High Church vs Low Church - Do We Need to Care?

Can we appreciate Miriam May fully without understanding the religious views embedded in the novel? How do these views affect or interact with the sensational narrative? As much as I would like to leave religion aside and lack interest in the internal politics of the Church of England, I feel that it is necessary to have at least a quick look at what exactly Miriam May says about the church. Is it simply the case, as H. L. Mansel suggests, that the novel preaches for the High Church by presenting Low Church men as villainous? Or is there more to it?

The terms High Church and Low Church have a long and varied history. By the time of Miriam May (1860), the factions of the Church of England were well established. Starting in the 1830s, the Oxford Movement associated with High Church, had voiced their views that the Church of England needed to be saved from encroaching laxity and freedom in religious matters and that it, really, was the third branch of the only true Christian church (together with the Orthodox and Roman Catholic branches). High Church leaned towards Rome and was also referred to as 'Anglo-Catholic,' the Low Church was also known as "evangelical protestants." Unlike in the High Church, Low Church services did not follow a prescribed order of complex rituals, and there was more room for spontaneity. Low Church aimed to return to the simplicity of worship assumed to be closer to the Biblical times. Outside of this division were the Dissenters, those who felt that no faction of the established church was right for them (groups like Puritans and Quakers). For the sake of completeness, we should also mention Broad Church - a nineteenth-century label for those members of the Church of England who agreed that a bit of variety and tolerance did not hurt. Today this view within the church would be called liberalism.

(For a more detailed, historical explanation of the differences between Low and High Church see, for example, an article by Dennis Bratcher at http://www.crivoice.org/lowhighchurch.html.)

From the start, "the Hon and Rev Calvin Slie" in Miriam May is presented as the villain of the piece. His fondness of Evelyn's golden hair and "elaborate blessings" (Miriam May, Chapter 2) introduce him. He is called away from Evelyn "to move a resolution against " Tractarian Innovations" and " Ritualistic Revivals" at the Town Hall." (Ibid.) If his Christian name is not strong enough a hint, his opposition to these High Church ideas establish Mr Slie firmly as a Low Church man.Later he is described in the newspaper as "a member of the Evangelical party in the Church ; and is favourably known as the author of many recondite controversial treatises in opposition to the more insidious of the " Tracts for the Times." (Miriam May, Chapter 15)

Mr Slie arranges for a sweatshop owner to exploit Evelyn (Miriam May, Chapter 3), he keeps the best wine to himself and serves lower quality to his guests (Chapter 18), he is fond of his own voice and values his own company: " Mr. Slie, by reason of his many opportunities, had long attained to that state of things when he could with difficulty persuade himself that he was not welcome everywhere." (Miriam May, Chapter 5). In short, Mr Slie is self-important, greedy and a hypocrite. He is also the spiritual leader for the righteous and comical ladies of Glastonbury (Mrs Dubbelfaise, Mrs Slim and Miss Todhunter): "They had not heard the Gospel for those many years from the lips of Mr. Slie for nothing. They had his assurance that in the matter of their salvation, their prospects were assuring and comfortable" (Miriam May, Chapter 4).

Mr Wray, Arthur's unhappy tutor recommended by Mr Slie, is a fellow Low Church man, who according to Slie "might see excellence in institutions other than the Church of England. He was a member of that great church that called all Christians brothers." (Miriam May, Chapter 7). He is also a liar, in debt and cowardly. "He was one of those measureless hypocrites whose successes in those households he infested, were in the main brought about by an appeal to that religion which he only professed that he might profane it." (Ibid.)

Every sensation novel needs a good villain, unfortunately Mr Slie and Mr Wray are not in the same league with Count Fosco. Mr Slie goes as far as to stroke Evelyn's golden hair, but no further. He may pray that "a great and withering curse might come upon the ministry of a clergyman of alleged " High Church" opinions" (Miriam May, Chapter 16), but that is as far as he goes. Miriam May portrays these Low Church men as cowardly and selfish, but not as evil. The narrative does not quite have the courage or the desire to make its villains truly villainous. Instead, the villains seem to subscribe to the principle of "faith without works" (more of that below). Mr Slie becomes the bishop of St Ambrose. Mr Wray disappears to pursue other business ventures. Neither man comes to an even slightly sticky end.

As H. L. Mansel observed in his review, Miriam May certainly portrays Low Church preachers in a negative light. But this is not the only way the narrative reflects religious views. There are two rather clumsy digressions into religious matters; the one concerning the tenet of "faith without works" has already been mentioned, there is also a long section on the appointments of bishops. Finally, there is Arthur Trevor's own career in the church to consider.

"Faith without works" is a quotation from the Bible (James 2:20): "Faith without works is dead," and "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." (James 2:26). Faith alone is not enough; it must be reflected in deeds and actions. This was a key message preached by the Oxford Movement. One of its founding fathers was John Henry Newman (1801-1890). In 1834, after a formative trip to Italy, he began writing Tracts for the Times Against Popery and Dissent. In these writings and in his Parochial and Plain Sermons (collected in 8 volumes, 1834-1843) he advocated "deeds, not words and wishes" (Sermon 13 entitled "Promising without Doing"). He called people to take action to protect the church from the increasing influence of the state and restore the church to its discipline, respect and position of power: "With the doctrinal and sacramental faith unfolding in him from his conversion, Newman desired to revive Christianity for a culture descending into unbelief." (http://www.thepapalvisit.org.uk/Cardinal-Newman/About-Newman/John-Henry-Cardinal-Newman ).

Newman wrote 90 tracts, until the last one, Tract 90 in 1841, alarmed even the rest of the Oxford movement. It argued that the Thirty-Nine articles, which form the foundation of the faith in the Church of England, were in fact compatible with the Catholic faith (and thus undid Henry VIII's Reformation). Newman had gone as 'high church' as it was possible to go. In 1845 Newman joined the Catholic church. He was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1847 and became a cardinal in 1879. In 2010 he progressed to the state of Beatification (further miracles are required before he earns Canonization) (http://www.thepapalvisit.org.uk).

John Henry Newman

 In Miriam May, "faith without works" "in Glastonbury, was the one thing proclaimed. ...  To such a strength had it attained during the ministry of Mr. Slie, that amongst the more seriously disposed of the ladies, there came up, after a one night's deliberation, a very excellent movement, which soon had a name from its enemies as the " Faith without works faction;" and those who were in any way moved to become its members, were inhibited, under severe penalties, from believing anything that was not strictly a matter of unsupported faith." (Miriam May, Chapter 5)

Ms Dubbelfaise, the founding member and leader of "Faith without Works Faction" (and thereby a curious mirror-image of Newman), is in "ecclesiastical difficulties" (Ibid.):

"In her heart she was powerfully disaffected towards Evelyn; still she believed in her heart of hearts, that the persecuted girl might well stand side by side with any matron in all moral Glastonbury. So it will be seen that the difficulties of that lady's position were not by any means small. Did she enter on a great struggle with a painful thing, and speak not well of a girl whom she did not conceal from herself that she hated, the whole strength of the committee of the "charity club," and the " faith without works" faction, would find the very principles to which they appealed for existence disavowed by their founder." (Ibid.).

Evelyn Mervyn cannot be offered charity, for the very reason that Mrs Dubbelfaise has faith in her innocence, because works must not follow faith. When Mrs Dubbelfaise asks for Mr Slie's advice, he reassures her: "whatever we may believe — and in charity we are bound to believe the best — our exceeding faith must not be permitted in its fulness to carry us into that excessive clemency which would indeed be criminal." (Ibid.)

Miriam May turns a key tenet of High Church thinking on its head by leaving out its crucial conclusion: "faith without works is dead." It depicts silly Low Church characters who in their ignorance or misguided religious sensibility completely misunderstand this Biblical notion and apply it to a question of charity with perversely un-Christian results.

Faith Without Works, or; the Nature of Charity

Harvey Montaigne visits Evelyn Mervyn and her baby in the workhouse. The scene is gloriously melodramatic. He "saw the beautiful mother with the sleeping child strained closely to her breast." Evelyn is the very picture of gentle and gracious motherhood. And she pleads for her innocence: "Tell me, oh, do tell me, dear, dear sir! do you think me guilty of this shame? ... Can you look me here - here, in the face - and see the wife without looking at that mocking finger - this finger, which hurls my witness back with scorn?" Of course, Doctor Montaigne cannot resist such an emotional appeal. "Smoothing her golden hair, with none of the attractively religious action of Mr Slie, but with a real fondness" Montaigne declares: "I do believe you pure - pure as you ever were."  He believes that "she was the lawful wife of Geoffrey May." (Miriam May, Chapter 4)

The whole moral universe, as well as the plot of the novel, pivots on "that mocking finger." No matter what misfortunes - or crimes or immoralities - have brought Evelyn Mervyn to the workhouse, as long as she is married, she is "pure," if she has borne a child out of wedlock, she is a soiled dove and damned.

"As there was no ring, and there was no believing that it had been pawned" (Ibid.), Evelyn is deemed not deserving of charity. A storm of condemnation begins to brew amongst the "virgins of Glastonbury." Mrs Dubbelfaise (no points for guessing that lady's character), Mrs Slim and Miss Todhunter are introduced as the voice of Glastonbury society. The task of these ladies in the narrative is to represent the surrounding small-town morality with their prejudices, as well as to provide the main source of comic relief in the novel with the misguided nature of these prejudices and with their general silliness.

When the three ladies learn that Evelyn is to move to Glastonbury Grange to be a wet nurse for Mrs Trevor's new-born baby (that is our narrator Arthur), they hold an "indignation meeting" with Mrs Dubbelfaise in the lead: "What can Mrs Trevor hope will be the future of her child, when she fills its great ugly mouth with the milk of this impudent hussey?" And there is a further threat, as she points out: "... but recollect Mrs Slim, that the girl may insinuate herself into your home, and tempt your husband, your husband - she is just the wicked thing to do it."  Evelyn is condemned as morally corrupting and dangerous. Miss Todhunter suggests to Mrs Dubbelfaise: "Do cast the first stone, Tilda, you will do it so well." (Miriam May, Chapter 4).

The juxtaposition of the two views of Evelyn Mervyn as a deserving and "pure" abandoned wife and an "impudent hussey" out to take advantage of the respectable people, gives the narrator free rein to air his views on charity. He writes at length and with some obtuseness about "faith without works," (Miriam May, Chapter 5).

"Faith without works" comes from the Bible (James 2: 14-17, 26), which states

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?  If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. ... For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."  

The narrator makes a general pronouncement of his view of charity at the opening of Chapter 4: "If there be one moral prominence of an age that talks of nothing but its belief in self-denial, and does nothing but make money, more remarkable than any other, it is emphatically to be found in its airy forms of varied charity." (Miriam May, Chapter 4). This is a general criticism of "faith without works;" charity must be in actual deeds and works, charitable sentiments are not sufficient

The idea of "faith without works" is partly demonstrated later in Mrs Dubbelfaise's conclusion that "I cannot disbelieve that that girl is a wife, but I have very excellent grounds ... for acknowledging in public no such belief." (Miriam May, Chapter 4). Evelyn is probably deserving of charity and innocent of sin, but as long as there is no ring, no public evidence of her innocence, she should not be granted the protection and aid of charity. "Mrs Slim also believed ... that this charity in that town often did cover and conceal an amazing multitude of sins."  (Miriam May, Chapter 4).

How do these sentiments of the characters relate to the general principle of "faith without works"? Mrs Dubbelfaise has some charitable sentiments for Evelyn, but she refuses to take action as long as there is not actual proof that Evelyn is deserving of charity. This is slightly different from the accusation that charitable sentiments are worthless without charitable deeds. Mrs Dubbelfaise seems to just require proof of Evelyn's moral nature, before she is willing to engage in acts of charity. Mrs Slim's opinion seems to suggest that because of "faith without works" many sins are allowed to fester because no charitable action is taken.

Mrs Dubbelfaise's and her friends' decision to "cast the first stone" and deny Evelyn charity because of her lack of wedding ring is condemned as misguided and morally wrong because their scene is presented as comical. Doctor Montaigne's trust in Evelyn's own words is morally right because the relevant scene is beautifully romantic and melodramatic. In this way, the style of writing appears to make a moral comment about the content of writing.

It is Dr Montaigne's belief in Evelyn's innocence which carries the day and the plot of the novel. He demonstrates his faith with works, as opposed to the three ladies Glastonbury. Dr Montaigne arranges for Evelyn and her baby to move to Glastonbury Grange. Evelyn takes over the running of the dairy (Miriam May, Chapter 6). Her daughter Miriam and the narrator "were soon inseparable." The love-interest is revived when Arthur says to Miriam: "When I am a grown-up man Miriam, I will marry you, and then you shall come up stairs." (Miriam May, Chapter 6)