Page images
PDF
EPUB

the connection between Church and State, and to win over a large and influential section, both of Clergy and Laity, to this mischievous policy. In fact, as much as this was frankly admitted at the Council Meeting of the E.C.U. last week, and because of this, those who are privately pledged to retain that organization as a prop and assistance for Mr. Gladstone, were enabled, after a sturdy but fruitless opposition, to carry the following outspoken, magnificent, and noble resolution, a resolution so thoroughly worthy of Christian men at an alarming crisis:"The President and Council of the English Church Union, having carefully discussed the circumstances connected with the nomination of Dr. Temple to the See of Exeter, and having also considered the various and conflicting representations which have been made to them from branches and members of the Union, are of opinion that it would be premature on their part to recommend any action by the Union in its collective capacity at the present stage of the case."

What the people who framed this mean to say, and what in a roundabout way they do say, is that the "various conflicting representations" of their country members do not, ought not to, and shall not, outweigh their private but primary duty to Mr. Gladstone. They declare that "at the present stage of the case "-that is, before the evil deed is consummated-"action would be premature." When the work is finished of course it will be obviously open to them to reply to the pestering people of country branches, that to take any efficient action is then of course too late. If a society, founded for the avowed and express purpose of defending the doctrine and discipline of the English Church," can act in such a plainly dishonest and shuffling manner-we have chosen our adjectives, as the Record would say, with "prayer ful consideration,"-surely a deadly demoralization must be progressing with giant strides.

66

At the period when the great secession of Conservatives from this body took place, we confess it was our judgment that such secession was a mistake. We believed in the integrity and fairness of the new president; and though the leaders proper thought fit to surround themselves with persons to whom it did not seem distasteful to act as mere puppets, and to exclude men of independence and ability, yet we held that the wisest policy would have been to have quietly influenced the Council through local branches. It is a question whether out of the 3,500 clerical members of the E.C.U., a hundred and fifty are pronounced High Church Radicals. But to write the truth our ecclesiastical shepherds are like a flock of sheep. Let the bell-wether (and there are fine specimens of this animal in Burleigh-street) become noisy and start off, and there are plenty to follow. Though the communications and expostulations from country branches read at the Council meeting were more numerous than they have been on any recent topic of discussion, it was felt by the accomplished wire-pullers that anything and everything must be put aside and sacrificed but Mr. Gladstone. And so the resolution quoted above-which makes the cheeks tingle to read it-was passed, to all intents and purposes in favour of the projectors of Essays and Reviews, and the subscriber to the Voysey Defence Fund. Our judgment, therefore, regarding the Tory seceders previously held, is altogether reversed. Instead of looking upon them as rash and narrow in their policy, as we with others once did, and as some do still, we sincerely believe them to have been far-sighted men-scorning the crookedness of deceit and legerdemain-who self-denyingly acted on principle for the defence of truth. And in the future it will neither be easy nor sensible to hold any other opinion. Henceforth, of course, and no long time hence, let us add, the Anglican Church will be divided into only two parties: the party of Christianity and the party of Unbelief. We do not at present look for the coarse vulgarity and revolting wit of Thomas Paine: the infidelity which will deluge England

will be that which that most miserable and over-rated man, Dr. Arnold, set going, which the late unhappy Prince Consort quietly patronized, and which Essays and Reviews maintained and defended. This has come in like a flood. To it the Evangelicals have nothing whatsoever to oppose. Bereft of all principle, without a shred remaining, abject in their cant about "the Bible and the Bible only," contemptible in their action as a public party, already "honey-combed with infidelity," as one of their worn-out idols remarked to us a few weeks ago, they will speedily become as much things-and very worthless things-of the past, as the Priests of Osiris or the worship of the Samaritans. Every act taken by their leaders, every stammering and apologetic utterance of their enfeebled organs proclaims this fact upon the housetops. Take the case of Dean Boyd, of Exeter, for example. Here is a man who because Lord Cairns and Lord Abergavenny pressed the claims of the Puritans, was, most unhappily, made a Dean by the Tories. He had done nothing, said nothing, written nothing to mark him off from the common herd of his decaying sect. Yet this is the man upon whom the Record and the Advertiser depend "to crush the dark, soul-destroying, God-defying and truly offensive principles of the Broad Church party." They might as well depend on a rope of cold water. Dean Boyd can whine and whimper. All Evangelicals, when occasions arise, can do this to perfection. It is a known detail of their profession. And to the whining and whimpering can be added in proper proportion a due mixture of sanctimonious cant. How well, in this case, the nauseous ingredients have been mixed and served up, let his letter to " My dear McNeile" tell. The sum and substance of it is (for the letter itself is only worth considering to appreciate the abject state of degradation into which the party has fallen), that Dean Boyd will cordially throw in his lot with the party of Essays and Reviews. Deadly foes-if such a thing as principle exists-have slobbered out Scripture phrases of reconciliation and mutual admiration over each others' shoulders. Antagonistic schools are reconciled. Pilate and Herod are now sworn friends. What the end will be no one can doubt. The only gleam of satisfaction to be found in contemplating any portion of this dark and ugly landscape is that such a sect goes to its pit of decomposition amid the congratulations of all decent people. It cannot be very long in dying. When dead, the sooner it is buried the better for all of us. Under a summer's sun even the scavenger's cart, though a temporary nuisance, is not unwelcomed.

As regards the Church of England in general-to return to a wider range of subject the old foundations are shaken to the very base. To be quite frank there is now no denying that the principles enunciated under the Tudor sovereigns are worn out and done for. Only those concerning Corporate Reunion, which our great Archbishop and noble martyr, Laud, had the divine grace to adopt and the Christian wisdom to promulgate, can save the Church of England either from open disruption or certain decay. Even the Bishop of St. David's, in his Charge of last week, sees and states this. But, poor man, he has no remedy. Nothing can save England, whether in her political or ecclesiastical aspect from a state of anarchy to be dreaded, but a firm resolve to stay and stem the work of rash innovation and wanton destruction. idiots-we can truly call them by no milder name and a stronger might be too forcible-who are now deliberately working for more rash innovations, for sectarian independence (in other words, for the principle of Congregationalism, already so largely adopted by the extreme Ritualists,) for the abandonment of our Universities and Schools, in fine for the separation of Church and State, and nothing they declare shall stay their hands. If, therefore, those who oppose these wild schemes as the brain-sick follies of designing adventurers, do not come out of their holes and hiding places to act and to act with vigour, alliances will be formed with Papists

There are

Dr. Pusey's book, though in a measure systematic, would have been all the more valuable had it been divided into chapters instead of sections, and had its unavoidably negative character been kept more in the background. Where there is so much of a positive character-and of such there is no lack—it would have been well that the personal part, in which Dr. Newman is tenderly and affectionately addressed (pp. 391had formed the basis to have stood first in order of those definite propositions which are contained in it, for they are such as all sound and thoughtful members of the Church of England would at once accept as a legitimate deduction from the doctrine of the Incarnation.

and Dissenters, so that when the needs of the Liberals
arise, as it was in the robbery of the Irish Church, so
shall it be in the robbery of the Church of England.
It is not easy to act we know, for, if the army be demoralized
how can the General hazard an engagement or look for a
victory? Dr. Pusey, like a bungling politician as he is,
because his ill-placed confidence in Mr. Gladstone, after many
strains upon his large faith, has been now rudely shattered-424,)
talks wildly about disestablishment, not exactly knowing
what he is talking about. Even Archdeacon Denison's loud-
toned trumpet quavers out a queer and uncertain sound. The
Bishops, confident and contented, well-fed and well-to-do, are
either indolent, intriguing or indifferent. At the present
crisis not one has spoken. The Archbishops, of course,
chuckle over the success and triumph which so soon awaits
their well-loved Broad Church party. The English Church
Union, as we have seen, practically endorses the lame policy,
going even further: for we observe that at a meeting, held
last Monday week at Torquay, Lord Devon, who presided,
peremptorily forbade any comments on Mr. Gladstone's appoint-
ment, or on Dr. Temple's "views."

After an allusion to the controversy which arose from certain statements in the first part of the Eirenicon, and the giving of several explanations with reference to language and arguments which, amongst others, Archbishop Manning and Mr. Oakeley, of Islington, had misunderstood; the modern Roman tradition, that is, the tradition of the last four centuries, is carefully considered and its rapid development described. Here specific statements of the Fathers, the assertions in Cardinal de Turrecremata's And so events pass on. Disorganization and demoralization rare and remarkable treatise, of which an analysis is increase. For unity we have contentions; for faith opinion, furnished at the end, as well as the judgment of Perrone are for old Church-of-England tradition, the odious and anti- carefully balanced. Then the patristic quotations of recent Christian principles of Essays and Reviews. Unless men awake Roman Catholic theologians, with others, are considered, one to the dangers at our very doors, and strive to meet themby one. This catena is very valuable, as are the comments the day will soon dawn when the principles of Christ and and explanations of the pious writer himself. To enumerate Antichrist will be once for all ranged in distinct and eternal the authors quoted would occupy more space than we can opposition, with a line of demarcation which all can see. Of afford; suffice it to point out, however, that the opinions of the first, the Roman Catholic Church will be the representa- nearly a hundred authors of the patristic age are set forth tive. Of the second, the increasing hordes of Liberal leaders, and commented on with Dr. Pusey's great and accustomed lawless vagabonds, seditionary agitators, "original thinkers," sectarian irreligionists, brain-sick philosophers, and revolutionary experimentalists. Not the Church of England as a Church will have taken her side in the conflict, but only individuals who once belonged to her. For a Church corrupted and betrayed through her guides, will surely find her children aliens, and her candlestick removed.

Reviews of Books.

FIRST LETTER TO THE VERY REV. J. H. NEWMAN, D.D., IN
EXPLANATION, CHIEFLY IN REGARD TO THE REVERENTIAL
LOVE DUE TO THE EVER BLESSED THEOTOKOS, AND THE
DOCTRINE OF HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION; WITH AN
ANALYSIS OF CARDINAL DE TURRECREMATA'S WORK ON THE
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D.
Svo. Pp. xiv., 520. Oxford: Parker. 1869.
This book, which some say is heavy,—a most acceptable con-
tribution to the steadily-increasing literature of Reunion,-
has at present failed to attract that consideration which its
intrinsic importance and high literary value should command.
Though in the form of a "Letter to Dr. Newman," it is, in
fact, a most learned theological treatise on the subject of the
Blessed Virgin's Conception, written on a fixed system, and
with the special intention, set forth in its title-page, of
advocating the practice of that reverential love which is due
to the Mother of God by the faithful generally, and more
especially by members of the Church of England.

With the exception of some remarkable articles in the Christian Remembrancer and the Union Review, we know of no treatise which discusses the subject taken in hand by Dr. Pusey an omission which may in some measure account for the extreme want of knowledge of this subject evidenced in the ephemeral Sermons preached from time to time by certain Anglican Clergymen. We have seen some by those who have evidently never even troubled themselves to read, much less to comprehend and take in, the theological statements of the Ball Ineffabilis. And so the blind have been leaders of the

blind.

power.

Then follows a record of the judgments and reasoning of certain well-known Canonists and other jurists. The quotations from the glosses of Hugutio and Semeca do but show, what is apparent from any theologians who have formally discussed Mary's position and graces, that in the thirteenth century two contrarient tradition contemporaneously existed in the West. Henry of Segasio, Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, at the same period maintains most plainly, however, that "Our Blessed and glorious Lady" was sanctified in her mother's womb, and so places her on a level with Jeremiah and St. John the Baptist. Durandus, as we all know, took the opposite view-viz., that she was conceived in sin-statements to which effect are found in the Speculum Juris (p. 2, tit. de feriis, fol. 75, Ed. Patavii, 1479), as also in his Rationale Divin: Offic: (Tom. vii. c. 107, pp. 844, Ed. Lugduni. 1592), others, less known, adopted and set forth similar opinions, which Dr. Pusey faithfully reproduces.

After the jurists is provided (1) a catena, regularly interwoven into the book, of extracts from Doctrinal writers, many of whom referred to in the official volume of Passaglia, by Perrone and others, require to have their statements duly considered in order adequately to measure the influence exercised in formulating the public opinion of the faithful during the period in which the doctrine of the Conception was so vigorously discussed. (2.) Secondly Dr. Pusey provides considerable extracts from writers of Sermons on the Feasts of Our Lady, most interesting and important as well for their intrinsic power and beauty as because of their historical value regarding the pious tradition in question. (3.) Then follow, not arranged chronologically, however, the statements of commentators on Holy Scripture, not the least important or interesting portion of this volume-a part which is certainly weak in Passaglia's, and still weaker in the popular foreign treatises which have recently followed in his groove. statements quoted are commented on with a definite purpose: throwing exceeding great light on the rationale of the dogma under consideration.

All the

More might have been made, we are inclined to believe, of

that archæological portion (pp. 351-381), which treats of the institution of the Festival of the Conception. Alban Butler's authorities are all examined and show how careful and painstaking an author he was. Other authorities, however their statements may have been exaggerated or made the most of, all prove that the position of Mary was very different indeed from that which has for so long a period obtained in the Church of England. True we have the Festival in our Prayer Book (reasonably enough as it was first publicly authorized in England), but until quite recently it has never been publicly observed since the the days of Laud. Then Goodman and Montague, Frank, Pocklington, and Shelford, were quite as plainspoken and earnest in advocating a respect for Mary, then as now denied so generally, as any of the promoters of the present Catholic movement. Perhaps even more so, for with one or two exceptions, the English Clergy are painfully indifferent to the importance of this detail of divine truth. But ere the great day of Corporate Reunion comes a day which events constantly occurring seem to tell us is not very far off-this doctrine will have to be duly and painfully considered by our theologians, and something definite put forth on behalf of our beloved Church. For how much we have to thank Dr. Pusey will scarcely be adequately appreciated until then.

We give an English version of that part of the Bull defining the doctrine :-"We declare, pronounce and define that the Doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instance of her Conception, by a singular privilege and of Almighty God, in virtue of the merits of Christ grace Jesus, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved immaculate from all stain of Original Sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful."

special subject, where it would flow most naturally. I know not, and do not wish to draw anything from your heart's sanctuary. If it was on a wide sea before us, with strong tides and eddies and currents, and not so, you were, in this, too, an exception. Most of us seem to look we see that these carry off others, whither we dare not follow, and so we stop short and thrust not out from land. Habitually, I suppose, we gaze on our Dear Lord on the Cross, and scarce dare think of the sword which pierced His Mother's Soul, and enhanced His grief. Perhaps, we are taken up with our own sins, and the Price which He paid for our souls then, and our fresh crucifixion of Him, and how our sins pierced Him; and so it comes most natural to us to think more on St. Mary Magdalene there, as being most like us and a pattern for us, and emboldening us to touch His Sacred Cross, or cling to His Sacred Feet. Or hearts of love have again dwelt, perhaps, more on the Disciple whom Jesus loved, whose Divine Gospel reveals to us so much of His love, than on His Holy Mother, because they have felt safer thus, and no As I said at the outset, this is, I believe, our one fear. But as usual the one has claimed that Apostles should be our one way and access to Him. fear passed its bounds, and men-I mean, of course, not Protestants, but those who have dwelt on the unfathomable mystery of the Incarnation and confess what lies in the word Theotokos, and in what we daily say to our Lord and God, 'When though didst vouchsafe to deliver man, the rest of her life, not out of want of reverence or love for her, but for Thou didst not abhor the Virgin's womb-hold back from thinking of the fear of what is demanded in her name. (pp. 410-412.)

Correspondence.

OUR PRINCIPLES AND POLICY.

SIR, I hope to be allowed to follow up Mr. Murray's excellent letter

A question in the future must arise, how will this solemn decree of the Roman Church affect Corporate Reunion? Dr. Pusey asks that such explanations may be given of the decree as shall enable those on our side to accept it with explana-cerity, and in the Conservative ranks a larger number (to be accounted tions. This request is modest, moderate and reasonable. His book will do much to prepare the minds of Anglicans for a reception of the answer and explanation which shall be given when they are forthcoming. And this we consider to be the chief feature in its practical value. It is not, however, for us to praise the book. We need only allude to its recent publication as far as concern those (a decreasing number we fear) who aim at knowing something of theology. It should be obtained by all the Clergy, and placed side by side with the former volume on their library shelves for reference, for consultation, for study.

We conclude our inadequate notice of it, with the following beautiful quotation :

I have not spoken, I trust, anything which could be construed into derogation of her, who is the Mother of Jesus, my Lord and my God. I have not spoken, as those fathers spake, for whom you apologize, and whose language you explain, I could neither use it nor cite it, and I marvel that they used it. I meant to speak only of an office, popularly assigned to her, but of which the Roman Communion too has, I believe, pronounced nothing to be "of faith." They are not the expressions of love, or reverence, or admiration, which I have stated to be our difficulties. I know not how any could be too great, if they had not a dogmatic basis, beyond what we believe God to have revealed. And here, too, if God had clearly revealed, what some among you believe, there would be no further question, just as we who believe that God has given authority to the Priest to pronounce forgiveness in His Name, and that He Himself confirms to the penitent what is so pronounced in His Name, do not think that the Priest come between us and God; and we know that we ourselves are wrongly accused of "substituting the Sacraments of Christ," i.e., the modes of His operation, or, in the Holy Eucharist, His Presence, for Himself. But, negatively, I own that we have been in this respect in an unnatural state. Our hearts have been cramped. We have not, many of us, been able to give full scope to our feelings, nor have ventured to dwell on the mysteries connected with the Mother of God our Lord and God. I know not whether you found it so when among us, that even your tender heart dared not pour out its tenderness, just in this

and your own introductory remarks, with a few observations of my own. I have never yet met with a Radical so audacious as to assert that the national policy of Churchmen must be to lend their aid to the Radical faction. The principle they are never tired of announcing is that politics have no connection with Churchmanship. We on the other hand maintain that the same eternal principles are at the basis of both. On the one side, submission to authority, respect to discipline, reverence for tradition; on the other private judgment, lawlessness, Latitudinarianism. Therefore, we are bold to assert that, on strict logical grounds, to be a good Churchman, a man must be a good Conservative. A large proportion of mankind, however, is not guided by strict rules of logic, and therefore it is that, by a strange but not unfrequent anomaly, we find in the Liberal ranks a few Churchmen of undoubted zeal and sinfor by the condition of the English Church since the "Reformation" period) of bigoted Protestants. But in support of what I have said, the fact deserves far more attention than has been usually paid to it, that Rationalists, to whom I am paying a merited compliment when I say that of all classes of thinkers they act most logically up to their principles, are almost to a man supporters of political Liberalism. means in the mouths of High Church Radicals, but it is painful to conOf course, we all know what exclusion of politics from Churchmanship template the shifts to which your contemporaries, the Church Times and Church Review, are reduced, in their apologies for the latest scandal which has compelled one so faithful and warm-hearted as Dr. Pusey to separate himself we trust finally-from the private friend of many years standing, in ringing words of indignant reproach, which will find an echo in the hearts of all sincere right-minded Catholics. Thus, the latter paper does not scruple to assert that the See of Exeter was offered to and declined by Mr. Liddon, though the statement had been previously contradicted on Mr. Liddon's own authority by what the Church Times justly terms "the ablest provincial paper in the west of England," which has emphatically reiterated its former contradiction since the appearance of this scandalous falsehood in the last issue of your High Church contemporary. Equally disgraceful it is to find the Church Times openly courting the alliance of Rationalists for the overthrow of the Established Church; and to see Dr. Littledale in the same paper, in his defence of Dr. Temple's appointment, not shrinking from branding with the most deadly of all the heresies of the Early Church, that holy Canonized Father, S. Cyril, whom he describes as "a moderate Arian." Let us hear the words of a much greater theologian than Dr. Littledale J. H. Newman-with regard to this slander, which it has been left to a Radical High Church athlete to revive for party purposes, after the consent of the whole Catholic Church had consigned it to oblivion for 13 centuries and more:-"His own writings are most exactly orthodox, though he does not in the Catechetical Lectures use the word Homoousion, and in associating with these men (Basil and Eustathius) he went little further than S. Hilary, during his banishment in Asia Minor, who calls Basil and Eustathius most holy men' than St. Athanasius, who acknowledges as brethren' those who but scrupled at the word 'Homoousion,' or than S. Basil of Cæsarea, who till a late period of his life was an intimate friend of Eustathius." I might quote much more to the same effect and show also how St. Cyril suffered persecution from the Arians but enough has been said in illustration of the unscrupulous weapons which High Church Radicals are not ashamed to employ.

You will forgive me if I add a word or two which may seem like caution. All that I have said shows my entire agreement with Mr. Marray that our cause is far too good to be frittered away in dependence on any party hack, however eminent. But I earnestly trust to see full justice done in your pages to that great statesman whom High Church Radicals pursue with a malignity which not unfrequently descends into scurrility, because they so fear him; revealing thereby at once the weakness and the worthlessness of their cause. I would on this head remind "X. Y. Z." that though Deaneries were given both to High and Low Churchmen-an inevitable concession-the late Governments of Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli showed a courage unexampled in the previous history of Ministries by promoting none but High Churchmen to the Episcopate. (Archbishop Tait and Bishop Jackson were merely translated.)

On the other hand, do not be in a hurry to take it for granted that the only influential Catholic Society-the E.C.U.-is a tool in the hands of Radicals. It only requires Conservatives to be constantly watchful and active to keep it straight. For instance, in my own local branch this year, I brought forward a motion worded in the strongest form against Irish Church Disestablishment and Disendowment, and in a large meeting carried it with only two dissentient voices. It is true indeed (and in the present state of things, perhaps, not quite inexcusable) that the Society has occasionally stood neutral where we would have wished to see decided action, but it is impossible to point to a single instance where its active support was given to the Radicals against the Conservatives, while (not to quote other cases) in spite of protests from its Radical members, it threw the whole weight of its influence against Mr. Coleridge's Tests Abolition Bill; though the Bill had the warm support of Mr. Gladstone and the whole Liberal party, and was as stoutly opposed by the whole of the Conservatives.

One last hint as to external relations. It is true that, in a courteous and friendly spirit, and with a view to clearing away of obstacles to Reunion, we are forced occasionally to take a position of our own against our Roman brethren. But believe me, Reunion will never be effected by coquetting with Mr. Ffoulkes and his little knot of sympathizers in what has been aptly termed "the Roman disobedience." Such an alliance should always be regarded with special suspicion by an organ like yours, for it is undoubtedly playing the game of Liberalism.

I must apologise for occupying so much of your space, promising to be more brief in any future communication you may be kind enough to Yours truly, EDWARD W. URQUHART.

insert. Bovey Tracey, Devonshire, Vigil of SS. Simon and Jude. P.S. With regard to the slander about St. Cyril, I may further quote the expression of the 2nd General Council, which in restoring him to his See, whence he had been expelled by the Arians, terms him "the most reverend and religious Cyril, long since canonically appointed by the Bishop of the Province, and in many ways and places a withstander of the Arians,"

It is fair to add that since the above was written the Church Review has retracted in the most unqualified terms the mis-statement about Mr. Liddon, which it is inconceivable how it ever admitted into its pages. The current number also sides in a distinct, though half-hearted sort of fashion, with the opponents of Dr. Temple's appointment. It is at least not so devoted to the Gladstone interest as its flippant contemporary, the Church Times. [For such long letters as the above, as a rule, we have no room. Those who wish us to print their kind communications must be brief.—ED. C. H.]

[blocks in formation]

DR. TEMPLE'S APPOINTMENT. SIR-It seems to me that your contemporary the Guardian and the other High Church Radical newspapers have altogether kept in the background, the one leading fact which makes Dr. Temple's appointment so indecorous and damaging.

It is no want of charity to say that Mr. Voysey denies the doctrine of the Incarnation, and altogether rejects dogmatic Christianity. Now, to enable him to retain his position, Dr. Temple subscribed to his Defence Fund. From these premises a very dark conclusion may be drawn. A PLYMOUTH PARSON.

Yours truly,

SIR-In those unhappy controversies regarding secession to Rome, which are known so well at most of the High Church establishments, it will not be very easy to answer the plain fact that henceforth the principles of the Essays and Reviews are equally tolerated with the principles of High Churchmanship in the National Church. Hitherto the Church has contained High and Low: now we are to have a guardian of the faith who explains it away: and who allies himself with Mr. C. Voysey.

[blocks in formation]

SIR-It needs no prophet to point out that henceforth the National Church will rest on a purely sceptical basis. Men may believe what they please, so that it be not Catholic. Any defence of dogma is now impossible. There may be congregations where Romanism (without the Pope) may be openly taught; there will be those in which the Incarnation, the Trinity, and the Resurrection of the Body will be openly scoffed at and repudiated. Dr. Pusey has helped us to this state of affairs by his blind and unnatural worship of Mr. Gladstone. Yours truly, A SUSSEX RURAL DEAN.

Brunswick-square, Brighton, Oct. 30.

SIR,-It has been remarked that Dr. Temple's status as a schoolmaster removed him from the sphere of active Church work. It would have been well had it hindered him also from taking part in work against the Church. It was on the 29th of May last year (according to the Rugby Advertiser, June 6th, 1868) at Rugby, that he went out of his way to abet schism in the parish by attending a meeting of Nonconformists on the occasion of laying the foundation stone of a Wesleyan preaching house. Consistently ignoring in his speech any hint of the authority of the Ecclesia docens-on which his friends, Mr. Gerard Cobb and the High Church Radicals are occasionally so emphatic-he concluded with "I wish you (the schismatics) all the success that can be possibly granted you, and that your congregation may increase." Then in September last year we have his bitter speech against the Irish Church at Clitheroe ; and then on October 15th, he reappears at Rugby (Rugby Advertiser, October 17th), supporting the candidature of the Unitarian, Mr. Manton, when he actually forged on his audience a typical Irishman, saying to his Protestant Rector-"You come to me as the Minister of injustice and tyranny, and I would not hear a word you had to say; no, not if you spoke with the inspiration of heaven and the words of an angel." I sayforged-for comparing his Clitheroe speech, we have the satisfaction of finding this typical Irishman to be only a baby of Dr. Temple's brain, scarce a month old, and begot for the sake of a little sensation at Rugbyfor he told his hearers at Clitheroe, that as far as he had seen of the Irish people when he was there "they were most unhappily apathetic about this and every other oppression they may suffer with the exception of that which touched their livelihood-the question of land." We can fancy the schoolmaster on his Irish travel, in quest of a grievance against the Church, indignantly apostrophising the too placable Papist with, "wretch whom no sense of wrongs can rouse to vengeance." Yet generously making up his mind, as he says, "to do an act of justice to him even if it was not the act of justice about which he cared at the time.'

Thus it is not only that Dr. Temple has been the very efficient colleague of the authors of "the Essays and Reviews" during nine years, or that he has been alleged to be one of the principal supporters of the Colenso Testimonial Fund-but the fact that so recently as only a few years ago he is discovered leaguing himself with schismatics on several occasions, may not unreasonably give rise to doubts and suspicions in the minds of the Clergy of the Diocese of Exeter over whom Mr. Gladstone proposes to establish him as their Bishop. For in Cornwall Dissent very largely prevails, and we have it on the authority of Mr. G. Cobb, that "Dr. Temple is admirably adapted for laying the foundation of the Church's reconquest of Cornwall." Yet, why Dr. Temple should at all address himself to this so necessary work it would be difficult to discover, bearing in mind the hearty support he accorded to the Wesleyans last year at Rugby.

But we are promised by Dr. Temple's friends that after his consecration he will give his Clergy satisfactory evidence of his orthodoxy. May we not hope that he will also explain to them while his promise is fresh in his memory-" to be ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous doctrine contrary to God's Word, and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same "-what is the attitude he intends to assume towards Corah's Dissent. Or does the Ordination Promise stand in the same category as the Queen's Coronation Oath, of which Dr. Temple is reported to have said, The fact that an

[ocr errors]

injustice was involved showed at once that God never accepted the Oath at all." But one thing is certain, if the principle he lays down in the case of the Irish Church is carried out in the Diocese of Exeter the Clergy of Cornwall will be at once disestablished and disendowed, and Dr. Temple's reign over them will be short indeed. That the Dean and Chapter of Exeter may have years to come and a just judgment—that Dr. Temple's proposed solution of the difficulties of the situation may, if needed, be as satisfactory to the Clergy of the Diocese of Exeter as to himself, and that the Clergy may never have reason to feel that a deep dishonour and outrage has been inflicted on the memory of the great Prelate who has so lately been removed from them is the hearty prayer of Sir, yours faithfully, AN OUTSIDER.

HIGH CHURCH RADICAL PRINCIPLES. SIR, A young gentleman of the High Church Radical school, in last Saturday's Church Review, writes the following practical defence of the principles of the Broad Church party. Do not credit me either with its reasoning, its grammar or its sentiments, for though all are equally

choice they are none of them mine:

"Are they our Broad' or our Low' Bishops who utter words too dreadful to be repeated at Confirmation and Ordination addresses-who order crosses to be removed from altars; who snub processions; who never lose an opportunity, in Charge or Sermon, of trying to wound the feelings of the Ritualists,' and to stir up ill-will against them; who have a sort of passion for ordaining the lowest and most illiterate of the people; who encourage any sort of vulgarity, irreverence, and (almost) blasphemy, so that it only be 'Protestant?' With sincere regret, against my predilections and prejudices, I am obliged to record my conviction, that while Catholics have scanty toleration and some courtesy to expect from Broad Churchmen, they have nothing, not even the barest justice or charity, to look for from the advanced Evangelical; and that the whole course of recent events show irresistibly that greatly as the religion, the peace, and spiritual prosperity of a Diocese suffer under the incubus of a Broad' Prelate, they suffer a thousand-fold more under a 'Low' one." Perhaps some of your readers may be able to explain what is meant by "snubbing a procession," for the expression does not convey any idea to my mind.

I deeply regret that any one should have tried "to wound the feelings of a Ritualist," knowing as regards "the tithe, anise and cumine," that is the use of wax candles, copes and chasubles, how tender they are. I can only wish that they were as tender as regards the weightier things of the law, e.g., disavowing the principles of Essays and Reviews. "Voysey in a Vestment" would obviously be the perfection of this young writer's ideal. Yours faithfully,

Tyne Bank, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Nov. 1, 1869.

SENEX.

ANARCHY AND REBELLION.

SIR, We have been told again and again by Liberal lights-such for example as Gladstone and Gallenga, Layard. Stansfeld the Brompton brewer, the Times, and, if I am not mistaken by the Standard, too—that Nationalities have their inherent rights, &c., &c., usque ad nauseam—all of which (we know it by heart) was set forth to justify outrage, dishonour, murder, rebellion, and robbery in the kingdom of Naples. I wish then, Sir, to inquire of you or your correspondents, how we can now refuse to give up Ireland to the Irish as the nationalists demand, if the principles of Mr. Gladstone and his allies were good and true. The fact is, the Liberals will effectively dismember and destroy the empire, while gaping fools stand by and witness the meritorious performance. But it may be that the Great Ruler of the nations is now punishing us through Ireland, because of our "moral support" of the anti-Christian Revolution in Italy. Yours truly, STANSFELD'S BROMPTON XXX.

MONSIGNOR CAPEL'S PAMPHLET ON ANGLICAN ORDERS.
SIR, My attention has been called to a paragraph in your last issue,

concerning my pamphlet on Anglican Orders. The information supplied
by your correspondent on the matter is a pure invention, utterly untrue,
acts from malice, and with the intention of prejudicing the public, I
and has not even a shadow of foundation. As your informant manifestly
must beg you to give as prominent a place to my denial in your issue of
the 3rd instant, as you did to the fabricated information in your last
number.

Anxious to act fairly towards Anglicans in a question so vital as the validity of their Orders, I delayed the bringing out of my pamphlet merely to see the long-promised but not yet published work of Dr. Lee. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant,

T. J. CAPEL.

All Saints' Day, Oxford. [The information published by us, came from a member of Mr. Capel's own communion, one incapable of stating other than what he believed to be strictly true.-ED. C. H.]

THE BISHOP OF ELY ON CHURCH AND STATE. But the mode in which the Irish Establishment fell is even more instructive than its fall. The real Irish grievance was not the Church, but the land. The agitation against the Church did not begin in Ireland. English Dissent, not Irish Romanism, was the true motive power. There were doubtless men of high tone and character, feeling deeply for the wrongs of Ireland, who shed lustre on all the rest. But with them were the Liberation Society, the Scotch Presbyterian jealous of State influence, the Irish Priesthood, and, throwing in their dead weight into the scale, the unbelieving, sceptical, indifferent, and ungodly. But another power was that of some earnest Churchmen, who sighed for relief from the supremacy of the State-some hoping that Disestablishment would settle our differences, others that greater progress would be made in their own desired directions, others that Clergy would thereby gain more power for good. So all these powers were arrayed against the Irish Church; and the like powers are more or less arrayed against all established Churches everywhere. Then there came out in the recent debates new principles about property, all of which, even private property, was held to belong to the nation. Again, when any effort was made to preserve any portion of the confiscated tithes or Church lands, for other denominations as well as for the Church, the objection urged was that the principle of the Bill was to divert the revenues, not only from the Church but from all religious uses whatever. Turning from the Irish to the English Church, we see that Church-rates are gone; the marriage law is changed; there is a design to secularise all education; there is a Bishops in the House of Peers. Then the same influences are at work in Continental Christendom, the Church and the civil power being often at open war. All seems to indicate that we are entering on a new era, passing perhaps as much into a new atmosphere, as those who lived in the times of Constantine, or Charlemagne, or Hildebrand, or the Reformation. Are we then to sit down quietly in despair? Far from it. We may not be able to arrest changes; but we may be sure that change in Church will only be part of changes more general. But then we may consider that if we wish to retain our present position, we must (1) have that purpose daily in view, and (2) must be true to ourselves. All the interests spoken of above are united against us; but we are not united amongst ourselves. Yet, if we were united, we could resist them all. Many sigh for change, little regarding the danger if we once_lose the moorings of fifteen centuries and launch into untried waters. From the time of Constantine to the American revolution, Christian nations have ever been in union with the Church. In the earliest ages

SIR,-As a successively disappointed subscriber to the defunct Union, the Church Times, Church Review, and Church News, permit me to congratulate you on the appearance of the CHURCH HERALD, and to express a sincere hope that you may be enabled to continue your advocacy of Conservative Churchmanship. It is indeed refreshing to meet with such sound and valuable utterances as your remarks upon the irreparable loss the country has sustained in the good Earl of Derby, and upon those hybrid monstrosities "High Church Radicals." The trite but very true proverb, Quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat, is being abundantly exemplified in the Church of England. With every advantage on our side, of right, numbers, prestige, and organization, our countless and self-willed divisions are rapidly bringing ruin on us. Though, I trust, a sincere and thorough High Churchman in intention, I cannot acquit to my own mind the party known as Ritualists of a grave share in this state of things. The violence and vulgarity of their organs" in the press-threat of immediate attack on the Welsh Church and the seats of the of which a specimen is deservedly gibbeted in your last number-their utter want of patriotism or principle in politics, and their too often unconciliatory course in non-essentials, contribute at least as largely as the faults of other parties to discredit the Church and help her enemies. The English Church Union, of which I was a member till the last election, on every important occasion appears to further the disunion of Church and State.

[ocr errors]

In view of the palpable dangers which threaten us, the growing infidelity, and revolutionary spirit of the age, with all the warnings of the past before our eyes, and the prophetic signs of a future which must come-how soon we know not-is it too much to hope that Churchmen will be more ready to unite on the common basis of the divine and imperishable principle of authority? Is it not a crying shame and an unpardonable scandal that more animosity should exist between members of the same Church than between Christians and Mahommedans? Such is, and such is too likely to continue the state of our National Church, and it can but produce one result one more defeat of Christianity. But the CHURCH HERALD will indeed earn a debt of gratitude from all consistent Catholics, if it succeeds to some extent in healing our miserable divisions, and rallying supporters to the watchword-once considered inspired-of "Fear God and honour the King," from the debasing theories of popular mis-called Liberalism. I am, Sir, yours obediently,

Rugby, Oct. 30, 1869.

CHARLES EWART BUTLER, M.A.

[ocr errors]

it was God's will that His Church should be aided by an earthly power, but when it had penetrated and revolutionized the Roman Empire, then He willed that the Emperor himself should acknowledge its influence and accept its teaching. The Emperor, partly from conviction, partly from policy, conciliated what he could not subdue. But statecraft taught him to restrain what he thus took to his bosom. In this the Church for centuries acquiesced, believing that kings were to be its nursing fathers and queens its nursing mothers. The universal dominion of Rome was favourable to

« PreviousContinue »