From Pentecostalism to Anglo Catholicism

Despite my mother and father being raised Anglican and Roman Catholic, by the time I was born in the mid-1980s, they were attending a free Pentecostal church. When I was introduced to Anglicanism as a child and young adult, it was at a low church evangelical and charismatic parish. This begs the question, how did I become an Anglo Catholic when I was decidedly in that camp well before meeting my first Anglo Catholic mentors? The answer lies in the theology of the Oxford Fathers.


While in an immediate sense, the industrial revolution in England might be thought of as a transition from human powered cottage industry to steam powered machine industry, any investigation shows that its impacts on all aspects of English society were far greater that such a simplistic statement implies. William Gresley, a 19th century Anglican priest and writer summarized much of the social impact of industrialisation in his Colton Green: A Tale of the Black Country in which he contrasts “the most beautiful sylvan scenery,” with the surrounding of:

the dirtiest and dingiest district in the whole world … all around a confused mass of chimneys vomiting for volumes of black smoke, blazing furnaces, glowing coke hills, heaps of ashes round the pit mouth, steam engines plying their incessant work, and other signs of human drudgery. The whole country is blackened with smoke by day, and glowing with fires by night, overspread with the refuse of coal and coke, and swarming with a dense population, scattered in mean dingy houses over the region round.[1]

This vision of the idyllic countryside contrasts with the brutal, dirty and impersonal reality that began to confront the people of Victorian England. This description hints at the significant social, political and economic changes that were resulting, shifts which the Church of England was called to respond to. It was into this climate that John Keble made his famous assize sermon ‘National Apostasy’ in which he criticized, “the fashionable liberality of this generation,” which he suggested was rooted in apostasy similar to that of the rebellious Jews of the Old Testament.[2] The sermon was a call to reforming action for other notable Anglicans like John Henry Newman[3] and would form the basis of what would variously become known as Tractarianism, the Oxford Movement and, more recently, Anglo-Catholicism.[4]

The Oxford Movement, given its name by the various Anglican Oxford Scholars associated with its leadership, has been, “one of the best known and one of the least known episodes in modern Church history.”[5] This paper will argue that the rise to prominence of the Oxford Movement in the mid-19th century is a result of its ability to confront both socio-political as well as socio-economic challenges which were present in Victorian England, while maintaining an undercurrent of spiritual revival. The Oxford Fathers saw a significant threat in the Erastian philosophy of the day which pervaded both the public and some members of the Church, and challenged it in a way that both promoted the independence of the Church and personal piety among clergy and laity alike. Similarly, they saw the changing face of Victorian England’s society and economy as one which the complacent Church was failing to speak into and promoted a theology which challenged the Church to confront the economic and social ills that were resulting from these titanic shifts in society.

The Socio-Political Challenge

In Victorian England, society was being affected by what would later be termed post-modernism as rationalism and modernism gave way to what John Stuart Mill described as a climate of uncertainty.[6] This philosophical shift was, perhaps oddly, coupled with a supremacist view of the state over both the Church, Erastianism, and society more broadly. It was odd in that far from this uncertainty allowing people to accept the mysteries of the faith, it remained coupled with a form of rationalism that sought to explain away the doctrines of the Christian faith.[7] The Church, founded by Christ and preserved by Apostolic Succession, could not allow itself to be placed under the thumb of man-made governments, however. This insistence saw the Oxford Fathers challenging the ways in which the state sought to control and limit the Church’s role in the response to the changing realities of Victorian England.

High ecclesiology was at the root of the Oxford Movement’s theology. In the Oxford Father’s first published tract from 1833, it makes clear an appeal to Apostolic authority when Newman, the tract’s author writes, “CHRIST has not left His Church without claim of its own upon the attention of men. Surely not. Hard Master He cannot be, to bid us oppose the world, yet give us no credentials for so doing… the real ground on which our authority is built, OUR APOSTOLICAL DESCENT.”[8] Newman saw the Church-state conflict as really being a dispute between, “the spirit of liberalism which motivated an Erastian Parliament and another spirit which he soon identified with Catholicism.”[9] EB Pusey, the third of the founding Oxford Fathers, “surveyed the challenges of the Victorian age and decided that the right response was to invite people to listen to Holy Scripture,” as authoritative truth.[10] This view heavily contrasted with societal liberalism which had led to deist thinking that challenged the traditional authority of Scripture,[11] and consequently underpinned Erastianism. Pusey’s view of Scripture was one which opposed private interpretation, in keeping with the anti-individualism of the Oxford Movement. To Pusey, “authoritative interpretation of Holy Scripture did not lie with private individuals today, but rather people today should be guided by the collective interpretation of the early Church Fathers.”[12]

This view upholds again that same high view of the Church and apostolic succession as had been articulated by Keble and Newman. Newman was sceptical of personal reason, and insisted on the necessity of external authority to, “guide, direct and establish it.”[13] In this way, the Oxford Movement was ultimately countering the claim of the Erastians that authority in the Church came from its establishment by Parliament, and instead suggesting authority was derived from its historic apostolic succession.[14] This theology had practical consequences for the relationship between the Church and state and the response to the challenges of the day.

Industrialisation brought with it significant demographic shifts as people migrated from the countryside to the cities to work in the newly established factories. These changing social structures brought with them new challenges including education and relief of the poor. These were traditionally areas controlled by the Church of England, but in this new era, with support from dissenting Christians, a push was made for state intervention.[15] What might otherwise have been a purely theological and philosophical debate on Erastianism quickly played out in practical ways as the Oxford Movement responded to changing political policies of the state that sought to address the needs of Victorian society.

Economic individualism, which the Oxford Movement termed ‘the worship of Mammon’ was viewed as threatening traditional social structures of charity and almsgiving.[16] In the theology of the Oxford Movement it was held to be spiritually beneficial to the donor to be directly involved in the relief of the poor, as opposed to supporting impersonal governmental relief mechanisms,[17] and they argued public relief measures such as the poor law, “encouraged the avarice of propertied and insulated them from their social obligations,” instead preferring reform of parish relief.[18] While it may have been idealistic to maintain private parish administered charity in an industrialising, urbanising and anonymizing environment, the Oxford Fathers’ desire to maintain the organic connection between the wealthy and the poor through the Church was wholly consistent with their high ecclesiology. This theology would be more than just a direct theological counter to the philosophy of Erastianism, however, and would have revivalist consequences for the Church itself.

Church historian John McNeil argued that Erastianism was at the root of many of the problems that pervaded the Church at the turn of the 19th century, and into which this theology of the Oxford Movement was introduced as a cure.[19] Liberal philosophy had been so pervasive that many of the bishops of the Church by 1833, aside from the more ‘enthusiastic’ Evangelical bishops, were Erastian and no friends of the Oxford Movement.[20] In the 1820s and early 1830s two books were published documenting the impact of this Erastian outlook on the Church. The Black Book and The Extraordinary Block Book, as the two anonymously published exposés were titled, “contained bitter attacks not only on the Church but on ‘privilege’ generally, especially where large sums of public money were being paid to people who did very little in return.”[21] Non-resident absenteeism by clergy, pluralism, laxity in discernment of vocations and nepotism were significant problems throughout the Church. Nepotism and non-residence were closely connected, whereby powerful bishops could collect benefices for their children to ensure them a high standard of living, with no expectation that those clergy would ever serve in those areas.[22] It was so prominent an issue as to be considered quite normal. In 1827, three-fifths of clergy were non-resident in the parishes in which they were meant to serve.[23] If the clergy themselves, including the princes of the Church, had accepted this liberal philosophy, to the Oxford Movement the solution was spiritual renewal, not just intellectual revival.[24] It was a call to the clergy in particular to display holy leadership in their “divine vocation in the divine society of the Church, visible, catholic and apostolic.”[25] In a sense there is a parallel to the evangelical revival of the 18th century, though in the case of the 19th century Oxford Movement, this revival would be mediated through the agency of the Church and the bishops, priests and deacons called to lead it. Ultimately the Oxford Movement’s high ecclesiology brought with it a consequential need for revival that responded both to the broader philosophy of Erastianism that had pervaded Victorian England and the Church in that era, and also brought about a consequential demand for spiritual revival to counter the laxity that had developed in the Church as a result of these political conditions governing the Church. Its impacts were also felt in the broader socio-economic challenges of Victorian England.

The Socio-Economic Challenge

In the same way the theology of the Oxford Movement was a reaction to the prevailing socio-political challenges of Erastianism that had been brought on, in part, by Industrialisation, it also proved a strong reaction against socio-economic changes that had developed by the early 19th century. Beatrice Potter, a prominent British social and economic reformer of the 19th century, observed the connection between the social and economic plight of the working-class people of the new industrial towns:

Weary of work, and sick with the emptiness of stomach and mind, the man or the woman wanders into the street. The sensual laugh, the coarse joke, the brutal fight, or the mean and petty cheating of the street bargain are the outward sights yielded by society to soothe the inward condition of overstrain or hunger.[26]

For the Oxford Movement, these questions of social and economic injustice were wrapped up in the challenges facing the Church. Social injustice was an expression of the spiritual unrighteousness of the nation. As one Canadian Oxford Movement adherent saw it, the Church could not simply be content to “fill empty stomachs,” but rather was meant to “fill empty souls.”[27] Much as the Oxford Movement then promoted the piety of the clergy as a solution to the socio-political challenge, the piety of the clergy was intimately tied to the socio-economic challenges of Victorian England. Many of the people lived in appalling conditions like those described by Miss Potter and if the Church was the solution to their problems, then it would be the task of pious clergy to bring the Church to the people. This was notably done with the development of the slum priests of the Ritualist movement.

Slum ritualists were High Churchmen following in the influence of the Oxford Movement, though developing more to the mid to late 19th century after the Oxford Movement had been established, who were dedicated to bringing the Gospel of Christ to bear on all parts of society. To challenge the drab misery of the urban working class, the ritualists used, “ceremonial in presenting the Gospel,” as a means of, “bringing colour and vividness into the drab courts and alleyways of the slums—a technique which General Booth would later use with corresponding success.”[28]

This reflected Newman’s view that the Scriptural demand to bear witness to Christ was not simply referring to preaching from the pulpit, but that the Gospel of Christ was to be communicated, “in conversation, style of life, dress, manner, public and private practice.”[29] This was a distinct change from the previous tactics of the Evangelical revival, which had seen the sermon as key to presenting theology and, “because of Victorian delight in sermon-tasting, many Evangelical clergymen sought to limit themselves to the role of professional preacher.”[30] This worked well among the middle class and aristocracy and even more broadly in the country, but was ill-suited to the uneducated urban poor who did not quite share in the delight of, nor have time for, ‘sermon tasting.’ The colour and vividness adopted by the slum priests was then not just about bringing colour to a drab work for its own sake, but rather to communicate something about the Church and about the Kingdom of God.[31] Again this message becomes tied to the high view of the Church promoted by the Oxford Movement, which was key in developing, or perhaps more accurately reintroducing, the idea that the physical Church was both established by Christ and is a sign of the Kingdom of Heaven.[32]

There was, therefore, a sense of economic justice to the Oxford Movement, a desire to address the economic inequality in the world, but coming from a theological dimension. The Church was committed to justice for the poor, but that justice did not necessarily mirror the economic justice being favoured by socialists and other social reformers, but rather it had an eschatological dimension to it.[33] By promoting piety among the poor, they would seek to provide for their eternal salvation, and rather it was by promoting piety among the rich that they would promote the relief of their current state of poverty. There was, however, also a concern with social harmony. John Keble, in a sermon entitled “Rich and Poor One in Christ,” makes the point that in the Church there is, “no difference among you, but what you make yourselves by the minds and tempers and habits you bring with you into Church.”[34] This was a radical point and again suggested a radical eschatological future and hope for those whose lives outside of the Church were characterised primarily by massive economic inequality. The Church was not simply the place where charity and need met, but also where true equality, before God, was realised. The work of the slum priest in the streets served a missional purpose of earning the trust of the people and bringing them into the Church by showing that it she cared for them.[35] In this sense, it was primarily the mysticism of the Oxford Movement, more so than the actions of its slum priests, which was intended to support the poor.

AM Allchin argued that the heart of the Oxford Movement was found in, “the nearness of God, of His indwelling among men in the Church, of His indwelling in the soul through grace.”[36] It was in coming into the Church that you would experience this grace and nearness of God. Keble’s own sermons were designed to offer the working-class hearers a vision of the world broken into sacramentally by an invisible reality that they could, through the Church, gain access to.[37] The centrality of the Eucharist in this, including the ceremony attached to it as a result of the Oxford Movement’s celebration of the Real Presence of Christ, was the grace around which true Christian community would be built.[38] It was in this otherworldliness that the Oxford Fathers celebrated poverty, for in their ascetical views deprivation which stripped someone of, “the sufficiencies of this world,” allowed them more easily, “to find their sufficiency in God alone.”[39]

The Oxford Movement addressed both socio-political and socio-economic issues of its day in a way which caused the movement to endure beyond its original Victorian-industrial circumstances. Through its ecclesiology, sacramental theology and eschatology it responded to challenges that were rapidly making the Church of the pre-industrial era an increasingly irrelevant tool of the state and pawn of corruption. Ecclesiologically, they showed a Church that cared for the least of these, and whose praxis sought to bring that care to the people in order that they would then come to the Church. In this, they also made the strong argument that the Church could not be a pawn of the state but rather held an independent role as guardians of God’s truth, revealed in history and preserved through apostolic faith and order. Sacramentally, they offered the nearness and majesty of God’s presence, and the equality of all created beings, offering something presented as being far greater than any material want that might be resolved through greater economic equality. Finally, their eschatology was the foundation for hope, and one that suggested their theology was not merely focused on social theories but on sanctification.

A Personal Journey

In my own Christian walk, I was raised in a Pentecostal tradition which probably, if anything, had more in common with the Evangelical-Methodist revival than it did with the Oxford Movement. Yet, I did have a connection to Anglicanism through my grandmother. Her church was very different than my own. My church met in a movie theatre where the pastor, wearing what was probably an expensive business suit, would preach long sermons a theatre full of people. Four or so times a year trays would be passed around with stale wafers and little cups of Welch’s grape juice so the legalism of Christ’s command to do this to remember me could be fulfilled. As a young boy, I loved those Sundays, mostly because I liked the taste of the grape juice—we never had fancy grape juice in my house—but I never had any sense of significance to what was happening.

In my grandmother’s parish, which we originally only attended on Christmas morning, the two priests were vested in white, they would read to us from the Scriptures, always the story of Jesus’s birth. For many years, the assistant priest would preach from his Christmas stocking, which is to say he would pull the random objects his wife had put into his stocking and try to say a few words about how they reminded him of God. Looking back, even to my younger self, I recognized that this preaching was not the centre of our gathering. After he preached we would all stand and together recite the Creed before the priest, vested in white robes, would bless the bread and wine and invite all those in attendance to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

This was a wholly different experience than I had previously known, and it was one I was drawn to. As I grew into my teens, I sought what can only now be described as a more transcendent and mystical approach to God. God was not in a besuited man talking on a stage for 30+ minutes once a week. God was met in a consecrated church building dedicated to his service in which the Scriptures were read and preached, the sacraments administered by the preserved order of ministry and the faith of Christ’s Church was lived. There was something rooted in this Anglican tradition which I simply hadn’t experienced in my Pentecostal roots.

Even as a fairly young person, I seem to have had a sense that there had to be something more than what I experienced in my Pentecostal roots. While I couldn’t articulate this until later, I was looking for a Church that, to me, could truly express the otherworldly majesty of God. Perhaps more immediately, though, I was looking for rootedness. I wanted a Christian tradition which could trace its roots back to Christ, and which was doing something that had its roots in the earliest ages of the Church.

When I was a pre-teen, we attended a Pentecostal church in Calgary where the pastor seemed to preach every Sunday on the challenge of post-modernism. At that age I didn’t really understand what he meant by post-modernism. I had some vague notion that it was a reference to the challenges to living out our faith in our current time, and that he was using a fancy academic word in an effort to remind us of his authority (because in my mind his authority came from his education). Reflecting on it now, I wonder if in my own way my search for rootedness was a means of responding to the challenge of post-modernism that the pastor spoke of? In an age of increasing relativism, I sought to root myself in the authority of history.

Yet the question remains, how did I end up falling into the footsteps of the Oxford Movement? The parish where I came to Anglicanism was of a Low Church evangelical and charismatic variety. The liturgy itself spoke with far more reverence of the Eucharist than did the priest. God was met chiefly in his Word, not in the Sacraments. The rootedness that had drawn me into Anglicanism drew me beyond simply the boundaries of my parish church. I encountered in my own searching online Anglo-Catholic resources. For the first time, I truly encountered the Church.

While I never would have been able to articulate this, my quest for rootedness and authority was also in response to the challenge of the day. Whereas the Oxford Movement had faced off against the Erastian challenge of political supremacy, in my own day the Western Church faces now a form of cultural Erastanism which say that the Church is free to do or say what it likes within the bounds permitted by secular culture.

It was the high view of the Church promoted by the Oxford Fathers that gave me the tools to consider how to counter the submission of the Church to culture. Newman’s goal in the Oxford Movement of equipping people to be better practicing Christians[40] seemed to have continued to be fulfilled in my learning about the Oxford Movement back in 2013.

In engaging in this assignment, though, I see even more of myself in the history of the Oxford Movement than I might have realised. Newman’s wrestling with the Doctrine of Development[41] which eventually led to his conversion to Roman Catholicism was something I had largely worked through in 2014. While with Newman it eventually drove him to Rome, my own inability to accept it was rooted in another of his earlier conclusions, relating to the Vincentian Canon. Having accepted the high view of the Church rooted in apostolic succession, one of the quick questions became how do you identify the Church today? The Vincentian Canon had been identified by Newman as the means of navigating the centuries to, “lay hands on an objective measure and criterion of belief which will ward off Roman and Protestant error.”[42] I myself had been introduced to the Vincentian Canon in 2014 by Fr Michael McKinnon’s podcast series on Anglicanism which teaches from what he terms an Evangelical and Catholic tradition, and follows in EB Pusey’s vision of the Oxford Movement, rooted in Holy Scripture.[43]

Finally, while I did not experience the economic deprivation that surrounded the Oxford Fathers, I did experience another kind of deprivation and suffering in the loss of my father at an early age. That experience with theodicy led me in directions that again mirror the sacramental response of the Oxford Movement. I encountered Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation and more broadly through the Church. I encountered Christ as his Gospel was proclaimed Sunday to Sunday. The assurance of God’a grace week by week became an extremely important part of my personal piety and the struggles with loss and suffering that I went through from 1995-2015

The Oxford Movement also ultimately influenced me through those around me. While it is harder today to find slum priests in Canada, they do exist. My good friend Fr Bob Greene who died in October 2017 effectively served as a slum priest in Toronto in the 1970s and 1980s. The descriptions of his ministry to the hungry, the poor and AIDS victims is extremely reminiscent of descriptions of the ministry of 19th century slum priests during cholera outbreaks. I have similarly felt myself encouraged by Bp Philip North and Bp Martin Warner of the Church of England who passionately promote Anglo-Catholic evangelism and a missional approach to the Gospel rooted in a high view of apostolic succession, the Church and the sacraments. They all suggest a continuing role for much the same evangelistic mission as the original Oxford Fathers, to raise up good priests who can work in the world to bring hope to the oppressed.[44] This eschatological orientation appeals greatly to me as I see it as being consistent with my own view of Holy Orders and the calling of the priesthood. I am not a social worker with a Bible or a motivational speaker, I am a servant of Christ meant to return his lost sheep to him, so he can feed them and heal them.


Today, our world is not marred by the dark soot of coal furnaces burning day and night, destroying a society rooted in an idyllic countryside. The challenges we face are perhaps more insidious in that they bear no physical dirtiness, yet are no less oppressive. Whether it be the existential identity crises or the loss of rootedness in a digital world, we face the same sort of ground-shaking upheaval that was experienced in Victorian England. Whether consciously or not, my faith is deeply rooted in the Oxford Movement. From its high view of the Church, its high view of the sacraments and its high view of Eschatology in relation to Holy Orders, the works of Keble, Newman and Pusey have helped to draw me deeper into faith in Christ’s Church.


[1] William Gresley, Colton Green: A Tale of the Black Country (London, James Burns, 1846), 34f, quoted in Simon Skinner, “Liberalism and Mammon: tractarian reaction in the age of reform,” Journal of Victorian Culture (Edinburgh University Press) 4, no. 2 (1999): 206.

[2] John Keble, The Christian Year, Lyra Innocentium and Other Poems (London; Edinburgh; Glasgow; New York; Toronto; Melbourne; Bombay: Humphrey Milford; Oxford University Press, 1914), 549.

[3] Owen F. Cummings, “The liturgical mystic, John Keble (1792-1866),” Worship 87, no. 3 (2013): 260.

[4] J. R. H. Moorman, A History of the Church of England, 2nd ed (Wilton, CT: Morehouse-Barlow Co., Inc, 1980), 336.

[5] A. M. Allchin, “The Oxford Movement: Some New Perspectives,” One in Christ 50, no. 2 (2016): 277.

[6] Desmond Bowen, The Idea of the Victorian Church (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1968), 142.

[7] Ibid., 144.

[8] John Henry Newman, “Thoughts on the Ministerial Commission Respectfully Addressed to the Clergy [Tract 1],” in Tracts for the Times, 2nd American ed (New York, NY: Charles Henry, Publishers, 1839-1841),

[9] Thomas L. Harris, “The conception of authority in the Oxford movement,” Church History 3, no. 2 (1934): 119.

[10] Timothy Larsen, “E. B. Pusey and Holy Scripture,” Journal of Theological Studies 60, no. 2 (2009): 526.

[11] Harris, “The conception of authority in the Oxford movement,” 116.

[12] Larsen, “E. B. Pusey and Holy Scripture,” 494.

[13] Harris, “The conception of authority in the Oxford movement,” 120.

[14] Skinner, “Liberalism and Mammon: tractarian reaction in the age of reform,” 202.

[15] Moorman, A History of the Church of England, 350.

[16] Skinner, “Liberalism and Mammon: tractarian reaction in the age of reform,” 205.

[17] Ibid., 212.

[18] Ibid., 210.

[19] John Thomas McNeil, “Anglicanism on the eve of the Oxford movement,” Church History 3, no. 2 (1934): 97.

[20] Bowen, The Idea of the Victorian Church, 52.

[21] Moorman, A History of the Church of England, 333.

[22] McNeil, “Anglicanism on the eve of the Oxford movement,” 100; Ibid., 104.

[23] Moorman, A History of the Church of England, 334.

[24] Allchin, “The Oxford Movement,” 279.

[25] Bowen, The Idea of the Victorian Church, 53.

[26] Ibid., 293.

[27] Brad C. Faught, “John Charles Roper and the Oxford Movement in Toronto,” Journal of the Canadian Church Historical Society 36, no. 2 (1994): 126.

[28] Bowen, The Idea of the Victorian Church, 291.

[29] William Frederick Mandle, “Newman and his audiences: 1825-1845,” The Journal of Religious History 24, no. 2 (2000): 143.

[30] Bowen, The Idea of the Victorian Church, 150.

[31] J. E. B. Munson, “The Oxford Movement by the End of the Nineteenth Century: The Anglo-Catholic Clergy,” Church History 44, no. 3 (1975): 391.

[32] See for instance Benjamin Harrison, “The Kingdom of Heaven [Tract 49],” in Tracts for the Times.

[33] Skinner, “Liberalism and Mammon: tractarian reaction in the age of reform,” 218.

[34] John Keble, The rich and the poor one in Christ: a sermon preached in S. Peter’s Church, Sudbury, August 3, 1858 : being the commemoration of the free opening and restoration of the church (London: J.T. Hayes, Lyall Place, Eaton Square, 1858) 18.

[35] Bowen, The Idea of the Victorian Church, 289.

[36] Allchin, “The Oxford Movement,” 280.

[37] Cummings, “The liturgical mystic, John Keble (1792-1866),” 265.

[38] Faught, “John Charles Roper and the Oxford Movement in Toronto,” 124; Cummings, “The liturgical mystic, John Keble (1792-1866),” 266.

[39] Allchin, “The Oxford Movement,” 281.

[40] Mandle, “Newman and his audiences: 1825-1845,” 152.

[41] Moorman, A History of the Church of England, 344f.

[42] John Raymond Stephenson, “Authority in English theology from the Oxford Movement to the present,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 48, no. 4 (1984): 268.

[43] Larsen, “E. B. Pusey and Holy Scripture,” 500.

[44] Moorman, A History of the Church of England, 355f.


Allchin, A. M. “The Oxford Movement: Some New Perspectives.” One in Christ 50, no. 2 (2016): 277-286.

Bowen, Desmond. The Idea of the Victorian Church. Montreal: McGill University Press, 1968.

Cummings, Owen F. “The liturgical mystic, John Keble (1792-1866).” Worship 87, no. 3 (2013): 260-270.

Faught, C Brad. “John Charles Roper and the Oxford Movement in Toronto.” Journal of The Canadian Church Historical Society 36, no. 2 (1994): 113-133.

Harris, Thomas L. “The conception of authority in the Oxford movement.” Church History 3, no. 2 (1934): 115-125.

Keble, John. The Christian Year, Lyra Innocentium and Other Poems. London; Edinburgh; Glasgow; New York; Toronto; Melbourne; Bombay: Humphrey Milford; Oxford University Press, 1914.

Keble, John. The rich and the poor one in Christ: a sermon preached in S. Peter’s Church, Sudbury, August 3, 1858 : being the commemoration of the free opening and restoration of the church. London: J.T. Hayes, Lyall Place, Eaton Square, 1858.

Larsen, Timothy. “E. B. Pusey and Holy Scripture.” Journal of Theological Studies 60, no. 2 (2009): 490-526.

Mandle, William Frederick. “Newman and his audiences: 1825-1845.” The Journal of Religious History 24, no. 2 (2000): 143-158.

McNeill, John Thomas. “Anglicanism on the eve of the Oxford movement.” Church History 3, no. 2 (1934): 95-114.

Moorman, J R H. A History of the Church in England. 2nd Ed. Wilton, CT: Morehouse-Barlow Co., Inc, 1980.

Munson, J. E. B. “The Oxford Movement by the End of the Nineteenth Century: The Anglo-Catholic Clergy.” Church History 44, no. 3 (1975): 382-95.

Skinner, Simon. “Liberalism and Mammon: tractarian reaction in the age of reform.” Journal of Victorian Culture (Edinburgh University Press) 4, no. 2 (1999): 197-227.

Stephenson, John Raymond. “Authority in English theology from the Oxford Movement to the present.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 48, no. 4 (1984): 265-277.

Tracts for the Times. 2nd American Ed. New York, NY: Charles Henry, Publishers, 1839-41. See esp. Tracts 1 and 49.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s