https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9b190200e2b01a1cbb308b0eabc63212.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=ARCdcpUFOYWzUYF4FILuvkAZApu2Nkyvce25YzsdZ-zVsGCL9ttkCm3EQNPes-Ss2bIwlcbzmLSj%7EPrjPvblWND7CaTLe6t7lNi8JgOzxyXDEn-ed5brpFCixWh5dfE8HKDGLGYDkoPy%7EECC2K4NeZkZcU4Iemgj3JX8UKDLVTgl1ED7aeSmF-jTJrwzj2vozi4npotJQHZpEFjJ7wDhC--1rKxmr8VLPMdfBXgjMNp1LXSQYZC5dx5Ifml1BVfp3fmoczAGnlLCaplgwlt%7Eo1j2tW4ggTq2EFnw4aiAOcyqgw2N%7Elay3Pwi0sDEiqXQtMqENPka3FhcMlXrDb93sw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 311a559bf34ad26ae2f44c5b85664572 PDF Text Text DR. PUSEY AND THE ULTRAMONTANES. First Letter, to the Very Rev. J. H. Neivman, D. D. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D..D. James Parker A Co. 1869. Is Healthful Reunion Impossible ? A Second Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, D.D. By the Rev. E. B. Pvsey, D.D. James Parker & Co. 1870. The Reunion of'Christeniom. By'HENRY Edward, Archbishop of Westminster. Longmans, Green, & Co. 1866. Essays an the Reunion of Christendom. With an Introductory Essay by tA'e’ Rev. E. B. Pt^Y^D.i), J. T. Hayes. 1867. A. Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., on his recent Eirenicon. By.jjjOHN Henry JEewman, D.D. Longmans, Green, & Co. 1866. Peace Through the Truth. By the Rev. T. Harper, S.J. Longmans, & Cte., 1866. Le Mouvement Catholique dans VAnglicanisme.—Revue du Monde . Catholique. Eevrier et Mars. 1866. ^PHE peace between Rome and England is not yet concluded. Earnest, simple-hearted Da^ Pusey continue his “ Eirenicon.” He speaks of peace, and he is answered;,-—What hastAou to do with peace ? His words, they say, are very swords. The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau. Dr. Pusey is regarded by Roman Catholics as a Jehu, at/the gate| of Jeareel, a Zimri who slew his master ; yea^he has < even been called an incarnation of the arch-fiend who has taken upon him tike office of the accuser who accuses the brethren day^and night. ,-Jesus said, “ Blessed are the peace-makers; ” but Rome’s blessing is “ anathema sit.” Dr. Pusey, however^s undaunted,. To use his own words, he is not to be 11 discouraged by censures, disheartened by mistakes, sickened by the supercilious tone of some in high station, or cowed by rebuffs.” There is such a thing as faith, and men whose convic- �59§ . 7LYA CONTEMPORAR Y RE VIE W tions are firm, and who act upon them, certainly do great things in this world. Faith “laughs at impossibilities.” The greatest revo­ lutions that have taken place among men have been brought about by faith. It is not necessary to suppose anything supernatural in this, for faith leads to action, energy, and sacrifice. But, whether Dr. Pusey succeeds or fails, the movement in which he has borne so conspicuous a part will ever be regarded as one of the greatest events in the history of Christianity. The multitude of men may despise it. They may laugh at the certainly ludicrous imitation of Catholicism to which it has given rise. Sorrow and anger may alternate in their breasts, as they seem to be deprived of the Protestant heritage of their forefathers, won for them at the stake and the scaffold. But even granting that all this is just, yet the “ Catholic revival ” is a great event in the religious history, not merely of England, but of the world. It has pressed the demand for an answer to two urgent questions, which, strange as it may appear, have never yet been fully answered,—What is Protestantism ? and, What is Catholicism ? The reunion question is the most recent phase of “AngloCatholicism.” We can scarcely be wrong in saying that Dr. Pusey’s “ Eirenicon ” is founded on Tract XC., written by Dr. Newman, who soon after found himself at rest in the Church of Rome. Dr. Newman had been led to embrace some doctrines that had been rejected by the Reformers of the Church of England. He was anxious to recon­ cile these doctrines with the formularies of the Church of which he was a minister. The Prayer-Book, from its very nature, was found not to have many difficulties; but the Thirty-nine Articles, which defined the doctrines of the Church, were seriously in the way. They were, in a great measure, taken from the confessions of the Reformed Churches abroad. The men who compiled them were known to have had intimate relations with the Reformers of these Churches. The Articles themselves abounded in negative propo­ sitions, and these were almost entirely aimed at what was understood to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome. Yea, even the affirmative parts were mostly counter-statements of what was called Roman teaching. At first sight the Articles appeared to be, what the Reformers really intended them to be, a moat and a fortification to defend the Church of England in prospect of the Roman enemy. But Dr. Newman had an intellect of marvellous ingenuity, yet, so far as intention went, perfectly honest. He could not ignore the fact that the Articles were Protestant—the product of a Protestant age ; but he thought that a “ Catholic ” meaning might be put upon them, so that they might be subscribed by those who believed the contrary of what the compilers intended. It was admitted that they condemned, �MpA>. PTTSEY AND THE ULTRAMONTANES. 599 ■not merely the dominant errors of the time when they were written, but also the “ authoritative teaching of the Church of Rome.” They ■were, however, supposed to be compatible with what was called F “Catholic” or “primitive truth.” Dr. Newman was at last con­ vinced that they were not. The result is known. Dr. Pusey, while admitting that he does not take the Articles in the sense of those who wrote them, yet maintains that, without violence to their literal and grammatical meaning, they may be inter­ preted so as to agree with the decrees of the Co until of Trent. Here then is a basis for reunion, foundfed on the cifieds of the two Churches. Of course the Tridentine ereed has also to be’i^&£Wd. But in the natural uncertainty of human words, and the remarkable uncer­ tainty of what is Roman Catholic doctrinfi, it is even easier to find a serviceable interpretation of the decrees off Trent than of the English Articles. At the Reformation the greatest dofetiAal ■question between the Reformers and the Church of Rome concerned the sacrament of the tord’s Supper. Archbishop Granmer said! that it was with this sacrament that “ the devil had craftily-’juggled.” The Church of Rome taught that, by an act of omnipotence great^J dhan the act of creation, by means of fihe blessing of the priest, fele bread and wine were changed into the actual body and blood off CAris^1 This was, and is, the central doctrine of the Romain system. It is called Transubstantiation. Article XXVIII. o’fi 1th®ChurOh W England says that it “ cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but’.is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth th er nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.” Here, surely, is a sufficiently distinct renunciation of the Roman s doctrine. But it happens that substance is just one of the thing’s off which, we know nothing. We only know accidents or qualities. Theuinderlying essence or substratum cannot be defined. In fact^sits exigence, apart from these accidents, cannot be demonstrated. What is We meaning then of a change of szibstarice ? Is it a change off#W®B®ts, or of this unknown quantity ? The authorized Roman 'tdachfeg -is that the accidents remain* The 'body and blood of Christ exist under the species of bread and wine. Butrthere was also a;popular doctrine, or “ dominant error,” that Christ’s body; with its accideiitscwas present, and that it was eaten as the men of Capernaum understood the discourse about eating His flesh. The Article isevidently directed against the authorized doctrine, and d farti'ori agaiflst the “ dominant error.” But then the change is an unknown change of something unknown. Perhaps the matter or off’ the philosophers is only an illusion. Perhaps the substratum of all things is spirit. The Church of England admits a spiritual presence. The Roman doctrine at the �6oo THE CONTEMPORAR Y RE VIE W. most is an invisible presence, under the accidents or species of the bread and wine. Dr. Pusey says that the Schoolmen taught that the bread and wine in the Eucharist lost their qualities of supporting and nourishing. But the Council of Trent declared that the “ bread retains the quality natural to bread.” The presence of Christ then is the presence of a spiritual substance, so that the Roman Church agrees with the Anglican in teaching a spiritual and not a carnal presence. Connected with this doctrine was the sacrifice of the mass. The Reformers called the Church of Rome “the Upas tree of super­ stition.” They determined to cut it to pieces, root and branch. Article XXXI. says—“The sacrifices of masses, in which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain and guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” In all ages of the Church of England, in all controversies, by all theologians since the Reformation to the days of Dr. Newman, this Article was understood to condemn the sacrifice of the mass in the Church of Rome. The counterpart of the phraseology is found in Bishop Ridley, who calls the mass “ a new blasphemous kind of sacrifice to satisfy and pay the price of sins both of the dead and of the quick.” To this correspond the words of Archbishop Cranmer a “ The Romish Antichrist, to deface this great benefit of Christ, hath taught that His sacrifice upon the cross is not sufficient hereunto without another sacrifice devised by him, and made by the priest.” As Cranmer and Ridley lived before the Council of Trent, it is possible that they may not have known the authorized doctrine of the Church of Rome. They may have spoken of the mass as they had themselves learned it, and as it was generally taught and understood by the priests and people of that time. Gardiner and the defendants of Catholicism denied the inference that the sacrifice of the mass interfered with the one sacrifice of Christ. Yet the deliberate judg­ ment of the Reformers clearly was that the mass is a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit. But the Article does not say so. It only speaks of “ masses.” It may, therefore, be understood as referring to a custom prevalent at the time of buying and selling masses, which was afterwards condemned by the Council of Trent. These questions, with many others in debate between the Re­ formers and the Church of Rome, ran up into the higher questions which related to the authority of the Church and the place of the Scriptures in reference to the Church. Article XX. says—“The Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith.” This clause was not in the Articles in 1552 nor m 1562, when they were subscribed by both Houses of Convoca­ tion ; but it effected a surreptitious entrance before the Articles �DR. PUSEY AND THE ULTRAMONTANES. 601 received the assent of the Crown. It first appeared in the Latin edition of 1563 ; but it was not in the English edition ratified by­ Parliament that same year. The second clause of the Article is usually understood to limit, if not to neutralize, the authority claimed in the first. It says—“Yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another.” Nevertheless, the clause remains, declaring that the Church has “ authority in controversies of faiths” This?, Dr. Pussy says, is a Divine authority. It must be if the Church hasj power to decide in matters of faith. It implies the necessary preservation ofothe Church as a whole from error. It is the fulfilment of, the promise,. “ Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the wwldJ’^* The Church tells us what is the Catholic faith, and what mustsbe believed as necessary to salvation. The Church must net contradict Scripture nor herself. The Fathers of the later Councils Began by expressing their assent to the earlier. It is not open to individuals to^riticizC^by their private judgment, the “ Catholic truth,;” which has been agreed on by the whole Church. This,; of course^ is a long way short @f the claim of the Church of Pome to speak infallibly on any controversy that may arise. But then the infallibility of the Church of Rome is something afloat. Nobody knows exactly where it is or what it is. Two things so indefinite as the authority of the Catholic Church and the infallibility of the Roman Church may> meet, semewhere and touch each other at some point. Article VI. says—“ Holy Scripture.containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man -that it should be believed as an article of the faith, dr he thdught necessary or requi­ site to salvation.” Then follows' a list; ®f the books which are “ Scripture,” that is, Scripture to be usedhlbr establishing doctrine. From this list the Apocryphal writings are excluded, It is not said who is to decide whether or not any doctrine has been “proved ” by Scripture. The Article^ in its-obvious meaningj-sseems to imply the Protestant doctrine of the right of private judgments But if con­ nected with the clause in Article* XX.,,rfabout * the?- authority of the Church in controversies of - faith, it may be understood to have another meaning. We cannot adoptothe doctriUe bfithe infallibility of General Councils, for Article XXI. says, that “ they may err, and sometimes have erred, in thongs pertaining ito God;” but we have the “ Catholic Church,” with traditional creeds, dootrines, and inter­ pretations. Some General Councils may have erred, but all have not. Those which have not erred are Catholic. That they have not erred is the test of their Catholicity or (Ecumenicity. Who is to �602 THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW decide which General Councils have erred and which have not, is still in dehate between Dr. Pusey and the Church of Pome. But the apparent Protestantism of Article VI. is removed. The right of private judgment is denied. The meaning of the Scriptures is to be learned from the traditional interpretations of the “ Catholic ” Church. It is assumed by Dr. Pusey and his party that the Church of England was not reformed according to the Scriptures alone, but according to the Scriptures as understood by the Fathers. It can scarcely be a mistake to say at once that, in the sense intended, this is a supposition without any foundation. It is a principle never announced in the writings of the Reformers. Cranmer and Ridley, considering the great ignorance of the common people, decided, as a matter of policy, that the changes in the services of the Church should be as few as possible consistently with the entire elimination of Roman doctrine. It is a matter of history that in this they had not the agreement of Hooper, and were but partially favoured by LatimerJ The principle of the English Reformation, stated expressly by Bishop Jewel, is, that the appeal is made to the Scriptures alone. Then followed the question as to the Fathers, which simply was, that they are on the side of the Church of England rather than on that of Rome. The solitary passage adduced by Newman and Pusey for their views of the Patristic character of the English Reformation is from a canon in the reign of Elizabeth. This canon enjoins that “preachers should be careful that they never teach aught in a sermon to be religiously held by the people except that which is agreeable to the doctrines of the Old and New Testament, and which the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have collected from that very doctrine.” But there is nothing to intimate that this canon meant more than Bishop Jewel’s principle, that Roman doctrine was not to be found in the Fathers. It was in the same reign that a Convocation gave a semi­ official authority to Bullinger’s “ Decades,” commanding the less educated clergy to find there the material for their sermons. Article XXV. reduces the sacraments of the Gospel to two, rejecting five of the Roman sacraments. With these five were connected many of the superstitions which the Reformers had to remove. They declared that they were not sacraments of “ like nature with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.” But the word sacrament has a very general meaning. Whatever is a visible sign of the Divine goodness may be a sacraments The rainbow is a sacrament. The flowers of spring are sacraments. All nature is a sacrament. The Protestant meaning of the Article was clear enough. The five rejected sacraments were regarded as merely of ecclesiastical authority, and might, therefore, be either retained or laid aside. Confirmation, orders, and matrimony were �DR. PUSEY AND THE ULTRAMONTANES. 603 retained: the first because it was an old and useful custom, the lecond for the sake of order, and the third because no reformation could abolish matrimony. Penance and extreme unction were closely interwoven with the popular superstitions. The Prayer-Book recom­ mends confession to those who are troubled in conscience, as a pre­ paration for the Lord’s Supper. But penance, properly speaking, as well as extreme unction, departed from the Church of England at the Reformation. Dr. Pusey passes in review these five rejected sacraments, lament­ ing the loss of extreme unction, yet maintaining that in substance the other four are still r-etained as sacraments. The mode of proof is to have recourse to the Prayer-Book? and Homilies, connecting together some stray passages, and interpreting them by the light of what is called the “ Catholic ”1 Church. The j'principle by which Dr. Pusey interprets the Articled is? to take them as they stand, and see what the words may mean apart? from the history of the times or the known sentiments of the BefoiiLdm. Bhdkwhile all external light on the Protestant side is excluded, the Articles are to yield to every “ Catholic ” phrase, and every overlooked remnant of the old superstition that can be picked up’in any unswept corner of the Homilies or the Prayer-Book. There.; is no Protestant who is un­ willing to abide by the Homilies, and to subscribe to the words of Article XXXV., that they contain a “ godly and wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times.” But no man is required to subscribe to every sentence in the Homilies; and Dr. Pusey, least of all men living, would like to be bound even by their general teaching. They were written by men whose sentiments differed widely; by the “Catholic” Bishop Bonner and the Presbyterian Prebendary of Canterbury, Thomas Becon, the judicious Archbishop Cranmer, and the glory of the Elizabethan prelates, the learned Jewel. The Homilies indeed contain a “ godly and a wholesome doctrine ;” but they are full of blasphemy, both against the Popo and the devil. When Dr. Newman applied his alembic to the Homilies, all the “Catholic truth” he could distil out of themwas’a few unguarded sentences chieflv from the Fathers, some general*- statements about the primitive Church, the application of the Word “ Scripture ” to the Apocryphal writings, and sometimes ordination or matrimony called a sacrament. The exility of the evidence from the Homilies was in strange contrast with the immensity of the conclusion. It is naturally an important matter for Dr. Pusey’s object to be able to prove that the Church of England has retained valid Orders. Without this it would be idle to speak of the Church of England being a part of the' Catholic Church, while the necessity of an Episcopal succession is the first requisite of Catholicity. Now, what- �604 THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW. ever Roman Catholics have to say against the validity of English ordination, the historical fact cannot be denied that at the Reforma­ tion the Episcopal succession was not broken. Dr. Pusey makes a great matter of this. He finds the consecrators of Parker were anxious to adhere to the ancient forms. They looked out for a precedent, and found one in the case of Archbishop Chichele, who was consecrated at a time when the intercourse between Rome and England was interrupted. They used as the words of consecration, “ Take the Holy Ghost,” which they had translated from the Exeter Pontifical. To make sure work of it, all the four consecrating bishops put their hands on the archbishop’s head, and all four repeated the words of consecration. Hr. Pusey adds, “ Surely this care to do what the Church had done is, in itself, evidence enough of the intention required ! ” It is difficult to enter into men’s inten­ tions, but it is not difficult to know that there were many reasons in simple policy why the old forms of consecration should be retained. We say nothing of the fact that the establishment of an Episcopal Church at all was the will of the Queen rather than of the .men who were made bishops. The Zurich Letters sufficiently reveal the unepiscopal dispositions of Elizabeth’s first prelates. But to speak only of the four consecrators of Parker. They were Barlow, Cover­ dale, Scory, and Hodgskins. The last was only a suffragan. Of him and Scory we know nothing, except it be that they preferred exile rather than conformity under Mary. Miles Coverdale, all the world knows, was a Puritan. He and Scory refused to wear Episcopal robes at the consecration, and officiated in Geneva gowns. Cover­ dale was never restored to his diocese. Conformity to the Church was so little to his mind that the rest of his days were spent, for the most part, in poverty and persecution. As to Barlow, his judgment of the value of consecration is on record. He said in a sermon, that “ if the king’s grace, being supreme head of the Church of England, did choose, denominate, and elect any layman, being learned, to be a bishop, he, so chosen, without mention being made of orders, should be as good a bishop as I am, or the best in England.” This is enough; but he adds, “ Wheresover two or three simple persons, as cobblers or weavers, are in company, and elected in the name of God, there is the true Church of God.” So far as Barlow was concerned, the renowned Nag’s Head in Cheapside was as fit a place for the consecration of an archbishop as the chapel at Lambeth Palace. We cannot undertake to speak of his “ intention.” But we can scarcely doubt that if William Barlow and Miles Coverdale had known the use which Dr. Pusey was to make of their consecrating an archbishop, they would sooner have put their hands into the fire than laid them on the head of Matthew Parker. �DR. PUSEY AND THE ULTRAMONTANES. 605 Dr. Pusey’s Church of England is something altogether different From the old Church of England, of which we read in history, and which we find in the writings of the old English divines. The reunionists generally make an effort to reconcile the old Reformed Church with their “ Catholic ” ideas. When they fail they usually revenge themselves by a kick at the Reformers. The bishops of whom Dr. Pusey speaks, as so anxious to preserve the “ Catholic ” faith and order, are dismissed by one of the Reunion Essayists as “ the whole tribe of Calvinistic prelates under Elizabeth.” They were not able, he adds, “ to root out faith and love ” from the people, nor to prevent them still “piously drawing the sign of the cross on forehead and breast.” Beyond all controversy Elizabeth’s bishops were Calvinists. They simply conformed to Episcopacy. There is no evidence that one of them believed in the’ divine institution of bishops. In fact, that doctrine was unknown in ffhe Church of England till Bancroft, in 1588, preached his famous sermon at St. Paul’s Cross. Whitgift was then archbishop, and, tired of his long warfare with the Puritans, he wished that Bancroft’s doctrine were true, for it would be a shqrt and easy method of dealing with the Nonconformists. An ecclesiastical polity by'^divine right was first maintained by the Presbyterians. It is almosfi theJsole subject of the discourses of Thomas Cartwright. It was the essence of the railings of Martin Marprelate. “ The Lord’s discipline ” was the Puritan’s phrase for the polity of the Church as it ought to be.. The doctrine continued among the Independents. It is traceable, for instance, in the works of Thomas Goodwin, in the form of grace coming by the appointed ministers as by a sori of material channels. The Stuart divines took up the idea, and connected it with Episcopacy. After the Restoration, when Presbyterians and Independents became brothers in adversity, it was gradually obscured. In the practical, common-sense eighteenth century it. was almost extinct. In the Episcopal form it has turned up again in our own day. On whatever authority it may rest its claims, it is as certain as any matter of history that it was not the doctrine of the Reformers of the Church of England. Again, in Dr. Pusey’s two favourite doctrines, the Real Presence in the Eucharist and Baptismal Regeneration, we could show that he is not in agreement with the old Reformed Church of England. Cranmer, while using the strongest language concerning the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament of the Supper, takes care to explain it as meaning only that the faithful feed upon Christ in the Eucharist in the same way as they feed upon Him in every act of worship. All the Reformers, even Calvin, Bucer, and Peter Martyr, were anxious to retain the rhetorical language of the Fathers concerning this �6o6 THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW. sacrament, and this caused them sometimes to speak as if they really intended a transubstantiation. Then they had to explain themselves by incomprehensible speeches, such as eating a body spiritually, and feeding in the sacrament upon that which is really in heaven. This was not peculiar to the Church of England. It passed into all the^ Eeformed Churches. Even the Westminster Assembly’s Confession declares that the body and blood of Christ “ are as really but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.” Clear-headed men, like John Hales of Eton and. Ralph Cudworth, rejected this way of speaking as bordering upon nonsense. Even Bishop Jewel had light enough. tojdeclare that the only use of the Supper was a com­ memoration of Christ’s death.,. >and that all other uses are abuses. But, while the language remained in the formularies, it is not remark­ able that some took it literally. It suited the Stuart divines when they tried to convert the Reformed Church of England into a “ Catholic ” Church. They talked about altars and sacrifices, but it was a long time before they, knew what they had to sacrifice. Andrewes and Buckeridge gave the grotesque explanation that we offer on the altar the elector mystical Church, which is the body of Christ. The language .of the Baptismal service had a like origin. Calvinistic Reformers retained it, but in connection with their doctrine of absolute predestination. It is found in all the Reformed Confessions as strongly as in bur Prayer-Book. It really meant that every elect child was regenerated in baptism. But as no man could distinguish which children were elect, and which were not, it was charitably sup­ posed that all were regenerated. This is the only explanation which a Calvinist could put on. it if he believed the regeneration to be actual. And it is the interpretation which the Calvinist divines of that age did put upon it. Hooker, speaking of baptism in connection with predestination, .says, that “ all do not receive the grace of the sacra­ ment who receive the sacrament.” It is remarkable that, at the Savoy Conference, the Puritans did not object to the baptismal regeneration of the Baptismal service. They asked that the words “ remission of sins by spiritual regeneration” might be changed into “may be regenerated and receive remission of sins.” This was asked, not because they objected to the doctrine, but because the words seem to confound remission of isirih with regeneration. We have as little desire as Dr. Pusey dan have to be bound by the meaning of the service as understood by the “ Calvinistic prelates,” who made it part of the Prayer-Book; and while the words are there, we are not surprised that some persons will take them literally. They are fairly capable of Dr. Pusey’s interpretation, but it will do no harm to remember the truth and the whole truth concerning their history. �DR. PUSEY AND THE ULTRAMONTANES. 607 g But the greatest of all difficulties in the way of reunion between the Church of England and- the Church of Rome, are the two latest (Roman dogmas. The infallibility of the Pope, if not already pro­ claimed, will be, it is generally believed, before many days. This must put an end to all hopes of the reunion of England in any other Way than by penance and absolution. If the Pope is infallible, Eng­ land is in the fearful pit of heresy and schism. The Immaculate Con­ ception of the mother of Jesus has been a dogma since 1854. This is the great cpm# to Anglicans. The Protestant doctrine that Christ alone is without sin, and that He alone is the Mediator, displaced the worship of the Virgin in all Protestant countries. In the Church of England there is not a vestige of it to be found. .Mary is no more worshipped than any other holy matron. It is peculiarly the doctrine of English Christians that “Jesus is all.” In Him they see supremely all that in man is great and noble, all that in woman is pure and gentle. The first thing that strikes and repels a Protestant when he goes into a Roman Catholic Church, is ’the supremacy that seems everywhere given to Mary. Apart from the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, there is a cultus which has grown wild and luxuriant, sometimes checked by the authorities, and sometimes encouraged, as the devotion best suited to certain classes of people. The account which Dr. Pusey gives of the extent of Mary-worship in some Roman Catholic countries, is a very sad one. The passages he quotes “from Roman Catholic authors, some authorized and some not,” drew even from Dr. Newman the confession that he read them with sorrow and anger. Dr. Pusey shows that Roman Catholics pray to Mary to have remission of sins, to be led into the way of truth, to have grace, life, and glory. Catholicism, it is said, does not flourish in England, because English Catholics do not give sufficient worship to Mary. “ Here in England,” says a pious Roman Catholic writer, “Mary is not half enough preached : devotion to her is low and thin. It is frightened out of its wits by the sneers of heresy. It is always inviting human respect and carnal prudence, wishing to make Mary so little of a Mary, that Protestants may feel at ease about her. Jesus is obscured, because Mary is kept in the back-ground. Thousands of souls perish because Nary is withheld from them.” Italian priests have lamented by the death-beds of their English converts, that they were but half con­ verted, for when dying they put their trust in Jesus, and never littered a prayer to Mary. Dr. Pusey has often been told that before he can expect to be converted he must learn to pray to Mary. In the Church of Rome, Mary is all in all. She is the “ Queen of heaven, and Mistress of the world,” “the Great One Herself,” “the Holy Mother of God,” “ Companion of the Redeemer,” “ Co-redempl VOL. XTV. SS �6o8 THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW. tress,” li Authoress of eternal salvation,” “ the Destroyer of heresies throughout the world,” “ the King in the chain of creatures,” “ the Mediatress not of men only, but of angels,” “the Complement of the Trinity.” One Catholic writer says, that in the Eucharist they eat and drink not only the flesh and blood of Christ, but the flesh and blood of the virgin Maryland that there is present in the sacrament, not only the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, but also the virgin milk of His virgin mother. Another writer says that the regenerate are born not of flesh, nor of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God md Mary. It is sometimes very projvoking to have the plain truth told. Of course this well-evidenced charge of Mariolatry implied that “ the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their manner of living and ceremonies, but. also in matters of faith.” Dr. Pusey’s pro­ posals for reunion were met wifh a howl of indignation. The autho­ rities at Rome put his book in the Index of books forbidden, along with two others which, Dr. Pusey says, contain “ blasphemies against our Lord’s All-Holiness.” The Church of Rome crucified Dr. Pusey, nailing him to the back of the door of St. Peter’s along with two malefactors, who only received the just reward of their deeds. Dr. Pusey did not relish the socmfy of his two companions in tribula­ tion. He did not. sne that “ Ecce Homo ” was really an “ Eirenicon,” that its brilliant pages portrayed the human life of Him who even in His humanity was divine., and thereby drew all men unto Him. And did not the Either book also jS-peak peace ? Was it not an Eirenicon, and with no “sword wreathed in myrtle ?” Did it not appeal to the Catholic reason of mankind to find in that reason a basis for the essential doctrines of the religion of Jesus Christ, and so to unite all men into one Church wide as the human race, and Catholic as God’s universe ? The Dublin Review complains that there are some things which they “ cannot hammer into Dr. Pusey’s head.”* Of the two great parties into which the Church of Rome is divided it was from one only that Dr. Pusey could expect even a patient hearing, and that party is not the one which rules the Church of Rome. It only exists on sufferance. Taking it as repre­ sented by such Catholics as Dr. Dollinger there is scarcely a doctrine or ceremony on which they could not come easily to at least a tem­ porary agreement with Dr. Pusey. But they meet each other only by accident. Like travellers lodging at the “ Three Taverns,” they are within a day’s journey of Rome. But while Dr. Pusey has set his face as if he would go to the great city, Dr. Dollinger and his ' * In. the Essays on. Reunion Dr. Pusey complains bitterly of the treatment he had received at Pome. He adds afterwards, in a note, that he has received reliable informa­ tion that his book escaped the Index. �DR. PUSEY AND THE ULTRAMONTANES. friends have been there already, and have no wish to return. them it is not like 609 To “ A little heaven below.” The intimate relations that have long existed between Dr. Pusey and Dr. Newman give a peculiar human interest to this controversy. We say controversy, for such it has really become. Dr. Newman’s con­ version to Roman Catholicism will never have any other significance than that of a curious study for the psychologist. A great reasoner adopts some principles which have no foundation in reason. He reasons upon them till he becomes troubled with the incongruities between his reason and what he believes. To get peace and to save his soul he at last abandons reason, and clings only to authority. He wants to be delivered from thetresponsibility of reason. So he joins the Church of Rome because it makes the oldest and the boldest claim to speak in­ fallibly in the name of God. There is an acknowledged principle in physiology that a well-developed organ often has its strength at the ex­ pense of some other organ or organs. The same principle is probably applicable to the faculties of the mind, and explains the co-existence of strength and weakness in the same man. Dr. Newman actually speaks of “ saving his soul ” by leaving the Church of England for the Church of Rome, and the principle is the one of being on the safe side after a reckoning of probabilities. The turning-point of the con­ version of this great master of reasoning was a rhetorical sentence in the very illogical St. Augustine. “Securus judicat orbis ter­ rarum ! ” cried the Bishop of Hippo, in his controversy with the Donatists. The world must be right against* a sect that exists only in the north of Africa. The world mustibe right, echoed Dr. New­ man, against Anglicans who exist only in England. It is always an argument that a man is in the wrong when the whole world is against him. But what was St. Augustine’s “orbis terrarum?” The great saint really believed that thes Roman empire embraced the world, and that the whole world was converted to Christianity. What was Dr. Newman’s world whose universal judgment was to overrule his reason ? It was not the eight or nine hundred millions that people the globe. It was not the judgment of the wise men of all ages which he sought. It was not even the judgment of the learned men of Europe. It was only, we may say, the judgment of the Council of Trent received by Roman Catholics, not as the conclusion of their reason, but as the evidence of their submission to the authority of a Church. Dr. Pusey’s first letter to Newman, which we take to form Part II. of the “ Eirenicon,” is entirely devoted to the Immaculate Conception. This was the subject on which Dr. Newman had undertaken to enlighten his “ deal’ Pusey,” whom he congratulates with a superb piece of the most delicate sarcasm on his seeing his way to lay down ■s s 2 �6iO ,’AAT THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW. definite proposals as a basis of corporate reunion. Dr. Pusey is here told that the Church of England is fundamentally in error, and that he must come to the Catholic Church in the spirit of obedience, not reserving to himself so much private judgment as whether or not he shall kiss a crucifix. Immaculate conception is explained as simply meaning that, from the first moment of her existence, Mary had a superadded fulness of .grace, which put her in a state of inno­ cence corresponding to'that of Eve. St. Augustine explained original sin as birth by concupiscence. And in this sense Mary was not without it. Her birth was not supernatural, like that of Jesus. But she had supernatural graces added. She did not fall, as Eve did, but merited to become the mother of the Redeemer. In this sense, she too is a Saviour. Dr. Newman justifies to a great extent the popular Mariolatry. The silly things which devout people say in their devotions to Mary are compared to the silly things that fall from lovers’ lips, to be whispered only in lovers’ ears. Dr. Pusey naturally asks the question, If this worship of Mary was in the primitive Church ? He applies the old rule of Catholicism, laid down by Vincentius Lirinensis—“ What was believed by all, always, and everywhere.” Dr. Newman answers from his theory of “ Deve­ lopment,” that it existed in germ. Mr. Harper illustrates the process by development in nature. We do not look for vertebrates in the earliest geological strata; yet we find germs or rudiments of the organisms that now exist. This means, we imagine, that if Mr. Dar­ win had proved that men are developed from fishes, it would therefore be right to say that fishes'.aye men, because men are developed from fishes. In this way the unity of li Catholic truth ” is preserved. The passages which Dr; Newman quotes from the Fathers in support of Mary-worship are such as the words of St. Jerome,— <l Death by Eve, life by Mary,” or this of Tertullian, Mary “ blotted out ” Eve’s fault, and brought back “ the female sex,” or 11 the human race ” to salvation.. The old Fathers had a great fondness for contrasts. St. Paul’s illustration of the first and second man may have suggested that of the first and second woman. The lan­ guage, indeed, of the Fathers is not to be justified, but it is unfair to take their fanciful parallels, and convert them into doctrines. If this were done only by Roman Catholics we might have a word to say for Dr. Pusey ; but Dr. Newman argues, we think justly, that from Dr. Pusey’s own doctrine concerning the mother of Jesus, he ought not to be offended by some of the titles used in the Church of Rome. Dr. Pusey delights to call Mary the “ Mother of God.” This is a title which to modern ears sounds like blasphemy. Taken literally, it is destructive of the “ Catholic faith,” for even the creed of St. Athanasius does not say that the man Jesus was God, but ex- �fDR. PUSEY AND THE ULTRAMONTANES. :6n pressly the contrary, that He was “man, of the substance of His mother.” A General Council decreed that Mary was Theotocos Deipara, or Mother of God. It must then be received as an article of the faith by all who believe in the infallibility of Councils. It originated in the fond fancies of such Fathers as St. Ignatius, who gays “ Our God was carried in the womb of Mary,” and of St. Chry­ sostom, who speaks of the “ Everlasting ” as born of a woman. It is continued by Dr. Newman, who does not scruple to say that ii Mary bore, suckled, and handled the Eternal.” Even with Dr. Pusey she is “ Our Lady.” “ Eirenicon,” Part III., or the second letter to Dr. Newman, is a defence of the original positions of the “ Eirenicon.” It still maintains that reunion is possible if we can treat with the Church, of Rome on the Gallican principles as expounded by* Bossuet. This leads Dr. Pusey to repeat the well-known arguments and facts against Papal infallibility. But the repetition of them is an offence to the very party which rules the Church of Rome. For the spirit and claims of that party we must turn to Dr. Man­ ning’s Pastoral. Some Roman Catholics and some Anglo-Catholics had formed an association, and agreed to pray together for the reunion of Christendom. The Roman Catholic! bishops in England submitted the constitution of-the “association” to the judgment of the “ Congregation of the Holy Office ” at Rome. The association was condemned, and “Catholics” were*', forbidden to pray with Anglicans for any such object. The grounds of the condemnation involved the condemnation of the principles on; which the Anglicans proposed reunion. The “ Congregation ” said that there were not three Churches of Christ—-the Greek, the'Roman, and the Anglican —but only one Church, which was that <rf Rome. Christ’s Church had never lost its unity, and never could lose it. Diider pain of eter­ nal death, it was declared to be the duty of every man to enter the only Church of Christ, which was that presided oyer by the Bishop of Rome. Dr. Manning described the scheme of union as based, not on the Thirtynine Articles as understood by Englishmen, nor* on the Council of Trent as understood by Catholics, but in a sensevknown neither to the Church of England nor the Church of Rome. He declares it to be as impossible to be saved out of the “ on© fold,” which is that of Rome, as it is to be regenerated without baptism. The Church of England is the “ Anglican separation,” the Greek Church 'is. the “ Greek schism.” To call these Churches parts of the Church Catholic is to destroy the boundaries of truth and falsehood. If these Churches are Catho­ lic, then the infallibility and oecumenicity of Trent must be denied. Dr. Manning says that if Anglicans appeal to Bossuet, they must believe with Bossuet. The infallibility of the Pope may be denied, �612 THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW. but there remains the infallibility of the Church. Bossuet lived in Catholic unity, Anglicans are in separation. It is not enough to accept the decrees of Trent because we agree with them. This is mere private judgment. They must be accepted because the Council spoke with authority. To decide, because of evidence, to agree with the Church in doctrine, through an exercise of private judgment, does not make a man a Catholic. That requires submission and obedience. It is the Church which interprets both antiquity and the Scriptures. Its office is to assert, not to argue; to declare, not to give reasons. It is no sign of humility, Dr. Manning says, and no evidence of faith, to appeal from the Pope to a General Council of Greeks, Anglicans, and Romans, *who shall put down Ultramontanism, declare the Pope fallible, and restore the Immaculate Conception to the region of pious opinions. True faith is obedience to the Church of Rome; “other foundation can no man lay.” Of the same tone and character is Mr. Harper’s elaborate work, “Peace through the Truth.” The Church, that is, the Church of Rome, is the visible kingdom of Christ, “His Incarnation.” It is a supernatural institutiontaand lives a supernatural life. A religious society, like the Church of England, outside of the “ true Church,” has no rights. The question is between “the Incarnate Word” and “ a body of men.” To say that the Church has erred for twelve centuries is (to say that the Holy Ghost has failed in His mission. The Church being,i*aiS -it were, the body of Christ, not by a figure, but in reality, from Him, through the hierarchy, flows a never-ceasing stream of supernatural grace; but it flows only through those in union with the body. The Anglican priesthood are, therefore, but “high and dry” channels, without even a globule of sacramental grace. In Dr. Pusey’s objections to the extravagances of Roman devotion Mr. Harper only sees hatred to the practical life of the Church. The “dominant errors,” against which Dr. Newman said our Articles were chiefly directed, are regarded as the “ perfected consciousness ” of the Church. It cannot, we think, be denied that Mr. Harper has here caught the spirit by which the Church of Rome lives. This accords with the claims of an infallible Church. The con­ sistency of the ideal is preserved. Our Reformers agreed with Mr. Harper that the popular superstitions were a part of the consciousness of the Church of Rome, and just on that account they did not trouble themselves to distinguish between authorized dogma and what was commonly believed. And this is really the vital question. It is not whether a harmony can be effected between the creeds of the two Churches, but whether the two Churches can have one life, one con­ sciousness. All Protestants have felt instinctively, as Mr. Harper feels, that between the Church of England and the Church of Rome �THE ULTRAMONTANES. 613 there is “ a great gulf.” On which side are the companions of Dives or Lazarus will be a matter of difference. But Mr. Harper is con­ sistent with himself when he says, that but for the Deformation in England “ thousands now in hell might have been eternally saved.” He denies that there is one well authenticated case of a Pope falling into error. The Anglican doctrine of the “ Heal Presence,” even as explained by Dr. Pusey, is decld&ed to be in direct contradic­ tion to that of the Council of Trent, while the1 history of the “Black Rubric” determines, with historical certainty, that Dr. Pusey’s doc­ trine is not that of the Church of England. Mr. Harper announces a “ Second Series ” of Essays, and Dr. Pusey advertises a reply to Mr. Harper. , Of all the answers to Dr. Pusey, W'e know of none to be compared with that in the Revue du Mond'e Catholique. It consists of three articles by a Jesuit Father, written with a fascin&tin'g precision, with a penetrating insight into the minutest bearings of‘the question, and with a delicate raillery worthy of the happiest moments of Voltaire. The literary and theological value of the “ ESfenfeofflf” is estimated at about nothing. The arguments are simply thteAhttV'ata^d thirty years ago by Father Newman, and by the 's’ame Farther afterwards solidly refuted. The Anglicans reject the natne of Protestant, and take upon them that of Anglo-Catholics, “ or even Catholics.” Of all the Pro­ testant sects the Anglican is- the most inconsequent, precisely because it is that which has preserved most Catfrdlic truth while revolting against the Catholic Church. It professes tb follow antiquity, and yet there is nothing in antiquity more clea'H^y proclaimed by the first Councils, or more energetically demonstrated by the Fathers, than the supremacy of the Homan See. When Cardinal Wiseihan got the Anglicans upon antiquity, he crushed them under the weight of decisive texts. Anglicans rest on Episcopacy because of the privi­ leges which the Fathers say are possessed by the bishops; but these same Fathers show that the first condition of enjoying these privi­ leges is legitimate appointment. Catholics have always denied the validity of the consecration of the Anglican bishops under Elizabeth. With only one exception they had all been vwlently introduced into their sees by the royal authority, and contrary to the holy canons. From the Fathers the Anglicans learned Some vague ideas about the necessity of the unity of the Church. On the strength of this they pronounced a severe sentence against the Dissenters. They even called John Wesley a heresiarch. More than that, their simplicity was such that they charged Catholics with quitting the great unity of the Christian world. Anglicans saw the necessity of an authority, but they could not determine where it was to be found. Article XX. gives the Church a right to propose decisions, but not to impose �614 THE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW^ them. The Church has some authority in appearance, but none in reality. In the early days of “ Anglo-Catholicism,” Newman and Oakley, simply maintained that the Thirty-nine Articles could bear a Catholic sense; but now Dr. Pusey says this is their real sense. But to make Dr. Pusey a Catholic one thing is lacking. With! out that one thing he will be a Protestant all the days of his life. He wants that which in itself constitutes orthodoxy. He wants submission to the authority of the Church. He must believe the doctrines of the Church, not because of their agreement with Scripture and tradition, but because the Church declare! them. It is true he believes the Church, but then it is the Church of another age.—a Church which speaks by documents of which. Dr. Pusey remains the sole^judge. Like other Protestants, he still exercises his private judgment. The only difference is that they interpret the Bible only, while Dr. Pusey interprets decrees of Councils and writings of Fathers. But in both cases there is private judgment and an equal absence of true faith, which is submission. The Church of the first centuries was infallible, according to Dr. Pusey. That is to say, Christ’s promise to His Church was only kept till the Cl^rrch was invaded by heresy and schism. The guides of the Church now are to be the writings of the Fathers. But does Dr. Pusey know the meaning of the Fathers? Their writings may be understood in many senses. Moreover, if Christianity can only be learned from the Fathers, what is to become of the multitude of people who have no time to read either Fathers or decrees of Coun­ cils ? Did Jesus Christ place His truth within the reach of Oxford doctors only, and not also of infants and little children ? There is nothing, the French writer says, peaceful in Dr. Pusey’s book except its title. It is “a sad book.” It proposes to unite “Anglicans’! and “ Catholics,” by converting both into “Puseyites.” The Reunion Essays, published by Mr. Hayes, are in their way curiosities. AVe might have given the volume a word of commendation, but for the utter inanity of three or four of the essays about the middle and towards the end of the book. One writer proposes nothing less than to un-Protestantize and to Catholicize England. Another speaks of the restoration of the “ Daily Sacrifice,” One charges the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge with “ an overt act of heresy,” in striking out of all its books, at the instigation of a late Archbishop of Canterbury, without a protest from a single bishop, the expression “ Mother of God. Another bemoans the infidelity of the age, which has almost ceased to believe that there is “material fire” in hell. But the gem of the collection is the Essay by “ A Priest of the Archdiocese of �^DR. PUSEY AND THE ULTRAMONTANES. 615 Bofftantinople,” who tells the Anglicans, in the spirit of Mr. Harper, that they and the Roman Catholics tl must hear the words of truthful warning from the unvarying lips of orthodoxy; that il the truth which the orthodox hold must be affirmed ” by all, and that “ ortho1 doxy is ready and willing to explain when the uninformed are prepared to be taught.” With the Greek Church reunion is more probable than with the Roman ; but the great interest of the question turns on the relation of Rome to separated or national Churches. The claim which Rome makes is peculiar, and as generations pass, that claim is increasingly urged. The events of the passing hour take away all hope that those who rule the Church of Rome will ever make even a sign to Hr. Pusey and his friends, till, on bended knees, they receive from the “ Holy Father ” that blessing which will purify them from the birth-sin of heresy. Nor in one sense do we blame Rome. If it really is what it professes to be, it is right in making no sur­ render. But, on the other hand, if it is not what it professes to be, then Protestants are justified in the severest things that they have said against, it. If Mr. Harper’s view of the Church of Rome really is the correct one, it either is what he calls it, an “ incarna­ tion” of Christ, or it is Antichrist. In the latter case the claim to infallibility will be its destruction, and Protestants may say, “ Ephraim is joined to his idols, let him alone.” We might urge this on “ Anglo-Catholics,” but we are too con­ scious that their position is not one reached by reason. It is simply due to a certain tendency of mind. The same men who are “ AngloCatholics ” in the Church of England would be Ultramontanes in the Church of Rome. There are two tendencies in all Churches. One is the disposition to rely on authority ; the other is to mental inde­ pendence. We sometimes see Roman Catholics claiming the right to reason for themselves, and Protestants rejoicing in the renun­ ciation of reason. Dr. Pusey, in the nineteenth century, still looks for grace coming through a hierarchy, as through a material channel. Bishop Jewel, three centuries ago, was able to say that divine grace K is not given to sees and successions, but to them, that fear God. John Hunt. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Dr Pusey and the ultramontanes Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Hunt, John Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [s.l.] Collation: [597]-615 p. ; 25 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. From Contemporary Review 14, July 1870. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [s.n.] Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1870] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5405 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (Dr Pusey and the ultramontanes), identified by <a href="www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p> Subject The topic of the resource Catholic Church Conway Tracts Edward Bouver Pusey Popes-Infallibility Roman Catholic Church