V.
LETTER ADDRESSED TO
A MAGAZINE
ON
BEHALF OF
DR.
PUSEY'S TRACTS ON
HOLY BAPTISM
AND OF OTHER TRACTS
FOR THE TIMES
(Being
No. 82 of the said Tracts.)
1837.
Notice
{145} I SHOULD
hesitate for several reasons to include the following Letter among
these republications, did it not serve to illustrate the state of the
controversy at the time when it was written, and had it not been a
step towards the 90th Tract.
In order to understand it aright, passages from
publications of the day must first be given, out of which it grew.
1.
Dr. Pusey, in the second Volume of the Tracts for
the Times (No. 69, On Baptism, pp. 134-137), writes
as follows:—
"The term 'regeneration' came to be used for the
visible change, or almost for sanctification; and its original sense,
as denoting a privilege of the Christian Church, was wholly lost ...
Undoubtedly, the pious men under the Old Dispensation were sanctified;
and, in these days of ordinary attainment, how must we look back with
shame and dejection upon the worthies of the elder Covenant, {146}
upon those 'three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job,' or upon Abraham, the
Father of the faithful and the 'friend of God.' Greatly were they
sanctified. The Spirit of God ... purified the breast of the
'Preacher of righteousness' … yet was not Noah therefore regenerate
… Regeneration is a privilege of the Church of Christ ...
Sanctification on the contrary includes various degrees."
2.
And in the Advertisement to the same Volume
occurred the following passage:—
"We have almost embraced the doctrine, that God
conveys grace only through the instrumentality of the mental energies,
that is, through faith, prayer, active spiritual contemplations, or
(what is called) communion with God, in contradiction to the primitive
view, according to which the Church and her Sacraments are the
ordained and direct visible means of conveying to the soul what is in
itself supernatural and unseen. For example, would not most men
maintain, on the first view of the subject, that to administer the
Lord's Supper to infants, or to the dying and insensible [Note
1], however consistently pious and believing in their past lives,
was a superstition? and yet both practices have the sanction of
primitive usage. And does not this account for the prevailing
indisposition {147} to admit that Baptism conveys regeneration?
Indeed, this may even be set down as the essence of Sectarian doctrine
(however its mischief may be restrained or compensated, in the case of
individuals), to consider faith, and not the Sacraments, as the
instrument of justification and other Gospel gifts," &c.
3.
This was in 1835. Towards the end of the next
year, a Protestant Magazine of established reputation was led to
animadvert with great severity upon the above passages, and on the
line of doctrine advocated in the Oxford Tracts, as follows:—
"In reply to the question which [a correspondent]
puts to us, as to 'what authority' the doctrine which he quotes from
the Oxford Tracts rests upon, we can only say, Upon the authority of
the darkest ages of Popery, when men had debased Christianity from a
spiritual system, a 'reasonable service,' to a system of forms, and
ceremonial rites, and opera operata influences; in which, what
Bishop Horsley emphatically calls 'the mysterious intercourse of the
soul with its Creator,' was nearly superseded by an intervention of
'the Church'—not as a congregation of faithful men, in which the
pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments are 'duly
administered {148} according to Christ's ordinance,' as the Church of
England defines it—but as a sort of 'mediator between God and man,'
through whom all things relating to spiritual life were to be
conveyed. Those who could not understand that 'God is a Spirit, and
they that worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and in truth,' and
those who had neither the reality nor 'the appearance of spiritual
life,' readily allied themselves to a religion of ceremonials, in
which the Church stood in the place of God. And as the Popish
priesthood found their gain in encouraging these ritual and
non-spiritual views of Christianity, they eventually prevailed
throughout Christendom, till the Reformation restored the pure light
of Scripture, and taught men to look less to the priest and more to
God; less to 'outward and visible signs,' and more to 'inward and
spiritual graces;' and not to infer that, because their name stood
upon the register of baptism, it was therefore enrolled in the Lamb's
book of life, when there was no 'appearance' of spiritual vitality in
their heart or conduct.
"This fatal reliance upon signs, to the
forgetfulness of the things signified, was rendered more proclivious,
from the circumstance that in the early Church persecution so purified
its ranks, that there was little temptation for men to call themselves
Christians who were not such in heart; and as adult converts were the
first candidates for baptism, {149} the outward and visible sign of
regeneration was not resorted to till the inward and spiritual grace
was already actually possessed; for there had been spiritually a
'death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness,' before the party
applied to make a public confession of his faith in Christ, at the
risk of subjecting himself to all the secular perils which it
involved.
"We have devoted so many scores, nay, hundreds of
pages to the questions propounded in the extract from the Oxford
Tracts (especially at the time of the Baptismal controversy, upon
occasion of Bishop Mant's Tract, when not a few of our readers were
thoroughly wearied with the discussion), that we are not anxious to
obtrude a new litigation; but we have readily inserted the extract
furnished by our correspondent, because nothing that we could say
would so clearly show the unscriptural character of the whole system
of the Oxford Tracts, as to let them speak for themselves. When the
Christian reader learns that Noah, and Abraham, and Moses, and Job,
and David, and Isaiah, and Daniel, were not regenerate persons, were
not sons of God, were not born again, but that Voltaire was all this,
because he had been baptized by a Popish priest, we may surely leave
such an hypothesis to be crushed by its own weight. It is the very
bathos of theology, an absurdity not worthy to be gravely replied to,
that men were 'sanctified,' 'greatly sanctified;' were the {150}
friends of God, that 'the Spirit of God dwelt in their hearts, and
wrought therein incorruption, self-denial, patience, and unhesitating,
unwearied faith; who yet, having been 'by nature born in sin, and the
children of wrath,' and never having been baptized, so as to be made
'the children of grace,' were still 'unregenerate,' and therefore, in
Scripture language, 'children of the devil.' Sanctified, unregenerate
friends of God! The Spirit of God dwelling in men, who, not being
'born again,' were of necessity, being still in their natural
condition, 'children of the devil!' What next?
"We defy a score of Dr. Hampdens, even were they
to give lectures in favour of pure Socinianism, to do so much mischief
to the cause of religion, in a high academical station, as is done by
setting forth such doctrine as that contained in the following passage
from one of the Oxford Tracts;—for Socinianism makes no pretensions
to be the doctrine of the Church of England, nor do any members of
that Church profess to find it in Scripture; whereas the absurdity,
the irrational fanaticism, the intellectual drivelling under the
abused name of faith, which dictates such sentiments as the following,
must disgust every intelligent man, and make him an infidel, if he is
really led to believe that Christianity is a system so utterly opposed
to common sense. The writer complains, that {151} 'we have almost
embraced the doctrine, that God conveys grace only through,' &c. [as
above, p. 146.]
"Did ever any man, but the most ignorant Popish
fanatic, till these our modern days, write thus? Administering the
Lord's Supper (by which we feed upon Christ 'by faith with
thanksgiving'—that is, in a purely spiritual banquet) to
infants, or to the dying or insensible, is not superstition, if it can
be proved that there were in some former age some persons weak and
ignorant enough to act or advocate such folly and impiety! Why not
equally vindicate the Pope's sprinkling holy water upon the horses, or
St. Anthony's preaching to the fishes? We will only say, Let those who
adopt a portion of this scheme, and not the whole, mark well whither
they are tending. Upon the showing of the Oxford Tracts themselves,
the whole system hangs together. You are to adopt some irrational
mystical system, by which grace is conveyed—not through 'faith,
prayer, active spiritual contemplations, or (what is called) communion
with God,' but—in the same manner that the Lord's Supper conveys
grace when administered to an infant, or an insensible person. We have
never been extreme in our views respecting the language used in our
Liturgy concerning Baptism. We have thought that the words might be
consistently used, either in reference to the undoubted privileges of
Christian {152} baptism; or in faith and charity, upon the principle
stated in the Catechism, where it is said, 'Why then are infants
baptized, when, by reason of their tender age, they cannot perform
them? (faith and repentance.) Because they promise them both by their
sureties; which promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound
to perform.' Upon either of these principles we can cheerfully use our
Baptismal Service. But if the use of it is to sanction the doctrine
stated in this Tract; if we are to believe that baptism 'conveys to
the soul what is in itself supernatural and unseen,' in the selfsame
way that the Popish wafer is alleged to convey grace to infants and
insensible persons—(why not to idiots?)—and if our Church Service
is to be tortured to bear this meaning; then we confess, that the
sooner such a stumbling-block is removed the better.
"The Oxford Tract writers will not allow us to
connect the outward and visible sign of Baptism, or the Lord's Supper,
with the inward and spiritual grace, through the medium of 'faith,
prayer, active spiritual contemplations, or (what is called) communion
with God,' but only through the selfsame channel by which 'primitive
usage' supposed grace to flow to an infant or insensible person, when
operated upon with the holy Eucharist. Nay, they sneer at and ridicule
'what is called' communion with God (poor Bishop Horsley's 'mysterious
intercourse of the {153} soul with its Creator'), as being something
so 'called,' but without warrant; whereas true communion with God is
through the intervention of 'the Church:' by which intervention there
is this communion when the priest puts a consecrated wafer upon the
lips of an infant or insensible person. The Church of England teaches,
after Holy Scripture, that we are 'justified by faith;' Professor
Pusey teaches that the Sacraments are the appointed instruments of
justification. The learned Professor ought to lecture at Maynooth, or
the Vatican, and not in the chair of Oxford, when he puts forth this
Popish doctrine. It is afflicting beyond expression to see our
Protestant Church—and in times like these—agitated by the revival
of these figments of the darkest ages of Papal superstition. Well may
Popery flourish! well may Dissent triumph! well may Unitarianism
sneer! well may all Protestantism mourn, to see the spot where Cranmer
and Latimer shed their blood for the pure Gospel of Christ, overrun
(yet not overrun, for, blessed be God, the infection is not—at least
so we trust—widely spread) with some of the most vain and baneful
absurdities of Popery. We ask Professor Pusey how, as a conscientious
man, he retains any office in a Church which requires him to subscribe
to all the Thirty-nine Articles, and to acknowledge as Scriptural the
doctrines set forth in the Homilies? Will any one of {154} the
writers, or approvers of the Oxford Tracts, venture to say that he
does really believe all the doctrines of the Articles and Homilies of
our Church? He may construe some of the Offices of the Church
after his own manner; but what does he do with the Articles and
Homilies? We have often asked this question in private, but could
never get an answer. Will any approver of the Oxford Tracts answer it
in print?"
The following letter was the consequence of this
challenge. {155}
LETTER TO
THE EDITOR OF A
MAGAZINE
PART
I.
Jan. 11, 1837.
SIR,—Through that courtesy, which is on the whole characteristic of
your Magazine, in dealing with opponents, I am permitted to answer in
its pages the challenge, made in a late number to Dr. Pusey and the
writers of the Tracts for the Times, on certain points of their
theology. The tone of that challenge, I must own, or rather the
general conduct of your Magazine towards the Tracts, since their first
appearance, has been an exception to its usual mildness and urbanity.
However, I seize, as an ample amends, this opportunity of a reply,
which, if satisfactory, will, as appearing in its pages, be rather a
retractation on your part than an explanation on mine.
One would think that the Tracts had introduced
some new articles of faith into English theology, such surprise at
them has been excited in some quarters; yet, much as they have been
censured, no attempt, that I know of, has been made to prove them
guilty—I will not say, in any article of faith, but—even in any
theological opinion, inconsistent with that religious system which has
been received among us since the date of the "Ecclesiastical Polity."
Indeed, nothing is more striking than the contrast exhibited in the
controversy between the definiteness and precision of the attack upon
them, and the vagueness of the {156} reasons for making it. From the
excitement on the subject for the last three years, one would think
nothing was more obvious and tangible than the offence which they
contained; yet nothing, not only to refute, but even to describe their
errors definitely, has yet been attempted. Extracts have been made
with notes of admiration; abuse has been lavished; invidious
associations suggested; irony and sarcasm have lent their aid; their
writers have been called Papists, and Non-jurors, and Lauds, and
Sacheverells, and that not least of all in your own Magazine; yet I
much doubt whether, for any light which you have thrown on the
subject, its readers have, up to this hour, any more definite idea of
the matter in dispute than they have of Sacheverell himself, or of the
Non-jurors, or of any other vague name which is circulated in the
world, meaning the less the oftener it is used. If your readers were
examined, perhaps they would not get beyond this round of titles and
epithets: or, at the utmost, we should but hear that the Tracts were
corruptions of the Gospel, human inventions, systems of fallible men,
and so forth. These are the fine words which you give your friends to
feed upon, for bread.
Even now, Mr. Editor, when you make your formal
challenge apropos of Dr. Pusey, you do not distinctly and
pointedly say, as a man who was accusing, not declaiming, what
you want answered. You ask, "Will any of the writers or approvers of
the Oxford Tracts venture to say that he does really believe all
the doctrines of the Articles and Homilies of our Church?" How
unsuitable is this! Why do you not tell us which doctrine of
the Articles you have in your mind, and then prove your point, instead
of leaving us to guess it? One used to think it was the business of
the accuser to bring proof, and not to throw upon the accused the onus
of proving a negative. What! am I, as an approver of the Tracts, to go
through the {157} round of doctrines in Articles and Homilies,
measuring Dr. Pusey first by one, then by the other, while the Editor
sits still, as judge rather than accuser? What! are we not even to
have the charge told us, let alone the proof? No; we are to
find out both the dream and the interpretation.
2.
So much for the formal challenge which your
Magazine puts forth; and I can find nothing, either in the remarks
which precede it or in its acceptance of my offer, precisely coming to
the point, and informing me what the charge against Dr. Pusey
is. It is connected with the Sacraments, certainly: you wish him and
his friends, according to your subsequent notice, "to reconcile some
of the statements in them [the Tracts] respecting the Sacraments, with
some of those in the Articles and Homilies!" In your remarks
which precede the challenge, you do mention two opinions which you
suppose him to hold, which I shall presently notice; but you are still
silent as to the Article or Homily transgressed. This is not an
English mode of proceeding: and I dwell on it, as one of the
significant tokens in the controversy, as to what is the real state of
the case and its probable issue. Here are two parties: one clamours
loudly and unsparingly against the other, and does no more; that other
is absorbed in his subject, appeals to Scripture, to the Fathers, to
custom, to reason, in its defence, but answers not. Put the
case before any sharp-sighted witness of human affairs, and he will
give a good guess which is in the right. If, indeed, there is one
thing more than another that brings home to me that the Tracts are
mainly on the side of Truth—more than their reasonings, their
matter, and their testimonies; more than argument from Scripture, or
appeal to Antiquity, or sanction from our own divines; more than the
beauty {158} and grandeur, the thrilling and transporting influence,
the fulness and sufficiency of the doctrines which they desire to
maintain—it is this: the evidence which their writers bear about
them, that they are the reviled party, not the revilers. I challenge
the production of anything in the Tracts of an unkind, satirical, or
abusive character; anything personal. One Tract only concerns
individuals at all, No. 73; and that treats of them in a way which no
one, I think, will find to be any exception to this remark. The
writers nowhere attack your Magazine, or other similar publications,
though they evidently as little admire its theology, as your Magazine
approves of the theology of the Tracts. They have been content to go
onward; to preach what is positive; to trust in what they did well,
not in what others did ill; to leave Truth to fight its own battle, in
a case where they had no office or commission to assist it coercively.
They have spoken against principles, ages, or historical characters,
but not against persons living. They have taken no eye for eye, or
tooth for tooth. They have left their defence to time, or rather
committed it to God. Once only have they hitherto accepted of defence,
even from a friend [Note 2], a
partner he indeed also, but not in those Tracts which he defended.
This, then, is the part that they have chosen;
what your Magazine's choice has been, is plain even from the article
which leads me to write this letter. We are there told of the Oxford
writers "relying on the authority of the darkest ages of Popery;" of
their advocating "the bathos in theology, an absurdity not worthy to
be gravely replied to," of their "absurdity," "irrational fanaticism,"
"intellectual drivelling," of their writing like "the most ignorant
Popish fanatic," of their "sneering and ridiculing," of their reviving
the "figments of the darkest ages of Papal superstition," "some of the
most vain and baneful {159} absurdities of Popery;" and all this with
an avowal you do not wish to discuss the matter. Brave words surely!
Well and good, take your fill of these, Mr. Editor, since you choose
them for your portion. It does but make our spirits rise cheerily and
hopefully thus to be encountered. Never were our words on one side,
but deeds were on the other. We know our place, and our
fortunes; to give a witness and to be condemned, to be ill-used and to
succeed. Such is the law which God has annexed to the
promulgation of the Truth; its preachers suffer, but its cause
prevails. Be it so. Joyfully do we all consent to this compact; and
the more you attack us personally, the more, for the very omen's sake,
will we exult in it.
With these feelings, then, I have accepted your
challenge, not for the sake of Dr. Pusey, much as I love and revere
him; not for the sake of the writers of the Tracts; but for the sake
of the secret ones of Christ, lest they be impeded in their progress
towards Catholic truth by personal charges against those who are
upholding it against the pressure of the age. As for Dr. Pusey
himself, and the other writers, they are happy each in his own sphere,
wherever God's providence has called them, in earth or heaven; and
they literally do not know, and do not care, what the world says of
them.
3.
Now, as I have already said, I cannot distinctly
make out the precise charge brought against Dr. Pusey and his friends;
that is, I cannot determine what tenet of his is supposed to be
contrary to which of the Thirty-nine Articles. However, you
condemn two of their statements,—the notion that the Sacraments may,
for what we know, in certain cases be of benefit to persons
unconscious during their administration; and next that Regeneration is
a gift of the {160} New Covenant exclusively. I will take them in the
order you place them in.
1. First, then, of Regeneration, as a gift
peculiar to the Gospel.—You remark thus upon a passage from Dr.
Pusey's work on Baptism, in which he contrasts regeneration and
sanctification, and says, that the former is a gift of the Gospel
exclusively, the latter is the possession of all good men: "We have
devoted," you say, "so many scores, nay, hundreds of pages to the
questions propounded in the extract from the Oxford Tracts (especially
at the time of the Baptismal controversy, upon occasion of Bishop Mant's
Tract, when not a few of our readers were wearied with the
discussion), that we are not anxious to obtrude a new ligitation; but
we have readily inserted the extract furnished by our correspondent,
because nothing that we could say would so clearly show the
unscriptural character of the whole system of the Oxford Tracts, as to
let them speak for themselves."—Now at first sight there might seem
to be an inconsistency in your persisting for some years in speaking instead
of us, then suddenly saying, it is best to let the Tracts "speak
for Themselves," and then in the very next sentences, relapsing in
eandem cantilenam, into the same declamatory tone of attack as
before; but there is really none. In either case you avoid discussion,
which, as you candidly confess, and very likely with good reason, you
are tired of. I doubt not you are discouraged at finding that you have
still to argue about what you have already settled once for all. Or
rather, if you will let me speak plainly, and tell you my mind,
perhaps there has been that in the religious aspect of the hour, which
has flattered many who agree with you, and perhaps yourself, that the
day of mere struggle was past, and the day of triumph was come; that
your principles were now professed by all the serious, all the active
men in the Church, your old opponents drooping or dying off; and that
now, {161} by the force of character in your friends, or by influence
in high places, your view of doctrine would be sure of making a
permanent impression upon our religious system. And if so, you are not
unnaturally surprised to find "uno avulso, non deficit alter;" to find
a sudden obstacle in your path, and that from a quarter whence you did
not expect it; and, in consequence, you feel stimulated to remove so
inconvenient a phenomenon hastily rather than courteously. And hence,
partly from weariness, partly from vexation, you would, if you could,
carry your theological views by acclamation, not after discussion. If
all this be so, you are quite consistent, whether you quote our words
without comment, or substitute your own comment for them. In one point
alone you are irretrievably inconsistent, to have inserted your
challenge at the end of your article. You are safe while you eschew
argument.
4.
But what is the very doctrine that has created
this confusion? It is Dr. Pusey's asserting, after primitive
authorities, that the Old Fathers, though sanctified, were not
regenerated. Is this, after all, the doctrine which contravenes
the Articles, and is such that a divine who holds it should quit his
Professorship? In which of the Articles is a syllable to be found
referring to the subject, one way or the other—except so far as they
tend our way, as implying, from their doctrine of regeneration in
baptism, that those who are not baptized, and therefore the Old
Fathers, are not regenerate? If then the plain truth must be spoken,
what your Magazine wishes is to add to the Articles. Let this
be clearly understood. This Magazine, which has ever, as many think,
been over-liberal and lax in its explanations of our Services, and in
its concessions to Dissenters, desires to forge for us a yoke of
commandments, {162} and, as I should hold, of commandments of men.
Years ago, indeed, we heard of much from it in censure of Bishop Marsh's
Eighty-seven Questions which put his private sense on our Church
formularies; but it would seem that an Editor may do what a Bishop may
not. In reviewing those arbitrary Questions, your Magazine pointedly
spoke of the wisdom of the framers of the Royal Declaration prefixed
to the Articles, which prescribes that they shall be taken in no new
or peculiar sense; contrasting, to use its own words, "the spirit of
peace, of moderation, of manly candour, and comprehensive liberality,
which breathes throughout this Declaration, with the subtle,
contentious, dogmatical, sectarian, and narrow-minded spirit which,"
it proceeded, "we grieve to say, pervades the Bishop of Peterborough's
Eighty-seven Questions." (March, 1821.) But why is liberality to
develope on one side only? Why must Regeneration by Baptism be an open
question, but the Regeneration of the Patriarchs a close one? Why must
Zuinglius be admitted, and the school of Gregory and Augustine
excluded? Or do men by a sort of superstition so cleave to the word
Protestant, that a Saint who had the misfortune to be born before 1517
is less of kin to them than heretics since? But such is your Magazine's
rule: it is as zealous against Bishop Marsh for coercing one way, as
against us for refusing to be coerced the other.
Will it be said that Dr. Pusey and others would
do the same, if they could; that is, would limit the Articles to their
own sense? No; the Articles are confessedly wide in their wording,
though still their width is within bounds; they seem to include a
number of shades of opinion. Your Magazine may rest satisfied that Dr.
Pusey's friends will never assert that the Articles have any
particular meaning at all. They aspire, and (by the divine blessing)
intend, to have a successful fight; but not by narrowing the {163}
Church's Creed to Lutheranism, Calvinism, or Zuinglianism after your
pattern, but from a confidence that they are contending for the Truth,
and as seeing that Providence is wonderfully raising up witnesses and
champions of the Truth, not in one place only, but at once in many, as
armed men from the ground.
But to return. It is hard to be put on our
defence, as it appears we are, for opinions not against the Articles;
but be it so. Let us hear the form of the accusation. You speak thus: "When
the Christian reader learns that Noah, and Abraham, and Moses, and
Job, and David, and Isaiah, and Daniel, were not regenerate persons,
were not sons of God, were not born again, but that Voltaire was all
this, because he had been baptized by a Popish priest, we may surely
leave such an hypothesis to be crushed by its own weight." To be sure,
the hypothesis is absurd, if your own sense is to be put upon the word
"regenerate;" but it will be observed, that it all depends upon this;
and it is not evident that it will be absurd when Dr. Pusey's own
sense is put upon his own words. If all who are sanctified are
regenerate, then I say, it is absurd to say that Abraham was not
regenerate, being sanctified. On the other hand, if only Christians
are regenerate, then it is absurd to say that Abraham was regenerate,
being not a Christian. What trifling upon words is this! what is the
use of oscillating to and fro upon their different meanings? Surely,
your business, Mr. Editor, was to prove his sense wrong, not to assume
your own sense as undeniable, and to interpret his words by it; else,
when you assert, "no one, unless regenerated on earth, shall enter
heaven," he, in turn, might accuse you, quite as fairly, of denying
the salvation of Abraham, because, in his view, Abraham was not
regenerated on earth. {164}
5.
I will now state briefly the view of Dr. Pusey,
derived from the goodly fellowship of the Fathers, proved from
Scripture, and called by your Magazine "the very bathos of theology."
All of us, I suppose, grant that the Holy Spirit is given under the
Gospel, in some sense, in which He was not given under the Law. The
Homily (2nd of Faith) says so expressly: "Although they," the Old
Testament saints mentioned Heb. xi., "were not named Christian men,
yet was it a Christian faith that they had: God gave them then grace
to be His children, as He doth us now. But now, by the coming of our
Saviour Christ, we have received more abundantly the Spirit of
God in our hearts, whereby we may conceive a greater faith, and a
surer trust, than many of them had. But, in effect, they and we be all
one: we have the same faith," &c. Though man's duties were the
same, his gifts were greater after Christ came. Whatever might be the
spiritual aid that was vouchsafed before, afterwards it was a Divine
Presence in the soul, abiding, abundant, and efficacious. In a word,
it was the Holy Ghost Himself: He influenced indeed the heart before,
but is not revealed as residing in it. Now, when we consider the
Scripture proof of this in the full, I think we shall see that this
special gift, which Christians have, is really something extraordinary
and distinguishing. And, whether it should be called Regeneration or
no, so far is clear, that all persons who hold that there is a
great gift since Christ came, which was not given before, do, in their
degree, incur your censure, as holding a "very bathos of theology."
You might say of them, just as you say of Dr. Pusey, "When the
Christian reader learns that Abraham was sanctified, yet 'had not the
Spirit, because that Jesus was not yet glorified,' we may leave the
hypothesis to be crushed by its own weight." {165}
6.
Now for the Scripture proof. I contend, first,
that there is a spiritual difference between Christians and Jews; and,
next, that the accession of spiritual power, which Christians have, is
called Regeneration. Let it be understood, however, that I am not
adducing proofs of this, as if you had any claim on me for
them; but showing your readers that, even at first sight, it is not so
utterly irrational and unplausible a notion as to account for your
saying, "What next?" in short, to show that the "absurdity" does not
lie with Dr. Pusey.
The prophets had announced the promise.
Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye
shall be clean ... a new heart also will I give you, and a
new spirit will I put within you ... and I will put My
spirit within you." Again, xxxvii. 27: "My tabernacle also
shall be with them." Vid. also Heb. viii. 10. In Isa. xliv. 3, the
gift is expressly connected with the person of the Messiah: "I will
pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I
will pour My Spirit upon Thy seed, and My blessing upon Thine
offspring."
Our Saviour refers to this gift as the promise
of His Father, Luke xxiv. 49; Acts i. 4. He enlarges much upon it,
John xiv.-xvi. It flows to us from Him: "Of His fulness have all we
received." (John i. 16.)
St. John expressly tells us it was not
given before Christ was glorified. (John vii. 39.) In like
manner St. Paul says, that though the old fathers lived by faith, yet
they received not the promise. (Heb. xi. 39.) And St. Peter,
that even the prophets, though they had the prophetic Spirit—"the
Spirit of Christ which was in them"—yet, after all, had not "the
glory which should follow;" which was "the Gospel with the Holy
Ghost sent down from {166} heaven;" that is, the Spirit, in
the special Christian sense. Consider also St. Paul's use of the term
"spirit," e.g. Rom. viii., as being the characteristic of the
Gospel.
It is described in the New Testament under the
same images as it is promised in the Old,—a tabernacle in us, and a
fount of living water (1 Cor. iii. 17; vi. 19; 2 Cor. vi. 16-18; John
iv. 14; vii. 38).
Nothing, I think, but the inveterate addiction to
systematizing so prevalent can explain away texts which so expressly
say that we have a Divine presence which the Jews had not.
Now, secondly, is this gift to be called
Regeneration? I grant that there is a sense in which the terms
applicable to Christian privileges are also applicable to Jewish. The
Jews were "sons of God," were "begotten" of God, had "the Spirit," saw "the
glory of God," and the like; but, in like manner, the Saints also in
heaven, as their peculiar gift, will see "the glory of God," and
Angels are "sons of God;" yet we know that nevertheless Angels and
Saints are in a state different from the Jews. The question, then,
still remains open, whether, in spite of the absence of discriminating
terms, Christians also have not a gift which the Jews had not, and
whether the word regeneration, in its proper sense, does not denote
it.
Our proof then is simple. The word "regeneration"
occurs twice only in Scripture; in neither can it be interpreted to
include Judaism; in one of the two, most probably in both, it is
limited to the Gospel; in Titus iii. 4, 5, certainly; and in Matt. xix.
28, according as it is stopped, it will mean the coming of Gospel
grace, or the resurrection [Note 3].
{167}
7.
Such is some small portion of the Scripture
notices on the general subject, which I bring to show that Scripture
does not so speak as to make the view maintained by Dr. Pusey, with
all Saints, guilty of absolute "absurdity" on the face of the matter,
and a "bathos in theology." And the following consideration will
increase this impression. In truth his view is simply beyond,
not against your own opinion. It is a view which the present
age cannot be said to deny, because it has not eyes for it. The
Catholic Church has ever given to Noah, Abraham, and Moses, all that
the present age of Protestantism gives to Christians. You cannot
mention the grace, in kind or degree, which you ascribe to the
Christian, which Dr. Pusey will not ascribe to Abraham; except,
perhaps, the intimate knowledge of the details of Christian doctrine.
But he considers {168} that Christians have a something beyond all
this, even a portion of that heaven brought down to earth, which will
be for ever in heaven the portion of Abraham and all saints in its
fulness. It is not, then, that Dr. Pusey defrauds Abraham, but you
defraud Christians. That special gift of grace, called "the glory of
God," [Note 4] is as unknown to
the so-called religious world in this country as to the "natural man."
The Catholic Religion teaches, that, when grace takes up its abode in
us, we have so superabounding and awful a grace tabernacled in us,
that no other words describe it more nearly than to call it an Angel's
nature. Now mark the meaning of this. Angels are holy; yet Angels
before now have become devils. Keeping this analogy in view, you will
perceive that it is as little an absurdity to say that Abraham was not
regenerate, as to say that he was not an Angel; as little unmeaning to
say that Voltaire had been regenerated, as it would be to say he
became a devil, as Judas is actually called. Let me suit one or two of
your sentences to this view of the subject, and then I will release
you from the trouble of hearing more about it for a month. You will
then speak thus: "When the Christian reader learns that Noah, Abraham,
and Moses, were not Angels, yet that Judas became a devil, we may
surely leave such an hypothesis to be crushed by its own weight. It is
the very bathos of theology, an absurdity not worthy to be gravely
replied to—that Jews were sanctified, the friends of God, had the
grace of God in their hearts, and yet were not Angels. Sanctified,
non-angelic friends of God! grace dwelling in any but Michael,
Gabriel, the Cherubims and the Seraphims? What next?"
Alas! sir, that you should so speak of your own
privileges! Perhaps it is my turn now to ask you, "What next?" and
this I mean to do. Before proceeding to the {169} other opinion
attributed by you to Dr. Pusey, I wish to learn what you will say to
what is now offered you. Only I would remark, that the subjects which
I have not yet touched upon are to come, when due attention
shall be shown to your remarks about Justification, the Homilies, and
kindred points.
PART
II.
8.
March 3, 1837.
2. I now proceed to the second of the charges which you have brought
against Dr. Pusey. After saying what is necessary upon it, I shall, as
I promised, notice the subject of Justification, the Homilies, and the
Articles; and shall intersperse the discussion with some remarks, as
brief as is practicable, on the various matter which, as you happily
express yourself, you have "ramblingly and cursorily set before your
readers," in your animadversions on the portion of my Letter already
published.
That portion occupies not so much as seven pages
of your larger type, and that spread out into two numbers. It has
elicited from you in answer about sixty pages of your closest. I think
then I have a claim in courtesy, nay in justice, that you should put
in the whole of this reply unbroken by a word of your own. I will not
embrace the entire subject in it, but leave one portion for an after
Number of your Magazine, that you may not say I burden you with too
much at once. But what I send, I hope to see inserted without
mutilation. Do grant me this act of fairness—you will have months
upon months, nay, the whole prospective duration of your Magazine, for
your reply: I, on the other hand, limit myself to one letter.
{170} All I ask is the right of an Englishman, a fair and
uninterrupted hearing.
9.
The second charge then which you bring against Dr.
Pusey is this:—that he holds that the Sacraments may, for what we
know, in certain cases, be of benefit to persons unconscious during
their administration. You quarrel, however, with this mode of stating
his supposed opinion: you say, "Mr. Newman misstates what we said. We
were denying the utility of administering the Lord's Supper to infants
or insensible persons, as the Papists employ extreme unction; which
Mr. Newman skilfully turns into a charge of our denying that there is
any benefit in Infant Baptism" (p. 124). Now, I really think you leave
the matter as you found it. You have said, the notion of the Holy
Eucharist benefiting infants was "an absurdity," "intellectual
drivelling," "irrational fanaticism," &c. I ask, then, why
is not the doctrine that Holy Baptism benefits them, all these bad
things also? Surely you are speaking of the very notion of
infants being benefited by means of external rites, when you say it
implies "a system utterly opposed to common sense." You must mean
there is an antecedent absurdity in the notion; antecedent to a
consideration of the particular case. You speak, just as I have worded
it, against the very notion that "the sacraments," one as well as the
other, "may, for what we know, in certain cases, be of benefit to
persons unconscious during their administration." What is an absurdity
when supposed in one case, is an absurdity surely in the other. I
cannot alter my wording of the argumentative ground which you take up
against our doctrine.
Next let us consider the very passage which has
led you to use these free epithets. It stands thus: "We have almost
embraced the doctrine that God conveys grace only through the
instrumentality of the mental energies, that {171} is, through faith,
prayer, active spiritual contemplation, or (what is called) communion
with God, in contradiction to the primitive view, according to which
the Church and her sacraments are the ordained and direct invisible
means of conveying to the soul what is in itself supernatural and
unseen. For example: would not most men maintain, on the first view of
the subject, that to administer the Lord's Supper to infants, or to
the dying and insensible, however consistently pious and believing in
their past lives, was a superstition? and yet both practices have the
sanction of primitive usage. And does not this account for the
prevailing indisposition to admit that baptism conveys regeneration?
Indeed, this may even be set down as the essence of sectarian doctrine
(however its mischief may be restrained or compensated in the case of
individuals), to consider faith, and not the sacraments, as the
instrument of justification and other Gospel gifts."—These words you
attribute to Dr. Pusey. You say, "Professor Pusey teaches that the
sacraments are the appointed instruments of justification; the learned
Professor ought to lecture at Maynooth, or the Vatican, and not in the
chair of Oxford, when he puts forth this Popish doctrine." Again, in
pp. 118, 119, you speak of Dr. Pusey's saying that the grace of the
sacrament is unconnected "with the mental energies, that is, through
faith, prayer, active spiritual contemplations, or what is called
communion with God" (here you interpose of your own, "For shame, Dr.
Pusey, to speak thus lightly of 'communion with God!'"); that "to
administer the Lord's Supper to infants, or to the dying and
insensible," is not "superstition," but "a practice having the
sanction of primitive usage;" and "primitive usage," you add, "the
Oxford Tracts" (Tracts for the Times) "teach is of Apostolical
authority." it is quite clear you attribute the above sentences to Dr.
Pusey. {172}
Let me ask you then a question. Should any one
accuse you of having written them, should you not be startled?
Supposing I boldly attributed them to you, and retorted your
interjection of indignation at them upon yourself; would you not
consider it somewhat outrageous? Be judge then in your own case. Those
sentences no more belong to Dr. Pusey than to you. They are not in his
Tract. They are not his writing. No one man is chargeable with the
work of another man. Not even were Dr. Pusey to profess he approved
the general sentiment of the passage, would you have any right to
charge him with the very wording of it. Every man has his own way of
expressing himself; you have yours; Dr. Pusey might approve the
sentiment, yet criticize the wording. All these strong sayings then
against Dr. Pusey are misdirected. Mr. Editor, be sure of your man,
before you attack him.
10.
However, let us examine the words, whosesoever
they are. They occur in the Advertisement to the second volume of the
Tracts. Now, in what they say about administering the Holy Eucharist
to children or to the insensible, they do not enforce it, as you
suppose, on "Apostolical authority." A usage may be primitive, yet not
universal; may belong to the first ages, but only to some parts of the
Church. Such a usage is either not Apostolical, else it would be every
where observed; or at least not binding, as not being delivered by the
Apostles as binding. For instance; the Church of Ephesus, on St. John's
authority, celebrated the Easter-feast after the Jewish manner, yet
such a custom is not binding on us. Now, supposing I said, "the great
reverence in which the Jewish Dispensation was held in the best and
purest ages, is shown in this, that the quartodeciman usage has
primitive sanction;" must I necessarily mean that all Christendom, and
all the Apostles, {173} observed Easter on the fourteenth day of Nisan?
must I mean that we are bound to keep it on that day? must I mean to
extol such a usage, and to advocate it? Yet would it not in fact show
in them who so observed it an attachment to the usages which once had
been divine? Apply this instance to the sentence of this writer, who
is not Dr. Pusey, this Pseudo-Pusey, as I may call him; and see
whether it will not help your conception of his meaning. He does not
say, he does not imply, that to administer the second Sacrament to
infants is Apostolic; he does not consider it a duty binding on us. He
does but say, that since it has a sanction in early times, it is not
that "absurdity," "irrational fanaticism," and so forth, which your
Magazine says it is: and his meaning may be thus worded: "Here is a
usage existing up and down the early Church, which, right or wrong,
argues quite a different temper and feeling from those
of the present day. This day, on the first view of the subject,
calls it an absurdity; that day did not." Surely it is fair to
estimate inward states of mind by such spontaneous indications. To
warn men against the religious complexion of certain persons at
present, I might say, "they belong to the Pastoral Aid Society,"
though other men of the same religious sentiments might not belong to
it. To describe the temper of our Bishops 130 years since, I should
refer to the then attempt, nearly successful, of formally recognizing
the baptism of Dissenters. Again, the character of Laud's religion may
be gathered even from the exaggerated account of his consecrating St.
Catharine Cree's church, without sanctioning that account.
When such indications occur in primitive times,
though they are not of authority more than in modern times, yet they
are tokens of what is of authority,—a certain religious
temper, which is found everywhere, always, and in all, though the
particular exhibitions of it be not. In like {174} manner the
spiritual interpretations of Scripture, which abound in the Fathers,
may be considered as proving the Apostolicity of the principle of
spiritualizing Scripture; though I may not, if it so happen, acquiesce
in this or that particular application of it, in this or that Father.
And so the administration of the Lord's Supper to infants in the
church of Cyprian, Saint and Martyr, is a sanction of a principle,
which you, on the other hand, call "an absurdity," "intellectual
drivelling," and "irrational fanaticism." For my part, I am not
ashamed to confess that I should consider Cyprian a better interpreter
of the Scripture doctrine of the Sacraments, of "the minding of the
Spirit" about them, than even the best divines of this day, did they
take, as I am far from accusing them of doing, an opposite view. You,
however, almost class the Saint among "ignorant fanatics," p. 119, and
at least make him their associate and abettor.
Now, if this interpretation of the passage in
question be correct, as I conscientiously and from my heart believe it
to be, it will follow that you have not yet made good even the shadow
of a shade of a charge of opposition to the Articles—not only
against Dr. Pusey, but against the Tracts generally; for no one can
say that any one of the Articles formally forbids us to
consider that grace is conveyed through the outward symbols;
while, on the other hand, one of them expressly speaks of "the body of
Christ" as "given," as well as "taken, in the Supper;" words,
moreover, which are known to have meant, in the language of that day, "given
by the administrator;" and therefore, through the consecrated
bread. At the same time, let it be observed I do not consider the
writer of the Advertisement to say for certain that the outward
elements benefit true Christians when insensible; only as much as
this, that we cannot be sure they do not. {175}
11.
Before closing this head of my subject, I shall
remark on the words upon which you exclaim, "For shame, Dr. Pusey!"
though he has no reason to be ashamed of what he did not write. They
are these: "or what is called, communion with God." You often mistake,
Mr. Editor, by not laying the emphasis on the right word in the
sentence on which you happen to be commenting. This is a case in
point. The stress is to be placed upon the word "called"—"what
is called communion with God." The author meant, had he
supplied his full meaning, "what is improperly called." There
is nothing to show that he denies "the communion of saints" with God
and with each other, and, in subordination to the mystical union, the
conscious union of mind and affections. He only condemns that
indulgence of mere excited feeling which has now-a-days engrossed that
sacred title.
To show that this is no evasion or
disingenuousness on my part (for you sometimes indulge in hints about
me to this effect), I will give your readers one or two more instances
of the same insensibility on your part to the emphatic word in a
sentence, and the last of them a very painful instance.
1. I said, in the former part of my letter, that
Dr. Pusey's friends insist on no particular or peculiar
sense of the Articles,—a fault which I had just charged upon you. I
had said you were virtually imposing additions: then I supposed the
objection made, that we should do so, had we the power,—as is often
alleged. To this I answer, "Your Magazine may rest satisfied that Dr.
Pusey's friends will never assert that the Articles have any particular
meaning at all." You have missed the point of this sentence:
accordingly, you detach it from the context, and prefix it to the
opening of the discussion, before it appears in its proper place in
print; and when it does appear, you {176} print it in italics. This is
taking a liberty with my text. However, to this subject I shall have
occasion to recur.
2. Another instance occurs in your treatment of
the Homilies and Mr. Keble. The Homily speaks of "the stinking puddles
of men's traditions." You apply this as an answer to Mr. Keble's
sermon, who speaks of God's traditions, even those which St.
Paul bids us "hold;" and who considers, moreover, that no true
traditions of doctrine exist but such as may be also proved from
Scripture; whereas the Homily clearly means by men's traditions, that
is, such as cannot be proved from Scripture. You would have
escaped this mistake, had you borne in mind that traditions, "devised
by men's imagination," are not Divine traditions, and that it as
little follows that Catholic Traditions are to be rejected because
Jewish and Roman are, as that the Christian Sabbath is abolished
because the Jewish is abolished. But you saw that Mr. Keble said
something or other about tradition, and you were carried away with the
word.
3. The last mistake of this kind is a serious
one. It is a charge brought against Dr. Pusey. He has said, "To those
who have fallen, God holds out only a light in a dark place,
sufficient for them to see their path, but not bright or cheering, as
they would have it; and so, in different ways, man would forestall the
sentence of his judge; the Romanist by the sacrament of penance, a
modern class of divines by the appropriation of the merits and
righteousness of our blessed Redeemer." You add three notes of
admiration, and say, "We tremble as we transcribe these awful words,"
p. 123. I dare not trust myself to speak about such heedless language
as it deserves. I will but say, in explanation of your misconception,
that Dr. Pusey compares to Roman restlessness, not the desiring and
praying to be clothed, or the doctrine that every one who {177} is
saved must be clothed, in "the merits and righteousness of our blessed
Redeemer," but the appropriation of them without warrant on the
part of individuals. He denies that individuals who have fallen into
sin have any right to claim them as their own already; he
denies that they may "forestall the sentence of the Judge" at
the last day; he maintains they can but flee to Christ, and adjure Him
by His general promises, by His past mercies to themselves, by
His present distinct mercies to them in the Church; but that they have
no personal assurance, no right to appropriate again what was given
them plenarily in baptism. This is his meaning; whereas you
imply that he denies the duty of looking in faith to be saved by
Christ's merits and righteousness; that he denies backsliders the hope
of it. If you do not imply this, if you really mean that the act of
claiming Christ's merits on the part of this or that individual
(for of this Dr. P. speaks) is, as you express it, "a most Scriptural
and consoling truth," and that it is "blasphemous," but for "the
absence of wicked intention in the writer," to compare to the Roman
penance the confidence which sinners are taught to feel that
their past offences are already forgiven them,—if this be
your meaning, I am wrong, but I am charitable, in saying you have
mistaken Dr. Pusey.
Now I come to the consideration, which you
especially press upon us, of (1) the Homilies, (2) the Articles, and
(3) Justification.
12.
And first concerning the Homilies.
1. You ask, "How do these clergymen … reconcile
their consciences to such declarations as those which abound,
in the Homilies, affirming that the Church of Rome is 'Antichrist,'
&c.?" And you say that you are considered "persecutors" or a
persecutor, because you ask how I and others "reconcile such things in
the Homilies with the {178} Oxford Tracts." Who considers you a
persecutor? not I; nor should I ever so consider you for asking a
simple question in argument. What I have censured you for, has been
the use of vague epithets, calling names, and the like, which I really
believe that you, Mr. Editor, in your sober reason disapprove as
heartily as I do. For instance: I am sure you would think it wrong to
proclaim to the world that such or such an one was an
ultra-Protestant. It would be classing him with a party. There are
ultra-Protestants in the world, we know; but we can know so little of
individuals that we have seldom right to call them so, unless they
themselves take the name. A man may hold certain ultra-Protestant notions,
and we may say so; this is deciding about him just as far as we know,
and no further. The case is the same in the more solemn matters of
heaven and hell. We say, for instance, that they who hold
anti-Trinitarian doctrines "will perish everlastingly;" but we dare
not apply this anathema to this or that man; the utmost we say is,
that he holds damnable errors, leaving his person to God. To say
nothing of the religiousness of such a proceeding, you see how much of
real kindness and considerateness it throws over controversy. Of
course I do not wish to destroy what are facts; men are of
different opinions, and they do act in sets. There is no harm
in denoting this; many confess they so act. In conversation we never
should get on, if we were ever using circumlocutions. But in
controversy it does seem both Christian and gentlemanlike to subject
oneself to rules; and, as one of these, to make a distinction between
opinions and persons; to condemn opinions, to condemn them in persons,
but not to give bad names to the persons themselves, till public
authority sanctions it. If I think you have aught of the spirit of
persecution in you—(and to be frank with you, and in observance of
my own distinction, though you are not a "persecutor," you speak {179}
in somewhat of a persecuting tone,) it is not for perplexing me
with questions, or overwhelming me with refutations, but because your
style is "rough, rambling, and cursory." I think it like a
persecutor to prefer mere general charges, to use unmeasured terms, to
be oratorical and theatrical, and when challenged to speak definitely,
to accuse the party challenging, of complaining, of being angry, and
the like.
13.
Now to come to the Homilies. You ask how I
reconcile my conscience to the Homilies calling Rome Antichrist, I
holding, as I do, the doctrines of the Tracts. To this I answer by
asking, if I may do so without offence, how you reconcile to
your conscience the Homilies saying that "the Holy Ghost doth teach"
in the book of Tobit? how you reconcile to your "subscription" that
they five times call books of the Apocrypha "Scripture;" that Baruch
is quoted as a "prophet" and as "holy Baruch," Tobit as "holy Father
Tobit," the author of Wisdom and the Son of Sirach as "the Wise
Man," and that the latter is said "certainly to assure us" of a
heavenly truth; in a word, that the Apocrypha is referred to as many
as fifty-three times? Here you see I have the advantage of you, Mr.
Editor. For though I believe the Old and New Testament alone to be plenarily
inspired, yet I do believe, according to the Homily, what you do not
believe, that the Holy Ghost did speak by the mouth of Tobit. Here you
see is the advantage of what you call my "scholastic
distinctions," p. 193. When I said that the great gift of the
Holy Ghost, called regeneration, was reserved for Christians, and yet
that the Jews might be under His blessed guidance, you said I was
drawing a scholastic distinction. This is one instance on your part of
calling names. What do you mean by scholastic? Beware,
lest, when you come to define it, you include unwittingly the {180}
most sacred truths under it. There are persons who think the Catholic
doctrine of the Holy Trinity "scholastic;" and so it is, but it is
something more, it is Apostolic also. It is no proof that the
distinction in question is not Scriptural, that it is, if it is,
scholastic. However, anyhow, the "distinction" serves me in good stead
as to this instance which you bring against me from the Homilies; it
enables me to understand and to assent to their doctrine
concerning the Apocrypha. I consider the gifts and operations of the
Blessed Spirit to be manifold; some are outward, some inward, some
sanctify, some are grants of power, some of knowledge, some of moral
goodness. What He is towards Angels, towards glorified Saints as Moses
and Elias, towards the faithful departed, towards Adam in Paradise,
towards the Jews, towards the Heathen, towards Christians
militant,—what He is in the Church, in the individual, in the
Evangelist, in the Apostle, in the Prophet, in the Apocryphal writer,
in the Doctor and Teacher,—is all holy, but admits of differences of
kind and of degree. Life is the same in all living things; yet there
is one flesh of men, another of fishes, another of birds: and so the
spiritual gift in like manner may be the same, yet diverge; it may be
applied to the heart or to the head, as an inward habit or an external
impression; for one purpose, not for another; for a time, or for ever.
Thus inspiration may be partial or plenary. This view of God's
gracious influences you call scholastic. I, on the other hand, call
the common division, into miraculous and moral or spiritual, jejune
and unauthorized. However, whether I be right or you, I am at least
able to do with mine, what you cannot with yours;—I can agree with
the Homily. If you will not take my explanation, which I sincerely
believe to be the right one, you must "reconcile your conscience" to a
better or to a worse; till you find one, you must reconcile it to a
disagreement with the Homily. {181}
14.
Now I will put another difficulty to you. The
last Homily in the Volume is "against Disobedience and Wilful
Rebellion." It is one of the most elaborate of them, consisting of no
less than six parts. It advocates unreservedly the doctrine of passive
obedience to the authorities under which we find ourselves by birth. I
hold this doctrine, you do not [Note 5].
Let me put before you some of the statements of this Homily,—the
direct, explicit developments of its title. "If servants," it says, "ought
to obey their masters, not only being gentle, but such as be froward,
as well, and much more, ought subjects to be obedient, not only to
their good and courteous, but also to their sharp and rigorous princes,"
Part I. "A rebel is worse than the worse prince," ibid. "But what if
the prince be undiscreet and evil indeed, and it is also evident to
all men's eyes that he so is? I ask again, what if it belong of the
wickedness of the subjects, that the prince is undiscreet and evil?
shall the subjects both by their wickedness provoke God, for their
deserved punishment, to give them an undiscreet or evil prince, and
also rebel against him, and withal against God, who for the
punishment of their sins did give them such a prince?" ibid. Now,
considering the high Tory doctrine, as it is called, contained in such
statements, I am led to ask you whether you approve of the Revolution,
and the substitution of William III. for James II.; and, if you do,
how you "reconcile your conscience" to give your adhesion to this
Homily, and why you are not consistent enough to designate its writer
and all "subscribers" to it "Lauds and Sacheverells." {182}
You are not the person, then, to take my
conscience to task for not receiving every sentence of the Homilies as
a formal enunciation of doctrine. I might, indeed, were it worth
while, enlarge upon the venturousness of a writer, who seems,
according to my apprehension, to hold that baptism is not a means
of grace, but only "a sign, seal, and pledge," p. 167, and yet uses
the Liturgy, being the man to make appeals to the conscience of
others. But let this pass. Here, in the very instance of the Homilies
which you urge, you do not come into court with clean hands. You
shrink from certain portions of them; and yet you use strong language
about the difficulty which you conceive others feel about other
portions. Under these circumstances, were I merely writing for you, I
should leave you to marvel either at my conscience, or at your own;
but I write not for you alone; and in what I shall now say in
explanation of my own bearing towards the Homilies, I may perhaps do
something towards excusing yours.
15.
I say plainly, then, I have not subscribed
the Homilies, though you say I have, pp. 151, 153; though you add
to my subscription to the Articles this further subscription; nor was
it ever intended that any member of the English Church should be
subjected to what, if considered as an extended Confession, would
indeed be a yoke of bondage. Romanism surely is innocent, compared
with a system which would impose upon the "conscience" a thick octavo
volume, written flowingly and freely by fallible men, to be received
exactly sentence by sentence. I cannot conceive any grosser instance
of a Pharisaical tradition than this would be. No: the Reformers would
have shrunk from the thought of so unchristian a proceeding—a
proceeding which would render it impossible (I will say) for any one
member, lay or clerical, of the Church, who was {183} subjected to
such an ordeal, to remain in it. For instance: I do not suppose that
any reader whatever would be satisfied with those political reasons
for fasting, which, though indirectly introduced, are fully accepted
and dwelt upon in the Homily on that subject. He would not like to
subscribe the declaration that eating fish was a duty, not only as a
bodily mortification, but as making provisions cheap, and encouraging
the fisheries. He would not be able to approve of the association of
religion with secular politics.
How, then, are we bound to the Homilies? By the
Thirty-fifth Article, which speaks as follows: "The Second Book of
Homilies ... doth contain a godly and wholesome doctrine,
and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies."
Now, observe, this Article does not speak of every statement made in
them, but of the "doctrine." It speaks of the view or cast or body of
doctrine contained in them. In spite of ten thousand incidental
propositions, as in any large book, there is, it is obvious, a certain
line of doctrine which may be contemplated continuously in its shape
and direction. For instance; if you say you disapprove the doctrine
contained in the Tracts for the Times, no one supposes you to mean
that every sentence and half-sentence is a lie. If this were so, then
you are most inconsistent, after denouncing them, in considering, p.
167, that they "contain much that is godly and edifying, much that you
are grateful for, and much that, if separated from its adjuncts, would
be highly valuable in these days of liberalism and laxity." You even
give logical reasons to show that there is no inconsistency in this,
and you protest against the notion. And in like manner, I say, when
the Article speaks of the doctrine of the Homilies, it does not
measure the letter of them by the inch, it does not imply they contain
no propositions which admit of two opinions; {184} but it speaks of a
certain determinate teaching, and moreover adds, it is "necessary
for these times." Does not this, too, show the same thing? If a
man said, The Tracts for the Times are seasonable at this moment, as
their name assumes, would he not be considering them as taking a
certain line, and bearing a certain way? Would he not be speaking, not
of phrases or sentences, but of a "doctrine" in them, viewed as a
whole? Would he be inconsistent, if after praising them as seasonable,
he continued, "Yet I do not pledge myself to every view or sentiment
in them; there are some things in them hard of digestion, or
overstated, or doubtful, or subtle"?
Let us, then, have no more of superfluous appeals
to our consciences in such a matter. Reserve them for graver cases, if
you think you see such. If anything could add to the irrelevancy of
the charge in question, it is the particular point in which you
consider I dissent from the Homilies, even if I do, which will not be
so easy to prove;—a question concerning the fulfilment of prophecy:
viz. whether Papal Rome is Antichrist! An iron yoke indeed you would
forge for the conscience, when you obliged us to assent, not only to
all matters of doctrine which the Homilies contain, but even to their
opinion concerning the fulfilment of prophecy. Why, we do not ascribe
authority in such matters even to the unanimous consent of all the
Fathers. But you allow us no private judgment whatever; your
private judgment is all particular and peculiar.
16.
I might put what I have been saying in a second
point of view. Take the table of contents prefixed to the Books of
Homilies, and examine the headings; these surely, taken together, will
give the substance of their teaching. Now I maintain that I hold fully
and heartily the doctrine {185} of the Homilies under every one of
these headings: nor (excepting on Justification and Repentance) will
you yourself be inclined to doubt it. The only point to which I should
not accede, nor think myself called upon to accede, would be certain
matters, subordinate to the doctrines to which the headings
refer—matters not of doctrine, but of opinion, as that Rome is the
Antichrist; or of historical fact, as that there was a Pope Joan,
which, by-the-bye, I doubt whether you hold any more than I do. But
now, on the other hand, can you subscribe the doctrine of the
Homilies under every one of its formal headings? I believe you cannot.
The Homily against Disobedience and Wilful Rebellion is in many of its
elementary principles decidedly opposed to your sentiments. And yet it
is you who tax another with not holding by the Homilies! Unless I had
some experience that to be represented as "troublers of Israel" and "pestilent
fellows" is the portion of those who fight against the Age, I should
feel astonished at this.
I verily and in my conscience believe, that
whether we take the text or the spirit of the Homilies, I do hold both
the one and the other more exactly than those who question me. Do not,
then, in future appeal to me, as if I for an instant granted that the
Homilies were on your side;—but I propose to say more on this
subject when I come to speak on Justification.
17.
2. It follows to speak of the Articles.
You imply that I put no sense at all upon them,
but take them to mean anything; and subscription to be no test or
measure of my opinions. Now is not this somewhat a strong charge to
bring against a Clergyman? and particularly the member of a University
which has, within {186} the last two years, shown extraordinary, and
almost unanimous, earnestness in maintaining the necessity of
subscription, even in the case of undergraduates, against an external
pressure? Why did not Dr. Pusey's friends quietly sit by, and leave
others to set them free? Surely the facts of the case are strong
enough to excuse a little charity, had certain persons any to give.
They really do astonish me, after all—prepared as I am for such
exhibitions—by the ease and vigour with which they fling about
accusations; showing themselves perfect masters of their weapon. In
one place you say that we hold that there is "not one baptized person,
not one regenerated person, not one communicant, among all the
Protestant churches, Lutheran or Reformed, except the Church of
England, and its daughter churches," p. 122. Now, what would you say
if we affirmed that you held that men could be saved by faith without
works? You would think us very unscrupulous, and might use some strong
words. Well, then, there is not a word, which you would apply to such
a statement, that I might not with perfect sincerity and truth apply
to yours. You have touched on a large subject, on which we have
nowhere ventured any opinion whatever, and in which we do not hold
what you have expressed—the subject of lay baptism—but on which an
opinion is forthcoming when needed.
Another remarkable exhibition of the same
controversial method is your asserting that one of the Tracts called
the Dissenters "a mob of Tiptops, Gapes, and Yawns," pp. 172, 174,
177, 185, 186. Five times you say or imply it. Now it so happens that
the Tract in question has nothing to do with Dissenters; but aims at
those who wish alterations in the Liturgy on insufficient grounds, a
circumstance which in itself excludes Dissenters. To those of your
readers who do not know this excellent Tract (it is one of the parts
of Richard Nelson), the {187} following explanation will be
acceptable. The subject of the Tract is the shortening of the Church
Service. Tiptop is a "travelling man from Hull or Preston," who "quarters
at" a public-house in Nelson's village, "sometimes for a fortnight at
a time," and "dabbles in religion as well as in politics;" a
man who is praised by his admirers as "talking beautifully, and
expounding on any subject a person might choose to mention,
politics, trade, agriculture, learning, religion, and what not." He "lectures
about the Church Prayers" among other things; and among his hearers
are Yawn, a farmer whose sons go to the Church school, and who himself
"scarcely ever," as he boasts, "misses a Sunday," coming into the
service "about the end of the First Lesson;" and Ned Gape, who
also is a church-goer, though a late one. In what sense of the words,
then, Mr. Editor, do you assert, that when Richard Nelson, in the end
of the story, says that he "cannot stand by and see the noble old
Prayer-book pulled to pieces, just to humour a mob of Tiptops, Gapes,
and Yawns," that the writer calls Dissenters by those titles?
18.
Now for the meaning and authority of the
Articles. You seem to me to confuse between two things very distinct;
the holding a certain sense of a statement to be true, and
imposing that sense upon others. Sometimes the two go together; at
other times they do not. For instance, the meaning of the Creed (and
again, of the Liturgy) is known; there is no opportunity for doubt
here; it means but one thing, and he who does not hold that one
meaning, does not hold it at all. But the case is different (to take
an illustration), in the drawing up of a Political Declaration, or a
Petition to Parliament. It is put together by persons, differing in
matters of detail, though agreeing {188} together to a certain point
and for a certain end. Each narrowly watches that nothing is inserted
to prejudice his own particular opinion, or stipulates for the
insertion of what may rescue it. Hence general words are used, or
particular words inserted, which by superficial inquirers afterwards
are criticized as vague and indeterminate on the one hand, or
inconsistent on the other; but, in fact, they all have a meaning and a
history, could we ascertain it [Note 6].
And, if the parties concerned in such a document are legislating and
determining for posterity, they are respective representatives of
corresponding parties in the generations after them. Now the
Thirty-nine Articles lie between these two, between a Creed and a mere
joint Declaration; to a certain point they have one meaning, beyond
that they have no one meaning. They have one meaning, so far as they
embody the doctrine of the Creed; they have different meanings, so far
as they are drawn up by men influenced severally by the discordant
opinions of the day. This is what I have expressed in the former part
of my letter: "the Articles," I say, "are confessedly wide in their
meaning, but still their width is within bounds: they seem to include
a number of shades of opinion."
Next, as to those points (whatever they are) in
which they cannot be said to have one meaning. Each subscriber indeed
assigns that meaning which he at once holds himself and thinks to be
the meaning; but this is his "particular" meaning, and he has no right
to impose it on another. In saying, then, that I should put no "particular
meaning" on portions of the Articles, I spoke not of my own belief,
but of my enforcing that belief upon others. I do sincerely and
heartily consider my sense of the Articles, on certain points to be
presently mentioned, to be the true sense; but {189} I do not feel
sure that there were not represented at the drawing up of the
Articles, parties and interests which led the framers, (not as doing
so on a principle, but spontaneously, from the existing hindrances to
perfect unanimity,) to abstain from perfect precision and uniformity
of statement. What can be more truly liberal and forbearing than this
view? yet for thus holding that Calvinists and others, whom I think
mistaken, may sign the Articles as well as myself, I am said myself to
sign them with "no meaning whatever." And you actually take my own
sentiment out of my mouth, clothe it in the words of the Royal
Declaration, and then gravely make a present of it to me back again,
as if it were something wise and high of your own. "The Royal
Declaration," you say, "prefixed to the Articles, congratulates the
Church that all the clergy had 'most willingly subscribed' to them,
'all sorts taking them to be for them:' which shows that each
conscientious individual had carefully examined into their meaning,
and not that he signed them without attaching any 'particular meaning
at all.'" p. 191. Of course;—these are just my sentiments.
Accordingly I go on to say, that I look forward
to success, not by compelling others to take one view of the
Articles, but by convincing them that mine is the right one.
And this will explain what you call my "pugnacious terms." Were I
fighting against individuals or a party in the Church, this
would be party spirit: but then I should wish to coerce them or cast
them out; whereas I am opposing principles and doctrines—so, I would
fain persuade and convert, not triumph over those who hold them. I am
not pugnacious; I am only "militant."
It will explain, too, what you consider my
overweening and provoking language. For I consider I am but speaking
what the Catholic Fathers witness to be Christ's Gospel. I am
exercising no private judgment on Scripture; and {190} while I will
not enforce my own coercively, having no authority to do so, I will
never put it forward hesitatingly, as if I did not think all other
doctrines plainly wrong.
So much about myself. On the other hand, my
charge against you is, and I repeat it, that you do wish to add
to the Articles; that is in the same sense in which you accused Bishop
Marsh of wishing to do so. You wish to impose upon me your particular
or peculiar notion that the Patriarchs were regenerated; which is an
invasion of private judgment, as permitted in our Church, as gross as
if I strove to enforce on you my particular notion, in accordance with
the Homily, that the Holy Ghost spoke "by the mouth of Tobit." Till
you name the particular points of opinion for which you call on Dr.
Pusey to resign his Professorship, and state the article or
determination of the Church which he transgresses, I will never cease
to say that (unwittingly, of course, not with bad intention) you do
wish and aim to add to the Articles of subscription.
19.
To sum up what I have said, and to be at the same
time more specific. I consider that the first five Articles have one
definite, positive, dogmatic view, even that which has been from the
beginning, the Catholic and Apostolic Truth on which the Church is
built.
From the Sixth to the Eighteenth, I conceive to
have one certain view also, brought out in its particular form at the
Reformation; but, as in the Seventeenth, not clearly demonstrable to
be such to the satisfaction of the world.
In the remaining Articles, taken as a body,
I think there is less strictness, perspicuity, and completeness of
meaning. Some, though clear and definite in their meaning, are but
negative, or protestant, as being directed {191} against the
Romanists; others, which are positive, are derived from various
schools; in others the view is left open or inchoate.
The first division I humbly receive as Divine,
proveable from Scripture, but descending to us by Catholic tradition
also. The next I admit and hold as deducible from Scripture by private
judgment, tradition only witnessing here and there. The last division
I receive only in the plain letter, according to the injunction of the
Declaration, because I do believe in my conscience that they were not
written upon any one view, and cannot be taken except in the letter;
because I think they never had any one simple meaning; because I think
I see in them the terms of various schools mixed together—terms
known by their historical associations to be theologically discordant,
though in the mere letter easy and intelligible.
20.
And now, lastly, I will say why I take
these last Articles in that one particular meaning, in which I do take
them, and not in another. This again is from no mere private liking or
opinion; it is because I verily think the Church wishes me so to take
them. We at this day receive the Articles, not on the authority of
their framers, whoever they were, English or foreign, but on the
authority, i.e. in the sense, of the Convocation imposing them, that
is, the Convocation of 1571. That Convocation, which imposed them,
also passed the following Canon about Preachers:—"In the first
place, let them be careful never to teach anything in their sermons,
as if to be religiously held and believed by the people, but what is
agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and
collected from that very doctrine by the Catholic Fathers and ancient
Bishops." This is but one out of the hundred appeals to Antiquity,
which, in one way or other, our Church has put {192} forth; but it is
rendered special by its originating in the Convocation from which we
receive the Articles. It is quite impossible that that Convocation
wished us to receive and explain the doctrines contained in them in
any other sense than that which "the catholic Fathers and ancient
Bishops" drew from Scripture. Far from explaining away, I am
faithfully maintaining them, when I catholicize them. It were well for
themselves, had others as good a reason for Calvinizing or Zuinglizing
them.
And all this shows how right I am in saying above
that the Articles must not be viewed as in themselves a perfect
system of doctrine. They are, on the face of them, but protests
against existing errors, Socinianism and Romanism. For instance, how
else do you account for the absence of any statement concerning the Inspiration
of Scripture? On the other hand, the Canon of 1571, just cited, is a
proof that the whole range of catholic doctrines is professed by our
Church; not only so much as is contained in the Articles. Its
reception of the primitive Creeds is another proof; for they reach to
many points not contained in the Articles without them. To these
documentary evidences may be added the 30th Canon of 1603. Speaking of
the use of the Sign of the Cross, it says, "'The abuse of a thing doth
not take away the lawful use of it.' Nay, so far was it from the
purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject the
churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such like churches,
in all things which they held and practised, that, as the
Apology of the Church of England confesseth, it doth with reverence
retain those ceremonies which do neither endamage the Church of God
nor offend the minds of sober men; and only departed from them
in those particular points wherein they were fallen, both from
themselves in their ancient integrity, and from the Apostolical
churches, which were their first founders." {193}
It is clear, then, that the English Church holds
all that the primitive Church held, even in ceremonies, except
there be some particular reasons assignable for not doing so in this
or that instance; and only does not hold the modern corruptions
maintained by Romanism. In these corruptions it departs from Rome; therefore
these are the points in which it thinks it especially necessary to
declare its opinion. To these were added the most sacred points of
faith, in order to protest against those miserable heresies to which
Protestantism had already given birth. Thus the Church stands in a Via
Media; the first five Articles being directed against extreme
Protestantism, the remaining ones against Rome. And hence, when the
Royal Declaration says that they "contain the true doctrine of the
Church of England, agreeable to God's word," which you quote, p. 169,
as if it made against me, it speaks of the doctrine of the English
church so far as distinguished from other churches. The
Declaration does not say the doctrine of the Gospel, the doctrine of
the Church Catholic, or the whole faith; but it speaks of it in
contrast with existing systems. This is evident from its wording; for
the clause "agreeable to God's word" evidently glances at Rome; and
the history of its promulgation throws abundant light on the fact that
it was aimed against Calvinism and Arminianism. There is nothing,
then, in these words to show that the Articles are a system of
doctrine, or more than the English doctrine in those points in which
it differs from Romanism and Socinianism, and embraces Arminianism and
Calvinism.
No: our Apostolical communion inherits, as the
promises, so the faith, enjoyed by the Saints in every age; the faith
which Ignatius, Cyprian, and Gregory received from the Apostles. We
did not begin on a new foundation in King Edward's time; we only
reformed, or repaired, the superstructure. You must not defraud us,
Mr. Editor, {194} of our birthright, by turning what is a salutary
protest into a system of divinity.
21.
Before proceeding to the subject of
Justification, I will conclude what I have otherwise to say on your
sixty pages, by adducing some further instances of what I consider
misconceptions in them [Note 7]
...
Here then I shall close for the present. One
subject, and a most important one, remains; that of Justification.
Before I commence it, I invite you to do, what you cannot decline. You
have accused me frequently of "evasions," though not intentional ones,
of course. I on the other hand accuse you, instead of coming to the
point, of vague and illogical declamation, though not intentional
either. Now, then, state definitely what Dr. Pusey's opinions
are, for which he ought to give up his Professorship; and state also, why,
that is, what statements of our Church his own oppose. Till
you do this, I shall persist in saying you wish to add to the
Articles of subscription. I challenge you to do this, and call your
readers to attend to your answer; and then, in my next, I will do my
best to meet it.
*
*
*
*
*
*
N.B. November 1, 1837. The letter was not
continued further, partly on account of the very unsatisfactory mode
in which the above was printed in the pages of the Magazine, and
partly because the challenge, repeated in its closing words, had not
been met [Note 8].
Top | Contents | Works
| Home
Note
1. [Vid. Bingham, Antiq. xv. 4. § 9.]
Return to text
2.
Dr. Pusey's Earnest Remonstrance, in volume 3 of the "Tracts."
Return to text
3.
[This subject is also treated of in the author's Parochial Sermons,
vol. vi. 13. Two opinions are here advanced, which require careful
wording: that the Jews had not the gift of regeneration, and that they
had not the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, both of these being the
privilege of Christians.
I observe, in addition to what I have said in the
text, that Nicodemus, "the master in Israel," knew nothing of gospel
regeneration, and though a religious man, evidently had not received
the gift; and that St. Thomas with the Schola holds generally that the
Mosaic Sacraments did not cause grace ex opere operato and physicè,
but only conferred legal sanctity, signifying, not anticipating,
Gospel grace.
As to the second statement, though it is de
fide that justification has never been bestowed by an external
imputation, whether under the Old Law or now, but has always been
consequent on an inward gift, still it must be observed that the
author in the above passage expressly mentions sanctification as one
of the Jewish privileges, though only a sanctification of a legal
character, inward indeed but not that direct presence of the Holy
Ghost which the Fathers predicate of Christian justification, nor a
quality, habit, or permanent possession; while on the other hand
theologians allow that a justification by imputation without inward
sanctification might have been the rule in the revealed system, though
it is not, and in fact in our own system venial sins are not
necessarily wiped out by grace, and may be, and sometimes are, by
extrinsic condonation.]
Return to text
4.
[Viz. 2 Cor. iii. 18; 1 Pet. iv. 14; 2 Pet. i. 3.]
Return to text
5.
The charge against the Magazine was not of disloyalty, but of holding
the doctrine that subjects may, under circumstances, rebel
against their civil governors, e.g. as in the instance of the
Revolution of 1688 in England, in Greece in 1821, in Spain in 1823, in
France in 1830.
Return to text
6.
Hence faith, justification, infection, &c., are used, not
defined in the Articles.
Return to text
7.
[As these were matters of detail and uninteresting, they are omitted
here.]
Return to text
8.
[The author did not let the subject of Justification drop; the next
year (1838) he published a Volume of Lectures on it; and he completed
what he had to say upon the Articles and Homilies, and on
Justification with reference to them, four years later (1841) in Tract
90.]
Return to text
Top | Contents | Works
| Home
Newman Reader Works of John Henry Newman
Copyright © 2007 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.
|