ReligionandHistory inNineteenth-CenturyBritain
THEARGUMENT
ThechurcheshavealwaysproclaimedGod’ssovereigntyoverhistory. Onlyduringthenineteenthcentury,however,didtheircriticsbegin extensivelyandcontentiouslytodeclarethathistorywas,infact,sovereign overGod.Asaresult,itwasinthisperiodthatreligiousandsecular moralistsinthewesternworldstartedtoaskthemselves,moregenerally andpubliclythaneverbefore,whetherthemovementsofhumantime confirmedandstrengthened,orelsechallengedandundermined,Christianity’sclaimstointellectualauthorityandculturalleadership.History, understoodbothasthepast’sownspaceandastheintellectualattempt tonarrateandexplainitssignificance,becamerecognizabletoreligious apologistsasamediatorbetweenmankindanddivinepurposes.For others,itcametorecordhumanity’ssupersessionofitsimagineddependenceonasupramundanesphere,andtheopeningupofnewrealmsof possibilityforitsuntrammelledspirit.Ataperiodofheightenedreligious activity,thequestionofreligion’splaceinthemodernagebecamecentral towiderdivisionsoverthedeeperfoundationsandultimatetendenciesof thenewera.Thisbookconsidershow,insuchaclimate,theintensifying interactionbetweenreligiousawakeningandhistoricalconsciousness gaveshapetocontemporarydebatesaboutthemeaningofprogressin nineteenth-centuryBritain.
Inparticular,thisaccountfocusesontheevolvingpatternsandwider ramificationsofVictorianconceptionsofthehistoryofChristianity.It reconstructsthewaysinwhichVictorianhistoriansexploredand reappraisedthedifferentlayersofreligioushistoryintheirattemptsto critiqueandmodifytheiraudiences’ beliefsandpractices.Asstudentsof thenineteenthcenturyareaware,onesuchlayerwasbiblicalhistory.¹
¹Onnineteenth-centurybiblicalcriticism,seeM.Bauspiess,C.Landmesser,and D.Lincicum(eds), FerdinandChristianBaurunddieGeschichtedesfrühenChristentums
Lesswellknowntoposterity,however,istheequalimportancewhich Victoriansattachedtothepost-apostolichistoryofthechurch,andthe differentphaseswhichconstitutedit.²Thoseepochs,nineteenth-century commentatorsgenerallybelieved,hadleftlegaciesdeeplyembeddedinthe religiouslife,socialcustoms,andculturaldivisionsofthepresentday, whichitwastheprovinceofhistoricalcriticismtoidentifyandremould. Thebookexploresthetwofoldandreciprocalprocessbywhichprogressive anddevelopmentalunderstandingsofthehistoryofChristianitycameto acquireintellectualauthorityinreligiousdebate,andbywhichreligious categoriescametopermeateVictorianunderstandingsofhistoricalprogressmoregenerally.AsstaticunderstandingsofChristianhistorygave waytodynamicones,thenormativeassumptionsunderlyingnineteenthcenturyreligiousculturechangedfundamentally.Inasimultaneousand connectedtransition,theemergenceofnewwaysofthinkingabout Christiantimecamealsotostructurewiderunderstandingsofthegeneral movementofhistory,andhencetheroleofGodinprogress.Focusingon thehistoryofhistoricalthoughtacrossaculture,ratherthanthehistory ofhistoriographyinamorelimitedsense,andrecoveringthelinesof dialogueconnectingtheProtestantmainstreamofVictorianthoughtto secularcriticism,thestudyoffersanewassessmentofthesignificant transformationsatworkinnineteenth-centuryBritishintellectuallife. Thisbookseekstounderstandtheremarkableprocessbywhichreligioushistorysheditsinternalornarrowlyecclesiasticalcharacterin Victorianconditions,tobecomefoundationaltowiderculturalcritique. Churchhistory,readinthelightoftheBibleindifferentsenses,offered VictorianslocatedattheconventionalcentreofBritishintellectualactivity aframeworkwithinwhichtosituatetheultimatesignificanceofhistoryas awhole.Preciselyonthisaccount,italsofurnishedanauthoritative (Tübingen,2014);H.Harris, TheTübingenSchool:anhistoricalandtheologicalinvestigation oftheschoolofF.C.Baur,newedn(Leicester,1990);J.W.Rogerson, OldTestamentcriticism inthenineteenthcentury:EnglandandGermany (London,1984).Onthewidercultural impactoftheBibleinnineteenth-centuryBritain,seeT.Larsen, Apeopleofonebook:theBible andtheVictorians (Oxford,2011);M.Wheeler, StJohnandtheVictorians (Cambridge,2012); D.GangeandM.Ledger-Lomas(eds), CitiesofGod:theBibleandarchaeologyinnineteenthcenturyBritain (Cambridge,2013).
²Existingexplorationsofreligiousthemesinnineteenth-centuryhistoricalwriting include:J.Garnett, ‘Protestanthistories:JamesAnthonyFroude,partisanshipandnational identity’,inP.GhoshandL.Goldman(eds), PoliticsandcultureinVictorianBritain:essaysin memoryofColinMatthew (Oxford,2006),pp.[171]–191;J.Kirby, HistoriansandtheChurch ofEngland:religionandhistoricalscholarship,1870–1920 (Oxford,2016);T.Lang, The VictoriansandtheStuartheritage:interpretationsofadiscordantpast (Cambridge,1995); J.Bennett, TheVictorianhighchurchandtheeraoftheGreatRebellion (Oxford,2011); M.Nixon, SamuelRawsonGardinerandtheideaofhistory (London,2011);A.G.Dickensand J.Tonkin, TheReformationinhistoricalthought (Oxford,1985),pp.150–97.
resourcethroughwhichnineteenth-centuryactorscouldappraisetheir ownreligiousculture,andthelargespheresofhumanexperiencewhichit affected.Inthisway,historicalstudyitselfbecameanactivemedium throughwhichbelieverscouldarriveattheirownresponsestobiblical investigation,religiousdiversity,changingethicalsensibilities,andthe claimsofscience,whilstinfluencingthoseofothers.Historianscameto embodytruthintalesofprogressivemovement,dissonantlytold,inwhich religionwasthemajorprotagonist.Nineteenth-centuryargumentsover democracy,evolutionarynaturalism,politicaleconomy,andempirehave provedmorelegiblethanthesedebatestohistorianssocializedamidstwhat ColinMatthewoncedescribedasthe ‘profoundsecularity’ oftwoorthree lifetimeslater.³Butthenarrationandexplicationofthehistoryofreligion, inwhichtwopeculiarlypervasiveVictorianphenomenacameintorelationshipwithoneanother,wasatleastanequallyvitalmeansbywhich contemporariesmadesenseoftheworldaroundthem,andsoughttosway itsunfoldingdirections.⁴
Justasthisstudyisconcernedwiththedepthofreligion’spenetration intowiderareasofhistoricallifeandthoughtfromtheVictorianpointof view,sotoodoesitemphasizethebreadthofperspectiveinwhichthe subjectenablednineteenth-centuryBritonstosituatetheirculture’sleadingfeatures.ThehistoryofChristianityaffordedVictoriansthemost readilyavailableframeworktheypossessedforunderstandinguniversal history,allowingthemtoseetheirownsocietyandchurchesinthelightof
³Importantstudiesoftheset opicsincludeJ.W.Burrow, Evolutionandsociety:astudy inVictoriansocialtheory (London,1966);S.Collini, Publicmoralists:politicalthought andintellectuallifeinBritain1850– 1930 (Oxford,1991);F.M.Turner, Betweenscience andreligion:thereactiontoscientifi cnaturalisminlateVictorianEngland (NewHaven, CT,andLondon,1974);D.Winch, Wealthandlife:essaysontheintellectualhistoryof politicaleconomyinBritain,1848– 1914 (Cambridge,2009);D.Bell, Theideaofgreater Britain:empireandthefutureofworldorder,1860 – 1900 (Princeton,NJ,2007).Iquote fromH.C.G.Matthew, ‘Introduction:theUnitedKingdomandtheVictoriancentury, 1815–1901’,inMatthew(ed.), Thenineteenthcentury:theBritishIsles:1815–1901 (Oxford,2000),p.36.
⁴ Religioussubjectsarebecomingmoreintegratedintothestudyofnineteenth-century intellectualhistorythantheyoncewere:J.D.S.Rasmussen,J.Wolffe,andJ.Zachhuber (eds), TheOxfordhandbookofnineteenth-centuryChristianthought (Oxford,2017); B.Hilton, Theageofatonement:theinfluenceofevangelicalismonsocialandeconomic thought, 1795–1865 (Oxford,1988);C.Kidd, TheworldofMrCasaubon:Britain’ swars ofmythography,1700–1870 (Cambridge,2016).ThewaymarkslaiddowninMaurice Cowling’ s ReligionandpublicdoctrineinmodernEngland (3vols,Cambridge,1980–2001) have,asyet,foundfewfollowers:foraninterpretationofthehistoriographicalsignificance ofthistext,seeS.J.D.Green, ‘Asifreligionmattered:analternativereadingofEnglish intellectualhistorysince c. 1840’,inR.Cowcroft,S.J.D.GreenandR.Whiting(eds), The philosophy,politicsandreligionofBritishdemocracy:MauriceCowlingandconservatism (London,2010),pp.189–222.
thehistoryofcivilization.⁵ Victorianstypicallytreateduniversalhistoryas thoughitwerepracticallysynonymouswith,orspearheadedby,the historyofChristendom.ThecentreofthathistorylayinEuropeandits NearEasternandNorthAfricanhinterlands,extendingmorerecentlyto encompasspolitiesofEuropean,especiallyBritish,descentelsewhere. Theseassumptionsnowappearlesscompellingtowesternintellectuals thantheyoncedid.Intheperiodoftheirascendancy,theynevertheless preventedlargeprovincesofVictorianhistoricalwritingfromacquiring theinsularornationalistcharacterwhichmanyscholarstake,intoo unqualifiedasense,tohavebeenageneralhallmarkofnineteenth-century historiography.⁶ ThisbookshowsthatVictorianswereinfactconstantly concernedcriticallytoevaluatetheirownbeliefsandcustomsinthelight oftheworld-historicalpatternsandnormswhichthehistoryofChristianity,morethananyotherdimensionofhistoricalexperience,madevisible. Thepursuitofuniversalideasofhistorydemandedcommensuratetoolsof analysis.Thefollowingchaptersdrawparticularattentiontotheroleof differentkindsofGermanIdealistphilosophyinrenovatingBritishintellectuallife,byenablingBritonstointegratespiritualhistoryandreligious traditionwithabidingmoralreason.⁷ Thesubsequentanalysistherefore reflectsthewayinwhichmanynineteenth-centuryBritishwritersunderstoodtheirowncultureandhistoryincosmopolitanterms. Thereciprocalinteractionsbetweenreligiousideasofhistoryand historicalideasofreligion,andbetweengeneralhistoricalmodelsand specificculturalproblems,werequintessentiallyexpressedintheliberal AnglicanandfuturearchbishopofCanterburyFrederickTemple’sofferingtotheradical1860collection, EssaysandReviews.Theworkwasitself largelydedicatedtotheimplicationsofhistoricalcriticismforconventionalChristianity. ‘Thehumanheartrefusestobelieveinauniverse withoutapurpose’,Templedeclared,inacontributionarguingthatthe
⁵ Onthe ‘civilisationalperspective’ inVictorianhistoriography,seeP.Mandler, ‘“Race” and ‘nation’ inmid-Victorianthought’,inS.Collini,R.Whatmore,andB.Young(eds), History, religion,andculture:Britishintellectualhistory1750–1950 (Cambridge,2000),pp.224–44.
⁶ Forexample,S.BergerandC.Lorenz, Nationalizingthepast:historiansasnation buildersinmodernEurope (Basingstoke,2010).Classicstudiesofthe ‘Whig’ traditionhave naturallycentredonBritishunderstandingsofBritishhistory:J.W.Burrow, Aliberal descent:VictorianhistoriansandtheEnglishpast (Cambridge,1981);P.B.M.Blaas, Continuityandanachronism:parliamentaryandconstitutionaldevelopmentinWhighistoriography andintheanti-Whigreactionbetween1890and1930 (TheHague,Boston,MA,and London,1978).
⁷ Ialternatebetweenanupperandalowercase ‘i’ in ‘idealist’ and ‘idealism’,inorderto makeacategorydistinction.InreferencetoGermanorBritishIdealismasspecific movements,Iuseacapitalletter;inreferencetothebroaderdiffusionoftheassumption thatrealitywasprimarilytobeapproachedthroughtheactivefacultiesofthemind,and theirhistoricalfruits,Idonot.
historyofreligionshouldbeunderstood,inprogressiveterms,as ‘the educationoftheworld’ . ⁸‘Thepower,wherebythepresentevergathers intoitselftheresultsofthepast’,hecontinued, ‘transformsthehuman raceintoacolossalman’,growinginknowledgeandjudgmentovertime. ‘Thecreedanddoctrines,theopinionsandprinciplesofthesuccessive ages,arehisthoughts’,whichwereneverstationary.⁹ Inthisway,Temple ascribedaprovidentialmeaningandauthoritytothemovementsof humantime.Heparticularlyturnedthosedynamicstoconferlegitimacy uponmoderndeparturesfromtheclassicallyProtestantbeliefinthe Bible’sverbalinerrancy.Suchaconvictioncouldnolongerserveasthe absolutereligiousnormintowhichmanyofhiscontemporariessoughtto elevateit.Foritbelongedtoaparticularphaseinthedevelopinghistoryof religiousopinion. ‘Wearenowmen’,Templeconcludedhisessayby remarking, ‘andcannotrelyanylongerontheimpulsesofyouthandthe disciplineofchildhood’.¹⁰ HistoricalcriticismtherebyofferedTemplea routetoredefiningProtestantism,bycreatinggreaterspacewithinitfor theadvancesinbiblicalunderstandingwhichdogmatismwascurrently stymying.Effortsatalteringhistoricalperceptions,inthissense,werenot secondaryorincidentalconsequencesofVictorianintellectualchange, butbelongedtothechiefmodesthroughwhichitcameabout.
ByintegratingreligionintothehistoryofVictorianhistoricalconsciousnessanditsimplications,thebookoffersafreshinterpretationof thewiderdynamicsofBritishintellectualcultureinthatperiodofredefinitionbetweentheevangelicalrevivaland ‘thepassingofProtestant England’,ifnotquite ‘thedeathofChristianBritain’.¹¹Byillustrating howsequestereddonsandcomfortableclergyinhabitedadiscursive continuumwithpopularpreachersandjobbingjournalists,itdemonstratesthathigher-levelintellectualandscholarlydevelopmentsdrew energyfromandgalvanizedwiderattitudinalchangesamongmore middlebrowVictorians.Consideredinthisholisticframework,theconsequencesofthemutualpermeationofreligiousandhistoricalthoughtran intwomaindirections.First,asdevelopmentalideasofhistoryacquired intellectualauthorityinreligiouscontroversy,thearenaofthelatter
⁸ F.Temple, ‘Theeducationoftheworld’,inV.SheaandW.Whitla(eds), Essaysand reviews:the1860textanditsreading (Charlottesville,VA,andLondon,2000),pp.[137]–64, hereat[137].
⁹ Ibid.,p.138.¹⁰ Ibid.,p.164.
¹¹ForalternativecharacterizationsofreligioushistoryinmodernBritain:C.G.Brown, ThedeathofChristianBritain:understandingsecularisation1800–2000,2ndedn(London andNewYork,2009), firstedition2001;J.Garnettetal.(eds), RedefiningChristian Britain:post-1945perspectives (London,2007);S.J.D.Green, ThePassingofProtestant England:secularisationandsocialchange,c.1920–1960 (Cambridge,2011).
graduallyandcontroversiallyshiftedfromatextualandscholasticbasisto onegroundedmuchmorebroadlyintheperceivedrelationshipbetween divinity,thehistoricalsubject,andhumantemporalexperience.
Thedecisiontofoundreligiousapologyuponhistoryinformedand impliedasecond,andinsomewaysmorefundamentalintellectual manoeuvre.Thiswashistory’selevationintowhatThomasCarlyle,within anunusuallyheterodoxframeofreference,called ‘thetrueEpicPoem, anduniversalDivineScripture’.¹²Religiousbelief,broughtintoactive relationshipwithrisingawarenessofhistoryasanautonomoussphere ofhumanexperience,nowintegratedthediversityofhistoryintoa providentiallypurposefulwhole.Scientificdevelopmentsandchanging moralsensibilitiescametosapthepowerofEnlightenment-eranatural theology.¹³Buthistory’sgatheringwitnesstotheexpansionandpractical forceofhumanmoralconsciousnessenabledittoofferadynamicevidentialalternative:anewspacewithinwhichdivineintentionsmightbe discernedandvindicated.ProtestantsinthemainstreamofVictorian intellectualcultureaccordinglybegantolocatepresentandfutureprogress withinaspiritualframeworkstretchingacrosstime.In1845,thefactof religiouspluralisminBritainandEurope;theconsolidationofnaturaland socialscience;theriseofbiblicalcriticism;andthegrowthofthathuman ethicalautonomycapableofassertingitselfagainstinheritedreligious prescriptionshadbeendeeplydisturbingphenomena.By1914,they hadverywidelyacquiredaspiritualrationale,byvirtueofhavingbeen synthesizedwithreligiouslyoriginatingconceptionsofprogress.Religious conservatismunderwentitsownkindofhistoricallymediatedrenewal, whilesecularimagesofthepastpressedinominouslyattheedgesof Victorianculture.Neithercanbeunderstood,however,iftreatedin isolationfromthelargerprocessbywhichtheologicalideasofhistory workedtheirwaytotheheartofthenineteenth-centuryliberalimagination.ThereligiousdimensionsofhistorybecameintegraltohowVictoriansimaginedtheorigins,texture,andprospectsoftheworldthey inhabited.TheystructuredwhatitmeantforVictorianstocomeoutof thepast,andtoentertheirown,ultimately fleetingkindofmodernity.
¹²T.Carlyle, ‘Onhistoryagain’,inCarlyle, Criticalandmiscellaneousessays (4vols, London,1893),ii[pt.2],220(repr.from FM for1833).
¹³Ontheproblemsencounteredbynaturaltheologyduringthenineteenthcentury,see R.M.Young, Darwin’smetaphor:nature’splaceinVictorianculture (Cambridge,1985); P.Corsi, Scienceandreligion:BadenPowellandtheAnglicandebate,1800–1860 (Cambridge,1988);J.H.Brooke, Scienceandreligion:somehistoricalperspectives (Cambridge,1991),esp.pp.192–225.Itwasatraditionpossessedofconsiderablepowers ofadaptation,however:P.J.Bowler, Reconcilingscienceandreligion:thedebateinearlytwentieth-centuryBritain (Chicago,IL,andLondon,2001).
INPROTESTANTINTELLECTUALCULTURE
BypursuingtheseoverlookedlinesofdevelopmentthroughnineteenthcenturyBritishhistory,thefollowingchapterssetseveralofitsmore familiarthemesinanewandnewlyinterconnectedperspective.The bookdoesnottaketheformofadisciplinaryhistoryofhistoryor theology,butratherconsidersthetransformativeeffectsofhistorical thought,initsdiversemanifestations,onreligioustraditionsacrossProtestantculture.Thesubjectisorderedintothreethemes.First,byidentifyingthereligiousinfluencesthatfedVictorian ‘historicism’,aricherand morecomplexunderstandingemergesofwhatitmeantforVictorian actorstothinkhistorically.Oneroutetohistoricismlaythroughreligious revivaland ‘revivalism’:theintellectualstrategiesofwhichconstitutethe secondsubjectofthefollowingchapters.Intheearlierpartoftheperiod, promotersofdifferentkindsofreligiousrevivalbecamereliantuponstatic imagesofthereligiouspast,whichtheydeemedworthyofresuscitationin thepresentday.Criticswhowishedtochallengetraditionalists’ understandingofreligionaccordinglybegan,fromaroundthemid-century,to interpretreligioustraditioninnewlydevelopmentalandprogressiveways, makingreligion’simprovementorindeeditssupersessioncentralto civilizationalprogressinpastandpresent.Inthisway,religioushistory becamecentraltothearticulationandreceptionofVictorian ‘liberalism’ initsambitiontodepartfromwhatwereseenasoutdatedbeliefsand practices.Adeeperexplorationofthereligiousandhistoricaldimensions ofVictorianliberalismfurnishesthebook’sthirdtheme.Byrecognizing theporousboundariesbetweenscholarlyandmorepopulardiscourse,and theimportanceofdialoguescrossingdenominationallines,itbecomes possibletodrawouttheinterrelationshipbetweenrevivalism,liberalism, andhistoricismindrivinggeneralintellectual-historicaltransformationsin VictorianBritain.
Victorian ‘historicism’ wassomethinglargerthanexistingscholarly frameworksallowfor.NotatermgreatlyusedbytheVictoriansthemselves,historicismisoftenassociatedwiththebelief,especiallyasheldby LeopoldvonRanke,thathistory,unlikenature,iscomposedofunique andunrepeatableindividualities.¹⁴ Whilstthisbookcertainlytakes
¹⁴ G.G.Iggers, TheGermanconceptionofhistory:thenationaltraditionofhistorical thoughtfromHerdertothepresent,rev.edn(Middletown,CT,1983),pp.4–5;Iggers, ‘Historicism:thehistoryandmeaningoftheterm’ , JournaloftheHistoryofIdeas,56:1 (1995),pp.129–52;M.Bevir, ‘HistoricismandthehumansciencesinVictorianBritain’ ,
historicismtohaveincludedthismeaning,itconceivesitmuchmore amply,asacompositeofdifferentframeworkswithinwhichthepast becamesignificantindifferentways,todifferentgroups,atdifferent times.Historicalconsciousness,inthesenseofanawarenessthatthe institutionsandnormsofthepasthadchangedatsomedatepriortothe presentinpotentiallyproblematicways,wasnotinventedinthenineteenthcentury.¹⁵ Butitacquiredgreaterintellectualscopeandconceptual richnessintheseyears,asdifferentnotionsofprogressanddevelopment subsumedmere ‘change’—byitself,anatomizedsequenceofevents into alarger,moremeaningful,andsteadilyevolvingwhole.Theauthorityof older,morestationaryconceptionsofthepastaccordinglybeganto weaken.Wherefaithin ‘ progress ’ oftenboldlyandoptimisticallysynthesizedthepastandprophesiedthefuture,interestin ‘development’ tended topossessamorelimited,andsometimesambivalentlyretrospective character,involvingtheassumptionthatthetruenatureofaphenomenon mightberealized,orcorrupted,inhumantime.¹⁶ Whilstcontemporaries investedthesecategorieswithmultiplekindsofsignificance,bothideas overlappedinpresumingthatpastexperienceamountedtomorethana datumfordisinterestedanalysisoraregisterofthecrimes,follies,and misfortunesofmankind.Theiracceleratingtendencytoblendwith,or evenoriginatewithin,religiousbeliefsencouragedVictorianstoassume thatevolvinghistorypointedbeyonditself,toaworldofultimaterealities towardswhichthestudyofthepastmightbeckon.
Thesechangingargumentativecontoursintersectedonlypartiallywith thedevelopmentofhistoryasaprofessionaland ‘scientific ’ disciplineinthe reformeduniversitiesafter1870.¹⁷ Thisbooksurveysalargerlandscape.
inBevir(ed.), HistoricismandthehumansciencesinVictorianBritain (Cambridge,2017), pp.1–20.
¹⁵ J.G.A.Pocock, ‘Theoriginsofstudyofthepast:acomparativeapproach’,inhis Political thoughtandhistory:essaysontheoryandmethod (Cambridge,2009),pp.145–86.
¹⁶ HereIalludetoJ.B.Bury’sdefinitionoftheideaofprogress: Theideaofprogress:an inquiryintoitsoriginandgrowth (London,1920),p.5.Morerecentstudiesoftheidea havegivenmoreprominencetoitstheologicalcontextsthantheCambridgerationalist allowed:R.Nisbet, Historyoftheideaofprogress (London,1980);B.Loewenstein, Der Fortschrittsglaube:europäischesGeschichtsdenkenzwischenUtopieundIdeologie ,2nd edn (Darmstadt,2015).
¹⁷ Onthesesubjects,seeM.Bentley, ModernizingEngland’spast:Englishhistoriography intheageofmodernism,1870–1970 (Cambridge,2005);P.R.H.Slee, Learningandaliberal education:thestudyofmodernhistoryintheuniversitiesofOxford,CambridgeandManchester, 1800–1914 (Manchester,1986);D.S.Goldstein, ‘Theprofessionalizationofhistoryin Britaininthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies’ , Storiadellastoriografia, 3(1983),pp.3–27;J.P.Kenyon, Thehistorymen:thehistoricalprofessioninEnglandsince theRenaissance (London,1983);I.Hesketh, ThescienceofhistoryinVictorianBritain: makingthepastspeak (London,2011).
Itconsidershowdiverseprogressiveanddevelopmentalformsofhistoricism, reworkingtheinterpretativeresourceswhichhadpassedintoVictorian intellectualculturefromearlierages,actedassolventsandcatalystswithin differentreligioustraditions.¹⁸ Biblicism,patristictextualism,classicism, anEnglishliteraryheritage,andEnlightenment-eraconjecturalhistory continuedtoinvigorateearlyVictorianintellectualculture,moulding contemporaryideasofthereligiouspastamidstthenewdisruptionsof theperiod.Amongreligiouslyapologetichistorians,differentemanations ofGermanIdealisthistoricalphilosophycruciallyintersectedwiththose conceptions,andinjectedanewandoftentransformativedynamisminto them.¹⁹ Thenotablysmallernumberofradicallyanti-theologicalcritics,by contrast,lookedtotheresourcesofComteansociologyandthephilosophy ofJohnStuartMillinconstructingtheirown,avowedlysecularvisionsof thereligiouspastandfuture.²⁰ Inaculturerelativelyslowtoexperiencethe professionalizationofhistoryandtheology,moraliststhroughoutthecenturypersistentlydrewonacomplexbodyofintellectualresourcesasthey developedrichlyconflictingunderstandingsofwhatitmeanttothink historicallyaboutreligion.²¹
Inordertounderstandtheemergenceandeffectsofthemultiple varietiesofVictorianhistoricismthusconceived,andtodifferentiate betweenthem,itisimportanttosituatetheminthecontextofBritish
¹⁸ Thedistinctionbetween ‘historiography’ and ‘historicalthought’ isimportantto J.G.A.Pocock: ‘Workingonideasintime’,inhis Politicalthoughtandhistory,pp.20–32. ¹⁹ OnIdealismand Historismus,seeforexampleA.Wittkau-Horgby, Historismus:zur GeschichtedesBegriffsunddesProblems (Göttingen,1992);J.Rüsen, Konfigurationendes Historismus:StudienzurdeutschenWissenschaftskultur (FrankfurtamMain,1993); F.C.Beiser, TheGermanhistoricisttradition (Oxford,2011).Forcomparisonsandconnectionsbetweennineteenth-centuryBritishandGermanhistoriography,seeB.Stuchteyand P.Wende(eds), BritishandGermanhistoriography,1750–1950:traditions,perceptions, and transfers (Oxford,2000);K.Dockhorn, DerdeutscheHistorismusinEngland:einBeitragzur englischenGeistesgeschichtedes19.Jahrhunderts (Göttingen,1950).OnAnglo-German culturaltransferinthenineteenthcenturyingeneral,seeforexampleR.Ashton, The Germanidea:fourEnglishwritersandthereceptionofGermanthought1800–1860 (Cambridge,1980);M.Ledger-Lomas, ‘LyraGermanica:GermansacredmusicinmidVictorianEngland’ , GermanHistoricalInstituteLondonBulletin,29:2(2007),pp.8–42; J.R.Davis, TheVictoriansandGermany (OxfordandBern,2007);H.Ellisand U.Kirchberger(eds), Anglo-Germanscholarlynetworksinthelongnineteenthcentury (LeidenandBoston,MA,2014).OntheinfluenceofGermantheologyinnineteenthcenturyAmerica,astorywithsignificantparallelstothatpresentedhere,seeA.G.Aubert, TheGermanrootsofnineteenth-centuryAmericantheology (Oxford,2013).
²⁰ Seechapter fiveofthisvolume.
²¹Ontheriseofthedisciplineoftheologyinnineteenth-centuryBritain,seeD.Inman, ThemakingofmodernEnglishtheology:GodandtheacademyatOxford,1833–1945 (Minneapolis,MN,2014).ForGermanparallels,seeT.A.Howard, Protestanttheology andthemakingofthemodernGermanuniversity (Oxford,2006);J.Zachhuber, Theologyas scienceinnineteenth-centuryGermany:fromF.C.BaurtoErnstTroeltsch (Oxford,2013); Z.Purvis, Theologyandtheuniversityinnineteenth-centuryGermany (Oxford,2016).
Protestantintellectualcultureasawhole.Bypositingthatthisculture wasatoncerichlydiverse,yetsufficientlyunifiedtojustifytreatingits differentmanifestationsinrelationtooneanother,thebookchallengesa numberofcurrentreadingsofVictorianreligiousandintellectualhistory.ItssubjectsincludebothEnglishandScottishwriters,aswella smallnumberofIrishProtestantsandrepresentativesoftheChurchof Wales.Theyarelocatedonawidespectrum,encompassinghighchurch Anglicans(includingtheCatholicconvert,JohnHenryNewman),evangelicalProtestants,liberalAnglicans,nonconformists,conservativeand liberalPresbyterians,Positivists,agnostics,andIdealists.Thereareseveralreasonswhythesegroupstendnottobeconsideredtogether. Studentsofnineteenth-centuryreligiouspoliticshavenaturallycentred theirattentionondisputesbetweenchurchanddissent,inwaysthat emphasizethepointsofconflictbetweenthem.²²Demarcationsbetween denominations,orbetweenestablishedanddissentingchurches,tend stilltobeprivilegedasorganizingprinciples.²³Therewas,ofcourse,an axisofdifferencebetweenEnglandandScotland,aswellasbetween churchandchapel.Scholarsscepticaloftheargumentthatcommon ProtestantismhelpedtoforgeaBritishnationalidentityintheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturieshaveaccordinglyemphasizedtheperiodicallycentrifugaltendenciesofBritain’secclesiasticalsettlements.²⁴ Thisbookdoesnotseektodenythatfundamentaldifferencesexisted betweenandwithindenominationsandecclesiasticalpolitiesinthe nineteenth-centuryBritishIsles.Itfocuses,however,onthelessacknowledgedparallels,overlaps,andaffinitiesthatlinkedthesechurchesand
²²Forexample,R.Brent, LiberalAnglicanpolitics:whiggery,religion,andreform1830–41 (Oxford,1987);J.P.Parry, ‘Nonconformity,clericalismand “Englishness”:theUnited Kingdom’,inC.ClarkandW.Kaiser(eds), Culturewars:secular-Catholicconflictin nineteenth-centuryEurope (Cambridge,2003),pp.152–80;D.W.Bebbington, The nonconformistconscience:chapelandpolitics,1870–1914 (London,1982);J.P.Ellens, Religious routestoGladstonianLiberalism:thechurchrateconflictinEnglandandWales,1832–1868 (UniversityPark,PA,1994);T.Larsen, Friendsofreligiousequality:nonconformistpoliticsin mid-VictorianEngland (Woodbridge,1999).
²³SeemostrecentlyT.LarsenandM.Ledger-Lomas(eds), TheOxfordhistoryof Protestantdissentingtraditions:volumeIII:thenineteenthcentury (Oxford,2017); R.Strong(ed.), TheOxfordhistoryofAnglicanism:volumeIII:partisanAnglicanismandits globalexpansion,1829–c.1914 (Oxford,2017).
²⁴ Fortheintegrationistcase,seeL.Colley, Britons:forgingthenation,1707–1837 (New Haven,CT,andLondon,1992);J.Wolffe, GodandgreaterBritain:religionandnational lifeinBritainandIreland1843–1945 (London,1994).Forcountervailingarguments,see S.J.Brown, ThenationalchurchesofEngland,Ireland,andScotland1801–1846 (Oxford, 2001); ‘inmanywaysProtestantreligionwasthegritintheUnion,notitsglue’:C.Kidd, Unionandunionisms:politicalthoughtinScotland,1500–2000 (Cambridge,2008),p.211.
nationstogether,byrecognizingthattheybelonged,astheyoftenrecognized themselvesasbelonging,toasharedintellectualspace.²⁵
TheBritishchurches,andthosewhodriftedawayfromthemintowhat wereoftenreligiouslyinflectedkindsofagnosticismorsecularism,shared linesofdescentfromtheverbal,personal,andbiblicalgenusofreligion fosteredbytheReformation.Thiswasalsotrueofthesizeableproportion ofhighAnglicanswhorejectedthe ‘Protestant’ appellation,taking ‘ultraProtestantism’ or ‘popularProtestantism’ toinvolveseparationfromthe CatholicChurch,²⁶ asitwasofthefreethinkerswhohadavowedlyleft dogmaticProtestantismbehind.Forbothgroupstendedtothinkof themselvesasdissidentsfromwhattheyassumedtobethepredominantly Protestantcultureinwhichtheyhadbeennurtured,andcontinuedto protestagainstRomanCatholicism.²⁷ RancorouslydividedAnglicansstill shareduniversities,andahistory,withoneanother.Inthebroaderpublic sphere,dogmatistsandunbelievers,EnglishandScottishwriters,establishmentariansanddissenterswerenotdiscursivelyseparatedfromtheir critics.Thespreadofpubliclectures,periodicals,affordablebooks,anda strikinglywidespreadappetiteforseriousargumentmadeitdifficultfor religiousorirreligiousmoraliststoremainunexposedorunrelievedly hostiletothosewhothoughtdifferentlyfromthemselves.Amidstthe rupturesthatmarkedtheVictorianreligiouslandscape,sharedpointsof reference thepreconditionsofdialogue alsoexisted. ‘Contrastisakind ofrelation’,²⁸ anddifferentthinkerswhoarenotoftentreatedtogetherare herebroughtintoconversationwithoneanotheraspartofacommon argumentative field.Protestantism,bothasaformativeinfluenceandas theobjectofapprobatoryormoredisapprovingcommentary,castlong shadowsfromitsplaceatthecentreofVictorianintellectuallife.
Thispointofdeparturepositsthatreligiousdebatefunctionedasa backdroptoVictoriancultureasawhole,ratherthanasthemoresectional
²⁵ T.Larsen, ContestedChristianity:thepoliticalandsocialcontextofVictoriantheology (Waco,TX,2004),attendstopointsofintellectualcontactbetweenAnglicansand nonconformists.
²⁶ Idistinguishbetween ‘Catholic’,asamongProtestantsconventionallyreferringtothe bodyofreligiousdoctrine,structure,andpracticethathadmaturedduringtheMiddle Ages,and ‘catholic’,whichwasunderstoodinamorepositivesenseasreferringtooriginal, universalChristianity.HighAnglicansoftenidentifiedwiththeformervariant,andalways withthelatter.
²⁷ Ontheanti-ProtestantthrustoftheOxfordMovement,seeF.M.Turner, JohnHenry Newman:thechallengetoevangelicalreligion (NewHaven,CT,andLondon,2002);onthe religiouscontextsforVictorianunbelief,seeT.Larsen, Crisisofdoubt:honestfaithin nineteenth-centuryEngland (Oxford,2006);B.Lightman, Theoriginsofagnosticism: Victorianunbeliefandthelimitsofknowledge (Baltimore,MD,andLondon,1987).
²⁸ [A.HareandJ.C.Hare], Guessesattruthbytwobrothers,newedn(Londonand NewYork,1871),p.156(firstedition1827).
activityitlaterbecame.Itisonthisbasisthattheprotagonistsinthisstudy havesofarbeendescribedas ‘thinkers’ , ‘ commentators ’ , ‘historians’ , ‘apologists’ , ‘moralists’,and ‘critics’.ThosesuchastheliberalAnglicanHenry HartMilmanandtheliberalChurchofScotlanddivineJohnTullochwere alsoclericsandtheologians.Butincommonwiththeirsecularizingopponents,theyaspiredtoexerciseintellectualleadershipwithinasocietythat sharedtheirassumptionsastothecentralityofreligiontohistoricaland socialexperience.Theprotagonistsinthisbookshouldaccordinglybe regardedashistoricallyminded ‘publicmoralists’,forwhomreligionwasa morefundamentalthemethanStefanCollini’soriginalaccountofthat subjectconveys.²⁹ Theyaddressedthemselvestoacommonculture,the holisticcharacterofwhichtheyhopedtoconserve,improve,orrestore throughreligiousanalysisandhistoricalretrospectandprophecy.
Thehistoricalimaginationofthisculture,forallitsrichvariety, developedincommonphases.Theearliestnineteenth-centuryimpetus tendingtocastreligiouspositionsintohistoricalformscamefromthe experienceofreligiousrevival.Inthepost-revolutionarywest,evangelicals mobilisedfornewkindsofreconstructivereligious,political,andsocial activismacrosstheProtestantworld,spurredonnotleastbytheparallel spectreofthedevotionalresurgenceandUltramontanereconstructionof EuropeanCatholicism.³⁰ InBritain,Catholicregeneration,commonly animatedbythewishtorestorethesupposedlystablereligiousandsocial hierarchiesdestroyedbyindustrialandpoliticalupheaval,wonhighsocietyconvertsand,totheirlessreceptivecountrymen,riskedentrenchingpriestcraft’sholdovermuchofEuropeandIreland.³¹Voluntary religion,intheformsof ‘old’ and ‘ new ’ dissent,grewstronglyinthe latereighteenthandearlynineteenthcenturiesastheestablishedchurches struggledtokeeppacewithurbanization,oldsocialhierarchiesbuckled, andthebewilderingeventsoftheFrenchRevolutioninflamedmillennial oranti-Jacobinfeeling.³²Inadditiontoexternalhostility,theBritish
²⁹ Collini, Publicmoralists;seealsoJ.Holloway, TheVictoriansage:studiesinargument (London,1953).
³⁰ GeneralsurveysofthisthemeincludeH.McLeod, ReligionandthepeopleofWestern Europe1789–1989,2ndedn(Oxford,1997),ofwhichthe1981 firsteditionwasseminal; C.A.Bayly, Thebirthofthemodernworld1780–1914:globalconnectionsandcomparisons (Oxford,2004),pp.325–65;M.Heimann, ‘Catholicrevivalisminworshipanddevotion’ , inS.GilleyandB.Stanley(eds), TheCambridgeHistoryofChristianity:volume8:world Christianitiesc.1815–c.1914 (Cambridge,2006),pp.70–83.
³¹J.Wolffe, TheProtestantcrusadeinGreatBritain1829–1860 (Oxford,1991); D.G.Paz, Popularanti-Catholicisminmid-VictorianEngland (Stanford,CA,1992); D.Newsome, Thepartingoffriends:theWilberforcesandHenryManning (London,1966).
³²D.W.Bebbington, ‘Thegrowthofvoluntaryreligion’,inGilleyandStanley, World Christianities ,pp.53–69.
establishedchurchesfacedinternaldissensionfrominsurgentgroupswho insistedupontheirdenominations’ spiritualindependencefromtheinterferenceordoctrinallaxityofstateauthorities.After1833theChurchof EnglandwasthrownintoturmoilbyOxfordMovement ‘Tractarians’ , whoradicalizedolderAnglicanhighchurchmanshipandsometimesdisconcerteditsadherentsbystressingtheirchurch’sapostolicauthorityand Catholicheritage.³³TheMovementswiftlyinflamedlatentdivisions withintheChurchofEnglandbetweenhighchurchmen, ‘lowchurch’ evangelicals,and ‘broadchurch’ figurescommittedtodoctrinalcomprehension.³⁴ Inwhatwasincertainrespectsacomparabledevelopment,one thirdoftheministersoftheChurchofScotlandleftfortheanti-Erastian andrigorouslyCalvinistFreeChurchattheDisruptionin1843.³⁵
Theseeventshadintellectualimplications,whichwereworkedoutin anincreasinglyhistoricistclimate.Religiousrevivalists,whetherProtestant evangelicalsoranti-ProtestantTractarians,werealso ‘revivalist’ inaspecificallyhistoricalsense.Althoughevangelicalsfundamentallyrejectedthe inherentauthorityofecclesiasticaltraditionuponwhichTractarianslaid stress,bothgroupswerealiketraditionalist,inthattheycalledforthe nationtoreturntounsulliedreligious ‘ types ’.Inasensepartlyredolentof post-Reformationnotionsofecclesiasticalhistory,traditionalistspresumedthatpurewitnesstoscripturalorprimitiveorthodoxyhadexisted, withakindofnormative fixity,atcertainidealizedmomentsinthepast. Thelatterdeservedtobedefendedand,ifpossible,restored.³⁶ Where evangelicalsexaltedtheReformation,Tractarianshelduptheearlychurch
³³ThebestsynopticstudyofTractarianismremainsP.B.Nockles, TheOxfordMovement incontext:Anglicanhighchurchmanship1760–1857 (Cambridge,1994);seemorerecently J.Pereiro,S.J.Brown,andP.B.Nockles(eds), TheOxfordhandbookoftheOxfordMovement (Oxford,2017);S.J.BrownandP.B.Nockles(eds), TheOxfordMovement:Europeandthe widerworld1830–1930 (Cambridge,2012).OnthelaterimpactofAnglo-Catholicismin Englishintellectualcultureandecclesiasticalpolitics,seeJ.Bentley, Ritualismandpoliticsin VictorianBritain:theattempttolegislateforbelief (Oxford,1978);M.Wellings, Evangelicals embattled:responsesofevangelicalsintheChurchofEnglandtoritualism,Darwinismand theologicalliberalism1890–1930 (Carlisle,2003).
³⁴ OnevangelicalAnglicantheologyintheperiod,seeP.Toon, Evangelicaltheology 1833–1856:aresponsetoTractarianism (London,1979).Church-partylabels,thoughhelpful forpurposesofsummarydescription,areliabletomisleadwhenreified:foradiscussion,see A.Burns(ed.), ‘W.J.Conybeare: “churchparties”’,inS.Taylor(ed.), FromCranmerto Davidson:aChurchofEnglandmiscellany (Woodbridge,1999),pp.[215]–385.
³⁵ Thecontexts,course,andafterlivesoftheDisruptionarestudiedmostexhaustivelyin A.L.DrummondandJ.Bulloch, TheScottishchurch1688–1843:theageofthemoderates (Edinburgh,1973);DrummondandBulloch, ThechurchinVictorianScotland,1843–1874 (Edinburgh,1975);DrummondandBulloch, ThechurchinlateVictorianScotland, 1874–1900 (Edinburgh,1978).ForacomparativestudyoftheOxfordMovementand theeventsleadinguptotheDisruption,seeBrown, Nationalchurches. ³⁶ E.K.Cameron, InterpretingChristianhistory:thechallengeofthechurches’ past (Malden, MA,andOxford,2005),pp.122–44.
