The secret history of the Oxford movement

Front matter

Hr

Go S. j

Qeorge Storemans

Preface To The Popular Edition

This Popular Edition is issued at the urgent request of a large number of friends of the Protestant cause, who are anxious to bring one book within reach of the working classes. It is hoped that many of those to whom God has given wealth will purchase large quantities for free distribution amongst those who cannot afford to purchase even this Popular Edition In view of the forthcoming General Election it is most important that the working men voters may clearly understand the importance of the issues with which they will have to deal and the serious evils to Church and State which would follow the triumph of Priestcraft in the Church of England.

The book has now stood the test of two years’ sharp criticism from the Eitualistic enemies of the Protestant religion, and with the result that I have nothing to apologise for, and nothing to withdraw, except a slight error of date mentioned in the Preface to the Eifth Edition, which injures nobody.

An additional proof of the secrecy and dread of publicity on the part of certain Eitualistic Societies has come to light since the issue of the sixth edition by the publication in the English Churchman, of Eebruary 23rd, 1899, of a correspondence between the Eev. G. J. Watts, Vicar of St. Mark’s. Oldham, and the Secretaries of the Eitualistic Societies therein named! Mr. Watts wrote as follows to the Eev. H. Montague Villiers' Vicar of St. Paul’s, Knightsbridge : —

St. Mare’s Vicarage, Oldham, February 7tli, 1899.

Dear Sir,— My attention has been called to your letter to the Bishon of Hereford of the 30th ult. ^

You there state that “these societies to which I presume you allude are not secret societies. The names of members are published annually, and though not circulated as advertisements, are always procurable.”

Will you be so kind as to tell me where I can obtain the last published lists of members and reports of the following societies, viz. : — (1)“C B S ” (2) “ S. S. C. ,” (3) “ A. P. U. C.,” (4) “ O. C. R.,” (5) “ S. O.,” (6) “ G. A. S.” ?

G. J. WATTS.

To The Rev. H. Montague Villiers.

iv

Preface

In answer to this letter Mr. Watts received the following reply : —

St. Paul’s Vicarage, Wilton Place, S.W., February 8th, 1899.

Dear Sir, — In answer to your letter respecting certain societies, the Eev. H. Montague Villiers desires me to refer you to the various secretaries of the societies you mention for reports and lists of members.

MARGARET VILLIERS.

Mr. Watts thereupon wrote the following letters to the officials of the various Ritualistic Societies, and received the subjoined replies : —

St. Mark’s Vicarage, Oldham, February lit h, 1899.

Dear Sir,— Will you have the kindness to send me a copy of the last report of the - ? Also list of clerical and lay members.

I enclose stamp for postage.

G. ,T. WATTS,

Vicar of St. Mark’s, Glodwick, Oldham.

To - , Secretary op - .

St. Mark’s Vicarage, Oldham, February 11th, 1899.

Dear Sir,— Will you have the kindness to give me some information respecting the “Order of Corporate Reunion?” Can you let me have a list of the clerical members ? Also a copy of your last report.

I am. sorry to trouble you, but I know not to whom else to apply for information on this subject.

I enclose stamp for postage.

G. J. WATTS,

Vicar of St. Mark’s, Glodwick, Oldham.

To The Rev. Dr. Lee.

The following replies havejbeen received : —

C. B. S.

From Rev. James Dixon, Secretary-General.

65 Sutherland Avenue, W., February 15th, 1899. Dear Sir,— I enclose the last report of C. B. S. The list of clerical and lay members is not issued.

JAMES DIXON.!

iThe Rev. G. J. Watts, St. Mark’s, Oldham.

S. S. C.

Gamlingay Vicarage, February 15th, 1899.

Dear Sir,— S. S. C. does not publish list of members or report. If you are considering the question of joining the Society, I shall he pleased to send you a paper explaining its nature and objects.

Yours faithfully,

W. CROUCH.

VREFACSl.

Association nob Promoting the Unity oe Christendom,

1 King Stbeet, Westminster, S.W., February 15th, 1899.

Sir,— In reply to your note of yesterday, the last annual report and list of subscribers and the prospectus are enclosed. There are many thousands of members on the roll, and to print it would be a greater expense than it would be reasonable to incur for any advantage that would be gained by doing so.

Your obedient Servant,

GEORGE A. MALISONE.

The Rev. G. J. Watts, St. Mark’s Vicarage, Oldham.

The Alcuin Club, London, February 15th, 1899.

Rev. G. I. Watts, St. Mark’s Vicarage, Oldham.

Dear Sir, — As requested, I beg to enclose copy of the last annual report of the Club, which contains a list of members.

Yours faithfully,

A. E. M. DAVIS, per B. P.

G. A. S.

London, W.C., February loth, 1899.

Dear Sir, — In reply to yours of yesterday, we have no printed list of members, and our report is nearly a year old, so is somewhat out of date. The next report will not be ready till April or May, but if you will kindly tell me for what purpose you are making your inquiries, I will endeavour to find a copy of the old report to send you.

Yours faithfully,

WALTER PLIMPTON, Secretary, G. A. S.

Rev. G. J. Watts.

O. C. R.

►J- Beati Pacieici.

All Saints Vicarage, Lambeth, February 15th, 1899.

Rev. Sir, — I am a member of the O. C. R., which by prayer, interces¬ sion, and the quiet diffusion of old Christian principles, endeavours to bring people together.

There are no “ Reports ” nor is there any list, so far as I know, of clerical or other members. It is exclusively confined to the Church of England ; but avoids publicity, talk, agitation, fuss, boastings, and other modern methods.

It is spread throughout the Established Church, and in twenty-two years has largely altered the sentiments of many influential persons. Of the falsehoods circulated concerning it, no notice is taken, and I believe that no notice will be taken. Such, of course, are acceptable to the Father of Lies, whose influence appears to increase.

Vale Dominus tecum,

FREDERICK GEORGE LEE.

The Rev. G. J. Watts, Oldham.

Vi

PREFACE.

St. Mark’s Vicarage, Oldham, February Ylth, 1899.

Dear Sir, — As you referred me on the 8th inst., to the various secre¬ taries of the Societies 1 mentioned for reports and lists of members, I wrote to them asking for their last report and for list of clerical and lay members.

The following is the result of my application : —

(1) “ 0. B. S.” — “ I enclose the last report of C. B. S. The list of clerical and lay members is not issued.”

(2) “ S. S. 0. does not publish list of members or report.”

(3) “ A. P. U. C.” — “ The last annual report and list of subscribers, and the prospectus, are enclosed. There are many thousands of members on the roll, and to print it would be a greater expense than it would be reasonable to incur for any advantage that would be gained by doing so.”

(4) “ O. C. R.” — A member of the “ 0. 0. R.” writes, — “ There are no ‘ reports,’ nor is there any list, so far as I know, of clerical or other mem¬ bers.”

(5) “ S. 0.” is, I am informed, now merged into the “ Alcuin Club.” The secretary of the “Alcuin Club” sends “copy of last annual report of the club, which contains a list of members.”

(6) “ G. A. S.” — “ We have no printed list of members, and our last report is nearly a year old, so is somewhat out of date. ... If you will kindly tell me for what purpose you are making your inquiries, I will endeavour to find a copy of the old report to send you.”

You will see from the above that five out of the six societies I mentioned in my letter of the 7th inst., do not issue a list of members. This fact, I venture to submit, stamps them as “ Secret Societies .”

G. J. WATTS.

The Rev. H. Montague Villiers.

Apparently the Ritualistic party is not quite satisfied with the reply of The Church Times to my book, since, if that had been conclusive, there would have been no need for another. The Liverpool papers a few months since announced that the Rev. John Wakeford, the somewhat fiery Vicar of St. Margaret’s, Anfield, was at work preparing a thorough exposure of “ The Secret History of the Oxford Movement.” The promised exposure has made its appearance, but not even the greatest stretch of imagination, on the part of friend or foe, can assert that Mr. Wakeford’s little book is worthy of the name of an answer. Whether he found the task more difficult than he anticipated, and therefore wisely withdrew from the attack, I cannot say.

But now the Church Review has taken up the task in serious earnest, and has published a series of articles with a view to annihilating my work. I propose to deal with such portions of these articles as seem to demand a reply. But before doing so there are two or three other matters which first of all seem to

PREFACE.

vii require notice at my hands. In the fifth edition of The Secret History I have written a special preface (reprinted in this edition) of thirty-four pages in reply to the Church Times and other critics. In it, amongst other matters, I replied at some length to the comments of The Church Times denying the existence of Secret Societies in the Church of England. To this a rejoinder has been issued by that paper, as a second edition to its pamphlet, with the elegant title of A Protestant Mare’s Nest. In this rejoinder The Church Times says : — “ We have shown his [Mr. Walsh’s] utter misconception or misrepresentation of the ' secrecy ’ against which he railed. He makes no defence.” It seems almost incredible that any professedly Christian paper could make such an untrue assertion as this, when, as a matter of fact, my “ defence ” on this one point of “ secrecy ” extended to no fewer than four pages ! (Pp. xxiv.-xxix. of this edition.) This audacious assertion of The Church Times reminds me of the advice of Newman, adopted by him from Clement of Alexandria, to the effect that a Christian “ both thinks and speaks the truth, except when careful treatment is necessary, and then, as a physician for the good of his patients, he will lie, or rather utter a lie, as the Sophists say. Nothing, however, but his neighbour’s good will induce him to do so. He gives himself up for the Church.” (Newman’s Arians, p. 74.) In the case of The Church Times I would alter the quotation from “for the good of his patients” into “for the good of the Romanizing party.”

; I find that the Rev. T. A. Lacey is very angry with me, and has poured forth his wrath in a half-column letter in The Church Times, of February 10th, 1899. He charges me with making an “ abominable insinuation ” concerning himself in my book, though why he waited sixteen months before he dealt with it is not very clear. The following is the paragraph which has raised Mr. Lacey’s anger. I state that he —

“ Wrote a document for the private use of the Roman Cardinals, to whom the question of Anglican Orders had been remitted for consideration. Pro¬ bably Mr. Lacey never dreamt that such a document would ever see the light of day in England ; but somehow or other, the Tablet got hold of a copy, and published it in full — translated from the original Latin in its issue for November 7th, 1896.” ( Secret History of the Oxford Movement,

Popular Edition, pp. 249, 250.)

I regret that I do not yet see my way to withdraw my sugges¬ tion, excepting to this extent. When the Roman priests in this country and abroad had called attention to Mr. Lacey s document then, but not till then, he was unwillingly compelled tlSEFACE.

viii

c-< I

to give'it a cireulationjin England, but even then not in the English language, but in its original Latin. That Mr. Lacey did not, at first, intend it for publication was acknowledged by bimself in an article which he wrote in the Guardian, of October 7th, 1896.

“It [the document in question] was not published,” writes Mr. Lacey; “it was printed for private circulation, and it consisted of matter so familiar to every instructed Englishman that there would be no point in circulating it in England. But it has been so savagely attacked as untruthful and treacherous that some people may be interested to see what it contains, and as there are some few copies in hand, I have sent them to the British Museum, to the University Libraries, and at this juncture to the reception room of the Church Congress, where any who care to do so may consult them.”

On October 8th, 1896, Mr. Lacey delivered a speech at the Shrewsbury Church Congress, in which he referred to the document in question in a way which confirms my belief that when he wrote it he had no expectation that it would ever see the light of day in England. I quote from the official and verbatim report of his speech issued by the Church Congress ; —

“And now that it has been challenged,” said Mr. Lacey, “I am not afraid of the public seeing it, and I have consented to its publication. Originally it was printed privately for the information of certain highly placed dignitaries of the Roman Church. It was answered with equal privacy ” (p. 380.)

It is evident, therefore, that if the Roman priests had not forced Mr. Lacey’s hands, the document in all probability would never have been seen in England, and even the “ few copies ” which he refers to would not have been circulated. The document was of an outrageously Romanizing character, and when it could no longer be kept back from the public, a virtue was made of necessity, and some “ few copies ” were sent round to the libraries. How many have since been circulated I cannot say. Mr. Lacey must, I respectfully sug¬ gest, have been very short of material for an attack upon myself when he thus, late in the day, makes such a mountain out of a mole-hill imaginary grievance, which, he kindly and politely mentions, was, he “ supposed,” made out of “ pure stupidity.” Truly, Ritualistic gentlemen have their own way of conducting a public controversy !

This reply of mine to Mr. Lacey appeared first as an article in the English Churchman, and led to the following correspon¬ dence, which appeared in the issue of that paper for April 6th,

MiJEKACk k

The Rev. T. A. Lacey and Me. Walsn.

The Rev. T. A. Lacey writes to us as follows

Sib, — The reason why I “ waited sixteen months ” before dealing with Mr. Walsh is that I was indignant, not so much at his original statement, which I attributed to honest stupidity, but rather at his sticking to it when corrected, which I can only put down to malice.

Mr. Walsh’s original statement was that I printed privately in Rome a document which I never dreamt would see the light of day in England, but “ somehow or other the Tablet got hold of a copy and published it ” an November 7th, 1896.

A reviewer pointed out (1) that I had myself called attention to this document in the press and at the Church Congress a month before this publication in the Tablet', (2) that it had been “widely circulated both in England and abroad ” ; and (3) that copies were placed in the reading-room of the Church Congress.

In his next edition Mr. Walsh retained his insinuation unchanged, ignoring the first and second parts of this correction, and saying on the third that he “ never saw a single copy ’’ of the document in the reading-room.

It was this treatment that I indignantly complained of in The Church Times.

Mr. Walsh now returns to the charge in the old style of odious insinua¬ tion. He appears to claim the power to read hearts. Note the italics below. He says : — “ When the Roman priests in this country and abroad had called attention to Mr. Lacey’s document then, but not till then, he was unwillingly compelled to give it a circulation in England.” Again, “ When it could, no longer be kept back from the public, a virtue was made of necessity, and ‘ some few copies ’ were sent round to the libraries.”

The facts are these, and Mr. Walsh knows them, for they are set out in the authorities which he quotes. The attack made on me by “ Roman priests in this country and abroad ” was strictly private until I myself called attention to it in the Guardian. It was entirely my own doing, and no one else’s, that any public notice was ever drawn to the pamphlet. Moreover, long before this public notice, many copies had been freely circulated in England, and of this also Mr. Walsh has been informed.

I have one thing more to add. Mr. Walsh said that he “ never saw a single copy ” of this pamphlet in the reading-room of the Church Congress. In The Church Times of February 10th I categorically stated that I had myself called Mr. Walsh’s attention to it in the reading-room. I observe that he passes by this without answer.

Mr. Walsh’s reply was as follows : —

If I have done any one an injury in the above extract it is, not Mr. Lacey, but the Tablet, when I say that “ somehow or other ” it got hold of a copy. I did not intend that to imply that the Tablet got its copy in any unfair way, but if it is open to that inference, or to the inference that Mr. Lacey was unwilling to let that paper have a copy I now withdraw it, not as untrue in itself, but as liable to misunderstanding. What I meant to convey to my readers was that I did not know how it got a copy, nor, as a matter of fact, do I know now. That Mr. Lacey, when he first issued his pamphlet, “ never dreamt that such a document would ever see the light of day in preface.

England,” I still believe to be true, and I am quite certain that its being made public in England was an afterthought, the result of the Romish attacks upon it. I have already quoted Mr. Lacey’s own statement in the Guardian of October 7th, 1896, that “it was printed for private circulation, and it consisted of matter so familiar to every instructed Englishman, that there would be no point in circulating it in England." What is that but an acknowledgment, by Mr Lacey himself, that when he first “ privately ” issued it, he had no intention of “circulating it in England,” which is exactly, though in other words, what I have said in my book? I have, therefore, told only the truth, and do not deserve to be insulted with charges of “honest stupidity” and “malice.”

What, then, induced Mr. Lacey to afterwards circulate his pamphlet in England? He told the Shrewsbury Church Congress that “ now that it has been challenged [that is, by ‘ Don Gaspard and Canon Moyes ’] I am not afraid of the public seeing it, and I have consented to its publication.” It is, therefore, evident, that up to the time when the Roman priests replied, Mr. Lacey was not willing, that is, had not willed to circulate it in England. In my remarks in the English Churchman , of March 16th, I drew from these facts the inference that Mr. Lacey “ was unwillingly compelled to give it a circulation in England.” I think that was a very natural inference to draw, nor can I see that there is any “ abominable insinuation ” in it.

Mr. Lacey now assures us that he, and he alone, first called attention to his pamphlet in this country. Of that I was not aware when on March 16th I wrote in the English Churchman : — “ When it could no longer be kept back from the public a virtue was made of necessity, and some * few copies ’ were sent round to the libraries.” That assertion I now willingly withdraw, on learning the facts of the case, for the first time, from Mr. Lacey himself. But nothing Mr. Lacey has written would, I think, justify me in explaining any part of the statement in my Secret History which has raised his anger, excepting the words “somehow or other,” which, though strictly true of the Tablet, are liable to be misunderstood.

As to Mr. Lacey s assertion that at the Shrewsbury Church Congress he called my attention to copies of his pamphlet in the reading-room, I can only say that I have not the slightest recollection of his having done so, nor can I conceive how I could have forgotten an event in which I must necessarily have taken the deepest interest.

392 Clapham Road, London, S.W., April 5th.

WALTER WALSH.

The Church Review is good enough to begin its lengthy criticism of my book by saying that at a certain meeting of the E. C. U., at which I was present, I “ behaved like a gentleman ” ; and it assures its readers that “ whenever we say or suggest that any statement of Mr. Walsh is not true we shall 'not impute deliberate untruth.” Well, this, at any rate, is a vast improvement on the Billingsgate style adopted by The Church Times, and makes me all the more willing to give special attention to what it has to say.

In the first place, the Church Review calls attention to my assertion that there are private burial grounds in Ritualistic

EKEFACE.

XI

Convents. It does not deny their existence, but invites its Ritualistic readers to send on information about these places, and expresses a special anxiety for “ a description of this private burial ground in Ascot Priory ” to which I had alluded by name. That invitation appeared in the Church Review of February 23rd, 1899, but down to the time I write no answer has appeared in its columns. There can, I venture again to suggest, be no valid reason for the existence of these private burial grounds within convent walls, and the sooner they are closed by the authority of Government the better it will be for the country.

The Church Review is much disturbed because I have quoted testimonies from prominent Roman Catholics acknowledging the important services rendered to the Church of Rome by the Ritualists. This is a kind of testimony which is very unpalatable to the Romanizers. Yet even the Church Review admits (p. 119) that “ it cannot be too often repeated that what is called Ritualism, where it stops at fussy ceremonialism, may disgust devout souls and suggest secession ” ; but it earnestly pleads that “ where the Catholic faith and religion is lived, as well as taught, then secession to Rome is most powerfully hindered.” I have never denied that, in a few instances, Ritualistic priests do succeed in preventing some of their followers going over to Rome ; but I believe that in most of these cases it is by means of the unworthy tactics suggested by Dr. Littledale, who maintained that the only way to prevent would-be seceders from going over to Rome “is to give them here [in the Church of England] what they are going to look for ” in Rome. ( Defence of Church Principles. Secessions to Rome. By the Rev. Dr. Littledale. Page 4. Mowbray.) Loyal Churchmen, however, object more strongly against Popery within the Church of England than against the same thing in its legitimate place — the Church of Rome. In proof of the services rendered to the Papacy by the Oxford Movement, I have quoted the testimonies of Pope Gregory XVI., the Roman Catholic Rambler, Cardinal Manning, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce (as against Dr. Pusey) (pp. 251, 252), the Irish Ecclesiastical Record, the organ of the Irish priesthood, the Roman Catholic Ransomer, the Rev. Father Whelan, and the Month, the organ of the English Jesuits, all acknowledging that the Ritualistic Movement is a great benefit to the Church of Rome. And to this I may now add that every list of prominent seceders to Rome which xii fEEE'ACS.

has been published confirms the opinions I have quoted. All that the Church Review has to say on the other side is that a Father Selley, of Cork, has announced that as to the many perverts he had received into the Roman Communion “they have been nearly all from the ranks of the Low Church part of the Establishment.” But I may well ask, what else could be expected in Cork ? In that town there are no Ritualists to pervert. Then we are told that a Mr. E. Peacock, F.S.A., believed that “ the Ritualists are the main hindrance to con¬ version at the present time.” But we have yet to learn the value of Mr. Peacock’s testimony. Was he, a layman, more likely to know the facts of the case than Pope Gregory XVI., Cardinal Manning, and the English Jesuits whom I have quoted ? And all this testimony is strengthened and confirmed by the testimony of Pope Leo XIII., which has been published in the Morning Leader, to the effect that he expects the Ritualists as a body will soon come over to him, and become “ Catholics ” in reality.

But it seems that “Bishop Bilsborough, of Salford, told the late Duke of Devonshire some years ago ” that “ for one convert from the^ Vicar’s Church he received ten from the Noncon¬ formists. No reference is given in proof of this conversation having ever been held, and until it is forthcoming I may pass it over as valueless, merely adding that if it were a true state¬ ment, the case of this one parish would be but “ the exception which proves the rule. Next the Church Review quotes the testimony of Mon signor Capel, made many years after he had left England for America, when he was far away from the original sources of information. Any one who has read Purcell’s Lf/e of Cardinal Manning will marvel much at the Church Review for relying on Capel as an authority for anything.

A is no use ^or the Church Review to thus vainly endeavour to make out that the Ritualists are the bitterest enemies of Rome, especially since we are all aware that they are labouring with all zeal for corporate reunion with her. Do we wish to be united to those we hate ? The Ritualists seek a wedding of affection between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, but the common sense of all loyal Churchmen forbids the banns. And as to individual secession, I may repeat the opinion of Cardinal Manning, who spoke with a unique know¬ ledge of the facts of the case. He wrote of the Ritualistic clergy : — <

PREFACE.

xiii

“ Every parish priest happily knows how empty and foolish is the boast they make of keeping souls from conversion [to Rome]. The public facts of every day refute it. They may keep back the handful who surround them, and hide the truths from their own hearts, but the steady current of return to the Catholic and Roman Church throughout the whole of England is no more to be affected by them than the rising of the tide by the palms of their hands.” ( Essays on Religion and Literature.1’ Edited by Archbishop Manning. Second Series, p. 14).

The Church Review, after dealing with the general question, proceeds to discuss the case of Dr. Pusey. At page 251. of The Secret History I gave evidence in support of the assertion that Dr. Pusey’s labours were beneficial to the Church of Rome. I quoted Bishop Samuel Wilberforce as saying that the influence of Pusey’s ministry did “ more than the labours of an open enemy to wean from the pure faith and simple Ritual of our Church the affections of many of those amongst her children ; ” that in Wilberforce’s opinion Pusey “ tried to retain these souls to the Church of England;” but that his efforts were “ in vain,” and that, instead of preventing them seceding to Rome they had “ practically been set by him [Pusey] on a Romish course.” I thus acknowledged that, in Wilberforce’s opinion, Pusey did make efforts to prevent secession. But the sorest point of all is my quotation from Keble, who was Pusey’s Father Confessor, who acknowledged that “ a larger number, possibly, has seceded to Rome under his [Dr. Pusey’s] special teaching than from that of any other individual now amongst us.” The Church Review does not deny that this was so. It only complains that I omitted to quote Keble’s reasons for the existence of such a deplorable state of things, and especially that I did . not quote his asser¬ tion -that “if more have passed from his teaching to Rome than from the teaching of any other, more also by very many have been positively withheld from Rome by his teaching than have been kept back by any other.” I fail to see how this, or similar statements, affect the point with which I dealt. I believe that Wilberforce was right when he declared that the secession of Pusey’s disciples to Rome was the direct result of his teaching. They were “set by him on a Romish course. “You seem to me,” wrote Wilberforce to Pusey, “to he habitually assuming the place and doing the work of a Roman Confessor, and not that of an English clergyman (Life of Bishop Wilberforce, Vol. II., p. 90). The harvest of such a work was sure to, be largely reaped by the Church of Rome.