« PreviousContinue »
their degree, though not as we are? The angel in Daniel (he suggests) may have left heaven at a certain time, and come so swiftly as to touch the prophet at a time which is designated by the same name. But, however swiftly, he leaves heaven and reaches earth; he has not ubiquity."
We reply, that the objection concerning space relates to a physical, and not a spiritual, heaven, and is answered when heaven is admitted to be the habitation of spiritual, and not physical, beings.
As to Time and Eternity, we should consider that we can know nothing of either but as modes of perception; the first, a form of suscession-i. e., of beginnings and endings; the second, a form of constant presence. As to angels, are they spirits? If so, what is spirit! Is it different from nature? If so, what is nature? Let it be answered, “ The whole of phenomena in time and space." Mere definition, then, requires that spirit should be something beyond that whole. Accordingly, Plato tells us that “the Infinite and the Bound are the same;" and Messiah, through St. John, that “I am the Beginning and the End.” As to using the word “ Eternal" in one sense for man or any other spirit, and in another sense for God; this were not only to detect the want of a word, but of an idea ; since neither man nor any other spirit can have any idea of Deity, except so far as the created spirit is the image of the Creator. Accordingly, St. John and Moses make this affirmation the fontal One of a system. Of course, care must be taken to avoid the Anthropomorphism of asserting that no more is in the Original than in the Image. This is difficult, however; and was felt so by no less subtle intellects than Spinoza and Plato; whence the latter was induced to ascend by a series of negations, until, in order to distinguish the Author of all being from all being, he ventures a denial of His being, and then a denial of the denial, prohibiting the student from the assertion either of His being or non-being. Nor is this negation even overlooked by the Hebrew prophets : “My ways are not your ways, nor my thoughts your thoughts, saith the Lord !" But, having asserted this negation, they leave it as a mystery—the only mystery, which being admitted, all sequent processes are clear. Instead, therefore, of restricting the student to an acquiescence in “ineffable silence,” St. John and Moses assert man's right, in his power, to speak; and begin with recognising the Being of the Word, and with declaring that man is God's image, in order that, so far as he is so, man may have intuitive evidence for what he says. Hence, an apocryphal writer affirms, not only that “God made man upright," but, also, “to be an image of His own Eternity.” Let each individual man look into his own consciousness! Has any one aught in the constitution of his spiritual being that is recognisant of a beginning, or precognisant of an end? Rather, in his continuous and unchanging self-consciousness, while all other objects are changing, he has the idea realised in an attribute of his own personality. But, on this, Bishop Butler has written at large in his “Analogy."
D, Cahn, Printer, 6, Exmouth Street, Clerkenwell.
CHRISTIAN'S MONTHLY MAGAZINE
I. THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY.
SECRET HISTORY OF TRACTARIANISM.
We proceed with Mr. Froude's Remains. Alas, for the High Church party, in his opinion ; “they had cut the ground from under their feet by acknowledging Tillotson. Would,” he exclaims, “ that the Nonjurors had kept up a succession! and then we might have been at peace-proselytes instead of agitators.” It puzzles him to account for Bull having been among the Tillotsonians. Having his root in himself, poor Froude could not for a moment permit himself to suppose that Bull might have been right, and he wrong.
The following extracts are rich and full of Tractarian gusto :
“.... She died a few months back, .... and, from what W. tells me, must have been a little saint; all last Lent she fasted so strictly as to hurt her health, in spite of being constantly ridiculed; and where she got her notions from, I cannot guess, except through J., and from her natural goodness. .... To me it is humiliating to see how principles, that stay in my own head, find their way into one's pupils' hearts. I am afraid, from what C. says, that he will make a vacancy before long by —— I am very sorry, though I don't see what he can do, considering his sister's situation, thanks to the destroyers of nunneries."*
These nunneries seem to have been with Mr. Froude, what he states the Mendicant Orders were, “the sort of thing" especially desirable.
One of the Tracts had used the phrase, “The Church teaches 80 and so," as equivalent to “The Prayer-book, &c. teach us, so and so.” This displeased Mr. Froude.
“Suppose," he writes, “a conscientious layman to enquire on what grounds the Prayer-book, &c., are called the teaching of the Church, how shall we answer him? Shall we tell him that they are embodied in an Act of Parliament? So is the Spoliation Bill. Shall we tell him that they were formerly enacted in convocation in the reign of Charles II.? But what especial claim had this convocation, &c., to monopolise the name and authority of the Church ? Shall we tell him that all the clergy assented to them ever since their enactment? But to what interpretation of them have all, or even the major part of the clergy, assented ? For if it is the assent of the clergy that makes the Prayer-book, &c., the teaching of the Church, the Church teaches only that interpretation of them to which all, or at least the majority of the clergy, have assented; and, in order to ascertain this, it will be necessary to enquire, not for what may seem to the enquirer to be their real meaning, but for the meaning which the majority of the clergy have in fact attached to them. It will be necessary to poll the Hoadlcians, Puritans, and Laudians, and to be determined by most votes. Again, supposing him to have ascertained these, another question occurs: Why is the opinion of the English clergy, since the enactment of the Prayer-book, entitled to be called the teaching of the Church, more than that of the clergy of the sixteen previous centuries, or, again, than the clergy of France, Italy, Spain, Russia, &c.? I can see no other claim which the Prayer-book has on a layman's deference, as the teaching of the Church, which the Breviary and Missal hace not in a far greater degree."'*
And thus the whole argument ends in the declaration of a Romeward tendency. The “ Tracts for the Times,” « The Christian Year," and other such publications, were even (forsooth!) too Protestant for Mr. Froude. He and his followers, he declared, were “ Catholics without the Popery, and Church of England men without the Protestantism.”+ What selfdelusion! what impossibility, to boot! For what does the Protestantism of the Church of England protest against? What but the Popery of Rome? How absurd, then, thus to bandy terms without meaning! There is more reason in what he says concerning tithes :
“They cannot be a legal debt and a religious offering at the same time. When the payment began to be enforced by civil authority, the desecration took place. I don't like --'s want of candour about the voluntary system; as if there was only one voluntary system, that of pew-rents, &c. The Wesleyan system is voluntary; and, though I don't admire the results, they certainly are not like what would have us believe is inevitable. They are the strongest and most independent of their congregations, of any existing society in the United States, and I believe in England. Also, what does he say to the Roman Catholics in Ireland ? And—though last, not least--what to the Primitive Church ? I think, talking broadly against the voluntary system, because it fails under one particular form, is as unfair, as it is inexpedient to make the clergy think an establishment necessary. If R. does away pews, I think it will be a real step gained towards Ecclesiastical Emancipation.”
Notwithstanding the relative good sense of this, there is such a feeling against the existing system as can only be excused on account
of the writer's constitutional ill-health. “I am forced,” says he, in a letter dated about this time, “to say something, but have no dates to judge by, and so talk at random. Certain, indeed, I am that my pulse is progressively calming, and that now it is scarcely more irritable than it ought to be : but in nothing else can I be sure that I change at all." But, however we may pity the poor hypochondriac, we must cherish a harsher sentiment for them who would foist on the world the revelations of his brainsick diary as a New Gospel to the Church ; on which, by-the-by, he regarded our present Communion Service as a judgement. He would take it, he tells us, “as the crumbs from the Apostles' table ;” and is “struck with its fitness to be dwelt upon as tending to check the intrusion of irreverent thoughts without in any way interfering with one's just indignation. If,” he adds, “ I were a Roman Catholic Priest, I should look on the administration of the Communion in one kind in the same light."*
Sometimes Mr. Froude was ingenious in his illustrations, as in the following instance :
"I must say a word or two on your casual remark about the unpopularity of our notions among • Bible-Christians. Don't you think Newton's system would be unpopular with sky astronomers,' just in the same way? The phenomena of the heavens are repugnant to Newton, just in the same way as the letter of Scripture to the Church ; i. e., on the assumption that they contradict every notion which they do not make self-evident, which is the basis of Bible Christianity,' and also of Protestantism; and of which your trumpery principle about Scripture being the sole rule of faith in fundamentals,' (I nauseate the word) is but a mutilated edition, without the breadth and axiomatic character of the original.'”
To this precious morceau, the editors add a note from Palgrave's Merchant and Friar—the well-known Don Eusebio Catezudo-argument—which, they opine,
"May at least be used, as in the text, in behalf of the Patristical creed, which, on the largest and most extravagant admissions, has not near so much the appearance of contrariety to Scripture, as the Newtonian theory to the face of the heavens as our eyes contemplate it. It seems also,' they add, 'to meet the popular argument against Transubstantiation ; viz., on the ground, not of its being against the voice of antiquity, but of its contradicting sense."f
Of all popular arguments and of all laic power, Mr. Froude had, of course, great horror. “As to the laity having power in synods, I don't know enough to have an opinion ; but as far as I see, I disagree with Hooker. Look at Bishop Hicks' little book on The Constitution of the Christian Church ;' in which he maintains that each diocese is a monarchy absolute, except so far as the bishop has been pledged by ordination oath. Neither the Laity nor the Presbyters seem to me to have any part or lot in the government of the Church ; though of course, since heresy is worse than schism, they must act for themselves if they think their governors heretical." I
He lost no opportunity of asserting for tradition an interpretative authority of Scripture. The doctrines of the priesthood and the Eucharist, according to him, may be proved from Scripture interpreted by tradition. “ If so," he asks,“ what is to hinder our insisting on them as terms of communion? I don't mean, of course, that this will bear out the Romanists, [why not?] which is perhaps your only point, but it certainly would bear out our party in excommunicating Protestants.”* This leaning on authority is allowable in the case of a man who confesses to “ a pulse above 100;" and allows that it is “ not favourable to mental exertion.”
After his journals, Mr. Froude's editors give us some of his " sayings in conversation ;" holding themselves responsible for the wording. One or two of them may be quoted :
The Reformation, was a limb badly set-it must be broken again in order to be righted." *** I want a history of the Waterland School, from Waterland to Van Mildert.”+
“ It is an imbecile way, in order to found a See at Manchester, to take from the revenues of other bishoprics. No: let men go and preach in the streets of Man. chester; they would be pelted. Never mind; in time, persons would attend to them, and rich people would leave them money, first one, and then another. Every place should support its own Church."
“I wonder a thoughtful fellow like H. does not get to bate the Reformers faster. [How soon did you begin to hold your present views about them ?] I think, as soon as I began to know
I felt they were the very kind of fellows he would most have hated and despised, if he had known them. But I did not dare to sport my opinions till I had read more and got him to agree with me. I believe I have a want of reverence, else I should not have got to hate them so soon as I did.
used sometimes to give me such snubs for speaking disrespectfully of them, that I did not recover them for a week or a fortnight. He was a long time giving up Cranmer.”
" I confess I like to go against Utilitarianism for the sake of going against it. I should like to do as those old fellows did who, you know, finished up things where no one could by any possibility see them. (Ans. Yes, but to do that, not from being absorbed in the work, but deliberately, would be coxcombry.] Do you think the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple was not done deliberately? which only one person was to enter once a year. [Ans. This was a Divine economy, to impress the Jews with awe.] Then we come to a question of fact, whether people want such economies less now than they did then ? [Ans. Our deliberate awe towards a spot which was to be so very peculiarly honoured, does not apply to a bit of cieling in the nave of a cathedral.] Oh! I do not mean to say I would spend my carving on any part of the church; I am speaking of the east end."||
"I am afraid, I must confess, that the only war I could enter into with spirit would be a civil war.”'T
“ Protestants have ingeniously converted the words, . This is My body,' i.e., The mysterious gift of which I spoke,' (John vi.) into My body is [only] this.' Of course, the words are an economy-they make it a metaphor."*
These sayings are followed by an appendix, which continues Mr. Froude's journal in a tone which it is painful to read-such is the