rti*fe.U4jtf-^L. :/P4>3„ 1843- Puseyism, or the. Oxford Tractarian School. 50t Art. VIII.— 1. Tracts for the Times. By Members of the University of Oxford. 5 vols. 8 vo. 1833 — 40. 2. Church Principles considered in their Results. By W. E. Gladstone, Esq. M.P. 8vo. London : 1840. 3. Ancient Christianity, and the Doctrines ofthe Oxford Tracts. By the Author of Spiritual Despotism. Vols. I. and II. London. 4. The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice ; or, a Defence of ihe Catholic Doctrine that Holy Scripture has been, since the times of the Apostles, the sole Divine Rule of Faith and Prac tice in the Church, against the Dangerous Errors ofthe Authors ofthe ' Tracts for the Times,' and the Romanists. By William Goode, M.A. of Trinity College* Cambridge. 2 vols. 8vo; London.5. The Kingdom qf Christ delineated; in Two Essays, on our Lord's own Account of his Person and of the Nature of his Kingdom, and on the Constitution, Powers, and Ministry of d Christian Church, as appointed by Himself. By Richard Whately, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin. 8vo. London: 1841. 6. Oxford Divinity compared with that of the Romish and An glican Churches, with a Special View ofthe Doctrine of Justifi cation by Faith. By the Right Rev. C. P. M'Ilvaine, D.D., Bishop of Ohio. 8vo. London: 1841. 7. The Church of the Fathers. 12mo. London : 1842. 8. The Voice ofthe Anglican Church, being the declared Opinions of her Bishops on the Doctrines of the Oxford Tract Writers. 12mo. London: 1843. 9. Anglo- Catholicism not Apostolical; being an Enquiry into the Scriptural Authority of the Leading Doctrines advocated in ' The Tracts for the Times.' By W. Lindsay Alexander, M.A. Svo. Edinburgh: 1843. It may sound paradoxical, but it is nevertheless true, that with the disciples of the Oxford Tract School* we have no manner of * We have employed the term Puseyism^ simply as the ordinary name by which a certain system of doctrines has come to be popularly designated* and by whieh it is therefore most readily recognised. It is not intended to imply that the Reverend Gentleman from whose name the term has been derived, would subscribe to every statement or opinion contained in the works of the School to which he belongs ; but his own writings leave us no doubt, that in all the more important he cordially concurs. u Still, we should Jtave greferxed a name not derived 502 Puseyism, or April* controversy. Their principles* logical and ethical, are so totally different from our own, that we feel it as impossible to argue with them as with beings of a different species. There may be worlds, say some philosophers, where truth and falsehood change natures — where the three angles of a triangle are no longer equal to two right angles, and where a crime of unusual turpitude may inspire absolute envy. We are far from saying that the gentle men above mentioned are qualified to be inhabitants of such a world; but we repeat that we have just as little dispute with them as if they were. With men who can be guilty of so grotesque a petitio principii as to suppose that to those who question the arrogant and exclusive claims of the Episcopal Clergy, and who 'ask by what authority they speak,' it can be any answer to cite the words, ' He that despiseth you despiseth ' me,' and ' whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted ' * — with men who think that no ' serious' person can treat lightly their doctrine of Apostolical succession, and that if there be, it is to some purpose to quote the text, ' Esau, a profane ' person, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright 'f — with men who can so wrest the meaning of common terms as to represent the change effected in the eucharistic elements by the words of consecration, to be as much a miracle as that per formed at the marriage feast at Cana J — with men who are so enamoured of the veriest dreams and whimsies of the Fathers, as to bespeak all reverence for that fancy of Justin and others, that the ' ass and the colt' for which Christ sent his disciples, are to be interpreted severally of the ' Jewish and the Gentile ' believers,' and also to attach much weight to that of Origen, who rather expounds them of the ' old and the new Testaments' — with men who can treat with gravity the various patristic expo sitions of the * five barley loaves,' which some suppose to indi cate the ' five senses,' and others the * five books of Moses' § with men who can lay down the general principle, that we are to * maintain before we have proved,' ' that we must believe in ' order to judge,' ' that this seeming paradox is the secret of from an individual, had we known of any such as widely used and as generally understood. The Oxford party, it is true, vehemently pro-. test against being designated by any name (whether derived from an individual or not) which would imply that they constituted a particu lar School or Sect, on the ground that tlieir doctrines are not those of a school or sect, but of the • Catholic Church !' But in this we can not humour them ; they are in our judgment decidedly a ' Sect ' and nothing more. * Tracts, Vol. i. No. 17, p. 6. f Tracts, No. 19, p. 4. t Br. Crit., Vol. xxvii. p. 259, 260. § Tracts, No. 89. 1843. The Oxford Tfactarian School. 503 ¦ happiness,' ' and that never to have been troubled with a ' doubt about the truth of what has been taught us, is the ' happiest state of mind,'* — these writers at the same time de claring that the immense majority of mankind are brought up in this same quiet reception of the most fatal delusions — with men who can believe that the true doctrine of Christian baptism will prove a preservative against forming either a Neptunian or Vulcanian theory of geology ; and that the vertebral ' column ' and its lateral processes' were designed to afford a type and adumbration of the crosst — with men who think the words rovro itoiirrs ug ryu sftriv ocvdfjbvrjdiv are the most natural words for our Lord to have used, if he meant to say ' Sacrifice this in ' remembrance of me 'J — with men who can believe that St Antony's nonsensical conflicts with devils may not unworthily be compared with the temptations of our Lord in the wilderness, and that the grotesque portents with which his ' life ' abounds may be attributed to diabolical agency § — with men who can write or defend such a Tract as Number Ninety, and at once swear to the Articles and explain them away — with men who think that there is no reason to believe that ' the private stu- ' dent of Scripture would ordinarily gain a knowledge of the ' Gospel from it;' and who ' confess a satisfaction in the in- * fiiction of penalties for the expression of new doctrines or ' a change of communion ' % — with men who can affirm and believe such things, and many others equally strange, we repeat we can have personally as little controversy as with those inhabitants of Saturn, who, according to Voltaire's lively little tale, have seventy-two senses, and have discovered in matter no less than three hundred essential properties. The powers of speculation of these gentlemen are either so much above our own, or so much below them — their notions of right and wrong so transcendantly ridiculous, or so transcen- dantly sublime — that there can be nothing in common be tween us. Thousands, we know, are ready to resolve the mystery of their conduct by saying, • Surely these men are ' either great knaves or great fools : ' but in the exercise of that charity which hopeth all things, we will not assume the former; and in the exercise of that charity which believeth all things, we will not assume the latter. We regard them simply as an unexplained phenomenon ; we stare at them as at a new comet, * Tracts, No. 85, p. 85, 73 ; Br. Cr., No. 63, p. 39, 83. f Sewell's Christian Morals, p. 324. See also Tract No. 89, § vi. vii. J Froude's Remains, Second Part, Vol. i. p. 91, &c. § Newman's Church of the Fathers, p. 360. f Br. Cr., No. 59. p. 105. §04 Puseyism, or April, devoutly hoping at the same time that they may be found td move in a highly hyperbolical trajectory, and that, having swept across our system, they will vanish and return no more. It is not to them, then, that we address ourselves ; but to the thousands of our readers who may have neither time nor inclina tion to peruse the voluminous productions of their School. For their sakes we shall attempt something like a systematic expo sition, once for all, of its principal doctrines, and they can then decide whether or not it is their duty to accept them. It is now about ten years since the founders of this School set about achieving theirgreat miracle of putting the ' dial' of the world ' ten degrees backward.' Their first proceedings were comparatively moderate. They had arrived at the conclusion that the Church of England had become more ' Protestant than ' the Reformation ;' that she had somehow swung loose from her moorings, and had insensibly drifted with the tide to a point very different from that at which the pilots of the Reformation had anchored her; that the spirit of the English Church re sides rather in the Liturgy and Rubric than in the Articles, and that the former ought to interpret the latter ; that certain ' great and precious truths' had nigh gone out of date, and that certain high ' gifts ' and prerogatives of the Church had come to be cheaply rated. They further thought that these ' pre- * cious truths' required to be restored, and these high ' gifts' to be vindicated. To diffuse their views they commenced that remarkable series of publications well known by the name of the ' Oxford Tracts;' at an early stage of which appeared Mr Newman's Via Media, or middle road to heaven, between Romanism and Protestantism. This Via Media appeared to many nothing more or less than the ' old Roman road' uncovered and made passable. What was thus early suspected was in due time made manifest. No matter how comparatively moderate the first pretensions of these writers ; it was soon seen that their system bf doctrine and ritual was fast assuming a form not essentially different from that of undisguised Romanism. Flushed with sliccess, and forgetting all caution, they rapidly developed, partly in the Tracts and partly in separate works, principles at which the Protestant world stood aghast. In a word, the ¦system closely resembled that of Rome.; it was, as geometricians say, a similar figure, only with not so large a perimeter. They affirmed, as we shall fully show hereafter, that the Scrip tures were not the sole and absolute rule of faith ; that tradition was supplemental to it, and that what it unanimously taught was of co-ordinate authority ; that a fully developed Christianity must be sought somewhere or other, (nobody knows where,) within the 1843, The Oxford Tractarian School. 50b first (fiobody ktiows how many) centuries ; they spoke contemptu ously of ChillihgWorth's celebrated maxim, and elevated that of Vincfent of Lerihs into its place : in defiance of the first principles of the Reformation, they advocated * Reserve' in the communica tion of religious knowledge* and avowed their preference ofthe an*- eietit disciplina arcani;* they spoke in terms of superstitious reverence of the Fathers, and eagerly defended many of their niost egregious fooleries;! they denied most contemptuously ' the right of private judginent,' and inculcated a blind, unques tioning acquiescence in the assurances of the Priest. As they had advocated principles Which would justify nearly all the abuses of Rome, so they learned to speak of the abuses to which those principles had led in a new dialect — in terms which would have made the hair of Cranmer or of Ridley stand on end. They apologized for her errors, and, as they were bidden, ' spoke ' gently of her fall.' They were rewarded (significant omen!) with the friendly greetings of the Romanists in return ; and conde scendingly assured that ' they were not far from the kingdom of ' God.' j All this will be fully proved hereafter, if indeed there are now any who stand in need of such proof. But their zeal somewhat outran discretion. They were not yet quite perfect in the art of poisoning. Instead of administering it in homoeopathic doses, in invisible elements, by means of per fumed gloves or sweet confectionary ; their impatience could not brook the long delay required by so tedious a process. They exchanged the gentle decoction of laurel leaves for prussic acid ; till at last, in Number Ninety, which ought by right to be called the ' Art of Perjury made Easy,' they administered so strong a dose, that even the Ostrich-stomach of the Church could no longer endure it. She threw off the nauseous compound with a convulsive effort, and refused to take any further preparations from the laboratory of these modern ' Subtles.' But though the Oxford Tracts were at length silenced hy authorities unwontedly patient of scandal, the poison was too widely diffused to admit of any sudden and instant counteraction. * Nos. 80 and 87, Tracts on ' Reserve.' •j* Tract 89 — On ' Ancient Mysticism,' passim. j ' It seems impossible,' says Dr Wiseman, ' to i*ead the works of the Oxford divines, and especially to follow them chronologically, with out discovering a daily approach towards our holy church, both in doctrine and affectionate feeling To suppose them (without an insincerity which they have given us no right to charge them with) to love the parts of a system and wish for them, while they would reject the root and only secure support of them — the system itself — is, to my mind, revoltingly contradictory.' 506 Puseyism, or April, Accordingly, in periodical publications of all sorts and sizes — in Reviews, Magazines, and Newspapers, in flimsy Pamphlets and bulky Volumes, in letters, in dialogues, in tales and novels, in poetry, in congenial fiction and perverted history, in every form of typography, and in every species of composition— have the very same, nay, still more outrageous, doctrines been industri ously propagated. Of this, too, we shall give full proof.' Thus it was seen that the Via Media, instead of being a road running between Protestantism and Romanism, and parallel to both, branched off at a large angle from the former, and, after traversing a short interval of moss and bog, which quaked most fearfully under the traveller's uncertain tread, struck into that ' broad,' well-beaten, and crowded road which leads to Rome and : destruction ' at the same time. If the Oxford Tract writers had strictly adhered to what ap peared to be their original intention, as stated in the Via Media, it would have been difficult, at all events, for a clerical antagonist to know how to deal with them ; as they, for similar reasons, would have found it equally difficult to know how to deal with him. While the Oxford party maintain that the spirit of the Church resides rather in the Liturgy and Rubric than in the Articles, their opponents plead that the spirit of the Church resides rather in the Articles than in the Liturgy and Rubric ; and these last, if change must come, would fain have the latter brought into harmony with the former ; rather than the former misinterpreted into agreement with the latter. Which of these two parties is more near the truth in its notions, we shall not particularly enquire. Never having ourselves sworn and sub scribed an ex animo assent to ' all and every thing ' contained in the ' Articles, Book of Common Prayer, Rubric, and Canons,' we feel at perfect liberty to admire and revere whatsoever we deem excellent in the constitution, doctrines, or ritual of the Church of England, without pledging ourselves to admire or * The Oxford Tract writers and their adherents, have shown but small practical regard to that principle of unquestioning obedience which forms a prime article of their faith. They suppressed the ' Tracts,' it is true — an act of obedience which, considering that they have since propagated the same doctrines with undiminished zeal, and even openly defended Number Ninety itself, the Bishop of Oxford has acknowledged, in a recent charge, with a gratitude which looks almost ludicrous. They seem to have understood the objection of their superior to be to the title of the books, not to the doctrines they contained — to the label on the bottle, not to the poison in it. Their obedience was of the same kind with that of the dutiful son mentioned in the Gospel, who said to his father, ¦ I go, sir,' but went not. 1643. The Oxford Tractarian School. 507 revere all. Considering the circumstances under which the Church was founded, the nation's recent escape from the grossest Popery — the prejudices which required conciliation — the diffe rent, and in some respects contradictory, interests that were to be adjusted — the explicit admissions of the most eminent Re formers, that they could not do all they wished, and that they were compelled to content themselves with doing what they could — we cannot wonder that some portions of the Articles and Formularies of the Church should be hard to be reconciled. As little can we wonder that those who have sworn an ex animo as sent to ' all and every thing in them,' should, after so miscellane ous a feast, feel now and then a little dyspeptic. They may well be pardoned if they make some desperate efforts to show that they are not inconsistent ; and even applauded, if they take the more rational course of recommending that any expressions which trouble conscience should be rectified and adjusted. Meantime, as it is impossible that inconsistency should itself be consistent, it is no matter of surprise that these two parties should feel it more easy to refute each other's opinions than to establish their own. One appeals to the Liturgy — the other to the Arti cles — each can prove the ether partially wrong, but neither can prove itself wholly right. In a word, it is a war of reprisals ; each takes out its ' letter of marque,' and proceeds to burn and pil lage on its adversary's coast; and returning in anticipated triumph — finds equal desolation on its own. Meantime, one thing is clear. The much boasted unity of the Church: — that unity which Mr Gladstone vaunts, and which Mr Newman sorrowfully laments is not to be found,* (not agree ing, it appears, even as to whether they are disagreed,) — is some thing like the unity of chaos. There was but one chaos, it is true, but in that one there was infinite confusion. Whether absolute unity be desirable, we have our doubts ; that it is impossible of attainment, we have none. We see that the very men who have sworn assent to the very same documents, exhibit almost every variety and shade of theological opinion. From every zone, every latitude of theology, has the Church * ' In the English Church we shall hardly find ten or twenty neigh bouring clergymen who agree together ; and that, not in the non essentials of religion, but as to what are its elementary and necessary doctrines; or as to the fact, whether there are any necessary doctrines at all — any distinct and definite faith required for salvation.' — Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church, p. 394. Again — ' In the Eng lish. Church, by itself, may be found differences as great as fhose which separate it from Greece or Rome.' — P. 310, 5,08' Puseyism, or April, collected its specimens. Each extreme, and all between, is there ; from the mere ethical declaimer who has successfully laboured to expel from his discourse every distinctive trace of Christianity, except what may be found in the text and the benediction, to the fanatic who suffers ' grace' wellnigh to exclude 'morality' — from the most rigid Arminianism to the most rigid Calvin ism — from high-church doctrines like those of Laud, to low- church doctrines like those of Hoadley — from a theory of the sacraments like that of Dr Hook, to a theory of the sacraments like that of Mr Noel.* The argumentum ad hominem, however, with which the Ox ford Tractists (had they restricted themselves to what seemed their original object) might have met their clerical opponents, is of no avail against those — whether in the Church or out of it — who have not sworn and subscribed an ex animo assent to her public documents ; and further, as they have not restricted themselves to that object, but have affirmed doctrines and developed a theory essentially inconsistent with Protestantism, it is competent to every body to affirm that they do not of right belong to the Church of England, though they remain within her pale, and most un worthily eat her bread. Of this any one may convince, himself who will take the trouble to examine the Oxford Tracts seriatim — more especially those from Number Seventy to Number Ninety. But there are two facts more easily appreciable by the public. The first is, that the Tracts have been suppressed by authority — none can deny that. The second is, that the ablest and most influential Pre lates have, in ' Charges' and other publications, delivered their express testimony against them, in every tone of lamentation, reproof, rebuke : they do not disguise their mingled shame, sorrow, and consternation, that such doctrines should have been promulgated by clergymen of their own communion. Those who please may see this collection of testimonies set forth in one of the publications at the head of this article — ' The Voice of the Anglican Church.' Nor must it be forgot ten that this series of testimonies derives additional force from the fact, that there is so much in the Oxford Tracts to gratify -Episcopal vanity, and to strengthen Episcopal pretensions. No thing surely but an imperative sense of truth and duty could have extorted them, in the face of the pleasing adulations with which the 'Tracts' abound. It is hard to be compelled to strike the parasite in the very act of sycophancy ; and frequent and most * The reader may see this point more fully treated in our Article on Gladstone's ' Church and State,' Vol. lxix. pp. 268-^271. 1843; The Oxford Tractarinn School £09 fulsome was the flattery with which these right reverend men Were assailed. Their office and prerogatives were studiously magnified ; they were addressed in the humblest tpnes of awe and veneration ;* they were compared to the apostles, not only in their office and dignity — but (let not the reader smile) in their sufferings.^ How pleasant for a worthy gentleman of princely revenue and baronial dignity, to be told that he js at the same time a sort of martyr, and may aspire to combine the character of prince and anchorite in his own proper person. We have much sincere respect for the Bench of Bishops ; but amongst the marks pf ' apostolical succession,' we certainly had imagined that ' priva- ' tions and sufferings' were not generally included. We repeat, then, that our Prelates have done themselves much credit in sp loudly condemning this new heresy. We only hope that they will act consistently with their protests in the discharge of their public duties, and in the employment of their private patronage. In attempting to give some account of the principal opinions held by the new School, we do not mean to deny that some of them are held, with certain modif cations, by many who would Strenuously remonstrate against being classed in the same cate gory with its founders; nay, we shall not charge all who avow a general coincidence with holding every one to the same extent. ' Private judgment,' proscribed as it has been, has been at work here too, and left these men little reason to boast of their unity, We shall content ourselves with developing the system as ex plained in the Oxford Tracts, and in works avowedly written in approval or defence of them. * f To them (the Bishops) we willingly and affectionately relinquish their high privileges and honours ; we encroach not upon the rights of the Successors of the Apostles [these are not our capitals] ; we touch not their sword and crosier.' ... Exalt our holy fathers, the Bishops, as the representatives of the Apostles and the angels of the Churches, and magnify your office as being ordained by them to take part in their ministry.' — (Tracts, No. 1, p. 1, 4. Addressed to the Clergy.) f ' Again, it may be asked, who are at this time the successors and spiritual descendants of the Apostles ? I shall surprise some people by the answer I shall give, though it is very clear, and there is no doubt about it — the Bishops. They stand in the place of the Apostles as far as the office of ruling is concerned ; and whatever we ought ta do, had we lived when the Apostles were alive, the same ought we to do for the Bishops. He that despiseth them, despiseth the Apostles. . . . But I must now mention the more painful part of the subject, i. e- the suf ferings of the Bishops, which is the second mark of their being our Uving Apostles. I may say, Bishops have undergone this trial in every age.' — (No. 10, p. 3, 5 ; also Vol. i., passim.) o\0 Puseyism, Of April, Neither will our space permit us to attempt more than a ge neral statement of the opinions in question. Some of the par ticular doctrines most in favour with the Oxford Theologians, we have already pretty fully considered ;* and some others may, hereafter, come under our review. 1. These writers maintain, in its fullest integrity and extent, the doctrine of Apostolical Succession.! They affirm that the spiritual blessings of Christianity are, so far as we know or have any right to infer, ordinarily restricted to the channel of an Episcopally-ordained ministry ; that, no minister is a true mem ber even of that ministry, unless found in the line of the suc cession — in other words, duly ordained by a Bishop duly conse crated ; whose due consecration again depends on that of a whole series of Bishops from the time of the Apostles ; that mini sters not so ordained have no right to preach the gospel, and cannot efficaciously administer the sacraments, let them be as holy as they may ; that all who are so ordained may do both, * See the articles on Dr Pusey's Fifth of November Sermon, (Vol. Ixvi. p. 396.)— On Gladstone's ' Church and State,' (Vol. lxix. p. 231.)— On Tract Number Ninety, (April 1841.)— On the ' Right of Private Judgment, and Sewell's Christian Morals,' in the Number for Jan, 1842. •f ' Why should we talk .... so little of an Apostolic Succession ? Why should we not seriously endeavour to impress our people with this plain truth (!) — that by separating themselves from our communion, they separate themselves not only from a decent, orderly, useful society, but from the only Church est this realm which has a right to BE QUITE SURE SHE HAS THE LORD'S BODY TO GIVE TO HIS PEOPLE.' —(Tracts, Vol. i., No. 4, p. 5.) ' As to the fact of the Apostolical Succession, i. e. that our present Bishops are the heirs and representatives of the Apostles by succes sive transmission of the prerogative of being so, this is too notorious to require proof. Every link in the chain is known from St Peter to our present Metropolitans.' — (No. 7, p- 2.) Dr Hook says, ' We ask what was the fact, and the fact was this : that the officer whom we now call a Bishop was at first called an Apostle ; although afterwards it was thought better to confine the title of Apos tle to those who had seen the Lord Jesus ; while their successors, exercis ing the same rights and authority, though unendowed with miraculous powers, contented themselves with the designation of Bishops.' It is the prerogative of men of this school to talk nonsense ; but really Dr Hook abuses his privilege. It reminds one of what a lady said to Pelisson, ' Really, Monsieur Pelisson, you abuse your sex's privilege — ¦ of being ugly.' 1843. The Oxford Tractarian School. 511 let them be as unholy as they will ; * that, accordingly, Philip Doddridge and Robert Hall were no true Christian ministers, but that Jonathan Swift and Lawrence Sterne were. All this we know is very mysterious ; but then, as the Tracts say, so are many other things which we nevertheless believe ; and why not this ? It is better ' to believe than to reason ' on such a subject ; or believe first and reason afterwards. ' Let * us believe what we do not see and know Let us maintain ' before we have proved. This seeming paradoxf is the secret of ' happiness.' Thus, seeing is not believing, as the vulgar sup pose, but believing is seeing; and you will, in due time, know the 'blessedness' of such child-like docility.J But it is necessary to dwell a little on the arguments of the opposite party, in order to do. full justice to the hardihood of the required act of faith. Whether we consider the palpable absurdity of this doctrine, its utter destitution of historic evidence, or the outrage it implies on all Christian charity, it is equally revolting. The arguments against it are infinite, the evidence for it absolutely nothing. It rests not upon one doubtful assumption but upon fifty; and when these are compounded together, according to Whately's receipt for gauging the force of arguments, it defies the power of any * ' The unworthiness of man, then, cannot prevent the goodness of God from flowing in those channels in which he has destined it to flow ; and the Christian congregations of the present day, who sit at the feet of ministers duly ordained, have the same reason for reverencing in them the successors of the Apostles, as the primitive Churches of Ephesus and of Crete had for honouring in Timothy and in Titus the Apostolic authority of him who had appointed them.' — (No. 5, p. 10, 11.) + No. 85, p. 85. $ ' I readily allow,' says one Tractist on the doctrine of the Succes sion, ' that this view of our calling has something in it too high and mysterious to be fully understood by unlearned Christians. But the learned, surely, are just as unequal to it. It is part of that ineffable mystery called in our Creed the Communion of Saints ; and, with all other Christian mysteries, is above the understanding of all alike, yet practically alike within reach of all who are willing to embrace it by true Faith.'— (Vol. i. No. 4, p. 6.) ' It may he profitable to us' to reflect, that doctrines, whieh we be lieve to be most true, and which are received as such by the most pro found and enlarged intellects, and which rest upon the most irrefrag able proofs, yet may lie above our disputative powers, and can be treated by us only with reference to our conduct.' — (No. 19, p. 3, On Arguing concerning- the Apostolical Succession.) VOL. LXXVII. NO. CLVI. - 2 K 512 Puseyism, or April, calculus invented by man, to determine the ratio of improbability. First, the very basis on which it rests — the claim of Episcopacy itself to be considered undoubtedly and exclusively of Apostoli cal origin — has been most fiercely disputed by men of equal erudition and acuteness; and, so far as can be judged, of equal integrity and piety. When one reflects how much can be plau sibly and ingeniously adduced on both sides, and that it would require half a volume only to give an abstract of the arguments ; one would think that the only lesson which could or would be learned from the controversy, would be the duty of mutual cha rity ; and a disposition to concede that the blessings of Christia nity are compatible with various systems of Church polity. God forbid that we should for a moment admit that they are restricted to any one ! But this first proposition, however doubtful, is susceptible of evidence almost demonstrative, compared with that offered for half a dozen others involved in the integral reception of the doc trine of Apostolical succession. Accordingly, there are thou sands of Episcopalians, who, while they affirm a preponderance of evidence on behalf of Episcopacy, contemptuously repudiate this incomprehensible dogma : of these, Archbishop Whately is an illustrious example. ¦ The theory is, that each Bishop, from the Apostolic times, has received in his consecration a mysterious ' gift,' and also trans mits to every Priest in his ordination a mysterious ' gift,' indi cated in the respective offices by the awful words, ' Receive the ' Holy Ghost ;'* that on this the right of Priests to assume their functions, and the preternatural grace of the sacraments admi nistered by them, depends ; that Bishops, once consecrated, instantly become a sort of Leyden jar of spiritual electricity, and are invested with the remarkable property of transmitting the ' gift' to others ; that this has been the case from the primitive age till now ; that this high gift has been incorruptibly trans mitted through the hands of impure, profligate, heretical eccle siastics, as ignorant and flagitious as any of their lay contem- * ' Thus we have confessed before God our belief, that through the Bisbop who ordained us we received the Holy Ghost, the power to bind and to loose, to administer the sacraments and to preach. Now, how is he able to give these great gifts ? Whence is his right ? Are these .words idle, (which would be taking God's name in vain,) or do they ex press merely a wish, (which surely is very far below their meaning,) or do they not rather indicate that the speaker is conveying a gift ?' — (Tracts, Vol. i. Np. 1, p. 3.) ; & & 1843. The Oxford Tractarian School. 513 poraries ; that, in fact, these ' gifts' are perfectly irrespective of the moral character and qualifications both of Bishop and Priest, and reside in equal integrity in a Bonner or a Cranmer — a Parson Adams or a Parson Trulliber. Numberless are the questions which reason and charity forth with put to the advocates of this doctrine, to none of which will they deign an answer except the one already given — that be lieving is seeing, and implicit faith the highest demonstration. What is imparted ? what transmitted ? Is it something or nothing f Is consecration or ordination accompanied (as in primitive times) by miraculous powers, by any invigoration of intellect, by increase of knowledge, by greater purity of heart ? It is not pre tended ; and, if it were, facts contradict it, as all history testifies : the ecclesiastic who is ignorant or impure before ordination, is just as much so afterwards. Do the parties themselves profess to be conscious, of receiving the gift? No. Is the conveyance made evident to us by any proof which certifies any fact whatsoever — by sense, experience, or consciousness ? It is* not affirmed. In a word, it appears to be a nonentity inscribed with a very for midable name — a very substantial shadow ; and dispute respect ing it appears about as hopeful as that concerning the ' indelible ' character' imparted in the unreiterable sacraments of the Romish Church ; of which Campbell archly says — ' As to the ' ubi of the character, there was no less variety of sentiments — ' some placing it in the essence of the soul, others in the un- ' derstanding ; some in the will, and others more plausibly in the 'imagination; others even in the hands and tongue; but, by ' the general voice, the body was excluded. So that the whole ' of what they agreed in amounts to this, that in the unreiter- ' able sacraments, as they call them, something* they know not ' what, is imprinted, they know not how, on something in the ' soul of the recipient, they know not where, which never can ' be deleted.' Again, who can certify that this gift has been incorruptibly transmitted through the impurities, heresies, and ignorance of the dark ages? Is there nothing that can invalidate Orders? ' Yes,' say some of these men, ' error in fundamentals will.' Others affirm it will not ; but still, with that superstitious reve rence for forms which ever attends neglect of the substance, de clare that they may be invalidated ' if the formalities of consecra- ' tion have not been duly observed !' Either answer will serve the purpose. If error in essentials is sufficient to invalidate Orders, we ask — had the Romish Church so erred when you separated from her ? If she had, her own Orders were invalid, and she could not transmit yours. If she had not, as you all affirm that 514 Puseyism, or April, nothing but heresy in fundamentals can justify separation, you are schismatics, and your own Orders are invalid. What are the conditions on which the validity of Orders de pends, or whether any thing can annul them* except some informality in ordination itself, our Anglican friends are very reluctant to state. That they do not insist on all those condi tions of the Romish Church which made Chillingworth say, that ' of a hundred seeming Priests, it was doubtful whether there ' was one true one,' is certain ; and it is equally certain that they are discreet in adopting such a course. The Fathers, indeed, often insist upon purity of life and integrity of doctrine as neces sary to authenticate the claims of a successor of the Apostles ; but it would not be convenient, with the ecclesiastical history of the middle ages spread out before us, to insist strongly on any such requisites ; it being certain that in those ages there has been no lack of simoniacal, atheistical, and profligate Prelates ; though, if simony, atheism, and profligacy will not annul ' holy orders,' truly we know not what will. The majority, therefore, seem to have determined that there is hardly any amount of doctrinal pravity or practical licentiousness which could repel the indwelling spirit of holiness — though, incom prehensible dogma ! an error in the form of consecration may ! Be it so. The chances are still infinite that there have not been flaws somewhere or other in the long chain of the suc cession — and though these may be few, yet as no one knows where the fatal breach may be, it is sufficient to spread universal panic through the whole Church. What Bishop can be sure that he and his predecessors in the same line have always been duly consecrated ? or what presbyter, that he was ordained by a Bishop who had a right to ordain him ? Who will undertake to trace up his spiritual pedigree unbroken to the very age of the Apostles, or give us a complete catalogue of his spiritual ancestry ? We can imagine the perplexity of a presbyter thus cast in * Mr Gladstone thinks of nothing but the forms. He says, ' Again, with respect to the darkness of the middle ages, I apprehend that the high and even superstitious reverence then paid to the office of the priesthood, tells positively and most strongly in favour of the succes sion, because it thus becomes so much the more highly improbable that forms so sacred should have been neglected, that unauthorized in trusion should have been either permitted or attempted.' — Gladstone on Church Principles. (Chap. v. p. 236.) See Tracts, No. 15, pp. 9, 10, 11, for some curious statements on this subject. 1843. The Oxford Tractarian School. 515 doubt as to whether or not he has ever had the invaluable ' gift' of Apostolical succession conferred upon him. As that ' gift' is neither tangible nor visible, the subject neither of experience nor consciousness; — as it cannot be known by any 'effects' pro duced by it, (for that mysterious efficacy which attends the ad ministration of rites at its possessor's hands, is like the gift which qualifies him to administer them, also invisible and intangible,) — he may imagine, unhappy man ! that he has been ' regenerating' infants by baptism, when he has been simply sprinkling them with water. ' What is the matter ?' the spectator of his distrac tions might ask. Xi What have you lost?' 'Lost!' would be the reply. ' I fear I have lost my apostolical succession, or rather, * my misery is that I do not know and cannot tell whether I ever ' had it to lose !' It is of no use here to suggest the usual ques tions, ' When did you see it last ? When were you last con- ' scious of possessing it ? ' What a peculiar property is that of which, though so invaluable — nay, on which the whole efficacy of the Christian ministry depends — a man has no positive evidence to show whether he ever had it or not ! which, if ever conferred, was conferred without his knowledge ; and which, if it could be taken away, would still leave him ignorant, not only when, where, and how the theft was committed, but whether it had ever been committed or not ! The sympathizing friend might, probably, remind him, that as he was not sure he had ever had it, so, per- liaps, he still had it without knowing it ? ' Perhaps I ' he would reply ; ' but it is certainty I want.' ' Well,' it might be "said, ' Mr Gladstone assures you, that, on the most moderate com- ' putation, your chances are as 8000 to 1 that you have it !' ' Pish ! ' the distracted man would exclaim, ' what does Mr ' Gladstone know about the matter ?' And, truly, to that query we know not well what answer the friend could make. It is true, however, that Mr Gladstone, in his Church Prin ciples, proposes to remove any such perilous doubts as may arise from the historic difficulties against the doctrine of succession, (on which we have said the less, as they are so unanswerably, as we think, urged in our Article on his first work,*) by nothing less than mathematical evidence ! It is a novelty to find him reasoning at any time ; and mathematical accuracy is indeed more than we looked for. But it is a perversion of language, and an insult to the human understanding, to talk of mathematical evi- * Art. on Gladstone's ' State in its relations with the Church.'- Edinburgh Review, Vol. lxix. pp. 263-268. 516 Puseyism,or April, dence in such a question. Though mathematical in form, the argu ment, treating it seriously and decorously, yields but a probable conclusion. By a novel application of the theory of ratios and proportion, he endeavours to show that, on the least favourable computation, the chances for the true consecration of any Bishop areas 8000 to 1. ' If it be admitted,' says he, ' that regular ' consecration was the general practice, but only insinuated that ' there may have been here and there an exception through ' neglect, say, for example, 1 in 500 — for argument's sake let us ' grant so much ; upon this showing, the chances for the validity ' of the consecration of every one of the three officiating Bishops ' in a given case are, : : 500 : 1. For the validity of those of ' two out of the three, : : 500 x 500 = (sic) 25,000 : 1. For the ' validity of some one out of the three, : : 500 X 25,000 = ' 12,500,000 : 1. If, however, this be not enough, let us pur- ' sue the numerical argument one step farther, and, instead of ' taking the original chances at 1 in 500, let us reduce them ' lower than perhaps any adversary would demand ; let us place ' them at 1 in 20. On this extravagant allowance, the chances ' in favour of the validity of the consecration of a Bishop who ' receives his commission from three of the order, are only ' 20 x 20 x 20 = 8000 • !•'* Be it so : this only diminishes the probability that, in any given case, the suspicion of inva lidity is unfounded ; — it still leaves the proposition untouched, that there is a probability that such invalidity exists, and, as no one knows where, the panic is not allayed. What is wanted, is a criterion which shall distinguish the genuine Orders from the spurious. Alas ! who knows but he may be the unhappy 8000th ? According to Mr Gladstone's theory, limited as his view of the subject is, no man in the Church of England has a right to say that he is ' commissioned to preach the'gospel,' but only that he has -g§fjt>- parts of certainty that he is I A felicitous mode of expression, it must be confessed. What would be the fraction expressing the ratio of probability, on the supposition that simony, heresy, or infidelity, can invalidate holy orders, is considering the history of the middle ages — far beyond our arith metic. But the difficulties of this puzzling doctrine do not end here. It is asked, how a man who is no true Christian, can be a true Christian minister? How he, who is not even a disciple of Christ, can be a genuine successor of the Apostles? Whether it be not * Gladstone on Church Principles. Chap. v. pp. 235, 236. 1843. The Oxford Tractarian School. 517 impious to suppose that God has pledged himself to impart, by inevitable necessity, the gift of the ' Holy Ghost' to an unholy man — merely on the performance of external rites, and to qualify him for the performance of the functions of a purely moral insti tute, though still morally unfit? We can understand, it may he said, how, by the overruling Providence of God, a bad man preaching truth may do some good, if the hearer (a rare case) has both sense and honesty to separate truth from him who propounds it. But if he be ignorant of the truth, and preach ' pernicious error,' (as thousands so ordained have done,) we can not conceive how his preaching can have the effect of truth, simply because he is ' commissioned.' Yet this, no less an au thority than Mr Melville asserts, in language as plain as the doctrine itself is mystical.* In like manner, if it be supposed that the sacraments are only external signs of affecting and momentous truths, and that the benefit derived from them still depends on the moral and spiritual dispositions ofthe recipient, we can understand that they may be beneficial even when he who administers them may be a bad man. In both the above cases, however, as the effect is a moral one, that effect will be proportionably diminished by the conviction of the worthlessness of the officiating Priest. This necessarily results from the laws of our moral nature. It is impossible to get the generality of men to revere that which their teachers practically despise ; to obey precepts rather than imitate example. As all history shows, it is impossible long to maintain religion when the Priest is himself irreligious. But that, by a divinely-ordained necessity, some preternatural effi cacy, itself certified by no evidence either of sense or conscious ness, is conveyed through .the minister merely because he has been episcopally ordained, (however wicked or worthless he may * Mr Melville expressly affirms, ' If, whensoever the minister is him self deficient and untaught, so that his sermons exhibit a wrong system of doctrine, you will not allow that Christ's Church may be profited by the ordinance of preaching ; you clearly argue that Christ has given up his office, and that he can no longer be styled, " the Minister of the true Tabernacle :" when every thing seems against the true fol lowers of Christ, so that, on a carnal calculation, you would sup pose the services ofthe Church stripped of all efficacy, then, by acting faith on the head of the ministry, they are instructed and nourished, though, in the main, the given lesson be falsehood, and the proffer ed sustenance little better than poison. 518 Puseyism, or April, be,) and which is withheld when that ordination is wanting, (how ever worthy and holy he maybe,) who can really believe? No thing but the most express revelation, or the most undeniable effects, could attest it. And both the one and the other the advocates of the dogma are avowedly unable to indicate. At these, and all other arguments, the supporter of the doc trine only shakes his head in awful warning, proclaims his horror of ' rationalistic' presumption, anel asserts, that by implicit faith alone can it be received. In this we believe him. But is it, can it be true that Christians will be content to receive these strange conclusions ? Are they willing to sacri fice even charity itself to an absurdity ? Powerful as are the arguments on all hands against this paradox, none is so power ful with us as this. The advocates of the Oxford system, when they are destitute of arguments, (which may be represented as their ordinary condition,) are fond of appealing to our moral feelings ; if we do not know, they tell us we may feel the truth of a certain conclusion.. Without being, we trust, in the same miserable destitution of argument, we would fearlessly adopt their course on the present occasion. We feel that if there were nothing else to say, there is no proposition in Ma thematics more certain, than that a dogma which consigns the Lutheran, the Scottish, and indeed the whole reformed Non- Episcopal clergy to contempt, however holy ; and which neces sarily authenticates the claims of every Episcopal Priest, however unholy — must be utterly alien from the spirit of the institute of the New Testament. 2. Equally extravagant are the notions entertained by this School on the subject of the Sacraments. With them, they are not simply expressive rites, symbolical of religious doctrines, and capable of awakening religious emotion through the medium of the senses and the imagination ; — they are themselves the media of a ' supernatural grace,' — exclusively communicated, however, through the Episcopally-ordained minister. This supernatural influence is supposed to be conveyed in every case, in which secret infidelity or open vice offers no obstruction on the part of the subject of the rite. It is supposed to be actually conveyed, therefore, in every case of infant baptism, (the subject being there incapable of offering any obstruction,) and to involve that stu pendous and mysterious change, called in Scripture ' regenera tion ;' and which surely ought to imply, if we consider either the meaning of the term, or the nature of the institute, a moral revo lution equivalent to an absolute subjection to the law of Chris tianity. In the eucharist, it is supposed that infidelity or unwor- 1843. The Oxford Praetorian School 519 thiness in the recipient may obstruct the ' preternatural grace,' which nevertheless is, as it were, flowing through the Priest, and permeating the elements. Such a state of mind may operate as a sort of non-conductor to the ethereal and subtle influence. Meantime, it is most strange that this ' preternatural grace,' which is represented as so scrupulous, has no objection to reside with the Priest, ahd act in, and by him, even though he should be, morally, ten thousand times worse than those to whom the rite is administered ! The doctrine of ' baptismal regeneration,' is indeed held by many men who are far from approving of the Oxford movement. With the peculiar, yet, we must be permitted to think, consistent audacity of the new School, its advocates have carried it out to its uttermost extravagance. It probably will not be doing injustice to the generality of the disciples of this School, (though they do not conceal that there are some differences,) if we further state, that their senti ments on the subject of the Sacraments are pretty generally re presented by those of Dr Pusey and Mr Newman. The former contends that not only is the dread mysterious change ealled ' regeneration,' effected in every case of baptism rightly admi nistered ; but that there is no certain hope of the pardon of sin wilfully committed after it;* and that he who has once so sinned, must live in perpetual and trembling doubt of his final safety. If so, one would think, that as Scripture assuredly has no express command on the subject, these men would be dis posed to postpone the rite of baptism to a late period ; instead of administering it to those who as yet have no sins to repent of, and leaving them to sin (as they assuredly must) with the know ledge that the only plenary antidote was improvidently wasted before they were permitted to have a voice in the matter. One cannot wonder, that if this doctrine be true, thousands in the much admired Church of the age of Chrysostom and Ambrose, should have thriftily put off the performance of this wonder working rite to the very last extremity. Only think of the sys- * ' The Church,' he says, ' has no second baptism to give, and so she cannot pronounce him (who sins after baptism) altogether free from his past sins. There are but two periods of absolute cleansing, baptism and the day of judgment.' — (Letter to Bishop of Oxford, p. 93, 4th Edition.) If, ' after having been washed once for all in Christ's blood, we again sin, there is no more such complete absolution in this life — no restora tion to the same state of undisturbed security in which God had by baptism placed us.' — (See also Tract No. 80, p. 46.) 520 Pusey ism, or April- tern. A child is baptized when a few days old ; he commits a mortal sin when he is (say) sixteen years of age ; he lives to nine ty ; and with the New Testament and its numberless promises in his' hand, he is to spend nearly eighty years in perplexity and anguish, and die in doubt at last, though truly penitent, devout, and consistent ; because somebody applied the baptismal water before he had any voice in the proceeding ! But further, as all have committed sin after baptism, all are in the same predica ment, and can entertain but a trembling hope of heaven ! Can Christian men and women believe this hideous system to belong to the Gospel? The difficulties of this subject have constrained Dr Pusey to make the convenient Romish distinction between venial and mortal sins ; although in the case of those who have committed ' mortal' sin after baptism, he has not been able to hit upon a method half so sure and satisfactory as the 'penances' and ' indulgences' of Rome. In fact, Dr Pusey does not see his way clear to any remedy. The doubt and the anguish are part of ' the bitterness of the an- ' cient medicine.' * Again, with their peculiar views of the exclusive prerogatives of the episcopally-ordained Priest, they deny the validity of all baptism but their own ; and in defiance of the law of their own Church, and of decency, charity, and common sense, often refuse to inter an infant who has not passed under their own patent process of regeneration. The consequence is, that they throw doubt (and many of them do not scruple to avow it) on the final state of the myriads of unbaptized infants.f Whether they * ' What the distinction between lesser and greater, venial and mortal sins ? or if mortal sins be " sins against the Decalogue," as St Augustine says, are they only the highest degrees of those sins, or are they the lower also ? This question, as it is a very distressing one, I would gladly answer if I could or dared. But as with regard to the sin against the Holy Ghost, so here, also, Scripture is silent. I cer tainly, much as I have laboured, have not yet been able to decide any thing. Perhaps it is therefore concealed, lest man's anxiety to hold onward to the avoiding of all sin should wax cold. But now, since the degree of venial iniquity, [what is venial iniquity ?] if persevered in, is unknown, the eagerness to make progress by more instant continu ance in prayer is quickened, and the carefulness to make holy friends of the mammon of unrighteousness is not despised.'. — Pusey, cited by M'llvaine. See also Letter to Bishop of Oxford, p. 83, 4th Edition. ¦j" ' But I will rather suggest the consideration of the vastness of the power claimed by the Church — a power whichplaces it almost on a level with God himself— the power of forgiving sins by wiping them out in 1843. The Oxford Tractarian School. 521 are, as some of the Fathers believed, neither happy nor miser able — consigned to a state of joyless apathy, or condemned to eternal suffering — we are all, it seems, in the dark. We may hope the best, but that is all the comfort that can be given us. To a Christian contemplating this world of sorrow, it has ever been one of the most delightful sources of consolation, that the decree which involved even infancy in the sentence of death, has converted a great part of the primeval curse into a blessing, anel has peopled heaven with myriads of immortals, who, after one brief pang of unremembered sorrow, have laid down for ever the burdens of humanity. It has been the dear belief of the Christian mother, that the provisions of the great spiritual eco nomy are extended to the infant whom she brought forth in sor row, and whom she committed to the dust with a sorrow still deeper ; that he will assuredly welcome her at the gates of Para dise, arrayed in celestial beauty, and radiant with a cherub's smile. But all these gloriously sustaining hopes must be over cast in order to keep the mystical power of ' regeneration' exclu sively in the hands of the Episcopal Clergy. All charity, all decency, all humanity, as well as common sense, are to be out raged, rather than the power of conferring some inconceivable ' nonentity ' should be abandoned. As to the Eucharist ; if the doctrine of the Oxford School, especially according to the latest ' development,' be any thing less mysterious or more intelligible than the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation, we confess we cannot perceive it. That there is some great ineffable change wrought by the formulas of conse cration, we are expressly told, but what, is not explained.* baptism — of transferring souls from Hell to Heaven, without admitting a doubt of it, as when " baptised infants" it is said, " dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." ' — Sewell's Christian Morals, p. 247.* See Mr Newman on Art. XXVIII., Number Ninety. * As regards the Holy Communion,' says even Mr Gladstone, • our Church . . . does not feel that the solemn words ofthe institution ofthe Eucharist are adequately, that is, scripturally, represented by any ex planation which resolves them into mere figure ; and she fears lest the faithful be thus defrauded of their consolation, and of their spiritual food.' — Gladstone's Church Principles, p. 161. Again — * There is no one passage in the New Testament which alludes to the Eucharist at all, which is otherwise than most naturally consistent (to say the least) with the idea of its mysterious and mira culous character.' — British Critic, July 1842, p. 73. Again — ' What is the meaning of the popular phrase, " the age of 522 Puseyism, or April* On the alleged mysterious efficacy attending the administra tion of the Sacraments at the hand of the privileged priesthood, (what their personal character is, it appears, little matters,) simi lar observations may be made as Upon the mysterious ' gift ' handed down in ordination from hand to hand ? What is it ? Is it any thing which can be distinguished from a nonentity, — seeing that it is not cognizable by sense, consciousness, or experience ? Take baptismal regeneration, for example. What is imparted — what effected ? If any change be produced, it surely ought to be stupendous, in order to justify the application of such a term; and it surely ought to be moral, for moral excellence is the design of the whole institute. Yet we look in vain for any such effects, or rather for any effects at all. Millions of the in fants thus annually regenerated, present in all respects just the very same qualities — physical and moral — with those who have not been subjected to the process. Visibly do they grow up, neither wiser, nor holier, nor better than the less for tunate infant who has been subjected to the unavailing baptism of the Presbyterian minister, or to no baptism at all. Here an amazing spiritual revolution, to describe which metaphor and hy perbole are exhausted, is supposed to be effected, which yet leaves absolutely no traces behind it — whether physical or moral. No thing less than Omnipotence is introduced to effect that, of which, when effected, we have not the slightest evidence that it has been effected ! Such mysteries as these, if received at all, must be received just in the same manner, and for similar reasons, with the doc trine of Transubstantiation ; and we cannot wonder that those who have no scruple in receiving the one* should adopt views inde- miracles ? " Is there all the difference, or, indeed, any thing more than the difference between things seen and unseen, (a difference worth no thing in faith's estimate) — between healing the sick and converting the soul— raising man's natural body and raising him in baptism from the death of sin ? Is the wonder wrought at the marriage of Cana a miracle, and the change which the holy elements undergo, as consecrated by the priest, and received by the faithful, no miracle, simply because the one was perceptible to the natural eye, while the other is discerned by the spiritual alone ?'— British Critic, Vol. xxvii. pp. 259, 260 This transcends all. We always thought that the very essence of a miracle consisted in its appealing to the senses of those in whose pre sence xt is wrought. < It is wrought in their presence,' virtually says this writer, and is as wonderful a m.racle as raising the dead, only you can not see it-a difference worth nothing in faith's estimate.' For simi lar doctrine see Tract 85, p. 95. 1843. The Oxford Tractarian School. £23 finitely near the other. In both cases we are called upon to be lieve that a stupendous change has, in millions of instances, been effected, without any evidence that there has been any, or rather with all the evidence that our nature is susceptible of, that there has been none. In Transubstantiation, we are commanded to believe that a great physical change has been wrought, of which our senses give us no information ; and, in baptismal regenera tion, that a great spiritual change has been wrought, of which both consciousness and experience give us just as little. But as was said of Apostolical succession, so we may say of the ' sacramental doctrine ' connected with it, that no mere argu ments can be more conclusive against it, than the feeling that it shocks the whole spirit of the Christian institute. 3. But perhaps this consciousness is more strongly felt in relation to the views held by this School respecting the Church, than in relation to any other subject. According to these men, the Church of Christ is visible and one; and as the Church can exist only where ' the gospel is truly preached, and its ordi- ' nances are duly administered,' while these are exclusively and inseparably connected with an episcopally- ordained clergy; they deny the name and privileges of the Church to every com munity in which such a ministry is not found, and as freely concede them wherever it is.* Apparently, scarcely any pravity of doctrine, any flagitiousness of practice, is sufficient to annul this title where these channels of preternatural grace are found — no purity of doctrine, no blamelessness of conduct, can jus tify its application to a^ community in which they are not found. But as this Church is also one, it might be sup posed an insuperable objection that the Romish, Greek, and * ' Do not we hover about our ancient home, the home of Cyprian and Athanasius, without the heart to take up our abode in it, yet afraid to quit the sight of it ; boasting of our Episcopacy, yet unwilling to condemn separatism ; claiming a descent from the Apostles, yet doubt ing of the gifts attending it ; and trying to extend tlie limits of ihe Church for the admission of Wesleyans and Presbyterians, while we profess to be -exclusively primitive? Alas, is not this to witness against ourselves like coward sinners, who hope to serve the world without giving up God's service?' — ' Whatever be our private differences with the Ro man Catholics, we may join with them in condemning Socinians, Bap tists, Independents, Quakers, and the like. But God forbid that we should ally ourselves with the offspring of heresy and schism, in our contest with any branches of the Holy Church which maintain the foundation, whatever may be their incidental corruptions !' — (Oxford Tracts, Vol. II. ; Records ofthe Church, No. XXV. pp. 3, 8, 9.) 524 Puseyism, or April-. English Churches — which are acknowledged to be ' branches' of the true Church, but which all exist in a state of professed sepa ration from one another, nay, which have reciprocally anathe matized one another — must be proved to be one. One would imagine that unity in any community, must imply unity of go vernment and jurisdiction ; intercommunion of its members, or at the very least, perfectly friendly relations between its several ' branches.' And so Mr Gladstone seems at first to admit ; but he afterwards discovers, when it is convenient to discover it, that union in the Church by no means requires as one of its essential conditions, ' the consciousness (?) and actual or possible com- ' munication of the persons united.' It would sadly perplex any ordinary understanding to com prehend how communities can be one, which are not only hostile, but mutually excommunicate. If unity may still be preserved in such a case, it would really seem that there might be devised some reasonable way in which Episcopalians and Presbyterians might be regarded as one. An unsophisticated mind would im agine, that if unity is not impossible amongst those who respec tively acknowledge the Thirty-nine Articles and the Tridentine Decrees, it should be not altogether impossible for those who ac knowledge the Thirty-nine Articles and the Confession of Faith, to find one Church large enough to hold both. But such a man would only show his ignorance of theology. The terms of com munion must be wide enough to embrace the whole Churches of Greece and Rome, for they have the Apostolical succession ; but not a single Lutheran or Presbyterian community, for they have it not. Hence the fraternal yearnings of our Anglicans towards the Greek and Romish Churches. Hence the language recently quoted, ' that it is evident at first sight that there is much ' grace and many high gifts' in each of these communions — hence the declaration, equally arrogant and insulting, cited in the preceding note from the Oxford Tracts — hence the lamen tations over the Reformation as an untoward event, and all but 'a fearful judgment'* — hence their eagerness to show, * British Critic, No. 59, p. 1 — ' We trust, of course, that active and visible union with the see of Rome is not ofthe essence of a Church ; at the same time we are deeply conscious that in lacking it, far from asserting a right, we forego a great privilege. Rome has imperishable claims on our gratitude, and, were it so ordered, on our deference . . . for her sins, and our own, we are estranged from her in presence,, not in heart.' — Ibid. p. 3. 1843. The Oxford Tractarian School. 5*25 though at the peril of exposing their own Church to the charge of having been guilty of a detestable schism, that the differences between England and Rome are far from being so momentous as those between Anglicans and other Protestants — hence it is that we see them stretching themselves half over the gulf which separates them from Popery, to the infinite ha zard of toppling into it, for the purpose of touching only the tips of the fingers of their new friends and allies. But it will not do ; as long as the separation itself is continued, their argu ments will all be futile. Either that separation was justifiable or not ; if it was, then are the churches of Rome and England two communities, not one — and Rome heretical ; if not, still they are two communities, and not one — and that of England schisma- tical. If the latter be the fact, let those who maintain these views act like men of sense and honour — return to the bosom ofthe Ro mish Church, and not only subscribe, but carry out, the follow ing declaration of the Editors of the ' Ecclesiastical Almanac' for the present year : ' It is by the constant action of this principle, ' as upon our theological opinions so upon our ritual and cere- ' monial, and indeed upon every branch of our religious life, ' that we may hope to prepare ourselves for that union for which ' we sigh, and which we are so far privileged as to be permitted ' to hope for, and even to begin to look forward to. For this ' who would not pray and labour as for an end, before which all ' other objects of desire sink into infinite insignificance? For ' these poor pages, at least, the motto has long been chosen, and • must be year by year repeated. God grant it may ever be its ' sole aim to hasten that union, and render ourselves ' worthy of entering into it.'* Meantime, is it not wonderful that those who are astute enough to discover that the Romish, Greek, and English Churches all form constituent parts of One Visible Church, merely in virtue of holding Apostolic succession and kindred Chuich principles, should not recoil at the bigotry of unchurching all the Reformed Churches of the Continent — the Church of Scotland, and the communities of dissenting Protestants ! But here, again, the Ox ford men are but carrying out their views consistently, however absurdly. The Bishop of London, indeed, naturally shocked at the uncharitableness of the above views, has, in his ' Three Sermons ' on the Church,' entered his protest against them. We only re gret that he has protested on principles which, whatever respect Ecclesiastical Almanac, 1843, p. 5. 5*26 Pus