Page images
PDF
EPUB

Those men, who either consciously or from the secret power of a common object or natural sympathy, imitate* so closely declared foes of their own church, in the end become suspected by former friends, and contemned even by those very men who have enticed them from their sworn allegiance. It is the necessary result of all tergiversation, and all men equally should know that decision and earnest adherence to principles alone can ensure success, and merit the approval of all good men. But if, on the contrary, our opponents have fashioned an ideal beauty in their theories, and have been found in the creation of it to detract some limb from each class of ceremonial or doctrinal opinions, men will naturally repeat the question put to the Pisones of old"Spectatum admixi risum teneatis amici." The borrowed plumage which decks the image to which they, offer the incense of adulation, will soon be claimed by each opponent who objects to an unholy amalgamation. The image itself will be torn limb from limb, since there is no natural harmony; and every admirer of it in its pristine figure will be too happy to seize upon his favourite fragment; and, upon it founding a new heresy, he will become one of many heresiarchs, each worshipping his own creation rather than following the Church of his Fathers. That such is always the case when Eclecticism falls, is very manifest. If we needed any proof, we might easily discern it in the supplanting of Catholic truth engendered by the doctrine held by Tractarians in so many instances. Rome alone giving scope for the feelings of awe and reverence, they have in this point imitated her, and have sought to engender awe rather than devotion, fear than confidence. We do not assert that they have not overreached even Rome, for that idolatrous church ventures to define the mode of the presence, while they, far from denying a constant miracle, nay,§ studiously avoiding any argument which would involve the idea that it was not a miraculous presence, draw a curtain and say, We only refuse a mode, we do not wish to understand any method which will appear to make it more an object of judgement. We leave it undefined. We only differ from Rome, " de modo presentia." When they do appear to use terms which imply necessarily certain modes of presence, the faithful son of our Church can hardly discern through

* How far Dr. Pusey can be accused of being an imitator of the Romanists in his Sermon, will perhaps appear in the following quotation :

They (the Romanists) frequently quote those metaphors of St. Chrysostom which he preaches, in the height of his rhetoric, as testimonies of his opinion in the doctrinal part. Jeremy Taylor, "Real Presence," sec. iii, 5. Heber's Ed. vol. ix., p. 444.

For instance, the case of Mr. Sibthorpe, who had fixed on the unity taught in the Old Testament, Mr. Gooch on Miracles, Mr. Seager on some one point, cum multis aliis. Newman to Dr. Jelf.

§ See note on Tractarian reprint of Nowell's Catechism. Newman's Defence of Froude on this Point in his Letter to Dr. Faussett, pp. 50, 1, 2.

|| Pusey's Sermon, p. 7.; preface, p. iv. Newman to Faussett. Newman to Dr. Jelf, p. 58, &c. Pusey to Bishop of Oxford, p. 130, &c., &c.; "though he (Mr. Froude) certainly did not sympathise with the Reformers at all in their mode of arguing on the subject." Newman's Letter to Dr. Faussett, p. 60.

the thick cloud of mystic obscurity which part once belonged to his own church. Sure he is of one thing-that the whole vision is unlike his own faithful mother's teaching, and then he is desirous of falling more closely into that holy mould which his own Liturgy offers. The Anglican finds most of the writers of his own Church raise the very argument of impossibility against Rome; and if we have the example of Ridley, and in after years of Jeremy Taylor, we shall not be in heretical error. If we can say with the latter, "in the administration of which (i.e., in the Two Sacraments) we do not find any mention of anything visibly miraculous in the records of Holy Scripture"+ we may be at least held excusable. But our very foundation is to be pared and pruned away by modern refinements, and the weapons of earlier times repudiated as too little adapted to skilful theologians, and these very theologians confessedly dating their discoveries within the past decade of years. It may be true that while men studiously conceal their idea of the nature of the presence, the argument of impossibility can only be implicitly used against them; and this may be the end of those who so act: but these same persons must remember that the very use of language upon the subject of a presence, necessarily implies some idea of it, and therefore it becomes a mere contention of words. Now, that our opponents will assert and re-assert this conclusion in their own defence, can hardly be doubted, and it is incumbent to clear away the apparent difficulty. It is, indeed, true that Transubstantiation, as a mere mode, can be of very little importance; but its consequences are the real bone of contention, and this the inventors of it knew full well. They were aware that if they could once establish a belief in this, it would be a standing miracle to test the truth of their church. They knew it was contrary to the truth of nature that bread and wine should be changed in substance, and they raised it for this very end, because it would magnify their power as miracle-workers. Again, Burnet shows the doctrines which depend upon this very dogma, and a higher authority than this, our Twenty-eighth Article, which denies the truth of the Tridentine doctrine, that the elements are to be reserved for worship. Surely, if our Lord's Body be in its natural substance in the element, or as the element, it would be very excusable to pay it honour; and again, the sacrifice would, in its highest sense, be daily repeated in contradiction to our Twenty-ninth Article. Burnet, Jeremy Taylor, and many others, do speak of this doctrine in itself as of no importance; but in its consequences we arraign it-in its production of idolatry, in its destruction of the sacramental symbol, in its carnality, its want of that Spirit which quickeneth. Thus it is that Bishop Ridley condemns it in such terms as the following: "Of late, all they that were endued with the light and grace of understanding of God's holy mysteries did bless God, which had brought them out of that horrible blindness and

* Let us give one of numberless authors. Beveridge on Article xxviii., p. 264,5. + Ecclesiastical Penance, sec. iv., 49.; vol. ix., p. 255.

On Article xxviii. Taylor, sec. i.

ignorance whereby, in times past, being seduced by Satan's subtleties, they believed that the sacrament was not the sacrament, but the thing whereof it is a sacrament; that the creature was the Creator; and that the thing which hath neither life nor soul (alas! such was the horrible blindness) was the Lord himself." He also, in the same passage, speaks of the change made by many as from light to darkness, and mentions "that heinous idolatry* wherein that adoration is given unto a lifeless and dumb creature." He also calls Transubstantiation "wicked invention and Satan's own brood."+

He also says that the Romish doctrine of Oblation "standeth upon Transubstantiation, its cousin-german," and prays God to "weed out that bitter root." In word, how any one, after a perusal of the writings and controversies of our Reformers, and of our leading writers of every age since, can venture to assert that we only differ de modo præsentiæ, and depreciate the importance of this, we hardly can understand. We object to the mode; but our reason is, because it involves a doctrine, or set of doctrines, contrary to God's Word, reason, and the Fathers. This Bishop Beveridge shows; and we will venture to assert, that every writer in the Catena Patrum, at the end of the Sermonnay, more, Dr. Pusey himself-will object to the doctrine itself. Why, then, does he studiously conceal this fact? Is he not conscious that by this he is lessening the wide distance between our Church and Rome? We conceive that we have a right to expect an answer to this question. Or, again, if Tractarians say that we only deny the mode, we may fairly ask on what ground we deny the mode? Is it by Scripture, or by reason, or by the Church? If we rest our denial upon Scripture, according to Tractarians, we involve private judgement; and so, also, if we rest it on reason. But if, on the other hand, Dr. Pusey shall vest the decision in the Church, does not the majority of that which seems to him the visible Church, maintain the mode of presence called Transubstantiation?

But here we are met by an insinuatory sentence in No. 90; and we hope that Dr. Pusey will excuse our referring to it, as he has so very lately declared his "cordial assent" to that publication. Mr. Newman says, that our Church does not deny every mutatio panis, but only the carnal pressing with the teeth. We pass over the fact that he has misquoted the Article, and made a curious compound in his amalgamation of two Articles to such a degree, that we can hardly recognise it in its new dress. We pass by all this, to ask him what change our Church does allow? The article is precise enough in denying a change of substance, and we know no party or person which asserts a change in the accidents or species. In what, then, consists the change? Clearly, in nothing internal, since there can be only upon that division substance and accidents. If, there

*He also calls it crafty juggling and pernicious idolatry, p. 401.
Piteous Lamentation, p. 51. Ed. Parker, Society.

A brief Declaration of the Lord's Supper, p. 23. Ed. Parker, S.

fore, there is any change, it is only external-that is, in the use or purpose to which the elements, still substantially bread and substantially wine, are applied; and this, we maintain, is the only change, accordingly, allowed by our Church. Our Church, in her denial of Transubstantiation, condemns the doctrine of carnal eating;* because, if neither accidents nor substance be changed, there can be no carnal eating. But Mr. Newman's whole argument on this and other points, seems very much like the following:-A man tried for feloniously stealing, insinuates to the judge and jury that there are worse crimes than this; yet this will not satisfy the judge that the law does not forbid felony. And even so Mr. Newman may prove that there existed a horrible doctrine, which was taught-yes, by Bellarmine himself; but he will not, by this line of argument, persuade persons to believe that we allow one substantial change, because we deny the other. The writer of No. 90, when concluding his Tract, quotes an instance in the political world to illustrate his meaning, and says, "It would not be decorous strictly to urge the parallelism;" and we may repeat his words for the instance which we have adduced. The poor effects of this line of argument (which was specially introduced for the purpose of preventing stragglers from entering the Romish Church, as Mr. Newman said,) have, alas! been too abundantly testified by the increase of those who have joined that Church since the Tract was published. It is one thing to wish that our services were vague and our articles obscure, and another thing to prove it. It is but a poor excuse against Rome to endeavour to rescue our statements from her anathemas. The broad fact, that for them our martyrs suffered stands staring them boldly in the face; and they know full well that we condemn the mode; but they also know that in it we condemn their doctrine. We have no subtle distinctions which can narrow the wide gulf between Trent and England-between man's devices and God's decrees. Tractarians may bring contempt upon themselves, and reproaches of dishonesty upon

* Compare the Service, "That we receive these thy creatures of bread and wine.” + The instance referred to was this: Thiers drew up an outline which was warlike but yet dubiously worded, and Guizot, as his political opponent, succeeded him and made the outline speak peace. Now, be it remembered that Guizot never was of the war party, had never signed or supported their plan, much less had he SWORN to it. He had never sanctioned it in any way, so that in fact there is no parallel. There would have been a parallel had he received money from Thiers, under pretence of carrying out his policy. This last is the true position of the Tractarians. They receive our rewards, but misinterpret our formularies, yea, and boast of it. Catholics were once included, and you cannot exclude us now. (See No. 90, last page.) There can be but one meaning, says the Bishop of Ripon. We recommend the Tractarians to peruse their friend Dr. Hook's Appendix to his Visitation Sermon, in his attack on Scott, whom he first misrepresents and then abuses. This condemnation, even had he understood Scott, is now ten times more applicable to the Tractarians. Be it remembered that Mr. Newman tries to prove intentional obscurity in the Article from this Twenty-eighth Article. Burnet allows no uncertainty to have existed in the Clergy, but only among the Laity.

our services; but Rome is ever as she has been, and ever will be. She may, apparently, rise to meet us; but she will never quit her seven hills. If we have unity with her, no mere explanation, but absolute repudiation, is necessary. They may flatter Tractarians by proud names, as "most distinguished teachers in our Church," and say again and again that they have amply vindicated the real presence of Christ Jesus in the blessed Sacrament,* in their theology. This is natural; for the enemy are not apt to terrify persons about to join them by threatening harshness or exaggerating difficulties; but Tractarians will find it an easy path, until they have entered the bosom of that Church which we dare not characterise, and then the opiate will have lost its force, and the enchantment of the wily sorcerers have ceased. The dream of pleasant peace will evaporate, while you inhale the noxious vapours of "Mariolatry" and lying wonders. Now they will kindly enquire of you what change you really allow ;t and thus gently assuming the character of learners, they will show the Tractarians the dubious nature of their views, until, with the purpose of escaping the very difficulties which their own ingenuity has created, they will take that fatal bound from truth to Trent, and, in the attempt to free themselves from the yoke of Christ, entangle themselves in that yoke of bondage which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear.

But we are desirous of coming more closely to the Sermon before us. Of the general Tractarian doctrine, which contains itself in, and cries out, evonμeite, there can be no doubt. Is the Hebrew Professor of the same sentiment? His own words are" He answers not the strivings of the Jews; how can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Such an "How can these things be?" He never answereth; and we, if we are wise, shall never ask how they can be elements of this world and yet his very body and blood. "But how they give life to us he does answer; and amid this apparent uniformity of His teaching, each separate sentence gives us a portion of that answer." That teaching which follows we must postpone for the present, while we consider with what our Lord really did answer the Jews.

Perhaps St. Augustine may be as correct an exponent as Dr. Pusey; and he says on this chapter, "Doth this offend you, that I said I give my flesh to you to eat, and my blood to drink? What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before? What meaneth this? He here resolveth (solvit) that which troubled them; He here layed open (aperit) that at which they were offended: for they thought He would give them his own body, whilst he said that He was about to ascend into heaven whole and entire. When ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before, ye shall then, at least, see that He giveth not his body in the way in which ye think then, at least, shall ye understand that his grace is not consumed by the teeth. And he saith, It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing." And in another place he says, "What meaneth 'they

* O'Connell's Letter.

+ O'Connell, p. 58.

P. 7.

« PreviousContinue »