The hymns of the eighteenth century are almost without exception by
writers of the Dissenting, Methodist, or Evangelical schools. In the
nineteenth century the tide turns, and though the Nonconformists are
not without hymn-writers of distinction, the great hymns are by
Anglicans. Henry Francis Lyte in the first half of the century, Bishop
Bickersteth, Charlotte Elliott, and Miss Havergal in the second,
represent the Evangelical school. Heber was a typical Anglican, but he
was not of the Tractarian type, and died before the publication of the
_Christian Year_. Keble and Newman were the poets of the Oxford
Movement, and gave a distinctive tone to much of the later Church
hymn-writing; but Heber, more than any other man, did for the Church
of England what Watts had done for the Nonconformists.
Reginald Heber (1783-1826) was a scholar and a gentleman, his
churchmanship was unimpeachable, and his life and death alike served
to win acceptance for hymns whose intrinsic worth must have secured
the widest recognition. His hymns, like those of Herbert, Keble, and
many of our sweetest singers, are hymns of the country parsonage, and
seem all to have been written whilst he held the family living of
Hodnet, to which he was welcomed by the people as ‘Master Reginald.’
He was little better satisfied with Tate and Brady than Watts had been
with Barton, and at one time contemplated using the Olney hymns in his
church. Then he projected a more ambitious scheme, and hoped, with the
help of Milman, Southey, and Walter Scott, to provide a book which
might, perhaps under episcopal sanction, become the authorized hymnal
of the Church. But he felt the proposal a bold one, and tried to
prepare the way by the publication in the _Christian Observer_ of a
few hymns which he described as ‘part of an intended series
appropriate to the Sundays and principal holy days of the year,
connected in some degree with their particular collects and gospels,
and designed to be sung between the Nicene Creed and the sermon.’ Like
other reformers, he indulges in criticisms of the hymns then in use,
and is especially severe in censuring those which address our Lord
‘with ditties of embraces of passion.’ The hymn-book was duly
compiled, and specimens were submitted to Bishop Howley in the hope
that he might give it an episcopal benediction. It is curious to note
the apologetic tone in which Heber writes.
The evil, indeed, if it be one, of the admission of hymns into our
Churches has, by this time, spread so widely, and any attempt to
suppress it entirely would be so unpopular, and attended with so
much difficulty, that I cannot help thinking it would be wiser, as
well as more practicable, to _regulate_ the liberty thus assumed,
instead of authoritatively taking it away. Nor can I conceive any
method by which this object might be better obtained than by the
publication of a selection which should, at least, have the praise
of excluding whatever was improper in diction or sentiment; and
might be on this, if on no other ground, thought not unworthy a
licence of the same kind as that which was given to the psalms of
Tate and Brady. I have the vanity to think that even my own
compositions are not inferior in poetical merit to those of Tate;
and my collection will contain some from our older poets, which it
would be mockery to speak of in the same breath with his. There are
a few also which I have extracted from the popular collections
usually circulated, which, though I have not been able to learn
their authors, possess considerable merit and much popularity, and
are entirely free from objectionable expressions.[171]
The Bishop criticized freely, generally approved and advised the
completion of the project; but Heber was called to Calcutta, and the
collection was not published until after his death. It contained
fifty-seven hymns of his own, twelve of Milman’s, and twenty-nine
others. His object had been to obtain ‘a well-selected and sanctioned
book of hymns for the Church of England, to supersede the unauthorized
and often very improper compositions now in use.’ He did not secure
this, but he prepared the way for something better, and may justly be
regarded as the first of the modern Anglican hymn-writers. His best
hymns are too well known to need comment, and of the rest
comparatively few are of special value in public worship. His hymns
owe more to the inspiration of the Gospels than the Psalms. The
collect or gospel for the day often explains and throws new light upon
a hymn, as in this for the Second Sunday after Trinity, the gospel
being the Parable of the Great Supper. It is usually regarded as a
Communion hymn.
Forth from the dark and stormy sky,
Lord, to Thine altar’s shade we fly;
Forth from the world, its hope and fear,
Saviour, we seek Thy shelter here:
Weary and weak, Thy grace we pray;
Turn not, O Lord, Thy guests away!
Long have we roamed in want and pain,
Long have we sought Thy rest in vain;
’Wildered in doubt, in darkness lost,
Long have our souls been tempest-tost;
Low at Thy feet our sins we lay,
Turn not, O Lord, Thy guests away!
Henry Hart Milman (1791-1868), who died Dean of St. Paul’s, is famous
as an historian rather than a hymn-writer, but his few hymns have a
wide popularity. In
Ride on, ride on in majesty!
he has shown how fine and true a hymn may be, though it departs from
recognized devotional form. It is a meditation of a highly rhetorical
kind, and apostrophizes but does not address our Lord. By some editors
this is regarded as fatal to its inclusion in a collection of hymns,
but the common judgement of Christian congregations is right. It has
proved itself a hymn in spite of all rules, and is an excellent
spiritual song for Palm Sunday.
In the year (1827) of the publication of Heber’s _Hymns, written and
adapted to the Weekly Church Services of the Year_, Keble issued
anonymously the most influential devotional work of the nineteenth
century, _The Christian Year: Thoughts in Verse for the Sundays and
Holy Days throughout the Year_. Like Ken’s festival hymns, it was not
a hymn-book, and was not meant for use in Church services, though from
a few of the poems verses may be taken which make hymns of the very
best type. Pusey regarded it as ‘the real source of the Oxford
Movement,’ of which Newman also thought Keble ‘the true and primary
author,’ though he ‘ever considered and kept’ July 14, 1832, the day
when Keble preached his sermon on ‘National Apostasy,’ ‘as the start
of the religious movement.’ Of the _Christian Year_ Newman says,
‘Keble struck an original note, and woke up in the hearts of thousands
a new music, the music of a school long unknown in England.’ But the
teaching of the Oxford Movement was rather latent than patent in the
_Christian Year_, and it would be a great mistake to regard it as
influencing that religious revival or even the English Church alone.
On the other hand, Hurrell Froude feared that the authorship of the
_Christian Year_ would be attributed to a Methodist.[172] It was as
important an element in the Movement as Charles Wesley’s hymns were in
the Evangelical Revival. In each case the influence extended far
beyond those who claim the poems as their special heritage.
Keble regarded the Church as in a state of desolation, decay, and
apostasy. He knew nothing of the glorious optimism of the Wesleys, who
saw everywhere signs of the speedy triumph of the gospel and the
coming of Christ’s kingdom. They sang
Plague, earthquake, and famine, and tumult and war,
The wonderful coming of Jesus declare.