Prayer Book has on a Layman's deference as the teaching of the Church, which the Breviary and Missal have not in a far greater degree." pp. 402, 3. "Pour moi, I never mean, if I can help it, to use any phrase, which can connect me with such a set, (i. e. as Cranmer, Peter Martyr, and Bucer.) I shall never call the Holy Eucharist "the Lord's Supper," nor God's priests" ministers of the Word," or the Altar the Lord's Table," &c. &c. Innocent as such phrases are in themselves, they have been dirtied; a fact of which you seem oblivious on many occasions." pp. 394, 5. Obs. Mr. Froude appears to be himself ' oblivious' of the fact, that all these expressions are to be found not only in the Communion Service, but "Ministers of God's Word," Luke i. 2. "The Lord's Supper," 1 Cor. xi. 20. and “The Lord's Table," 1 Cor. x. 21. And now to return to Dr. Pusey's assertion. If there be no Extravagance in all Mr. Froude's talk about Ecclesiastical Agitation, Blowings up, Conspiracies, Righting the Reformation, in favour of a foreign Divine? And to the second objection it may be as readily replied, that if our Church at the Reformation had not the right to part with any ceremonies which can be traced to the third or fourth centuries, then the whole Church Catholic was in error in setting her the example, by abandoning the practice of administering Confirmation and the Eucharist to infants, which the Authors of the Tracts have not as yet (qu?) ventured to say. the Voluntary System, and against the Established Church, is there none in his wish, as a Christian Clergyman, for the shedding of the blood of his fellow-Christians in developement of a principle? If there be no extravagance in his vituperation of Jewel, Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, is there none in his attacks upon their modern representatives the Archbishops and Bishops of his own time? If there be no Extravagance in his wishes for the separation of Church and State, is there none in his assertion, that the Prayer Book has no claim upon the deference of a Layman, which the Breviary and Missal have not in a greater degree? Lastly, if it be no Extravagance to pronounce 'the Communion Service a Judgment upon the Church' (see Remains, vol. i. p. 410.) on account of what the Reformers omitted, is it no Extravagance to eensure even what they have retained, viz. language authorized not only by Primitive Antiquity, but by the Word of God itself? But before I conclude this chapter, I would beg leave to call your Lordship's attention to one more Extravagance still greater than any already cited from Mr. Froude, viz. one contained in the apologyP of his Editors for him, I mean, for a very strange • See Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Faussett. I hardly know how to notice the apology for this writer prefixed to the second part of his Remains. The remark which I have heard made upon it is, that it would justify any thing. feature of his Private Journal, in the following words: "The reader's attention should be called to one peculiarity of the foregoing Journal, from which instruction may be gained, viz. the absence of any distinct mention of our Lord and Saviour in the Prayers and Meditations it contains. That the author's faith in His grace and merits was most implicit and most practical when he wrote it, can be most amply testified, &c. Yet it is remarkable, that though petitioning for the grace of the Third Person in the Blessed Trinity, he does not introduce the name of Him, from and by whom the Holy Ghost is vouchsafed to us; and this circumstance may be a comfort to those who cannot bring themselves to assume the tone of many popular writers of this day, yet are discouraged by the peremptoriness with which it is exacted of them." Remains, vol. i. p. 68, note. Now, my Lord, where is the 'distinctive mention of our Lord and Saviour' more peremptorily exacted from us,' if the public devotions of the Church are in any way to be regarded as models for our private Prayers, than in our own Prayer. Book, which in this respect, if I mistake not, resembles every other Liturgy in the world, that nearly every prayer contained in it concludes with the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? But Dr. Johnson is a high authority with these writers, so high an one, that they have quoted him as a witness for the Apostolical Succession. Will they then allow any weight to his opinion, as expressed in the following extract from Boswell's Life of him, in opposition to that of Mr. Froude? "He reproved me once for saying grace without mention of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and hoped in future I would be more mindful of the Apostolical injunction." I shall make no further remark upon this strange passage, than that it were enough if there were nothing else to disprove Dr. Pusey's assertion, that 'no extravagance has hitherto connected itself' with the doctrines advocated by himself and his friends. 9 Tracts for the Times, vol. iii. OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. "The scope of Christian Doctrine is the comfort of those whose hearts are overcharged with the burden of sin." HOOKER, Discourse of Justification. In the foregoing chapter, an attempt has been made to obviate certain erroneous impressions which Dr. Pusey's Letter is calculated to produce on the public mind, and to prove, that some at least of the Authors of the Tracts for the Times have been guilty of serious violations of Discipline, and of disrespect for Episcopal Authority. I shall now endeavour to prove, that they have advanced Novel and Confused views of Doctrine; and first, with respect to the all-important article of Justification by Faith, as treated of in Dr. Pusey's Letter. Dr. Pusey's view of the doctrine is, as he informs us, (Letter, p. 64.) very concisely and clearly expressed' in the following extract from a work of Mr. Newman's". Justification comes through the Sacraments, is received by Faith, consists in God's inward presence, and lives in obedience.' And it is the account given here and in other parts of the Letter of what Justification is, against which it will Lectures on Justification. |