Victorian Subjects || The Incarnation and the Christian Socialist Conscience in the Victorian Church of England

The Incarnation and the Christian Socialist Conscience in the Victorian Church of EnglandAuthor(s): Cheryl WalshSource: Journal of British Studies, Vol. 34, No. 3, Victorian Subjects (Jul., 1995), pp. 351-374Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The North American Conference on BritishStudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/175984 .

Accessed: 08/05/2014 14:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and The North American Conference on British Studies are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of British Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 14:04:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nacbs

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nacbs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/175984?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Incarnation and the Christian Socialist Conscience in the Victorian Church

of England

Cheryl Walsh

Among the churches of nineteenth-century Britain, the Anglican Church held a unique, and somewhat embarrassing, position. It was, of course, the established Church of England-an arm of the state, assigned the honor and duty of serving as the focus and guide of the nation's spiritual life. Its position was embarrassing by the mid- nineteenth century because it obviously was not fulfilling its ostensible role. The increasingly secular nature of industrial society on the one hand, and the Christian challenge of Nonconformity on the other, cost the Church membership among all classes of people. That loss signifi- cantly undermined the Anglican claim that the established Church served the religious needs of the whole nation, and it led to persistent Nonconformist cries for disestablishment. Furthermore, Christianity's appeal to its traditional following, the poor and lowly, seemed to evap- orate in the industrial environment of the Victorian city. Not only did typical urban workers not go to church (or chapel, for that matter), they were generally rather hostile to organized religion and particularly to the Anglican Church. In the Church of governors and employers, where services and sermons often could appeal only to the educated, workers felt, not unjustly, uncomfortable and unwelcome.1

There were several internal impediments to increasing the popu- larity (and thereby the social influence) of the Anglican Church, not the least of which was the dominant theology of early Victorian En- gland. During what Boyd Hilton has called the "Age of Atonement" (roughly the first half of the nineteenth century), evangelical thought both shaped and justified the economic and social assumptions which

CHERYL WALSH earned a master's degree in English history from Cornell University. Compare the bishop of Bedford's paper on "The Religious Condition of the Work-

ing Classes," in the Official Report of the Church Congress 20 (1880): 93 (hereafter cited as Church Congress Reports).

Journal of British Studies 34 (July 1995): 351-374 ? 1995 by The North American Conference on British Studies. All rights reserved. 0021-9371/95/3403-0004$01.00

351

The Incarnation and the Christian Socialist Conscience in the Victorian Church

of England

Cheryl Walsh

Among the churches of nineteenth-century Britain, the Anglican Church held a unique, and somewhat embarrassing, position. It was, of course, the established Church of England-an arm of the state, assigned the honor and duty of serving as the focus and guide of the nation's spiritual life. Its position was embarrassing by the mid- nineteenth century because it obviously was not fulfilling its ostensible role. The increasingly secular nature of industrial society on the one hand, and the Christian challenge of Nonconformity on the other, cost the Church membership among all classes of people. That loss signifi- cantly undermined the Anglican claim that the established Church served the religious needs of the whole nation, and it led to persistent Nonconformist cries for disestablishment. Furthermore, Christianity's appeal to its traditional following, the poor and lowly, seemed to evap- orate in the industrial environment of the Victorian city. Not only did typical urban workers not go to church (or chapel, for that matter), they were generally rather hostile to organized religion and particularly to the Anglican Church. In the Church of governors and employers, where services and sermons often could appeal only to the educated, workers felt, not unjustly, uncomfortable and unwelcome.1

There were several internal impediments to increasing the popu- larity (and thereby the social influence) of the Anglican Church, not the least of which was the dominant theology of early Victorian En- gland. During what Boyd Hilton has called the "Age of Atonement" (roughly the first half of the nineteenth century), evangelical thought both shaped and justified the economic and social assumptions which

CHERYL WALSH earned a master's degree in English history from Cornell University. Compare the bishop of Bedford's paper on "The Religious Condition of the Work-

ing Classes," in the Official Report of the Church Congress 20 (1880): 93 (hereafter cited as Church Congress Reports).

Journal of British Studies 34 (July 1995): 351-374 ? 1995 by The North American Conference on British Studies. All rights reserved. 0021-9371/95/3403-0004$01.00

351



underlay the policies of competitive capitalism.2 The evangelicals ad- vanced a mechanistic and individualistic way of thinking about salvation. Although they decried many of the tenets of eighteenth-century political economy, they shared with political economists the atomistic view of society in which each individual was responsible for his or her own actions and supposedly made decisions independently of others. Since the economic system of such a society would regulate itself by predictable laws (which many, like the evangelicals, saw as divinely ordained), tampering with the system was considered neither necessary nor desirable.

For evangelicals, the social order on earth was insignificant com- pared with the state of each individual soul and that soul's fitness for the afterlife. According to the theology of Atonement, salvation was a matter that lay between the individual soul and its creator. Since all human beings were weighted down with the original sin of Adam, humanity was naturally in a state of depravity. Life on earth- including economic life-was a series of moral trials, in which a person in a state of grace might learn to overcome his or her depraved nature by understanding and accepting suffering as the direct result of sin. The goal of the Christian, then, was to develop a conscience that would steer clear of sin in this world in order to attain eternal happiness in the next. The only means of salvation, therefore, was personal conversion, leading to "self-help" in the sphere of morality (i.e., in the development of a Christian conscience). And the sphere of morality included economic activity, so that the suffering of the poverty-stricken could be seen as a phase in their moral education. To interfere in the market on behalf of the poor, or even to administer charity on a large scale or in a systematic manner, was thus unjustifiable in the context of mainstream evangelical religion. It was necessary for the poor to suffer for their sins and to learn repentance in this world in order for them to have greater happiness in the afterlife. In fact, some evangelicals, even though they saw charity as most beneficial for the giver, were uneasy about advocating it because of its morally deleterious effects on the receiver.3

In general, evangelical attitudes in the early Victorian Church of England did not seem to consider how an individual's actions affected others. The main focus of Anglican evangelical sermons and writings was how sinfulness affected the sinner-not how it might harm another

2 Boyd Hilton, The Age of Atonement: The Influence of Evangelicalism on Social and Economic Thought, 1795-1865 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988), p. 6.

3 Hilton, pp. 98-102.

underlay the policies of competitive capitalism.2 The evangelicals ad- vanced a mechanistic and individualistic way of thinking about salvation. Although they decried many of the tenets of eighteenth-century political economy, they shared with political economists the atomistic view of society in which each individual was responsible for his or her own actions and supposedly made decisions independently of others. Since the economic system of such a society would regulate itself by predictable laws (which many, like the evangelicals, saw as divinely ordained), tampering with the system was considered neither necessary nor desirable.

For evangelicals, the social order on earth was insignificant com- pared with the state of each individual soul and that soul's fitness for the afterlife. According to the theology of Atonement, salvation was a matter that lay between the individual soul and its creator. Since all human beings were weighted down with the original sin of Adam, humanity was naturally in a state of depravity. Life on earth- including economic life-was a series of moral trials, in which a person in a state of grace might learn to overcome his or her depraved nature by understanding and accepting suffering as the direct result of sin. The goal of the Christian, then, was to develop a conscience that would steer clear of sin in this world in order to attain eternal happiness in the next. The only means of salvation, therefore, was personal conversion, leading to "self-help" in the sphere of morality (i.e., in the development of a Christian conscience). And the sphere of morality included economic activity, so that the suffering of the poverty-stricken could be seen as a phase in their moral education. To interfere in the market on behalf of the poor, or even to administer charity on a large scale or in a systematic manner, was thus unjustifiable in the context of mainstream evangelical religion. It was necessary for the poor to suffer for their sins and to learn repentance in this world in order for them to have greater happiness in the afterlife. In fact, some evangelicals, even though they saw charity as most beneficial for the giver, were uneasy about advocating it because of its morally deleterious effects on the receiver.3

In general, evangelical attitudes in the early Victorian Church of England did not seem to consider how an individual's actions affected others. The main focus of Anglican evangelical sermons and writings was how sinfulness affected the sinner-not how it might harm another

2 Boyd Hilton, The Age of Atonement: The Influence of Evangelicalism on Social and Economic Thought, 1795-1865 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988), p. 6.

3 Hilton, pp. 98-102.

352 352 WALSH WALSH



CHRISTIAN SOCIALIST CONSCIENCE CHRISTIAN SOCIALIST CONSCIENCE

person. In this kind of religion, there was very little encouragement for the development of a social conscience-of a recognition of any kind of responsibility for the welfare of fellow human beings. Since, in most evangelical minds, the responsibility for suffering rested with the sufferer, the conscience of an individual Christian enjoying good fortune was not activated by someone else's misfortune. While directly inflicting pain on a fellow human being generally was recognized as sinful, it was not at all clear, for example, that demanding unhealthily long hours from workers was un-Christian behavior (especially when it was considered "good business" and therefore beneficial to the nation). There tended to be a belief that "every good man prospers,"4- that God would not let anything bad happen to a good person. So when evangelical Anglicans saw suffering in a "social" context, caused by a variety of factors under no one individual's control, it did not occur to them that their actions might be related to the unfortunate situation. They did not stop to consider their own role as Christians in a possibly exploitative social and economic system. They simply assumed that God was punishing a class of sinners. As individual Christians, they felt neither responsible for the suffering of the poor nor called on to help alleviate that suffering.

Although the evangelical party in the Church of England did not constitute the majority of Anglicans, its influence was pervasive. K. S. Inglis has noted that the evangelical "vision of poverty was shared by many who would not have admitted that evangelical religion influenced them." Even the most ardent High Churchman "still saw the poor as individual souls to be saved and not as members of society to be transformed. Drastic mental changes were necessary before the eyes of a Christian could learn to see poverty differently. Social reform could not interest him until he valued the mortal world more highly than theologians who condoned temporal misery as a short prelude to eternal joy, until he stopped believing in iron laws of economics, and until he began to think of poverty and personal sin, circumstance and character, as separable notions."5

Even if the Church of England had wished to remain silent about, or even hostile to, state intervention in social welfare matters, its lack of success in evangelizing the working classes would have drawn the Church into the discussion. As Inglis has explained: "If the churches

4 Francis Close, A Sermon, addressed to the Chartists of Cheltenham, Sunday, August 18th, 1839, on the occasion of their attending the parish church in a body (Lon- don: Hamilton, Adams, & Co., 1839), p. 15.

5 K. S. Inglis, Churches and the Working Classes in Victorian England (London: Routledge & Paul, 1963), p. 251.

person. In this kind of religion, there was very little encouragement for the development of a social conscience-of a recognition of any kind of responsibility for the welfare of fellow human beings. Since, in most evangelical minds, the responsibility for suffering rested with the sufferer, the conscience of an individual Christian enjoying good fortune was not activated by someone else's misfortune. While directly inflicting pain on a fellow human being generally was recognized as sinful, it was not at all clear, for example, that demanding unhealthily long hours from workers was un-Christian behavior (especially when it was considered "good business" and therefore beneficial to the nation). There tended to be a belief that "every good man prospers,"4- that God would not let anything bad happen to a good person. So when evangelical Anglicans saw suffering in a "social" context, caused by a variety of factors under no one individual's control, it did not occur to them that their actions might be related to the unfortunate situation. They did not stop to consider their own role as Christians in a possibly exploitative social and economic system. They simply assumed that God was punishing a class of sinners. As individual Christians, they felt neither responsible for the suffering of the poor nor called on to help alleviate that suffering.

Although the evangelical party in the Church of England did not constitute the majority of Anglicans, its influence was pervasive. K. S. Inglis has noted that the evangelical "vision of poverty was shared by many who would not have admitted that evangelical religion influenced them." Even the most ardent High Churchman "still saw the poor as individual souls to be saved and not as members of society to be transformed. Drastic mental changes were necessary before the eyes of a Christian could learn to see poverty differently. Social reform could not interest him until he valued the mortal world more highly than theologians who condoned temporal misery as a short prelude to eternal joy, until he stopped believing in iron laws of economics, and until he began to think of poverty and personal sin, circumstance and character, as separable notions."5

Even if the Church of England had wished to remain silent about, or even hostile to, state intervention in social welfare matters, its lack of success in evangelizing the working classes would have drawn the Church into the discussion. As Inglis has explained: "If the churches

4 Francis Close, A Sermon, addressed to the Chartists of Cheltenham, Sunday, August 18th, 1839, on the occasion of their attending the parish church in a body (Lon- don: Hamilton, Adams, & Co., 1839), p. 15.

5 K. S. Inglis, Churches and the Working Classes in Victorian England (London: Routledge & Paul, 1963), p. 251.

353 353



had been more successful in getting the working classes to worship, they might have been affected less deeply by new currents of secular opinion on social questions: a leader who is popular may be bored to hear arguments about the nature of discontent. The leaders of English Christianity knew that the Churches were far from popular. Prudence, therefore, opened the ears even of some Christians who otherwise might never have listened to the prophets and the planners who claimed to interpret the will of the masses."6 Simple prudence demanded that the Church pay more attention to the physical plight of the godless masses and suggested further that some amelioration of their living conditions might be useful in bringing the poor into the Christian fold. "Priests and pastors of the slums cried for better houses, better drainage, better education, better laws about drink, or hours of work,"7 and the bishop of London admitted that, under the circumstances, the poor would find it "nothing less than an impossibility" to practice clean- liness, and that drunkenness, like filth, was "too frequently the result of want. '8 Yet the "iron laws of economics" still held sway, for priests and parsons "did not cry for better wages, because no one believed the level of wages to be controllable."9 "Temporal misery" was still expected and tolerated as the consequence of the inherent depravity of life on earth. Even the most concerned Anglicans could not justify structural changes in the social order, or a redefinition of social responsibilities, without their consciences erecting ideological obstacles.

The theology of Atonement, with its laissez-faire attitude toward the material world, could neither produce nor justify an active social policy, nor could it appeal to a class of people who increasingly demanded one. With its harsh individualism, it was too similar to the rhetoric used to justify the actions of the capitalist classes, which were increasingly perceived as unjust by both the working poor and their middle-class sympathizers. A new theological interpretation was needed if the Church was not to become (or remain) irrelevant to large sections of industrial society. The Christian Socialists provided one: the theology of the Incarnation.

F. D. Maurice and Incarnational Theology F. D. Maurice, an Anglican divine, was chaplain at Lincoln's Inn

in the 1840s and 1850s and a professor of theology at King's College, 6 Inglis, p. 259. 7Owen Chadwick, The Victorian Church (London: Black, 1966), pt. 1, p. 347. 8 Charles James Blomfield, bishop of London, A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy of

the Diocese of London (London, 1847), p. 8, quoted in E. R. Norman, Church and Society in England 1770-1970 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), pp. 132-33.

9 Chadwick, The Victorian Church, pt. 1, p. 347.

had been more successful in getting the working classes to worship, they might have been affected less deeply by new currents of secular opinion on social questions: a leader who is popular may be bored to hear arguments about the nature of discontent. The leaders of English Christianity knew that the Churches were far from popular. Prudence, therefore, opened the ears even of some Christians who otherwise might never have listened to the prophets and the planners who claimed to interpret the will of the masses."6 Simple prudence demanded that the Church pay more attention to the physical plight of the godless masses and suggested further that some amelioration of their living conditions might be useful in bringing the poor into the Christian fold. "Priests and pastors of the slums cried for better houses, better drainage, better education, better laws about drink, or hours of work,"7 and the bishop of London admitted that, under the circumstances, the poor would find it "nothing less than an impossibility" to practice clean- liness, and that drunkenness, like filth, was "too frequently the result of want. '8 Yet the "iron laws of economics" still held sway, for priests and parsons "did not cry for better wages, because no one believed the level of wages to be controllable."9 "Temporal misery" was still expected and tolerated as the consequence of the inherent depravity of life on earth. Even the most concerned Anglicans could not justify structural changes in the social order, or a redefinition of social responsibilities, without their consciences erecting ideological obstacles.

The theology of Atonement, with its laissez-faire attitude toward the material world, could neither produce nor justify an active social policy, nor could it appeal to a class of people who increasingly demanded one. With its harsh individualism, it was too similar to the rhetoric used to justify the actions of the capitalist classes, which were increasingly perceived as unjust by both the working poor and their middle-class sympathizers. A new theological interpretation was needed if the Church was not to become (or remain) irrelevant to large sections of industrial society. The Christian Socialists provided one: the theology of the Incarnation.

F. D. Maurice and Incarnational Theology F. D. Maurice, an Anglican divine, was chaplain at Lincoln's Inn

in the 1840s and 1850s and a professor of theology at King's College, 6 Inglis, p. 259. 7Owen Chadwick, The Victorian Church (London: Black, 1966), pt. 1, p. 347. 8 Charles James Blomfield, bishop of London, A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy of

the Diocese of London (London, 1847), p. 8, quoted in E. R. Norman, Church and Society in England 1770-1970 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), pp. 132-33.

9 Chadwick, The Victorian Church, pt. 1, p. 347.

354 354 WALSH WALSH




London, until 1853 (later at Cambridge). He was influential in shaping the religious character and orientation of many intelligent young men during the 1840s: young professionals who were drawn to his services at Lincoln's Inn, as well as students who attended his lectures at King's College. The centerpiece of his faith was a strong belief in the reality and implications of the Incarnation-a firm conviction that God had become human in the person of Jesus Christ. The centrality of the Incarnation to his theology, and his resulting antipathy for the factions (both High and Low) within the Church at the time, made him unusual among beneficed clergymen. His gentle, sensitive, and saintly nature won him the respect, even reverence, of most lay persons and many of the clergy who made his acquaintance. As a theologian, however, his views brought him scathing criticism from both Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals, for he refused to accept some of the fundamental assumptions of each party and denounced the concept of party itself. Much to his distress, he found himself acclaimed as the leader of yet another faction in the Church, the Broad Church party. As Owen Chadwick noted, "Maurice hated the very notion that he might be a broad churchman," a member of a faction, for division within the Church ran counter to all that he preached and taught.10 The Church, for Maurice, was the representative of true humanity, which he believed to be the living Body of Christ-the legacy of the Incarnation to the world. To have factions struggling with one another for power within the Church signaled disease and disorder where health and harmony should prevail.

The ideal of unity-for the Church and for humanity-led Mau- rice to become very concerned about the social problems plaguing English society. Class antagonism upset him. The competitive principles of London businessmen disturbed him. The living conditions of industrial workers (once they were brought to his attention in the late 1840s) pained him. Yet he was not one to place blame; these problems were social, and he believed that their roots lay in the people's belief that each was above all an individual rather than a member of a brotherhood or a body. His answer was thus to educate the people regarding the true nature of humanity.

Maurice looked for a revolution in the attitudes people held about their role in society. Unlike the evangelicals, his view of society and of religion did not center on the innate depravity of the human race. "Immensely valuable" as he held the evangelical movement for Angli- canism-"utterly dead as I conceive the faith of the English Nation would have become without the rekindling of it"-he could not help

London, until 1853 (later at Cambridge). He was influential in shaping the religious character and orientation of many intelligent young men during the 1840s: young professionals who were drawn to his services at Lincoln's Inn, as well as students who attended his lectures at King's College. The centerpiece of his faith was a strong belief in the reality and implications of the Incarnation-a firm conviction that God had become human in the person of Jesus Christ. The centrality of the Incarnation to his theology, and his resulting antipathy for the factions (both High and Low) within the Church at the time, made him unusual among beneficed clergymen. His gentle, sensitive, and saintly nature won him the respect, even reverence, of most lay persons and many of the clergy who made his acquaintance. As a theologian, however, his views brought him scathing criticism from both Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals, for he refused to accept some of the fundamental assumptions of each party and denounced the concept of party itself. Much to his distress, he found himself acclaimed as the leader of yet another faction in the Church, the Broad Church party. As Owen Chadwick noted, "Maurice hated the very notion that he might be a broad churchman," a member of a faction, for division within the Church ran counter to all that he preached and taught.10 The Church, for Maurice, was the representative of true humanity, which he believed to be the living Body of Christ-the legacy of the Incarnation to the world. To have factions struggling with one another for power within the Church signaled disease and disorder where health and harmony should prevail.

The ideal of unity-for the Church and for humanity-led Mau- rice to become very concerned about the social problems plaguing English society. Class antagonism upset him. The competitive principles of London businessmen disturbed him. The living conditions of industrial workers (once they were brought to his attention in the late 1840s) pained him. Yet he was not one to place blame; these problems were social, and he believed that their roots lay in the people's belief that each was above all an individual rather than a member of a brotherhood or a body. His answer was thus to educate the people regarding the true nature of humanity.

Maurice looked for a revolution in the attitudes people held about their role in society. Unlike the evangelicals, his view of society and of religion did not center on the innate depravity of the human race. "Immensely valuable" as he held the evangelical movement for Angli- canism-"utterly dead as I conceive the faith of the English Nation would have become without the rekindling of it"-he could not help

10 Ibid., p. 545. 10 Ibid., p. 545.

355 355



"but perceive that it made the sinful man and not the God of all grace the foundation of Christian Theology."1 For Maurice, the result of that erroneous foundation was that the evangelical Christian would be kind or good, not because it was right or godly, but because it would save his or her own soul or would store up treasure in the heavenly kingdom-"exhortations to good works, therefore, must of necessity take a selfish form, and be confirmed by selfish sanctions!"12 The evangelicals' sharp separation of the material and the spiritual, of sinful humanity and sinless heaven, made Christianity a travesty: "men have ceased to connect [Christianity] with the whole order of the world and of human life, and have made it a scheme or method for obtaining selfish prizes which men are to compete for, just as they do for the things of the earth. So it has become mingled with the maxim of selfish rivalry which is its deadly opponent."13 By concentrating on individual sinfulness and salvation, the evangelicals made Christianity a self- centered and self-interested enterprise that ignored the social and material dimensions of human life. In doing so, they trivialized Christian- ity and subverted its purpose. Maurice contrasted the evangelicals' individualistic view of religion with a "view of the Church, as a fellowship constituted by God Himself, in a divine and human Person, by Whom it is upheld, by Whom it is preserved from the dismemberment with which the selfish tendencies of our nature are always threatening it."14 The basis of that view was the Incarnation of Christ, which established a community, a "fellowship," of humankind that was both "divine and human." It was a "permanent communion which was not created by human hands, and cannot be destroyed by them."15

For Maurice, a full realization of the meaning of the Incarnation entailed recognition of three crucial principles: (1) that Christ's humanity sanctified the mortal world, (2) that his sacrifice on the cross redeemed humankind from original sin, and (3) that his resurrection her- alded the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth, in which all were brothers and sisters in him and members of his Body. Maurice believed that the Kingdom of God already existed on earth, and that if the people only recognized that truth and the other truths of the Incarna-

l F. D. Maurice, Theological Essays, 3d ed. (n.p., 1871), p. xvi; quoted in Alex R. Vidler, F. D. Maurice and Company (London: SCM Press, 1966), p. 40.

12 Maurice, The Kingdom of Christ (2d ed., 1842; reprint, London: James Clarke & Co., 1959), 2:311.

13 Maurice, Christian Socialism, Christian Social Union ed. (n.p., 1893); quoted in Inglis, p. 263.

14 Ibid. 15 Maurice, On the Right and Wrong Methods of Supporting Protestantism (n.p.,

1843), p. 10; quoted in Inglis, p. 264.

"but perceive that it made the sinful man and not the God of all grace the foundation of Christian Theology."1 For Maurice, the result of that erroneous foundation was that the evangelical Christian would be kind or good, not because it was right or godly, but because it would save his or her own soul or would store up treasure in the heavenly kingdom-"exhortations to good works, therefore, must of necessity take a selfish form, and be confirmed by selfish sanctions!"12 The evangelicals' sharp separation of the material and the spiritual, of sinful humanity and sinless heaven, made Christianity a travesty: "men have ceased to connect [Christianity] with the whole order of the world and of human life, and have made it a scheme or method for obtaining selfish prizes which men are to compete for, just as they do for the things of the earth. So it has become mingled with the maxim of selfish rivalry which is its deadly opponent."13 By concentrating on individual sinfulness and salvation, the evangelicals made Christianity a self- centered and self-interested enterprise that ignored the social and material dimensions of human life. In doing so, they trivialized Christian- ity and subverted its purpose. Maurice contrasted the evangelicals' individualistic view of religion with a "view of the Church, as a fellowship constituted by God Himself, in a divine and human Person, by Whom it is upheld, by Whom it is preserved from the dismemberment with which the selfish tendencies of our nature are always threatening it."14 The basis of that view was the Incarnation of Christ, which established a community, a "fellowship," of humankind that was both "divine and human." It was a "permanent communion which was not created by human hands, and cannot be destroyed by them."15

For Maurice, a full realization of the meaning of the Incarnation entailed recognition of three crucial principles: (1) that Christ's humanity sanctified the mortal world, (2) that his sacrifice on the cross redeemed humankind from original sin, and (3) that his resurrection her- alded the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth, in which all were brothers and sisters in him and members of his Body. Maurice believed that the Kingdom of God already existed on earth, and that if the people only recognized that truth and the other truths of the Incarna-

l F. D. Maurice, Theological Essays, 3d ed. (n.p., 1871), p. xvi; quoted in Alex R. Vidler, F. D. Maurice and Company (London: SCM Press, 1966), p. 40.

12 Maurice, The Kingdom of Christ (2d ed., 1842; reprint, London: James Clarke & Co., 1959), 2:311.

13 Maurice, Christian Socialism, Christian Social Union ed. (n.p., 1893); quoted in Inglis, p. 263.

14 Ibid. 15 Maurice, On the Right and Wrong Methods of Supporting Protestantism (n.p.,

1843), p. 10; quoted in Inglis, p. 264.

356 356 WALSH WALSH




tion, they would be free of the degradation of modern life. He maintained, "The truth is every man is in Christ; the condemnation of every man is, that he will not own the truth."16

According to Maurice, the social problems of the nineteenth century were caused by the fact that people would not "own the truth" of the Incarnation, that they insisted on seeing themselves as individuals and not as members of the Body of Christ. The evangelical concern with individual salvation had made Christianity unresponsive to needs and desires that were basic to humanity:

men feel that they are not merely lost creatures; they look up to heaven above them, and ask whether it can be true that [their sinfulness] is the whole account of their condition; that their sense of right and wrong, their cravings for fellowship, their consciousness of being creatures hav- ing powers which no other creatures possess, are all nothing. If religion, they say, will give us no explanation of these feelings, if it can only tell us about a fall for the whole race, and an escape for a few individuals of it, then our wants must be satisfied without religion. Then begin Chartism and Socialism, and whatever schemes make rich men tremble.17

Maurice agreed with the evangelical Anglicans that the social unrest that made "rich men tremble" was an evil and that the answer to such evil was religion. But he disagreed strongly that social harmony could be fostered by a religion that recognized only the fallen nature of the human condition. Indeed, he believed that "Chartism and Socialism" actually resulted from the evangelical fixation on individual sin, because such a fixation denied the better nature of the discontented. What was needed was a religion that spoke to what was redeemed and good in the human soul, especially to "cravings for fellowship" or the social instincts of humankind.

While the theology of Atonement would cause religion to "stand aloof" from social matters, the theology of the Incarnation, as interpreted by Maurice's followers, demanded that religion "concern itself intimately with the fate of all mankind and with the condition of the secular world."'8 Maurice himself claimed that "the present system of trade," based on individualism, destroyed Christian relationships within English society, separating it into antagonistic classes and

16 Maurice, quoted in Edward Norman, The Victorian Christian Socialists (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 7.

17 Maurice, The Kingdom of Christ, 2:321. 18 Peter d'A. Jones, The Christian Socialist Revival, 1877-1914 (Princeton, N.J.:

Princeton University Press, 1968), p. 12.

tion, they would be free of the degradation of modern life. He maintained, "The truth is every man is in Christ; the condemnation of every man is, that he will not own the truth."16

According to Maurice, the social problems of the nineteenth century were caused by the fact that people would not "own the truth" of the Incarnation, that they insisted on seeing themselves as individuals and not as members of the Body of Christ. The evangelical concern with individual salvation had made Christianity unresponsive to needs and desires that were basic to humanity:

men feel that they are not merely lost creatures; they look up to heaven above them, and ask whether it can be true that [their sinfulness] is the whole account of their condition; that their sense of right and wrong, their cravings for fellowship, their consciousness of being creatures hav- ing powers which no other creatures possess, are all nothing. If religion, they say, will give us no explanation of these feelings, if it can only tell us about a fall for the whole race, and an escape for a few individuals of it, then our wants must be satisfied without religion. Then begin Chartism and Socialism, and whatever schemes make rich men tremble.17

Maurice agreed with the evangelical Anglicans that the social unrest that made "rich men tremble" was an evil and that the answer to such evil was religion. But he disagreed strongly that social harmony could be fostered by a religion that recognized only the fallen nature of the human condition. Indeed, he believed that "Chartism and Socialism" actually resulted from the evangelical fixation on individual sin, because such a fixation denied the better nature of the discontented. What was needed was a religion that spoke to what was redeemed and good in the human soul, especially to "cravings for fellowship" or the social instincts of humankind.

While the theology of Atonement would cause religion to "stand aloof" from social matters, the theology of the Incarnation, as interpreted by Maurice's followers, demanded that religion "concern itself intimately with the fate of all mankind and with the condition of the secular world."'8 Maurice himself claimed that "the present system of trade," based on individualism, destroyed Christian relationships within English society, separating it into antagonistic classes and

16 Maurice, quoted in Edward Norman, The Victorian Christian Socialists (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 7.

17 Maurice, The Kingdom of Christ, 2:321. 18 Peter d'A. Jones, The Christian Socialist Revival, 1877-1914 (Princeton, N.J.:

Princeton University Press, 1968), p. 12.

357 357



alienating it from the true Body of Christ. "I do not say there are not noble masters and faithful servants in the shops of London;-I am sure there are . .. -but they are so because they are rebels against that doctrine which is becoming the current and popular one, and which will soon treat every other as heretical. That doctrine makes it impossible for the master to look upon his servant except as one who is wanting wages which he is not disposed to give, or the servant upon the master, except as one who is offering wages upon which he cannot exist."19 The doctrine to which Maurice referred was individual "com- petition," the mechanism through which, according to the political economists of the day, all social good was supposed to come. Christian Socialists, as Maurice and his associates would come to be called, denounced what they saw as the individualism and selfishness encour- aged by the system of free market capitalism. They believed that such a system demanded that everyone "should seek his own gain at the cost of every other's loss."20 What Christian Socialists offered in its place was the Incarnational concept of "brotherhood." Their model of society was "based upon the doctrine that men are brothers and that they can act as if they were, because there is an influence strong enough to overpower the tendencies to rivalry and division which exist among them." That influence was the common bond of humanity in Christ, the Son of Man, to which all other relationships were subor- dinate.21

However much Maurice wanted to link the sacred and the secular, he was not a radical social reformer. Maurice believed that the King- dom of God was already in existence on earth, meaning that the existing social and political institutions were part of the Kingdom. There- fore, planning or advocating fundamental changes in the political system or the social structure would be to usurp the role of Christ, who was the Head of the Body of humanity. Although it seems from his writings that he thought it possible that changes might take place as a result of people recognizing their social roles within the Kingdom of God, Maurice felt that it was not his role as a priest of the Church to have anything to do with setting up a "system" that did not grow organically out of God's order. What one of his closest associates called his "system-phobia" stemmed from his view that human-

19 Maurice, Reasons for Co-operation (London: John W. Parker, 1851), pp. 17-18. 20 J. M. Ludlow, Fraser's Magazine (January 1850), pt. 1, p. 12. Quoted in Torben

Christensen, Origin and History of Christian Socialism, 1848-54 (Aarhus, Denmark: Universitetsforlaget, 1962), p. 127.

21 Maurice, Reasons for Co-operation, p. 23; see also Maurice, Learning and Work- ing (Cambridge: Macmillan & Co., 1855), p. viii.

alienating it from the true Body of Christ. "I do not say there are not noble masters and faithful servants in the shops of London;-I am sure there are . .. -but they are so because they are rebels against that doctrine which is becoming the current and popular one, and which will soon treat every other as heretical. That doctrine makes it impossible for the master to look upon his servant except as one who is wanting wages which he is not disposed to give, or the servant upon the master, except as one who is offering wages upon which he cannot exist."19 The doctrine to which Maurice referred was individual "com- petition," the mechanism through which, according to the political economists of the day, all social good was supposed to come. Christian Socialists, as Maurice and his associates would come to be called, denounced what they saw as the individualism and selfishness encour- aged by the system of free market capitalism. They believed that such a system demanded that everyone "should seek his own gain at the cost of every other's loss."20 What Christian Socialists offered in its place was the Incarnational concept of "brotherhood." Their model of society was "based upon the doctrine that men are brothers and that they can act as if they were, because there is an influence strong enough to overpower the tendencies to rivalry and division which exist among them." That influence was the common bond of humanity in Christ, the Son of Man, to which all other relationships were subor- dinate.21

However much Maurice wanted to link the sacred and the secular, he was not a radical social reformer. Maurice believed that the King- dom of God was already in existence on earth, meaning that the existing social and political institutions were part of the Kingdom. There- fore, planning or advocating fundamental changes in the political system or the social structure would be to usurp the role of Christ, who was the Head of the Body of humanity. Although it seems from his writings that he thought it possible that changes might take place as a result of people recognizing their social roles within the Kingdom of God, Maurice felt that it was not his role as a priest of the Church to have anything to do with setting up a "system" that did not grow organically out of God's order. What one of his closest associates called his "system-phobia" stemmed from his view that human-

19 Maurice, Reasons for Co-operation (London: John W. Parker, 1851), pp. 17-18. 20 J. M. Ludlow, Fraser's Magazine (January 1850), pt. 1, p. 12. Quoted in Torben

Christensen, Origin and History of Christian Socialism, 1848-54 (Aarhus, Denmark: Universitetsforlaget, 1962), p. 127.

21 Maurice, Reasons for Co-operation, p. 23; see also Maurice, Learning and Work- ing (Cambridge: Macmillan & Co., 1855), p. viii.

358 358 WALSH WALSH




inspired institutions too often sought "the organisation of evil powers for the sake of producing good effects." Since he had "no hope of entering into terms of peace with the devil," he had no choice but to forgo participation in such institutions. As he explained to J. M. Lud- low, one of his cofounders in the Christian Socialist movement, "God's order seems to me more than ever the antagonist of man's systems; Christian Socialism is in my mind the assertion of God's order. Every attempt, however small and feeble, to bring it forth I honour and desire to assist. Every attempt to hide it under a great machinery ... I must protest against as hindering the gradual development of what I regard as a divine purpose, as an attempt to create a new constitution of society, when what we want is that the old constitution should exhibit its true functions and energies."22

The notion that any type of social planning might contradict God's own plans for the world obviously was a significant impediment to social action. That impediment actually caused Maurice to withdraw, in 1854, from participation in the working-class cooperative movement he had helped to found four years before. Some of his fellow Christian Socialists (especially Ludlow) were in varying degrees frustrated and hurt that their great teacher and leader had abandoned the cause. It seemed clear enough to them that God's divine will worked through human beings and human institutions to advance God's Kingdom in the world. How could it be so clear to Maurice that "the old constitution" of society was truly the order of God rather than itself "a great machinery" hiding the Kingdom? What was the good of a new social conscience if one could not act as that conscience seemed to dictate?

It was left to future Christian Socialists to develop a political agenda from the theology of the Incarnation, for Maurice was tempera- mentally indisposed to do so. As Alex R. Vidler has noted, Maurice "was a man of thought rather than a man of action, made more for uttering prophecies than for framing policies."23 As Maurice himself wrote to Ludlow in 1850: "To guide and govern is not my business; I am ashamed to think that you should, any of you, allow the notion in your minds that it is."24

The attitudinal revolution that Maurice sought was "a greater recognition of poor men as men, and not merely as poor."25 Furthermore,

22 Maurice, letter to J. M. Ludlow, March 17, 1850, in The Life ofFrederick Denison Maurice Chiefly Told in His Own Letters, ed. Frederick Maurice, 2d ed. (London: Macmillan, 1884), 2:43-44.

23 Vidler, p. 177. 24 Letter to Ludlow, March 17, 1850, in The Life of Frederick Denison Maurice,

2:44. 25 Maurice, Reasons for Co-operation, p. 15.

inspired institutions too often sought "the organisation of evil powers for the sake of producing good effects." Since he had "no hope of entering into terms of peace with the devil," he had no choice but to forgo participation in such institutions. As he explained to J. M. Lud- low, one of his cofounders in the Christian Socialist movement, "God's order seems to me more than ever the antagonist of man's systems; Christian Socialism is in my mind the assertion of God's order. Every attempt, however small and feeble, to bring it forth I honour and desire to assist. Every attempt to hide it under a great machinery ... I must protest against as hindering the gradual development of what I regard as a divine purpose, as an attempt to create a new constitution of society, when what we want is that the old constitution should exhibit its true functions and energies."22

The notion that any type of social planning might contradict God's own plans for the world obviously was a significant impediment to social action. That impediment actually caused Maurice to withdraw, in 1854, from participation in the working-class cooperative movement he had helped to found four years before. Some of his fellow Christian Socialists (especially Ludlow) were in varying degrees frustrated and hurt that their great teacher and leader had abandoned the cause. It seemed clear enough to them that God's divine will worked through human beings and human institutions to advance God's Kingdom in the world. How could it be so clear to Maurice that "the old constitution" of society was truly the order of God rather than itself "a great machinery" hiding the Kingdom? What was the good of a new social conscience if one could not act as that conscience seemed to dictate?

It was left to future Christian Socialists to develop a political agenda from the theology of the Incarnation, for Maurice was tempera- mentally indisposed to do so. As Alex R. Vidler has noted, Maurice "was a man of thought rather than a man of action, made more for uttering prophecies than for framing policies."23 As Maurice himself wrote to Ludlow in 1850: "To guide and govern is not my business; I am ashamed to think that you should, any of you, allow the notion in your minds that it is."24

The attitudinal revolution that Maurice sought was "a greater recognition of poor men as men, and not merely as poor."25 Furthermore,

22 Maurice, letter to J. M. Ludlow, March 17, 1850, in The Life ofFrederick Denison Maurice Chiefly Told in His Own Letters, ed. Frederick Maurice, 2d ed. (London: Macmillan, 1884), 2:43-44.

23 Vidler, p. 177. 24 Letter to Ludlow, March 17, 1850, in The Life of Frederick Denison Maurice,

2:44. 25 Maurice, Reasons for Co-operation, p. 15.

359 359



he acknowledged the well-being of the working classes as a key factor in the salvation of all society, for "the whole country must look for its blessings through the elevation of its Working Class, . . . we must all sink if that is not raised."26 The attitude Maurice held toward the workers, and inspired among Christian Socialists, was one of true ap- preciation and respect. His followers clearly "regarded the workers as responsible beings with whom it was possible to enter into a candid discussion," and they "plainly stimulated the idea that popular political aspirations had to be treated with respect."27 The workers and the poor were all essential members of Christ's Body, and as such their physical and spiritual welfare, their thoughts and their feelings, were all integral to the salvation of the world. They should not-could not-be ignored.

The Word Spreads F. D. Maurice's leadership had been a bond uniting "a miscellany

of awkwards"28 who called themselves "Christian Socialists." Each had his own idea of what that appellation meant. Some identified it almost exclusively with advocacy of working-class cooperatives, which most others in the movement strongly supported. Some maintained that their "socialism" was opposed to "individualism" and supported educational efforts to spread the social message of the Incarna- tion. A few supported some kind of radical restructuring of society, sometimes along lines similar to the goals of revolutionary socialism-a movement that they hoped to "Christianize." When Maurice withdrew his leadership from the working-class cooperative movement in London in 1854, Christian Socialism sputtered into diffusion and ceased to be a real movement. Maurice himself poured his energies into educational pursuits, especially the Working Men's College, which he had recently founded. Several Christian Socialists followed his lead and offered evening lectures at the college. Some continued to advocate and organize working-class cooperatives and friendly soci- eties, as well. Still others, of the more radical nature, supported trade unionism (not respectable, nor even entirely legal until 1871) as a means of overcoming individualism and raising the dignity of workers.

26 Maurice, Learning and Working, p. vii. 27 Christensen, p. 88; Norman, The Victorian Christian Socialists (n. 16 above), p.

12. Compare Chadwick, The Victorian Church (n. 16 above), pt. 1, p. 354: "Whereas most clergymen of the day wished to promulgate truth to the workmen, Maurice wished to learn from them. They had never met a parson like him."

28 The phrase is Chadwick's, from The Victorian Church, pt. 1, p. 360. Christensen's account of the movement illustrates some of the implications of such a characterization.

he acknowledged the well-being of the working classes as a key factor in the salvation of all society, for "the whole country must look for its blessings through the elevation of its Working Class, . . . we must all sink if that is not raised."26 The attitude Maurice held toward the workers, and inspired among Christian Socialists, was one of true ap- preciation and respect. His followers clearly "regarded the workers as responsible beings with whom it was possible to enter into a candid discussion," and they "plainly stimulated the idea that popular political aspirations had to be treated with respect."27 The workers and the poor were all essential members of Christ's Body, and as such their physical and spiritual welfare, their thoughts and their feelings, were all integral to the salvation of the world. They should not-could not-be ignored.

The Word Spreads F. D. Maurice's leadership had been a bond uniting "a miscellany

of awkwards"28 who called themselves "Christian Socialists." Each had his own idea of what that appellation meant. Some identified it almost exclusively with advocacy of working-class cooperatives, which most others in the movement strongly supported. Some maintained that their "socialism" was opposed to "individualism" and supported educational efforts to spread the social message of the Incarna- tion. A few supported some kind of radical restructuring of society, sometimes along lines similar to the goals of revolutionary socialism-a movement that they hoped to "Christianize." When Maurice withdrew his leadership from the working-class cooperative movement in London in 1854, Christian Socialism sputtered into diffusion and ceased to be a real movement. Maurice himself poured his energies into educational pursuits, especially the Working Men's College, which he had recently founded. Several Christian Socialists followed his lead and offered evening lectures at the college. Some continued to advocate and organize working-class cooperatives and friendly soci- eties, as well. Still others, of the more radical nature, supported trade unionism (not respectable, nor even entirely legal until 1871) as a means of overcoming individualism and raising the dignity of workers.

26 Maurice, Learning and Working, p. vii. 27 Christensen, p. 88; Norman, The Victorian Christian Socialists (n. 16 above), p.

12. Compare Chadwick, The Victorian Church (n. 16 above), pt. 1, p. 354: "Whereas most clergymen of the day wished to promulgate truth to the workmen, Maurice wished to learn from them. They had never met a parson like him."

28 The phrase is Chadwick's, from The Victorian Church, pt. 1, p. 360. Christensen's account of the movement illustrates some of the implications of such a characterization.

360 360 WALSH WALSH




Between 1854 and 1877 there was no organized Christian Socialist group in England. Within the Anglican Church, social matters during those years "lingered darkly in the wings while theological controversy occupied the center of the stage."29 As an institution, the Church was preoccupied with such matters as the meaning of the sacraments, relations with other Christian denominations, biblical criticism, and the nature of punishment in the afterlife, and it paid rather little attention in its assemblies to social problems. In part, that lack of attention is symptomatic of the relative social harmony that England experienced between the collapse of Chartism and the great depression of the 1880s. Because the distress of the lower classes no longer seemed to threaten the social order, the Church no longer felt any pressing need to do anything about social disorder. However, the activities of individual Anglicans show that, in spite of the lack of strong pressure on the Church as a whole, there was a growing interest in the condition of laborers, especially among the London clergy. The Guild of St. Mat- thew, founded in Bethnal Green in 1877, was in part a product of the "ferment" of social interest during the 1860s and 1870s.30 And connected with that interest was a growing acceptance of Maurician theology as it related to the Incarnation. As Henry Scott Holland wrote in 1890, "It was the Incarnation ... with which they desired to see the laws of political economy brought into contact."31

By 1870, it was a common observation among Anglicans that a "theological transformation" had taken place since midcentury, a transformation that made the Incarnation (rather than the Atonement) central to Anglican thought.32 By the early 1860s, when the Church of England began to hold annual congresses, Incarnational imagery had already begun to creep into discussions of social problems among An- glicans, even as the imagery of the Atonement survived. In an address on "Church Extension" in 1863, for example, Mr. Hugh Birley maintained, "In its highest and truest sense, Church Extension surely signi- fies the extension and development of our Lord's kingdom upon earth, a theme of unspeakable importance, for it comprehends the whole

29 D. O. Wagner, The Church of England and Social Reform since 1854 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1930), p. 62. Maurice himself was caught in some controversy and was dismissed from his professorship at King's College for his belief that God did not condemn sinners to everlasting punishment in hell.

30 Stephen Yeo, "Thomas Hancock, 1832-1903: 'The Banner of Christ in the Hands of the Socialists,' " in For Christ and the People: Studies of four Socialist Priests and Prophets of the Church of England between 1870 and 1930, ed. Maurice B. Reckitt (London: S.P.C.K., 1968), p. 10.

31 Quoted in Hilton (n. 2 above), pp. 5-6. 32 Hilton, p. 5.

Between 1854 and 1877 there was no organized Christian Socialist group in England. Within the Anglican Church, social matters during those years "lingered darkly in the wings while theological controversy occupied the center of the stage."29 As an institution, the Church was preoccupied with such matters as the meaning of the sacraments, relations with other Christian denominations, biblical criticism, and the nature of punishment in the afterlife, and it paid rather little attention in its assemblies to social problems. In part, that lack of attention is symptomatic of the relative social harmony that England experienced between the collapse of Chartism and the great depression of the 1880s. Because the distress of the lower classes no longer seemed to threaten the social order, the Church no longer felt any pressing need to do anything about social disorder. However, the activities of individual Anglicans show that, in spite of the lack of strong pressure on the Church as a whole, there was a growing interest in the condition of laborers, especially among the London clergy. The Guild of St. Mat- thew, founded in Bethnal Green in 1877, was in part a product of the "ferment" of social interest during the 1860s and 1870s.30 And connected with that interest was a growing acceptance of Maurician theology as it related to the Incarnation. As Henry Scott Holland wrote in 1890, "It was the Incarnation ... with which they desired to see the laws of political economy brought into contact."31

By 1870, it was a common observation among Anglicans that a "theological transformation" had taken place since midcentury, a transformation that made the Incarnation (rather than the Atonement) central to Anglican thought.32 By the early 1860s, when the Church of England began to hold annual congresses, Incarnational imagery had already begun to creep into discussions of social problems among An- glicans, even as the imagery of the Atonement survived. In an address on "Church Extension" in 1863, for example, Mr. Hugh Birley maintained, "In its highest and truest sense, Church Extension surely signi- fies the extension and development of our Lord's kingdom upon earth, a theme of unspeakable importance, for it comprehends the whole

29 D. O. Wagner, The Church of England and Social Reform since 1854 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1930), p. 62. Maurice himself was caught in some controversy and was dismissed from his professorship at King's College for his belief that God did not condemn sinners to everlasting punishment in hell.

30 Stephen Yeo, "Thomas Hancock, 1832-1903: 'The Banner of Christ in the Hands of the Socialists,' " in For Christ and the People: Studies of four Socialist Priests and Prophets of the Church of England between 1870 and 1930, ed. Maurice B. Reckitt (London: S.P.C.K., 1968), p. 10.

31 Quoted in Hilton (n. 2 above), pp. 5-6. 32 Hilton, p. 5.

361 361



scheme of Christianity, as regards the relation of man to man; it pro- claims 'the whole world kin.' "33 Birley viewed Christianity in broader social terms than evangelicals had ever done. What appears most important for him is "the relation of man to man" rather than the relation of the individual Christian to God; as Christianity regards "the whole world kin" in the humanity of Jesus, there is an implication that the fate and salvation of each is bound to the fate and salvation of all. Birley also used the image of the "kingdom upon earth," in Christian Socialist fashion, to link the sacred character of the Church to secular functions, which he went on to enumerate: "the clothing club, the penny bank ... the various plans for the intellectual improvement of adults, and schemes for relaxation and social enjoyment," all of which "afford invaluable opportunities of intercourse and attachment between pastor and people." In marked contrast to that sentiment, evangelicals contended that the betterment of social conditions in this world was only an "incidental and indirect" effect of Christianity; as the dean of Chichester maintained two years later, "the object of Chris- tianity being to prepare men for a future state of existence."34

The dean of Chichester notwithstanding, Incarnational thought spread quickly within the Church of England. The reason was that it justified the Church's involvement in secular issues, an involvement that increasingly was thought to be necessary if the Church hoped to maintain its national position. Secularism, for example, an increasingly vocal form of unbelief that found its widest audience among the working classes, often derided Christianity as a superstitious hindrance to the material and moral progress of society, or at the very least as an institution that was irrelevant to the modern world. The Reverend G. Butler, addressing the Church Congress on "The Moral State of Soci- ety" in 1871, seemed to echo the Secularists' complaint. He asserted that the neglect of practical (social) issues on the part of the Church was an abdication of a necessary role, which threatened, in fact, to make the Church irrelevant to the initiatives and actions of the nation:

The consequence of the abandonment of practical questions on the part of the religious portion of any community, is a perversion and disorganisa- tion of the moral forces which influence society. Moral questions will assuredly be dealt with actively. If those who are the friends of religion are observed to withdraw from that activity, religion becomes, however wrongly, in the minds of many identified with moral turpitude and inactiv-

scheme of Christianity, as regards the relation of man to man; it pro- claims 'the whole world kin.' "33 Birley viewed Christianity in broader social terms than evangelicals had ever done. What appears most important for him is "the relation of man to man" rather than the relation of the individual Christian to God; as Christianity regards "the whole world kin" in the humanity of Jesus, there is an implication that the fate and salvation of each is bound to the fate and salvation of all. Birley also used the image of the "kingdom upon earth," in Christian Socialist fashion, to link the sacred character of the Church to secular functions, which he went on to enumerate: "the clothing club, the penny bank ... the various plans for the intellectual improvement of adults, and schemes for relaxation and social enjoyment," all of which "afford invaluable opportunities of intercourse and attachment between pastor and people." In marked contrast to that sentiment, evangelicals contended that the betterment of social conditions in this world was only an "incidental and indirect" effect of Christianity; as the dean of Chichester maintained two years later, "the object of Chris- tianity being to prepare men for a future state of existence."34

The dean of Chichester notwithstanding, Incarnational thought spread quickly within the Church of England. The reason was that it justified the Church's involvement in secular issues, an involvement that increasingly was thought to be necessary if the Church hoped to maintain its national position. Secularism, for example, an increasingly vocal form of unbelief that found its widest audience among the working classes, often derided Christianity as a superstitious hindrance to the material and moral progress of society, or at the very least as an institution that was irrelevant to the modern world. The Reverend G. Butler, addressing the Church Congress on "The Moral State of Soci- ety" in 1871, seemed to echo the Secularists' complaint. He asserted that the neglect of practical (social) issues on the part of the Church was an abdication of a necessary role, which threatened, in fact, to make the Church irrelevant to the initiatives and actions of the nation:

The consequence of the abandonment of practical questions on the part of the religious portion of any community, is a perversion and disorganisa- tion of the moral forces which influence society. Moral questions will assuredly be dealt with actively. If those who are the friends of religion are observed to withdraw from that activity, religion becomes, however wrongly, in the minds of many identified with moral turpitude and inactiv-

33 Church Congress Reports 3 (1863): 12. 34 Church Congress Reports 5 (1865): 101. 33 Church Congress Reports 3 (1863): 12. 34 Church Congress Reports 5 (1865): 101.

WALSH WALSH 362 362




ity. It is falsely believed to be the cause of that inactivity, and hence those who are active in moral questions are not unnaturally apt to inveigh against it. If the Church refuses to be our moral teacher, its influence on the active thought and progress of the nation towards good is at an end.35

The upshot of the message was that, if the Church did not become more concerned with the "secular," it would cease to guide the nation in its most important moral decisions, whether individual or collective.

Everyone accepted that the Church was a "moral teacher," but those who wanted to orient the Church's activities along more secular lines had to redefine what a "moral question" was. Beyond assuming the desirability of basic honesty in business transactions, political economists had tried very hard throughout the nineteenth century to reduce the influence of moral strictures on the affairs of the market- place. Politicians, for their part, generally insisted that the Church's jurisdiction was limited to otherworldly concerns. So to identify an economic or political question as something open to interpretation by the Church went against the received opinions of most of the middle classes. Furthermore, there were biblical texts that, for example, ex- horted Christians to "set your affections on things above, not on things on the earth" (Col. 3:2)-a seemingly clear injunction against secular involvement. In this matter, the redefinition of the boundaries of the sacred and the secular, the theology of the Incarnation was indis- pensable.

The Reverend Thomas Hancock, later an important member of the Guild of St. Matthew, wrote a brilliant sermon in 1873 that reversed the conventional interpretation of the text from Colossians cited above. It is a particularly keen example of how Christian Socialists met and disarmed the received notions of their contemporaries. Preaching on Ascension Thursday, among the most "otherworldly" of Anglican feast days, Hancock claimed that the Ascension was, in fact, a feast of great secular utility, that "the things above are the things needed on the earth." His rendering of the Incarnation emphasized that Christ was a living, active force in the world: "That which the Son was once doing in men's sight on earth, He is still doing in the unseen world. ... To set our mind upon the things above is to set our mind upon the present work of the Son of Man. We do not think of the real 'things above' until we think first of the doer of those things-the Man who is above. If we are regarding heaven apart from the ascended Saviour of the world, and merely in relation to our own

ity. It is falsely believed to be the cause of that inactivity, and hence those who are active in moral questions are not unnaturally apt to inveigh against it. If the Church refuses to be our moral teacher, its influence on the active thought and progress of the nation towards good is at an end.35

The upshot of the message was that, if the Church did not become more concerned with the "secular," it would cease to guide the nation in its most important moral decisions, whether individual or collective.

Everyone accepted that the Church was a "moral teacher," but those who wanted to orient the Church's activities along more secular lines had to redefine what a "moral question" was. Beyond assuming the desirability of basic honesty in business transactions, political economists had tried very hard throughout the nineteenth century to reduce the influence of moral strictures on the affairs of the market- place. Politicians, for their part, generally insisted that the Church's jurisdiction was limited to otherworldly concerns. So to identify an economic or political question as something open to interpretation by the Church went against the received opinions of most of the middle classes. Furthermore, there were biblical texts that, for example, ex- horted Christians to "set your affections on things above, not on things on the earth" (Col. 3:2)-a seemingly clear injunction against secular involvement. In this matter, the redefinition of the boundaries of the sacred and the secular, the theology of the Incarnation was indis- pensable.

The Reverend Thomas Hancock, later an important member of the Guild of St. Matthew, wrote a brilliant sermon in 1873 that reversed the conventional interpretation of the text from Colossians cited above. It is a particularly keen example of how Christian Socialists met and disarmed the received notions of their contemporaries. Preaching on Ascension Thursday, among the most "otherworldly" of Anglican feast days, Hancock claimed that the Ascension was, in fact, a feast of great secular utility, that "the things above are the things needed on the earth." His rendering of the Incarnation emphasized that Christ was a living, active force in the world: "That which the Son was once doing in men's sight on earth, He is still doing in the unseen world. ... To set our mind upon the things above is to set our mind upon the present work of the Son of Man. We do not think of the real 'things above' until we think first of the doer of those things-the Man who is above. If we are regarding heaven apart from the ascended Saviour of the world, and merely in relation to our own

35 Church Congress Reports 11 (1871): 409. 35 Church Congress Reports 11 (1871): 409.

363 363



hopes and fears, we are like pagans, and our minds are paganized. We are not regarding the actual things now above, but some things which we hope hereafter to find above."36 Christ was even yet a citizen of both heaven and earth, an active agent bent on the redemption of all people. Not to acknowledge that fact-to view heaven in evangelical fashion as a completely separate realm from the earth-was literally un-Christian, a denial of the reality of the Incarnation. Hancock claimed that the common perception of the ascended Christ as "the pledge of the comfort and enjoyment which some men may have hereafter," was all wrong, for Christ was not resting in comfort, enjoying Himself, without cares or regard for the world. Rather, the ascended Christ was "the sign what Humanity now is and what each man now ought to be and to do 'on the earth.'" He was "the Word of God telling us what we ought to be ... the Son of God shewing us what ought to be our 'business' as men." Hancock asked his congregation, if Christians clung to the conventional, "otherworldly," conception of the Ascension, "is not the suspicion of the positivist about the ascension, the charge of the secularist against the unpractical nature of faith in a Son of Man ascended out of the earth into the midst of things above the earth, fundamentally one and the same with the practical belief, or rather unbelief, of us Christians?"37

It was a common tactic of Christian Socialists to phrase their argument in such a way that their audience must either agree with them or find themselves agreeing with the Secularists, who denounced religion as impractical and detrimental superstition. How could one counter Secularist claims against religion unless one saw in religion an exhortation to practical action? Christian Socialists answered the question simply, "One can't." And if one accepted the theology of the Incarnation, which made the secular world part of the sacred, it was possible to meet the Secularists on their own turf, without aban- doning one's Christian-or even High Anglican-ground.

The Guild of St. Matthew The Guild of St. Matthew was founded in 1877 at St. Matthew's

Church, Bethnal Green (a working-class section of metropolitan Lon- don), where the Reverend Stewart Duckworth Headlam was curate at

36 Thomas Hancock, "Christ's Ascension and Utility: The Things Above are the Things Needed on the Earth" (1873), in his Christ and the People: Sermons chiefly on the obligations of the Church to the State and to Humanity (London: Daldy, Isbister, & Co., 1875), p. 260.

37 Christ and the People, pp. 261-62.

hopes and fears, we are like pagans, and our minds are paganized. We are not regarding the actual things now above, but some things which we hope hereafter to find above."36 Christ was even yet a citizen of both heaven and earth, an active agent bent on the redemption of all people. Not to acknowledge that fact-to view heaven in evangelical fashion as a completely separate realm from the earth-was literally un-Christian, a denial of the reality of the Incarnation. Hancock claimed that the common perception of the ascended Christ as "the pledge of the comfort and enjoyment which some men may have hereafter," was all wrong, for Christ was not resting in comfort, enjoying Himself, without cares or regard for the world. Rather, the ascended Christ was "the sign what Humanity now is and what each man now ought to be and to do 'on the earth.'" He was "the Word of God telling us what we ought to be ... the Son of God shewing us what ought to be our 'business' as men." Hancock asked his congregation, if Christians clung to the conventional, "otherworldly," conception of the Ascension, "is not the suspicion of the positivist about the ascension, the charge of the secularist against the unpractical nature of faith in a Son of Man ascended out of the earth into the midst of things above the earth, fundamentally one and the same with the practical belief, or rather unbelief, of us Christians?"37

It was a common tactic of Christian Socialists to phrase their argument in such a way that their audience must either agree with them or find themselves agreeing with the Secularists, who denounced religion as impractical and detrimental superstition. How could one counter Secularist claims against religion unless one saw in religion an exhortation to practical action? Christian Socialists answered the question simply, "One can't." And if one accepted the theology of the Incarnation, which made the secular world part of the sacred, it was possible to meet the Secularists on their own turf, without aban- doning one's Christian-or even High Anglican-ground.

The Guild of St. Matthew The Guild of St. Matthew was founded in 1877 at St. Matthew's

Church, Bethnal Green (a working-class section of metropolitan Lon- don), where the Reverend Stewart Duckworth Headlam was curate at

36 Thomas Hancock, "Christ's Ascension and Utility: The Things Above are the Things Needed on the Earth" (1873), in his Christ and the People: Sermons chiefly on the obligations of the Church to the State and to Humanity (London: Daldy, Isbister, & Co., 1875), p. 260.

37 Christ and the People, pp. 261-62.

364 364 WALSH WALSH




the time. Headlam was the guild's warden throughout the lifetime of the organization (which he dissolved in 1909), and he tended to domi- nate it, although it included "a host of independent-minded, vocifer- ous, conflicting men."38 A significant portion of the guild's membership comprised clergymen, and the organization represented an intersection of (at least) three Anglican traditions, weaving together elements of Anglo-Catholicism and Broad Church sentiments with a strong strand of Incarnational theology. A deep Maurician belief in the centrality of the Incarnation to the Christian faith was held by all members in common, and made it possible for them to act collectively, fashioning an enduring influence on the Anglican Church. Headlam said toward the end of his life that the guild's object of perceiving problems and possibilities "in the light of the Incarnation," was "the raison d'etre of all our Christian Socialism and efforts towards social and political reform."39

The guild was known as a High Church organization, and Headlam and some other members considered themselves the inheritors of the Anglo-Catholic tradition articulated by the Oxford movement. Even before the group had been founded, an emphasis on the Incarnation already had been identified with the High Church party, defined in opposition to the evangelical or Low Church party, which emphasized the Atonement.40 However, when one looks at the writings of the Oxford Tractarians, many of whom had been raised as evangelicals, it is sometimes difficult to see how their version of Anglo-Catholicism could be identified with Maurician theology. For example, John Henry Newman wrote in Parochial Sermons (1834-42) that the Church "is not on earth, except so far as heaven can be said to be on earth, or as the dead are still with us. It is not on earth, except in such sense as Christ or His Spirit are on the earth. I mean it is not locally or visibly on earth. The Church is not in time or place, but in the region of spirits; it is in the Holy Ghost."41 It seems clear that Newman was arguing that there was a separation of the spiritual and the material, even if heaven was present on earth in Christ's Spirit. If the Church "is not in time or place, but in the region of spirits," it would be hard to argue that the Church should concern itself with temporal problems,

38 Jones (n. 18 above), p. 158. 39 Headlam, quoted in F. G. Bettany, Stewart Headlam: A Biography (London:

John Murray, 1926), p. 81. 40 See, e.g., Archdeacon Denison's discussion of internal divisions in the church in

"Causes and Influence of Unbelief in England," Church Congress Reports 16 (1876): 125.

41 Quoted in Owen Chadwick, The Mind of the Oxford Movement (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1960), p. 139.

the time. Headlam was the guild's warden throughout the lifetime of the organization (which he dissolved in 1909), and he tended to domi- nate it, although it included "a host of independent-minded, vocifer- ous, conflicting men."38 A significant portion of the guild's membership comprised clergymen, and the organization represented an intersection of (at least) three Anglican traditions, weaving together elements of Anglo-Catholicism and Broad Church sentiments with a strong strand of Incarnational theology. A deep Maurician belief in the centrality of the Incarnation to the Christian faith was held by all members in common, and made it possible for them to act collectively, fashioning an enduring influence on the Anglican Church. Headlam said toward the end of his life that the guild's object of perceiving problems and possibilities "in the light of the Incarnation," was "the raison d'etre of all our Christian Socialism and efforts towards social and political reform."39

The guild was known as a High Church organization, and Headlam and some other members considered themselves the inheritors of the Anglo-Catholic tradition articulated by the Oxford movement. Even before the group had been founded, an emphasis on the Incarnation already had been identified with the High Church party, defined in opposition to the evangelical or Low Church party, which emphasized the Atonement.40 However, when one looks at the writings of the Oxford Tractarians, many of whom had been raised as evangelicals, it is sometimes difficult to see how their version of Anglo-Catholicism could be identified with Maurician theology. For example, John Henry Newman wrote in Parochial Sermons (1834-42) that the Church "is not on earth, except so far as heaven can be said to be on earth, or as the dead are still with us. It is not on earth, except in such sense as Christ or His Spirit are on the earth. I mean it is not locally or visibly on earth. The Church is not in time or place, but in the region of spirits; it is in the Holy Ghost."41 It seems clear that Newman was arguing that there was a separation of the spiritual and the material, even if heaven was present on earth in Christ's Spirit. If the Church "is not in time or place, but in the region of spirits," it would be hard to argue that the Church should concern itself with temporal problems,

38 Jones (n. 18 above), p. 158. 39 Headlam, quoted in F. G. Bettany, Stewart Headlam: A Biography (London:

John Murray, 1926), p. 81. 40 See, e.g., Archdeacon Denison's discussion of internal divisions in the church in

"Causes and Influence of Unbelief in England," Church Congress Reports 16 (1876): 125.

41 Quoted in Owen Chadwick, The Mind of the Oxford Movement (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1960), p. 139.

365 365



and in fact some Tractarians were very upset that the "Liberals" in the Whig Party of the 1830s "valued religious organization mainly as affording a useful moral check upon lawlessness and crime."42 While most Tractarians certainly felt that Anglican Christians would be dis- suaded by their faith from being lawless or criminal, to conceive of the holy entity of the Church as primarily a vehicle for secular concerns was offensive to their religious sensibilities. Furthermore, many Anglo-Catholics of the 1830s and 1840s seem to have had the centrality of the Atonement clearly in mind, since they dwelt on, as the Anglo- Catholic W. G. Ward termed it, the "fallen and corrupt nature" of human beings, who were susceptible to the "hatefulness and peril of sin" that was endemic in our "fallen world."43

So what made High Church Anglicans abandon their emphasis on the Atonement, with its focus on human depravity and the dichotomy of the spiritual and material, and embrace instead Maurice's theology of the Incarnation, which proclaimed the Kingdom of God on earth? The link between Anglo-Catholicism and the Incarnation was the conception of the Church as a holy, but social, entity, at one with Christ, in which individuals would find union with Christ in communion with one another. Headlam illustrated this link when he described the Ox- ford Movement in 1896 as "emphatically a movement in answer to our Lord's promise that it was to the Church and not merely to individual souls that victory should come. They were consumed by the idea, the forgotten idea, that Christ came to found a Church"44-not a religion of individuals. Anglo-Catholics, then, were much more amenable to a religious worldview that included a social dimension. As it became clear that working-class squalor was an impediment to the Church's spiritual work (i.e., evangelizing the masses), as well as an encouragement to Secularism, a broader vision of the Church and its obligations was not a difficult step in principle for Anglo-Catholics to take, and indeed it seemed quite natural. Thus, Headlam and many others who considered themselves High Churchmen could see themselves as direct spiritual descendants of the Oxford Tractarians, and the theology that justified their social concern seemed a natural extension of High Church principles.

The Reverend Henry O. Wakeman, in an address to the Church

42 Henry O. Wakeman, "The Tractarian Movement," Church Congress Reports 37 (1897): 142.

43 W. G. Ward, The Ideal of a Christian Church Considered in Comparison with Existing Practice, 2d ed. (London: James Toovey, 1844), pp. 306, 11.

44 Stewart Headlam, "The Church" (1896), in his The Meaning of the Mass (Lon- don: Brown, Langham & Co., 1905), p. 59.

and in fact some Tractarians were very upset that the "Liberals" in the Whig Party of the 1830s "valued religious organization mainly as affording a useful moral check upon lawlessness and crime."42 While most Tractarians certainly felt that Anglican Christians would be dis- suaded by their faith from being lawless or criminal, to conceive of the holy entity of the Church as primarily a vehicle for secular concerns was offensive to their religious sensibilities. Furthermore, many Anglo-Catholics of the 1830s and 1840s seem to have had the centrality of the Atonement clearly in mind, since they dwelt on, as the Anglo- Catholic W. G. Ward termed it, the "fallen and corrupt nature" of human beings, who were susceptible to the "hatefulness and peril of sin" that was endemic in our "fallen world."43

So what made High Church Anglicans abandon their emphasis on the Atonement, with its focus on human depravity and the dichotomy of the spiritual and material, and embrace instead Maurice's theology of the Incarnation, which proclaimed the Kingdom of God on earth? The link between Anglo-Catholicism and the Incarnation was the conception of the Church as a holy, but social, entity, at one with Christ, in which individuals would find union with Christ in communion with one another. Headlam illustrated this link when he described the Ox- ford Movement in 1896 as "emphatically a movement in answer to our Lord's promise that it was to the Church and not merely to individual souls that victory should come. They were consumed by the idea, the forgotten idea, that Christ came to found a Church"44-not a religion of individuals. Anglo-Catholics, then, were much more amenable to a religious worldview that included a social dimension. As it became clear that working-class squalor was an impediment to the Church's spiritual work (i.e., evangelizing the masses), as well as an encouragement to Secularism, a broader vision of the Church and its obligations was not a difficult step in principle for Anglo-Catholics to take, and indeed it seemed quite natural. Thus, Headlam and many others who considered themselves High Churchmen could see themselves as direct spiritual descendants of the Oxford Tractarians, and the theology that justified their social concern seemed a natural extension of High Church principles.

The Reverend Henry O. Wakeman, in an address to the Church

42 Henry O. Wakeman, "The Tractarian Movement," Church Congress Reports 37 (1897): 142.

43 W. G. Ward, The Ideal of a Christian Church Considered in Comparison with Existing Practice, 2d ed. (London: James Toovey, 1844), pp. 306, 11.

44 Stewart Headlam, "The Church" (1896), in his The Meaning of the Mass (Lon- don: Brown, Langham & Co., 1905), p. 59.

366 366 WALSH WALSH




Congress in 1897 on "The Tractarian Movement," claimed, "The most obvious result of the High Church movement of the century has been to bring clearly before the minds of Englishmen the conception of the Church as an independent spiritual society, with rights of its own and authority of its own; a society which it was the special work of Jesus Christ upon earth to found; a society to which alone was guaranteed by Him permanence and ultimate triumph, in which alone was certainly to be found the union with Him which was necessary to men if they would live His life in the world."45 The influence of Incarnational theology on the High Church movement is evident in the words, "if they would live His life in the world." The goal of the Christian was no longer to gain salvation in the next life, but rather to lead a Christ- like life "in the world." Unlike the original Tractarians, many (although not all) High Church Anglicans believed by the end of the century that "the Kingdom is now"-or at least was developing now. Christian Socialists in the Guild of St. Matthew were very explicit on this point, and even put forward the idea that heaven and hell were actually earthly states, defined in relation to how well a society acknowledged the reality of the Incarnation in its daily life. This theme is especially strong in Headlam's writings. He claimed that the Anglican Catechism taught that each person was "an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven.... notice, it is an inheritor and not an heir: for heaven, we teach the child, is not a cloudy reward in the future for being good now, it is a kingdom to which he belongs here: we teach the child that he is here admitted into a society of which righteousness is the note, that he is to seek those things which are above, pure, noble, human things, instead of falling into foul, mean, inhuman acts and habits."46 In a fashion similar to Hancock's redefinition of "the things above," Headlam reversed the evangelical connotations of the word "human" (so often followed by "depravity"), which he believed tended to be confused with "inhuman." Humanity, sanctified by the Incarnation, belonged even in its mortal state to the Kingdom of Heaven, which itself was brought to earth by the Incarnation and proclaimed by the Resurrection. Inhumanity was everything that denied the reality of the Incarnation, that departed from the example of Christ and separated people from one another. It therefore was the Christian's duty to be fully human as Christ was fully human, not in order to gain an individual "cloudy reward in the future," but in order to achieve the salvation

45 Church Congress Reports 37 (1897): 143. 46 Stewart Headlam, "The Secular Value of the Church Catechism" (1876), in his

Priestcraft and Progress (London: John Hodges, 1878), p. 100.

Congress in 1897 on "The Tractarian Movement," claimed, "The most obvious result of the High Church movement of the century has been to bring clearly before the minds of Englishmen the conception of the Church as an independent spiritual society, with rights of its own and authority of its own; a society which it was the special work of Jesus Christ upon earth to found; a society to which alone was guaranteed by Him permanence and ultimate triumph, in which alone was certainly to be found the union with Him which was necessary to men if they would live His life in the world."45 The influence of Incarnational theology on the High Church movement is evident in the words, "if they would live His life in the world." The goal of the Christian was no longer to gain salvation in the next life, but rather to lead a Christ- like life "in the world." Unlike the original Tractarians, many (although not all) High Church Anglicans believed by the end of the century that "the Kingdom is now"-or at least was developing now. Christian Socialists in the Guild of St. Matthew were very explicit on this point, and even put forward the idea that heaven and hell were actually earthly states, defined in relation to how well a society acknowledged the reality of the Incarnation in its daily life. This theme is especially strong in Headlam's writings. He claimed that the Anglican Catechism taught that each person was "an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven.... notice, it is an inheritor and not an heir: for heaven, we teach the child, is not a cloudy reward in the future for being good now, it is a kingdom to which he belongs here: we teach the child that he is here admitted into a society of which righteousness is the note, that he is to seek those things which are above, pure, noble, human things, instead of falling into foul, mean, inhuman acts and habits."46 In a fashion similar to Hancock's redefinition of "the things above," Headlam reversed the evangelical connotations of the word "human" (so often followed by "depravity"), which he believed tended to be confused with "inhuman." Humanity, sanctified by the Incarnation, belonged even in its mortal state to the Kingdom of Heaven, which itself was brought to earth by the Incarnation and proclaimed by the Resurrection. Inhumanity was everything that denied the reality of the Incarnation, that departed from the example of Christ and separated people from one another. It therefore was the Christian's duty to be fully human as Christ was fully human, not in order to gain an individual "cloudy reward in the future," but in order to achieve the salvation

45 Church Congress Reports 37 (1897): 143. 46 Stewart Headlam, "The Secular Value of the Church Catechism" (1876), in his

Priestcraft and Progress (London: John Hodges, 1878), p. 100.

367 367



of society-the realization of the Kingdom-in the present. As Head- lam contended at the Church Congress of 1880, "the Kingdom of Heaven, of which Jesus Christ spoke, was not merely a place to which people were to go hereafter, but a Divine Society established in this world," based in Christ's Church.47

For Headlam and most other members of the guild, recognition of the "brotherhood" of humankind was the way to realize the King- dom in the here and now. Denying that "brotherhood," however, constituted the road to hell. Headlam preached that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" against a society unified in Christ, but "because the people of this diocese have not recognised the need for this unity ... many hellish evils abound in London." The Incarnation established a "brotherhood," and "punishment, ruin, loss, damnation, Hell, inevi- tably and always in the long run await that nation which ignores the great principle of brotherhood."48 Hell, like heaven, could be con- ceived as a social condition: Hell is visited upon the society-"the nation"-rather than the individual, just as the Kingdom of Heaven exists in the salvation of society as a whole, not in the salvation of individuals. Headlam believed above all that a Christian's "life con- sists in being at one with Christ, in recognizing that he and others are (morally) united to Christ and to each other, as the limbs are to the body."49 Anyone claiming to be a Christian therefore could not ignore the distress of other human beings, because all were united in one community-the Kingdom of Heaven required the physical and moral salvation of all. As Headlam stated in a lecture in 1896, Jesus "made it clear that the mere seeking of an individual personal perfection here was not enough: that no one can be saved-which of course means that no one can live a sound healthy life-alone."50

According to Kenneth Leech, "The association of Maurician theology and Socialism with Anglo-Catholicism was one of the crucial features of Headlam's life, and his permanent legacy to English Chris- tianity. It is certainly in great part the result of his work that the Anglo-Catholic movement inherited a tradition of vigorous social action."51 Even though Headlam was dismissed from his curacy in 1882 (he believed it was "for being political"),52 never to hold a position in

47 Headlam, Church Congress Reports 20 (1880): 650. 48 Headlam, "The Church" (1896), and "The Ethical Value of the Parables of Je-

sus" (1896), in The Meaning of the Mass, pp. 57, 83. 49 Headlam, "The Secular Value of the Church Catechism" (1876), p. 99. 50 "The Ethical Value of the Parables of Jesus," p. 73. 51 Kenneth Leech, "Stewart Headlam and the Guild of St. Matthew," in Reckitt,

ed. (n. 30 above), p. 69. 52 Bettany (n. 39 above), p. 63.

of society-the realization of the Kingdom-in the present. As Head- lam contended at the Church Congress of 1880, "the Kingdom of Heaven, of which Jesus Christ spoke, was not merely a place to which people were to go hereafter, but a Divine Society established in this world," based in Christ's Church.47

For Headlam and most other members of the guild, recognition of the "brotherhood" of humankind was the way to realize the King- dom in the here and now. Denying that "brotherhood," however, constituted the road to hell. Headlam preached that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" against a society unified in Christ, but "because the people of this diocese have not recognised the need for this unity ... many hellish evils abound in London." The Incarnation established a "brotherhood," and "punishment, ruin, loss, damnation, Hell, inevi- tably and always in the long run await that nation which ignores the great principle of brotherhood."48 Hell, like heaven, could be con- ceived as a social condition: Hell is visited upon the society-"the nation"-rather than the individual, just as the Kingdom of Heaven exists in the salvation of society as a whole, not in the salvation of individuals. Headlam believed above all that a Christian's "life con- sists in being at one with Christ, in recognizing that he and others are (morally) united to Christ and to each other, as the limbs are to the body."49 Anyone claiming to be a Christian therefore could not ignore the distress of other human beings, because all were united in one community-the Kingdom of Heaven required the physical and moral salvation of all. As Headlam stated in a lecture in 1896, Jesus "made it clear that the mere seeking of an individual personal perfection here was not enough: that no one can be saved-which of course means that no one can live a sound healthy life-alone."50

According to Kenneth Leech, "The association of Maurician theology and Socialism with Anglo-Catholicism was one of the crucial features of Headlam's life, and his permanent legacy to English Chris- tianity. It is certainly in great part the result of his work that the Anglo-Catholic movement inherited a tradition of vigorous social action."51 Even though Headlam was dismissed from his curacy in 1882 (he believed it was "for being political"),52 never to hold a position in

47 Headlam, Church Congress Reports 20 (1880): 650. 48 Headlam, "The Church" (1896), and "The Ethical Value of the Parables of Je-

sus" (1896), in The Meaning of the Mass, pp. 57, 83. 49 Headlam, "The Secular Value of the Church Catechism" (1876), p. 99. 50 "The Ethical Value of the Parables of Jesus," p. 73. 51 Kenneth Leech, "Stewart Headlam and the Guild of St. Matthew," in Reckitt,

ed. (n. 30 above), p. 69. 52 Bettany (n. 39 above), p. 63.

368 368 WALSH WALSH




the Church again, his influence was pervasive because of his work with the guild, which was both vocal and intelligent in its advocacy of social reform. Headlam's influence became a "permanent legacy," however, partly because he gave Christian Socialism a sacramental basis.

Headlam believed, in High Church fashion, that "outward signs of unseen truths are necessary." He claimed that the primary purpose for the sacraments of baptism and communion was to affirm the reality of the Incarnation in the lives of Christians. The sacraments were meant "to express the great truths about Christ outwardly and visibly, by our rite of admission and our feast of membership."53 Most important for Christian Socialism, membership in the Body of Christ entailed a social responsibility:

a responsibility which the weekly administration of the great Emancipa- tor's Supper intensifies, while it gives us, thank God, the strength to comply with it: the responsibility for each one of us . . . to think out, and try and find out, what are the evils which are preventing our England from being the veritable Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, which it is intended to be. Against those evils, it is for each parish and diocese to create, and to persevere in maintaining, a strong public opinion: against those evils, strengthened by our Holy Sacrament, we should work unit- edly. "Agitate, educate, organise," should be our motto as well as the motto of others!54

The objectives of the Guild of St. Matthew included the promotion of "frequent and reverent worship in the Holy Communion."55 The Eucharist, the sacrament in which believers partake of the Body of Christ in the material form of bread and wine, was crucial for convinc- ing Anglicans that "socialism" was "Christian," whether "socialists" admitted it or not. The Guild maintained that every communicant- everyone that professed to be a member of the Body of Christ-who truly understood the meaning of Communion must necessarily have a social conscience, that is, a conscience that engendered a sense of Christian responsibility to others and, furthermore, a responsibilityfor society. If a Christian denied any responsibility for social conditions in an ostensibly Christian society, was that not a denial of membership in the Body of Christ? Could the right hand really deny responsibility

53 Headlam, "The Secular Value of the Church Catechism," p. 113. 54 Headlam, "The Lord's Supper" (1901), in The Meaning of the Mass (n. 44

above), p. 20. 55 Jones (n. 18 above), p. 115.

the Church again, his influence was pervasive because of his work with the guild, which was both vocal and intelligent in its advocacy of social reform. Headlam's influence became a "permanent legacy," however, partly because he gave Christian Socialism a sacramental basis.

Headlam believed, in High Church fashion, that "outward signs of unseen truths are necessary." He claimed that the primary purpose for the sacraments of baptism and communion was to affirm the reality of the Incarnation in the lives of Christians. The sacraments were meant "to express the great truths about Christ outwardly and visibly, by our rite of admission and our feast of membership."53 Most important for Christian Socialism, membership in the Body of Christ entailed a social responsibility:

a responsibility which the weekly administration of the great Emancipa- tor's Supper intensifies, while it gives us, thank God, the strength to comply with it: the responsibility for each one of us . . . to think out, and try and find out, what are the evils which are preventing our England from being the veritable Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, which it is intended to be. Against those evils, it is for each parish and diocese to create, and to persevere in maintaining, a strong public opinion: against those evils, strengthened by our Holy Sacrament, we should work unit- edly. "Agitate, educate, organise," should be our motto as well as the motto of others!54

The objectives of the Guild of St. Matthew included the promotion of "frequent and reverent worship in the Holy Communion."55 The Eucharist, the sacrament in which believers partake of the Body of Christ in the material form of bread and wine, was crucial for convinc- ing Anglicans that "socialism" was "Christian," whether "socialists" admitted it or not. The Guild maintained that every communicant- everyone that professed to be a member of the Body of Christ-who truly understood the meaning of Communion must necessarily have a social conscience, that is, a conscience that engendered a sense of Christian responsibility to others and, furthermore, a responsibilityfor society. If a Christian denied any responsibility for social conditions in an ostensibly Christian society, was that not a denial of membership in the Body of Christ? Could the right hand really deny responsibility

53 Headlam, "The Secular Value of the Church Catechism," p. 113. 54 Headlam, "The Lord's Supper" (1901), in The Meaning of the Mass (n. 44

above), p. 20. 55 Jones (n. 18 above), p. 115.

369 369



for the crime committed by the left? For if the crime was against the principles of the Body, why did the right hand not restrain the left, or the eyes refuse to guide its actions, or the feet refuse to carry the body to the scene of the crime? The guild maintained that an unbreakable and organic bond existed among all people in Christ, that social responsibility was a necessary condition of that bond, and that it was the duty of every earnest communicant to recognize and act in accordance with that responsibility. By attaching a social meaning to the Eucha- rist, Headlam and the guild fashioned an enduring symbol of the Chris- tian Socialist conscience at the heart of Anglican religious practice.

Edward Norman contends that "the social and political ideas of the Christian Socialists were derived from reformist currents of opinion within the educated classes rather than from their own theological learning."56 It may be granted that Christian Socialists, especially Headlam, were disposed to search for justifications within Anglican teachings for social policies that they already considered necessary. Nevertheless, they held a strong belief that a true understanding and practice of the Anglican faith would lead others to advocate those same policies which they believed essential to a harmonious society. It was thus possible for Headlam, who was devoted to lecturing in favor of radical political action, to state that a parish priest that admin- istered the sacraments faithfully "is doing far more for the secular and social well-being of the people than the most eloquent preacher, the most radical organizer, the most enlightened lecturer. For he is maintaining those institutions on which all the Church's social and secular work is based, without which it cannot be permanent; in proportion as he maintains them will men flock round them, so that they may get life from Him to whom they all bear witness."57

In spite of Headlam's strong belief in the importance of the sacraments and of the priesthood, and in spite of his attachment to Anglican ritual and to the idea of a universal Church, some people (then and now) have had trouble thinking of him as an Anglo-Catholic. For one thing, he disliked the Church hierarchy (both personally and as a concept) and advocated the right of congregations to choose their pastors, while the Anglo-Catholic tradition laid heavy emphasis on an apostolic succession that mandated and justified the control of the Church by a hierarchy of bishops. Furthermore, Headlam was a vocal advocate of disestablishment, which was very unusual among High Anglicans of

56 Norman, The Victorian Christian Socialists (n. 16 above), p. 5. 57 Headlam, The Need for Tangible Sacraments and Definite Doctrines (Boston,

1895), pp. 2-3.

for the crime committed by the left? For if the crime was against the principles of the Body, why did the right hand not restrain the left, or the eyes refuse to guide its actions, or the feet refuse to carry the body to the scene of the crime? The guild maintained that an unbreakable and organic bond existed among all people in Christ, that social responsibility was a necessary condition of that bond, and that it was the duty of every earnest communicant to recognize and act in accordance with that responsibility. By attaching a social meaning to the Eucha- rist, Headlam and the guild fashioned an enduring symbol of the Chris- tian Socialist conscience at the heart of Anglican religious practice.

Edward Norman contends that "the social and political ideas of the Christian Socialists were derived from reformist currents of opinion within the educated classes rather than from their own theological learning."56 It may be granted that Christian Socialists, especially Headlam, were disposed to search for justifications within Anglican teachings for social policies that they already considered necessary. Nevertheless, they held a strong belief that a true understanding and practice of the Anglican faith would lead others to advocate those same policies which they believed essential to a harmonious society. It was thus possible for Headlam, who was devoted to lecturing in favor of radical political action, to state that a parish priest that admin- istered the sacraments faithfully "is doing far more for the secular and social well-being of the people than the most eloquent preacher, the most radical organizer, the most enlightened lecturer. For he is maintaining those institutions on which all the Church's social and secular work is based, without which it cannot be permanent; in proportion as he maintains them will men flock round them, so that they may get life from Him to whom they all bear witness."57

In spite of Headlam's strong belief in the importance of the sacraments and of the priesthood, and in spite of his attachment to Anglican ritual and to the idea of a universal Church, some people (then and now) have had trouble thinking of him as an Anglo-Catholic. For one thing, he disliked the Church hierarchy (both personally and as a concept) and advocated the right of congregations to choose their pastors, while the Anglo-Catholic tradition laid heavy emphasis on an apostolic succession that mandated and justified the control of the Church by a hierarchy of bishops. Furthermore, Headlam was a vocal advocate of disestablishment, which was very unusual among High Anglicans of

56 Norman, The Victorian Christian Socialists (n. 16 above), p. 5. 57 Headlam, The Need for Tangible Sacraments and Definite Doctrines (Boston,

1895), pp. 2-3.

WALSH WALSH 370 370




the late Victorian period (even though some of the leaders of the Ox- ford Movement had not been averse to disestablishment). Headlam also was a bit too accommodating to higher criticism for the comfort of most High Anglicans. It is reasonable, therefore, for Edward Nor- man to conclude that "it is not clear that [Headlam] really was an Anglo-Catholic. He saw himself as standing in the tradition of the Oxford Movement, but his modernist approach to Biblical criticism, and his disregard for most structured views of authority, placed him very far from it in reality. Headlam was in fact a Broad Churchman."58

The term "Broad Church" in its Victorian context requires a bit of explanation. By the 1830s, the Church of England had become so polarized that the designation "Broad Church" had actually been squeezed out of common parlance as people referred either to "Low Churchmen" (evangelicals) or to "High Churchmen" (sympathizers with the Oxford movement). While a few clergymen like Thomas Ar- nold and Charles Kingsley had tried to keep a rational and inclusive "Broad Church" spirit alive within Aaglicanism, their message (tem- porarily) was all but drowned in a flood of religious partisanship of the kind that distressed Maurice. When Maurice's theology began to take hold within the Church in the 1850s, however, the term "Broad Church" was recast (much to Maurice's displeasure, as previously mentioned) to describe those who emphasized the unity of the Church in the Body of Christ. The connotations of the earlier use of the term, such as an emphasis on rationality and a deemphasis of ritual, the priesthood, and the Church hierarchy, blended with the new focus on "brotherhood" and the centrality of the Incarnation. "Broad Church" thus seemed at times to be a rather indistinct designation that did not always fit those it supposedly described.59

The members of the Guild of St. Matthew, being fervent Mauri- cians, were Broad Churchmen in their willingness to consider all Chris- tians as members of one Body of Christ. Some members, including Headlam, went further and seemed to include even non-Christians as members in the Body of Christ simply by virtue of their humanity- even though they spoke of baptism as a "rite of admission" and often

58 Norman, The Victorian Christian Socialists, p. 103. 59 At the Church Congress in 1890, the Reverend M. Kaufmann defined the "Broad

Church party" as that section of the Church "which regards the whole world as an object of redemption, and which is apt to emphasize the importance of Church influence in the social and political life of the nation." In describing the "High Church party," Kaufmann emphasized education and the importance of the priesthood in leadership (Church Congress Reports 30 [1890]: 332). By those definitions, Headlam and most other members of the Guild of St. Matthew would have to be considered a part of both parties.

the late Victorian period (even though some of the leaders of the Ox- ford Movement had not been averse to disestablishment). Headlam also was a bit too accommodating to higher criticism for the comfort of most High Anglicans. It is reasonable, therefore, for Edward Nor- man to conclude that "it is not clear that [Headlam] really was an Anglo-Catholic. He saw himself as standing in the tradition of the Oxford Movement, but his modernist approach to Biblical criticism, and his disregard for most structured views of authority, placed him very far from it in reality. Headlam was in fact a Broad Churchman."58

The term "Broad Church" in its Victorian context requires a bit of explanation. By the 1830s, the Church of England had become so polarized that the designation "Broad Church" had actually been squeezed out of common parlance as people referred either to "Low Churchmen" (evangelicals) or to "High Churchmen" (sympathizers with the Oxford movement). While a few clergymen like Thomas Ar- nold and Charles Kingsley had tried to keep a rational and inclusive "Broad Church" spirit alive within Aaglicanism, their message (tem- porarily) was all but drowned in a flood of religious partisanship of the kind that distressed Maurice. When Maurice's theology began to take hold within the Church in the 1850s, however, the term "Broad Church" was recast (much to Maurice's displeasure, as previously mentioned) to describe those who emphasized the unity of the Church in the Body of Christ. The connotations of the earlier use of the term, such as an emphasis on rationality and a deemphasis of ritual, the priesthood, and the Church hierarchy, blended with the new focus on "brotherhood" and the centrality of the Incarnation. "Broad Church" thus seemed at times to be a rather indistinct designation that did not always fit those it supposedly described.59

The members of the Guild of St. Matthew, being fervent Mauri- cians, were Broad Churchmen in their willingness to consider all Chris- tians as members of one Body of Christ. Some members, including Headlam, went further and seemed to include even non-Christians as members in the Body of Christ simply by virtue of their humanity- even though they spoke of baptism as a "rite of admission" and often

58 Norman, The Victorian Christian Socialists, p. 103. 59 At the Church Congress in 1890, the Reverend M. Kaufmann defined the "Broad

Church party" as that section of the Church "which regards the whole world as an object of redemption, and which is apt to emphasize the importance of Church influence in the social and political life of the nation." In describing the "High Church party," Kaufmann emphasized education and the importance of the priesthood in leadership (Church Congress Reports 30 [1890]: 332). By those definitions, Headlam and most other members of the Guild of St. Matthew would have to be considered a part of both parties.

371 371



equated the Body of Christ with the Church. The Anglo-Catholic concept of a universal Church existing "in the region of spirits" broadened in their minds to include not just those who recognized the Church's spiritual authority but the rest of humanity as well. Headlam contended that Christ "has not only redeemed those who in words acknowledge Him, but all mankind."60 The sacraments reinforced rather than defined membership in the Body. Sacramentalism, for the guild, did not act as an instrument of exclusion, as it had earlier for Anglicans who had been closer intellectually to the Oxford Movement. In fact, the sacrament of Holy Communion in particular was to act as a spur to a more inclusive way of thinking: the sincere communicant should recognize the bond in Christ that connected him or her to others in society- not just to those in the Church.

Maurice Reckitt, in discussing the careers of several Anglican "socialist" priests, including Headlam and Hancock, has stated: "If these men regarded themselves as rebels-and were happy to be so regarded-it was because they were seeking above all to redress a situation in which those left outside the Church had been neglected by that very Body of Christ which they regarded as 'the representative of mankind.' "61 If the Church was the "Body of Christ" and the true "representative of mankind," no one could be left outside of it. It had to be inclusive to be effective-to be genuine. If the masses did not go to Church, the problem lay not with them but with those who were churchgoers, with those who defined the Church in the eyes of the public. Hancock, who was more outspoken than most guild members against the clergy and the Church's "faithful," offered a sermon in 1872 which he entitled "God sends His Prophets to rebuke the Church rather than the World." He argued that a large portion of the Church's problems stemmed from its tendency to point a finger at the rest of the world instead of looking at its own failings: "Instead of being shocked at our own infidelity, our own faithlessness, and our own godlessness, we are fast settling ourselves in a habit of amazement at the infidelity and godlessness which we think we see outside the Church. Instead of submitting our own diseases to the gracious Physi- cian, we rail at the evil caused us by what we rightly or wrongly think the diseases of others."62 Railing at the evil outside the Church, while ignoring the flagrant social irresponsibility of churchgoers and accepting the greed and lust for power of some clergymen, was blatantly

60 Headlam, "The Secular Value of the Church Catechism," p. 103. 61 Reckitt, ed. (n. 30 above), p. xiii. 62 Hancock, Christ and the People (n. 36 above), p. 61.

equated the Body of Christ with the Church. The Anglo-Catholic concept of a universal Church existing "in the region of spirits" broadened in their minds to include not just those who recognized the Church's spiritual authority but the rest of humanity as well. Headlam contended that Christ "has not only redeemed those who in words acknowledge Him, but all mankind."60 The sacraments reinforced rather than defined membership in the Body. Sacramentalism, for the guild, did not act as an instrument of exclusion, as it had earlier for Anglicans who had been closer intellectually to the Oxford Movement. In fact, the sacrament of Holy Communion in particular was to act as a spur to a more inclusive way of thinking: the sincere communicant should recognize the bond in Christ that connected him or her to others in society- not just to those in the Church.

Maurice Reckitt, in discussing the careers of several Anglican "socialist" priests, including Headlam and Hancock, has stated: "If these men regarded themselves as rebels-and were happy to be so regarded-it was because they were seeking above all to redress a situation in which those left outside the Church had been neglected by that very Body of Christ which they regarded as 'the representative of mankind.' "61 If the Church was the "Body of Christ" and the true "representative of mankind," no one could be left outside of it. It had to be inclusive to be effective-to be genuine. If the masses did not go to Church, the problem lay not with them but with those who were churchgoers, with those who defined the Church in the eyes of the public. Hancock, who was more outspoken than most guild members against the clergy and the Church's "faithful," offered a sermon in 1872 which he entitled "God sends His Prophets to rebuke the Church rather than the World." He argued that a large portion of the Church's problems stemmed from its tendency to point a finger at the rest of the world instead of looking at its own failings: "Instead of being shocked at our own infidelity, our own faithlessness, and our own godlessness, we are fast settling ourselves in a habit of amazement at the infidelity and godlessness which we think we see outside the Church. Instead of submitting our own diseases to the gracious Physi- cian, we rail at the evil caused us by what we rightly or wrongly think the diseases of others."62 Railing at the evil outside the Church, while ignoring the flagrant social irresponsibility of churchgoers and accepting the greed and lust for power of some clergymen, was blatantly

60 Headlam, "The Secular Value of the Church Catechism," p. 103. 61 Reckitt, ed. (n. 30 above), p. xiii. 62 Hancock, Christ and the People (n. 36 above), p. 61.

372 372 WALSH WALSH




hypocritical. How could the Church invite the poor and working classes to join a "brotherhood" that was being ignored and denied by the actions of the clergy and the laity? A conversion of "the faithful" was necessary to make them truly faithful to the Christian message. And, in the eyes of Hancock, it was the "unfaithful" who would be the instruments of that conversion.

Preaching on the parable of the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-14) in 1874, Hancock interpreted the work in the vineyard as the work of Christians establishing the Kingdom of Heaven in the world. Throughout history, the Lord had chosen workers from different classes to build a society based on Christian brotherhood. Thus far, according to Hancock, the work had not been done well. So "at the eleventh hour the Lord determines in His grace that His work shall no longer be bungled at, that some solid portion of it at least shall be perfected and completed. The Lord God, Who chooses the weak to do His strong work ... goes again to the market-place. God descends amongst the dregs of society, amongst those whom we call the enemies of society, that He may fetch forth real saviours and cultivators of society." The perceived "enemies of society" were "revolutionists," radical thinkers and agi- tators, by whom "God's vineyard has again and again been culti- vated," by whom "society has been saved and quickened with new and fuller life."63 In England, the upper and middle classes had failed to establish a "brotherhood" incorporating social responsibilities into the conscience of the Church and State. It was up to the lower classes, then, to fulfill the Lord's work; the workers, and their capacity for agitation, were there to prod the Church and State into recognizing the Kingdom of Heaven.

Hancock saw the voice of God in the demands of the workers for better living conditions and a greater role in determining economic and political priorities. "The spirit of the Son of Man speaking to the Church through the artisans and the labourers of our time asks for justice, for rights. We ask Him to be content with alms and charities. The mighty works of God in our own time are hidden from us, or we blasphemously call them the works of Beelzebub, because we forget

63 Hancock, "The Election and the 'Mission,' " in Christ and the People, pp. 25, 29. This sentiment echoes Maurice's belief that "the whole country must look for its blessing through the elevation of its Working Class, that we must all sink if that is not raised" (Learning and Working, p. vii). The same idea was expressed by the Reverend Harry Jones at the Church Congress of 1880: "There can be no rise in the social condition of a nation if [the working classes] are always content, since it is possible that they may be willing to put up with avoidable degradation." Jones went on to say that if the proponents of complacency and passivity had always been obeyed, "we might still be clothed in skins and living on acorns" (Church Congress Reports 20 [1880]: 102).

hypocritical. How could the Church invite the poor and working classes to join a "brotherhood" that was being ignored and denied by the actions of the clergy and the laity? A conversion of "the faithful" was necessary to make them truly faithful to the Christian message. And, in the eyes of Hancock, it was the "unfaithful" who would be the instruments of that conversion.

Preaching on the parable of the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-14) in 1874, Hancock interpreted the work in the vineyard as the work of Christians establishing the Kingdom of Heaven in the world. Throughout history, the Lord had chosen workers from different classes to build a society based on Christian brotherhood. Thus far, according to Hancock, the work had not been done well. So "at the eleventh hour the Lord determines in His grace that His work shall no longer be bungled at, that some solid portion of it at least shall be perfected and completed. The Lord God, Who chooses the weak to do His strong work ... goes again to the market-place. God descends amongst the dregs of society, amongst those whom we call the enemies of society, that He may fetch forth real saviours and cultivators of society." The perceived "enemies of society" were "revolutionists," radical thinkers and agi- tators, by whom "God's vineyard has again and again been culti- vated," by whom "society has been saved and quickened with new and fuller life."63 In England, the upper and middle classes had failed to establish a "brotherhood" incorporating social responsibilities into the conscience of the Church and State. It was up to the lower classes, then, to fulfill the Lord's work; the workers, and their capacity for agitation, were there to prod the Church and State into recognizing the Kingdom of Heaven.

Hancock saw the voice of God in the demands of the workers for better living conditions and a greater role in determining economic and political priorities. "The spirit of the Son of Man speaking to the Church through the artisans and the labourers of our time asks for justice, for rights. We ask Him to be content with alms and charities. The mighty works of God in our own time are hidden from us, or we blasphemously call them the works of Beelzebub, because we forget

63 Hancock, "The Election and the 'Mission,' " in Christ and the People, pp. 25, 29. This sentiment echoes Maurice's belief that "the whole country must look for its blessing through the elevation of its Working Class, that we must all sink if that is not raised" (Learning and Working, p. vii). The same idea was expressed by the Reverend Harry Jones at the Church Congress of 1880: "There can be no rise in the social condition of a nation if [the working classes] are always content, since it is possible that they may be willing to put up with avoidable degradation." Jones went on to say that if the proponents of complacency and passivity had always been obeyed, "we might still be clothed in skins and living on acorns" (Church Congress Reports 20 [1880]: 102).

373 373



the Spirit of truth and of unity is also the Spirit of liberty and right."'64 The "mighty works of God" were those directed toward the realization of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, a Kingdom "of liberty and right" as much as "of truth and of unity." Without "liberty and right" for all people, the truth of "brotherhood" in Christ would be ignored and the realization of the unity inherent in the Incarnation would be impossible. "The work in God's vineyard of the Church or of the State," proclaimed Hancock, "can never be done until all are called by the historical providence of its Lord into it."65

Bringing the masses into the Church had been an important goal for all factions of Anglicans throughout the nineteenth century-and the Church's failure to achieve that goal was its greatest embar- rassment. The Christian Socialists, as their social conscience took shape over the course of the Victorian era, detached themselves from many of the received notions of their spiritual forebears and radically changed the meaning of the goal: bringing the masses into the Church was necessary, not because the masses needed personal salvation, but because the Church-and society-needed salvation. The Christian Socialists plotted a new course for the Church in its relations with secular society, particularly with regard to social reform and the rights of the working classes. Although political and social realities adjusted and diluted the impact of the more radical elements of the Christian Socialist conscience, they also adjusted and compromised the Church of England's attachment to many of the severest elements of the evangelical conscience, making a substantive change in attitude possible. By the 1890s, the Anglican Church no longer emphasized the depravity of the world and of humanity but rather celebrated the Incarnation.

64 Hancock, "Jesus Christ the Irresistible Attractor of the People" (1869), in Christ and the People, p. 17.

65 Hancock, "The Election and the 'Mission,' " p. 30.

the Spirit of truth and of unity is also the Spirit of liberty and right."'64 The "mighty works of God" were those directed toward the realization of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, a Kingdom "of liberty and right" as much as "of truth and of unity." Without "liberty and right" for all people, the truth of "brotherhood" in Christ would be ignored and the realization of the unity inherent in the Incarnation would be impossible. "The work in God's vineyard of the Church or of the State," proclaimed Hancock, "can never be done until all are called by the historical providence of its Lord into it."65

Bringing the masses into the Church had been an important goal for all factions of Anglicans throughout the nineteenth century-and the Church's failure to achieve that goal was its greatest embar- rassment. The Christian Socialists, as their social conscience took shape over the course of the Victorian era, detached themselves from many of the received notions of their spiritual forebears and radically changed the meaning of the goal: bringing the masses into the Church was necessary, not because the masses needed personal salvation, but because the Church-and society-needed salvation. The Christian Socialists plotted a new course for the Church in its relations with secular society, particularly with regard to social reform and the rights of the working classes. Although political and social realities adjusted and diluted the impact of the more radical elements of the Christian Socialist conscience, they also adjusted and compromised the Church of England's attachment to many of the severest elements of the evangelical conscience, making a substantive change in attitude possible. By the 1890s, the Anglican Church no longer emphasized the depravity of the world and of humanity but rather celebrated the Incarnation.

64 Hancock, "Jesus Christ the Irresistible Attractor of the People" (1869), in Christ and the People, p. 17.

65 Hancock, "The Election and the 'Mission,' " p. 30.

374 374 WALSH WALSH



Documents

Victorian Subjects || The Incarnation and the Christian Socialist Conscience in the Victorian Church of England