sydney (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, [1942]).

8TC Hammond, Fading Light: The Tragedy of Spiritual Decline in Germany (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, [1942]).

9Thomas C Hammond, The Case for Protestantism, being a Selection of Broadcast Addresses delivered over Station 2CH, Sydney, New South Wales by Ven TC Hammond, MA (TCD), ThD (Greenacre, NSW: Gowans and Sons, no date), ‘Preface’.

526 Australia.10 There remain unpublished a fifty-page typescript, ‘The Church’,11 and a handwritten account of ’s treatise of 1550 on the Lord’s Supper, for his weekly class of recently ordained deacons. Neither of these last is examined here.

In Understanding Be Men (1936) ‘Shortly after consenting to produce this volume’, Hammond was ‘induced to undertake a new task in Australia’,12 the principalship of Moore College, Sydney. While fulfilling his daily ICM commitments in Dublin, which included teaching doctrine to the ICM trainees, Hammond worked through the summer of 1935 dictating the material. Douglas Johnson, general secretary of the IVF, was

10TC Hammond, ‘Five Addresses’, in The Katoomba Convention Book, 1937: Containing contributions from the Most Rev HWK Mowll, Mr Roy Gordon, Revs RO Finegan, TC Hammond, GH Morling, Hugh Paton, Dr CJ Rolls (Glebe, New South Wales: [Katoomba Convention Council?] Australasian Medical Publishing, 1937), 1-57; TC Hammond, Light and Life (Melbourne: S John Bacon, 1943) with So Great Salvation (Melbourne: S John Bacon, 1943); TC Hammond, The Way of Holiness (Melbourne: S John Bacon, [1952]).

11See , ‘Developments in the evangelical of the Church in the Diocese of Sydney, 1935-1985: with special reference to the writing and teaching of TC Hammond, DWB Robinson and DB Knox’ (University of Sydney MTh thesis, 1996).

12Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, ‘Preface’ (to 1st edition, March 1936).

527 present. He became the virtual co-author,13 by editing the typescript for ease of reading and supplying material content.14 This was no problem, since Johnson and Hammond shared a common Calvinist understanding of evangelical theology. Johnson saw to the book’s publication by March 1936, in time for the mission at London University, for which he had commissioned it.15 A second edition (October 1936) incorporated a number of annotations to the March 1936 text by Hammond, probably done on board ship to Australia.16 There were a few subsequent editorial changes.17 The book was a new, updated, clear and succinct outline of Christian doctrine, stated for the modern university student in the context of various shades of liberal Christianity and other traditions. It is a fuller and more comprehensive work than Nathaniel Jones’s book on the Thirty-

13Douglas Johnson, Letter (12 Oct 1988) to Warren Nelson (copy supplied by Warren Nelson).

14Pace(?) DJ Goodhew, sv ‘Johnson, Douglas’, BDE.

15Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, ‘Preface’ (March, 1936); Douglas Johnson, letter to Warren Nelson above.

16Warren Nelson, conversation with the writer in 2005.

17Hammond, In Understanding Be Men (1951), ‘Preface’ (re pages 103 and 179). All future references are to this 4th edition.

528 nine Articles, which in any case was specifically for Anglicans.18 Hammond’s approach was such as to include, as far as possible, different attitudes on controverted points while preserving the main outline of evangelical thought.19

He kept in mind the liberal views the university student encountered largely through the Student Christian Movement. In ‘Methods of Study’,20 Hammond counselled the undergraduate student not to assume that this work was the only important presentation of the subject. His ‘Introduction’ distinguished the deductive method (of Systematic or Dogmatic Theology) from the inductive method of Biblical Theology, which ‘collects and sifts’ Bible statements, upon which systematic theology ultimately depended.21 Neither Jones nor Davies had explained this. Hammond carefully defined ‘The Christian Revelation’. Like Davies, he saw ‘secular history’ as revelatory of God, the ‘evidence of an unseen controlling hand’.22 As well, there was the usual

18Nathaniel Jones, The Teaching of the Thirty-nine Articles (Sydney: Angus and Robertsons, 1904).

19Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, ‘Preface to Fourth Edition’ (1951), vi.

20Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, ix-x.

21Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 11.

22Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 16-17.

529 revelation ‘in the natural creation, the moral life and capacities of mankind, and Israel’s experience of God’.23 In ‘the more important’ sense of the progressive ‘divine unfolding’, which climaxed in the coming of Christ and ‘His further teaching (by the Holy Spirit) after his exaltation’, ‘“Revelation” must be limited to the supernatural.’ It ‘has been given to us in the form of a Person and a Book.’ He cautioned against ‘compromise . . . in some matters, between (irreverent) philosophical speculation and divine Revelation.’24 Hammond’s biblicism is clear. He included list(s) of Scripture references in each chapter (‘Part’) of the book. They should not be understood as ‘proof-texting’ in Hammond any more than in Jones. His opening main chapter, Part I, ‘Final Authority in Matters of Faith’, began with the traditional positive statement of the value of Natural Theology. At the same time he stressed the Christian Revelation, which gave ‘a primary and all-essential place . . . assigned to the life, character and teachings of Christ.’25 On the Canon of Holy Scripture, ‘[of] great importance is the fact’ that Christ never charged the Jewish

23Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 16.

24Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 16-18.

25Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 24-25.

530 religious leaders with ‘adding to or taking from the [Old Testament] Scriptures themselves.’ On the New Testament Canon he noted ‘a very important point’, that ‘[n]o single Council was responsible for arbitrarily collecting and proclaiming a list of books as Canonical.’26 To the authority of Scripture, the major issue as between evangelicals and liberals (of whatever kind or degree), Hammond gave considerable space. He followed his earlier IVF pamphlet, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (the slightly edited re-issue of his 1925 contribution to Evangelicalism).27 On the mode of inspiration and its extent, he carefully removed common misunderstandings and the objections based on them. He was at one with Nathaniel Jones and distinct from DJ Davies. He included the usual Reformation insistence on the clarity of Scripture for the believer, its sufficiency for things necessary for salvation (Article VI of the Thirty-nine Articles).28 He could be read here as giving a false impression – that by the help of the Holy Spirit alone the reader can be generally confident of correct

26Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 28-29.

27Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 30-40; TC Hammond, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (1935?); TC Hammond, Ch VII. ‘The Fiat of Authority’, in Evangelicalism (1925).

28Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 34.

531 understanding. This was not true of his earlier essay, ‘The Fiat of Authority’/Inspiration and Authority. A decade later, however, The New Bible Handbook spelled out more clearly the necessary conditions of sound interpretation, and recommended systematic study with guidance.29 On the doctrine of the Godhead, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Hammond laid out the common heritage of the Roman Catholic and Protestant creeds and confessions.30 There was no hint of unorthodoxy with regard to the Trinity and the relation of the Persons, as was mistakenly alleged of him in 2004.31 Following the traditional Roman Catholic and Protestant apologetic approach (that of Thomas Aquinas, Joseph Butler and BB Warfield), he listed the five theistic proofs, while warning that they ‘tell us nothing about God’.32 He guided the

29GT Manley (ed), The New Bible Handbook (London: The Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1950 [1947]), xi-xii (Introduction); GT Manley (ed), Search the Scriptures (Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1949 [1934]), 11.

30Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 53-58.

31Archbishop Peter Carnley, ‘Was TC Hammond an Arian?’, paper given at the ‘Colloquium on Subordinationism and the Doctrine of the Trinity’ (Trinity College, University of Melbourne, Friday 20 August, 2004); see also Archbishop Peter Carnley, Reflections in Glass: Trends and Tensions in the Contemporary Anglican Church (Sydney: Harper Collins, 2004), 234-35.

32Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 41-43. For more on his apologetic method see below on his Reasoning Faith.

532 student succinctly through the matters of Infinity, Transcendence and Immanence (which must be held in balance), Personality and Freedom (‘God is “free Personal Spirit”’), Immutability and Eternity, [self-]Manifestations of God, and Some Rivals of Monotheism (including Atheism and Agnosticism).33 In treating the divine omniscience, Hammond appears to have struggled with his own ‘moderate Calvinism’, or perhaps it was with the diversity of his evangelical readership. This included Methodists and those Baptists (unlike CH Spurgeon) no longer Calvinists. He categorised God’s sovereignty and human freedom of choice as ‘so- called Antinomies’ or ‘apparently opposing sets of ideas’, whose harmonisation – for example in the sinner’s conversion – God alone knows:34 There are probably spiritual principles governing our ‘freedom’ which God alone understands, so that . . . God’s foreknowledge can infallibly read a man’s future.35

He concluded that the Augustinian (or Calvinist view) ‘alone does real justice to the grace of God’, while there remained ‘a mystery connected with human freedom’. Scripture clearly taught human responsibility ‘alongside the clear

33Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 43-46.

34Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 15.

35Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 50.

533 statement that salvation is from start to finish solely upon the basis of divine grace’.36 Thus he implicitly, not explicitly, placed the antinomy rightly – as between this responsibility and divine sovereignty.37 Elsewhere he clearly stated: the evil heart of unbelief in departing from the Living God affects the whole nature of man; his reason, affections and will are blinded.38

If the doctrine of Scripture was first in the overt conflicts of evangelicalism with various forms of liberal theology on Scripture, second was how to understand the atoning death of Christ. Hammond prefaced his discussion by summarising the main contemporary deviations in the related doctrine of Christ. ‘Kenosis’, as proposed, was the notion of Christ’s ‘emptying’ of himself of his Deity, or renouncing the use of and hiding from view his divine attributes. Urging the student not to delay reading one of the Gospel narratives whole, he added: ‘It will be a great day for Christianity when its devotees rediscover

36The latter is the Reformation sola gratia, clearly stated in Article X.

37Cf JI Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (London: IVF, 1961), 22-24.

38Hammond, Bible Truths and Modern Fancies (Melbourne: S John Bacon, 1942), 11.

534 the actual grandeur of the Person they dimly worship.’39 As for Christ’s resurrection, the physical (but changed) nature of which the (self- identifying) Liberal Evangelical, DJ Davies, did not deny, Hammond was quite clear. He listed the usual evidential proofs, and recommended that his reader ‘carefully collate the Scripture narratives . . . and the contemporary history’ in the early chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, ‘and then examine the claims’ of alternative theories. ‘Any barrister would have an easy task’.40

Christ’s Atoning Death In a seven-part Appendix, ‘The Doctrine of the Atonement’, he now provided a longer, fuller, presentation than his earlier published statement, ‘The Significance of the Death of Christ’.41 Hammond counselled the student (as did GT Manley at TCD in 1902), to ‘have a firm grasp of this, which is the very heart and core of the Faith.’42 Again he urged an inductive approach, ‘a careful

39Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 108.

40Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 112-114; cf F Morison, Who Moved the Stone? (London: Faber and Faber, 1930).

41See in Ch 10 above on TC Hammond, Ch III. ‘The Significance of the Death of Christ’, in FD Coggan, From the Manger to the Throne.

42Hammond, ‘ Appendix to Part Four [of In Understanding Be Men]: The Doctrine of the Atonement’, 121.

535 examination of the actual words of Scripture’, before ‘any theorising’. Lack of such preparation had opened the way to theories ‘false to the very genius of Christianity’. He warned that ‘much confusion exists concerning the nature of divine justice and the ethics of the redemptive act’ (the problem for liberals), and regretted the inaccurate phraseology of ‘many enthusiasts’43. Only then did he consider the ‘Theology of the Doctrine.’44 First was ‘The “Godward Aspect”’, especially Christ’s perfect obedience – a demonstration of God’s righteousness and love, ‘a satisfactory basis for the remission of sins’.45 Christ’s work was ‘not merely a substitute for an equivalent unfulfilled work of the sinner’. It also had ‘an intrinsic value’ consisting in ‘the infinite worth of his own Person’. Phrases alleging the immorality of the doctrine, ‘the innocent suffering for the guilty’, and ‘legal fiction’, he said, ignored the double scriptural connection between the Sufferer (who is God) and God, and between the sinner and the Sufferer.46 He did not point out that recent critics had brought autonomous supposedly growing human moral

43Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 121.

44Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 124-127.

45Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 125.

46Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 128.

536 standards to bear as their criterion. He did inform his reader that instead of the Atonement the ‘pivot point of the Roman Catholic system of teaching’ and of ‘much modern Protestant teaching’ was in practice the Incarnation. A comparison of the space given to cardinal doctrines in Scripture, however, was conclusive against this: ‘It is unassailable that the Death of Christ is the very heart of Christianity.’47 ‘The Manward Aspect’, he said, was usually approached as the demonstration of God’s love (essentially what Davies thought). This ‘does not begin to explain’ the data of Scripture. God’s love should lead us to realise ‘the intense loathing’ his holy Nature has for sin. He commended a study of three groupings of Scripture and their ‘leading ideas’: Christ’s saving work ‘as a Priest’, ‘as a Sacrifice’, and ‘as a Redeemer’.48 He replied to the three categories of objections. The ethical objection, that (as mentioned in Chapter 2 above) a substitutionary death was immoral, overlooked ‘the element of the

47Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 128.

48Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 126-27, citing [Charles] Hodge, Systematic Theology [Vol II. Pt III, Ch 7 § 6. ‘Proof of the Doctrine’ (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1875), 495-527].

537 necessary connection (in Scripture) between the innocent and the guilty’: The sufferer must have a double connection, between God and Himself on the one hand and the sinner and Himself on the other. The term ‘legal fiction’ . . . ignores this factor in the scriptural approach.49

The scientific objection, based on man’s insignificance in a vast universe, Hammond dismissed – as if size instead of ‘the Christian Revelation’ were ‘a final criterion of value’. As for evolutionary hypotheses, which were in part the product of philosophy, they excluded ‘the guilt of sin necessitating an atonement’. But even if they were supported by accurate observations, they would not exclude God’s interposition of an absolute standard at some point in human development.50 An Appendix, ‘Some Further Problems’, had to do with misunderstanding words like ‘Penal Suffering’, along with a false notion of the ‘quantitative’ equivalence of Christ suffering, and with the differing views of the divinely intended scope of Christ’s vicarious atonement (whether universal or particular).51 He concluded this Appendix with a historical survey of ‘the

49Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 128.

50Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 129.

51Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 130-131.

538 three main phases in the Church’s teaching’ on the subject.52 In the Modern Period, ‘some have sought to explain away’ the necessity for an expiatory or substitutionary view. No obscurantist, Hammond counselled the student to look at more than one view, but to be sure to include at least four aspects – the representation of the sinner, substitution, the identification of the sinner with the Saviour, and the revelation of God in Christ to the sinner.53 In ‘Part V. The Holy Spirit’ he set forth the personality and deity of the Spirit (I and II), which were neglected as well as misunderstood, he said, in the theological writing of his day.54 He explained the key terms in the Nicene Creed (a subordinate standard to Scripture of catholic orthodoxy in the Western Church). He stressed (in III) the need ‘to adhere closely to Scripture in all thought and discussion concerning the Persons of the Trinity’.55 He added (in IV. ‘Historical Survey’): The rediscovery of the unique and essential work of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the

52Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 131.

53Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 131-132.

54Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 134.

55Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 137.

539 individual was one of the greatest bequests of the Reformation Divines.56

In the ‘Modern Period’, however, ‘the more liberal school of thought’ had regarded the Spirit as ‘impersonal, “the Christian Consciousness,” or Arbiter, in spiritual matters.’ ‘On the conservative side’ (here, no doubt, with BB Warfield’s writings on perfectionism in mind),57 movements had sometimes gone ‘to unbalanced extremes’.58 Under the head, ‘The Work of the Holy Spirit’, after ‘I. The Divine Executor’ (‘of the counsels and purposes of the Godhead’),59 Hammond included key doctrines for evangelicals. ‘II. God’s Approach to the Sinner’ included the topics ‘The Need of Grace’, in which again Hammond gave some space to the question of the freedom of the will, to ‘“Prevenient Grace”’, and to ‘The Effectual Call’. He is more clearly in harmony with the Augustinian-Reformation grasp of the scriptural witness on the subject than Nathaniel Jones, while sensitive to the objections of the past

56Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 138.

57BB Warfield, ‘“The Victorious Life”’ PTR xvi(1918), 321-373; BB Warfield, ‘The “Higher Life” Movement’, PTR xvi(1918), 572-622, and xvii (1919), 37-86. Republished as BB Warfield, Perfectionism (Philadelphia, Pa: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1958).

58Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 139.

59Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 140.

540 controversy (‘Pelagians’ and ‘Semi-Pelagians’).60 He also explained ‘Repentance’ and ‘Conversion, Regeneration and New Birth’, which he was to discuss more fully in his last book, The New Creation (1953). The second key doctrine for evangelicals was ‘III. The Remission of Sins and Justification’, ‘the grand discovery and genius of the Reformation and Protestant theology’.61 This showed very clearly the difference between an evangelical view and the Liberal Evangelical view of DJ Davies, previously examined – that ‘justification implies and rests upon the beginning of the new divine life in man.’62 For Hammond, on the contrary, the ‘unequivocal claim’ of the Bible was ‘that the remission of sins and the justification of the soul before God’ rested ‘entirely on the basis of our Lord’s atoning sacrifice.’63 He rejected ‘the modern plea’ (of Liberal Evangelicals),64 that God overlooked sin ‘because [he is] a God of love’. It was contrary to the Scriptures, from which he

60Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 142-145.

61Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 148ff.

62WN Clarke, An Outline of Christian Theology, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1898-), 407.

63Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 148.

64RT Howard, Ch VI. ‘The Work of Christ’, in Members of the Church of England, Liberal Evangelicalism (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 123), 122-123.

541 established the Reformation position. He added some explanation from the Westminister Assembly’s Shorter Catechism, of the Greek term translated ‘justify’ in the New Testament (language of the law courts), from Charles Hodge,65 and from WH Griffith Thomas.66 Roman Catholic teaching had ‘confused justification and sanctification’, resulting in many abuses, culminating in the doctrine of Purgatory.67 The biblical doctrine of justification, he said, ‘is the ground of our assurance of acceptance with God and . . . the source of all true spiritual liberty.’68 The taunt that Evangelical Christians ‘belittle the value of good works and moral effort’ could be shown by ‘empirical test’ to be false in ‘any true Evangelical community’.69 Hammond devoted good space to IV. ‘Union with Christ and Sanctification’. It included the Christian’s actual enjoyment of sanctification.70 Hammond’s thinking was doubtless sharpened by BB Warfield’s critiques, but it was not contrary to

65[Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol III, 117- 118.]

66No reference found.

67Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 150-151.

68Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 151.

69Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 151.

70Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 152-157.

542 that of Jones: the Christian might and should know freedom from ‘the habitual practice of sin’ – ‘constant victory, yes; but inability to sin, no.’71 Because of ‘the secret faults’ (Ps 12:12), the Christian needed always to ‘walk humbly and warily’.72 Neither ‘eradication’ of sin nor its ‘suppression’ was biblical; ‘counteraction’ was – ‘sin is no longer inevitable’. And ‘if he should fall’, the believer had a ‘Helper to plead his cause . . . (I Jn 2:2).’73 This was possibly clearer and more specific than anything Nathaniel Jones had published. In Australia, Hammond was immediately called upon to teach at ‘Keswick’-type conventions. Men trained under Jones, Canon Herbert Begbie and RB Robinson (from 1929 and 1931 respectively) were members of the Katoomba Convention Council. Archbishop Mowll joined the Council in the year he arrived in Sydney. Hammond gave the Bible expositions (on Philippians 1) in January 1937, and often afterwards.74 His slightly later series, on topics

71Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 156.

72Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 156.

73Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 157.

74Stuart Braga, A Century of Preaching Christ: Katoomba Christian Convention 1903-2003 (Sydney: Katoomba Christian Convention, 2003), 67-69; TC Hammond, ‘Five Addresses’, in The Katoomba Convention Book, 1937: Containing contributions from the Most Rev HWK Mowll, Mr Roy Gordon, Revs RO Finegan, TC Hammond, GH Morling, Hugh

543 of doctrine (from ‘Sin’ to ‘Glorification’ - the ‘order of salvation’), given both at Katoomba and Upwey, became the semi-official supplement to the Convention’s doctrinal statement.75 Hammond’s teaching greatly helped people to resist the sinless perfectionist movement that arose amongst some within the Sydney University Evangelical Union in the 1940s.76 The Liberal Evangelicals, for their part, had sought ‘to think out anew what is called “the Keswick message” in the light of scientific facts and in terms of modern psychology’. They were looking, in their own words, ‘for a satisfying sense of the presence and power of God in their daily lives’.77 Davies never spoke at the Katoomba or like Christian conventions in the other states. In Understanding Be Men has two final main chapters, Part VI. ‘The Corporate Life of the Christian’, and Part VII. ‘The Last Things’. The

Paton, Dr CJ Rolls (Glebe, New South Wales: [Katoomba Convention Council?] Australasian Medical Publishing, 1937), 5-46.

75Braga, Katoomba Christian Convention 1903-2003, 72, 105; TC Hammond, So Great Salvation (Melbourne: S John Bacon, 1943).

76Meredith Lake, Proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord: A History of the Sydney University Evangelical Union (Sydney: The EU Graduates Fund, 2005), 24.

77Members of the Church of England (ed T Guy Rogers), The Inner Life: Essays in Liberal Evangelicalism. Second Series (London: Hodder and Stoughton, [1925]), ‘Introduction’, viii-ix.

544 former cautions Christians not to separate from a given community of the ‘[v]isible Church of Christ’ unless compelled by conscience guided by Scripture, and also not to assume that one way is ‘the only way’. Over against ‘extreme forms of Sacerdotalism and other perversions of the Apostolic tradition’, Hammond emphasised ‘our common Evangelical Protestant position’. The topic was important for Anglican students facing the claims of Anglo-Catholicism,78 and was still a live subject among Moore College students in the mid-1950s.79 Hammond stressed that Scripture placed the emphasis on the Christian’s direct relation to Christ, which ‘gives a dignity to the individual’s judgment in matters of faith which no theory of Church discipline should lightly override.’ On the other hand, Scripturally speaking, the Christian ‘risks serious loss’ who neglects ‘a spiritual “home” in a local community of Christian[s]’.80 The Student Christian Movement of Australia, strong in 1936 and well into the 1950s, was imbued with the ecclesiastical ecumenism promoted by the

78Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 160-163.

79JD Bates, a University of Sydney student living at Moore College in 1955, in personal conversation, 2012.

80Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 164.

545 movement that led to the formation of the World Council of Churches in 1948. The purpose of the Inter-Varsity Fellowship of Evangelical Unions, however, was primarily ‘conversionist’. Hammond commented on the two opposite ‘movements at work today.’ He noted, first, ‘“Syncretism” and “Collectivism”, which were aiming to bring about a reunion of the various denominational and confessional divisions’, something ‘of doubtful value’. The preferred alternative was: ‘A Fellowship of the Spirit. . . . In Conventions and elsewhere . . . based on their loyalty to the one true Head of the Church.’81 Hammond could write thus because, being based on such loyalty, his Evangelical heritage put no barriers in the way of inter-communion. Anglo- Catholic notions of the ministry and the validity of the sacraments did so. Hammond’s was a standard Reformation doctrine of the Church. This did not remain unquestioned in the teaching at Moore College after his time,82 not, however,

81Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 166.

82Cf DWB Robinson, ‘The Church Revisited: an Autobiographical Fragment’, Reformed Theological Review 48 (1989), 4-14; Rory Shriner, Ch 2. ‘An Appreciation of D.W.B. Robinson’s New Testament Theology’ in Peter Bolt and Mark Thompson (eds), Donald Robinson: Selected Works. Vol 3 – Appreciation, esp 46-48; also DB Knox, ‘The Church’, esp ‘De-mythologising the church’, and ‘The church, the churches and the denominations of the churches’ in Kirsten Birkett (ed), D Broughton Knox: Selected Works. Vol II: Church and Ministry (Kingsford,

546 questioning the position on admission to the Lord’s Supper. Further under ‘The Corporate Life of the Christian’, Hammond treated ‘The Means of Grace’ with a distinctly Reformation and evangelical presentation. The means consisted of Prayer, Bible reading, the ministry of the Word of God, corporate worship (whose neglect by some he again criticised), the sacraments (and the danger of undervaluing them) – their number (the two ordained by Christ in the New Testament), their nature (visible tokens of God’s grace), and their efficacy. This last was neither ex opere operato, nor the ‘Zwinglian’ (mere external pledges of loyalty to God) view, but ‘the Calvinistic view, with which the Anglican agrees’.83 Not that the High Churchman or Anglo-Catholic would have agreed that such was the case! Similarly, he summarised ‘the three most usually held views’ of Holy Baptism – the Roman Catholic (ex opere operato conferral of grace if rightly administered), that of ‘the main body of Protestant communities’ (requiring ‘a definite profession of faith in Christ and avowal of allegiance to Him’, a knowledge of at least a few fundamentals of Christian doctrine, and ‘a

NSW: Matthias Media, 2003), 19-22, 23-32 and 85-98 (respecitively).

83Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 179.

547 renunciation of the old life and old allegiances’), and the Baptist view, that these qualifications be possessed at the time of the rite.84 On the Holy Communion he explained the background of its institution at the time of the Passover, rejected Roman doctrine, and stated that the ‘most general view in English-speaking countries’ was the Calvinist.85 It is clear that to Hammond’s mind, Roman Catholic teaching and its near relative, Anglo- Catholic doctrine, remained a potential challenge to the faith of the evangelical student in the middle-decades of the twentieth century. At the University of Sydney this challenge was present in the active Newman Society, a Roman Catholic student organisation. Fittingly, Hammond’s last topic was Part VII. ‘The Last Things’. A premillennial expectation of Christ’s return was highly influential if not dominant in the Inter-Varsity Fellowship and among the more conservative Evangelicals.86 In the Diocese of Sydney it had been taught by Nathaniel Jones, and believed firmly all his life by his

84Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 180.

85Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 181-185.

86Cf GT Manley, The Return of Jesus Christ (London: Inter-Varsity, 1960).

548 former student and a leading figure, Herbert Begbie. But it had never became a shibboleth of Christian fellowship, which it tended to be in American Fundamentalism. Hammond urged the utmost caution and care in interpreting ‘isolated texts’ of Scripture where ‘dogmatism is impossible’.87 But the many references to the fact of Christ’s Coming underlined its importance.88 It was not wise to debate the mode of his coming, but one needed to be clear that Scripture teaches ‘a coming in Person’, and not, for example, ‘that “Christ comes at death”’. The point of the doctrine was not to satisfy curiosity but to provide an incentive to joyous anticipation in their conduct.89 He emphasised the nucleus of important truth to be held in common with the Historicist and Futurist views – the ‘literal Personal Return of Christ’, the ‘final glorification of the Church’ and ‘irretrievable loss of the Christ-rejecters’. He concluded with the three principles that ‘Dr James Orr has pointed out’: Scripture was ‘neglectful of the date-element’, Christ’s coming appeared to be a process of several stages, and its time seemed to be conditional on the

87Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 188.

88Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 189.

89Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 189-190.

549 completion of the Church’s task.90 On ‘Human Destiny’ and ‘The Consummation of All Things’ he found no warrant in the Bible for ‘annihilation’ (complete cessation of being) for those condemned at the Last Judgment (a hypothesis mooted later by John Stott as Scripturally viable).91 The Resurrection of the Christian dead was as stated by Scripture – the result of Christ’s atoning death, of his [Resurrection] authority, and of the Christian’s union with Christ. Christ’s resurrection was the pledge that the believer too will rise; and ‘the pattern for his resurrection body’, was our Lord’s glorified body’. It is surprising today to notice that Hammond did not connect the Holy Spirit with remembering that ‘it is a spiritual body’. He cautioned not to ‘over-spiritualise’ it.92 As for the Christian on Judgment Day, ‘the guilt of sin . . . has already been removed by the Atoning Sacrifice’. Hence ‘judgment is chiefly in the nature of rewards for stewardship.’ Scripture warned, nevertheless, of serious loss for the

90Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 192, source for James Orr not given.

91David L Edwards with John Stott, Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1988), 313-320.

92Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 198-199.

550 careless Christian.93 For the ‘Judgment of Non- Christians’ he excluded both the notion of Universalists, that ‘finally all men will be reconciled to God’, and that of the Annihilationists.94 He recommended a famous book for comparing the various views ‘with the orthodox teaching,’95 a copy of which DJ Davies also owned.96 The final subject of In Understanding Be Men is ‘The Consummation of All Things’. It very simply states that the scriptural references to the final consummation ‘imply not annihilation’ of the universe, but a complete destruction of all links with an old and sinful world and the conversion . . . of the old into a new world, never to know sin and corruption.97

For this last he had little or no help from the previous Evangelical dogmatics (Moule, Litton or WH Griffith Thomas).98 A few sentences of his own

93Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 199.

94Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 200.

95SDF Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality. 4th ed (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901 [1895]).

96Copy in Moore College Library stamped ‘D J Davies’.

97Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 201.

98HCG Moule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine; Edward Arthur Litton, ed HG Grey, Introduction to Dogmatics, 3rd ed (London: Robert Scott, 1912) – reincluded his section on Eschatology dropped in 1902; WH Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology (London: Longmans, Green, 1930).

551 here might have enriched his otherwise wonderfully complete handbook. The final paragraph of this chapter was a concluding exhortation to ‘the author’s student friends’ to study ‘the unfailing fulfilment of God’s eternal purposes and covenants with man’ from ‘Paradise lost in Genesis to Paradise regained in [the book of] Revelation.’99 It might have been headed ‘In Praise of the Study of the History of Salvation’. Hammond was a biblicist theologian from first to last. In Understanding Be Men was Hammond’s overall position statement. For more than thirty years it was the textbook for the introduction to doctrine in Moore College, though not always slavishly followed. It was also studied by interested members of some local Anglican parish youth fellowships in Sydney, and sold to Evangelical Union students at their conferences. Hammond’s Reformation thought, related to contemporary debate, left its stamp on the College and parishes of the Diocese, and more widely.

His Wider Contribution in Australia Hammond was a frequent speaker at Inter- Varsity Fellowship and Evangelical Union meetings and conferences, and Meredith Lake has documented

99Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 201.

552 something of his impact.100 His initial published contribution was at Healesville, Victoria, to the east of Melbourne.

Pivot Points in Revelation (1937 or 1938). Hammond gave these five ‘devotional discourses’ to a conference of the then young Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship of Australia. He began by exhorting his hearers to ‘speak of the things of God with the same depth and penetration as you speak of the things of the world.’ This writer remembers this same theme in Evangelical Unions of the 1950s. Hammond underlined their ‘tremendous opportunity’ to give the lie to the idea that ‘a distinguished scientist is doing something remarkable if he prays to his Maker’.101 His discourses reveal that the main presenting issue for conservative Christian ‘University people’ of the time was Modernism and its view of the authority of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. The ‘great danger confronting the Evangelical Cause at the present time, particularly in Australia,’ he stated, ‘is Modernism’. He defined ‘the thorough-going Modernist’ as one (for example) who

100Meredith Lake, Proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord, 18, 21-27, 68-69.

101Hammond, Pivot Points in Revelation, 2-3.

553 may attach by interpretation the right meaning to a saying of our Lord or of the Apostles, and then reserve to himself the right to reject the saying.

He mentioned the well-known Anglican Modernist, HDA Major (1871-1961), who had graduated with first class honours in geology.102 Hammond had heard him say to the TCD Theological Society that it was no fact of science that ‘disturbed my confidence in the Old or New Testaments’, but only ‘the problems of literary criticism’ (especially from his studies at Oxford, 1903-05).103 By 1937-38 the case of the Presbyterian modernist Samuel Angus in Sydney remained unresolved. In Melbourne, Angus’s older friend and fellow Cairdian (Hegelian) idealist,104 the equally modernist, ex-Presbyterian minister, Charles Strong (1844-1942), was still an influence. By now, if not in 1926, we can assume Hammond knew of ‘The Heretics’ club in Sydney, of which Angus was a member, as was also the more

102See Clive R Pearson, sv Major, Henry Dewsbury Alves, New Zealand Dictionary of Biography, Vol 3 (1996).

103Hammond, Can We Advance and Still Believe the Bible? (Melbourne: S John Bacon, [1942]), 6.

104John Passmore, A Hundred Years of Philosophy (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1968 [London: Duckworth, 1966]), 54-6.

554 traditional Arthur Garnsey, an Anglican.105 His public lectures given in 1934 in the Cathedral Chapter House had cast doubt on many details of their witness to Christ.106 Hammond was addressing three main points: ‘The Fact of Revelation; The Mode of Revelation; and The Character of Revelation.’107 On ‘the fact of revelation’, he pointed out that the Modernist’s answer to the question, ‘Did God really speak?’ was in accord with the philosophy which gave Modernism birth, namely Hegelian Idealism. Thus, DF Strauss’s Life of Jesus,108 had assumed that God’s immanence in the world was one ‘of thought and things’, its ‘highest manifestation’ being man, through whose reason God, the Absolute, ‘expressed himself’. The Old Testament therefore became an account of the religious experience of man, slowly growing in volume of wealth of idea

105David Garnsey, Arthur Garnsey: A Man for Truth and Freedom (Sydney: Kingsdale, 1985), 180-194.

106Arthur Garnsey, How the Gospels Grew: Three Lectures delivered in the Chapter House, St Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney (Sydney: sn, 1935), 60-68.

107TC Hammond, Pivot Points in Revelation: Being a Series of Five Discourses Delivered at the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship Conference, Healesville, Vic[toria] (Sydney: Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship of Australia, nd [1937/38]), 4-18.

108David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined, 4th German ed, tr Marian Evans (London: Chapman, 1846).

555 till it finds its culmination in Jesus Christ who is the last word in spiritual experience.109 Hammond warned his hearers not to assume, however, that the Modernist was irreverent, but rather to perceive the ‘fundamental principle of Modernism’. There was ‘an immense amount of talk about the religion of experience’ which was ‘far outside the range’ of the idea of the historic being, Jesus Christ, whom ‘we must love . . . as God, not as a human being.’ Critical was the root fact of revelation. . . . That is the rock on which we split. We say it is the direct voice of God. They say it is God making Himself known through the medium of our natural conscience.110

‘Of course, theoretically, every Christian accepts’ that ‘God has actually made His will known to man.’111 He cautioned them not to ‘put possible friends into the camp of the enemy’ if they were ‘not altogether fighting with you.’112 If students met a Modernist who denied that he held to the Hegelian philosophic root of it all, then ‘[b]e thankful that men and women are

109Hammond, Pivot Points in Revelation, 5.

110Hammond, Pivot Points in Revelation, 6.

111Hammond, Pivot Points in Revelation, 5-6; cf also Arthur Garnsey, How the Gospels Grew, 59-60.

112Hammond, Pivot Points in Revelation, 6.

556 inconsistent.’113 Hegelian Idealism had recently been dominant in the philosophy department at Melbourne University.114 This may well have been Hammond’s clearest and most penetrating criticism of the modernist principle. His remaining four discourses in Pivot Points expounded his other two subjects, the mode of revelation, and its character and content. The hearers will have included those studying (or who had studied) the natural sciences as well as the students of history and philosophy. He explained more of the intellectual history behind the naturalistic, simple-development, view of the Christian religion as like that of other religions, and provided the evidence to the contrary. He pointed to the limitations imposed by the fact of human language and stages of development reached by the people (of Israel) to which revelation came, and human resistance to it because of sin. The character and content of revelation, which was a revelation of redemption, took into account the sinfulness of human beings. It isolated the people of Israel amongst the

113Hammond, Pivot Points in Revelation, 10.

114SA Grave, A History of Philosophy in Australia (St Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland, 1984), Ch 2. ‘The Dominance of Idealism’.

557 nations until they were ready to receive the gospel, ‘another pivot point of revelation’.115 That Hammond was no naive fundamentalist, his incidental asides illustrate. At the point where he was rebutting Herbert Spencer’s expectation of ‘the gradual evanescence of evil’, he added that ‘God never intended us to wait for the coming of the Lord to put things right’! Contrary to what some students, perhaps those of Dispensationalist background, may have thought, he stated (not unlike Jones) that we are responsible ‘to make the world a better place for people to live in’ – only without thinking ‘that movements and processes will perfect mankind in the course of time.’116 He concluded his five addresses with the thought that by the study of the Old Testament ‘you can look at the processes of God through the ages and say, “We have a good land and a goodly heritage.”’117 The series was important as a foundational statement for the new Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship of Australia. It required a second edition.118 Like Nathaniel Jones, Hammond was in demand to speak on the Bible. In September 1942 he gave two

115Hammond, Pivot Points in Revelation, 24.

116Hammond, Pivot Points in Revelation, 22.

117Hammond, Pivot Points in Revelation, 25.

118Hammond, Pivot Points in Revelation, title page.

558 addresses in Melbourne, one at a Youth Rally in Collins Street Baptist Church, the other at the Annual Meeting of the Bible Union of Australia.119

Fading Light and Age-long Questions He gave a series of early war-time lunch-hour addresses, published as Fading Light.120 They attributed the neo-paganism which had motivated Germany’s aggression to the effect of the destructive criticism of Scripture. Previously, even as war was looming, his Gunther Memorial Lectures, published as Age-long Questions121 (March 14-April 4, 1938), had set out his apologetic standpoint and approach to some of life’s abiding questions. He elaborated what he had set out in his bicentennial commemorative article on Bishop Joseph Butler’s thought.122

IVF Writing Resumed: Perfect Freedom (1938)123 Before his full apologetics text there came his large introduction to Christian ethics. The

119TC Hammond, Can We Advance and Still Believe the Bible? (Melbourne: S John Bacon, [1942]), and Bible Truths and Modern Fancies (Melbourne: S John Bacon, [1942]).

120TC Hammond, Fading Light.

121TC Hammond, Age-long Questions.

122TC Hammond, ‘Butler’s Analogy, 1736-1936’, The Evangelical Quarterly 8.4 (Oct 1936), 337-355.

123TC Hammond, Perfect Freedom: An Introduction to Christian Ethics, reset edition (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship of Evangelical Unions, reset 194-? [1938]). References in following pages are to the 1938 edition.

559 subject of this, his second work in the IVF trilogy (widely held in university libraries), related to his university métier, Logic and Ethics. The book was surely his intended magnum opus. There seems to have been no British systematic presentation of Christian ethics by any evangelical before 1938, certainly nothing as comprehensive as Perfect Freedom. According to one who was a student in England at the time, however, it ‘made little impact’.124 The same person was at once taken by a work that Hammond does not mention – Reinhold Niebuhr’s recent Christian Ethics.125 Hammond was no ivory tower thinker. In the year 1938 he was writing: If the leaders of the so-called Christian West pursue certain courses of action in the present crisis the very existence of modern civilisation may be threatened.126

Now was a ‘time of weakness and peril’, in which the biblical injunctions for human conduct (here quoting Albert Einstein) have lost their firmness. Nations that once ranked high bow down before tyrants who dare

124Stuart Barton Babbage, personal letter, 1 Oct 2010.

125Stuart Barton Babbage, (original ref mislaid); Reinhold Niebuhr, An Interpretation of Christian Ethics (London: Student Christian Movement, 1936).

126Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 12.

560 openly to assert: Right is that which serves us!127

Certain of the book’s features clarify convictions central to Hammond’s thought. Realising that much of it was not an easy read, he suggested that ‘the general reader’, having read the Introductory chapters, might go straight to Section C (‘The Distinctive Claims of Christian Ethics’) and Section D (‘The Moral Christian Life’).128 The rest was presumably intended for the more academic university student of ethics. Perfect Freedom explicitly declared his Calvinist ‘point of view’: the focal point and controlling principle in all approach to the study of either Theology, or of Ethics, is the Sovereignty of God, Who has revealed His will to man.129

He defined ‘the Sovereign Trinity’, the creator, as also ‘redeeming, regenerating and sanctifying’.130 He encouraged this high claim in the face of ‘the ill-digested influences of modern scientific teaching’ and ‘an increasing revolt

127Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 13. Einstein’s words, spoken ‘recently in New York’, not referenced.

128Hammond, Perfect Freedom, viii (Section A.– Some Basic Problems’, Section B.– ‘Natural Ethics’, some 100 pages out of nearly 400).

129Hammond, Perfect Freedom, vi.

130Hammond, Perfect Freedom, vi.

561 against specifically Christian Ethics’. The disciple of Christ should know that [n]o representative of the world’s philosophers bears any close comparison with the matchless Christ or even with the best of His followers.131

In common with most other Reformed thinkers of his time, his basic, though by no means uncritical, acceptance of Butler’s approach in the Analogy is evident. He did say, nevertheless, that as Christian Theology transcended Natural Theology and ‘brings to the enlightened a totally new world view’, so did Christian Ethics transcend Natural Ethics.132 He referenced I Corinthians 2:1-16 for the difference. Yet Natural Ethics provided ‘the scientific analytical test of the truth of [Christian Ethics’!133 Later he claimed explicitly that ‘Christian ethics does not destroy, but on the contrary builds upon, Natural ethics.’134 So Hammond’s was a ‘blockhouse methodology’.135 This seems inconsistent with his

131Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 14.

132Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 16.

133Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 16.

134Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 261.

135Cornelius Van Til (ed William Edgar), Christian Apologetics (Phillipsburg, New : Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003), 148-49, citing BB Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1918 [2nd ed]).

562 stated controlling principle of God’s sovereignty and revelation of his will to man. He did say that it is only in the clearly revealed will of God in the Scriptures ‘the Christian system demonstrates its superiority’,136 but seemed to suggest that the issue went deeper. His first chapter made strong claims for a ‘distinctively Christian Ethics’, distinctive because of ‘revolutionary concepts as the Divine sovereignty, Revelation, Depravation, Incarnation, Propitiation, Regeneration and Final Consummation.’137 He said that ‘Christianity [as] a Life System Transcend[ed] Natural Ethics’,138 and he laid out the distinctives. He did not explain how a Christian Ethics could build on the various schools of Natural Ethics, when the latter presupposed a radically different concept of reality from the Christian theistic concept. He defended Natural Ethics as containing ‘certain elements, by no means inconsiderable’ in common with the Christian Ethics. This was not inconsistent with the New Testament statement. In support he gave a long quotation from Calvin on the light of truth that shines in secular writers

136Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 133.

137Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 17 (emphasis original).

138Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 150 (heading for ch 12).

563 on many subjects139 (Calvin’s notion of common grace as the restraint of sin). He did caution the Christian student against ‘the dicta of ethical students’ (sc ‘thinkers’) ‘in preference to the declaration of God’s will revealed in His Word.’140 But the problem of Natural Ethics for Hammond was that of limitation – ‘can deal only with man as it finds him’ – rather than a wrong starting point, its assumed autonomy of human thought. He did grant, however, that Plato and Aristotle took morally for granted things that no Christian could approve.141 Hammond found that Natural Ethics’ ‘cardinal defect’ was ‘that it reckons without the supernatural’.142 Modern Western Natural Ethics (here he was probably thinking of TH Green,143 son of an Evangelical clergyman), ‘while it draws upon the example and teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ’ usually ‘leaves entirely out of account’ his

139Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 150-151, quoting Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 2.2.15 (dependent on Rom 2:14-16).

140Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 152.

141Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 153.

142Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 153.

143Thomas Hill Green, Prolegomena to Ethics. Edited by AC Bradley, 5th ed (Oxford: Clarendon, 1906 [1883]).

564 ‘redemptive death and resurrection’. It was limited, failing to apprehend both the awakening of conscience by the external standard of God’s will revealed in Scripture . . . [and of that being] made operative through the internal work of the Holy Spirit.144

There was a section on ‘The Dangers of Natural Ethics’. Medieval theology had made Christianity ‘“to be regarded as an appendix to nature,”’ and ‘“divine grace an afterthought of the Creator”’.145 But ‘Christianity surpasses Natural Ethics’, the Christian revelation in the Holy Scriptures being ‘a complete life-system which has no need to borrow material to supplement its main features from any pagan source.’146 Perhaps Hammond’s Calvinism struggled to come fully out of the waters of the rationalism which he clearly recognised in TH Green.147 He appreciated and quoted Abraham Kuyper’s The Holy Spirit in this work, but had he accepted the full implications of Kuyper’s Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology?148 On the other hand, subsequently he

144Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 154.

145Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 156, quoting Newman Smyth, Christian Ethics. International Theological Library (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1894 [3rd ed]), 133.

146Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 41.

147Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 86, 94.

148Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1900); Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology: Its Principles (London:

565 did state: ‘If the Fall be admitted as a fact, it demands that we should receive with great caution the findings of Natural Ethics’. He commented on the effect of the Fall on reason, that it too ‘shares in this disability’.149 One is aware of the problem of interpreting another writer long after his death. It is hard, nevertheless, to read Hammond as fully consistent in the matter of the freedom of the will in this work. He did say, of course, that the Fall ‘explains man’s inability’ to will and to do what is right.150 He also stated that ‘the warping tendency’ of sin revealed by Scripture, ‘inasmuch as this inherent warp is ours, a constituent of “the self”, we are responsible for its display in conscious choice.’151 But he added: ‘responsibility depends on the concept of freedom.’152 Perhaps, by the will’s freedom he meant ‘free to act in accordance with the person’s moral nature,’ as he said In Understanding Be Men. One can suggest that Hammond’s rigorous education at TCD had brought him under certain

Hodder and Stoughton, 1899).

149Hammond, Perfect Freedom, Ch 15. ‘Man a Fallen Being’, 188-189.

150Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 190-191.

151Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 191.

152Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 190 (italics added).

566 powerful influences – Kant’s theory of ethics so appreciatively edited by Professor TK Abbott,153 and the work of TH Green.154 Not that he was uncritical of them. He classified Green’s ethics as ‘English Rationalistic Ethics’.155 Quite properly, of course, he would quote favourably individual true insights from Green,156 or wherever he found them. Hammond’s wide-ranging chapters on ‘The Moral (Christian) Life’ sought to give guidance to the young Christian student.157 They were also full of cautions and advice, such as: [T]here is a great temptation that the Christian may slip into the trap of looking to the Church . . . for a detailed list of special duties and necessary abstentions. . . .158

There were pithy observations, too: ‘[T]he word “broadminded”’ is ‘really entitled to a rest: it has been sadly overworked.’159 And, ‘[t]he

153JK Abbott (transl), Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason and other Works on the Theory of Ethics, 5th revised ed with memoir (London: Longmans, Green, 1898 [1873]).

154Green, Prolegomena to Ethics.

155Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 94.

156Eg, Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 67.

157Hammond, Perfect Freedom, Chs 19-29 (pages 257-388).

158Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 257.

159Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 257.

567 obligation “to think through” is more frequently disregarded than any other obligation.’160 The wide range of his practical discussion in Section D, ‘The Moral and Christian Life’, included eleven topics. He began with ‘Christian Duty and Christian Virtue’ and ‘The Personal Life of the Christian’ (chs XIX and XX). A consideration of ‘The Christian and the Community’ (ch XXI) included the duties of Justice, Veracity, Sympathy, or active compassion, Forgiveness, and of Example and Influence. Under ‘The Christian and Moral Institutions’ (ch XXII) he was explicit that the Christian should be ‘the buttress of all true moral institutions and the upholder of man’s rights’. The latter were such as the elements of the Sacredness of Human Life, Freedom, the right to hold Property, the right to Education (equal opportunity for all, and no separation of ‘“secular” sciences’ from ‘particularly the truths of the gospel’). He discerned ‘Five Social Institutions ordained by God’,161 the communities of sex (marriage and the family), culture, work, worship and the State. Each of these ‘derives a new significance when . . . related to the governing idea of the call of God’ and so regulated. (This

160Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 278.

161Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 312.

568 was the well-known Reformation principle – that Divine calling is not restricted to the ministries of the church.) Chapters XXIII to XXVIII dealt with the above five social institutions in turn.162 He added Chapter XXIX. ‘The Christian and Those of Other Race’.163 Many matters related to the chapter headings come under his comment. The following selects some of many insights and opinions in these chapters. In Chapter XXV, ‘The Christian and the Economic Order’, he touched on a subject dear to Principal DJ Davies and Dean EA Talbot. Christians were obliged to work. Against the background of the Great Depression, however, Hammond observed that such ‘times of general suffering’ stood in the way of the ideal of ‘the right to work’. The Christian, however, had a duty to strive by every means in his power to make conditions tolerable for all men, and there was an ethical duty in avoiding recklessness of speculation that might engender depression as a consequence.164

One hears in this some of TH Green’s secularised version of Christian thought echoing in Hammond’s mind as valid insights, moments of

162Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 315-382.

163Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 383-88.

164Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 336.

569 truth. Hammond was neither an ideological socialist nor ideological capitalist, but strove to be biblically Christian.165 Under ‘The Christian and Culture’ (Chapter XXVII) he reflected on the education of children, the freedom of science, the claims of art, and the right of free speech. His guidelines included, with regard to education, ‘[t]he enthronement of Christ as Lord of the home’ as ‘one of the crying needs of the present time’. This entailed the provision for every child to ‘know the essential truths of Scripture and have a real acquaintance with the revelation of God.’166 He added: ‘No education is worth the name that does not insist upon the individual’s dependence on God and upon the absolute necessity of grace.’167 His evangelical conversionism chimed well with Nathaniel Jones’s emphasis and impact on those he taught. Perfect Freedom spoke briefly in this chapter of a Christian perspective on science.168 The ‘theological presupposition’ of science was the unity of God, implying the ‘complete harmony’ of the universe, which the scientist looked for.

165Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 342, 343.

166Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 374-375.

167Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 375.

168Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 375-376.

570 With regard to the theory of evolution ‘as a scientific working hypothesis’, for example, ‘the Christian is left a wide freedom as to the precise manner of the Divine formation.’169 In concluding his chapter on culture he asked, ‘Are there any limits to freedom of speech?’ His answer? There needed to be ‘a delicate balance’ between the liberty of the individual to state the dictates of his conscience and ‘the sacred right of the community to prevent disintegration and dissension.’170 His Chapter XXIX. ‘The Christian and Those of Other Race’ is anti-racist. Its judicious comments lead to two summary statements: ‘It is the duty of the Christian . . . to give to all peoples the right and opportunity to exercise their [God-given] gifts to the fullest advantage’, and ‘It is the supreme sin against an undeveloped people to withhold from them the gospel of the grace of God.’171 He continues to bring a biblical and Reformational perspective to his final Chapter XXX. ‘Christianity, Progress, and the Ultimate Future’. Christianity was facing the opposition of ‘scientific Humanism’ and the secular

169Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 376-378.

170Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 379.

171Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 387.

571 confidence ‘that culture without Christianity will effect a moral reformation and bring in a golden age.’ There was also ‘the hope [that] the final emancipation of man’ lay in a new Industrialism, ‘the organisation and reconstruction of industrial life’.172 A third ‘modern powerful force’ of Communism, however, aimed to remove all private gain, even the right of the family to property. Christianity would sympathise with ‘many of the features of Humanism, Industrialism, and Communism’, but saw that ‘they fail to get at the root of the problem, human sin.’173 (DJ Davies had talked of ‘selfishness’ in this regard). The gospel had been confirmed repeatedly in history: [T]he true development of human life is conditioned by an inward operation of God the Holy Ghost commencing with the individual heart. . . [and] extending . . . to an inward regeneration of the whole nation.174

In the face of ‘doubtful pleasures’ the Christian was ‘bound to the will of God’. The believer denied himself even ‘legitimate enjoyment in certain circumstances’, for ‘God has bred in his soul the love of man.’ He knew that ‘the ideal of a golden age’ could only ‘be fulfilled under God’s guidance and finally by His Personal

172Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 389.

173Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 390.

174Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 391.

572 intervention’. With this last hope Jones would have agreed. It was not evident in Davies. As for the ‘Ultimate Future’ of the world, ‘only in the hope of personal immortality . . . can we look for . . . our share in the development of [God’s] complete order.’175 Cultural progress both in the natural sciences and in social amelioration had been greatest, however imperfect, in the Christian nations.176 Against the notion that Christianity was ‘destined to be shortly superseded by the religion of humanity’, Hammond called upon the evangelical Christian’s biblicism. He reminded the reader of such periods as when the prophet Elijah could say, ‘I, even I only, remain a prophet of the Lord’ and that of Christ’s crucifixion – both were times of apostasy followed by a new era of faith.177 With the various premillennial schema in mind, Hammond wished only to reassure his reader of several final things: that no power could prevail against the Church of God, because it was his Church; that Christ’s Ethics were absolute, searching the heart; that they were permanent, while capable of adjustment to various conditions; that they were

175Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 390-391.

176Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 394.

177Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 394 (ref I Kings 19:10, 14 (9th cent BC).

573 universal, because they ‘offer us a synthesis of all that is best in the struggling aspirations of man.’178 He concluded Perfect Freedom with the ancient prayer, translated by Archbishop Cranmer, the source of his book’s title: ‘O God . . . Whose service is perfect freedom. . . .’179 Possibly the more academic introductory chapters limited the influence of Perfect Freedom. Possibly a pietistic anti-intellectual, or at least unintellectual ethos of many evangelical students in that period was a factor.180 But at least one layperson read Perfect Freedom, marking his copy from beginning to end – Wilfred Hutchison (1907-1973). He was Sydney Diocesan Secretary (1959-1973) and Lay Secretary of Synod. Hammond’s doctrinal handbook, In Understanding be Men, however, kept selling well, stimulating and opening up young Christian minds.181

178Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 395.

179Hammond, Perfect Freedom, 395 (the title quotes from the ‘Collect for Peace’ (The Second Collect, for Peace, in ‘The Order for Morning Prayer’, The Book of Common Prayer, 1549-1662, ref John 8:31-36).

180Oliver Barclay, Evangelicalism in Britain 1935-1995 (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 1997), Ch 2. ‘Pre-War Doldrums’.

181Wilfred Hutchison’s copy of Perfect Freedom, in the possession of this writer.

574 Reasoning Faith: An Introduction to Christian Apologetics (1943) The completion of this final work in his IVF trilogy was delayed by other tasks.182 Stuart Babbage thought that once in Sydney, Hammond ‘soon dissipated his energies by attempting too much,’ finding it hard to say ‘no’ to invitations to speak and write.183 For financial reasons, he was rector (though assisted) of St Philip’s, York Street, in addition to being principal of Moore College. Archbishop Mowll also required other assistance from him.184 One instance arose from the expectations of the liberal (largely) clergy, used to appointment to important roles in the diocese under John Charles Wright’s administration. Hammond’s Gunther Memorial Lectures of 1938 (Age-long Questions, 1942) had hardly begun185 when Canon Arthur Garnsey, the Warden of St Paul’s College in the University, sent the archbishop a lengthy ‘Memorial’, signed by some fifty clergy,

182Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 7 (‘Preface’).

183Stuart Barton Babbage, Memoirs of a Loose Canon (Brunswick East, Victoria: Acorn, 2004), 60.

184Nelson, Hammond, 103-104.

185Sydney Morning Herald, 8 March, 1938, 10 reported the first (on Mon 7th Mar) and on 12 March, page 5, advertised the second for Monday 14th.

575 requesting an audience with the archbishop.186 Feeling the turn in the Diocese away from John Charles Wright’s consensus policy, they complained that they were finding themselves marginalised in favour of ‘conservative Evangelicals’.187 In the document were ‘a few words expressing fear lest [Moore College’s] students should be trained on narrow lines’.188 A recent observer has detected ‘a somewhat naively confrontational tone’ in the Memorial.189 Mowll called on Hammond, who formulated fourteen questions on the issues and statements in the Memorial. Mowll sent the questions to each of the Memorial signatories, to be answered by them individually before he would see them. The matter was never formally resolved. Not Hammond’s earlier experience of Roman Catholicism (pace Judd and Cable),190 but the

186See David Garnsey, Arthur Garnsey: A Man for Truth and Freedom (Sydney: Kingsdale, 1985), 153-63.

187Marcus L Loane, Archbishop Mowll: The Biography of Howard West Kilvinton Mowll, Archbishop of Sydney and Primate of Australia (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960), 143-149; see also Kenneth John Cable (posthumous paper read 19 May, 2001), ‘The Memorialists’, The Anglican Historical Society, Diocese of Sydney, Journal 58.2 (Dec 2013), 10-24.

188Arthur Garnsey, letter quoted in Garnsey, Arthur Garnsey, 153 (see also pages 153-63).

189Chris Armitage, ‘The Memorialists’, The Anglican Historical Society Journal 55.2 (Dec 2010), 21.

190Judd and Cable, Sydney Anglicans, 240.

576 impact at home on the Church of England (and Church of Ireland) of liberal theological forces in the preceding decades sufficiently accounts for Hammond’s strong linking of arms with Howard Mowll to face this challenge. Mowll himself could hardly have forgotten the CICCU departure from the SCM in 1910. In the Sydney of 1938, the Samuel Angus affair in the Presbyterian Church (1933) was still a fresh memory. Garnsey’s form criticism lectures (1934) had been delivered on either side of Mowll’s arrival to take up his new offece. Reasoning Faith had specifically the theological student in view as well as the undergraduate generally.191 It was a compact work, dealing in turn with ‘objections to the Christian system’ – philosophical (including atheism, agnosticism, pantheism and various theistic positions), scientific (evolution vs creation) and historical (criticism of the New Testament gospels as revelation). He had learned from the Scottish logician, Alexander Bain (1818-1903), teacher of precision in thinking,192 that ‘it is the duty of the apologist to counter contradictories’ (objections), rather than to establish the

191Hammmond, Reasoning Faith, 9, 13, 14.

192WR Sorley, History of British Philosophy to 1900 (London: Cambridge University, 1965 [1920]), 293.

577 contrary.193 Broadly, that was Hammond’s procedure in all three parts of his book. His approach also assumed the validity of natural theology, as of natural ethics in Perfect Freedom. Hammond countered ‘Philosophical Objections’ with some telling points. Thus the ‘Material Monist’, the follower of the famous Ernst Haeckel, could not explain ‘how it is that concepts framed in the human mind obtain objective reality in an external world which is independent of that mind.’ He quoted TH Green on John Locke: ‘“A consistent sensationalism would be speechless.”’194 He gave almost twenty pages to Agnosticism (TH Huxley and Herbert Spencer). In its ‘popular developments’, he notes, ‘[t]here is an undue readiness to regard all mental deductions as figments.’ But ‘it was not [their] purpose to destroy moral values.’195 Before turning to ‘the presumptions in favour of Theism’ he had concluded that since ‘the discursive reason cannot effectively deny [God]’, the apologist had ‘room for a full presentation of the Divine.’196 His argument may well have been helpful to the many whose notion of God was that of historic Christianity, even as set out very

193Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 10.

194Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 22, 23.

195Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 43.

196Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 59.

578 simply in the Apostles’ Creed. Perhaps this gave strength to the traditional apologetic, whether of Thomas Aquinas or Joseph Butler, or of a James Orr, or of CS Lewis. But Hammond, like them, did not penetrate (explicitly, that is) to the assumption of human autonomy lying unspoken beneath all non-Christian systems of thought. His critique of Bertrand Russell’s epistemology – although ‘a brilliant chapter’ in the view of the one who was senior wrangler to Russell at Cambridge197 – seems to illustrate this.198 Nor did he accept in 1943 that philosophical idealism was already in eclipse.199 The realist thinking of John Anderson, Challis Professor of philosophy in the University of Sydney, and that of AK Stout, professor of moral and political philosophy,200 was loca. It was also influential in Sydney and beyond in Australia.201 Perhaps Hammond’s idealist philosophical training left him

197GT Manley, review of Reasoning Faith in Churchman Vol 59 (1945), 186.

198Hammond, ‘Appendix to Part I’, Reasoning Faith, 92- 106.

199Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 92-106; cf Passmore, A Hundred Years of Philosophy, Ch 8. ‘The Movement towards Objectivity’ and Ch 9. ‘Moore and Russell’.

200See John A Passmore, ‘Philosophy’, in AL McLeod (ed), The Pattern of Australian Culture (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, 1963), 148-155 (on Anderson) and 156- 157 (on Stout).

201Passmore, ‘Philosophy’, 155.

579 confident in a basically Kantian view of knowledge,202 though this did not contaminate his formulation of Christian doctrine as such. On the scientific objections to Christianity, chiefly the theory of evolution, he enlisted the help of a young Dr Harvey Carey in the University of Sydney. He was a convinced evangelical Christian, and would have a distinguished career as a professor of gynaecology and obstetrics, both in New Zealand and in Australia.203 At the time it was popularly claimed that Darwin’s Origin of Species had rendered ‘[o]ur old and our old evidential treatises’ of no weight.204 Hammond addressed ‘the method of evolution’, inorganic and organic. The theory could not explain origins. He concluded, on ‘evolution generally’, that ‘pressed to its farthest limit of actual observation’ it ‘does not preclude the idea of creation.’205 He thus, following Alexander Bain’s lead, had rebutted the ‘contradictory’.

202C Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology: Prolegomena and the Doctrines of Revelation, Scripture, and God. Second Edition, edited William Edgar (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2007), 304-306, 307.

203Harvey Carey (1917-1989), Auckland University from 1953, the University of New South Wales from 1962.

204Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 110.

205Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 116.

580 He called the first chapter of Genesis ‘a poem of creation’, and noted its orderly progression. He granted the notion that the word ‘day’ represented God’s acts under a figure of human acts.206 Of the evidence for organic evolution and of palaeontology, and the problems in mutation and embryology, he concluded:207 nothing . . . has yet been discovered that can be used legitimately to establish the notion of a mechanistic or materialistic view of the universe.208

It is of some interest today that he defended design: ‘[C]ritics of Huxley had little difficulty in showing . . . that design . . . had by no means disappeared from the scheme of things.’209 Why, he asked, ‘should it be necessary . . . to reject the working hypothesis [of] an ordering Mind?’ Only this gave results.210 Part III of Reasoning Faith has to do with ‘Historical Objections to the Christian System’,211 specifically the claim that God has spoken. The

206Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 123, from WH Turton, The Truth of Christianity (London: [Wells, Gardner, Darton], 1907 [6th ed]), 133, 134.

207Hammond, Reasoning Faith, chs 16-19.

208Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 183.

209Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 125.

210Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 185.

211Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 186-270.

581 contents of his message, his direct revelation, were embodied in ‘the religious books of the Jews’ (the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament).212 Hammond continued, saying that the Deists, of course, had long ago rejected this theory of revelation – on their view of God and the world. A recent revival of Deism’s doctrine of transcendence (as opposed to the Christian) had reinforced Deism’s denial of revelation.213 Hammond argued in Butlerian fashion, that there was ‘nothing in any way improbable in the use of a Book to record God’s revelations of Himself’.214 His main contention was with the more usual modern dogmatically advanced objection (or ‘contradictory’) to special revelation by God – asserting that revelation was a natural process of the mind of man arising from a sense of wonder. It assumed that the religious writers made God in their own image,215 (the notion of Feuerbach).216 He did not here advance the biblical teaching of man in the image of God as rendering divine

212Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 186 (my interpretation).

213Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 188.

214Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 189-190, quoting John Kennedy, Christian Evidences: A Popular Handbook (London: Sunday School Union, 1880-1885), 271-272.

215Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 190.

216Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), Essence of Christianity (Ger 1841; George Eliot tr 1854).

582 communication possible. Nor did he challenge the silent assumption that human reason is ultimate and autonomous, or reiterate what he had said of the Deists: on their ‘theory of God and the world’.217 Hammond could conclude only that ‘[t]here is no convincing a priori reason against the idea of revelation.’218 The possibility (emphasis added) being established ‘it becomes a matter of evidence.’ This fulfils, of course, the ‘proper task’ of apologetics that he had stated, namely, to ‘counter contradictories’, not to establish the contrary. Similarly, when he engaged with the recent works on the gospels by Martin Dibelius (1883- 1947),219 (more recent than Vincent Taylor’s book),220 he did not inform the student of the ‘presuppose[d] Kantian theory of reality and of knowledge from beginning to end’ that underlay

217Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 187-88.

218Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 190.

219Hammond, Reasoning Faith, 250-254; on Martin Dibelius, A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (London: Ivor Nicholson & Watson, [1936]), and Gospel Criticism and Christology. A Series of Lectures delivered at King’s College in October 1934 (London: Ivor Nicholson & Watson, 1935).

220Vincent Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (London: Macmillan, 1935 [1933]).

583 Dibelius’s use of form criticism, determining what was acceptable as fact in the gospel record.221 Hammond’s acute and learned observations now, and his use of ‘the older and more objective manner of dealing with the evidence’, were doubtless persuasive to the convinced believer.222 But did this approach challenge the skeptic below the surface, or did it leave the Christian believer exposed on one flank? The familiar, ‘let the facts speak for themselves’, presupposed the religious neutrality of thought.223 As one who had learned from the works of George Salmon, on the other hand, Hammond scored many a hit on the arguments of negative criticism of the gospel accounts.224 He quoted from a phalanx of prominent New Testament and other scholars to argue his case. Near the end, on the resurrection of Christ, he quoted a telling paragraph on the testimony of the women in the gospels. It was

221NB Stonehouse, ‘Martin Dibelius and the Relation of History and Faith’, WTJ 2.2 (May 1940), 105-139, repr in NB Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus and Other New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1957), 175-180.

222Eg GT Manley, review of Reasoning Faith above.

223Roy A Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame, 1991), Ch 1. ‘Introduction’.

224George Salmon, The Human Element in the Gospels: A Commentary on the Synoptic Narrative (London: John Murray, 1907).

584 from the book that had gained his friend Everard Digges La Touche his Doctor of Letters from Trinity College, Dublin.225

Abolishing God (1943) A published signpost of Hammond’s thinking, as applied to Professor John Anderson’s atheism, was his reply to the professor’s address to the New Education Fellowship (NSW) on religion in schools.226 Anderson had argued that ‘religion and education are opposed’ in principle because religion accepted ‘certain matters as dogma or on authority’. This excluded them from enquiry, the object of education.227 The historian in Hammond replied that scientific dogmas, the Ptolemaic system of astronomy, for example, had also held things back. They had also ‘made the beginnings of astronomical science.’ Similarly, so Hammond, ‘The possession of Christian dogma is as much a condition of development as the possession of scientific

225Reasoning Faith, 268, ref E Digges La Touche, Christian Certitude (London: James Clarke, 1910), 199-200.

226Address (untitled) published in the New Education Review, July 1943, 25-32, which issue was published separately as Religion in Education: Five Addresses delivered to the New Education Fellowship (N.S.W.), July, 1943; address republished in John Anderson, Education and Inquiry, ed DZ Phillips (Oxford: Blackwell, 1980), 203- 213.

227John Anderson, in Education and Inquiry, 203.

585 dogma.’228 Hammond also argued that since no stem other than religion had been found on which to graft ‘sound moral principles’, it was a great injustice to ‘shut out the child mind from this great area of . . . “moral helpfulness”’.229 The professor had failed to see that ‘religion and morality are alike pointers to the road that leads to fulness of human desires and the satisfaction of human needs’.230 Two years later Hammond returned to the noetic effect of sin (its effect on the understanding), and of the restraining role of common grace.231 He was much clearer in this article than in his books. He would seem to have become more consistent, in apologetic approach, with his Reformation Evangelicalism.

228TC Hammond, Abolishing God: A Reply to Professor Anderson of Sydney University (Melbourne: S John Bacon, [1943]), 3-4 (replying to the early report of Anderson’s address in the student newspaper, Honi Soit (May 6, 1943)).

229Hammond, Abolishing God, 5-6, citing William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience.

230Hammond, Abolishing God, 15-16.

231TC Hammond, ‘Barthianism and Natural Theology’, Societas 1945 (Moore College annual student publication), 5-11.

586 The New Creation (1953)232 This, Hammond’s last book, was possibly his crowning achievement in Evangelical systematic theology. The young JI Packer welcomed it as ‘standing in a direct line of succession from the great “practical and experimental” expositions’ of the Puritans.233 Marcus Loane thought that the book, ‘based on careful exegesis’, and not so affected by philosophy, ‘was more welcome to Sydney readers’ than Perfect Freedom and Reasoning Faith.234 The book was recommended reading at Moore College at least during Loane’s time as principal (1954-1958).235 Here was a full discussion of the application of redemption, from regeneration to glorification. He wrote it for evangelicals across the Protestant denominations, a goal fully consistent with his Reformation Evangelicalism. The important works and writers of the past were his references – in all, nearly sixty authors. He encouraged the reader to consider the

232TC Hammond, The New Creation.

233JI Packer, review of TC Hammond, The New Creation, in The Church Gazette, January-February, 1955, 22-23 (digital photograph of the review supplied by ‘The Trustees of the Library’).

234Marcus L Loane, Mark These Men: A brief account of some Evangelical clergy in the Diocese of Sydney who were associated with Archbishop Mowll (Canberra: Acorn, 1985), 75.

235Several former students of the College at a Retired Clergy Association meeting in Sydney (29 November 2011).

587 interpretations of the passages of Scripture of the different schools of thought, including liberal, Roman Catholic and Anglo-Catholic. His aim was not only to instruct his reader in the biblical teaching, but also to rebut other views – liberal and Modernist, High Church, Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic, and evangelical perfectionism. The book treats the sequence of what theologians call the ordo salutis (order of salvation).236 Beginning with an analysis of the biblical teaching on regeneration, he then considered the relation of regeneration to faith and baptism, as well as its relation to perseverance and the faith that perseveres. Justification, the issue of the fruit of faith in the life of the believer, and the relation of saving faith to revelation all came into view.237 The second half of the work features other parts of the order of salvation. He followed his exposition of the status of all Christians as ‘sons’ (adoption)238 by four chapters on personal holiness (sanctification). Two chapters on the

236See also his Convention addresses, So Great Salvation (Melbourne: S John Bacon, 1943).

237Hammond, New Creation, chs I-III.

238Hammond, New Creation, ch VIII.

588 destiny of believers (glorification, and the resurrection body) conclude the work.239 Salient points on the various heads of doctrine included controverted matters. He is biblically grounded and Reformational. On the relation between the initial divine implanting of new life (regeneration) and justification he explained both the Roman Catholic and the Laudian (17th century High Church) views. The evangelical understanding was that regeneration (‘in the narrower use of the term’) was ‘the direct operation of the Holy Spirit’, and not tied to baptism.240 This ‘pure Augustinianism’ had ‘strong scriptural support’.241 ‘The scriptural presentation of repentance’ (part of the outcome of regeneration) indicated ‘a change of mind that penetrates to the very roots of the individual’s life’.242 In the New Testament, faith required that a conviction of mind must proceed to personal confidence in the divine truths, and so to the consent of the will, which was expressed in conduct.243

239Hammond, New Creation, chs IV and following.

240Hammond, New Creation, 17.

241Hammond, New Creation, 18-20.

242Hammond, New Creation, 22.

243Hammond, New Creation, 25.

589 On the interpretation of the phrase in the rite of the Baptism of Children, ‘this child is regenerate’244 Hammond thought that the ‘federal theory’ of Calvin and Ussher was ‘the best way of combining the scriptural evidence in a coherent whole’.245 This view of the evidence was questioned by a later vice-principal of the College.246 In chapters IV to VII, on the central Reformation doctrine of justification, Hammond warned of the ‘very bad’ moral effect of the ‘vials of wrath poured on “legalistic ideas”’ by liberals, who claimed to transcend law by ‘the higher principle of love’.247 He also defended Roman Catholic doctrine against ‘a Protestant misconception’, that Rome taught that we are saved by works. It taught, in fact, that the ‘new life communicated . . . by baptism is not earned. It is the direct application of the merits of Christ.’248 The view of the ‘Modernists’, however,

244The Book of Common Prayer (1662), ‘Ministration of the Publick Baptism of Children’.

245Hammond, New Creation, 39-47.

246DWB Robinson, The Meaning of Baptism (Beecroft, NSW: Evangelical Tracts and Publications, 1958 [1956]; [Falcon Booklet] London: Pastoral Aid Society, 1959), repr in Bolt and Thompson (eds), Donald Robinson: Selected Works. Vol 2. Preaching God’s Word, Ch 22).

247Hammond, New Creation, 68.

248Hammond, New Creation, 70.

590 ‘transforms Christ into an ideal Example.’249 He faulted the Roman Catholic interpretation of ‘faith’ in Galatians 5:6 as ‘simple assent’. The apostle meant that ‘faith being confidence in the One who loved us and gave Himself for us must express itself by means of love.’250 More categorically, he condemned (while appreciating the excellence of the commentary and the motive) the liberal or Modernist view of justification, that ‘we must find room for some kind of legal fiction’. It was ‘a gross absurdity to describe it as a fiction.’251 Hammond recurred to natural theology in a later chapter.252 Previously he had commended natural theology within certain limits.253 Only now, so it seems, did he cite Kuyper’s seminal work, which reflected Calvin. Without the assistance of the book of special revelation (Scripture), he wrote, the book of natural

249Hammond, New Creation, 72.

250Hammond, New Creation, 105.

251Hammond, New Creation, 90. See William Sanday and Arthur C Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The International Critical Commentary. 5th ed (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902 [1895]), 36, 94).

252Hammond, New Creation, Ch VIII. ‘Adoption, Mysticism and Natural Theology’.

253Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, 24-25; Hammond, Reasoning Faith, Pt I. VI-IX.

591 revelation ‘remains illegible’.254 Was he rejecting an autonomous natural theology? The New Creation set out his thought on sanctification and holiness in chapters IX-XII. This doctrine, as he drew it from Scripture, was not different from that of Nathaniel Jones. It was the background of his Christian convention expositions.255 In Chapter XI, he accepted Moule’s post-Keswick (1884) exegesis of Romans 7, that it referred to the apostle’s own normal experience when he did not meet temptation in the strength of ‘the definitely sought power of the Holy Ghost’.256 In Chapter XII, ‘Factors in the Life of Holiness’, on the sacraments, Hammond reached into his treasure-store from the Reformation. He quoted from the classic Calvinist Heidelberg Catechism (by Olevianus, 1563), which was adopted by both the German Reformed and Dutch Reformed

254Hammond, New Creation, 119-20, quoting Kuyper, Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology [repr as Principles of Sacred Theology], 309 (paraphrasing Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.V.14).

255In addition to ‘Five Addresses’ and So Great Salvation above, The Way of Holiness (Melbourne: S John Bacon, 1952).

256Hammond, New Creation, quoting HCG Moule, Epistle of St Paul to the Romans. Expositor’s Bible, 6th ed (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1902 [?1892]), at Romans 7.

592 churches.257 He did not confine his learning to the Reformation in the British Isles. On the believer’s hope, namely, the completion of the new creation, against liberal and other views, he argued for a real resurrection of the body, but glorified, that is to say, transmuted (Ch XIII).258 On the future of the cosmos (Ch XIV): We would venture to declare that the New Testament looks to a final restoration of the world . . . the solemn enthronement of our Lord as King of kings and Lord of lords. It will be accompanied by a manifest declaration to all men of God’s righteous dealings in all ages.259

Principal of Moore College Most of the College’s students loved his Irish humour and sense of fun, inside and outside the classroom.260 He would ask applicants a key diagnostic question: ‘Are you sure your sins are forgiven?’261 There was an emphasis on the student’s knowledge of the text of Scripture. His main teaching centred on Christian doctrine, for

257Hammond, New Creation, 161; Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 66.

258Hammond, New Creation, 178 (ref 1 Cor 15:36-39).

259Hammond, New Creation, 188.

260Gordon Gerber, Memoirs of the Rev. Gordon B Gerber, ‘The Third Decade, 1939-1949’, 3. ‘Moore College’, 129, 144-45.

261David Hewetson (Moore College student in 1952), informal personal conversation.

593 which In Understanding Be Men was used to outline its whole range. In the classroom he taught the Thirty-nine Articles critiquing the liberal Anglo- Catholic, EJ Bicknell’s scholarly exposition.262 Students studied as their textbook, Principles of Theology, by Nathaniel Jones’s close friend, WH Griffith Thomas,263 which he critiqued at some points. When Hammond taught the subject ‘Prayer Book’, he impressed the students with his encyclopaedic knowledge of it.264 Bishop (ThL 1951, Dip 1951) represents many who were taught by him: ‘Again and again the point was, What did the Scriptures say?’. The conservative Evangelical was really the only Anglican allowed by the Thirty-nine Articles and the Prayer Book.265 His assistants in the College included future scholars and leaders. His vice-principal from 1939 Marcus Loane succeeded him as principal in 1954, became Mowll’s co-adjutor bishop in 1958, and was elected archbishop of the Diocese in 1966. Keith Cole, one of his graduates, taught Old Testament, became a CMS missionary in , where

262EJ Bicknell, A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, 2nd ed (London: Longmans, Green, 1925).

263WH Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles (London: Longmans, Green, 1930).

264Gerber, Memoirs, 144.

265Interview, 18 Jan, 2010.

594 he headed St Paul’s United Theological College, Limuru. He gained his ThD (Australian College of Theology), was vice-principal of Ridley College, Melbourne, then the founding principal of Nungalinya College (for Aboriginals), Darwin, Northern Territory Australia. D Broughton Knox joined the staff in 1947, became vice-principal under Loane and succeeded him as principal in 1959. Donald Robinson joined the staff in 1952, was vice-principal from 1959, consecrated bishop in 1973, elected archbishop of the Diocese in 1982. Kenneth Herbert Short (ThL 1951) was consecrated bishop in 1975, Anglican Bishop to the Defence Force (1979), and finally Dean of Sydney (1989). These were just a few whose ministry was distinguished similarly or in other ways, in Sydney, other dioceses, and abroad with (mainly) the Church Missionary Society.

Conclusion Hammond was an Evangelical in the mould of the ‘Bebbington quadrilateral’, but simultaneously mindful of the great strengths of the Reformation of the sixteenth century. He was, indeed a Calvinist Reformation Evangelical, fully conforming to the doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles, and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer – which also derived from the English Reformation.

595 With that he was abreast of all the important contrary discussion, old High Church, Tractarian, liberal and secular, to say nothing of his mastery of Roman Catholicism. In embracing natural theology and natural ethics he was no different from leading Reformed systematicians like the Presbyterian, Charles Hodge, and the Anglican dogmatician, Edward Arthur Litton. Nevertheless, in his last works there are indications, as just noted, that he was realising how a full Christian theism was a necessary framework for every field of knowledge. Hammond was an Evangelical of outstanding intellectual calibre. He locates as a wide- ranging centrist Reformation theologian in the spectrum of twentieth century Evangelicalism. Hardly inappropriate is the final comment on him of Marcus Loane: ‘a great man, whose like we may not soon see again.’266

266Loane, Mark These Men, 76.

596 CONCLUSION

From the last years of the nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century the Evangelicalism taught in Moore Theological College and that exhibited by the Diocese of Sydney went through three broad phases. The premillennial and Keswick holiness extension to a basically Reformation Evangelicalism of the first phase (1897-1911) gave way to a self-designated Liberal Evangelicalism (1911-1935), followed by a centrist Reformation Evangelicalism (1936-1953) that retained the holiness extension. These changes closely reflected the shifts in the spectrum of Evangelicalism then occurring in England. In part (ie, aside from the millennial and holiness extensions) these shifts reflected the responses of the Evangelical school in the Church of England to the challenges, chiefly intellectual and ecclesiastical, of their day. Moore College, and with it the Diocese, had undergone theological variation before the arrival of Nathaniel Jones. Bishop Barker had founded the College to prepare Evangelically-minded clergy, resistant to both ‘rationalism and ritualism’. From 1856 to 1884 the College always attempted to do this, while accepting High Church students as a legitimate school within the Church of England. Barker’s successor, the Broad Church Bishop Barry, appointed one principal, in 1885, who turned out to be a ritualist, and soon had to go. Barry’s

597 Evangelical successor, Bishop Saumarez Smith, first appointed an old school (ie, non-ritualist) High Churchman, who was also an anti-rationalist with regard to the criticism of Scripture. When he died, Smith appointed Nathaniel Jones (1897), who was succeeded in 1911 by DJ Davies, chosen by Archbishop Wright. In 1936 TC Hammond arrived, appointed by Archbishop Mowll. In the persons of clergy and College students the styles of Evangelicalism in the Diocese, consequently overlapped. This generated tensions that climaxed most notably in the election of Archbishop Howard Mowll, in 1933. This study has tried to clarify the varying positions in the Evangelical theological spectrum taught in the College and reflected in the Diocese from the late 1890s until the early 1950s. In brief, Jones’s extended conservative part of the Evangelical spectrum was replaced by the rising liberal Evangelical broadening in which Davies located himself. Hammond represented a Reformational centrist conservative part of the Evangelical spectrum. The difference between the Evangelicalism of Jones and that of Hammond, proved to be mostly a matter of emphasis and style. Except for the question of a millennium, the basic doctrinal outlook of both, that is to say, their place in the Evangelical spectrum, closely coincided. Between these two and Davies, however, the theological difference was one of

598 principle, for it touched what Bishop Barker would have called rationalism. All three principals, however, were at one with regard to ritualism. Thus, while the evangelical characteristics of ‘the Bebbington quadrilateral’ can be identified in all three men, Davies’s biblicism and crucicentrism was of a genus other than that of Jones and Hammond. The above study has attempted to fill in some of the gaps in our knowledge of these three principals, each of whom was very able and learned. It has also served to question certain widely accepted statements about their views – statements sometimes based on inadequate acquaintance with them, sometimes influenced by the standpoint of the writer. Some light has been shed on the impact of their teaching on the Diocese and the community in which the College was located. As in any teaching institution, not all students who entered the College at any period were inclined to accept without question the outlook of the principal and his assistants. Not all proceeded to ordination holding exactly the principal’s convictions, or always retained them. Some were of High Church, even Anglo-Catholic, background before entering the College. Some changed their views in College, some changed over the years of their ministry. By no means all the graduates of the College who served in the Diocese

599 represented the theological outlook of either their principal or their ordaining archbishop in its entirety. Many, however, were deeply influenced by their College principal, and carried his teaching and emphasis in whole or in part into their activities as clergy – in parish, on committees, in synod, and in para-church organisations. The evidence has shown that Nathaniel Jones’s emphasis was clearly not that of an ardently this- world-denying kind of pre-millennialism, or of an exclusivist doctrine of the church. His theological position was like that of Handley CG Moule, who himself also adopted a premillennial hope late in life. True, Jones did not urge his students to work directly for society’s reform. But he was far from restricting the activity of Christians to some narrowly circumscribed ‘little flock’ awaiting the imminent return of their Lord. He rather encouraged believers to be dedicated Christians in their callings, ‘secular’ or ‘spiritual’, and in their responsibilities as citizens. Jones’s teaching, with that of his helpers, was directed mainly towards developing in the College students and other Christian believers a serious while joyful piety of living faith in Christ, trust in him for both personal forgiveness and holiness of life. Future clergy were to be examples to their flock and committed to promoting

600 the gospel in parish and in diocese. Clergy and laity alike must resist some things and promote others, long-term. Jones’s was a biblicist emphasis, which was also to be found in The Book of Common Prayer. All three principals surveyed held firmly to Anglican ‘Protestant’ principles. This was important in the face of the Anglo-Catholic challenge, and the presence of a large Roman Catholic minority in Sydney. Jones held clearly (though seemingly weak on the bondage of the will) to the doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion. In so doing he can correctly be thought of as broadly Calvinist, albeit mildly so in expression. Jones’s personal piety indeed embraced a premillennial hope, but he did not press this as essential for the piety of believers. Academically, he and his few helpers prepared the College’s students for outstanding results in their external theological examinations. The College encouraged and enabled them and others, by his teaching and published sermons, to have a solid conviction of Scriptural authority against the negative criticism of the time, and of the Scriptural soteriology set out in the Thirty-nine Articles. Students learned, too, a firmly Reformation understanding of The Book of Common Prayer. Jones also strongly supported missionary interest and commitment. He continued what his

601 predecessors of Bishop Barker’s time had striven to achieve. His teaching resulted in most Moore College men being concerned to resist not only Tractarian doctrine and Anglo-Catholic ritualism, but also the negative criticism of Scripture, to which later the name ‘modernism’ became attached. With the advent of a liberal Evangelical archbishop (John Charles Wright) and consequently a College principal (1911) of the same outlook, the Jones men bided their time until they could effect change through Synod. For many years after Jones’s death there was a substantial number of able clergy (and laymen) committed to his stance on Scripture as vital for Christian faith and living. The proof of his legacy over the next half- century lies in the activism of his students. A number became energetically involved in the Synod, its concerns (like the Constitution for the Church of England in Australia) and its committees, including the Moore College Committee. They were active in evangelism and in para-church organisations like the Church Missionary Society, the Bush Church Aid Society, the Katoomba Christian Convention and the Scripture Union. Certain of them committed time to the ACL and the ACR, and organised Hammond’s visit in 1926. The firm base of Reformational conviction they received from Jones welcomed a ‘moderate Calvinist’ like TC Hammond to Sydney then, and to

602 Moore College ten years later. It seems to have mattered little if at all to them that he did not share the premillennial views that some of them held dear. It was their biblicist, crucicentric, conversionist, activist stance, (to quote the ‘Bebbington quadrilateral’) together with their anti-ritualism, all learned or reinforced at College under Jones, that prepared the way for Howard Mowll’s election as archbishop in 1933. Under him and in close association with him the leading Jones graduates gladly continued to exercise their ministry, some into the nineteen fifties. Thus they extended to over a half century the influence of Nathaniel Jones on the Evangelicalism of the Diocese of Sydney. Archbishop Wright had known Jones briefly, and respected him for his theological learning. Possibly, he did not perceive how deep was the fissure between David Davies’s liberal Evangelicalism and that of the Jones legacy. In any case, the emergent doctrinal tension within the broadening Evangelical spectrum in England was not clear to all at first. Wright’s immediate Evangelical concern was with ritualism. The new archbishop wished to remove from the Diocese what were now, especially since 1904, clearly unconstitutional liturgical practices and vestments. This was the high-profile side of Wright’s Evangelical activism. The principal of

603 his college, DJ Davies, was of one mind with him in the matter, as were most other diocesan clergy, among them most of those trained at Moore College under Jones. Wright was also interested in addressing ‘the social problem’ (ie, poverty), a pressing matter in Sydney at the time, and a main factor in his election in 1909. Davies actively spoke to the problem, and his thought saw print in a number of publications. He worked on the new Social Problem Committee set up by Synod under Wright. The conversionist side to Davies’s Evangelicalism was evident in his bid to reach the non-church- attending man-in-the-street. This goal was set out in his book, The Church and the Plain Man, the fullest statement of his overall position. The church’s message as he presented it there, however, was not the historic church doctrine. Christ’s cross was brought in scarcely as an objective accomplishment for the forgiveness of sin, but chiefly as his willing sacrifice, to be a moral lever against selfishness. ‘Sacrifice’ probably had additional resonance as a result of the War. Davies exhibited an emphasis on the role of the Bible in conversion and spiritual growth. But his liberal version of Scriptural authority was predicated upon the assumed autonomy of human moral-doctrinal thought. In this respect Davies’s thought on Scripture points up what divided him in

604 principle from the men taught by Jones as well as from others who shared a more conservative conviction. Yet he did not exclude all miracle. Much else in his one book, like his analysis of the practical problems preventing the church from reaching and convincing ‘the plain man’, is very informative. It describes the attitudes of both labor and capitalism at the time. Even-handedly, he showed both sides to be guilty of selfishness, which was his root concept of sin. Both sides needed to co-operate, not compete. Although very ‘Protestant’, that is, opposed to the kind of changes to the Prayer Book that Anglo-Catholics were pressing for, it is not clear whether Davies associated himself with Hammond’s 1926 visit. His view of justification, certainly, was shaped by his liberal outlook, with the consequence that the centrality of Reformation themes did not emerge as clearly in his writing as it did in the work of Jones or (even more) of Hammond. In Davies’s years, the College student body included a number from an Evangelical background close to that of Jones. Some were parishioners of Jones’s leading students, a few were even sons of these same men, or were their daughters training in Deaconess House next door to the College. Under Davies as principal, the conservative Evangelical students could feel very much out of tune with the liberalism of the College teaching.

605 If a few of them in reaction had recourse to classically evangelical or Reformation sources for their own study and encouragement, from an Evangelical point of view, the later preaching of others was blunted. But both they and most of the liberals remained firmly Protestant with regard to ritualism. Davies was deeply disappointed by the election of Howard Mowll as archbishop in 1933. Many of those who signed the Memorial protest to Mowll in 1938 were Davies’s former students. Nevertheless, the fact that among the signatories was also a proportion of Jones’s former students is proof that the latter were not all a solid phalanx. Significant as it continued to be for many years, however, Davies’s liberal influence proved insufficient in 1933 or after. It could not outweigh the historic Evangelical tradition of the Diocese, reinforced by Jones and, under Howard Mowll, so strongly defended by TC Hammond in 1926. Mowll’s own Evangelicalism having been fired in the CICCU controversy of 1910-11 meant that he was unqualifiedly opposed to liberalism. As firmly opposed as Wright to ritualism and the doctrine it stood for, Mowll was yet more biblicist than his predecessor. He was also centred on the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith with its implications for conversion. When Davies died in 1935, Mowll’s closest advisors (who included Jones graduates and

606 one or two others of like views) persuaded him to call TC Hammond. Hammond had been educated at Trinity College Dublin (the University of Dublin) in 1900-1905, nearly the same years as Davies was at Trinity College, Cambridge, then Ridley Hall (1901-1905). Even as a student Hammond was emerging as a budding theologian able to address leading theological trends. Within the Evangelical spectrum, his was a Reformation centrist position, conservative, and very close to that of Handley CG Moule, including his holiness view, and so not unlike that of Jones. His resistance to ritualism and Tractarian doctrines was both historically and as theologically grounded. His appreciation of the Reformation had been sharpened also by his experience and knowledge of Roman Catholic doctrine and practice in Ireland. He knew well the scholastic theology of Trent and before. With regard to Anglo-Catholicism, he also knew its history, and had argued powerfully from the early Fathers to establish the limits of episcopal authority. Before he came to Sydney and Moore College, he had been an Evangelical leader in rebutting liberal doctrinal statement of whatever degree. He had argued that for the regenerate Christian believer Scripture was in fact no mere ‘external authority’. Under his name had appeared one of the few early twentieth century handbooks to set forth a learned evangelical systematic

607 theology for the student. In Understanding Be Men saw five editions and multiple reprints over more than thirty years. Beginning with his principalship, the book set the doctrinal tone of Moore Theological College for the next fifty years. Hammond also took the students through the Thirty-nine Articles, in dialogue with EJ Bicknell’s standard Anglo- Catholic exposition. He left students in no doubt concerning the biblical doctrine of justification. He endeavoured to ensure confidence in the authority and inspiration of Scripture in the students’ minds. He was ably assisted from the beginning by Marcus Loane, who became his vice-principal, and later his successor. Hammond employed others of like conservative conviction to assist in the College. Premillennialism disappeared, though WH Griffith Thomas’s Principles of Theology was read for ThL doctrine. For Prayer Book they used Neil and Willoughby’s Tutorial Prayer Book of 1913. Hammond was himself expert historically and theologically in the key areas of disputed churchmanship, both liturgical and doctrinal. His Moore College era books on Christian ethics and apologetics for tertiary students did not sell as well as he had hoped. Perhaps that was in part because only a few evangelical students and graduates of all denominations felt strongly the intellectual challenges of their

608 environment. In these scholarly works he did make a point, though not consistently, of the difference that the believer’s regeneration should make to his or her thinking in every field of knowledge. Of wider appeal than these two works, apparently, was his last book, The New Creation (1953), which focussed more on the biblical data than on issues of faith and doubt. To those recently ordained deacon, every year and even into the years of his retirement, Hammond lectured on Archbishop Cranmer’s classic, A Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament. This was the theology which underlay the service of the Lord’s Supper in The Book of Common Prayer. Graduates of the College still living in the twenty-first century remembered his teaching. The Thirty-nine Articles were important. They especially appreciated his book, In Understanding Be Men. Parish evangelism and the sending of missionaries, together with resistance to the national challenge of Anglo-Catholic doctrine and ritual, appear to have gained most interest and attention at the College of his day – more than Keswick holiness teaching. In this the biblical doctrine of justification by faith was central. A number of things may have given Hammond a name for being a controversialist. They include his formulation (correctly surmised) of Mowll’s reply to the Memorialists of 1938, his prosecuting

609 of the Red Book case against the Bishop of Bathurst, his power of debate in synod, and his broadcast series, ‘The Case for Protestantism’. But to stress all this onesidedly would be to distort the centrist Reformation and biblical emphasis of his teaching, both inside and outside the College. All three principals tried to be ‘valiant for truth’ as they understood it. Hammond conscientiously promoted the Anglicanism of the Articles and the Prayer Book, and did so with great learning, salted with not a little incidental humour. One should remember also that it was Hammond, with his friend Bishop Hilliard (Mowll’s co-adjutor), who successfully negotiated an acceptable constitution (at last!) for the very mixed Church of England in Australia. There were two spheres outside the College and the Diocesan organisation in which Hammond’s thought was also important and gratefully remembered. He was called upon by the new Inter- Varsity Fellowship of Australia to bolster its conservative stand on the Bible as distinguished from the liberal approach of the Australian Student Christian Movement. He spoke frequently for the Evangelical Unions. The Christian Convention movement also enlisted him to expound biblical teaching on personal holiness. His ministry proved effective against the perfectionists active (the 1940s) in both Sydney and Melbourne.

610 There was thus a succession of conviction and piety in the College under Jones (1897-1911), Davies (1911-1935), and Hammond (1936-1953), in tandem with that of their respective archbishops, who had also called them. The swing back from a liberal to a more conservative stance under Mowll and Hammond makes Moore College, as well as the character of the Diocese of Sydney, a unique phenomenon in the history of evangelical theological and ecclesiastical institutions generally. Only in more recent times have there been some parallels in England, and in America. In the Davies-with-Wright years the College was Liberal Evangelical in emphasis, and the Diocese was significantly influenced by this. The critical issue was the authority of Scripture. A concern for social reform was present, but there was not, it seems, a great swell of support for it in the Diocese as a whole. World War I and the Great Depression of the thirties may well have had something to do with this. The College itself was always financially straitened, and Principal Davies, in his latter years especially, was an unwell, overworked man. Through it all, what the College had inculcated under Jones sustained his graduates with regard to the authority of Scripture in the face of a long the liberal thrust. Their influence in Synod peaked in the election of Mowll. They and those of like mind then lent

611 their full support to Mowll’s administration and his goal of returning the Diocese and the College to the path set by Bishop Barker. With the coming of Hammond, its Evangelical character was even more distinctly Reformational and centrist, and now addressed to the mid-twentieth century context. In this way, College and Diocese were confirmed in the four characteristics of the ‘Bebbington quadrilateral’, with which the rejection of ritualism was consistent. The era of Hammond-with-Mowll achieved this, though the Diocese did not become as ‘monochrome’ as some have felt to be the case. The College itself hewed an exclusively Evangelical course in its teaching, while not rejecting the High Church or Anglo-Catholic as students. The central question of this research has been to establish more clearly what was the nature and scope of the shifts in the Evangelical doctrinal spectrum within the College and the Diocese. These were two closely related institutions. Light has also been cast on the larger issue of the character and varieties of global Evangelicalism in a period of major intellectual and social change. The doctrinal positions and emphases embodied in the Evangelical spectrum, as broadened by liberalism or as extended by a premillennial hope (for a time) and Keswick holiness teaching, left an abiding legacy within Sydney Anglicanism. These same things also shaped

612 the character of global Evangelicalism at that time.

613 BIBLIOGRAPHY

UNPUBLISHED SOURCES:

Babbage, Stuart Barton, personal letter to author, 1 Oct 2010. ______, ‘Archbishop Mowll and Some Personal Reminiscences’, Heretics Club paper, privately supplied to the author. Gerber, Gordon B, ‘Memoirs of Rev Gordon B Gerber’ (excerpts of typescript, kindly supplied by his son, Philip Gerber). Johnson, Douglas, letters to Warren Nelson, 19th February 1987, and 12th October 1988. Kaye, Bruce, ‘Strategies’ (unpublished paper given at Australian Anglican History Seminar, Sydney, 27-28 September 1997). Loane, Marcus, letter to the writer, dated March 1994. Paproth, Darrell, ‘Hussey Burgh Macartney Jr: Mission Enthusiast’, (paper read at First Biennial TransTasman Conference at Australian National University: ‘ANZ Missionaries, At Home and Abroad’, December 2004). ______, ‘The Deeper Life Movement in Victoria 1880-1914’ (in his Macquarie University PhD, ‘The Character of Evangelism in Colonial Melbourne’ (2012).

Stuart Piggin ‘Towards the renewal of the Anglican Church of Australia: an historical and sociological evaluation of Bruce Kaye’s Strategies’ (unpublished paper given at Australian Anglican History Seminar, Sydney, 27-28 September 1997).

Smith, Jonathan, (of the Wren Library, Trinity College, Cambridge), letter to the author, 9 April 2005.

615 West, Janet, ‘A Principal Embattled’, Moore College Library Lecture, 1988).

ARCHIVAL MATERIAL

‘Diocese of Ely, Candidates for Ordination’, Question 9, as answered by Davies. (Photocopy supplied by the Keeper of Diocesan Records, Department of Manuscripts, Cambridge University Library). ‘Rev David J. Davies Papers, 1902-1935,’ Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales (Local Number: MLL MSS 3179 Box 1(1)): DJ Davies, ‘The Interpretation of Scripture’. ‘David J. Davies Papers’, Samuel Marsden Archives, Moore College Library, Moore Theological College, Newtown, New South Wales: DJ Davies, ‘Communion Addresses’ [1924] (David J Davies Papers, SMAMoore, Box 2.v.21). ______, ‘Gains and Losses of the Great Reformation’ (1929), in ‘David J Davies Papers’, SMAMoore, Box 2.ii.21. ______, ‘A Notable Quartercentenary’ (1929), in ‘David J Davies Papers’, SMAMoore, Box 2.ii.35. ______, ‘Religious thought in the Sixteenth Century’ (1933), DJ Davies, Box 2.ii.21, SMAMoore. ______, ‘The Thirty-nine Articles’ (1933), in DJ Davies Papers, Box 2.ii.41, SMAMoore. Minute Book of ‘The Heretics’ Club. Sydney. Vol 1, 1916-1927; Vol 2, 1928-1936, University Archives, University of Sydney, Agency 1691, Series S 117, Box Number: 1.

616 ‘Nathaniel Jones Papers, 1886-1911’, Samuel Marsden Archives, Moore College Library, Moore Theological College, Newtown, New South Wales.

INTERVIEWS:

Dr R Alan Cole. The Revd Reginald Langshaw Archbishop Marcus L Loane. Bishop DWB Robinson. Bishop KH Short

PUBLISHED SOURCES:

Abbott, JK (transl), Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason and other Works on the Theory of Ethics, 5th ed, revised and edited with memoir (London: Longmans, Green, 1898 [1873]). ‘AC’, sv ‘Ince, William’, The Dictionary of National Biography. Supplement Jan 1901-Dec 1911. Acheson, Alan, A History of the Church of Ireland 1691-2001, 2nd ed (Dublin: Columba & APCK, 2002). Acton, [Lord Acton] John Emerich Edward Dalberg, ‘Inaugural Lecture on the Study of History’, in Lord Acton, Lectures on Modern History, ed JN Figgis and RV Lawrence (London: Macmillan, 1906; Fontana Library reprint, with Introduction by Hugh Trevor-Roper, 1961).

Adam, PJH, and Gina Denholm, Proclaiming Christ: Ridley College, Melbourne 1910-2010 (Parkville, Vic: Ridley Melbourne, 2010). Alford, H, The Greek Testament: with a Critically Revised Text ... and a ... Commentary (Cambridge; London: Deighton Bell; Rivingtons, (1881-84 [1st ed 1849-61]). Anderson, John, untitled address, in New Education Review, July 1943, 25-321, which issue was

617 published separately as Religion in Education: Five Addresses delivered to the New Education Fellowship (N.S.W), July, 1943; address republished in John Anderson, Education and Inquiry, ed DZ Phillips (Oxford: Blackwell, 1980), 203-213. Angus, Samuel, Forgiveness and Life: Chapters from an Uncompleted Book: The Historical Approach to Jesus (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1962). [Anonymous], ‘The Rev. Canon Jones, M.A., An Appreciation’ in Sydney Diocesan Magazine IV.6 (June 1, 1911). Archdall, Henry Kingsley (compiler), Mervyn Archdall: A Memorial of the Late Reverend Canon Mervyn Archdall, M.A. (Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1922). Archdall, Mervyn, Liturgical Right and National Wrong: A Vindication of the Rights of the Church (London: Elliott Stock, 1900). ______, The Analytical Higher Criticism (Sydney: WM Madgwick & Sons, 1903). The Argus (Melbourne daily newspaper). Armitage, Chris, ‘The Memorialists’, The Anglican Historical Society Journal 55.2 (Dec 2010), 18-25. Askwith, Edward Harrison, Essay 5. ‘Sin, and the Need of Atonement’, in Members of the University of Cambridge, Henry Barclay Swete (ed), Essays on Some Theological Questions of the Day [Cambridge Theological Essays] (London: Macmillan, 1905), 175-218. Aston, TH (gen ed), The History of Oxford University – see below under Brock, MG, and MC Curthois. Atherstone, A, sv ‘Wace, Henry’, BDE.

618 Atherstone, Andrew, Benjamin Jowett’s ‘Pauline Commentary: An Atonement Controversy’, Journal of Theological Studies, NS Vol 54, Pt 1 (April 2003), 139-153. Augustine (of Hippo), On the Spirit and the Letter (De Spiritu et Littera), in JHS Burleigh (ed), Augustine: Earlier Writings. Library of Christian Classics Volume VI (London: SCM, 1953). Australian Church Quarterly Review, Oct 1910-Sep 1914 (complete copy in the Mitchell Library, Sydney). The Australian Churchman (1901-?). The Australian Church Record (1926-). The Australian College of Theology, Manual(s) for the Year(s) 1899, 1900, and 1913 (Sydney: WA Pepperday, 1899, 1900, 1913).

The Australian Dictionary of Evangelical Biography, ed Brian Dickey (Sydney: Evangelical History Association, 1994). Babbage, Stuart Barton, Memoirs of a Loose Canon (Brusnswick East, Victoria: Acorn, 2005). Bailey, Kenneth C, A History of Trinity College Dublin, 1892-1945, with a foreword by EH Alton (Dublin: The University: Hodges, Figgis, 1947). Bale, Colin , ‘The Commonwealth Celebrations of 1901: Sectarianism and the Symbolic Unity of Federation’, Lucas 27 & 28 (June & December 2000), 90-107.

Balfour, AJ, Theism and Humanism: Gifford Lectures, 1914 (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915).

Balleine, GR, A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England. New Edition (London: Church Book Room, 1951 [1908]).

619 Barclay, Oliver R, The Jesus Lane Lot, Ch 4. ‘1900-1910: The battle for the truth’ (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 1977). Barclay, Oliver, Evangelicalism in Britain 1935- 1995 (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 1997). Barnes, Ernest William, Essay XIV. ‘The Future of Evangelicalism’ in Liberal Evangelicalism (see under ‘Members of the Church of England’ below). ______, Should Such a Faith Offend? (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928). Barzun, Jacques, From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present (New York: Harper Collins, 2000). ______, Marx, Darwin, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage, rev 2nd (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1958). Bebbington, David, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992). First published – London: Unwin Hyman/Routledge, 1989. ______, Holiness in Nineteenth Century England (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2000). ______, The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody (Leicester, Eng: Inter- Varsity, 2005). ______, ‘About the Definition of Evangelicalism . . .’ (review of Kevin T Bauder, R Albert Mohler Jr, John G Stackhouse Jr, and Roger E Olsen, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 2011), in Evangelical Studies Bulletin, Issue 83 (Fall 2012). Bendall, Sarah, Christopher Brooke & Patrick Collison, A History of Emmanuel College, Cambridge (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1999).

620 Bickersteth, Edward Henry, Yesterday, To-day and For Ever: A Poem in Twelve Books, 11th ed (London: Rivingtons, 1878 [1866]). Binns, Leonard Elliott, The Evangelical Movement in the English Church (London: Methuen, 1928). Birkett, Kirsten (ed), D Broughton Knox: Selected Works, Vol II. Church and Ministry (Kingsford, NSW: Matthias Media, 2003). Birks, Thomas Rawson, [Canon] (ed), ‘Introduction, Notes, and Supplement’ to William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: In Three Parts. New Edition (London: Religious Tract Society, 1853 [and 1870-1900]). ______, Modern Utilitarianism, or the Systems of Paley, Bentham, and Mill Examined and Compared (London: Macmillan, 1874). Bolt, Peter G, & Mark D Thompson, (eds), Donald Robinson: Selected Works, 3 vols (Camperdown, NSW: Australian Church Record, 2008). The Book of Common Prayer (1662). Boyce, FB, Fourscore Years and Seven: Memoirs of Archdeacon Boyce, for over Sixty Years a Clergyman of the Church of England in New South Wales ([Sydney]: Angus and Robertson, 1934). Braga, Stuart, A Century of Preaching Christ: Katoomba Christian Convention 1903-2003 (Sydney: Katoomba Christian Convention, 2003). Brett, GS, sv ‘Green, Thomas Hill’ in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics VI (1913), 438 col i. Brine, T, ‘Foreword’ to TC Hammond, The One Hundred Texts of the Society for Irish Church Missions (London: The Society for Irish Church Missions, and Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1939). Brock, MG, & MC Curthoys, (eds), The History of

621 the University of Oxford: Volume 7. Nineteenth- Century Oxford, Part 2 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000). Bromiley, GW, Appendix I. ‘1900-1950’, in GR Balleine, A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England, New Edition (London: Church Book Room, 1951 [1908]).

Brooke, Christopher NL, A History of the University of Cambridge, Volume IV. 1870-1990 (Cambridge: University, 1993). Brown, Callum G, The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation, 1800-2000 (London: Routledge, 2009). Brown, Colin, Philosophy and the Christian Faith (London: Tyndale, 1968; repr Downers Grove: Inter- Varsity, nd). ______, Miracles and the Critical Mind (Grand Rapids, Mich; Exeter, Devon: Eerdmans; Paternoster, 1984). ______, Christianity and Western Thought: A History of Philosophers, Ideas and Movements. Vol. 1 From the Ancient World to the Age of Enlightenment (Leicester, Eng: Apollos, 1990). Bullock, Alan, and RB Woodings, (eds), The Fontana Biographical Companion to Modern Thought (London: Collins, 1983. Bullock, FWB, The History of Ridley Hall, Cambridge. Volume I: To the End of AD 1907 (Cambridge: CUP, for the Council of Ridley Hall, 1941). ______, A History of Training for the Ministry of the Church of England and Wales from 1800 to 1874 (St Leonards-on-Sea: Budd and Gillatt, 1955). Bury, JB, An Inaugural Lecture, delivered in the Divinity School, Cambridge, on January 26, 1903 (Cambridge: University, 1903).

622 Cable, KJ, sv ‘Barry, Alfred (1826-1910)’, ADB, Vol 3 (1969).

______, sv ‘Smith, William Saumarez (1836- 1909)’, ADB, Vol 11 (1988).

______, sv ‘Hammond, Thomas Chatterton (1877- 1961)’ in ADB, Vol 14 (1992).

______, ‘The First and Second Book of Chronicles’, in William W Emilsen and Geoffrey R Treloar (eds), The Heretics Club 1916-2006 (Sydney: Origen, 2009). Caithness, James F, ‘Prefatory Note’ to The Church of Christ: Minutes of a Discussion at a Meeting Held at Caxton Hall, Westminster, on Monday, October 9th, 1922. (See The Church of Christ. . . . below for full reference). Calverly, EL, sv ‘Momerie, AW’, DNB, Supplement January 1901-December 1911.

Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion. ______, (ed James Anderson), Commentary on the Book of Psalms Vol II. (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845-49 [vols I-V]). Cambridge Theological Essays – see below under Swete, Henry Barclay (ed). Cameron, Marcia Helen, ‘Aspects of Anglican Theological Education in Australia: 1900-1940, with particular reference to four colleges’ (PhD dissertation, Macquarie University, 1999). ______[Helen], ‘Moore College Under Nathaniel Jones 1897-1911’ in (see below) GR Treloar (ed), The Furtherance of Religious Beliefs, 96-123. Cameron, NM de S, Biblical Higher Criticism and the Defense of Infallibilism in Nineteenth Century

623 Britain (Lewiston, NY; Queenston, Ont: Edwin Mellen, 1987). Campbell, RJ, The New Theology (London: Chapman and Hall, 1907). The Canons and Dogmatic Decrees of the Council of Trent (1546-63), Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom . . . , Vol II. The Greek and Latin Creeds, with Translations. New York: Harper and Bros, 1919 [1877]). ‘by Cantab’ – see under [Davies, David J], ‘Bishop Barnes. . . .’ below. Carnley, Peter Frederick, ‘Was TC Hammond an Arian?’, in St Mark’s Review No 198 (July 2005), paper given at the ‘Colloquium on Subordinationism and the Doctrine of the Trinity’ (Trinity College, University of Melbourne, Friday 20 August, 2004). ______, Reflections in Glass: Trends and Tensions in the Contemporary Anglican Church (Pymble, NSW: HarperCollins, 2004). Catechism: ‘A Catechism, . . . an instruction to be learned of every person, before . . . confirmed by the Bishop’, Book of Common Prayer. Chadwick, Owen, The Victorian Church. Part II. 1860-1901 (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1972 [1970]). ______, The Secularization of the European Mind in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975). Chawner, William, Prove All Things, (Privately printed, 1909). Christensen, Torben, The Divine Order: A Study in F.D.Maurice’s Theology, (Leiden: EJ Brill, 1973). The Church of Christ: Minutes of a Discussion at a Meeting Held at Caxton Hall, Westminster, on Monday, October 9th, 1922. . . . [between] Mr Peter

624 J Hand [and] Rev Thomas C Hammond, 3rd ed (London: Chas J Thynne & Jarvis, 1924. ‘AC’ (Andrew Clark, sv ‘Ince, William’, DNB. Clark, Kitson, Churchmen and the Condition of England 1832-1885: A Study in the Development of Social Ideas and Practice from the Old Regime to the Modern State (London: Methuen, 1973). Clarke, William Newton, A Outline of Christian Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902 [1898, et seq]). ______, The Use of the Scriptures in Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1905). Clouser, Roy A, The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories (Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame, 1991). Coad, F Roy, A History of the Brethren Movement ([Exeter, Devon, UK]: Paternoster, 1968). Cole, Keith, A History of the Church Missionary Society of Australia (Sl: Church Missionary Historical, 1971). ______, Keith, History of the Diocese of Bendigo 1902-1976: An Anglican Diocese in Rural Victoria (Bendigo: Keith Cole, 1991). ______, Keith, sv ‘Aickin, George Ellis’, in ADEB. ______, A History of the Church Missionary Society of Australia (Sl: Church Missionary Historical Publications, 1971). Comment and Criticism: A Quarterly Cambridge Paper for the Discussion of Current Religious and Theological Questions (initially The New Commentator below). Cornish, F Warre, A History of the English Church

625 in the Nineteenth Century (London: Macmillan, 1910. Crockford’s Clerical Directory, 1885, sv ‘Schleicher, Theophilus John’.

Cunningham, Audrey, William Cunningham -- Teacher and Priest (London: SPCK, 1950).

Cunningham, William, Socialism and Christianity (London: SPCK, 1910). D’Arcy, Charles F, Idealism and Theology: A Study of Presuppositions (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899), in The Anglican Church Handbooks, edited WH Griffith Thomas. ______, Christianity and the Supernatural, 2nd ed (London: Longmans, Green, 1909). ______, Essay 1. ‘Christian Liberty’, in The Archbishop of Armagh (et al), Anglican Essays: A Collective Review of the Principles and Special Opportunities of the Anglican Communion as Catholic and Reformed (London: Macmillan, 1923). Davidson, Randall T (director of compilation), The Five Lambeth Conferences (London: Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, 1920). Davies, D[avid] J[ohn], ‘Moore College Notes’, SDM (various issues). ______, ‘The Social Question’, SDM 3.11 (Nov 1911). ______, ‘Some Historical Aspects of Puritanism’. [Pt] I, in ACQR II.3 (June 1912), 242-258; [Pt] II, in ACQR II.4 (Sep 1912), 324- 336. ______, review of EC Dewick, Primitive Christian Eschatology (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1912), in ACQR II.4 (September 1912). ______, ‘The Social Problem Committee’, SDM

626 4.8 (Sep 1913). ______, ‘Socialism and Society. A paper read before the Sydney Junior Clerical Society at Christ Church, S Laurence, April 21st, 1913’ , ACQR III.4 (Dec 1913), 304-21. ______, The Pastoral Ideal and the Personal Touch: A Sermon (Sydney: WA Pepperday, 1915). ______, review of JK Mozley, The Doctrine of the Atonement (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1915), Sydney Diocesan Magazine, 7.7 (July 1916), 14-15. ______, ‘The Literary History of the VSL’, TSLR III (1916), 5-21 (and notes of subsequent discussion). ______, The Church and the Plain Man (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1919). [Davies, David J], review of Members of the Church of England, Liberal Evangelicalism: An Interpretation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1923), Sydney Diocesan Magazine, 14.12 (Dec 1923), 14-16. ______, ‘Bishop Barnes. Personal Memories and Impressions’ (signed ‘by Cantab’), Letters to Editor, Sydney Morning Herald, 13 Feb 1926, 9. ______, review of RH Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism: A Historical Study (London: John Murray, 1926) under ‘Books to Read’, Sydney Diocesan Magazine 17.7 (July 1926), 12-14. ______, ‘The Interpretation of the VSL’, TSLR XIV (1927), 31-42. ______, Essay VI. ‘From 1841 to 1845: “The Catastrophe”’, of Centenary Essays of 1932-33, Church Chronicle (Diocese of Brisbane), August 1932; repr in John A Moses (ed) with Kenneth J Cable et al, From Oxford to the Bush: Essays on Catholic Anglicanism in Australia (Canberra, ACT: Broughton; Adelaide: SPCK-Australia, 1997), 41-47.

627 [Davies, David J], ‘Our Late Archbishop’ (signed ‘D.J.D.’), Sydney Diocesan Magazine 14.3 (March, 1933), 9. ______, photograph ‘“The Brothers” – Conference of Evangelical Clergy at St. Aidan’s College, Birkenhead, 15th, 16th, 17th July, 1909’, supplied with names in (signed) ‘D.J.D.’, ‘Our Late Archbishop’, Sydney Diocesan Magazine, March 1933, 10. Davies, David J, Gunther Memorial Lecture (Sydney: Robert Dey, 1933). Denney, James, The Death of Christ: Its Place and Interpretation in the New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905 [1902]). ______, The Death of Christ, ed RVG Tasker (London: Tyndale, 1951 [1902]). ______, The Atonement and the Modern Mind (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1903). ______, The Church and the Kingdom (London: Hodder and Stoughton, [1910]). Dewick, EC, Primitive Christian Eschatology. Hulsean Prize Essay 1908 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1912). Dickey, Brian, (ed), The Australian Dictionary of Evangelical Biography (Sydney: Evangelical History Association, 1994). Dickey, Brian, sv ‘Jones, Nathaniel’, ADEB.

Digges La Touche, Everard (see La Touche, E Digges).

Diocese of Sydney, Synod of – see below under Proceedings of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney. Dods, Marcus, The Bible: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1905; [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912]).

628 Dougan, Alan, A Backward Glance at the Angus Affair (Sydney: Wentworth, 1971). Dowland, David A, Nineteenth-century Anglican Theological Training: The Redbrick Challenge (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997). Dowling, DJ, sv ‘Guinness, Henry Grattan’ in BDE.

Downer, Arthur Cleveland, A Century of Evangelical Religion at Oxford (London: Church book Room).

Driver, SR, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1898 [1891]). Dunstan, Alan, and John S Peart-Binns, Cornish Bishop (London: Epworth, 1977). Edersheim, Alfred, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (London: Longmans, Green, 1883). Editor (RR Williams), The Liberal Evangelical VI.1 (Nov 1950): 349-350 (on JW Hunkin). Edwards, Benjamin, WASPS, Tykes and Ecumaniacs: Aspects of Australian Sectarianism 1945-1981 (Brunswick East, Victoria: Acorn, 2008). Elliott-Binns, LE, Religion in the Victorian Era (London: Lutterworth, 1936). ______, The Development of English Theology in the Later Nineteenth Century (London: Longmans, Green, 1952). ______, English Thought 1860-1900: The Theological Aspect (London: Longmans Green, 1956). Ellis-Jones, Ian, ‘The Relevance of Dr Samuel Angus for the Christian Church in Australia in the Twenty-first Century’ (Expanded version of a talk given on the 24th March 2010 at St Andrew’s College within the University of Sydney), 1 (accessed on- line 8th Aug 2012 at www.standrewscollege.edu.au/.../SRC20%talk. . .).

629 Emilsen, William W, & Geoffrey R Treloar (eds), The Heretics Club 1916-2006: Ninetieth Anniversary Papers (Sydney: Origen, 2009). Essays and Reviews (London: JW Parker, 1860). Essays Catholic and Critical - see under Selwyn, Edward Gordon (ed). Farrar, Frederic W, The History of Interpretation: Eight Lectures Preached before the University of Oxford in the Year MDCCCLV (London: Macmillan, 1886), Lecture VII. ‘Post-Reformation Epoch’. Fausset, AR, The Englishman's Critical and Expository Bible Cyclopaedia (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1878). Fiske, Shanyn, Heretical Hellenism: Women Writers, Ancient Greece, and the Victorian Popular Imagination (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University, 2008). Fletcher, Brian H, The Place of Anglicanism in Australia: Church, Society and Nation (Mulgrave, Victoria: Broughton, 2008). Flew, Antony (ed consultant), A Dictionary of Philosophy, rev 2nd ed (New York: St Martin’s, 1984). Frame, Tom, and Geoffrey Treloar (eds), Agendas of Australian Anglicans: Essays in Honour of Bruce Kaye (Adelaide: ATF, 2006). Frame, Tom, Ch 6. ‘The Dynamics and Difficulties in Debate in Australian Anglicanism’, in Tom Frame and Geoffrey Treloar (eds), Agendas of Australian Anglicans above. Frame, TR, Anglicans in Australia (Sydney, NSW: University of New South Wales, 2007). ______, Evolution in the Antipodes (Sydney: University of New South Wales, 2009). ______, A House Divided: A Quest for Unity

630 within Anglicanism (Brunswick East, Victoria: Acorn, 2010). French, Richard Valpy (ed), Lex Mosaica: Or the Law of Moses and the Higher Criticism, (London: Eyer and Spottiswoode, 1894). Gaffin Jr, Richard B (ed), Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980). Garnsey, Arthur, How the Gospels Grew: Three Lectures delivered in the Chapter House, St Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney (Sydney: Sn, 1935). Garnsey, David, Arthur Garnsey: A Man for Truth and Freedom (Sydney: Kingsdale, 1985). Geehan, ER (ed), Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Theology and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til (Sl: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971). George, Timothy, Theology of the Reformers (Leicester, Eng: Apollos, 1988). Gibson, Dr Edgar CS, The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England: Explained with an Introduction, 3rd ed (London: Methuen, 1902). Girdlestone, RB, HCG Moule, TW Drury, English Church Teaching on Faith Life and Order, 3rd ed (London: Charles Murray, 1899). Girdlestone, RB, ‘Reformation’, in his ‘Analytical Index’ to Girdlestone, RB, HCG Moule, TW Drury, English Church Teaching above. Gladstone, William (ed), The Works of Joseph Butler, Vol 1. The Analogy of Religion Natural and Revealed to the Constitution and Course of Nature; Vol II. Sermons (Oxford: Clarendon, 1896). Goldsworthy, Graeme, Christ-centred Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations and Principles

631 (Nottingham, England: Apollos, 2012). Gore, Charles (ed), Lux Mundi: A Series of Studies in the Religion of the Incarnation (London: John Murray, 1889). ______, Essay 8. ‘The Holy Spirit and Inspiration’, in Charles Gore (ed), Lux Mundi (1889). ______(ed), ‘Preface to the Tenth Edition’, Lux Mundi (London: John Murray, 1890) ______, The Epistle to the Romans: A Practical Exposition (London: John Murray, 1900 [1899]). Grave, SA, A History of Philosophy in Australia (St Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland, 1984). [Green, Thomas Hill], The Works of Thomas Hill Green, ed by RL Nettleship, Vol 3. Miscellanies and a Memoir, 3rd ed (London: Longmans Green, 1891). Green, William Henry, The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1896). Gribben, Crawford, and Timothy CF Stunt (eds), Prisoners of Hope: Aspects of Evangelical Millennialism in Britain and Ireland, 1800-1880 (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster, 2004). Griffin, Edward H, ‘Personality the Supreme Category of Philosophy’, Presbyterian and Reformed Review XIII.52 (Oct 1902). Guinness, Dr and Mrs H Grattan, The Divine Programme of World History (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1888; Harley House, 1892). Günther, Archdeacon WJ, ‘Presidential Address’, Proceedings of the Third Session of the Tenth Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, New South Wales,

632 September 25-30th, 1897 (Sydney: [The Diocese], Joseph Cook and Co, 1897), 31-32. Guyer, Paul (ed), The Cambridge Companion to Kant (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1992). Gwatkin, Henry Melvill, The Knowledge of God and Its Historical Development, 3rd ed (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908, repr 1931 [1906]). ______, The Eye for Spiritual Things (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907 [1906]). Hammond, T[homas] C[hatterton], ‘The New Theology’: An Examination and Criticism. A Lecture delivered in the City of Dublin YMCA, February, 1907 (Dublin: Irish Union of Young Men’s Christian Associations, [1907]). ______, Christian Science: Its Merits and Defects. A Lecture Delivered in the City of Dublin YMCA., May 1907 (Dublin: Irish Union of Young Men’s Christian Associations [1907]). Hammond, Thomas Chatterton, ‘Immanence and Transcendence’, Irish Church Quarterly, Vol 4, No 15 (Jul 1911), 198-215. ______, ‘Consciousness and the Sub- conscious’, Appendix to Everard Digges La Touche, The Person of Christ in Modern Thought (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912), 403-415. Hammond, Thomas C, ‘The Fascination of the Church of Rome.-A Reply’, Irish Church Quarterly, Vol 8, No 29 (Jan 1915), 60-69.

______, ‘Authority in Religion [I]’ 1, Irish Church Quarterly, Vol 9, No 36 (Oct 1916), 287- 299. ______, ‘Authority in Religion: II. The Place of Dogma’, Irish Church Quarterly, Vol 10, No 37 (Jan 1917), 25-39. Hammond, TC, The Cross on the Communion Table

633 (Belfast: [Irish Church Union], [1917]). ______, Authority in the Church: Being an Examination into the Position and Jurisdiction of Bishops in the Anglican Communion (Dublin; London: Hodges, Figgis; Church Book Room, 1921). ______, How the Roman Church Treats the Bible (Dublin: Church of Ireland, 1921). ______, in The Church of Christ: Minutes of a Discussion at a Meeting Held at Caxton Hall, Westminster, on Monday, October 9th, 1922 (see above under The Church of Christ: Minutes of a Discussion for full reference). ______, Comments on the Discussion at Caxton hall, Westminster Held October 9th, 1922: Hand v Hammond (London: Chas J Thynne, 1924). ______, Doubts of the Sons: Being an Examination of the Much Advertised Book, ‘Faith of our Fathers,’ by Cardinal Gibbons ([Dublin]: Connellan Mission, nd [1924+]). ______, Essay VII. ‘The Fiat of Authority’, in J Russell Howden (ed), Evangelicalism (1925), 156-206; republ as TC Hammond, Inspiration and Authority (below). ______, Reformation and Modern Ideals ([Dublin]: Connellan Mission, 1927). ______, Does the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Involve a Material Change? (London: The Church Book Room, [March 1928]. ______, sv ‘Irish Church’ (four paragraphs bringing CHH Wright’s article up to date) in The Protestant Dictionary. . . . New Edition, 1933 (see below under The Protestant Dictionary). ______, Concerning Penal Laws [reprinted from The Church of Ireland Gazette] (Dublin; London: Church of Ireland; Thynne, 1930).

634 ______, The Thirty-nine Articles: A Safeguard Against Romanism (London: Church Book Room, 1931). ______, ‘The Evangelical Revival and the Oxford Movement’, in Churchman 47.2 (April 1933), 1-12. ______, ‘Post-Reformation Theology in the Church of Ireland’, in W Bell and NC Emerson (eds), The Church of Ireland AD 432-1932: Report of the Church of Ireland Conference held in Dublin, 11th-14th October, 1932, to which is appended an account of the Commemoration by the Church of Ireland of the 1500th Anniversary of the Landing of St Patrick in Ireland (Dublin: Church of Ireland, 1933), 97-105. ______, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (London: Inter-Varsity, [1933?]), being ‘The Fiat of Authority’ above slightly edited. ______, Ch III. ‘The Significance of Christ’s Death’, in F Donald Coggan (ed), From the Manger to the Throne: Outstanding Events in the Life of Our Lord (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship of Evangelical Unions, [1935]), 39-49. ______, In Understanding Be Men: An Introductory Handbook on Christian Doctrine (London: Inter-Varsity, 1936 [–1968]). ______, ‘Butler’s analogy, 1736-1936’, The Evangelical Quarterly 8.4 (Oct 1936), 337-355. ______, ‘Five Addresses’ [Philipp 1], in The Katoomba Convention Book, 1937: Containing contributions from the Most Rev HWK Mowll, Mr Roy Gordon, Revs RO Finegan, TC Hammond, GH Morling, Hugh Paton, Dr CJ Rolls (Glebe, New South Wales: [Katoomba Convention Council?] Australasian Medical Publishing, 1937), 1-57. ______, Pivot Points in Revelation: Being a series of five discourses delivered at the Inter- Varsity Christian Fellowship Conference,

635 Healesville, Vic[toria] (Sydney: Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship of Australia, [1937]). ______, Perfect Freedom: An Introduction to Christian Ethics, reset edition (London: Inter- Varsity Fellowship of Evangelical Unions, 194-? [1938]). ______(ed T Brine), The One Hundred Texts of the Society for Irish Church Missions (London: The Society for Irish Church Missions; Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1939). ______, Bible Truths and Modern Fancies (Melbourne: S John Bacon, 1942). ______, Age-long Questions: An Examination of Some of the Problems of Religion (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, [1942]). ______, Fading Light: The Tragedy of Spiritual Decline in Germany (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, [1942]). ______, Can We Advance and Still Believe the Bible? Being verbatim report of an address delivered at a Youth Rally in Collins Street Baptist Church, Melbourne, 19th September, 1942 (Melbourne: S John Bacon, [1942]). ______, Abolishing God: A Reply to Professor Anderson of Sydney University (Melbourne: S John Bacon, [1943]). ______, Light and Life, (Melbourne: S John Bacon, [1943]). ______, So Great Salvation (Melbourne: S John Bacon, [1943]). ______, Reasoning Faith: An Introduction to Christian Apologetics (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship of Evangelical Unions, [1943]).

636 ______, ‘Barthianism and Natural Theology’, Societas 1945 (Moore College student publication), 5-11. ______, ‘Foreword’ to AE Hughes, Lift Up a Standard: The Centenary Story of the Society for the Irish Church Missions (London: Irish Church Missions, 1948). ______, The Way of Holiness (Melbourne: S John Bacon, [1952]). ______, The New Creation (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1953). ______, The Case for Protestantism: Being a Selection of Broadcast Addresses delivered over Station 2CH, Sydney, New South Wales (Greenacre, NSW: Gowans and Sons, nd). Hand, Peter J, in The Church of Christ: Minutes of a Discussion at a Meeting Held at Caxton Hall, Westminster, on Monday, October 9th, 1922 (London: Chas J Thynne and Jarvis [1922]. Harman, Allan, Isaiah: A Covenant to Be Kept for the Sake of the Church (Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2005). Harris, Brian, ‘Beyond Bebbington: The Quest for an Evangelical Identity in a Post-Modern Era’, Churchman, 122.3 (2008), 201-219. Haslam, William, From Death Into Life: Or Twenty Years of My Ministry, (London: Marshall and Scott, 1880). Headlam, A[rthur]C[ayley], ‘The New Theology’, Church Quarterly Review, 59, no 128 (July, 1907), 79-109. Henslow, G, in The Liberal Churchman: A Quarterly Review [Modern Churchman’s Union] 1:3 (June 1905). Hewitt, Gordon, The Problem of Success: A History of the Church Missionary Society 1910-1942, Vol 1.

637 (London: SCM, for the Church Missionary Society, 1970). Hilliard, David, Ch 3. ‘Dioceses, Tribes and Factions: Unity and Disunity in Australian Anglicanism’, in Tom Frame and Geoffrey Treloar, Agendas of Australian Anglicans: Essays in Honour of Bruce Kaye (Adelaide: ATF, 2006), 65. Hinchcliff, Peter, Ch 3. ‘Religious Issues, 1870- 1914’ in Brock, MG, & MC Curthoys, (eds), The History of the University of Oxford: Volume 7. Nineteenth-Century Oxford, Part 2 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000). Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, 3 vols (London and Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1875). Hoffecker, W Andrew, (ed), Understanding the Flow of Western Thought: Revolutions in Worldview (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2009). Hooker, Richard, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Eight Books (1592).

Horace, Odes I.II.40. Hort, Fenton John Anthony, The Christian Ecclesia (London: Macmillan, 1897). Houghton, Walter E, The Victorian Frame of Mind (New Haven: Yale University, 1969 [1957]). Howard, RT, 1Essay VI. ‘The Work of Christ’, in Liberal Evangelicalism (see under ‘Members of the Church of England’ below). Howden, J Russell (ed), Evangelicalism. By Members of the Fellowship of Evangelical Churchmen (London: Chas J Thynne, 1925). Howe, HGJ, ‘The Plans of the GAOTU’, in Transactions of the Sydney Lodge of Research IX (1922), 9-28.

638 ______, The Dawning of That Day (Sydney: [HGJ Howe] Wilson Bros, 1922; 5th ed, rev and enl, London: Advent Testimony and Preparation Movement, [1930?]). Hubbard, Nigel, sv ‘La Touche, Everard Digges’ in ADEB. Hughes, AE, Lift Up a Standard: The Centenary Story of the Society for the Irish Church Missions (London: Irish Church Missions, 1948). Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe, Theology of the English Reformers. New Edition (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker, 1980). Hunkin, JW, 1Essay VIII. ‘The Kingdom of God’, in Liberal Evangelicalism (see below under ‘Members of the Church of England’). ______, The Gospel for Tomorrow (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, Eng: Penguin, 1941). Hymnal Companion to the Book of Common Prayer (London: Low, Marston, Low and Searle, 1872).

Illingworth, JR, Personality Human and Divine, 6th repr (London: Macmillan, 1902).

Inge, WR, Essay II. ‘The Person of Christ’, and Essay VII. ‘The Sacraments’, in Contentio Veritatis (for which see below under Six Oxford Tutors). Jay, Elisabeth, Faith and Doubt in Victorian Britain (London: Macmillan Education, 1986). Johnson, Stuart Buchanan, ‘The Shaping of Colonial Liberalism: John Fairfax and the Sydney Morning Herald, 1841-1877’ (University of New South Wales PhD thesis, 2006). SM Johnstone, The Book of St Andrew’s Cathedral Sydney. (Sydney: Edgar Bragg and Sons, 1937).

639 Jones, Nathaniel, Our Daily Sacrifice (Melbourne: H Rayward, [1900]). ______, Jesus Only: A Message for the Unsettled (Sydney: Australian Churchman, [1902]). ______, Our Priestly Privileges . . . A Study of Hebrews xiii. 9-16 (Sydney: ‘Australian Churchman’, nd; The Australian Churchman, June 7, 1902). ______, Arise; Shine: An Epiphany Study for the New Year (Sydney: Madgwick, nd [post 1902]). ______, The Manifestation of God to those Who Keep His Word. An Address given at the Petersham Conference on Tuesday Evening, August 4th, 1903 ([Sydney]:Sn, [1903]). ______, Partners with the Holy Ghost (Sydney: WM Madgwick and Sons, 1904). ______, The Teaching of the Articles (Sydney: WM Madgwick and Sons, 1904; repr Church Missionary Society Book Room, 1944). ______, A Handful of Corn Upon the Mountains: Bible Readings and Addresses (Sydney: WM Madgwick and Sons, 1905). ______, Resurrection Life: A Prayer Book Study for Easter Tide, (London: Elliot Stock, 1909). ______, “Touch Me Not” [John 20:17]. An Examination of a Popular Theory of the Sacraments: A Sermon Preached in Moore College Chapel (Sydney: ‘Australian Churchman’, nd). ______, The New Cart (Sydney: ‘Australian Churchman’, nd). ______, “He Is Ever the Same”: An Exposition of the Twenty Third Psalm (Sydney: ‘A.C. World’, nd).

640 ______, The Church’s Commission (Sydney: “Australian Churchman” Office, nd). Jowett, Benjamin, The Epistles of St Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians and Romans: with Critical Notes and Dissertations. Vol 2: 1Essays and Dissertations (London: John Murray, 1859 [1855]). ______, ‘The Interpretation of Scripture’, in Essays and Reviews (1860). Judd, Stephen, ‘Defenders of their faith: power and party in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney 1909- 1938’ (University of Sydney PhD thesis, 1984). Judd, Stephen, [and] Kenneth Cable, Sydney Anglicans: A History of the Diocese (Sydney: Anglican Information Office, 1987). Kasdorf, Hans, ‘Gustav Warneck 1834-1910: Founder of the Scholarly Study of Missions’, in Gerald H Anderson, Robert T Coote, Norman A Horner, James M Phillips (eds), Mission Legacies: Biographical Studies of Leaders of the Modern Missionary Movement. American Society of Missiology Series No 19 (Mary Knoll, New York: Orbis, 1994).

Kaye, Bruce, A Church without Walls: Being Anglican in Australia (North Blackburn, Victoria: Dove, 1995). ______, (ed), Anglicanism in Australia: A History, (Carlton South, Victoria: Melbourne University, 2002). Keble, John, Sermons Academical and Occasional (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1848). Kidner, Derek, Psalms 1-72: Introduction and Commentary (Leicester, Eng; Downer’s Grove, Illinois, USA: Inter-Varsity, 1973). Kirk, Kenneth, Essay 8. ‘The Atonement’, in Selwyn, Edward Gordon, Essays Catholic and Critical below.

641 Klapwijk, Jacob, Sander Griffioen and Gerben Groenewoud (eds), Bringing Into Captivity Every Thought: Capita Selecta in the History of Christian Evaluations of Non-Christian Philosophy (Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 1991). Kline, Meredith G, The Structure of Biblical Authority. Revised Edition (Hamilton, MA: Meredith G Kline, 1989). Knox, David Broughton, Thirty-Nine Articles: The Historic Basis of Anglican Faith. Christian Foundations series 20 (London; Hodder and Stoughton, 1967; Sydney: Anglican Information Office, 1976 [rev ed]), republ in Kirsten Birkett (ed), D Broughton Knox: Selected Works, Vol II. Church and Ministry (Kingsford, NSW: Matthias Media, 2003), 107-198. Knox, D Broughton, ‘Propositional Revelation the Only Revelation’, Reformed Theological Review 19 (Feb 1960), 1-9, republ in Tony Payne (ed), D Broughton Knox: Selected Works, Vol I: The Doctrine of God (Kingsford, NSW: Matthias Media, 2000), 307-317. ______, ‘The Church’ (Protestant Faith radio broadcast, 22/3/1970); republ in Kirsten Birkett (ed), D Broughton Knox: Selected Works. Vol II: Church and Ministry (Kingsford, NSW: Matthias Media, 2003), 19-22. ______, ‘De-mythologising the church’, The Reformed Theological Review 32 (1973), 48-55; republ in Kirsten Birkett (ed), D Broughton Knox: Selected Works. Vol II: Church and Ministry (Kingsford, NSW: Matthias Media, 2003), 23-31. ______, ‘The church, the churches and the denominations of the churches’, The Reformed Theological Review 48 (1989), 15-25; republ in Kirsten Birkett (ed), D Broughton Knox: Selected Works. Vol II: Church and Ministry (Kingsford, NSW: Matthias Media, 2003), 85-98.

642 Knox, Edmund Arbuthnott, On What Authority: A Review of the Foundations of Christian Faith (London: Longmans, Green, 1922). ______, ‘Foreword’ to TC Hammond, Does the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Involve a Material Change? (London: The Church Book Room, [March 1928]. ______, Reminiscences of an Octogenarian, 1847-1934 (London: Hutchinson, [1934]). Knudsen, Robert D, Ch XIV. ‘Progressive and Regressive Tendencies in Christian Apologetics’ in ER Geehan (ed), Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Theology and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til (Sl: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971) Kuhn, TS, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed (Chicago; London: University of Chicago, 1996 [1962]). Kuyper, Abraham, Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology: It Principles. Introduction by BB Warfield (NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1898; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899). La Touche, E Digges, Christian Certitude: Its Intellectual Base (London: James Clarke, 1910). ______, The Person of Christ in Modern Thought (London: James Clarke, 1912). ______, Is Christianity Scientific? Australian Church Manuals (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, [1913]). ______, The Need for an Evangelical Revival. Papers for Evangelical Churchmen, No 1 (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, [1914]). ______, The Philosophy of Faith: Five Lectures (London: Church Bookroom, 1922).

643 Lake, Meredith, Proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord: A History of the Sydney University Evangelical Union (University of Sydney: The EU Graduates Fund, 2005). Langford, Thomas A, In Search of Foundations: English Theology 1900-1920 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969). Larsen, David L, The Creative Company: A Christian Reader's Guide to Great Literature and Its Themes (Grand Rapids, Mich: Kregel, 1999). Larsen, Timothy, Crisis of Doubt: Honest Faith in Nineteenth-century England (Oxford: University, 2006). ______, (ed), Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 2003). Lawton, William James, ‘The Better Time to Be: The Kingdom of God and Social Reform; Anglicanism and the Diocese of Sydney 1885-1914’ (PhD thesis, University of New South Wales, 1985). ______, The Better Time to Be: Utopian Attitudes to Society Among Sydney Anglicans 1885- 1914 (Kensington, NSW: New South Wales University, 1990). Lawton, William [James], Ch 19. ‘Nathaniel Jones—Preacher of Righteousness’, in Peter T O’Brien and David G Peterson (eds), God Who is Rich in Mercy: Essays Presented to Dr DB Knox (Homebush West, NSW, Australia: Lancer, ANZEA Publishers, 1986). Lawton, Bill [William James], Ch 8. ‘Australian Anglican Theology’, in Bruce Kaye (ed), Anglicanism in Australia: A History (Melbourne: Melbourne University).

Lewis, CS, Mere Christianity (London: Collins Fontana, 1952).

644 Lex Mosaica, or the Law of Moses (see above, under French, Richard Valpy). Liberal Evangelicalism (1923) -- see below under ‘Members of the Church of England’. Linder, Robert D, sv ‘McGowen, James Sinclair Taylor’, ADEB. ______, ‘“Honest Jim” McGowen (1855-1922) as a Christian in Politics’, Lucas 15 (June 1993), 44-59. Lints, Richard, Ch 9. ‘The Age of Intellectual Iconoclasm: The Nineteenth Century Revolt against Theism’, in Andrew Hoffecker, Revolutions in Worldview: Understanding the Flow of Western Thought (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2007), 281-317. ‘List of Suggested Books’ [for] ‘Th.L.’, [subject of] ‘Doctrine’, The Australian College of Theology MANUAL for the year 1913 (Sydney: WA Pepperday, 1913). Litton, Edward Arthur, A Guide to the Study of Holy Scripture (London: Seeley, Jackson, and Halliday, 1871 [1861]). [______] (ed), William Payley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: In Three Parts. New Edition, with Notes, Appendix, and Preface by the Rev EA Litton (London: Christian Evidence Committee of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1872 [last ed 1914]). ______, The Church of Christ [in its Idea, Attributes and Ministry: With a particular reference to the Controversy on the Subject between Romanists and Protestants]; with an Introduction by FJ Chavasse (London: James Nisbet, 1898 [1851]). ______, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology on the Basis of the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England, Second Edition; with an Introduction by

645 Henry Wace (London: Elliott Stock, 1902 [Pt I, 1882; Pt II, 1892]). Loane, Marcus L, A Centenary History of Moore Theological College (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1955). ______, Archbishop Mowll: The Biography of Howard West Kilvinton Mowll, Archbishop of Sydney and Primate of Australia ([London]: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960). ______, Makers of Our Heritage: A Study of Four Evangelical Leaders (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1967). ______, John Charles Ryle, 1816-1900 (London, Sydney, Auckland and Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1983). ______, Mark These Men: A Brief Account of Some Evangelical Clergy in the Diocese of Sydney Who Were Associated with Archbishop Mowll (Canberra: Acorn, 1985). ______, These Happy Warriors: Friends and Contemporaries (Blackwood, South Australia: New Creation, 1988). ______, review of WJ Lawton, The Better Time to Be: Utopian Attitudes to Society Among Sydney Anglicans, 1885-1914 (University of New South Wales, 1990) in Lucas 11 (April 1991), 41-42. Lucretius (ca 94-55 BC), De Rerum Natura, Bk V.

Lux Mundi – see above under Gore, Charles (ed).

Lyttleton, Arthur, Essay 7. ‘The Atonement’, in Charles Gore (ed), Lux Mundi (1889).

McDonald, HD, Theories of Revelation: An Historical Study 1860-1960 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1963).

646 McDowell, RB, and DA Webb, Trinity College Dublin, 1592-1952: An Academic History (Cambridge; London: Cambridge University, 1982). McGillion, Chris, The Chosen Ones: The Politics of Salvation in the Anglican Church (Crows Nest, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin, 2005). Machen, J Gresham, Christianity and Liberalism (New York: Macmillan, 1923; repr Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956). ______, The Virgin Birth of Christ (New York: Harper, 1932 [1930]). Macintosh (sc ‘McIntosh’), JA, ‘“External Prop” or “Divine Fiat”’ in Lucas: An Evangelical History Review, Series 2, No 2 (Spring 2010), 67-91. McNeile, AH, ‘The Religious Situation in Cambridge’, The New Commentator (see below for), later (see above), Comment and Criticism) I.1 (March 1913). Macquarrie, John, Twentieth-Century Religious Thought, 4th ed (London: SCM, 1988). Macran, FW, English Apologetic Theology (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905). Manley, GT, The Gospel in the Psalms: Being a Study of the Commission to Evangelize the World as Foreshadowed in the Psalms (London: Church Missionary Society, 1908). ______, Essay VI. ‘The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible’, in J Russell Howden (ed), Evangelicalism (1925) -- see Howden, J Russell above. ______, (ed), Search the Scriptures (Inter- Varsity Fellowship, 1949 [1934]). ______, review of Reasoning Faith in Churchman 59 (1945), 186.

647 ______, (ed), The New Bible Handbook (London: The Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1950 [1947]). ______, The Return of Jesus Christ (London: Inter-Varsity, 1960). Maple, GS, sv ‘Barker, Frederic’ in ADEB.

______, sv ‘Barker, Frederic’ in BDE (Leicester: IVP, 2003).

Maurice, FD, The Doctrine of Sacrifice: Deduced from the Scriptures (London: Macmillan, 1893 [1854]). ______, Theological Essays (London: Macmillan, 1904 [1853]). Melancthon, Philip, Apologia Confessionis (1531). See ‘Apology [Defence] of the Augsburg Confession’ (1530), in Theodore G Tappert (transl and ed), The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959). Members of the Church of England [ed T Guy Rogers], Liberal Evangelicalism: An Interpretation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1923). ______, The Inner Life: Essays in Liberal Evangelicalism. Second Series (London: Hodder and Stoughton, [1925]). Members of the University of Cambridge – see under Swete, Henry Barclay (ed) below. Mildmay Conference,‘Our God Shall Come’: Addresses on the Second Coming of the Lord (London: Shaw, [1878]).

‘Ministration of the Publick Baptism of Children’, The Book of Common Prayer. Moberly, RC, Atonement and Personality (London: John Murray, 1901).

648 Moberly, WH, Essay VI. ‘The Atonement’, in Foundations (see below under Seven Oxford Men). Moody, DL, Bible Characters (London: Morgan and Scott, [1885]. Moorhouse, J, Church Work, Its Means and Methods (London: Macmillan, 1894). Morris, Leon, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3rd rev ed (London; Grand Rapids, Mich: Tyndale; Wm B Eerdmans, 1965 [1955]). ______, ‘Foreword’ to Warren Nelson, TC Hammond: Irish Christian: His Life and Legacy in Ireland and Australia (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994). Motyer, Alec, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Leicester, Eng: Inter-Varsity, 1993). ______, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary in Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Leicester, Eng: Inter-Varsity, 1999). Moule, Handley CG, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: University, 1879). ______, Outlines of Christian Doctrine. The Theological Educator series, ed W Robertson Nicoll, 4th ed rev (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1894 [1889]). Moule, H[andley]CG, ‘The Christian’s Relationship to the World’, a paper read before the Church Congress in Cardiff (1890?) at the Devotional Meeting, republ in The Victorian Churchman of March 14, 1890, 70-71. ______, The Epistle of St Paul to the Romans. The Expositor's Bible, 2nd ed (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1894). ______, The Evangelical School in the Church

649 of England: Its Men and its Work in the Nineteenth Century (London: James Nisbet, 1901). Moule, H[andley]CG ‘Introduction: Some Recollections’, in Alexander Smellie, Evan Henry Hopkins: A Memoir (see below under ‘Smellie, Alexander’).

Moyal, Ann, A Bright & Savage Land: Scientists in Colonial Australia (Sydney: Collins, 1993 [1986]). Mozley, Ann, sv ‘Clarke, William Branwhite (1798–1878)’ in ADB, Vol 3.

Mozley, JK, ‘Religious Life and Thought at Cambridge’, Australasian Church Quarterly Review I.1 (Oct 1910). ______, The Doctrine of the Atonement (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1915). ______, Some Tendencies in British Theology: From the publication of Lux Mundi to the present day (London: SPCK, 1952). Munden, AF, sv ‘Birks, Thomas Rawson’ in BDE. Murray, John, review of Steven Barabas, So Great Salvation: The History and Message of the Keswick Convention (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H Revell Company, nd [c 1952]) in Collected Writings of John Murray Vol 4. Studies in Theology [and] Reviews (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1992), 281-86. Nairn, Bede, sv ‘McGowen, James Sinclair’, ADB, Vol 10. Neatby, William Blair, A History of the Plymouth Brethren (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1902 [1901]). Neil, Charles, and M Willoughby (eds), The Tutorial Prayer Book for the Teacher, the Student, and the General Reader (London: The Harrison Trust, 1913).

650 Neill, Stephen, A History of Christian Missions, rev for 2nd ed by Owen Chadwick (Harmondsworth, Eng: Penguin, 1984). Nelson, Warren, T.C. Hammond: His Life and Legacy in Ireland and Australia (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994). Nettleship, RL, (ed), The Works of Thomas Hill Green, Vol III (London: Longmans, Green, 1889). The New Commentator: A Quarterly Cambridge Paper for the Discussion of Current Religious & Theological Questions Vol I.1 (March, 1913); continued as Comment and Criticism with Vol 1.4 (February, 1914) and ceased publication with Vol II.4 (February, 1915). Noll, Mark A, The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield and the Wesleys (Leicester, Eng: Apollos, 1904). O’Brien, Peter T and David G Peterson (eds), God Who Is Rich in Mercy: Essays presented to Dr. D.B. Knox (Homebush West: Lancer, 1986). O’Neill, Onora, Ch 9. ‘Vindicating reason’, in Paul Guyer (ed), The Cambridge Companion to Kant (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1992) O’Neill, WM, sv ‘Muscio, Bernard’, ADB, Vol 10 (1986). Orr, James, The Christian View of God and the World: As centring in the Incarnation. The Kerr Lectures for 1890-91 (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans 1948 [Edinburgh: Andrew Elliott, 1893]). ______, The Ritschlian Theology (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1897) ______, The Bible Under Trial: Apologetic Papers in view of Present-day Assaults on Holy Scripture (London: Marshall Brothers, [1907].

651 ______, The Problem of the Old Testament: Considered with reference to Recent Criticism (London: James Nisbet, 1907). ______, Sin as a Problem Today (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910). ‘Our God Shall Come.’ Addresses on the Second Coming of the Lord, Mildmay Park, Feb. 26-28, 1878 (London: John F Shaw and Co, nd [1878]). Ovey, Michael, ‘Is Christ's Incarnation the Culmination of the Cosmic Process?’ in David W Peterson (ed), ‘The Word became flesh’: Evangelicals and the Incarnation. Papers from the Sixth Oak Hill College Annual School of Theology (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003). Oxford University Calendar (Oxford: Clarendon, 1883). Oxford University Examination Papers. Second Public Examination [1886]. Honour School of Theology.

Oxford University Gazette, XIII. 1882-83. Packer, JI, review of TC Hammond, The New Creation, in The Church Gazette, January-February, 1955, 22-23 (digital photograph supplied by ‘The Trustees of the Lambeth Palace Library’). ______, ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God: Some Evangelical Principles (Leicester, UK: Inter- Varsity, 1958). ______, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Chicago, Ill: Inter-Varsity, 1961). ______, Ch 3. ‘The Oxford Evangelicals in Theology’, in JS Reynolds, The Evangelicals at Oxford 1735-1871 (see below under Reynolds, JS). ______, ‘Preface’ to JC Ryle, Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties and Roots,

652 (Welwyn, Hertfordshire, Eng: Evangelical Press, 1979 [London: W Hunt, 1879]). ______, Keep in Step with the Spirit (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 1984). Paget, Stephen, Henry Scott Holland: Memoirs and Letters (London: John Murray, 1921). Parker, THL (ed), English Reformers. Library of Christian Classics Vol XXVI (London: SCM, 1966). Parer, Michael S, Australia’s Last Heresy Hunt: The Angus Case (Sydney: Wentworth, 1971). Passmore, John, ‘Philosophy’, in AL McLeod (ed), The Pattern of Australian Culture (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, 1963), 131-69. ______, A Hundred Years of Philosophy, 2nd ed (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984 [Duckworth, 1968). Pearson, John, Exposition of the Creed [1659], ed Robert Sinker (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1882). Petter, PW, Assembly Service (London & Edinburgh: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, [1930]). Pfleiderer, Otto, The Development of Theology in Germany since Kant, and its Progress in Great Britain since 1825 (London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1893). Phillips, Walter, ‘Religious Response to Darwin in the Nineteenth Century’, in Journal of Australian Studies, no 26, May 1990. Piggin, Stuart, Evangelical Christianity in Australia (Melbourne: Oxford University, 1996). Piggin, S, ‘A History of Theological Education in Australia’, in (see below) GR Treloar (ed), The Furtherance of Religious Beliefs. Piggin, Stuart, Firestorm of the Lord: The History

653 and Prospects for Revival in the Church and the World (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 2000). ______, Spirit of a Nation: The Story of Australia’s Christian Heritage (Sydney: Strand Publishing, 2004 ; 12nd ed of Stuart Piggin, Evangelical Christianity in Australia above. Pollock, JC, A Cambridge Movement, (London: John Murray, 1953). Porter, Muriel, The New Puritans: The Rise of Fundamentalism in the Anglican Church (Melbourne: Melbourne University, 2006). ‘Prayer of Consecration’ in ‘The Order of the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion’, The Book of Common Prayer (1662). A Prayer Book for Australia ([Sydney]: Broughton, 1995). ‘Presidential Address’ (Archdeacon WJ Günther), Proceedings of the Third Session of the Tenth Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, New South Wales, September 25-30th, 1897 (Sydney: [The Diocese], Joseph Cook and Co, 1897), 31-32. The Protestant Dictionary: Containing Articles on the History, Doctrines, and Practices of the Christian Church, ed Charles CHH Wright and Charles Neil (London: Harrison Trust, 1904); New Edition, ed Charles Sydney Carter and GE Alison Weeks (London: Harrison Trust, 1933). Pusey, EB, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, 2nd ed (Oxford: John Parker, 1867 [1864]). Ramsey, Arthur Michael, F.D. Maurice and the Conflicts of Modern Theology (Cambridge: University, 1951). ______, From Gore to Temple: the Development of Anglican Theology between Lux Mundi and the

654 Second World War, 1889–1939 (London and New York: Longmans, Green, 1960). Randall, Ian M, Spirituality and Social Change: The Contribution of FB Meyer (1847-1929) (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster, 2003). Rashdall, H, Essay I. ‘The Ultimate Basis of Theism’ in Contentio Veritatis (see below under Six Oxford Tutors). Rashdall, Hastings, The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology. Bampton Lectures 1915 (London: Macmillan, 1919). Rawlinson, AEJ, Essay VIII. ‘The Principle of Authority’, in Foundations (see below under Seven Oxford Men). ______, Essay 3. ‘Authority’, I. Authority as a Ground of Belief, in Essays Catholic and Critical (see below under Selwyn, Edward Gordon (ed). Rawlyk, 1GA , ‘Introduction’, in Rawlyk, GA (ed), Aspects of Canadian Evangelical Experience (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University, 1997). Reardon, Bernard MG, Religious Thought in the Victorian Age: A Survey from Coleridge to Gore, 2nd ed (London: Longman, 1995). Record (English Evangelical newspaper). Reid, JR, Marcus L Loane: A Biography (Brunswick East, Victoria: Acorn, 2004). Report of King’s Birthday Convention, St. Paul’s Gazette (Chatswood Church of England parish), July 1922. Reventlow, Henning Graf, The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).

655 Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline (London: HMSO, 1906).

Reynolds, JS, Evangelicals at Oxford: 1735-1871: A Record of an Unchronicled Movement with the Record Extended to 1905. With an essay on Oxford Evangelical theology by the Revd. Dr. J.I. Packer (Appleford, Abingdon, Oxford, Eng: Marcham Manor, 1975). Riesen, RA, sv ‘Smith, George Adam’ in DSCHT. Rimmington, Gerald T, ‘Thomas Robinson: Evangelical Minister in Leicester, 1774-1813’ in Transactions of the Leicestershire Archeological Society, 75 (2001), 106-7 (accessed 15 April 2013 at www.ac.uk/downloads/lahs/2001/GRimmington/LAHS/200 1. Ritschl, Albrecht, The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation (Edinburgh; New York: T&T Clark; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900). Robert, Dana L, sv ‘Premillennialism’, in EDWM. Robertson, James, The Early Religion of Israel as set forth by Biblical Writers and by Modern Critical Historians: The Baird Lecture for 1889 (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood, 1892). Robin, A deQ, Charles Perry, Bishop of Melbourne: The Challenges of a Colonial Episcopate, 1947-1876 (Nedlands, WA: University of Western Australia, 1967). Robinson, DWB, The Meaning of Baptism (Beecroft, NSW: Evangelical Tracts and Publication, 1958 [1956]), repr in Bolt and Thompson (eds), Donald Robinson: Selected Works. Vol 2. Preaching God’s Word, Ch 22). ______, ‘“The Church” Revisited: An Autobiographical Fragment’, The Reformed Theological Review 48 (1989), 4-14, repr in Bolt and Thompson (eds), Donald Robinson: Selected

656 Works. Vol 1. Assembling God’s People, Ch 21. ______, ‘Anglican Church League’, Lucas Nos 21 & 22 (Jun & Dec 1996), 156-57. Rogers, T Guy (ed) – see above under ‘Members of the Church of England’. ______, Chapter II. ‘Religious Authority’, in Liberal Evangelicalism (see above under Members of the Church of England). ______– see also under ‘TGR’ below. Ross, KR, sv ‘Denney, James’ in DSCHT.

Rupke, Nicolas A, Ch 11. ‘Christianity and the Sciences’, in Sheridan Gilley and Brian Stanley (eds) Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol 8: World Christianities c.1815-c.1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2006). Russell, Bertrand, ‘A Free Man’s Worship’, Independent Review [December 1903]. ______, Mysticism and Logic, and Other Essays (London: Longmans Green, 1918); repr as Mysticism and Logic, and Other Essays (Harmondsworth, Eng: Penguin, [1954]). Ryle, Herbert Edward, The Canon of the Old Testament: An Essay on the Gradual Growth and Formation of the Hebrew Canon of Scripture (London: Macmillan, 1892). Ryle, JC, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels for Family and Private Use (London: CJ Thynne, 1856). ______, ‘Preface’, Expository Thoughts on the Gospel of St Matthew, iv. ______, Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion from the Standpoint of an Evangelical Churchman (London, 1874 [30-plus editions by 1977]).

657 ______, Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties and Roots (London; Hertfordshire, Eng: W Hunt, 1877; Welwyn, Herts, Eng: Evangelical, 1979 [repr of 1879 ed]). ______, Light from Old Times: Or, Protestant Facts and Men. With an Introduction for Our Own Days (London: W Hunt and Co, 1891 [1890]). 5th ed, illustrated, 1924; republ as JC Ryle, Light from Old Times: Or Protestant Facts and Men, with an Introduction for Our Own Days (Moscow, Idaho: Charles Nolan, 2000]). Salmon, George, The Infallibility of the Church: Lectures Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Dublin, 3rd ed (London: John Murray, 1899). ______, The Human Element in the Gospels: A Commentary on the Synoptic Narrative (London: John Murray, 1907). Salter, FR, ‘Preface’ to A Cunningham, William Cunningham (see under Cunningham, A, above). Sanday, William, and Arthur C Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The International Critical Commentary, 5th ed (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902 [1895]). Scales, DA, ‘Illustrations of Compromise in Church History’, in Churchman 102.3 (1988), 228-33. Schleicher, Rev BA, address in The Official Report of the Church Congress: Held at Hobart on January 23 rd, 24th, 25th, and 26th, 1894 (Tasmania: Diocesan Book Depot, 1894). Schniewind, JB, Ch 10. ‘Autonomy, obligation, and virtue: An overview of Kant’s moral philosophy’, in Guyer (ed), The Cambridge Companion to Kant (see above under Guyer).

Scofield, CI, (ed), The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments: Authorized Version, with a new system of connected topical references to all

658 the greater themes of Scripture, with annotations, revised marginal renderings, summaries, definitions, and index: to which are added helps at hard places, explanations of seeming discrepancies, and a new system of paragraphs (New York; London: Oxford University; Henry Frowde, 1909).

Seeberg, Reinhold, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines. Revised by author; Eng Tr [from German] by Charles E Hay. Vol 1. History of Doctrines in the Ancient Church; Vol 2. History of Doctrines in the Middle and Modern Ages. (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, [1905]; Grand Rapids: Baker [repr in one vol], 1966).

Sellers, Ian, sv ‘Rashdall, Hastings’ in NIDCC.

Selwyn, E[dward]G[ordon], ‘The Historic Christ’, in Comment and Criticism II.2 (Aug 1914). Selwyn, Edward Gordon, (ed), 3rd ed, Essays Catholic and Critical (London: SPCK, 1950 [1926]).

Service Register of Holy Trinity Church, Cambridge (June 18, 1905 to August 24, 1911). Seton, WW, (ed), Christian Apologetics: A Series of Addresses delivered before the Christian Association of University College London, by1 George Henslow, Henry Wace, DS Margoliouth, RE Welsh, George T Manley, Cecil Wilson. With an introduction by GW Maclaren (London: John Murray, 1903). Seven Oxford Men, Foundations: A Statement of Christian Belief in Terms of Modern Thought (London: Macmillan, 1912). Shiner, Rory, Ch 2. ‘An Appreciation of D.W.B.Robinson’s New Testament Theology’, in Peter G Bolt and Mark D Thompson (eds), Donald Robinson: Selected Works, Vol 3. Appreciation.

659 Sibtain, Nancy deSP, in collaboration with Winifred M Chambers, Dare to Look Up: A Memoir of George Alexander Chambers (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1968). Sinclair, William, ‘St Augustine of Hippo’, Churchman, 13 (April 1899), 374-8. Sinker, Robert, ‘Higher Criticism’: What Is It, and Where Does It Lead Us? (London: James Nisbet, 1899). Six Oxford Tutors, Contentio Veritatis: Essays in Constructive Theology (London: John Murray, 1902). Smeal, Jane, & Helen G Thompson, Life and Letters of Silvanus Phillips Thompson (London: T Fisher Unwin, 1920). Smellie, Alexander, Evan H Hopkins: A Memoir. With an introductory chapter by HCG Moule (London: Marshall Brothers, [1920]). Smith, George Adam, The Book of Isaiah, 2 vols in The Expository Bible (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1888, 1890). ______, Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1901). Smith, M, sv ‘Pennefather, William (1816-1873)’ in BDE.

Smith, William Saumarez, The Blood of the New Covenant: A Theological Essay, (Cambridge: Macmillan & Bower, 1889).

Sorley, WR, The Ethics of Naturalism, 2nd ed ([Edinburgh]: Blackwood, 1904 [1885]). ______, A History of British Philosophy to 1900. (Cambridge: University, 1965 [1920]).

T.B.S.-G (Thomas Banks Strong), sv ‘Heurtley, AC’, DNB.

660 St Clair, Terry and June, ‘V Wor Bro Ven Archdeacon David John Davies MA, BD 1879-1935’ in Masonic Historical Society of New South Wales Bulletin, 38 (October 1997).

Stanton, Henry Vincent, The Gospels as Historical Documents, Vol 1 (Cambridge: University, 1903, [Vol 2 1909], [Vol 3 1920]). Stonehouse, NB, ‘Martin Dibelius and the Relation of History and Faith’, WTJ 2.2 (May 1940), 105- 139, repr in NB Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus and Other New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids, Mich: WmB Eerdmans, 1957). Storr, Vernon F, The Development of English Theology in the Nineteenth Century 1800-1860 (London: Longmans, Green, 1913). Storr, V[ernon]F, Chapter IV. ‘The Bible and its Value’, in Liberal Evangelicalism (1923). See above under ‘Members of the Church of England’. ______, Freedom and Tradition: A Study of Liberal Evangelicalism (London: Nisbet, 1940). Stott, John R (David L Edwards, with), Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1988). Streeter, BH [‘B.H.S.’], ‘Introduction’ to Foundations (see above under ‘Seven Oxford Men’). Strauss, David Friedrich, The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined, tr Marian Evans from 4th German ed (London: Chapman, 1846). Swete, Henry Barclay (ed), Members of the University of Cambridge, Essays on Some Theological Questions of the Day [Cambridge Theological Essays] (London: Macmillan, 1905). ______(ed), Members of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biblical Essays (London: Macmillan, 1909).

661 Swifte, Yasmine Gai, ‘Charles Dickens and the Role of Legal Institutions in Social and Moral Reform: Oliver Twist, Bleak House, and Our Mutual Friend’ (Sydney: University of Sydney, PhD in English Literature, 2006), Abstract. [http://hdl.handle.net/2123/409] (date accessed not recorded). The Sydney Diocesan Directory for the Year of Our Lord 1886 (Sydney: Joseph Cook, 1886).

The Sydney Diocesan Directory (Sydney: John Sands, 1920).

Sydney Diocesan Magazine, 1912 (and subsequent years as referenced).

Sydney Morning Herald (National Australian Library, Trove search).

T.B.S-G, sv ‘Heurtley, Charles Abel’, in DNB. TGR [T Guy Rogers], ‘Introduction’, in Members of the Church of England, Liberal Evangelicalism, above. Thomas, WH Griffith, ‘A Sacrament of Our Redemption’: An Enquiry into the Meaning of the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament and the Church of England (London: Bemrose and Sons, [1904]); A Sacrament of Our Redemption: An Enquiry. . . , 2nd ed revised (London: The Church Book Room, 1920). ______, ‘Introductory Note’ in WH Griffith Thomas (ed), Anglican Church Handbooks (London: Longmans, Green, 1909-1912). ______, The Holy Spirit of God (Chicago: Bible Institute Colportage Ass’n, [?1913]). ______, The Catholic Faith: A Manual of Instruction for Members of the Church of England (London: Church Book Room, 1952 [1904]). ______, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles (London:

662 Longmans, Green, 1930). Thomas, M Guthrie Clark, William Henry Griffith Thomas 1861-1924: (London: Church Book Room, 1949). Thompson, Mark D, Assured Ground on which to Stand: The Role of Authority and Interpretive Method in Luther’s Approach to Scripture. Foreword by Alister McGrath (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004). Toon, Peter, Evangelical Theology 1833-1856: A Response to Tractarianism (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1979). Torrey, RA, Dixon, AC, and others (eds), The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (Los Angeles: Bible Institute of Los Angeles, 1917; repr Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980). Treloar, Geoffrey R (ed), The Furtherance of Religious Beliefs: Essays on the History of Theological Education in Australia. A Special Combined edition of Lucas: An Evangelical History Review 19/20 (1995-96). ______, Lightfoot the Historian: The Nature and Role of History in the Life and Thought of JB Lightfoot (1828-1889) as Churchman and Scholar. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament: 2. Reihe (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Treloar, GR, sv ‘Hammond, Thomas Chatterton’, in Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, ed Timothy Larsen (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 2003). Treloar, GR, sv ‘Smith, William Saumarez’ in ADEB.

Treloar, Geoffrey R, ‘TC Hammond the Controversialist’, Sydney Anglican Historical Society Journal 51:1 (June 2006). T.C.D: A College Miscellany, Vol VI (1900) and Vol VIII (1902).

663 Troeltsch, Ernst, ‘Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology’ (1898), in Religion in History, tr James Luther Adams and Walter F Bense (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). Turton, WH, The Truth of Christianity, 6th ed (London: [Wells, Gardner, Darton], 1907). University of Oxford, The Examination Statutes: for the Degrees of B.A., B.Mus., B.C.L., and B.M. Together with the Decrees of Convocation and Regulations of the Boards of Studies and Boards of Faculties, at present in force relating thereto. Revised to the end of Trinity Term ... / (Oxford: Clarendon, 1885 [1877-1968]). Upton, W Prescott, The Churchman’s History of the Oxford Movement (London: Church Book Room, 1933). Van Til, Cornelius, A Christian Theory of Knowledge ([Philadelphia]: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969). ______, An Introduction to Systematic Theology: Prolegomena and the Doctrines of Revelation, Scripture, and God. Second Edition, edited William Edgar (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2007). The Victorian Churchman: A Church of England Newspaper (complete copy, 1890-1919, in Leeper Library of Trinity College, University of Melbourne). Vidler, Alec R, F.D. Maurice and Company: Nineteenth Century Studies (London: SCM, 1966). Vos, Geerhardus, ‘The Scriptural Doctrine of the Love of God’, Presbyterian and Reformed Review 13 (1902), 1-37, repr in Richard B Gaffin Jr (ed), Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), 425-57. ______, ‘Christian Faith and the Truthfulness of Bible History’, The Princeton Theological

664 Review 4 (1906), 289-305, repr in Richard B Gaffin Jr (ed), Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), 458-471. Wace, Henry, and CA Buchheim (eds), First Principles of the Reformation or the Ninety-five Theses and the Three Primary Works of Dr Martin Luther. Translated into English. Edited with Theological and Historical Introductions . . . (London: John Murray, 1883). Re-issued as -- ______, and CA Buchheim (eds), Luther's Primary Works: Together with his Shorter and Larger Catechisms. Edited with Theological and Historical Essays . . . (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1896). ______(ed), Criticism Criticised (London: The Bible League, 1902). ______, ‘Introductory Remarks on the Study of Dogmatic Theology’, in EA Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology.... (1902) above.

______, ‘The Gospel and the Political World’ (repr from the Record of 1910) in Henry Wace, Some Issues of the Day, (London: James Nisbet, 1912).

Ward, Mrs Humphry, Robert Elsmere (London: Macmillan, 1888). Warfield, BB, ‘Modern Theories of the Atonement’ in The Princeton Theological Review 1 (1903), 81- 92, repr in Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, (ed Samuel G Craig), The Person and Work of Christ (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950), Ch 11. ‘Modern Theories of the Atonement’, 351- 369.

______, sv ‘Atonement’ in The New Schaff- Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1908-1912), Vol 6:349- 356; 1repr in The Works of Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield. 10 vols 1927-1932, Vol 10. Studies in

665 Theology, 261-279; repr in Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, (ed Samuel G Craig), The Person and Work of Christ (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950), Ch X. ‘The Chief Theories of the Atonement’.

______, ‘The Victorious Life’ in Princeton Theological Review 16 (1918), 321-73 ; republ in BB Warfield, (ed Samuel G Craig), Perfectionism, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958), Ch VII. ‘The Victorious Life’ (349-99). 1______, ‘The “Higher Life” Movement’, Princeton Theological Review 16 (1918), 572-622, and Princeton Theological Review 17 (1919), 37-86, republ in BB Warfield, (ed Samuel G Craig), Perfectionism, Ch V. ‘The “Higher Life” Movement’ (216-311). ______, ‘Inspiration’, and ‘Revelation’ in International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, Vols III:1473-1483, and IV:2573-2582 (respectively). ______, review of Marcus Dods, The Bible: Its Origin and Nature in PTR iv (1906), 109-115; repr in The Works of Benjamin Warfield, Vol X. Critical Reviews (New York: Oxford University, 1932). ______, review of JK Mozley, The Doctrine of the Atonement (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1916), PTR 15 (1917) repr in The Works of Benjamin Warfield, Vol X. Critical Reviews (New York: Oxford University, 1932; repr Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker, 1991). Webb, CCJ, A Study of Religious Thought in England from 1850 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1933). Welch, Claude, Protestant Thought in the Nineteenth Century: Volume 1. 1799-1890 (New Haven and London: Yale University, 1974 [1972]). Wellings, Martin, Evangelicals Embattled: Responses of Evangelicals in the Church of England to Ritualism, Darwinism and Theological Liberalism

666 1890-1930 (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2003). West, Janet, Innings of Grace: A Life of Bishop Hilliard ([Sydney: Trinity Grammar School], 1997). Westcott, Brooke Foss, The Historic Faith: Short Lectures on the Apostles’ Creed (London: Macmillan, 1904 [1883]). White, JF, The Cambridge Movement: The Ecclesiologists and the Gothic Revival (Cambridge: CUP, 1962). Wilcock, Michael, The Message of the Psalms 1-72: Songs for the People of God (Leicester, Eng: Inter-Varsity, 2001). Williams, George Hunston, The Radical Reformation (Philiadelphia: Westminster, 1962). Williams, RR (ed), The Liberal Evangelical VI.1 (Nov 1950). Wilson, JM, How Christ Saves Us: Or the Gospel of the Atonement. Hulsean Lectures 1898-99 (London: Macmillan, 1905 [1899]). Windelband, Wilhelm, A History of Philosophy, Volume I: Greek, Roman and Medieval (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958 repr [Macmillan, 1901, 2nd ed]). Wolffe, John, ‘Introduction: Victorian Religion in Context’, in John Wolffe (ed), Religion in Victorian Britain, Vol V: Culture and Empire (Manchester: , 1997).

Wright, Charles HH, An Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1900 [1890]; 6th ed 1904). ______, and Charles Neil (eds), see ‘The Protestant Dictionary. . .’ above. Wright, John Charles, Thoughts on Modern Church Life (London: Longmans, Green, 1909).

667 [Wright, John Charles], ‘Presidential Address’ in ‘Proceedings of the First Session of the Fifteenth Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, NSW, Dec 6th - Dec 10th, 1909’, Sydney Synod Reports (Sydney: William Andrews, 1910). Wythycombe, Robert SM, sv ‘Boyce, Francis Bertie’, ADEB. Young, EJ, Studies in Isaiah (London: Tyndale, 1955).

668