ÀҾ˹éÒ˹ѧÊ×Í
PDF
ePub

"Principiis Obsta."

3

and others, a presence not conditioned by that faith. In the former sense, the term "objective" would be a mere protest against Zuinglianism; in the latter, as it seems to me, it would be a direct denial of the doctrine of our Twenty-ninth Article. But the meaning of the question as stated above is not so easily misapprehended.. I will put it, if you please, in other words. Is communion merely of the essence of the sacrament, or is it not rather its very essence? I believe that both holy Scripture and the English Church have given plain and unequivocal answers to this question, and that their voices are in complete agreement. Our formularies know nothing of 'a tremendous and unbloody sacrifice,' or of 'eucharistic adoration,' but they declare, in the very words of Scripture, that 'the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ."

How, by the primitive church, the presence in the sacrament was understood only "after a heavenly and spiritual manner;" by what process of carnal reasonings the heresy of a material presence was first privily brought in; how, after centuries of Sacerdotalism, the pure faith was recovered by the constancy of a noble army of martyrs; how the contention of that fierce and fiery conflict was followed by a period of fancied security, while men slept and the enemy sowed tares; how thickly the tares sprang up, and with what bitter fruit, so that at this hour the Reformed Church of England is in imminent peril of the loss of all her martyrs held so dear: these things are too notorious to need repetition. Even now we are in the midst of a crisis of which none can foresee the issue. Now, if ever, it behoves us to take our stand on first principles. What will be the end no man can foretell; but there can be no possible mistake as to our present duty-"Obsta principiis."

Among the many significant signs of the times in relation to this subject, the disappearance of the old landmarks is not the least remarkable. To illustrate this the more clearly, let us take an example ab extra. When strangers are so unfavourably impressed with us," says Dr Newman, "because they see images of our Lady in our churches, and crowds flocking about her, they forget that there is a presence within the sacred walls infinitely more awful, which claims and obtains from us a worship transcendently different from any devotion we pay to her. That devotion might indeed tend to idolatry, if it were encouraged in Protestant churches, where there is nothing higher than it to attract the worshipper; but all the images

* A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of York, by the Venerable W. Basil Jones, at his primary visitation, April 80 1867.

that a Catholic Church ever contained, all the crucifixes at its altars brought together, do not so affect its frequenters as the lamp which betokens the presence or absence there of the blessed sacrament. Is not this so certain, so notorious, that on some occasions it has even been brought as a charge against us that we are irreverent in church, when what seemed to the objectors to be irreverence was but the necessary change of feeling which came over those who were there, on their knowing that their Lord was away?"* This passage has scarcely received the attention which it deserves. That which chiefly "affects the frequenters of a Catholic Church," the "crowds flocking about the images of our lady," is—a lamp: “the lamp which betokens the presence or absence there of the blessed sacrament." When the lamp is absent, the sacrament is absent; and when the sacrament is absent, the "Lord" is absent. We are at present concerned, however, less with the explicitness of this declaration than with its author. For this Dr Newman "of the Oratory" was, thirty years ago, the leader of that party which to-day, under his successor, threatens to subvert the faith of the Church of England. At that time his chosen terms for describing the communion, which he soon proceeded to join, were, "a lost church," the papal apostasy.' It was pronounced "heretical," and declared to have "bound itself by a perpetual covenant to the cause of antichrist;" men were exhorted to "flee it as a pestilence;" it was compared to "a demoniac," and to the devil himself; while its doctrines were condemned as "profane," "impious," "blasphemous," "gross," "monstrous," and "cruel." Such strong declarations answered their purpose but too well. For whenever any one startled by the Romanising tendency of the later Tracts, then these denunciations were confidently appealed to, as convincing proof that "to oppose ultra-Protestantism"-for then, as now, that was the cant of the day-"is not to favour Popery." At last, when Mr Newman had no longer any purpose to serve in allowing them to be quoted as the expression of his sincere opinions, he withdrew them, telling the world that in using them he had said to himself, "I am not speaking my own words, I am but following almost a consensus of the divines of my church. They have ever used the strongest language against Rome, even the most able and learned of them. I wish to throw myself into their system. While I While I say what they say, I am safe. Such views, too, are necessary for our position." No doubt they were. A false position cannot be concealed without a false representation. But Mr Newman knew

was

*Letter to the Rev. E. B. l'usey, D.D., on his recent Eirenicon, pp. 99-100. † Letter to The Conservative Journal (Oxford), Dec. 12. 1842

Dr Pusey's Statement.

5

better than to tell this to the dupes whom he was misleading. For them he had a very different story. The private explanation was, as he tells us, what "I said to myself."

But the influence possessed by Mr Newman, as leader of the Tractites, was trifling and insignificant when compared with that which is enjoyed by Dr Pusey. Whatever question may exist as to the character of that influence, there can be no question as to its extent. We may adopt the complimentary language of the eminent oratorian: "There is no one anywhere -among ourselves, in your own body, or, I suppose, in the Greek Church,-who can affect so vast a circle of men, so virtuous, so able, so learned, so zealous, as come, more or less, under your influence ;"* or we may concur in the belief of "S. G. O.," "that Dr Pusey has done more mischief to the Protestant Church than any other man living who yet professes to belong to it;" in either case we shall do well to inquire what it is that Dr Pusey teaches as the true doctrine of the real pre

sence.

The answer is at hand. It is furnished in three distinct and recent statements by Dr Pusey himself. On the 27th of January last, Dr Heurtley preached before the University of Oxford, a sermon on "The Doctrine of the Eucharist, Christ's Presence by Spirit and Grace." On the Sunday following, Dr Pusey preached in the same place and on the same subject a sermon of a directly opposite character. In the preface to this sermon he says, "I have simply, as my subject suggested, stated incidentally the doctrine of the holy eucharist, which I believe as matter of faith, which (without any idea of controversy) I preached in a practical sermon which was condemned. extrajudicially in 1843-4. I restated it summarily in the opening of the first which I preached after my suspension in 1846; vindicated it more systematically in that of 1853; and supported [it] more fully in two volumes as being the doctrine of the Catholic Church from the first, and of our own." So that, on Dr Pusey's own shewing, the doctrine of the real presence which he now holds and teaches, is so far from being that of the Church of England, that it is the very doctrine for which he was condemned and suspended in 1843. This is the most recent statement, and not the least important. The second, equally explicit, is made in his defence of the posthumous alteration of the poem entitled "Gunpowder Treason," in Keble's "Christian Year." The ground of objection to the words as, previous to the alteration, they had stood in the ninety-five editions published during their author's lifetime, is stated by Dr Pusey himself to have been this; that "the words

• Letter to Pusey, p. 5.

† Letter to The Times, Dec. 25, 1866.

in their strict literal meaning" "affirm that our Lord gives himself to the soul of the receiver only, and is not present objectively;" while Keble's actual belief is represented as being, in common with Dr Pusey's, "the belief in the doctrine of the real objective presence, of which antiquity is so full."* The third is found in the statements of the Eirenicon, and the reassertion of all the popish principles of Tract XC. Dr Manning had said, "If the Church of England recognises an undefined presence of Christ in the sacrament, it formally imposes upon its people a disbelief in transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the altar." To this Dr Pusey replies by a compromise which betrays the cause it was his duty to defend. He says expressly, "I am persuaded that, on this point, the two churches might be reconciled by explanation of the terms used." With the illustrations of the doctrine of reserve, and “oixovoμía” and “pevazioμòs," supplied by Dr Newman's history before us, we cannot be surprised by any statements of this sort proceeding from Dr Pusey. In Mr Keble's case, however, the gradual growth of these opinions is more evident; for in his "Eucharistical Adoration," he admits that Hooker was not a believer in the real presence (in his, Keble's sense); while in his preface to Hooker's works, he praises Hooker's judgment on the nature of the Reality, and nowhere indicates any defect.

But if, turning from individual names, we ask what has been the effect of this influential and most subtle teaching on the nation at large, we find for answer the startling fact, that while in 1843 Dr Pusey's teaching was all but universally condemned, in 1867, the very same teaching is all but universally approved. On this head we will be content to cite but a single witness. The Bishop of Ossory in his recent most valuable charge, after drawing attention to the "histrionic development" of the Tract party, proceeds to shew that concurrently with this, there has been a departure from the recognised and fundamental prin

*Letter to The Times, Dec. 12. 1866.

"Eirenicon," p. 28. At a meeting of the English Church Union, held June 14. 1866, he used the following words :-"What I have stated to Gallican bishops, and what they have clearly understood, was this: That I believed the Council of Trent, whatever its look was, and our articles, whatever their look was, could be so explained as to reconcile one with another. I saw a theologian, and one of the most eminent. We talked for two hours about the Council of Trent, and about our belief, as it is expressed by those whom we considered to be the most genuine sons of the Church of England. The result was that point after point he was satisfied, and the interview ended in his saying, I shall salute you as a true brother." On this it has been pertinently remarked, "If Dr Pusey could satisfy a Romish theologian, ‘and one of the most eminent,' who believed all Protestants to be heretics, and out of the way of salvation, that he himself was a true brother,' he must have made it pretty clear to him that his own views were Romish."

The "Eirenicon :" Its Reception.

7

ciples of the church, which has attracted less attention, and excited less alarm, but which " is really more formidable than any approximation which has been made to Rome in outward things." He then refers to the silent passivity with which the "Eirenicon" has been received by the church at large"The advance has been lately made matter of loud boast by some of the organs of the Catholic party. And among the evidences of its extent and importance, there is none that is dwelt upon with more exultation, very naturally and justly, I think, than the manner in which the publication of Dr Pusey's Eirenicon last year was received, as contrasted with the reception which Tract XC. met with, when it appeared five and twenty years ago. It is truly stated, that the volume reiterates in a stronger form all the positions of the tract, together with all the arguments by which they are sustained. But how differently were the two publications received! The church was agitated, and almost torn asunder by the tract. Outcries of indignation and alarm were heard from every part of the land. It added a new controversy to those which were already raging; and widened and embittered the actual divisions of the church. It was long before the storm subsided, and still longer before the traces which it left disappeared, if, indeed, some of them do not still remain. Such, it is said, were the results of the publication of the tract. But the volume raised no such By the Catholic party in the church it was received with sympathy, approval, and admiration. And that party was now so much in the ascendant, that those who did not belong to it, did not venture to offer any opposition to its sentence upon the work.”

How far this departure from first principles obtains sympathy in high places, may partly be inferred from the terms of another episcopal charge just delivered, in which the Bishop of Salisbury argues that the clergy, "when consecrating the elements as Christ's representatives, are putting forth some of his delegated power." His lordship further lays it down as the teaching of the church, that (1.) certain men have entrusted to them by God, as fellow-workers with him, some supernatural powers and prerogatives; and (2.) that, e.g., God has been pleased to invest them as his ministers with the power of "so blessing the oblations of bread and wine, as to make them the channels of conveying all the strength and refreshing power of the body and blood of Christ." And yet there is no doubt that the bishop cordially accepts the declaration of the Homilies, that the presence of Christ in the sacrament, is the presence "not of a carnal, but of a ghostly substance," not a physical or a material presence, but a presence spiritual, because divine. But this, after all, is not Dr Pusey's doctrine,

« ¡è͹˹éÒ´Óà¹Ô¹¡ÒõèÍ
 »