Mobilizing Historiography: The English High Church

Historians, 1888-1906

By

Nathan D. Wolfe

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Theology of Wycliffe College and the Historical Department of the Toronto School of Theology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael's College.

Nathan D. Wolfe Toronto, Ontario 2010 ? Nathan D. Wolfe 2010 Library and Archives Bibliothèque et ?F? Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de l'édition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada

Your file Votre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-68863-2 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-68863-2

NOTICE: AVIS:

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non- support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privée, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de thesis. cette thèse.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.

14-1 Canada Mobilizing Historiography: The English High Church Historians, 1888-1906 PhD, 2010

Nathan D. Wolfe

Toronto School of Theology, Historical Department, University of St. Michael's College

ABSTRACT

In this dissertation I will explore the contribution of High Church writers within the Church of England to the development of academic historical teaching and writing for about two decades around the turn of the twentieth century. It will be argued that historians with a High Church ecclesiastical background achieved a sophisticated historiographical methodology and held a virtual monopoly on historical discourse concerning the Church of

England.

I focus on two historiographical issues which interested High Church historians. First, I argue that after a period of disagreement about the place of the Tractarians within the Church of England, historians by the mid- 1890s saturated the publishing market with general histories on the Church of England in which nearly all agreed that the Tractarians were at the front of a great revival in the nineteenth century. Second, High Church historians focused on the continuity of the Church of England from the Middle Ages up to their own present. I argue that this issue became crucial to High Church historians writing in a highly charged polemical environment as self-ascribed Protestants called for greater state intervention in the government of the Church of England while Catholic polemicists

11 challenged the apostolicity of the Church of England by declaring that the Church of England was a creature created by the state and hence no true Church.

Throughout this dissertation I examine the interplay between historians, publishers and ecclesiastical authorities. It will be shown that historians writing on the history of

England or the Church of England were often obligated to write to the needs ofpublishers seeking to profit and to the needs of ecclesiastical authorities who did not wish to upset members of the Church of England who were not professional historians. I have tried to read all historical texts concerning the history of the Church of England from the 1850s up through the 1920s whether these are small pamphlets or large general histories. I have used a sample of newspapers and periodicals primarily from the 1890s through to the 1910s and consulted a number of archives containing the papers of the High Church historians.

in ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In undertaking this project I have become indebted to a number of archivists, librarians, staff and other individuals who helped me with locating and acquiring materials or with biographical information related to my research: Patricia McGuire at the King's

College Archive Centre, University of Cambridge; the Keeper of Archives Mr Christopher Webb, Dr Amanda Jones, Ms Danna Messer, Ms Megan Dunmall, Ms Victoria Hoyle and Ms Diane Hodgson at the Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York Library and

Archives; the staff of Lambeth Palace Library; the Principal and Chapter of Pusey House; Norma Aubertin-Potter and Gaye Morgan at the Codrington Library, AU Souls College, University of Oxford; for help with the Gwatkin papers I would like to thank Dr Sarah

Bendali, all extracts used by permission of the Master and Fellows of Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge; the Hutton papers were used by permission of the President and Fellows of Saint John the Baptist College in the University of Oxford; the staff of the Special Collections Reading Room at the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford; Guy

Holborn at the Lincoln's Inn Library; the Reverend Kevin Davies, Team Rector, Checkendon, Oxfordshire; Robert Ebbutt at the Birmingham Central Library; Frances Pattman at Archives and Corporate Records Services at King's College, London.

I am particularly grateful to my supervisor Alan Hayes for his guidance throughout the research and writing of this thesis. I would also like to thank the other committee members, Brian Clarke, CT. Mclntire, David Neelands and Frank Turner for reading my manuscript and providing incisive comments. I would like to thank my former comrade at the Engineering and Computer Science Library, John Noble, for listening to me drone on for years about High Church historians.

iv Most importantly, I thank my family for their support over the years, in particular my wife Maria and son Anton for their love and encouragement. I couldn't have completed this without all of you.

? For Maria and Anton, I love you both more than anything

Vl TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 1 Chapter 1: The Modest Rise of Scientific History 16 Chapter 2: The High Church Genealogy 83 Chapter 3: Continuity Theory and the Independence of the Church of England 156

Conclusion 225

Appendix: High Church Historians 234 Bibliography 243

VIl INTRODUCTION

In William Holden Hutton's biography of his mentor William Stubbs, first published in 1904, Hutton succinctly summarized the rise of the new historical-critical historiography in England during the nineteenth century as a synthesis of what later historians have generally seen as two incongruent movements, the German source-based narrative history and Tractarianism: Dr. Stubbs belonged - the letters and memories have shown how fully - to a school, the well-defined school of Oxford historians, which owed much of its original impulse in equal degrees to the great German scientific historians and to the Tractarian movement. But he was notably the most original, the greatest, of the workers of whom the world gradually recognized him to be the leader, Haddan, and Freeman, and Green, and Bright, each had characteristic powers, but he seemed to combine them all, accuracy, and a deep though often silent enthusiasm, indomitable perseverance, and a wide outlook.1 It has recently been demonstrated that High Church writers during the nineteenth century expressed complex attitudes towards new scientific theories, such as evolution, and historical-critical methodologies regarding the Bible imported from German universities.2 However, the High Church acceptance of the new historiography as proposed by Leopold von Ranke has been understood to have been limited and contested with Stubbs, E.A.

Freeman and Mandell Creighton noted as exceptions. It is not surprising that in England the earliest attempt to adopt German educational models and professional standards of historiography for an English context was undertaken by members of the Church of England, given that the legal and statutory relationship between the historic universities and the Church of England was only just beginning to fracture in the later half of the nineteenth

' William Holden Hutton, Letters of William Stubbs Bishop ofOxford, 1825-1901 (London: Archibald Constable & CO. LTD, 1904), 403. 2 Peter Hinchliff, God and History: Aspects ofBritish neology, 1875-1914 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 99-107; Gregory P. Elder, Chronic Vigour: Darwin, Anglicans, Catholics, and the Development ofa Doctrine ofProvidential Evolution (Lanham, MD.: University Press of America, 1996)

1 century. Recent historians have tended to marginalize if not ignore the role that religious belief, and particularly the role that High Church writers within the Church of England, played in this development.3 The High Church wing of the Church of England was a diverse body in the nineteenth century but was characterized by several common ecclesiological and theological attributes. A primary feature was a belief in the divinely ordained and mandated threefold order of bishops, priests and deacons, in particular, where episcopacy was of the esse of the Church. Although some High Church writers were willing to make allowances for continental Churches which did not have bishops, none was willing to consider that the Church of England could adopt such a position and none accepted the Evangelical position that episcopacy was merely of the bene esse of the Church. The apostolic succession, an unbroken succession in the episcopacy from the Apostles, was understood to have been maintained by the Church of England and any proposed break to that succession was considered a death-blow to the Church of England's status as a true Church. Concerning the sacrament of baptism there was a great deal of common ground. Nearly all, if not all, High Church writers believed in baptismal regeneration. Although there was much divergence regarding eucharistie doctrine all believed in some sort of real presence in the sacrament. In spite of, at times, acrimonious disagreements, High Church writers showed a remarkable cohesiveness, particularly when they perceived threats to the visible Church, the Church of England, through which they believed the people of England to be joined to Christ. While modern historians have recently focused on William Stubbs, E.A. Freeman,

J.R. Green, Mandell Creighton, S.R. Gardiner and Lord Acton as foundational figures of a

3 See A.J. Engel, From Clergyman to Don: The Rise ofthe Academic Profession in Nineteenth-Century Oxford (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 286-287 for a statistical example of the clerical dominance of dons both as a career path and from the heads of families sending students to Oxford. Engel' s narrative, though, tends to treat the clergy dons simplistically as a conservative force which attempted to block reform. critical historiography in England meant to rival that of Germany and France, often with the intent of finding the source of an Anglo-American academic historiographical tradition, I will isolate a subset of historians who identified themselves, or were identified by their contemporaries, as High Church writers within the Church of England, namely, William Stubbs, E.A. Freeman and Mandell Creighton .4 My focus on these foundational figures will be unique in detailing how their religious beliefs were expressed in their historical writings. I will then move beyond these foundational figures to examine how a much larger cast of High Churchmen writing in the 1890s were influenced by the new history, eagerly appropriated these methodologies and used them within the context of contemporary controversies. While High Churchmen in the 1890s may have been divided over the acceptance of biblical criticism and the new evolutionary science, they were united in an appreciation of the new scientific method of writing history and were keen to employ it in defense of the Church of England. Today, almost all of the works written by these High

Churchmen, with a few exceptions, would be considered minor works which have not stood the test of time. But in their day many of these historians garnered much attention. In fact, the most successful amongst them, H.O. Wakeman and G.F.E. Nye, published titles that ran into multiple editions and sold hundreds of thousands of copies within a few years, far outpacing the sales of works by most of the better known figures of the discipline of history in the latter half of the nineteenth century in England, and even approaching the sales of J.R. Green's Short History ofthe English People. It will be argued that in spite of pretensions to dispassionate impartiality, historical writing became a polemical tool to confront challenges faced by High Church writers at the

4 Reba N. Soffer, Discipline and Power: The University, History, and the Making ofan English Elite, 1870- 1930 (Stanford California: Stanford University Press, 1994), 85-90; Peter Mandler, History and the National Life (London: Profile Books Ltd., 2002), 36-38. 5 For statistics on number of sales see, Church Times, vol. 39, no. 1833, March 11, 1898, 277. 4 end of the nineteenth century. High Church writers proved unable to escape captivity to the 'Whig' representations of English history that characterized most of the historiography of the day. According to Herbert Butterfield, the Whig historian writes present-centered histories which look to the past to anticipate later constitutional norms; their accounts of historical events are ideologically driven.6 Historians have recently questioned the extent to which Stubbs and his generation of English history writers measured up to their own stated goals of writing unbiased, objective or scientific historical works, this critical reassessment has been leveled at the German historians during the nineteenth century as well. Nevertheless, the effort of Stubbs' generation to write fair and unbiased history helped to create a real advance towards a systematic method for organizing and reflecting upon archival materials. It also helped to generate departments of history for the training of future historians. So, it is worth mentioning that I do not label these historians as Whigs in a critical sense. I believe that they were conscientious workers who achieved many of their stated goals concerning organization of historical material and the teaching of history. I use the term as a qualification of their work given that they often used terms like truth, scientific, impartial or dispassionate to describe their own work. They genuinely believed that their books carried the imprint of these attributes, but it is clear to me that these writers were just as concerned about present disputes as they were about the past. I follow Adrian

Wilson and T.G. Ashplant in seeing the genre of the Whig history as a subset of the larger issue of "present-centred history."7 I think that the idea of Whig history is a useful

6 Butterfield suggested that all English historians, even those who were members of the historical Tory party or Conservative and Unionist Party, were inherently Whigs because of their belief in the progress of history. See Herbert Butterfield, The Englishman and His History (Cambridge: The University Press, 1944), 1-9. 7 Adrian Wilson and T.G. Ashplant, 'Whig History and Present-Centred History,' The HistoricalJournal, vol. 31, no. 1 (March, 1988), 10-16. 5 explanatory device for interpreting the High Church histories.8 I agree with Victor Feske that the "[Whig] story of sustained moral progress resonated with the reading public because of a shared normative language of nineteenth-century English politics and culture."9 Religion was central to the High Church writers. They varied in their opinions about the monarchy or Parliament, but all agreed that the Church of England as a Catholic and national Church was immediately responsible for the success and progress of the

English nation. They believed that the Catholic Church of England was crucial to the proper constitutional development of England but was at the same time subject to this same teleological constitutional development. An important feature of my research will be the demonstration that these historians were often bound by external constraints from publishers as well as university and church authorities. I follow the work of Leslie Howsam in showing that publishing firms like

Macmillans or Longmans may have wanted to open up a market for books written in the light of the latest developments in modern historiography, but they required that such books be profitable and have an appeal to popular audiences.10 A large part of the success of writers such as Wakeman and Nye was their ability to present their publications as the results of the latest unbiased historiographical methods even as they wrote to the prejudiced positions of their intended audiences. Bishops and archbishops, particularly Edward White Benson and Randall Thomas Davidson (the latter being the first Archbishop of Canterbury to have taken a degree in history), saw the cultivation of clergy who were trained as impartial historians as essential to a well educated and well-rounded clerisy able to make

8 For criticism of the term and concern about its usefulness see David Cannadine, G. M. Trevelyan: A Life in History (London: Harper Collins Publishers, 1992), 202-203. 9 Victor Feske, From Belloc to Churchill: Private Scholars and the Crisis ofBritish Liberalism, 1900-1939 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), 3. 10 Leslie Howsam, 'Academic Discipline or Literary Genre?': The Establishment of Boundaries in Historical Writing,' Victorian Literature and Culture, (2004), 525-545. 6

sense of and justify intellectually both the past and the present position of the Church of England in relation to other churches and to the English state. But there were limits that clergy historians and their publishers were forbidden to transgress. Furthermore, when

pioneers like William Stubbs, the Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, became Bishop Stubbs of Chester and then Oxford, and when Mandell Creighton, the Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge, became Bishop of London, they used

their international reputations as historians to sanction and promote historical works which were clearly polemical in nature and calculated to advance the position of the Church of England in contemporary controversies. My project will be the first full and sustained treatment of the High Church

contribution to the development of modern English historiography. The project will further scholarly understanding of the High Church party during the nineteenth century by showing that, in spite of serious limitations, High Church writers were crucial figures in the

development of the new history in England both in the universities and in the realm of publishing scholarly books and academic journals. I will examine William Stubbs, E.A. Freeman, R.W. Church, G.F. Browne, John Henry Overton, Montagu Burrows, Mandell

Creighton, AJ. Mason, G.H.F. Nye, W.E. Collins, H.O. Wakeman, William Bright, W.H. Hutton, W.R.W. Stephens, Frederick Meyrick, Malcolm MacColl, CA. Lane, J.W. Burgon,

J.N. Figgis and Charles Abbey, amongst others. Only Stubbs, Freeman and Creighton have to date been the subject of sustained discussion.11 Others, such as Bright, Overton, Abbey and Burgon, have been touched on in passing or, as with Burgon's biblical scholarship, have been given attention for their work in other areas. In the recovery of this later 11 See W.G. Fallows, Mandell Creighton and the English Church (London: Oxford University Press, 1964); James Covert, A Victorian Marriage: Mandell and Louise Creighton (London: Hambledon and London Ltd., 2000); J.W. Burrow, A Liberal Descent: Victorian Historians and the English Past (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981); James Campbell, Stubbs and the English State (Reading, Berkshire: University of Reading, 1989). 7 generation of High Church historians, and of the lively debates in which they participated about the history of the Church of England, my research will both confirm and challenge

the recent conclusions of Peter Nockles and Frank Turner about the innovative and disruptive nature of Tractarianism.12 By describing Tractarianism as an aggressive splinter group within a larger normative umbrella of traditional High Churchmanship, Nockles and Turner both imply that the history of the Oxford Movement was recast by later hagiographers keen to place the Tractarians in a favorable light. While I do not dispute that

the historiography in question had a hagiographical gloss, I will dig deeper to show that the recasting of Tractarianism was part of a larger historiographical effort to narrate a cohesive story of the Church of England with the purpose of defending it from criticism and

proposing justifications of its constitutional relationship to the state and its general relationship to other Christian groups. I will show that general histories on the Church of England were the literary ventures most responsible for integrating the Tractarians into the canon of the Church of England.

In the early 1980s historians such as John Kenyon and J. W. Burrow began to use Herbert Butterfield's category of "Whig history" to analyze the work of such foundational late nineteenth-century historians as William Stubbs and E.A. Freeman. The historian

Michael Bentley has recently looked at the period from 1890 to 1970 as an "age of modernism" in which nineteenth-century British historians such as E.A. Freeman, William Stubbs, S.R. Gardiner, CH. Firth and J.R. Green spoke of a growing need to systematize

the study of history, often with an intention to replicate the scientific methodological tools of Leopold Von Ranke, although they actually replicated the Whig narratives which they

12 Peter Nockles, The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship, 1 760-1857 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 994) 3-26; Frank M. Turner, John Henry Newman: The Challenge to Evangelical Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 3-23. 8

claimed to despise. These general and topical works with their focus on the issues of professionalization and Whig history will provide a foundation for my analysis of the

historiographical concerns of the High Church historians within the broader intellectual climate of this period.13 The High Church historians were active in the historical community of England, holding prominent professorial positions at Oxford and Cambridge, were involved in the creation of academic history departments as well as the start of

England's first journal for academic historical research, the English Historical Review. As with other Whig historians, they understood the history of England as a generally uninterrupted development of the national life, but unlike their non-High Church Whig

counterparts they challenged contemporary representations of a Protestant nation of England by countering that even before there was an English state or people there was a united Church of England which was always Catholic. They did, however, remain true to

English and Whig prejudices towards the roles of the popes and monasteries in English history. They argued that the former were usually held by monarchs, Parliament, the people and the Church of England to be usurpers, while the latter, although often times capable of good work, had a tendency to become a corrupt and parasitic imposition on the English people. Like most Whigs, the High Church historians saw the English Reformation as the restoration of apostolic Christianity in England; however, for the High Church historians this reformation was considered to be only incidentally related to the continental reformations and the word "protestant" was rarely used to describe the post-reformation Church of England. Instead, the English Reformation was considered to consist primarily

13 John P. Kenyon, The History Men: The Historical Profession in England since the Renaissance (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1983), 149-162; J.W. Burrow, A Liberal Descent: Victorian Historians and the English Past, 1-3; Michael Bentley, Modernizing England's Past: English Historiography in the Age of Modernism, ¡870-1970 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 202-21 1. 9

of the rejection of an unconstitutional usurpation of the rights of the Church of England by the popes. My research will break new ground by using group biography to look at historians

who were self-identified members of the Church of England as well as High Churchmen. Although I have used published 'lives and letters,' I have preferred to rely on archival materials as much as possible to gather data on each historian and reconstruct how he or she

operated in relation to the Church of England, universities, and publishers. Because the profession of the academic historian was only just developing during this period, only a small handful of individuals could possibly be considered historians in our current sense of

the term as a regulated profession with set standards. Since the writing of both history and theology continued to have one of the strongest publishing markets, in spite of a dramatic drop in market-share, most histories of the Church of England, as indeed most histories in

general, continued to be written by Cathedral canons, deans and other ordained clergy.

Therefore, I have looked for those texts which claimed to be authoritative histories of England and of the Church of England.14 I have used information on individual historians to link them to groups and have examined them in connection with theologians, university officials and publishers where applicable. My archival research has relied heavily on the Macmillan family publishing firm's archive at the British Library. Since the Longman and

Rivington family archives have been largely destroyed, the Macmillan archive is a requisite archival resource for showing how historians, editors and publishers interacted with one

another to produce history books. The Macmillan archive is overall quite extensive given the size of the company and the completeness of their records. I have focused primarily on two areas of this collection. The first area is the reader's reports by Frederic Relton, a High

14 Many of these writers would not have claimed to be professional historians, but would have claimed, nevertheless, that their books were authoritative history. 10

Church writer who was comfortable with older forms of what was then often referred to

pejoratively as ritualism. By the 1890s he was out of sympathy with the younger ritualists but recommended that Macmillan consider the financial prospects ofpublishing their works. He was an advocate of historical works which he thought conformed with the views

of High Church historians such as William Stubbs and R.W. Church and tended not to recommend books to Macmillan which used explicitly "protestant" language or explicitly anti-catholic language. The second is the correspondence related to the publication of a

series of books entitled 'The History of the English Church,' published under the editorship of W.R.W. Stephens and William Hunt. Unfortunately, Stephens died after only three books in the series were published. He was in possession of his correspondence with Macmillan which has subsequently been lost.15 This means that the origins of the series have to be pieced together from Hunt's and Macmillan' s correspondence. Fortunately, Hunt had a hand in the production of all of the books in the series so, with the exception of

Stephens' book, we have a fairly complete record of the progress of the books as they were written, printed and sold. The series is particularly useful because the authors represent a wide range of the varieties of the High Church position.

My main effort has been to examine these historians within the context of nineteenth-century historians in general. I have read most extant and available High Church historical publications from 1888 to 1906 dealing with what would have been described then as medieval and modern history. I have also examined a broad cross-section of newspapers from the period, focusing mainly on High Church papers such as Church

Times, The Pilot and The Guardian, non-affiliated Church of England papers such as The Church Family Newspaper, The Church Quarterly Review and The Literary Churchman

15 Macmillan Archive, CCXCV, 550801, Hunt to Macmillan, August 6, 1904. 11 and finally non-church quarterlies such as The Quarterly Review and The Contemporary Review. As a category in the publishing market, history was only surpassed in this period by the novel and children's literature, so it is not surprising that daily newspapers and quarterlies were very interested in reviewing the latest history books. Because of the truth claims made by history books, these newspapers interpreted them for their readership and guided their readers towards those which could be useful as polemical or defensive tools against threats to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England or the general stability of English society. Book reviews from the period will be used extensively, particularly in chapter two, as they provide a readily accessible record of how these books were received at the time and also served as a type of advertisement (at least when the reviews were positive). We will see that certain books that have become classics, like R. W.

Church's The Oxford Movement: Twelve Years, 1833-1845, received mixed reviews at the time and were not immediately set to leap past similar books which, as it turns out, have not had a lasting readership. As a genre, the book review is not intended to merely describe the book under consideration. In this period, as is often the case now, writers wrote book reviews for a number of reasons including giving their opinion on the book, giving their opinion on the historical subject of the book and to guide readers either away from or towards the book. Book reviews do not tell us much, if anything, about popular readership; however, they do give insight into the party politics and what James Vernon has described as the politics of the historical discipline of the time. Chapter one will show the influence of church controversies in the development of professional historiography in England and in publishers' decisions about history books. I will give a general overview of the development of the new professional academic historians and of publishing trends in the last thirty years of the nineteenth century, and will 12 briefly summarize the rise of the first academic history departments in England by focusing on the efforts of three High Churchmen, William Stubbs, E.A. Freeman and Mandell

Creighton. These three historians were key figures in the effort to elevate the study of history in England to the same level as that of the continent. The shape and timing of the rise of the new history in England would have been different without the efforts of High Churchmen, and it is the churchmanship of these historians which is the context for much of their writing. Their commitments at times became problematic as their research could lead to conclusions which seemed to confute cherished beliefs about England and the Church of England. Ecclesiastical authorities were concerned by this development, and further problems arose as some of these historians became themselves ecclesiastical authorities.

Chapter two will show that later High Church historians marshaled and adapted historiography to address the High Church identity crisis caused by the appearance of Tractarianism from the 1830s. The Tractarian movement presented a strong critique of protestant doctrine, and some Anglo-Catholic descendants of the Tractarians launched outright attacks against the Low Church, Evangelicals, and liberals by denying that members of these groups were true members of the Church of England, given their deviant baptismal and eucharistie theologies. Some High Church writers such as J.Wickham Legg, J.W. Burgon and Frederick Meyrick, questioned the extent to which the Tractarians themselves maintained any real link to the historic High Church party of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and wrote historical works attempting to prove that some of the Tractarians themselves were disloyal innovators. In this chapter I will argue that during the 1890s historians representing a broad cross-section of High Churchmanship attempted to remedy these internecine polemics by drawing upon the new historiographical refinement 13 of periodization to show that the history of the Church of England was really a continual series of revivals providentially ordained by God. So while the "Tractarian revival" seemed to be new, it was in fact a necessary revival following the equally providential but imperfect "Evangelical revival;" subsequently, these historians detailed what might be described as a spectrum of churchmanship within the Church of England ranging from puritanism, being the most alien because most protestant, across to Tractarianism, being the best because they believed it to be lineally connected through representative High Churchmen of the Church of England to the church of the Apostles. Chapter three will show that the High Church historians used their craft to support their preferred theory of the proper relationship of the Church of England to the English State. In the nineteenth century the greatest polemical concern for High Church writers was the question of erastianism. The legacy of Stubbs was nowhere more obvious than in High Church historical conceptions of the Church of England as a continuous local self- government stretching from 597, with the mission of St. Augustine, up through the nineteenth century. In Stubbs' theory of Parliament (known as the "concentration" theory), it was the concentration of constitutionally superior local machinery, and he transferred this theory to his constitutional conception of the Church of England. With the increased concern about the disestablishment of the Church of Wales in 1894, the "church crisis" from 1898 to 1906 and the denial of the validity of orders by the Catholic Church, High Church historians built on Stubbs' concentration theory to write histories of a Church of England that was constitutionally independent of Parliament but responsible to the monarchy under the Royal Supremacy. This historical and constitutional argument served double-duty, though, as it was also used to show that the popes had no constitutional right to legislate for the Church of England without the consent of the monarchy. 14

I have included an appendix of biographical entries of the High Church writers examined. This appendix will provide some basic biographical information about the High Church writers examined in this dissertation including place of education, ecclesiastical

positions held and a brief list ofpublications to show the variety of fields in which the High

Church historians were interested.

The majority of the material in this dissertation will fit into the period from 1888 to 1906. 1 do devote substantial space in chapter one to material from the 1840s to the 1880s related to the careers of William Stubbs, E.A. Freeman, Mandell Creighton and the creation

of history departments at Oxford and Cambridge. In chapters two and three I devote a small amount of space to the years after 1906 in order to consider the longevity of the issues that I

examine in those chapters. The dates 1888 and 1906 were chosen as the limiting dates for the dissertation because these dates were the bookends for an important era of historical scholarship on England and the Church of England written by members of the Church of England. My choice to begin in 1888 is slightly arbitrary. In the years 1887 and 1888 a number of books which claimed to address the question of the historical place of the Tractarians within the tradition of the Church of England began to be published. This question was certainly addressed earlier than these dates; however, from 1888 the question became divisive for High Church writers and the books and articles discussing this question were often written in connection with or in response to one another while at the same time claiming to narrate impartial history. Throughout the 1890s a market for books about the Tractarians developed which publishers, newspaper and magazine editors were aware of and courted. Also during this period Archbishops Benson and Davidson were very interested in cultivating a clergy that was able to address historical questions from the perspective of the impartial professional historian. Both archbishops were ready to turn to 15 historical study in order to decide upon issues in the present. As the build up to the King trial unfolded from 1888 to 1890 Benson decided that the proper method for assessing the situation was through the study of history.16 When Davidson conceived of the idea of a Royal Commission to consider ecclesiastical discipline in 1904 he did so with the express idea of placing historical research at the forefront of the procedure and his main production was, in 1906, an historical appendix. Between 1888 and 1906 the assumption amongst ecclesiastical leaders became that historical study was necessary for deciding issues in the present. After 1906 it became normative to turn to academic historical study when important decisions were needed, where as before 1906 the study of law, the Bible or theology had taken center stage.

16 Archbishop's Court Bishop of Lincoln's Case/ Jurisdiction/ Part IV Procedures, Protests and Objections, MS. 3765; Davidson 87 ff. 398-410. CHAPTER 1: THE MODEST RISE OF SCIENTIFIC HISTORY

Previous work on the development of a professional academic historiography in England has focused on three areas: the development of history departments at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and at the Civic Universities; the development of historiographical standards maintained by historians writing books of history, and the way in which historians found these standards challenged by publishers and market forces. In this chapter I will summarize the work in these three areas and then examine how religious belief and ecclesiastical structures of authority and discipline shaped, encouraged and then were subsequently impacted by the rise of a professional academic historiography in England. It will be argued that while High Church historians were ambivalent about the reform of the teaching of history at Oxford and Cambridge during the second half of the nineteenth century that led to the creation of history faculties, they nevertheless heavily patronized professorial positions in the history departments of those two universities after reform had taken place. It will be shown that William Stubbs, E.A. Freeman and Mandell Creighton were only the most successful amongst a number of High Church writers who attempted to institutionalize what they perceived to be new historiographical methods imported from Germany. Many of their large scale literary projects resembled the progressive Whig histories which they themselves denounced. It will be shown that this tendency to write with a ideological view towards the present was amplified in the 1 890s with the creation of the Church Historical Society which was officially sanctioned by Archbishop Benson.17 The CHS was patronized by historians of the caliber of William

17 Edward White Benson (1829-1896): Trinity College, Cambridge; Bishop of Truro, 1877-1883; Archbishop of Canterbury, 1883-1896

16 17 Stubbs, William Bright and Mandell Creighton. This gave a professional veneer to what was nearly always polemical historical writing intended to defend the Church of England. Ever since the publication of Ranke's Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen Völker in 1 824, it has generally been assumed by Anglo-American and Western European historians that Ranke set up a new historiographical paradigm.18 J.D. Braw has neatly summarized this phenomenon and the paradigm itself: Posterity has generally accepted this claim, that historiography took a new turn and developed a new character through Ranke' s Geschichten. A modern history of historiography that does not include the ideal that Ranke postulated in contrast to existing historiography - to write history 'wie es eigentlich gewesen' - is more or less inconceivable.1 Ranke himself considered his methodology to be new; however, Georg G. Iggers has shown that both Ranke' s claim to originality and the extent to which he followed this paradigm have been brought into question since at least the middle of the nineteenth century.20 This question will not concern us. What is important here is that professional historians in England tended to accept Ranke' s claims and attempted to follow this paradigm.21 In general, scholars investigating the development of the historical profession have tended to set aside material which suggests that in the decades following the break-up of Tractarianism proper a number of Tractarian associates, along with Stubbs, Freeman and

18 For the most thorough overview of German historiography see Georg G. Iggers, The German Conception of History (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1968); New Directions in European History, rev. ed. (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1984), 18-26, 170-174; 'The Image of Ranke in American and German Historical Thought,' History and Theory, vol. 2, no. 1(1962), 18-19. 19 J.D. Braw, 'Vision as Revision: Ranke and the Beginning of Modern History,' History and Theory, Theme Issue, 46 (Dec. 2007), 45-46. 20 Georg G. Iggers, 'The Image of Ranke in American and German Historical Thought,' 20-23. 21 Peter Burke, 'Paradigm Lost: From Göttingen to Berlin,' Common Knowledge, vol. 14, no. 2 (Spring, 2008), 245-247; Acton, John Emerich Edward Dalberg, first Baron Acton , 'German Schools of History,' English Historical Review, vol. 1, no. 1 (Jan., 1886), 12-14; Stubbs held a very elevated view of Ranke stating: "Leopold von Ranke is not only beyond all comparison the greatest historical scholar alive, but one of the very greatest historians that ever lived." See William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study ofMedieval and Modern History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1887), 65. 18 J.A. Froude,22 were influenced by Ranke and began to write books that used the newly imported German historical-critical tools; subsequently, historians have instead focused on the Tractarians as part of an obstructionist conservative element working to block reform. Certainly, the Tractarians left behind many writings demonstrating a wariness of reform and the new direction that some within Oxford urged the university to take; however, it is equally true that a later generation of Tractarian sympathizers were eager to tell their version of the Church of England's role in the national history, encouraged the development of the History Board and eagerly patronized it as professors. High Church historians like W.H. Hutton have certainly claimed too much when they portrayed the development of the discipline of history in England as a marriage of the ideals of Tractarianism and Ranke. Similarly, recent historians like J.W. Burrow have gone too far in portraying Stubbs as a lone pioneer creating a new genre.24 Throughout the era of reform from the 1850s onwards, a large number of now forgotten histories were Written by Oxford students who had been impacted by Tractarianism during the 1830s and 1840s, such as R.W. Church, W.F. Hook, A.W. Haddan, J.S. Brewer, G.G. Perry, J.W. Dixon and J.H. Blunt, who were at least aware of Ranke's work. Recently, Benedikt Stuchtey and Peter

Wende have argued that the Tractarians, like most English readers, appreciated that "Ranke's teleological, progress-orientated principle had historicized the papacy, which no longer posed a threat to Protestant Europe."25 In 1866 R.W. Church used Ranke's history in

22 James Anthony Froude (1818-1894): Oriel College, Oxford; His major historical works included History of Englandfrom the Fall of Wolsey to the Death ofElizabeth ( 1 856) and The English in Ireland in the Eighteenth Century (1872); Regius Professor of Modern History, Oxford, 1892-1894. 23 W.R. Ward, Victorian Oxford (London: F. Cass, 1965), xi; A.J. Engel, From Clergyman to Don: The Rise ofthe Academic Profession in Nineteenth-Century Oxford, 22-27, 77-81 . 24 Burrow states that, "Moreover, Stubbs' book does not, at least in English terms, stand at the end of a tradition of historical writing whose virtues it incorporates; it creates one, virtually single-handed, apart from help from the Germans. See J.W. Burrow, A Liberal Descent: Victorian Historians and the English Past, 130 25 Benedikt Stuchtey and Peter Wende, 'Introduction towards a Comparative History of Anglo-German Historiographical Traditions and Transfers,' in Benedikt Stuchtey and Peter Wende, British and German Historiography, 1750-1950: Traditions, Perceptions and Transfers, 17. 19

a review to critique the French historian Jean Marie Vincent Audin's Histoire de Léon X, but he also criticized Ranke' s book as "not properly so much a history of the Popes, as a series of philosophical comments on the connection of their policy and history with the progress of European history."26 High Church historians were certainly aware of Ranke's methods and their applications; furthermore, even Church's criticism of Ranke suggests not that Church was uncomfortable with historical-critical tools, but that he thought that Ranke himself was not applying the method as he had claimed.

It was thought in the nineteenth century that William Stubbs was the main proponent in England of Ranke's method. Stubbs was a member of the Church of England

who tended towards working within High Church circles. According to his biographer Hutton, Stubbs was aligned directly with the Tractarians, but neither his published books nor his personal letters state any kind of categorical alignment with the group, although an implicit alignment is certainly stated. Stubbs' most thorough statement of his attitudes

towards the Tractarians is in his 'Fourth Visitation Charge' as the Bishop of Oxford, delivered in May and June of 1899. After describing an upbringing in an Evangelical

household where a moderate Calvinism was expressed, he says of his time as a student at Oxford during a period of great Tractarian activity: "So I saw from the beginning the working of the continuous life of the faithful men of the [Oxford] movement, many of

whom I learned to love." He continued adding: "And so my later experience grew out of my earlier: I trust by real growth, certainly not by antagonism or reaction, for I knew so much that was good in both schools that I may have gone too far perhaps, here, as

Cited from Patrick Bahners "? Place Among the English Classics' Ranke's History ofthe Popes and its British Readers,' in Benedikt Stuchtey and Peter Wende, British and German Historiography, 1750-1950: Traditions, Perceptions and Transfers, 143-145. Bahners notes that Foster's translation of Ranke's history included an introduction in which she attacked Newman and the Tractarians as conspirators in a Jesuit plot against England. 20 elsewhere, to elaborate a theory, a consciousness of continuity."27 Stubbs' contemporaries certainly saw him as a High Churchman and some, such as Hutton, saw him as a Tractarian with an independent line, but Stubbs himself was cautious about aligning himself explicitly with any groups and relished portraying himself, or when others portrayed him, as neutral and detached from controversy.28 As a student at Christ Church, Oxford Stubbs came into contact with E.B. Pusey, one of the key leaders of the Tractarians after the movement began to lose its organizational cohesiveness after 1845.29 According to Hutton, Stubbs referred to Pusey as "the Master."30 We will examine Tractarianism more carefully in chapter two, but by way of summary the Tractarians can be described as a group of Oxford tutors who began to organize into a tight group of principal members (who playfully described themselves as "conspirators") in 1829 to successfully defeat Robert Peel's attempt at re- election for his parliamentary seat at Oxford. They wanted to punish him for his support of Catholic Emancipation in February ofthat year because they worried about possible negative consequences that might ensue if Catholics were to decide on issues related to the government of the Church of England. In this effort a friendship solidified between John Henry Newman and Richard Hurrell Froude and they were eventually to muster brilliant organizational capabilities in the wake of perceived threats to the autonomy of the Church of England during the franchise reform and reform of the Irish temporalities from 1832 to 1833.31 They fine-tuned these organizational capabilities, resulting in a series of tracts, the

27 William Stubbs, Visitation Charges Delivered to the Clergy and Churchwardens ofthe Dioceses ofChester and Oxford, E.E. Holms, ed. (London: Longmans, Green, 1904), 347-348. 28 William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study ofMedieval and Modern History and Kindred Subjects, 29-33. 29 Edward Bouverie Pusey (1800-1882): Christ Church, Oxford; Regius Professor of Hebrew (1828-1882); Pusey was a late comer to the Tractarian circle, he wrote Tract 18 towards the end of 1833. He changed the character of the tracts by writing very long tracts which bore his initials, which led to the Oxford Movement being known as "Puseyism." 30 William Holden Hutton, William Stubbs Bishop ofOxford, 1825-1901, 18-20. 31 John Henry Newman (1802-1890): Trinity College, Oxford; wrote Tract 1, wrote by far the largest number of tracts and was certainly the most prolific writer and campaigner for Tractarian causes; left the Church of 21 Tractsfor the Times, which by a masterful use of the network of country-clergy turned the Tractarians into household names and one of the truly great polarizing forces of the nineteenth century.32 Stubbs arrived at Oxford in 1844 just in time to see the spectacular break-up of the Tractarians which resulted in a series of conversions to Catholicism throughout 1845. But a high-profile core remained, comprised of E.B. Pusey and John Keble, a number of the rank-and-file, and a substantial group ofyounger men who, in varying degrees, admired the movement.33 Of the pioneer generations of academic historians, William Stubbs, E.A. Freeman, J.A. Froude and later Creighton were amongst this number, although Froude would quickly abandon this position and subsequently question Christian belief for a time. When recent historians have labeled the historical writings of Stubbs and his generation as Whiggish, it has been because they themselves were interested in the political dimensions of nineteenth-century historiography.34 Only Reba Soffer has pushed Stubbs' religious thought into the foreground when interpreting his books, albeit briefly; however, she has not had it as her intention to explore the role of religion in relationship to historical writing in any depth.35 When we consider this larger High Church historiographical tradition, religion comes sharply into focus not only in its political dimensions but also in

England for the Catholic Church in 1845. Richard Hurrell Froude (1803-1836): Oriel College, Oxford; suffered from tuberculosis which limited his productivity, he was best known for his personal influence on Newman and John Keble. 32 For the best overview of the Tractarian movement see Peter Nockles, Oxford Movement in Context. For the most up-to-date overview of the Tractarian movement see, S.A. Skinner, Tractarians and the 'Condition of England: ' the Social andPolitical Thought ofthe Oxford Movement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004). For an older but still useful treatment of the Tractarians see Marvin O'Connell, The Oxford Conspirators: A History ofthe Oxford Movement, 1833-45 (London: Macmillan, 1969). 33 John Keble (1792-1866): Corpus Christi College, Oxford; professor of poetry (1831-1839); wrote the hugely successful book of poetry The Christian Year, first published in 1 827; his 1 833 assize sermon was traditionally credited as the beginning of the Oxford Movement, although this idea is no longer held today; he wrote nine tracts, and was active with the Tractarians, but tended to work from his parish at Hursley rather than from Oxford; Keble College, Oxford was founded in his honor in 1870. 34 P.B.M. Blaas, Continuity and Anachronism: Parliamentary and Constitutional Development in Whig Historiography and in the Anti-Whig Reaction between 1890 and 1930 (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1978), xii- xiv, 158-196; Michael Bentley, Modernizing England's Past, 23-32; J.P. Kenyon, The History Men, 151-165. 35 Reba Soffer, Discipline and Power, 25, 82, 87-88. 22 its spiritual. This is the case because of the close connection that church and state still held in England during the nineteenth century. When these High Church historians criticized the erastianism of the state they did not do so with the intention of severing the connection which made the Church of England the established Church of the nation; rather, they wished to maintain the protected status of the Church and also free the Church from what they perceived to be an illegitimate interference on the part of parliament and courts of law in the legislation of the Church of England. As we shall see in chapters two and three, High Church historians began to question the term "established," but they most certainly wanted to defend the principle of a church/state connection as a statement of the nation's acceptance of apostolic Christianity. Historical scholarship was the chosen tool for High Church writers for this effort because (unlike the common law system of English lawyers which was by its nature subject to change as new precedents were set) history could go beyond demonstrating precedents to showing what was truly essential to the English constitution.36 James Vernon has argued recently that these imposing multi-volume works on matters of constitutional history were written to stake out an independent position for history as a professional study capable of making authoritative truth claims, "against the excursions of 'literature' and the 'law,' as well as to claim sole and authoritative access to the constitutional past at a time when demands for a redefinition of the constitutional present and future became increasingly shrill."37 For High Church writers such as Stubbs, a command of the discipline of history meant a command of the past which could in turn

36 Robert E. Rhodes Jr., Law and Modernization in the Church ofEngland: Charles II to the Welfare State (Notre Dame, IN: University ofNotre Dame Press, 1991), 276. When applied to doctrine and discipline in the Church of England Rhodes sees this process in a negative light, stating that "canons of scholarship" replaced "canons of orthodoxy." 37 James Vernon, 'Narrating the Constitution: The Discourse of "the Real" and the Fantasies of Nineteenth- Century Constitutional History,' in James Vernon, ed., Re-Reading the Constitution: New Narratives in the Political History ofEngland's Long Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 205. 23 provide the materials to determine the arguments of the present, all the while claiming neutrality as experts simply reading the documents dispassionately. Before the nineteenth century, England had a rich tradition of historical writing which had been pressed into the service of polemical discourse on church and state. It is not true that historians made greater use of archival materials in the nineteenth century than before. Early history writing in England often amounted to little more than the publishing of long excerpts strung together with little explanation, and rigorous searches for original materials were made; furthermore, nineteenth-century historians still tended to work primarily from printed materials from the comfort of their own studies thus minimizing their time in libraries. Nineteenth century historians, however, were the first in England to systematize the collection, publication and study of archival materials. They enhanced this effort by organizing history departments which would ensure that England would train future historians. Before the second half of the nineteenth century we might say that history writing was a habit engaged in by people who were generally writing history as an accoutrement to some other project: solving a legal quandary, advancing a political or philosophical position, or defending a particular ecclesiastical conception. A few English men and women, like Edward Gibbon, were acknowledged primarily as historians in a vocational sense, but this was rarely the case. During the second half of the nineteenth century, the growing sense that England should have departments of history to train historians centered on two beliefs that were sometimes portrayed as conflicting and sometimes as conciliatory. The first was that knowledge of history was crucial for producing good English citizens who would

38 J.P. Kenyon, The History Men, chapter 2. 39 David C. Douglas, English Scholars 1660-1730 (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1951), 15-29; Laird Okie, Augustan Historical Writing: Histories ofEngland in the English Enlightenment (Lanham: University Press of America, 1991), 20-40 and 122. 24

appreciate English institutions and the English constitution. A further aspect of this theme that was often but not always connected to it was the growing assessment that a training in the history of English institutions and the constitution would produce better civil servants.

As the twentieth century approached, many authorities were keenly aware that England was developing a strong centralized bureaucracy surrounding parliament in London which

oversaw a complex system which stretched across a global British Empire. The second was that having a class of trained historians who could locate material, organize it, write books, and also train future historians, was a good in and of itself. People who held the second

belief usually held that the first was somehow related to it either as an antecedent or a by- product of the second, but in the sometimes polarizing environment of university politics the two sides were often ranked against one another.41 Given the privileged status that Oxford and Cambridge held during the nineteenth century as establishments for educating English men it is not surprising that the first history departments were systematized at these two universities. The institutions which would eventually become the Civic Universities of the twentieth century were entrenching

themselves quickly and did move beyond their utilitarian, knowledge based rationales to develop their own foundation for a liberal education along Oxbridge lines.42 But the

Deborah Wormell, Sir John Seeley and the Uses ofHistory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 110-112. This tendency was greater at Cambridge where a sustained advance was only made to support an independent history department with the appointment of Mandell Creighton as the first Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History in 1 884, see Peter R.H. Slee, Learning and a Liberal Education: the Study ofModern History in the Universities ofOxford, Cambridge, and Manchester, 1800-1914 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986), 56-67. 41 Sheldon Rothblatt, Revolution ofthe Dons: Cambridge and Society in Victorian England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 167-168, 229-230; Peter Slee, Learning and a Liberal Education, 20-23. 42 David R. Jones, The Origins ofCivic Universities: Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool (London: Routledge, 1988), 3, 26-27, 66-72. 25

creation of history departments outside of Oxford and Cambridge took place later and even these earliest were organized by Oxbridge trained men.43 Both Oxford and Cambridge as universities were umbrellas for a number of individually organized colleges. As the century moved on and reforms were imposed both universities enhanced their intercollegiate dimensions and developed greater centralization.

This process was not uniform and was much slower in coming about at Oxford than at Cambridge; however, the first lasting steps towards the creation of a history department in England took place at Oxford and by far the majority of the historians whom we will look at were Oxford graduates.44 At both universities the main pedagogical paradigm was "personal tuition." Therefore, lectures were rated far less important for the student than his relationship to his tutor whose main role was to ensure that the student worked hard to

prepare for his examinations on Classics and Mathematics and did not lapse into idleness. The training was moral in tone and these subjects were seen as capable of building character precisely because they were difficult and uncongenial, requiring much

memorization and repetition, what Peter Slee describes as a "catechetical method of

instruction.

The creation of Oxford's School of Modern History was related to four Government

Commissions which peppered the period from 1850 to 1881, and was part of a general reaction against this catechetical pedagogical model.46 The ideal of rigor was kept, but there

43 The clearest example was at Manchester University where Oxford trained T.F. Tout was to enact reforms advancing the study of method even beyond what Oxford was doing at the time by adding research in specialized areas and adding a compulsory thesis following examinations. See Peter R.H. Slee, Learning and a Liberal Education: the Study ofModern History in the Universities ofOxford, Cambridge, and Manchester, 1800-1914, chapter 8. 44 A.J. Engel, From Clergyman to Don: The Rise ofthe Academic Profession in Nineteenth-Century Oxford, 6. Engel's argues that because of its emphasis on the physical sciences, which required labs, and because of its great number of poorer colleges, Cambridge went through this centralizing process faster. 45 Peter R.H. Slee, Learning and a Liberal Education: the Study ofModern History in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Manchester, 1800-1914, 10-11. 46 The four Government Commissions took place in 1850-2, 1854-8, 1871-3 and 1877-81. 26 was a growing feeling that having only the one examination led to indolence. A new class of non-official coaches was developing whose role was to help students "cram" for the final examination at the end of a course. The first response was to develop more examinations and increased lectures. This had the desired effect of forcing students to work harder for the

official curriculum but had the unintended consequence of emptying the lecture halls of the professors who lectured in non-curricular specialized areas such as law, the natural sciences, political economy, languages and history. While many were unconcerned by this,

a powerful minority ofprofessors worried that England would fall behind other nations as these new fields of study showed themselves to hold practical value. 7 The result was that four new examination schools were created to study "useful" developing subjects. The new schools were organized and combined around the existing chairs for convenience sake. For Mathematics and Natural Science this combination was easy and engendered little debate,

but the subject of history proved problematic. The form taken in 1850 combined Modern History (which was considered to be the period from the fall of the Roman Empire to 1847), Law and Political Economy.48 Candidates for this school were given a list of books from which they could choose a portion in agreement with their tutor. The goal was to master a set of books which were divided into two broad periods, the dividing point being the accession of Henry VIII. Slee notes that by 1864 the books chosen by students had more or less become standardized as they realized which were easier to read. Many educators were satisfied with this standardization as there had been worry that historical study would merely degenerate into a weapon for political and religious dispute. They

47 E.G.W. Bill, University Reform in Nineteenth-Century Oxford: A Study ofHenry Halford Vaughan, 1811- 1885 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), 78-80. 48 W.R. Ward, 'From the Tractarians to the Executive Commission, 1845-1854,' in M.G. Brock and M.C. Curthoys eds., The History ofthe University ofOxford, volume VI Nineteenth-Century Oxford, Part 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 318. 49 Peter R.H. Slee, Learning and a Liberal Education: the Study ofModern History in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Manchester, 1800-1914, 40-41. 27 believed that basing the examination on these set authorities ensured that the student would not engage himself in unscholarly bias.

The problem ofbias was not so easily solved, though, and the most sophisticated critique of this method of education and examination, in its own call for original research, sought but to replace one bias with another. In 1860 Montagu Burrows published Pass and Class, a moderately sized book which guided beginning students along the well-trodden paths of previous successful students. Pass and Class showed the current student which books had become the standard choices of previous students, how successful students tended to write their examinations and how fellows tended to read and assess the written examinations. Burrows himself had taken a First Class in the school of Law and Modern History in 1857. Burrows' first career was in the Royal Navy, he started at Oxford at the age of thirty in 1849, an age much older than that of the average student, and he was therefore keenly aware of the workload and highly valued this new systematized approach to education. But the readings for history posed problems for Burrows, who was an ardent Tory and moderate High Churchman.50 He rankled at the fact that the best outlines of world and English history could only be gotten at in the English language by reading Gibbon, John Lingard and David Hume, the first two being required reading. The problematic portrayal of religion in Gibbon's The History ofthe Decline and Fall ofthe Roman Empire was recognized in the nineteenth century, but Burrows was charitable towards Gibbon, describing his religious views merely as "idiosyncracies." Burrows was sanguine that this deficiency concerning early ecclesiastical history could easily be remedied by reading James Craigie Robertson's51 History ofthe Christian Church and

50 Montagu Burrows, Autobiography ofMontagu Burrows (London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd, 1908), 219-221, 232-236. 51 James Craigie Robertson (1813-1882): Trinity College, Cambridge; his best known books were his History ofthe Christian Churchfrom the Apostolic Age to the Reformation (4 vols., 1852-1873) and his edition for the 28 chapters fifty-one to fifty-four of Richard Hooker's fifth book Ofthe Laws ofEcclesiastical Polity.52 Lingard was Catholic and this posed a problem for Burrows. Until the end of his life Burrows was to hold that Oxford should maintain a hegemonic position as a stronghold of the Church of England.53 Slee seems to think that Burrows was concerned that Lingard's work was becoming out of date, but Lingard was certainly no more out of date in the 1860s than Hume was (and Burrows recommended Hume over Lingard in spite of the former's "skepticism").54 Burrows criticized Lingard for the same reason that he would later criticize the election of Lord Acton to an All Soul's Fellowship in 1890: he believed that Catholics were "all tarred with the same brush" and incapable of writing unbiased history.55 Although in Pass and Class Burrows recognized that the busy student would not have time for anything other than preparing for examinations, he stated that beyond exams there was only one solution to the problem of bias: "There is no way of really escaping from this cause of error but by consulting the original authorities for oneself."56 Burrow's distrust of Catholic historians, and in particular Lingard, was not unique. In 1858, the Protestant Alliance complained to the Chancellor and Proctors about the recommendation made by E.A. Freeman, CW. Boase57 and other examiners that Lingard be read in preference to Hume. The letter sent by the committee of the Alliance complained that a "Romish writer" was

Rolls Series, Materialsfor the History ofArchbishop Thomas Becket (6 vols., 1875-82); professor of ecclesiastical history at King's College, London (1864-1874). 52 Montagu Burrows, Pass and Class (Oxford: Parker, 1860), 214-215 53 Burrows believed that the medieval founders of the colleges would have approved of the Reformation had they lived to see it, allowing him to argue that "four cardinal characteristics" were central to the historic English Universities: "We have traced their NATIONALITY politically and socially, their COLLEGIATE CHARACTER, their INDEPENDENCE, and their IDENTIFICATION WITH THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND." See Montagu Burrows, 'The National Character of the Old English Universities,' in Montagu Burrows, Constitutional Progress. Seven Lectures, 2nd ed., (London: John Murray, 1872), 247-249. 54 Peter R.H. Slee, Learning and a Liberal Education: the Study ofModern History in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Manchester, 1800-1914,47-49. 55¥ot the problem of Lingard's "Romanism" see Montagu Burrows, Pass and Class, 218. For Burrows' attempt to block the Acton nomination and his statement of the inherent partiality of Catholic's see Anson Papers, Burrows to Anson, May 23, 1890, 77-78. 56 Montagu Burrows, Pass and Class, 218-219. 57 Charles William Boase (1828-1895): Exeter College, Oxford; edited the translated English edition of Ranke's six volume History ofEngland (1895) with G.W. Kitchin; lecturer in modern history, 1855-1894. 29 preferred at a "Protestant University."58 Teachers of history at Oxford were concerned about bias and were beginning to develop the idea that original research was a key to over coming it, however, when it came to preparing students to undertake historical research

they were still deeply ambivalent about using works of history produced by Catholic

writers.

In 1862 Burrows was appointed Chichele Professor of Modern History. He beat out

competitors with stronger publishing records such as William Stubbs, E.A. Freeman and J.A. Froude. He was aware that as a historian his output had been meager compared to these three, but he had published Pass and Class and was religiously orthodox; and it

helped that he was uncomfortable with Tractarianism (the anti-Tractarian Lord John Rusell was one of the five electors).59 Burrows began a two-pronged effort to refine the study of history at Oxford. The first was to encourage the division of historical study into periods and subjects. The second was to canvass with Mountague Bernard, recently appointed the Chichele Professor of International Law, to separate the two schools from one another.60 These important proposals received what proved to be a decisive stimulus in 1868

when a group of four tutors began to offer their lectures to students from other colleges free of charge. Following an unauthorized attempt by a Fellow of Merton to create such a scheme for the mathematical examinations, Mandell Creighton of Merton received permission to offer his lectures to students outside Merton.61 Robert Laing of Corpus Christi, E.S. Talbot of Keble and CL. Shadwell of Oriel joined Creighton, as they realized that the division of historical study into periods and subjects would be a dead-letter if

58 W.R.W. Stephens, Life and Letters ofEdwardAugustus Freeman, 2 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1895), volume L, 218. 59Montagu Burrows, Autobiography ofMontagu Burrows, 208-21 1 . 60 Peter Slee, Learning anda Liberal Education, 86-88. 61 Louise Creighton, Life and Letters ofMandell Creighton, sometime Bishop ofLondon, volume 1, (London: Longmans, 1904), 60-61; 'Mandell Creighton,' Quarterly Review, 193:386 (1901:Apr.), 588. 30

followed along the traditional monolithic collégial structure. No single tutor could go beyond a superficial generalization of world history, and if he specialized he risked alienating those students at his college who were not interested in his period or subject area. Financially it was impossible for most colleges to have more than one tutor to prepare for

the historical part of the examinations, let alone advance research into special areas, but if the tutors themselves each chose a specific area in which to specialize and then built up an intercollegiate framework for educating students then a foundation could be laid for training future historians.63 During the third University Commission from 1871-73 the evidence for the success of this scheme was overwhelming. In 1872 the School of Law and Modern History was officially separated into two separate and independent schools, thus

resulting in the creation of the History Board. The History Board included the Regius Professor of Modern History, both of the Chichele Professors, the Professors of Ecclesiastical History, Political Economy and

Anglo-Saxon, three examiners and three co-opted members. The Regius Professor was the board's official head and he held the deciding vote. The first Regius Professor of Modern History to chair the History Board was William Stubbs. The Board prescribed the books, periods and special subjects for examination. But the organization of lectures was still in the hands of the dons even though Burrows and Stubbs wanted access to more students.

Stubbs complained of the thin attendance at his lectures: "I have had to deliver them to two or three listless men; sometimes I have felt hurt that, in the combined lecture list, when it

62 Robert Laing [Cuthbert Shields] (1840-1908): Wadham College, Oxford; fellow at Corpus Christi, Oxford (1868-1908). Edward Stuart Talbot (1844-1934): Christ Church, Oxford; Lux Mundi essayist; Bishop of Rochester (1895-1911); Bishop of Winchester (191 l-1923).Charles Lancelot Shadwell (1840-1919): Christ Church, Oxford; fellow at Oriel College, Oxford (1864-1898). 63 Sheldon Rothblatt, The Revolution ofthe Dons, 196. Rothblatt's research focuses on Cambridge, but the same financial strictures would have limited the number of dons that Oxford colleges could employ as well. 64 Reba N. Soffer, 'Modern History' in M.G. Brock and M.C. Curthoys eds., The History ofthe University of Oxford, volume VII Nineteenth-Century Oxford, Part 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 362-363. 31 appeared, I found the junior assistant tutor advertising a course on the same subject, or at the very same hours as my own."65 This was an exaggeration. A list of testimony suggests that nearly all of the successful historians of the next generation, particularly the Balliol men where Stubbs was also the Chaplain, attended Stubbs' lectures. Burrows stated that on average he himself lectured to twenty men.66 From the perspective of education the influence of Burrows and Stubbs lay not in lecturing to large bodies of Passmen, but by

lecturing to small groups of men who would become the first generation of professionally trained academic historians in England, and by writing internationally acclaimed historical works which functioned as an advertisement for the rigorous cutting-edge historiographical training that only Oxford could provide to English university students.67 The early composition of this History Board ensured that the teaching of history at

Oxford would be not only thoroughly in line with the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, but also in line with High Church conceptions of the history of England as well as the history of the Church of England. As already mentioned, Montagu Burrows defended

High Church orthodoxy at Oxford against "Roman Catholic bias," and held the Chichele Chair of Modern History from 1862 to 1905. The Regius Chair of Modern History during this period of transformation was held first by William Stubbs, from 1866 to 1884, and then by E.A. Freeman from 1884 to 1892. We shall examine the work of these two in greater detail later in the chapter as they are considered to be the two primary promoters of the new history for England, and we shall see that both articulated a keenly High Church conception of the Church of England as well as did William Bright, who held the chair of

Ecclesiastical History from 1868 to 1901. Mountague Bernard was one of the founders of 65 William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study ofMedieval and Modern History, 36. 66 Montagu Burrows, Autobiography ofMontagu Burrows, 216; H.W.C. Davis, A History ofBalliol College (Oxford: Blackwell, 1963), 242. 67 Reba N. Soffer, 'Modem History,' in M.G. Brock and M.C. Curthoys eds., The History ofthe University of Oxford, volume VII Nineteenth-Century Oxford, Part 2, 366. 32 the Tractarian newspaper The Guardian along with R.W. Church, the later historian of the Oxford Movement; his longevity as the Chichele Professor of International Law and Diplomacy would not extend to the lengths as these others, as he suffered a breakdown in 1 870 which necessitated his retirement from the position, but as we have seen already his role was crucial in the early stages of forming the History Board. While Oxford was laying the foundations for a history program that, by the end of the nineteenth century, would overtake Classics as the most popular degree taken in England, the study of history at Cambridge languished.68 Upon the suggestion of F.D. Maurice69 on 28 March 1867, history was dropped from the curriculum of the Moral Science Tripos entirely.70 History made a come-back in 1868 with the reform of the Law Tripos, but there were only three historical questions out of a total often questions, and by 1872 when calls for the expulsion of history were renewed a key argument was that in the three previous years only one student had gained a First Class Honours degree. Although J.R. Seeley upon his appointment to the Regius Chair of Modern History at Cambridge in 1869 began to organize a skeletal history course centered on King's College, it was not until 1884 with the appointment of the Oxford graduate Mandell Creighton as the first Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History that Cambridge set about creating a department of historical study along the lines of Oxford.71 Seeley saw the study of history as a way to develop a useful "school of statesmanship" for the burgeoning Civil Service positions of

68 Reba N. Soffer, Discipline and Power: The University, History, and the Making ofan English Elite, 1870- 1930 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994), 54-56, 68-71. In the years between 1900 and 1909 23.4% of all undergraduates at Oxford took degrees in history, see James Campbell, 'Stubbs, Maitland, and Constitutional History,' in Benedikt Stuchtey and Peter Wende, eds., British and German Historiography, 1750-1950: Traditions, Perceptions and Transfers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 101. 69 Frederick Denison Maurice (1805-1872): Trinity College, Cambridge; founded the Working Men's College in 1854; Knightbridge professor of casuistry, moral theology, and moral philosophy, Cambridge (1866-1872). 70 Peter Slee, Learning and a Liberal Education, 36, 56-58. 71 John Robert Seeley (1834-1895): Christ's College, Cambridge; professor of Latin at the University of London, London (1863-1869); Regius Professor of Modern History, Cambridge (1869-1895); his most successful books were The Life and Times ofStein, or, Germany and Prussia in the Napoleonic Age (3 vols., 1878) and The Expansion ofEngland (1883). 33 the British Empire. His views took their clearest form in The Expansion ofEngland in 1883. If he had his way he would have made a Political Tripos rather than what eventually

72 became the History Tripos. Creighton's Inaugural Lecture The Teaching ofEcclesiastical History was a manifesto against Seeley's utilitarian rationale for engendering historical study. The lecture touched off a debate in the Cambridge Review that within months ushered in serious reform. Creighton's main allies were H.M Gwatkin, who had been his main competitor for the chair and eventual successor in 1891, G.W. Prothero, A.W. Ward and F.W. Maitland.73 The main opponents were Seeley and Oscar Browning.74 The animosity between the two sides could devolve into acrimonious name-calling and was long lasting, but the general turn was immediate.75 Gwatkin held no hard feelings for losing out the professorship to Creighton and the two began to correspond with one another about raising historical studies at Cambridge to the level of Oxford even before Creighton had physically moved from his vicarage at Embleton.76 As we have seen already, the challenge that Creighton and the tutors had posed to Stubbs, Burrows and the other professors at Oxford had been crucial for the development of the discipline, but had meant that the professors were limited to educating only the most serious students who contemplated professional careers as historians. Given the nature of the Tripos at Cambridge, Creighton would be forced to

72 R.T. Shannon, 'John Robert Seeley and the Idea of a National Church,' 256- 267, in Robert Robson, ed., Ideas and Institutions of Victorian Britain: Essays in Honour ofGeorge Kitson Clark (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1967). 73 Henry Melvill Gwatkin (1844-1916): St. John's College, Cambridge; Dixie professor of ecclesiastical history, Cambridge (1891-1916). George Walter Prothero (1848-1922): King's College, Cambridge; professor of modern history, Edinburgh University (1894-1899). Adolphus William Ward (1837-1924): Peterhouse, Cambridge; professor of history and English language and literature, Owens College, Manchester (1866-1897). Frederic William Maitland (1850-1906): Trinity College, Cambridge; Downing Professor of the Laws of England, Cambridge (1888-1906). 74 Oscar Browning (1837-1923): King's College, Cambridge; fellow at King's College, Cambridge (1875- 1909). 75 OB MSS: Gwatkin to Browning, February 19, 1900 and February 20, 1900. 76 Gwatkin Papers: Gwatkin to Creighton, May 18, 1884, 198. 34

lecture to larger classes than Stubbs or Burrows at Oxford. Creighton initially expected that the situation would be analogous to Oxford and that he would have smaller classes of

students like Stubbs and Burrows. He planned on dividing history into periods and subjects and his main goal was to focus on the serious students of history while leaving preparation for examination to the tutors (as had been his own role as a tutor at Oxford):

I do not wish ever to lecture directly on any period offered for examination - I should prefer to take a subject within some such period, a subject concerned with ecclesiastical history, and show its general bearing on the problems of the time. . . .1 dare say such a course is not needed and will meet with scanty attendance; but I had rather have a class of two or three who were interested than a herd who were only anxious to get up enough for an examination or to be spared the trouble of reading themselves.77 Experience was to prove Creighton wrong, and his lectures were well attended (particularly his 'Elizabeth lectures').78 Creighton stuck to his plan of focusing on periods and subjects and worked to make history an autonomous subject free even of the general Board.79 The main reform was undertaken on 24 February 1885 just a month after Creighton' s inaugural lecture.80 As he had hoped, a small group of devoted students attached themselves to himself and Gwatkin. The two primed these select students for future positions through the newly created Lightfoot Scholarship of Ecclesiastical History and the Prince Consort Prize.

Creighton' s inaugural lecture negotiated a role for ecclesiastical history, and by extension the general study of history, between the political role that Seeley assigned to it and attempts by theologians at Cambridge to subordinate the study to the faculty of Divinity.81 Creighton proclaimed (naively as the experiences of the professors of

Gwatkin Papers: Creighton to Gwatkin, July 16, 1884, 201. 78 'Letters to Lecturers VI. Professor Creighton,' Cambridge Review, vol. X, no. 256, June 6, 1889, 378. 79 OB MSS: Creighton to Browning, Dec. 9, 1887. 80 Peter R.H. Slee, Learning and a Liberal Education: The Study ofModern History in The Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Manchester, 1800-1914, 77. 81 Gwatkin Papers: Gwatkin to Creighton, 20 September, 1890, 209. Gwatkin was to have greater difficulty maintaining this balance after Creighton became Bishop of Peterborough, and then when reform of the Theological Tripos came up in 1 896. Owen Chadwick, Creighton on Luther: An Inaugural Lecture 35 Ecclesiastical History at Oxford and King's College, London would show later in the first decade of the twentieth century)82 that, "theology has become historical and does not demand that history should become theological." We shall see later in the chapter that as a bishop historian Creighton broke down his own boundary in his oversight of the Church Historical Society, but during his tenure as the Dixie Professor he was assiduous in maintaining the autonomy of his discipline. Creighton was embarrassed that "England has contributed unduly little towards this important branch of historical study" and argued that only by focusing solely on modern history from within a European context could Cambridge hope to catch up to Oxford, German and French historians.83 For Creighton and Gwatkin, the primary issue at Cambridge during this period involved the impingement of theology into the discipline of history. Creighton reinforced the independence of the Dixie Professorship of Ecclesiastical History from the Faculty of Divinity by totally subsuming it within the general study of history: One point cannot be too clearly stated, though it is almost superfluous to state it; that science knows no difference of methods, and that ecclesiastical history must be pursued in exactly the same way, and with exactly the same spirit as any other branch of history. The aim of the investigator is simply the discovery of truth. Ecclesiastical history is precisely like constitutional history or economic history: it deals primarily with one aspect of time, but it deals with it in a spirit of absolutely free inquiry and entire independence of judgment.84

By divorcing the study of history from the knowledge associated with religious affiliation, Creighton made a radical claim for the transformational capabilities of historical

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 4. According to Chadwick the stimulus to create the Dixie professorship came from F.J.A. Hort, and he probably wanted the ecclesiastical professors to maintain independence from the theologians. 82 Arthur James Mason, Life of William Edward Collins, Bishop ofGibraltor (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912), 36. 83 Mandell Creighton, Historical Lectures and Addresses, edited by Louise Creighton (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1903), 2-3. 36 knowledge. In an age in which Oxford and Cambridge were seeing the walls of the monopoly of the Church of England break down, and when certain historians like Montagu Burrows were willing to struggle to keep those walls up, it is interesting to note that historians like Creighton and Gwatkin at least publicly seemed to relish playing a role in the increased openness of the universities and the profession of the historian. This fits in with the transformation of university culture that Sheldon Rothblatt has described: "The Victorian university revival was not predicated on a significant shift in the class structure of England. . .but was based on a section of its traditional clientele, now with different cultural expectations, and on its own traditions of learning and education." 5 These historians were not necessarily pioneers for tolerance, nor were they merely bending to perceived inevitable changes; rather, they believed that part of their university education included an exchange of ideas and social contact with other English people who had not traditionally been allowed to partake of an Oxbridge education because of restrictions based on religion, and that to understand the history of English institutions they must study all departments of history as well. As the first editor of the English Historical Review Creighton maintained this position of neutrality when he set out for his editorial policy that the professional journal would avoid all contemporary political and religious polemics "by refusing contributions which argue such questions with reference to present controversy."86 But this balance was precarious for these historians. Creighton would note privately to Gwatkin: There is in my opinion no branch of study more important than that of Ecclesiastical History. In the face of questions which are pressing at the present and which will be still more pressing in the future it is most needful

Sheldon Rothblatt, The Revolution ofthe Dons: Cambridge and Society in Victorian England, 8. 'Prefatory Note,' English Historical Review, vol. I, no. 1, January, 1886, 4. 37

that there should be ready for a help in their solution a basis of sound knowledge, which at present is sorely wanting in England. Creighton was referring to questions concerning the historical relationship of the Church of England to Rome and of the Church of England to the English state. Within the context of this letter Creighton was concerned with the larger religious culture of the nation and its impact on the relationship of church and state. This area was always a blind spot for Creighton, as he held an elevated conception of the greatness of the nation of England and of Teutonic racialism, of which the English were the highest example, so we should recognize that his vision for a "scientific" study of history was not as complete as he claimed even while he was at Cambridge. But by the end of the 1880s Cambridge had laid a ground-work for historical studies to rival that of Oxford by setting up a working program to train future historians to practice the disciplines of general and ecclesiastical history. As we turn from the topic of the development of schools of history in the universities to the writing of history and print culture, it is clear that there is a contiguous relationship between the two, rather than a relationship of genus to species. Teaching and writing fed into one another, and there was no clear point at which a manifesto was written or a brilliant teacher set students in motion. When remembrances began to circulate commemorating the work of William Stubbs following his death in 1901, a myth began to form that he had single handedly brought the new history into repute in England, a myth which has been articulated even in recent years.88 But Stubbs' biographer Hutton, as cited earlier, best summarized the role that Stubbs played when he stated that Stubbs was simply

87 Gwatkin Papers: Creighton to Gwatkin, May 22, 1884,199; Louise Creighton, Life and Letters ofMandell Creighton, sometime Bishop ofLondon, vol. I., 244-251; Louise Creighton, ed., The Church and the Nation: Charges and Addresses (London: Longmans, Green, 1901), 166-176. 88 Richard Marion Koch, 'William Stubbs: Victorian Historian and Churchman' (PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut, 2002), 138. 38

the most successful of his generation in cultivating the ideals that the historians ofthat age set for themselves.89

As these historians defined the standards for their profession one ideal rose above

all others and set the study of history above the traditional Oxbridge education in the classics. This ideal was "judgment." If Stubbs played a relatively minor role in developing

the History Board at Oxford, he played a major role along with E.A. Freeman in packaging and marketing the new ideals of impartiality and rigorous methodology to students and the English reading public. The historian was not a philosopher who elucidated principles but rather a judge who dealt with laws. Stubbs declared: "The faculty to be trained is the judgment, the practical judgment at work among matters in which its possessor is deeply interested, not from the desire of Truth only, but from his own involution in the matters of which he is to judge."90 After Stubbs' death, Maitland wrote of him: "It has often seemed to me that if he had changed his profession he might have been a very great judge."91 For Stubbs the historian functioned as a judge who looked at all of the facts impartially, but who also recognized his or her own entanglement in the matters at hand; consequently, this involution would be surmountable precisely because of the historian's awareness of his or

her own place within the historical heritage of the English nation and the English Church (even as he or she were themselves defining these institutions through their own judgment). The historian was to be aware of his or her own position within the history of the nation,

and by understanding that position's limitation and bias they could move beyond this bias.

See page 1 above. 90 William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study ofMedieval and Modern History, 19. 91 F.W. Maitland, "William Stubbs, Bishop of Oxford,' English Historical Review, 16 (1901), 421. In fact, both Stubbs and Freeman claimed to have disliked lawyers. They both felt that lawyers should defer to the expertise of historians when issues arose related to either the Church of England or the English constitution, see J. W. Burrow, A Liberal Descent: Victorian Historians and the English Past (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 133. 39

Stubbs envisioned a future state of perfect historical knowledge which would further remove limitation and bias altogether resulting in knowledge of truth:

The time cannot be far off when all the records of the medieval world which are in existence will be in print either in full or in abundant abstracts as will be thoroughly trustworthy representations of their contents; when every great library will contain copies of them all when every town will contain a great Library. . . . and I trust and believe that the more sincerely, the more single-heartedly we work each of us, the nearer we consciously come to the state where we shall see the oneness and glory and beauty of truth itself.92 Stubbs believed that each person could pursue historical knowledge as long as he or she

was willing to put in the requisite hard work, since every English person's life was part of the heritage. With libraries in every town, each English person would have access at the local level to the materials of the history of the nation as well as the church. Stubbs derived

this idea of the progressive universal availability of historical study from his conception of the role of the Church of England in the world. He considered the study of modern history to be "the most thoroughly religious training that the mind can receive. It is no paradox to say that Modern History, including Medieval History in the term, is co-extensive in its field

of view, in its habits of criticism, in the persons of its famous students, with Ecclesiastical History."93 In this period, "ecclesiastical history" was differentiated from "church history" (for High Churchmen the former referred to their conception of the "Holy Catholic Church," while the latter referred to Christian "sects").94 Therefore, for Stubbs the study of Modern History was the study of the visible Catholic Church of Christ.

Historians like Stubbs and Burrows were not lonely pioneers. They worked amongst a number of writers who treated historical questions from a High Church perspective, and

William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study ofMedieval and Modern History, 14-15. 93 Ibid., 10. 94 The clearest articulation of this distinction at the time is in William Edward Collins, The Study of Ecclesiastical History (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1903), vii-viii, 1-5. It should be noted that Collins himself challenged this distinction in his handbook, although he nevertheless continued to make use of it. 40

therefore did reinforce many English prejudices against continental Catholic practice; however, their historical writings were also major publishing endeavors in the general renaissance of medieval history of which Stubbs and Freeman were only the most famous writers. And these High Church historians did not merely make use of German historical-

critical methodologies to historicize the papacy, as Stuchtey and Wende claim. The popularity of these works raised catholic consciousness for a reading public that was often

violently prejudiced against the Catholic Church by reintroducing historical characters from the Middle Ages and showing that they fit into the English heritage as imagined by nineteenth-century historians.95 Robert Colls has argued that from 1880 to 1920 Liberal historians "misconceived the Middle Ages" and turned historical characters such as Simon

de Montfort into "honorary liberals" in order to show the "continuity" of English liberalism.96 This process began long before the 1880s as High Churchmen, many of whom happened to be Gladstonian, if not exactly party Liberals, sought to prove historically that

the nineteenth-century Church of England held continuity with the Church founded by St. Augustine with the mission to Kent in 597.97 The most important work in this regard was R.W. Church's Saint Anselm. Originally published as a long essay in the High Church British Critic in 1843, Church expanded it into book form in 1870 and it subsequently went through four editions by 1879. Anselm was a hero for the Tractarians who twisted the story of the medieval Archbishop's

For the pervasiveness of anti-Catholicism in Great Britain see E.R. Norman, Anti-Catholicism in Victorian England (London: Allen & Unwin, 1968); John Wolffe, The Protestant Crusade in Great Britain, 1829-1860 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991 Frank W'allis, Popular Anti-Catholicism in Mid-Victorian Britain (Lewiston: E. Mellen Press, 1993); D.G. Paz, Popular Anti-Catholicism in Mid-Victorian England (Stamford: Stamford University Press, 1996). 96 Robert Colls and Philip Dodd, 'Englishness and the Political Culture' in Robert Colls and Philip Dodd, eds., Englishness: Politics and Culture, 1880-1920 (London: Croom Helm, 1986), 36-38. 97 For the often uneasy relationship between High Church writers and Gladstone see J.P. Parry, Democracy and Religion: Gladstone and the Liberal Party, 1867-1875 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 181-193. 41 struggles with Kings William and Henry I into a cosmological battle between the church and a tyrannical state: We see, perhaps, in what he did, an appeal against his king, against the constitution of England and the independent rights of the nation, to a foreign power. If we see with the eyes of his own age, we shall see the only appeal practicable then from arbitrary rule to law. 8 In Church's work Anselm became a sort of ideal nineteenth-century High Church Archbishop of Canterbury who stood up to the tyranny of kings and popes to defend the

Church of England and the rule of law. Church anachronistically postulated an English constitution and then argued that from the historical perspective Anselm was the real defender ofthat constitution. Other works such as A.W. Haddan's Apostolical Succession in the Church ofEngland and William Stubbs' Registrimi Sacrum Anglicanum attempted to prove that the Church of England had always held the doctrine of the apostolic succession and that the line of succession had never been broken even during the turbulent times of the

English Reformation. Although both works would have provided ample opportunity for attacks on the larger medieval church, Haddan was eirenic and affirmed the validity of the orders of the Catholic Church, while Stubbs' book, which is mainly a list of every bishop from each diocese in England with documents proving their valid ordination, confidently and without embarrassment described how the Statute of Provisors was ignored by Bishops who received their confirmation at Rome in obedience to the medieval popes. J. S. Brewer and J.W. Dixon specialized in the reign of Henry VIII and showed how the real goal of the Reformation had been to tyrannically subdue the English Church's

98 Richard William Church, Saint Anselm (London: Macmillan and Co., 1879), 225. See also B.A. Smith, Dean Church: The Anglican Response to Newman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958), 62-74. 99 Arthur W. Haddan, Apostolical Succession in the Church ofEngland (London: Rivingtons, 1 869), 140-141; William Stubbs, Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum. An Attempt to Exhibit the Course ofEpiscopal Succession in England, from the Records and Chronicles ofthe Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1858), v-vi. Stubbs' book was reissued in 1897 specifically to confute Apostolicae Curae. See, 'Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum,' The Churchman, vol. XII, no. 132, New Series (no. 216), Sept. 1897, 657. 42 independence in an unconstitutional redefinition of the ancient Royal Supremacy. After editing a number of classic works by members of the Church of England, Brewer was appointed by Sir John Romilly (1802-1874), the Keeper of the Rolls, from 1858 to 1861, to edit the Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, ofthe Reign ofHenry VIII} He was the first editor of any of the State Papers at the Public Records Office to be allowed to add

his own notes (and the only other was his student James Gairdner). Brewer also edited The Student's Hume which was optional reading for the history examination (this was the edition that Burrows recommended over Lingard's history of England). Brewer brought the

work up to the year 1858 which gave him the opportunity to abuse the monarchs and ministers who in his mind betrayed the Church of England by acquiescing to Catholic Emancipation.101 In a number of works on Henry VIII and the Royal Supremacy Brewer showed that Henry VIII was a cruel tyrant who yoked the Church of England into an unconstitutional subservience to the Royal Supremacy from which it had yet to free itself and return to its constitutional co-equal position. 102 His books were clearly written in the context of contemporary events which upset High Church sensibilities, such as the Privy Council's unwillingness to prosecute Bishop Colenso for views on the Bible that High Churchmen found unacceptable, but his work was grounded in primary documents and represented some of the most thorough research of the century.103 Dixon's massive six volume History ofthe Church ofEngland first began to appear in 1 878 and followed

100 J.S. Brewer, English Studies; or, Essays in English History and Literature (London: John Murray, 1881), xvii-xx, 16-18. 101 His attack on George IV, who signed in Catholic Emancipation, is particularly biting. See David Hume, The Student's Hume: A History ofEnglandfrom the Earliest Times to the Revolution of 1688, abridged (New York: Harper & brothers, 1873), 732-733. 102 J.S. Brewer, 'The Royal Supremacy and the History of its Introduction,' in J.S. Brewer, English Studies; or, Essays in English History and Literature (London: J. Murray, 1881), 299, 322-323. 103 J.S. Brewer, English Studies, xiv-xv. 43

Brewer's work in showing that the Reformation was predicated on a sort of Tudor misinformation campaign to enslave the Church of England:

The Church of England was believed, or pretended, to be full of abuses which were incurable from within. By the temporal powers she was now to be taken in hand in good earnest; and that which she was unable to do for herself was to be done for her. The more ardent, indeed, looked for nothing less than the subversion of the ancient constitution of the Church and the alienation of her patrimony.104 The six volumes followed this line up through the reign of Elizabeth, showing the utter helplessness of the Church of England in the face of a grasping state. Dixon's work fit into this same pattern by clearly referencing present concerns ofHigh Church partisans, and yet the work was still grounded in original research. Dixon and Brewer held a rare Tractarian belief about the Reformation. Most Tractarians agreed with an older High Church interpretation which held that the Church of England led the way in the Reformation and that Henry VIII played a relatively minor role. The papal jurisdiction was rejected because the medieval popes had become debased, worldly and incapable of reform. Brewer and Dixon, like most non-Catholic English men and women of their time, held prejudiced opinions against the position of the papacy, but they bucked popular prejudice as they were unwilling to believe that the medieval Catholic Church itself was corrupt, and held that most priests, including those in monasteries, and lay believers were conscientious Christians.105

Most of these High Church histories were simply the past narrated in such a way as to justify High Church positions in the historian's own present. Only Brewer's work has a permanent readability outside its immediate cultural context. The importance of these

104 Richard Watson Dixon, History ofthe Church ofEnglandfrom the Abolition ofthe Roman Jurisdiction, vol. I (London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1878), 1-2. 105 Richard Watson Dixon, History ofthe Church ofEnglandfrom the Abolition ofthe Roman Jurisdiction, vol. I, 22-23, 26-30, 87-93, 372-375; J.S. Brewer, The Reign ofHenry VlIIfrom his Accession to the Death of Wolsey, edited by James Gairdner, 2 vols. (London: John Murray, 1884), volume I, 50-51, 254-255. 44 books lies in the fact that unlike the bulk of polemical histories written before them, in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, their authors were likely to outline the methodologies that they used, to add bibliographies or bibliographic essays as well as notes, to analyze their sources and they frequently gave citations so that their readers could check the sources for themselves.

Turning to the mature works of Stubbs, Freeman and Creighton, the major category used by historians to describe their collective body of work has been that of "Whig History." P.B.M. Blaas succinctly summarizes the Whig interpretation of history as the "legal interpretation of history."106 These historians were not only interested in developing the judgment of their students at Oxford and Cambridge, but were also interested in printing and arranging all English historical documents and then deciding which were the most important ones to be chosen for their own grand narrative histories of the development of the English constitution. These three men focused on different areas, Stubbs on the strictly constitutional aspects of English history, Freeman on the consequences of the Norman Conquest for the English constitution and Creighton on the way in which the papacy and medieval European national struggles influenced England; however, the ultimate goal was the same in the corpus of works each produced, namely, to show how the English institutions of the nineteenth century had developed, had achieved stability and were inherently better than those of other European nations because they ensured English liberty while staving off rebellion.107 According to Blaas, these historians consistently wrote the present into the past in order to show the continuity of institutions: "This Whig anachronism was rooted partly in an evolutionism characterized by strong ideological

106 P.B.M. Blaas, Continuity and Anachronism, 35. 107 Valerie E. Chancellor, Historyfor their Masters: Opinion in the English Textbook, 1800-1914 (Bath: Adams & Dart, 1970), 49-50, 66. 45

leanings which could scarcely present historical developments as anything other than a continuous process moving linearly and purposefully towards the present."1 J.W. Burrow argues that the Whig interpretation of history as written by English historians transcends political parties; it is "an invitation to national jubilation" and lays out a historical heritage which all English people can be proud of: "Whig history that earns the name is, by definition, a success story: the story of the triumph of constitutional liberty and representative institutions."109 Stubbs' major literary contributions, Select Charters (1870), and the three volumes of Constitutional History (1874-1878), became core features of the required reading in the reformed Oxford School of History. The Select Charters was a collection of primary documents in Latin and Norman French which one student and eventual Chichele Professor of Modern History, Charles Oman110, described as a "sort of bible, from which a candidate was expected to identify any paragraph without its context being given." Oman, like many other students, also attended A.L. Smith's111 lectures "Steps to Stubbs" which picked out the most salient documents for digestion.112 Where Stubbs failed as a lecturer to draw students (at least failed in his own mind), as a writer he was able to impact all students who wished to pass their history examinations as from 1874 to 1895 his Constitutional History along with Freeman's History ofthe Norman Conquest and J.R. Green's1 13 Short History of

P.B.M. Blaas, Continuity andAnachronism, xi. 109 J.W. Burrow, A Liberal Descent: Victorian Historians and the English Past, 3. 110 Charles Oman (1860-1946): New College, Oxford; Chichelle Professor of Modern History, Oxford (1905- 1946); published A History ofEngland (1895), but his ground breaking work involved military history. 111 Arthur Lionel Smith (1850-1924): Balliol College; fellow of Trinity College, Oxford (1874-1878); fellow of Balliol (1882-1924). 112 Charles Oman, Memories of Victorian Oxford: And ofsome Early Years (London: Methuen, 1941), 104- 105. 113 John Richard Green (1837-1883): Jesus College, Oxford; Green's Short History ofthe English People (1874) was second only to Macaulay's History ofEnglandfrom the Accession ofJames /7(1855-1861) as a publishing phenomenon in the nineteenth century. 46

the English People were the preparatory works read by students for the BA during the summer after they had passed their moderations. Stubbs' Constitutional History is a sweeping work beginning with the accounts of primordial Germanic tribes contained in Julius Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico and Tacitus' Germania and explicitly ranging up to the reign of Henry VII, although he added historical commentary up until at least the Restoration. He used these early histories by Roman writers to show that the Anglo-Saxon people (or often simply the "English people"), were not "aboriginal" but rather "a people of German descent in the main constituents of blood, character, and language, but most especially, in connexion with our subject, in the possession of the elements ofprimitive German civilization and the common germs of German institutions."115 Stubbs' history was specifically about the English people, rather than the geographical space upon which they settled. Stubbs used this methodological move to utterly exclude the early British peoples, Roman institutions and British Church from the analysis. With the migration of the Anglo-Saxons:

The Britons fled from their homes: who the sword spared famine and pestilence devoured: the few that remained either refused or failed altogether to civilize the conquerors. For a century and a half after their arrival the Saxons remained heathen; for a century after their conversion they were repelled from communion with the Celts: the Britons retarded rather than promoted the religious change which the Spaniards forced on their Arian conquerors, and which Clovis voluntarily adopted to unite him with his Gallic subjects. This period, instead of being one of amalgamation, was one of divarication. There was room enough for both Britons and Saxons: the Roman cities might have been homes for the one, and woods and broad pastures have furnished the other with their favourite prospects. But the cities went to ruin; Christianity became extinct, and all culture with it.116 This left Stubbs with a sort of blank slate upon which he filled in the triumph of the English people with their primeval Germanic institutions. The old fortifications and roads of the 114 Peter R.H. Slee, Learning and a Liberal Education, 102-106. 115 Williarn Stubbs, Constitutional History ofEngland in its Origin and Development, volume I (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1874), 2. "6Ibid., 66. 47

Romans were left over "like the mysterious fabrics which in Central America tell of the rule of a mighty race whose name is forgotten."117 Subsequently, Stubbs relied on his friend E.A. Freeman's History ofthe Norman Conquest to show that the settlements of the Danes "were not numerous enough to alter the general complexion of society,"1 1 while the Norman conquest of England actually "helped to develop and concentrate the wasted energies of the native race."119 Stubbs' work articulated a simple logic found in many histories from this period, a logic which assumed that since English society was stable during the historian's own present it must have always been stable.120 Therefore, past events which may seem to have been cataclysmic in their results must merely have been chastening forces which invigorated the development of the English people and their

institutions.

The foundation of the stable English society was the Church of England. According

to Stubbs, England would never have become a nation if not for the example first given by the Church of England:

So long as the heptarchic kingdoms lasted, each having its witenagemot, there was no attempt at general organization even for cases of the greatest emergency, except the ecclesiastical. The provincial or family tie was as strong as ever, and although the gens Anglorum had learned to recognize itself under one collective name as early as the time of Augustine, it was only on the ancient lines that any power of organization was developed until the Church was strong enough to form a national union.121 Although Lingard, Palgrave and most German and French historians assumed that the

Anglo-Saxon title of Bretwalda indicated a type of imperial status, in which one of the

"7Ibid, 67. 118 Ibid, 77 119 Ibid., 269. l20For this "survival of the fittest" approach adopted by these historians to demonstrate the continuity of institutions seeRebaN. Softer, Discipline and Power: The University, History, and the Making ofan English Elite, 1870-1930, 63. 121 William Stubbs, Constitutional History ofEngland in its Origin and Development, volume I, 121. 48 kings tended to function as an overlord, both Stubbs and Freeman rejected this position, and instead saw the Bretwalda of each kingdom of the Heptarchy as independent: During this period the unity of the Church was the only working unity: the law of religion the only universally recognized common jurisprudence. The archbishop of Canterbury stood constantly, as the Bretwalda never stood, at the head of an organized and symmetrical system, all the officers of which were bound by their profession of obedience to him. The example of the Church's unity for the nascent English state was crucial in Stubbs' analysis because the English freeman during the Anglo-Saxon period had an inherent dislike of politics: As a Christian, too, he had more real, more appreciable social duties than as an Englishman. He could accept Sweyn or Canute, if he would be his good lord and not change the laws or customs that regulated his daily life. There was a strong sense of social freedom without much care about political power. It was inherent in his blood.123 The category of race was prominent in Stubbs' work, and as the Anglo-Saxon imperceptibly morphed into the "English man," this trait of social freedom (which meant the freedom to maintain what was traditionary from any change which Stubbs considered not to be "organic") stood out as a continuity which extended to the laws and customs of the Church of England. Metaphors ofplant life and machines abound to describe the growth of English institutions as a continuity (Stubbs even used natural selection as a metaphor to describe this process of development).124 These same metaphors were used to describe the Church of England. In a reminiscence published in the English Historical Review following Stubbs' death, Maitland noted that Stubbs' High Church position was

122 William Stubbs, Constitutional History ofEngland in its Origin and Development, volume I, 163; Francis Palgrave, A History ofEngland (London: John Murray, 1 83 1 ), 32, 62-63, 76-77; John Lingard, The History of Englandfrom the First Invasion by the Romans to the Accession of William and Mary in 1688 vol. I (London: Charles Dolman, 1854), 51-54. 123 Ibid., 211. 124 For a discussion of these metaphors in Stubbs' Constitutional History see James Campbell, Stubbs and the English State, 6; J.W. Burrow, A Liberal Descent, 145. 49 apparent, but not prominent in his historical writings.125 Compared to many polemicists of the age this is certainly the case, but his Churchmanship is an important interpretive device. When we consider a catechetical work such as Christopher Wordsworth's126 Theophilus Anglicanus, written while headmaster of Harrow in 1844, we see many of Stubbs' conclusions presented at a much earlier date in question and answer form for the indoctrination of children.127 A real feature of Stubbs' achievement was to take this fairly typical High Church interpretation of English history, which retained elements of theological argument and biblical proof-texts, and repackage it as the results of historiographical research with almost no categorical theological content. The result was a

multi-purpose High Church history to confute Roman Catholic and non-High Church Protestant interpretations of English history (as well as the bogey of erastianism) without engaging in blatantly polemical discussions.

The general ecclesiastical outline of the Constitutional History is that after the annihilation of the British Church by the Anglo-Saxons, Pope Gregory sent Augustine who

began the conversion of the Anglo-Saxon peoples from 597. The Augustinian succession almost died out entirely but Theodore of Tarsus entered the scene, helped carry out Oswy's renunciation of the British custom of Easter,128 settled the dispute between Wilfrid and Cedd and then organized the whole episcopate under one metropolitan at the Council of

Hertford in 673. Soon after Theodore's death the see of York was raised to the status of an

archbishopric, and gained three suffragans. With the exception of the short-lived

125 F.W. Maitland, 'William Stubbs, Bishop of Oxford,' English Historical Review, 16 (1901), 425. 126 Christopher Wordsworth (1807-1885): Trinity College, Cambridge; Bishop of Lincoln (1869-1885). 127 Unlike Stubbs, Wordsworth did maintain a place for the British Church in the conversion of England, and argued that Queen Bertha's Frankish chaplain Liudhard functioned as a bishop independent of Rome before the coming of Augustine, see Christopher Wordsworth, Theophilus Anglicanus: or, Instructionfor the Young Student Concerning the Church and our own Branch ofit (London: J.G.F. & J. Rivington, 1843), 124-130. 128 One of many examples within Stubbs' own work which shows that his annihilation theory was too stringent. 50 archbishopric of Lichfield founded by Offa in 787, and then the final subdivision of Wessex, the territorial organization continued with only minor changes until the point at which Stubbs himself was writing.129 Stubbs' interpretation was reinforced by the Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, the Tractarian William Bright, and was used to confute

Protestant attempts to locate the origins of the Church of England in the earlier British Church.130 A by-product of this interpretation was that the Arthurian legends were also attacked as un-English by E.A. Freeman, since the English would have been the descendants of the historical Arthur's enemies the Anglo-Saxons.131 By unapologetically locating the birth of English Christianity in the Augustinian mission they could confute Roman Catholic attacks on the apostolicity of the English Church; however, by describing the ultimate organization of the Church of England as the child of Theodore, "a philosopher

and divine of Eastern training," they could confidently assert the independence of the English Church from that of Rome and assume that Canterbury held a patriarchal position

akin to that of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria, even though Theodore himself was sent to England directly from Rome.132 As the head of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury was the first

counselor to the king as the nascent English state began its earliest stages of development. Stubbs even went so far as to refer to the Anglo-Saxon archbishops as the "prime

William Stubbs, Constitutional History, volume I, 218-219. 130 See William Bright, Waymarks in Church History (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1894), 294-298 and 320-321 . Bright was a favorite in the High Church press and entered high profile debates to defend the Augustinian establishment. See the Tractarian leaning Guardian, Aug. 28, 1889, vol. XLIV, no. 2282, 1304 and Jan. 30, 1889, vol. XLIV no. 2252, 171. 131 "When British legends speak of the exploits, real or imaginary, of British Arthur against the 'Saxons,' the English reader is apt to think of Arthur as the champion of the reader's own people against foreign invaders, instead of the man who tried to hinder the reader's own people from settling in the land in which they still dwell," in Guardian, 'The Ancient British Church,' vol. XLIII, no. 2201 (numbered as 2200), p. 195. 132 William Stubbs, Constitutional History, vol. I, 238. 51 minister."133 The bishops increasingly took on roles of leadership in "popular courts" and the Witenagemot, and achieved a perfect balance between church and state: The relation of the Church to the State was thus close, although there was not the least confusion as to the organization of function, or uncertainty as to the limits of the powers of each. It was a state of things that could exist only in a race that was entirely homogeneous and becoming conscious of political unity.134 With Stubbs' assumption that the Church was the exemplar for the state, and the state's coequal partner, Stubbs moved on to deal with problematic issues involving the state. So it is not surprising that commentators like Maitland have only seen Stubbs' Churchmanship as apparent but not prominent, since Stubbs' assumption about the lead played by the Church implies that the prime areas left to develop within the subsequent sections are the extra-ecclesiastical aspects of the constitution, such as the monarchy and parliament. For

Stubbs, the Church was essentially stable and unproblematic in its development, so he focused on problematic issues such as why monarchy developed and was vindicated in its constitutional aspects, even though the Anglo-Saxon constitution maintained social freedom quite well, in Stubbs' eyes, before there was a monarchy in England. Once the constitutional position of the Church was established he moved on to other areas of development and did not return to analyze the Church until he had advanced his narrative almost four hundred years later to the Norman Conquest. In Stubbs' historical present the relationship of church and state was not what he considered to be a constitutional ideal. The appropriate constitutional relationship lasted until the Norman Conquest. While Stubbs saw the Conquest as a providential event which expedited the development of the English state, he considered it a mixed blessing for the Church. It was good that the English Church was wrested from its isolation and opened up

133IbId., 258, 262, 380. 134 Ibid., 234. 52

to European Catholicism, but this new cosmopolitanism brought England into the sphere of the papacy, from which the English Church had, according to Stubbs, maintained a respectful distance since the age of Theodore of Tarsus. Stubbs thought that the main error

that the Normans made was to separate the Church's jurisdiction from the secular business of the courts of law according to the Hildebrandine reforms gaining momentum within the continental Norman territories: "From henceforth the bishops and archdeacons are no longer to hold ecclesiastical pleas in the hundred-court, but to have courts of their own."135 With the belief in an international system of ecclesiastical law came naturally the alienation

of the church from the state:

The Clergy thus found themselves in a position external, if they chose to regard it so, to the common law of the land; able to claim exemption from the temporal tribunals and by appeals to Rome to paralyze the regular jurisdiction of the dioceses. Disorder followed disorder, and the anarchy of Stephen's reign, in which every secular abuse was paralleled or reflected in an ecclesiastical one, prepared the way for the Constitutions of Clarendon, and the struggle that followed with all its results down to the Reformation itself.136

Stubbs was careful to hedge his bet, though, and stated that not only did the Conqueror not

swear fealty to Gregory VII, "but he seems to have established an understanding with the English Church which had the force of a concordat for future times."137 Stubbs derived this hypothetical concordat from Eadmer's Historia novorum, and described this constitutional principle as blocking reception of the pontiffs of Rome as apostolic popes, except by command of the monarch, as well as requiring that an assembly of bishops, led by the

"presidency" of the Archbishop of Canterbury, submit all decisions to the will of the monarch: "This was a most necessary limitation of the powers given to the newly

Ibid., 283. Ibid., 284. Ibid., 285. 53 established courts, nor did it, in an age in which there was no discord of religious opinion, create any of the scandals which might arise under more modern conditions."138 From this site, Stubbs could understand and justify the pro-papal positions of, for instance, Thomas Becket, Robert Grosseteste or Robert Winchesley, as well as the tyrannical reactions of the kings who opposed them, and yet condemn them all as following unconstitutional policies which upset the clearly defined limits of each sphere of influence.

According to Stubbs, after centuries of such conflict the result was these "modern conditions" in which England had become a pluralistic society in which the constitutional ideal was glorified and yet also seemed to have broken down:

Strange to say, some part of the mischief of the spiritual jurisdiction survived the Reformation itself, and enlarged its scope as well as strengthened its operation by the close temporary alliance between church and crown. To this the English church owes the vexatious procedure of the ecclesiastical tribunals and the consequent reaction which gave so much strength to Puritanism: nay, Puritanism was itself leavened with the same influences, and instead of struggling with the evils of the system which it attacked, availed itself of the same weapons, met a like failure, and yielded to a like reaction.1

The unbalance created by appeals to Rome in the wake of 1066 resulted in the unbalance of

Puritanism five hundred years later. A reminiscence linking Stubbs' Churchmanship to his writing in the Quarterly Review in 1905 noted of Stubbs' writings: "Not infrequent are such alliterations as Protestantism and plunder, pirate and Puritan interests."140 There was clearly a gulf between Stubbs' claims to historical disinterestedness and the religious representations of the constitution. The main analysis of the Constitutional History concludes with the fall of the Plantagenets. Stubbs did write fairly major asides bringing his narrative history all the way

138 Ibid., 286. 139 William Stubbs, Constitutional History ofEngland, volume III, 374. 140 'William Stubbs, Churchman and Historian,' Quarterly Review, 1905. 54 up to the Glorious Revolution and made suggestive comments about his own present. He engaged in a diatribe against clerical celibacy, condemning it as immoral and an inducement to idleness and poverty.141 Following Brewer, Stubbs condemned Henry VIII and Elizabeth as "dictators." Similarly, Charles I "whose theory of sovereign right was incompatible with the constitutional theory which, rising as it were from the dead," was condemned as out of touch with the constitutional position of parliament, although Stubbs nevertheless went on to describe him as a "martyr" killed by "fanatics."142 He described both the "rebellion" and the Restoration as "great educational experiments" from which "the nation, church, peers and people, emerge with a strong hold on better things; prepared to set out again on a career which has never, since the Revolution of 1688, been materially impeded."1 In the end the reader discovers that the historian "recognizes the law of progress of this world, in which the evil and debased elements are so closely intermingled with the noble and the beautiful, that in the assured march of good, much that is noble and beautiful must needs share the fate of the evil and debased."144 Stubbs portrayed the constitution as fragile and balanced on the edge of a knife, but he assured the reader that it had triumphed and would continue to triumph.

E.A. Freeman was Stubbs' main ally in popularizing the new history. Whereas Stubbs was reticent about entering controversy, Freeman courted it, and it has been argued that Stubbs actively encouraged Freeman to undertake polemical engagements which he himself found distasteful.145 When Stubbs left for the bishopric of Chester in 1884 Freeman

William Stubbs, Constitutional History ofEngland , volume III, 371-373. Ibid., 504-505. Ibid., 506. Ibid., 612. Richard Marion Koch, William Stubbs: Victorian Historian and Churchman, 1 14. 55 was his successor to the Regius Chair of Modern History.146 Freeman became interested in Tractarianism before going up to Oxford. By 1839, at the age of sixteen, he had read all of the then published Tractsfor the Times as well as Lyra Apostolica. From 1841 as a student at Trinity College, Oxford, Freeman came under the influence of Tractarian sympathizers such as Isaac Williams, William Copeland and A.W. Haddan.148 In the 1840s he contemplated converting to Catholicism but was restrained, according to his biographer W.R.W. Stephens, by the influence of the Tractarian E.B. Pusey and by the sight of the "excesses in the other direction of the extreme Tractarians."149

Freeman and Stubbs both corresponded with Tractarian and non-Tractarian High Church historians and generally encouraged their work, particularly that of R.W. Church, who subsequently advised Stubbs when the latter sat on the royal commission for ecclesiastical courts from 1879.150 They were capable of criticizing their fellow High Church historians, particularly if they concluded that a particular work was erastian. Their criticism of the High Church Dean of Winchester W.F. Hook illustrates this and also suggests the limits to their self-ascribed impartiality. Of primary concern to Stubbs and Freeman was Hook's massive Lives ofthe Archbishops ofCanterbury, which began to be issued in 1860 and reached ten volumes before his death in 1875. Hook was friendly with

Tractarians, but generally suspicious of perceived Tractarian excesses, and viewed the Reformation in a positive light. Stubbs criticized Hook specifically as holding "a singularly

Erastian view that takes its own measure of every act or measure and maintains its own

146 Freeman was appointed by Gladstone upon the recommendation of R.W. Church who considered him "unmannerly" but as a historian "quite the first man we have," Ms. Eng. C. 6785, fols. 31-86, number 68-69. 147 W.R.W. Stephens, Life and Letters ofEdwardA. Freeman, volume I (London: Macmillan, 1895), 21. 148 Isaac Williams (1802-1865):Trinity College, Oxford; fellow at Trinity College, Oxford (1832-1865). William Copeland (1804-1885): Trinity College, Oxford; fellow at Trinity College, Oxford (1832-1885). 149 W.R.W. Stephens, Life and Letters ofEdwardA. Freeman, volume I, 43-45, 69. 150 Freeman to Church, Sept. 26, 1880 in Church 'Personal and Family Papers:' MS. Eng. C. 6785 fols. 1-30, number 41-42. 56 conclusion, by Hook or by Crook just I cannot look on it as straightforward."151 Stubbs' wordplay on Hook's last name implies that Hook engaged in historiographical dishonesty, but rather than substantiate this claim with evidence Hook is simply dismissed as erastian. We have seen already that Stubbs believed that the historian could develop judgment by locating his or her own perspective in the present, thereby enabling a fair analysis of

different points of view in the historical past. In a lecture delivered to the Oxford Diocesan Church Historical Society, Stubbs as bishop of Oxford stated his general feeling about impartiality: "Men are partisans by nature, inheritance, education, experience, success, or disappointment, but they may be partisans without being led by party spirit." 5 In a letter to Hook, Freeman stated:

As a controversialist you have a constant temptation to see everything in the light of modern controversy, a temptation to which I think you yielded in your lives of Lanfranc and Anselm, but which you manfully resisted in your life of Thomas. Of course, I have my temptations too of some other kind. If your correspondent be [Henry John] Rose, what he means by ignoring Christianity is probably that I don't go in roaring for or against the Pope, or the Culdees, or the early British Church founded by Saint Paul or something else which has nothing to do with my subject.153 When Stubbs or Freeman addressed the issues of impartiality, partisanship, fairness or bias, they referred to a temper in communicating historical knowledge, rather than any kind of

strict objectivity in the scientific sense, such as some of their students began to argue for by the end of the century.154 Furthermore, the two men had definite blind spots. While Burrows believed that Catholics were not capable of impartiality in communicating historical knowledge, Stubbs believed that Dissenters were inherently incapable of writing fairly about the history of the Church of England, and on this account singled out H.H. Vaughan (181 1-1885) who, before attaining the Regius Chair of Modern History at Oxford

151 Stubbs to Freeman, Oct 11, 1861, MS. Eng. misc.e. 148, number 166-167. 152 "The Bishop of Oxford on the Study of Church History,' Guardian, vol. XLV, no. 2302, Jan. 15, 1890, 79. 153 W.R.W. Stephens, Life and Letters ofEdward A. Freeman, volume I, 380. 154 Reba Soffer, Discipline and Power, 31-35. 57 in 1848, had refused to take holy orders and had been denounced by many Tractarians as a heretic.155 Hook's life of Anselm is certainly not less sophisticated than Church's, but Hook's did have implications that an individual sympathetic to Tractarianism in the later half of the nineteenth century could interpret as indicative of erastianism, even if Hook saw himself as confuting erastianism as well. That Stubbs and Freeman mutually supported one another in their work was well known in their own time and was the subject of Goldwin Smith's oft quoted rhyme ending, "See, ladling butter from alternate tubs, Stubbs butters Freeman, Freeman butters Stubbs."157 Freeman's major work, the History ofthe Norman Conquest, its Causes and Results, was along with Stubbs' Constitutional History required reading for the School of Modern History at Oxford and a major source for Stubbs as well, particularly in respect of the relationship of the Church of England to the papacy. Although Freeman was the more vocal proponent of the interpretive principle known as the "unity of history," Stubbs also agreed with this principle but interpreted it solely as a continuity of the Church of England.158 Freeman's understanding of continuity was broader than Stubbs' and his primary concern was in maintaining, historiographically, the racial purity of the English, but he also articulated a clear continuity of the Church of England that Stubbs and later

High Church historians were eager to pick up. Unlike Stubbs, Freeman did not hold a strong annihilationist interpretation of the Anglo-Saxon immigration; however, he did not really need to as he never allowed "Anglo- Saxons" to enter into his work at all, and instead introduced the English and the English

155 Stubbs to Freeman, MS. Eng. misc.e. 148, 3 Nov, 1859, 44-45. 156 For a discussion of Hook's supposed erastianism see page 163 below. 157 William Holden Hutton, William Stubbs, Bishop ofOxford, 1825-1901 (London: Archibald Constable & Co., Ltd., 1906), 97. 158 Stubbs to Freeman, March 5, 1867, MS. Eng. Misc.e. 148, 202-203. 58 nation pre-packaged and ready, as in Stubbs' work, to fulfill their pre-ordained destiny once Augustine's mission to Kent was established: The Christian faith, which the English had hitherto despised or passed by unheeded as the Creed of the conquered Welsh, was now set before them by a special mission from the city which still commanded the reverence of all Western Europe. Kent, under its King ¿Ethelberht, who then held the rank of Bretwalda, became the first Christian kingdom, and Canterbury became the first Christian city, the spiritual metropolis of the English nation.159 For Freeman these historical assumptions using anachronistic ethnic labels from his own present were crucial because they were the basis for asserting the unique position of the Church of England: "In England, alone in the West, a purely national Church arose." Before the kingdoms of the Heptarchy were even united there were the English people, their nation of England and the Church of England. The Kentish mission immediately became independent of Rome, and the Church in England took on a life of its own, becoming organically one with the people of England: "The English Church reverencing Rome, but not slavishly bowing down to her, grew up with a distinctly national character, and gradually infused its influence into all the feelings and habits of the English people." As with Stubbs, this situation took on constitutional proportions and was not upset until the Conquest when the popes became jealous of the independence of the English Church: Her crime in the eyes of Rome, the crime to punish which the crusade of William was approved and blessed, was the independence still retained by the island Church and nation. A land where the Church and the nation were but different names for the same body, a land where priests and prelates were subject to the law like other men, a land where the king and his Witan gave and took away the staff of the Bishop, was a land which in the eyes of Rome was more dangerous than a land of Jews and Saracens.

159 E.A. Freeman, History ofthe Norman Conquest, its Causes and Results, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1877), volume I, 28-29. 160 Ibid., 32. 161 E.A. Freeman, History ofthe Norman Conquest, volume II, 285. 59

Freeman even went so far as to describe the Conquest, approved by the pope, as the "first crusade."162 Of all the evils that had befallen the world up to Freeman's time, "never surely did the world see a more perfect triumph of unrighteous craft than when the invasion of England was undertaken in the name of religion."163 For Freeman, as we have seen with Stubbs, the evil and good were always mixed.

Freeman described William as creating a tragic separation of church and state which would eventually allow the papacy to upset the delicate balance between the two institutions

through unconstitutional interference. For Freeman the great troublemaker was Lanfranc who as Archbishop of Canterbury "tended to weaken that thoroughly national character which had belonged to the English Church in earlier days."164 Freeman argued that William became tyrannical in response to Lanfranc's intransigence: "The Archbishop now held his Synod as a body distinct from the great Gemot of the realm. It almost necessarily followed that the King should assert a distinct authority over ecclesiastical matters in a shape which gave him the aspect of an external, and even a hostile power."165 Freeman argued that William was powerful enough to maintain control during his lifetime against Pope Gregory VIFs demands for homage because of a type of mystical English independence attached to the crown: "With the Crown of the island Empire William had in the face of foreign powers assumed the spirit which became one who wore it."166 William, though a foreigner, became English in spirit. With the death of William and the succession of his son William Rufus "the bad side of the change showed itself."167 Freeman does not make it clear why William Rufus proved to be such an unmitigated tyrant, since he wore the same English crown as

162 Ibid, 322. 163 Ibid., 323. 164 E.A. Freeman, History ofthe Norman Conquest, volume IV, 428. 165 Ibid., 437. 166 Ibid., 432. 167 E.A. Freeman, History ofthe Norman Conquest, volume V, 131. 60 William the Conqueror, but for Freeman and Stubbs the evidence was in the results. If the High Church interpretation of the Reformation (as simply the renewal of the constitutional relationship of the Church to the Royal Supremacy through the rejection of the spiritual supremacy of the pope) was to be maintained, a historiographical device was needed to explain how the papal supremacy had unconstitutionally taken hold in England in the first place. By choosing source material such as Eadmer's negative portrayal of William Rufus in the Historia novorum, over positive portrayals such as in Geoffrey Gaimar's L'estoire des Engleis, both Stubbs and Freeman had a ready-made villain, in spite of documentary evidence available to both men at the time which suggests the necessity for a much more sophisticated interpretation of the career of the despised monarch.168 Like Stubbs, Freeman interpreted the period from the Conquest to the Reformation as a long struggle in which the English Church attempted to throw off the influence of Rome and only succeeded because of the tyrant King Henry VIII. For these two historians the ends justify the means: "To the legal tyranny of William in one age, to the legal tyranny of Henry in another, we owe that the unbroken life of English law and English freedom has never been wholly snapped asunder."169 In the nineteenth century the word "tyranny" was understood in the classical sense of the Greek word tyrannos, meaning "illegitimate rule," and should not be confused with modern connotations of the word which are stringently pejorative. Nevertheless, while the Victorians held ancient Greece in high regard they generally misconceived the ancient Greek past in order to reflect upon their own. Frank 168Eadmer was a close companion of Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury, who butted heads with William Rufus repeatedly. Eadmer's historical work portrayed his contemporary Norman occupiers as destroying the Anglo-Saxon culture which he held dear. As source material, Eadmer's work fit in well with Freeman's and Stubbs' celebration of the Anglo-Saxon ethnicity and was uncritically accepted. For a discussion of the revision of the historiography on the life of William Rufus and Stubbs' and Freeman's role in creating "pantomime villains" see Emma Mason, 'William Rufus: Myth and Reality,' Journal ofMedieval History, 3 (1977), 17-18; See also Mark Philpott, 'Eadmer, his Archbishops and the English State,' in The Medieval State: Essays Presented to James Campbell edited by John Robert Maddicott and David Michael Palliser (London and Rio Grande, OH: Hambledon, 2000), 93-107. 169 Ibid., 52. 61

Turner has recently demonstrated through a substantial treatment of Victorian print-culture and artistic representations that the Victorians held "the conviction that the Greeks had been like the Victorians and that the historical situations of the two civilizations were essentially similar."170 So when Freeman described monarchs as "tyrants," or when Stubbs describes them as "dictators," the two historians were making claims about the careers of such kings and queens which would have held strongly repugnant connotations for their readership in the nineteenth century, as these readers would have understand tyranny to be generally antithetical to English conceptions of liberty. By using the organic language of Whiggism, Stubbs and Freeman anointed these tyrants and dictators as the progenitors of liberty. They sanitized these monarchs for the Victorian reading public by demonstrating that while their past tyrannical actions may have been perverse they worked in the end for the greater good. Had Stubbs and Freeman abandoned these totalizing teleological narratives of ancient English liberty, the purity of the English race, the continuity of the English constitution or the continuity of the Church of England, they would not have been forced into the position of using historiography to legitimize past actions which they would otherwise find repugnant in their own present; furthermore, Stubbs' and Freeman's major works would have better represented to their students at Oxford the methodological program that they encouraged as professors had they removed these teleological interpretations and simply left it up to their readers to supply them if they so wished. Both Michael Bentley and P.B.M Blaas have argued that, as it was, a reaction against these types of narrative histories set in from the 1890s. This reaction was led by some of Stubbs' former students who were generally politically Liberal and emphasized that historiography

1 70 Frank Turner, Greek Heritage in Victorian Britain (New Haven, CT. : Yale University Press, 1 98 1 ), 1 1 . 62

was emphatically a "science." These advocates for a purely scientific historiography downplayed the constitutional aspects of English history in favor of administrative history. They made this move partially because they saw the former as overtly present-centered while the latter was considered to be useful not as a roadmap to the constitutional present, but as indicative of possible routes to better administration in the present given concrete examples from the past.171 Stubbs' students who were Tory and self-identified Protestant members of the Church of England, such as J. Horace Round, Charles Oman and CR. Fletcher, also tended to react against this narrative historiography of the constitution but in

favor of a "great men" historiography that de-emphasized democratic elements. A section of Fletcher's lecture notes entitled 'Some Aspects of the Early Life of England' reflecting upon his own education states: We were grounded not only upon the still unshaken rock of the Bishop of Oxford and that unsuspected quagmire of Mr. Freeman. Mr. Green had touched with his marvelous style the lighter side of this development and made it sparkle for everybody. ... The root of the ideas running through these books was that self-government and liberty, the parents of a reasonable, ordered, progressive democracy, were the gift of God and the Germans. We shouldn't allow such criticism to drown out the many voices of those students who, as we shall see in chapters two and three, appreciated Stubbs' and Freeman's project in its entirety and constituted a programmatic High Church historiography; however, it is important to recognize that a sizable number of their students rejected the dimensions of the project which impacted either their politics or their religion by using those same historiographical methods learned at Oxford to overthrow the Whig elements contained

171 See Michael Bentley, Modernizing England's Past, chapter 8; P.B.M. Blaas, Continuity andAnachronism, chapter 6. 172 J. Horace Round (1854-1928): Balliol College; expert in court cases regarding peerage; best known books include Geoffrey de Mandeville (1892) and Feudal England (1895); Charles Robert Leslie Fletcher (1857- 1934): Magdalen College, Oxford; fellow of All Souls College, Oxford; his widest selling book was his School History ofEngland (1911). 173 CR. Fletcher Papers, MS. Eng. Misc. d. 339, 1 7 'Some Aspects of the Early Life of England;' See also, Charles Oman, Memories of Victorian Oxford, 161 and 239-241. 63 therein. This reaction engendered new creative historiographical models which were subsequently codified by some students and rejected by others. While historians such as Stubbs, Freeman, Burrows and Bright were ultimately responsible for writing the works that they produced, as well as their parts in university reform, recent research into nineteenth-century historiography has become increasingly aware of the role that external factors played in impinging upon academic historiographical production.174 Creighton stated that Stubbs had confided in him that while he loved paleography, translation and the publication of documents, he only wrote the Constitutional History because it was expected of him that he write something as a professor.175 Again, Stubbs did not need to write this work,/?er se, but his predecessors had been notoriously unproductive and if his project was to be carried out successfully he needed to maintain a certain level of productivity to encourage others to practice the discipline. Given Stubbs' well attested shyness, aversion to overt controversy and surprisingly thin publishing record, outside printed source material, Creighton's admission probably has some merit. Creighton's own expertise was the popes. His work was wide-ranging. He published a highly successful life of Elizabeth, was considered a general expert on ecclesiastical history and was the general editor of two series of Longmans' 'Epochs,' the Epochs of Modern History and Church History, both of which were approved textbooks for school children. The work he is remembered for is his History ofthe Papacyfrom the Great Schism to the Sack ofRome. Creighton claimed that he had only taken up the study of ecclesiastical history and the popes during the tutorial implementation of intercollegiate lectures, in 1 868, because those were the only subjects left over after the other tutors had chosen their own 174 Sheldon Rothblatt argues that the university and the society which encapsulates it should be seen in "subtle and complex states of disagreement as well as agreement with one another, that the direction of university change may not be completely obvious, that surprises will occur," in Sheldon Rothblatt, The Revolution ofthe Dons, 26. 175 P.B.M. Blaas, Continuity and Anachronism, 157. 64 periods and subjects for specialization.176 He had originally intended his book on the popes to be a six-volume work entitled The History ofthe Popes during the Reformation. The book would have covered the period from the Western Schism up through the Reformation on a European scale. When his career as a professor ended, after accepting the see of Peterborough in 1891, he recognized that he could not complete the work on that scope, and could at best give Luther's career a cursory analysis, so the work was given its present shape and title (although Longmans did complete the first edition under the original title).177 The reception of Creighton's history of the papacy is illustrative of the cultural expectations readers had for works of history. Readers wanted the historian to make moral pronouncements about the subject. They expected the historian to have a political and religious framework that they could deduce from the work.178 Creighton's history of the papacy was unique in this period for explicitly stating within the piece itself that the historical characters contained therein should be judged upon the moral framework of then- own time and not that of the writer's present. Lord Acton's horror at the apparent relativism implicit in this lack of condemnation of the renaissance popes, culminating in his oft- quoted statement to Creighton that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," and the comment on Creighton's "sovereign impartiality" are only the most famous and sophisticated critiques of Creighton's history.179 A more normative reaction was that of the reviewer of volumes three and four in the Church Quarterly Review in 1888: We are not quite so well satisfied that Mr. Creighton does not err on the side of leniency in his estimate of the Italian princes who filled the papal chair. It

176 Louise Creighton, Life and Letters ofMandell Creighton, sometime Bishop ofLondon, 2 volumes (London: Longmans, 1904), volume I, 60-61. 177 Ibid., 225. 178 Reba Soffer, Discipline and Power, 31-32. 179 Cited in W.G. Fallows, Mandell Creighton and the English Church (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), 31-33. 65

is one of the most difficult problems to be determined how far human failings should be held excused and human crime palliated by the moral standard of the age.180 It was generally felt that Creighton had been too light on the popes, and yet the work was very successful and certainly sold better than Stubbs' Constitutional History (particularly after the publication ofApostolícete Curae and the Church of England's official response Saepius Officio, as from 1897 there was a new impression of the series every year until 1904, with the exception of 1902). 181 This same review expressed the appeal of the work for late Victorian and early Edwardian audiences who were still prejudiced against

Catholicism:

It is a distinct advantage that the history of the papacy should be written by an Anglican clergyman who cannot be charged with ultra-Protestant bigotry. The calm, judicial narrative of facts explodes Macaulay's theory of the need of exaggeration, and produces such an impression as no sensational writer could have effected.182 Although the reviewer apparently preferred that there be at least some condemnation of the actions of the popes, he nevertheless came to the conclusion that an impartial narration of the facts was really the best weapon to chide those who acted without scruples. The historian as a narrator could allow the event to speak for itself with little or no criticism and let the immoral actions of the character tell the story to the reader who then supplied the judgment for themselves: "Despite the clearness and skilful construction of Mr. Creighton's narrative, the reader grows weary of the incessant plotting and counter-plotting of the Italian powers; of alternate alliance and hostility between the same states, prompted only by

180 'Creighton's History of the Papacy,' Church Quarterly Review, July 1888, vol. XXVI, no. 52, 388. The reviewer was referring to statements made by Creighton such as this in the preface to volume four which, to the modern reader, most certainly do seem to imply a value judgment: "I have tried to deal fairly with the moral delinquencies of the Popes, without, I trust, running the risks of lowering the standard of moral judgment," Mandell Creighton, A History ofthe Papacyfrom the Great Schism to the Sack ofRome, 6 volumes (London: Longmans, Green, 1923), volume IV, vii. 181 Creighton and Stubbs helped Jonathan Wordsworth, the bishop of Salisbury, draft Saepius Officio, Benson Papers 145ff. 22-23. 182 'Creighton's History of the Papacy,' Church Quarterly Review, 389. 66 the interest of the moment."183 By the standards set at Oxford during this period Creighton achieved a real success. He wrote a history that was calculated to measure up to the academic standards of the time but also managed to crack the popular publishing market.

He was rewarded at Cambridge with the academic distinction of a professorial chair, amongst his peers with the editorship of the English Historical Review, but also by the Crown, first with the bishopric of Peterborough, and then London. At a time in which Archbishop Benson wished to surround himself with scholars accomplished in the arts and sciences, Stubbs and Creighton were valuable additions to the episcopal bench not only for their devotion to the Church of England but for their international reputations as historians.184 In private correspondence Creighton was quite frank that there was an underlying interpretation of his history of the popes that had consequences for the present. The work was meant to confute "popular Protestant" interpretations of the Reformation: "I did not expect to do more in my first volume than clear away Protestant misconceptions about the steady growth of what they call an 'Evangelical Spirit.'"185 The protestant/catholic divide was still very much alive in England in the 1880s and 1890s when Creighton published this history. Although words like heresy, schism and anti-christ were increasingly pushed to the fringes of the most extreme party papers, considered by most moderate party papers as a de facto indication of unreflective bias, the age was still susceptible to partisan blow-outs.

183 Ibid., 398. 184 'Churchman, Scholars and Gentlemen,' Quarterly Review, 191:382 (1900: Apr.), 441-442. For the general ideal during this period that ecclesiastical leaders should undertake serious academic study see Peter Hinchliff, God and History, 76-98. 185 Louise Creighton, Life and Letters ofMandel! Creighton, volume I, 229. 186 James Whisenant has argued that the Evangelical side tempered their language after losing much external support in the wake of the trial of Bishop King of Lincoln from 1888 to 1890 for ritual irregularities. Whisenant has further argued that a dominant moderate group of Evangelicals solidified around the eirenic policy advocated at the Islington Clerical Conference in 1893; see James C. Whisenant, A Fragile Unity: Anti-Ritualism and the Division ofAnglican Evangelicalism in the Nineteenth Century (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Press, 2003), 465-474. 67 Many groups continued to view Christianity as Protestant exclusive of Catholicism. For these Protestants who still believed that the Catholic Church was corrupt, the Middle Ages in western Europe provided a challenge. Was there no visible manifestation of Christianity in the west until the Reformation? Reflection upon this quandary yielded a wide variety of responses and strategies to deal with the problem, one of which was to argue that certain individuals or groups within or without the medieval Catholic Church maintained the Gospel or began to become aware of the Gospel over time until the Reformation when there was a sudden incline in genuine Christianity. For these groups the Reformation was most certainly necessary, about doctrine and in England not simply about the rejection of the papal primacy, which contradicted how most High Church writers tended to see the Reformation in this period. Creighton confided to the historian Alice Green187: My conclusion, so far, is that the Reformation was primarily a demand for a redress of grievances inherent in the absolutism of the papal administration over the Church. There was no discontent with doctrines. If the Papacy could have put the administration into better order there would have been no Reformation, but the new learning would have modified men's attitudes towards dogma without causing a breach of the unity of the Church. Like Stubbs and Freeman, Creighton believed in the continuity of history, "the truth that people in the past were like people in the present, that nothing was inevitable."189 He also adhered to the same racial dynamic which ascribed a greater moral sense to the Teutonic peoples which resulted in a special mission to the world, particularly via the English part of

187 Alice Stopford Green (1847-1929): Wife of J.R. Green, she was a successful historian in her own right; her best selling book was Town Life in the Fifteenth Century (1894). 188 Louise Creighton, Life and Letters ofMandell Creighton, volume I, 266. Creighton did devote a lengthy discussion to Luther's career, but the summation of his struggle with the papacy sounds much more like the struggle of a nineteenth-century High Churchman: "It shows that Luther and the German rebels only spoke out what everybody felt, when they maintained that the relation of national Churches to the Papacy was a matter of convenience, to be determined on grounds of expediency," in Mandell Creighton, A History ofthe Papacyfrom the Great Schism to the Sack ofRome, 6 volumes (London: Longmans, Green, 1919), volume VI, 348. 189 Ibid., 287. 68 the Teutonic race.190 Creighton's understanding of English resistance to the papacy was more vigorous than that of Stubbs and Freeman. Whereas the latter two looked through the lens of the constitution to explain why some in the medieval Church of England accepted Roman canon law, Creighton only saw signs of resistance to Rome: "England was the first country which showed a spirit of national resistance to Papal extortion."191 Even before King John's alliance with the papacy, Creighton saw the barons, the people and the clergy combining together to reject papal influence. For Creighton, Magna Carta was simply the summary codification of a principle older than the Conquest that lasted, in spite of the Normans, to be enshrined at Runnymede in 1215 - "Anglicana ecclesia libera sit." For High Churchmen it was widely accepted, uncritically, that the first clause of Magna Carta guaranteed the freedom of the Church of England from the state and from the papacy. In a fascinating address delivered to the Church Congress at Norwich in 1 895 Creighton recognized that the historiography was quickly overcoming this High Church interpretation: It may be said that I have been treating the Church as a National Church, whereas the conception of a National Church was not found in the Middle Ages. I can only answer that somehow or other, the Church in England was always understood to serve the people in England; and just as the people who lived in England became the English nation, so did the Church of England become the English Church.192 Creighton's faith in the High Church interpretation of history was strong enough to resist new historiographical interpretations that conflicted with it. When the historiography seemed to confute certain details of the High Church interpretation he was certain that the general theory must be correct and that the murky points would be resolved eventually in favor of the general theory. There seems to be a gulf here between his faith in the theory and his methodological approach to history as a science that he espoused in his inaugural

190 Louise Creighton, Life and Letters ofMandell Creighton, volume II, 250. 191 Mandell Creighton, A History ofthe Papacy, volume I, 53-54. 192 Louise Creighton, ed., The Church and the Nation, 184. 69

lecture as a professor at Cambridge. Creighton described the Church of England as "the Church of the New Learning," but he was willing to bend that learning when it suited his purposes.193 Creighton's appendices in the History ofthe Papacy further illustrate his blind spot in this area. The bibliography in volume two is particularly striking. For the

convenience of the reader Creighton divided the bibliography into sections corresponding to the major topics within the volume. Whereas the sections for the general climate of reform and Gallican liberties are quite large there is a paucity of materials to support his

argument for corresponding Anglican liberties. The only substantial works cited containing material to support Creighton's belief in these liberties were two of Hermann von der Hardt's (1660-1746) more obscure volumes, Gallorum contra Anglos Disputatio and Vindiciae Anglorum which Creighton accepted uncritically.194 This gulf between the stated goals of an impartial academic historiography and an apparent apriori theory which conveniently maintained traditional High Church

assumptions about a mutually supporting relationship between church and state can be explained by the external relationships of historian to publisher and historian/publisher to ecclesiastical authority. Leslie Howsam has recently added an important correction to

interpretations of nineteenth-century historiography that are wholly writer-centered. Howsam argues that a model which employs a popular-professional distinction is overly simplistic and tends to neglect the role of publishers as agents who mediated between historians and the reading public.195 Historians as writers were certainly prominent in the composition of their works, but even at this level Howsam has demonstrated that publishers

W.G. Fallows, Mandell Creighton and the English Church, 39. 194 Mandell Creighton, A History ofthe Papacy, 6 volumes (London: Longmans, Green, 1914), volume II, 360. 195 Leslie Howsam, 'Academic Discipline or Literary Genre?': The Establishment of Boundaries in Historical Writing,' 527. 70 were intimately involved with the work.196 Historians had little to no influence in the areas ofprinting and binding, marketing and distribution and in general neither writer nor publisher could control reviewers or external authorities. The fact that historians such as Stubbs, Freeman and Creighton wished to publish strictly for a niche academic market ran

contrary to the interests of publishers, who first and foremost were businessmen. Howsam argues that "by dismissing a popular audience for a popular genre, the historians were threatening to disrupt the economics of the publishing trade."197 Simon Eliot's chapter on "subject publishing," in his statistical analysis of British publishing from 1800 to 1919, shows a steady decline in the subject areas both of "religion," which suffered a steep decline from twenty percent of trade output from 1814 to 1846 to a low during our period

of nine percent, and "history," which suffered a similar steady but less dramatic decline during the same period from seventeen percent of trade output to a low of twelve percent.198 In absolute terms both categories showed increased gains by the end of this period so these types of works could still yield immense profits. By far the greatest increase overall was in the subject entitled "fiction and juvenile literature," which steadily rose to thirty percent of trade output. Richard Altick has argued that the economics of the book trade were revolutionized by the end of the nineteenth century thus bringing in a flood of cheap literature usually priced at six pence.199 So it is not that the English reading public lost

In 1907 after eight years of working together closely on a series entitled ? History of the English Church' for the Macmillan Company, the President of the Royal Historical Society William Hunt, as editor of the series, offered to make the publisher a fellow in the Society, BL MSS Add 55080 1:295, 11, June 1 907. 197 Leslie Howsam, 'Academic Discipline or Literary Genre?': The Establishment of Boundaries in Historical Writing,' 542. 198 Simon Eliot, Some Patterns and Trends in British Publishing, 1800-1919 (London: The Bibliographical Society, 1994), 43-53. Eliot does not actually have a subject specifically entitled "history," rather "history" is part of the subject heading "geography, travel, history and biography" which was the categorization given by the book trade catalogue Bibliotheca Londinensis from which Eliot has collated his figures. 199 Richard D. Altick, The English Common Reader: A Social History ofthe Mass Reading Public, 1800- 1900, 2nd edition (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1998), 306-317. To put this pricing system into perspective for the history books dealt with here, penny histories aside, the cheapest book, Arthur Lane's two- volume Illustrated Notes on English Church History, cost one shilling per volume. See C. Arthur Lane, 71 interest in the printed matter categorized by book sellers as "religion" or "history" (since they in fact purchased such books in larger quantities than before); rather they had the discretionary income to consume large quantities of more leisurely novels and children's books that they could not purchase before. In any case, we are not concerned with popular audiences; what is important here is how the publishers and writers interpreted such numbers given that they were collected and published by the book trade and were readily available to tradesmen who were attentive to the possibility ofprofit from established popular markets. Howsam has shown that even productions that were intended to be purely academic, such as the English Historical Review, were not immune to this dynamic.200 This does not mean that publishers were merely concerned with profit. Howsam argues that publishers like the Macmillans "tried to elicit, from rigorous scholars with impressive professional credentials, historical narratives that were scientific in the sense of being accurate and well-documented, but still compelling."201 This was just one of the many areas which needed negotiation to find a suitable balance. Another area that needed careful negotiation for both publisher and historian was the relationship of academic historiography to ecclesiastical authority. As Archbishop of Canterbury, Edward White Benson felt that it was crucial to set church defense solidly both upon the new historiographical standards and upon his own direction.202 His strategy was two-pronged. The first part was to discredit and then dissolve the Church Defence Institution and set up educational initiatives at the parochial level and in connection with cathedrals. The CDI

Syllabus ofSix Illustrated Lectures on English Church History (London: Printed for the Church Defense Institue, 1888), 1. 200 Leslie Howsam, 'Academic Discipline or Literary Genre?': The Establishment of Boundaries in Historical Writing,' 529-534. 201 Ibid., 526. 202 Browne, G.F., Recollections ofa Bishop (London: Smith, Elder, 1915), 320-32 1 . 203 These efforts included the distribution of magic lantern slides on English Church history on the part of the SPCK to each diocese and the formation of the Doctrine and History Lectureships drawn up along the lines of 72 was a volunteer effort independent of episcopal control that by 1885 had definite connections with the Conservative party to the exclusion of supporters of the Liberal party, even when the latter were members of the Church of England. It was a blatantly polemical group formed in 1 859 to combat the agitation against church rates as well as the propaganda machine of the Liberation Society which aimed at disestablishment of the Church of England amongst other issues. 204 The second part of Benson's strategy was to create a historical society whose prime purpose was ostensibly educative but in practice still engaged in Church defense. This society was to be equipped for controversy but would not be specifically designed for it. The result was the Church Historical Society in 1894.206 According to its constitution the society had as its purpose, "to maintain the true historical position of the English Church, by encouraging the study of history, supplying information to those who wish to be informed, and correcting erroneous statements which appear in the public press and elsewhere." The society consisted of a Central Committee in London which met every Monday at Sion College. These weekly meetings were held to deal "with questions of history as they arise." Corresponding societies were set up in each diocese in England and Wales under "specialists in Church history" while non-specialists were called up to "watch

the University Extension Lectures. See W.O.B. Allen and Edmund McClure, Two Hundred Years: The History ofthe Societyfor Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1689-1898 (London: SPCK, 1898), 463-466. 204 See M.J.D. Roberts, 'Pressure-Group Politics and the Church of England: the Church Defence Institution, 1859-1896,' Journal ofEcclesiastical History, vol. 35, no. 4, October 1984, 560-582; J.P. Parry, 'Nonconformity, Clericalism and Englishness: The United Kingdom,' in Culture Wars: Secular-Catholic Conflict in Nineteenth-Century Europe edited by Clark, Christopher and Wolfram Kaiser, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 205 Browne, G.F., Recollections ofa Bishop, 'ill. 206 This was the first such society officially sanctioned by the Archbishop, but there was an earlier Church Historical Society in the diocese of Oxford, the first secretary being the historian Arthur Carr. Also, there were the Diocesan Reading Societies which considered but were not limited to historical subjects. See 'Church Historical Research - Anglican and Roman,' Church Family Newspaper, vol. I, no. 33, Sept. 21, 1894,516. 73 local controversies and keep the Committee informed."207 The first President of the CHS was Creighton, a position that he held until his death in 1901 (after his death Stubbs accepted the presidency but he died three months later). The Chairman was G.F. Browne, Canon of St. Paul's and former Disney Professor of Archaeology at Cambridge. B.F. Westcott (1825-1901), Bishop of Durham and former Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, John Wordsworth, Bishop of Salisbury and former Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford, Stubbs and Bright were designated as referees to designate topics for research and proof works for publication. Publications generally originated as pamphlets that cost either two or three pence, and then were collected thematically and published under a single title during periods of acute crisis, such as at the height of the disestablishment crisis of the Church of England in Wales in 1894-95 or Apostolícete Curae20S Substantial books did not begin to appear in any regularity until after World War I, and by that point the CHS had been re-branded. The historians who wrote for the CHS represented a cross-section of High Churchmanship.209 With the exception of one volume of essays edited by W.E. Collins entitled Typical English Churchmenfrom Parker to Maurice, historians of Evangelical sympathies were either not asked or declined to participate in the CHS. There is no direct evidence for either conclusion, although H.M. Gwatkin, the Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History, seems to have chided W.E. Collins, the Professor of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London, for participating in the CHS (Collins in fact proved the

207 Benson 135ff. 182 (N/D) [1894]. 208 There were ninety-three pamphlets published in total. The CHS also printed at least six special lectures and addresses delivered independent of the society, but these are not numbered and there is no general list to indicate how prevalent this practice was. 209 The complete list of the authors of numbered pamphlets includes Creighton, John Wordsworth, G.F. Browne, H.O. Wakeman, W.E. Collins, A.J. Mason, T.B. Strong, Walter Frere, Robert L. Ottley, Arthur Temple Lyttelton, Archibald Robertson, R.B. Rackham, F.E. Brightman, B.J. Kidd, F.W. Puller, W.H. Hutton, J. Wickham Legg, Edward Denny, Charles Gore, T.A. Lacey, Hugh Jackson Lawlor, Walter K. Firminger and Henry Gee. 74 most prolific of CHS writers, editing or publishing fifteen pamphlets and books).210 It is clear from CHS correspondence, reports and publications that the main occupation became

"correcting erroneous statements." Literally all of the publications clearly address topical hot-button issues of the moment.211 Louise Creighton was certainly correct in stating that one of the main efforts of the CHS was to "repel attacks."212 The society set up a committee during the discussions that would ultimately culminate in Apostolicae Curae to show "the independent arrangement which from the earliest times the English Church made in respect of liturgy and ordination service."213 The question of the Edwardian rite during the age of Cardinal Pole and then the Restoration was examined in light of the ritualist controversy.214 Walter Frere was given a special commission to research the Marian deprivations, which resulted in the first full length book published by the CHS.215 Long-term projects for the CHS included "investigations into school books."216 The evidence collected by the CHS on schoolbooks was almost certainly influential at the Lambeth Conference of 1 897 in the section of the encyclical letter as well as resolution sixty-three to look into school books.217 The test case for this project was in November of 1 894 and was directed towards

Macmillan' s History Reader Standard IV, "in which the relations of the Church of England to the Church of Rome are incorrectly stated."218 Creighton and Stubbs both wrote letters

21U Gwatkin papers: Gwatkin to Collins, June 13, 1896, 180. 211 Unfortunately, there is no complete list of even the numbered pamphlets. Some of the pamphlets have extensive lists of the titles and authors in the advertisements which can aid in hunting down specific numbers. Nevertheless, I believe that I have found all of the pamphlets for this dissertation. 212 Louise Creighton, Life and Letters ofMandell Creighton, vol. II, 97-98. 213 Benson 145ff. 9-10,1896. 214 Benson 135ff. 184,1895. 215 Mirfield Deposit 1. W.H. Frere. Historical Papers. 216 Benson 129ff. 150-151 217 "We think it necessary to call attention to the misleading character of many of the statements to be found in those School 'Readers' which touch on the history of the Church, and we recommend those on whom responsibility rests to take such steps as they can to secure a truer handling of this important subject," in Lambeth Conference 1 897, Conference ofBishops ofthe Anglican Communion holden at Lambeth Palace, 1897: Encyclical Letterfrom the Bishops with the Resolutions and Reports (London: SPCK, 1 897), 23, 49- 50. 218 Benson, 129ff. 137, 1894. 75

on 23 November complaining to George Macmillan about the reader. Both men assumed that the anonymous author must have been a "Romanist," but Macmillan assured them that he was a member of the Church of England.219 Denounced by the Archbishop of Canterbury and two of the foremost living historians in England the bewildered author was

given a chance to defend his textbook and did so in a two-page letter. The author's general understanding of English Church history before the Reformation was quite similar to the sketch outlined by academic historians such as Stubbs, Freeman, Bright and Creighton. He believed that the Augustine mission was the source of English Christianity rather than the

British Church, that Theodore of Tarsus was more or less responsible for the model of ecclesiastical government in England and that the temporal claims of Rome were historically invalidated, particularly by Magna Carta; however, he also argued that the

English Church had historically held the popes to be the "spiritual authority" in England up until 1534, in spite of Henry's claim to supremacy three years earlier.220 The question of the spiritual authority of the pope and its rejection by Henry was the sticking point. It gave the impression that the Church of England was merely (as Nonconformist and Catholic controversialists argued) an "establishment Church" brought to life by act of parliament during the reign of Henry VIII. Some High Church writers were coming to terms with the historical evidence for a belief in the spiritual supremacy of Rome in England during the Middle Ages. Within only a few years H.O. Wakeman's highly successful Introduction to the History ofthe Church ofEngland would challenge this CHS historiographical orthodoxy by arguing that the English Church did in fact hold the belief in the spiritual supremacy of Rome during the Middle Ages, but that the rejection of this supremacy at the Reformation was valid both for constitutional and spiritual reasons as the popes had for

219 Benson, 129ff. 138 and 142, 1894. 220Beson, 129ff. 144, 1894. 76 centuries transcended constitutional limits, introduced "new- fangled inventions," and also become morally corrupt.221 All evidence suggests that the High Church academic historians heartily received Wakeman's book. Stubbs praised the book in effusive terms. Bright's recommendation was short but positive. Creighton praised the book, and his friendship with

Wakeman developed further (Wakeman in fact gave Creighton the cope and mitre that he wore for his consecration as Bishop of London).222 Although none of the correspondents stated it, it is possible that the sensitivity over the Macmillan affair, the larger policing of readers for schools by the CHS and Lambeth resolution sixty-three, was heightened by the fact that the audience involved was composed of children, so the problem may have been more of one of audience than content as such. There is, however, evidence that effort was made to stop the publication of Wakeman's book, although there is no evidence as to why or by whom this effort was made.223 Creighton told Benson that he had suggested to Macmillan that "controversy might be avoided by statingyòcte, and leaving inferences to be drawn as each one thought fit."224 This was good advice that fit well with the model espoused at Cambridge from Creighton's tenure as Dixie Professor. The problem in this period seems to have been an understanding of factuality that concluded that one's own position was solidly placed in the real world of factual impartiality while other people's contradictory positions were merely inferences, interpretations or downright falsifications.225 For example, in December of

221 H.O. Wakeman, An Introduction to the History ofthe Church ofEnglandfrom the Earliest Times to the Present (London: Rivingtons, 1896), 109-111. 222 Louise Creighton, Life and Letters ofMandell Creighton, volume II, 7. 223 Ollard Papers: A.R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd. to Ollard, June 11, 1915. 224 Benson 129ff. 150-151, 1894. 225 In one series of collected CHS lectures the range of interpretive issues that were assumed to be simple matters of fact, even where the criteria for deciding this ran against their stated assumptions about historiographical rigor, is staggering. The examples ranged from juxtapositions of modern and ancient dining habits, to unverifiable theological positions which they would have castigated non-Anglicans for making. See, William Edward Collins and others, Lectures. Third Series (London: SPCK, 1898),19-20, 23, 26-28, 43, 47, 77-81, 92-93, 102-106, 132-137 142-144, 178-179, 183. When Ludwig Pastor's massive scholarly work on 77

1901, members of the CHS held a conference under the presidency of Jonathan Wordsworth, Bishop of Salisbury, described by one of the speakers, T.A. Lacey, as "for the purpose of testing and improving our methods of controversy."226 Lacey's lecture on the use of isolated historical facts was the only one published by the CHS and unfortunately he did not leave a list of the other topics or participants at the conference. Lacey made a distinction between "the high ground of theory" and "the low ground of practice" in the activity of historical writing. According to the high ground a historian should never engage in historical controversy until he or she had complete historical knowledge. In practice, the low ground, such knowledge could only be gleaned while controversy was happening.227 As important as historical knowledge might be Lacey concluded that conviction of the truth of one's own position was necessary for entering into the concurrent enterprise of historical and controversial writing.228 The two largest High Church papers, the Guardian and the Church Times, as well as the one High Church literary magazine, the Pilot, understood that these CHS publications were polemical and recommended them to their readers as such.229 However, this same High Church press also understood these works to be impartial explications of historical truth even as they described their polemical functions: The general characteristics of the publications of the Church Historical Society are now pretty well-known. They join compression of argument to a praiseworthy impartiality in order to better state the historical truth about the Church of England and her teaching. . ..We know of no better pamphlet to oppose the exaggerated teaching about the place of tradition, or about the

the medieval papacy was translated into English in 1891 and received wide praise, Church Times stated that protestant reviewers had been duped and that the book was "no better than a prolonged Vaticanist newspaper article, compiled in the interests of the Papacy." See 'The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages,' Church Times, vol. 30, no. 1559, Dec. 9, 1892, 1257. See also the review of J.M. Rigg's life of St. Anselm 'St. Anselm of Canterbury,' Church Times, vol. 37, no. 1774, Jan. 22, 1897, 99. 226 T.A. Lacey, The Use and Abuse ofIsolated Facts in Controversy (London: SPCK, 1902), 3. 227 Ibid., 5-6. 228 Ibid., 14. 229 'Church Historical Society Tracts,' Church Times, vol. 40, no. 1895, May 19, 1899, 605; Church Times, vol. 35, no. 1731, March 27, 1896, 385. 78

Bible as 'the religion of Protestants' than that of the principal of Pusey House [R.L. Ottley].230 These papers seem to have explicitly valued works that were defensive, and denigrated work as merely antiquarian when it contradicted High Church positions.231 Reviewers wanted history to be impartial, but they also wanted it to be designed for polemical purposes and did not see any contradiction in this.

Whereas the efforts to establish the CHS and suppress the CDI were almost wholly successful, Benson had less success in suppressing individual CDI authors. The two great irritants to Benson, and then Archbishop Davidson,232 were C. Arthur Lane and G.F.E. Nye, both of whom had a sophisticated knowledge of publishing techniques and were ahead of their time in understanding the power of the new developments in visual media. Theirs is the story of two authors who eagerly but unsuccessfully sought episcopal sanction for then- work. Neither of these writers was prolific but each figured out a successful formula that they repackaged several times to reach outstanding figures in total sales. What neither understood was that in the new environment their services, no matter how successful, were not wanted as neither had attained success within the university. Part of the reason for their large volume of sales, and Lane's stellar lecture circuit, stemmed from the fact that as non- academics trained specifically by the CDI for church defense in support of working class organizations, such as the Church of England Working Men's Society, they were skilled at writing ultra-patriotic narrative histories which, citing the works of Stubbs, Freeman,

230 'Church Historical Society Publications,' Church Times, vol. 36, no. 1759, Oct. 9, 1896, 348. 231 See for instance 'The Law of Tithes in England,' Guardian, vol. XLIII, no. 2237, Oct. 17, 1888, 1561; 'The Coming of the Friars and other Historic Essays,' Guardian, vol. XLIV, no. 2248, Jan. 2, 1889, 19; 'England and the Reformation, A.D. 1485-1603,' Church Times, vol. 39, no. 1831, Feb. 25, 1898, 217. Curiously, Church Times dismissed the first volume of H.D.M. Spence's The Church ofEngland: A History for the People out of hand for having "pandered to Protestant ignorance and prejudice" even though the book is a very typical High Church history for the time it was written, see 'The Church of England: A History for the People,' Church Times, vol. 36, no. 1763, Nov. 6, 1896, 501. 232 Randall Thomas Davidson (1848-1930): Trinity College, Oxford; Bishop of Rochester (1891-1895); Bishop of Winchester (1895-1903); Archbishop of Canterbury (1903-1928). 79 Creighton and other academic historians, boiled down recent historiographical work to language marketable to those outside the university.233 Lane's expertise was in new visual technology, particularly in the use of the magic lantern, which he blended with new methods in adult education. The main product was his Illustrated Notes ofEnglish Church History which first appeared in 1886 and was republished in 1892, 1895 and 1904. In print format this work looks like an advanced history reader but with a heavy addition of images meant to link the Church of England inseparably to the English heritage. Lane's main triumph was his lecture circuit, which from 1886 to 1894 reached upwards of one million listeners.234 Lane lectured extensively in England and had contracted with Canadian and American bishops to lecture in these two countries as well. He had a young family so, not unnaturally, he grew tired of what he described as a "Bohemian existence" and sought to obtain a Lambeth Divinity Degree on the basis of his historical work in order to have a base from which to raise his family while continuing his lectures. 235 Montagu Burrows interceded on Lane's behalf in September of 1894. Burrows' letter, even as the chichelle professor of modern history, shows that he was completely out of touch with the new relationship of historiography to church defense. Burrows stated that Lane had "the rare gift of effective controversy," and that his lecture circuit is "the best weapon we can wield."236 Burrows thought Lane "worth all the lecturers of the Church Defense Society put together," but what Burrows failed to understand was that Benson did not want any CDI lecturers to

233 Benson 146ff. 23. 234 Benson 129ff. 35-37, 47-48, 1894. 235 Although Lane left exact statistics for his lectures in England the extent of his North American circuit is unclear. 236 Benson 129 ff. 43-44. Stubbs had also implicitly praised Lane in 1893 when he mentioned the success of church history lantern slides in the Welsh disestablishment controversy, see 'The Bishop of Oxford on the Publications of the Church Defence Institution - C.D.I. No. 164,' published in Church Defence Institution, The Church Defence Handy Volume, Containing the Leaflets ofthe Institution. Together with Papers, Speeches and Statistics by Bishops, Eminent Statesmen, Members ofParliament and Others. 12th edition (London: The Church Defence Institution and Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton Kent & Co., 1895). 80 write history, and was only interested in historians of the caliber of Burrows.237 G.F.E. Nye also made use of the new visual media by interspersing his publications with lavish visual

images, but his real talent was his writing style. Nye's main product was a pamphlet entitled the Popular Story ofthe Church that was expanded into book format as The Church andHer Story and Our Island Home?n Both Benson and Davidson took strong measures to disassociate themselves from Nye's work, Benson going so far as to suggest that the SPCK stop publishing Nye's work and stating explicitly in the press that he did not approve of the Popular Story ofthe Church?7,9 For Benson the problem seems to have been one of authority as well as historiographical issues since he worried that Nye's penny history format publication would undermine the officially sanctioned penny history written by G.F. Browne for the CHS. The fact is that Nye did gain a stamp of approval in 1891from the

Archbishop of York, Magee, and more importantly the book had been proofread and corrected by both Burrows and Stubbs and potentially other historians.240 This latter fact was the main source of embarrassment for Davidson as Nye proclaimed in public that both

academic historians and ecclesiastical authorities approved of his literary franchise surrounding the Popular Story, and yet very quickly it became evident that the various formats were riddled with factual inaccuracies and interpretive claims that even friendly parties had a difficult time explaining away.241 As Regius Professor of Modern History, Stubbs had stated publicly that he was suspicious of attempts to write on any period of English history later than the Middle Ages

237 Benson, 129 ff 45-46. 238 G.H.F. Nye, A Popular Story ofthe Church ofEngland (London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., 1891); G.H.F. , The Church andHer Story, New and Revised edition (London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., 1894); G.H.F. Nye, Our IslandHome (London: Bemrose & Sons, Ltd., 1897). 239 The secretary of the SPCK, Edward McClure, made the announcement disavowing Nye's work and advertising Browne's CHS publication as "in keeping with the results of scholarly research," see ? Penny Church History,' Church Times, Feb. 28,1896, vol. XXXV, no. 1727, 249; Benson, 146 ff. 19-22 240 Davidson 1 19 ff. 185-186. 241 Davidson 1 19 ff. 191-193. 81 as he thought that such efforts were inevitably partisan in nature.242 Much has been made of Stubbs' remarks on this count, but it has been shown here that Stubbs approved of the work produced by Nye, Lane and the CHS amongst other partisan works. Recently, historians writing on the eighteenth century have resisted the idea that nineteenth-century historians wrote more sophisticated books or conducted more detailed research than then- predecessors in the eighteenth century.243 When we consider the religious background of nineteenth-century historians and their efforts to reinforce the religious hegemony at Oxford and Cambridge (even as they called for more openness towards people from other churches and religions), it becomes apparent that there was no break between the controversialist histories written in England in the eighteenth century and the new academic historiography of the nineteenth century. Instead, the real change was in the.importation of certain methodological standards as were thought to be practiced in Germany and which tended to lead to a new academic departmentalization of historiography in English universities. By focusing on religion this chapter supports the interpretation of James Vernon, derived from an analysis of the historiography on constitutional history in the nineteenth century, that the real achievement of these historians centered less on writing more accurate history than their predecessors and more on developing the "politics of the discipline of History itself."244 The fundamental development in the latter half of the nineteenth century was the erection of a barrier between the professional academic and the amateur. This barrier was negotiable as the amateur could defer to the expert by explicitly stating his or her lack of expertise and leaning on the expert's work through citation, as historians like Lane and Nye did; however, if the amateur over-stepped his or her bounds

242 William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study ofMedieval and Modern History, 108. 243 For one such critique see Jeremy Black's review of Laird Okie's Augustan Historical Writing. Jeremy Black, 'Shorter Notices- Augustan Historical Writing. Histories of England in the English Enlightenment by Laird Okie,' English Historical Review, Vol. 1 1 1 , no. 440, 1996, 202. 244 See page 21 above. 82

and upset either academic or ecclesiastical authorities they risked withering attacks from both sets of authorities. In the case of the academic authorities for the discipline of history, these still tended to be members of the Church of England who were more likely to fit within the High Church wing trained at either Oxford or Cambridge. It was not simply the case, as the doggerel went, that "Stubbs butters Freeman, and Freeman butters Stubbs," rather the two men wrote within a context that was explicitly High Church, they used their position as experts to defend interpretations of history that were dear to High Church writers and encouraged the development of a self-replicating discipline at Oxford and

Cambridge to prepare for the future defense of those interpretations. CHAPTER 2: THE HIGH CHURCH GENEOLOGY

Throughout the twentieth century, one of the most fertile subjects for scholarship on the Church of England in the nineteenth century was the Oxford Movement.245 In the past twenty years there has been a radical revision of a historiography that Peter Nockles has argued "bordered on Anglo-Catholic hagiography."246 Subsequently, historians such as Nockles himself have placed greater emphasis on the cultural context in which the

Tractarians were active participants. Use of neglected archival material has been made to correct an interpretation of Tractarianism that tended to minimize the extent to which the Tractarians created division within the Church of England by attacking accepted parties and

subsequently inviting a reaction by these parties; however, these same historians have not had as their purpose to provide a satisfactory explanation for how this lop-sided Tractarian historiography developed in the first place.247 How did a Tractarian name-brand that was viewed with open hostility by large swaths of English society throughout the nineteenth century become integrated historiographically into the story of the Church of England and

in time become perceived, even by formerly hostile parties, as the originators of an 'Anglican revival'? In this chapter I will argue that during the 1890s historians representing a broad cross-section of High Churchmanship drew upon the new historiographical refinement of periodization to interpret the history of the Church of England after the

245 For bibliographies and comments on this historiography see, Lawrence N. Crumb, The Oxford Movement and its Leaders: A Bibliography ofSecondary and Lesser Primary Sources (Metuchen N.J. : ATLA: Scarecrow Press, 1 988); Lawrence N. Crumb, The Oxford Movement and its Leaders: A Bibliography of Secondary and Lesser Primary Sources. Supplement ((Metuchen N.J.: ATLA: Scarecrow Press, 1993); See John Kent's chapters in Jean Daniélou and others, Historical Theology (Hammondsworth: Penguin Books, 1969). 246 Peter Nockles, The Oxford Movement in Context, 2. 247 Nockles' revision was well-received and his conclusions were reinforced in the collection of papers published by the Oxford Movement conference in 1986, see, Geoffrey Rowell, ed., Tradition Renewed: The Oxford Movement Conference Papers (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1986).

83 84

Reformation as a continual series of revivals ordained by God. So while the Tractarian

movement might have seemed to some contemporaries to have been innovative and divisive, these historians argued that it was in fact a necessary revival following the equally

providential but imperfect "Evangelical revival." Hagiographical devotion was just one of many reasons for which historiography was deployed to repackage the Tractarians as loyal sons of the Church of England and the revealers of an incipient Anglicanism that was only just then coming into view. The primary goal for the writers of the general histories on the Church of England was to deliver an uncomplicated narration of the continuity of the

identity of the Church of England from its origin up to the present of the writer. The hitherto rarely used term Anglican, and its various forms, was deployed to describe an

English conception of permanent historical Catholicism planted in England in 597 which developed until reaching fulfillment in the nineteenth century with the persecution and vindication of the Tractarian writers. In 1906 the Tractarians essentially received official

acceptance into the canon of the Church of England with the 'historical survey' written by Archbishop Davidson as part of the report completed by the Commission on Ecclesiastical

Discipline. These non-hagiographical efforts to grapple with the legacy of the Tractarians included works of biography, series offering surveys of nineteenth-century religiosity in England aimed by publishers at popular audiences, textbooks for theological colleges, and

polemical works meant to defend the Church of England against perceived attacks by Catholics and Dissenters. As important as hagiographical devotion might be in explaining

the repackaging of Tractarianism for apathetic or even hostile audiences, it is clear that in the 1 890s efforts were made to integrate the historical Tractarians into the literary canon of the Church of England, even by writers wary of Tractarianism, for reasons ranging from

healing division to attempting to reign in groups perceived to be even more divisive, such 85 as the ritualists.248 1 will use articles and book reviews of this literature from newspapers and quarterlies in this period to demonstrate that there was in fact a debate carried out by High Church historians about the position of the Tractarians within the Church of England. In general there were three very broad views advanced by High Church writers which could be mixed and matched, portrayed as contradictory or given various nuances.

One was that there was a Tractarian revival starting in the early 1830s which reawakened the Church of England to its true role in the world as a fully Catholic body with a renewed sense of the importance of the sacraments after a moribund eighteenth century which was characterized by a barely Christian latitudinarianism and an imperfect Evangelical revival which did not truly understand the high position of the Church of England. Another popular view was that the Tractarian revival was a part of an earlier High Church revival which was only inferior to the Tractarian element in terms of propagandistic ability and verve. Finally, there was a portrayal of a faithful continuous High Church tradition that did not need any revival in the 1830s, only a steady maintenance of ancient High Church principles in the face of dark trials; subsequently, the members of the Tractarian movement were portrayed as innovators who flirted dangerously with Romanism, who at best impeded the High

Church movement and at worst instituted a corrosive "ritualist" element into the Church of England. It is worth repeating that these three general views were highly malleable and often presented conjointly. We will see, for instance, that a High Church writer like John Henry Overton expressed all three of these views in nuanced forms throughout his writings. What is clear is that general histories on the Church of England from this period, with one

248 John Shelton Reed has noted that certain High Church groups following in the wake of the break-up of Tractarianism in the 1840s tended to stretch Tractarian positions further than their predecessors would have, thus resulting in intergenerational conflict. What Reed neglects is the extent to which even Tractarians as a group were still regarded with suspicion well into the 1 890s even by younger High Churchmen who thought them too advanced. See John Shelton Reed, Glorious Battle: The Cultural Politics of Victorian Anglo- Catholicism (Vanderbilt University Press, 1996), 1 18-127. 86 exception, opted for a nuanced version of the first view. In these general histories an earlier generation of pre-Tractarian High Church writers, such as Hugh James Rose, were portrayed either as minor figures within the Tractarian movement or as an older High Church group which supported the Tractarians from outside. One of these general histories, H.O. Wakeman's An Introduction to the History ofthe Church ofEngland, happened to have immediate success, surpassed all of the other general histories in terms of sales and was often reprinted and updated well into the twentieth century. The fullest exploration of a possible Tractarian hagiography is in volume two of

Peter Nockles' doctoral dissertation (particularly in a subtopic entitled "Anglicanism versus 'Puseyism' or the new 'Anglo-Catholicism'"), and in the first chapter of the revised and condensed published version ofthat dissertation.249 The primary importance of Nockles' revisionism is in demonstrating the identity crisis that High Churchmen confronted after the appearance of Tractarianism during the constitutional crises of the 1830s. Nockles generally uses the term historiography rather than hagiography, and it will become clear as this chapter progresses that the former term is generally more appropriate than the latter. Nockles' central proposition is that the Tractarian movement needs to be seen within the context of a larger, older and more authentic High Church tradition with verifiable roots which he attempts to demonstrate extended back into the eighteenth century and up through the active period of the Tractarians, who were in fact influenced by the tradition but altered it: "The distinction between 'new light' and 'old path' well sums up the true historical relationship of the Oxford movement to the high church tradition, of modern Anglo- Catholicism to historical Anglicanism."250 Nockles takes a long view and delivers a

249 Peter Nockles, 'Continuity and Change in Anglican High Churchmanship in Britain, 1792-1850' (D.Phil, thesis, Oxford University, 1 982), 495-5 1 6; Peter Nockles, The Oxford Movement in Context, chapter one. 250 Peter Nockles, 'Continuity and Change in Anglican High Churchmanship,' volume II, 635. 87 comprehensive survey ranging from 1760 to 1857. He argues that by the end of the nineteenth century a Tractarian discourse on the High Church tradition was shaped by R.W.

Church in his The Oxford Movement: the First Twelve Years (1891), and by H.P. Liddon in his four-volume The Life ofE.B. Pusey (1893-94).251 Nockles argues that this discourse became so dominant that, citing J.C.D. Clark, "the Victorian conception of High Church was one largely drawn from the Oxford movement."252 In this chapter I will be less concerned with describing continuity, or which tradition is in the long view more or less normative or true, and will instead focus on showing the multiplicity of views about the Tractarians articulated from 1888 to 1906 which claimed to represent the true history of the

High Church tradition. As late as the early 1890s it does not appear that High Church writers were agreed that the historical Tractarians represented the most pedigreed variety of

High Churchmanship in the nineteenth century. In addition to Nockles' revisionistic work, Frank Turner has recently placed greater emphasis on the extent to which the Tractarian movement presented a strong critique of protestant doctrine and launched outright attacks against the historic 'Low Church' parties within the Church of England.253 Turner has demonstrated that Tractarians throughout the 1830s and 1840s frequently denied that the Evangelical party, many High Churchmen, and certain politicians whom they labeled "liberals" were true members of the Church of England because their baptismal and eucharistie theologies were those of continental Protestantism.254 Taken together, the revisionist works ofNockles and Turner show that the Tractarians were not simply innocent victims ofbishops and college heads who forced

251 Peter Nockles, The Oxford Movement in Context, 6. Henry Parry Liddon (1829-1890): Christ Church, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1852, priest in 1853; canon of St. Paul's Cathedral (1870-1890); Ireland professor of scripture, Oxford (1870-1882). 252 Ibid., 25. 253 Frank Turner, John Henry Newman: The Challenge to Evangelical Religion (New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press, 2002), 255-257 254 Ibid., 9-11. 88 many of them to leave the Church of England; rather, they alienated even those High Churchmen with whom they had initially been allied and, whether they intended to or not, set off a chain reaction that resulted in decades of trials, imprisonment, sporadic rioting and acrimonious ill-will between High Churchmen and other groups within the Church of England.255 There is a large historiography on what was described throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century as the "ritualist crisis".256 There is general disagreement as to which groups are at fault for this long hostility, and the question will not concern us here. What is of importance is the general consensus amongst historians that when the controversial trial of Bishop King257 of Lincoln began in 1888 even most parties who disapproved ofKing's ritualistic practices were revolted by the attempt at prosecution and began to develop new policies meant to squelch efforts at prosecution from within their own ranks. Historians have shown that with the exception of a small minority of querulous individuals, a broad consensus of Churchmanship was ready by the 1890s at least to tolerate but not necessarily to condone a wide variety of ritualistic practices which were understood at the time, whether correctly or not, to stem from the original teachings and practices of the Tractarians.258

255 John Shelton Reed, Glorious Battle: The Cultural Politics of Victorian Anglo-Catholicism, 57-68. 256 For some recent research in addition to Reed, see James Bentley, Ritualism and Politics in Victorian Britain: The Attempt to Legislatefor Belief'(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978); W.S.F. Pickering, Anglo-Catholicism: A Study in Religious Ambiguity (London: Routledge, 1989); Gary Graber, Ritual Legislation in the Victorian Church ofEngland: Antecedents andPassage ofthe Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874 (San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1993); Nigel Yates, Anglican Ritualism in Victorian Britain, 1 830-1 910 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). 257 Edward King (1829-1910): Oriel College, Oxford; professor of pastoral theology (1873-1885); Bishop of Lincoln (1885-1910). 258 James C. Whisenant, A Fragile Unity: Anti-Ritualism and the Division ofAnglican Evangelicalism in the Nineteenth Century, 410-459; Martin Wellings, Evangelicals Embattled: Responses ofEvangelicals in the Church ofEngland to Ritualism, Darwinism and Theological Liberalism, 1890-1930 (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2003), 102-103; Alan Wilson, 'Authority of Church and Party among London Anglo-Catholics, 1880- 1914, with special Reference to the Church Crisis of 1898-1904' (PhD. Dissertation, Oxford University, 1988), 42. 89

The year 1888 also saw the publication of a number of works which included historiographical evaluations of the place of the Tractarians within the Church of England. The extent to which these works were influenced by the arrival of the trial of Bishop King is unclear, although all of them do either mention Bishop King or in some sense relate to

the diocese of Lincoln. The most well-known is J.W. Burgon's Lives ofTwelve Good Men, which sparked a debate in both the Church and secular press about whether or not the

Tractarians were responsible for what would soon become commonly known as the High Church revival, Catholic revival, Anglican revival or just Church revival.259 The work was initially successful, going through six editions and reprints by 1889. It was discussed much

in the 1890s, but proved not to have staying power. Nockles has drawn attention to one particular sketch in Burgon's book, that of Hugh James Rose260, as providing a type of revisionism that, had it been written and published closer to the times of Rose's death in

1838 instead of fifty years later in 1888, might have corrected Tractarian distortions of what Burgon termed the "Catholic revival."261 Nockles does not provide any compelling reason for why this should be the case and seems merely to rely on Burgon's statement that

"if to any one man is to be assigned the honour of having originated the great Catholic Revival of our times, that man was Hugh James Rose."262 Burgon's central proposition regarding the relationship of the Tractarians to this Catholic revival was that "Church feeling was EVOKED, not CREATED, by the Movement of 1833."263 In a sense Burgon's

259 John William Burgon, Lives ofTwelve Good Men, 2 vol. (London: Murray, 1888). The twelve subjects were Martin Joseph Routh, Hugh James Rose, Charles Marriott, Edward Hawkins, Samuel Wilberforce, Richard Lynch Cotton, Richard Greswell, Henry Octavius Coxe, Henry Longueville Mansel, William Jacobson, Charles Page Eden, Charles Longuet Higgins. John William Burgon (1813-1888): Worcester College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1849, priest in 1850; dean of Chichester Cathedral (1875-1888). 260 Hugh James Rose (1795-1838): Trinity College, Cambridge; Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham (1833-1834). 261 See Nockles' entry on Hugh James Rose in the DNB as well as Continuity and Change in Anglican High Churchmanship, vol. II, 488-490. 262 John William Burgon, Lives of Twelve Good Men, vol. I., 158. 263Ibid., 155. 90 book anticipated that of Nockles' to the extent that both portray the Tractarians as part of an older High Church context. But beyond this, Burgon's book articulates many of the historiographical motifs that Nockles describes as Anglo-Catholic hagiography or that J.C.D. Clark portrays as "the tendency of nineteenth-century Whig historiography to darken the world before the arrival of 'progress.'"264 Burgon's first sketch was that of the long- lived Martin Joseph Routh,265 whose life spanned the years from 1755 to 1854, and who thus became for Burgon an embodiment of continuity. Burgon used this sketch not to glorify the good old days before the Tractarians, but to show that even during "the worst of times" there were still Churchmen to maintain the continuity:

One cannot, as it seems, too greatly admire the indomitable energy of character, ~ the consciousness of high and holy purpose - which, at a period when Churchmanship was at its lowest ebb (the last quarter of the eighteenth century, I mean) - could deliberately gird itself up for such an undertaking as that which the President commenced in 1788, as well as faithfully prosecuted throughout all the ensuing years of his life."266 As this chapter progresses it will be shown time and again that even Tory-Conservative

High Churchmen suspicious of Tractarianism shared with Whig-Liberals a belief that the nineteenth-century Church of England had made great advancements since the eighteenth

century. The difference for a writer like Burgon was in his belief that the history of the Church of England was moved forward by revivals of a Catholic Church of England (thus necessitating that pre-revival times be narrated as dark and gloomy) always under attack by

Satan.

Burgon grappled explicitly with the Tractarians not only in the sketch of Rose but also in the sketches of Routh, Wilberforce and Marriott, as well as the preface where he

264 J.C.D. Clark, English Society, 1660-1832: Religion, Ideology and Politics during the Ancien Regime (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 560. 265 Martin Joseph Routh (1755-1854): Magdalen College, Oxford; President of Magdalen College, Oxford (1791-1854). 266 John William Burgon, Lives ofTwelve Good Men, vol. I., 110-111. 91 discussed Charles Daubeny.267 In the Marriott sketch he described the secession of Newman to "Romanism" as the "master-stroke of Satan's policy."268 According to Nockles, one aspect of the Anglo-Catholic hagiography on the Tractarians was the conflation of old High Church characters such as Rose with the Tractarians, thereby assimilating the older tradition into that of the new. Nockles is probably correct in seeing this tendency in the twentieth century, but at the end of the nineteenth century as the Tractarians were just being integrated into the High Church canon, the Tractarians were already generally being conflated with the older tradition:

Quite a distinct, quite a different thing from that great Catholic movement, to which, as young men, — under the leadership of H.J. Rose, — Newman, Palmer, Keble, Isaac Williams, Harrison, Pusey, Marriott and others contributed their genius, their piety, their learning, their influence, ~ is the miserable counterfeit which has since come to the front, and at this instant claims to represent 'the High Church Party.' That this thing called 'Ritualism' is the outcome of the later 'Tractarianism' is undeniable; but it bears the same kind of relation to which farce bears to tragedy.269 Burgon was deeply dismayed that the Church of England's hegemony over Oxford and

Cambridge had collapsed and darkly made a prophecy that a day would come when the Church would be rejected by English society: When the evil day comes, our greatest source of weakness (I grieve to know it) will be our own 'unhappy divisions,' - the fruit, to some extent, it must be sorrowfully admitted, of the fatal misdirection given to the Tractarian movement at the end of about two years after its beginning, namely, in

Burgon's dark vision had what was for him an immediate stimulus as he was writing the book in 1887. Burgon's biographer, Edward Meyrick Goulburn, stated that as Burgon heavily revised the work in 1887 he became engaged in a debate with William Henry

267 Samuel Wilberforce (1805-1873): Oriel College, Oxford; Bishop of Oxford (1845-1869); Bishop of Winchester (1869-1873). Charles Marriott (181 1-1858): Balliol College, Oxford; fellow of Oriel College; Charles Daubeny (1745-1827): Oriel College, Oxford. 268John William Burgon, Lives of Twelve Good Men, vol. I., 319. 269 John William Burgon, Lives of Twelve Good Men, volume II, 51. 270John William Burgon, Lives of Twelve Good Men, vol. L, 281. 92

Fremantle, a canon of Ripon, which physically exhausted him and "weakened his power of self-control."271 In the pages of the Fortnightly Review Burgon responded to Fremantle's article 'Theology and its Changed Conditions' which was the third part of a series entitled 'The New Reformation.'272 The full scope of Fremantle's argument need not concern us here; there was a wide variety of issues to irritate Burgon's conservative positions, but the one issue that directly related to the Lives of Twelve Good Men was Fremantle's assertion that the failure to prosecute within courts of law both Gorham on the one side, and ritualists on the other, was proof that a new more tolerant era in theological discourse had dawned.273 Burgon was angered by this connection between ritual practice and Fremantle's call for acceptance of those who believed in evolution, denied the possibility of miracles or questioned biblical inerrancy. Burgon noted Fremantle's deduction about the new theological environment and countered that just because there were more murders in England did not necessitate that a new conception of murder was needed. He continued by condemning all attempts to convict individuals for doctrinal or ritual irregularity but denied that such irregularity should be tolerated.274 Burgon then followed up these assertions by stating that even if the English bishops and clergy began "secularizing the Church's teaching," thereby causing God to forsake England, there would be no real cause to worry as the Catholic Church itself would not be in any spiritual sense impeded by such a course.

Similarly, in the Lives ofTwelve Good Men, we find that in spite of these forebodings about the future, Burgon still portrayed the Tractarians as playing a prominent role in the past revival: "The praise and the glory of the religious movement which it is customary to

27IE.M. Goulburn, John William Burgon: Late Dean ofChichester, 2 volumes (London: John Murray, 1892), volume II, 272. 272 William Henry Fremantle, 'The New Reformation: Theology under its Changed Conditions,' Fortnightly Review, vol. XLI, no. 243, March 1, 1887, 442-458. 273 Ibid., 449. 274 John William Burgon, 'The New Reformation. - "Theology under its Changed Conditions:" - A Reply to Canon Fremantle,' Fortnightly Review, vol. XLI, no. 244, April 1, 1887, 606-607. 93

connect with the year 1833, consisted in the mighty impulse which was then given to religious thought and sacred learning on the ancient lines." In both of these works

Burgon easily navigated a course between a pessimistic vision of the future and a belief that the Church was impassible, but he was still clearly shaken up by Fremantle's linkage of perceived ritualist intransigence to a new theological environment which accepted

secularism, belief in evolution, and denial of miracles, as well as central biblical narratives. In addition to the Fremantle essay, a less certain but possible source of irritation to

Burgon was a debate, also in 1887, between G.T. Stokes and R.W. Church carried out in the pages of the Contemporary Review and the Guardian about whether or not the

Tractarians had gathered their various positions from the writings of the Irish lay theological writer Alexander Knox276 (who had been highly influenced by John Wesley, and who Stokes argued therefore served as a bridge between the Tractarians and Wesley).

Unlike Fremantle in his article, Burgon never mentioned this debate, so it is possible that he was not aware of it, but given the large circulation of these two papers and subsequent

mention of Stokes' theory it is certain that this debate contributed to the public vetting of the subject of the roots of the Tractarian movement in this period. Stokes was ordained in the Church of Ireland and was the Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of

Dublin. He was himself a High Churchman, and as a historian he was particularly notable at the time for writing books on medieval Irish history that ran into many editions well into the twentieth century.277 In 1885 he had written an article on John Nelson Darby (1800- 1 882) that brought the Irish lay-theologian Alexander Knox prominently to his attention.

275 John William Burgon, Lives ofTwelve Good Men, volume I., 225. 276 Alexander Knox (1757-1831): Influenced by John Wesley and friendly with Clapham evangelicals, Knox maintained an independent type of High Church position. 277 His biggest success was his Ireland and the Celtic Church which ran into a seventh edition and was reissued as late as 1928. See G.T. Stokes, Ireland and the Celtic Church: A History ofIrelandfrom St. Patrick to the English Conquest in 1172 (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1886). 94

Stokes concluded that the Tractarians must have been influenced by John Wesley through the writings of Alexander Knox because of similarities in their doctrines ofjustification, similarities in the books that they recommended for study, and their similar advocacy of the use of prayers for the dead.278 Stokes believed that prior to the rise of the Tractarians, the Church was in a state of lethargy in which "the term High Churchman connoted violent

Tory politics rather than any kind of theology whatever." For Stokes, the fact that Wesley, Knox and the Tractarians transcended this lethargy was proof of a relationship which he summed up in a memorable passage: Now, for the philosophic student of history the most interesting point about Alexander Knox is this, that he himself traces all these mental movements of his to the teaching of John Wesley, so that we should attribute the fatherhood of the Oxford movement, not to Hugh James Rose, or Pusey, or Newman - of whom were recipients and transmitters of mental forces evolved before their time - but rather to the great evangelist of the last century; or, to put it in biblical phraseology, Wesley begat Knox, and Knox begat Jebb, and Jebb begat Rose and Pusey and Newman.279 Stokes did not use the word revival, instead preferring this language of transference and evolution of principles. Stokes noted happily that while both Wesley and the Tractarians were despised in their day, in his present they were accepted by High Churchmen, and he waxed sanguine about how the Church in the future of 1987 would view the controversies of 1887.

Church was unhappy with this analysis so he wrote to Newman about the issue. He tried to remember whether or not the Tractarians had learned anything from Knox, but did not think that they had: "Am I right in thinking that neither directly, nor indirectly through Bp. Jebb,280 [Knox] had anything to do with the early start of the movement, or 'transmitted' anything - Wesley's, or anyone else's, to the Oxford men?" Church answered 278 G.T. Stokes, 'Alexander Knox and the Oxford Movement,' Contemporary Review, 52 (1887: July/Dec.), 195, 199 and 201. 279Ibid., 189-190. 280 John Jebb (1775-1833): Trinity College, Dublin; bishop of Limerick, Ardfert and Aghadoe (1822-1833). 95 his own question in the same letter: "I know enough to know this is bunk." 81 In his reply to Stokes in the Guardian, Church countered that Newman, Pusey, Keble and Fraude were the leaders of the Tractarian movement and that they had not been influenced by Knox at all

and considered Wesley distasteful. Church chose the ground of historiographical methodology to undercut the argument from derivation by highlighting Stokes' inability to

find any documentary evidence to suggest that the Tractarians had even read Knox; furthermore, Church argued that even if the Tractarians had learned from Knox through the general climate of the time, then the same argument for derivation could be made from

other literary sources prominent in England that the Tractarians certainly would have been familiar with, such as the writers of the French revolution, the poetry of Coleridge and Wordsworth or the novels of Walter Scott. For Church the material suggested that the Tractarians "professed" to admire and clearly did read "that mass of testimony in English divinity and English practical religion," and therefore explanations relying on non-English sources, such as that proposed by Stokes, made little sense.282 After using historiographical methodology to counter Stokes, Church went on to argue that there is an invisible spirit behind all of history, including the history of the Tractarian movement:

Of course, every event in human affairs has a beginning; and a beginning implies a when, and a where, and a by whom, and how. But, except in these necessary circumstances, the phenomenon in question is in a manner quite independent of things visible and historical. It is not here nor there; it has no progress, no causes, no fortunes; it is not a movement, it is a spirit, a spirit afloat neither in the 'secret chambers,' nor 'in the desert,' but everywhere.283 Church attached limits to the human ability to grasp the empirical content of historical knowledge which he felt hit an impenetrable wall in terms of complexity at a certain point. This fits with the ideas promulgated in the history faculties of Oxford and Cambridge 281 J.H. Newman from/to R.W. Church; various from/to R.W. Church, Red Filing Box C; Church to Newman, Aug. 31,1887. 282 'Professor Stokes on Alexander Knox and the Oxford Movement,' Guardian, Sept. 7, 1887, 1337. 283Ibid., 1338. 96 where, in spite of a generally sanguine belief in the ability of history to explain the material life of humans, there was a definite articulation that God providentially intertwined all aspects of human existence into an interdependent whole which could only be understood by its parts (religion, politics, art, science amongst many others).284 Church argued here that the climate of the time was too complex to pick out any certain visible explanation of the origination of the Tractarian movement, so he appealed to the invisible but pervasive spirit of English theology and the lived religious life in England. One writer who was certainly influenced by this debate between Stokes and Church was Thomas Leach (1848-1906). His A Short Sketch ofthe Tractarian Upheaval which was published late in 1887, took up Church's challenge to determine the when, where, by whom and how.285 Leach was ordained in the Church of England but disavowed connection with any particular party (although it is clear from internal evidence within the book that he was attached to F.D. Maurice, Charles Kingsley and other writers sometimes associated, by the end of the nineteenth century, with the Broad Church movement).286 Leach navigated comfortably between the writings of critical ex-Tractarians, such as James Anthony Froude's Nemesis ofFaith, associates of the Tractarians who had reservations about the movement and the writings of avowed Tractarians themselves. Leach considered the debate between Stokes and Church from a new angle. Whereas Stokes "proved" that the Tractarians were linked to Knox by the similarity of their theological positions and other incidental factors, Leach cited manuscript evidence where the Tractarians themselves 284 William Edward Collins, The Study ofEcclesiastical History, 56-57; Mandell Creighton, Historical Lectures and Addresses, 4-6; E.A. Freeman, The Methods ofHistorical Study; Eight Lectures Read in the University ofOxford in 1884, with the Inaugural Lecture on the Office ofthe Historical Professor (London: Macmillan, 1 886), 43-52; E.A. Freeman, Comparative Politics. Six Lectures Read before the Royal Institution in January and February, 1873. With the Unity ofHistory. The Rede Lecture Read before the University of Cambridge, May 29, 1872 (London: Macmillan and Co., 1883), 16-18. 285 Thomas Leach, A Short Sketch ofthe Tractarian Upheaval (London: Bemrose and Sons, 1887). Leach used these questions as the organizational method for the chapters of his book, treating each in turn to avowedly keep the discussion historical in nature. 286IbId., 102-104. 97 mentioned Knox by name and thus proved that they had at least read his work; however, he did not want to press the inference too far as he did not feel that there was enough documentary evidence.287 Leach noted that E.B. Birks, of Trinity College, Cambridge, had stated that the recently deceased Master of Trinity College, William Hepworth Thompson, had remarked to him in passing that he thought Rose was the true founder of the Tractarian movement, thus anticipating Burgon's assertion in 1888.288 Leach rejected this conclusion as well, but did not give any specific reason why.289 Ultimately, Leach concluded that since the primary literary achievement of the Tractarians was the Tractsfor the Times, and since Newman was the key figure in producing them, Newman must, therefore, be considered the true founder.290 Leach had reservations about the results of the Tractarian movement, particularly as he was critical of the ritualists whom he saw as insubordinate to bishops and whom he linked to the Tractarians, but he concluded that Newman's Tract 90 had been vindicated by time and that the bishops had overreacted in their opposition to it. Leach's book was unfavorably reviewed by the Guardian, the reviewer objecting to Leach's use of ex-Tractarians such as J.A. Froude and Mark Pattison as sources.292 Aside from this review the work went unnoticed, so it is even less certain that this work influenced Burgon or that it played a prominent role in the vetting of the possible origins of Tractarianism in the debate between Stokes and Church. The work, taken along with Jenning's, does show that Burgon's Rose thesis was not unique in the 1880s and was discussed in at least a limited sense before the publication of the Lives of Twelve Good Men.

287 Ibid., 40, 43-45. 288 Even this was not the first reference in the 1880s to the theory that Rose was the real originator of the Oxford movment, and the conclusion that the Tractarians were innovators distinct from the old High Church party. See Henry J. Jennings, Cardinal Newman: The Story ofHis Life, 2nd ed., (London: Simpkin, Marchall, and Co., 1882), 20-21, 28-29. 289 Thomas Leach, A Short Sketch ofthe Tractarian Upheaval, 89. 290 Ibid., 96. 291 Ibid., 152-153, 155. 292 ? Short Sketch of the Tractarian Upheaval,' Guardian, vol. XLIII, no. 2199, 1888, 128. 98

Goulburn's biography of Burgon was published in 1892 after four years of sporadic debate about the Lives of Twelve Good Men?91 At every point, Goulburn emphasized that Burgon respected the Tractarians and was only critical of ritualists whom Burgon perceived to be twisting the original Tractarian message which was fully in line with older High Church tradition.294 In the second volume of his biography of Burgon, Goulburn seems to have either forgotten the Rose sketch or intentionally minimized Burgon' s elevation of

Rose. He began the volume by referring to "John Henry Newman's movement," and later

in the volume states:

Burgon adhered throughout life to the view that the Church movement, as originated by the primitive Tractarians, had nothing in common with that efflorescence of Ritual, which indeed succeeded it historically, but which he held to be merely its running to seed and degeneration. John Henry Newman, the father and founder of the movement, had been somewhat austerely plain as to vestments, paced up to the pulpit of St. Mary the Virgin's cassockless and scarfless, in the ordinary Master ofArts' black stuff gown, and preceded neither by beadle nor mace-bearing verger.295 Goulburn's description of Burgon' s study noted that Burgon had hung a pencil drawing of Church sketched by Burgon himself.296 The review of Goulburn's book in Church Times noted that Burgon "went into the thick of the party, and was a devoted follower of

Newman," but after Newman's secession, "the permanent effect upon him was that, whether under the influence of Dr. Hawkins, the wily Provost of Oriel, or from the mere influence of revulsion, he fled back into the more Anglican branch of the High Church party."297 In a reminiscence on Burgon's life in the Quarterly Review, G.W.E. Russell similarly muted Burgon's position on Rose and aligned Burgon with a High Church position that he thought no longer in existence:

293 Goulburn, Edward Meyrick (1818-1897): Balliol College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1842, priest in 1843; dean of Norwich Cathedral (1866-1897). 294 E.M. Goulburn, John William Burgon: Late Dean of Chichester, volume I., 99, 179; volume II, 132. 295 E.M. Goulburn, John William Burgon, volume II, 1 and 188. 296 Ibid., 273 297 'John William Burgon, Late Dean of Chichester,' Church Times, vol. XXX, no. 1514, Jan. 29, 1892, 107. 99

The Evangelical school offended him by its indifference to ecclesiastical dogma, and by its external slovenliness. He dreaded the Romanizing tendencies which he thought he perceived in Ritualism, and was severely impatient of resistance to Episcopal restraint. His own doctrinal position was the via media of a day gone by.2 8

Whether this reference to the "via media" is a reference to Newman's formulation of the

term or an anachronistic description of pre-Tractarian High Church theology is unclear.

Russell republished this article in 1 902 in his Household ofFaith, a work meant to unify but also "to suggest some practical inferences from the laws which He has laid down for the government of His House."299 Russell certainly saw this essay as irenic in 1902 and probably did so as well at the time of writing in 1892. Whether intentional or not, though, both Goulburn and Russell neglected those aspects of Burgon's book which connected the Tractarians with those considered ritualists, and potentially subversive of episcopal

authority, and instead assumed that the Tractarian movement represented an integrated body within the Church of England.

At the time of publication, Burgon's book was received favorably in the Church press but engendered debate. The Foreign Church Chronicle and Review applauded the book and seconded Burgon's assertions about Rose: "It was [Rose], more than any other,

who was instrumental in forming the early Tractarian party, and he, with William Palmer,300 of Worcester College, earnestly strove to keep the movement within its first tracks."301 The editorial policy of this paper was set by Frederick Meyrick, who always had

298 'John William Burgon, late Dean of Chichester,' Quarterly Review, 174:348 (1892: Apr.), 477. George William Erskine Russell (1853-1919): University College, Oxford. 299 G.W.E. Russell, The Household ofFaith Portraits and Essays (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1902), vii- viii. 300 William Patrick Palmer (1803-1885): Trinity College, Dublin; Palmer's Oxford career began at Magdalen College in 1 828 before he transferred to Worcester College in 1 83 1 ; his main works include Origines Liturgicae (2 vols., 1832) and Treatise on the Church ofChrist (2 vols., 1838); Palmer wrote Tract 15 which was revised and completed by Newman. 301 'Lives of Twelve Good Men,' Foreign Church Chronicle and Review, vol. 13, no. 49, March 1, 1889, 56. 100 an uneasy relationship with the Tractarians.302 Over the next sixteen years after the publication of Burgon's book, Meyrick periodically published reaffirmations of Burgon's position.303 The Church Quarterly Review was not a High Church periodical and gave a generally favorable review of the book but was critical of the role ascribed to Rose. The reviewer agreed that the Tractarians "evoked" rather than created Church feeling, but went on to argue: "While fully admitting the important part which Hugh James Rose took in the infancy of the movement, surely for good or for evil, it was the Tract-writers who were the real movers, and it was a true instinct that gave the movement the name of the 'Tractarian movement.'"304 Not surprisingly the Guardian, which had been founded by R.W. Church and others associated with the Tractarians, also took exception to the elevation of Rose, although the reviewer did favorably review the book: And thus it is that, for all that may be said of Mr. Rose, or Mr. Knox, or the tradition of Church principles through the eighteenth century, or the 7,000 who had not lost sight of them and bowed the knee to worldliness at the beginning of the nineteenth, the common sense of men will always reassert itself and justly trace to Dr. Newman the real impulse of the Catholic Revival.305

This debate in the Guardian grew quite acrimonious, and for over a year the editorial response was not to print letters related to the question, but the issue was revived as the venerable High Church hero George Prévost wished to weigh in and could not respectably be ignored. Prévost guessed, incorrectly, that he was the last living Tractarian to have taken part in the original movement and stated that the "original inspirer of the great Church

This probably had something to do with the mental instability of his cousin which Meyrick seems to have linked to his association with the Tractarians and subsequent stormy relationship with the Jesuits after his conversion. See Frederick Meyrick, Memories ofLife at Oxford, and Experiences in Italy, Greece, Turkey, Germany, Spain, and Elsewhere (London: John Murray, 1905), 5-7. Meyrick may also have been unhappy with the lukewarm support that Pusey, Keble, Gladstone and Liddon gave to his Anglo-Continental Society. See, Meyrick Papers: Keble to Meyrick, 26 Jan. 1854, 1/10/1; Keble to Meyrick, 8 Oct., 1861, 1/10/4; Liddon to Meyrick, 24 Sept., 1875, 1/13/1; Gladstone to Meyrick, 5 July, 1888, 1/9/26. 303 Frederick Meyrick, Memories ofLife at Oxford, 26-27. 304 'Burgon's Lives of Twelve Good Men,' Church Quarterly Review, vol. XXVIII, no. 55, Apr. 1889, HO- HL 305 'Mr. Burgon and the Tractarian Movement,' Guardian, vol. XLIV, no. 2251, Jan. 23, 1889, 133-134. movement" was John Keble. The Guardian allowed a counter-point written anonymously by one 'Presbyter Oxoniensis' who fixated on Newman's secession as an automatic mark against ascribing the revival to the Tractarians:

At any rate, however high our admiration for Newman's gifts and genius and work, I would hope that our Church may rather be 'the parent of men who will emulate the example' of those who (never Evangelicals like Newman or Manning) were true all their life through to the faith of their fathers, and recognizing their spiritual mother even in her Protestant disguise continued steadfast to the end.306

This same issue also contained an article by the former Maurician, E.H. Plumptre, Dean of Wells, entitled 'Cardinal Newman: An Unsolved Problem.' This article succinctly stated both the dilemma for High Churchmen that under-girded Burgon's book and the sanguine response of the reviewers: "The Catholicity of the Anglican Church has been revived, and with it there has come a fuller life, a truer and more hearty worship. [Newman] has left no such mark on the Church of Rome."307 For those members of the Church of England who admired the Tractarians there was a potential narrative problem in ascribing a Church revival to a man who seceded. Unlike the Guardian, which had an attachment to the

Tractarians because of R.W. Church and the other founders ofthat paper, Church Times, which was in this period becoming the largest High Church paper in circulation, had no such relationship, and its pages were relatively untouched by the debate. When one reader objected to a Church Times notice of Church's death which described the "collapse of the movement" in 1845, the editor defended this statement by delimiting the historical role of the Tractarians:

The words 'collapse of the movement' applied strictly not to the Catholic movement in the Church at large, but simply to the cessation of the

306 lThe Tractarian Movement,' Guardian, vol. XLV, no. 2335, Sept. 3, 1890, 1376. 307 E.H. Plumptre, 'Cardinal Newman: An Unsolved Problem,' Guardian, vol. XLV, no 2335, Sept. 3, 1890, 1377. 308 For an excellent overview of these newspapers see Joseph L. Altholz, The Religious Press in Britain, 1760-1900 (New York: Greenwood Press, 1989), 27 and 30-31. particular course of action pursued by Newman, Pusey, and others. The Tracts ceased; and other works were discontinued. ... It was the collapse of the Tractarian movement in the University. Of course, in one sense the Catholic movement went on; but the word 'Tractarian' applies to a particular phase of the movement.309 As the decade advanced Church Times would approximate a position like that of the Guardian, but during the period of the King trial and the appeal of the Lincoln Judgment they were much more interested in devoting space to present concerns and took less notice of the debate about the historical place of the Tractarians.

In 1 888 the High Churchmen that Burgon criticized vociferously as ritualists held surprisingly similar views to his own about where the Tractarians fit into the history of the Church of England. W.H.B Proby's Annals ofthe 'Low-Church ' Party in England caused a

stir for its call that Evangelicals had no "moral position" within the Church of England and should therefore not be allowed to participate in ordained ministry (Proby argued that Evangelicals held merely a "historical position" within the Church of England and if duly baptized could therefore partake of all duly administered ordinances).310 Proby argued that with the undertaking of Prayer Book reform in the reign of Edward VI "Zwinglianism" had infiltrated the Church and through the later influence of the Puritans become institutionalized and eventually given rise first to the Evangelical movement in the eighteenth century and then the Evangelical party of his own day.31 ' Proby was a member of the English Church Union and was horrified by the prosecution of what he described as Catholic members of the Church of England. He claimed that his book was simply a narration of historical fact.312 This book was not reviewed by moderate High Church papers such as the Guardian and Church Times, whose editorial policy was to ignore such

309 'The Oxford Movement,' Church Times, vol. XXVIII, no. 1456, Dec. 19, 1890, 1,245. 310 W.H.B. Proby, Annals ofthe 'Low-Church ' Party in England down to the Death ofArchbishop Tait, 2 volumes (London: J.T. Hayes, 1888, volume I., 87. 311 Ibid., iv-vi, 81-82. 3,2 Ibid., i-iii. 103 provocative works when they issued from High Church authors. The Church Quarterly

Review with its non-affiliated status often tackled books that were calculated to cause

controversy in order to deflate them. The reviewer of Proby's book in the Church Quarterly Review stated that he in fact did not agree "either with the sacramental or the sabbatical

views of the Low Churchmen," but thought that Proby's language was outrageous (Proby frequently referred to Evangelicals using the word "stupid") and for this reason declared that Proby could not truly be considered a historian.313 The reviewer, however, allowed the general historical sketch of Proby's book to stand. Like Burgon, Proby believed that the last quarter of the eighteenth century was a time of spiritual somnolence.314 Curiously, given his attitude towards Evangelicals, he argued that it was at that point that an Evangelical revival took place brought about by "GOD THE HOLY GHOST."315 Proby argued that this revival was imperfect because of the "Zwinglian" understanding of the sacraments held by Evangelicals, and therefore God brought about a Catholic revival which started at the moment when Keble preached his Assize Sermon on 14 July 1833. Proby stated that the Church of his day was in the midst of another revival in which Zwinglianism would be

fully purged from the Church of England and the Catholic Church of England would finally achieve its pristine state purged of pre-Reformation Roman Catholic accretions as well as

Protestant elements that had infiltrated the Church at the Reformation.

Like Burgon, Proby conflated Tractarians and High Churchmen like Rose and William Palmer of Worcester into one homogenous movement. Unlike Burgon, Proby did not ascribe any special role to Rose; however, with the exception of Keble' s assignation as

313 'Annals of the 'Low-Church Party in England down to the Death of Archbishop Tait,' Church Quarterly Review, vol. XXIX, no.58, Jan. 1890, 313. For some examples of Proby's disparaging language see W.H.B. Proby, Annals ofthe 'Low-Church ' Party in England, volume I., 5, 274, 386, 424, 510; volume IL, 201, 257, 259-260. 314 W.H.B. Proby, Annals ofthe 'Low-Church ' Party in England, volume L, 88-101. 315 Ibid., 83. 104 the oracle through which God began the revival, neither are any of the avowed Tractarians singled out by Proby for special approbation. He described the Tractarian movement as a "committee or quasi-committee" prompted by God to produce tracts calling members of the Church of England to maintain Catholic truth and battle Protestantism.316 He did not use elevated language in his book to describe the Tractarians and he unapologetically showed that their literary achievements, even including Newman's Tract 90, were tinged with Protestantism.317 Like Burgon, Proby argued that Church principles had been maintained before the arrival of the Tractarians, and here he singled out Rose and William James, of

Oriel College, as preparing the public for the Tractsfor the Times through Rose's British Magazine. The biography of Christopher Wordsworth published in 1888, Christopher

Wordsworth: Bishop ofLincoln, 1807-1885, is conspicuous for its studious avoidance of issues specifically related to the Tractarian movement. This biography was jointly written. The project was overseen by John Henry Overton, canon of Lincoln, while Wordsworth's daughter Elizabeth Wordsworth, principal of Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, provided details on Wordsworth's early years and the family's home life. G.G. Perry and Frederick Meyrick wrote chapters on Convocation and foreign churches respectively, and the book ended with a reminiscence written by Burgon. This book is unique for a biography in this period in that it was revised by three bishops (Wordsworth's brother Charles Wordsworth, bishop of St. Andrew's, his son John Wordsworth, bishop of Salisbury, and Archbishop Benson).319 With the exception of one assertion by Meyrick that the Tractarian movement had utterly collapsed in 1843 when secessions to Rome started, the word Tractarian is not used at all in

316 Ibid, 402-404. 317 Ibid, 415-417. 318 Ibid., 400. 319 John Henry Overton and Elizabeth Wordsworth, Christopher Wordsworth: Bishop ofLincoln, 1807-1885 (London: Rivingtons, 1888), v-vi. the book. The appellation Oxford movement is used only once as well, by Overton, and this is also within the context of collapse in 1843.321 Prominent Tractarian figures rarely appear in the book and when they do they are always portrayed in non-polemical contexts.322 Curiously, but perhaps not intentionally, Newman's name is left out of the index to the book even though he is mentioned several times in the body.323 The word revival is only used in a non-theological sense in relation to the effort to restore the sitting of Convocation. Overton connected Wordsworth to an earlier generation of Churchman

suggesting that within the context of this biography there was never any need for a revival: The school which influenced the future Bishop of Lincoln was naturally that to which his father belonged, the school of Bishop Horsley, HJ. Rose, Professor J.J. Blunt, Le Bas, and W.H. Mill, who with other like-minded kept alive that sober Church of England spirit in the university which in an earlier generation had been associated with the names of Bishop Home, Jones of Nayland, and William Stevens, whose modest spirit of self- effacement still survives in the well known club of 'Nobody's Friends.'

This list of pre-Tractarian High Churchmanship is similar to that described by Proby. Rose does not figure as strongly here as in Burgon's book but this makes sense from a narrative standpoint given that the Church of England in Wordsworth's biography, unlike Burgon's book, is apparently free of attacks by Satan and never described as undergoing any period of lethargy at all, let alone before the constitutional crises just before the Tractsfor the

320 Ibid., 345. 321 Ibid., 398. "•I 323 The Church Quarterly Review was generally positive about these types ofbiographies, but surprisingly stated that this book was not interesting because of Wordsworth's "ethos." The reviewer seems to have hoped that some stickier issues would have been approached. See, 'Christopher Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, 1807-1885,' Church Quarterly Review, vol. XXVII, no. 53, Oct. 1888, 234-237. 324 Ibid., 69. Samuel Horsley (1733-1806): Trinity Hall, Cambridge; Bishop of St. Asaph (1802-1806). John James Blunt (1794-1855): St. John's College, Cambridge; Lady Margaret professor of divinity (1839-1855). Charles Webb Le Bas (1779-1861): Trinity College, Cambridge. William Hodge Mill (1792-1853) Trinity College, Cambridge; Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge (1848-1853). George Home (1730-1792): University College, Oxford; Bishop of Norwich (1790-1792). William Jones of Nayland (1726-1800): University College, Oxford; founded the British Critic in 1793. William Stevens (1732-1807): Stevens was a hosier and successfully published a number of anti-latitudinarian works. A dining club was formed by some of his friends and named Nobody's Club in reference to his signature in his defense of his friend George Home. 106

Times were beginning to appear. The biography of Wordsworth certainly does not tell the reader much about the Tractarians, but set beside these other books and public discussion of them in newspapers and journals, it reinforces the fact that writers across the High Church spectrum were far from providing a unanimous interpretation of the position of the Tractarians within the Church of England, and could downright dismiss them as a group.325 That this biography of a significant High Church contemporary of the Tractarians written in 1888 avoided discussing the Tractarians or any idea of a revival is particularly noteworthy given the cast of authors involved in the production of the work. Many expressed strong opinions about the Tractarians either before or after working on this biography. We have already seen that Burgon and Meyrick both wrote in other places stating that a revival had taken place while casting doubt on the possibility that the Tractarians had instigated it. Charles Wordsworth wrote a short autobiographical work dealing with his life up to the year 1856 in which he explicitly stated his relationship to the Tractarians as someone who "had been acquainted with all the leaders of the movement."326 Wordsworth set up as the standard for his brother and himself the example of their father, the senior Christopher Wordsworth, who admired Newman's sermons, thought Pusey should be made a bishop and followed in the at the time radical step of preaching in a surplice on Communion Sundays and yet also admired favorite High Church targets such as A.P. Stanley's Life ofArnold and was a good friend of prominent Evangelicals as well as

325 One Evangelical paper that was habitually antagonistic to High Church writings approved of this book for portraying Wordsworth as not too High Church. See, 'Review of Overton's Life of Wordsworth,' English Churchman and St. James's Chronicle, vol. 81, no. 2380, Aug. 9, 1888, 805. 326 Wordsworth claimed to have been intimate with Keble and Rose, but to have only known Newman, Pusey and Isaac Williams slightly. Wordsworth mentions Burgon's sketch of Rose as an "interesting record," but does not say whether he agreed with Burgon's theory or not. See, Charles Wordsworth, Annals ofmy Life, 1806-1856, 2 vol. (London: Longmans, 1891-1893), volume I, 322 and 329. Charles Wordsworth (1806- 1892): Christ Church, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1834, priest in 1840; bishop of St. Andrews (1853-1892). 107

Quakers. The lesson learned by the sons from their father was that the classic Anglican divines of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had an advantage even over the Fathers of the second, third and fourth centuries, since the former "with their sterling good sense and sobriety ofjudgment" had seen the excesses of the Church of Rome; consequently, Charles Wordsworth hoped that members of the Church of England would not get involved with parties and would instead simply rest in this classical Anglican position which he felt was alive and well even as the Tractarians began to organize into a movement. 328 Wordsworth did not believe that the Tractarians had started a revival. In a postscript he argued that the Tractarians had impeded one. He recounted how in 1844 he had conducted an experiment to see if celebrations of the Eucharistie had increased at Oxford colleges since 1833. He found that with a few exceptions they had not: I cannot think that it ought to be laid altogether upon the Heads, and College Authorities. There must have been something faulty in the character and management of the movement itself, to have prevented it from producing in fuller measure the good effects at which it aimed. For my own part, I cannot but believe that if the movement had been carried on upon fixed and well- defined lines - strictly consistent with the principles of the Reformation - the result would have been different.329

He thought that the difference between the Tractarians and associates such as Palmer and Rose was that the latter "knew from the first the extent they were prepared to go, because they knew the limits of the teaching of the great Anglican divines; and they never intended to go farther."330 The problem stemmed from Newman who was "ambitious of influence."331 Wordsworth did not go into details about how Newman was alone able to retard the bulk of the University of Oxford for nearly a decade, but simply insisted that this

327 Arthur Penrhyn Stanley (1815-1884): Balliol College, Oxford; Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History (1856-1863). 328Charles Wordsworth, Annals ofmy Life, volume I, 330-336. 329 Ibid., 346-347. 330 Ibid., 343. 331 Ibid., 350-353. was the case. Wordsworth was sanguine about the future, though, as he was positive about

how the Church had grown since Newman had left and would continue to grow, "provided, for example, Churchmen will desist from supporting or encouraging the imperia in imperio which, in the shape of party Societies, have been the baneful legacy of the Oxford movement to the Church of England. . .."332 Charles Wordsworth's views were toned down in his biography written by his nephew John Wordsworth, bishop of Salisbury, and published in 1899. Of the Oxford Movement, John Wordsworth stated that his uncle was

"considerably influenced by it," and in a footnote mentioned that his uncle had discussed his relation to the Tractarians in his biography, but he did not mention his uncle's criticism of the Tractarians in that section; furthermore, he neglected his uncle's postscript, and

merely described Charles Wordsworth's instructive example of his father against party spirit as "an affectionate estimate of his debt to his father."333 Overton and Perry had also written books within two years of the publication of the biography of Wordsworth that dealt with the history of the Tractarians within larger contexts. Both men, along with Charles Abbey who co-authored with Overton, were influenced by Mark Pattison334 while at Lincoln College, Oxford, and formed a ground- breaking group at the time writing on the hitherto neglected eighteenth century.335 Perry's three-volume work, the History ofthe Church ofEngland (1860-64), was the first in the

332 Ibid., 355. 333 John Wordsworth, The Episcopate ofCharles Wordsworth: Bishop ofSt. Andrews, Dunkeld, and Dunblane, 1853-1892 (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1899), 3. This book received a scathing review in Church Times for John Wordsworth's retelling of the eucharistie controversy following A.P. Forbes,' the bishop of Brechin, charge of 1857 and Cheyne's 6 Sermons in 1858. Curiously, the review criticized Charles Wordsworth's attitudes to the Tractarians, even though they were clearly muted by John Wordsworth. See, 'The Episcopate of Charles Wordsworth,' Church Times, vol. 40, no. 1898, June 16, 1899, 727. 334 Mark Pattison (1813-1884): Oriel College, Oxford; rector of Lincoln College, Oxford (1861-1884); worked in Tractarian circles for approximately a decade from 1834 to 1843, 335 For Perry's relationship to Pattison see, Mark Pattison, Memoirs, (London: Macmillan, 1885), 218, 265, 272-273. For Overton and Abbey see, John Henry Overton, 'Lincoln College, Oxford, Thirty Years Ago,' Longmans Magazine, 9:51 (1887: Jan), 258-270. nineteenth century to cany that topic up through the nineteenth century.336 It was received well enough to be heavily revised and reissued in three volumes as a text-book based on the recent research of Stubbs, Haddan, Bright and the ecclesiastical historian William Waddington Shirley.337 The third volume was published in 1887 and advanced the narrative up to 1884. Perry narrated the history of the Church of England after the Restoration as a series of revivals where continuity during lethargic periods between revivals was maintained by a thin line of High Church orthodoxy. Perry had come under Pattison's influence in 1840 while the latter was still an active Tractarian, although he remained loyal to his friend even after Pattison published in Essays and Reviews, a book that Perry did not approve of. 338 Perry, Overton and Abbey all remained High Churchmen and modified

Pattison's famous dictum:

It is especially since the High Church movement commenced that the theology of the 18* century has become a byeword. The genuine Anglican omits that period from the history of the Church altogether. In constructing his Catanœ Patrum he closes his list with Waterland and Brett, and leaps at once to 1833, when the Tractsfor the Times commenced - as Charles II. dated his reign from his father's death. Perry described one revival in the eighteenth century and a second that bridged the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth. He first described the appropriation of the works of William Law by Wesley and Wesley's subsequent struggle against the Calvinism of Whitfield as the "Revival movement."340 Perry stated that this revival was brought about because the Church of England had lost its most zealous clergy with the

336 G.G. Perry, History ofthe Church ofEnglandfrom the Death ofElizabeth to the Present Times, 3 volumes (London: Saunders, Otley, and Co., 1860-1864). 337 G.G. Perry, A History ofthe English Church, volume I (London: John Murray, 1 88 1 ), v. The three volumes as a whole were always referred to collectively as the Student 's English Church History, but each individually as A History ofthe English Church. 338 See Mark Pattison, 'Tendencies of Religious Thought in England, 1688-1750,' in Essays and Reviews (London: J.W. Parker and Son, 1860), 254-329. 339 Ibid., 255. 340 G.G. Perry, A History ofthe English Church, (London: John Murray, 1887) volume 3, 60-64, 87-88 and 91. 110

Nonjuring schism, and because the Church began to work with the Societies for the Reform of Manners thus allowing infiltration by Dissenting ministers. Wesley defeated the

nefarious forces of Calvinism and helped initiate the "Evangelical movement," but this movement could merely raise the tone of and not revive the whole Church of England because it was only interested in sermons and individual development.341 It is unclear why Wesley was described here as starting a revival and the Evangelical movement was not. Overton's biography of Wesley in 1891 also agreed that Wesley was the founder of a revival, but he went on to describe an "Evangelical Revival" as well as the earlier founded by Wesley.342 In any case, Perry argued that a second revival was necessary because that of Wesley's had not been fully integrated into the Church of England. This second revival took impetus from the French Revolution and began to mobilize in the period of 1800 to

1812. Perry described it as centering on William Stevens' club ofNobody's Friends and stated that it was brought about specifically by the Reverend Thomas Sikes,343 rector of Guildsborough, who "may thus fairly be regarded as the precursor of the Oxford Tract

School." According to Perry, Sikes recalled to the minds ofthe people the creed of "one

Catholic and Apostolic Church" which "was altogether left out of the teaching of the clergy and the principles of the laity."344 But Perry was not merely scouting for the origins of the Tractarian movement; rather, he showed that the Tractarian movement was a revival within this earlier revival:

The class of learned presbyters had almost gone out with the nonjurors, and no great theologian had arisen since the days of Waterland. The Oxford tracts broke up ground which was new to that generation. The great divines of the Caroline era reposed in their folios on many book-shelves, but their spirit and their teaching were but little known. 5

341Ibid., 117 and 155. 342 John Henry Overton, John Wesley (London: Methuen and Co., 1891), 86. 343 Thomas Sikes (1767-1834): St. Edmund Hall, Oxford. 344 G.G. Perry, A History ofthe English Church, volume 3, 161 . 345 Ibid., 223. Ill

Perry used this idea of two parallel High Church revivals to explain why individuals associated with the earlier High Church revival, what he termed the "old-fashioned Churchmen," were antagonistic to the Tractarians even though they were all High Churchmen. Perry argued that with their enormous literary output of tracts "published at a low price, and zealously distributed," Keble's highly successful poetry, Newman's sermons, Pusey's "massive theology" and the publication of classic English divines "in a popular form," through the Library of Anglo-Catholic theology, "a new school was rapidly rising."346 Perry called this school the "Anglo-Catholic School," and he cited evidence from all quarters of the Church of England at the time to show that "the universal cry was that the whole party was dishonest to the Church of England, that they were Romanists in heart, and were rapidly going forward to a formal reunion with Rome." The Tractsfor the Times instigated this with their uncompromising Catholicism, but had it not been for "the aggressive and irritating attitude of the Anglo-Catholic rank and file," even Tract 90 would have received a fair treatment and perhaps not been condemned.347 As it was, even "the most High Church and the most able of the bishops," Bishop Phillpotts348 of Exeter, condemned Tract 90.349 So, it was just a matter of time before the rank and file, "men not endowed with a singular gift of patience," began to secede to the Catholic Church. Perry's final analysis of the Tractarian revival was positive: a debt of gratitude was owed to the faithful Tractarians who did not secede, while the loss of those who did was in fact a blessing: "Had they remained in the Anglican Church as the apostles of Romanising, the advance of Church principles would have been impossible."350

346 Ibid., 225. 347G.G. Perry, A History ofthe English Church, volume 3, 227-228. 348 Henry Phillpotts (1778-1869): Corpus Christi College, Oxford; Bishop of Exeter (1830-1869). 349 G.G. Perry, A History ofthe English Church, volume 3, 234. 350 Ibid., 241-243. 112

Soon after describing this period in which the Tractarian movement was dealt a great blow but carried on faithfully, Perry moved on to describe "Ritualism" and the continuation of the "Church revival."351 He focused largely on issues related to the prosecution of the ritualists and their ultimate vindication through the growing tolerance which he saw at the time of writing. He finished the three- volume work with a 'Review of the Progress of the Church of England' showing that from the Middle Ages up to his present the history of the Church of England was one of continual life and constant progress.352 Perry's Student's English Church History was very well received and was considered to be a ground-breaking work for the time. In a short review of the third volume the Church Quarterly Review was most impressed with Perry's assertion of an earlier pre-

Tractarian revival:

Those who have been accustomed to regard all the early part of the nineteenth century before the autumn of 1833 as a time when the Church was fast asleep will be startled to see that he entitles Chap. IX (1800-1812) 'The Commencement of the Church Revival;' but he is perfectly right in doing so and none would have more cordially agreed with him than the great leaders of the Oxford Movement themselves.353 Readers were open to the idea that the Tractarians were part of an earlier and contiguous High Church revival, particularly if the earlier revival was located in the nineteenth century rather than the eighteenth. They were also open to criticism of the Tractarians, and the idea that older High Churchmen were antagonistic to them seems to have been fairly well known to the editors of High Church papers. The other two members of this trio of historians associated with Lincoln College, Oxford, John Henry Overton and Charles Abbey, burst onto the literary scene in 1878 with 351IWd., 315. 352 Ibid., chapter 33. 353 'The Student's English Church History: A History of the English Church from the Accession of the House of Hanover to the Present Time, Church Quarterly Review, vol. XXVIII, no. 55, Apr. 1889, 244-245. 113

their English Church in the Eighteenth Century and then teamed up again to consolidate their position as the established experts on the eighteenth century with their two-volume The English Church and its Bishops, 1 700-1800.354 For our purposes, Overton is the more important of the two as he completed a large corpus of work written independently of

Abbey that pushed on into the history of the nineteenth century. Overton's publications have only received slight attention. B.W. Young describes Overton and Abbey as "political conservatives,"355 and as "the archetypal scholarly parish priests," who along with Pattison and Froude "fell within the religiously determined contours of thought laid out by Tractarianism and the secularism which thrived alongside of it."356 We do not know enough about Abbey to hypothesize about his politics, but Overton was certainly a member of the Liberal party at least until 1 881 and perhaps later, although the scope and commitment of his political views are unclear.357 Furthermore, Overton claimed to have been in regular correspondence with Pattison up until the latter developed cancer in 1883.358 As canon of Lincoln Cathedral, Overton was also in regular contact with Bishop Christopher Wordsworth and looking back approved of Wordsworth's disastrous 'Pastoral to the

Wesleyan Methodists in the Diocese of Lincoln' (1873), which was meant as "a strong representation of the peril of schism and the blessing of unity," and the subsequent conference with Methodist ministers and laymen who were prominent in the diocese of Lincoln at the time.359 Overton seems to have believed that such efforts were irenic.

Although we have no information as to the extent of his acceptance of the ritual practices 354 Charles John Abbey and John Henry Overton, English Church in the Eighteenth Century, 2 volumes (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1878); Charles John Abbey and John Henry Overton, English Church and its Bishops, 1700-1800, 2 volumes (London: Longmans, Green, 1887) . 355 B.W. Young, 'Knock-Kneed Giants: Victorian Representations of Eighteenth-Century Thought,' in Jane Garnett and Colin Matthew, eds., Revival and Religion since 1700 (London: The Hambledon Press, 1993), 80. 356 Ibid., 92 357 Gladstone Papers, John Henry Overton to Lord Young, 1881, General Correspondence, Add.44471 f. 157. 358 John Henry Overton, 'Lincoln College, Oxford, Thirty Years Ago,' 269-270 359John Henry Overton and Elizabeth Wordsworth, Christopher Wordsworth: Bishop ofLincoln, 1807-1885, 242-248. 114 that others were brought to court over, he was a member of the ECU, so he certainly disagreed with the effort to bring forward legal prosecution for such practices. A simple dichotomy of Tractarianism and secularism does not adequately explain the complexity of any of these writers, and certainly not Overton, who was active in a variety of cultural contexts in which the Tractarian movement was viewed as innovative. He followed Perry in replacing Pattison's description of "religious tendencies" with a narration of revivals, and in addition to his first publication with Abbey hammered home this theme of revivals in eight additional books published between 1881 and 1906.360 Overton's writings display ambivalence about the historical role played by the

Tractarians within the Church of England. His portrayal of their history is not consistent, and it is clear from internal evidence within his own writings that this inconsistency stemmed from his processing other historical writings and assimilating them into his own.

Although both his first book with Abbey and his own William Law set up this theme of narrating the history of the Church of England as a series of revivals, the first extended treatment of this theme was in his The Evangelical Revival in the Eighteenth Century where he laid out a pattern that stretched from William Law361 through to Wesley, the Evangelicals, the "old-fashioned High-Churchmen" (whom he usually refers to as "the

360 John Henry Overton, William Law: Nonjuror and Mystic (London: Longmans, Green, 1881); The Evangelical Revival in the Eighteenth Century (London: Longmans, Green, 1 886); John Wesley (London: Methuen, 1891); The English Church in the Nineteenth Century, 1800-1833 (London: Longmans, Green, 1894); The Church in England, 2 volumes (London: Gardner, Darton, 1897); The Anglican Revival (London: Blackie & Son, 1897); The Nonjurors: Their Lives, Principles and Writings (London: Smith, Elder, 1902); John Henry Overton and Frederic Relton, The English Churchfrom the Accession ofGeorge I. to the end of the Eighteenth Century, 1 714-1800 (London: Macmillan, 1 906). This last work was completed after Overton's death by Relton, but the research was undertaken by Overton, and Relton organized the book in a manner consistent with Overton's other books, see, Macmillan Papers, vol. cccxxx, 55 1 1 52, Relton to Macmillan, Nov. 11, 1903. 361 William Law (1686-1761): Emmanuel college, Cambridge; his best known books are A Practical Treatise upon Christian Perfection ( 1 726) and A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life ( 1 729). 115 Orthodox") up to the Tractarians.362 These individuals and groups were all integral parts of what he described, overall, as "the Church Revival." On the face of it, the larger composite

revival seems progressive to the extent that each subsequent revival adds something more that the earlier revivals lacked; however, he rarely used the word progress. The old- fashioned High Churchmen held a peculiar position in Overton's grand narrative of the history of the Church of England in that they are always described as present, to maintain

continuity, but recede periodically into the background to explain why a particular revival was necessary in the first place. This leads to peculiar narrations of continuity such as this: "In one respect, indeed, Law is rather a connecting link between the Caroline divines and

the Oxford school of Pusey and Newman. In another he is a connecting link between the evidence writers who unconsciously prepared the way for the Revival, and the Revivalists themselves."363 The "evidence writers" referred to here are those late seventeenth and

eighteenth-century divines (specifically Joseph Butler, Daniel Waterland, William Law, William Sherlock and Charles Leslie) who wrote apologetic works upholding orthodox Christian theology against what Overton loosely terms the "deists" (free-thinkers).364 Overton portrayed the eighteenth century as a period in which the Church of England was

lulled into complacency by its own success. It was not a particularly immoral century, and the forces of unbelief were easily vanquished by these evidence writers. For Overton,

looking backwards from the end of the nineteenth century, the focal problem was the era of constitutional reform from 1827 to 1833 when it became evident that the relationship of

362 Overton was one of the few writers to discuss why he used such labels. His main concerns were symmetry and clarity. He wanted to use the terms High, Low and Broad Church (in spite of the anachronism implied in the term "Broad"), but chose to use the terms Evangelical, Orthodox and Liberal because of the transfer of the label Low Church from its loose eighteenth-century usage for clerics aligned with the Whig party to a nineteenth-century usage for Evangelicals. He thought using the term Low Church might confuse his readers. See John Henry Overton, The English Church in the Nineteenth Century, 1 800-1833, 24. 363 John Henry Overton, The Evangelical Revival in the Eighteenth Century, 7. 3MIbid., 121 116 church and state had become so confused that "it was almost universally believed that the Church as a national establishment, must soon cease to exist."365 Since this period lineally followed the eighteenth century, Overton argued that the fault must lie there. Overton was not willing to consider that church principles, formularies or orthodox theology, in and of themselves, could lead to this complacency, since his working assumption was that these were necessarily transformational; consequently, he argued that most members of the Church of England took these things for granted:

She was in a position for which, if one may use so homely a phrase, she had never bargained. From the accession of George III. to the close of the eighteenth century, she was in a most prosperous, peaceful, and, to tell the truth, sleepy state. The men who were ordained in the early years of the nineteenth expected that they were to go on just as their fathers and grandfathers had done. But that was not to be.366 It was because of sleepiness that High Churchmen failed to excite the nation. Overton was impressed by the epithet of "seriousness" attached to the Evangelicals in the eighteenth century, and it was precisely this seriousness which drove Evangelicals to get their message out to the nation and bring about a revival; however, there was a fundamental flaw in the Evangelical revival, in that only a half of true Christianity was emphasized.367 They overemphasized the "subjective" or individual side of religion and neglected the

"objective" side which contained the corporate life of the Church (the apostolic succession and the sacraments).368 Evangelicals were more interested in a general Christianity than in the corporate life of the Church of England: "Now the Evangelicals obviously did not attach the slightest value to the Church's course."369

365 John Henry Overton, The English Church in the Nineteenth Century, 1800-1833, 296. 366Ibid., 14-15. 367 For the importance of "seriousness" see John Henry Overton, The Evangelical Revival in the Eighteenth Century, 160. 368 John Henry Overton, The English Church in the Nineteenth Century, 1800-1833, 93. 369 John Henry Overton, The Evangelical Revival in the Eighteenth Century, 149. 117

For Overton there was clear empirical evidence that the Evangelical revival would be superseded by another revival in the fact that as a group they produced "no really first- rate writers," and left behind no worthwhile devotional works.370 Their writings were purely insular and could not be expected to carry on in influence once the witness provided by the lives of those serious writers had ended: "You might as well expect a blind man to enjoy a beautiful landscape, or a deaf man to be charmed with the sound of sweet music, as expect those who were outside the Evangelical circle to appreciate Evangelical literature."371 It was inevitable that "another movement should arise, supplementary rather than antagonistic to the Evangelical movement."372 This supplement was supplied by the

Tractarians:

Before the Tractarian movement, High Church principles in the spiritual sense, though they never ceased to have many adherents - as they could hardly fail to have, while men had the Prayer-book in their hands and professed to be guided by its rules - exercised very little influence upon the nation at large. 73 The reader again finds this peculiar narrative problem, this time placed immediately in the period before the Tractarian revival: "It is frequently said that the old Orthodox or High

Church party was fast asleep, if it had not entirely died out, before it was revived by the Oxford Movement. But this mode of stating the case is far too strong. The High Church party had never ceased to exist or even to be active."374 Overton went on to list many of the same individuals as Perry for his High Church revival from 1800 to 1812 (Jones of Nayland, William Stevens and his club of Nobody's Friends, Joshua Watson,375

370 John Henry Overton, The English Church in the Nineteenth Century, 1800-1833, 100; John Henry Overton, The Evangelical Revival in the Eighteenth Century, 101-116. 371 Ibid., 128. 372 Ibid., 149. 373 Ibid., 159. 374 John Henry Overton, The English Church in the Nineteenth Century, 1800-1833, 25. 375 Joshua Watson (1771-1855): wine merchant and philanthropist, was active with a number of other contemporary High Church men in Hackney where his brother John James Watson (1767-1839) was rector. 118

Christopher Wordsworth, Charles Daubeny, Thomas Sikes and H.J. Rose), but unlike Perry he did not describe this grouping around the "Hackney Phalanx" as a revival: "And yet in spite of this, it is perfectly true that with all their merits they did not exercise a wide, practical influence over the Church and nation at large."376 The key criteria for Overton in defining a revival (in addition to what he described as sound principles, practice and orthodox theology), seems to have been success in grabbing the attention of the nation. In describing a particular instance in which the old High Churchman had been defeated in an

endeavor to influence the SPCK, Overton states:

This was just after the "Tracts for the Times" had appeared, and it was undoubtedly the beginning of a new era, in which High Churchmanship, though, of course in essentials the same, was entering upon a new phase, in which it gained a hold upon the Church and nation which, under the phase we have been regarding it in this chapter, it never had gained.377 This passage was written in 1894 after the publication of Burgon's Lives ofTwelve Good Men and Church's The Oxford Movement: the First Twelve Years. Given that he was in contact with Frederick Meyrick, who we have seen sided with Burgon in this debate about the origination of the Oxford Movement, it is certain that he was at least aware of the differing interpretations of the origins and legacy of the Tractarians. 78 This interpretation also collided with Perry's and, again, both men certainly knew each other as Perry was also a canon at Lincoln, and the two had co-authored a work together in the 1 890s, Lives ofthe Bishops ofLincolnfrom Remigius to Wordsworth. 7 In the Anglican Revival, published in 1 897, Overton tackled the theories of Stokes,

Perry, Burgon and Church head-on. It is unclear why he decided to do so at this point rather

376John Henry Overton, The English Church in the Nineteenth Century, 1800-1833, 47. 377 Ibid., 49. 378 We have already noted that Meyrick wrote a chapter for Overton's biography of Bishop Wordsworth. Also, Meyrick was examining chaplain to Bishop Wordsworth from 1 868 to 1 885 and became a non-resident canon of Lincoln from 1869 to 1906. Overton was canon of Lincoln from 1879 to 1903. 379 In addition to Perry's connection to Lincoln College, Oxford, he also held the college living of Waddington, near Lincoln, from 1852 to 1897. 119 than in 1894. It could possibly have been merely a question of subject matter since the earlier books dealt with specific revivals and periods, and so perhaps he did not feel that he needed to give a detailed analysis of these peripheral points, while the Anglican Revival advanced the narrative up to his own present and specifically articulated the overall theory. Overton dealt with the narrative problem of an active but unsuccessful pre-Tractarian High Church movement by employing the metaphor of a "leavening process."380 Both the Church of England and the English nation were like a loaf ofbread, and both individuals and groups were described as successful according to the extent to which they made the Church and nation rise into their proper shape. With this metaphor, Overton changed the narrative from his earlier works and down-graded the Evangelicals to a "party," while including the Orthodox High Churchmen with the Tractarians as the bearers of the Anglican revival: As to the Orthodox movement before 1833, it was essentially the same as the Anglican movement after 1833. The latter diverged from the former only when it went off on a tangent; and part of it which did so diverge, was never any proper part of the Anglican revival, as will appear in the sequel.3 ' Overton adopted Perry's interpretation here, which perhaps stemmed in part from their working together on the history of the Bishops of Lincoln prior to Perry's death in 1897.382 Stokes' theory was mentioned but rejected as Knox and his friend Bishop Jebb were described merely as "pioneers" and "anticipators."383 Overton spent some time considering Burgon's theory on the prominence of Rose, but ultimately rejected it and went on to

380 John Henry Overton, The Anglican Revival, 12. 381IWd., 15. 382 James Pereiro has briefly discussed Overton's understanding of revivals, but Pereiro holds with Nockles that "Anglo-Catholic historians" generally shaped the narrative, and he has failed to notice the changes that Overton's own ideas underwent. See James Pereiro, Ethos and the Oxford Movement: At the Heart of Tractarianism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 42-43, 68, 71, 75-76. 383 John Henry Overton, The Anglican Revival, 18. describe Rose as "by far the most prominent and effective of the precursors of the revival,

rather than its actual originator."

Although the Orthodox High Churchmen were described by Overton as part of the revival, he argued that their influence was limited because the people "were not roused to any enthusiasm by their efforts."385 Overton grappled with the previous competing narratives of the legacy of the Tractarians for the Church of England and attempted to be

noncommittal. Overton described an Anglican revival in which two groups bordered on antagonism with one another, but really only differed in strategy: "The fact is that Rose, Palmer, and, perhaps Perceval on the one hand, Froude, Keble and Newman on the other represented, not exactly two different parties, but two different classes of mind."386 Overton never explicitly stated that the Tractarians comprised the Anglican revival, but the Tractarians do dominate the pages of the book.387 Furthermore, his intended neutrality seems to break down as he ultimately determined that the Tractarians were far more

successful:

The general object aimed at by the two groups was the same, but their views as to the right methods of attaining that object were very different, as will abundantly appear in the sequel. Which were right and which were wrong need not here be discussed; but, as a matter of fact, the movement was carried on by the latter, not the former group.388 In spite of Overton's assurance that the two groups were on the same side, the three chapters following the introductory material give many instances of disagreements pre- dating the publication of Tract 90 which seem to suggest that the two groups did not just disagree on strategy but saw each other as separate groups. For instance, Orthodox High

384 Ibid., 18-21. 385 Ibid., 13. 386 Ibid., 32. 387 With the chapters containing introductory material and conclusions aside, half of the chapters of the book are specifically about the Oxford Movement. 388 John Henry Overton, The Anglican Revival, 33. Churchmen expressed unease that the tracts were dubbed Oxford Tracts even though many Oxford High Churchmen disagreed with their principles, and many High Churchmen were offended by Newman's and Keble's publication of Froude's Remains.3*9 Overton minimized this material and instead focused on the similarity of the goals

of the two groups. It might seem that Overton had simply accepted Church's telling of the events, since in many ways they already held similar views of the legacy of the Tractarians; however, Overton, whether intentionally or not, poked large holes in Church's narrative.

The single most important divergence from Church's book was in the portrayal of

Newman's career at Oxford. Church stated that the Tractarians had not intended to form a party, but inevitably they did so by accident: "But a party it could not help being: quietly and spontaneously it had grown to be what community of ideas, aims, and sympathies, naturally, and without blame, leads men to become."391 Furthermore, the leadership of the party fell upon Newman not because he sought it, but because "the position of leader in a great crisis came to him, because it must come." Church described Newman's role of leadership as "inevitable."392 The Tractarians only sought the good of the Church of England but because of a natural suspicion of movements in general and a love of comfort the heads of the University "attacked and condemned the Tractarians' teaching at once violently and ignorantly; and in them the ignorance of the ground on which the battle was fought was hardly pardonable."393 The heads of the University and the bishops were unrelenting in their attacks, and on a fateful day, 13 February 1845, Convocation met and

389 Ibid., 56-60, 79-88 390 Overton had definitely read Church's book, but it is only cited twice on pages 97 and 133. 391 Richard William Church, ne Oxford Movement: Twelve Years, 1833-1845, Edited and with an introduction by Geoffrey Best, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 126. 392 Ibid., 93 393 Ibid., 207. 122 stripped one of the followers of the Tractarians, William George Ward,394 of his degrees and condemned his book the Ideal ofa Christian Church. Newman's Tract 90 only escaped censure because of the non placet issued by the proctors who both happened by chance to be friendly to the Tractarians (one of these was Church himself, the other being William

Henry Guillemard). But the die was cast, and Newman and others began to leave the Church of England hounded by their opponents: "The opponents of Tractarianism, Orthodox and Liberal, were for the moment gorged with their success."395 Overton's version was quite different. He portrayed Newman as a secondary figure who never really cared for the Church of England and who illegitimately grabbed hold of the movement from Keble who was the real leader.396 Overton had sympathy for Newman and thought that the bishops and college Heads had treated him shabbily, but this sympathy was mitigated by Overton's insistence that Newman really wanted to leave the Church of England and was disappointed when Tract 90 was not condemned. The only inevitability in Overton's narrative as regards Newman was that he would secede. 7 Both Church and Overton portrayed the period after the secessions of Newman and others in a positive light, but for different reasons. Overton stated that it was good to be rid of people "manifestly tending towards Rome," and that instead of a "melancholy history of a 'Decline and Fall,'" the aftermath was "the joyous history of a continuous advance."398 In a chapter entitled 'The Catastrophe,' Church outlined "a crisis in the history of many lives," listing the many friends and acquaintances of his who left the Church. He described the event as the Church of England's "Sparta." He was proud to say that the movement had

394 William George Ward (1812-1882): Christ Church, Oxford; fellow of Balliol College; The Ideal ofa Christian Church Considered in Comparison with Existing Practice (1844); received into the Catholic Church in 1845. 395Richard William Church, The Oxford Movement, 252-258. 396 John Henry Overton, The Anglican Revival, 33-34 and 44-47. 397IHd., 118. 398 Ibid., 120. been a success and the aftermath showed progress, but he felt that the cost was high. Overton's evidence for his own positive appraisal stemmed from a comparison of the past with his own present:

It is perfectly marvelous to observe how things are now accepted which once provoked suspicion and even actual rebellion. It is difficult in the present day to realize that fifty years ago the wearing of the surplice in the pulpit was so exasperating a proceeding as to raise serious riots.400 Since things turned out well it must have been that apparent crises worked themselves out for good. Church died before fully completing the book. The last chapter does look unpolished and probably would have changed had he lived long enough to spend time in revision, but in its present shape the chapter presents strikingly similar conclusions to the other books that we have looked at in this chapter.

Church's presentation of the Tractarians initially garnered a mixed review. Gladstone wrote to Church's widow calling the book, "a really historical record of a period and a monument arguably among the most remarkable in the Christendom of the last three and a half centuries."401 The book sold well, running into a third edition in 1892, but most of Church's books did that well, so there was nothing exceptional there. A comparison to four other books written by members of the Church of England, published within three years of Church's book and dealing with similar topics, George Prevost's edition of the

Autobiography ofIsaac Williams (1891), Richard Holt Hutton's Cardinal Newman (1891), H.P. Liddon's four- volume Life ofEdward Bouverie Pusey (1893-1897) and Walter

Lock's John Keble: A Biography (1893), shows that in terms of sales Church's book sat

399 Richard William Church, The Oxford Movement: Twelve Years, 1833-1845, 268. 400John Henry Overton, The Anglican Revival, 200. 401 Church 'Personal and Family Papers:' MS. Eng. C. 6785 fols. 31-86, Gladstone to Mrs. Church, Apr. 6, 1891. right in the middle. Liddon's biography, which ran into a fourth edition in 1894, and Lock's biography, which went into an eighth edition in 1895, both went through more

editions in their first two years of publication. The number of editions does not say anything about absolute sales, but it gives a general indication of demand. In the case of these five volumes only Lock's biography of Keble seemed immediately set to become a

classic, although in the long term this proved not to be the case and only Hutton's and Church's books, both focusing on Newman, would receive further reissues and new editions in the twentieth century. Church's book was generally well received in the High Church press, but there was

dissent from Meyrick's Foreign Church Chronicle and Review which continued to urge its subscribers to read Burgon's Lives ofTwelve Good Men and added that William Palmer's Narrative ofEvents should be read alongside Church's book to avoid a distorted picture.

The reviewer complained: It has been too much the habit to indulge in fancy pictures of the degraded state of the Church at the beginning of the century in order to heighten the effect of the change wrought by the Tractarian movement. To disprove these exaggerations it is only necessary to mention the names of Heber, Lloyd, Knox, Jebb, Van Mildert, Howley, Wordsworth, Norris, Routh, Kaye, Watson, all of them living at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century and to them many more names might easily be added.403 The reviewer stated that the Tractsfor the Times would never have been successful in the first place had it not been for the country connections of William Palmer of Worcester and

402 Isaac Williams, Autobiography ofIsaac Williams, edited by George Prévost (London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1892); Richard Holt Hutton, Cardinal Newman (London: Methuen and CO., 1891); Hugh Perry Liddon, Life ofEdward Bouverie Pusey, 4 vols., edited and prepared for publication by J.O. Johnston and Robert J. Wilson (London: Longmans, Green, 1893-1897); Walter Lock, John Keble: A Biography (London: Methuen & Co., 1893). Richard Holt Hutton (1826-1897): University College, London: professor of mathematics, Bedford College, London (1856-1857). Walter Lock (1846-1933): Corpus Christi College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1872, priest in 1873; canon of Christ Church, Oxford (1895-1919); Dean Ireland's professor of exegesis of Holy Scripture (1895-1919); Lady Margaret professor of divinity (1919- 1927). Prévost, Sir George (1804-1893): Oriel College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1828, priest in 1829. 403 Oxford Movement: First Twelve Years,' Foreign Church Chronicle and Review, vol. XV, no. 58, June 1, 1891,68. the system of distributing the tracts which he implemented. The reviewer noted that Palmer and many of these other High Churchmen who had initially supported the Tractarians soon turned against them because of their dishonesty and that Newman in particular had a

"power" which he used to perform "some conjuring trick" to twist the meaning of the 39 Articles.404 In the High Church press the review was an exception. It is not surprising that the review in the Guardian was effusive in its praise of Church, stating, "It would be easy to count up his unique assemblage of great gifts, indicating his fitness by natural selection

to be the historian of the Oxford Movement." In addition to this evolutionary metaphor, metaphors of cabinet positions were adopted to push dissenting figures such as Rose, Palmer of Worcester, Isaac Williams, Churton405 and Hook into the role of "subordinates," as Keble, Froude and Newman, "the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the War minister and the Commander-in-chief laid their plans." Whereas in December of 1 890 the editor of

Church Times stated that "the word 'Tractarian' applied to a particular phase of the movement," in the review of Church's book in March of 1891 the reviewer described the Tractarian movement as the beginning of the Catholic movement.407 Outside of the High Church press, the Church Quarterly Review applauded the book and after an overview of recently published material related to the subject, including books that were critical of the Tractarians (such as those by Burgon, Palmer and Arthur Philip Percival), determined that

Church's book taken alongside ofNewman's autobiographical Apologia, Thomas Mozley's Reminiscences (2 vols., 1882) and the sketch dealing with the Tractarians in J.A. Froude's

Short Studies proved that the Tractarians were not part of an earlier High Church revival:

404 Ibid., 70-72. 405 Edward Churton (1800-1874): Christ Church College, Oxford. 406 Guardian, vol. XLVI, no. 2363, March 18, 1891, 435-436. 407 The Oxford Movement: Twelve Years, 1833-1845,' Church Times, vol. XXIX, no. 1469, March 20, 1891, 291-292. 126 The first thing that strikes us is that they confirm the old impression that the Oxford Movement was the Oxford Movement - not, as it is becoming fashionable to say, a movement originating somewhere else and from other men than the three or four great Oxonians who until late years have always had the credit, and still more the discredit of having started it. Of course, in every movement there are predisposing causes.. . . But ifyou begin tracing back such a movement to those who were, at most, its pioneers, you may never know where to stop. You may trace back and back, and show at last that the world rests on the back of the tortoise: but the question still remains, on what does the tortoise rest?408

The reviewer then proceeded to turn the argument of hostile reviewers like Meyrick in upon itself. He went on to list an even longer genealogy of faithful Churchmen who immediately preceded and therefore could have been portrayed as the originators of the revival instead of the writers of the Tractsfor the Times. For added effect, the reviewer also added the number of people represented by the signatures on the petitions addressed to Archbishop Howley in 1833 (7,000 clergy and 230,000 heads of households). His argument was that clearly there was a problem at the time of constitutional reform in the 1830s or else these petitions would not have circulated in the first place. The Tractarians presented a strategy to rally the Church in that period, that of writing short punchy tracts, but had received much opprobrium because the Church was not ready at that time for such boldness. Since then the Tractarian message had been vindicated, and their strategy proven a success, so the Tractarians clearly deserved approbation in the present, and the historical record needed to be set straight. Church's book received scant notice outside the Church of England press. It is surprising that the Oxford Magazine did not review this book since High Church publications were generally reviewed here and, in fact, both Church's Village Sermons and Cathedral and University Sermons were favorably reviewed soon after the publication of

408 'Oxford Movement: Twelve Years, 1833-1845,' Church Quarterly Review, vol. XXXII, no. 63, Apr. 1891, 321-322. 127 Church's Oxford Movement?09 The Cambridge Review praised the book, but expressed concerns about Church's impartiality. The reviewer thought that Church's tone was "severe" towards those who disagreed with the Tractarians and towards those who had played a role in the rupture of 1845.410 Curiously, in the review of Walter Lock's biography of Keble in the Cambridge Review just over a year later, Lock's book was compared unfavorably to Church's. Church's book was described in this later review as the best book on the subject and the attribution of partiality from the earlier review was ignored.411 We have already seen that Overton's Anglican Revival took exception with certain points in Church's work, but even books written by individuals linked to the Tractarians did not provide a uniform account, varying significantly on important points from one another as well as Church. Liddon's research for his biography of Pusey was certainly carried out long before the publication of Church's book, but there is no reason to believe that had he seen Church's book he would have changed his opinion that Keble and Newman were the originators of the Tractarian movement and acted as equal leaders.412 Both Lock's biography of Keble and Prevost's edition of Williams' autobiography argued that Keble was the real leader of the Tractarians, not Newman. Even here there was disagreement as

Williams argued that there was a thriving High Church movement in the parishes of the countryside, of which Bisley was prominent for himself personally and not necessarily exceptional. The need for revival was prominent in Oxford where "German rationalism" seeped into the University through Oriel College. Williams blamed Newman's move to the

Catholic Church on the combination of German rationalism with an imperfect knowledge

409 'Village Sermons,' Oxford Magazine, vol. II, no. 2, Oct. 26, 1892, 30; 'Cathedral and University Sermons,' Oxford Magazine, Vol. 12, May 16 supplement [not numbered], 1893-94, 12. 410 'Paper Knife: Dean Church's Oxford Movement,' Cambridge Review, Vol. XIII, no. 324, supplement, Feb. 25, 1892, Hx. 411 'John Keble: A Biography,' Cambridge Review, vol. XIV, no. 353, Apr. 27, 1893, 301-302. 412 Hugh Perry Liddon, Life ofEdward Bouverie Pusey, volume I, 270-271. of traditional High Church principles. The movement was successful with those individuals at Oxford who had been raised on High Church principles before entering the

University, and who had then, like Williams himself, come under the influence of Keble while at the University.414 Williams rejected the idea that Newman had left the Church of England because of persecution, arguing instead that there was something wrong with Newman's mind that made him oversensitive to even moderate criticism.415 Lock, on the other hand, oscillated between describing an active and effective High Church tradition in the countryside as well as London before the rise of the Tractarians, and the more frequent

refrain that High Church principles had been neglected during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.416 In general, Lock described Keble's father as a more or less solitary figure who transferred his principles to his sons John and Thomas,417 who in turn transferred those principles to the Tractarians at Oxford.418 Williams described a similar transferrai from Bisley to Oxford, but in the case ofNewman he added a psychological

component stating that Newman had a tendency to unconsciously copy what he saw Williams and the two Keble brothers doing without fully understanding the principles involved.419 In chapter eleven of Liddon's biography of Pusey, Liddon eagerly linked the Tractarians to the earlier careers of High Churchmen such as Jones of Nayland, Sikes, Norris and Joshua Watson: "As Pusey said shortly before his own death, these men 'must have prepared the ground for the Tracts. The Tracts found an echo everywhere.'"420 Liddon's use of the word revival is primarily confined to chapter eleven and his scheme of 413 Isaac Williams, Autobiography ofIsaac Williams, edited by George Prévost, 45-46. 4,4 Ibid., 120. 415 Ibid., 104. 416 Walter Lock, John Keble: A Biography, 20-76, 81-85. 417 Thomas Keble (1793-1875): Corpus Christi College, Oxford; Instituted to the living of Bisley in 1827, Thomas Keble along with Isaac Williams, George Prévost and Robert Gregory have been dubbed the Bisley School and followed a relatively independent and less confrontational line than the Oxford Movement. 418Walter Lock, John Keble: A Biography, 1-19. 419 Isaac Williams, Autobiography ofIsaac Williams, edited by George Prévost, 50, 77-78. 420 Hugh Perry Liddon, Life ofEdward Bouverte Pusey, volume I, 256-259. revivals is very similar to Overton's portrayal in the Evangelical Revival as he states that there was an imperfect Evangelical revival in the eighteenth century, and then a general

Church revival starting in the 1830s of which the Tractarians were but a part along with other High Churchmen who completed the revival.421 The difference between the Tractarians and other High Churchmen was simply one of choice of strategy in defending the Church of England from a specific set of erastian efforts instigated by the state in the 1830s.422 At no point in the book did Liddon employ metaphors of sleep or lethargy to describe the Church of England in the eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries. High Church activities were portrayed as vigorous, robust and successful. Terms like "old High

Church" were eschewed by Liddon in favor of terms like "High Church" and "Anglican." The suspicion that the Tractarians and other High Churchmen had for one another was minimized in certain cases and more generally simply ignored.423 When Liddon portrayed crises, he laid the blame squarely on erastians, Dissenters, Romanists, Liberals and the one- sidedness of Evangelicals (often described as "Puritans").424 Episcopal condemnation of Tract 90 was masterfully handled by Liddon. Unlike Church, he side-stepped criticizing the bishops for their actions by stating that they merely wanted to keep the peace in the face of rancorous "Latitudinarians" and "Protestants". By focusing on the relatively benign language of Bishop Bagot, of Oxford, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Liddon gave the

421 Ibid., 54-55. 422 Ibid., 266-271 423 The most important case, and one where Liddon bordered on distortion, was over Tract 90 where Liddon portrayed the tract as uniting High Churchmen. As we have seen in almost all of these other books, many High Churchmen were highly critical of this tract and utterly abandoned the Tractarians after the publication. See, Hugh Perry Liddon, Life ofEdward Bouverie Pusey, volume II, 204-216. For a thorough discussion of the criticism of Tract 90 by High Churchmen see, Frank Turner, John Henry Newman: The Challenge to Evangelical Religion, 439-446. 424 Hugh Perry Liddon, Life ofEdward Bouverie Pusey, volume II, 1-4, 122-123, 155-156, 167-178, 216-217. 130 impression that only some bishops were unhappy with this tract and that others tended to fall in line to keep episcopal solidarity. The books we have looked at in this chapter so far do not present either a coherent

history of the Tractarian movement or of the history of the Church of England in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Although not a novelty by the 1890s, general histories of the Church of England were few and far between throughout the nineteenth century. As general histories began to increase in number by the end of the century, a coherent narration

of the history of the Church of England and the place of the Tractarians within that history began to emerge.426 Before the 1890s, only Perry's History ofthe English Church (three volumes, 1881-1887) had achieved both critical success amongst historians as well as a

stable number of sales, while providing a detailed narrative overview of the Church of England from the earliest period when Christianity was brought to England down to the

historian's own present. In the 1890s, publishers began to experiment with new formats for presenting the history of the Church of England as well as trying to retool past formats. Gee and Hardy's ground-breaking collection of primary documents, Documents Illustrative of

English Church History (1896), was compiled with the help of Stubbs, Bright and Perry. It

425 Ibid., 230-240, 279. At one point in his discussion of the bishops, Liddon went so far as to imply that the only reason the bishops were even taken seriously at all on this issue was because of the success of the Tractarians in advocating the divine authority of the bishops: "The Bishops may or may not have been alive to the higher value which was assigned to their words now that Divine authority had been more fully asserted on behalf of their office." 426 Even the earlier general histories published during the nineteenth century were still published relatively late in the century after the establishment of the school of Modern History at Oxford. With the exception of G.G. Perry's groundbreaking History ofthe Church ofEnglandfrom the Death ofElizabeth to the Present Time (1861-1864), S.R. Pattison's The Rise and Progress ofReligious Life in England (London: Jackson, Walford and Hodder, 1864), and E.L. Cutts, Turning Points ofEnglish Church History (1874), the few earlier general histories were published in the 1880s; furthermore, even some of these, like Perry's work in the 1 860s, left out the earlier medieval period and so are not truly general histories in the sense of the works published in the 1890s. For precursors to the general histories of the 1890s, all of which were also written by High Church writers, see A.H. Hore, Eighteen Centuries ofthe Church in England (London: Parker & Co., 1881); W.N. Molesworth, History ofthe Church ofEnglandfrom 1660 (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1 882); Arthur Charles Jennings, Ecclesia Anglicana: A History ofthe Church ofChrist in Englandfrom the Earliest Times to the Present (London: Rivingtons, 1882); A.H. Hore, The Church in Englandfrom William III. toVictoria., 2 volumes (London: Parker & Co., 1886); Charles Arthur Lane, Illustrated Notes on English Church History, 2 volumes (London: SPCK, 1886). 131 was critically well received and had a wide circulation going into many editions and reprints up to the first half of the twentieth century.427 In 1895, critics in the Church press were pleasantly scandalized when Swann Sonnenschein produced an English translation of Makower's Constitutional History and Constitution ofthe English Church. It was viewed as an embarrassment that no one in England had bothered to write such a book, but it was happily received as a counterpart to Stubbs' Constitutional History? The Macmillan publishing firm tried to revisit the partial success of their collections of classic English divines published for the Clarendon Press when Alexander Macmillan was appointed as publisher from 1863 to 1880. 430 This new effort was named the English Theological Library. Frederic Relton was the editor and he and Macmillan signed on historians who were members of the Church of England to edit volumes by classic post- Reformation English divines. The volumes began to appear in 1898 but sales were mediocre and the project wound up in 1902 with only Wilson, Law, Hooker, Butler and Laud completed. ' The primary success for publishers in selling books touching upon the subject of the Church of England was in the genre of the general history. These general histories of the Church of England started from pre-Roman times, or more often from the period of the 427 Henry Gee and William John Hardy, Documents Illustrative ofEnglish Church History (London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1896). The only complaint that reviewers had about this collection was that it should have had even more material in it, but they understood that this would have made the book unwieldy. See, 'Documents Illustrative of English Church History,' Church Times, vol. XXXVI, no. 1761, Oct. 23, 1896, 437; 'Documents Illustrative of English Church History,' The Churchman, vol. XI, New Series (206), Nov. 1896,99. 428 Felix Makower, Constitutional History and Constitution ofthe English Church (London: Swann Sonnenschein & Co. Ltd., 1895). 429 'The Constitutional History and Constitution of the Church of England,' Church Times, vol. 36, no. 1751, Aug. 14, 1896, 163. 430 In a letter to Gladstone in 1865, Alexander Macmillan stated that these Clarendon Press collections had sold well when the Tractarians were active. See, Gladstone Papers, Alexander Macmillan to Gladstone, Vol. CLXI, 44246, ff. 1-2. This assessment was only partially correct as some sold modestly and others, such as the works of Simon Patrick, suffered dismal sales. See, Peter Sutcliffe, The Oxford University Press: An Informal History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 10-11. 431 Macmillan even tried slashing the prices, but the books still did not sell. Relton to Macmillan, 8 August, 1903, Macmillan Archive, Vol. CCCXXX, 551 152, 121. Anglo-Saxon migrations, and traced the history of the Church of England up to the present thus proving the Church's continuity and pedigree as the nation's oldest institution, somehow in existence as an English institution before there even was an English "race" and certainly before there was an English state. A number of publishers stepped up to fill a void

which neither Perry's books, nor his one real contender in the genre, A.H. Hore, could fill. These general histories of the Church of England were published in a variety of formats. There were the cheap penny histories written by Nye and Jessopp that were advertised as "for the millions." These never reached their grandiose target, at least in number of sales,

although the total sales ofNye's two largest publications reached an impressive number, approximately 460,000 copies sold between 1891 and 1897.432 The success of inexpensive but lavishly illustrated histories, or pioneering histories making use of photography, such as Spence-Jones' The Church ofEngland, Nye's Our Island Home, Bishop Boyd Carpenter's433 Popular History ofthe Church ofEngland, as well as the consistent reissue ofLane's books intended for adult education, showed that this format embracing new

visual technology was a safe bet for publishers and worked well for presenting the history of the Church of England, particularly in its Catholic aspects.434 This new technology allowed historians of the Church of England to represent pictorially the continuity of the Church of England throughout the centuries, as well as the intimate connection between the

Church of England and the English people. There was one primer for schools, H.O.

432 G.H.F. Nye, The Story ofthe Church ofEngland: Showing its Birth, its Progress and its Workfor the People (London: Griffith, Farran, Okeden &Welsh, 1891); G.H.F. Nye, The Church and Her Story: In Three Parts (London: Simkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent, & Co., 1894); G.H.F. Nye, Our Island Home (London: Bemrose & Sons, Ltd., 1897); Augustus Jessopp, Penny History ofthe Church ofEngland (London: SPCK, 1902). For statistics on the sales ofNye's books see Church Times, vol. 39, no. 1833, March 11, 1898, 277; also the frontispiece of the 1894 edition of The Church and Her Story. 433 William Boyd Carpenter (1841-1918): St. Catharine's College, Cambridge; Bishop of Ripon (1884-1914). 434 Originally published in 1886, Lane's Illustrated Notes was reissued three times, in 1892, 1895 and 1904, selling over 200,000 copies in total; William Boyd Carpenter, A Popular History ofthe Church ofEngland, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day (London: John Murray, 1900); H.D.M. Spence-Jones, The Church ofEngland: A Historyfor the People, four volumes (London: Cassell and Company Limited, 1896-1898). Wakeman's The History ofReligion in England, written for Louise Creighton's series Highways of History.435 This primer was reissued in 1890 and 1898. Surprisingly, there was only one series. Macmillans entered the field late with the eight- volume series The History of the English Church, edited by W.R.W. Stephens and William Hunt. In addition to Stephens and Hunt, the authors of this series comprised an all-star cast of prolific High Church historians including, James Gairdner, Walter Frere, W.W. Capes, Frances Warre

Cornish, W.H. Hutton and John Henry Overton (Overton died while writing his volume which was completed by Frederic Relton).436 The most frequent format was the one- or two- volume general history written by a single historian and usually running to about five hundred pages per volume.437 This market became crowded and a few books were quickly remaindered. In general, though, the market proved quite resilient, the English reading public was interested

in these books enough to buy them, the Church of England press eagerly received them, and so with the exception of Overton all of these books were reissued at least once. With

the exception of Macmillan's History of the English Church, these books were concise overviews that claimed to explain how the Church of England got to be where it was in the

H. O. Wakeman, The History ofReligion in England (Longmans, Green, & Co., 1885). 436 William Hunt, The English Churchfrom its Foundation to the Norman Conquest (London: Macmillan, 1899); W.W. Capes, The English Church in thefourteenth andfifteenth centuries (London: Macmillan, 1900); W.R.W. Stephens, The English Churchfrom the Norman Conquest to the Accession ofEdward I, 1066-1272 (London: Macmillan, 1901); James Gairdner, The English Church in the Sixteenth Centuryfrom the Accession ofHenry VIII to the Death ofMary (London: Macmillan, 1902); William Holden Hutton, The English Churchfrom the Accession of Charles I to the Death ofAnne, 1625-1714 (London: Macmillan, 1903); Walter Frere, The English Church in the Reigns ofElizabeth andJames I, 1558-1625 (London: Macmillan, 1904); John Henry Overton and Frederick Relton, The English Church from the Accession of George I to the end ofthe Eighteenth Century, 1 714-1800 (London: Macmillan, 1 906); Francis Warre Cornish, The English Church in the Nineteenth Century, 2 volumes (London: Macmillan, 1910). 437 E.L. Cutts, A Handy Book ofthe Church ofEngland (London: SPCK, 1 892); A.H. Hore, History ofthe Church ofEnglandfor Schools and Families, New Edition (London: James Parker & Co., 1895); H.O. Wakeman, Introduction to the History ofthe Church ofEnglandfrom the Earliest Times to the Present Day (London: Rivingtons, 1896); John Henry Overton, The Church in England, 2 volumes (London: Gardner, Darton, 1 897); William Holden Hutton, An Elementary History ofthe Church in Great Britain (London: Rivingtons, 1 899); William Holden Hutton, A Short History ofthe Church in Great Britain (London: Rivingtons, 1900); H.D.M. Spence-Jones, A History of the English Church (London: J.M. Dent & Co., 1901). 134

present by focusing on the most important developments without burdening the reader with minuscule facts, details and historiographical arguments. That the cheaper and smaller penny histories and illustrated histories adopted this approach is not surprising given their

strict limitations on space, but even the larger books written by Oxford and Cambridge trained historians, such as H.O. Wakeman, fellow of All Souls, Oxford, frankly admitted to guiding the reader to the salient points of the history of the Church of England:

My object has therefore been to draw a picture of the development of the Church of England rather than to detail her history, to explain rather than to chronicle - in fact, to give an answer, in a short and convenient form, to the question so often asked, How is it that the Church of England came to be what she is?

The concern was for the well being of the reader, for whom Wakeman wanted to "avoid

burdening his memory with facts and details which, though often very important and interesting of themselves, have not had a lasting influence upon her fortunes." W.H.

Hutton, fellow of St. John's, Oxford, wrote apologetically in the preface of one general history about the problem of "compression" which required that he exclude much that readers might find important, and include much that readers might wish omitted.4 These general histories on the Church of England achieved the balance that Leslie Howsam has shown was crucial to the success of creating a market for books on history that were historiographically accurate, books that readers could trust as true and impartial history, and yet also engage the reader without going over his or her head. In these general histories the historian determined what was important enough to be included in the grand narrative,

and excluded what was determined to be inconsequential.

438 H.O. Wakeman, Introduction to the History ofthe Church ofEnglandfrom the Earliest Times to the Present Day, revised, with an additional chapter by S.L. Ollard (London: Rivingtons, 1955), vii. 439 William Holden Hutton, A Short History ofthe Church in Great Britain, v. 440 Leslie Howsam, 'Academic Discipline or Literary Genre?': The Establishment of Boundaries in Historical Writing,' 540-541. 135

The most stunning aspect of these general histories is that, with the one exception of

Boyd Carpenter's Popular History, they were all written by High Church writers. With the exception of E.L. Cutts' A Handy Book ofthe Church of England all of the High Church histories provided the reader with a fairly uniform narration of the history of the Church of England from the eighteenth century to the cusp of the twentieth, in which the rise of the

Tractarians was historically necessary to rejuvenate the spiritual side of the Church of England after a somnolent, latitudinarian, moral but dry eighteenth century, in which the Church relied too much on the state. Some of these authors disagreed in their evaluation of the place of Wesley or of the Evangelical movement within the Church of England. For some there was an "Evangelical Revival," for others there was only an "Evangelical movement." While all agreed that Methodists were disloyal for disobeying their founder's wishes that they not leave the Church, some of these historians nevertheless lay the blame at Wesley's feet. All agreed that the Tractarians were the key to the present.441 In these general histories the historian always portrayed the earlier old-High Churchmen as pioneers paving the way for the eventual Tractarian triumph. Those High Churchmen who had initially supported the Tractarians, but became critical afterwards (Rose, Palmer, Perceval

441 A.H. Hore, Eighteen Centuries ofthe Church in England, 526-527, 531-533, 551-577; W.N. Molesworth, History ofthe Church ofEnglandfrom 1660, 296-301, 317-322; Arthur Charles Jennings, Ecclesia Anglicana: A History ofthe Church ofChrist in Englandfrom the Earliest Times to the Present, 462-465, 468-477; H. O. Wakeman, The History ofReligion in England, 101-122; A.H. Hore, The Church in England from William III. to Victoria., volume 2, 35-75, 107-1 16, 252-305; Charles Arthur Lane, Illustrated Notes on English Church History, volume 2, 494-497, 528-529; G.H.F. Nye, The Story ofthe Church ofEngland: Showing its Birth, its Progress and its Workfor the People, 50-53; G.H.F. Nye, The Church and Her Story: In Three Parts, 170-176; A.H. Hore, History ofthe Church ofEnglandfor Schools and Families, New Edition, 435-436, 463-466, 476-488; H.O. Wakeman, Introduction to the History ofthe Church ofEnglandfrom the Earliest Times to the Present Day (London: Rivingtons, 1896), 434-439, 443-446, 448-451, 456-470; G.H.F. Nye, Our Island Home, 228-236; John Henry Overton, The Church inEngland, volume 2, 230-231, 283-301, 315-336, 420-422; H.D.M. Spence-Jones, The Church ofEngland: A Historyfor the People, volume four, 280-282, 286-298, 320-367, 450-45 1 ; William Holden Hutton, An Elementary History ofthe Church in Great Britain, 76-89; William Holden Hutton, A Short History ofthe Church in Great Britain, 238-247, 260-264, 268-272; H.D.M. Spence-Jones, A History ofthe English Church, 214-237; Augustus Jessopp, Penny History ofthe Church ofEngland, 71-81; John Henry Overton and Frederick Relton, The English Churchfrom the Accession ofGeorge I to the end ofthe Eighteenth Century, 1714-1800, 66, 206, 251-256; Cutts, Edward Lewes, Turning Points ofEnglish Church History, 304-307; Francis Warre Cornish, The English Church in the Nineteenth Century, volume 1, 4-5, 7, 67-72, 221, 231-274 136 and Hook), were always portrayed in the general histories as Tractarians. Some of the Tractarians, such as Newman, left the Church for Rome. This was always portrayed in these general histories as a sad but good thing, cleansing the Church to continue its march towards the restored present and a future that could only be brighter still, as long as these old principles were to be maintained, and the pitfalls of disestablishment avoided. Martin Wellings has stated in passing: "One of the strengths of Anglo-Catholicism was that it possessed an historical apologetic which enabled it to claim to represent the true teaching of the Church of England."442 Wellings cites Wakeman and Percy Dearmer specifically. This might be an adequate summation of Dearmer's career, although even here Dearmer was not particularly noted for conducting historical research in the 1 890s if ever.443 In the case of Wakeman specifically, and in the broader case of these general histories, Wellings has failed to take note of this larger High Church historiography which included episcopally sanctioned groups such as the Church Historical Society and publications such as the series of Oxford Church Text Books. To call these writers Anglo-Catholics is an oversimplification. All of them discuss High Churchmen within the Church of England, but none use the term "Anglo-Catholic." They understood their position to be the normative High Church position with an unbroken continuity stretching back lineally to 597. There is no one clear source for this uniform pattern in the general histories. Certain usual suspects were cited, both primary and secondary, so it is possible to draw a partial list of the writers who influenced the authors of these general histories, but the authors rarely 442 Martin Wellings, Evangelicals Embattled: Responses ofEvangelicals in the Church ofEngland to Ritualism, Darwinism and Theological Liberalism, 1890-1930, 82-83. 443 Dearmer's only historical works until his Everyman 's History ofthe English Church, published in 1928, were books written for tourists to the cathedrals at Wells and at Oxford for Bell's Cathedral Series. See, Percy Dearmer, The Cathedral Church ofOxford, a Description ofits Fabric and a BriefHistory ofthe Episcopal See, (London: Bell, 1897); Percy Dearmer, The Cathedral Church of Wells: A Description ofits Fabric anda BriefHistory ofthe Episcopal See, (London: Bell, 1898); Percy Dearmer, Everyman 's History ofthe English Church, New ed., (Milwaukee: Morehouse, 1928). In general, Dearmer's publications were studies of liturgy, ceremonial, art and architecture. Given the late date of publication for his Everyman 's History it is more likely the case that his book upheld the earlier High Church historiography rather than acting in any formative sense. 137

provided bibliographies or even moderate notes or citations. One certain influence as a template, although certainly not for content, was J.R. Green's radical new organizational device of periodization in his Short History ofthe English Peopled Although a good friend ofboth Freeman and Stubbs, Green only fits into this High Church nexus of historians because of the massive impact of this highly successful book.445 Green's most innovative step was to reject the organizational method of dividing the history of England according to the reigns of the English monarchy. With the exception of Macmillan' s series, this division according to monarchs was normally rejected by the authors who wrote these

general histories on the Church of England. Revivals and religious movements were more important than monarchs, and because the various revivals cut across the reigns of individual monarchs, periodization was a perfect organizational pattern for these general

histories. When monarchs were alluded to in an organizational sense they were, as was the case in Green's work, usually relegated to subsections within a larger chapter. For the

medieval period up to the Reformation the clear favorites were J.A. Giles (for his collections of documents on early British history as well as his translation of Bede), and Stubbs, Haddan, Hook, Freeman, CH. Pearson and Bright who were all drawn upon for general and constitutional material for this earlier period.446 Church's book on Anselm was a popular source for that popular saint. For the Reformation period JJ. Blunt, J.S. Brewer, James Gairdner and J.A. Froude were drawn upon frequently. John Foxe was used

extensively for source material, although these High Church general histories were as likely to criticize this source as to use it productively. Daniel Neal's History ofthe Puritans (4

444 J.R. Green, A Short History ofthe English People, (London: Macmillan, 1 874). 445 Green's Short History was the second highest selling history published in the nineteenth century, only Macaulay's History ofEnglandfrom the Accession ofJames 7/(1855-61) outsold it. 446 John Allen Giles (1808-1884): Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Charles Henry Pearson (1830-1894): Oriel College, Oxford; fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge; profess of modem history, King's College, London (1 855-1 865); The Early and Middle Ages ofEngland (1 861). vols., 1732-1738) was a favorite. They were aware that this book was intended as a call for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts in his own time, but since they found these penal laws embarrassing themselves, they applauded the book. Various publications of Francis Aidan Gasquet were well received by these historians, in stark contrast to the belligerent treatment later proffered by G.G. Coulton.447 For the seventeenth century, S.R. Gardiner was a clear favorite.448 Thomas Fuller's Church History ofBritain (1655) was a favorite primary source for the period. For the eighteenth century Perry, Overton and

Abbey were prominent sources. The writings of various eighteenth-century authors were drawn upon to show anecdotally how somnolent the eighteenth century was, but there were no clear favorites. For the Tractarian revival, Palmer's Narrative ofEvents and Percival's

Collection ofPapers were popular, although their criticism of the Tractarians was usually muted.449 Frank Turner has noted that Newman's autobiography, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, played a major role in shaping the historiography on the Tractarians, and these general histories support that thesis as this is a commonly cited source. 5 Series of edited primary materials such as those contained in the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology as well as the

Surtees Society were used frequently. Strange bed-fellows such as Jeremy Collier's

447 Francis Aidan Gasquet (1846-1929): Trained in ecclesiastical history at the Belmont Priory, Herefore; Henry VIII and the English Monastaries (2 vols., 1 888- 1 889) and Edward VI and the Book ofCommon Prayer (1890). George Gordon Coulton (1858-1947): St. Catharine's College, Cambridge; The Medieval Village (1925). 448 High Churchmen read Gardiner as critical of Puritanism and Cromwell and happily, but incorrectly, pointed out that his measured judgments were from one who was not a member of the Church of England. Overton linked Gardiner's work with that of the Oxford Movement as deciding historiographically for the Royalist side over that of the Cromwellian. See, John Henry Overton, The Church in England, vol. II, 83 n. 1 . 449 William Palmer, A Narrative ofEvents Connected with the Publication ofthe Tractsfor the Times: With Reflections on Existing Tendencies to Romanism, and on the Present Duties and Prospects ofMembers ofthe Church (Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1843); A.P. Perceval, A Collection ofPapers Connected with the Theological Movement of1833 (London: J.G.F. & J. Rivington, 1843). 450 Frank Turner, John Henry Newman: The Challenge to Evangelical Religion, 22-23. John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua: Being a Reply to a Pamphlet Entitled 'What, then, does Dr. Newman Mean? ', (London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts and Green, 1864). 139

Ecclesiastical History ofGreat Britain (2 vols., 1708 and 1714) and the works of Gilbert Burnet (1643-1715) fulfilled a dual function both as primary and secondary sources.

Although most of these general histories found a place in the market, not all were equal. Some books sold well only in niche markets, but one book rose above all of the others and grabbed the popular market. This was Wakeman's Introduction to the History of the Church ofEngland. First published in 1896 by Rivingtons, it was a surprise hit for its publisher, running to a third edition before the year was out and a total of five editions by the end of 1897. It is unclear when exactly Septimus Rivington approached Wakeman to write the book, but Wakeman began writing no later than March of 1893 in St. Moritz while recuperating from tuberculosis which plagued him throughout his life and from which he finally succumbed in 1899.451 Rivington imagined the book as a textbook for higher forms in schools and colleges, and marketed it as such, but in retrospect believed that the book had its greatest success amongst general readers and theological students outside the theological colleges.452 Given the high volume of sales, Rivington was certainly correct on the first score. While it is impossible to tell whether or not theological students specifically outside the theological colleges were buying the book in large quantities, it does appear that authorities within the theological colleges themselves would have been wary of appearing to endorse the eucharistie theology described by Wakeman as the historically valid interpretation of the medieval practice of the Church of England. Rivington's assumption that the theological colleges were avoiding the book because of its content is born out when we consider one difficulty that Macmillan and the editor Hunt

451 Anson Papers, Wakeman to Anson, 10 March, 1893. 452 Rivington, Septimus, The Publishing Family ofRivington (London: Rivingtons, 1919), 171-172. 453 Wakeman did not claim that Transubstantiation was the proper Eucharistie theology of the Church of England, but he did argue that it was the historically valid interpretation of the medieval understanding within the Church of England. See, H.O. Wakeman, An Introduction to the History ofthe Church ofEngland, 275- 278. 140 went through in the publication of their own series of general histories. Macmillan had intended his series to be for a popular audience, but it had not sold well in this market from the very beginning.454 They found that the series was selling well in the theological colleges, and at Cambridge and Oxford where theology students recommended the series to the tutors. The problem centered upon Walter Frere's volume of the series on the age of Elizabeth and James I. Frere was a Companion of the Community of the Resurrection. Stephens as the first editor was comfortable with this, but when Hunt took over after

Stephens' death, he worried that Frere might "give offence to people of less 'high' views than he holds."455 Secretly, Stephens and Hunt had earlier implemented a system to monitor and critique Frere's work to ensure that no offenses seeped through.45 Just before the work was set for its final proof, an issue arose that Hunt and Macmillan thought was important enough to delay printing Frere's book by five months. Frere wanted to put some indication of his relationship to the Community of the Resurrection on the title-page of the book. Hunt wrote to Macmillan horrified: "The theological colleges know that they are jealously watched by the Low Church party, and I cannot think that such colleges as Wells and the like, will adopt a book that declares itself to proceed from a 'community,' or that the Bishops will in any way countenance it, for they regard these 'communities' with suspicion." Hunt was particularly upset because Stephens had brought Frere on to the project with the stipulation that he not mention his Companionship in the volume. Aside from this issue, Hunt's letter went on to praise Frere's historical scholarship: "The volume is extremely valuable - the most valuable we have had, and this is not my opinion only but

454 By October of 1900, the first impression of Hunt's volume had still not sold out. Macmillan Archive, CCXCV, 550801, Hunt to Macmillan, Oct. 30, 1900. 455 Macmillan Archive, CCXCV 550801, Hunt to Macmillan, March 20, 1904. 456 To perfect the plan, they also monitored and critiqued Gairdner, whom they completely trusted, and sent the slips along to Frere, so that he would not feel like he was the only one being monitored. See, Macmillan Archive, CCXCV. 550801, Hunt to Macmillan, Nov. 29, 1899. also that of Prof. Firth, who is with me here, and has looked at a few of the sheets.' Unlike most of the writers in this series who either recycled their older research or used readily accessible material from printed sources, Frere had undertaken a large amount of original research uncovering hitherto unused sources. Praise from Hunt and Charles Harding Firth (1857-1936) was praise from the soon to be president of the Royal Historical Society as well as the just appointed Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, respectively; however, Hunt, Macmillan and even Frere realized that in spite of historiographical excellence, authors, editors and publishers needed to be wary of external authorities who could potentially upset their targeted audience.458 In this environment, a book like Wakeman's was not allowed to reach the audience that Rivington had intended it for, at least not directly, as the colleges were still perceived to be partisan battle-grounds where one party might gain an upper hand over the other. In the case of Macmillan's volume on the nineteenth century, Francis Warre Cornish was chosen after Hunt "wrote very fully and frankly to him with inference to the line which I thought the book should follow both as regards ritualism and the so-called liberal movement."459 Hunt and Macmillan wanted to be fair to the various groups active throughout the nineteenth century, but they also wanted to ensure that they delivered a safe interpretation calculated to minimize the chances ofupsetting any particular group whose antagonism might jeopardize the sales of the volumes in the series.

457 Macmillan Archive, CCXCV 550801, Hunt to Macmillan, July 26,1904. 458 In this case, Frere backed down, and the first edition of the book does not list his relationship to the Community of the Resurrection. Subsequent editions do, however, list his Companionship. Frere's final product was a complete success which delighted Hunt. See, Frere Papers: Mirfield 1.1. Historical Papers. 1. Interleaved and annotated copy of The English Church in the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I, by W.H. Frere (1904), with a few items of correspondence, Hunt to Frere, Jan. 29, 1905; Macmillan Archive, CCXCV, 550801, Hunt to Macmillan, (ND). 459 Macmillan Archive, CCXCV, 550801, Hunt to Macmillan, March 12, 1903. 460 Throughout the nineteenth century the Macmillans had supported Maurice and his circle but were friendly to High Church authors; see Charles Morgan, The House ofMacmillan, 1843-1943 (London: Macmillan, 1943), 3-5, 65. Particularly with regard to ritualism, missing the right balance would mean that an entire wing of the Church of England would reject the book. This was an issue that Frederic Relton, who was a reader for Macmillans who specialized in religious publications concerning Christianity, wrestled with. In 1903 he suggested that the company should

consider "from a business perspective" tapping into the burgeoning market of books written by ritualist authors.461 Relton himself was comfortable with older variants of ritualism, particularly of a school which he associated with Charles Walker's The Ritual Reason Why (1866), but he was not enthusiastic about newer variants. Relton was careful to maintain a

balance when he critiqued books which might be perceived as either uncompromisingly ritualist or that denigrated the Catholic heritage in England.462 He tended not to immediately reject them, but he would raise a red flag to Macmillan urging careful

consideration and usually suggested extensive revisions so as to try to avoid alienating large swathes of readers. This is precisely what happened with Wakeman's book. It was uncompromisingly Catholic in tone and its representation of Anglican theology, but the High Church press rallied around this book, each paper giving numerous reviews and noting when new editions were soon to arrive.463 Wakeman and Rivington were pleasantly surprised that they had grabbed a popular audience. The key to Wakeman's success was the beauty of his writing, or what he himself referred to as his "occasional over coloring."

Wakeman wrote to the warden of All Soul's, W.R. Anson: "After all a book which is read

461 Macmillan Archive, CCCXXX, 551 152, Relton to Macmillan, December 3, 1903. 462 For a few such examples see Macmillan Archive, MCCIV, 55989, Relton to Macmillan, 'Report on the Divine Protestantism,' July 21, 1899, 1-2; 'Report on Mrs. Forde's the Church's One Foundation,' (N/D), 3-6; 'Report on Neil and Wight's Protestant Dictionary,' Feb. 28, 1902. 463 'An Introduction to the History of the Church of England from the Earliest Times to the Present Day,' Church Times, vol. 36, no. 1762, Oct. 30, 1896, 469; Church Times, vol. 38, no. 1823, Dec. 31, 1897, 774. Even the generally anti-Tractarian Foreign Church Chronicle and Review gave the book a positive review, although this moderate High Church paper vehemently attacked Wakeman's "Transubstantionalist" interpretation of the Eucharist. See, 'An Introduction to the History of the Church of England from the Earliest Times to the Present Day,' Foreign Church Chronicle and Review, vol. XXI, no. 82, June 1 1897, 116-121. is more useful than one which is not and popularity is not necessarily a disgrace - but the modern school of historians don't seem to think so."464 Detractors were particularly concerned about the excellence of Wakeman's writing ability; they feared that it would sell well because of its charm. The Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge, H.M. Gwatkin, declared as late as 1909, after the book had been in print for over a decade, that "Wakeman is an atrocious partisan - yet so well written."465 In 1906 CJ. Longman engaged Gwatkin to write a general history in a similar format to Wakeman's. Gwatkin died before fully completing the project, only getting up to the reign of Anne, but he conceived of the book specifically as upsetting Wakeman's position as the top general history on the Church of England: "Wakeman is so written that it is the most mischievous book we have had for a long time; and the man that can smash it will be a benefactor."

Gwatkin's criticisms show the longevity and impact of this book. At the time of publication similar concerns were raised in reviews in The Churchman. In a short review upon publication in November of 1896 the book was described as "an able and skilful apology for the Tractarian and Ritualistic Movement. Mr. Wakeman writes as a thorough and convinced partisan in an agreeable and scholarly style." The reviewer criticized Wakeman's eucharistie theology and his portrayal of the Evangelical party as the dominant party of the eighteenth century, and hence as the responsible party for the "inertness" which required the Tractarian revival, but he praised Wakeman's portrayal of the pre-Reformation Church of England and noted of the nineteenth century: "The account of the Oxford Movement is

464 Anson Papers, Wakeman to Anson, January 9, 1897. William Reynell Anson (1843-1914): Balliol College, Oxford; warden of AU Souls College (1881-1914); two of his more important works are Principles of the Law ofAgency in its Relation to Contract (1879) and Law and Custom of the Constitution (3 vols., 1886-1908). 465 Gwatkin Papers: Gwatkin to F. Jayne, Dec. 29, 1909. 466 Gwatkin Papers: Gwatkin to CJ. Longman, Feb. 21, [1906]. Gwatkin's letters to Longman are clearly dated incorrectly. Longman was certain that the correspondence took place in 1906. For Gwatkin's effort see, H.M. Gwatkin, Church and State in England to the Death ofQueen Anne (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1917). extremely interesting and attractive, but no attempt is made to estimate the truth of the doctrines introduced by Newman and Pusey." 467 Three months later and with three fresh editions of Wakeman's book at hand, a second scathing review was written. The writer of this review apparently only thought that the book had gone into a second edition, but this was enough to bring a denunciation not only of the book but of all historical writing:

As far as the giving of mere historical facts are concerned, we have little fault to find with the book. But very few so-called 'histories' are content to deal simply with facts. History is rarely written merely to give a list of events in purely chronological sequence. . . .Let us now turn to Mr. Wakeman's book. After a careful perusal of it, we have no hesitation in saying that a more thoroughly dangerous book it has rarely been our lot to read. A course and virulent attack upon evangelical truth carries its own refutation with it; not so a book like this, full of literary art, and therefore pleasant to read - full, too, of learning and of interesting information and therefore bound to captivate the attention of the reader. 68 In terms of content, the reviewer was particularly irked by the last two chapters of the book on 'Methodism and the Evangelical Revival' and 'The Oxford Movement,' where he claimed that Wakeman's "appeal to the potential and incipient young Anglo-Catholics of to-day, that his genius for colouring and special pleading (shall we say distortion?) rises to its highest point."469 The linkage of historical writing to partisanship in this context probably stems from the praise given to the book by Stubbs, Creighton and Bright. The reviewer mentioned that in the "advertisements" for the book, it had been recommended by

"bishops, divinity professors and heads of theological colleges." The earliest advertisement that I have found is from 1900, but Wakeman was a close acquaintance of all three of these men, so it is probably the case that there were earlier advertisements with their

467 'An Introduction to the History of the Church of England,' The Churchman, vol. XI, no. 122, New Series (No. 206), Nov. 1896, 100. 468 'English Church History: A Review of Mr. Wakeman's Recent Book,' The Churchman, Vol. XI, No. 124, New Series (No. 208), January, 1897, 208. endorsement. Stubbs described the book as "the most precious history of the Church of

England that has ever been written, a book scholar like, lucid, full of matter, full of interest, just and true, and inspired with faith, hope and charity, as few Church histories, or any other histories, have ever been." Creighton's recommendation was equally high: "Mr.

Wakeman's book is not only scholarly and thoughtful, but is also written so easily and clearly that it will be read with interest by the large class of general readers who are interested in its subject. It is the first book which has succeeded in presenting the history of

the Church of England in a clearly intelligible form." Bright' s praise was less fulsome, but positive: "Will at once and satisfactorily fill up a long-felt void."471 Praise from such authorities in this period meant that criticism of the book on historiographical grounds would be quite difficult.472 It also shows that the book was understood at the time by other High Church historians to be a representation of normative High Church principles, a narrative of the continuity of the Church of England.

One favorable review, from an unfriendly source, H. Hensley Henson, recommended Wakeman's book with this telling sentence: "We cordially recommend it to all who desire what may be called the Anglican version of English Church History." Henson had taken a first in the Modern History School and was elected to a fellowship at

All Soul's in 1884 where he would have encountered Wakeman, who was the bursar and a fellow. Although Henson was for a time a High Churchman, influenced by the principal of Pusey House, Charles Gore, he had by the end of the 1880s moved away from this position 470 Wakeman knew Stubbs from when he studied history at Oxford while Stubbs was Regius Professor; furthermore, Stubbs' biographer Hutton read and corrected Wakeman's manuscript for the book. Wakeman was a friend of both Louise and Mandell Creighton. He made a present of a cope and mitre to Creighton which he wore upon his consecration as bishop of Peterborough. Wakeman, along with Aubrey Lackington Moore, to whom the book was dedicated, assisted Bright with his lectures on the Reformation at Oxford. 471 H.O. Wakeman, The Reformation in Great Britain, Oxford Church Text Books (London: Rivingtons, 1900), inside of front cover. 472 We shall see in chapter three that J. Horace Round attempted it, but his attack on Wakeman turned into a direct attack on Creighton and Stubbs, and was easily brushed off as another one of Round's many vociferous and ill-mannered public attacks. and was well known as an advocate for the principle of the establishment. Henson thought that the ritualists were undermining that principle. Because of Wakeman's defense of the ritualists, Henson would seem an unlikely source of praise, but Henson only found

fault with the chapter on the Oxford Movement, which he thought was overdone. Henson, writing in the third person, "found himself sweetly coerced" by the book. As a whole it delivered a solid defense of the Church of England as both an established church as well as

a spiritual Catholic Church. For Wakeman, as with all of the authors of these High Church general histories, the two principles were not contradictory. With carefully measured language they followed Stubbs and Freeman in showing that while the Church had never in

fact been "established," since it pre-dated and was in fact the model for the state, it was nevertheless important to defend the "established" status of the Church, since a legal "disestablishment," while merely a legal fiction, nevertheless implied that the nation had

rejected apostolic Christianity. The implied rejection of apostolic Christianity was the important point. These historians disapproved of the word "establishment," they thought it an unfortunate legal fiction developed since the reign of Henry VIII; nevertheless, they

continued to defend the connection between church and state along constitutional lines, both legal and historical.474 Henson noted of Wakeman: "He does not scruple to institute a comparison between John Hampden and Messrs. Tooth, Green, Dale, and Enraght. We

473 Owen Chadwick, Hensley Henson: A Study in the Friction between Church and State (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 79-83. 474 The most thorough articulation of this position was delivered by Freeman who summed up the problem: "The popular notion clearly is that the Church was 'established' at the Reformation. People seem to think that Henry the Eighth or Edward the Sixth or Elizabeth, having perhaps already 'disestablished' an older Church, went on next of set purpose to 'establish' a new one. But, as a matter of history and as a matter of law, nothing of the kind ever happened. As a matter of law and history, however it may be as a matter of theology, the Church of England after the Reformation is the same body as the Church of England before the Reformation." See E.A. Freeman, Disestablishment and Disendowment: What are They?, 3rd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1885), 34-35. 475 John Hampden (1595-1643) was killed on the Parliamentary side during the English Civil War. Arthur Tooth, Thomas Pelham Dale, Richard William Enraght and Sidney Faithorn Green were all imprisoned for 147 think the comparison almost grotesque in its extravagance, but we cannot pretend any admiration for the latest martyrs."476 For Wakeman the ritualists were simply following the traditionary fight for English constitutional liberty against tyranny. Wakeman gave the readership of the Church of England not only a line of "saints" and "martyrs" stretching from the Middle Ages up to his own present, but also loyal English men and women struggling for their traditional English constitutional freedoms.477 This was something that a historian like Henson, who had written an essay for a volume on constitutional history edited by Wakeman, and in which Wakeman had expressed similar views about the constitutional position of the Church as in his general history, could get behind even though he disapproved of Wakeman's Churchmanship.478 Taken as a whole, the general histories, the publications of the CHS and the CDI, the Tractarian "hagiographies" of Church and Pusey, and the works on the eighteenth- and nineteenth- century Church of England produced by the group of historians that revolved around Lincoln College and the Diocese of Lincoln, all show that an incipient Anglicanism was taking shape through the writing of history. Stubbs, Creighton and Bright all expressed disapproval of the actions of ritualists in varying contexts, but like Henson they thought Wakeman's book the best general history on the Church of England. Wakeman used the words "Anglican," "Anglicans," or "pan-Anglican" at least twenty-four times in the book; ritual irregularities related to the Public Worship Regulation Act (1874) and hence were considered to be martyrs by many in the High Church wing of the Church of England. 476 'An Introduction to the History of the Church of England,' Oxford Magazine, vol. XV, no. 16, March 17, 1897, 281 . The review is initialed H.H.H., and given the nature of both criticism and praise of the book it was clearly written by Henson. 477 Henson was the founding member of the Stubbs Society in 1884 so Henson might have appreciated Wakeman's leaning on Stubbs' general historical overview. See Owen Chadwick, Hensley Henson, 28. 478Henson himself argued that the Church had played a key role in the formation of the state through the formation of a constitutional monarchy: "That Christianity elevated the royal power was the result, not of the Church's self-abasement, but of her lofty conception of duty. The great service she bestowed on the kingship was the sense of responsibility. She destroyed the divine descent and substituted the divine mission. The prestige of a sacred origin was supplanted by the prestige of a sacred function." See, H. Hensley Henson, 'The Early English Constitution,' in H.O. Wakeman and Arthur Hassal, eds., Essays Introductory to the Study of English Constitutional History (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1887), 8. the only time that the word "Anglo-Catholic" is used is when referencing the publications in the Anglo-Catholic Library. To describe any of these writers as Anglo-Catholic is anachronistic, or to uncritically accept the language of opponents like the second reviewer

from The Churchman. Although the term had gained coinage in the 1 840s and 50s, and would do so again in parts of the twentieth century, in the charged atmosphere of the 1890s

with the language of disestablishment and denial of the orders of the Church of England in the air, these High Church historians were primarily interested in using history to prove the continuity of the Church of England. Using history to defend new ritual practices was not a priority, and when undertaken such defense had the approval of episcopal authority and

underscored the independence of the Church of England from the papal jurisdiction throughout the long period before the Reformation.479 This composite historiography from the turn of the century also shows that during this period the Tractarians as a historical subject could easily be fit into the tradition as the loyal bearers of continuity within the Church of England. The integration of the Tractarians through the writing of history received a bump forward with the 'historical survey,' chapter nine, written as part of the Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline.480 Archbishop Davidson was responsible for the evidence contained in the historical survey.481 He was not an admirer of the Tractarians and as Graber has noted was "unsympathetic to

479 For a very clear example of this negotiation see George Forrest Browne, The Continuity ofthe Holy Catholic Church in England (London: SPCK, 1896), 3-7, 10-22, 24-35; although an admirer ofNewman's, Wakeman interceded to stop the proposed Newman statue at Oxford precisely because he saw it as un- English; see Anson Papers: Wakeman to Anson, Feb. 20, 1892, 59-60. 480 Archbishop Davidson came up with the idea of using a Royal Commission rather than a Select Committee to rein in the tiny minority of "advanced ritualists," as the former could include extra-parliamentary ecclesiastical figures and operated under the Royal Supremacy, which it was hoped would be amenable to High Churchmen. The formation of the commission was announced in April of 1904. For the most recent and thorough discussion of chapter nine see Gary Graber, 'Worship, Ecclesiastical Discipline, and the Establishment in the Church of England, 1904-1929' (Th.D. Dissertation, Wycliffe College and the University of Toronto, 2007), 82-87. 481 Davidson himself was the first Archbishop of Canterbury to take a History degree. 'advanced ceremonial.'" Alan Wilson has shown that Davidson was impressed with the effort of High Churchmen to rein in ritualists by rallying around the Tractarian heritage as

encapsulated by the 'Villiers Declaration' of 1898. Wilson has shown that in Davidson's evidence before the Royal Commission he treated this declaration as the standard statement on Tractarian principles and saw in it possible leverage to shift ritualists into a position approximating accepted practice.483 Davidson's historical survey intended to explain how ritual irregularities had developed, but in doing so Davidson portrayed the Tractarians as loyal members of the Church of England calling for "orderly observance of rubrics," while

the ritualists were portrayed as innovators who "represented a great change, an unforeseen phase, a new departure in that movement." Davidson ignored Tractarian criticism of the Reformation and portrayed the Tractarians as normative High Churchmen from the period: While by no means desiring to pass over the Reformation or to undo its work, the Tractarians set themselves to prove that the reforms of the sixteenth century involved no such breach with the past as was commonly supposed. In a word, the practical end in view was to be promoted by the diffusion of ideas resting largely upon a historical basis, enlisting the aid of the past to vitalise and inspire the present and future.484 Throughout the survey Davidson focused on letters from Pusey to show that the Tractarians neither understood nor encouraged new ritual developments and like other High

Churchmen only defended the ritualists out of solidarity for the High Church cause. That much of the acrimonious polemics on both sides since the 1840s had linked the Tractarians to the ritualists was skipped over by Davidson.

Gary Graber, 'Worship, Ecclesiastical Discipline, and the Establishment in the Church of England, 1904- 1929', 40. 483 This declaration was the product of a conference chaired by Henry Montagu Villiers, canon of St. Paul's, and attended by prominent High Churchmen hoping to "consolidate the Tractarian heritage," but according to Wilson "only the tamest ritualists" attended, so the conference did not achieve its goals of uniting the various groups, although it impressed Davidson. See Alan Wilson, 'Authority of Church and Party among London Anglo-Catholics, 1880-1914, with special Reference to the Church Crisis of 1898-1904' (PhD. Dissertation, Oxford University, 1988), 57-58. 84 Minutes ofEvidence Taken Before the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline, 4 vols. (London: H.M. S.O., 1906), vol. 4, Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline, 54-55. Davidson's appeal to history was considered by many to be a success. In an anonymous essay entitled 'The Origin and Historical Basis of the Oxford Movement' in the

Quarterly Review, the author linked the development of historiography and the scientific theory of evolution to a new environment in which law could not function properly without historical study: During the last sixty years historical study has made great advances; interest in antiquity is more widespread and better instructed; and the scientific doctrine of evolution has brought the historical view of all subjects capable of historical treatment into greater prominence than before. The result is evident in the tone and method of controversy during recent years. It is hardly necessary to refer to the importance of historical arguments, on both sides, in the Ridsdale and other Ritual cases, in the Lincoln judgment and the Lambeth decisions....The historian has come to the aid of the lawyer; the purely legal view no longer holds the field; and it has come to be recognized that legal arguments alone, taking no account of historical circumstances and considerations, cannot afford a satisfactory solution. In the new environment, history had to be taken into consideration for even the law to have full force. The author considered this to be the case because of the influence of the

Tractarians who applied the new history to defend the doctrine of the Apostolic succession.486 The key figure was Newman and his fleshing out of the doctrine of development: "Of all the writings of J.H. Newman, there is probably none of more lasting influence and suggestiveness, none more in consonance with the latest discoveries and the prevalent spirit of science, than that in which he applied the doctrine of development to the principles of religion."487 The author saw the Tractarians as the main proponents of historical study in England and felt that in his own present historical study had vindicated the position of the Tractarians and the ritualists from an exaggerated adherence to the law.

'The Origin and Historical Basis of the Oxford Movement,' Quarterly Review, 205:408 (1906: July), 213. Ibid., 201-207. Ibid., 213. 151

This sentiment was reiterated by Francis Warre Cornish in his volume on the nineteenth century from Macmillan's general history. Although Hunt as editor had laid out the line to be taken on ritualism for Warre Cornish as early as 1903, the book had mushroomed in size to two volumes (to Hunt's extreme displeasure) and been delayed until

1910. Hunt was confident in 1910 that the book was unique and would help laypeople make decisions about nineteenth-century concerns which were still unsettled, such as the ritualist question.488 By 1912 he was happy to tell Macmillan that the book, as with the whole series, was selling well.489 With this late date of publication Warre Cornish was able to gauge the results of the nineteenth century by the results of the Commission of 1906. Warre Cornish agreed with both Davidson and the writer in the Quarterly Review that the great development of the nineteenth century was the rise of historical study: Progress in the history of religion and in the knowledge of the Bible is made not by theologians but by historians. The advance, whether in truth or error, which has been made in the last century, is due to the historical and comparative method of discovering facts in textual, Biblical, and historical 490 science.

He praised the Commission for recognizing that neither judges nor bishops could decide on theological questions without proper expert advice, "as in cases involving other 'terms of art,' scientific or otherwise."491 In terms of historical study the Tractarians, and particularly Newman in his Tract 90, had been right all along even though they had been looked down upon by the mass of the English clergy and laity: "Newman, however, is justified, as a matter of history, in his main contention that where the words will bear a 'Catholic' interpretation that interpretation is not to be ruled out."492 Warre Cornish argued that

488 Macmillan Archive, CCXCV, 550801, Hunt to Macmillan, November 13, 1910. 489 Macmillan Archive, CCXCV, 550801, Hunt to Macmillan, March 15, 1912. 490 Francis Warre Cornish, The English Church in the Nineteenth Century, volume 1, 187. 491 Ibid., 130. Newman was proven correct by history because history shows that language is unstable

overtime:

To this it may be added that the intention of the imposer is to be judged according to a true understanding of the religious history of the sixteenth century, the language which does not easily adapt itself to the religious thought of a later age, and is coloured by political conditions which have long ago passed away. . . .The twentieth century cannot be bound by the mind of the sixteenth; and if the Articles remain evidence, the standard of subscription to them has been lowered in every direction by legal authority.493 The meaning of the legal language of the past could be determined historically, but it would be at odds with the contemporary religious understandings of the present. For the High Church historians the Tractarians pointed to a concrete language of continuity and

development, the language of Catholic doctrine and practice within the Church of England which could be shown to characterize the past and be used in the present and future. The writing of the history of the Church of England was dominated by High

Churchmen. Books written by Evangelicals, such as Major-General Aylmer's Transformers and Spiritual Chameleons or Walter Walsh's The Secret History ofthe Oxford Movement

attempted to prove that the real history of the Tractarians was that of a plot to deliver England over to Romanism.494 Books like these, particularly Walsh's, sold well, but the High Church press did not worry much about them, arguing that the conspiracy theories contained therein immediately invalidated them.495 Books like these were never a challenge to the High Church historiography produced by Oxbridge trained historians. Some High

Churchmen from the turn of the century to the cusp of World War I questioned the primary

493 Ibid., 280. 494 Walsh's book was very successful and in terms of sales kept up with Wakeman's general history until 1899 when, unlike Wakeman's book which was published as late as 1972, it reached a sixth and final edition. Walter Walsh, The Secret History ofthe Oxford Movement (London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1 897); H. Aylmer, Chameleons and Spiritual Transformers (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1891). 495 A review in the Church Times simply dismissed Walsh's book as "stupidity." See 'The Secret History of the Oxford Movement,' Church Times, vol. 39, no. 1859, Sept. 9, 1898, 256. role assigned to the Tractarians. Frederick Meyrick continued to push Burgon's narrative but still tended to apologize for the Tractarians in general and saved his condemnation for Newman and the ritualists whom he argued went beyond the Tractarians who he described as, for the most part, loyal High Churchmen.496 His work was ignored by the High Church press, the only major Church paper to review any of these polemical publications being the unaligned Church Family Newspaper which was beginning to attack the ritualists in the wake of Harcourt's prevarications.497 The only High Church history to utterly reject narrating the history of the Church of England during the nineteenth century as one of progress was J. Wickham Legg's pre-war English Church Lifefrom the Restoration to the Tractarian Movement. Like Jane Frances Mary Carter's earlier Undercurrents ofChurch

Life in the Eighteenth Century, Wickham Legg wanted to show that High Church doctrine and practice were alive and well throughout the eighteenth century; however, unlike Carter, Wickham Legg rejected the idea that there was a Tractarian revival, arguing instead for a robust High Church continuity from 1688 up to the cusp of Tractarian activity.498 Wickham Legg's main nemesis was Pattison and unnamed "friends of the Church of England combining to blacken its history," who he thought were giving ammunition to

Roman Catholic polemicists. Ultimately, Wickham Legg's book still used the Tractarians as the barometer by which to measure the prevalence of High Church doctrine in the eighteenth century, going so far at points as to describe individuals, literary efforts or

Frederick Meyrick, OldAnglicanism and Modern Ritualism (Skeffington and Son, Publishers to His Majesty the King, 1901), 1-3, 231, 249; Frederick Meyrick, An Appealfrom the Twentieth Century to the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries; or Faith andPractice ofthe First Two Centuries ofthe Reformed Anglican Church (London: Dover Street Book Store, 1905), 3-4; Frederick Meyrick, Scriptural and Catholic Truth and Worship, or, The Faith and Worship ofthe Primitive, the Medieval and the ReformedAnglican Churches, (London: Longmans, Green, 1908), 268-271. 497 'Old Anglicanism and Modern Ritualism,' Church Family Newspaper, vol. VIII, no. 403, Oct. 25, 1901, 648. 498 [Jane Frances Mary Carter], Undercurrents ofChurch Life in the Eighteenth Century, T.T. Carter, ed. (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1899), vii-viii, 215-222; J. Wickham Legg, English Church Lifefrom the Restoration to the Tractarian Movement Considered in some ofits Neglected or Forgotten Features (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1914), vii-ix, 1-9 actions in the eighteenth century as "Tractarian," and often using secondary sources written by Tractarians, such as Church, to show the continuity of High Church doctrine and practice.499 The integration of the Tractarians into the tradition of the Church of England was ensured during this period and would be reinforced throughout the twentieth century. Less than a year after Wickham Legg's book, S.L. Ollard would write his influential Short History ofthe Oxford Movement, which would continue the narrative pattern of describing an old fashioned High Church tradition that was alive and well, but not influential.500 Names like Rose, Sikes and Watson would continue to be trotted out by historians like Ollard, but the story of the Tractarians would continue to garner top-billing. Books like

Ollard's were effusive, but they continued to receive praise even from those unenthusiastic about the Tractarians. Upon receiving a copy of Ollard's book, a book in which Ollard stated on the first page that the story of the Tractarians was the "most splendid" since 597,

Archbishop Davidson praised Ollard's achievement, only questioning Ollard's condemnation of the bishops and Ollard's assertions about the Tractarian relationship to the gothic revival in architecture.501 Ollard himself brought up the Burgon thesis again in 1912 under the HJ. Rose entry in his A Dictionary ofEnglish Church History:

Rose at first warmly approved of the Tractsfor the Times, though he did not write for them. By Burgon (g.c.) he has been held the true author of the Movement of 1833; a mistaken view, for Rose had neither the genius nor the power of a leader, but he was a most valuable ally, trusted by the old- fashioned and dignified High Churchmen of the day, and a man of singular holiness, and of great personal charm.502

499 J. Wickham Legg, English Church Lifefrom the Restoration to the Tractarian Movement Considered in some ofits Neglected or Forgotten Features, 11, 15, 26, 46, 75, 87, 90-91, 193, 216, 382-387. 500 S.L. Ollard, A Short History ofthe Oxford Movement (A.R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd., 1915), 9-13. 501 Ollard Papers MS. 3388, Davidson to Ollard, Nov. 8, 1915, 68-71. 502 A Dictionary ofEnglish Church History, edited by S.L. Ollard and assisted by Gordon Crosse (London: A.R. Mowbray & Co., 1912), 526. 155 Ten years after the publication of Ollard's A Short History, Yngve Brilioth503 would further reinforce this subordinate position of the pre-Tractarian High Church writers, reminding his readers in chapter two ofhis book that there was an active High Church tradition before the Tractarians, that an exaggerated historiography had in fact developed which intentionally diminished the role of pre-Tractarian High Churchmanship.504 The subject of Brilioth' s book, nevertheless, was the Tractarians, who were for Brilioth the really important group. By the centenary of the Oxford Movement in 1933, the large bibliography produced to celebrate the anniversary ofKeble's Assize Sermon, considered in those times to be the birthday of Tractarianism, was merely a reassertion of a historiography nearly half a century old which certainly gained much of its impetus from the proliferation of general histories of the Church of England which were intended by writer and publisher to guide the reader with critical authority but a minimum of detail and discussion of critical issues.

503 Yngve Brilioth (1889-1959): Lutheran Bishop of Växjö (1938-1950); Archbishop of Uppsala (1950-1958). 504 Yngve Brilioth, The Anglican Revival: Studies in the Oxford Movement (London: Longmans, Green, 1925), 5-6, 21-27 CHAPTER 3: CONTINUITY THEORYAND THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

In the first two chapters, we have briefly touched on how High Church historians viewed the historical and constitutional relationship of the Church of England to the secular government of the English nation. This relationship was of the utmost concern to High

Churchmen as they wanted to maintain the legal sanction of the Church of England by the state and yet also wanted to avoid possible state interference, beyond maintaining the status quo. There were two main points that the High Church historians wished to establish. The first was that it was a historical fact that the Church of England was a continuous local self- government which pre-dated and continued through the Reformation up to the time in which they were writing. The second point was that the Church of England was always intimately connected to the English state, under the Royal Supremacy, and worked in unison with the English state, but in its own sphere. Any historical points at which the

Church seemed to become independent of the state, on the one hand, or have its jurisdiction impinged upon by the state, on the other, were portrayed as constitutional abnormalities or "usurpations." Both of these points were connected by the High Church historians and became the crux for narrating the history of the Reformation in such a way as to defend the continuity of the government of the Church of England as a constitutional norm. The continuity of the Church of England was a primary focus for the High Church historians because some opponents pointed to the English Reformation as a clear sign of discontinuity. These opponents suggested that the discontinuity at the English Reformation proved that the Church of England was established by the state. Any proposed point of discontinuity in the history of the Church of England implied a serious ecclesiological

156 threat to the High Church historians who believed that a break in the government of the Church of England severed the apostolic line.

In the wake of the constitutional crises of the 1830s, campaigns for the disestablishment of the Church of England were initiated primarily by members of Protestant denominations outside the Church of England, such as by Edward Miall (1809- 1881) with the Liberation Society.505 It has generally been assumed that the Tractarians, and many latter High Churchmen who portrayed themselves as lineally connected to the Tractarians, were at least theoretically willing to relinquish the Church of England's position as the legally established church in order to reduce state interference to the level that other non-established churches in England dealt with.506 More recently, Peter Nockles has shown that High Church pronouncements in favor of disestablishment were almost always for rhetorical purposes; furthermore, S.A. Skinner has demonstrated that the Tractarians were usually amongst the most vocal supporters of the Church of England's special position.507 Some High Church writers defended the established position of the visible Church of England as vital to Christianity in England and yet also argued at times that the invisible Church would not be threatened by severing this connection.508 Many High Church writers seemed comfortable with this position; however, some wanted a more robust defense of the necessity of the visible Church of England and the nation of

England's deference to it. High Church emphasis on the historical position of the

505 For the füllest treatment of the history of campaigns for disestablishment see William H. Mackintosh, Disestablishment and Liberation: the Movementfor the Separation ofthe Anglican Churchfrom State Control (London: Epworth Press, 1972), 506 James Bentley, Ritualism and Politics in Victorian Britain: The Attempt to Legislatefor Belief{Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 94; G.I.T. Machin, Politics and the Churches in Great Britain, 1832-1868 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 75-76. 507 Peter Nockles, The Oxford Movement in Context, 100-103; S.A. Skinner, Tractarians and the 'Condition ofEngland': The Social and Political Thought ofthe Oxford Movement, 23, 90-93, 101-116. 508See, John Henry Newman and John Keble, eds., Remains ofthe Late Reverend Richard Hurrell Froude, M.A. Fellow ofOriel College, 2 vols. (London: J.G. & F. Rivington, 1838), volume I, 370; Robert Isaac Wilberforce, A Sketch ofthe History ofErastianism (London: John Murray, 1851), 83-95. establishment tended to come in polemical moments when debating Protestant opponents who in fact argued, or were portrayed as arguing, that visible churches were really unimportant in the face of the invisible Church of Christ.509 The key to this defense was to demonstrate the antiquity and continuity of the Church of England as a local self- government that was the model for the creation of the English state and co-equal with the English state under the Royal Supremacy.510 The model for this idea was Stubbs' explanation of the constitutional relationship between the Church of England and the state

from the period of the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchic kingdoms up through the Reformation. Stubbs had stated in his Constitutional History that the unity of the Church of England was the model for the unity of the state in England and of the nation of England, but that the

Church of England did not wish for political power as the European churches did. Therefore, the constitutional relationship of church and state was a relationship between equals who worked together, but never confused their roles and spheres.511

High Church historians picked up this idea and restated it in their works. Stubbs' model was neatly summed up by C. Arthur Lane: "England was a Church before England

It is worth remembering that Evangelicals within the Church of England and protestant Dissenters were often portrayed as at best uninterested in public worship or the visible Church. The main proponent of this view was Overton. See John Henry Overton, The Evangelical Revival in the Eighteenth Century, 149; The Anglican Revival, 190. 510 The phrase "local self-government" was generally used in a strictly political sense, although in debates in Parliament the Church of England parish was taken into consideration. The idea behind the phrase is that Parliament is simply the "concentration" of local self-governments. Many considered that the "centralization" implied in concentration needed to be curbed, hence the efforts to restore certain administrative functions to local bodies. In this chapter I only use the term in this political sense when I refer to Mandell Creighton, as he was enthusiastic about the bills in Parliament concerning local self-government. Throughout most of this chapter I am referring to the High Church belief that each nation was capable of forming a national Catholic Church which was united through Christ with all other national Catholic Churches, but independent in government (Ecumenical Councils were considered a notable theoretical trump of national Church government, even if not a practical reality). Within the Church of England, Convocation was the natural analog to Parliament and so representatives of local parishes and Bishops were analogous to members of the Commons and Lords. For a discussion of Stubbs potential influence by the debate on local self-government see P.B.M. Blaas, Continuity andAnachronism, 171-186. 511 William Stubbs, Constitutional History ofEngland, volume I, 217, 223-225, 213-232, 234, 244-245. 159 was a kingdom."512 Wakeman's formulation of this idea to history students at Oxford seems worded for provocation, but appears to have passed by without criticism: "The relation of the Church and the state in early English times may not unfairly be described as the establishment of the state by the Church."513 Following Stubbs' and Freeman's assertions that the Church was the first institution in England, the oldest continuous

institution in England and the model for the English state and that even the medieval parish boundaries still existed in the nineteenth century, High Church historians portrayed the Church of England as a body which was co-equal with the state (both Church and state, according to their theory, sitting under the moderation of the monarch), and which had the

same "identity" before and after the Reformation. The idea of a Reformation of the Church of England during the reign of Henry VIII was sometimes embarrassing to the High Church historians. They worried that if the Reformation was portrayed largely as the action of

Henry then it could be implied that either a break in continuity had taken place or that the Church of England was established by the state, as per what they labeled the "Act of

Parliament theory." In one of Stubbs' lectures he apparently worried that his audience might perceive his praise of Henry VIII as indicating the belief that the monarch had been the creator of a new church:

You will, I hope, know me too well to misinterpret me in these expressions; you will not suspect me of making Henry VIII the founder of the Church of England; but I do not conceal from myself that, under the Divine power which brings good out of evil. . . we have received good as well as evil through the means of this 'majestic lord who broke the bonds of Rome.'514 Both Stubbs and Freeman emphasized that the most significant effect of the Reformation during the reign of Henry VIII was to move incompletely towards restoring the proper

512 C. Arthur Lane, Syllabus ofSix Illustrated Lectures on English Church History, 28. 513 H.O. Wakeman, 'The Influence of the Church on the Development of the State,' in H.O. Wakeman and Arthur Hassal, eds., Essays Introductory to the Study ofEnglish Constitutional History, 276. 514 William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures, 301. 160 relationship of church and state which had become disjointed by the unconstitutional efforts at centralization of the western Church directed from Rome which undermined the rights of

the clergy of the Church of England. Stubbs' and Freeman's representation of the relationship of the Church of England to the Church in Rome was not new. It was a standard position held by apologists for the Church of England against the claims of Rome since the time of Henry VIII.515 Their contribution to maintaining the theory for their generation was to repackage the traditional view to take into account important historical changes in England after the Reformation, particularly the rejection of religious uniformity on the part of the state, and the enshrinement of the right of English citizens to worship

outside the Church of England and also enjoy full political rights. Stubbs contributed a celebrated lecture to the Oxford Church Historical Society in 1 890 that he published ten

years later in the third edition of his Seventeen Lectures in which he made a strong plea for the historical continuity of the Church of England:

We believe that our Lord founded a community, we do not believe that He merely promulgated an idea. We believe that He founded a community, a body corporate, not merely a school of thinkers or even of believers. We believe that He founded a community, a body corporate, with law, order, system of government, doctrines, sacraments and ministries; and that, by historical continuity, not merely by philosophic agreement, that community goes on existing, and reaches us, and includes us, in the community of our own National Church.5 ' 6 This is Stubbs' most explicit statement linking theological content about the nature of the external Church with his belief in the constitutional continuity of the government of the

Church of England. Later in the lecture, Stubbs made his theological claims about the Church of England and the constitutional ramifications for all citizens in England clear by stating that everyone who lived within the confines of the nation was really a member of

515 Norman Cantor, ed., William Stubbs on the English Constitution, (New York: Crowell, 1966), 6. 516 William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures, 'Address on Church History: To the Oxford Diocesan Church History Society, Jan. 10, 1890, '3rd edition, 446. 161 the Church of England whether they wanted to be or not and that it was not the fault of members of the Church of England within the Church or the state if citizens chose to reject that heritage.517 None of the High Church historians explicitly denied in public that other churches in England were in fact true churches, and they generally approved of the growth of toleration and the extension of full political rights, at least to other Christians, but they did affirm that the Church of England was the true Church in England.518

By the 1890s, this theory of the continuity of the Church of England was not solely confined to High Church writers; for instance, R.E. Prothero (1851-1937), the editor of the Quarterly Review, articulated such a position and cited the High Church historians to argue that the Church of England should not be disestablished.519 H.M. Gwatkin was described by one of his students as bringing a systematic historical-critical methodology to his lectures on ecclesiastical history for the Church Society at Cambridge with "German methods of study," achieving a "deepening of the national consciousness" and impressing upon his listeners that "the thoughts of evolution and continuity seriously alter the study of history, and especially of ecclesiastical history."520 For the series of lectures on 'The National Church' at the 1895 Church Congress at Norwich, Gwatkin teamed up with the High Church historians Augustus Jessopp and Mandel Creighton to deliver a trio of addresses on the continuity of the Church of England. Gwatkin's paper was entitled 'Its Continuity Unbroken by the Reformation' and argued: "Now the Reformation Settlement was strictly

517 Ibid., 447. 518 This potential inconsistency, which might be said by some to exist still today, is the consequence of having at least two apostolically ordained Churches which want to minimize unseemly conflict with one another, and yet which both claim that there can only be one government within a certain geographical space ordained by Christ. The High Church historian James Gairdner summed up the dilemma succinctly in a letter to S.L. Ollard, stating that Protestants and Roman Catholics "almost force us to acknowledge, what is not the truth, that there are, or can be, a considerable number of real 'Churches' in the same country." See, Ollard Papers: Gairdner to Ollard, 6 Jan., 1906. 519 [Rowland Edmund Prothero], ? Defense of the Church of England against Disestablishment,' Quarterly Review, 175:349 (1892: July), 268-270. 520 'CU. Church Society,' Cambridge Review, vol. X, no. 246, Dec. 6, 1888, 140-141. 162

legal. Good or bad, every change was made in full legal form by the Crown in Parliament, which, as a matter of fact, has always been the sovereign legislature of the Church and State in England."521 There was one primary change during the reign of Henry VIII: "The great administrative change was the restoration to the king of his old power - the chief

government of all estates of the realm - as in the time of William the Norman and the kings before him."522 The Church Family Newspaper was not a High Church paper but from its inception delivered a High Church reading of the history of the Church of England. The

paper was billed as a non-party paper for "moderate Churchmen" and by 1899 was second only to Church Times in circulation amongst Church of England newspapers.523 In general, the editors seem to have meant by "moderate Churchmen" that they would support the

consensus opinion of the ecclesiastical authorities and try not to lean towards one party or another; however, the editorial policy was clearly antagonistic towards those clergymen considered to be ritualist and was even wary of the historical Tractarians like Keble and

Pusey as indicated by the poor review given to Nye's book on the Tractarians and the frequent articles and reviews written by Frederick Meyrick.524 Conversely, Nye's A Popular Story ofthe Church ofEngland narrating the continuity of the Church of England as "the Holy Catholic Church of Christ" was reviewed very positively as were most High Church histories which expressed continuity between the pre- and post-Reformation Church of England as maintaining the Catholic character of Church government and a co-equal

521 H.M. Gwatkin, 'Its Continuity Unbroken by the Reformation,' in C. Dunkley, ed., The Official Report of the Church Congress Held at Norwich, on October S"1, 9*, IO"1 and IIth, 1895 (London: Bemrose & Sons, Ltd., 1895), 385. 522 Ibid., 386. 523 'To Moderate Churchmen, both Clergy and Laity,' Church Family Newspaper, vol. VI, no. 296, Oct. 6, 1899,561. 524 'The Story of the Oxford Movement,' Church Family Newspaper, vol. VI, no. 268, Mar. 24, 1899, 124. position between Church and state. The Church Family Newspaper from the inaugural issue contained a weekly section entitled 'Church History' which innocently claimed to narrate "the most interesting events in the history of the English Church," although within a year the section evolved to 'Church History and Church Defense' and finally settled simply on 'Church Defense.'526 Even though the section title changed, the message stayed the same as the writer narrated how the Church of England during the Heptarchy was the model for the English State, that the origins of Parliament could be traced to the synods and councils of the Church of England, while the continuity of the government of the Church was shown to stretch from the time of Augustine of Canterbury up to the present.527 The Church Family Newspaper would continue its success as a non-party paper with a wide circulation into the twentieth century and would continue to deliver a High Church narrative of the history of the Church of England as proposed by academic historians who were members of the Church of England. In the main, though, it was High Church disputants such as Lord Selborne,528 or the members of the CDI, and High Church papers that were responsible for propagating the theory presented by the High Church historians. They assumed that the maintenance of the identity of the Church of England throughout the

Reformation was the historical consensus of professional historians and confidently

? Popular Story of the Church of England,' Church Family Newspaper, vol. Ill, no. 1 14, Apr. 10, 1896, 1 80; 'The Marian Reaction in its Relation to the English Church, Church Family Newspaper, vol. IV, no. 158, Feb. 12, 1897, 28; 'The English Reformation and its Consequences,' Church Family Newspaper, vol. V, no. 220, Apr. 22, 1898, 1898. 526 'Sketches of English Church History,' Church Family Newspaper, vol. I, no. 1, Feb. 9, 1894, 4; 'Conferences on Church History. - No. 1,' Church Family Newspaper, vol. II, no. 99, Dec. 27, 1895, 788. The earliest articles in this church history section were written by Thomas Moore, who had written a book arguing against disestablishment of the Church of England in 1879, see, Thomas Moore, The Englishman 's Briefon Behalfofhis National Church (London: SPCK), 1879. 527 'Services of the Church to the English Nation,' Church Family Newspaper, vol. I, no. 13, 1894, 196;' Continuity of the English Church-No. 1,' Church Family Newspaper, vol. I, no. 34, Sept. 28, 1894, 532; 'Continuity of the English Church -No. 2,' Church Family Newspaper, vol. I, no. 35, Oct. 5, 1894, 548; 'Continuity of the English Church-No. 3,' Church Family Newspaper, vol. I, no. 36, Oct. 12, 1894, 564. 528 Roundell Palmer, first earl of Selbome (1812-1895): Christ Church, Oxford; his A Defence ofthe Church ofEnglandAgainst Disestablishment went through several editions in the 1890s. 164 rejected out of hand the Act of Parliament theory of the Church of England.529 Citing

Freeman, Lord Selborne claimed:

Those who put forward this fiction, of the Church of England being a mere State or Act of Parliament Church, rest their historical case upon a denial of the identity of the Church of England before the Reformation with the Church of England after the Reformation - which 'absolute identity' (as Professor Freeman truly says), the facts of history clearly demonstrate.530 As we saw in chapter one, this new connection of German historical-critical methodology with High Church conceptions of the Church of England slowly but steadily developed at Oxford in the latter half of the nineteenth century. By the 1890s it was becoming common

for individual historians and newspapers critical of many High Church positions to accept the historiographical work of the academic High Church historians with regard to the relationship of the Church of England to the state. This change probably came about

because the High Church historians provided a narrative which allowed an important role for Rome in the foundation of the Church of England, but also provided an explicit denial

of the authority of the popes as well as a denial of the historical acceptance in England of doctrinal positions such as transubstantiation. The editors of a major paper like the Church

Family Newspaper could recommend High Church histories with confidence knowing that most High Church historians agreed that Rome and many positions held by ritualists were threats to be neutralized. Some Evangelical writers continued to question the High Church

narrative proposed by these academic historians. The Canadian Dyson Hague (1857-1935)

This term was used frequently by Roman Catholic controversialists and English Protestants outside the Church of England to deride the Church of England as a church created by and merely supported by Parliament. High Church writers began to claim that from the eighteenth century onwards "Latitudinarians" and Evangelicals within the Church of England also supported this so-called "Act of Parliament theory," but this was rarely if ever the case. Non-High Church writers agreed that there was a legal continuity that was not broken at the Reformation, where they tended to disagree with High Church writers was that they argued that there was also a doctrinal reformation and that here there was a break in continuity as a new Protestant religion or gospel replaced a corrupt Catholic religion. 530 Roundell Palmer, Earl of Selborne, A Defense ofthe Church ofEngland against Disestablishment, New Edition (London: Macmillan and Co., 1887), 4; see also, 165

stated that "the continuity theory is a figment" and criticized Stubbs, Wakeman and Perry

for holding it, but then proposed an alternative Protestant continuity theory linking the "British or Celtic Church" to the Church of England from the Reformation onwards.531 For Hague the Church of England was not "nominally" changed at the Reformation, there was only a doctrinal "re-establishment," but it was the same national church. Hague's book was unique, though, and Evangelical writers tended to avoid writing these types of academic histories of the Church of England. It is unclear why this was the case. Charles Hole submitted a general history on the Church of England to Mamillans sometime between 1899 and 1902 but W.R.W. Stephens rejected it stating that its general overview of the

Church of England was "narrow and misleading." He concluded: "I feel that the late Dean Church or Freeman would have concurred in this opinion had they read the M.S. and that Bishop Stubbs if he were to read it would take the same view."533 Hole's effort seems to have been an exception. Prominent Evangelical historians like Henry Wace,5 Charles Oman and Horace Round were certainly equipped to undertake such works but for unstated reasons chose not to.535

The self-identification of High Church writers with learning was so successful that some evangelicals within and without the Church of England published major articles

531 Before Hague, the most substantial Evangelical criticism of Stubbs came from J.T. Tomlinson. See J.T. Tomlinson, The ' Legal History ' of Canon Stubbs being the Basis ofthe New Scheme ofEcclesiastical Courts Proposed by the Royal Commissioners of 1881-1883 (London: E. Stanford, 1884); Dyson Hague, The Church ofEngland before the Reformation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1 897), x-xi, 2-8. 532 Charles Hole (1824-1906): Trinity College, Cambridge; fellow of King's College, London. 533 This reader's report is clearly signed by Stephens, but it has been placed into Relton's reports for 1899- 1902. Macmillan Archive, MCCIV, 559891, Stephens to Macmillan, (N.D.). Hole's book was eventually published by Longmans, but not until 1910. 534 Henry Wace (1836-1924): Trinity College, Oxford; professor of ecclesiastical history, King's College, London (1875-1883). 535 Round did contemplate collecting all of his controversial essays into a volume entitled 'The True Theory of the Reformation and its Antecedents' but decided against it when Maitland and Tout refused to become contributors, see J. Horace Round, Family Origins and other Studies, edited with a memoir and bibliography by William Page (London: Constable & Co. 1930), xxxii-xxxiii. 166 arguing that their wings of Churchmanship were just as learned. 536 As we saw in chapter one, in the area of historical scholarship dealing with English and European history it was certainly the case that High Church writers had attained such academic prestige. 537 The mass production of High Church general histories began to gather speed in the 1880s and reached its peak in the 1890s. By 1900 D.C. Lathbury, writing in the High Church literary journal The Pilot, wrote with certainty:

There are few signs of more favourable omen for the future of the English Church than the publication of the many histories of her life which have recently issued from the press.... Even more remarkable than this is the fact that everyone of the writers, however different may be their parties to which they are supposed to be attached, absolutely abandons the old liberal, or evangelical or latitudinarian view, and accepts, indeed enforces with vehemence, the position that the Church of England to-day has no break in her continuity from the Church of St. Augustine.538 Lathbury' s optimism concerning the general histories of the Church of England was certainly warranted; however, his optimism masked either an ignorance of, or an intentional blindness towards, new historiographical trends and debates concerning Roman Canon Law which, as we shall see, were causing the argument for continuity to be recast even before the end of the nineteenth century.539

In spite of their espoused acceptance of unbiased historiography, the High Church press was generally antagonistic towards books which either cast doubt on High Church theories

536 James Guinness Rogers, 'Is Evangelicalism Declining?,' Contemporary Review, 73 (1898: Jan./June), 823- 825; Charles J. Shebbeare, 'The Intellectual Strength of the Low Church Position,' Contemporary Review, 80 (1901: July/Dec), 546. 537 Freeman's statement in his article Oxford, Past and Present,' published in the Saturday Review in 1862, that during the high period of Tractarian activity at Oxford, "the union of religion and learning, was probably never so fully realized" is unverifiable, but his generalization that the subsequent High Church movement encouraged historical learning is surely accurate if only because High Churchmen claimed the professorships ofhistory, ecclesiastical history and law at Oxford for such a long period. See, W.R.W. Stephens, Life and Letters ofEdwardAugustus Freeman, volume I, 31 1-312. 538 [D.C. Lathbury], 'Reviews: Two Church Histories,' Pilot, vol. 1, no. 12, May 19, 1900, 363. 539 Lathbury, Daniel Connor (1831-1922): King's College, London; Brasenose College, Oxford; editor of The Economist (1878-81), The Guardian (1883-99) and The Pilot (1900-04); Dean Church (1905); edited The Correspondence on Church and Religion of William Ewart Gladstone (2 vols. 1910). or took neutral positions on historical topics which could bear on the crises of the present. These books were dismissed as "antiquarian" and not true historical research. 54° In two cases during the 1890s this editorial policy sparked larger public historiographical debates in the Contemporary Review, led by the historians Gilbert Child and J. Horace Round, about the nature of the High Church historiography. A less sensational but more lasting challenge to the High Church historiography was delivered by the historian of English law F.W. Maitland. The first explicit recognition of and debate about a High Church historiography stemmed from an article by Gilbert Child written in reply to reviews in the Guardian and the Church Quarterly Review of his book Church and State under the Tudors, published in 1890.541 Child's book is unique in that while his research leaned heavily on publications produced by High Church historians, particularly on Stubbs' appendices to the report published for the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission of 1881 to

1883, he nevertheless explicitly rejected Stubbs' description of a continuous national Church of England and instead chose to adopt the "act of parliament theory" described above (all the while maintaining that he was accurately representing Stubbs' position).

Child also relied heavily on Hook's Lives ofthe Archbishops ofCanterbury and to a lesser extent on books by High Church writers such as Creighton, Phillpots, Keble, Perry, Pocock, Brewer, Dixon, Gairdner and Hunt.543 Out of all of these High Church writers and historians, only Hook was described by Child as a High Church writer holding a theory of

540See for instance, 'The Law of Tithes in England,' Guardian, vol. XLIII, no. 2237, Oct. 17, 1888, 1561; in one case in The Pilot, two High Church authors, W.E. Collins and Frederick Meyrick, were labeled as members of the "Broad Church school" and their historical accuracy was attacked by the paper simply for contributing to Gwatkin's book of essays The Church Past and Present. See 'The Broad Church Gospel,' The Pilot, vol. I, no. 7, Apr. 14, 1900, 206-208. Conversely, High Church authors were praised for writing antiquarian history when such work could be shown to be potentially useful for current controversies; see 'The Coming of the Friars and other Historic Essays,' Guardian, vol. XLIV, no. 2248 , Jan. 2, 1889, 19. 541 Gilbert William Child (1832/33-1896): Exeter College, Oxford. 542 Gilbert Child, Church and State under the Tudors (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1890), 2-5. 543 The only non-High Church historians and writers from the nineteenth century that Gilbert cited were J.R. Green, H.H. Milman, J.A. Froude and Lord Penzance with his report for the ecclesiastical courts commission. continuity, a theory which Child rejected. Child used citations from all of these other High Church writers, even at times Hook, to show that the Church of England before the English Reformation was a fully integrated member of the larger western Catholic Church,

accepted Roman Canon law in full, and was therefore not a national church. Child argued that the Church of England only became a national church when it was established during the reign of Henry VIII, from which point he saw continuity and a connection with the

state. It is unclear whether Child was intentionally disingenuous in misrepresenting High Church historians like Stubbs and Creighton as denying the continuity of the Church of England, or if he simply misunderstood the constitutional underpinnings which they used to narrate continuity in spite ofpoints of apparent discontinuity.545 The reviewer of Child's book in the Guardian was worried because Child's religious beliefs could not be discerned from his book; however, he concluded that Child rejected the continuity of the pre- and post-Reformation Church of England and thus deduced that Child could not be a High Churchman. The reviewer interpreted Child's argument against continuity as either leading to "adherence to the Roman Communion," or to the "sects of schismatics and heretics."546

Nevertheless, the reviewer admired Child's historical research and admitted that Child was accurate with his facts.547 The reviewer also admitted that Child's criticism of many of the facts used by Hook to support his own theory of continuity was warranted, but that this did

Gilbert Child, Church and State under the Tudors, 37. 545 In Child's one citation of Lord Penzance he combined statements from the report written by Penzance with the appendices written by Stubbs to support his conclusion. Stubbs was very critical of many of the conclusions reached by the commission, but his criticism was generally private and did not become circulated publically until Hutton's biography of Stubbs first appeared in 1904. In the correspondence between Stubbs and R.W. Church, Church even suggested that Stubbs should write a separate report to support his minority position, but Child could not have known about this correspondence at the time. See William Holden Hutton, Letters of William Stubbs Bishop ofOxford, 1825-1901, 208-225. 546 'Review of Church and State under the Tudors,' Guardian, vol. XLV, no. 2337, Sept. 17, 1890, 1448. 547 Ibid., 1449. 169 not necessarily disprove the overall High Church theory, only that one narrated by Hook. Child's response was published two years later in the Contemporary Review. Child's response is striking because in it he gives the first overview of trends in High Church historiography from the rise of the Tractarians up to his own present. Although Child's tone in the article was generally civil, he clearly intended the article for polemical purposes.

Child's main point was to show that Hook's position was held by a number of High Church writers from the appearance ?? Tract 15 (written by William Palmer of Worcester and revised by Newman) up to Aubrey Moore's Lectures and Papers on the History ofthe

Reformation in England and on the Continent, published in 1 890, and that this Tractarian High Church position ran counter to the consensus of historians.549 Child's survey of the Church of England from the Reformation up to the active period of the Tractarians argued:

During the same period Anglicans, even on certain occasions the reactionary amongst them - Andrewes and Cosin, for instance - had invariably looked upon themselves as Protestants....Suddenly there springs up in the Oxford Movement of 1833 a party which proposes to change all this, and not only to claim for the Anglican Church that it is the legitimate representative of Primitive Christianity, of which Romanism is but the corruption or the caricature (for this most other Protestant sects claim in their turn), but to repudiate the name of Protestant altogether, and assert themselves to be the true Catholic Church, not on the ground of scriptural truth, but on that of ecclesiastical tradition.550 According to Child, all members of the Church of England thought of themselves as Protestant and not Catholic and understood that the Church of England was established by the state from the reign of Henry VIII before the Tractarians came along to challenge this

548 Criticism of Hook's theory was nothing new in High Church circles, as we saw in chapter one, Stubbs and Freeman also disapproved of Hook's theory of continuity which they found to be erastian. See page 54 above. Hook varied from Stubbs and Freeman primarily in that he had a higher understanding of the power of the royal supremacy. Whereas Stubbs had shown that this idea developed over a long period of time, Hook saw the royal supremacy as normative since Anglo-Saxon times and only challenged by the papacy during the pontificate of Martin V. See Walter Farquhar Hook, Lives ofthe Archbishops o/Canterbury, 12 vols. (London: Richard Bentley, 1861-1876), volume 5, 99-100. 549 Gilbert Child, 'The Present Position of the High Church Party, Contemporary Review, 62 (1892: July/Dec), 737-741. 550 Ibid., 752. view. The Tractarians and their descendants accepted the epithet of Protestant until more seasonable times when they could repute the term. Child's assertion that High Church historians, like Moore, were somehow on the fringe of historiographical circles was

dubious. He certainly should have been aware that Aubrey Moore delivered the lectures which comprised his book as the deputy for William Bright, the Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Oxford, from 1880 until Moore's early death in 1890.551 In addition, that Child neglected to mention E.A. Freeman, the recently deceased Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, was disingenuous. Freeman's belief in the continuity of the Church of England was well known and he had been publically critical of

the commission report that Child cited in his book and, to Stubbs dismay, even refused to sign the document even though he had been a member of the committee that produced it.552 Child did point out some of the key themes in the publications of the High Church historians, such as the tendency to minimize the role that the papacy played in England and the need to show the catholicity of the Church of England prior to the Reformation to avoid

the establishment question.

There was no reply to Child in either the Contemporary Review or in the Guardian, and the argument was dropped until six years later when it was brought to light again by J. Horace Round.553 As with Child's essay, Round's was explicitly polemical, but Round's was far more combative as he denounced High Church historians as liars who intentionally

551 Aubrey Moore, Lectures andPapers on the History ofthe Reformation in England and on the Continent (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1890), v. 552 Unlike Stubbs, who attended all of the meetings in spite of reservations and only considered not signing, Freeman had been negligent in attendance and refused to sign the final product. See Stubbs to Freeman, Nov. 14, 1882, MS. Eng. Misc.e. 148, 262-263 ;William Holden Hutton, Letters of William Stubbs-Bishop of Oxford, 1825-1901, 229-230. 553 That the argument was dropped is not surprising since Child only named five High Church writers, and four of those named were deceased at the time of writing. 171 misrepresented historical facts.554 Round had a much better grasp of the scope of the High Church historiography than Child did and understood that the High Church historians were not merely a fringe group outside the universities.555 Furthermore, Round went much further in his criticism than Child by naming living opponents, his two main targets being

Nye and Wakeman. Round was concerned that historiography was being manipulated to defend theological positions:

The historian, obviously, is not concerned with abstract theological positions: it is not for him to say whether they are right or wrong. But he is concerned, and closely concerned, with the great facts of English history; and when he finds theologians or their friends trying to deny or travesty those facts, in the interests of some theory of their own, it becomes not only his right, but his duty, to tell them plainly, 'Hands off.' Round believed that a falsification of history was becoming institutionalized in England as "our schools are flooded, through the agency of the clergy, under the guise of faithful history, with treatises in which notorious facts are either ignored or explained away." 556 He argued that books such as those written by Nye and Wakeman had two main purposes. The

first was to use history to defend the established position of the Church of England from groups like the Liberationists, an object which Round sympathized with as he was also a member of the Church of England who supported the establishment. The second was to misrepresent the constitutional position of the Royal Supremacy so as to nullify Parliament's role in legislating for the Church of England:

Two issues, entirely distinct, have been willfully and systematically confused, with a definite object in view. It is obvious that the claim that the Church of England is a branch of the 'Holy Catholic Church,' coeval with Christianity itself, would be in no way affected if the former were 'disestablished and disendowed,' by the action of the State, to-morrow. It is no less certain that her position as the state or National Church, with all the

J. Horace Round, 'Popular Church History,' Contemporary Review, 74 (1898: July/Dec), 343, 346-350. Ibid., 339-340 Ibid., 335. endowments she possesses in right ofthat position, are hers only so long as she remains within the four corners of Acts of Parliament.... Now, observe, this in no way supports the 'Liberationist' case; it does not prove either that the State endowed the Church, or that the State has any moral right to deprive the Church of its endowments. But it does prove that the Church can only retain those endowments so long as it conforms to the wishes of the State as expressed by Acts of Parliament. This, however, I need scarcely say, is the 'red flag,' the 'abomination of desolation,' to a large and growing party among the Anglican clergy. They desire, in homely phrase, to 'eat their cake and have it,' to enjoy the status and endowments appertaining to the State Church without admitting the right of the State to interfere, in any way, with the character or teaching of the Church. Round used most of the essay to drive home the theme that continuity was broken at the time of the Reformation and that the only position of continuity that could be maintained was the continuity of the Church of England from the reign of Elizabeth. This was contrary to Nye's and Wakeman's books which offered representative High Church outlines detailing the founding of the state by the Church of England, the co-equal position of church and state without mingling of spheres until the unconstitutional interference of the popes following the Norman Conquest and the antiquity of the Royal Supremacy prior to the Reformation.558 Round argued that the true historical relation of the Church of England to the state was one in which the Church of England had to respect the wishes of Parliament and that in the present trying to subvert the authority of parliament through the continuity argument would increase the chances of disestablishment: "Everything, in fact, is sacrificed to the great 'continuity' juggle, the confusion between the legal and institutional, and the doctrinal continuity of the Church."559 By the end of the essay, however, Round showed that his interest in the work ofNye and Wakeman was theological as well as historical. Round noted Wakeman's statement that the true historical interpretation of the High

557 Ibid., 336. 558 G.H.F. Nye, ne Church and Her Story, 5, 53, 67, 82-83, 100, 107, 215; G.H.F. Nye, Popular Story ofthe Church ofEngland, 6; H.O. Wakeman, Introduction to the History ofthe Church ofEngland, 34-35, 84-86, 92-97,107-108, 119-138,307-311,315-324. 559 J. Horace Round, 'Popular Church History,' 341. Church revival of the nineteenth century was the restoration of the Church of England to the position which it held when Edward VI. came to the throne." Round went on to repeat William Harcourt's561 hyperbolic statement from a recently written series of articles in the Times that the Church of England would, if it acceded to the wishes of High Churchmen, "have everything here except the Pope." He also paraphrased F.W. Farrar's argument from an earlier essay printed in the Contemporary Review in a debate with WJ.

Knox-Little, entitled 'Undoing the Work of the Reformation,' that ritualists wanted "the overthrow of the Reformation."562 Historians like Round and Child, who held more or less undisclosed religious positions, seem to have been gripped by the same notions of

continuity and polarity as the High Church historians, but their understanding of continuity started in the sixteenth century and was one in which members of the Church of England could only be described as Protestant, and Christians in general as either Protestant or Roman Catholic.563

High Churchmen were quite enthusiastic about the opportunity provided by Round's article. Round was a notoriously cantankerous opponent, famous for his acerbic diatribes against opponents, most notably against Freeman's capability as a historian.564

560 H.O. Wakeman, An Introduction to the History ofthe Church ofEngland, 483. Round cited pages 492-493 from the 5lh edition in 1898. 561 William George Granville Venables Vernon Harcourt (1827-1904): Trinity College, Cambridge; Harcourt attacked ritualism in a series of letters to The Times titled 'The Crisis in the Church' which were subsequently published under that name. 562 J. Horace Round, 'Popular Church History,' Contemporary Review, 74 (1898: July/Dec), 352. See also, F.W. Farrar, 'Undoing the Work of the Reformation,' Contemporary Review, 64 (1893: July/Dec), 60-73. Frederic William Farrar (183 1-1903): King's College, London; Trinity College, Cambridge. William John Knox-Little (1839-1918): Trinity College, Cambridge. 563 Gilbert Child, 'The Present Position of the High Church Party, Contemporary Review, 62 (1892: July/Dec), 748-749; J. Horace Round, 'Popular Church History,' Contemporary Review, 74 (1898: July/Dec), 344. 564 Wakeman and Round were both Conservatives politically, while Freeman was not; however, Wakeman did not see Freeman's proto-democratic conception of early English history as antithetical to the Conservative party's platform on representational government. Anson Papers, Wakeman to Anson, Jan. 14, 1893. For the beginning of the debate with Freeman see, James Tait, 'John Horace Round', English Historical Review, vol. XLIII, no. CLXXII, Nov. 1928, 574 and 576. 174

The Church Times was confident that when either Wakeman or Nye answered Round in the Contemporary Review they would trounce him and would be more polite in the bargain.565 Only Nye replied and he was to prove a disappointment to the editor of Church Times.566 As a member of the CDI, Nye was trained specifically to engage in polemical discourse, but the general patriotic populist narrative which had proven so successful in his books and pamphlets proved unsuccessful when debating a professional historian like Round. Much of Nye's limited space was taken up with petty details meant to make Round look mean and

foolish. Nye's key argument was that the position of continuity which he maintained in his

books must be an accurate historical fact because the books themselves had sold well, the

bishops liked them and, most importantly, Lightfoot and Stubbs as professional historians had praised the books.567 Aside from this, Nye simply restated his position, but in a condensed form, that the Church of England was older than the state, was Catholic but that

the popes unconstitutionally infringed upon the rights of the Church and that the Church of England was the same church before and after the Reformation.568 The Church Times was unhappy with Nye's reply to Round.569 Round's rejoinder to Nye, entitled 'Church Defense,' reiterated his belief that the defense of the establishment could only be served by accurate historical research, and then went on to criticize Nye for arguing that continuity must be a historical fact because the bishops had supported his books: "If his statement is historically false, all the bishops of Christendom cannot make it true."570 Round singled out Stubbs and Creighton for the severest criticism, although he did treat his former teacher

565 Church Times, vol. 39, no. 1859, Sept. 9, 1898, 256. 566 Wakeman did not reply as he had only recently been married and was suffering from the chronic health problems to which he unexpectedly succumbed in the next year. Anson Papers, Wakeman to Anson, June 28, 1898. 567 G.H.F. Nye, 'Church History for the People. A Reply,' Contemporary Review, 74 (1898: July/Dec), 521 and 526-527. 568 Ibid., 522-524. 569 Church Times, vol. 39, no. 1863, Oct. 1, 1898, 376. 570 J. Horace Round, 'Church Defense,' Contemporary Review, 74 (1898: July/Dec), 703. Stubbs with some care. Of Stubbs, Round simply stated that Maitland's recently published Roman Canon Law in the Church ofEngland had overthrown all of Stubbs' conclusions as

to the minimal reception of the canon law by the medieval Church of England. Round's criticism of Creighton was more biting as he showed that Creighton had quoted a document once which he knew to be a forgery and implied therefore that Creighton was not qualified

to handle historical documents. Curiously, Round then went on to argue that lawyers were the professionals best suited to interpret historical material.571 In addition to dismissing the abilities of the bishops Stubbs and Creighton as historians, Round peppered both essays with accusations against the whole bench of bishops, particularly Archbishop Benson, of dishonesty, fraud and dereliction of duty in handling the question of proper ritual.572 Round looked back nostalgically to a time when the Church of England was told what to teach by the state and noncompliant bishops were simply removed from their posts:

The historian replies that at the Reformation there was not set up 'a new Church,' but there was established, in the language of the day, a new 'Religion' which our fathers believed to be scriptural and Apostolic, and which the old Church was compelled by the State to adopt and to teach. And those bishops who would not adopt and who declined to teach that new 'Religion' were bundled out neck and crop.573 Round showed a good knowledge of the High Church historiography on the relationship of the Church of England to the state and on the Reformation. Round also provided a solid

alternative position; however, High Church writers were unfazed by his articles. There is not much evidence of any High Church writers even having taken notice of them. The

Church Times simply stated: "Mr. Horace Round vigorously 'goes for' Mr. Nye in a rejoinder which seems to require to be met and answered by a more skilful controversial

571 Ibid., 704-705. 572 J. Horace Round, 'Popular Church History,' Contemporary Review, 74 (1898: July/Dec), 353; J. Horace Round, 'Church Defense,' Contemporary Review, 74 (1898: July/Dec), 703-705 and footnote on 711. 573 J. Horace Round, 'Church Defense,' Contemporary Review, 74 (1898: July/Dec), 710. 176 pen than Mr. Nye's." They did not consider that Round had provided evidence to overthrow the theory of continuity. W.H. Hutton of St. John's College, Oxford, had a hand in the production of Wakeman's book, but when asked by his student S.L. Ollard about the debate he seemed interested in the matter, but not overly concerned with Round's attacks as he did not even bother to keep up with the debate: "No, I haven't read anything of the controversy except Round's first article. I must buy them all."575 There is no indication in the correspondence, however, that he did buy them all.

A more lasting and productive critique of the High Church historiography was provided by F. W. Maitland's Roman Canon Law in the Church ofEngland, first published in 1898. Maitland's critique had the potential to be much more devastating to thé High Church position than the polemics of historians like Round, but the High Church historians reacted much better to his criticism. Round's statement that the consensus of historians had shifted towards Maitland's interpretation of the authority of Roman canon law in English ecclesiastical courts was overdone, since Stubbs' interpretation still had adherents, although Maitland's interpretation did gain ground fast.576 Much of this seems to have been attributed at the time to his self-ascribed impartiality which was reinforced by his public disavowal of all religion which he claimed as evidence of his lack of prejudice.577 Maitland did not deliver polemical arguments like Child or Round; rather he conformed to the

574 Church Times, vol. 39, no. 1868, Nov. 11, 1898, 560. 575 Ollard Papers: Letters of a Lifetime: W.H. Hutton to S.L. Ollard, 1893-1906, Hutton to Ollard, (n.d). 576 Norman Cantor, ed., William Stubbs on the English Constitution, 10-12. 577 In one case, the Catholic historian F.A. Gasquet argued that the unbelieving historian could be a kind of umpire for deciding historiographical issues that protestants and catholics tended to see through their respective theological perspectives, but the High Church writer Malcolm MacColl thought that Maitland had a sinister motive as "one of those agnostics who sought to damage the Church of England for the purpose of damaging dogmatic Christianity altogether; and their method is to argue that the only logical theory of Christianity is the Roman Church in its most aggressively Ultramontane form." See F.A. Gasquet, The Eve of the Reformation: Studies in the Religious Thought and Life ofthe English People in the Period Preceding the Rejection ofthe Roman Jurisdiction by Henry VlII (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1900), 446; G.W.E. Russell, Malcolm MacColl, Memoirs and Correspondence (London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1914), 224-225; F.W. Maitland, Roman Canon Law in the Church ofEngland: Six Essays (London: Methuen & Co., 1898), vi. Standards of historiographical discourse espoused at Cambridge and Oxford or in the

English Historical Review while eschewing the grand narratives and teleological assumptions of historians like Stubbs and Freeman, which added to his aura of impartiality.578 A central element of his book on Roman canon law was to show that Stubbs' historical appendixes written as a member of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission were not an accurate portrayal of the reception of the canon law in England before the

Reformation:

. . .There seems to me to be a tendency towards the confusion of two propositions. The first is this: that in England the state did not suffer the church to appropriate certain considerable portions ofthat wide field of jurisdiction which the canonists claimed as the heritage of ecclesiastical law. The second is this: that the English courts Christian held themselves free to accept or reject, and did in some cases reject, 'the canon law of Rome.' The truth of the first proposition no one doubts: the truth of the second seems to me exceedingly dubious.579 Maitland argued that the clergy of the Church of England before the Reformation accepted the Roman canon law, but the state rejected the canon law when it was convenient: "We must not attribute to the church what is done by the state."580 In the first essay in his book, on William Lyndwood, Maitland summed up his own position with an imaginary monologue provided by Lyndwood in which Maitland used the Lyndwood character to call the Ecclesiastical Courts commissioners heretics for denying the spiritual supremacy of the popes:

However, I very much fear that this is not your meaning, that what you call the canon law of Rome is what I call thejus commune of the church, and

578 Maitland thought that published works of constitutional history generally just emphasized conflict and were "showy." He never published this type of work, although a posthumous collection of his lectures, which he did not wish published, were given the title The Constitutional History ofEngland. See F.W. Maitland, The Collected Papers ofFrederic William Maitland, edited by H.A.L. Fisher, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911), vol. 2, 7; F.W. Maitland, The Constitutional History ofEngland, a Course of Lectures Delivered (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1919), v-vi. 579 F.W. Maitland, Roman Canon Law in the Church ofEngland: Six Essays, 51 that you are hinting that I am not bound by statutes that the popes have decreed for all the faithful. If that be so, I must tell you that your hint is not only erroneous but heretical. Maitland portrayed the Church of England not as an independent national Church during the Middle Ages, but as a national church fully integrated into the larger western Catholic

Church and subordinate to the center ofthat larger Church, which was Rome. With regard to the state, the Church of England, like any other church, would lose out to the state in any protracted contest: ". . .And if we find, as we easily may, that the English bishops are not persistently protesting against this usurpation, we must neither at once accuse them of neglect of duty nor at once credit them with an Anglican canon law which differs from the Roman."582 A key evidence of this was the Statute of Provisors (1351), which High Church historians often pointed to as evidence that the state backed up the Church of England's position as an independent national church before the Reformation finally settled the issue. Maitland instead described this legislation as "anti-ecclesiastical legislation" and noted that the English bishops took no part in the enactment.583 Like Child and Round, Maitland believed that the Reformation broke a previous line of continuity; however, unlike Child and Round, Maitland did not argue that a new line of continuity had been instituted. Instead he argued that the canon law had simply been surpassed by the study of civil law and the elevation of civilians to the practice of law:

But the great breach of continuity has yet to be noted. The academic study of the canon law was prohibited. No step that Henry took was more momentous. He cut the very life thread of the old learning. ... And as if this were not enough, Henry encouraged and endowed the study of 'the civil law,' and the unhallowed civilian usurped the place of the canonist on the bench.584

581 Ibid, v, 1-11,44-46. 582 Ibid., 56-57. 584 Ibid., 92. There was an appearance of continuity in the wake of the English Reformation at least up through the eighteenth century as apologists for the English state and the Church of

England competing with the papacy and Catholic nations created a myth of the ancient co- equal relationship of the English state and Church: "The national ranks were to present an unbroken front to the enemy; church and state were to stand, and were always to have stood, shoulder to shoulder."585 Maitland did not explicitly place Stubbs' work with the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission within this apologetic tradition, but it is clear that Maitland assumed that Stubbs' historical appendixes laid out the same general theory of the relationship of the Church of England to the state.

In spite of Round's statement that Maitland's work was damning to the High Church theory of continuity very few High Church historians explicitly rejected Maitland's interpretation. The most vocal critic of Maitland was Stubbs' biographer W.H. Hutton, while Stubbs himself replied once to Maitland in the third edition of his Seventeen Lectures. Hutton had written an address for the Church Congress of Shrewsbury in 1896 on the history of the Reformation. He reworked this address for a lecture for an Oxford diocesan historical society in 1898 and then at the request of Creighton he substantially reworked the piece for the London Diocesan Branch of the Church Committee for Church Defence and Church Instruction in 1899, adding criticism of Maitland in the preface.586 Hutton had been worried because Catholic historians and the Catholic Truth Society were renewing historiographical attacks on the Church of England and were using Maitland's work for polemical purposes as part of this program. Hutton's criticisms of Maitland were very brief and do not seem very well thought out while his treatment of the differences

585 Ibid., 85. 586 W.H. Hutton, The English Reformation: A Lecture with Preface and Notes, v; Ollard Papers: Letters of a Lifetime: W.H. Hutton to S.L. Ollard, 1893-1906, Hutton to Ollard, Nov. 15, 1898. 180

between Maitland and Stubbs in his biography of Stubbs boils down to a simple statement that Stubbs' position "will be the final decision of the learned world." So it is possible that Hutton was largely acting out of devotion to Stubbs.587 In his lecture on the Reformation Hutton linked Maitland's view to attacks on the Church of England by the Jesuit writer Herbert Thurston and then proceeded simply to dismiss Maitland's view on what he

described as a legal principle that one court is not beholden to another court "external to itself," implying that an English court could only necessarily accept the decision of another English court, not a foreign one. Hutton made no effort to grapple with Maitland's

interpretation that the opinion of canon lawyers in England prior to the Reformation had in fact been that English ecclesiastical courts were beholden to the ecclesiastical courts in Rome. He instead implied that the papal jurisdiction could not apply in England on constitutional grounds no matter what the actual practice had been.588 Hutton' s published lecture was well received even outside the High Church papers. An unsigned review in the Oxford Magazine was critical of Hutton' s statement that there was no break in continuity in

the seventeenth century, noting the "triumph of the Puritans" with the Interregnum, but applauded Hutton's treatment of continuity at the Reformation, noting: "The English

Church has the continuity (1) of legal possession and (2) of doctrine and discipline, because it rejected only accretions."589 Stubbs' reply was also short, packaged in introductory notes to his two lectures on 'The History of the Canon Law in England' in the third edition of his

Seventeen Lectures, but he showed an excellent grasp of the differences between himself and Maitland:

587 Writing to his former student S.L. Ollard, Hutton picked at minor details from Maitland's work and did not attempt any kind of refutation of the mass of detail which comprised Maitland's overall position. See Ollard Papers: Letters of a Lifetime: W.H. Hutton to S.L. Ollard, 1893-1906, Hutton to Ollard, Sept. 5, 1899. See also, W.H. Hutton, Letters of William Stubbs Bishop ofOxford, 1825-1901, 206. 588 W.H. Hutton, The English Reformation: A Lecture with Preface and Notes, viii. 589 'The English Reformation: A Lecture with a Preface and Notes,' Oxford Magazine, vol. XVIII, no. 2, Feb. 7, 1900, 193. 181

The one view concludes that the Canon Law of Rome as held in England was regarded not only with respect but as absolutely binding. The other, which is more or less the opinion that has been held by English jurists, is that the authority given to the Corpus Juris Canonici in practice was rather of the nature of scientific jurisprudence than of recognized, accepted and enacted law.590

Stubbs identified himself with the second view and Maitland with the first. He stated that the real difference between the two was that they were talking about two different ways of describing normative legal authority from a historical perspective. Maitland considered normative legal authority to reside in the everyday opinions of lawyers interpreting the law. The consuetudinary was more important than the statute, particularly where the statute was clearly neglected for long periods, as Maitland thought was the case with Praemunire or Provisors. Stubbs repeated that he considered the constitutional theory to be indicative of the normative legal authority even if the lawyers of the time themselves did not think so. Stubbs had considered a similar consuetudinary approach to that which he attributed to Maitland in unpublished statements to the Royal Commission in 1882.591 In explaining his differences with Maitland, Stubbs stuck to the constitutional position of the primacy of statute law:

On the other hand I never doubted that within its own area of applicability the Roman Canon Law did practically govern the ecclesiastical courts wherever it was not contrariant to the common law, nor overruled by the use of prohibitions, or thrown out ofuse by the protests of parliament or such statutes as those of Praemunire and Provisors. That a code liable to be overruled in such ways should be regarded as having a vitality and force analogous to that of the national law in temporal matters - that is, that the Corpus Juris stood, in the strict ecclesiastical courts, on the same level as the Statute Book in the temporal courts, I could not see; and knowing that what

590 William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures, 3rd edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1900), 335. 591 "I may be told that the law of the land, the Acts of Parliament, are already sufficiently binding and sufficiently justify obedience. But this argument falls in the presence of a great array of facts and feelings which are facts too. The whole question of ecclesiastical rights, privileges, doctrines and practices belongs to a region of thought in which not merely the letter of the law, but the element of voluntary adhesion, the element of doctrinal expansion, the element of theological continuity and critical and historical learning, have and ought to have weight." See Stubbs MS. 4455, 'Remarks and Proposals made by Dr. Stubbs before the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Courts on the 14th of July, 1881,' 4. 182

authority it had it owed rather to tacit assumption than to formal and constitutional acceptance by Church or State, I offered my explanation as sufficient. The question does not affect the fact, but the nature of the authority.592 Further down the page, Stubbs linked the question of the Canon law to current controversies concerning "the essential identity of a National Church." He stated that it was not appropriate to address those controversies in the notes but ended with an oblique

warning if Maitland's view were to become prominent: "If the Corpus Juris is the Universal Law of the Universal Church, cadit quaestio - and a good deal besides."593

In general, Maitland provided an historical interpretation that was acceptable to individuals within most historiographical circles that were attached to religious groups. Protestant historians, like Round, were happy that Maitland showed a break in continuity with the Middle Ages; Catholic historians like F.A. Gasquet cited Maitland's work to show the central role of the papacy in ecclesiastical life in England.594 With the exceptions of Hutton and Stubbs, High Church historians generally reacted positively to Maitland's work and did not express any worry about the possible implications. This was probably because Maitland was careful to exclude theological discussions from his work (the one dig at the

Ecclesiastical Courts commissioners through the imaginary Lyndwood speech aside). High Church writers were willing to accept his interpretation of the reception of Roman canon law in England even though he explicitly advocated a break in the continuity of the legal practices of the ecclesiastical courts of the Church of England. Since Maitland provided no theological attack, High Church historians did not have to struggle with any polemical

592William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures, 3 rd ed. , 336. 593 As it so happened, this debate about historiography between Stubbs and Maitland did come up in a polemical context regarding a national Church when it was resuscitated during the debate over the disendowment of the Church in Wales in 1912. See Arthur Ogle, The Canon Law in Mediaeval England: An Examination of William Lyndwood's 'Provinciale, ' in Reply to the Late Professor F. W. Maitland (London: John Murray, 1912). 594 F.A. Gasquet, The Eve ofthe Reformation, 80-81. 183

implications. It appears that they read Maitland's books and then created their own historiographical interpretations based on Maitland's results, but did not acknowledge the potentially problematic interpretation that Maitland himself advanced. They then went on to integrate Maitland's work into the High Church theory, usually requiring the modification

of some details of the theory, but keeping the central point of continuity. So we find High Church writers such as W.C.E. Newbolt and Darwell Stone citing Maitland with approval concerning the authority of the medieval popes in England while at the same time arguing that the continuity of the Church of England was not broken at the Reformation.595 Newbolt and Stone cited Maitland as to the authority of the pope in England prior to the Reformation, but then proceeded to cite Wakeman's Introduction to show that the Royal

Supremacy was still higher than the papal jurisdiction before the Reformation. They also cited Wakeman to show that the national Church of England always had rights separate from Rome and that the moral corruption of the popes in the century preceding the English Reformation justified the Reformation in England.596 Of the five authors dealing with the Middle Ages and the Reformation for the Macmillan series on the history of the Church of

England, Walter Frere cited Maitland as his authority for the usage of the title "Supreme Head" by Henry VIII, Edward VI and Mary I and Elizabeth's rejection ofthat term, but neglected to mention Maitland's opinion that even Elizabeth's less ambitious formulation of the Royal Supremacy was a new departure from the view of the monarchy generally held by medieval churchmen.597 W.R.W. Stephens cited Maitland's Roman Canon Law as his authority for explaining article three of the Constitutions of Clarendon, but instead of

595 William Charles Edmund Newbolt (1844-1930): Pembroke College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1868, priest in 1869; canon of St. Paul's Cathedral (1890-1930); Darwell Stone (1859-1941): Merton College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1883, priest in 1885. 596 W.C.E. Newbolt and Darwell Stone, The Church ofEngland: An Appeal to Facts and Principles (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1903), 12-13. 597 Walter Frere, The English Church in the Reigns ofElizabeth andJames I, 1558-1625, 13-16. 184 portraying Henry II 's legal reform as a push for royal prerogative, Stephens went on to state that "the main intention of [the Constitutions of Clarendon] clearly was to prevent friction and strife between the ecclesiastical and secular jurisdiction by defining the respective limits of each."598 Stephens portrayed Becket as intentionally misunderstanding the king, who only wanted peace. James Gairdner wrote to S.L. Ollard praising Gordon Crosse for citing Maitland's work for his draft entries in the Oxford Dictionary ofthe English Church, but then criticized Crosse for failing to recognize that the canon law of Rome was considered by the medieval clergy to be superior to the secular law of the kingdom.599 DJ. Medley, the tutor in history at Keble College, Oxford, published a standard text for students taking the history examinations at Oxford, A Student 's Manual ofEnglish Constitutional History in 1894 that went into a sixth edition by 1925, in which he maintained throughout the prefaces to all of the editions that Stubbs' views on a variety of points needed to be revised in light of Maitland's work.600 Medley had read Maitland's relevant articles on the Roman canon law published in the EHR and cited them to support his interpretation of the reception of the Roman canon law, but Medley's interpretation was clearly that of Stubbs as he interpreted the rejection of the Roman canon law in Acts of Parliament before the Reformation as of a constitutional nature and repeatedly referred to the Royal Supremacy as the restoration of rights "usurped" by the popes.601 Whether this misreading of Maitland was intentional or not is impossible to tell, but Medley's citations suggest that he accepted

Maitland's interpretation while his text suggests that he did not. Of the authors mentioned

598 W.R.W. Stephens, The English Churchfrom the Norman Conquest to the Accession ofEdward I, 168-175; 'The English Church from the Norman Conquest to the Accession of Edward I., 1066-1272,' The Pilot, vol. Ill, no. 46, Aug. 3, 1901, 135-136. 599 Ollard Papers: Temporary Home for SLO: scholarly correspondence, 1901-1946, Gairdner to Ollard, 14 Jan. 1911. 600 DJ. Medley, A Student 's Manual ofEnglish Constitutional History, 3rd ed. (Oxford: B.H. Blackwell, 1902), vi, viii-ix, xi. After the second edition, Medley only made minor corrections, updates and statistical adjustments to the book. 601 Ibid., 561, 564, 571-577, 588-589, 593. in this paragraph, only Gairdner seems to have understood the implications of Maitland's writings.

Although Round, and Maitland himself, described Maitland's interpretation of the Roman Canon law as novel, a handful of High Church historians were coming to similar conclusions before Maitland had published his articles on the Roman canon law. Whether tucked away in commentaries on the Rolls Series, Collections of State Papers, lectures published by members of the English Church Union or in articles in the English Historical Review, Nicholas Pocock, F.G. Lee, J.S. Brewer and James Gairdner all anticipated either some or all of Maitland's conclusions in publications not readily accessible to the English reading public. Lee went the furthest in rejecting the traditional High Church narrative of the Reformation as well as the constitutional underpinnings of the continuity narrative of the Church of England as a local self-government; subsequently, he claimed that the Church of England was in fact "a new Church" and the Royal Supremacy a usurpation of the rights of the popes.602 Lee's books were generally only taken seriously by polemicists thrilled by the spectacle of a clergyman in the Church of England attacking the historical position of the Church of England while High Church historians were irritated by his vituperative language and unguarded theological positions.603 In an article in an early number of the English Historical Review and through edited volumes, Pocock formulated a heavily nuanced form of the continuity argument putting forward the idea that there were two periods of continuity, one from the mission of St. Augustine up through the early part of the reign of Henry VIII and then another from 1662 up to his own present. For the first period

602 F.G. Lee, Historical Sketches ofthe Reformation (London: Griffith and Farran, 1879), 7-12, 17-23, 3 1-37; F.G. Lee, The Church under Queen Elizabeth: An Historical Sketch with an Introduction on the Present Position ofthe Established Church, 2 vols. (London: W.H. Allen and Co., 1880), ix-xii, 189-197, 298-300. 603 Although Ollard was clearly angered by Lee, he thought that many of Lee's contentious points were probably correct but Lee's rancor marred his work. See, Ollard Papers: Ollard Papers XIII, Ollard to R.T. Brandreth, 7 August, 1940. 186 of continuity in England, the popes were considered to have held the position usurped by Henry VIII and then Elizabeth after she overthrew Mary's restoration.604 For Pocock, it was important to show that Henry VIII' s religious policy was purely determined by his need for a divorce because of his relationship with Anne Boleyn.605 Pocock argued that laying out a "Reformation Settlement" during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth I, as many historians and controversialists did, didn't make any sense since the religious policies of the three monarchs were contradictory; however, he argued that limiting a Reformation Settlement to the reign of Elizabeth was acceptable, but that this settlement would have to be described as moderately Calvinist in doctrine and practice and, furthermore, would have been overthrown during the reigns of James I and Charles I.606 Pocock thought that the only settlement that people could talk about as surviving up to his own present was the settlement from the Restoration period with the prayer book of 1662 and the interpretation of the 39 Articles with Charles IPs declaration attached to them. Pocock suggested that the term "Restoration Settlement" should replace the more traditional term of "Reformation Settlement."607 The break with the traditional High Church narrative that Brewer and Gairdner proposed held many similar features to Maitland's. They both argued that the Reformation was purely the work of Henry VIII who forced a pliant Parliament and an unwilling nation through violence to "reform" the "old Faith" while the real reason behind

604 Nicholas Pocock, 'The Reformation Settlement of the English Church,' English Historical Review, vol. I, no. 4, 681,688. 605 Nicholas Pocock, Records ofthe Reformation: The Divorce 1527-1533, mostly nowfor the First Time Printedfrom MSS. In the British Museum, the PRO, the Venetian Archives and other Libraries, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1870), v-viii, xii-xiii, xxxii-xxxiii; Nicholas Harpsfield, A Treatise on the Pretended Divorce between Henry VIII. And Catharine ofAragon, edited by Nicholas Pocock, (London: Printed for the Camden Society, 1878). 606 Nicholas Pocock, 'The Reformation Settlement of the English Church,' English Historical Review, vol. I, no. 4, 677-678. 607IWd., 681. 187 this religious policy was Henry's desire to marry Anne Boleyn. Before Maitland, both Brewer and Gairdner had also argued that Henry had transferred ecclesiastical privileges enjoyed by the pope to himselfunder the Royal Supremacy, including the legal right to settle ecclesiastical disputes.609

With the exception of Lee's publications, which were calculated to offend members

of the Church of England, none of these newer representations of the continuity of the Church of England aroused much if any concern in High Church circles until the publication of Gairdner's The English Church in the Sixteenth Centuryfrom the Accession ofHenry VIII to the Death ofMary, published in Macmillan's series the History of the English Church in 1902. In January of 1899 Hutton had published an article in the Guardian stating that Henry's divorce had little to do with the Reformation. Gairdner replied in the

subsequent number that the Reformation could only have happened in the manner that it did because of Henry's divorce and then proceeded to publish a pamphlet on the subject which Hutton replied to in the notes of his published lecture The English Reformation.610 This earlier public controversy might partially explain why Gairdner was singled out by Hutton for criticism, while historians like Brewer and Pocock were not; however, it could also have been that the genre in which Gairdner's views were laid out was problematic, the genre of

608 J.S. Brewer, The Reign ofHenry VIIIfrom his Accession to the Death ofWolsey, vol. 2, 469-473; Great Britain. Public Record Office, Letters andPapers Foreign and Domestic ofthe Reign ofHenry VIII. Preserved in the Public Record Office, the British Museum, and elsewhere in England, 2 1 vols. (London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green, 1862-1910), vol. 4, ccli-cclii, ccxcvii-ccxcix, dcxxix-dcxxxii, dcxlvii-dclx, dclxii-dclxiv; James Gairdner, 'Katharine of Aragon's Second Marriage,' in James Gairdner and James Spedding, Studies in English History (Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1881), 146-148; James Gairdner, 'New Lights on the Divorce of Henry VIII,' English Historical Review, vol. 11, no. 44 (Oct. 1896), 675, 688- 689. 609 Brewer added that Thomas Cromwell was the instigator of some of Henry's worst policies and that Henry was probably oblivious to some of Cromwell's worst actions. J.S. Brewer, 'The Royal Supremacy and the History of its Introduction,' in J.S. Brewer, English Studies; or, Essays in English History and Literature, 300, 329-330, 337-339; J.S. Brewer, The Reign ofHenry VIIIfrom his Accession to the Death ofWolsey, vol. 1,72-73; vol. 2,475-479. 610 W.H. Hutton, The English Reformation: A Lecture with Preface and Notes, 35; Macmillan Archive, CCXCV, 550761, Gairdner to Macmillan, 27 March, 1899. 188

the popular general history, as this type of book was more likely to be purchased by non- specialists than books related to Brewer's and Gairdner's work in the PRO. It is unclear just how many people were upset by Gairdner's book, but there were apparently enough that Archbishop Davidson contacted the editor of the series, William Hunt, to complain, in Hunt's words, "that its way of speaking of the reformers had shocked and angered some

people - as he thought without real cause." Hunt agreed with Davidson's criticism and admitted that he had not paid enough attention to the work assuming that only Frere's volume would be potentially offensive; however, he also noted: "On the other hand some of my historical friends at Oxford were warm in praise of Gairdner's work. But historical scholars are few and the weaker brethren many."611 According to Hunt, Davidson's criticism of Gairdner's treatment of the reformers in the book was in regard to Gairdner's

frequent reference to "Protestants" and Henry VIII as heretics. Gairdner had stated in the book that he thought the term Protestant anachronistic and inappropriate, but could not think of a better term to use since Lollard and Puritan were also not right.612 In this book Gairdner added that papal provisions were an "usurpation;" however, he nevertheless reiterated his and Brewer's position that they were the normative practice in the ecclesiastical courts of England in spite of Acts of Parliament since the reign of Edward III directed against them.613 He also reaffirmed his position that the clergy were generally coerced into supporting Henry's new religious policy.614 He asserted and supported for the first time in his work a general theory that in order to avoid religious anarchy "a temporal sovereign always must be supreme, even over the Church within his own kingdom."615

611 Macmillan Archive, CCXCV, 550801, Hunt to Macmillan, June 19, 1903. 612 James Gairdner, The English Church in the Sixteenth Centuryfrom the Accession ofHenry VIII to the Death ofMary, xi, 135. 613Ibid, 11. 614Ibid, 16, 155,163 615 Ibid., 155, 365-366, 390, 392. However, he admitted that Henry's new position was innovative: "It was a new principle that Henry VIII. introduced into politics, involving new responsibilities, to him and to his successor, that the civil ruler was charged with the care of national religion no less than with the national defense and administration."616 Davidson did not take the kind of action that Benson had by censoring historical texts that he disliked. He kept an eye on the progress of the Macmillan series and in 1906 wrote a letter to Macmillan which Hunt appreciated although Davidson apparently continued to express dissatisfaction with Gairdner's book.617

Hutton and Ollard continued to be perplexed by the book, and in 1906 Ollard decided to confront Gairdner about the book's implications concerning the historical continuity of the Church of England. The correspondence was cordial and Gairdner wrote a lengthy reply. The first point of interest is that Gairdner stated that he had not wanted to write the book at all and only gave in with reservations after being persuaded by Hunt.618 Secondly, Gairdner was one of the only High Church historians to strictly lay out the conditions needed to prove a historical break in continuity:

So also, as regards this matter of the continuity of the Church of England, I would observe that it is simply a question of fact or no fact. The reason why there is any dispute about it is, apparently, that people do not agree about terms. To bring the matter to a decisive issue let us ask ourselves one simple question. If the Church of England is not the same Church now that she was

616 Ibid., 396 617 Macmillan Archive, CCXCV, 550801, Hunt to Macmillan, May 15, 1906. 618Gairdner's recollection was correct. Given the economics of publishing works of history in this period it was rare for historians to simply write books and expect them to be published because of the quality of the research. Publishers wanted books that would sell. Often publishers approached editors to oversee a series, who approached writers for the proposed series, or publishers approached individual historians. With the Macmillan series, Gairdner and Warre Cornish both had to be convinced to write their books, and Warre Cornish, Overton and Frere were all either the second or third choices to write their books. Macmillan Archive, CCXCV, 55080 1 , Hunt to Macmillan, Feb. 27, 1 903 ; Macmillan Archive, CCCXXXI, 551161, Warre-Cornish to Macmillan, 10 March, 1903; For an overview of publishing books in a series see, Leslie Howsam, 'Sustained Literary Ventures: The Series in Victorian Book Publishing,' Publishing History, 31 (1992), 5-26. 190

before the Reformation, at what precise date did the loss of identity take place?.... If there was any breach of continuity in the Church of England, there must have been a precise year in which it took place. What was that year? ... Moreover if Royal Supremacy, insisted on once more, to the exclusion of papal jurisdiction, under Elizabeth, was in itself a fatal blow to the continuity of the Church, where is the remedy possible even now? The argument really implies that the old Church was absolutely killed beyond all possibility of revival. For the Sovereign of these realms, whatever changes of thoughts may occur hereafter, cannot possibly divest himself of his full supremacy over all persons and all causes, alike ecclesiastical and civil. A historian would have to show that the break in continuity happened in a specific year and

according to the dictates of the Royal Supremacy. Gairdner thought that the break would need to occur in one year only because of his elevated belief in the constitutional position of the Royal Supremacy. The break could not happen over a longer period of time because the break could only be created by a statute promulgated in a given year. Gairdner believed that no such statute had been promulgated by an English sovereign through the state, hence no such break had occurred and continuity was therefore maintained. Moreover, since

Elizabeth used the Royal Supremacy to reverse Mary's policy of restoring the papal jurisdiction then any argument made by Catholic or Protestant controversialists in present

controversy for a break in continuity upon Elizabeth's use ofthat Supremacy would imply the utter destruction of the old Church of England and the creation of a new one. Gairdner did not believe that such a break was in fact possible, because of the Royal Supremacy. In addition to the constitutional argument Gairdner provided a more general description of how the theory of continuity could adjust to different historical manifestations of the state:

The question resolves itself into this - 'what is the true Church of Christ?'. . . Christianity can live under various conditions, imposed even by pagan tyranny. It has lived in the Catacombs of Rome as well as in the Vatican of St. Peter's. And surely it lived in England under Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth, though placed under different conditions from those which prevailed before. Now, if the country still contained a community of Christians - that is to say, of real believers in the great Gospel,of Salvation - men who still accepted the old Creeds, and had no doubt that Christ died to 191

save them - then the Church of England still remained the same Church as before.619 Although he had not said so in his books, for Gairdner personally the question of continuity was theological as well as constitutional. Before publishing for the Macmillan series he had used the historical-critical skills he learned from Brewer primarily for uncontroversial work

such as the collection and organization of documents for the Rolls Series, the Camden Society, his edition of the Pastori Letters and his lives of Richard III and Henry VII. While Gairdner's narration of the constitutional and theological fact of continuity seems to have been perfectly clear to him, he stated that he understood that it would not be so to others, and while he felt that the reception of his book had been better than he had expected he was

clearly shaken by the criticism which it received as he expressly planned his four-volume Lollardy and the Reformation in England precisely to clarify his positions on the continuity of the Church of England and Henry's divorce.620 Gairdner did have one target, Mandell Creighton, as Gairdner apologetically dissented from two of Creighton's statements describing the English Reformation as

. . .a great national revolution which found expression in the resolute assertion on the part of England of its national independence. . . .There never was a time in England when the papal authority was not resented, and really the final act of repudiation ofthat authority followed quite naturally as the result of a long series of similar acts which had taken place from the earliest times.621 Gairdner followed a similar line to that which we have laid out for Maitland already. He argued that Parliamentary statutes on Provisors and Praemunire were few and far between and not upheld by the pre-Reformation kings, that Henry VIII forced the rejection of papal authority upon an unwilling nation which only began to turn against the popes in the age of 619 Ollard Papers: Gairdner to Ollard, 6 Jan., 1906. 620 James Gairdner, Lollardy and the Reformation in England: An Historical Survey, four vols. (London: Macmillan and Co., 1908-1913), volume I, vi. 621 James Gairdner, Lollardy and the Reformation in England, volume I, 3-4. For Creighton's original statements see, Mandell Creighton, Historical Lectures and Addresses, 150. Elizabeth, and that Lollards, rather than being an example of popular proto-Protestant feeling in England, were zealously persecuted as heretics by the state as well as the Church and not at all representative of national feeling.622 Nevertheless, as in his letter to Ollard, Gairdner made clear his constitutional and theological belief that the continuity of the

Church had not been broken at the Reformation:

And surely it would be a very strong thing to say that there was no Christianity, or no Church, left in England, merely because the King was so powerful and self-willed. . ..[Henry VIII] made no vital change in doctrine, and when, by the very fact of separation from Rome, questions pressed for settlement about the theological and spiritual basis of a separate church, he was very careful to leave the responsibility of drawing up new formularies as much as possible in the hands of his own divines and bishops. This continuity of the Church was maintained because of "the work of the Holy Spirit."624 Gairdner did not think it possible that God would allow the Church to be destroyed merely because of the constitutional implications of the Royal Supremacy. In spite of what people in England might have themselves believed up to the Reformation, Gairdner at one point did state that at a constitutional level the "Royal Supremacy was really no new thing, and the papal theory of a universal monarchy to decide principles of faith, conduct and government had never been fully admitted in practice."625 Aside from this one statement, though, Gairdner resisted the temptation of narrating the history of the Church of England as a local self-government independent of Rome. Gairdner's constitutional language regarding the Church of England is more difficult to pin down, as he did not leave his opinion on the origins of the Church of England. For the period following the Reformation the Royal Supremacy was a fact from which the Church of England could not escape, but

James Gairdner, Lollardy and the Reformation in England, volume 1,5, 60-92, 136-140, 170; volume III, Pg. 247. 623 James Gairdner, Lollardy and the Reformation in England, volume II, 305. 624 Ibid., 287. 625 James Gairdner, Lollardy and the Reformation in England, volume I, 284. Gairdner did not see this as a problem divesting the Church of England of its status as a

true Catholic Church.

Two celebrated events from the period which attracted much attention to the continuity of the government of the Church of England were the Archbishop Laud Commemoration in 1895 and the Augustine Commemoration in 1897. The Laud

Commemoration was organized by W.E. Collins who was chosen because from 1890 he had held the curacy of All Hallow's Barking, within sight of the place of Laud's execution,

and was by 1895 the Professor of Ecclesiastical History at the nearby King's College, London. The commemoration lasted a month and included lectures by a number of prominent High Church historians including Creighton, Collins, Hutton and CH. Simpkinson as well as the Laudian Professor of Arabic at Oxford, D.S. Margoliouth.626 There was a collection of Laudian relics such as the cap which Laud wore on the scaffold, his ivory headed walking stick and a shirt worn by Charles I at his execution, and there was

choral singing of the Te Deum while Peter Heylin's (1599-1662) account of Laud's death scene was read aloud. 7 Collins' introduction and essay in the published commemoration noted that the lesson taught by the classic Whig historians, Burnet, Hacket and Macaulay, of Laud's career as the ultimate study in repressive tyrannical policy, was politically motivated and needed to be reassessed on historical grounds.628 Laud was portrayed by Creighton as a tragic figure struggling not only to maintain the liberty of the Church of England and the nation against unpatriotic Puritans who wished to destroy the former and leave the latter isolated against papal Europe, but to maintain the religious progress of the

626 David Samuel Margoliouth (1858-1940): New College, Oxford; Laudian professor of Arabic (1889-1937). 627 Arthur James Mason, Life of William Edward Collins, Bishop ofGibraltar, 25-26; the memoriam published for the event contained a full catalogue of Laudian relics: see W.E. Collins, ed., Archbishop Laud Commemoration, 1895: Lectures on Archbishop Laud together with a Bibliography ofLaudian Literature and the Laudian Exhibition Catalogue, etc. (London: A. Southby & Co., 1895), 279-320. 8 W.E. Collins, za., Archbishop Laud Commemoration, vii-viii, 58. 194 entire world.629 Laud did make one mistake as "he completely identified the Church with the State." Laud held office not only in the Church but also in the state, and he corrected

wayward Puritan clergy not merely by his power as their episcopal head, which would have been appropriate according to primitive antiquity as accepted by the government of the Church of England, but by applying to the laws of the state, by choosing "power over influence."630 Creighton's lecture was considered to be the key-note and was favorably reviewed by the Times.631 Collins' analysis was constitutional. He argued that the absolutism of the Tudor monarchs "was nothing less than providential for England,"

because thereby they freed England from the grasp of Rome, but nevertheless their absolutism "ran directly counter to the whole course of the natural development of our constitution." Collins argued that God was using the Church of England to providentially guide the English state into "the gradual increase of the sphere of orderly law, side by side with the restriction of arbitrary prerogative."632 Laud was a victim of constitutional development in that while his high sacral royalist theory was perfectly legal and in keeping with the times, it nevertheless ran against the tide of constitutional development and primitive canonical government. Laud's ecclesiastical principles were victorious with the confirmation of the Book of Common Prayer by Charles II in 1662. Laud was vindicated,

and at the cost of his life, but this was part of God's plan as Laud was the only man who could have completed this work: "Nor could any other have taken his place."633 The month- long Laud celebration was a success, and even the Times under the editorship of the cautious George Earle Buckle ran a leader stating that the commemoration was "a symptom of a curious and perhaps not unimportant change of public opinion." Although the writer

629Ibid, 8-11, 15-16. 630 Ibid., 21-25. 631 'Archbishop Laud Commemoration,' The Times, Friday, Jan 1 1, 1895; pg. 6; Issue 34471; col A. 632 W.E. Collins, ed., Archbishop Laud Commemoration, 35. 633 Ibid., 42-44, 47-48. thought that perhaps the Laud lecturers had formed "too favourable a judgment" of Laud's career, nevertheless, he or she concluded that the eulogists were probably closest to the historical truth. The writer summarized Laud's historical position within the Church of

England: "His views of the true position of the Anglican Church were of a kind which have always been received by a large body of Churchmen."634 This overwhelmingly positive reception of the commemoration of one of the most despised characters in English history was an important turnabout for the High Church historiography. This does not suggest that an overall reappraisal of Laud's career in this period took place, as we see that the leader in the Times was still cautious in its praise, but this does mark the first time since the publication of Macaulay's denigration of Laud that High Church historians could present Laud as a non-controversial figure.

This new environment in which High Church historians could demonstrate the continuity between Laud's ecclesiastical principles and those of Restoration Churchmanship allowed them to plug up a potential hole in the continuity argument caused by the Interregnum.635 The anniversary also saw the publication of three books on Laud by the High Church historians CH. Simpkinson and W.H. Hutton, the latter for the Leaders of Religion series, as well as a pseudonymous work under the name of ? Romish Recusant,' but actually written by Thomas Longueville a convert from the Church of England to the Catholic Church.636 None of these books was a big seller, although Hutton's would quickly

634 'The Ceremony which Took Place in Trinity-Square,' The Times, Friday, Jan 1 1, 1895; pg. 7; Issue 34471; col. F. 635 It does not appear that High Church historians were particularly worried about a hole in the continuity argument here since they were able to mirror the monarchy and secular government in describing the whole Interregnum as an unconstitutional abeyance. Just as Charles II could date the start of his rule from the death of his father, so could the Church of England argue that the link of continuity had not been broken with the unconstitutional ejection of priests and bishops. 636 CH. Simpkinson, Life and Times of William LaudArchbishop ofCanterbury (London: John Murray, 1894); W.H. Hutton, William Laud (London: Methuen, 1895); A Romish Recusant [Thomas Longueville], A Life ofArchbishop Laud (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1 894). 196 go into a second edition, but those of Hutton and Simpkinson were well received in the Church of England papers and Longueville's book was generally praised by Hutton, and the two entered into correspondence, in spite of the clear polemical content in both of their books.637 Hutton and Simpkinson pointed to the preservation of the continuity of the Church of England thanks to the work of Laud in spite of the apparent break with the Interregnum. The Interregnum was presented simply as "the Rebellion," an unconstitutional act, by Simpkinson.638 Hutton discussed the Interregnum minimally, focusing instead on Laud's trial and death and then leapt forward to the triumphal victory of Laud's Catholic principles and the maintenance of apostolic Church government at the Restoration. In both books, the Interregnum was treated as an abeyance rather than a break in continuity, and so the Restoration was simply the resumption of the normal life of the Church and the

state. The real cause of the Rebellion had nothing to do with the actions of Laud or Charles. In Simpkinson' s book the Rebellion was caused by the rapacious desire of the aristocracy in the English Parliament to get more land from the Church as well as the secret machinations of the Jesuits to cause chaos in England.640 In Hutton' s book it was the aristocracy of Scotland "led by selfish politicians" and Presbyterian clergy who were "narrow" in their religion who started the Rebellion because they detested the monarchy and the Laudian movement which was for them "too conservative in its foundations and too liberal in its outlook."641 Both Hutton and Simpkinson argued that Laud had the constitution, the law of the period and the popular support of the people on his side. For

Hutton and Simpkinson the key element in maintaining continuity throughout the Rebellion

W.H. Hutton, William Laud (London: Methuen, 1895), xi. CH. Simpkinson, Life and Times of William LaudArchbishop ofCanterbury, iv-v, 210, 215, 218. W.H. Hutton, William Laud, 236-240. CH. Simpkinson, Life and Times of William LaudArchbishop ofCanterbury, 38-40, 239-241 , 293-295. W.H. Hutton, William Laud, 182-186, 189-190. 197

was Laud's martyrdom. Hutton imparted a kind of mystical ability to Laud's martyred body, the ability to win continuity from the grave:

From the hour of his death the reaction set in. The tide of war surged far away from where his body was laid to rest; but in his grave the first strength of the new Restoration movement was sown. The King might fight and fall, but the permanence of the English Church was assured by the martyrdom, as it was soon felt to be, of her greatest son.642 Simpkinson stated that it was the steadfast witness of Laud's and Charles' martyrdoms which preserved the principles of the Church of England along with the proper form of constitutional government under the monarchy.643 Simpkinson and Hutton were in agreement as to what they perceived to be Laud's ideal and, subsequently, the true ideal of the relationship of the Church of England to the English state. In their books they showed that the Church should be free from Parliament in terms of determining doctrine and ritual through the legislative body of Convocation but subject to the Royal Supremacy.644 Simpkinson added that Laud had overstepped the true position of the Church of England by accepting the position of "Prime Minister" and thus mingling Church and state too much, a

mistake that the Puritans would subsequently make, but that this experiment had failed and would not be repeated as the Church of England from the Restoration onwards would take

the true position of using "influence" rather than governmental position to aid in the development of the nation.645 This reading of Laud's ecclesiastic position as bridging the Interregnum because of the continuity ofbelief and practice at the Restoration was fairly common for the High Church historians. A group of younger High Church historians proliferated a narrative portraying the Reformation not as an event or a period beginning

642 Ibid., 223. 643 CH. Simpkinson, Life and Times of William LaudArchbishop ofCanterbury, 259, 281 . 644 CH. Simpkinson, Life and Times of William Laud Archbishop ofCanterbury, 246-248; W.H. Hutton, William Laud, 89-90. 645 CH. Simpkinson, Life and Times of William Laud Archbishop ofCanterbury, 256-258. 198 with the reign of Henry VIII and confined to the sixteenth century, but really a process which had started during the reign of Henry VII, with what they assumed were reformist policies instituted by Archbishop Warham, and completed at the Restoration with Charles IFs ratification of the Prayer Book of 1662. In this narrative of the Reformation, the Church of England and the state were portrayed as working hand in hand to return the proper supremacy to the Crown and purge the Church and the nation not only ofpapal encroachments, as Reformation narratives which stopped at the Elizabethan settlement did, but to also purge Church and nation of a doctrinally and politically dangerous Puritanism which was considered to be unpatriotic.646 The key proponents of this chronologically elongated Reformation were Wakeman, Collins, Hutton and Malcolm MacColl. This interpretation of the chronology of the Reformation and the maintenance of continuity with ratification of the Prayer Book of 1662 helped provide a bridge of continuity up to these writers' own present in the 1890s and reinforced the historical narrative of a cordial co- equal relationship between the Church of England and the state.

For the Augustine commemoration, a number of separate projects and events were planned. Collins wrote a series of celebrated articles in the Church Times examining the condition of England at the coming of Augustine, but he did so by denying that there had ever really been a British Church in the geographical region of England as there had been no system of ecclesiastical government until Augustine organized the Church of England for the Anglo-Saxon race which was even then understood to be the English nation. Collins asserted that the Church of England owed a debt to Rome, but that this debt was owed for

646 H.O. Wakeman, Introduction to the History ofthe Church ofEngland, 258, 309-3 16, 377-378; W.E. Collins, The English Reformation and its Consequences (London: SPCK, 1898), 22-23, 27-28; W.H. Hutton, A Short History ofthe Church in Great Britain, 121-141, 217-219; W.H. Hutton, The English Reformation: A Lecture with Preface and Notes (London: Rivingtons, 1899), 4-5, 17-18; H.O. Wakeman, The Reformation in Great Britain (London: Rivingtons, 1900), 17-21, 126-128; Malcolm MacColl, The Reformation Settlement Examined in the Light ofHistory and Law (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1899), 120, 125-129. 199 helping to establish an independent national Church of England for the English people and for helping England become a nation state: "The new England was admitted to the commonwealth of the nations."647 A month-long series of lectures was delivered at St. Paul's Cathedral, with the main lecture being that of G.F. Browne which was subsequently published by the CHS. Browne launched a defense of the continuity of the Prime Minister's role in advising the Crown in the appointment of bishops:

The present method by which the sovereign authorises a chapter to proceed to an election, and the sovereign, with the advice of the chosen representative of the people, clerical and lay, namely, the first minister of the Crown, chooses some person who shall be nominated to them for election, is an adaptation of old customs of the realm to modern times and modern responsibilities and modern conditions. . .. It would be contrary to the spirit of the English constitution, and the English Church, and the English people, to allow six or seven of the clergy to introduce their own nominee into the position of the greatest subject of the realm next to the direct blood royal.648 Browne was probably aiming his defense at criticisms leveled by members of the Church of England concerned by the presence of the Prime Minister in the process of the selection of

bishops for the Church of England and who wished for a process more like that of the Catholic Church in England where the canons of the cathedral elected the bishop and there was no need to seek the consent of the state.649 Browne argued that the selection of bishops was too important to the life of the nation to be left to a small conclave of canons. Moreover, Browne thought that even if chapter canons in England had elected bishops for a brief period after the Second Lateran Council, in 1 139, this was still not the constitutional

647 'The Coming of St. Augustine,' Church Times, vol. 37, no. 1789, May 7, 1897, 549-550; 'The Coming of St. Augustine,' Church Times, vol. 37, no. 1790, May 14, 1897, 581-582; 'The Coming of St. Augustine,' Church Times, vol. 37, no. 1791, May 21, 1897, 613-614; 'The Coming of St. Augustine,' Church Times, vol. 37, no. 1792, May 28, 1897, 642-643. 648 G.F. Browne, The St. Augustine Commemoration, Church Historical Society XXIX (London: SPCK, 1897), 7. 649 England was an exception in this period. In most of the nations of Europe where canonical election was applied at this time there was some state interference. In Austria, Switzerland, Prussia and some states in Germany, the electors could not choose an individual considered distasteful by the government. In Austria, Bavaria, Spain and Portugal the government presented the candidate to the pope. Browne would have been aware of this, but probably thought that much of the laity were not. 200 position as practiced from England's ancient past which involved the Royal Supremacy and the advice of a representative of the Church and people. The Lambeth Conference of 1898 was moved to 1 897 to coincide with the Augustine commemoration. Curiously, a central highlight of the conference was a special visit to Glastonbury, and an open air service was held in the Abbey ruins with most of the bishops in attendance and an audience of about six thousand listeners. Browne was chosen to deliver the address and began with a statement of the Church of England's original independence from Rome: "The Church of England was always, from earliest times, the Church of the English, Ecclesia Anglicana; never Roman Catholic, never Romana."650 Unlike the St. Paul's lecture, this address was clearly anti- Roman in tone. The Latin designation used by Browne to refer to the Church of England is reminiscent of article one of Magna Carta. This was not only a rhetorical device to grab the audience, but the expression of a perceived constitutional relationship between the Church of England and the English nation which precluded interference by the popes in the affairs of the English Church because of the constitutional relationship to the state. It was very common for High Church historians in this period to appeal to article one of Magna Carta as a constitutional guarantee of the freedom of the Church of England from the jurisdiction of the papacy as well as a guarantee of freedom within the ecclesiastical sphere where there was no friction with the law of the realm. They interpreted this first article as setting a constitutional precedent that the Church of England would always be a co-equal partner with the state under the Royal Supremacy and therefore as susceptible to the development of the English constitution as the state.651

650 G.F. Browne, Recollections ofa Bishop, 361-362. 651 C. Arthur Lane, Illustrated Notes on English Church History, volume I, 209-2 1 1 ; H.O. Wakeman, An Introduction to the History ofthe Church ofEngland, 129-132; H.O. Wakeman and Arthur Hassall, Essays Introductory to the Study ofEnglish Constitutional History,297'-309; W.R.W. Stephens, The English Church 201

The great proponent of the message of the Church of England as a continuous local self-government was Mandell Creighton. W.G. Fallows has noted the one instance where Creighton, commenting on Maitland's Roman Canon Law in a letter to A.W. Hutton in

October of 1899, stated that "the 'continuity' argument had been overdone," and taken this to mean that Creighton was not interested in the continuity argument.652 When we look at the entire passage, however, it is clear that Creighton argued for the continuity of the government of the Church of England: "The 'continuity' theory has been overdone. In the sense of continuity of organization it is true; but this has been made to carry a vast amount, which must be disentangled."653 Creighton had attempted to clarify what he meant by continuity just the day before in a letter to Robert Bickersteth:

There is continuity (1) of faith, (2) of ecclesiastical organization, (3) of the sacraments as ordained by Christ. This is the framework of the Church.... The Reformation in England was an attempt to bring that system back to its early simplicity and connexion with the life of men. That attempt dealt only with what was avowedly experimental and not essential. 'Continuity' was not affected by local 'uses.' These uses may be changed by consent of the Church, but not by individual congregations.654 Private expressions such as these show that Creighton articulated a very thoroughgoing theory of the continuity of the Church of England which included a continuity of faith, government and sacraments; furthermore, his reference to uses shows that he portrayed the Church of England as more than a denomination and at least on an even footing with Rome or the Orthodox Churches, although he did not lay out any kind of developed branch theory. He was an active public speaker and used various formulations of the continuity narrative for a variety of public purposes. From the failed Welsh Suspensory Bill of 1893 from the Norman Conquest to the Accession ofEdward I., 1066-1272 , 219-225, 331; Mandell Creighton, The Church and the Nation, 184-185. 652 W.G. Fallows, Mandell Creighton and the English Church, 54. 653 Louise Creighton, Life and Letters ofMandell Creighton, sometime Bishop ofLondon, volume 2, 41 1 . 654 Ibid., 380. 202

until his death in 1901, Creighton used his authority as a historian and the platforms provided to him as a bishop at Church Congresses and diocesan meetings to show that the

government of the Church of England and the government of the English state were two different continuities which were brought together into one sphere by "nationality." In his Presidential Address to the Peterborough Diocesan Conference in 1893, Creighton described nationality as the shared life of the English people based "on identity of historical experience" rather than on commonality of race or language.655 Initially, the Church of England formed the English state through its "fostering care" and "gave meaning to the State." Over time, though, the state began to provide more meaning to the nation than the Church because the papal centralization distanced the Church of England from the people.

This was fixed with the Reformation and the rejection of the papal jurisdiction; however, the state also began to fail the nation because people began to be divided into political parties. The only stable force in English society which could represent national aspirations in the nineteenth century was the Church of England, as even the challenge of the stellar statistical rise of Nonconformity over the past one hundred years was but a recent trend and not a continuous historical phenomenon.656 Creighton stated in his Romanes Lecture of 1896, 'The English National Character,' that the English people were the first people ever to have a national character at all.657 Creighton' s continuity argument in the original form from 1 893 was articulated precisely to confute attempts by Welsh nationalists and their supporters to disestablish the Church of England in Wales. The Welsh nationalist campaign highlighted the Welsh race, Welsh language and the statistical majority of the total number ofNonconformists in Wales stemming from the Welsh Methodist Revival to show that an

655 Mandell Creighton, 77¡e Church and the Nation, 9-12. 656 Ibid., 25-27. 657 Mandell Creighton, Historical Essays and Reviews, edited by Louise Creighton (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1902), 216 and 231. established Church of England in Wales was both offensive to the people of Wales and also anachronistic given the then current religious scene. In 1894, Creighton countered with his continuity argument that disestablishment would actually work against Welsh nationalistic desires because there had not been the required historical basis for such separation in the past: "Long before Wales was politically united with England it was united ecclesiastically. There has been no breach in the continuity ofthat connexion. The attempt to represent the Church in Wales as 'an alien Church,' imposed upon a reluctant people, has no warrant in the facts of history."659 Creighton argued that the fact that the number ofNonconformists in Wales was outpacing the number of members of the Church of England in Wales in the present was not important, even though this state of things had developed over the course of a century, because in the grand scheme of English history one hundred years was but a small portion and not enough time to be considered a historical norm.

Creighton modified the nationality narrative as circumstances changed and new challenges came along, primarily the challenge to English orders culminating in

Apostolicae Curae in 1896 and then when he inherited the fallout from the 'Church Crisis' in his diocese when he became Bishop of London in 1897. The first adaptation, however, came in 1894 with Creighton's eager acceptance of the Local Government Act of 1894.

Creighton argued that if the Church of England in Wales was disestablished by the state then the Church of England would inevitably be disestablished as well. He was a Liberal Unionist, against Irish Home Rule, and began to drift away from the Liberal party after the party's formal adoption of the platform of disestablishment of the Welsh Church in 1891.

Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, vol. 9 (1893), col. 204-208, 229-233. Mandell Creighton, The Church and the Nation, 37. 204

He began to express the idea that the state tended towards centralization and in a sermon in 1892 publically declared that political power was an inherently corrupting influence.660 By 1894, Creighton haled local self-government as "the most primitive principle of English institutions" and noted that "the vestry meeting is a survival from times when local government was vigorous." The legislation in the 1894 bill was very attractive to Creighton as the choice to emphasize the civil parish rather than the ecclesiastical parish as the administrative unit did not diminish the rights of the ministry other than to remove the oversight of charitable funds connected with the Poor Law, a right which Creighton thought onerous to the clergy and which he was glad to be rid of.661 With this one exception, the framers of this bill ensured that ecclesiastical parishes would maintain full rights in their sphere.662 Even before the fall of the Liberal government in 1895 and the subsequent lull in the disestablishment question, Creighton had turned his efforts towards proving the continuity of the Church of England in the face of the study of Anglican Orders proposed by the French priest Ferdinand Portal and sanctioned by Pope Leo XIII from the end of 1894. At the Church Congresses of 1895 and 1896, at Norwich and Shrewsbury, Creighton and a handful of other historians within the Church of England planned a series of lectures to show that the Church of England was always independent of Rome and was a voluntary partner with the state rather than an "Act of Parliament Church." In August of 1895, when it was decided that Creighton, Augustus Jessopp and H.M. Gwatkin would link a series of lectures together, Creighton wrote to Jessopp with some confusion:

If you show the independent origin of the Church of England, I will go on something like this. The Church of England accepted the papal jurisdiction

660 Mandell Creighton, The Heritage ofthe Spirit and Other Sermons, 2 edition (London: S.C. Brown, Langham & Co., 1905), 173-174. 661 Creighton was not against charity, per se, but he argued that administrating charities distracted the clergy from the appropriate spiritual work. See, Mandell Creighton, The Church and the Nation, 96-99. 662 Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, vol. 10 (1893), col. 694. 205

for sufficient reasons, and repudiated it for still more sufficient reasons. It was never merged in the Church of Rome. The Middle Ages reveled in ideal theories - e.g. the Empire did not absorb the English state. The English Church submitted appeals to the Pope, disputed papal legates, received papal bulls just as far as it liked: sheltered itself under the Crown when convenient, finally allowed the Crown to resume all that the Pope claimed. Would these be the right lines?663 Creighton's address went on to show that the medieval idea of a united and universal Christendom was merely a theory without any basis in the actual experience of history. The connection between the Church of England and the state was a fact. English clergy had periodically vetted the popes for judgments in order to confute tyrannous kings, but in most cases both the English state and the English Church were always loyal to the will of the monarch who was the head of the nation.664 The appearance that the Church of England was merely a branch subordinate to the larger Catholic Church was illusory:

I cannot put what seems to me to be the historical truth more clearly than in this form; the Church in England, while retaining its own continuity in all essentials, admitted the papal jurisdiction on grounds of utility, and then passed through a long period in which it discovered that that jurisdiction was dangerous to church and nation alike.665 At Shrewsbury, Creighton's thesis was that not only were the ideas of the National Church and the Catholic or Universal Church not contradictory, but that in fact, "the differentiation of nations is part ofthat continuous revelation of God's purposes which is contained in history." This included the differentiation of the Church into parts corresponding to national boundaries leading to a shared historical experience of the people who lived within those boundaries. God planned on using the Church to create the nation state as opposed to the idea of empire. This was clear to Creighton because a universal empire had proven unworkable after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the west and was simply not possible

Louise Creighton, Life and Letters ofMandell Creighton, sometime Bishop ofLondon, volume 2, 141. Mandell Creighton, The Church and the Nation, 177-181 and 183. Ibid., 186. 206

in the real world. The collapse of the Roman Empire began a process of splitting where each small element claimed supremacy, first with the splitting of the east and the west, since there was still an Emperor in the east, and then a splitting of the Teutonic and the Latin because the Church of Rome "was no longer a Church, but a State; it no longer promoted the general interests of Europe, but sought its own interests."666 Creighton argued that it was only in England that a true national Church had developed according to God's

plan as the other Teutonic peoples abandoned proper church government within a national structure. The growth of "sects" may have seemed to be a black spot against the unity of the Church of England and had in fact caused conflicts between the Church and the state, but even here there was further evidence of the power of the Church of England as "its weapon

is influence, not power;" subsequently, Creighton stated that the Church of England clearly had a better record than the Church of Rome which squashed "sects" in Italy, Spain and France, but at the cost of "liberty." Meanwhile, the Church of England had grown to respect

the civil rights of citizens who chose to worship outside the Church of England. This respect for civil rights came about precisely because the Church of England was able to influence the state and the nation because of its close connection and suggest this better way of tolerance.667

The so-called 'Church Crisis' starterd in 1897 and was instigated by WV. Harcourt.

He wrote letters to the Times, subsequently collected and published as Lawlessness in the National Church, which were calculated to convince ritualists to leave the Church of

England by arguing that a national church must be held accountable to Parliament rather

Ibid., 207-214. Ibid., 213-215. 207 than the bishops who were portrayed by Harcourt as assisting law breakers.668 This controversy was exacerbated by John Kensit who disrupted church services thought to be using illegal ritual.669 The response of the ritualists, led by Lord Halifax, was to devise counter-disruptions.670 This conflict was primarily confined to London, so Creighton as bishop of London was therefore in the position of having to negotiate between two determined and provocative groups within the Church of England. One side called for greater control by the state and the other called for less state involvement. Both sides claimed that the other was undermining properly constituted authority; however, Creighton' s letters to individuals in both parties and his address to convocation along with Archbishop Temple671 in May of 1898 suggest that he saw both as a threat to what he considered to be the proper role of episcopal authority in keeping order in the Church of England.672 Creighton himself at his enthronement had been the target of one ofKensit's protests because of Creighton' s choice to wear a mitre given to him by Wakeman, and because Creighton had promoted clergy that Kensit considered to be ritualist.673 In his letters, Creighton was stern with both sides and seems not to have favored one over the other if only because he found both groups equally aggravating; consequently, the stress of this conflict caused an ulcer to develop from which he died just a few years later.674 Creighton stated that he thought the "individualism" of both sides was the problem as they

668 W.V. Harcourt, Lawlessness in the National Church (London: Macmillan and Co., 1899), 1-2, 13-15, 24. For a discussion of Harcourt's ecclesiology see Alan Wilson, 'Authority of Church and Party among London Anglo-Catholics, 1880-1914, with special Reference to the Church Crisis of 1898-1904,' 69-70; G.I.T. Machin, Politics and the Churches in Great Britain, 1832-1868, 238-240. 669 For the Kensit campaign see, Martin Wellings, 'The First Protestant Martyr of the Twentieth Century: the Life and Significance of John Kensit, 1853-1902', Martyrs and Martyrologies, ed. D. Wood, Studies in Church History, 30 (1993), 347-358. 670 Charles Lindley Wood, second Viscount Halifax (1839-1934): Christ Church, Oxford; worked actively with the ECU to defend individuals accused of ritual irregularities. 671 Frederick Temple (1821-1902): Balliol College, Oxford; Bishop of Exeter (1869-1885); Bishop of London (1885-1896); Archbishop of Canterbury (1896-1902). 672 Louise Creighton, Life and Letters ofMandell Creighton, sometime Bishop ofLondon, volume 2, 294-298. 673Ibid., 215. 674 Ibid., 462-464. both lacked toleration for one another's liberty and a sense of the good of the Church and the nation.675 After the content of the Holborn resolutions in 1899 had become public, in which a group of High Churchmen had left ambiguous language suggesting that they might or might not obey episcopal decisions, Creighton had been contacted by MP's, whom he

left unnamed, worried about the contents of the document. He wrote to one participant at Holborn: "This is really doing harm to the public conscience. Instead of being a pattern to the State, the Church is a shocking example of what to avoid. It ought to be possible to state a case which shall be intelligible to the people at large."676 During this controversy, Creighton reformulated the continuity argument again to show that the history of England suggested that the Church of England tamed unbounded individualism and highlighted the corporate life of the nation. In summarizing his lecture to the Royal Institution of Great Britain in 1897, entitled 'The Picturesque in History,' Creighton stated: "The great object of history is to trace the continuity of national life, and to discover and estimate the idealism on which that life is founded. Individuals are only valuable as they express those ideas and embody that life."677 He made a similar statement in his address to the ruri- decanal conference of 1899, entitled 'The Position of the Church of England:' "First, the Church is a great witness to the continuity of national life, and the method of the Divine training of our race. It raises a constant protest against excessive self-assertion, against unbridled individualism; it urges the claims of corporate life as supreme."678 In a rare public mention of the state in this latter period, Creighton argued that all things valued by contemporary society originated with Christianity, and he specifically traced the origins of the state to the Church in his inaugural address to the London Church Congress in 1899:

675 Ibid., 261, 292, 358-360. 676 Ibid., 355. 677 See, Mandell Creighton, Historical Essays and Reviews, 284. 678 Mandell Creighton, The Church and the Nation, 264 The Church educated the State, or educated public feeling, to see [the State's] necessity, until it was taken over as an avowed object ofuniversal pursuit. It is well that this process should go on, that the whole community should be saddled with duties which it recognizes as its own, whether it be conscious of their Christian origin or not.679 In his diocesan charge in 1900, 'The Church and the Nation,' Creighton exhorted the clergy of his diocese "to rise above our personal aims, our individual work, our private preferences, and face the great issues of the future of our Church and nation."680 Creighton highlighted throughout the Church Crisis that the Church of England accounted for the freedom of the individual while pointing towards the higher and more important unity of the nation brought about by the guiding example of the Church of England. Creighton never said that the Church was in any way independent of the state and presumably he still believed in the established position of the Church, although the establishment was not a focus as it had been for him in the early 1 890s; however, during this crisis in which the bishops were accused of abetting law breakers, Creighton focused his public statements on the historical position of the Church of England led by the bishops as the guarantor of

English national life and the originators of the English state.

Creighton's view during the early 1890s of the state as a force with the tendency to grasp after power was reformulated by two of his Cambridge students, W.E. Collins and

J.N. Figgis, who moved in different directions with the idea. Collins and Figgis were model students following the academic reform outlined by Creighton and Gwatkin when

Creighton was the Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History. They each won the Lightfoot scholarship in ecclesiastical history, Collins in 1889 and Figgis in 1890, a prince consort's prize for a suitably academic dissertation, Collins' in 1890 with an unpublished dissertation entitled 'The Conversion of Frisia' and Figgis' in 1892 with a dissertation entitled 'The

679 Ibid., 281 680 Ibid., 322 210 Divine Right of Kings,' which was published in 1896.681 Afterwards, their careers were quite different. Whereas throughout the 1890s up to the Royal Commission on

Ecclesiastical Discipline Collins' writings were primarily in the area of church defense, Figgis' focused on defending the "real existence" of individuals and then of "small groups" within the nation state. Figgis' main theoretical concern was the possible implications of the legal philosopher John Austin's theory of sovereignty detailed in The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, published in 1832. Austin taught that positive morality was separate from either positive or divine law and hence relative to time and place. He described obedience to law as "praiseworthy" action.682 Austin also taught that sovereignty was located in the will of the lawgiver who was not subject to any superior authority and to whom all other members of society were "dependent" or "subject."683 It is clear, however, that Figgis was also worried about the role taken by the state in current issues, such as the disestablishment question, the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline, the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act (1907) and the education question, so his writings were also concerned with present controversy.684 Figgis countered both Austin's theory and the role played by the state in the present with a theory of organic self-development which saw the freedom to pursue the development ofpersonal righteousness as true "liberty" and the only defense of the rights of the individual and small groups before the state: ". . .it is only as liberty is seen to have its true ground in the inalienable right of human character to be its best that there ever is or ever will be any adequate defence against the claim of organization to consider only efficiency or the desire of administrators to think of order

681 Arthur James Mason, Life of William Edward Collins, 4-5, 9-11/ Maurice G. Tucker, John Neville Figgis: A Study (London: SPCK, 1950), 6, 23. 682 John Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (London: John Murray, 1832), 176-179, n. 130- 135. 683Ibid., 198-201. 684 J.N. Figgis, Christianity and History (London: James Finch & Co., Ltd., 1905), 2-7; J.N. Figgis, Churches in the Modern State (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1913), 4-22, 32-40. 211 before righteousness."685 Concerning the Church of England as a community in relation to the state, Figgis at least rhetorically veered away from most High Church historians in this period by asserting that the established position of the Church of England was not important:

What really concerns us is not so much whether or no a religious body be in the technical sense established, but whether or no it be conceived as possessing any living power of self-development, or whether it is conceived either as a creature of the State, or if allowed a private title is to be held rigidly under the trust-deeds of her foundation, thereby enslaved to the dead.686 Figgis' fullest treatment of the relationship of the Church of England to the state was in his earliest work The Divine Right ofKings. There are two central points in the book. The first is that all political theories are relative, historically contextualized, resist universal applications and inevitably give way to newer and better stages of development. Figgis argued that the theory of the Divine Right of Kings was just such a historically contextualized theory, primarily located in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in England.687 Figgis' other major point was to demonstrate that the theory of Divine Right was a bridge between ancient Imperial theories requiring unity and conformity and modern facts and theories of religious toleration in England. Figgis argued that the development of religious toleration in England preserved a uniquely English emphasis on obedience while preserving the continuity of English institutions and thus allowed the individual the freedom to develop personal righteousness; subsequently, the violence and despotism which he thought characterized the revolutions of other nations was avoided in England. In Figgis' outline, the theory of the Divine Right of Kings was in one sense the product of

685 J.N. Figgis, Christianity and History, 70. 686 J.N. Figgis, Churches in the Modern State, 39. 687 J.N. Figgis, The Divine Right ofKings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896), 17-18, 151, 264- 266. 688 Ibid., 256, 260. human instinct, as evidenced by the fact that nearly all societies have some sort of "sacred chief," but the theory took the specific shape that it did in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in England because of the conflicts first with the Tudors struggling against the centralizing tendencies of the popes and then with the struggles between the Stuarts and Parliament.689 Figgis never used any categorically Hegelian dialectical language, but his description of historical forces was one of ideas and forces acting and reacting to one another with some new product resulting. In the case of English religious history, first the popes attempted to create a centralized ultramontane state to which the English state naturally reacted with the germ of Divine Right theory.690 Because of this strengthening of monarchical theory, Parliament began to assert a theory of original contract and thus the development of Divine Right theory was forced to accelerate even further until it became a "popular theory" because of the people's reaction to the "anarchy and tyranny" of the Long Parliament.691 Figgis described this entire process as "anti-clerical" in nature, so it would seem ironic that the chief adherents of the theory were in fact the clergy of the Church of England. Figgis, however, argued instead that it was natural for Churchmen such as Laud to support such a theory because they knew that Puritans and Presbyterians would set up an even more tyrannical system of church government that would deny the liberty of spiritual development. The system of the Independents might seem to have provided a possible solution allowing more freedom, but even this system was a strike against the freedom of spiritual development: "Even Independency, which seems to leave the whole matter free, 689 Here my reading of Figgis deviates from that of David Nicholls who gives the fullest treatment of Figgis' thought on toleration and the relationship of church and state. In Nicholls' reading, the Church of England plays a much less prominent role in Figgis' thought. This is perhaps because I use the more history oriented The Divine Right ofKings and Figgis' notebook on constitutional history more extensively than does Nicholls. See David Nicholls, The Pluralist State (London: Macmillan Press, 1975), 17, 31-34. 690LN. Figgis, The Divine Right ofKings, 28-29, 90-93, 105. 691 Ibid., 139-142. Figgis was criticized by S.R. Gardiner for this point; see 'The Theory of the Divine Right of Kings,' English Historical Review, 12 (1897), 171; Acton was worried about Figgis delivering lectures based on the book given Gardiner's misunderstanding, see, Mirfield Deposit 3.4 (Additional Papers) J.N. Figgis. Acton Correspondence, papers, Acton to Figgis, 9 May, 1897. implies a denial of the right of the nation as a whole to an ecclesiastical organization. Had it ever become universal, there could not have been a single religious communion claiming to represent the nation on its spiritual side."692 For Figgis, the language of rights only extended to the freedom of the individual, the small group or the entire nation to determine their spiritual development. Therefore, only the Church of England under a tolerant state could ensure the full range of possible freedoms to develop spirituality. Any other church would exclude one of these elements. Christianity was only to be concerned with spiritual freedom above any political system. Even slavery of the human body was only condemned according to Christian principle. Acts of agitation on the part of Christians against actual systems of slavery were "mere political measures," a confusion of ends and means.693 Figgis thought that the people of England in his present owed the Churchmen who supported the theory of the Divine Right of Kings a great debt for ensuring the victory of toleration in England: "From the claim by Divine Right put forward by the Church to a freedom which meant supremacy, has grown the doctrine of toleration, by which alone, as a practical limit upon state action, religious freedom can be secured without clerical supremacy."694 Figgis thought that the Churchmen of the seventeenth century had gone too far by trying to erect a universal system out of the theory, but aside from this failure they secured the future of the English constitution:

The value of the theory as a political force is due not to this purely scientific element, but to the testimony it bears to the need of continuity in national life and to the paramount importance to a State of a law-abiding habit. It is easy to deny the doctrine. But those, who do this, should bear in mind that the singular orderly character of English constitutional development, its

J.N. Figgis, The Divine Right ofKings, 202-205. J.N. Figgis, Christianity and History, 69-72; J.N. Figgis, Churches in the Modern State, 49-53, J.N. Figgis, The Divine Right ofKings, 260. freedom from violent changes, would not have been obtained but for the influence of this doctrine.695 Although Figgis continued to maintain that all political systems were relative, which was evident to him by the rise of an equally relative system during the nineteenth century, representative democracy, he also maintained that the English constitution and nation were living organisms grown up with the English people that achieved unity and continuity because of the Church of England.696 Unlike most of the High Church historians who were comfortable with the political machinery of England in the present, and who consequently sought out the ancient seeds of Parliamentary development and limited monarchy in the past, Figgis was antagonistic towards such historiographical efforts and criticized the constitutional narratives of Stubbs and Freeman which linked English Parliamentary traditions in the present to the Germanic political systems of the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchic period.697 While High Church historians generally portrayed the growth of the English constitution as engendering a balance between Parliament and what might be described as a limited monarchy by the reign of Edward I, Figgis portrayed the growth of the constitution as engendering a reactive struggle over royal prerogative on the part of the monarchs which was only settled at the Restoration.698 The English constitution did not necessarily recommend any particular political system, and the political machinery of the present would inevitably change. The English constitution did provide the machinery for toleration and this was thanks to England's unique position of having an ancient national Church which taught the Christian message of spiritual freedom and obedience to authority, thus 695 Ibid., 144. See also, J.N. Figgis, Christianity and History, 31-32. 696 Mirfield Deposit 3.8. Notebook on Constitutional History, annotated by J.N. Figgis, 27-28; J.N. Figgis, Christianity and History, 37-38, 45-46. 697 Figgis did locate the genus of the English constitution in "Teutonic systems," but he rejected any proto- democratic interpretations of the composition of the Witanagemot, see Mirfield Deposit 3.8. Notebook on Constitutional History, annotated by J.N. Figgis, 16-18, 25, 39-40, 49, 122; J.N. Figgis, Christianity and History, 51-52. 698 Mirfield Deposit 3.8. Notebook on Constitutional History, annotated by J.N. Figgis, 122; J.N. Figgis, The Divine Right ofKings, 27. 215 avoiding the revolutionary excesses so disastrous for other countries.699 Figgis' formulation of the continuity argument was unique in marginalizing the established position of the Church of England. This was probably because his greatest concern seems to have been about the implications ofAustin's theory of sovereignty and the threat of a possible future where the state encroached upon the rights of individuals and small groups to grow in righteousness, a threat which other High Church historians seem not to have considered.

Collins' writings on the relationship of the Church of England to the state were written for popular audiences and highlighted the beneficial aspects of the connection between the two. His first publication dealing with church and state was written in a polemical context for the CHS during the 'Church Crisis.' The CHS's first foray into this controversy was with H.O. Wakeman's short pamphlet detailing the historical position of the Royal Supremacy. 700 Collins was allowed one of the few full length publications sponsored by the CHS. His book consisted of four lectures on the English Reformation which showed that the Church of England had never accepted the papal jurisdiction as legitimate and that the Royal Supremacy was an ancient constitutional right of the crown.701 The Church of England had always been Catholic and under the Royal Supremacy, had always honored the popes, but had never been Roman Catholic, and therefore the current method of elevating bishops in the 1890s, which involved the formal approval of the monarch, was really the historical method of the Church of England even during the Middle

Ages, a period which he worried was idealized by some members of the Church of England.702 Collins next effort was modest in scope but was crucial for the High Church historiography on the relationship of the Church of England to the state as Collins wrote the

699 J.N. Figgis, The Divine Right ofKings, 214-215, 253, 264. 700 H.O. Wakeman, The Royal Supremacy in England, no. XXIII (London: SPCK, 1 897). 701 W.E. Collins, The English Reformation and its Consequences, 34-40. 216 entry for the word 'Establishment' for the supplemental tenth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1902. He gave an unexceptional High Church reading of the term, but this was the important point, as this ensured that the "Act of Parliament" theory then currently proposed by people like Harcourt would not be the one that "the millions" seeking to improve themselves through the encyclopedia would be reading.703 In the following year for the Bristol Church Congress, Collins read a paper entitled 'Church and State in England before the Conquest' which was subsequently published by the CHS under that title after the controversy of the church crisis was becoming replaced by the preparation for the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline. Collins declared that the state was always the senior partner in all relationships including those with the Church:

Now the fact of the matter is, and it will be clear to anyone who will consider the subject, that there never was a time, either in England or elsewhere, when the Church was entirely free from state control. Such a thing is unthinkable, unless the Church be itself the State. The Church like every other body, always was, and always must be subject to whatever laws happen to be in force for the time being; it takes its place before the law, and enjoys the protection ofthe law just like any other society or any other individual within the body politic.704 For Collins, the Church of England was in the same position as any other church, society or individual within the nation. The only difference between the Church of England and other churches was a difference of "degree" but not of "kind." The state extended certain privileges and limitations to all churches, but to the Church of England "for the purposes of civil utility" there were extra privileges but with extra corresponding limitations, and the Church of England, for its part, accepted both the privileges and limitations in order to carry out its work: "But the word establishment tells us no more than this. It implies the existence of a specially close relation between the State and the particular religious body,

703 Encyclopœdia Britannica, 10th ed., s.v. "Establishment." 704 W.E. Collins, Church and State before the Conquest, Church Historical Society LXXIX, (London: SPCK, 1903), 3-4. 217 but it tells us nothing of its nature."705 Collins described three general historical periods in the relationship of the Church of England to the state. The first was from the coming of

Augustine up to the Norman Conquest; "the two were so closely and so intimately connected that there was no room for dispute between them, and yet there was little in the nature of confusion."706 Collins stated that this was probably a very harmonious time in the relationship between the Church of England and the state when the Church was purely national, English and Catholic, when the kings were supreme, but the bishops always took the lead in the affairs of the Church. Collins thought that it was impossible to replicate those conditions ever again given historical circumstances. The period from the Norman

Conquest to the Reformation was "a kind of three-cornered duel" in which the kings, popes and the hierarchy of the Church of England battled to control the Church, a battle which the popes won subsequent to the rejection of the papal jurisdiction at the Reformation and the renewal of the Royal Supremacy during the third period which extended up to Collins' own present.707 In the run-up to the meetings of the Royal Commission, Collins' stated moral in this lecture was that people who valued the catholicity of the Church of England should not worry about the state's connection with the Church of England and should instead worry about "indifference to sacred things," since "only the Church of God can make a bishop;" furthermore, an important argument of his was that the way of appointing bishops in

England involved less state involvement than in Portugal, Russia and presumably other Catholic and Orthodox countries.708 It didn't make sense to criticize the method of elevation used by the Church of England, which involved considerations of the state through the Royal Supremacy, since Catholic countries suffered under similar restraints

705 Ibid., 6. 706Ibid., 19. 707 Ibid., 8-10. 708 Ibid., 20-21. 218

although with a greater potential for threat as in certain countries it was possible that the

representative of the state might not even be Christian, whereas the coronation oath in England ensured that the monarch would be a communicant of the Church of England.

The Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline is notable in the context of this discussion for the reason why High Church writers did not find this potential threat worth encountering with historiography - it conformed to their historical interpretation of the relationship of the Church of England to the state. With the exception of Collins' pamphlet for the CHS, which defended the role of the state in the Church of England, there was nothing like the number of historiographical productions which accompanied the controversy over disestablishment of the Welsh Church, Apostolicae Curae or the Church Crisis. The biggest book produced by a High Church writer in regard to the Royal Commission was Malcolm MacColl's The Royal Commission and the Ornaments Rubric. MacColl's earlier The Reformation Settlement, published in 1899 during the Church Crisis, went into a tenth edition by 1901 and energized the High Church side.709 This earlier book called forth two replies from Maitland criticizing aspects of the book and a review from A.F. Pollard710 in the English Historical Review mediating between MacColl's and Maitland's positions but rejecting MacColl's central argument that the 1559 Book of

Common Prayer had been submitted to Convocation in the form of an "informal synod" led by the Marian bishops.71 ' In contrast, The Royal Commission and the Ornaments Rubric

709 'The Reformation Settlement,' Church Times, vol. 40, no. 1896, May 26, 1899, 637; G.I.T. Machin, Politics and the Churches in Great Britain, 1869-1927, 236-237. 710 Albert Frederick Pollard (1869-1948): Jesus College, Oxford; professor of constitutional history, University College, London (1903-1931). 71 ' Malcolm MacColl, The Reformation Settlement Examined in the Light ofHistory and Law, 8th ed. (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1900), 728-762; F.W. Maitland, 'Canon MacColl's New Convocation [Reply to no. 4351],' The Fortnightly Review, vol. 72 (Dec, 1899), 926-935; F.W. Maitland, 'Canon Law in England: A Reply to Dr. MacColl,' English Historical Review, vol. 16, no. 61 (Jan., 1901), 35-45; A.F. Pollard, 'The Reformation Settlement Examined in the Light of History and Law,' English Historical Review, vol. 16, no. 62 (Apr., 1901), 376-379. 219 fell flat, not even reaching a second edition. MacColl was primarily concerned with defending his own testimony to the commissioners and accused some of them of

"unconscious bias," although he had not even seen the results of the report before publishing his book.712 He attacked the idea that Parliament was capable of legislating for the Church of England not on constitutional grounds, but because some MP's were not members of the Church of England. MacColl was comfortable with the authority of the Royal Commission, but still thought that the bishops through Convocation should be the only legislators for the Church of England.713 W.H. Abraham wrote his book Church and State in England to welcome the investigation and remind his readers that Parliament should have no say in what doctrine is taught or the discipline of the clergy beyond managing property because some of the members were not Christian and it was within the realm of possibility that a future Prime Minister might not be Christian.714 This was supported by a standard High Church outline.715This general acceptance by High Church writers, in spite of what could have been portrayed as a potential intrusion from the state, had to do with the nature of Royal Commissions in the United Kingdom as public inquiries which have authority granted to them by the monarch, on the advice of the government, and formally appointed by letters patent. This was exactly the position laid out by the High Church historians as the constitutionally valid method of the state to enter into the sphere of the Church of England.716 A Royal Commission could easily be composed solely of members of the Church of England and acted under the Royal Supremacy. Gary Graber has recently demonstrated that there was very little controversy surrounding this Royal

712 Malcolm MacColl, The Royal Commission and the Ornaments Rubric (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1906), xiii-xxxviii. 713 Ibid., xci-xcv. 714 W.H. Abraham, Church and State in England (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1905), vii-viii, 6-7, 232-234. 7l5Ibid., 18-20,23,45-65,69, 106, 111-115, 194-195,205-206,232-234. 716 The exotic High Church narrative formulated by F.G. Lee was an exception. 220

Commission, and where concern was articulated by High Church writers it was over the potential results and Balfour's reasons for calling for any sort of investigation at all.717 The question of whether or not it was appropriate for a Royal Commission, as a body in this case constituted to examine the question of the discipline of the clergy in regard to ritual practice, was not raised by High Church writers. Graber has shown that when Davidson vetted High Church representatives on the possibility of a Royal Commission or a

Parliamentary select committee, only one favored a select committee, most were adamantly opposed to a select committee and all supported the validity of appointing a Royal Commission.718 When coupled with the large quantity of historical works produced by High Church historians touching on the relationship of church and state, the practical acceptance of the Royal Commission is clear evidence that High Church writers were willing to see the continuity theory born out in a practical affair. The narrative as proposed by Stubbs would, with modifications, dominate Church of England historiography and serve practical purposes well into the twentieth century.

The first practical challenge to this historiography came relatively quickly in 1913 with a report published by the newly formed Representative Church Council which resulted in the formation of the Archbishops' Committee on Church and State to consider "what changes are advisable in order to secure in the relations of Church and State a fuller expression of the spiritual independence of the Church as well as of the national recognition of religion."719 The report of the Archbishops' Committee was divided into a handful of sections written by different members, the main section being written by Sir Lewis

717 Gary Graber, 'Worship, Ecclesiastical Discipline, and the Establishment in the Church of England, 1904- 1929,* 38-39, 100-102. 718 Ibid., 37-38. 719 Report ofthe Archbishops ' Committee on Church and State (London: SPCK, 1916), 1 . 221 Dibdin720 and the historian A.L. Smith. Dibdin's and Smith's section along with one written by G.F. Browne contained the main historical matter.721 The two sections from the report offer similar Stubbsian outlines of the history of the Church of England and Stubbs is, in fact, the only nineteenth-century authority cited in the report. The Dibdin/Smith summary did refer to the "independent existence" of the Church of England once; however, more often the two men referred to the "cooperation" between church and state.722 Browne framed the relationship in terms of "interdependence" adding that "their relation was that of interdependence; they were two in one, each naturally taking the lead when its own affairs were in question."723 Only Browne's section suggested that the Church of England in some way helped form the state out of the Heptarchy, but the Dibdin/Smith report did state: "It is in Church assemblies, too, that the principle of elective representation was first worked out; the model Convocation was achieved in 1283, the model Parliament not till 1295. "7 Both sections agreed that the chief historical threat to the harmonious relationship of church and state was the encroachment of the papacy.725 Significantly, both reports broke with the High Church outline by stating that, although a latter constitutional development,

Parliament was the ultimate legislator for the Church, but both also agreed that Parliament was no longer fitted to this role as it was a body too busy to consider most matters of the Church of England, and the report thus concluded: "We recommend, therefore, the formation of a Church Council which shall have power to legislate on ecclesiastical affairs,

720 Lewis Tonna Dibdin (1852-1938): St. John's College, Cambridge; ecclesiastical lawyer, some important works include Monasticism in England (1890), The Ecclesiastical Commission (1919). 721 Dibdin was not High Church in his party leanings and Smith is unidentifiable. Smith was considered more of an educator than a researcher, but he had delivered the Ford Lectures in 1905 on the topic 'Church and State in the Middle Ages' which were subsequently published and tended to, but did not always, support Stubbs' propositions. See A.L. Smith, Church and State in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 97-98, 125-126. 722 Report ofthe Archbishops ' Committee on Church and State, 7-8, 3 1 . 723 Ibid., 209. 724Ibid., 11-12,209. 725Ibid., 16,211. 222 subject to constitutional safeguards."726 The state would have the right of veto and the Church of England could then choose to assert its independent rights by opting for

disestablishment. Laying out that the state would always theoretically be in control did not run against the High Church historiography, but this unequivocal assertion of Parliament's constitutional role to legislate for the Church of England with no mention of the mediation

of the Royal Supremacy was rarely if ever noted as the constitutional position by the High Church historians.727 As with the Royal Commission report in 1906, there was very little concern expressed by High Church writers and much of the historical outline in this report would later be reiterated in the report produced by the Archbishops' Commission on church and state published in 1936, again, without concern on the part of High Church writers.728

The historiographical pattern laid out in the High Church general histories would continue to have some popularity in the years buttressing World War I and would include publications by historians such as Charles Hole, E.W. Watson and H.M. Gwatkin who were not High Church writers.729 The main emphasis for writers like Hole, Watson and Gwatkin was really only on the aspect of continuity between the pre- and post-Reformation Church of England in terms of identity; subsequently, they made serious modifications to the High Church outline, removing the idea that the Church of England founded the state, rejecting the normative High Church position on the papacy and moving closer to Gairdner's or Maitland's view on the supremacy of the Roman canon law in England.730 Conversely,

726 Ibid., 40 and 49. 727 As we have mentioned, some High Church historians laid out the theoretical position that "the state" would trump any organized body including a church, but they rarely stated that they thought Parliament had a constitutional right to legislate for the Church of England. 28 This report admitted to following the Dibdin/Smith report closely, see Church and State: Report ofthe Archbishops ' Commission on the Relations between Church and State. 1935 (Westminster: Church House, 1936), 9-29. 729 Edward William Watson (1859-1936): Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford. 730 Hole held an exotic view that the Anglo-Saxon Church was under the Roman supremacy but that William the Conqueror created a national Church of England; see Charles Hole, A Manual ofEnglish Church History 223 Robert Cecil731 and HJ. Clapton leaned towards the High Church position and their general history published in 1914 followed the High Church outline almost perfectly.732 The inter- war years, however, would see fewer of such works published on the relationship of the Church of England to the state. It is unclear why this was the case. It is possible that without the spur of issues such as disestablishment and disendowment, Apostolícete Curae or the Church Crisis historians were less interested in writing such works. It is perhaps significant that the CHS would be rebranded in England after World War I. Wakeman's

Introduction would continue to be the standard history of the Church of England for another half-century, receiving regular updates from S.L. Ollard, until the publication of J.R.H. Moorman's A History ofthe Church ofEngland m 1953.733 Ecumenical stirrings could also provide a possible hypothesis. The topic of the relationship of church and state in England not unsurprisingly tended to take on polemical tones when hot-button topics like disestablishment were in the air. In spite of what some Protestant opponents like Walter Walsh might have thought, most of these High Church historians could publically and/or privately level vituperative language at Roman Catholic opponents equal to that leveled against their Protestant counterparts. The popes and monastic figures were often denounced with the same vehemence as Puritans and Roundheads, so it is also possible that this polemical historical question receded as Christian groups in England sought a greater degree of cooperation. As we have seen in this chapter, what is clear is that the continuity theory of the history of the Church of England and the English nation provided a

(London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1910), 17, 28, 57, 62,-66, 127-171, 294-296; E.W. Watson, The Church ofEngland (London: Williams & Norgate, 1914), 17-19, 89-96, 113-115, 118-121; H.M. Gwatkin, Church and State in England to the Death ofQueen Anne (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1917), 42-43, 50-51, 155-156. 731 Cecil, (Edgar Algernon) Robert Gascoyne (1864-1958): University College, Oxford. 732 Robert Cecil and HJ. Clapton, Our National Church (London: Frederick Warne and Co., 1913), 14-15, 44-6, 75-76. 733 J.R.H. Moorman, A History ofthe Church ofEngland (London: A. and C. Black, 1953). John Richard Humpidge Moorman (1905-1989): Emmanuel College, Cambridge; Bishop of Ripon (1959-1989). 224 multipurpose narrative to aid in church defense. When the threats during the 1890s to the relationship between church and state that precipitated this emphasis on the continuity theory on the part of High Church historians passed, however, the continuity theory still continued to hold great currency and would continue to do so throughout the twentieth century. Even without any immediate perceived threat from the English Parliament, English Nonconformists or the Catholic Church, the narrative of the Church of England as the cradle of the English people without break throughout the life of the nation has proven very attractive. CONCLUSION

The High Church historiography was a prominent mode ofhistoriographical expression in England from at least the last three decades of the nineteenth century into the first two decades of the twentieth. The years 1888 to 1906, in particular, were its golden era, when High Church historians developed a systematic presentation of the history of the Church of England that lasted throughout the twentieth century. The High Church historiography was dominant for historians who were members of the Church of England.

The High Church historians took the discipline of history seriously. They took part in the negotiations regarding the creation of historical departments at Oxford and Cambridge; they worked with publishers to advance historical publishing in England, and they used history for polemical purposes even as they tended to argue that the historian should not allow his or her personal beliefs to impact the outcomes of their research. They saw no contradiction in this, or at least did not articulate any worry about a potential contradiction.

Ecclesiastical authorities admired the work of the High Church historians, but also recognized a potential for sowing discord if the High Church historians propagated historiographical interpretations that challenged the cherished beliefs or the accepted mores of late nineteenth and early twentieth-century society. Publishers found books written by the High Church historians to be profitable, and in the case of the Macmillan family firm,

High Church historians held crucial positions as readers and editors, even though the members of the Macmillan family were not themselves sympathetic to the High Church position. I have outlined some of the more pressing issues for the High Church historians. I argue that the issue of the place of the Tractarian movement within the Church of England was more or less settled by the late 1890s, largely because of the proliferation and success

225 226 of popular histories of the Church of England which credited the Tractarians with starting a revival in the nineteenth century. Also of importance, primarily during the 1890s, was the emphasis on the historical continuity of the Church of England from the mission of St. Augustine to the Anglo-Saxons through the time of the historians themselves. Although this idea of continuity was not original to these historians, they were the first to systematically organize the literary materials of the English heritage for future generations and to mobilize their historical narrative against challenges from the English Parliament,

English Dissent and the Catholic Church in the present. As to the origins of this group of historians, there was a substantial and vibrant High

Church historiography that developed while the Tractarians were still active at Oxford during the 1840s, lasting well into the first decades of the twentieth century. Some of the High Church historians believed that it was the Tractarian movement itself that suggested the need for members of the Church of England to study the ecclesiastical and national

history of England in order to deal with the complexities of the day. There is some merit to this idea. The High Church historians saw themselves as writing within an English Catholic and historical-critical tradition stretching at least back to Bede, and they credited the Tractarians with calling for a renewal of this English clerical scholarly tradition. Englishness, Catholicity and historical-critical tools were all portrayed as crucial in determining historical truth. This is where linking the Tractarian scholarly project to the systemization of historical materials ends. High Church historians in this period usually portrayed themselves as following in a long line of brilliant English historians, and yet they also tended to believe that they lagged behind their German counter-parts in their own present. German scholars were often portrayed as anti-Christian, but the historical-critical methods used in Germany were admired. Importantly, from the 1 870s the High Church 227 historians were vocal in the various schemes to improve historical education and set up historical departments at the university level (although it cannot be said that High Church historians were united in any one scheme and, in fact, they sometimes struggled against one another). The High Church historians did not want to threaten the hegemony that the Church of England held at Oxford and Cambridge, but they also felt that well-roundedness and exposure to other religious and ethnic groups was crucial to the historical discipline. Their willingness to engage groups and writers potentially subversive of the doctrine and authority of the Church of England represented a departure from the Tractarian project, and suggests that they wished to be taken seriously by their contemporary international community of academic historians.

The long-term influence of the High Church historiographical project was patchy. The historians' interpretations of issues located more strictly within the domain of the history of the Church of England generally survived throughout the twentieth century. But the parts of their grand narratives which touched upon the broader national history quickly fell where they differed substantially from the other varieties of Whig history. So for instance, the idea of a Tractarian High Church revival would go on to be quite popular amongst historians in the twentieth century, but the issue of the constitutional relationship of the Church of England to the state as an area for historical scholarship would receive less attention. The continuity theory would maintain high currency in ecclesiastical circles, but core areas of research which undergirded the theory, such as grand narratives related to English racial origins, the development of the English nation-state, the idea of the medieval English Church, the rationale for the English Reformation and the significance of the

English Civil War, would become highly contestable ground for academic researchers, with the result that the continuity theory was pushed more towards the realms of theological and political thought. Certainly, looking back, it becomes increasingly difficult throughout the twentieth century to find professional historians in England who published research describing the continuity of the Church of England as an "historical fact" with the confidence that the High Church historians did in the 1 890s.

During the 1890s, however, the High Church historians were key shapers of historical conceptions of the English national heritage. There are several solid reasons for this. The High Church historians were highly adroit writers of popular general histories, and a number of them were at the forefront of using new reprographic and photographic technology to reinforce the connection between the Catholic Church of England and the English heritage for purposes of Church defense. This was a key part of their success. The English countryside, cities and villages, and hence the English historical heritage, were all filled with Catholic relics, architecture and imagery which translated quite well into affordable but attractive illustrated history books and historical magic lantern slide lectures.

Groups that leaned towards the High Church, such as the CDI and the CHS, became expert in writing historical narrative for popular audiences. Although the High Church historians were able to distinguish between the history of the Church of England and the history of the

English nation in a categorical sense (hence they wrote both histories of the Church of England and separate histories regarding secular topics), they nevertheless tended to see the history of the Church of England as inextricably intertwined with the history of the nation.

This was a key reason for their success in the publishing world in spite of delivering a narrative that challenged the beliefs of many in English society. In an age when many

English people still associated Catholicism with treachery, the High Church historians provided histories of England that were not only Catholic-centered, but that were also patriotic glorifications of the English people. In this sense the High Church historians were 229 one with their age in viewing the history of England as one of progress in which the English people were always developing the attributes of liberty and toleration according to

God's divine plan. The organic language of the Whig history suited even the theological aspects of the High Church emphasis on continuity well. Even as some of the High Church historians eventually developed a profound respect for the office of the papacy they still needed constitutional language to explain why the Church of England's split from the rest of the Western Church was not a schismatic act. More importantly, however, in the papers of these High Church historians it quickly becomes clear that they generally loved organizing, editing and writing about large quantities of historical documents. This care and appreciation for the process of research itself is evident in their published books and goes a long way towards explaining their success in the publishing world. Their expressed motives for publishing variously included the correction of error, a sense of obligation, and the hope that readers would share their excitement in their discoveries. In their correspondence it is clear that most High Church historians were very enthusiastic about undertaking historical and antiquarian research, and it is equally clear that there was a large reading market that looked to purchase these books and read articles in newspapers and journals written by these historians.

The High Church historians were eager to express their patriotism and enthusiasm for England in the face of what sometimes amounted to public disapprobation. This provided a noticeable sense ofunity amongst these historical writers. Therefore, the theological and ecclesiological nuances of High Churchmanship do not appear to be of much interpretive importance. When we consider the teacher/student relationship of (in turn) William Stubbs, W.H. Hutton and S.L. Ollard we find that each represented a shade of High Church opinion that was developing towards what was increasingly labeled at the time as "Anglo-Catholic." Just because Ollard's opinions about ritual were more "Roman leaning" than those of Stubbs' did not mean that his opinions about England's past were significantly different. As each of these three in turn took on the role of historical mentor for younger generations of students, it becomes apparent that they each held very similar general overviews of the history of the Church of England and of the Church of England's constitutional position. As we saw in chapter two, William Hunt may have worried about Walter Frere's affiliation with a Brotherhood and the impact this would have on the sales of

Frere's volume as well as Frere's ability to write impartially, but when the work was finished Hunt nevertheless thought that Frere had done groundbreaking work into the history of the Church of England during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I; furthermore,

Hunt happily reported to Macmillan that Frere's book was "thoroughly anti-Roman." Similarly, Figgis modified the positions of Stubbs and Freeman in his lecture notes for his courses on constitutional history and readily accepted the interpretations of J. Horace

Round on certain points, but he nevertheless clung to the general outlines proposed by Stubbs and Freeman. The High Church historians held a wide diversity of theological and liturgical positions but, with only a few exceptions, held remarkably similar sketches of the history of England and the Church of England. Regarding the question of the position of the historical Tractarians within the Church of England, even here where there was so much disagreement concerning the Tractarian legacy there was still a consensus that the Tractarians were worthy of respect and continued reading. As I have read through the correspondence of the High Church historians it is clear that unity also came through the act of research itself. High Church historians wrote to one another because they knew that other colleagues had gone through relevant papers, had visited difficult to reach historical 231 sites or were in possession of rare books. A sense of camaraderie and friendship developed through the act of research. My emphasis on the High Church historians is not meant to undercut the work of historians who have recently focused on other well known historians within the Church of England during this period who maintained varying levels of distance from the High Church historiography, such as J.R. Green or Robert Seeley. When we consider the place of the High Church historians within the broader context of English historians in the period it is apparent that there was generally a cordial working relationship. Although there were notable exceptions, such as the Freeman/Froude theatrics and Round's attacks, the High

Church historians generally worked well with and were respected by historians who had very different ecclesiastical backgrounds. I also do not mean to minimize the historiography which focuses on High Church historians like Stubbs as historians primarily interested in historical questions of purely political significance such as the rise of Parliament. My analysis of the High Church historians is compatible with these other views. My intention has been to show that there was a definite and diverse High Church school which was influenced by their ecclesiastical background, and that even the history of ostensibly political topics, such as the development of Parliament, could have an ecclesiastical dimension. In this period, the High Church historians were not just experts on the history of the Church of England, but they were also experts on general English and

European history. This made them highly respected by even those historians who disapproved of High Church ecclesiological and theological positions. Should I ever be given the chance to revisit this dissertation there is one issue that I would like to expand upon, the High Church historians' idea of Anglicanism. Surprisingly, the word is not used very often by these historians. Although the High Church historians 232 were certainly aware that a global network of national Churches had stemmed from the Church of England they still tended to talk about these national churches in language similar to that used to talk about other "Catholic Churches" which did not see themselves as part of an Anglican communion, such as the Orthodox Churches, the Churches represented by the Old Catholic movement, or the Western Catholic Churches such as the Portuguese or French. The conclusion that there was a global Anglican community, separated from the

Orthodox Churches or the larger western Catholic Church, seems not to have become of much concern for historians in the Church of England until the twentieth century. When these historians discussed Anglicanism at all, they tended to discuss an ecclesiastical tradition located specifically in England. For instance, what would seem to be the Church of England's largest natural English speaking partner, the Episcopal Church, was still viewed with some trepidation, if not downright hostility, by some of the High Church historians. That there were serious party struggles imported directly from England that troubled the Anglican Church of Canada was completely lost on the High Church historians. In general, historical discussion of the offshoots of the Church of England planted in former colonies tended to be relegated to discussions of eighteenth-century missionary efforts. There was a thriving literature on contemporary issues in colonial churches at this time, particular those in India and Africa, but these books tended to be more topical and immediate rather than historical analyses of the role of the Church of

England in the colonial past and how this past might have impacted the present. In any case, my conclusions here are very tentative and more research would need to be done to fill out these ideas.

Like all projects this one has its limitations. A manageable and interesting question which I have only touched on in this dissertation would be why sophisticated Evangelical historians like Round, Oman, Fletcher or Wace did not bother to set up any sort of counter interpretation to the High Church narrative of the history of the Church of England or why there was no liberal or Broad Church type of historiography in this period. We have seen that Round was happy to attack the High Church historians in articles intended for popular consumption, but Evangelical, Broad Church and non-aligned historians in the Church of England tended not to write nearly as prolifically in a scholarly manner on topics related specifically to the history of the Church of England until the twentieth century. When they did there does not appear to be any indication of any organized school of historiographical thought. Another limitation, which I attribute primarily to space, is that I have neglected a substantial number of historiographical issues that concerned the High Church historians. I have only begun to touch on the large High Church historiography concerning the origins of the Church of England. High Church historians were very concerned by the career of Wycliffe, the Lollards and any effort to present a Protestant line of continuity. I have completely skipped over the history of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Book ofCommon Prayer, liturgical practices, architecture or the growth of religious toleration (the list could go on). Just because I did not find these issues to be as interesting or important does not mean that High Church writers thought the same way. I hope that I have provided a building block upon which others may look at other historiographical issues that interested the High Church historians. APPENDIX: HIGH CHURCH HISTORIANS

These entries are meant to give the reader some background information for the High Church historians mentioned in this dissertation. I have listed the writer's college and university, whether they were ordained and most of the ecclesiastical preferment where attained, any membership in historical societies and finally a select list of publications to demonstrate the breadth of High Church research interests.

Abbey, Charles John (1833/34-1915): Lincoln College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1858, priest in 1859; The English Church in the Eighteenth Century (3 vols., 1878); The English Church and its Bishops, 1700-1800 (2 vols., 1887); Religious Thought in Old English Verse (1894). Abraham, William Henry (1854/55-1907): University College, London; ordained deacon in 1880, priest in 1881; Church and State in England (1905).

Bernard, Mountague (1820-1882): Trinity College, Oxford; first to hold Chichele Chair of International Law, Oxford (1859-1874); An Historical Account ofthe Neutrality ofGreat Britain during the American Civil War (1870). Blunt, J.H. (1823-1884): University College, Durham; ordained deacon in 1852, priest in 1855; Annotated Book of Common Prayer (1866); The Doctrine ofthe Church ofEngland as Set Forth by Authority ofChurch and State in the Reformation Period (1868); The Reformation ofthe Church ofEngland (1868); Book ofChurch Law (1872).

Brewer, John Sherren (1809-1879): Queen's College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1837; professor of English literature, King's College, London (1853-1877); professor of history, King's College, London (1865-1877); edited Goodman's Court ofKing James I (2 vols., 1839); edited Cosin's History ofPopish Transubstantiation (1840); edited Field's Book of the Church (1843); edited Fuller's Church History (1845); edited first four volumes Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic ofthe Reign ofHenry VIII { 1862- 1884); edited Chronicle ofBattle Abbey [Chronicon monasterii de bello] (1846); edited Gerald of Wales' De instructione principum (1846); Elementary Atlas ofHistory and Geography (1865); The Student's Hume (1859); English Studies (1881).

Bright, William (1824-1901): University College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1848, priest in 1850; canon of Christ Church Cathedral (1869-1901); Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History (1869-1901); A History ofthe Church, AD 313-451 (1860); Chapters ofEarly English Church History (1878); Waymarks in Church History(lS94); The Roman See in the Early Church (1896).

234 235

Brightman. F.E. (1856-1932): University College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1884, priest in 1885; canon of Lincoln Cathedral (1902-1932); Church Historical Society; edited Lancelot Andrewes's Preces privatae (1903) and Manual ofthe Sick (1909). Browne, G.F. (1833-1930): St. Catharine's College, Cambridge; ordained deacon in 1858, priest in 1859; canon of St. Paul's Cathedral (1892-1895); suffragan bishop of Stepney (1895-1897); bishop of Bristol (1897-1914); secretary of the Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (1870-1891); secretary of the Cambridge Local Lectures Syndicate (1876-1878); disney professor of archaeology, Cambridge (1887-1892); Church Historical Society; The Venerable Bede (1879); The Ham Crosses (1889); The Christian Church in these Islands before the Coming ofAugustine (1894); The Conversion ofthe Heptarchy (1897); The Ancient Cross Shafts ofBewcastle and Ruthwell (1917). Burrows, Montagu (1819-1905): Magdalen Hall, Oxford; chichelle professor of modern history (1862-1905); Pass and Class (1860); Constitutional Progress (1872); Parliament and the Church ofEngland (1875); Wiclifs Place in History (1882); Cinque Ports (1888); Commentaries on the History ofEngland (1893); History ofthe Foreign Policy ofGreat Britain (1895).

Capes, William Wolfe (1834-1914): Queen's College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1865, priest in 1868; canon of Hereford Cathedral (1903-1914); The Early Roman Empire (1874); The Age ofthe Antonines (1877); University Life in Ancient Athens (1877); Stoicism (1883); History ofthe English Church in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (1900); The Charters and Records ofthe Hereford Cathedral (1908). Carter, Jane Frances Mary (1837/38-1935): educated privately; Nicholas Ferrar (1892); Undercurrents ofChurch Life in the Eighteenth Century (1899). Church, Richard William (1815-1890): Wadham College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1839, priest in 1852; dean of St. Paul's Cathedral (1871-1890); Anselm (1870); Dante (1850); Spenser (1879); Bacon (1884); The Oxford Movement: Twelve Years, 1833-1845 (1891); The Beginning ofthe Middle Ages (1895). Clayton, Henry James (1872-1924): King's College, London; ordained deacon in 1897, priest in 1898; Church Defence (1910); Archbishop Whitgift and His times (1911); Our National Church (1913); Studies in the Roman Controversy (1914). Collins, William Edward (1867-1911): Selwyn College, Cambridge; ordained deacon in 1891, priest in 1891; bishop of Gibraltar (1904-191 1); professor of ecclesiastical history, King's College, London (1893-1904); Church Historical Society; Lectures on Archbishop Laud (1895); The Authority ofGeneral Councils (1896); The English Reformation and its Consequences (1898); Church and State in England before the Conquest (1903); The Study ofEcclesiastical History (2 vols., 1903). Creighton. Louise (1850-1936): Educated privately; England a Continental Power (1876); Life ofEdward the Black Prince (1877); A First History ofEngland (1882); Life ofSir Walter Raleigh (1882); Social History ofEngland (1887); Some Famous Women (1909); The International Crisis: the Theory ofthe State (1916). 236

Creighton. Mandell (1843-1901): Merton College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1870, priest in 1873; canon of Worcester Cathedral (1885-1891); bishop of Peterborough (1891- 1897); bishop of London (1897-1901); Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History (1884- 1891); Church Historical Society; first editor of the English Historical Review; History of the Papacy (5 vols., 1882-1894); Wolsey (1888); Elizabeth (1896). Crosse. Gordon (1874-1953): New College, Oxford; edited A Dictionary ofEnglish Church History (1912); The Religious Drama (1913).

Cutts, Edward Lewes (1824-1901): Queen's College, Cambridge; ordained deacon in 1848, priest in 1848; A Manualfor the Study ofthe Sepulchral Slabs and Crosses ofthe Middle Ages (1849); Scenes and Characters ofthe Middle Ages (1872); Turning Points of English Church History (1874); Turning Points ofGeneral Church History (1877); A Dictionary ofthe Church ofEngland (1887); A Handy Book ofthe Church ofEngland (1892); Parish Priests and their People in the Middle Ages (1898).

Dearmer, Percy (1867-1936): Christ Church, Oxford; reader in modern history; ordained deacon in 1891, priest in 1892; canon of Westminster Abbey (1931-1936); professor of ecclesiastical art, King's College, London (1919-1936); The Cathedral Church ofOxford (1897); The Cathedral Church of Wells (1898); Everyman 's History ofthe English Church (1928).

Denny, Edward (1853/54-1928): Pembroke College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1876, priest in 1877; Church Historical Society; Anglican Orders and Jurisdiction (1893); Papalism (1912); De Hierarchia Anglicana (1895).

Dixon, Richard Watson (1833-1900): Pembroke College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1858, priest in 1859; The History ofthe Church ofEnglandfrom the Abolition ofthe Roman Jurisdiction (6 vols., 1879-1902).

Figgis, John Neville (1866-1919): St. Catharine's College, Cambridge; first in history; ordained deacon in 1894, priest in 1895; The Divine Right ofKings (1896); Christianity and History (1905); Churches in the Modern State (1913). Firminger. Walter Kelly (1870-1940): Merton College, Oxford; third class school of modern history; ordained deacon in 1893, priest in 1895; Church Historical Society; The Purity ofApostolic Succession in the English Church (1896); Thacker's Guide to Calcutta (1906); History ofFreemasonry in Bengal (1906); Original Letters ofMrs. Fayfrom India (1908); Diaries ofthe Three Surgeons ofPatma, 1763 (1909). Freeman. Edward Augustus (1823-1892): Trinity College, Oxford; Regius Professor of Modern History (1884-1892); The History ofthe Norman Conquest, its Causes and Results (5 vols., 1865-1876); The Reign of William Rufus (2 vols., 1882).

Frere, Walter Howard (1863-1938): Trinity College, Cambridge; ordained deacon in 1887, priest in 1889; bishop of Truro (1923-1935); Church Historical Society; New History ofthe Book ofCommon Prayer (1901); Visitation Articles and Injunctions ofthe 237

Reformation Period (3 vols., 1910); edition of the register of Archbishop Matthew Parker (3 vols., 1928-1933); edition of The Use ofSarum (2 vols., 1898-1901); edition of The Hereford Breviary (3 vols., 1904-1915); The English Church in the Reigns ofElizabeth and James L, 1558-1625 (1904); Studies in the Early Roman Liturgy (3 vols., 1930-1935). Gairdner. James (1828-1912): educated privately; edited for the Master of the Rolls Series seventeen volumes of Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII (1879-1910); edited for the Master of the Rolls Series Memorials of Henry VII (1858); edited two volumes of letters and papers of Richard III and Henry VII (1861-1863); edited The Paston Letters (3 vols., 1872-1875); A History ofthe Life and Reign ofRichard /7/(1878); Henry VII (1 889); Lollardy and the Reformation in England (4 vols., 1908- 1913). Gee. Henry (1858/59-1938): Exeter College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1880, priest in 1882; professor of church history, Durham University (1910-1918); Church Historical Society; edited Documents Illustrative ofEnglish Church History (1896); The Elizabethan Clergy and the Settlement ofReligion, 1558-1564 (1898); The Reformation Period (1909). Gore. Charles (1853-1932): Balliol College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1876, priest in 1878; canon of Westminster Abbey (1894-1902); bishop of Worcester (1902-1905); bishop of Birmingham (1905-191 1); bishop of Oxford (1911-1919); Church Historical Society; Roman Catholic Claims (1889); Leo the Great (1897); edited William Law's Defence of Church Principles (1909). Haddan. Arthur West (1816-1873): Trinity College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1840, priest in 1842; edition of John Bramhall's works (5 vols., 1842-45); edition of Thorndike's Theological Works (7 vols., 1844-1856); Apostolical Succession in the Church ofEngland (1869); Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents (3 vols., 1869-1878). Hardy. William John (1857-1919): educated privately; edited for the Master of the Rolls Series Calendar ofState Papers, William and Mary; Handwritings ofthe Kings and Queens ofEngland (1893); Book Plates (1893); Lighthouses, their History and Romance (1895); Documents Illustrative ofEnglish Church History (1896); The Stamp Collector (1898).

Hook, Walter Farquhar (1816-1875): Christ Church, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1821, priest in 1822; dean of Chichester Cathedral (1859-1875); Lives ofthe Archbishops of Canterbury (12 vols., 1861-1876); Dictionary ofEcclesiastical Biography (8 vols., 1845- 1852). Hore. Alexander Hugh (1829-1903): Trinity College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1854, priest in 1855; Eighteen Centuries ofthe Church ofEngland (1881); The Church in Englandfrom William III to Victoria (2 vols., 1887); History ofthe Church ofEnglandfor Schools and Families (1891); History ofthe Church Catholic (1895). Hunt, William (1842-1931): Trinity College, Oxford; first class law and modern history; ordained deacon in 1865, priest in 1866; president of the Royal Historical Society (1905- 1909); History ofItaly (1883); The Somerset Diocese: Bath and Wells (1885); Bristol (1887); The English Church in the Middle Ages (1888); Two Chartularies ofthe Priory of 238

St. Peter at Bath (1 893); The History ofEnglandfrom the Accession ofGeorge III to the Close ofPitt's First Administration, 1760-1801 (1905). Hutton, William Holden (1860-1930): Magdalen College, Oxford; first class modern history; ordained deacon in 1885, priest in 1886; dean of Winchester Cathedral (1919- 1930); Church Historical Society; History ofSt. John's College (2 vols., 1891-1898); Wellesley (1893); Thomas More (1895); Laud (1895); Philip Augustus (1896); Hampton Court (1897); Constantinople (1900); A Short History ofthe Church in Great Britain (1900); The English Churchfrom the Accession ofCharles I to the Death ofAnne, 1625- 1714 (1903); The Church and the Barbarians (1906); Lives ofthe English Saints (1903). Jennings. Arthur Charles (1849-1932): Jesus College, Cambridge; ordained deacon in 1873, priest in 1874; Ecclesia Anglicana (1882); Chronological Tables, a Synchronistic Arrangement ofthe Events ofAncient History (1888); Manual ofChurch History (1888); The Medieval Church and the Papacy (1909).

Jessopp. Augustus (1823-1914): St. John's College, Cambridge; ordained deacon in 1848, priest in 1850; One Generation ofa Norfolk House (1878); The Oeconomy ofthe Flete (1879); The Coming ofthe Friars (1889); Studies by a Recluse (1893); Before the Great Pillage (1900); Visitations ofthe Diocese ofNorwich, 1492-1532 (1888); Life ofSt. Wiliam ofNorwich (1896); Lord Burghley (1904); Donne (1897).

Kidd. Beresford James (1864-1948): Keble College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1869, priest in 1888; Church Historical Society; The Thirty-Nine Articles (1899); The Continental Reformation (1902); Documents Illustrative ofthe Continental Reformation (1911); Documents Illustrative ofthe History ofthe Church (3 vols., 1921-1923); A History ofthe Church to A.D. 461 (1922); The Counter-Reformation (1933); The Primacy ofthe Roman See (1936).

Lacey, Thomas Alexander (1853-1931): Balliol College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1 876, priest in 1 879; Church Historical Society; De Hierarchia Anglicana (1 895); A Handbook ofChurch Law (1903); Herbert Thorndike (1929); The Reformation and the People (1929).

Lane. Charles Arthur (7-1911): ordained deacon in 1879, priest in 1880; fellow of Royal Historical Society; Illustrated Notes on English Church History (2 vols., 1886); Descriptive Lantern Lectures on English Church History (1887); Life ofQueen Victoria (1897); Church and Realm in Stuart Times (1897). Lawlor. Hugh Jackson (1860-1938): Trinity College, Dublin; ordained deacon in 1885, priest in 1886; professor of ecclesiastical history, University of Dublin (1898-1933); Church Historical Society; Chapter on the Book ofMulling (1897); The Rosslyn Missal, a Manuscript in the Advocate's Library, Edinburgh (1899); edited Some Worthies ofthe Church by G.T. Stokes (1900); The Kilcormic Missal, a Manuscript in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin (1900); edited The Diary of William King, D.D., Dean ofSt. Patrick's. ..Kept during his Imprisonment in Dublin Castle, 1689 (1903); The Manuscripts ofthe Vita S. Columbani (1903); The Reformation and the Irish Episcopate (1906). Lee, Frederick George (1832-1902): St. Edmund Hall, Oxford (did not graduate); ordained deacon in 1854, priest in 1856; The Church under Queen Elizabeth (2 vols., 1880); History and Antiquities ofthe Church of Thame (1883); Reginald Pole, Cardinal Archbishop ofCanterbury (1887).

Legg, John Wickham (1843-1921): University College, London; Church Historical Society; Ecclesiologica! Essays (1905); English Church Lifefrom the Restoration to the Tractarian Movement (1914); Essays Liturgical andHistorical (1917).

Lyttelton, Arthur Temple (1852-1903): Trinity College, Cambridge; ordained deacon in 1876, priest in 1877; bishop-suffragan of Southampton (1898-1902); Church Historical Society; Papal Infallibility (1898). MacColl, Malcolm (1831-1907): Trinity College, Glenalmond; ordained deacon in 1856, priest in 1857; canon of Ripon (1884-1907); The Reformation Settlement Examined in the Light ofHistory and Law (1899).

Mason, Arthur James (1851-1928): Trinity College, Cambridge; ordained deacon in 1874, priest in 1875; canon of Canterbury Cathedral (1895-1928); Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Cambridge (1895-1903); Church Historical Society; The Mission ofSt. Augustine to EnglandAccording to the Original Documents (1897); Thomas Cranmer (1898); John Wesley: A Lecture (1908).

Medley. Dudley Julius (1861-1953): Keble College; first class honors school of modern history; profesor of modern history, University of Glasgow (1899-1931); A Student's Manual ofEnglish Constitutional History (1894); Essays Introductory to the Study of English Constitutional History (1894); The Church and the Empire (1910); Original Illustrations ofEnglish Constitutional History (1910).

Meyrick Frederick (1827-1906): Trinity College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1850, priest in 1852; canon of Lincoln (1869-1906); OldAnglicanism and Modern Ritualism (1901); An Appealfrom the Twentieth Century to the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (1905).

Molesworth, William Nassau (1816-1890): Pembroke College, Cambridge; ordained deacon in 1839, priest in 1840; The History ofthe Reform Bill of1832 (1865); The History ofEnglandfrom 1830 (3 vols., 1871-1873); Essay on the French Alliance (1860); History ofthe Church ofEnglandfrom 1660 (1882).

Moore, Aubrey Lackington (1848-1890): Exeter College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1873, priest in 1876; Lectures on the History ofthe Reformation (1890).

Nye, George Henry Frederick (1848-1936): educated privately; The Story ofthe Church ofEngland: Showing its Birth, its Progress and its Workfor the People (1891); A Popular Story ofthe Church ofEngland (1891); The Church and Her Story (1894); Our Island Home (1897); The Story ofthe Oxford Movement: A Bookfor the Times (1899). Ollard, Sydney Leslie (1875-1949): St. John's College, Oxford; second class modern history; ordained deacon in 1899, priest in 1900; canon of York Minster (1935-1936); 240 canon of St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle (1936-1949); The Oxford Movement (1909); edited A Dictionary ofEnglish Church History (1912); edited Wakeman's Introduction to the History ofthe Church ofEngland; Short History ofthe Oxford Movement (1915); Dunsford and its Rectors (1919); The Anglo-Catholic Revival (1925); edited Visitation Returns ofArchbishop Herring, 1743 (5 vols., 1928-1931). Ottley, Robert Lawrence (1856-1933): Pembroke College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1881, priest in 1883; canon of Christ Church Cathedral (1903-1933); Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral theology, Oxford (1903-1933); Church Historical Society; Lancelot Andrewes (1893); The Bible in the Church (1897); The Religion ofIsrael, a Historical Sketch (1913). Overton. John Henry (1835-1903): Lincoln College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1858, priest in 1859; canon of Lincoln Cathedral (1879-1903); canon of Peterborough Cathedral (1903); The English Church in the Eighteenth Century (2 vols., 1878); William Law: Nonjuror and Mystic (1 88 1); The Evangelical Revival ? the Eighteenth Century (1 886); Life ofChristopher Wordsworth, Bishop ofLincoln (1888); John Hannah, a Clerical Study (1890); John Wesley (1891); The English Church in the Nineteenth Century (1894); The Anglican Revival (1897); The Nonjurors: their Lives, Principles and Writings (1902); Biographical Notices ofthe Bishops ofLincolnfrom Remigius to Wordsworth (completed in 1900, not published until 1972).

Perry. Georee Greslev (1820-1897): Corpus Christi College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1844, priest in 1845; History ofthe Church ofEngland (i vols., 1860-1864); Life ofBishop Grosseteste (1872); Life ofSt. Hugh ofAvalon, Bishop ofLincoln (1879); The Student's English Church History (3 vols., 1878-87); History ofthe Reformation in England (1886); Diocesan History ofLincoln (1897); Biographical Notices ofthe Bishops ofLincolnfrom Remigius to Wordsworth (completed in 1900, not published until 1972). Pocock. Nicholas (1814-1897): Queen's College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1838, priest in 1855; edition of Hammond's Miscellaneous Theological Works (1847); edition of Gilbert Burnet's History ofthe Reformation (7 vols., 1864-1865); Records ofthe Reformation (2 vols., 1871); edition oíNicholas Harpsfield's Treatise ofthe Pretended Divorce ofCatherine ofAragon (1878); Troubles Connected with the Prayer Book of1549 (1884).

Proby, William Henry Baptist (1832-1915): Trinity College, Cambridge; ordained deacon in 1856, priest in 1857; Annals ofthe 'Low-Church ' Party in England, Down to the Death ofArchbishop Tait (2 vols., 1888). Puller, Frederick William (1843-1938): Trinity College, Cambridge; ordained deacon in 1866, priest in 1867; canon of St. John's Cathedral, Umtata (1905-1909); Church Historical Society; The Bull Apostolicae Curae and the Edwardine Ordinal, 1896; The Continuity of the Church of England (1913); The Relation ofthe English Church to the Monarchical Claims ofthe Church ofRome (1915).

Relton, Frederic (1855/56-1928): King's College, London; ordained deacon in 1881, priest in 1882; fellow of Royal Historical Society; editor of English Theological Library; 241 edited Wilson's Maxims ofPiety and of Christianity (1898); The English Churchfrom the Accession ofGeorge I to the end ofthe Eighteenth Century, 1714-1800 (1906). Rackham, Richard Belward (1863-1912): Worcester College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1889, priest in 1890; Church Historical Society; The Voice ofthe Church and Bishops (1896).

Robertson, Archibald (1853-1931): Trinity College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1878, priest in 1882; bishop of Exeter (1903-1916); Church Historical Society; Roman Claims to Supremacy (1 896); Regnum Dei: Eight Lectures on the Kingdom ofGod in the History of Christian Thought (1901). Shirley, Walter Waddington (1828-1866): Wadham College, Oxford; ordained deacon 1855, priest 1859; canon of Christ Church (1864-1866); Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History (1864-1866); edition for the Master of the Rolls Series ofFasciculi zizaniorum magistri Johannis Wycif(1858) and Other Historical Letters Illustrative ofthe Reign of Henry III (1862); Catalogue ofthe Original Works ofJohn Wiclif(1865).

Simpkinson, Charles Hare (1855-1912): Balliol College; first class modern history; ordained deacon in 1878, priest in 1879; Life and Times ofArchbishop Laud (1895); Thomas Harrison: Regicide and Major-General (1905). Spence-Jones, Henry Donald Maurice (1832-1917): Corpus Christi College, Cambridge; ordained deacon in 1865, priest in 1866; dean of Gloucester Cathedral (1887-1917); professor of English literature, St. David's College, Lampeter (1865-1870); professor of ancient history at the Royal Academy (1906); Dreamland in History, the Story ofthe Norman Dukes (1891); Cloister Life in the Days ofCoeur de Lion (1892); The Church of England: A Historyfor the People (4 vols., 1896-1898); Early Christianity and Paganism: A History, A.D. 64-320 (1902); The Early Christians in Rome (1910).

Stephens, William Richard Wood (1839-1902): Balliol College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1864, priest in 1865; canon of Chichelle Cathedral (1875-1894); dean of Winchester Cathedral (1895-1902); Memorials ofthe South Saxon See and the Cathedral Church at Chichester (1876); Memorials ofthe South Saxon Diocese, Selsey, Chichester (1881); Hildebrand and his Times (1886); The Great Screen in Winchester Cathedral (1899); A History ofthe English Churchfrom the Norman Conquest to the Accession ofEdwardI (1901).

Stokes, George Thomas (1843-1898): Trinity College, Dublin; ordained deacon in 1 866, priest in 1868; canon of St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin (1893-1898); professor of ecclesiastical history, University of Dublin (1883-98); The Work ofthe Laity ofthe Church ofIreland (1869); Ireland and the Celtic Church (1886); Sketch ofMedieval History (1887); Ireland and the Anglo-Norman Church (1889); edition of Richard Pococke's Tour in Ireland (1891); St. Hugh ofRehan: his Church, his Life and his Times andAdditional Note on the MacGeoghegan Family (1897).

Strong, Thomas Banks (1861-1944): Christ Church, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1885, priest in 1886; dean of Christ Church (1901-1920); bishop of Ripon (1920-1925); bishop of Oxford (1925-1937); Church Historical Society; Papal Corruptions ofDoctrine (1897); Historical Christianity (1902); Authority in the Church (1903); Religion, Philosophy and History (1923). Stubbs. William (1825-19011: Christ Church, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1848, priest in 1850; canon of St Paul's Cathedral (1879-1884); bishop of Chester (1884-1888); bishop of Oxford (1888-1901); Regius Professor of Modern History (1866-1884); Registrum sacrum Anglicanum (1858); De inventione sanctae crucis (1861); edition for the Master of the Rolls of Chronicles and Memorials ofRichardI (2 vols., 1864-1865), Memorials ofSt. Dunstan (1874) and the Chronicle ofRoger ofHowden (4 vols., 1868-1871); Councils and Ecclesiastical Document (1869-1878); Select Charters and other Illustrations ofEnglish Constitutional Historyfrom the earliest Times to the Reign ofEwardl (1870); The Constitutional History ofEngland in its Origins and Development (3 vols., 1873-1878).

Wakeman, Henry Offley (1852-1899): Christ Church, Oxford; first class in modern history; Church Historical Society; Essays Introductory to the Study ofEnglish Constitutional History by Residents ofthe University of Oxford (1887); Europe, 1598-1715 (1894); An Introduction to the History ofthe Church ofEngland: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day (1896); The Royal Supremacy in England (1897). Warre-Cornish. Francis (1839-1916): King's College, Cambridge; Life ofOliver Cromwell (1882); History ofChivalry (1901); History ofthe English Church in the Nineteenth Century (2 vols., 1910). Wordsworth, John (1843-1911): New College, Oxford; ordained deacon in 1867, priest in 1869; canon of Lincoln Cathedral (1870-1883); canon of Rochester Cathedral (1883-1885); bishop of Salisbury (1885-1911); Oriel professor of the interpretation of scripture (1883- 1 885); Church Historical Society; De successione episcoporum in ecclesia Anglicana (1890); De validate ordinum Anglicanorum (1894). BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archival Research

CR. Fletcher, Papers. Bodleian Library, University of Oxford William Stubbs, Papers. Bodleian Library, University of Oxford R.W. Church, Papers. Bodleian Library, University of Oxford R.W. Church, Papers. Pusey House Library, Oxford S.L. Ollard, Papers. Pusey House, Oxford S.L. Ollard, Papers. Lambeth Palace Library R.T. Davidson, Papers. Lambeth Palace Library E.W. Benson, Papers. Lambeth Palace Library Frederic Meyrick, Papers. Pusey House, Oxford W.H. Hutton, Papers. St John's College, University of Oxford W.R. Anson, Papers. All Souls College, University of Oxford Oscar Browning, Papers. King's College Archive Center, University of Cambridge Henry Melvill Gwatkin, Papers. Emmanuel College Library, University of Cambridge Macmillan Archive, British Library, BL MSS Add 55049-55 1 17 W.E. Gladstone, Papers. British Library, BL MSS Add 44086-44835 J.N. Figgis, Papers. Mirfield Deposit, Borthwicke Institute for Archives, University of York Library and Archives Walter Frere, Papers. Mirfield Deposit, Borthwicke Institute for Archives, University of York Library and Archives

Periodicals

Cambridge Review Church Family Newspaper Church History

243 244

Church Quarterly Review

Churchman

Church Times

Contemporary Review Dictionary ofNational Biography English Churchman and St. James 's Chronicle English Historical Review Foreign Church Chronicle and Review Fortnightly Review, The Guardian

Literary Churchman, The Longmans Magazine National Church, The Oxford Magazine Pilot, The Quarterly Review Times, The

Government Documents United Kingdom. Parliamentary Debates, 4th ser., vol. 9 (1893). ------. Parliamentary Debates, 4* ser., vol. 10(1893). United Kingdom. Parliament. Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline. Minutes of Evidence Taken Before the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline. 4 vols. London: H.M.S.O.,1906. United Kingdom. Public Record Office. Letters and Papers Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry VIII. Preserved in the Public Record Office, the British Museum, and elsewhere in England. 21 vols. (London: Longmans, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green, 1862-1910. 245

Primary Abbey, Charles J. and John Henry Overton. The English Church and its Bishops, 1 700- 1800. 2 vols. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1887. ------. The English Church in the Eighteenth Century. 2 vols. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1878. Abraham, W.H. Church and State in England. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1905. Allen, W.O.B. and Edmund McClure. Two Hundred Years: The History of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1698-1898. London: SPCK, 1898. Archbishops ' Committee on Church & State. Report, with Appendices Austin, John. The Province ofJurisprudence Determined. London: John Murray, 1832. Aylmer, H. Chameleons and Spiritual Transformers. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1891. Balleine, G.R. A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1908. Bigg, Charles. Wayside Sketches in Ecclesiastical History. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1906. Brewer, J.S. English Studies; or, Essays in English History and Literature. London: J. Murray, 1881. ------. The Reign of Henry VIII from His Accession to the Death of Wolsey. Edited by James Gairdner. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1884. Bright, William. The Roman See in the Early Church, and other Studies in Church History. London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1896. ------. Waymarks in Church History. London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1894. Brilioth, Yngve. The Anglican Revival: Studies in the Oxford Movement. London: Longmans, Green, 1925. Browne, George Forrest. The Continuity ofPossession at the Reformation. London: SPCK, 1896.

------. The Continuity ofthe Holy Catholic Church in England. London: SPCK, 1 896. ------. Recollections ofa Bishop. 2nd ed. London: Smith, Elder, 1915. ------. The St. Augustine Commemoration. London: SPCK, 1897. Burgon, John William. Lives ofTwelve Good Men. 2 vols. London: Murray, 1888. 246

Burrows, Montagu. Pass and Class. Oxford: Parker, 1860. ------. Constitutional Progress. Seven Lectures. 2nd ed. London: John Murray, 1872. ------.Wyclif's Place in History: Three Lectures Delivered before the University of Oxford in 1881. London: Wm. Isbister, 1884. ------. Autobiography ofMontagu Burrows. London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1908. Capes, W.W. The English Church in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. London: Macmillan, 1900. Carpenter, William Boyd. A Popular History of the Church ofEngland, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. London: John Murray, 1900. [Carter, Jane Frances Mary]. The Life and Times ofJames Kettlewell: With Details of the History ofthe Nonjurors. London: Longmans, Green, 1895. ------. Nicholas Ferrar, His Household and His Friends. London: Longmans, 1892. ------. Undercurrents of Church Life in the Eighteenth Century. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1899. Cecil, Robert and HJ. Clapton. Our National Church. London: Frederick Warne and Co., 1913.

Child, Gilbert. Church and State under the Tudors. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1890.

Church and State: Report of the Archbishops ' Commission on the Relations between Church and State. 1935. Westminster: Church House, 1936. Church Defence Institution. The Church Defence Handy Volume, Containing the Leaflets of the Institution. Together with Papers, Speeches and Statistics by Bishops, Eminent Statesmen, Members ofParliament and Others. 12th edition. London: The Church Defence Institution and Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton Kent & Co., 1895. Church, Mary. Life and Letters ofDean Church. London: Macmillan, 1894. Church, Richard William. Human Life and its Conditions, Sermons Preached before the University of Oxford in 1876-1878, With Three Ordination Sermons. London: Macmillan, 1878. ------. Occasional Papers Selected from the Guardian, the Times and the Saturday Review, 1846-1890. 2 vols. London: Macmillan and Co., 1897. ------. The Oxford Movement: Twelve Years, 1833-1845. 1891. Edited and with an introduction by Geoffrey Best. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. ------. Saint Anselm. London: Macmillan and Co., 1879. 247

Clarke, Frederick Arthur. Thomas Ken. London: Methuen, 1896. Collins, William Edward, ed. Archbishop Laud Commemoration, 1895: Lectures on Archbishop Laud together with a Bibliography of Laudian Literature and the Laudian Exhibition Catalogue, etc. London: A. Southby & Co., 1895. ------. The Beginnings ofEnglish Christianity; With Special Reference to the Coming of St. Augustine. London: Methuen, 1898. ------. Church and State in England before the Conquest. London: SPCK, 1903. ------. The English Reformation and its Consequences. London: SPCK, 1898. ------. The Internal Evidence ofthe Letter 'Apostolicae Curae' as to its Origin and Value. London: SPCK, 1897.

------.Lectures. Third Series. SPCK, 1898. ------. The Study ofEcclesiastical History. London: Longmans, Green, 1903. ------. Typical English Churchmenfrom Parker to Maurice: A Series ofLectures. London: SPCK, 1902. Creighton, Louise. Life and Letters of Mandell Creighton, sometime Bishop ofLondon. 1 vols. London: Longmans, 1904. Creighton, Mandell. The Church and the Nation: Charges and Addresses. London: Longmans, Green, 1901. ------. Epics ofEnglish History. Toronto: A. Miller, 1879. ------. The Heritage of the Spirit and Other Sermons. 2nd ed. London: S.C. Brown, Langham&Co., 1905. ------. Historical Lectures and Addresses: New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1903. ------. A History of the Papacy from the Great Schism to the Sack of Rome. 6 vols. Longmans, Green, 1882-1894. Cutts, E.L. A Handy Book ofthe Church ofEngland. London: SPCK, 1892. ------. The Turning Points ofEnglish Church History. London: SPCK, 1 874. Dearmer, Percy. The Cathedral Church at Oxford: A Description of its Fabric and a Brief History ofthe Episcopal See. London: Bell, 1897. ------. The Cathedral Church at Wells: A Description of its Fabric and a BriefHistory of the Episcopal See. London: Bell, 1898. 248

------. Everyman 's History of the English Church. New edition. Milwaukee: Morehouse, 1928. Dixon, R.W. History of the Church of England from the Abolition of the Roman Jurisdiction. 6 vols. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1878-1891. Donaldson, A.B. Five Great Oxford Leaders: Keble, Newman, Pusey, Liddon and Church. 2nd ed. London: Rivingtons, 1900. Dunkley, C, ed. The Official Report of the Church Congress Held at Norwich, on October 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th, 1895. London: Bemrose & Sons, Ltd., 1895. Essays and Reviews. London: J.W. Parker and Sons, 1860. Figgis, John Neville. Christianity and History. London: James Finch & Co. Ltd., 1905. ------. Churches in the Modern State. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1913. ------. The Divine Right ofKings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 896. Freeman, Edward Augustus. Comparative Politics. Six Lectures Read before the Royal Institution in January and February, 1873. With the Unity of History. The Rede Lecture Read before the University of Cambridge, May 29, 1872. London: Macmillan and Co., 1883. ------. Disestablishment and Disendowment: What are They?. 3r ed. London: Macmillan, 1885. ------. Four Oxford Lectures, 1887: Fifty Years of European History and Teutonic Conquest in Gaul and Britain. London: Macmillan and Co., 1888. ------. The History ofthe Norman Conquest ofEngland, its Causes and its Results. 6 vols. 3rd ed. rev. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1867-79. ------. The Methods ofHistorical Study; Eight Lectures Read in the University of Oxford in 1884, with the Inaugural Lecture on the Office of the Historical Professor. London: Macmillan, 1886. Frere, Walter. The English Church in the Reigns of Elizabeth and James L, 1558-1625. London: Macmillan, 1904. ------. The Relation of Church and Parliament in Regard to Ecclesiastical Discipline. London: A.R. Mowbray & Co., 1903. Froude, R.H. Remains ofthe Late Reverend Richard Hurrell Froude, M.A. Fellow of Oriel College. 2 vols. Edited by J.H. Newman and John Keble. London: J.G. & F. Rivington, 1838. Gairdner, James. The English Church in the Sixteenth-Centuryfrom the Accession ofHenry VIII to the Death ofMary. London: Macmillan, 1902. 249

------. Lollardy and the Reformation in England: An Historical Survey. 4 vols. London: Macmillan and Co., 1908-1913. Gairdner, James and James Spedding. Studies in English History. Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1881. Gasquet, Francis Aidan. Edward VI and the Book of Common Prayer : an Examination into its Origin and Early History with an Appendix of Unpublished Documents. London: John Hodges, 1890. ------. The Eve of the Reformation: Studies in the Religious Life and Thought of the English People in the Period Preceding the Rejection of the Roman Jurisdiction by Henry VIII. New York: Putnam's Sons, 1900. ------. Henry the Third and the Church: A Study ofHis Ecclesiastical Policy and of the Relations between England and Rome. London: G. Bell and Sons, 1905. ------^. Henry VIII and the English Monasteries; an Attempt to Illustrate the History of their Suppression. 3rd ed. in 2 vols. London: J. Hodges, 1888-1889. Gee, Henry and William John Hardy, eds. Documents Illustrative of English Church History. London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1896. Gore, Charles. Roman Catholic Claims. London: Rivingtons, 1889. Goulburn, E.M. John William Burgon, late Dean of Chichester: A Biography with Extracts from his Letters and Early Journals. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1892. Green, J.R. A Short History ofthe English People. London: Macmillan, 1 874. Gwatkin, H.M. The Church, Past and Present: A Review of its History. London: Nisbet, 1900.

------. Church and State in England to the Death of Queen Anne. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1917. Haddan, Arthur W. Apostolic Succession in the Church of England. London: Rivingtons, 1869. Hague, Dyson. The Church of England before the Reformation. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1897. Harcourt, W.V. Lawlessness in the National Church. London: Macmillan and Co., 1899. Harpsfield, Nicholas. A Treatise on the Pretended Divorce between Henry VIII. and Catharine ofAragon. Edited by Nicholas Pocock. London: Printed for the Camden Society, 1878. Höre, A.H. The Church in Englandfrom William III. to Victoria. 2 vols. London: Parker & Co., 1886. 250

------. Eighteen Centuries ofthe Church in England. London: Parker & Co., 1881. ------. History ofthe Church ofEnglandfor Schools and Families. New Edition. London: James Parker & Co., 1895. Hole, Charles. A Manual ofEnglish Church History. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1910.

Hook, Walter Farquhar. Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury. 12 vols. London: Richard Bentley, 1861-1876. Hook, Walter Farquhar and W.R.W. Stephens. A Church Dictionary: A Practical Manual for Referencefor Clergymen and Students. 14th ed. London: J. Murray, 1887. Hume, David. The Student's Hume: A History of Englandfrom the earliest Times to the Revolution of1688. Abridged. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1873. Hunt, William. The English Church from its Foundation to the Norman Conquest. London: Macmillan, 1899.

Hutton, R.H. Cardinal Newman. London: Methuen and Co., 1891. Hutton, W.H. An Elementary History of the Church in Great Britain. London: Rivingtons, 1899. ------. The English Church from the Accession of Charles I to the Death ofAnne, 1625- 1714. London: Macmillan, 1903. ------. The English Reformation: A Lecture with Preface and Notes. London: Rivingtons, 1899.

------. The Influence ofChristianity upon National Character: Illustrated By the Lives and Legends of the English Saints: Being the Bampton Lectures Preached Before the University of Oxford in the Year 1903. London: Wells Gardner, Darton & Co., 1903.

------. A Short History ofthe Church in Great Britain. London: Rivingtons, 1900. ------. Sir Thomas More. London: Methuen, 1895.

------. William Laud. London: Methuen, 1895. ------. William Stubbs, Bishop ofOxford, 1825-1901. London: Archibald Constable & Co., Ltd., 1904. Jennings, Arthur Charles. Ecclesia Anglicana: A History of the Church of Christ in Englandfrom the Earliest Times to the Present. London: Rivingtons, 1882. Jennings, Henry J. Cardinal Newman: The Story of His Life. 2nd ed. London: Simpkin, Marshall, and Co., 1882. 251

Jessop, Augustus. John Donne, Sometime Dean of St. Paul's, A.D. 1621-1631. London: Methuen, 1897. ------. Penny History ofthe Church ofEngland. London: SPCK, 1902. Johnston, John Octavius. Life and Letters ofHenry Parry Liddon Canon of St. Paul's and sometime Ireland Professor of Exegesis in the University of Oxford. London: Longmans, Green, 1904. Lacey, T.A. The Use andAbuse ofIsolated Facts in Controversy. London: SPCK, 1902. Lambeth Conference 1897. Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Communion holden at Lambeth Palace, 1897: Encyclical Letterfrom the Bishops with the Resolution and Reports. London: SPCK, 1897. Lane, C. Arthur. Illustrated Notes on English Church History. 1 vols. London: SPCK, 1886.

------. Syllabus ofSix Illustrated Lectures on English Church History. London: Printed for the Church Defence Institute, 1888. Lathbury, D.C. Dean church. Oxford: A.R. Mowbray, 1905. Leach, Thomas. A Short Sketch of the Tractarian Upheaval. London: Bemrose & Sons, 1887. Lee, F.G. The Church Under Queen Elizabeth: An Historical Sketch with an Introduction on the Present Position ofthe Established Church. 2 vols. London: W.H. Allen and Co, 1880. ------. Historical Sketches ofthe Reformation. London: Griffith and Farran, 1879. Liddon, Henry Parry. Life ofEdward Bouverie Pusey. Edited and Prepared for publication by J.O. Johnston and Robert J. Wilson. 4 vols. 3r ed. London: Longmans, Green, 1893-97.

Lingard, John. The History of England, from the First Invasion by the Romans to the Accession of William and Mary in 1688. 10 vols. 6th ed. rev. and expanded. London: Charles Dolman, 1854. Lock, Walter. John Keble, a Biography. London: Methuen & Co, 1893. [Longueville, Thomas] A Romish Recusant. A Life of Archbishop Laud. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co, 1894. MacColl, Malcolm. The Reformation Settlement Examined in the Light ofHistory and Law: With an Introductory Letter to the Right Hon. Sir William Vernon Harcourt, M.P. London: Longmans, Green, and Co, 1899. 252

------.The Royal Commission and the Ornaments Rubric. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1906. ------. Malcolm MacColl, Memoirs and Correspondence. Edited by George William Erskine Russell. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1914. Maitland, Frederic William. The Collected Papers ofFrederic William Maitland. Edited by H.A.L. Fisher in 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911. ------. The Constitutional History of England, a Course of Lectures Delivered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1919. ------. Roman Canon Law in the Church ofEngland: Six Essays. London: Methuen, 1898. Makower, Felix. Constitutional History and Constitution of the English Church. London: Swann Sonnenschein & Co. Ltd., 1895. Mason, Arthur James. Life of William Edward Collins, Bishop of Gibraltar. London: Longmans, Green, 1912. ------. Thomas Cranmer. London: Methuen, 1898. Medley, DJ. A Student's Manual of English Constitutional History. 3r ed. Oxford: B.H. Blackwell, 1902. Meyrick, Frederick. An Appeal from the Twentieth Century to the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: or, the Faith and Practice of the First Two Centuries of the Reformed Anglican Church. London: Dover Street Book Store, 1905. ------. Memoirs of Life at Oxford: And Experiences in Italy, Greece, Turkey, Germany, Spain and elsewhere. London: J. Murray, 1905. ------. Old Anglicanism and Modern Ritualism. London: Skeffington & Son, Publishers to His Majesty the King, 1901. ------. Scriptural and Catholic Truth and Worship, or, the Faith and Worship of the Primitive, the Mediaeval and the Reformed Anglican Churches. New ed. London: Longmans, Green, 1908. Molesworth, W.N. The History of the Church ofEnglandfrom 1660. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1882. Moore, Aubrey Lackington. Lectures and Papers on the History of the Reformation in England and on the Continent. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1890. Moore, Thomas. The Englishman 's Brief on Behalf of His National Church. London: SPCK, 1879. Moorman, J.R.H. A History ofthe Church ofEngland. London: A. and C. Black, 1953. 253

Newbolt, W.C.E. and Darwell Stone. The Church of England: An Appeal to Facts and Principles. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1903. Newman, John Henry. Apologia Pro Vita Sua: Being a Reply to a Pamphlet Entitled 'What, then, does Dr. Newman Mean? '. London: Longmans, Green, Longman, Roberts and Green, 1864. Nye, G.H.F. The Church and Her Story. New and Revised Edition. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., 1894.

------. Our Island Home. London: Bemrose & Sons, Ltd., 1897. ------. A Popular Story of the Church ofEngland. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., 1891. ------. The Story of the Church ofEngland: Showing its Birth, its Progress and its Work for the People. London: Griffith, Farran, Okeden & Welsh, 1891. ------. The Story of the Oxford Movement: A Book for the Times. London: Bemrose & Sons, Ltd., 1899. Ogle, Arthur. The Canon Law in Mediaeval England: An Examination of William Lyndwood's 'Provinciale, ' in Reply to the Late Professor F.W. Maitland. London: John Murray, 1912. Ollard, S.L. A Dictionary ofEnglish Church History. Edited by S.L. Ollard and assisted by Gordon Crosse. London: A.R. Mowbray & Co., 1912. ------. A Short History ofthe Oxford Movement. London: A.R. Mowbray & Co., 1915. Oman, Charles. Memories of Victorian Oxford: And of some Early Years. London: Methuen, 1941. Overton, John Henry. The Anglican Revival. Chicago: H.S. Stone, 1898. ------. The Church in England. London: Gardner, Darton, 1897. ------. The English Church in the Nineteenth Century, 1800-1833. London: Longmans, Green, 1894. ------. The Evangelical Revival in the Eighteenth Century. London: Longmans, Green, 1886.

------. John Wesley. London: Methuen and Co., 1891. ------. Life in the English Church, 1660-1714. London: Longmans, Green, 1885. ------. The Nonjurors: Their Lives, Principles and Writings. London: Smith, Elder, 1902. 254

------. William Law, Nonjuror and Mystic: A Sketch ofhis Life, Character and Opinions. London: Longmans, Green, 1881. Overton, John Henry and Elizabeth Wordsworth. Christopher Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, 1807-1885. London: Rivington, 1888. Overton, John Henry and Frederic Relton. The English Church from the Accession of George I. to the End of the Eighteenth Century, 1714-1800. London: Macmillan, 1906. Oxford House Papers, Third Series. Longmans, Green and Co., 1897. Paget, Francis. Introduction to the Fifth Book of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899. Palgrave, Francis. A History ofEngland. London: John Murray, 1831. Palmer, William. A Narrative of Events Connected with the Publication of the Tracts for the Times: With Reflections on Existing Tendencies to Romanism, and on the Present Duties and Prospects ofMembers ofthe Church. Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1843. Pattison, Mark. Memoirs. London: Macmillan, 1885. Pattison, S.R. The Rise and Progress of Religious Life in England. London: Jackson, Walford, and Hodder, 1864. Percival, A.P. A Collection ofPapers Connected with the Theological Movement of 1833. London: J.G.F. & J. Rivington, 1843. Perry, G.G. History of the Church ofEnglandfrom the Death of Elizabeth to the Present Times. 3 vols. London: Saunders, Otley, and Co., 1860-1864. ------. A History ofthe English Church. 3 vols. London: John Murray, 1881-1887. Pocock, Nicholas. Records ofthe Reformation: The Divorce 1527-1533, Mostly nowfor the First Time Printed from MSS. in the British Museum, the PRO, the Venetian Archives and other Libraries. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1870. Poole, Reginald Lane. Wycliffe and Movementsfor Reform. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1889. Prévost, George, ed. The Autobiography ofIsaac Williams: As Throwing Further Light on the History ofthe Oxford Movement. 2nd ed. London: Longmans, Green, 1892. Proby, William Henry Baptist. Annals of the 'Low-Church' Party in England Down to the Death ofArchbishop Tait. 2 vols. London: J.T. Hayes, 1888. Report ofthe Archbishops' Committee on Church and State. London: SPCK, 1916. Rivington, Septimus. The Publishing Family ofRivington. London: Rivington, 1943. 255

Round, J. Horace. Family Origins and Other Studies. Edited with a memoir and bibliography by William Page. London: Constable & Co., 1930. Russell, George William Erskine. Dr. Liddon. London: A.R. Mowbray, 1905. ------. Dr. Pusey. London: Mowbray, 1907 ------. Edward King, Sixtieth Bishop ofLincoln: A Memoir. London: Smith, Elder, 1912. ------. The Household of Faith: Portraits and Essays. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1902. Selborne, Roundell Palmer, 1st Earl of. A Defense of the Church of England Against Disestablishment. New Edition. London: Macmillan and Co., 1887. Simpkinson, CH. Life and Times of William Laud Archbishop of Canterbury. London: John Murray, 1894. Smith, A.L. Church and State in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. Spence-Jones, H.D.M. The Church ofEngland: A History for the People. 4 vols. London: Cassali and Company Limited, 1896-1898. ------. A History ofthe English Church. London: J.M. Dent & Co., 1901. Stephens, W.R.W. The English Church from the Norman Conquest to the Accession of Edward I, 1066-1272. London: Macmillan, 1901. ------. Hildebrand and his Times. London: Longmans, Green, 1903. ------. Life and Letters ofEdward A. Freeman. 2 vols. London: Macmillan, 1895. ------. Life and Letters of Walter Farquhar Hook D.D., F.R.S. London: R. Bentley, 1878. Stokes, G.T. Ireland and the Celtic Church: A History ofIrelandfrom St. Patrick to the English Conquest in 1172. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1886. Stubbs, William. The Constitutional History ofEngland in its Origin and Development. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1874-78. ------. Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum: An Attempt to Exhibit the Course of Episcopal Succession in England, from the Records and Chronicles of the Church. Oxford: University Press, 1858. ------. Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern History and Kindred Subjects Delivered at Oxford Under Statutory Obligation in the Years 1867-1884. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1887. ------. Visitation Charges Delivered to the Clergy and Churchwardens of the Dioceses of Chester and Oxford. Edited by E.E. Holmes. London: Longmans, Green, 1904. 256

Tomlinson, J.T. The 'Legal History' of Canon Stubbs being the Basis ofthe New Scheme of Ecclesiastical Courts Proposed by the Royal Commissioners of1881-1883. London: E. Stanford, 1884. Wakeman, Henry Offley. The Church and the Puritans, 1570-1660. London: Longmans, Green, 1887. ------. Essays Introductory to the Study ofEnglish Constitutional History by Residents of the University ofOxford. London: Rivingtons, 1887. ------. Europe, 1598-1715. New York: Macmillan, 1894. ------. The History ofReligion in England. Longmans, Green, & Co., 1885. ------. An Introduction to the History of the Church ofEngland: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day. London: Rivingtons, 1896. ------. An Introduction to the History of the Church ofEngland: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Revised with an additional chapter by S.L. Ollard. 12th ed. London: Rivingtons, 1955. ------. The Reformation in Great Britain. London: Rivingtons, 1900. ------. The Royal Supremacy in England. London: SPCK, 1897. Wakeman, H.O. and Arthur Hassal, eds. Essays Introductory to the Study of English Constitutional History. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1887. Wakeling, G. The Oxford Church Movement: Sketches and Recollections. London: S. Sonnenschein, 1895. Walsh, Walter. The Secret History of the Oxford Movement. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1897. Ward, Wilfrid. William George Ward and the Catholic Revival. London: Macmillan and Co., 1893. ------. William George Ward and the Oxford Movement. London: Macmillan and Co., 1889.

Warre Cornish, Francis. The English Church in the Nineteenth Century. 2 vols. London: Macmillan, 1910. Watson, E.W. The Church ofEngland. London: Williams & Norgate, 1914. Whitney, James Powder. The Episcopate and the Reformation: Our Outlook. London: Scott, 1917. 257

Wickham Legg, J. English Church Life from the Restoration to the Tractarian Movement Considered in some of its Neglected or Forgotten Features. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1914. Wilberforce, R.I. A Sketch ofthe History ofErastianism. London: John Murray, 1851. Williams, Isaac. Autobiography of Isaac Williams. Edited by George Prévost. London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1892. Wordsworth, Charles. Annals of my Life, 1806-1856. 2 vols. London: Longmans, 1891- 1893.

Wordsworth, Christopher. Theophilus Anglicanus; or, Instructions for the Young Student Concerning the Church and our own Branch of it. London: J.G.F. & J. Rivington, 1843. Wordsworth, John. The Episcopate of Charles Wordsworth: Bishop of St. Andrews, Dunkeld, and Dumblane, 1853-1892. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1899. Worley, G. The Catholic Revival ofthe Nineteenth Century: A BriefPopular Account ofits Origin, History, Literature and its Results: Six Lectures. London: Elliot Stock, 1894.

Secondary Altholz, Josef L. The Religious Press in Britain, 1760-1900. New York: Greenwood Press, 1989.

Altick, Richard D. The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public, 1800-1900. 2nd ed. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1998. Bann, Stephen. The Clothing of Clio: A Study of the Representation of History in Nineteenth Century Britain and France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Bentley, James. Ritualism and Politics in Victorian Britain: The Attempt to Legislate for Belief Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978. Bentley, Michael. Modernizing England's Past: English Historiography in the Age of Modernism, 1870-1970. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Best, Geoffrey. 'The Evangelicals and the Established Church in the Early Nineteenth Century.' Journal of Theological Studies 10 (April 1959): 63-78. Bill, E.G.W. University Reform in Nineteenth-Century Oxford: A Study of Henry Halford Vaughan, 1811-1885. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973. Blaas, P.B.M. Continuity and Anachronism: Parliamentary and Constitutional Development in Whig Historiography and in the Anti-Whig Reaction Between 1890 and 1930. The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1978. 258

Braw, J.D. 'Vision as Revision: Ranke and the Beginning of Modern History.' History and Theory, Theme Issue 46 (Dec. 2007): 45-60. Brock, M.G. and M.C. Curthoys, eds. The History of the University of Oxford. 8 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984-2000. Burk, Peter. 'Paradigm Lost: From Gottingen to Berlin.' Common Knowledge vol. 14, no. 2 (Spring 2008): 244-257. Burrow, J.W. A Liberal Descent: Victorian Historians and the English Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Butterfield, Herbert. The Englishman and His History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1944. Campbell, James. Stubbs and the English State. Reading, Berkshire: University of Reading, 1989. Cannadine, David. G.M. Trevelyan: A Life in History. London: Harper Collins Publishers, 1992.

Cantor, Norman ed. William Stubbs on the English Constitution. New York: Crowell, 1966. Chadwick, W.O. Creighton on Luther: An Inaugural Lecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. ------. Edward King, Bishop of Lincoln, 1885-1910. Lincoln: Friends of Lincoln Cathedral, 1968. ------. Hensley Henson: A Study in the Friction between Church and State. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. ------. The Victorian Church. 2 vols. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1972. Chancellor, Valerie E. History for their Masters: Opinion in the English Textbook, 1800- 1914. Bath: Adams & Dart, 1970. Chandler, Michael. The Life and Work of HP. Liddon (1829-1890). Leominster: Gracewing, 2000. Clark, J.C.D. English Society, 1660-1832: Religion, Ideology and Politics during the Ancien Regime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Colls, Robert and Philip Dodd, eds. Englishness: Politics and Culture, 1880-1920. London: CroomHelm, 1986. Covert, James. A Victorian Marriage: Mandell and Louise Creighton. London: Hambledon and London Ltd., 2000. 259

Crumb, Lawrence. The Oxford Movement and its Leaders: A Bibliography of Secondary and Lesser Primary Sources. Metuchen, NJ: ATLA: Scarecrow Press, 1988. ------. The Oxford Movement and its Leaders: A Bibliography of Secondary and Lesser Primary Sources. Supplement. Metuchen, NJ: ATLA: Scarecrow Press, 1993. Daniélou, Jean and others. Historical Theology. Hammondsworth: Penguin Books, 1969. Davis, H.W.C. A History ofBalliol College. Oxford: Blackwell, 1963. Douglas, David C. English Scholars, 1660-1730. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1951. Eliot, Simon. Some Patterns and Trends in British Publishing, 1800-1919. London: The Bibliographical Society, 1994. Elder, Gregory P. Chronic Vigour: Darwin, Anglicans, Catholics, and the Development of a Doctrine of Providential Evolution. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1996.

Engel, A.J. From Clergyman to Don: The Rise of the Academic Profession in Nineteenth- Century Oxford. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. Fallows, W.G. Mandell Creighton and the English Church. London: Oxford University Press, 1964. Feske, Victor. From Belloc to Churchill: Private Scholars, Public Culture and the Crisis of British Liberalism, 1900-1939. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1996. Garnett, Jane and Colin Mattew, eds. Revival and Religion since 1700. London: The Hambledon Press, 1993. Graber, Gary. Ritual Legislation in the Victorian Church of England: Antecedents and Passage of the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874. San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1993. ------. "Worship, Ecclesiastical Discipline and the Establishment in the Church of England, 1904-1929." Th.D. Dissertation, Wycliffe College and the University of Toronto, 2007. Heyck, T.W. The Transformation ofIntellectual Life in Victorian England. London: Croom Helm, 1982. Hinchliff, Peter. God and History: Aspects of British Theology, 1875-1914. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Howsam, Leslie. 'Academic Discipline or Literary Genre?': The Establishment of Boundaries in Historical Writing.' Victorian Literature and Culture, (2004), 525- 545. 260

Hylson-Smith, Kenneth. High Churchmanship in the Church of England, from the Sixteenth Century to the Late Twentieth Century. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993. Iggers, Georg G. The German Conception of History. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1968. ------. 'The Image of Ranke in American and German Historical Thought.' History and Theory vol. II, no. 1 (1962): 17-40. ------. New Directions in European History. Rev. ed. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1984. Jones, David R. The Origins of Civic Universities: Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool. London: Routledge, 1988. Jones, O.W. Isaac Williams and his Circle. London: SPCK, 1971. Kenyon, John. The History Men: The Historical Profession in England since the Renaissance. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1983. Knowles, David. Cardinal Gasquet as an Historian. London: University of London, Athlone Press, 1957.

Koch, Richard Marion. "William Stubbs: Victorian Historian and Churchman." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, 2000. Leslie, Shane. Cardinal Gasquet: A Memoir. London: Burns Oates, 1953. Lloyd, Roger. The Church ofEngland, 1900-1965. London: SCM Press, 1966. Machin, G.I.T. 'The last Victorian Anti-Ritualist Campaign, 1895-1906.' Victorian Studies 25 (Bloomington, 1982): 282-298

------. Politics and the Churches in Great Britain, 1832-1868. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

------. Politics and the Churches in Great Britain, 1869-1921. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Mackintosh, William H. Disestablishment and Liberation: The Movement for the Separation of the Anglican Church from State Control. London: Epworth Press, 1972. Mandler, Peter. History and the National Life. London: Profile Books Ltd., 2002. Marsh, P.T. The Victorian Church in Decline: Archbishop Tait and the Church ofEngland, 1868-1882. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1969. Mason, Emma. 'William Rufus: Myth and Reality.' Journal ofMedieval History, 3 (1977): 1-20. 261

Mckenzie, Donald F. Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Morgan, Charles. The House ofMacmillan, 1843-1943. London: Macmillan, 1943. Munson, J.E.B., 'The Oxford Movement by the end of the Nineteenth Century: The Anglo- Catholic Clergy.' Church History 44 (1975): 382-95. Nicholls, David. The Pluralist State. London: Macmillan, 1975. Nockles, Peter B. "Continuity and Change in Anglican High Churchmanship in Britain, 1792-1850." 2 vols. D.Phil, thesis, Oxford University, 1982. ------. The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship, 1760-1857. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. O'Connell, Marvin R. The Oxford Conspirators: A History ofthe Oxford Movement, 1833- 1845. London: Macmillan, 1969. Okie, Laird. Augustan Historical Writing: Histories of England in the English Enlightenment. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1991. Parry, J.P. Democracy and Religion: Gladstone and the Liberal Party, 1867-1875. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. ------.'Nonconformity, Clericalism and Englishness: The United Kingdom.' In Culture Wars: Secular-Catholic Conflict in Nineteenth-Century Europe edited by Clark, Christopher and Wolfram Kaiser, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Pereira, James. Ethos and the Oxford Movement: At the Heart of Tractarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Philpott, Mark. 'Eadmer, his Archbishops and the English State'. In The Medieval State: Essays Presented to James Campbell edited by Maddicott, John Robert and David Michael Palliser. London and Rio Grande, OH: Hambledon, 2000. Pickering, W.S.F. Anglo-Catholicism: A Study in Religious Ambiguity. London: Routledge, 1989.

Reed, John Shelton. Glorious Battle: The Cultural Politics of Victorian Anglo-Catholicism. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1996. Rhodes Jr., Robert E. Law and Modernization in the Church ofEngland: Charles II to the Welfare State. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991. Robson, Robert. Ideas and Institutions of Victorian Britain: Essays in Honour of George Kitson Clark. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1967. Rothblatt, Sheldon. The Revolution of the Dons: Cambridge and Society in Victorian England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. 262

Rowell, Geoffrey, ed. Tradition Renewed: The Oxford Movement Conference Papers. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1986. Skinner, S.A. Tractarians and the 'Condition of England': The Social And Political Thought ofThe Oxford Movement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004. Slee, Peter H. Learning and Liberal Education: The Study of Modern History in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Manchester, 1800-1914. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986. Smith, B.A. Dean Church: The Anglican Response to Newman. London: Oxford University Press, 1958. Soffer, Reba. Discipline and Power: The University, History, and the Making ofan English Elite, 1870-1930. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press, 1994. Stephenson, A.M.G. Anglicanism and the Lambeth Conferences. London: SPCK, 1978. Stuchtey, Benedikt and Peter Wende, eds. British and German Historiography, 1750-1950: Traditions, Perceptions and Transfers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Sutcliffe, Peter. The Oxford University Press: An Informal History. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. [Symonds, Emily]. At John Murray's: Records of a Literary Circle, 1843-1892. London: Murray, 1932. Toon, Peter. Evangelical Theology, 1833-1856: A Response to Tractarianism. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1979. Tucker, Maurice G. John Neville Figgis: A Study. London: SPCK, 1950. Turner, Frank. The Greek Heritage in Victorian Britain. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981. ------. John Henry Newman: The Challenge to Evangelical Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Vernon, James. 'Narrating the Constitution: The Discourse of 'the Real' and the Fantasies of Nineteenth Century Constitutional History.' In Re-Reading the Constitution, edited by James Vernon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Ward, W.R. Victorian Oxford. London: F. Cass, 1965. Wellings, Martin. 'Anglo-Catholicism, the 'Crisis in the Church' and the Cavalier Case of 1899.' Journal ofEcclesiastical History 42 (Cambridge, 1991): 248. ------. Evangelicals Embattled: Responses of Evangelicals in the Church of England to Ritualism, Darwinism and Theological Liberalism, 1890-1930. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 2003. 263 ------. 'The Oxford Movement in Late 19th Century Retrospect: R.W. Church, J.H. Rigg and Walter Walsh.' In The Church Retrospective (Studies in Church History), edited by CW. Dugmore, 33,1997, 501-515. Whisenant, James C. A Fragile Unity: Anti-Ritualism and the Division of Anglican Evangelicalism in the Nineteenth Century. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 2003. Wilson, Adrian and T.G. Ashplant. 'Whig History and Present-Centred History.' The HistoricalJournal vol. 31, no. 1 (1988): 1-16. Wilson, Alan. "Authority of Church and Party among London Anglo-Catholics, 1880-1914, with Special Reference to the Church Crisis of 1898-1904." Ph.D. dissertation, Oxford University, 1988. Wormell, Deborah. Sir John Seeley and the Uses of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Yates, Nigel. Anglican Ritualism in Victorian Britain, 1830-1910. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Young, B.W. 'Knock-Kneed Giants: Victorian Representations of Eighteenth-Century Thought.' In Revival and Religion since 1700: Essays for John Walsh, edited by Jane Garnett and Colin Matthew. London: Hambledon Press, 1993.