Page images
PDF
EPUB

doctrine, might be subscribed by men holding the chief doctrines of the Roman Church. Dr. Pusey's own view is expressed in these words:

"I have long been convinced that there is nothing in the Council of Trent which could not be explained satisfactorily for us, if it were to be explained authoritatively. . This in

[ocr errors]

volves the conviction that there is nothing in our Articles which cannot be explained rightly as not contradicting anything to be held de fide in the Roman Catholic Church."1

He was an adept at casuistical argument, and he employed such reasoning as the following:

"Our reformers, our canons, and the combined teaching of our approved divines, all refer us to antiquity, and to the authority of the Primitive Church. If we find anything in the Church's formularies which, according to any received interpretation, is inconsistent with that model, are we not bound to inquire whether that is the only possible interpretation? And if of two possible interpretations one, even though it be a little strained, is in accordance with antiquity, while the other is not, ought we not to choose the former ?"

1 Letter to the Tablet, November 22nd, 1865.

Ten years afterwards Dr. Pusey published an Historical Preface to Tract No. 90, which was edited by Mr. Keble, in which he justified its principal positions.1

His mind, with its characteristic defect of logical force and training, does not see that, before this argument can be of any weight whatever, you have to determine what are the limits of antiquity and of the Primitive Church. Most writers of the Reformed Church would say, with Bishop Lightfoot, that when Cyprian had introduced the principles of sacerdotalism into Christianity from pagan sources, then antiquity, though an interesting witness, is not a safe guide. They would also hold that amongst the writers of antiquity by far the most important are the Apostles and Evangelists, who wrote the inspired and living message of God, and who are quite clear enough with the help of the Holy Spirit. They would hold, with the English Reformers, that the Fathers contain both weeds and herbs, and that it was the duty of the Christian to choose the herbs and avoid the weeds. But Dr. Pusey, with a quiet and meek persistence, carefully

1 Record, September 22nd, 1882.

selected what the Reformers considered the weeds.

After taking a vigorous part in the opposition to Dr. Hampden, on his appointment as Regius Professor of Divinity, for his views on the growth of dogmatic phraseology, which resulted in Hampden being prevented from taking any part in the nomination of select preachers, Dr. Pusey himself, in 1843, fell under the censure of the University for a sermon called The Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the Penitent," in which he seemed to go as near to the doctrine of the Church of Rome as could be. The Times biography gives the following account of the episode :

[ocr errors]

"The Vice-Chancellor sent for the sermon, with an intimation that action would be taken upon it. No doubt Dr. Pusey immediately set to work elaborating his defence, and adding to his pile of testimonies from all ages of the Church. Soon, however, he heard that the Vice-Chancellor had revived for the occasion a long-forgotten statute empowering the

Vice-Chancellor to create a tribunal of six Doctors for the trial of any person preaching or teaching contrary doctrines of the University.

to

the received

What was more,

he was informed that the sermon was all they required; they had it, and therefore did not want the presence of the writer. Dr. Pusey remonstrated publicly, officially, and through one who claimed to be a friend in the Board of six Doctors. The Board, however, had its difficulties. The sermon was guarded from the Romish doctrine. It savoured not of Transubstantiation, but of Consubstantiation, and one of the members of the Board reminded his colleagues that Consubstantiation was preached in the precincts of St. James's Palace to the German members of the Royal Household, and was, in fact, the creed of Luther and of such as still hold to him, including some of the reigning German. families. The Board must therefore take care what it was about. It did. It said not a word about the sermon, but suspended Dr. Pusey from the use of the University pulpit for two years. The actual result was to put the six Doctors and their adherents in the wrong, and make a martyr of Dr. Pusey, who went on writing and publishing more than ever, and was now much more read than he had ever been. His first sermon sentence was on

[ocr errors]

after the expiration of the

The Entire Absolution of the Penitent.' This

[ocr errors]

sermon caused a very general outcry among the clergy, and the heads of houses generally disapproved of it; but nothing further was done to censure it in positive terms. From that time forward Dr. Pusey began to hear the confessions of those who were willing to come to him in order to open their griefs' and to administer the comfort of absolution. In fact, from that day forward the confessional has held a place in the practical system of the Church of England as administered administered by its AngloCatholic sons, and the bishops have been either unable or unwilling to suppress it."

In October 1845 Newman was received into the Roman Church. The blow was very heavy to Pusey; but he never entertained any idea of following his friend's example. His office was to unprotestantise the Church of England, to undo what he regarded as the mischief of the Reformation, and to bring back the standards of doctrine and practice which prevailed in the medieval Church. Newman, Manning, and their friends desired to bring over individuals to the bosom of the unreformed Church; Pusey formed the larger conception of bringing the whole reformed Church of England into line with Rome, Newman

« PreviousContinue »