!

DR.

PUSEY:

A N

HISTORIC

SKETCH;

WITH

SOME ACCOUNT

ur THE
muxh ;
f§foiwraort
fairing BY THE
flu 19tlr
0 <J
fateg.
EEV
liOUEOHIEK WREY SAVILE,
M.A.,
RECTOR OF
SHILLING FORD, EXETER )
Aurnon of" the primitive and
CATHOLIC FAITH,
" &c.
PRICE THREE SHILLINGS,
YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

From the
COLLECTION OF OXFORD BOOKS
made by
FALCONER MADAN
Bodley's Librarian

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy ofthe book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

DR. PUSEY:
AN HISTORIC SKETCH;

WITH SOME ACCOUNT

OF THE

flteforfr ipkmi fornix i\t M\ fateg*
BY THB
REV. BOURCHIER WREY SAVILE, M.A.,
RECTOR OF SHILUNGFORD, EXETER ;
AUTHOR OF " THE PRIMITIVE AND CATHOLIC FAITH," &0,

" Earnestly contend for tne faith which was once (for all) delivered." — St. Jude.
"A considerable minority of Clergy and Laity are desiring to subvert the
principles of the Eeformation." — The Archbishops of Canterbury and York
in reply to the Memorial of 60,000 Churchmen, June 16, 1873.
The Ritualists are engaged in what I am obliged to call " a conspiracy in our
body against the doctrine, discipline, and practice of our Reformed
Church." — Archbishop Tait in Convocation, July 6, 1877.
The English Church Union ia " a standing menace to the legitimate government
ofthe Church."— The Bishop of Bath and Wells; Charge o/1879.

LONDON:
LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO.
1883.

New Work on Prophecy, Price 10s. 6d.,
By the same Author,
FULFILLED PROPHECY,
In Proof of the Truth of Scripture.

CONTENTS.

I. Evidential Value of Prophecy.
II. Supremacy of Japheth.
III. Tribes of Israel.
IV. Fall of Jerusalem.
V. Times of the Gentiles.
VI. " Little Horn " of Daniel.
VII. "The Apostasy" in Christen
dom.
VIII. "The Man of Sin."
IX. " Babylon the Great."
X. The Three "Woes."

CHAPTER XI. The Growth of Christendom.
XII. Rationalism in the Nineteenth
Century.
XIII. The Progress of Infidelity.
XIV. The Promised Deliverer.
XV. The Death of the Messiah.
XVI. Prophecies relating to Nineveh.
XVII. „ „ Babylon.
XVIII. „ „ Tyre.
XIX. „ „ Egypt.
XX. „ „ the Race
of Abraham.

The above Work may be obtained from the Author, or Messrs..^
Longmans, the Publishers, 39, Paternoster Row. ^

NOTICE,

f

The chief portion of the following pamphlet was written after
a prolonged correspondence with Dr. Pusey, on the subjects
mentioned therein; and I much regret that many literary en
gagements, combined with long illness during the past year,
should have delayed its publication until after his decease.
Shillingfobd Rectoky, Exeteb, B. W. S.
January 1, 1883.

DE. PUSEY: AN HISTOKIC SKETCH.

INTRODUCTORY.
It is generally admitted that the late Dr. Pusey was to the
Tractarian Ritualistic party during the last fifty years, what the
beloved Charles Simeon was to the Evangelicals during the previous
half century. My recollections of the latter are confined to the
fact, that I remember during my first year at Cambridge, in 1835,
declining (I say it with sorrow and shame) an introduction to that
venerable and justly venerated servant of God, for fear of being
called a "Sim," as his disciples were then nicknamed; that his
death took place in my second year, when his remains were
honoured with a funeral more than royal, such as the celebrated
Dr. Chalmers had in Scotland a few years later, because it
combined the sorrows of the poor with the grief of the best and
noblest members of the Church of England ; and that during my
third year I was privileged to make the acquaintance of his
successor, who, by God's mercy, became to me what Paul was to
Timothy, or what the famous Thomas Scott was to John Henry
Newman in his early life, as he has so candidly acknowledged in
these expressive words, " to whom, humanly speaking, I almost
owe my soul " {History of my Religious Opinions, p. 5).
In the year 1838 I heard the name of Dr. Pusey for the first
time ; and on enquiring of my uncle, the late Sir Bourchier Wrey,
whether he was an ancient or modern divine, he replied that he
was not quite sure, but that he thought he was a doctor of the
ancient times ! Singular reply, as the sequel will show ; but
ignorance on such a matter was far more excusable in a layman at
that period, than in a dignitary a few years later. Yet I well
reoollect, when a curate in the Black Country 1840 — 1, our
b 2

4 DE. PUSEY.
archdeacon at his visitation asking the question, "Who was Dr.
Pusey?" "What are these Tracts for ihe Times, so much talked
about ? " The application of the old proverb, " Where ignorance
is bliss," &c, would have been an unspeakable blessing for our
Reformed Church in this matter, as the present distracted condition
of the Church of England, with the false doctrines taught, the
illegal ritual practices adopted, and lawlessness run riot, sufficiently
proves. About ten years after this, my uncle informed me that he had
met Dr. Pusey at Ilfracombe, where he then resided, and where
the latter was wont to go during the long vacation ; and that he
had once consulted him on a case of conscience, which he put before
him in the following hypothetical form. " Supposing," he said,
" a man was conscientiously convinced that such and such doctrines
of an extremely developed character in a Romeward direction were
true, what course ought he to follow? " Dr. Pusey at once replied
that "he ought to join the Church of Rome." A few years later
his reply might have been different, as when Mr. Maskell seceded
in 1850, the latter mentions having known both clergy and laity
who held all Roman doctrine, and yet retained their position in the
Ohurch of England ; or, as when Dr. Pusey himself wrote in 1866,
"the Council of Trent and our Articles might be so explained
as to be reconcilable one with the other " (JS. C. Union Circular,
July, 1866). This accords with the contention of the Ritualistic
newspapers, such as the Churoh Times and Church News, that the
doctrinal teaching of the Churches of England and Rome, " in faith,
orders and sacraments," were the same. However, my uncle took
Dr. Pusey's advice as it was then given, and shortly after toppled
over to that Church whose character and doom is so minutely
described in the seventeenth and eighteenth chapters of Revelation ;
as well as by the Convocation of the English Church in 1606, when
the Papacy was authoritatively defined as the predicted " Man of
Sin," whom the Lord will destroy with the brightness of His coming
(Oardwell's Synodalia, i. 379). The Church of Rome was admirably
adapted to my uncle's tastes, for he was a lon-vivant ; and for the
last thirty years of his life was enabled to gratify himself in that
peculiar worship, so sternly condemned by St. Paul, to its fullest
extent. I recollect on one occasion dining at his table on a fast
day, together with a Roman bishop and priest and several Roman
Catholic relatives, and was somewhat surprised at witnessing the
extreme luxury of the feast, of which all partook with the same

ESTTEODUCTORY. 5
apparent gusto, as if fasting was unknown in their "practical
politics," or as if they were no better than "benighted
Protestants." I recollect an anecdote which my uncle related of Dr. Pusey,
which tells so well of his humility — a virtue of perhaps the highest
order in the scale of Christian graces — that I cannot forbear
mentioning it. When Dr. Pusey returned my uncle's call on his
first visit to Hfracombe, he arrived simultaneously at the door with
a constable in charge of a prisoner, at an unusually early hour for
the reception of visitors. The servant on opening the door, and
seeing the number of the party, informed Sir Bourchier that a
constable had arrived with two prisoners : but inasmuch as the
great man was not then dressed, they were told to wait until he
could see them. In course of time the magistrate came down stairs,
and saw with amazement the constable and his two prisoners
patiently standing in the hall, the famous doctor from Oxford
being one of them.
Living about twelve miles from Ilfracombe a few years after
this occurrence, I was one evening surprised by a stranger leaving
at my door without any message saying whence they came, or who
had sent them, two sermons without any title-page, the subject
of both being the love of God in the soul of the awakened sinner.
They were very beautiful, and I was soon satisfied from the
internal evidence that Dr. Pusey was the author ; which in
subsequent years I found was indeed the case. Without being
doctrinal, they were both practical as well as theoretical ; and it has
been a subject of wonder to me how the author of such spiritual
discourses could in his later years have given utterance to so many
errors as are to be found in the writings of the same man.
Another of Dr. Pusey's works must meet with the warm
approval of every one who has a mind capable of understanding
the immense importance of the law of evidence, and its value in
respect to the subject of "Fulfilled Prophecy." I refer to his
great work on the Book of Daniel, of which he was kind enough to
present me with a copy ; and though I do not think he has made
out quite as strong a case in the exact fulfilment of the prophecy
relating to the time of the Messiah's death, as Daniel's words
imply, yet the work is upon the whole the most masterly reply
which the Rationalistic school has received in answer to their
remorseless criticisms on the infallible word of truth, delivered by
"holy men of God, who spake as they were moved by the Holy

DE. PUSEY.

Ghost." This and his still greater, because more extensive, work
on the Minor Prophets, have raised Dr. Pusey's fame as an in
terpreter of Holy Scripture to a well-earned eminence; and I
venture to think that after ages will pronounce these works not
only the best of his compositions, but will consider that if he had
abstained from the pools of controversy, and from those pitfalls
whether of doctrine or ritual, as well as from attempting to defend
the Ritualistic sect, the most lawless body of men which have ever
appeared in the Church of Christ since the Day of Pentecost,
his reputation would stand at a much higher elevation than
it does now, or will do at any future time. Dr. Pusey has
been convicted so often of so many omissions, inaccuracies
and mistakes in his multitudinous controversial writings, that all
confidence in his fairness or capability of seeing both sides of
a much disputed question is for ever lost. It would require far too
great a space to enumerate them all ; I am thus necessarily limited
to the mention of only a select few, but these will be amply sufficient
to express my meaning.

THE LORD'S SUPPER.

It is a well-known historical fact, that in the year 1843 * Dr.
Pusey preached a sermon in the University of Oxford on the
subject of the Loed's Suppee, for which he was suspended by the
Hebdomadal Board for "two years." I am not now concerned to
show whether Dr. Pusey was right or wrong in his treatment of
that doctrine, I wish rather to call attention to the way he
subsequently advocated the cause wliich he deemed right. In the
same year, he published "A Sermon preached before the Uni
versity," entitled, The Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the Penitent,
which I believe to be the sermon, though it is not so stated, for
which he was suspended. In the preface Dr. Pusey states that
" nothing was further from my thoughts than controversy," and
one reason for its publication was given " in order to relieve any
* The value of Dr. Pusey's sermon will be best understood by the fact,
that soon after its publication it was read by the Eoman priest at
Birmingham to his congregation, and pronounced to be an accurate
definition of the Eoman doctrine on the subject of the Lord's Supper (see the
Mock of August 5th, 1881).

THE LOED's SUPPEE. 7
difficulties which might (if so be) be entertained by pious minds,
trained in an opposite and defective system of teaching." An
" Appendix " accompanies the inculpated sermon, in order to show
objectors that the same doctrine which Dr. Pusey had preached or
as he says, "things much stronger, have been taught by a series of
divines in our Church." Prominent among the list of divines who
are to be found in this catena, the name of the "judicious"
Hooker, of course, occupies a prominent place. It stands fourth
on the list, the Homilies being first, Bishop Ridley being second
and Bishop Bilson third. Now, Dr. Pusey's treatment of Hooker
is on this wise. Quoting, I presume, from Keble's edition of
Hooker, which is divided in paragraphs, differing in this respect
from other editions, Dr. Pusey gives a lengthy extract from
Hooker, which he notes as being taken from "book v., chap. Ixvii.
§ 4, 5." Then, without giving the slightest clue to the fact of there
being any omission, he commences with representing Hooker as
saying, "It is on all sides plainly confessed, first, that this
sacrament is a true and a real participation of Christ," &c. This
paragraph is taken from the same book and chapter, § 7. But
why did Dr. Pusey omit all allusion to § 6? for here we have
Hooker's real opinion of the doctrine thus plainly expressed : 
" The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not to be
sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament . . .
only in the very heart and soul of Mm who receiveth Him " (Ecc. Pol.,
hook v., chap. Ixvii., § 6, Keble's edition).
To omit such a passage as this, while quoting all round it, when
professing to give the opinion of so great an authority as Hooker
on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, reminds one of the story of
acting the drama of Hamlet, with the part of Hamlet left out !
Somewhat similar is Dr. Pusey's treatment of the late Bishop of
Exeter, the last mentioned in his catena previous to the summary.
He gives a long extract from his Charge of 1843, which certainly
does not bear on the subject as plainly as the words do, which
Bishop Phillpotts had years before addressed to Charles Butler, to
the following effect :—
" The crucified Jesus is present in the saorament of His Supper, not in,
nor with, the bread and wine, nor under the accidents ; but in the souls of
the communicants " (Letters to Charles Butler, p. 121, new edition).
Twenty-two years after his censured sermon on Eucharistic
doctrine, Dr. Pusey published his Eirenicon, which Newman in his
reply spoke of with rejoicing, as an indication that Dr. Pusey had

DE. PUSEY.

found "a way to make definite proposals " to promote " the union
of Christendom ; " while at the same time he quotes the letter of a
Roman Catholic priest to prove that the Oxfoed movement was "a
perfect delusion," as he spoke of the " rancorous malignity of Mr.
Newman, Dr. Pusey, and their associates," and " impeached Dr.
Pusey and his friends of a deadly hatred of our religion." Dr. Pusey
in his Eirenicon explains his view of the Lord's Supper by saying—
" The Church of England taught not an undefined, but a Eeal Objective
Presence of Christ's blessed Body and Blood  "We receive in the
Eucharist not only the Flesh and Blood of Christ, hut Christ Himself, both
God and man  A sacramental or a hyperphysical change no English
Churchman who believes the Eeal Presence, as his Church teaches, could
hesitate to accept. The doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice depends
upon the doctrine of the Eeal Objective Presence. Where there is the
apostolic succession, and a consecration in our Lord's words, there— it is
held by Soman authorities too — is the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The very
strength of the expressions used of ' the sacrifices of Masses,' that ' they
were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits,' the use of the plural,
and the clause ' in the which it was commonly said,' show that what
the Article speaks of is not ' the sacrifice of the Mass,' but the habit (whioh,
as one hears from time to time, still remains) of trusting to the purchase of
Masses when dying, to the neglect of a holy life, or repentance, and the
grace of God and His mercy in Christ Jesus, while in health " (pp. 23—26).
Surely, Dr. Pusey's reasoning on this point may be fairly
paraphrased as follows : " The Mass is right, but Masses are
wrong, because they are plural of Mass, which is right ! " How that
which is right in the singular number becomes wrong in the
plural, is a problem, which only those intellects which are of
sufficient capacity to accept both the Articles of the Church of
England and Tridentine doctrines of the Church of Rome can solve.
And this Mr. Maskell has pronounced to be " amongst the greatest
of all achievements of the human intellect. Subtle, as we know,"
he says, " the mind of man to be, and wide its range, I cannot but
confess that the more I think of it, the more I am amazed at so
wonderful an example of its power and capability. There are not,
perhaps, many minds so large ; I cannot tell. But there have not
been many Homers, Platos, or Isaac Newtons " (Second Letter on
Present Position ofthe High Church Party, p. 65).
The Church of England has pronounced clearly enough that
" the sacrifices of Masses were blasphemous fables and dangerous
deceits " (Art. xxxi). And it is remarkable that Dr. Pusey should
make a boast in his Doctrine of the Peal Presence that he had—

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 9
"Gone through every writer who in his extant works speaks of the
Holy Eucharist, from the time of St. John to the fourth General Council,
a.d. 451 ; " adding, " I have suppressed nothing ; I have not knowingly
omitted anything ; I have given every passage, as far as in me lay, with
so muoh of the context as was necessary for the clear exhibition of its
meaning " (p. 715) —
and yet that he should have omitted some passages which seem to
have a bearing on the subject he was discussing. Take, for
example, the case of Jerome. In his controversy with the Presbyter
Vigilantius (whom Dr. Pusey's ally, Bishop Porbes, endeavours to
insult by an opprobrious title, when speaking of the " coarse attack
of the innkeeper Vigilantius"), replying to a statement of his
opponent, that the sepulchres of the martyrs ought not to be
venerated, Jerome replies —
" The Bishop of Borne does wrong, who over the bones of the deceased
Peter and Paul offers to the Lord the sacrifices, and deems their tombs to be
altars of Christ."
This condemnation by Jerome of offering sacrifices or " Masses "
over the bones or supposed bones of Peter, who was never at
Rome, and Paul who was martyred there, I believe Dr. Pusey has
omitted to notice in his work on the Doctrine of the Real Presence.
Moreover, Dr. Pusey has made another mistake respecting
Jerome, which it may be useful to notice. At p. 478 he quotes a
passage from Jerome's book against the Pelagians, in the following
way : —
" Christ taught His apostles that believers should, at the sacrifice of
that hody, venture to say, ' Our Father,' &c."
But this is a mistake, as a reference to Vallarsius' edition of
Jerome shows. The reader will there see that whereas the Roman
editions read in corporis illius sacrificio, as Dr. Pusey has correctly
translated it, the MSS. read the sentence in corporis illius sacramento,
i.e., in " the sacrament," not in " the sacrifice of His Body." By
this it would seem that the early editors perverted the text, and
that the later editors noted the perversion, but had not the courage
to put the matter straight by restoring the true reading. An
anonymous writer has well remarked —
" "Who can tell what might have been the history of religious thought in
England during the last twenty years, if any theologian had informed the
venerable Professor of Hebrew of his omission and mistake ? "We might
have been spared the meeting of the self-called English Church Union,

10

DE. pusey.

where Dr. Pusey pleaded for an exhibition in our ritual of what he called
" the primitive dootrine of the Euoharistic Sacrifice." *
As Dr. Pusey's Churchmanship appears to rest upon a belief in the
Eucharistic Sacrifice, I would invite attention to the opinion of two
very celebrated Churchmen, who seem to take a different view of
this subject. Referring again to the judicious Hooker, we find
him asking this pointed question : " Seeing that sacrifice is now
no part of the Church's ministry, how should the name of priest
hood be thereunto applied? " (Eccl. Pol, lib. 33, § 2). And Bishop
Beveridge, in his Comment on Article xxxi., observes, "As the
doctrine of Sacrifice is contrary to Scripture, so is it repugnant to
reason too, there being so vast a difference betwixt a sacrament and
a sacrifice .... If it be a sacrament, it is not a sacrifice ; and if it be
a sacrifice, it is not a sacrament ; it being impossible it should be a
sacrament and sacrifice too."
With this agreeth the teaching of our Reformed Church, as the
27th Homily, part i, "Concerning the Sacrament," puts it in these
words —
" That worthy man St. Ambrose saith, ' He is unworthy of the Lord,
that doth oelebrate that mystery otherwise than it was delivered by Him.
Neither oan he be devout, that doth presume otherwise than it was given by
the Author.' "We must then take heed, lest, of the memory, it he made
a sacrifice." Every well-instructed Catholic is assured that the primitive or
ante-Nicene Church knew nothing of any sacrifice at the Lord's
Supper save what the worthy receiver and penitent believer alone
can offer, vi%., the spiritual sacrifice of a contrite heart. Hence the
language of the early Christians, such as Clement of Alexandria in
the Greek Church, and Tertullian in the Latin Church, both of
whom flourished in the second century. The former, in the seventh
book of his Stromata, chapter 6, observes—
" The sacrifioe of the Church is the word ascending as incense from holy
souls, their sacrifice, and their whole souls being open to God."
The latter, in his Adv. Jud., c. v., teaches—
"We cannot appease God with earthly, but only with spiritual sacrifices,
as it is written, ' The sacrifices of God are the sacrifices of praise ; ' there
fore spiritual sacrifices are meat, and a contrite heart is shown to be an
acceptable sacrifice to God."
* Dr. Harrison, in his Answer to Dr. Pusey's Challenge, has detected
another mistake in Dr. Pusey's treatment of Jerome, by the substitution of
veritatem for in veritate (vol. i., p. 489 ; ii., p. 97).

THE LOED'S SUPPEE. 11
In a similar strain writes Arnobius in the third century, in reply
to the false accusations of the heathen —
' ' You are in the habit of fastening upon us a very serious charge of impiety,
because we do not build temples for a ceremonial worship, do not set up
statues or images of any god, do not erect altars, do not offer the blood of
any creature slain in sacrifice, do not use inoense, and have no sacrificial
meal  It is perfectly true, we Christians do none of these things " (Adv.
Gentes., lib. vi., §§ 1, 3).
The doctrine of the ministers of Christ being sacrificing priests
appears to have been unknown for a thousand years after the Incar
nation, as it was not till the tenth century the following form was
introduced into the ordinal for thefirst time : —
" Take thou the authority to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass
as well for the living as the dead, in the name ofthe Lord."
These words remained the same for the following 600 years, until
the Reformation of the 16th century, when our Reformers delibe
rately struck them outfromthe Ordination Service, because they could
not find any trace of them in Scripture. Hence the doctrine of the
Church of England as expressed in the 25th Article, that "those
five commonly called Sacraments, i.e., Confirmation, Orders, &c, are
not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have
grown partly of the corrupt following of the apostles." And hence the
judgment in the Bennett case as decided by the Supreme Ordinary —
" The Churoh of England does not by her Articles or Formularies teaoh or
affirm the doctrine maintained by Mr. Bennett. She has deliberately ceased
to do so. It is not lawful for a clergyman to teach that the sacrifice, or
offering on the oross, is, or can be, repeated in the ordinance of the Lord's
Supper ; nor that in that ordinanoe there is, or oanbe, any sacrifice or offering
of Christ which is efficacious."
In the same way judgment was pronounced by the Archbishop of
Canterbury, with the unanimous concurrence of his Assessors, the
Dean of Wells, the Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Dr.
Lushington, in the Denison case, when tried for his teaching on the
Lord's Supper, to the following effect. The sentence, signed at Bath,
October 22nd, 1856, being "that the Ven. G. A. Denison ought by
law to be deprived of his ecclesiastical promotions," for having
taught " directly contrary and repugnant to the 28th and 29th Articles
of the Church of England ;" as the construction which Archdeacon
Denison placed upon them was " not the true or an admissible con
struction of the said Articles of Religion." Thus it appears that
during the present generation Dr. Pusey, and two of his most

12 DE. PUSEY.
prominent disciples, Mr. Bennett of Prome and Archdeacon Denison,
nave been condemned by three different courts for their teaching on
the Loed's Suppee — Dr. Pusey by the Hebdomadal Board at Oxford ;
Mr. Bennett by the Sovereign, as Supreme Governor of the Church
"in all spiritual causes," as advised by the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council ; and Archdeacon Denison by the Archbishop of
Canterbury, sitting in his own Court, which, I presume, may be con
sidered the highest Spiritual Court in the land. Nevertheless, all
three have remained in possession of their preferments in the Church
of England : in the first instance, because the Hebdomadal Board
had no power to do more than to express an opinion, and suspend
Dr. Pusey for a brief period from occupying the University pulpit ;
in the second, because the Judicial Committee, although condemning
Mr. Bennett's teaching, advised the Sovereign not to cashier him,
as they were enabled to treat him with gentleness by giving him
" the benefit of a doubt ;" in the third instance, because the trial
having been skilfully delayed beyond the statutable limit, the peccant
archdeacon was enabled to escape the penalty due to his offence. Tet
so convinced were the party generally of their doctrine being the true
one, and that all the authorities which had condemned them were in
the wrong, that one of them, who is I believe a Scotch Episcopalian,
with more zeal than discretion, published a work in defence of
their disobedience, wherein he stated that —
" In order to save the Evangelical party, the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council solemnly and deliberately declared that black was
white." * 
* Lawlessness, by the Eev. Malcomb MacColl, p. 17. It is ourious to note
that the founder of the Jesuits and the Heathen in China use the same
argument respecting "black and white "which the Eitualists do. ""We
ought," said Ignatius Loyola, " to hold it as a fixed principle thatwhatl see
white, I believe to be black, if the hierarchical Church so defines it to be"
(Exercises of Ignatius Loyola, Edited by Cardinal Wiseman). So the Abbe
Hue, in his Tavels in China, relates a conversation between himself and a
Mandarin, who said, " Our emperor cannot see everything, yet he is judge of
everything, and no one dares to find fault with any of his actions. He says,
'That is white;' and we say, ' Yes, it is white.' He shows us the same
object afterwards, and says, ' That is black ; ' and we prostrate ourselves
again and say, ' Yes, it is black.' " Very striking is the contrast of Bacon's
teaching on this subject to such degraded ethics, as he beautifully remarks,—
" Certainly it is heaven upon earth to have a man's mind move in charity,
rest in Providence, and turn upon the poles of Truth" (Essays, 1. Of
Truth).

THE LOSD'S SUPPEE. 13
A more untrue statement or a fouler calumny against English
judges was never uttered.
Another remarkable fact relative to the Eucharistic doctrine,
taught by one of the disciples of the late Dr. Pusey, is this. Just
fifty-five years ago I was under the tutorship of Mr. Bennett at
Westminster School, and I resided with him some years afterwards
before going to Cambridge as a private pupil. Although I have
no recollection of receiving at the time any particular instruction
in theology from Mr. Bennett, I learnt in after years that he had
published a sermon on the Lord's Supper, in, I think, the year
1837, from which I make the following extract : —
"Our great Eeformers," says Mr. Bennett, "have nearly restored the
Sacrament to that plain and simple ceremony of memorial and spiritual
sacrifice, which our blessed Lord intended, rather than a pompous pageant
outraging common sense .... Only consider our Church restored
to the primitive apostolic purity of its early days. There is exacted
of the Christian community no irrational profession of belief; and
there is required now no credit in the fables of Papal ignorance ;
there is demanded now no worship of the host, no falling down before
the material element of our creating," &c.
Such was Mr. Bennett's description of the Eucharistic doctrine 46
years ago. Scriptural, Evangelical, Catholic and true. Now turn
we the other side of the picture, and consider what is Mr. Bennett's
present opinion on the same subject. In the year 1867 he pub
lished his Plea for Toleration in the Church of England, in which Mr.
Bennett expresses his view of the Lord's Supper in these words —
" Is the Church of Eome the only communion in which men may hold
the doctrines of the Eeal Presence and the Eucharistic sacrifice ? The real,
actual and visible presence of our Lord upon the altars of our churches —
who myself adore and teach the people to adore the consecrated elements,
believing Christ to be in them. The three great doctrines on which the
Catholic Church has to take her stand are these : 1. The Real Objective
Presence of our blessed Lord in the Eucharist. 2. The sacrifice offered by
the priest. 3. The adoration due to the presence of our blessed Lord
therein" (pp. 15, et seq., 1st edition).
The above extract stood thus in the first two editions of his
Plea for Toleration; in subsequent editions the words were altered,
as it was generally reported, by the advice of Dr. Pusey ; though
Mr. Bennett added at the time —
" My meaning and that which passed through my mind in writing the
original passages was precisely the same as that which is now conveyed by

14 DE. PUSEY.
the words substituted, but as the original words were liable to a different
oonstruotion from that in which I used them, I therefore most willingly
in this edition adopt another formula to express my meaning." In con
sequence, however, of his discreet amphibology, Mr. Bennett was declared
by the Judicial Committee to be " entitled to the benefit that may exist.
His language has been rash, but as it appears to the majority of their
Lordships that his words can be construed so as not to be plainly
repugnant to the two passages articled against them, their Lordships will
give him the benefit of the doubt that has been raised."
Let us note now how far Mr. Bennett's teaching, when corrected
by Dr. Pusey, on the subject of the Lord's Supper, appears
consistent either with Roman or primitive Catholic doctrine.
Fortunately, we have two witnesses at hand who are capable of
giving judgment on this matter. Our first witness shall be Mr.
Maskell, who, having gone through the same process of mental
training on this subject, honestly passed over the wide gulf which
separates the Church of England from the Church of Rome. Of
Mr. Bennett's teaching, Mr. Maskell thus speaks —
"He seems to have adopted and misrepresented the 'views' of other
prominent members of the Eitualist or High Church party. Not even
understanding what the (Eoman) Catholic dootrine really is, he nevertheless
aimed at the recommendation of it, first putting out one statement, then
another. So utterly and hopelessly ignorant does he appear to have been
until oorreoted by others, who perhaps know a little more than himself, that
he positively talked and wrote about a ' visible ' presence of our Lord in the
Sacrament of the Eucharist. And yet this gentleman, so untaught, so
unlearned, is admired and held up as a great teacher and a shining light
among the Eitualists" (Maskell's Protestant Ritualists, p. 17).
If Mr. Bennett's doctrine, as approved by Dr. Pusey, be
condemned by a learned Roman Catholic, still more is it deserving
of condemnation by a primitive Catholic. AH persons competent
to speak on the subject will readily accept the judgment of Bishop
Beveridge, as a true exponent of primitive teaching on the subject
of the Lord's Supper. Let us, then, hear what he has said on the
subject. " If the primitive Church was against the reservation, surely it was much
more against the adoration of the sacrament, holding that no person or
thing, under any pretence whatsoever, ought to be worshipped besides God.
I know it is not bread our adversaries say they worship, but Christ in the
bread, or the bread in the name of Christ. But I wish them to consider
what Gregory Nyssen said long ago : ' He that worshippeth a creature,
though he do it in the name of Christ, is an idolater, giving the name of

THE LOED'S SUPPEE.

15

Christ to an idol.' And, therefore, let them not be angry at us for
concluding them to he idolaters, whilst they eat one pieoe of bread and
worship the other."
Dr. Pusey, in a pamphlet entitled, Unlaw in the Judgments ofthe
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, contends that inasmuch as
one of the Canons (xviii.) of the Council of Nice forbids " deacons,"
who heretofore " in certain places and cities had given the Eucharist
to Presbyters," forbids them any longer "from giving the body of
Christ to those who do offer," therefore the Council of Nice gives a
sanction to his doctrine of the Real Objective Presence. This,
however, is a very patent fallacy. It is well known that in early
days Christians described the sign by the thing signified, without
intending to imply any identity between them. It is probable that
this practice led to the confusing of the sacramentum with the res
sacramenti, which culminated in the Tridentine decrees.
Now the Tridentine decrees very positively declare that at the
Lord's Supper, " a conversion takes place of the whole substance of
the bread into the substance of the, body of Christ our Lord,
Which conversion is, by the holy (Roman) Catholic Church
conveniently and properly called Teansubstantiation " (Trid.
Com., Sess. xiii). " In this sacrament are contained not only the
true body of Christ, and whatsoever appertains to the character
of a true body, such as bones and nerves; but also Christ whole
and entire" (Catechism of the Council of Trent, c. iv., q. 31).
Dr. Pusey, however, has met this difficulty by declaring, as before
noticed, that "the Council of Trent, whatever its look may be,
and our Articles, whatever their look may be, each could be so
explained as to be reconcilable one with the other." This certainly
is a very remarkable statement, when we remember what our
Articles and the Tridentine decrees teach on the subject of the
Lord's Supper, as may be seen by placing the two statements in
juxtaposition to each other, thus : —

The Church of England asserts —
" Transuhstantiation cannot be
proved by holy writ ; hut is repug
nant to the plain words of Scripture.
The Body of Christ is given, taken
and eaten in the Supper, only after
an heavenly and spiritual manner.
And the mean whereby it is eaten is
Faith." (Article xxviii.)

The Church of Rome asserts —
"If any one saith that Christ,
given in the Eucharist, is eaten
spiritually only, and not also sacra-
mentally and really, let him be
accursed." (Council of Trent,
Session xiii., c. viii.)

16 DE. PUSEY.
Dr. Pusey has, however, faithful allies in his contention of
identity in doctrine between the Churches of England and Rome
on the subject of the Lord's Supper : e.g., Canon Carter, late of
Clewer, in his Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, says —
" Substantially there is no difference at all between us and the Church of
Eome in regard to the Holy Eucharist, the only difference is as to the mode
of the Divine Presence " (p. 11).
And so Mr. G. Cobb, Fellow of Trinity CoUege, Cambridge, still a
layman, in consequence of his Bishop having declined to ordain
him, asserts in his Kiss of Peace that " the Church of England
holds precisely the same view of the ' Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper as the Church of Rome" (p. 108). Hence Dr. Pusey
confidently asserts in his Eirenicon that —
" The Church of England taught not an undefined, but a Eeal Objeotive
Presence of Christ's Blessed Body and Blood  We receive in the
Eucharist not only the Flesh and Blood of Christ, but Christ Himself both
God and man " (p. 24).
In our own day many faithful men have published treatises
on the Lord's Supper, which take an entirely opposite view from
that of Dr. Pusey. I would especially mention those by the
late Dean Goode; Dr. Jacob, late Head Master of Christ's Hospital;
Dr. Harrison, Vicar of Fenwicke; and Dr. Charles Herbert,
formerly Vicar of Ambleside. I abstain from quoting them, as
they one and all belong to the Evangelical school; but prefer
to adduce the testimony of two distinguished clergymen of the
High Church school ; both of whom have given decisive testimony
against the doctrine taught by Dr. Pusey on the subject of the Lord's
Supper. Canon Trevor, in his Catholic Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,
says : —
" No passage can he produced from Scripture, or ' any godly dootor of the
most pure and unoorrupt ages,' in which any Presence is asserted irre
spective of participation. Yet this essential condition is wholly absent
from the enunoiation of the Objective Presence  There is no Anglican
teaching of any school that does not protest against the kind of Eucharistic
adoration founded on the Objeotive Presence, and consequently none would
accept the new teaching as a true and permissible view of the real spiritual
Presence. It is an eclectic, not a Catholic dogma. It represents no one
Churoh, ancient or modern ; no Liturgy or Council, nor, in spite of the
vague appeal to antiquity, a single father of the Undivided Church, supports
the conception that Christ's living Person is offered in the bread or wine,
as in a vessel or veil."

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 17
Canon Trevor is fully justified in describing Dr. Pusey's definition
of The Real Objective Presence as " new teaching." The late
Bishop Blomfield considered that it necessarily led to the Roman
dogma of Teansubstaiytiation, which the Church of England
declares is "Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians,"* and
which the learned Dr. South once described as "the most stupendous
piece of nonsense that was ever owned in the face of a rational
world." The term itself, " Real Objective Presence," is believed
to have been invented by the late Archdeacon Wilberforce in 1848,
previous to his secession to Rome, in order, as it is supposed,
to satisfy the consciences of those who, like Dr. Pusey, can accept
the Decrees of the Council of Trent, while retaining their status in
the Church of England.
Dr. Littledale, a prominent writer of the Ritualistic school, in a
short tractate, entitled The Real Presence, says —
"In the Holy Communion, after consecration, the body and blood of our
Lord Jesus Christ are ' verily and indeed ' present on the altar, under the
forms of bread and wine  and are that same body and blood which were
conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under
Pilate, and] ascended into heaven. This is the doctrine of the Real
Presence." This language certainly agrees with the teaching of the Church
of England before the Reformation, but not after it, as in the
Articles of 1536, the one on The Sacrament ofthe Altar reads —
" All bishops and preachers shall teach our people that they must
constantly believe that under the form and figure of bread and wine is very
substantially and really contained the very same Body and Blood of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and suffered
upon the cross for our redemption."
Dr. Pusey, in a sermon preached before the University of Oxford
in 1 853, entitled, The Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, quotes
Tertullian as saying of Christ at the Lord's Supper —
" In the bread is understood His Body" (p. 40).
Though he omits to quote the well-known passage from the same
author, where Tertullian more distinctly defines his meaning by
teaching that "the bread which Christ gave to His disciples He
made His body, by saying, ' This is my body,' i.e., the figure of my
body" (Adv. Mare, iv., c. 40). So Augustine teaches — "The Lord
hesitated not to say, ' This is my body,' when He gave the figure of
His body" (Contr. Adem., c. 12). Dr. Pusey asserts that the
* See Eubric at the end of the Communion Service.
c

18 DR. PUSEY.
fathers did " not mean figures of an absent body," though Christ's
body has been in heaven ever since His ascension to glory, and
explains Tertullian' s expression "mi the bread is Christ's body,"
by saying, " The word in, like the word of our Book of Homilies,
' under the form of bread and wine,' only expresses a Real Presence
under that outward veil " (Pusey's Doctrine cf the Real Presence,
p. 132).
As Dr. Pusey here seems to imply that the Church of England
teaches this doctrine of the "Real Objective Presence by the
alleged expression in the Book of Homilies, " under the form of bread
and wine," it is necessary to explain what Dr. Pusey has omitted to
do. In an advertisement which was appended to the First Book of
Homilies printed in 1547, before the doctrine of Transubstantiation
had been formally repudiated by the Reformed Church of England,
appeared the following sentence —
" Hereafter shall follow sermons of fasting, &c, of the due receiving of
His blessed body and blood, under the form of bread and wine," &c.
Now this advertisement, though forming no part of the Book of
Homilies, was repeated by succeeding printers in future editions of
the First Book ; but even after the Second Book, published in 1563,
had been added, in which a Homily had been given maintaining
a totally different doctrine from that which the Church of England
had taught previous to the Reformation, e.g., in the first part of
Homily the 27th, we are taught —
" Faith is a necessary instrument in all these holy ceremonies  It is
well knowu that the meat we seek for in this supper is spiritual food, the
nourishment of the soul ; an invisible meat, and not bodily . . . . At Christ's
table we receive not only the outward sacrament, but the spiritual also ;
not the figure, hut the truth; not the shadow only, but the body ; not to
death, but to life; not to destruction, but to salvation."
It was scarcely candid, therefore, of Dr. Pusey to imply that the
Book of Homilies supports his doctrine of the Real Objective Pre
sence, because a printer's advertisement was slipt into the First Book
of Homilies before the Reformation, in which Christ's body and
blood are spoken of as " under the form of bread and wine."
I am aware that Dr. Pusey says in his Doctrine of tlie Seal
Presence (p. 366), that the evidence which he has given, covering
400 pages, " that the belief in the Real Presence was part of the faith
of Christians from the firs't, is more than enough to convince one
who is willing to be convinced." Nevertheless, Bishop Jewel, in his
memorable challenge contained ina sermon preached at " Paules

The lord's supper. 19
Crosse, the second Sohdaye before Easter, in the yere of our Lord
1560," seems to be of a different opinion from Dr. Pusey, as he
there says —
" If all the learned men that be alive be able to bring one sufficient
sentence out of any old Catholic doctor or father, or out of any old
General Council, or out of the Holy Scriptures of God, or anj' one example
of the primitive Church, whereby it may be clearly and plainly proved that
for the space of 600 years after Christ  the people were then taught
to believe that Christ's body is really or substantially in the sacrament, I
promised that I would give over and subscribe unto him ; but I am well
assured that they shall never be able truly to allege one sentence, and
because I know it, therefore I speak it, lest ye haply should be deceived."
(Jewel's Works, vol. i., p. 21).
Sixty-four years after Jewel delivered his challenge, and which
I believe no Papist has ever attempted to answer, Archbishop Usher
published his memorable Answer to a Challenge made by a Jesuit, in
which the Primate of Ireland adopts the same line as Jewel in con
tradicting the Roman doctrine on the Eucharist. Thirty years
after this Albertinu's magnificent work was published, which some
consider the most complete work on the Lord's Supper that has ever
appeared, in which the author produced not only the full testimony
of all the fathers on the doctrine of the Real Presence, but also an
answer given to all the errors of the leading Roman doctors. This
appeared in 1654.
Coming down to our own times, the late Dean Goode published
his most valuable work on The Nature of Christ's Presence in the
Eucharist, in 1857. Of the thousand octavo pages of this work, four
hundred pages are devoted to the testimony of the fathers in favour
of the doctrine maintained in the work. The doctrine maintained
by Dean Goode is the complete antithesis of that advocated by
Dr. Pusey, viz., the real absence in place of the real presence; and so
keenly did the latter appear to feel his defeat, that in the preface
to another of his works entitled, The Real Presence, Sfc, the Doctrine
of the English Church, he expresses his hope to be able to consider
Dean Goode's objections to his views, "when it shall please God to
give me health.' ' But though twenty-five years have elapsed since these
words were written, and Dr. Pusey wrote during that interval, previous
to his death in 1882, many works, engaged in many controversies,
and put forth many apologies in defence of his followers, I am
not aware that he ever attempted to fulfil his promise of meeting
the dean's objections, but allowed judgment to go by default.
c 3

20 DR. PUSEY.
The next case is that of Dr. Vogan. In his treatise on The True
Doctrine of the Eucharist, he endeavoured to bring matters to a
practical issue by courteously inviting Dr. Pusey and Archdeacon
Denison, who had been condemned by the highest spiritual court
in the realm, notwithstanding Dr. Pusey's vigorous defence of his
friend, to defend their interpretation of the Lord's Supper, according
to Christ's words at the institution of the rite, but this invitation
they did not find it convenient to accept ; and we may fairly assume
that their prolonged silence is a virtual acknowledgment of defeat.
Dr. Vogan's work originated with some lectures delivered in
Chichester Cathedral iu 1849, and subsequently embodied in his
volume on Eucharistic doctrine, a summary of which may be briefly
expressed in his own words as follows : —
" When our Lord took bread and wine for His Holy Supper, instead of
sacrificing them, and so devoting them to destruction, He blessed with
thanksgiving, and He spoke of no oblation or sacrifice, but of Himself.
The literal interpretation admits of no sacrifice to be offered by us in
fulfilling His words that we should do it as He did, but that which is
comprehended in the sacrifice of thanksgiving. This is the true Eucharistic
sacrifice."* The treatment which Dr. Vogan received from Dr. Pusey has
been described by one of the master-minds of this century. I refer
to the late Bishop Thirlwall's letter to the Times, July 25, 1874, in
which, as Sekex Altolioahus, he thus defines Dr. Pusey's position in
relation to the doctrine of the Real Objective Presence —
"Three years ago Dr. Vogan published an elaborate work on 'the
doctrine of the Eucharist.' No unprejudiced person can read it without
feeling that it is a very careful and searching investigation of the subject,
oonducted in an excellent spirit, with an earnest desire to do the fullest
justice to the opinions which he controverts, and to treat those who hold
them with the greatest possible respect. The appearance of such a work,
so temperate in its earnestness, so modest, so charitable, is, independently
of the value of its conclusions, a very rare and refreshing phenomenon in
our controversial theological literature. Dr. Vogan believes himself to have
proved by an irresistible mass of evidence, that the doctrine ofthe 'Eeal
Objeotive Presence' in the Eucharist, taught by Dr. Pusey and his friends,
has no support either in Holy Scripture, or in Catholic antiquity : that it
* This accords with the true primitive and Catholic doctrine of sacrifice,
as explained by Augustine in his great work, De Civitate Dei. "We
ourselves," says he, "who are His own city, are His most noble and
worthy sacrifice, and it is this mystery we celebrate in our sacrifices, whioh
are well known to the faithful, as we have already explained " (lib. xix. § 23).

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 21
is a novelty of a very recent date, the product of this nineteenth century—
the consequence of a strange oversight which the author has placed in the
clearest light ....
" Such being the character and such the main design of the work, the
manner in which it has been received by the persons whose theological position
it most deeply concerns is not a little remarkable. One might fancy that a
word of command issuing from some invisible centre, had gone round the
Ritualistic party to neglect and ignore Dr. Vogan's book, and, if
possible, to bury it in contemptuous silence. The person who might most
naturally have been expected to notice it in some way or other is Dr.
Pusey. If Dr. Vogan's view of the true doctrine of the Eucharist is the
right one, a very large part of the labours of Dr. Pusey's life has been
much woese than useless. He has, then — though with the best inten
tions — been a blind leader of the blind, and on this important point has
misled all who relied on his authority into mischievous error. He, beyond
any other man, is responsible for the evils which now afflict the Church.
If his other occupations did not leave him leisure for answering Dr. Vogan —
though it is difficult to conceive any occupation exceeding, or even approaoh-
ing in his own view, the importance of this — he might have committed the
task to one of his disciples. That none of them should have undertaken it
spontaneously, is only a little less surprising than the master's silenoe.
"But there is something still stranger than this. Two years ago Dr.
Vogan sent Dr. Pusey a copy of his book, but has never received a word
of acknowledgment. Within the last three months he has applied to
Dr. Pusey, both privately and publicly, in the hope of learning from him
whether he had or had not correctly represented his dootrine of the ' Eeal
Presence,' or, in Dr. Pusey's judgment, had fallen into any mistake in his
interpretation of the words of institution.
"Dr. Pusey's first and last word in reply is that he 'declines all con
troversy.' Considering that controversy has been the chief business of his
life, it is not surprising that he should be a little tired of it. But a less
happy juncture for declining it could hardly be imagined. No controversy,
however, was proposed to him. He was only asked for information, highly
important to the cause of truth, and which would not have cost him more
time than his letter to you. The exceeding harshness ofthe whole, proceeding,
so difficult to reconcile either with charity or common courtesy, indicates that
he has some strong motive for his silence. But most people will consider it
as expressive of one of two things — either that he regards Dr. Vogan's work
as beneath his notice, or that he feels it to be unanswerable. No one who
has read it will believe the possibility of the first of these alternatives. The
inferenoe I may leave to the reader. I am, Sir,
" July 25. " Senex Anolicanus."*
*The Times, October 15th, 1.875, contains a letter from Mr. John Thirl wall,
nephew of the late Bishop of St. David's, with an account of the way in

22 DR. PUSEY.
I do not think that Dr. Pusey ever noticed this very serious
episcopal reflection on his behaviour towards Dr. Vogan, any more
than on the still more serious exposure which Dr. Harrison and
others have made of his inaccuracies and mistakes. In the following
year one of his disciples, the present Archdeacon Denison, so far
noticed the subject, as to deliver his sentiments in the preface to a
sermon which he had then recently preached in Mr. Bennett's parish
of Frome-Selwood, in which he contended against what he called
the "persecution" of the lawless and disobedient clergy of the present
day, " the particular form" of which
" that persecution assumes at this time is the abstract plausible form of
requiring obedience to the law ofthe land" — whieh he explains is "a law for
stamping out the Catholic doctrine of the Euoharist, and for putting down
Eitualism ; " which he contends is enforced by " the Limited Liability
Persecution Company, commonly called ' the Church Association,' and other
abominations of a like character."
In this brief extract there are so many words employed by
Archdeacon Denison in a different sense from their ordinary meaning,
that it may be well to notice them. 1. He calls " obedience " to the
law "persecution." Such certainly was not the way which St. Paul
treated the principle, when he exhorted Christians to "obey them
that have the rule over you," and declared that "the law is not made
for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the
ungodly, and for sinners." 2. One of the many hallucinations of
the present clay, is the idea of Archdeacon Denison, that he and the
Ritualistic party deserve the name of " Catholic." It can only be
compared to Mormonism, or the creed of Mr. John Hampden, who
asserts in similar vigorous language to that used by Archdeacon
Denison,* that the earth is not round, but as flat as a plate.
The Catholicism of the Ritualistic party, about which they are
whioh his uncle authorized him to communicate to Dr. Vogan the author's
name of the letter given in the text from Senex Anglicanus, "He shall
know who the writer was after my death."
* It would be a happy thing for all, if Archdeacon Denison could hut
practise the advice given by Ignatius the martyr in these words — " Pray for
all men. Against their harsh words be ye conciliatory, by meekness of
mind and gentleness. Against their errors be ye armed with faith. Against
their fierceness be ye peaceful and quiet, and be not frightened by them.
Let us be imitators of our Lord in meekness, and strive who shall more
especially be injured, oppressed and defrauded." Chapter x. of Epistle either
to the Ephesians or Eomans. It is difficult to decide which, as the Greek
and Syriac Versions differ on this point,

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 23
perpetually boasting, reminds one of the Master's saying respecting
"the vain repetitions of the heathen," who "think that they shall
be heard for their much speaking." For it is rejected alike by
Papists and Protestants. It is not Roman Catholicism, for they
reject submission to the Pope. It is not primitive Catholicism, as
defined by Ignatious of Antioch, martyred at Rome a.d. 107, when
he wrote in his supposed Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, "Wheresoever
Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." It is nearly forty
years ago that the famous Count Montalembert —
" protested against the most unwarrantable and unjustifiable assumption of
the name Catholic by people and things belonging to the actual Church of
England. The attempt to steal away from us and to appropriate to the use
of a fraotion of the Chureh of England the glorious title of Catholio, is
proved to he an usurpation by every monument of the past and present. I
protest against it as iniquitous and absurd."
In a similar strain the learned Mr. Maskell, while declaring that
"the practices and teaching" of the Ritualistic party "have no
sound foundation or authority, and are nothing but inventions of an
irritated ingenuity," points out that Roman Catholics cannot " re
gard them as being within the one true fold rather than their more
Protestant brethren:" adding —
" If any thing could have been wanting to prove the hollowness of the
claim of the Eeformed Chureh to he, as she styles it, a 'branch' of the one
Church, it would be this modern caricature of Catholic ritual and burlesque
of Catholic practice, by some of her clergy" (Protestant Ritualists, pp. 7, 8).
3. Archdeacon Denison further asserts that the "law for stamping
out the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist " is peculiarly the work
of the "Church Association," which he characteristically calls "the
Limited Liability Persecution Co."
A truer idea of "Persecution" in the real sense of the term, may be
obtained from the life of the saintly Archbishop Leighton, in respect to
the treatment whioh his father received from Laud and the High Church
party in the days of Charles I. "He was arrested early in 1629, hurried to
a wretohed cell in Newgate, low, damp, and without light, except what was
admitted along with the rain from an aperture in the roof, overrun with
rats and other vermin. Here he lay from Tuesday to Thursday without
food, and for fourteen days endured solitary confinement in this miserable
hole. After sixteen weeks' captivity, this aged and infirm divine was con
demned to a punishment the stoutest ruffian could hardly have endured. He
was sentenced to he degraded as a minister, to have his ears cut off, his
nose slit, to he branded in the face, to stand in the pillory, to be whipped
at a post, to pay a fine of £1000, and to suffer imprisonment till it was paid ;

24 DR. PUSEY.
the which when Archbishop Laud (then Bishop of London) heard pronounoed,
he pulled off his hat, and holding up his hands, gave thanks to God, who had
given the Church victory over her enemies. (Like Pope Gregory XIII.
returning thanks to God for the slaughter of thousands of French Protestants
on St. Bartholomew's Day, 1572, of which the hall of entrance to the Sistine
Chapel in the Vatican silently tells its dreadful tale to this day, respecting
the Papal harlot " drunken with the blood of the saints.")
"And itwas mercilessly inflicted. On November 29, 1629, on a cold frosty
day, this aged and pious divine was stripped, and reoeived thirty-six lashes
zvith a treble cord, after whioh he stood during a snow storm for two and a
half hours in the pillory at Westminster, was branded on one cheek with a
red hot iron, had one ear cut off, and one side of his nose slit. On that day
sennight, ere his sores were healed, he was taken to the pillory in Cheapside,
and underwent the remainder of his sentence. He was then oarried back to
prison, and shut in for upwards of ten years, until the meeting of the Long
Parliament ; when released from his confinement, he could hardly walk, see, or
hear" (Aikman's Life of Archbishop Leighton,^. 3). Such was the persecution
which the Evangelical Dr. Leighton underwent, when Charles I. ruled the
State, and the fanatical High Churohman Laud ruled the Church. Some
what different from " the persecution," as Archdeacon Denison calls it,
which the lawless Eitualist, Mr. S. F. Green, underwent for his defiance of
the laws of God and man.
A Mr. George Angus, once a curate of the Church of England,
but who has recently seceded to the Church of Rome, has
displayed still greater ignorance on the same subject, for he not
only has delivered his small charge of abuse against the Church
Association by declaring that it is "the Limited Liability Per
secution Co.," but has declared that the Bishop of Peterborough
invented the term. This is one of those careless mistakes which
certain controversialists are so fond of inventing, if they think
they can but inflict a wound on those whom they so causelessly
hate. It will be sufficient for any Christian man to know that
the Bishop of Peterborough years ago wrote to the Guardian, to
say that the word he used was "prosecution," not "persecution,"
as the Ritualists allege. But, as Mr. Maskell has truly observed
in the work from wliich I have just quoted, that —
" the Eitualists are astonished to find that (Eoman) Catholics do not regard
them as ' a real power in the Church of England ; ' and have no hesitation in
treating all ' efforts at unity with undisguised contempt.' I use the language
of one of their chief weekly organs. The blow is perhaps a rude one ; the
vocabulary of abuse of those from whom the Eitualists differ — a vocabulary
far from limited — has been put to a sharp strain in order to supply words suffi
ciently expressive of their disgust. But let them remember that abuse, and

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 25
especially personal abuse, is not argument. To call others had names, and
to suggest suspicion of ill motives, is no answer" (Protestant Ritualists,^. 9).
Commending the above to the attention of Archdeacon Denison,
in reply to his oft-repeated " abuse " of the Church Association;
and the account given in Leeky's History of Europe in the Eighteenth
Century, vol. ii., pp. 577 — 9, for a true definition of "Persecution,"
such as the Evangelical party underwent at their rise during the
last century ; I think the distinction which Lord Oranmore has
drawn in a letter to the Daily Telegraph between the two rival
Ecclesiastical Societies is most just —
"The action ofthe Church Association," he wrote, "is only to support
the legal teaohing of the Church of England. The action of the English
Church Union is to support the reintroduction of the teaching and practices
of the Church of Eome."
The moderate and learned Bishop of Lincoln (Dr. Wordsworth) has
very properly rebuked all these " frenzied Ritualists," as Professor
Tyndall justly termed them, for their abuse of the plainest word in
the English language. To term the attempt of the Church
Association, first, to ascertain what the law of the Church really is
on these disputed points, and then to enforce obedience to the law,
"persecution," is certainly a most ludicrous instance of fanaticism.
Far truer was the Bishop of Lincoln's understanding of the term
"persecution," when he applied it to the lawless and disobedient
clergy like Mr. Green, for their obstinate disregard to the laws of
God and man. That might be termed "persecuting the Church,"
of which he had proved himself so unworthy a member.
I do not suppose for a moment that Dr. Pusey ever descended to
the scandal of personal abuse, as many of his followers are so apt to
do ; nor do I forget that Dr. Pusey has publicly disclaimed being a
Ritualist ; but I have his own authority for saying that there is
"not the slightest differences between " their views and his own; and
the Church Times of June 26th, 1867, reports a speech of Dr. Pusey
at the English Church Union to the following effect : —
" It is true that 25 years ago Dr. Newman and myself were concerned in
preventing a chasuble from being worn. All this is perfectly true, but it
was entirely as a matter of prudence ; as a matter of faith, there is, of
course, not the slightest difference between the Ritualists and ourselves. The
sole practical difference was, that we taught through the ear, and the
Eitualists also teach through the eye."
There appears to be a good deal of difference among Ritualists
concerning this curious piece of ecclesiastical dress, called "a

26 DR. PUSEY.
chasuble," which I think well to notice. At the discussion in the
Lower House of Convocation, February 1881, Canon Hopkins very
innocently remarked, that "the meaning of a chasuble merely
meant the putting on of charity ; it had no doctrinal meaning, and
they should resist all the efforts of those who attach such a meaning
to it." Now although it is true enough that the word " Chasuble "
is derived from the Latin casula, " a little cottage," and was used of
old by the Roman peasant as an overcoat to keep himself dry from
the rainy weather, which he pleasantly termed his "chasuble," it
is notorious that the use of any particular vestment by the minister
in the service of the sanctuary, as Dr. Rock, an eminent Liturgical
writer in the Roman Church, observes in his Hhrwigia, p. 414, only
" began to be discernible about the close ofthe sixth century ; " so that
the so-called " Eucharistic Vestments" have not the faintest claim
to the name of "Primitive or Catholic." Hence Clement, Bishop
of Alexandria in the second century, when worldly-minded
Christians were beginning to show a desire for combining the
vanities of coloured vestments with the profession of the Gospel,
condemns expressly their adoption, declaring that they were to be
" rejected as proof of a weak mind ; " adding —
" For those Christians who are most faithful to their calling, simple
garments of a white colour are most suitable to them. But vestments like
coloured flowers are to be shunned, as suitable only to the priests of
Bacchus" (Padag. ii., c. 11.)
In contrast to such teaching by an eminent authority of the
primitive and Catholic Church, let us hear what Dr. F. G. Lee says
in the Directorium Anglicanum, a standard work among the
Ritualists of the present day on this subject. He describes one of
the garments which his party delight to wear in defiance of the
law, as being made of —
" Scarlet oloth, lined with ermine, very rich with figures of saints, the
whole vestment being covered with diaper work, fastened across the breast
by a clasp called a morse."
Now in reply to all such heathen accessories to Eucharistic
worship, every loyal Churchman will be satisfied with the report of
the Royal Commissioners of 1867 to the following effect —
" We find that while these vestments are regarded by some witnesses as
symbolical of dootrine, and by others as a distinctive vesture, they are by
none regarded as essential, and they give grave offence to many. We are
of opinion that it is expedient to restrain in the public service of the

27
Church all variations in respeot of vesture from that which has long been
the established usage of the Churoh."
The reply which Dr. Pusey's followers have made to this
recommendation of the Royal Commissioners, is of course in direct
opposition to the apostolic principle of submission to those in
authority, though amongst the commissioners were to be found
some of very decided Ritualistic proclivities. The Ritualists have
therefore adopted the vestments in imitation of Rome, both Pagan
and Papal, and especially " the chasuble," because it is supposed
to represent the Saviour's purple robe, which is thus intended to
give effect to the pretension that the priest officiates " in the person
of Christ," at a time when, as one of the Ritualistic manuals
expresses it, the people are about " to behold the same crucifixion
(which was seen at Calvary) mystically performed at the hands of
the priest," when the Lord's Supper is administered. Hence,
there are special services for the sanctification of the chasuble and
other vestments, in which the Trinity is invoked to bless such
garments in their varied use according to the seasons of white, red,
purple, green and black, after " Sarum use," or "Roman use," as
the prayer is worded, " by pouring from above Thy grace upon
them." It is difficult to understand, with the evidence of all
Catholic antiquity being against such foolish vanities, how Dr.
Pusey could have supported the address of certain Ritualistic
clergy at Oxford, who some years ago memorialized Convocation
in favour of Euoharistic vestments, by declaring that —
" The prohibition of the eastward position and the vestments, on the
ground of doctrine reputed to be expressed by them, would be interpreted
as repudiating primitive doctrine held and taught by the Church of
England"!!! Such is one of Dr. Pusey's reasons for upholding the theory of
the so-called Real Objective Presence. More than half a
oentury ago, he and his friends appear to have been quite innocent
of this great doctrinal error, as may be judged from the following
fact. In the year 1827, Mr. Keble published the first edition
of his Christian Tear. One of the stanzas in the hymn on
" Gunpowder Treason " read thus : —
" 0 come to our Communion Feast,
There present in the heart,
Not in the hands, th' Eternal Priest
Will His true self impart."
To every enlightened Christian such teaching will commend

28 DR. PUSEY.
itself,, as being alike Scriptural and Apostolic, Catholic, Protestant
and true. To the budding Ritualist, or the developed Romanist,
it will of course appear the reverse. Hence we learn without
surprise that on the publication of the Christian Tear, the late
Robert Froude, though with such moderately developed Roman
proclivities as to consider the real Papists, as he calls them,.
"wretched Tridentines everywhere," at once took his friend to
task somewhat sharply, by writing to him, "Next as to the
Christian Tear, Nov. 5, ' There present in the heart, not in the hands,'
&e. How can we possibly know that it is true to say, ' Not in the.
hands ? ' " (Froude's Remains, vol. i., p. 403).
Had Keble at that time held Dr. Pusey's doctrine of the Real
Objective Presence, he would have shown Froude how much he
had misunderstood him, and that the word "Not" was to be
understood in a non-natural sense, and never allowed the expression
to which Froude objected to remain unaltered during the remainder
of his life. After his death, however, and in all subsequent
editions, the-above stanza was altered thus : —
" 0 come to our Communion Feast,
There present in the heart,
As in the hands, th' Eternal Priest
Will His true self impart."
I am aware that both Dr. Pusey and Canon Liddon have
endeavoured to obviate the force of such a rebuke as this
posthumous change of words implies, and Dr. Pusey wrote to the
Church Quarterly Review of July, 1878, that Keble had consentedto
this change, it is, to say the least, very curious that so important an
alteration should not have been made during the author's lifetime ;
and I venture to think all unprejudiced persons will agree with the
condemnation pronounced by that eminent High Churchman, the
Dean of Chichester, on the subject. After remarking on Mr.
Keble's " singularly weak and unfortunate production," entitled
Eucharistic Adoration, Dean Burgon speaks of the alteration alluded
to above in the following terms : —
" In common with thousands, I hold that no greater wrong was ever
done to the memory of the author of the Christian Year, than by tampering
with his great work after his death ; and thereby making worse than
nonsense one of the most faithful of his poems " (Sermon on Romanizing
within the Church of England, p. 33).
That the Church of England knows nothing whatever about
the dogma of the bread and wine at the Lord's Supper becoming

the lord's supper. 29
the very same body which was crucified at Calvary, is very evident
from the fact that our Church teaches there are occasions when the
faithful "eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ,"
without there being any consecration of the elements at all. The
third rubric of the service for the Communion ofthe Sick shows this
most plainly —
"If any man  do not receive the Sacrament of Christ's Body and
Blood.... if he do truly repent .. ..he doth eat and drink the Body and
Blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he doth
not reoeive the Sacrament with his mouth."
It is impossible for an unprejudiced person to come to any other
conclusion than that which Monsignor Capel has done in his
controversy with Canon Liddon, which was carried on in the Times,
respecting the. teaching of Dr. Pusey and his school on the subject
of the Lord's Supper. The Ritualists, he declared —
" teach our (Eoman) doctrines of the Real Presence, the Eucharistic
Sacrifice, and Teanstjbstantiation,"
though at the same time he denied their right so to do. So on the
occasion of a dignitary of the Church of Rome receiving one of the
nuns from the congregation of Canon Carter, then Rector of
Clewer, into communion with his Church, informed an English
clergyman of the fact in these words —
" I found her," he said, " so fully advanced, that I had nothing to teach
her but the supremacy of the Pope. She had taken the three vows of
poverty, chastity and obedience ; she had confessed with the most perfect
regularity; she believed in the Sacrifice ofthe Mass and Seven Sacraments.
All I had to teach her was the supremacy ofthe Pope."*
Such is the natural result of the teaching of the most eminent
of Dr. Pusey's disciples on the subject of the Lord's Supper; the
man who is unable to see in these congregations where such
doctrines are taught anything than, nurseries for the Church of
. Rome, must either be wilfully or unconsciously blind to the best
interests of the Reformed Church of England, whose chief claim
on the obedience of her members is that she teaches nothing but
the truth as it was taught by the faithful in primitive times ;
and which on the subject of the Lord's Supper may be tersely
expressed in the assumed words of Ignatius of Antioch —
"Wherefore," he says, "clothing yourselves with meekness, be ye re-
* For the authenticity of this anecdote, see the Church Association
Intelligencer of Nov. 1877, p. 388.

30 DR. PUSEY.
newed m faith, that is the flesh ofthe Lord; and in love, that is the blood
of Jesus Christ."*
The root of Dr. Pusey's erroneous teaching on the Lord's Supper
may be traced to his mistake that the early Christians held and
taught that our Lord's words at the original institution of the
rite meant some real change in the elements, which the Church
of Rome has termed for the last seven centuries " Teak-substan
tiation," and which Dr. Pusey has caUed by the modern name
of the "Real Objective Peesenoe," at the same time taking care
to explain that the teaching of the Canons of Trent, and the
Articles of the Church of England " could be so explained as to
be reconcilable one with the other ; " and yet nothing can be clearer
that the early Church held and taught that our Lord' swords were to
be understood figuratively, and nothing more. Let us note the testi
mony of four great doctors of the first three centuries after the
days of the apostles.
1 . Justin Martyr, who was probably born before St. John died,
writes against his Jewish opponent on this wise —
" The bread of the Eiicharistio was a figure which Christ the Lord com
manded to he celebrated in memory of his passion."!
2. Clement of Alexandria says —
" Faith is our food  Our Lord, in the Gospel of St. John, has by
means of figures set forth such food as this. For when He says, ' Eat my
flesh and drink my blood, He is evidently allegorising the drinkableness of
faith  In Scripture, wine is called a mystical^wre of the holy blood. "J
3. Tertullian speaks with still more distinctness on this point, for
he writes —
" The bread which Christ took and distributed to His disciples, He made
His body by saying, ' This is my body,' i.e., the figure of my body."%
4. Lastly, the greatest doctor of the early Church, the pious
Augustine, says in one place —
" Our Lord took and delivered to His disciples the figure of His body and
blood." In another —
* Epistle to the Trallians, c. viii. Although this is one of the so-called
"Ignatian Epistles," it can scarcely have been the work of that eminent
martyr ; yet it expresses well the Catholic teaching of those early times, and
may have been composed as early as the second century.
f Justin, Dial cum Trypho., § 41.
t Clem. Alex., Poedagog., lib. i., o. 6 ; ii., c. 2.
§ Tertull., Adv. Marcion., lib. iv., c. 40.

the lord's SUPPER. 31
"The Lord hesitated not to say, 'This is my body,' when He gave a
sign of His body."*
The testimony of Augustine respecting the figurative interpretation
of our Lord's words, is of peculiar value, as expressing the opinion
of the greatest doctor of the Church since the days of St. Paul, ac
cording to the universal recognition of all parties in all ages and all
climes, whether Protestants or Papists, Natives or Foreigners, as
well as the three great sub-divisions of the Catholic world— Primitive,
Roman, with their imitators in England, or Greek. And I cannot
help thinking that Dr. Pusey made a deplorable mistake in his
treatment of that eminent and saintly man, just as he has done to
Hooker in an instance already mentioned. Thus, although Dr.
Pusey has allotted no less than 400 pages of Testimony to the
Belief in the Real Presence, in his work on that subject, he has
omitted to notice some of Augustine's rules for the rightful interpre
tation of Holy Scripture. Thus he says in one of his Epistles to
Evodius, Bishop of Uzala —
" Nor may it be denied that sometimes the thing which signifies, receives
the name of that thing which it signifies  Thus the rock is called
Christ, because it signifies Christ."
In another of his works Augustine says —
" A thing which is a sign, is accustomed to be called by the name of the
thing which it signifies ; as it is written, ' The seven ears are seven years,' for
he did not say they signify seven years ; and many things of this kind.
Hence there is that which is said, the Rock was Christ. For he did not say
the Eock signified Christ, but, as it were, was this very thing ; though, in
deed, it was not this in substance, but in signification." -\
Dr. Pusey has, I believe, failed to notice another passage of St.
Augustine, which seems to militate against his opinion respecting
Augustine's teaching on what is figurative in Scripture. He says —
"If a form of speech is preceptive, forbidding either a disgraceful thing
or a crime, or to forbid what is useful or beneficent, it is figurative. ' Except
ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, ye have no life in
you.' He seems to command a disgraceful thing or a crime, therefore it is
figurative, commanding us to communicate in the passion of the Lord, and
sweetly and profitably to treasure up in our memory that His flesh was
crucified and wounded for us,"J
I must not omit to notice that Dr. Pusey, in his Doctrine of the
Real Presence, says —
* Augustine in Psalm iii. ; and Contr. Ademais, c. 12.
f Augustine, Qucest. in Levit., c. iii.
% Augustine, De Doctr. Christ., lib. iii., c. 16.

32 BE. FUSE?.
" I have now gone through every writer, who in his extant works speaks of
the Holy Eucharist, from the time when St. John the Evangelist was
translated to his Lord to the date of the fourth General Council, a.d. 451— a
period of three and a half centuries. I have suppressed nothing ; I have not
knowingly omitted any thing ; I have given every passage as far as in me
lay, with so much of the context as was necessary for the clear exhibition
of its meaning " (p. 715).
As Dr. Pusey has consumed 400 pages on this portion of his
work, it is singular, to say the least of it, tha the should have omitted
to notice what Augustine has said in the passage quoted above,
inasmuch as his treatise De Doctr. Christ, may be said to contain the
nearest approach we have in the early Church to a system of
Biblical interpretation. Others have taken a severer view of Dr.
Pusey's view in this matter. Dr. Harrison, the learned Vicar of
Fenwick, who has in various works most carefully, and I may add
almost exhaustively, examined Dr. Pusey's teaching on the doctrine
of the Lord's Supper, says in reference to his boast of having
"suppressed nothing, and not knowingly omitted anything"—
"Whoever accepts these statements for truth is grossly deceived,
whether Dr. Pusey intended it or not." Further on, Dr. Harrison
observes —
" This is the place to notice how completely Dr. Pusey has misrepresented
the teaching of Augustine, by assigning to him what he never said, and by
omitting what he really did say. Dr. Pusey states, ' St. Augustine says
again, ' Eeceiveye that in the bread which hung on the cross ; receive ye
that in the cup which flowed from the side.' St. Augustine again, as
quoted in the Sentences of Prosper, < We drink His blood under the flavour
of wine ' (p. 132). Dr. Pusey almost invariably gives chapter and verse for
his quotations ; but for thefirst of these he has given no reference, and the
sentence is not found in the writings of Augustine. Paschasius, however,
uses the words as those of Augustine, in his heretical treatise, On the Body
and Blood of Christ. He probably quoted from memory, which was more
convenient than accurate. Dr. Pusey assigns the other passage to the
Sentences of Prosper, but it cannot be found there. The words are, in fact,
those of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, the hot defender of the
heresy of Paschasius, and the opponent of Berengar, who held the orthodox
faith. He had cited several important passages from Augustine, the last of
which is, ' As the Sacrament of the body of Christ, after a certain manner,
is the body of Christ ; and the Sacrament of the blood of Christ, after a
certain manner, is the blood of Christ ; so the sacrament of faith is faith.'
To this Lanfranc gives the following answer (the words in italios form
the part which Dr. Pusey has assigned to St. Augustine): 'The
Saorament of the body of Christ is His flesh, as far as it has respect to that

33
which was on the cross, the Lord Christ Himself having been sacrificed,
which flesh we receive in the Sacrament concealed in the form of bread, and
we drink His blood under the form and flavour of wine ' (De Eucharist
Sacra. Bib. Mag. Vet. Pair., torn xi., p. 342)." *
It is painful to reflect, that Dr. Harrison has added to the above
statement the very serious charges of " Dr. Pusey's inaccuracy of
quotation, mistranslations, and extreme unfairness in his treatment
of the testimony of the fathers ; " and that Dr. Pusey has allowed
them to remain unanswered and uncontradicted. Nor does Dr.
Harrison stand alone in this opinion. An able reviewer of Dr.
Harrison's Answer to Dr. Pusey's Challenge respecting the Doctrine of
the Real Presence in the Christian Advocate, observes with great
force —
"We believe that the authority of the fathers is on the side of the
evangelical view of the Sacraments, as firmly as we believe that view, and
that view alone, to be in accordance with the Word of God.... Are the
quotations made by Dr. Pusey trustworthy, and do they fairly represent the
true opinion of Christian antiquity on the subject of the Sacrament? It is
very difficult to conceive that this question can truly be answered in the
negative. Misrepresentation of authorities is the gravest offence of which
a controversialist can be guilty. Dr. Pusey's high position in the Uni
versity of Oxford, and the confidence placed in his personal charaoter, alike
render the supposition one which the mind shrinks from entertaining ;
nevertheless, this evidence is at hand, and it compels us to answer the
question in the negative. The quotations of Dr. Pusey are not trust
worthy .... Whether it is from quoting, in some cases at all events, second
hand, without personally submitting the quotation to verification ; whether
it is that the work of extracting the passages for his catena has been
entrusted to others, we are unable to say. But the fact appears indisputable,
and Dr. Harrison's bulky volumes teem with evidence of it. Hence we are
compelled to admit, that the real testimony of the fathers on the doctrine of
the Lord's Supper is conclusively against Dr. Pusey, notwithstanding that
every leaf of his 400 pages of extracts is conspicuously headed, ' Testimony to
the belief in the Real Presence in the early Church.' For the assumption
once made is intrinsically of as much value as repeated 10,000 times ; and
this frequent repetition of the same errors reminds us of the Master's saying
in regard to certain heathen of old, who were in the habit of doing the same
thing, and who thought they would ' be heard for their much speaking.' " t
* The Fathers versus Dr. Pusey ; An Exposure of his Unfair Treatment
of their Evidence on the Doctrine of the Real Presence ; by John Harrison,
D.D., Vicar of Fenwick; pp. 12—14, 47, 48.
t Extraordinary, as it may appear, the Bishop of Winchester is reported
by the Guardian to have stated in Convocation last February (1881), that
D

34 DE. PUSEY.
Whatever, therefore, we may think of Dr. Pusey's mode of
arguing on his favourite hobby of what he terms "the Real
Objective Presence," and it is only a mere matter of logomachy to
attempt to distinguish it between that and the fully developed
doctrine of Rome called "Transubstantiation," it is an unquestioned
fact that the doctrine, for which Dr. Pusey and his allies are now
so vigorously contending, is the same in every point of view with that
for which our " noble army of Martyrs " in the sixteenth century,
both clergy and laity, cheerfully went to the stake, sooner than teach
or allow our Church to hold, like those of old who conquered Satan
"by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony,
and they loved not their lives unto the death."* And I much
regret to be obliged to state my firm belief that Dr. Pusey, and all
who agree with him on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, like
Canon Carter, or Mr. Gerard Cobb, or Dr. Littledale, f are guilty
of that heresy, which the Church of England has authoritatively
and sternly condemned as "Idolatry to be abhorred by all
faithful Christians."
the doctrine of " Transubstantiation belonged to a philosophy, which he
neither understood nor believed ; he thought the Chnrch of England ought
to comprehend within itself persons holding even that doctrine, though her
clergy may not teach it." But the drift Eomewards, which Dr. Pusey has
so largely helped on during the last forty years, must bear the necessary
fruit, when the bishops extend their lax tolerance to such fatal errors as is
involved in the dootrine of Transubstantiation.
* Eev. xii. 11.
1 1 have already noticed, respecting the doctrine of the Lord's Supper,
that Canon Carter says " there is no difference at all between us and the
Churoh of Eome." Mr. Cobb declares that " the Church of England holds
precisely the same view of the Lord's Supper as the Churoh of Eome ; "
and Dr. Littledale, in his tract On the Real Presence, affirms that "In the
Holy Communion, after consecration, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ are that same body and blood which were conceived by the Holy
Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and
ascended into heaven. This is the doctrine ofthe Real Presence." Hence,
says Monsignor Capel, " The Eitualists teaoh our (Eoman) dootrines of the
Eeal Presenoe, the Euoharistic Sacrifice, and Transubstantiation." Hence,
Dr. Littledale himself acknowledges that the religion taught by the
Eitualists is as different as that taught by the Evangelicals, as Moham
medanism differs from Judaism.

BAPTISM. 35

BAPTISM.
The differences between the late Dr. Pusey's teaching on the
subject of Baptism and that of the Evangelical school, are fully as
great as those relating to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. At
the latter, those who agree with Dr. Pusey contend that the minis
ter who consecrates the bread and wine possesses a magician's power
of changing those elements into the same identical body of our Lord
Jesus Christ, which was born of the "blessed" Mary, and died on
the cross at Calvary. That this doctrine is " substantially " and
" precisely " the same as that taught by the Church of Rome, we
have already seen to be admitted by Romanists and Ritualists alike
(e.g., Monsignor Capel and Canon Carter) ; and such teaching the
Churoh of England has authoritatively pronounced, in accordance
with the primitive and Catholic faith, " Idolatry, to be abhorred by
all faithful Christians."
So on the doctrine of Baptism, the Evangelical system plainly
distinguishes between the Scriptural rite, when admitting children
of Christian parents into covenant with God in the name of Father,
Son and Holy Ghost, and the new birth, which is variously described
in God's word as the being "born of the Spirit," or being "born
again," or being "born from above,"* or being "converted," or
" repentance," all of which terms imply a thorough change of heart
from our natural state of being " dead in trespasses and in sins," to
that state of grace, which St. Paul describes under the term of know
ing "the truth as it is in Jesus." And this great change may take
place, as Mr. Gorham pointed out in his memorable contest with the
Bishop of Exeter, either before, during, or after t/ie rite of Baptism.
For the manner and way of the Spirit's operation and entering into
the soul, whether of man or child, is like a mystery hidden in
* No one who has the faintest idea of "the truth as it is in Jesus," would
apply these terms to Baptism ; they belong exclusively to the fundamental
doctrine of the Christian religion, viz., the personal conversion of every
penitent sinner to God. Nothing more clearly discloses the great gulf between
the Evangelical and the Sacerdotal or Eitualistio systems, than the way
in which the third chapter of St. John's Gospel is explained by the two
parties.
d 2

36 DR. PUSEY.
darkness, and who can unveil it ? As the dew falls from heaven in
the stillness of the night, when no rushing storm is heard, or no
tempest bursts on the ear, nevertheless in the morning at sunrise
it is seen hanging like pearls upon the leaves, and we wonder whence
it came and who hath begotten it ! So is the way of the Spirit in the
conversion, or new birth, of the soul of every awakened penitent
sinner : to the spirit of such hath this testimony been borne, that God
hath given unto him eternal life, and this life is in His Son. Those
who have experienced what the apostle calls the internal testimony of
the Spirit, " which beareth witness with our spirit that we are the
children of God," well know by happy experience that this is true.
Now the system advocated by Dr. Pusey and the Ritualistic
party is entirely different from the above. They have invented the
system of what they call " Sacramental Grace," which is not to be
found in Scripture, and consequently, as the Church of England
authoritatively declares, is "not to be believed by any man." For
under this fatally erroneous system Baptism is made to take the
place of the new birth, or the conversion of the heart to God : thereby
attempting to exalt the baptizing minister, as one of the Sacerdotal
party profanely expressed it, " almost to a level with God! "
Dr. Pusey, in a pamphlet published in defence of Mr. Green, and
ushered into the world by the crooked name of " Unlaw," in which
he concentrated his dislike and repudiation of the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council, though he very properly avoided the railing
language which many of his followers adopt in speaking of the ad
visers of the sovereign, whom every beneficed clergyman has sworn
most solemnly to recognise as the supreme governor of the Church
" in all spiritual causes, ' '* — nevertheless, Dr. Pusey thought it becom-
* In Collier's Church History, part 2, book 2, vol. iv., p. 258, Straker's
edition, there is given an excellent discourse, taken by Collier from the
State Paper Office, written in the reign of Charles II. , "concerning his
Majesty's Supreme Power Ecclesiastical, established by the laws of this
kingdom, at the present time in their full force and vigour." In this paper it
is unanswerably proved that when the Convocation of 1531 tried to shuffle off
acknowledging the supremaoy of the crown, by the haggling sentence, " as
far as allowed by the law of Christ," in order to escape the praemunire with
which they were threatened, three years later they even gave this up, as it
was offensive to the king, and acknowledged his supreme headship in 1534,
just as they had acknowledged the headship of the Pope previous to the
Eeformation (see Archbishop Parker's Antiq. Briton, p. 326). This was
confirmed by Act of Parliament two years afterwards ; which gave all the
power whioh up to the time ofthe Eeformation had been usurped by the Pope,

baptism. 37
ing, as an aged man and professed minister of the Church of England,
to write of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which, happily
for the cause of Evangelical truth and the Reformed Chureh, advised
the sovereign to rule as Supreme Ordinary in favour of Mr. Gorham
and against Bishop Phillpotts, in the following way —
" The judges knew nothing of theology, and for fear of driving out of the
Church a body (referring to the Evangelical body), hardly any one of whom
agreed with Mr. Gorham, persuaded themselves that the most naked Zwing-
lianism was compatible with a Baptismal service, which thanks God for
regenerating eaoh baptized child one by one."
Further on Dr. Pusey adds —
" The judges had just shown themselves as ignorant of Baptism, upon
which they had been called upon to pronounce, as if they had never been
baptized themselves, or had never learned their Catechism. But policy has
no rules except to gain its end."
I had the privilege of knowing Mr. Gorham personally. I was
with him at Torquay during his examination by the Bishop of
Exeter, and when he was in communication with the chiefs of the
Evangelical party, with whom I have had the happiness of friend
ship during the last 45 years, and I can confidently say that Dr.
Pusey is mistaken in his assertion that " hardly any one " of the
Evangelicals " agreed with Mr. Gorham." On pointing this out to
Dr. Pusey, he was pleased to write to me two letters, dated Feb. 26th,
and Nov. 5, 1881, from which I make the following extracts —
" My dear Mr. Savile, — Thank you for your courteous letter. It opens to me
another mistake of mine. As I could not hinder the line whioh Bishop
and submitted to by the unreformed Church of England, to the sovereign, as
part of the rights and power of the crown, " in all spiritual or ecclesiastical
causes," so that it was something worse than a delusion on the part of Dr.
Pusey and the Eitualists in general to deny, resist and revile the supremacy
of the crown in the way they have attempted to do. Some Eitualists and some
Papists are never weary of reviling the character of Henry VIII. to the
utmost extent of their vocabulary, which is " far from being a limited one ; "
and yet, to use the language of Dr. Littledale against our Protestant martyrs
who were put to death by " bloody " Queen Mary, he was "an angel of light"
as compared with one of his contemporaries. Pope Alexander VI. (Borgea),
who died six years before Henry ascended the throne, is admitted by all Eoman
Catholic authorities to have been one of the vilest miscreants that ever
disgraced human nature ; nevertheless, the Church of Eome authoritatively
recognizes him as one of the " infallible" Vicars of Jesus Christ ! For the
character of many of these monstrously wicked Popes, see my work on
Fulfilled Prophecy, pp. 196—203.

38

DB. PUSEY.

Phillpotts took, I hoped to contract his opposition to what I thought was
peculiar to Mr. Gorham, which was the doctrine of Zwingle, as distinct from
that of Calvin  1 belong to no party, and regret of oourse any undutiful
language or any unkind language, whioh any may use.* I commend myself
to your prayers. Yours very faithfully in C. J., E. B. Pusey."
I am afraid my old college tutor, the present Bishop of Win
chester, for whom I entertain a sincere and affectionate respect, is
of the same opinion with Dr. Pusey, respecting the views of the
Evangelical body on the subject of Baptism, as in his Pastoral,
published about six years ago, he declared that —
" The doctrine of the English Eeformation could scarcely have been more
emphatically denied that it was by Mr. Gorham."
I venture, therefore, to adduce the following evidence to show that
such is not the opinion of the most learned among the High Church
party, as it is assuredly in direct opposition to the teaching of the
Evangelical party throughout the world, ever since the revival of
Evangelical truth in the middle of the last century.
The Rev. W. Maskell, Chaplain to the Bishop of Exeter, and
present during the time when the bishop took the unusual step of
examining an elderly presbyter of his own diocese, whom he had
admitted a few years before without an examination, and who
proved himself more than a match for the bishop in learning, as he
was superior to him in his grasp of Evangelical truth, besides
expressing his opinion in private to this effect, and comparing the
latter to a shuttlecock in the hands of the former, declares in his
Second Letter on the Present Position of the High Church Party,
that —
"The real spirit and intention of the Eeformed Church of England are
taught hy the Evangelical party as truly as by ourselves ; " or, as he says
in another page, " rather than ourselves " (pp. 11, 56).
* The language to which Dr. Pusey refers was that used by an extreme
Eitualistio olergyman of Lambeth. A correspondence had taken place between
us, whioh I thought right to publish, and to send a copy to Dr. Pusey. The
reader may judge of its nature and the style in use by some extreme men
professing to be ministers of Christ, when I mention that of the many letters
of sympathy which I received when the correspondence was published, one
of them was to this effect : "I saw a notice of the correspondence between
yourself and Dr. L., and blush that a clergyman, who is supposed to be a
gentleman, should have descended to suoh low scurrility as the latter has
indulged in." The writer of this is a gentleman and lay Eitualist, who once
held the office of churchwarden to Mr. Bennett of Frome, when Vicar of
St. Paul's, Knightsbridge.

baptism. 39
Mr. Maskell also quoted Mr. Dodsworth as virtually agreeing
with him on the doctrine taught by the Reformed Church of
England respecting the Baptismal Regeneration. Still more
decisive is the opinion of the late Canon Mozley, Regius Professor
of Divinity at Oxford, a distinguished High Churchman, who
was never led into the pitfall of Romanism, and who clearly teaches,
in his Primitive Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, differently from
Dr. Pusey, when he says —
" Eegeneration properly means a total change of heart and life, and that
it is by no means tied to the rite of Baptism .... The term Eegeneration does
not mean in St. Augustine, any more than it does in Soripture, a mere
capacity for goodness and holiness, but goodness and holiness itself.
And Baptismal Eegeneration has with him the meaning which follows
immediately and necessarily from this sense of the term Eegeneration, It
is not a literal assertion that Eegeneration has taken place in all the
baptized, for that would be plainly contrary to facts ; but an hypothetical
one, a presumption made about the whole body of the baptized, that they
are holy men and saints " (p. 114).
And so Bishop Ryle, of Liverpool, in his Guide to Churchmen
about Baptism and Regeneration, says —
" I believe that according to Scripture, Eegeneration is that great change
of heart and charaoter which is absolutely needful to man's salvation.
Sometimes it is called conversion ; sometimes being renewed, &c. All these
expressions describe that mighty, radical change of nature, which it is the
special office of the Holy Ghost to give, and without which no one can be
saved" (p. 4).
Dr. Pusey appears to judge the doctrine respecting Christian
Baptism under a totally different aspect, inasmuch as many years
ago he wrote to his diocesan, declaring that —
" The Church has no second Baptism to give, and so she cannot pronounoe
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"
(Pusey's Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 4)..
Such teaching appears to coincide with the heresy which began
to prevail in the fourth century, when that fatal step was taken of
amalgamating decaying heathenism with nominal Christianity, and
which has been productive of such evil to the spiritual welfare of
the Church. This heresy caused men to delay Baptism until the
last moment, as is said to have been the case with the Emperor
Constantine, under the sad delusion that salvation was then certain
to the dying sinner. Hence one of Dr. Pusey's earliest disciples,

40 DE. PUSEY.
the late Professor Sewell, a leader amongst the Tractarian party, in
his Christian Morals, says —
" I will suggest the consideration of the vastness of the power claimed by
the Church — a power whioh places it almost on a level with God Himself—
the power of forgiving sins by wiping them out in Baptism, and of
transferring souls from hell to heaven, without admitting the least doubt of
it" (p. 247).
It is remarkable that some Ritualists of the present day appear
to despise the teaching of Dr. Pusey on the subject of Baptism,
judging from the papers whiph the party circulated during the
Twelve Days' Mission in London, during the year 1869, entitled,
Books for the Toung, in which the following doctrine is taught: —
" Absolution is like a second Baptism : when you have received it with
your heart, you are as pure and spotless as the day on which you were
baptized." Which now are we to believe, the master or the disciples ? Dr.
Pusey, who disclaims the name of Ritualist, or those who have
made themselves prominent among that lawless and disobedient
party in the present day ? Those who believe with the one that
" the Church has no second Baptism to give," and has only "two
periods of absolute cleansing, Baptism and the Day of Judgment;"
or with the other, that " Absolution is like a second Baptism," by
which the sinner is made " as pure and spotless as on his baptismal
day?" The faithful in the Church of England will have no
difficulty in rejecting both, as eminently unsafe guides and unsound
teachers, who appear to be virtually unacquainted with our blessed
Lord's solemn warning and declaration, "Except a man be born
from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
This is the sum and substance of all Evangelical teaching. This
is what Bishop Phillpotts rejected Mr. Gorham for teaching ; and
this is what, when the matter came to trial, the law of the Church,
in accordance with the laws of God and man, proved Mr. Gorham
to be right, and the Bishop of Exeter wrong. I am aware that Dr.
Pusey, in his work on " Unlaw," denies all this. But the inexora
ble logic of facts is against him ; and I trust the time will come
when he may have grace to own the same. * At present, he
contents himself with the unbecoming sneer that —
" The judges knew nothing of theology," and " showed themselves as
* This was written, of course, before Dr. Pusey's death ; but I fear there
is no reason to think that his eyes were open to the truth on this subject.

baptism. 41
ignorant of the doctrine of Baptism as if they had never been baptized
themselves." And yet there were some great names amongst the judges, who
had in no wise identified themselves with the Evangelical party.
For example, Dr. Lushington, one of the judges, who advised the
Supreme Ordinary on the verdict of the Church in the Gorham
"heresy," was one of the most distinguished ecclesiastical lawyers
of this century, and had held the office of Dean of the Court of
Arches for many years, a spiritual office of great importance in the
avowed estimation of Dr. Pusey's party, whenever a judgment happens
to be on their side. Dr. Lushington* appears to have had no
difficulty in deciding on behalf of Mr. Gorham. Moreover, the two
Archbishops of Canterbury and York, together with the Bishop of
London, although not judges, were invited to give their advice, " by
special command of Her Majesty;" and henco the judgment
states —
" We have the satisfaction of being authorised to state that the Most
Eeverend Prelates, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, after perusing
copies of our judgment, have expressed their approbation thereof. The
Eight Eev. the Lord Bishop of London does not concur therein." f
Although it has been publicly stated that the Bishop of London did
* Dr. Lushington was also one of the judges or assessors to the Archbishop
of Canterbury, when Archdeacon Denison was condemned for teaching
doctrines contrary to those of the Church of England.
f A retired vicar writes me word, that he knows positively that Bishop
Blomfield, in the Council Eoom, when Lord Longdale delivered the
judgment on the Gorham case, gave his vote first for Gorham, and then
withdrew it on the same day ! In the Chronicle of Convocation for 1876,
p. 322, the late Archbishop of Canterbury is reported to have said that " the
general impression which I have received from many persons of influence
and importance connected with the decision in the Gorham case, is that
Archbishop Sotinee was the author of the judgment." A remarkable
instance of the uncertainty about such judgments has recently come to light
in the third volume of the Life of Bishop Wilberforce, who was so often in
the habit of entering in his private diary rash thoughts, without ever for a
moment, as we must suppose, imagining they would ever see the light. Yet his
son and biographer quotes from his private diary the bishop's version of one
of the many judgments in the Mackonoohie case, delivered Jan. 23, 1868 —
" I hear the lawyers were two and two ; the Archbishop of York gave the
casting vote." To this rash piece of episcopal gossip the Archbishop of
York writes to the Times to say — " As there were six members present and
able to vote, this could not be true ; and I am able to assure you that there is
no foundation for the ivords, whether to this or any other judgment."

42 DR. PUSEY.
at first agree with the judgment, and at the last moment withdrew
his approval, and refused to concur with his ecclesiastical superiors,
it may have been the cause of encouraging Dr. Pusey to take the
strong step of declaring that this judgment of the Supreme Ordinary
of the Church, with the concurrence of the two Archbishops of the
Anglican Church, was "a denial op an Article oe the Faith."
Dr. Pusey was engaged in many controversies during his long life,
and did many unwise acts, but it may be doubted whether he ever
committed himself in so monstrous a way as on this, occasion. It is
more than sufficient to deprive him of all respect as a sound teacher
of doctrine in the Reformed Church of England ; for Dr. Pusey did
not claim, like the predicted " Man of Sin," the gift of infallibility;
and even if he did, his teaching must be tested, as the inspired
writer tells us " the noble Bereans " tested that of St. Paul, for
which they were so highly commended, viz., by an appeal to the
infallible word of truth. So must we test Dr. Pusey's doctrinal
teaching by a reference to the same source, and in so doing we are
compelled to declare his assertion that the " Gorham judgment " was
" a denial of an Article of the Faith " is contrary to the truth.
Dr. Pusey must have known that if the judgment of the Supreme
Ordinary bad been that the new birth is necessarily tied to Baptism,
it would have split the Church of England — it would have driven
out, perhaps, 5000 of the Evangelical ministers of the Church, just
as the fatal Act of the High Church party in the days of Charles H.
drove out 2000 of the holiest and best of the clergy on that memor
able occasion ; and the result of which has been the loss of half
the population to the Protestant Church of England.
Hence the judgment in the Gorham ease is one which may be
cordially accepted by every faithful and loyal member of our
Church ; and is far more worthy of attention than anything which
has been said against it, as the following extract from the report of
the judgment will show : —
" In the examination of this oase we have not relied upon the doctrinal
opinions of any of the eminent writers, by whose piety, learning, and
ability the Church of England has been distinguished ; but it appears that
opinions which we cannot in any important particular distinguish from
those entertained by Mr. Gorham, have been propounded and maintained
without censure or reproach, by many eminent illustrious prelates and
divines, who have adorned the Church from the time when the Articles
were first established. We do not affirm that the doctrines and opinions of
Jewel, Hooker, Usher, Jeremy Taylor, &c, can be reoeived as evidence of
the doctrine of the Churoh of England, but their conduot, unblamed and

baptism. 43
unquestioned as it was, proves at least the liberty which has been allowed
of maintaining such doctrine."
To show the rashness of Dr. Pusey's assertion, that scarcely any
of the Evangelical party agreed with Mr. Gorham on the Baptism
controversy, I quote with satisfaction an account, given in the
Record of Nov. 20, 1882, of a discussion, which recently took place
at the Cambridge Church Society, the subject being " The Grace of
Holy Baptism." Canon Churton, Examining Chaplain to the Bishop
of St. Albans, pronounced Dr. Pusey to be " the best exponent of the
true baptismal theory." I am afraid Mr. Churton must have been
ignorant of what Dr. Pusey taught on the subject of Baptism.
Dr. Pusey's theory of Baptism was that "the Church cannot
pronounce him who sins after Baptism," as free from sin as if
committed before Baptism;" and the Archbishops of Canterbury and
York were guilty of denying "an Article of Faith," because they
pronounced in favour of " the Gorham judgment." This clearly
proves Dr. Pusey to be any thing but a sound teacher, or "the best
exponent ofthe true baptismal theory ! "
At the discussion, two of the Evangelical clergy well supported
the cause of Scriptural truth on the subject of Baptism. Mr. Moule,
Master of Ridley Hall, proved that the only admissible view of
harmonizing the teaching of the infallible Word of God and the
language of the Book of Common Prayer, was the hypothetical
view advocated by the High Church Canon Mozley, which I have
already given ; and he is said to have surprised some of the members
of the Cambridge Church Society by produoing strong testimonies in
behalf of this view, from such well-known High Church authorities
as Hammond and Jeremy Taylor.
The Rev. H. W. Webb-Peploe, Vicar of St. Paul's, Onslow
Gardens, who was present as a visitor, did good service on behalf
of Evangelical truth, by showing that the beginning of the soul's
life is not assigned (as one speaker had maintained, according to
the usual Ritualistic theory) by Scripture to Baptism, but to faith
in the Word of God. And no one who comprehends the teaching of
our Lord in His interview with Nicodemus, or what the apostle
calls " the truth as it is in Jesus," can believe or teach otherwise.
In the years 1850 and 1851, some pamphlets were published
by three clergymen: the Revs. T. Allies, W. Dodsworth, and
W. Maskell, all of whom subsequently went over to the Church of
Rome. They all alike condemned the doctrine of the Royal
Supremacy, though each one admitted it was the true doctrine of

44

DR. PUSEY.

the Reformed Church of England, advocating in its stead that the
supremacy in all spiritual causes should be conceded to a foreigner,
the Pope or Bishop of Rome, conveniently forgetting that the
Church to which they had so long belonged, and which, without
boasting, we may pronounce the fairest and largest branch of
Christ's Catholic Church on earth, has authoritatively pronounced
by her spirituality, i.e., the Convocation, that this Bishop of Rome
is " that Man of Sin " foretold by St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians,
chapter ii. ; and therefore any one joining her communion is guilty
of the heinous sin of apostasy, so sternly condemned by the
apostles Peter, Paul, and John. The proof of the Church of Rome
being " Babylon the Great " of the Apocalypse, is as clear and
decisive as the proofs of Jesus Christ being the true Messiah. And
this Bishop Wordsworth in his able works on the subject has
exhaustively proved to be the case.
On the subject of the Baptismal controversy, Mr. Dodsworth
declared that —
"Having had the advantage of hearing the arguments in the Judioial
Committee of the Privy Council in the late Gorham case, I cannot now feel
certain that the Eef ormers did not intend to leave baptismal regeneration
an open question " (Dodsworth, House Divided against Itself, p. 20).
Mr. Maskell speaks in still clearer language, as already noticed,
when he justly concluded that —
"The real spirit and intention of the Eeformed Church of England are
taught by the Evangelical party as truly as by ourselves " — perhaps,
"rather than by ourselves" (Maskell's Second Letter on the Present
Position ofthe High Church Party, pp. 11, 56).
I remember on the occasion of " the Gorham judgment," the
late Archdeacon Bartholomew endeavoured to persuade the clergy
of Barnstaple to petition the Crown to allow Convocation to
" declare what is the faith of the Church," and to thank the
Bishops of London and Exeter for their share in the matter.
Happily for the good of the Church, nothing came of this most
unwise proposal. "The faith of the Church" had been settled
long ago, and Convocation was not qualified in any way to decide
judicially on the subject, as the sovereign, "supreme in all
spiritual causes," was ; and every sound and faithful Churchman
was quite satisfied that justice had been done in that celebrated
case. As for thanking the Bishop of London for his opposition to the
opinion of all the rest of the Court — the Archbishops and the

BAPTISM. 45
ecclesiastical lawyers, who assisted in the case — it was simply
preposterous, as I pointed out to the archdeacon at the time. And
still more preposterous was it to thank the late Bishop of Exeter,
for as cruel an act of oppression as was ever committed by any
bishop of the Reformed Church of England since the days of Laud.
Bishop Phillpotts adopted a course unknown in any other diocese
of examining and rejecting Mr. Gorham, a clergyman at the time
of nearly forty years' standing in the ministry, of distinguished
talents very superior to those of his diocesan, and of unimpeached
character, when about to be translated by the favour of the Crown
to a new sphere of labour, though he had admitted him to his
diocese, and allowed him to remain undisturbed in possession of
another benefice ; when, as the published correspondence sub
sequently proved, he had long suspected Mr. Gorham of holding
doctrines which he declared were "contrary to (what he called) the
doctrines of the Church of England." Just as St. Paul was
accused by the Sacerdotal party of his day of teaching "the way
which they (the enemies of the truth) called heresy."
An event wliich took place at the time, proved there was no
unwillingness on the part of Bishop Phillpotts to avail himself of
the law for the purpose of harassing one of the aged clergy of the
diocese, whom he happened to dislike. For on one occasion Bishop
Phillpotts commenced proceedings against Mr. Gorham for the great
sin of omitting the Lord's Prayer in the service for Churching of
Women ! But the animus was so transparent, that even the bishop's
nominees were obliged to admit there was no case — which broke
down so completely, as to bring no small amount of discredit to the
bishop himself. I was for many years, both as a curate and a
beneficed clergyman, under Bishop Phillpotts, and like every one
else heard of many questionable acts committed by him during his
long episcopate ; but, perhaps, the worst of all was his conduct
towards Mr. Gorham, on the one hand, and on the other his
attempt at "excommunicating" the Archbishop of Canterbury for
obeying the law as ruled by the Supreme Ordinary, thus endeavour
ing to exalt himself, like the predicted " Man of Sin," above the
laws of God and man.*
* As a specimen of Bishop Phillpotts' partiality towards different parties
in the Church of England, when Vicar of Okehampton, I had occasion to
nominate a clergyman of another diocese as my curate, and was refused
point blank by the bishop on that ground alone. Yet this pretended
protector of the curates of his diocese had no hesitation in bringing into

46

DR. PUSEY.

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.
The doctrine of Justification by Faith is the very essence of
apostolic preaching. It is the whole burden of the Pauline
Epistles. Good works have their proper place in the economy of
grace ; but we know from the New Testament it is not as the cause,
but as the result and evidence of justification. Nothing can be
plainer than St. Paul's declaration, " By the deeds of the law shall
no flesh hving be justified." To eliminate the doctrine of Justifica
tion by Faith only from St. Paul's writings, would be as subversive
of their whole tenour and teaching, as an attempt to study the
drama of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet left out. And yet the
Tractarian-Ritualists, who profess a sort of hazy belief in the
infallible Word of God, declared in one of their early periodicals
that the doctrine of Justification by Faith is —
"Eadically and fundamentally monstrous, immoral, heretical and anti
christian ! " (British Critic, No. lxii., p. 446).
Now Dr. Pusey, while avoiding such coarse and profane language
as the writer in the British Critic uses, appears to be as dark on
what the infallible Word of God declares to be the truth in respect
to the doctrine of Justification, as the writer himself. Hence Dr.
Pusey writes as follows : —
"We have been wont to dwell with pleasure on the amount of faith
which we confess in common with the Eoman Church .... I believe that we
have the same doctrine of grace and of justification. There is not one
statement in the elaborate chapters on justification in the Council of Trent
whieh any of us could fail of receiving ; nor is there one of their anathemas
on the subject which in the least rejects any statement of the Church of
England " (Pusey's Eirenicon, pp. 18, 19).
Let us see how far this is true according to the plain meaning
of words in the English language, as authoritatively spoken by the
Churches of England and Rome.
the diocese a stranger of the name of Freeman, whom he gradually made
Vicar of Thorverton, Canon of the Cathedral, and Archdeacon of Exeter — to
the injury of the clergy of the diocese, the disoredit of his own professed rule,
and the shame of the law, which in these days of reform could allow such a
pluralist to exist in the Church !

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

47

The Church of Rome in her
Tridentine decrees, explains her
view of the doctrine of Justifica
tion as follows : —
" Whoever shall affirm that a
sinner is justified by faith only, let
him be anathema" (Council of Trent,
Sess. vi., Canon 2).

The Church of England in her
Articles, teaches on the doctrine
of Justification as follows : —
" We are accounted righteous
before God, only for the merit of
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
by faith, and not for our works or
deservings : wherefore that we are
justified by faith only, is a most
wholesome doctrine, and very full of
comfort " (Art. xi).
For Dr. Pusey or any one else to assert that the Churches of
England and Rome teach the same on the sub j ect of j ustification, or as
Dr. Pusey expresses it, that their views are " reconoilable one with
the other," betrays such an ostrich-like blindness, that it is impossible
to argue with those who propound such views. Common sense
tells us that such persons are beyond the power of reason, or as
Mr. Maskell sarcastically says, when justly ridiculing such utterly
false teaching on the part of those who pretend that it is possible to
reconcile the Articles of the Church of England with the decrees of
the Church of Rome —
"For clergymen thus to speak, has always seemed to me amongst the
greatest of all achievements of human intellect. Subtle as we know the
mind of man to be, and wide its range, I cannot but confess that the more
I think of it the more I am amazed at so wonderful an example of its
power and capaoity " (Maskell's Second Letter, fyc, p. 64).
Nevertheless, some of Dr. Pusey's disciples, in their rage and fury
against those who adhere to the Word of God, gave utterance to
such revilings as these. Thus one of the bitterest organs of the
Ritualists, called the Chureh News, now absorbed in the Church
Review, had the folly to assert that " Justification by Faith only, the
most immoral of Protestant dogmas, has run its tether, and happily
died of self-strangulation" (Church News, Nov. 1867).
So one of the advocates of the " so-called " English Chwrch Union,
the Rev. E. G. Wood, in a lecture at Bath, Nov. 17, 1870, declared
that —
" The doctrine of Justification by Faith was the most immoral and
blasphemous theory which man ever invented, which overthrew not only
Christianity, but the very theory of natural morality."
To the faithful such hardened reasoning, or rather non-reasoning,
will appear neither more nor less than profane blasphemy, suitable

48

DR. PUSEY.

to the reckless and lawless English Church Union, of which
Mr. Wood was the appropriate advocate.
Contrast such revilings with the gentle language employed by
Dr. J. N. (now Cardinal) Newman, who of course holds the view
of justification taught by the Church he had joined, and which he,
as an honest man, well knew and avowed was directly contrary to
the teaching of the Church of England. Hence, he says truly —
"Protestants hold Justification by Faith only, though (he adds most
strangely) there is no text in St. Paul which enunciates it "* (History of my
Religious Opinions, p. 87).
I say "strangely," because the words of St. Paul in their
ordinary sense do, as Mr. Maskell truly says in reference to
Ritualistic reasoning in a similar way, "seem to differ" from the
contention of Cardinal Newman ; e.g., in writing to the " bewitched
Galatians," who had been perverted from the true Catholic faith
to believe in " another Gospel " through the instrumentality of
" false brethren who had crept in unawares," just as the Ritualists
have crept into the Church of England at the present time, St.
Paul says —
" Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by
the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we
might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law :
for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified " (Gal. ii. 16).
Again, in the same Epistle St. Paul teaches, " That no man is
justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident : for, The just
shall live by faith .... Christ is become of no effect unto you,
whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from
grace " (Gal. iii. 11 ; v. 4).
In another Epistle St. Paul taught as follows : —
" Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
.... To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David describeth
the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without
* Nevertheless, Newman's views on the subject contain the same amount
of fatal error as that proclaimed more offensively by the Eitualists, with
this difference, however, that those of the former are in accordance with
the authorized teaching of his Church — whereas these of the latter are in
direct defiance and contradiction of the Church of England, of which they
are such unworthy and disloyal members. See Newman's Lectures on
Justification, pp. 34 — 38 ; and the Church and the World, first series (of
Eitualistic Essays), p. 215, second edition.

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 49
works . . . Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without
the deeds of the law . . . Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with
God through our Lord Jesus Christ " (Eom. iii. 28 ; iv. 3—6 ; v. i).
Surely this is sufficient to contradict Newman's delusion that
" there is no text in St. Paul which teaches the doctrine of Justifica
tion by Faith only " ! Still more to rebuke the profane heresy of
an active Ritualist, who had the hardihood to term what St. Paul
teaches in the words we have quoted above as that —
"Horrible doctrine, known as that of imputed righteousness, or of
vicarious satisfaction " (Six Sermons on the Atonement, by the Eev. J. E.
Vaux, a member of the Counoil of the English Church Union, p. 35).
The teaching of St. Paul is so precise and clear on The Doctrine
of Justification by Faith only to all who are not blinded by the
subtle reasoning of unconverted men, that it has been justly termed
the sign of a standing or a falling Church. The Chureh of England
authoritatively teaches it. The Church of Rome authoritatively
denies this great and fundamental truth of our holy religion, and
is therefore termed in the infallible Word of truth — " Mystery,
Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abomina
tions of the Earth ; " — while a voice from heaven is now crying,
" Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins,
and that ye receive not of her plagues."*
We may, by contrasting the teaching of the two Churches of
England and Rome on the doctrine of Justification, understand the
force and point of the following anecdote relative to the dogmas of
the Papacy, and its ardent imitators among ourselves. A few years
after Newman's secession to the Church of Rome, a Roman
Catholic Irish priest seceded from that same communion, giving at
the same time to his bishop' the following reasons for the steps
which he was constrained to take : —
* The third volume of the Life of Bishop Wilberforce contains the
agonized expressions of the father on hearing of the apostasy of a beloved
daughter and his unworthy son-in-law to the doomed Churoh of Eome.
Who can read without emotion this passionate outburst in his diary on
learning ofthe dreadful event, "He is going over after all to Eome, and
of course my poor E. For years I have prayed incessantly against this
last act of his, and now it seems denied me. It seems as if my heart would
break at this insult out of my own bosom eke to God's truth in England's
Church, and preference for the vile harlotry of the Papacy. God forgive
them ! I have struggled on my knees against feelings of wrath against
him in a long, long, weeping cry to God."

50 DR. PUSEY.
" Whilst a Eoman Catholic clergyman, I began to entertain some doubts
of the doctrines of the Church of Eome  In reading the Word of God, I
found Justification by Faith in Christ Jesus inculcated in innumerable
passages  Being now fully oonvinced of the unscriptural character of the
doctrines of the Church of Eome, I at onoe resolved to remain no longer
within the pale or communion of such a corrupt Church, but to separate
from her errors, impostures and abuses."

TRACT No. XC.

The Oxford movement may be said to have commenced in 1833,
by the publication of the Tracts for tlie Times, which continued until
the celebrated Tract No. XC. was published in February, 1841,
when they came to an end at the request of the Bishop of Oxford,
with the obedience of J. H. Newman, the well-known author of
that Tract, who then, as always, showed such a ready submission to
his appointed ruler, in accordance with the apostolic maxim, " Obey
them that have the rule over you " — thereby presenting a striking
contrast to the behaviour of his successors, the Ritualists of the
present day, who have been only too truly described by the late
Dean of Westminster in the Lower House of Convocation, Feb. 9,
1881— "The real question," said Dean Stanley in that debate, "is not with
regard to the Courts, but simply, Will you obey your bishops ? There was
a time when the slightest word that fell from a bishop was thought of
importance. That time has gone by ; and now the weightiest word that
falls from a bishop is treated with the greatest contumely. Witness the
vulgar, discourteous, calumnious misrepresentations whioh are placed upon
the bishops by the newspapers which represent this party." *
* Guardian, Feb. 16, 1881. As a specimen of the manner in which the
Eitualistic press is in the habit of speaking of our bishops, I quote the
following : — " Some of the bishops argue thus — The Evangelical party is
so malignant and relentless, that my only hope of escaping their virulent
enmity is to deliver the Eitualists to be crucified  The Bishop and Dean
of Gloucester are discrediting their party by dealing with the interests of
the Church as if it were a Christmas pantomime, and they severally clown
and pantaloon  A Low Church prelate of any mark, a Baring, a Perry, a
M'llvaine, is certain to be a model of factious misrule .... We have found only
one bishop bold enough to express a definite opinion against the dingy back
ground of episcopal clap-trap" (Church Times, Oot. 31, 1873; Jan. 2, 1874).
"The clergy have been largely alienated from the Tories by the

tract no. xo. 51
The Oxford movement commenced with an expression on
Newman's part that he was —
" Upholding that primitive Christianity which was delivered for all time
by the early teachers of the Church, and which was registered and attested
in the Anglican formularies and by the Anglican divines." *
His opinion of the Church of Rome that it was " a lost Church,"
and " bound to the cause of Antichrist," was expressed by Newman
in the course of the years 1833 and 1834. In February, 1841, Tract
No. XC. was published, and in 1845 he seceded to the Church of
Rome. Tract No. XC. was apparently published to enable men to
hold all Roman doctrine, and yet remain in communion with the
Church of England, as the author says at the conclusion of the
Tract— " It may be objected that the tenor of the above explanations is anti-
Protestant, whereas it is notorious that the Articles were drawn up by
Protestants, and intended for the establishment of Protestantism ; accord
ingly, that it is an evasion of their meaning to give them any other than a
Protestant drift, possible as it may be to do so grammatically, or in each
simple part.
" But the answer is simple. In the first place, it is a duty, which we
owe both to the (Eoman) Catholic Church and to our own, to take our
reformed confessions in the most Catholic sense they will admit ; we have no
duties toward their framers. Nor do we receive the Articles from their
original framers, but from several successive Convocations after their time ;
in the last instance, from that of 1662." f
blundering, bungling, and floundering Bill of the purblind Archbishop
Tait .... who lectures and hectors his suffragans with pompous and rude
expostulations  The cringing, abject, contemptible, slave-spirited manner
in which they lick the dust off the feet of this Scotch adventurer is a sight
to make devils rejoice and angels weep . That the Bill (Public Worship Bill
should become law this year is clearly impossible. The only high class
papers which have successfully opposed the Bill on principle have been the
Morning Post, ourselves, and the Saturday Review " ( Church Herald, July
15, 1874). The Bill passed in the following month. We do not wonder at
the ravings of the Church Herald and other Eitualistic papers against it,
as in every instance where a trial has taken place, judgment has been
given in all the Queen's Courts, whether civil or eoclesiastical, against the
Ritualists. * Newman's History of my Religious Opinions, p. 43.
t Tract XC, by the Eev. J. H. Newman, B.D., 1841 ; with A Historical
Preface, by the Eev. E. B. Pusey, D.D. ; Oxford, 1865 : p. 83.
E 2

52 DE. PUSEY.
As Newman anticipated, the mode of interpreting the Articles on
the principle sanctioned by Tract XC. was considered " an evasion."
Four tutors of Oxford, one of whom was the late Archbishop Tait,
and whom Dr. Pusey thus described in his historical preface —
"By an unhappy combination, two tutors of the as yet undeveloped
' Broad ' (which in some of its members has become the half -believing or
unbelieving) party, and two, I believe, of the 'Evangelical,' invited the
editor of the Tracts for the Times to make known the name ofthe author of
Tract XC, on the ground of its suggesting that certain very important
errors of the Church of Eome are not condemned by the Articles of the
Church of England ; for instance, that those Articles do not contain any
condemnation of the doctrines — 1, of Purgatory ; 2, of Pardons ; 3, of the
Worshipping and Adoration of Images and Eelics ; 4, of the Invocation of
Saints ; 5, of the Mass ; as they are taught authoritatively by the Church of
Eome  The Tract would thus appear to us to have a tendency to mitigate,
beyond what charity requires, and to the prejudice of the pure truth of the
Gospel, the very serious differences which separate the Church of Eome from
our own " (pp. ix., x.)
Within a few days after the appeal of the four tutors, the
Hebdomadal or governing Board of the University of Oxford, met to
consider the merits of Tract XC, on which they passed the follow
ing condemnation —
" Eesolved, That modes of interpretation such as are suggested in the said
Tract, evading rather than explaining the sense of the Thirty-nine Articles,
and reconciling subscriptions to them with the adoption of errors, which they
were designed to counteract, defeat the object, and are inconsistent with the
due observance of the above-mentioned statutes."
This condemnation of Tract XC. was published March 12th, 1841.
On the day following Newman published his Letter to Dr. Jelf, in
which he writes —
" As to the present authoritative teaching of the Church of Eome, to judge
by what we see of it in public, I think it goes very far indeed to substitute
another Gospel for the true one  That a certain change in objective and
external religion has come over the Latin— nay, and in a measure the Greek
Church, we consider to be a plain historical fact ; a change sufficiently startling
to recall to our minds with very unpleasant sensations the awful words,
1 Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you
than that ye have received, let him be accursed.' "
Dr. Pusey tells us that Newman asked the Hebdomadal Board to
suspend their judgment " for twelve hours to explain himself, and
was refused by them," adding —
" If the heads had granted the respite of those few hours, which were
needed in order to publish what Newman had already in the press, it would

TEACT NO. XC. 53
have been impossible for them to condemn Tract XC. in the terms in which
they did condemn it. For the ground of the censure was cut away. No one
can tell hoio much ofthe subsequent history ofthe Church of England might
not have been altered, had that r&spite of twelve hours been granted."
I venture to think that Dr. Pusey's sanguine expectation would
not have been fulfilled had the twelve hours' delay asked for been
conceded, as subsequent events seem to show. It rather reminds one
of the famous French writer Victor Hugo's speculative assertion,
that if it had not rained quite so hard on the night previous to the
battle of Waterloo, the course of European history would have been
changed ! Three days after the condemnation had appeared,
Newman wrote to the Vice-Chancellor to acknowledge himself the
author of Tract XC, "respectfully" adding —
' ' I hope it will not surprise you if I say, that my opinion remains unchanged
ofthe truth and honesty ofthe principle maintained in the Tract, and of the
necessity of putting it forth."
The result of the condemnation is thus expressed by Dr. Pusey —
" The blow was struck, and had gone home. The form which the heads
chose for their condemnation of the Tract involved this, in his (Newman's)
own words, that ' I had been posted up by the marshal on the buttery-hatch
of every College of my University after the manner of discommoned pastry
cooks.' The whole country rang with that ' evading rather than explaining
the sense ofthe Articles.' ' Evading ' is the special object of hatred to English
honesty. Newman has summed up the result : ' I saw clearly that my pia ce
in the movement was lost ; public confidence was at an end ; my occupation was
gone. It was simply an impossibility that I could say anything henceforth
to good effect  In the last words of my letter to the Bishop of Oxford,
I thus resigned my own place in the movement.' "
In his Letter to Dr. Jelf, Newman contends that the four tutors
misunderstood him on so "material a point," viz., that the Thirty-
nine Articles did not contain a condemnation of doctrines " taught
authoritatively by the Church of Rome," that it was necessary in his
own defence to refer to the subject again. Hence he adds —
" On the contrary, I consider that they (the Articles) do contain a condem
nation of the authoritative teaching of the Church of Eome ; I only say that,
whereas they were written before the Decrees of Trent, they were not directed
against those Decrees." Further on, Newman, in speaking of Article XXII.,
which pointedly refers to the ' ' Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, &c. , as
grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of
God," says, " By the Romish doctrine is not meant the Tridentine doctrine,
because this Article was drawn up before the Decreeof the Council of Trent."*
* Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf in Explanation of No. 90, pp. 1, 2, 9, 10,

54

DE. PUSEY.

Let us consider how far this allegation of the Articles in general,
and Article XXII. in particular, as having been written before the
decrees of the Council of Trent, accords with the inexorable logic of
facts. Our Articles are stated to have been agreed upon " in a Con
vocation holden at London, in the year 1562." As this is named
according to the old style, when the year ended on the 25th of March,
it would properly be called in the present day 1563. Convocation
commenced its sittings in January, and continued to sit until June
of that year, just six months before the conclusion of the Council of
Trent in December, 1563. In the course of these six months, the
Council of Trent made only one decree pertaining to matters referred
to in Article XXII. Such is all that can be said in support of
Newman's allegation that the Articles do not condemn anything
" taught authoritatively by the Church of Rome." And it should be
remembered that although the Articles were mainly settled by the
Convocation of 1562, they were reconsidered in 1571, to which the
statute of 13 Elizabeth requiring subscription more particularly
refers, as " the Book of Articles put forth by the Queen' s authority ; ' '
and were noi finally ratified until the accession of James in 1603.
Thus, then, there appears to be no pretence for the allegation that
"whereas the Articles were written before the Decrees of Trent,
they were not directed against those Decrees." For the Articles as they
now stand, and as they were subscribed by Dr. Newman on his receiving
orders in the Church of England, have and always had especial reference
to the doctrine of Trent. Hence in the First Book of Homilies, with its
preface of the date of 1562, in which the study of it, as originally
set forth in the reign of Edward VI., is diligently commanded, it is
declared that —
" The Bishop of Eome ought rather to be called Antichrist, and the
successor of the Scribes and Pharisees, than Christ's Vicar, or St. Peter's
successor."* And so in the Convocation of 1606, and the Preface to the Autho
rized Version of the Holy Scriptures published in 1611, the Bishop
of Rome is described as "that Man of Sin" whom the Lord will
destroy at His coming.
Newman, in defence of himself, quotes the conclusion of the Tract,
as justifying the mode of interpretation which he had thought it
lawful to adopt, though universally condemned by the various
schools of religious thought, which then as now expressed the
honest feeling of mankind —
* Homily the Tenth, part third. A Sermon of Obedience,

TEACT NO. XC. OO
" The Artioles,"he says, " are evidently framed on the principle of leaving
open large questions on which the controversy hinges. They state broadly
extreme truths, and are silent about their adjustment. For instance, they
say that all necessary faith must be proved from Scripture ; but do not say
who is to prove it. They say that the Church has authority in controversies ;
they do not say what authority. They say that it may enforce nothing
beyond Scripture ; but do not say where the remedy lies when it does. They
say that works before grace and justification are worthless and worse, and
that works after grace and justification are acceptable ; but they do not speak
at all of works with God's aid before justification. They say that men are
lawfully called and sent to minister and preach, who are chosen and called
by men who have publio authority given them in the congregation to call and
send ; but they do not add by whom the authority is to be given. They say
that councils called by princes ; they do not determine whether councils oalled
in the name 0/ Christ will err" (p. 84).
Such was the special pleading with which the leader of the
Oxford Movement sought to satisfy his conscience in adopting those
principles, which in later years have been defined by Dr. Pusey in
these words —
" The Council of Trent, whatever its look may be, and our Articles, what
ever their look may be, each could be so explained as to be reconcilable one
with the other."*
It may be doubtful, however, whether Newman was quite
satisfied with the lawfulness of interpreting the Articles in the way
stated in Tract XC, notwithstanding his mode of reasoning adopted
in subsequent years, when he had gone over to the Church of Rome.
E.g., Tract XC. was published in the beginning of 1 841 . In December
of the year following, there appeared in the Oxford Herald a letter
without a signature, but which was generally attributed to Newman
at the time, retracting all "the severe language, which the writer
had previously used towards Rome." It ended in the following
way:— " I am as fully convinced as ever — indeed, I doubt not Eoman Catholios
themselves would confess, that the Anglican_dootrine is the strongest— nay,
the only possible antagonist of their system. If Eome is to he withstood,
it can be done in no other way. Deoember 12, 1843."
The authenticity of this retraction was avowed in the "Adver
tisement " to Newman's Essay on Development,] which was published
* English Church Union Circular, July 1866.
f I am indebted to Cardinal Newman for a copy of his Essay on Develop
ment. Some years ago I applied to him to know how I could obtain a copy
of his work, which I believed had long been out of print ; he replied that

56 DE. PUSEY.
at the time he joined the Churoh of Rome, in October 1845, and was
quoted in the Apologia, p. 335, which appeared twenty years later,
in 1864— 5.
I propose now to insert the opinion of four distinguished men,
representing four different schools of religious thought, who, either
at the time or in subsequent years, have expressed their own
individual opinion, as well as generally the opinion of their
respective schools, on the principles avowed, or supposed to be
avowed, in Tract No. XC.
My first witness shall be Dr. Phillpotts, late Bishop of Exeter,
who will be readily acknowledged as a fitting representative of the
old historic High Church School. His opinion of Tract XC. was
expressed in his Charge of 1 842, the year following its publication,
and repeated twenty-four years later in the republication of his
Letters to Charles Butler, " On the Insuperable Differences which
Separate the Church of England from the Church of Rome." I
quote from that work the following expression of the Bishop's
opinion on Tract No. XC as follows : —
" The tone of the Tract, as it respeots our own Church, is offensive and
indecent ; as it regards the Eeformation and our Eeformers, absurd, as well
as incongruous and unjust. Its principles of interpreting our Articles, I
cannot but deem most unsound ; the reasoning with which it supports its
principles, sophistical ; the averments on which it founds its reasoning, at
variance with recorded facts. , . .
"Does it become a son of our Church — a pious and faithful minister,
as I fully believe him to be — does it become such a man to jeer at the
particular Churoh in whioh God's providence has placed him — to tell her to
' sit still — to work in ohains — to submit to her imperfections as a punishment
— to go on teaching with the stammering lips of ambiguous formularies and
inconsistent precedents, and principles but partially developed ? '
" Or, again, is it consistent, I will not say with decent respect for the
memory of confessors and the blood of martyrs, but with due thankfulness
suoh was the case, but was kind enough to present me with a copy of the
second edition, published in 1846, the year after he had joined the Church
of Eome. Vtfry remarkable are the opening words of the Advertisement
prefixed to the Essay extracted from one of the early numbers of the Tracts
for the Times written by himself eleven years before — ' ' Considering the strong
claims of the Church of Eome on our admiration, reverence, love and grati
tude, how could we refrain from rushing into communion with it, but for the
words of Truth itself," &o. Newman's Essay received many answers by
distinguished Protestant writers. One of the best was that by Professor Aroher
Butler, who hy a singular circumstance had quitted the Churoh of Rome for
that truer branch of Catholicity the Churoh of England.

TRACT NO. XC. 57
to Almighty God, for enabling our forefathers to rescue this Church and
nation from the usurped dominion, the idolatrous worship, the corrupt and
corrupting practices, to whioh they had been so long enthralled— is it, I
ask, consistent with a due sense of that inestimable benefit — is it even in
accordance with the dictates of common sense, to urge as a reason for an
inert and sluggish acquiescence in prevailing corruptions, manifestly
pointing at our own Eeformation ? 
"Practically the most mischievous of the principles set forth in the
Tract is where it is held that ' our Articles were not directed against the
Decrees of Trent, because they were written before these Decrees '  All
this, and much more to the same effect, is manifestly designed to show that
there is nothing in our Articles inconsistent with the letter of the Decrees of
Trent — that those Decrees and the Articles may be held together by the same
person. " This is by far the most daring attempt ever yet made by a minister of
the Church of England to neutralize the distinctive doctrines of our Church,
and to make us symbolize with Eome."*
The late Archbishop of Dublin may be considered as the re
presentative of the Broad School in the best sense of the term.
His opinion of Tract No. XC. is expressed in the following terms : —
" The Eev. John Newman, in that famous Tract No. XC, set such an
example of hair-splitting and wire-drawing, of shuffling equivocation and
dishonest garbling of quotations, as made the English people thoroughly
ashamed that any man calling himself an Englishman, a gentleman, and a
clergyman, should insult their understandings and consciences with suoh
mean sophistry."f
Archbishop Whateley's Cautions for the Times, from which the
above extract is taken, were published in 1853, twelve years after
the publication of Tract No. XC Another twelve years were
allowed to elapse, when Dr. Pusey, who may be regarded as the
true exponent of the principles of the present Ritualistic School,
though I believe he once disclaimed the name of "Ritualist" for
himself, wrote for the second time in defence of Tract No. XC In
his Historical Preface to the republication of Tract XC. in 1865,
Dr. Pusey says that during the few days when the Hebdomadal
Board were considering their condemnation of the said Tract —
" I was myself very busy at the time, writing with what speed I could
my defence of Tract XC." (p. xii).
And in his Eirenicon, published in the same year, Dr. Pusey,
when speaking of Tract XC, says —
« Bishop Phillpotts' Letters to Charles Butler, pp. 317—319.
t Arohhishop Whateley's Cautions for the Times, p. 351.

58 DE. PUSEY.
" Our dear friend's Tract has done good and lasting servioe, by breaking
off a mass of unauthorized traditional glosses which had encrusted over the
Thirty-nine Articles. No blame was attached either to my own vindication
of the principles of Tract XC, or to that of the Eev. W. B. Heathcote. I
vindicated it in my letter to Dr. Jelf as the natural grammatical interpreta
tion of the Articles; Mr. Heathcote, as their only admissible interpretation."*
With such reasoning, one can scarcely wonder that Mr. Ward,
who frankly owned that such a mode of interpreting the Articles
was " non-natural," was condemned by the Convocation of Oxford,
while 554 members of the same Convocation thanked the proctors
for the exercise of their despotic power in refusing to allow the
condemnation of Tract XC to be put to the vote.
" Still," says Dr. Pusey, " the unhappy word ' non-natural ' has stuck to
the whole class of interpretations of the Articles of which Tract XC. was
the distinguished opponent. This appeared at a comparatively late period
in Mr. Maurice's censure of myself, as though ' non-natural,' had been
a term whieh I had myself accepted."]
Although Dr. Pusey might consider himself freed from the
charge of a system of "non-natural " interpretation of the Articles
and formularies of our Church, other men have come to a totally
different conclusion. While I can cordially accept his defence of
Dr. Newman so far as to say that "no one, not even the most
prejudiced, who has read the wonderful self -analysis of his
Apologia, can doubt his full and entire honesty," j I cannot but
think that the opinions of three such men as Bishop Phillpotts,
Archbishop Whateley, and Professor Maurice is a truer representa
tion of what is right and just in the principle of interpreting the
Articles of the Church of England, than Dr. Pusey's very naturally
prejudiced testimony in defence of himself, especially, as I have
already noticed, after his confident avowal that the Articles and the
Decrees of Trent may be so explained as to be held conscientiously
by the same party, since they were in his estimation perfectly
"reconcilable one with the other;" notwithstanding that the one
says, " the body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper,
only after an heavenly and spiritual manner;" while the other
declares, if any one shall say " only after a spiritual manner, he is
to be accursed." If such be Dr. Pusey's reading of the term "non-
natural," we can the more readily understand what Canon Farrar
* Dr. Pusey's Eirenicon, pp. 30, 31.
t Dr. Pusey's Historical Preface, p. xx.
\ Idem, p. xxi.

TRACT NO. XC. 59
publicly stated at the Church Congress of 1877, that Dr. Pusey
ended his controversy with Professor Maurice with these solemn
words — "We do not believe in the same God," and that the
professor readily accepted this tremendous conclusion. This great
gulf between two such controversialists is virtually as applicable to
others, who have no sympathy with the school to which Professor
Maurice belonged, and of which he was so distinguished an
ornament. I have now adduced the testimony of three different parties
representing three different schools of religious thought on the
principles of Tract XC, it only remains to consider how such were
regarded by the Evangelical School, which we may easily know in
consequence of the very careful examination of the said Tract by
the late Dean Goode, as set forth in his able work entitled, Tract
XC. Historically Refuted; or, A Reply to a Work by the Rev. F.
Oakeley, entitled, " The Subject of Tract XC Historically Examined."
The work, which contains upwards of 200 pages, and enters very
minutely into the subject at issue, opens on this wise : —
" In the case of those who, like Dr. Pusey, ignore the existenoe of all
facts, and all evidence that oppose the views they desire to establish, no
collection of proofs adverse to those views will be allowed even consideration.
For in the face of the host of adverse publications issued against Tract XC,
and its utter condemnation by such men as Bishops Coplestone (of Llandaff)
and Phillpotts (of Exeter), Dr. Pusey assures the world that the interpreta
tion of the Articles put forth in it, ' which in the author was blamed, was
vindicated by others without blame ' . . . . and that ' the blame ' attached to
the Tract was occasioned by two circumstances, owing to which Tract XC.
was thought to admit much more than our friend meant.
" Such is the representation given by Dr. Pusey of the controversy roused
by the appearance of Tract XC. And by a large number it will be
accepted at once, without further consideration or inquiry. Dr. Pusey has
said it, and therefore they will think it unnecessary and inconvenient to ask
any questions about it. Now I must say, I cordially agree with the writer
in the Dublin Review, when complaining of similar conduct on the part of
Dr. Pusey towards the Eomanists, ' Let Dr. Pusey answer his opponents,
and we will consider his ansivcr ; but let him not ignore them .... A writer
who so persistently closes his eyes and ears to the opposite side, has surely
no kind of right to engage in controversy'" (No. for Jan. 1866, p. 193).
Dr. Pusey, it must be acknowledged, for some reason or other,
whether for want of time, or old age, or professed unwillingness to
engage in controversy, although in this latter excuse his conduct
seems often to belie his words, has declined to meet, as I have

60 DR. PUSEY.
already shown, either the late Dean Goode, or Dr. Vogan, or Dr.
Harrison, who have one and all written on the subject of the Lord's
Supper; and had Dr. Pusey only half the confidence in his cause,
which every one of those three able writers unquestionably had in
their cause, he would never have allowed their challenge to remain
unanswered ; for prolonged silence, such as Dr. Pusey has maintained
on this subject, can only be interpreted by every faithful and un
prejudiced man as the acknowledgment of virtual defeat.
Dean Goode, at the close of his able pamphlet, which throughout
is a stern condemnation of the lax principles of interpretation
advocated in Tract XC, winds up in the following way : —
" I oannot conclude without remarking how strikingly is seen the value
of our standards of dootrine and worship. True, they have been made to
speak any language which the Tractarians might desire ; and hence those
who oppose subscription to such tests have availed themselves of the fact, as
proving that such documents are like a leaden sword or a nose of wax,
whioh can be turned in any direction  The more the matter is enquired
into, the more will the public mind perceive the disingenuousness and
Jesuitism that have characterized the Traetarian movement. An honest,
straightforward attempt to recommend to public favour the doctrines of the
Church of Eome, however promising it might have been at first, would still
have been more likely to produce a permanent effect than an endeavour to
make the standards of our Protestant Church speak the language of Eomanism ,
To subscribe Protestant Articles of Faith, and take office and emolument in
a Church on the faith of that subscription, while holding Eoman doctrine,
and justify it on the ground that the words of those Articles can be twisted
and tortured so as not to condemn the doctrine which common sense tells
mankind they were intended to condemn, is an act subversive even of the
bonds by which society is held together. And men cannot but feel, that
they who are sapping the very foundations of morality are not likely to he
the best teaohers of religion."
I have now adduced the testimony of the representatives of four
schools of religious thought respecting the principles of Tract XC. ;
and with the exception of Dr. Pusey, I think it must be admitted
that the other three have pronounced very strongly against such
principles, being accepted by any faithful member of the Church of
England.

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTROVERSY. 61

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTROVERSY.
When Lord Redesdale a few years ago called the attention of the
House of Lords to a certain work, entitled, The Priest in Absolution,
part ii., which the Ritualists had put forth in defence of their
practice of "Auricular Confession," it naturally caused a thrill of
horror and disgust throughout the length and breadth of the land.
Nevertheless, Dr. Pusey was so enamoured of this antiscriptural
and uncatholic practice, that he had the temerity to write to the
Daily Express in the following way : —
" Now after a period of forty years, during which no one pretends that
any knowledge of evil has ever been conveyed through the practice (of Auricular
Sacramental Confession), a storm has been raised against it which is too well
timed not to leave some doubt as to the honesty of those who have been
raising it  I speak of the unseen instigators, perhaps I may say of the
unseen Instigator, against whose kingdom confession is directed." ! ! !
As Dr. Pusey here implies that some of those who are opposed to
the practice of the Confessional, are instigated by the Devil, as well as
being dishonest in their opposition, it may be well to give a brief
sketch of the rise of the system in the Church of Christ, and likewise
Dr. Pusey's special action in the matter in reference to the Church
of England. Let me commence by saying that if any one supposes
there is anything in Scripture in favour of the system, or that it is
in any respect a Primitive and Catholic custom, he labours under a
most grievous delusion.
" It is most evident and plain that this Auricular Confession hath not the
warrant of God's word."
Such is the authoritative teaching of the Church of England in her
Homily on Repentance. To this every loyal Churchman and true
Catholic cordially assents, since it is founded on the plain teaching
of Holy Scripture, as it is written —
"If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness '' (1 John i. 9).
Hence the primitive father Clemens Romanus, who is mentioned
by St. Paul as " my fellow-labourer " (Phil. iv. 3), writes to the
faithful at Corinth on this wise : —
" The Lord desires nothing of any man, except that confession be made
to Him " (§ 3).

62 DE. PUSEY.
Scarcely any of the fathers allude to the subject, because
" Auricular Confession " is virtually a mediteval heresy, not heard of
in the Church before the eighth century after Christ. St. Augustine,
three centuries after the time of Clemens Romanus, condemns the
whole system of confession to a fellow-sinner with this pertinent
question —
" What have I to do with men that they should hear my confessions, as if
they could heal all my infirmities— a, race curious to know the lives of others,
but slothful to know their own" (Confessions, lib. x., c. 3).*
So Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, one of the greatest doctors of the
Church in the fifth century, says in his Comment on Psalm LII. —
" David teaches us to confess to none other but the Lord, who hath made
the olive fruitful with the hope of mercy.''
The earliest known instance of secret confession to a priest's ear
occurred in the year a.d. 763, when Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz,
commanded a convent of monks in his diocese to make secret confes
sion twice a year, either to himself or to a priest appointed by him.
"This," says Cardinal Fleury, " is the first time that I find confession
commanded." Itwasnot, however, until the fourth Council of Lateran,
a.d. 1215, that "Auricular Confession" became compulsory in the
Roman Church. Since the thirteenth century confession to a priest's
ear has been declared to be "Sacramental," i.e., necessary before
partaking of the Lord's Supper; and divine pardon only given
to the confessing penitent by the intervention of a priest ; all which is
directly contrary to Scripture and the teaching of the primitive
Church. The result of the introduction of this anti-Catholic system into the
Church, may be best estimated by those who are competent to
speak from experience on the subject. It will be sufficient if we
just lift the veil, by giving the testimony of one Pope and two Roman
priests on this painful subject. In the year a.d. 1557, Pope
Paul TV. published his Bull Against Solicitants, in which this " in
fallible " head of the Roman Church thus speaks of the system as it
was carried out in Spain : —
" Whereas certain ecclesiastics in Spain have broken out into such heinous
acts of iniquity, as to abuse the Sacrament of Penance, in the very act of
* Dr. Pusey says in a note on Tertullian, published in the Library Edition
of the Fathers, " It apears that the fathers, when speaking of opening our
wounds to a physician, do not, as Eomanists seem to think, necessarily mean
a human physician" (Tertullian, Oxford Translation, Note M. p. 388).
A very strange admission for Dr. Pusey to have made !

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTROVEESY. 63
hearing the confessions, by trying to entice and provoke females to immoral
acts at the very time they are making their confessions," &c*
The Rev. William Hogan, in his work entitled Auricular Confession,
says —
" I now declare most solemnly and sincerely, that after living twenty-five
years in full communion with the Eoman Church, and officiating as a Eoman
priest, hearing confessions and confessing myself, I know not another reptile
in all animal nature so filthy, so much to be shunned, and loathed, aud
dreaded by females, both married and single, as a Eoman Catholic priest or
bishop, who practises the degrading and demoralizing office of Aurioular
Confession " (p. 38).
As Priest Hogan' s experience of the Confessional was confined to
Ireland and the United States of America, the next testimony I
adduce shall be that of a Roman priest in England. The Rev.
Pierce Connelly was originally Rector of Trinity Natchez, in the
Protestant Episcopal Church of America, and becoming enamoured
with Dr. Pusey's teaching came over to this country, and very soon
joined the Church of Rome. And this is his testimony ofthe results
of the Confessional, as being practised in England in the present day.
" I have had experience in the Confessional from princes downward and
out of it, such as perhaps has fallen to the lot of no other living man ; and
my solemn conviction is that a celibate priesthood, organized like that of
Eome, is1 in irreconcilable hostility with all great human interests ... I have
seen clerical inviolability made to mean nothing more than license and
impunity. I have read to the simple-minded Cardinal-Prefect of the
Propaganda a narrative, written to a pious lay friend by a respected Eoman
priest, of such enormities of lust in his fellow-priests around him, that the
reading of them took away my breath — to be answered ' Caro mio, I know
it, I know it all and more, and worse than all ; but nothing can be done.'
.... I have been forced to let pass, without even ecclesiastical rebuke, a
priest's attempt upon the chastity of my own wife, the mother of my
children, and to find instead, only sure means taken to prevent the com
munication to me of any similar attempt in future."!
* The state of things in Spain then as now in consequence ofthe Confessional,
reminds one of what the late devoted Eoman Catholic Count Montalembert
wrote in his Avenir de V Angleterre, that "England is great in spite of her
Protestantism ; Spain is low although she is Catholic." The true primitive
Catholic would read this sentence rather as follows : "England is great because
of her Protestantism ; Spain is low because she is Eoman Catholic."
t A Letter lo the Earl of Shrewsbury, by Pierce Conelly, A.M., late the
Earl of Shrewsbury's Domestic Chaplain at Alton Towers ; 13th edition,
pp. 17, 21.

64

DR. PTJSEY.

Such is the testimony of conscientious Roman priests to the
evils resulting from the setting up of the Confessional, which Dr.
Pusey and his party have made such unceasing efforts to continue
and to retain in the Reformed and Protestant Church of England ;
notwithstanding that it brought such disgrace and infamy on the
unreformed Church of England in the fifteenth century, before the
work of the Reformation had begun to have any effect upon the
teaching as well as the morals of both clergy and laity in our
native land.
This is strikingly set forth in the picture of the condition
of St. Alban's Abbey by Cardinal Morton, Archbishop of Canter
bury, and Legate of the Pope during the reign of Henry VII.
In the year 1489, Innocent VIIL having heard of the corrupt
state of the religious houses in England, issued a commission to
Cardinal Morton to enquire into the same ; and the following brief
extract from the cardinal's report will sufficiently show the
abounding immorality which then prevailed in those places : —
" It has eome to our ears, being at once publicly notorious and brought
before us upon the testimony of many witnesses worthy of credit, that you
William, Abbot of the Monastery of St. Alban's, have been of long time
noted and defamed of simony, usury, &c, and certain other enormous
crimes hereafter written. .. .You and certain of your fellow-monks and
brethren have relaxed the measure and form of religious life, and not a few
of your brethren, as we most deeply grieve to learn, do lead only a life of
lasciviousness — nay, horrible to relate, you are not afraid to defile the holy
places, even the very churches of God, by infamous intercourse with nuns,
&c, &c  Moreover, divers other of your brethren of the Abbey live with
harlots and mistresses publicly and continuously, within the precincts of
the monastery and without. Some have stolen the chalices and other jewels
of the Church, and you have not punished these men, but have knowingly
supported and maintained them."*
Such was the state of the monasteries in England before the
Reformation. Can we wonder that the Reformation of the
following century swept away those dens of vice? or that when
the report of the visitors of the abbeys was read in the House of
Commons, there rose from all sides an universal shout, " Down with
them ! Down with them to the ground ! " Notwithstanding, however,
the overwhelming evidence of the far greater immorality of those
cities where the Confessional is the rule over others where it is not
* Short Studies in Great Subjects, by J. A. Froude— Article, The
Dissolution of the Monasteries, pp, 272 — 4.

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTROVERSY.

65

the rule,* Dr. Pusey left no stone unturned during his lifetime to
introduce this baneful system into our Protestant Church, in con
junction with the late Rev. John Keble, who, when writing " On
tbe evils resulting from the disuse of confession in the English
Church," observes : —
" We go on working in the dark, and in the dark it will be until real and
systematic confession is revived in our Church,"]
In the year 1850, when Dr. Pusey had been some years engaged
in receiving the confessions of penitents in various parts of England,
without any ecclesiastical authority for so doing, and in granting
absolutions as a consequence of such confessions, three clergymen
of his own school, viz., Messrs. Allies, Dodsworth, and Maskell,
addressed a joint letter to him, expressing their doubts as to the
validity of absolutions pronounced by a priest on those "over
whom he has not ordinary or delegated jurisdiction," and
" earnestly desiring an elucidation of this matter."
The appeal of these three clergymen appears to have been
considered as an improper interference, to which Dr. Pusey would
make no reply, until remonstrated with by Mr. Dodsworth, who
reproached him in the following way : —
" In conclusion, I must add one word on the grief and surprise it has
occasioned me, and many others beside me, that you should have taken this
line in our present difficulties. Both by precept and example you have
been amongst the most earnest to maintain Catholic principles. By your
* The Eev. Hobart Seymour gives as regards illegitimate births in the
principal cities of England and the Continent the following results : —
In Protestant —
London .... 4 per cent.
Plymouth ... 5
Liverpool ... 6
Brighton ... 7
Cheltenham . . 7
Exeter .... 8
Mr. Seymour observes : ' ' These figures are all taken from the official returns
of the several governments. They were obtained by myself during tours
made through those countries in 1852 and in 1853, and are still in my
possession. They were published by me at the time in extenso, and are now
repeated here to show that the Confessional is not the very effective
preventive and deterrent from crime which its advocates contend" (Seymour
on The Confessional, pp. 156, 172; edit. 1870).
t Letters of Spiritual Counsel, &c, by the late Eev. J. Keble, Letter
xix., p. 39. F

In Eoman Catholic —

Florence . . .

20 per cent

Paris ....

33 „

Brussels . .

35 „

Munich . . .

48 „

Vienna . . .

51 „

Gratz ....

65 ,,

66 DR. PUSEY.
constant and common practice of administering the Sacrament of Penance ;
by encouraging every where, if not enjoining, Auricular Confession, and
giving special priestly absolution ; by your introduction of Roman Catholic
books, &c, you have done much to revive amongst us the system whioh
may be pre-eminently called ' sacramental.' And yet now, when by God's
mercy to us a great opportunity has occurred of asserting and enforcing the
very keystone of the system, and apart from which the whole must crumble
away, you seem to shrink," &c.*
Dr. Pusey abstained from noticing the appeal of the three
clergymen who had addressed him, and who all subsequently joined
the Church of Rome ; but he wrote an elaborate pamphlet to the Rev.
Upton Richards in defence of himself, which drew forth from Mr.
Maskell a reply from which I make the following extract : —
" In page 6 of your letter to Mr. Eichards, you blame Mr. Dodsworth
for having said in his published letter to you that you have ' enjoined '
Auricular Confession, and you say that you could not enjoin it. Suffer me
to say that Mr. Dodsworth's use of the word was just and reasonable. He
does not use it simply without limitation ; he says that you have ' encouraged,
if not enjoined,' Auricular Confession ; but it is evident that in the sense
of compulsion, he knew, as well as yourself, you could not possibly enjoin
Auricular Confession. And he knew also, as I know, that to say merely
that you have encouraged it, would fall as far short of what your actual
practice is, as the word enjoin in the sense of compelling would exceed it.
He knew that you had done more than encourage confession in very many
cases ; that you have warned people of the danger of deferring it, have
insisted on it as the only remedy, have pointed out the inevitable dangers of
the neglect of it, and have promised the highest blessings in the observance,
until you had brought penitents in fear and trembling upon their knees
before you.
"There are some other parts of your letter to Mr. Eichards, which have
somewhat more than startled me. I have almost begun to doubt the accuracy
of my memory, or that I could ever have understood the commonest rules of
plain speaking upon very solemn mysteries and duties of the Christian faith.
I mean such passages as these — ' We are not to obtrude, nor to offer our
services, nor to cause confusion by intruding into the ministry of others. . .
In like manner, when residing elsewhere ; ' from which, of course, no one
would suppose that you go from home into other dioceses for the express
purpose of receiving Auricular Confession ....' when any came to me I
ministered to them. But not having a parochial cure, I have not led others
to confession.' .... Far be it from me to say you do not believe every word
of these sentences to be strictly and verbally true ; what I do say is, that so
far as I have known it, they do not in any adequate or real way represent
your practice ... .The Bishop of Exeter would repudiate with horror the
* Dodsworth's Letter to Dr. Pusey, p. 17.

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTROVERSY. 67
system of particular and detailed inquiry into every circumstance of sin,
which, in correct imitation of Roman Catholic rules, you do not fail to
press  What, then, do you conceive that the Bishop of Exeter would say
of persons secretly received against the known will of their parents, or
confession heard in the houses of common friends, or of clandestine corres
pondence to arrange meetings under initials, or in envelopes addressed to other
persons ? and more than this, when such confessions are recommended and
urged as a part of the spiritual life, and among religious duties ; not in order
to quiet the conscience before receiving the communion. I know how heavily
the enforced mystery and secret correspondence regarding confession in your
communion has weighed down the minds of many to whom you have
' ministered ; ' I know how bitterly it has eaten, even as a canker, into their
very souls ; I know how utterly the specious arguments which you have
urged have failed to remove their burning sense of shame and deceitfulness." *
With most men such an exposure as this on the subject of
Auricular Confession, which is so alien to the feelings of Englishmen,
would have completely overwhelmed them. It does not, however,
seem to have affected Dr. Pusey in the least. Seventeen years
afterwards, we find him uniting with Dr. Lee, of All Saints',
Lambeth, in introducing to the world a series of Essays on the
Reunion of Clwistendom, by members of the Greek, Roman, and
English Churches, in which one of the essayists treats the subject
of secret confession to a priest in a way which, if it meets the
approval of Dr. Pusey, has given a shock to every loyal member of
the Church of England, and reflected no small amount of disgrace
on the Romanizing party within our borders, who look up to
Dr. Pusey as their leader and their guide. The essayist writes as
follows : —
" The marvel is, that Eoman Catholics, whatever their views may be, do
?Maskell's Letter to Dr. Pusey, pp. 17—21; 1850. When Bishop
Wilberforce privately "restrained Dr. Pusey from all public ministration"
in the diocese, except at Pusey in Berks, believing there that his ministration
would be innocent, the Bishop wrote to him, in spite of all Dr. Pusey's
denials, to say that " the fact remains : you seem to me habitually
assuming the place and doing the work of a Eoman confessor, and not that
of an English clergyman." And in writing to Mr. Keble, Bishop
Wilberforce says that Dr Pusey allows — " (1.) That he thinks a parent's
control in such matters (of the confessional) very limited. (2.) That he has
advised concealment on such subjects when he was sure that speaking would
only give pain to the parents." Could any thing be more lamentable than
such conduct ? Would not any Christian have acted in accordance with the
advice of the apostle John (2 Epistle ver. 10), in turning Dr. Pusev at once
out of his house, on the first detection of such evil deeds ?
f 2

68 DR. PUSEY.
not see the wisdom of aiding us to the utmost. Admitting that we are
but a lay body, with no pretensions to the name of a Church, we yet in our
belief (however mistaken) that we are one, are doing for England that
which they cannot do  We are teaching men to endure willingly the pain
of confession, which is an intense trial to the reserved Anglo-Saxon nature,
and to believe that a man's ' I absolve thee,' is the voice of God. How
many English Protestants have Eoman priests brought to confession,
compared with the Anglican clergy? Could they have overcome the
English dislike to ' mummery ' as we are overcoming it ? On any hypo
thesis, we are doing their work." *
I am enabled to adduce the testimony of one well-qualified to
express an opinion on the subject of the Confessional in connexion
with Dr. Pusey himself, and his judgment is decidedly adverse to
that of his quondam patron. Many years ago, Dr. Pusey built a
church at Leeds, which was the cause of much trouble to the late
Archbishop Longley, at that time Bishop of Ripon, in whose diocese
Leeds was situated. The first two clergymen appointed by Dr.
Pusey to the Church of St. Saviour's, Leeds, proved unfaithful.
They both joined the Church of Rome. Then Dr. Pusey appointed
Mr. Knott, a Fellow of Brasenose, who during his incumbency at
St. Saviour's became a convert to the " truth as it is in Jesus,"
under the faithful preaching of Mr. Aitkeen, of Pendeen, the father
of the Rev. W. A. Aitkeen, the devoted home missionary at this
present time. Mr. Knott offered to resign his incumbency, feeling
how different his views then were to what they previously had been
when he received the appointment. Dr. Pusey honourably refused
to accept the resignation, and for a time Mr. Knott continued at
St. Saviour's ; but the Romanizing part of the congregation were
so offended at his changed views, that in course of time they
contrived to starve him out ; and Mr. Knott gladly transferred his
labours to another portion of his Master's vineyard, until on the
death of his parents he was enabled to fulfil the long desire of his
heart by going out as a missionary to India. After some years'
service in the employment of that most honoured institution of the
Church of England, the Church Missionary Society, he fell asleep in
the house of his fellow-labourer, the Rev. Mr. Hughes, the author of
a valuable work on " Mohammedanism," to whom he expressed his
candid opinion of the work of the Confessional, as gathered from
his experience when at St. Saviour's, Leeds. He related to him
that when he was incumbent of that church, he was —
* Essays on the Reunion of Christendom, edited hy Dr. F. G. Lee ; with
an Introductory Essay, by Dr. Pusey j p. 180 ; 1867.

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTROVERSY. 69
" Constantly oocupied and wearied with hearing confessions daily, and
that he had formed this decided opinion from the experience he then
obtained — that no one who goes to confession ever confesses his mastee sin,
but invariably keeps that one back, whilst ready and anxious to oonfess
many other sins ! "
Such is the great difference between the system of confessing
sins to God alone after the custom of the primitive and Catholic
Church, and the Roman system, which Dr. Pusey and others have
done so much to foster and encourage amongst Protestants in our
Reformed Chureh of England. That Dr. Pusey has no warrant for
asserting that the Confessional has any place in our Reformed
Church, is plain from the following facts. At the commencement
of the Reformation in England the Six Articles which Henry VIII.
endeavoured to force upon the Church, retained Auricular Con
fession; but these were happily repealed on the accession of
Edward VI.
The first Reformed Prayer Book of that reign, put forth by
authority in 1549, recommended that—
" Any whose conscience is troubled (might be allowed) to confess his sin
secretly, that he may receive comfort and absolution of us, as of the
ministers of God and of the Church." While those who were satisfied with
a general oonfession were "not to be offended with them that do use the
aurioular and secret oonfession to the priest." *
In the second Prayer Book of 1552, a further return to primitive
and Catholic usage was made by the omission of the word
" secretly ; " and the objectionable phrase of " auricular and secret
confession to the priest " was left out ; while the expression "that of
us as the ministers of God and His Church," was exchanged for
the more Scriptural and primitive term of " by the ministry of God's
xoord he may receive comfort and the benefit of absolution." f In all
the subsequent changes of 1563, 1571, and 1662 made in the Book
of Common Prayer, there is not the slightest sign that the revisers
ever thought of returning to the uncatholie and antichristian
system of "Auricular Sacramental Confession." In the only
instance where our Church in any wise recognises what Dr. Pusey
and his party have perverted to their own unauthorized purposes,
the change has been for the better, i.e., in a Protestant sense, as
contrasted with the Roman interpretation of confession. The
rubric respecting the form of absolution, originally designed for merely
* The Two Liturgies, a.d.'1549 and a.d. 1552,p. 4, Parker Society's Edition,
t Ibid., p. 274.

70

DE. PUSEY.

Church censures, and so retained in our service for the visitation of
the sick, has been altered since the beginning of the Reformation
thus: "The sick person shall be moved to make a special con
fession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled, &c, after
which the priest shall absolve him if he heartily desire it after this
sort." The final word in this rubric, which in the first Book of
Edward VI., a.d. 1549, was "form," in the second Book of 1552
was very properly exchanged for the word " sort," as it has since
stood; thereby enabling the faithful minister of Christ to avoid
using the exact form, which is often misunderstood and misapplied,
and to use one more in accordance with Holy Scripture, if he think
fit, as our Church wisely permits him to do.
We do well to note the immense difference between the teaching of
the first and second Prayer Books of Edward's reign on the doctrine
of Auricular Confession. The wording of the one is that "absolution"
is to be obtained " of us as the ministers of God," after "auricular
and secret confession to the priest ; " and of the other, which is the
only form of authority still in use in our Reformed Chureh, " by
the ministry of God's holy word," without the antiscriptural and
uncatholic practice of auricular and secret confession to a sinful
man. It displays the wide gulf between the teaching of the
Churches of England and Rome, as also between the Evangelical
and Ritualistic parties in the present day. The power of absolution,
according to the rule of our Reformed Church, is to be exercised,
as the late Bishop Phillpotts well says —
"Not by the judicial sentence of the priest, after a process carried on by
his tribunal, as your (the Eoman) Church insists, but ' by the ministry of
God's Holy Word,' or an authoritative declaration of God's general
promises applied in favour of that particular penitent, if he indeed be
penitent." *
Dr. Pusey, in opposition to this view, asserts in his letter to
the Times of Nov. 29th, 1866, when speaking of the absolution
alleged to be contained in the Ordination Service of our Prayer
Book— " So long as these words of our Lord, ' whose sins thou dost forgive they
are forgiven,' are repeated to us when we are ordained, so long will there be
confession in the Church of England."
It is remarkable that neither Dr Pusey nor any of his party are
able to see that the form or " sort " of absolution sanctioned by the
Church of England, refers exclusively to Church censures, and not to the
* Letters to Charles Butler, &c, p. 107 ; edit. 1866.

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTEOVERSY. 71
pardon of sins, whieh God alone can bestow, as is proved by the fact,
that directly after the minister of Christ has used this " sort " of
absolution over any dying penitent who may desire it, he next
proceeds to pray God to " open Thy eye of mercy upon this Thy
servant, who most earnestly desireth pardon and forgiveness ....
impute not unto him his former sins," fyc, which would be unnecessary
if the sick man's sins had been already pardoned.
The fatal error of the Church of Rome on the subject of absolu
tion, as well as of her ministers in the Church of England, is in
their grievous misinterpretation of John xx. 23, " Whose soever
sins ye remit," &c. Such passages as Matt, xviii. 21, "How often
shall my brother sin against me ? " and St. Paul's use of the term
in 1 Cor. viii. 12, "When ye so sin against the brethren,"
show that Christ and the apostle are not referring to sins against
God, but against man, against our brethren. Forgiveness of sins
belongs exclusively to God, as Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, so
pointedly expresses the teaching of the Church Catholic, when he
says in his Commentary on Matt. viii. —
" No one can forgive sins but God alone ; and therefore He who absolves
is God, because no one can absolve but God."
Hence, as one of the most distinguished of our modern com
mentators well remarks —
" God only can forgive sins, and Christ being God has a power to do so
likewise ; but He never communicated any such power to His apostles ; nor
did they ever assume any such power to themselves, or pretend to exercise
it; it is the mark of Antichrist to attempt anything of the kind; who in
so doing usurps the divine prerogative, places himself in his seat, and shows
himself as if he was God : hut this is to be understood only in a doctrinal or
ministerial way, by preaching the full and free remission of sins, through
the blood of Christ." *
Binding and loosing were terms in frequent use among the Jews,
and that they meant nothing more than bidding and forbidding,
declaring laioful or unlawful, &c, has been amply proved by the
learned Dr. Lightfoot, who, after giving numerous instances, con-
eludes thus : —
" To these may be added, if need were, the frequent use of the phrases,
bound and loosed, whioh we meet with thousands of times over. But from
these allegations, the reader sees abundantly enough the frequency and the
common use of this phrase, and the sense of it also ; namely, first, that it is
used in doctrine and in judgments, concerning things allowed or not allowed
* Gill's Commentary on St, John xx, 23.

72

DR. PUSEY.

in the law. Secondly, that to bind is the same with to forbid, or to declare
forbidden. To think that Christ, when He used the common phrase, was
not understood by His hearers in the common and vulgar sense, shall I call
it a matter of laughter or madness f ....
" Those words of our Saviour, John xx. 23, ' Whose soever sins ye remit,
they are remitted unto them,' for the most part are forced to the same sense
with these before us ; when they carry quite another sense. Here (Matt.
xvi. 19) the business is of doctrine only, not of persons ; there (John xx.
23) of persons, not of doctrine ; here of things lawful or unlawful in
religion to be determined by the apostles ; there of persons obstinate or not
obstinate, to be punished by them, or not to be punished." *
Such is the interpretation which two of the most distinguished
Hebraists of modem times, Drs. Lightfoot and Gill, have placed
upon those passages of Holy Scripture, which the Church of Rome
and Dr. Pusey have so grievously perverted in the interests of
priestcraft, in order to make it appear as if God in the person of
His only begotten Son had ever committed to sinful man the power
which alone belongs to Him. The accusation which the Jews
repeatedly brought against Christ was the sin of blasphemy, for
assuming a power which belonged exclusively to God ; and had
He not been God as well as man their accusation would have been
just and true. Those who claim the power of forgiving sin are
guilty of the same sin of blasphemy as the Jews were of old, only in
a more intensified form : first, as living under the higher light of
the Gospel dispensation; and secondly, as attributing such power
to sinful man — as the Church of Rome has done since the 13th
century, and as its imitators amongst ourselves are doing in the
present day. I adduce the testimony of two clergymen of the
Church of England, who have in our own day proved themselves
guilty, if they are to be judged "by their words," of this tremendous
sin. The late Rev. W. Gresley, in his Ordinance of Confession,
distinctly declares that —
" The giving absolution is dependent on the judgment of the priest. He
has power to retain as well as to remit sins — to give absolution or refuse it.
Awful thought ! he is to act in God's stead, whose ambassador he is "
(p. 96).
A young and unknown clergyman of the name of Shute, during a
Mission held at Ringmore in 1876, is reported to have declared in
his sermons on that occasion that —
"Whenever a poor penitent comes to me and confesses his sin, I believe
* Dr. Lightfoot's Hora Hebraica et Talmudica?, vol. xi., 229, 230,

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTROVERSY. 73
that when I absolve him, he rises as pure and as white as snow, as if our
blessed Lord had uttered the absolution Himself."
Such are some of the terrible heresies in the present day taught
by clergymen of the Church of England, in imitation of the Church
of Rome. Had they the faintest idea of the true Catholic doctrine
on the subject, they would know that in all the early Liturgical
forms of worship throughout Christendom, the words "whose
soever sins ye remit " are applied to the forgiveness extended by
the Church or congregation to the offended brother who had
publicly confessed his sins, and was sorry for them. They forgave
him his sins among themselves, and received him again to the
Communion ; and then they prayed to God, pleading this very
promise, that He would in heaven remit the sin that was repeated
and confessed.
Archdeacon Richel, in his exhaustive work, Shall we Alter the
Ordinal? shows that the Confessional, as it now exists in the
Church of Rome, and as it is now attempted in our Reformed
Church of England, is radically different from the discipline —
comprising confession and absolution — of the primitive Church,
And that the words on which Dr. Pusey relies so much in order to
support his cause, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost," &c, were not
introduced into the Ordination Service before the 13th century, as
Morinus, one of the most learned Liturgical writers which the
Church of Rome has produced, admits —
" That the rite," so far as it relates to conferring suoh supernatural
powers as Dr Pusey claims for it, " whether as to matter, or form, or
details, was unknown in the Church of God for 1200 years " (De Ordinat,
p. 3).
This will explain the teaching of the primitive Church on the
dootrine of absolution, wliich may be expressed in the words of
the following fathers. I have already adduced the testimony of
Clement of Rome, as to the uselessness of confessing sins to any but
God. So his namesake of Alexandria, who followed him within
half a century, taught —
" He alone can remit sins who died for our sins " (Paedag., lib. i., c. 8).
Irenseus, Bishop of Lyons in the second century, wrote —
" If none can forgive sins but God alone, and our Lord forgave them, and
cured men, it is manifest that He was the Word of God " (Adv. Hcer., lib,
v. 17, § 3).
Tertullian, his contemporary, said —
" When the Jews, perceiving only the humanity of Christ, and not

74

DR. PUSEY.

knowing His Deity, naturally reasoned that none could forgive sins hut
God only" (Adv. Marc., lib. ii., c. 10).
I have before quoted Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, to the same
effect ; with whom agrees Athanasius, when he wrote —
" If Christ the Word were a mere creature, how was He able to forgive
sins ?" (Orat. 3 Contr. Arian.)
Augustine, in his 38th Homily, well said that—
" The Lord was to give unto men the Holy Ghost, hy which he meant, that
through the Holy Ghost Himself sins should be forgiven to men, and not
hy any human merits."
To wind up with the opinion of Chrysostom of Constantinople,
in the fifth century, who taught —
" No one can absolve from sin but God alone " ( Com. in 2 Cor. iii. ; Horn. 6),
Such was the teaching of the primitive writers and doctors during
the earliest and best periods of the Christian Chureh, and for any
one to pretend to say that Auricular Confession and Priestly Ab
solution are in harmony with the spirit of the Gospel, and the
teaching of Christ and His apostles, betrays such an ignorance of
the very elements of Christianity, as well as of the practice of the
true Catholic Church, that to sound orthodox minds it requires only
to be clearly stated in order to be instinctively rejected.
Let us for a moment see the heretical teaching of the Church of
Rome on this subject, and contrast it with the catholic teaching of
the early fathers as quoted above. The Church of Rome asserts —
" Whosoever shall affirm that the priest's sacramental absolution is not a
judicial act, but only a ministry to pronounce and declare that the sins of
the party confessing are forgiven ... let him be accursed." *
" The yoioe of the priest, legitimately pardoning our sins, is to be heard
even as of Christ the Lord, who said to the paralytic, ' Son, be of good
cheer : thy sins are forgiven thee.' . . . The absolution pronounced in the
words of the priest signifies the remission of sins, which it accomplished in
the soul. . . . Unlike the authority given to the priests of the old law,
merely to declare the leper cleansed from his leprosy, the power of the
Church is not simply to deolare a person absolved from his sins, hut, as the
ministers of God, they really absolve." ]
What a contrast does the teaching of the Reformed Church of
England present to that of the Church of Rome. Thus Cranmer,
after our Church had rejected the Roman usurpation, which had
* Council of Trent, Sess. xiv. 9.
f Catechism ofthe Council of Trent, c. v., 2, 10, 11, 16,

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTROVERSY. 75
been so great an incubus upon the spiritual life of England for
oenturies, thus discusses the question —
" Is a man hound by authority of this Soripture ' Whose soever sins ye
remit,' to confess his secret deadly sins to a priest, although he may have
him or no ?
"A man is not hound hy this Scripture to confess his sins to a priest,
although he may have him.
"T. Cantuarien. This is mine opinion and sentence at present" (Dec.
1540).* I am aware that Dr. Pusey, in his reprint of Abbe Gaume's
Manual for Confessors, to which I shall allude presently, endeavours,
at p. xxxi. of the Preface, to show that Cranmer held the Tridentine
or Roman view of the doctrine of Confession and Absolution ; but
Dr. Pusey has omitted to state that Cranmer's paper on the subject
to which he alludes was written in the year 1538, at which time
the Roman Mass remained intact. Many years later Cranmer,
referring to the errors which he once held in his Answer against the
False Calumniations of Dr. R. Smith, written five years before his
martyrdom in 1556, says —
" This I confess to myself, that not long before I wrote the said Catechism,
I was in that error of the Real Presence, as I was many years past in divers
other errors, Sfc. . . . being brought up from youth in them, and nousled
therein for laok of good instruction from my youth, tke outrageous floods of
Papistical errors at that time overflowing the toorld."] -
Archdeacon Denison has committed the same mistake with regard
to Cranmer which Dr. Pusey has done. In a sermon preached at
Wells Cathedral in 1873, when advocating Auricular Confession,
he endeavoured to justify the practice on the authority of Cranmer,
trusting to a pamphlet by the Rev. C. N. Gray in support of his
contention. But it proved on examination that Mr. Gray's quota
tions were thoroughly untrustworthy, and that the archdeacon was
leaning on a broken reed. Moreover, the archdeacon committed
some surprising mistakes in that sermon, when he asserted that —
"The Church encourages, directs, requires that a man go to spriest,
' open his grief,' and ask to receive the benefit of absolution."
Now there are three mistakes in this short sentence, whereby
Archdeacon Denison seeks to impose his theory of sacramental
* Questions and Answers concerning the Sacraments, 8fc, which work is
proved to have been written between September 17 and December 29, 1540.
Cranmer's Works, Parker Society, p. 117.
+ Cranmer's Disputations Relative to the Lord's Supper, p. 374 ; Parker
Society.

76 DR. PUSEY.
confession on those who are willing to receive it. The Church of
England does not "require," but only permits a person who can
not otherwise quiet his conscience, to " open his grief," not " to a
priest," but to a " minister" of God's word; and so far from
"asking to receive the benefit of absolution," our Church says
nothing whatever about " asking," but says, without asking, the
penitent may "receive the benefit of absolution ly the ministry of God's
Holy word." In short, Archdeacon Denison's mode of arguing this
question may remind us of a well-known anecdote once current in
Paris of the French Academy having sent a copy of a work on
Natural History to M. Dupin, in which the crab was defined as " a
red fish which walks backwards." "Gentlemen," was the reply which
the astonished academicians received, "your definition would be
admirable, but for the circumstance that the crab is not a fish, its
colour is not red, and it does not walk backwards ! "
We have already seen that the practice of "Auricular Con
fession" has no pretensions whatever to the name of "Catholic,"
since it falls under the just condemnation of Tertullian —
" That which was first is true ; but that which came after is false "
(Prces. v. Hcer. c. 31).
And that when the Church of England returned to the Catholic
faith at the time of the Reformation, she pointedly excluded the
practice of confession from any place in her communion. One of
the earliest and most eminent of her noble band of martyrs, William
Tyndal, whose " epitaph is the Reformation," as the historian
Froude justly remarks, thus speaks of Auricular Confession, whieh
was the authorized practice in his day before he was burnt,
a.d. 1536—
" Confession in the ear (Auricular) is verily a work of Satan, and that
the falsest that ever was wrought, and that most has devoured the faith."
But Dr. Pusey, in his letters to the Daily Express of 1877,
declared that —
" No one pretends that any knowledge of evil has been conveyed through
the practice of Auricular Confession."
Let any one who is conversant with the subject say whioh is
most right? The martyr Tyndal of three centuries ago, or Dr.
Pusey's opinion in the present day. I have already adduced the
testimony of several Roman priests on the deleterious effects of the
Confessional, of which they must necessarily be most unexcep
tionable witnesses. I now would add to it the testimony of a few
of our bishops and others as to its effects on members ofthe Church

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTROVERSY. 77
of England at the present time. In the debate in Convocation of
May 9th, 1873, as reported in the Guardian, on the petition of 480
" priests " to the bishops, to establish an order of " Licensed
Confessors " in the Church of England, the late Bishop Wilber
force stated he had found —
" Some young men in his diocese teaching a great error, viz., that no man
can lead the highest Christian life, unless he is in the habitual practice of
confession. This he considered a most mischievous doctrine, one entirely
alien to the whole spirit ofthe Church of England."
The present Bishop of Winchester (Harold Browne) said on the
same occasion —
" I am sorry to say I have been cognisant personally of two or three most
grievous results that I can only allude to in a general form, through young
women having chosen young men by their own free choice as their con
fessors." The late Bishop Blomfield of London very truly declared in his
Charge of 1842, that—
" Auricular Confession was utterly unknown to the primitive Church,
one of the most fearful abuses of that of Eome, and the source of unspeakable
abominations." The present Bishop of Salisbury considers the Confessional to be
"unholy, illegal, and full of mischief;" while Bishop Magee of
Peterborough declares it to be —
"Impossible, when taking God's place without God's attributes, for the
confessor, however prudent he may be, to avoid instilling vice by the
Confessional." Thus much in reply to the marvellous hallucination under which
Dr. Pusey was labouring, when he affirmed, " No one pretends that
any knowledge of evil has ever been conveyed through the practice
of confession." And in reply to Dr. Pusey's insinuation in his
letters to the Daily Express thus worded —
" The wickedness of the adversary (Satan) consists in this, that he has
insinuated that questions of this (objectionable) sort would be asked of the
modest wives and daughters of our English homes ; "—
we are compelled to quote the evidence obtained by the Bishop
of London's legal adviser, in consequence of some serious charges
brought against one of the curates of St. Barnabas, and who was
very properly dismissed from the post he had disgraced. At a public
meeting held in St. James's Hall, June 11th, 1854, the Hon. and
Rev. F. Baring adduced some of this evidence, which reads as
follows"—

78 DR. PUSEY.
" Mary M. testified : I am thirty-nine years of age, have been married
seventeen years, have lived for the last twenty years in the district of St, Bar
nabas. Miss Jones, one of the lady visitors, called upon me about six years
since, and begged me to go to Mr. Poole, to make open confession. I went
several times to Mr. Poole, who took me into the sacristy. He examined me
almost entirely upon the seventh commandment. His questions were most
indecent, and informs that I could not answer. I should not like to repeat
them to you. I never went afterwards to confess, and refused to go several
times. One of my daughters went continually to confess. She afterwards
became a Eoman Catholic, and states that the two confessions are just the
same ; and the prayer for confession, as given to me by Miss Jones, is the
same as the one used in the Church of Rome."
Dr. Pusey wrote to me some years ago, to say that Bishop,
Blomfield, when describing Auricular Confession as "the source of
unspeakable abominations," was referring exclusively to the Roman
Church, implying that the system which he sanctioned was altogether
different ; but the evidence already adduced contradicts this assertion
of Dr. Pusey ; and a leading Roman Catholic journal once remarked —
"The mode of making and receiving a confession is substantially
identical with ours ; the same questions are asked, the same penances given,
and it appears to us somewhat dishonest to pretend that it is otherwise." *
If any one has ever read a work entitled, Personal Experience of
Roman Catholicism, by Mrs. Richardson, published in London, 1865 ;
or a more recent one entitled, Confession and its Consequences : a Few
Words of Warning addressed to the Mothers, Fathers, and Husbands of
Great Britain ; by a Wife and Mother — he will stand aghast at Dr.
Pusey's surprising hardihood in declaring that no evil results have
ever followed from the Confessional. How affecting is the testimony
of the Rev. Pere Chiniquy, for some years a Roman Catholic in
Canada, on this painful subject —
" More than once I have seen women fainting in the Confessional box, who
told me afterwards, that the necessity of speaking to an unmarried man on
certain things, on which the most common laws of decency ought to have
for ever sealed their lips, had almost killed them ! Not hundreds, but
thousands of times, I have heard from the dying lips of single girls, as well
as of married women, the awful words, ' I am for ever lost .' All my past
confessions and communions have been as many sacrileges ! I have never
dared to answer correctly the questions of my confessors, shame has sealed
my lips and damned my soul.' " |

* Quoted in Dr. Maurice's Letter to Dr.Macbride on Oxford Popery, p.102.
+ The Priest, the Woman, and the Confessional, by Pdre Chiniquy, p. 3 ;
London, 1874.

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTROVERSY. 79
This last sentence, which I have italicised, confirms the testimony
of Dr. Pusey's nominee, the Rev. Mr. Knott, when a confessing
priest at St. Saviour's, Leeds, that " no one who goes to confession ever
confesses his master stn." And although it is sometimes pretended
that there is a distinction between the Confessional in the English
Church and the Roman Church, we have already seen by the
evidence adduced, and much more might be said of the same sort,
that the system as practised by Ritualists and Romanists alike, is
virtually the same in all respects. I am aware that Dr. Pusey
wrote nearly thirty years ago —
" It is very Bad that English people should be thus worked upon through
their tenderest and purest feelings, and their domestic affections, to a sort
of madness about a mere delusion. It is, as you know, a mere dream, that
any father, mother, husband, wife or child, would be pained by any
question we put in confession, apart from the pain that sins have been
committed." *
The above extract is from a letter addressed by Dr. Pusey to Mr.
Prynne of Plymouth, who was virtually tried by the Bishop of
Exeter (at which trial the author happened to be present) for the
questions which he was in the habit of putting to young girls, when
preparing them for confirmation. The published correspondence
between Dr. Pusey and the Rev. Mr. Fortescue shows the grounds
on which Dr. Pusey justifies the whole system of Confession, which
he and his friends have introduced with such fatal effect into our
Reformed Church.
In letter No. 1, which is dated from Dittesham, Torquay, Dec. 20,
1852, Mr. Fortescue, after quoting Dr. Pusey's words as given above,
gives the questions asked by Mr. Prynne, some of wliich are of
necessity recorded in Latin, as well as an account of a similar trial
which had before taken place at Leeds, on the behaviour of the Rev.
H. F. Beckett, one of the curates of St. Saviour's, respecting the
Confessional, the nature of which appeared in a letter by the then
Bishop of Ripon (Archbishop Longley of Canterbury), addressed to
the parishioners of St. Saviour's, Leeds (Rivingtons, 1851), in
which he states respecting the principal young woman examined,
that —
" Every attempt was made, but in vain, to invalidate her simple straight-
* A Correspondence between Dr. Pusey and the Rev. R. H. Fortescue,
late Curate of Bigbury, Devon (subsequently Eeetor of St. Paul's, Exeter),
on the Practice of Auricular Confession, as Evidenced by the Inquiries at
Leeds and Plymouth, p. 2 ; London, Simpkin and Marshall, 1854.

80 DE. PUSEY.
forward testimony; and no imputation was ever cast upon her general
integrity  The questions asked were very indelicate ones " (pp. 31, 34).
Dr. Pusey in his reply said there was a misprint in his letter to
Mr. Prynne ; in place of "any questions we put in confession," it
should have been " ever put in confession," so that Dr. Pusey's own
declaration respecting the Confessional reads thus —
" It is a mere dream, that any father, mother, husband, wife, or child,
would be pained by any question ever put in confession " —
notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence to the contrary,*
both as regards the way Confession is practised both in the Church
of Rome and by the Ritualistic clergy of the Church of England.
In the fourth century, when the purity of the Primitive Church
had passed away, it appears that those who had fallen from the
faith were required to make public confession, and perform open
penance before the congregation. The confessions became incon
venient on account of their nature ; hence " penitentiary presbyters "
were appointed to receive confessions in private. Two ecclesiastical
historians relate a case which will account why this office was
speedily abolished. In the year a.d. 390, a certain lady of rank at
Constantinople fell a victim to her confessor, during one of these
" dark sceances " in the church. Nectarius, the Archbishop of
Constantinople, at once abolished the office ; and many centuries
elapsed before Auricular Confession was again heard of amongst
professing Christians.!
Dr. Pusey proceeds to justify Auricular Confession on the ground
that the Church of England yearly rehearses an acknowledgment of
* " Overwhelming evidence to the contrary." I adduce the testimony of a
lady who had passed over from Dr. Pusey's party to the Church of Eome,
and who is thus able to speak from experience of both communions.
The following describes her feelings after her first confession: —
" It was a dark page in my experience, when I first knelt at the feet of a
mortal to confess what should have been poured into the ear of God alone.
But a brief time before it would have put my longing after Catholicism to
rest for ever  At some things I was greatly startled. The questioning,
&c, outraged my feelings to such an extent, that forgetting ail respect to
my confessor, I hastily exclaimed, ' I cannot say a word more,' while the
thought rushed into my mind, ' All is true that their enemies say of
them.' All that I can remember was my burning cheek, and inability to
raise up my eyes from the ground .... To chronicle what passed there, would
sully paper " (Personal Experience of Roman Catholicism, hy Mrs. Eliza
Eichardson; p. 40, et seq.).
f Socrates, Eccl. Hist., v. 19 ; Sozomen, Eccl. Hist., viii. 16.

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTROVERSY. 81
the fact that " In the primitive Church, at the beginning of Lent,
certain persons were put to open penance," which no one denies ;
but this is a very different thing from the system of Auricular
Confession which Dr. Pusey has set up, and which, I persume, he
must be aware was "totally unknown," as Bishop Blomfield
pointed out, in the primitive Church. Then Dr. Pusey declares it is—
" A detestable insinuation that Confession turns, in any degree, upon the
breaches of the seventh commandment," adding, " I am satisfied, from all
the experience whieh I have had, and from my knowledge of others who
have received confessions, including Mr. Prynne, that no question is ever
put in voluntary confession which any one would be pained to hear .... But I
do think your letter is a very vexatious- and unjustifiable attack upon Mr.
Prynne, for which I think you will be sorry, if not before, at the Day of
Judgment ! "
Mr. Fortescue, in reply to Dr. Pusey, after declining to be
turned aside from his course " by spiritual intimidation," referring
to the exposure which had taken place at Leeds and Plymouth,
where proof was given which satisfied the Bishop of Ripon, that in
voluntary confession improper questions were asked, says —
"With that evidence before me, I find it impossible to accept your
assurance that no such questions are ever put ; " and naturally adding with
righteous indignation, " I repel the imputation — not in your own strong
language, as ' a detestable insinuation,' and the work of Satan, but — as
weak in argument, untrue in fact, and uncharitable in spirit."
Mr. Fortescue further adds, in noticing Dr. Pusey's inconsistency
concerning the questions asked in the Confessional — " now con
tending that none such are put, now justifying the putting them" —
as follows —
" Of the particular mode of questioning, adopted by yourself and those
who think with you, I know little beyond what I have gathered from the
scandalous disclosures at Leeds and Plymouth. Nor do I know much of
' books which hear upon confession.' The only really technical book on the
subject that I have looked into, is a Eomish one, the ' Manuel des Con-
fesseurs, par M. l'Ahbe Gaume, a Paris, 1845.' It is compiled from books
of the highest repute upon the subject among Eoman Catholics, and is, I
believe, generally used by Eomish priests in France and England ; and as
you referred to it several times in your ' Eenewed Explanation,' in reply to
Mr. Dodsworth ; and Mr. Maskell distinctly declared that in this particular,
' the rules of the Church of Rome, and no other, are your rules' I shall
probably be not far wrong in concluding that this book ... is the one which
you and others are in the habit of using, and that to it you would refer me
for what you term ' principles of confession.' ....
a

82 . DR. PUSEY.
"This Manual contains much to justify what you term 'the detestable
insinuation,' that confession turns, in a very great degree, on breaches of the
seventh commandment. . . . Thus, in an imaginary dialogue between a con
fessor and his penitent, not only is it advised to make the seventh
commandment thefirst subject of enquiry, not only are the questions on it
particular in the extreme as oompared with those on the other command
ments, but nearly one half of the entire examination on moral subjects is
devoted to this one branch of them; and the matter is of so filthy a
description, that M. l'Abbe Gaume, for very shame's sake, gives the greater
part of it in Latin." *
The controversy between Dr. Pusey and Mr. Fortescue took
place at the end of 1852. Twenty-five years later Dr. Pusey wrote
to me from Oxford, October 25th, 1877, to inform me that he was
then engaged on a work bearing on the subject of Auricular
Confession —
" I am myself forming a oatena of our writers who have written more
or less in favour of confession. I do not think that your friends or yourself
know whom they are resisting. The list is larger than they think."
On the appearance of Dr. Pusey's work soon after, I discovered
that it was the very work to which Mr. Fortescue had called Dr.
Pusey's attention, as proving that ' ' the rules of the Church of
Rome " were identical with those adopted by Dr. Pusey on the
subject of confession, and which appeared with the following title —
Advice to those who exercise the Ministry of Reconciliation tlwough
Confession and Absolution, being the Abbi Qaume's Manual foe Con-
fessoes, &c, adapted for the Use of tlie English Church.
From this work we may gather that there is no distinction between
Dr. Pusey's teaching and that of the Church of Rome on the
doctrine of confession ; inasmuch as Dr. Pusey quotes without
modification the Tridentine Canon, which requires " the faithful to
bring children to confession from the time they are seven years old ;
and it is a great negligence in parents to omit doing so " (p. 159).
Among other enormities which Dr. Pusey appears to sanction by
his publication of it for the edification of his disciples, the Manual
teaches that the seal of confession condones perjury on this wise —
" Pope Eugenius says, that whatever a confessor knows through
confession he knows it as God ; while out of confession he is only speaking
as man. So that ' as man,' he can say that he does not know that which
he has learnt as God's representative. I go further still, as man he can
swear with a clear conscience that he knows not what he knows only as
God" (p. 402).
* Correspondence between Dr. Pusey and the Rev. R. Fortescue, pp. 16—23.

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTROVEESY. 83
The Manual also teaches that as —
"The tribunal of Penance must be directed by the science of theology,
it is indispensable that the confessor should study moral theology " (p. 58).
Whether Dr. Pusey was acquainted with the works of Liguori or
Dens, the authorized exponents of moral theology in the Church of
Rome, I know not ; but I may sufficiently raise the veil to say that
they fully justify the severe condemnation which two eminent
Bishops of the Church of England have passed upon the system of
the Confessional, as treated by the moral theologians of the Church
of Rome.
The late Bishop Phillpotts, in his Letters to Charles Butler, thus
handles the subject —
" The Council of Trent hath decreed that Sacramental Confession is
absolutely necessary to salvation : an anathema is pronounced against all
who presume to say the contrary. Such is the doctrine of your Church (of
Eome) on this particular. On the practical mischiefs to which it leads ....
and consequences less mischievous than these, I forbear to enlarge. Let me
only say, that they are not imaginary. I have looked into a tract, which
you inform us is the most popular of all your books of devotion, The
Garden of the Soul. I have read there sentiments of piety as warm and
just, as the expression of them is beautiful ; but I have also read one page —
prescribing a course of self-examination previous to confession — to which
I cannot allude without disgust. Nothing, I verily believe, more loathsome
or polluting, could be found in the journal of a brothel" (pp. 103, 104).
So the late Bishop Wilberforce, in an address to his Deans
Rural at Winchester House a few days before his sudden death,
speaks on the same subject —
" Be distinct in your declaration against enforced confession to a priest,
testify against it, whether as enforced hy rule or only by influence. This
system qf confession is one of the ivorst developments of Popery. It is a
system of unnatural excitement, fraught with evil to the whole spiritual
constitution — the substitution of confession to man for the opening of the
heart to God. In families, it introduces untold mischief. ... As regards
the person to whom confession is made, it brings in a wretched system of
casuistry. But far worse than this, it necessitates the terrible evil of
familiar dealing with sins of uncleanness, and so poisoning the minds of
priest and people alike. A fact which has of late been very painfully
brought home to me."
I think this will be sufficient to counteract the extraordinary
delusion under wliich Dr. Pusey must have been labouring when
he wrote that " no one pretends that any knowledge of evil has ever been
conveyed through the practice of confession " — though he adds in his
a 2

84 . DR. PUSEY.
letters to the Daily Express — " a storm has been raised against it,
which is too well timed not to leave some doubt as to the honesty of
those who have been raising it." I received a letter from Dr.
Pusey, dated "Christmas Eve, 1877," in which he writes —
" For myself, what I condemned was the wide-spread dishonesty used
as to those questions in The Peiesi in Absolution. The questions were
expressly said to be 'for the ill-instructed ' . . . . The suppression of the
fact that it was ' for the ill-instructed ' made all the declamations against
confession a libel and a lie. Suppressio veri is, you know, one form of
falsehood. The book was never published, so it is no publication." *
It is difficult to understand what Dr. Pusey means by saying
that the book was "never published." It was lent me for the
purpose of review, and though I read it with some attention, partly
because it was said to have been written by an old College acquaint
ance at Cambridge, and partly with the desire to see what those
who were anxious to introduce the Confessional into our Protestant
Church really taught on the subject, I did not discover where it
was stated that the offensive questions were alone intended "for the
ill-instructed," as Dr. Pusey says ; so I may hope to be exempt
from the very serious charge which he once brought against the
honesty of those who, from failing to notice that qualifying cause,
are guilty, in his estimation, of both " a libel and a lie." ! ! !
The late Dr. Pusey was much given to the habit of accusing
an opponent of dishonesty, and libelling him, without taking steps to
vindicate his character in an impartial court of law. Thus in a
letter addressed by him to the Rev. Mr. Golightly many years ago,
and which was reprinted in the Guardian of April 3rd, 1867, Dr.
Pusey writes —
" A paper has been sent to me with the signature of ' A Clergyman of the
Diocese of Oxford,' in which mention is made of me. The words, I am told,
are declared by a good legal opinion to be ' clearly actionable.' I am not,
of course, after having had all sorts of things said of me for 33 years,
going to seek redress for myself," &c.
Bishop Colenso, in a letter which appeared in the Times addressed
* In the debate in the House of Lords, July 15th, 1873, Lord Oranmore
quoted the Eev. J. C. Chambers as the author of the Priest in Absolution,
Part IL, who wrote in reply to an application for a copy to say that " the
book is only delivered to such priests of the English Church as are in the
habit of hearing confessions, or are known to me personally, or through
friends." But this attempt at concealment scarcely warrants Dr. Pusey's
declaration that there was " no publication."

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTEOVEESY. 85
to Dr. Pusey, from Natal, June 6th, 1867, refers to his practice of
sending a " challenge to eminent persons to substantiate charges of
insincerity in a court of law," &c. ; and comes down upon Dr,
Pusey with the following severe rejoinder —
" I need hardly say that I heartily adopt every word of yours,
substituting only ' Criticisms on the Pentateuch ' for ' the Eeal Objective
Presenoe;'" and adding, with still greater severity, "perhaps moderating
a little the language in whioh you speak of ' the falsehoods, misrepresentations,
and suppression of the truth,' by which you have been assailed, though I
have had my share of them also. If you wish to stand on clear ground
with those among whom your lot is cast, so also do I. And I call upon you
either to ' substantiate any charges ' which you have to make against me
' in a court of law,' or to abstain from making charges which you cannot
substantiate." Dr. Pusey, in his Manual foe Confessoes, adapted to the Use of the
English Church, has added a catena* of Church of England authorities
in support of Auricular Confession, as understood by him and
practised in the Roman Church ; t and which Dr. Pusey considers so
conclusive a testimony in his favour, as to cause him to write to me —
" I do not think that your friends or yourself know whom they are resist
ing. The list is larger than they think."
I select three authorities from this catena in order to test their
value, as to how far they support Dr. Pusey's contention.
He quotes Archbishop Usher's Answer to a Jesuit on the power
of the keys in the following way : —
"No kind of confession, either pnblic or private, is disallowed by us, that
is any way requisite for the due execution of that ancient power of the keys
whioh Christ bestowed upon His Churoh."
* The value of a catena, of course, depends on the fairness with which the
authors quoted are treated. I have already proved that Dr. Pusey in this
respect is not always trustworthy, as in that notable instance of his quota
tion from Hooker on the Lord's Supper, while omitting the very passage where
his opinion is most clearly expressed against Dr. Pusey's view (see p. 6). The
Edinburgh Review of October 1844, when speaking of Dr. Pusey, truly
says his works consist of " little else than a patchwork of quotations from
the fathers flounced with a deep margin of references, reminding us of that
class of controversialists of whom Milton says, ' When they have like good
sumpters laid you down their horse-load of citations from the fathers at
your door, you may take off their pack-saddles ; and then their work is
done ' " (p. 334).
t See Mr. Maskell's testimony on the identity of Dr. Pusey's doctrine of
the Confessional with that of the Church of Eome at p. 67.

86 DE. PUSEY.
Had Usher, who has been justly named " the Unanswerable
Defender of the Orthodox Religion," only written so far as Dr.
Pusey quotes him, the testimony of that high authority might be
adduced in his favour. But Dr. Pusey, according to his usual habit,
as in the case of Hooker on the Lord's Supper, has omitted to quote
the context, which gives quite a different view from what Dr. Pusey
is desirous of making the Archbishop say. Had he continued the
passage from where he stops short, his readers would have read
Usher's opinion on this wise : —
" The thing we reject is that new pick-lock qf Sacramental Confession, ob
truded upon men's consciences, as a matter necessary to salvation, by the
Canons of the late Conventicle of Trent  This doctrine we cannot but
reject, as being repugnant to that which we have learned, both from the
Scriptures and from the fathers. For in the Scriptures we find, that the con
fession which the penitent sinner maketh to God alone, had the promise of
forgiveness annexed unto it, which no priest upon earth hath power to make
void" (p. 75).
I do not think that Dr. Pusey has gained much by introducing
Archbishop Usher into his catena, in support of his views respecting
Auricular Confession. The same may be said of his quotation from
Dr. Crackenthorp's writings, as Dr. Pusey stops short here at the
very place where he ought to have gone on ; inasmuch as Cracken-
thorpe has condemned the Tridentine doctrine of Sacramental
Confession as —
" That antichristian oonfession of yours into the ears of a priest, which
is nothing else than a snare of conscience, an abyss of fraud, and a deception
of the unlearned ; this and nothing else have we abolished, and deservedly
condemn to the pit of hell."
Similarly Dr. Pusey's treatment of Bishop Berkeley on the matter
of Auricular Confession proves how thoroughly untrustworthy he is in
his quotations ; for here again he stops short, where he ought in all
fairness to have gone on, omitting the following important ad
dition :—
" But as it (Auricular Confession) is managed, in the Church of Rome, I
apprehend it doth infinitely more mischief than good. Their casuistry
seemeth a disgrace, not only to Christianity, but to the light of nature."
We see now how thoroughly untrustworthy the late Dr. Pusey
was in his witnesses on behalf of " Auricular Confession." The very
attempt to make any respectable authority in the Church of England
support the teaching of the Church of Rome, as set forth in the
Abbe Gaume's Manual for Confessors, is sufficient to bring, as the

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTROVERSY. 87
late Bishop Thirlwall once remarked, the very name of a catena into
disrepute. And though Dr. Pusey and his party may hold very
cheap the authority of our Bishops, it is satisfactory to know that
not one has given in his adhesion to Dr. Pusey's attempt to com
mend the unholy practice of the Confessional to the Church of
England. And when in 1873 between 400 and 500 ef the Ritual
istic clergy petitioned Convocation to " provide for the education,
selection, and licensing of duly qualified confessors," the Bishops
very properly treated such an uncatholic and antiscriptural proposal
with silence and contempt. And it was a matter of thankfulness to
see the Bishop of Exeter at that time refusing to license a curate as
Chaplain at Luseombe, near Dawlish, where I was curate for some
years, because of his having adopted the practice of " private con
fession," telling him in plain terms, " Tour teaching is not, in my
opinion, faithful to the Church of England." The Bishop of Llandaff,
in an address to his archdeacons, published in 1873, on The Church's
Teaching as to Confession, shows that —
" In all the alterations that have been made in the Book of Common Prayer
upon the subject of confession since the Prayer Book of 1549, the tendency
has been to discourage, not to promote, Aurioular Confession (p. 19).
The Record, in its leader of January 24th, 1881, has well expressed
the opinion of all loyal and faithful Churchmen on the evil tendency
of Dr. Pusey's attempt to introduce a Roman Manual for Confessors
into our Protestant Church, in the following words : —
"Dr. Pusey has told us that for years he has practised Auricular Confes
sion ! He has translated and edited a well-known Eoman Catholic Manual,
in order, to quote his own words, to provide English Churchmen with ' practi
cal rules of what to do, how to escape temptation, how to advance holiness.'
The reiterated advice of that book, again and again repeated, is ' hasten to
your oonfessor.' In other words, while disowning the party name of Eitualism,
Dr. Pusey is committed to ' a conspiracy against the doctrine, the discipline,
and the practice of our Reformed Church.' This language is stronger than
we generally care to employ, but it is not our own, the words are those ofthe
(late) Archbishop of Canterbury, and were deliberately used by him with
reference to the very subject in hand."
To say nothing of the innumerable scandals which the practice of
Auricular Confession (a fatal relic of the priestcraft of the middle
ages) has caused, it is so essentially an antiscriptural, non-primitive
and uncatholic a custom, unquestionably copied from the heathen,*
* Auricular Confession, as I have shewn in my Letter to Dr. Pusey on that
subject, was never heard of in the Christian Church until the eighth century,

88 DE. PUSEY.
and deserving of the severest censure, that we are reminded of the
solemn warning conveyed by the apostle, who says —
" Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist 
Whosoever abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God  If there
come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into
your house, neither bid him God speed, for he that biddeth him God speed is
partaker of his evil deeds " (2 Ep. John, ver. 7 — 11).
During the last seven years it has been the lot of the writer to
have had much correspondence with the late Dr. Pusey on a
variety of subjects, principally relating to the doctrinal differences
between the Evangelical and Ritualistic parties at the present time.
Dr. Pusey declared, as far as he was concerned, that no such
differences existed ; only he contended, with something like pre
sumption, that while he went so far in doctrinal truth with the
Evangelical school, he went a little farther than they did, because
his knowledge was superior to theirs !
Behoving that this is one of the many delusions under which Dr.
Pusey suffered during the greatest part of his life, I think it well to
enumerate some of these delusions, as they may serve to explain the
reasons why Evangelical men are unable to reciprocate the vain
attempts which Dr. Pusey and others have made of late years to
promote union between the two parties, whose principles of doctrinal
truth, of allowable ritual, and Christian obedience, are diametrically
opposed to each other. A few of Dr. Pusey's delusions may be
summarily explained as follows : —
1. That Dr. Newman's interpretation of the Thirty-nine Articles,
as set forth in Tract No. XC, and his own subsequent defence of the
same, was the true and proper grammatical interpretation, notwith
standing that representative men of the three schools, such as
Archbishop Whateley, Bishop Phillpotts, and Dean Goode, had
written directly to the contrary.
2. That the Articles, of the Church of England and the
Decrees of the Council of Trent are " reconcilable each with the
and not established until the twelfth in the Church of Eome. It may be
distinctly traced to the heathenish customs which once prevailed in Babylon
and Greece, as Hislop, in his Two Babylons, has clearly proved. InHildred's
Japan as it was and is, ahd in the Abbe Hue's Travels in Thibet, we see how
it is practised by the Buddhists, exactly as it is by the Eomanists and Eitual
ists, in the present day.

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTROVERSY. 89
other ; "* notwithstanding that on the subject of the Lord's Supper
one teaches that " Christ is given and eaten after a heavenly and
spiritual manner only;" while the other asserts that if any one
says Christ is given only after a spiritual manner, he is accursed ! "
3. That the change in Keble's well-known hymn on Gunpowder
Treason, made after the author's death, from "Not in the hands"
to "As in the hands," is of no consequence, as they mean
the same thing ; so infatuated and so colour-blind does Dr.
Pusey appear to be, that he is unable to see what is so plain and
clear to every loyal Churchman, as the Dean of Chichester has
expressed it : "In common with thousands, I hold that no greater
wrong was ever done to the memory of the author of the Christian
Tear than by tampering with his great work after his death, and
thereby making worse than nonsense one of the most faithful of his
poems ! "
4. That the judgment in the Gorham case by the Supreme
Ordinary "in all spiritual causes," as Dr. Pusey had so solemnly
sworn to accept and obey, concurred in as it was by the Arch
bishops of Canterbury and York, was " a denial of an Article of
the Faith ; " and that hardly any of the Evangelical school " agreed
with Mr. Gorham ! " I have sufficiently answered this monstrous
error at pp. 40 and 45 of the present work.
5. That if the Hebdomadal Board had delayed "for twelve
hours " their judgment on Dr. (now Cardinal) Newman's mode of
explaining, or rather " evading," the Thirty-nine Articles, Newman
* Dr. Pusey once wrote to the Weeklf Register (a Eoman Catholic news
paper) as follows : — " I have long been convinced that there is nothing in the
Council of Trent which could not be explained satisfactorily. The great
body of the faith is held alike by both (the Churches of England and of
Eome). We readily recognize the Primacy of the Bishop of Eome 
Neither is there any thing in the Pope's supremacy in itself to which we
should object." By the term " we," Dr. Pusey of course includes his
disloyal and unfaithful followers. The teaching of the Church of England
by her Convocation is somewhat different. In the year 1606, both Houses of
Convocation decreed as follows — " If any man shall affirm that the intole
rable pride of the Bishop of Eome, through the advancement of himself by
many stratagems and false miracles over the Catholic Church, the Temple of
God, as if he were God Himself, doth not argue him plainly to be the Man
qf Sin, mentioned by the apostle, he doth greatly err " (Cardwell's
Synodalia, i. 379). Which think you is nearest the truth — Dr. Pusey, who
was willing to admit the Papal Supremacy, or the Church of England,
which teaches that the Bishop of Eome is the predicted Man of Sin ?

90 DE. PUSEY.
would not have seceded to Rome, and the subsequent history of the
Church of England would have been altered !
6. That " no one pretends," says Dr. Pusey, " that any know
ledge of evil has been conveyed through the practice of Auricular
Confession ! " or, as he declared in his controversy with the Rev. R.
Fortescue, "It is a mere dream than any one would be pained by any
question ever put in confession /" I refer the reader to Mr. Fortescue's
excellent reply to Dr. Pusey's astonishing " dream " on this subject
(see pp. 80—82).
7. The last delusion which I think it necessary to notice is that
which he asserts in the lengthy correspondence which I had with
Dr. Pusey during the last seven years, and which may be described
chiefly under these two heads — First, That the Ritualists were
neither lawless nor disobedient, while those who endeavoured to
keep the Ritualists within the boundaries of the law, and to enforce
obedience to the law, were guilty of Persecution ; and secondly,
that his (Dr. Pusey's) doctrinal teaching and that of the Evangelical
party was one and the same.
On the first of these two heads, viz., the rightful meaning of the
word "Persecution," to which I have already referred, I can only
express my agreement with the present Bishop of Lincoln, that in
the recent lengthy struggle between the lawless Mr. Green and his
opponents, the real persecutor of the Church of Christ was Mr.
Green, by his obstinate contumacy and his infatuated disregard of
his most solemn vows to obey those that had the rule over him in
spiritual things.
The present Bishop of Oxford appears to take a different view of
the true meaning of "Persecution" from that of the Bishop of
Lincoln, inasmuch as in a speech delivered by him in 1870, he is so
violent against Evangelical men in general and the Church
Association in particular, that he spake of these honest and loyal
men (who have no other desire than to support the bishops who
are faithful to their consecration vows, the legal supreme ruler of
the Chureh, in the person of the Sovereign, and the law itself, when
pronounced by any legitimate authority) in the following unjust
terms ; as —
" The persecution of those who would clothe their fanatical animosities in
a venerable garb qf religion and law."
If these be really the words used by the Bishop of Oxford, as
asserted by a writer in the Record, " Cantabrigiensis," June 16, 1879,
they are a sad self-rebuke of one who has most solemnly sworn

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTEOVEESY. 91
to " correct and punish such as be disobedient and criminous
within his diocese," and upon whom he appears to bestow all his
favour. *
Secondly, Dr. Pusey asserts that there was no difference between
his teaching and that of the Evangelical party. It may be safely
asserted, that in making such a statement Dr. Pusey was under as
strong a delusion, as the noted Mr. John Hampden when he
considers Sir Isaac Newton an ignoramus, and the earth we inhabit
as flat as a plate ! Such persons appear to be quite impervious
to reason. If there be any meaning in words and language on the
five doctrinal points of Baptism, the Loed's Supper, Justification,
Confession, and Absolution, as we have already seen what Dr.
Pusey holds on these points, it is scarcely necessary to say that the
Evangelicals teach exactly opposite on every one of these subjects ;
and the only possible explanation we can offer of Dr. Pusey's many
delusions in general, and this one in particular, is that he was so
" colour-blind " in regard to spiritual matters, that he contended
the Articles of the Church of England and the Decrees of the
Council of Trent were reconcilable with each other. Surely, every
unprejudiced person in the world must agree with the Hebdomadal
Board at Oxford, when they decided that such a mode of interpreting
the Articles was an "evasion," and not an honest or honourable
explanation of the Articles in question. But Dr. Pusey, I believe,
remained to the end of his days under this pitiable and monstrous
delusion !
Dr. Pusey, in a letter to me, dated March 5, 1878, remarks —
" The belief of pious Evangelicals is often a good deal sounder than they
* Canon Carter has stamped himself sufficiently " oriminous," by declar
ing that there was " substantially no difference" between the teaching of
the Churches of England and Eome on the subject of the Lord's Supper !
Nevertheless, the Bishop of Oxford's partisanship on behalf of this
" criminous " clerk was so extreme, that he actually appeared in Court in
person, to seek to prevent Canon Carter from being tried. And this is the
way in which the Bishop's conduct appeared to an upright English judge ;
Lord Justice Bramwell said — " It is admitted that Mr. Carter has
committed, and is wilfully persisting in several breaches of the law of the
land. By what means he has persuaded himself that he can reoeive the
wages of the state to do a certain duty, and not to do it, I cannot conceive ;
and with all submission, I feel nearly equal difficulty in understanding how
it can seem right to the Right Rev. Prelate not to bring him to justice," If
the Bishop of Oxford had any conscience, he must have felt overcome with
shame at receiving such a rebuke from the Judicial Bench.

92

DE. PUSEY.

express in words. . . .1 used to say to those whom I knew of the so-called
Evangelical School, ' I believe all whioh you believe ; we only part where
you deny.' I challenged my friend Henry Venn Elliot to frame his belief in
words whioh I could not aooept."
In a letter written in the same year to Dr. Liddon, Dr. Pusey
says respecting a distinguished member of the Evangelical party,
the Rev. A. Christopher, Rector of St. Algate, Oxford—
" I am sorry that he thinks as he does, as I have always thought him an
earnest and loving man, and I have ever supposed that I held as a matter of
faith all whioh he holds as such, only I have been taught more."
But has Dr. Pusey "been taught more" of what the apostle
calls "the truth as it is in Jesus" than the Evangelical school?
Or is it not rather another of the many delusions under whieh the
late Dr. Pusey laboured through so many years of his life ? This
is a question of the utmost moment to all parties professing to
belong to the Church of Christ. I am compelled to say that if I
had my doubts a few years ago respecting Dr. Pusey's soundness in
the true Catholic faith, those doubts have considerably increased
since I have read more of Dr. Pusey's recent controversial writings,
which have served as much as any thing to manifest the enormous
gulf between Dr. Pusey's doctrines and those of the Evangelical
school of the present day — differences as great as fully to justify
the language of Dr. Littledale, when speaking of the doctrines
respectively taught by the Evangelicals and Ritualists; as he

" They are logically two distinct religions, and not merely different aspeots
of the same religion. They are quite as diverse from eaoh other as Judaism
is from Islam." *
* The Two Religions ; A Lecture, by E. F. Littledale, LL.D. ; p. 2. To
show the nature of the religion professed by Dr. Littledale, we find him
asserting with that extraordinary bitterness, which is alike peculiar to the
ultra-Infidel as well as the ulta-Eitualist, respecting those "martyrs of
Jesus," the Eeformers of the sixteenth century, who were as truly suoh as
any who were put to death by the heathen during the first three oenturies of
the Christian era ; that though the " Jacobins, Eobespierre, Danton, Marat,
and the like sinned deeply in cruelty, impiety, and licentious foulness, in all
these particulars they were left far behind by the leaders of the English
Eeformation, Cranmer, Eidley, Latimer, and Hooper " (Innovations, by
Dr. Littledale ; pp. 15, 31). Such language can only he paralleled by that '
employed by an open enemy, the author of a Popish work, entitled, My
Clerical Friends, when he writes that, " There is not an error in religion,
not an evil principle in sooial or politioal science, for which modern sooiety

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTROVERSY. 93
In noticing the conduct of the Ritualists who form, to use Dr.
Pusey's language, "the so-called" English Church Union, we may
contrast it with that of the apostle Paul under similar circumstances.
When he was " accused of questions of the law of Moses " before
the Roman Governor as "a pestilent fellow and a ringleader of
the sect of the Nazarines," " the high priest and the chief of the
Jews " demanded that he should be " sent to Jerusalem," to be
judged by the Ecclesiastical Courts of that time, or as the Ritualists
would prefer to term it " the spirituality." However, when Festus
asks his prisoner, " Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem to be judged ? "
Paul at once replied, "I stand at Ceesar's judgment seat, where I
ought to be judged .... I appeal unto Csesar ' (Acts xxv. 2 — 11).
No incident recorded in Holy Scripture can be more telling against
the whole theory and practice of Ritualistic lawlessness than the
behaviour of St. Paul when accused before a heathen governor by
the sacerdotal professors of Church principles, than that embodied
in "the high priest and the chief of the Jews." And yet Dr.
Pusey had the temerity, as appears by his numerous controversial
letters to secular newspapers, and to " dearest Charles Wood" of
the English Church Union, to condone and to advocate warmly
the cause of Messrs. Mackonochie, Dale, Green, &c, &c, and others,
who notwithstanding their most solemn vows * have shown by
is not entitled to reproach the Satanical fraud which its contented victims
still call the Eeformation ! " Judging from a sermon which has been sent
me by the secretary of the English Church Union, entitled, The Two
Religious Movements of Our Time, " preached to the members of the
English Church Union by Dr. W. C. Lake, Dean of Durham," he seems to
be under the marvellous delusion that the Eitualists and the Broad Church
party are virtually one, though he admits that there is a " natural and
necessary difference between (these) two large classes of believers," and
that if the Church of England does not bow to the Eitualists, whom he
terms with characteristic arrogance " the advanced Catholic party !!!....
the days of the English Church are numbered " (p. 10).
* Every beneficed clergyman is most solemnly pledged to admit that
" The Queen's Majesty, under God, is the only Supreme Governor of this
realm, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as tem
poral " (Canon 36). Again, the Church of England teaches—" That the
Queen's power is the highest under God; to whom all men do, by God's
laws, owe most loyalty and obedience, above all other power and potentates "
(Canon 1). It has been ruled by the law of England, in Grendon's case, 18, 1 9
Elizabeth (see Plowden, 498), that " the Sovereign is Supreme Ordinary,
as having received, by the Act of Henry VIII. 26, c. i., all the power which

94

DR. PUSEY.

their action how lightly such are esteemed by them. But if the
words of St. Paul to Timothy (1 Epist. i. 9, 10) have any definite
meaning, I do not see how it is possible to acquit these " lawless and
disobedient " men of the sin of "perjury." Hence we are not
surprised at finding that Mr. Mackonochie, after one of his many
condemnations by the Queen's Courts during his 15 years' rebellion
against the laws of God and man, should have had the audacity to
publish an address to his congregation containing these profane
words —
" We do not mean to obey (the law), and if God give us grace to do so,
will meet any punishment rather than obey."
How little does he appear to know anything of the spirit of the
Gospel of Christ, or the meaning of the apostolic command, " Obey
them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves " (Heb. xiii. 17).
What a contrast does the conduct of the apostle Paul exhibit
under similar circumstances with the fallen and " deprived " Mr.
Mackonochie, the defiant rebel of all law and order in the Church
of Christ for 15 years !
Was St. Paul in error in appealing to a heathen court of law in
preference to a spiritual court of his own favoured nation ? And
was Dr. Pusey right when he and his party unceasingly declare
that they are the only persons who interpret "the Ornaments
Rubic" aright ; and defiantly assert that the law, which they have
sworn most solemnly to obey, is, to use Dr Pusey's chosen words,
" Unlaw," and " a misinterpretation of the law," or " a state-made
law 1 " With the same reasoning, every burglar or murderer after
condemnation might console himself with these Ritualistic ethics ;
that his judges were all wrong, and that he alone could interpret
the law aright, and in his own favour. Nothing shows more
conclusively the enormous gulf between Evangelicals and Ritualists
than the way the judgments of the Supreme authority " in all
spiritual causes," and of other courts equally authorized by the law
of England, have been respectively received. The Evangelical
the Pope had before exercised as Supreme Ordinary." Hence Archdeacon
Hale, in his work on The Supremacy of the Crown, justly observes — " Over
all the bishops the law of England has established a Supreme Ordinary in the
person of the Sovereign." The late Lord Beaconsfield justly said that—
" The wise men who built up the realm of England devised the doctrine of
the Royal Supremacy, which has given control over ecclesiastical affairs to
laymen, and which is at present the only seourity for our religious liberty,
and the great security for our religious rights."

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTROVERSY. 95
clergy are as firmly convinced that the judgments of the Sovereign
respecting the " Ornaments Rubric " was right, and that Dr. Pusey
was wrong, as the Ritualists are the reverse. This is also seen
in the different way in which these two parties regard their most
solemn vows and obligations to obey the laws of God and man.
There was a time when the weight of Dr. Pusey's character gave
considerable authority to any cause which he might choose to
defend. Of late years, however, as we have seen in the foregoing
Historical Sketch, his Ritualistic proclivities, though he pointedly
rejects the name of "Ritualist," have unhappily disturbed his
mental vision, that he could not even discern the fact affecting the
questions at issue, under the obscuring influence of prejudice
which has beset and distorted his mind. To mention only a few of
these. In a letter addressed to the President of the English Church
Union, at a meeting called to support the lawless and disobedient
clergy like Messrs. Dale and Enraght, Dr. Pusey said, " The
Church Association has declared its object to be to exterminate the
Ritualists." On applying to the Chureh Association for an expla
nation of this very serious charge, I received the reply that —
" There is no truth in the statement that the Church Association has
declared its object to be to exterminate the Eitualists."
Must we not therefore admit that in thus writing, Dr. Pusey
made himself a "false accuser" of those to whom he was so
violently opposed ; as the apostle Paul, in the picture which he has
drawn of the Ritualistic party in 2 Tim. iii. 3, predicted would
be the case in "the perilous times of the last days ! "
Again, Dr. Pusey rashly declared that —
" Agents of the Church Association tried in vain for years to find a third
parishioner in the Mission at tbe London Docks to disturb the ritual of the
priest." The Council of the Association employed no such agency as Dr.
Pusey imagines, but in 1877, on the complaint of three parishioners,
they carried the case to the Bishop of London, who finally reported
to them that his counsels to the vicar had been without " any
result." The vicar belonged to that class of clergy who place
their own private judgment far above the law, or the express order
of their Bishop, notwithstanding their oath of canonical obedience,
which they virtually interpret thus — " Obey your Bishop only when
he agrees with you."
Another misstatement of Dr. Pusey's requires notice. In his
defence of the notorious Mr. Mackonochie, he says "St. Alban's

96 DR. PCSEY.
was built by a pious High Church layman in what was one of the
worst localities iu London  It is now full of a religious popula
tion, who join intelligently in the service provided for them." Here
we have a grievous misrepresentation of facts in several particulars.
The neighbourhood of St. Alban's was and still is one of the worst
localities in London. Long before Mr. J. G. Hubbard built St.
Alban's, an admirable work of Christian philanthropy was carried
on under the supervision of a faithful and loyal Churchman, Mr.
John Martin, of Lincoln's Inn, to say nothing of the work of that
excellent Institution, the London'City Mission, which carries on its
work and labour of love amongst the inhabitants of the slums of
London, in a way to which the Ritualists, with all their boastings,
can make no pretensions. And it may be mentioned to Mr.
Martin's credit, and to show the Christian spirit in which he has
acted in his contest with that great offender and opponent of all law
and order, that after having obtained judgment again and again
in several protracted law suits, it is due only to his forbearance
that Mr. Mackonochie has not been finally shut up in prison for
perverse contempt of court. Dr. Pusey conveniently forgot to state
all this, as well as to notice the fact, that in consequence of Mr.
Mackonochie's outrageous lawlessness and disobedience, the High
Churchman, Mr. Hubbard, was constrained publicly to speak of the
proceedings at St. Alban's, as " the one great grief of his whole life."
And as for the remaining statement of Dr. Pusey, that the neighbour
hood of St. Alban's is now full of a religious population," this is one of
the instances where he has drawn on his imagination for his facts.
At the time when St. Alban's had become more notorious than it
now is, it was statistically proved that the congregation which filled
it was not drawn from the neighbourhood, but, on the contrary, was
chiefly composed of city clerks attracted by the love of novelty and
music ; while many of the lady portion of the congregation belonged
to that class who try to combine worldly pleasures with religious
dissipation, and who are said to oscillate at certain seasons between
the opera box and the confessional box.
Perhaps the most disgraceful episode in Mr. Mackonochie's
proceedings during the last fifteen years, is the scandal which has
been brought upon the Chureh of England by what has been appro
priately termed " the Mackonochie-Suckling Shuffle." When the
criminous clerk Mackonochie, after his defiance of the laws of God
and man, and his bold avowal that he would submit to anything
rather than obey the law, just as his legal deprivation was about to

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTEOVEESY. 97
be pronounced, resigns his preferment in simulated obedience to
the wish of the dying Archbishop, whose mind at the time was so
far gone as to make him quite unfit to cope with so old an offender,
so defiant a rebel, as the Incumbent of St. Alban's had so long proved
himself to be. But in the vain hope that peace would be the result
of such a surrender to a wily foe, the primate sank into his tomb,
and it was left to show how two determined Romanizers might outwit
justice, and obtain a triumph over the laws of God and man. By
a skilful shuffle of the cards, the " deprived " Mr. Mackonochie was
hurriedly pushed into St. Peter's, while the Incumbent of that
church, whose principles, doctrine, and illegal Ritual appear to be
exactly the same, was transferred to St. Alban's. And the Bishop of
London had the lamentable weakness to consent to such a well-laid
scheme for overriding the law, and bringing disgrace and shame on
our Protestant and Reformed Church; defending his conduct on
the poor plea that he could not act otherwise, shutting his eyes to
the noble example before him in the bold and honourable behaviour
of the Bishop of Manchester, and the still more miserable plea that
as both these Romanizing clergymen were hard workers, therefore
they ought to be let alone in their work of undermining the Church of
England, and bringing us again under the dominion of Rome. But if
the Bishop's reasons were worth any thing, it would justify his pro
moting such men as the Jesuits Ignatius Loyola and Francis
Xavier, or the Buddhist leader, Guitama Buddha, for the most
hardened Ritualist will hardly venture to compare the amount of
work of Messrs. Mackonochie and Lowder (the Bishop's "pity"
notwithstanding) with the three aforesaid great men of the world.
The irreligious press, whether secular or Ritualistic, like the Satur
day Review or the Church Times, were much elated at the apparent
success of the shuffle ; and the language which they hurled at the
heads of those who believe it right to withstand these Ritualistic
Romanizers to the utmost of their power, is discreditable alike to
their conduct as Englishmen or the profession of Christianity. It is
scarcely necessary to quote the words of the Chureh Times, as it will
be sufficient to say it was only " as usual,"* and that on this occasion
* " As usual." The following extract from the Church Times will give the
reader a specimen of the way in which it ' ' reviles " opponents. When describ
ing a meeting of the Church Association at Wolverlmmpton, this representative
of the Eitualistic religion spoke of the Evangelical party as " the drunken
Helots of Puritanism in full debauch" and declaring that "Protestantism,
besides being the religion of unbelief, has also from its earliest origin been

98 DE. PUSEY.
it delivered itself in language which a concentrated essence of the
contents of the witches' cauldron in Macbeth might adequately repre
sent. The language of the Saturday Review was nearly as bad ; as
the following specimen will show. The Mackonochie scandal, we
are told, is " a fatal shock to and a moral condemnation" ofthe
Public Worship Regulation Act ; only unfortunately for the ignorance
of this Saturday Reviewer, the Mackonochie litigation was com
menced many years before the Public Worship Regulation Act
was passed, and was carried on from first to last under the Church
Discipline Act ! Starting, therefore, with this blunder, the Saturday
Review salutes the Evangelical party under the name of the " Church
Association " with the following characteristic language. It speaks
of their attempts to ascertain the law of the Church, and to enforce
obedience to the law as the "intrigues and persecutions of a pesti
lent clique," as " that ring of malignant busybodies who have
with persistent spitef ulness been keeping the Church of England in
hot water." " Spiteful pertinacity and sordid malignity " are the
terms which the writer employs, while with the most savage
delight it gloats over the supposed discomfiture of the Church
Association. We wonder if the writers of this Saturday Review
Billingsgate suppose that such revilings can influence a single
loyal Churchman, or indeed any honourable and honest man in the
three kingdoms.
In reply to Dr. Pusey's strange delusions, I would simply beg my
readers to bear in mind as regards one of them, that whereas the
Church of England teaches that at the Lord's Supper "the Body of
Christ is given, taken and eaten only after an heavenly and spiritual
manner" — the Church of Rome declares that those who believe this
teaching, viz., that it is eaten " only after a spiritual manner, are
accursed." And if Dr. Pusey can reconcile these two dogmas, which
to ordinary minds are the exact converse of each other, he must be
greater than the Egyptian magicians who withstood unsuccessfully
Moses and Aaron, or at least than Simon Magus, who, according to
the " Golden Legend " myth of Jacobus de Voragine, contested the
the religion of unchastity " (Church Times, March 7th and December 5th,
1873). Can we wonder at the late Archbishop of Canterbury, when referring
to the organs of the Eitualistic press, such as the Church Times and
Church Review, in an address to his clergy at Maidstone in 1876, described
them as "certain inferior newspapers, which by their ignorance and male
volence constantly disgraced, so far as they were able, the Church whieh
they misrepresented."

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTROVERSY. 99
palm of supremacy with the apostle Peter in the presence of the
Emperor Nero !
Secondly, I think in the foregoing pages I have shown that so far
from Dr. Pusey having any thing in common with the Evangelical
school] on the important doctrines which I have already specified,
such as Baptism, the Lord's Supper, Justification, the principles
of Tract No. XC, and the Confessional, we are wide as the poles
asunder ; and which, to use apostolic language, may be expressed
in these words : The Evangelicals preach what St. Paul calls, "the
glorious Gospel of the blessed God,"* however defective their life
may be ; Dr. Pusey and the Ritualistic party teach what the same
apostle calls " another gospel, which is not another : but there be
some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ."f
Thirdly, in reference to the subject of Catholicity, Dr. Pusey does
not push the subject so prominently or boastfully as some of his
disciples do : e.g., The Rev. C. Grueber is a normal specimen of the
way in which the Ritualistic party claim for themselves, the almost
exclusive right to the possession of the term "Catholic." In one
paragraph of this pamphlet, entitled " Canon XXX., what does it
mean?" I find him speaking of the sin of "dividing from the
Catholic Church," of " The authority of the Catholic Church," of " The
true doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic Church," of " The form
received and observed by the Catholic and Apostolic Church," and
" Our ancient and Catholic Religion," &c, &c. (p. 5). It is no dis
paragement to the Ritualistic party, rather the reverse, but it is an
undoubted fact that the Church of Rome, of whom the Ritualists are
so fond of imitating, notwithstanding the scornful way in which she
has repelled all their advances, quite ridicules their claim to the name
of " Catholic." I do not quote Mr. Maskell as one who is fair
towards the Reformed Church of England, but as one who for a
long time having belonged to the party we now call Ritualistic, has
seceded to the Church of Rome, and is therefore competent to speak
of the way in which his present communion regards the efforts of
his former friends, especially on the subject of their claim to being
" Catholic." In his Protestant Ritualists, he thus opens fire on his
quondam allies, at the head of which must be placed the influential
name of Dr. Pusey —
" Not a shadow of evidence has yet been brought for supposing any
Eitualist minister not to be sincere. Yet for all that, their practices and their
teaching have no sound foundation or authority, and are nothing but inven-
* 1 Tim. i. 11. t Gral. i. 6, 7.
h 2

100 DE. PUSEY.
tions of an irritated ingenuity. Nay, the nearer in appearance such teaching
and such practice may be to that of the Catholic Church, so much the more
dangerous, because the more likely to deceive, and so much the more to he
condemned  If any thing could have been wanting to prove the hollow-
ness of the claim of the Eef orrried Church of England to be a branch of the
one Church, it would be this modern caricature of Catholic ritual and
burlesque of Catholic practice by some of her clergy  From what we
hear, the Eitualists are astonished to find that (Eoman) Catholics do not
regard them as ' a real power in the Church of England ; ' and that (Eoman)
Catholics have no hesitation whatever in treating all ' efforts at unity with
cold, satirical indifference, and with undisguised contempt.' I use the
language of one of their chief weekly organs.
" The Eitualists must bear to be publicly told, whether they like it or not,
that (Eoman) Catholics do not look upon their doings with any thing like
favour, or believe that they really teach all (Eoman) Catholic truth more than
their neighbours in adjoining parishes  The practice of confession insisted
on by Dr. Pusey and his followers, and their pretended absolutions, may
allowably provoke little more than a smile. But^j laying at Mass is a very much
more serious matter. (Eoman) Catholics can but think of them as an irre
verent tampering with very holy things, and to be excused only by ignorance
of the truth, and by at least honest and good intentions. In so far as such
' high celebrations ' are not ludicrous, they are profane " (pp. 7 — 9).
Cardinal Newman, has an instructive comment on the use of the
word " Catholic," in his second edition of his Autobiography, which
we may note —
" I had begun," he says, "my Essay on the Development of Doctrine in the
first months of 1845, and I was hard at it till October. As I advanced, my
view so cleared, that instead of speaking any more ofthe ' Roman Catholics,'
I boldly called them Catholics. Before I get to the end, I resolved to be re
ceived, and the book remains in the state in which it was then, unfinished."*
Lastly, the difference between Dr. Pusey's teaching and that of
the Evangelical school is seen more especially in the determination
as to what constitutes the Divine Rule of Faith. With the latter,
the famous aphorism of Chillingworth, " The Bible and the Bible only
is the religion of Protestants," is cordially accepted in its full entirety,
as well representing the authoritative teaching of the Church of
England —
" Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation : so that what
soever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required
of any man that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith, or be thought
requisite or necessary to salvation."
* History of my Religious Opinions, by John Henry Newman, D.D., p. 188.

THE confessional controversy. 101
Dr. Pusey, on the other hand, seems to require the assistance of
tradition together with Holy Scripture in order to make the Divine
Rule of Faith complete. Once admit that fatal confession, and you
open the door to the crafty developments, and the worst evils of the
Roman apostasy.
The late Dean Goode, in The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice ; or,
a Defence of the Catholic Doctrine that Holy Scripture has been since the
Times of the Apostles the Sole Divine Rule and Practice to the Church
against the Dangerous Errors of the Authors ofthe Tracts for the Times,
and The Romanists, has clearly proved this in the first two chapters
of his great work ; proving that Messrs. Newman, Keble, and Dr.
Pusey have entirely mistaken the meaning of the early Christian
writers on the subject of "Evangelical Tradition," which they
apply solely to the inspired writers of the New Testament. Thus
Tertullian * says —
" No tradition unless it is Scripture ought to be received."
Gregory Nyssenf uses the term "Evangelical and apostolical
traditions," to express the books of the New Testament. Hippolytus
the martyr j persuades his brethren to " believe according to the
tradition of tlie apostles;" i.e., the New Testament, and nothing
else. Now, although it is true that Dr. Pusey, in his apologetical
"Letter to the Bishop of Oxford," endeavours to draw a distinction
between his teaching and that of the Church of Rome on the
subject of "Tradition," observing that —
' ' Eome differs from us as to the authority which she ascribes to tradition ;
she regards it as co-ordinate, our divines as swo-ordinate : "
To which Dean Goode replies as follows : —
" Although this is beyond question uttered in the most perfect good
faith, it will be found to be practically nothing more or less than a complete
juggle of words. For what can be the use or propriety of drawing
distinctions by the application of the co-ordinate and subordinate, between
two informants equally divine, which we are told that Scripture and
tradition are ? The sole question with which we are concerned is, whether
patristieal tradition is a divine informant. He who holds that it is, is
bound to receive it as the Eomanists do, of equal authority with the
written word. And such beyond contradiction is the doctrine upheld in
works like the British Critic, § where ' antiquity ' is expressly spoken of as
' revelation ' equally with Scripture. Dr. Pusey himself tells us, a few
*TertulL, De Cor on, c. iii.
t Gregory Nyss., De Virg., c. xi. X Hippoly., Contr. Noet., § 17.
§ See British Critic for Januarv, 1838, Article on Fronde's Remains,

102 DR. PUSEY.
pages after, that 'we owe  to the decisions of the Church Universal,
Faith ' (p. 53). It is obvious that to maintain that Scripture contains only
an imperfect delineation of the most important doctrines, and that the full
revelation of them is only to be found in ' tradition,' and yet aver that we
make tradition only subordinate to Scripture, is an inconsistency and
absurdity of no ordinary kind." *
It is solely by " tradition " being added on to Scripture, that Dr.
Pusey is enabled to adduce something like, I will not say either
primitive or early, but any ancient authority, possibly within a
thousand years after the introduction of the Gospel, for his doctrines
of the "Real Objective Presence," or of Priestly Absolution of sin.
And when Dr. Pusey was wont so often to quote the well-known
text, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted," &c, as an
authority for his alleged claim to pardon sin, he forgets or omits
to notice the important fact, that He who gave this power, whether
to Peter solely (Matt. xvi. 19), or to the apostles in their corporate
capacity (John xx. 23), or to the disciples generally (Matt, xviii. 18),
said also to "the twelve" apostles, "Heal the sick, cleanse the
lepers, raise tlie dead, cast out devils," &c Matt. x. 8). Let Dr.
Pusey, or since he is dead, let any of his misguided followers prove
their claim to apostolic gifts by raising the dead, and then will be
time enough to consider their claim to usurp the prerogative of
Almighty God (sinful in the extreme as it undoubtedly is, and so
contrary to the primitive and Catholic faith), to absolve sinners and
to pardon sin. It is a very awful thought to reflect that when the
judgment of the " great white throne " takes place, all the million
pretended absolutions uttered by sinful -'priests" during the last
1000 years, will prove to have had no effect. Just as the myriads of
prayers offered up to the "blessed" Mary, or to any dead man or
woman for the living, or on behalf of those who have passed away,
will be seen to have been quite vain and useless, never having
been heard by those departed saints to whom they have been
addressed, in place of Him who alone can hear and answer
prayer. If the reader will turn to the second volume of the Life cf Bishop
Wilberforce (pp. 70 — 116), and study the letters which the bishop,
as Dr. Pusey's diocesan, felt it his duty to address to him in 1S-50.
he will see how deep was the distrust which he entertained for the
recognised leader of the party then called Tract arians, but since
known by the more appropriate name of "Ritualists.'' or "Roman-
* Goode' s Dicine Rule of Faith, pp. 39, 40.

THE CONFESSIONAL CONTROVERSY. 103
izers." Thus in a letter which bears date Nov. 2, 1850, Bishop
Wilberforce writes to Dr. Pusey —
"I firmly believe that the influence of your personal ministry does more
than the labours of an open enemy, to wean from the pure faith and simple
ritual of our Church the affections of many of those amongst her children,
whose zeal, tenderness, and devotion would, if properly guided, make them
eminent saints, and her especial instruments in God's own work in this
land " ! (Life, vol. ii., p. 80).
Five years before this letter was written, Bishop Wilberforce had
detected Pusey's disloyalty to our Protestant Church ; as we learn
from the first volume of the Life that in 1845 he wrote thus
concerning him : —
" 1 believe Dr. Pusey to be a very holy man. But then I see that he is
most dark as to many parts of Christ's Gospel. He has greatly helped to
make a party of semi-Eomanizers in the Church. I see a great want of
humility, veiling itself from his eyes under the appearance of self-abasement,
in all his writings and doings. His last letter about Newman, I think
deeply painful, utterly sophistical and false" (p. 311).
If such was the honest opinion of Dr. Pusey's diocesan in 1845,
what would it have been if he could have lived until 1882, and
witnessed the conduct of Dr. Pusey, whether in respect to his
doctrinal teaching, his support of the lawless Ritualists, or his
numerous controversies, in which he was invariably in the wrong ?
The holiness of his character would have been reduced to a
minimum. The darkness in respect to " many parts of Christ's
Gospel" would have greatly deepened; the " semi-Romanizers " in
the Church would have been exchanged for " altogether-Roman-
izers ; " and the terrible charge of the Bishop " deeply painful,
utterly sophistical and false," would have remained as condemning
and as true, with the accumulated weight of 37 years.
Since writing the above, I have had the opportunity of reading
the article on "Dr. Pusey and the Church " in the Quarterly Review
of October, 1882 ; and though I am not surprised at the amount of
praise bestowed, as I think most undeservedly, upon that learned
but mistaken man, whose ministry has done more injury to the
Church of England "than the labours of an open enemy," lam
constrained to declare, with sadness and sorrow, after a careful study
of his writings, that I believe the late Dr. Pusey to have been a
teacher of doctrines contrary to the primitive and Catholic Faith, as
described by Cyril of Alexandria in his Commentary on Isaiah, when
he says —

104 DE. PUSEY.
" Evangelical teaching is grace by faith, justification in Christ ; and
sanctification through the power of the Holy Ghost " —
an untrustworthy controversialist, and so deluded in his principles,
as to contend there was no difference between his teaching and that
of the Evangelical school on the one hand, or between the Articles
of the Chureh of England and the Decrees of the Council of Trent
on the other ! ! !
Miss Goodman, in her work entitled, Sisterhoods in the Church of
England, herself a sister, writes as follows : —
" Even to Dr. Pusey it cannot be a small matter that twenty out of one
sisterhood — and that not Miss Sellon's — twenty whose consciences were for
years in his hands, obeyed his teaching, and followed his leading with the
simplicity of little children — are now in the Romish Communion."
And so Lord Teignmouth, in his Reminiscences of Many Tears, says
of Dr. Pusey —
" He has lived to witness the secession from his Churoh of his foremost
professed champions and his most valued coadjutors ; schism, when he
looked for union ; defiance of, instead of submission to, lawful authority ; and
latitudinarianism and infidelity as the inevitable offshoot of sacerdotalism
and superstition " (vol. ii., p. 298).

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT.
The Oxford Movement, as it is sometimes called, or more properly
speaking, the Tractarian-Ritualistic-Romanizing Movement, during
the last half century, may be correctly viewed under a three-fold
aspect. 1 . The Protestant, or anti-Roman phase of loyalty to the
Reformed Church of England, from 1828—1838. 2. The Trac-
tarian, or wavering phase, from 1838 — 1850. 3. The Ritualistic,
or RomeWard phase, which contends for identity of doctrine
between the Churches of England and Rome, and advocates
union with the Churches of the East and West.
The chief authorities consulted in drawing up this account, are
Cardinal Newman's History of my Religious Opinions, and his Essay
on tlie Development of Christian Doctrines, and the various writings of
Drs. Pusey and Lee, of Lambeth.
1. The Protestant, oe anti-Roman Phase, 1828 — 1838.
The Oxford Movement, in its early and Protestant phase, may be

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 105
said to have commenced in 1828, when Newman "subscribes a
small sum towards the first start of the Record," and forms a
friendship with Dr. Pusey, who was not "fully associated in the
Movement till 1835."
1829. Newman opposes Sir Robert Peel's election for the
University, on account of his having conceded Roman Catholic
emancipation. 1830. Newman becomes intimate with Robert Froude, whom he
thus describes —
" He professed openly his admiration of the Church of Eome, and his
hatred of the Eeformers. He delighted in the notion of a hierarchical
system, of sacerdotal power, and of full ecclesiastical liberty."
1833. Newman writes a series of letters in the Record on Church
Reform, which are eventually rejected by the editor, who expresses
regret at the tendencies of the Tracts for the Times, which had then
commenced. July 14th, Mr. Keble preached the Assize Sermon on
"National Apostasy," which Newman pronounced "the start of
the religious movement of 1833," adding —
"I had supreme confidence in our cause ; we were upholding the primitive
Christianity registered and attested in the Anglican formularies and by the
Anglican divines. It would be, in fact, a second and better Eeformation —
a return, not to the sixteenth, but to the seventeenth century."
In the same year Newman replied to the late Cardinal Wiseman,
on his expressing a wish that he might make a second visit to
Rome, in these words, " We have a work to do in England."
1833, 4. Newman wrote in Tracts for the Times and other publi
cations as follows —
" Eome is a lost Church." " The Papal apostasy." " Eome is heretical
now." " At the Council of Trent the whole Eoman Communion bound
itself by a perpetual bond and' covenant to the cause of Antichrist."
' ' Certainly Eome is a mystery of iniquity : Popish Eome has succeeded to
Eome Pagan; and would that we had no reason to expect still more
crafty developments of Antichrist."
In 1837 he explained to a friend, that —
" In publishing such views of a communion so fruitful in saints," he said
to himself, " I am not speaking my own words, I am but following almost
a consensus of the divines of my Church. They have ever used the strongest
language against Eome. I wish to throw myself into their system. While
I say what they say, I am safe. Such views, too, are necessary for our
position." In 1843, Newman writes —

106 DE. PUSEY.
" In February I made a formal retraction of all the hard things which I
had said against the Church of Eome."
1834, 5. Newman characterises "the fundamental principle of
the Oxford Movement " as "a visible Church, with sacraments and
rites of an invisible grace ; " and says —
" What to me was jure divino was the voice of my bishop in his own
person. My own bishop was my Pope ; I knew no other ; the successor of
the apostles, the Vicar of Christ;" and in 1845, when he "wrote to Bishop
Wiseman to announce my conversion, I could find nothing better to say to
him than that I would obey the Pope as I had obeyed my own bishop in the
Anglican Churoh."
1838. Newman becomes editor of the British Critic, 1838 — 1841 ;
declines Dr. Pusey's request that both should subscribe to the
Cranmer Memorial at Oxford ; publishes Froude 's Remains, in which
Froude is represented as replying to a friend, who had said that
"Romanists were schismatics in England, but Catholics abroad" —
" No, they are wretched Tridentines everywhere. I never could be a
Eomanist ; I never could think all those things in Pope Pius' creed
necessary to salvation."
2. The Teactaeian, oe Waveeing Phase, 1839 — 1850.
1839. Newman confesses to a growing attachment to Rome in all
things, save the worship of Mary and the saints, writing —
" These things may, perhaps, be idolatrous ; I cannot make up my mind
about it ; but to my mind it is the Carnival that is real, practical idolatry."
Publishes an article in the British Critic, on The State of Religious
Parties, which he describes as "the last words I ever spoke as an
Anglican to Anglicans."
1840. Newman writes in the British Critic, what he terms
" savage and ungrateful words against the controversialists of
Rome," saying —
" We see it attempting to gain converts among us by unreal representa
tions of its doctrines. We see its agents holding out tales for the nursery,
and pretty pictures, and gilt gingerbread, and physic concealed in jam, and
sugar-plums for good children. Till Eome ceases to be what she praotically
is, a union is impossible between her and England."
1841. Publication of the memorable Tract No. XC, in which
Newman says, in reply to the declaration of the heads of houses
that his " interpretation of the Articles was an evasion " —
"That the Articles are to be interpreted, not according to the meaning of

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 107
the writers, but, as far as the wording will admit, according to the sense of
the Catholic Church."*
The Tracts for the Times are stopped at the request of the Bishop
of Oxford. Newman receives three blows, which shakes his
allegiance to the Church of England exceedingly. Specifies them
as follows : —
1. In writing his History of the Arians, he discovers that " the pure
Arians were the Protestants, the semi- Arians were the Anglicans, and
that Rome now was what it was then." 2. "The Bishops one after
another began to charge against me," on account of Tract No. XC.
3. "The affair of the Jerusalem Bishopric." Publishes a solemn
protest'against the erection of that Bishopric ; " desires a union with
Rome under conditions," and states, " From the end of 1841, 1 was
on my death-bed, as regards my membership with the Anglican
Church." Resigns the editorship of the British Critic in July of
that year, in which number it is affirmed that —
" The Protestant tone of doctrine is essentially Antichristian ; our object
is to unprotestantise the National Church. As we go on, we must recede
more and more from the principles ofthe Eeformation."
1843. Newman confesses his standing in regard to England and
Rome during the previous ten years as follows : —
" For the first four years of the ten I honestly wished to benefit the Church
of England, at the expense of the Church of Eome. For the second four
years, I wished to benefit the Chureh of England without prejudice to the
Church of Eome. At the beginning of the 9th year, I began to despair of the
Church of England ; and of the 10th year, I distinctly contemplated leaving
it. During the last half of that year I was engaged in writing my Essay
on Development^ in favour of the Eoman Church, and indirectly against
* This is the great Crux between the Evangelicals and Eitualists, how the
word " Catholic " is to be understood. The former follow the teaching
attributed to Ignatius, martyred at Eome, a.d. 107, "Wheresoever Jesus
Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." The Shibboleth of the latter is "one
with Eome in faith, orders, and sacraments," according to the Church
Times ; and the fundamental dogma of Eome's ' ' infallible " head is expressed
in the decree of Pope Boniface IIL, a.d. 1303, " We pronounce it to be
necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Eoman
Pontiff." (Corp. Jur. Can., a Pithceo, t. ii. ; Extrav., lib. i., tit. viii., cap.
i., fol., Paris. 1695).
t By the wonderful process of Development, together with the assistance
of a lively imagination, Darwin has managed to develop man, created in the
image and likeness of God, from the larva? of an Ascidian tadpole; and
Newman has given his sanction to an equally unfounded theory, viz., that

108 DE, PUSEY.
the English ; hut even then, till it was finished, I had not absolutely in
tended to publish it, wishing to reserve to myself the chance of changing my
mind." Resigns his living, and remains " at Littlemore in quiet for two
years " — the same period that " Paul dwelt two whole years in his
own hired house, and received all that came in unto him ; " but not
like St. Paul "preaching the kingdom of God," as he says, " For
two years I was in lay communion, not indeed being a (Roman)
Catholic in my convictions, but in a state of serious doubt, and with
a probable prospect of becoming some day, what as yet I was not."
1844. Newman wavers more and more during his " two years of
lay communion," when engaged in his work on Development, which
appears to have been the ultimate cause of secession, though he
considers that Dr. Russell, President of Maynooth College, who had
visited him at Oxford in 1841 and 1842, "had, perhaps, more to do
with my conversion than any one else ; " but he adds —
" I do not recollect that he said a word on the subject on either occasion.
He sent me at different times several letters ; he was always gentle, mild,
unobtrusive, and uncontroversial. He let me alone."
Dr. Russell's letters and the composition of the Essay appear to
have had their due effect ; as we find him writing to a friend on
July 14—
" I am far more certain, according to the fathers, that we are in a state of
culpable separation, than that developments do not exist under the Gospel,
and that the Eoman developments are not the true ones. I am far more
certain, that our modern doctrines are wrong, than that the Roman modern
doctrines are wrong."
1845.* Newman writes — " I begged Dr. Pusey to tell in private
the Church of Eome, with her " Infallible " head in the Pope, her Mario-
latry, and her claim to be able to turn a piece of bread into the God-man
Christ Jesus, is a true and faithful development of that same Chureh whose
faith was so pure eighteen centuries ago, as to have been " spoken of through
out the whole world." ! ! !
* The year 1845 saw the first of those ecclesiastical trials, which for the
last thirty-eight have distracted the Church of England, owing to the wilful
lawlessness and the persistent disobedience of the Ritualists. The "stone
altar case " of St. Sepulchre's, Cambridge, ended, as almost every other case
that has been tried has done, in favour of the Evangelical party. The law
has decided that " stone altars " are illegal in the Eeformed Church of
England. The Sacerdotal party have, therefore, in accordance with their
universal practice of " despising dominion," and ignoring the powers that
be, refused obedience to this truly Catholic judgment.

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 109
to any one he would, that I thought I should leave the Church of
England. However, he would not do so ; and at the Commemoration
of 1845, a few months before I left the Anglican Church, I think he
said about me to a friend, ' I trust after all we shall keep him.' " On
the 8th of October, 1845, Newman is received into the Roman
Church by Father Dominic, the Passionist. A few months later
Newman writes — " I left Oxford for good on Monday, February 23,
1846 ; I have never seen Oxford since, excepting its spires, as they
are seen from the railway " — until thirty-three years later he was
elected to a lay fellowship at Oxford, and paid a visit to his former
Alma Mater.
The above is a brief sketch of the rise and fall of one of the master
minds of the present day. The same year, the present Cardinal
Manning, the Archdeacon of Chichester, published his Charge, in
which he declares his belief that " the Church of England is a true
and hving member of the Holy Catholic Church : neither heretical
in dogma, nor schismatical in the unhappy breach of Christendom."
Before passing from Newman to the secession of others who
followed in his steps, I would insert a few brief extracts from his
History of my Religious Opinions, in order to show his opinion of the
conduct and action ofthe Ritualistic party from that time to the present
day. Writing to the editor of the Christian Observer, who had
always said that Tractarian views "tended towards Rome," within
a month of his secession, Newman gives his reasons for having
changed his opinions —
"As a sort of leave-taking of the great theory (of holding Eoman
doctrines and remaining in the Church of England), which is so specious to
look at, so difficult to prove, and so hopeless to work."
Hence, he says, with that candour which is so bright a feature in
his character, and which affords such a striking contrast to the
action of Dr. Pusey and his disciples —
" I have long felt that he who could not protest against the Church of
Rome, was no true divine in the English Church" (pp. 155, 156).
So, in speaking of the Romanizing party nearly forty years ago,
who were then as now inclined to despise dorninion and treat their
Bishops with marked contempt, Newman writes of them in the
autumn of 1841 as follows : —
" They should recollect that the more implicit the reverence one pays to a
Bishop, the more keen will be one's perception of heresy in him. Men of
reflection would have seen this if they had looked that way. Last spring a
very High Churchman talked to me of resisting my Bishop, of asking him

110 DR. PUSEY.
for the canons under which he acted, and so forth ; but tJiose who have
cultivated a loyal feeling towards their superiors are the most loving
servants, or the most zealous protesters" (p. 161).
Happy would it be if the Romanizing party had " any men of
reflection " amongst them to promote that " loyal feeling towards
their superiors," and that " reverence towards their Bishops," which
was so prominent in the character of John Henry Newman ; but
which is only conspicuous by its absence amongst the Ritualists of
the present day.
3. The Ritualistic or Romeward Phase, 1850 — 1883.
1850. The Rev. W. Maskell joins the Church of Rome, leaving
a statement to the following effect : —
" I have heard both clergy and laity of the Chureh of England declare
within the last twelve months, that they believe all Christian truth as it is
explained in the decrees and canons of the Council of Trent. For clergymen,
bound as they are by subscription to our formularies, thus to speak, has
always seemed to me amongst the greatest of all achievements of the human
intellect " (Maskell's Second Letter, p. 64),
1852. A very remarkable work appeared this year, entitled
Popery and Jesuitism at Rome in the Nineteenth Century, with Remarks
on their Influence in England. The author was the celebrated Dr.
Desanctis, formerly Parish Priest of the Madelina at Rome, Pro
fessor of Theology, and Official Censor of the Inquisition, &c, &c,
whose secession from Rome, and conversion to the true Catholic
Church, created as great a sensation as Dr. J. H. Newman's
secession from the Church of England. As Dr. Desanctis had
nothing concealed from him on account of the high position which
he occupied at Rome, being for ten years Examiner, or Theological
Censor to the Office of the Roman Inquisition, his testimony is as
valuable as that of any man on earth respecting the deep-seated
" conspiracy " which has, been so long carried on, both at Rome
and in this country, against the welfare of the Church of England.
And this is his testimony —
" The essentials of Jesuitical Popery can only be comprehended at
Eome. There, in the offices of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of
Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, the whole Papal mystery is unfolded.
There exist the records of all she has effected, not to convert kingdoms to
Christ, but to herself. England, wealthy England, is the country which
the Church of Eome is most anxious to reconquer, and there are to be found
the histories of all the contrivances and all the plots which have been devised
in Rome to ruin England. Whoever might succeed in penetrating to the

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. Ill
thrice-secret archives of the Vatican, would not only see full evidence in
proof of the Gunpowder Plot, the Massacres of St. Bartholomew, and the
Dragonades, but would perceive that they were all arranged, concocted,
imagined at Eome, with many horrible things beside, which he would be
unable to explain. But without perusing the secret archives of the Vatican,
a little good sense would suffice to discover the joy which kindles in the faces
of the cardinals at hearing of the progress of Puseyism in England ! They
assemble, evening after evening, after having visited the Father-General of
the Jesuits, to congratulate themselves on the triumphs of the Oxford
Professor and his adherents ; to console themselves with the advances of
German Neology, French Socinianism, or Swiss Eadicalism " (Introduction,
p. vii.). 1865. Publication of The Directorum Anglicanum ; second edition,
revised and edited by the Rev. F. G. Lee, D.C.L. This is the
chief Ritualistic manual, professing to be a "Manual of Directions
for the right Celebration of the Holy Communion," and is dedicated
" To the Archbishops and Bishops in Visible Communion with the
See of Canterbury."
The frontispiece represents a priest elevating the cup before an
image of Christ fixed to an " altar," on which are placed two
lighted candles, with four lighted ones on the super-altar, and two
tall ones on the ground. The priest is arrayed in "sacrificial," or
eucharistic vestments, which are named as follows — " The amice,
alb, girdle, stole, maniple, chasuble, and biretta ; the dalmatica for
the Gospeller, and the tunic for the Epistoler." The whole of the
surroundings closely resembling those of a Latin Mass-house, and
representing, as well as can be done in a picture, the abiding
principles of ultra-Ritualism — viz., heresy, idolatry, and disobedience,
with an entire rejection of every thing Christian and Catholic, or in
accordance with God's holy word.
The sort of teaching in this Manual of Ritualism may be judged
from the following description of what Dr. Lee calls " The Cautels
of the Mass," or cautions against receiving the Lord's Supper
unworthily. The nature of these " Cautels " will be understood by the
following quotation : —
" The sixth Cautel is : Before Mass, the priest must not wash his mouth or
teeth, but only his lips from without with his mouth closed, as he has need,
lest perchance he should mingle the taste of water with his saliva. After
Mass, he should beware of expectorations as much as possible, until he
shall have eaten and drunken, lest hy chance any thing should have
remained between his teeth or his fauces, which hy expectorating he might
eject."

112 DE. PUSEY.
A popular manual, called TJie Crown of Jesus, enables us to
ascertain how long Dr. Lee and his Ritualistic friends are required
to abstain from expectorating after they have said Mass according
to the rites of the Church of England or Rome; and the time
specified is exactly fifteen minutes, as it says —
" When you have received the sacred particle upon your tongue, try and
swallow it as soon as you can. Eemember, that it is a defect not to pass at
least a quarter of an hour in thanking Jesus Christ, who remains within
you in the Holy Sacrament for about that time, i.e., as long as the
sacramental species remain " (p. 165).
Thus, according to this teaching, the officiating minister at the
Lord's Supper receives his God, swallows Him, worships Him for
about fifteen minutes in his stomach, when the process of digestion
begins, and then He departs ! ! !
1866. The late Bishop Thirlwall, in his Charge for that year,
detected the inevitable outcome of the Oxford Movement, when he
wrote as follows : —
"Nothing in my judgment can be more mischievous, as well as in more
direct contradiction to notorious facts, than to deny or ignore the Eomeward
tendency in the movement."
1867. The late Archbishop Longley, in his posthumous Charge
of that year, said —
" There are ministers of our Church who think themselves at liberty to
hold the doctrines of the Chureh of Eome, in relation to the sacrifice of the
Mass, and yet retain their position in the pale of the Anglican Church.
They remain with us in order that they may substitute the Mass for the
Communion ; the obvious aim of our Eeformers having been to substitute
the Communion for the Mass."
1867. Essays on the Re-union of Clwistendom appeared, edited by
Dr. F. G. Lee, and introduced by Dr. Pusey, in which it is stated—
" The marvel is, that Eoman Catholics do not see the wisdom of aiding us
to the uttermost. We are teaching men to believe that a man's ' I absolve
thee' is 'the Voice of God.' On any hypothesis we are doing their
work" (p. 180).
In the same year the Union Review, then edited by Dr. F. G. Lee,
declared that —
" The work now going on in England is a carefully organized attempt to
bring our Church and country up to the full standard of the (Eoman)
Catholic faith and practice, and eventually — say twenty years hence — to
plead for her union with you," i.e., Eome (p. 412).

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 113
1868. Dr. Littledale publishes his Lecture on Innovations, in which
he states, that though —
" The Jacobins, Eobespierre, Danton, and Marat, sinned deeply in cruelty,
impiety, and licentiousness, they were left/ar behind in all these particulars
by Cranmer, Eidley, and Latimer."
In the same year Mr. Bennett publishes the first edition of his
Plea for Toleration, in which he speaks of —
" The real, actual, and visible presence of our Lord upon the altars of our
churches  who myself adore, and teach the people to adore, the consecrated
elements, believing Christ to be in them."
1869. The Church Times of June 18, and the Church News of
July 7, affirm the doctrinal identity of England and Rome; the
latter expressing it as follows : —
" The English Church is really one with the Church of Eome in faith,
orders, and sacraments."
1870. Publication of The Ritual of the Altar, edited by the Rev.
Orby Shipley. The object of this work, which was noticed in the
House of Lords by the late Archbishop of Canterbury as one of
bold treachery and flagrant dishonesty, was to combine the
Communion service of the Church of England with the Mass service
of the Latin Church, by which means a clergyman, in heart a
Papist, might outwardly appear to the congregation to be using the
service of the Church of England, while secretly performing the
Mass service of the Church of Rome. * Mr. Orby Shipley's
conscience seemed, however to be pricking him when publishing
this thoroughly dishonest work, as in the preface he says —
"It is a question of moment, whether or not it be advisable, or even
lawful, to treat the English Liturgy as it has been dealt with in the present
work. Is it loyal, and if loyal, is it expedient to manipulate our office, and
to tamper with its integrity ? " (p. 14).
Mr. Shipley, after allowing his Ritual to do its treacherous work
for some years, proved the reality of his convictions by openly
apostatizing to Rome.
1871. Mr. Mackonochie, after having been condemned as a
lawbreaker by the Sovereign as Supreme Ordinary, publishes an
address to his congregation, stating —
* Mr. Orby Shipley's conduct in this matter fully justified the severe
language used by Monsignor Capel, when he spoke of " the organized
dishonesty of Eitualism, and its deleterious influenoe on English family
life."

114 DE. PUSEY.
" We do not mean to obey (the law), and, if God gives us grace to do so,
will meet any punishment rather than obey."
1872. Mr. Maskell publishes his Protestant Ritualists, in which,
after an experience of about forty years, equally divided between
the two Churches of England and Rome, he thus speaks of the
Ritualistic party —
" Eitualists are known to every Englishman as acting not only contrary
to the letter, but to the spirit of the great Protestant Eeformation. What
they do and what they say are felt to be shams, mere Brummagem
imitations of the real thing."
1873. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, in reply to a
memorial signed by 60,000 lay members of the Church of England,
thus spake of the Ritualistic movement —
" There can he no doubt, that the danger you apprehend of a considerable
minority both of clergy and laity amongst us desiring to subvert the
principles of the Reformation is real. We feel justified in appealing to all
reasonable men to consider, whether the very existence of our national
institutions for the maintenance of religion is not imperilled by the evils of
which you complain."
1875. Canon Liddon's Controversy with Monsignor Capel,
carried on in the Times, in which the latter observes —
" In these and scores of other passages from such books are our (Eoman)
doctrines of the Real Presence, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and Transubstan
tiation expressed in our own very words."
1877. The late Archbishop of Canterbury thus spoke in Convo
cation, July 6, respecting the Ritualistic party, and the "organized
dishonesty " of their movement towards Rome —
" No admiration of any points in their (the Eitualists) character ought to
make us hesitate to counteract what I believe to be, and am obliged to call
a conspiracy in our body against the doctrine, the discipline, and the
practice of our Eeformed Church."
1878. Meeting held at Oxford in the month of May by the
ultra-Ritualists to promote a union between the Churches of
England and Rome, presided over by Bishop Mylne of Bombay,
who is noted for his sacerdotal pretensions, having written a letter
to the Guardian, under date of May 22, 1876, in which he claims as
the special prerogative of Bishops, that when speaking ex-cathedrd,
they speak " with the voice of God." ! ! !
We have already pointed out (see p. 112) that in Essays on the
Reunion of Christendom, edited by Dr. F. G. Lee, and introduced by
Dr. Pusey, this awful power of speaking " with the voice of God" is

THE 0XF0ED MOVEMENT. 115
claimed, on behalf of confessing " priests as well as bishops ; but to
these who know anything of the truth such claims are essentially
antichristian, and must be regarded as one of those " damnable
heresies " which St. Peter (2 Epist. ii. 1) predicted would be
"brought in privily by false teachers among you," who belong to
the Church of the living God.
We have now. seen the opinions of our Archbishops and Bishops,
as also the declared law of our authorized rulers in the State,
concerning the deep-seated conspiracy of those "false brethren"
among ourselves, which has been so long carried on, partly in
secret and partly avowed, against the Reformed Church of England ;
and which we are bound in fidelity to our Master to oppose by every
means in our power, in obedience to the inspired command to
" contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered unto the
saints," and now so openly betrayed by the Romanizing party,
who profess to belong to the Church of England, while inwardly
they are "ravening wolves."
One of the natural results of the " Oxford Movement " has been
seen in the large number of secessions from various Ritualistic
churches during the last forty years, which have afforded such
efficient nurseries to the doomed Church of Rome. Five years ago
one of these seceders from a notorious church at Brighton,
published a pamphlet with the following suggestive title, Are you
Safe in the Church of England ? A Question for Anxious Ritualists.
By an ex-Member of the Congregation of St. Bartholomew's, Brighton.
In which the writer, either in most perfect ignorance of the doctrines
of the Church of Rome, or in supreme contempt for the want
of learning amongst those whom he is addressing, employs the
following argumentum ad hominem —
" If the faith of Eitualists is any thing more than a mere pious opinion —
if the Eeal Presence, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, Confession, Prayers for the
dead, &c, are each and all of them portions of God's truth, then those who
deny them or any of them are involved in heresy."
Hence the question follows —
" Is there a Bishop in communion with the Church of England, who does
not deny some of the doctrines which Eitualists hold to be essential parts of
the faith ? If not, is there a single Bishop of the Church of England who is
not a heretic ? "
To which the true Catholic will naturally reply in the language
of St. Paul to the Roman Governor Felix — " This I confess unto
thee, that after the way whieh they call heresy, so worship I the
i 2

116 DR. PUSEY.
God of my fathers, believing all things wliich are written in the law
and in the prophets." A very limited knowledge of the Papacy
will show how many of their " infallible " Popes have been " here
tics " in the worst sense of that term : e.g., Pope Zepherinus was a
Montanist ; Marceliinus, an idolater ; Liberius, an Arian ; Silvester,
a Magian ; and, to cap them all, Alexander VI. (the Borgia) the
greatest monster of vice the world has ever known.
But our pamphleteer further asks his friends, who have not yet
taken the fatal leap, the following home questions : —
" Can you be sure that the priest you confess to has ever been properly
baptized ? If not, he is no priest, for baptism is the gate of all the sacra
ments. If you are sure about him, are you equally sure about the Bishop
who ordained him P An unbaptized Bishop is no Bishop at all, and of course
those whom he tried to ordain would not be priests. You never can be
morally sure that any Bishop you see is really a Bishop, any priest really a
priest, and therefore any sacrament really a sacrament. Two or three
unbaptized ' Bishops ' a hundred years ago might have cut off all England
from the apostolic succession and the grace of the Sacraments."
Now if the Brighton Ritualists had sufficient learning amongst
them, here is a fine opportunity for exposing alike the ignorance and
the reasoning powers of this neo-Papist by what school-boys call a
splendid tu quoque. For according to the teaching of the Council
of Trent, which every Papist receives in the light which Protestants
regard the Word of God, it may be proved by the same sort of
reasoning that there is not a living Papist, whether Pope,
Bishop, Clergy, or Laity, who can prove that he has received
baptism with that degree of certainty which the Church of Rome
professes to require. Has this puffed-up neophyte any knowledge
of the Tridentine Doctrine of Intention ? which speaks dogmatically
as follows : —
" If any one saith that in ministers, when they offer and confer the
Sacraments, there is not required the intention of at least doing what the
Church does, let him be aooursed " (Canon xi., Sess. vii.)
No Papist who believes the doctrine of his Church as to intention,
can be certain that he was validly baptized or confirmed, or that the
wafer which he worships was duly consecrated, or that he has been
properly married, or absolved. Hence Cardinal Bellarmine makes
the following candid, but fatal admission, by saying —
" No one can be certain with the certainty of faith that he has a true
Saorament, since the Sacrament is not formed without the intention of the
minister, and no one can see the intention of another" (Opera, vol. i.,
p. 488, Prag. 1721).

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 117
This appeal to the members of the Ritualistic sect by one who
was recently numbered among them, exhibits the extent of error
which the party have reached, as well as being indicative of the
folly and superstition by which the Oxford Movement has been
characterized from the time when Dr. Pusey taught the dogma that
there is no difference between the doctrines of the Reformed and
Protestant Church of England and of the Church of Rome.
But it has been justly remarked that there are " Ritualists and
Ritualists," i.e., two wings of the Romanizing, or rather Papalizing
party, who outwardly profess to belong to the Church of England,
while inwardly they believe all, or nearly all the doctrines of the
Church of Rome. These wings are well represented by two typical
writers of their party : Dr. Littledale, an unbeneficed clergyman, of
London, on the one hand ; and Dr. F. G. Lee, of Lambeth, on the
other. Though differing a good deal on some points, they agree
on two ; viz., first, in asserting that the faith of Evangelicals and
Ritualists constitute "two distinct religions;" secondly, in railing
at and reviling the Reformers and the Reformation of the 16th
century to the utmost extent of their unlimited vocabulary, as
St. Jude (ver. 15) tells us of the " hard speeches," with which " the
ungodly" of his own day used to revile Christ and His faithful
people. There is, however, one great distinction between them.
Dr. Littledale has written a work to expose some of the more
ultra heresies of the Church of Rome, and consequently seems
satisfied with a sort of Anglican Popery, a half-way house to Rome,
the Papal religion suited to the latitude of England. Dr. F. G. Lee,
on the other hand, candidly avows he will be satisfied with nothing
less than "corporate reunion with the Church of Rome;" about
which he has as much chance of success as if he were to attempt to
make the Niagara flow backwards ! It is extraordinary to what an
extent religious fanatics will delude themselves. I can recollect
when the late Daniel O'Connell, after the passing of the Roman
Catholic Emancipation Bill in 1829, boasted that he should soon see
the Mass set up in Westminster Abbey ! * If he had contented
* Lord Teignmouth, in his Reminiscences of Many Years, relates that at
Queen Victoria's coronation in 1838, O'Connell sitting between Chief Justice
Lefroy and Shaw, the Eecorder of Dublin, said in high spirits, that "he
should five to see the day when the Eoman Mass would be celebrated in
Westminster Abbey, and suggested their amusing themselves by spitting on
the heads of those beneath them, i.e., the Eoyal party." Chief Justice
Lefroy told this to Lord Teignmouth, being one to whom the disgraceful
proposal was addressed (vol, ii., p. 222).

118 DE. PUSEY.
himself with predicting that there would soon appear in the
Protestant Church of England a number of " false brethren," who
would treacherously and illegally introduce what Lord Beaconsfield
termed "the Mass in masquerade," as performed by Mr. Macko
nochie, Dr. Lee, and other Ritualists, and which so justly excited
the scorn and contempt of Mr. Maskell, the Irish democrat would
have been nearer the truth. But we have satisfactory proof, that
notwithstanding the wonderful energy displayed by the Papal
party in England during the last fifty years, the large emigration
of Irish Papists into England, and the treachery of so many clergy
professing to belong to the Established Church, the more honest
portion of whom have openly seceded — notwithstanding all these
adverse circumstances, the relative strength of Romanism is less
now in this country than it was when the Roman Catholic
Emancipation Bill was past. And this may be proved by the
infallible test of marriages. Half a century ago, Roman Catholic
marriages were five per cent of the population of Great Britain ;
now they have fallen to a little over four per cent.* If we regard
political power as a test, it is a very significant, as well as happy
circumstance, that the Papal party have not sufficient influence to
return a single member of Parliament in England, Scotland, or
Wales. So that Dr. Lee's avowed expectation of effecting corporate
reunion with Rome, can only be regarded as the delusion of a man
bereft of his senses.
Nevertheless, it may be well briefly to record his vain attempts to
destroy the Church of England by bringing her into subjection to
the doomed and apostate Church of Rome. In the year 1867, when
editor of the Union Review, and also editing, in conjunction with
Dr. Pusey, Essays on the Reunion of Christendom, he allowed his
* See an interesting article in the Geographical Magazine, edited by
Mr. Clements Markham, of June, 1874. In the reign of Elizabeth, the
Eoman Catholics of England and Wales were above one-third of the
population ; but a century later they had dwindled down to 27,690, being
0-54 per cent of the total population. In 1780, they had increased to
69,380. In the present century, a large influx of Irish immigrants raised
the population in 1863 to 5-09 Eomanists to every hundred inhabitants.
The maximum was then reached, for since that year there has been a steady
deorease, until in 1871 the Eoman Catholic population was reduced to
4-02 per cent. Hence the conclusion of the statistical writer, Mr.
F. G. Eavenstein, himself a Papist, that "the Eoman Catholic population
of Great Britain is decreasing, and that at a rate which ought to alarm the
friends of (what he calls) the one true faith." !

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 119
writers to acknowledge, as we have before pointed out, that his
party were " doing the work of, and aiding Roman Catholics to the
uttermost;" and were making "a carefully organized attempt to
bring our Church up to the full standard of the (Roman) Catholic
faith and practice," so as " eventually, say twenty years hence "
(1887), to effect a corporate reunion with the Church of Rome.
Within the last few years there have been whisperings of a
secret society formed for the purpose of effecting this union, which
fully justified, as subsequent events proved, the declaration of the
Archbishops of Canterbury and York, that there was "a con-
spieacy" amongst the Ritualistic clergy to bring the Church of
England into subjection to the Church of Rome.
An unknown individual calling himself the Bishop of Dorchester,
about five years ago, published a paper to the following effect : —
"Mr. Eeginald C. D. Blount is desired by the Bishop of Dorchester, O.C.E.,
to request the favour of the insertion of the enclosed. London, May 1878."
Amongst other things in this extraordinary document, the
following paragragh will show the lengths which ultra-men, like
the Bishop of Bombay and Dr. F. G. Lee, appear prepared to go in
forcing on corporate union with the Chwch of Rome : —
"That the work of the Order (for promoting corporate reunion with
Eome) should be conducted so that those only should be made acquainted
with the details who may be practically concerned in them. As it is desired
to interfere with no one who is not willing to co-operate, so it is the strong
and solemn determination of the rulers of the Order not to alloiv any one not
concerned to interfere with them in any way."
Dr. Lee, with singular candour, has recently published a more
complete account of this Order in two publications. One, a small
work entiled Order out of Chaos; the other, an article in the
Nineteenth Century. Both appeared in the year 1881. I give some
extracts from the former of these works, in order to show the style
which Dr. Lee adopts towards opponents, and the way by which he
hopes to effect the desire of his heart. Order out of Chaos is
dedicated to their "Eminences Cardinals Newman, Manning, and
the ' Very ' Rev. Dr. Pusey." At p. 6, Dr. Lee acknowledges "the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Lady, and
the sublime syllabus" of the late Pope Pius IX. At p. 9, the
doctrine of "Justification by Faith only" is termed "a heresy,"
and the Pauline doctrine of " imputed righteousness, a dangerous
delusion." At p. 14, Englishmen by "the so-called Reformation."
of the sixteenth century —

120 DE. PUSEY.
" Are now alienated from legitimate authority in things spiritual, because
your dazed and duped forefathers were robbed of their spiritual heritage by
lawless schemers and profane innovators, and blaspheming preachers, who
daringly and impiously pretended to reform the Church of God."
At p. 17, " the results of the Oxford Movement " are said to be
seen —
" In the restoration of confession, and in the sincere repudiation of the
degrading heresies and intellectual absurdities of Protestantism."
At p. 50, Dr. Lee says —
" I have always held that the Pope is the Archbishop's (Canterbury) direct
spiritual superior, both in rank and authority; by right of our Lord's
commission to St. Peter, the first Pope .... because Pope St. Gregory,
through St. Augustine, the Apostle of England, formed the English
Church." At p. 73, the admission of our Nonconformist brethren to bury
their own dead by Parliament, is termed one of the Legislature's
"grossly wicked and immoral acts." At p. 89, Dr. Lee states that
he has read the Bishop of Liverpool's works " with weariness, pain,
and nausea, for they obviously treat of a different religion to that in
which I believe, and to which I belong." Hence Dr. Lee declares at
p. 53, that his —
" Policy has been, and is, not individual secession, but corporate reunion.
Men may smile, and man may sneer, but the time will come when the
wisdom of such a policy may be generally and more generously recognized
than is the case now."
Dr. Lee's article in the Nineteenth Century (Nov. 1881) opens
with the remarkable misstatement that —
"In the reign of Charles I., the fable of the Pope having offered a
cardinal's hat to Archbishop Laud was then first formulated."
Dr. Lee's writings display a surprising amount of inaccuracies,
but, perhaps, in no instance more fatal to the trustworthiness of the
writer than in this, as Laud's own words contradict Dr. Lee.
Thus, when Bishop of London, Laud writes in his private diary —
" On Sunday, August 4, news came to Court of the Lord Archbishop of
Canterbury's death, and the king resolved presently to give it to me, which
he did August 6. That very morning, at Greenwich, there came one to me
seriously that vowed ability to perform it, and offered me to be a cardinal. . ,
On August 17," Laud adds, "I had a serious offer made me again to be a
cardinal ; I acquainted his Majesty with it, but my answer again was, that
somewhat dwelt within me, which would not suffer that, till Rome were
other than it is " (Macfarlane's History of England, vol. ii., p. 422).

TBE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 121
Which now are we to believe ? Archbishop Laud, of Lambeth, in
the seventeenth century, or Dr. F. G. Lee, of Lambeth, in the
nineteenth century ? Can there be a doubt ?
Dr. Lee's account, shall we say "fabulous" account, of the
formation of this secret society, of which a London paper justly
remarked, " that the mystery of its proceedings is more useful in
concealing the silliness than the significance of its doings," is as
follows : —
"In the summer of 1877, a solemn preliminary Synod was duly held in
London, of certain clergy of the Established Church with a notary public.
Mass in English, according to the ancient Salisbury rite, was said at
daybreak, and all present communicated — as an avowed protest against the
tyranny and injustice of those who had robbed the National Church of its
most sacred treasure, and had substituted for it the mongrel, mutilated, and
bald service for the Lord's Supper now in use. After Mass was ended, the
Synod was formally constituted. The foundations of the new Order,
strictly confined to members of the Church of England, were then laid.
" The Pastoral of the Order was first promulgated about two months
afterwards, on the 8th of September, 1877, from the steps of St. Paul's
Cathedral, by competent authority in the face of credible witnesses. [A
London journal pertinently asks whether these credible witnesses were
" the early milkman or a suspicious policeman ? "] It was then despatched
to all the English bishops, deans and proctors in Convocation .... its tone
and terms secured a wide and universal commendation.
" In addition to the first Pastoral, a formal decree was soon afterwards
issued, authorising the use of the old Sarum Liturgy. This, issued on
September 27, 1877, was duly signed by all the rulers, and formally
attested by a public notary."
Such is the account which Dr. Lee has put forth in explanation
of the ridiculous farce which he and his fellow-" traitors," to use
the language of St. Paul, performed on the steps of St. Paul's in the
autumn of 1877. Perhaps I might rather say, as Cardinal Newman
once wrote me word in reply to one of the many false tales invented
concerning himself, the whole matter is "too fatuous to be laugh
able." Such ecclesiastical antics, such "playing at Mass," as Mr.
Maskell calls it, in defiance of all order and lawful authority, makes
the performers supremely ridiculous in the eyes of every faithful
and loyal Churchman throughout the land.
The rest of Dr. Lee's article in the Nineteenth Century is chiefly
taken up according to his usual practice of railing at and reviling
every one who differs from him. He is a true Ishmaelite — his
hand is against every man ; and so deluded is he respecting his

122 DE. PUSEY.
conduct in the formation of the O.C.R., that he pronounces it to
be a —
" Grand act of charity and benevolence thus rendered to [those Catholic
Eeunionists in the Church of England, who can look beyond the length of
their own noses."
Those who cannot see so far are lumped together under the
railing names of "Calvinists, Lutherans, Arians, Ritualists, or
Freethinkers." The first of these are described as "the more ignorant, shallow,
and self-willed clergy of the Establishment." The Bishops, or
rather " several of them, including Dr. Christopher Wordsworth,
of Lincoln," are condemned for having "officially sanctioned a
Christian burial service for those who are not Christians." The
Ritualists, or some of them, are described as "fanatical and
shallow ; " and their prints abounding with " scoffs and sneers."
But, the unkindest cut of all seems to have proceeded from a
Roman priest, one "Father Hutton," who very naturally mocks at
all Dr. Lee's boastful pretensions; faithfully terming him and
his companions "a little knot of misguided men," who have
committed themselves to a "forgery." The O.C.R. is justly
described as the " vanity and folly of the new movement." And
the three mysterious individuals, who call themselves "Thomas,
Bishop of Canterbury," " Joseph, Bishop of York," and " Lawrence,
Bishop of Caerleon," in consequence of their O.C.R. consecration,
and who may be compared to the Tulchan bishops of Scotland at
the time of the Reformation, Father Hutton naturally terms them
" thieves and robbers."
As an appropriate finale to Dr. Lee's article, there is a suitable
"Postscript" from one of these "thieves and robbers," signed
"Lawrence, Bishop of Caerleon," addressed to "dear Dr. Lee,"
in which the charity of this nondescript and self-styled Bishop is
displayed in the following language : —
"Look at the succession of crimes, robberies, adulteries, murders,
perjuries, sacrileges, which contributed to the success of the Eeformation in
England .... Look again at the way in which our rights as Englishmen,
Christians, and Churchmen have been trampled under foot and spit upon
by the traitors who are the legitimate successors of those reforming
scoundrels (e.g., Archbishop Benson, the legitimate successor of Cranmer).
How about the future of our movement? If it be repudiated by the
English Church, of course it will fall to the ground. It will be as though
it never had been."

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 123
This last sentence is a truism of which "Lawrence, Bishop of
Caerleon," and Dr. F. G. Lee, of Lambeth, maybe assured, as every
one blessed with the smallest modicum of common sense knows
will be the case. Tlie Union Review in 1867, when edited by Dr.
Lee, allowed twenty years to effect the object of corporate reunion
with the Church of Rome. Only four of the said "twenty years "
are unexpired ; and will any Rational being in England, untainted
with the delusion of the O.C.R., say that there is the slightest sign
of such a tremendous injury to the fairest branch of Christ's
Catholic Church on earth being effected by the year 1 887 ? ! ! !
We have now done with the O.C.R. and "the little knot of
misguided men," who form the ultra wing of the Ritualistic party,
and who have thus shown their hands in the course which they
are now pursuing, as the necessary outcome and result of the
Oxfoed Movement. Their conduct serves to explain the predictions
of St. Paul and Peter, respecting the class of teachers who would
arise in the Church of Christ "in the perilous times of the last
days." In the Epistle to the Galatians they are described as "false
brethren" preaching "another Gospel," and " perverting " the
true Gospel of Christ; making so much of "the observance of
days, and months, and times, and years," as to cause the apostle to
fear that he had "laboured among the Churches of Galatia
in vain."
This same evil is still more sternly condemned in the Pastoral
Epistles to Timothy, in which St. Paul pointedly rebukes the law-
breaking Ritualists of to-day by declaring that " the law was
made for the lawless, and disobedient, and for perjured persons."
While he draws a thrilling portrait of the nominal Christians of the
last days, when he says —
" Men shall be boasters, proud, false accusers, despisers of those that are
good, traitors, heady and highminded, having a form of godliness, but
denying (because ignorant of) the power thereof; which creep into houses
and lead captive silly women ; men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning
the faith ; waxing worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived."
St. Peter, speaking of the same evil days, says —
" As there were false prophets among the people, so shall there he false
teachers among you (Christians), who privily shall bring in damnable
heresies ; and many shall follow their pernicious ways ; by reason of
whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of."
The apostle goes on to describe those who " despise govern-

124 DR. P0SEY.
ment," as being " presumptuous, self-willed, and who are not
afraid to speak evil of dignities."
Conscientiously believing that all these apostolic predictions are
applicable to the lawless and disobedient clergy of the Church of
England in the present day, I cannot, I dare not hesitate in so
saying when " contending for the faith once delivered," which was
fully developed on the Day of Pentecost, and more fully during the
first century, when the Church of Christ was under the guidance of
inspired apostolic men. The solemn words of our Divine Head,
"Betwixt us and you there is a great gulf," are peculiarly applicable
to the differences between the two parties Evangelicals and
Ritualists, as they appear in the present day. These differences
exist on the following five points of the Ecclesiastical Charta.
1. Doctrine. 2. Ritual. 3. Principles of obedience. 4. Em
ployment OF* RAILING LANGUAGE. 5. SPEAKrNG EVIL OF DIGNITIES.
1. On the subject of Doctrine, enough has been already said to
show the fathomless gulf between the two parties on Baptism,
The Lord's Supper, Justification, Confession and Absolution.
As Drs. Littledale and Lee assert, that on these two points we hold
and teach two distinct religions— as Dr. Pusey declared in his
controversy with Professor Maurice — " We do not believe in the same
God," — so must we acknowledge it to be an accurate definition of the
broad gulf between Evangelicals and Ritualists. This gulf will
more distinctly appear, if we briefly allude to some accessories in con
nexion with the Lord's Supper. The Evangelicals, while admitting
that it is immaterial respecting the hour when the Lord's Supper is
administered, remember that Christ, His apostles, and the primi
tive Christians never partook of it otherwise than at night ; the
change to partaking of it "likewise in the morning" began, as
Tertullian teaches, towards the close of the second century. The
Church of England since the Reformation has adopted the rule and
practice of always administering it in the afternoon, i.e., some time
after 12 o'clock, at different hours, varying from 1 to 8 p.m. The
Ritualists of the nineteenth century, in their imitation of every thing
Roman, have adopted the uncatholic and antiscriptural practice of
always partaking of it in the morning. And not content with
putting forth the astounding falsehood " that there is no foundation
in Holy Scripture or in Church history for this innovation of
Evening Communion (English Church Union Gazette, vol. ii., p. 57),
the Ritualists have indulged the evil inclination of their hearts, by
reviling with extraordinary bitterness all those who follow the

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 125
example of Christ and His apostles, as being guilty of "deadly
sin," "revolting sacrilege," "profanation," " abomination," and
other flowers of Ritualistic rhetoric. One of their organs, the
Church Review of March 7, 1879, bursts forth with uncontrolled
fury as follows : —
" It is simply dreadful to contemplate the fact, that Low Churchmen do
as they do about Evening Communions with a distinct polemical purpose.
Again and again that wretched print the Rock urges the introduction of
Evening Communions every where, on the express grounds of the value of
the practice as a party weapon. With almost fiendish delight it records the
setting up of this abomination in any church. Evening Communion has
been made an offensive and profane badge of a party, and it behoves every
Evangelical to drive this accursed thing from him."
Nothing, perhaps, displays the antichristian nature of the Ritual
istic religion more than the revilings which these "fierce "men
have heaped upon the heads of those who follow Paul as he
followed Christ. Contrast with their "hard speeches" the
language of the Bishop of Manchester, in his Charge of 1873, after
partaking of the Lord's Supper in the evening —
" I do not know that I ever took part in a Communion on which there
seemed to rest a more solemn awe, or which seemed to bring more comfort
and joy to my own soul."
Another heresy of the Ritualistic party on the subject of the
Lord's Supper is seen in their insisting on partaking of it fasting,
although it is evident from Scripture that our Lord and His disciples,
as did the early Church, always partook feasting. The Agape, which
was probably introduced in the second century, preceded the Lord's
Supper. In the Ritualistic Manual, the Directorium Anglicanum, Dr.
Lee declares that the officiating minister should abstain from washing
his teeth on the morning that he administers the Lord's Supper,
lest, perchance, he should intermingle water with his saliva, and
" so break his fast ! " The editor adds —
" After celebrating, let him beware of expectorating .... the priest who
neglects these things sins grievously," ! ! !
Can we wonder when reading of such profane folly, that the
High Church Bishop Wilberforce, a few days before his sudden
death, should have declared at a meeting of his Deans Rural, that —
" Fasting Communion was but a detestable materialism, and philoso
phically a contradiction."
Insisting on the Mixed Chalice, i.e., mingling water with the cup
of wine at the Lord's Supper, is another heretical innovation on our

126 DE. PUSEY.
Lord's example at the institution of the rite, and the practice of the
early Christians. Dr. Pusey, in his zeal for exalting human tradi
tion above Holy Scripture, declares that our Lord used a mixed cup
at the Institution, because the Jews always used it at the Passover.
More learned men than Dr. Pusey have proved that he is
mistaken in his assertion, For it was a common saying amongst
the Jews relative to the Passover, as stated in the Talmud, that —
"If any one drinks his wine pure, i.e., unmixed with icater, he hath
performed his duty (Lightfoot's Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitat. in
Matt. xxvi. 27, § 5).
It is sufficient for every loyal Churchman to know that our
Church has authoritatively pronounced against the mixed cup at
the Lord's Supper. The Ritualists, of course, being, as St. Peter
predicted, "presumptuous, self-willed, and despising government,"
utterly disregard such authority, and as a rule adopt the antiscrip
tural practice of mixing water with the cup. One of them, the late
Dr. Field, Bishop of Newfoundland, had the extreme unwisdom of
rushing into print as soon as the Church had pronounced against
the lawfulness of such an act, by writing to the Guardian to suggest
mixing the water in the cup secretly in the vestry before going into
the church : though apparently conscious of his sin in so doing, he
was compelled to say, " One hardly likes to sanction such a suggestion."
The secular papers, of course, got hold of this episcopal specimen
of unholy craft, and the Daily News of May 25, 1873, administered
one of those very severe rebukes, which they do occasionally to
peccant Ritualists, and which was richly deserved. The Bishop's
conduct was almost as bad as that of the "so-called" English
Church Union, whose members are perpetually whining out
complaints against the Church Association, on account of the prose
cutions to which their members are subjected for their fragrant
defiance of the laws of God and man ; in which they expose the
hypocrisy of their complaints, as they had no hesitation in offering
£500 to the Archbishop of York to prosecute, or, as they ignorantly
term it when directed against themselves, "persecute," the Rev.
Mr. Voysey, whose errors, however great, where mild in comparison
with their own.
2. So much for the doctrinal " heresies " of the Ritualists. As
regards their illegal Ritual of Vestments, Lights and Incense, it will
be sufficient if we say that they are every one contrary to the
teaching of Holy Scripture, and the practice of the primitive
Church, as well as authoritatively condemned by the Reformed

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 127
Church of England ; and nothing better than a bad imitation of
Pagan and Papal Rome.
3. Peinciples of Obedience. The ideas which Ritualists have of
the apostolic command to —
"Honour the king" — to "obey them that have the rule over you and
submit yourselves" — " submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the
Lord's sake : whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors as
unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil-doers " —
are certainly very strange. These apostolic commands are thus
practically understood by the Ritualists. One of them, like the late
Dr. Pusey, when an adverse decision was given against a
" criminous " clerk, instantly publishes his defiance of all authority,
under the crooked name of "Unlaw, "in which he exhorts all his
party to disobey the law, because it is contrary to their own private
judgment ! Or another, like Mr. Mackonochie, after one of his
many condemnations by lawful authority, forgetful of his most
solemn vows, and eager to show his contempt for the governors set
over him, rushes into print with a most defiant address to his flock,
in which, among other things, he says —
" We do not mean to obey (the law), and, if God gives us grace so to do,
will meet any punishment rather than obey " !
Surely the clergyman who could so ' forget his most solemn vows
must belong to that class of whom the apostle speaks in his
first Epistle to Timothy, "In the latter times some shall depart from
the faith, having their consciences seared with a hot iron."
We now know the way in which the Ritualists understand "the
principles of obedience " and the obligations of their most solemn
vows, by the memorial which Dean Cowie, Mr. Knox Little,
and others, thought fit to address the Bishop of Manchester, on his
refusal to institute Mr. Cowgill, formerly curate of the " criminous"
Mr. Green, to the vacant living of Miles Platting, on account of his
daring determination to disobey the law of the Church. The
Bishop's reply was calm, courteous and convincing — evidently that
of one who felt conscientiously the supreme obligation of an oath,
and most satisfactory to every loyal and honest member of the
Established Church ; but I venture to add an ideal supplement to
the severe rebuke which the Bishop administered to the memorialists
on the occasion, and which might have been worded in some such
terms as the following : —
"In replying to the memorial sent to me, I would observe first of all, that
the distracted Church of England is at this present time divided into two

128 DE. PUSEY.
clearly defined parties — loyalists and law-abiders on the one side ; anarchists
and law-breakers on the other. You virtually ask me to side with the latter;
in other words, to break the oath which I took at my consecration as Bishop
of the Established Church, when I swore to 'correct and punish all such as
be unquiet, disobedient and criminous within my diocese.'
"You appear to forget that a bishop is as solemnly bound to punish rebels
and law-breakers, or as St. Paul terms them, ' the lawless, disobedient and
perjured persons,' as the clergy are bound to obey the courts of law, whether
in Church or State, under her whom you have sworn to acknowledge as
' Supreme Governor of this realm in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or
causes, as temporal.'
" On these grounds, therefore, in respect to mine oath, I refuse your very
improper request ; and following the example of the apostle Paul at
Antioch, when he withstood Peter to the face, so is it my bounden duty to
withstand you, who have been carried away by the dissimulation of false
brethren,' because your memorial shows that you are much ' to be blamed.'
" But I think it right to add some remarks on your address, earnestly
praying for the Divine guidance, that my words may not be without due
effect ; and in so doing, I shall follow the example of the apostle Paul, and
use 'great plainness of speech.'
" I observe, first of all, with sadness, but without surprise, the dis
respectful way, as it appears to me, in which you allude to the Archbishop
of the province to which we both belong. You say, ' not to recur to the
Archbishop's authority, with its special force from such a See at such a
time.' I reject this suggestion of yours with Christian indignation, because
I deem it (as the Bishop of Peterborough replied to Mr. Temple West, Vicar
of St. Mary's, Paddington, on the occasion of a similar insult) to be
' studiously offensive,' indecorous and most unjust.
"I observe also that you, according to the usual custom of your party,
term those who appeal to the law for protection against the reckless and
defiant law-breakers, ' fanatics ; ' which recalls to mind what the late Dean
of Westminster once said in Convocation, respecting the treatment of bishops
by those whose cause you advocate—' There was a time when the slightest
word that fell from a bishop was thought of importance. That time has
gone by ; and now the weightiest word that falls from a bishop is treated
with the greatest contumely. Witness the vulgar, discourteous, calumnious
misrepresentations which are placed upon the bishops by the newspapers
which represent this party.' I well know how grievously the Archbishop
of York has offended the members of the miscalled English Church Union,
by refusing their offer of £500 to prosecute, or to use the favourite term of
Arehdeaoon Denison, to ' persecute ' a certain clergyman, who was not on
their side. The action of the Archbishop in this matter was a just rebuke
of the insinoerity, or I might more correctly term it ' the hypocrisy ' of the
party you now represent.
" I oall it by this name, beoause while your party have proved their

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 129
willingness to 'persecute ' those whom they deem ' heretics,' they never cease
hurling the most disgraceful epithets and reproaches at the heads of those
whose desire is to obtain an authoritative decision as to what the law of the
Church really is, and then to compel obedience to that law by clergymen, to
adopt your own words, ' all round.' You appear to imply that obedience to
the law of the Church is not enforced ' all round.' But I challenge you to
mention a single instance of any court of law having given any decision, and
any member of the Church of England outside your party refusing to obey
it, or acting in the insulting way which that defiant rebel Mr. Mackonochie
acted after one of his many deserved condemnations, when he published an
address to the congregation of St. Alban's with these self-condemning words,
' We do not mean to obey.' If you refuse to accept this challenge, I have
only to point out the unenviable position in whieh you have placed yourself
hy your rash and unbecoming words.
" I observe again without surprise, that you appear to place the privilege
of singing hymns during divine service on a par with the defiant attitude
assumed by such law-breakers as Messrs. Tooth, Dale, Green, and others.
But you evidently forget that the Church of England, when she protested
against the Eoman Communion, and threw off her usurped dominion at the
time of the Eeformation, adopted the use of hymns in her public worship, as
is proved by the Eubric which authorizes the use of ' anthems,' and which
is equally applicable to ' psalms ' or ' hymns,' when singing to the praise and
glory of God. Or if you confine your objection to hymn singing at the Lord's
Supper, and which is very different from that unsuitable practice invented
by your party of ' Choral Communion,' I would remind you that our blessed
Lord, at the close ofthe First Evening Communion ' sang a hymn' with His
apostles previous to going to the Mount of Olives.
" I am painfully aware that many of your party revile those who follow
the example of Christ and the practice of the primitive Christians, when
partaking of the Lord's Supper of an evening, with such opprobrious terms
as these — 'sacrilege,' 'profanation,' abomination, 'deadly sin,' and other
antichristian expletives ; but the only effect of these reproaches must be to
cover the utterers with disgrace and shame.
" Hence your calling those who desire to compel obedience to the law by
the opprobrious name of 'fanatics,' oan only be paralleled by Canon Liddon's
declaration at a public meeting held to support the law-breaking Mr. Green,
that those who were even ' indirectly ' concerned in the movement against
Mr. Green were acting disgracefully. As every loyal and honest Churchman
in the kingdom may he said to he ' indirectly ' concerned in compelling
obedience to the laws of God and man, Canon Liddon's accusation may be
treated with the contempt it deserves.
" I have only further to observe respecting your plea of ' live and let live,'
in order to obtain ' the blessings of peace,' which all men profess to desire, that
our Lord has taught us that there are two sorts of peace— the peace which
the Saviour promised His people, and that which the world gives, I am
K

130 DR. PUSEY.
afraid that if your principles were to prevail, they would not produce the
peace which the Saviour has promised to the faithful ; beoause an inspired
apostle tells us that ' the wisdom which is from above is first pure, then
peaceable, gentle, and easy to he entreated,' and we have overwhelming
evidence that the reverse of these things is one of the characteristic marks
of the party for which you plead.
" I am compelled, therefore, in fidelity to our Divine Master, to reject your
memorial ; and much regret that clergymen can be found to advocate a
system which is virtually a oondonation of purjury ; i.e., if language has
any definite meaning, and solemn vows are to be observed by those who
have obtained their responsible position by such vows. If your consciences
will not allow you to keep the vows thus made as beneficed clergymen of
the Church of England, and as ministers of the ' Protestant Eeformed
religion established by law,' and to obey your Sovereign as supreme ' in all
spiritual causes,' your duty is clear — viz., to retire from a situation which
you can no longer fill with honour to yourselves, or the welfare of the
Church you profess to serve.
"In conclusion, I would commend to your oareful attention the under
mentioned passages from the infallible word of truth, with assured confidence
that if you ' read them with meekness and godly fear,' you will, hy God's
grace, learn to follow the better way, whioh I earnestly pray you may be
led to do."
To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity
and idolatryl(l Sam. xv. 22, 23).
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves (Heb. xiii.
17). '
The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God ; and
if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the
Gospel of God (1 Pet. iv. 17).
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not
into your house, neither bid him God speed. For he that biddeth him
God speed is partaker ofhis evil deeds (2 John 10, 11).
Every ordained Presbyter of the Church of England vows most
solemnly that —
" He will reverently obey your (his) Ordinary (Bishop), and other chief
Ministers, unto whom is committed the charge and government over you."
Every beneficed clergyman at the time of taking possession of a
living is required to swear —
" That the Queen's Majesty, under God, is the only supreme Governor of
this realm, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes." (Canon
36 " Subscription required of such as are admitted to any ecclesiastical
living.")

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 131
Mr. Mackonochie, on taking possession of the living of St. Peter's,
London Docks, in addition to his previous vows, was compelled by law
to read out loud and subscribe to the Thirty -nine Articles. This he
did on Jan. 28th, 1883, before performing what the Ritualists call
"High Celebration, or Mass." He then proceeded, if the news
papers report correctly, to array himself in the illegal and forbidden
coloured vestments, which Clement of Alexandria, a great divine of
the second century, well said were more suitable to the "priests of
Bacchus " than to a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ ; and all the
other illegal accessories, such as incense, lights, wearing birettas,*
in close imitation of the Church of Rome, in direct defiance of the
law of the Church of which he professes to be a minister, and in
daring violation of the vows he had solemnly sworn to observe. A
more fearful mockery of the Christian religion one can scarcely
imagine than Mr. Mackonochie's behaviour, after his fifteen years'
rebellion (equal to the " sin of witchcraft ") against the laws of God
and man.
Such are the principles of obedience, as understood and practised by
the Ritualistic-Romanizing party of the present day.
4. The employment of raillng language. This is the unfailing
resource of bad men in general, and many of the Ritualists in
particular. I do not suppose for a moment that eminent leaders
among them, like the late Dr. Pusey, or the present Canon Carter,
or others, ever descend to such worldly weapons of warfare, but
we have ample evidence that many of them do rail and revile
opponents in a way which makes us feel, if our Lord's words are
to be accepted as a test, "By their fruits ye shall know men;"
" By thy words thou shalt be condemned ; " they must be classified
with those heathen of whom St. Paul speaks, who regarded the
early Christians as " the offscouring of all things."
The Church Times, the chief organ of the Ritualistic party, is
notorious for the extremely bitter language, which it has for many
years poured out upon its Evangelical opponents. I will give one
specimen of its language towards those of whom in its issue
(Feb. 23, 1867) it says, "Impudence seems to be the forte of this
petty clique of Puritans and Freethinkers;" and this on the
* "Birettas." Some years ago an advertisement appeared in the Church
Times as follows : — "Birettas. We import these direct from Rome, and
are thereby enabled to sell them at about half-price. Zuchettas made from
correct Roman models, and are most worn by priests at funerals.""
K 2

132 Dr. pusey.
testimony of one of its own friends. Some years ago, the late
Rev. W. Gresley, one of the early leaders of the Oxford Movement,
had occasion to lament the language which the Church Times
ordinarily adopted towards opponents. Hence, in writing to the
Church Review of March 2, 1867, Mr. Gresley says —
"Turn we now to the Church Times. I will not express my opinion
respecting it, but simply quote from its pages. I have by chance two or
three numbers by me. The first I glance at is that of Feb. 2, 1867. I
turn to the leading article, Habemus confitentem reutn. The following are
some of the expressions which I find in one article applied to their opponents :
' rancorous malignity, ferocious counsel, malice and bigotry, cant, stupidity,
and malevolent lies and slanders, pious slanderer, self -convicted calumniator,
shameless vituperator, literary exponent of all that is narrow-minded,
spiteful, and contemptible.' "
Can we wonder at the old High Church Quarterly Review
lamenting such a fierce exhibition of reviling in the following
language : —
" The press has poured forth a flood of ultra-Eitualistic literature, of
which some specimens are named in the heading of our article ; and
objectionable as these works appear to us in many ways, the worst of them
give but little idea of the mlgarity and scurrility, the venomous malice, and
unscrupulous falsehood which have won for the newspapers of this party
(the Eitualists) a pre-eminence in badness over the most disreputable of our
older 'religious' papers" (Quarterly Review, Jan. 1869, pp. 134, 5).
11 any one could take the trouble to go through the columns of
the Church Times for the last few years, he would find abundant
evidence in proof of Mr. Gresley's complaint. Nevertheless, so
" self -deceived " are the writers of the party, that not long ago the
Church Times of Nov. 1882, p. 759, declared, "We cannot have
recourse to violence of any kind, not even to violence of language." ! ! !
Does it not remind us of the words of Burns? —
"0 wad some fay the giftie gie us,
To see ourselves as others see us ! "
During the year 1882, 1 received several letters from Col. Hardy,
Secretary to the "so-called" English Church Union, from which I
make some extracts, in order to show his animus against the
Evangelical party, and the railings and revilings which the Ritual
ists, whether lay or clerical, love to heap upon their opponents.
"It would be no loss to the cause of peace and Christian unity, if some
of your Puritan persecutors were to stay away from Congresses altogether.

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 133
For any unpleasantnesses at the (Derby) Congress, Protestants, such as
Canons Lefroy ahd Hoare, and other minor Firebrands, are entirely
responsible  I look upon you and most Evangelicals as rebels against
the Churoh's law. Mr. Green and others have only escaped burning at the
stake, because the law only allowed them to be imprisoned. The late
Dr. (Dean) McNeile publicly advocated the punishment of death for
Ritualists." It is scarcely necessary to say that this accusation against the
late Dean McNeil is untrue ; and that Col. Hardy ought to be
thoroughly ashamed of himself in uttering such a slander against
the dead. But his understanding of the proper meaning of the
words "rebels" and "persecutors " seems to be on a par with his
application of the term " Puritan." If he had a clearer knowledge
of spiritual truth, he might have applied the term "Puritan" more
appositely to those of whom St. John speaks, when he writes —
" Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what
we shall he : but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him ;
for we shall see Him as He is. And every man that hath this hope in him
purifieth himself, as He (God) is pure.'7
Mr. Hingeston-Randolph, Vicar of Ringmore, in South Devon, who
is noted for the violence of his language to the late Archbishop of
Canterbury, having described the Primate as " engaged in a nefarious
enterprise," for his vote in the House of Lords on the Burials Bill,
once wrote to the public papers to condemn the Evangelical Alliance,
whose sole object is to promote the union of the faithful and the
exhibition of Christian charity in the spirit of our Lord's prayer on
behalf of His people, that they " all might be one," in the
following terms : —
" The Evangelical Alliance is an ecclesiastical Stinkomalee, manifestly
invented by the author of all confusion ; and the Irish Bishop who presided
at it, disgraced himself by gathering together into a lump all the available
false doctrine, heresy, and schism, that he had the Sunday before prayed to
be delivered from " (Eandolph's Letter in Western Daily Mercury, Jan. 9,
1879). " I hold the principles and practices of the so-called Evangelical Alliance
in utter abhorrence, and I believe it to he disgraceful and sinful for any
bishop of the Church of God to have any thing to do with such an anti
christian institution " (Eandolph's Letter to the Rock of March 21, 1879).
The writer of these railing letters can know nothing of the spirit
of the Gospel of Christ, nor of Him who hath said —
" A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another, as I

134 DR. PUSEY.
have loved you. By this shall all men know that ye are my disoiples, if ye
have love one to another."
Another Ritualistic clergyman, the Rev. J. S. Boucher, Principal
of the Carnarvon Training College, in reply to a pamphlet which
the Rev. H. Hutchinson Smith, then Rector of Tansley, had
courteously sent him, entitled Ritualism Uncatholic, wrote as
follows : —
" If all your quotations are as much garbled and distorted as that to which
you have mendaciously appended my name, the pamphlet you have sent me
is either an April folly of the most stupid kind, or an impudent knavery of
the half-and-half-truth-whole-lie order, and a glaring defiance of the ninth
commandment throughout. Either way it is utterly discreditable to the
head and heart of its compiler as a professing Christian, though I dare say
it will serve well enough to tickle the palate of those lewd fellows, whom
the Church Rattening Association delights to do its dirty work  with
weapons so obviously drawn from the devil's armoury — Sidney Boucher."
Mr. Boucher, who appears to know no more what truth really is
than he does of the courtesy due to a fellow-creature, is an average
specimen of the way in which the lower order of Ritualists delight
to rail at and revile their opponents, in as studiously offensive a
manner as possible.
5. Speaking evtl of dignities is the last mark of Ritualism that
we shall have occasion to mention, and just as in the previous mark
of "railing and reviling opponents," our difficulty is, making a
selection from the abundant evidence we have at hand.
From Archdeacon Denison, the sole English dignitary who has,
I believe, supported the Ritualistic movement, down to that nonde
script cleric, Mr. Lyne, who once obtained Deacon's Orders in the
Church of England, and who now assumes the title of the Monk
Ignatius, the Ritualistic clergy have expended an astonishing
amount of violent language in " speaking evil of dignities," as the
following specimens will show.
(1.) Archdeacon Denison, in his Autobiography, or Notes of My
Life, has given free license to his pen, and attacked every body and
every thing with a fierceness which quite fulfils the predictions of
the apostles respecting the false teachers, who would arise in the
Church of Christ in " the perilous times of the last days." In this
work he thus speaks of the Queen's Government —
" The Imperial Government of England is steadily and rapidly marching
on to the reproduction of the philosophical infidelity of Julian the Apostate.
. . . For the Imperial Government the case is worse than that of Julian

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 135
the Apostate. There is a practical hypocrisy about the first, viz., the
Queen's Government, whioh is not found in the second" (pp. 138, 325).
Archdeacon Denison's opinion of the Bishops of the Church to
which he professes to belong is seen in the Guardian, when record
ing a meeting of the English Church Union, held at Bristol in October,
1876, to the following effect : —
" Speaking of the Bishops, the Ven. Archdeacon would say to them, you
are members of the Church Association without having the honesty to say
so. He did not think any thing could be more unjust than the Public
Worship Eegulation Bill. It was the foulest and dirtiest thing that ever
came out of the Houses of Parliament. The English Church Union had
come to a distinct resolution that if the two Archbishops were to sit as
Assessors, they would not plead. Amongst the worst enemies of the Church
of England were the Archbishops. In the city of Bristol he woidd not say
a word about the Bishop of the diocese save this — that he included him
among the worst enemies the Church of England ever had."
Archdeacon Denison labours under the double stigma of having
been condemned by the Archbishop of Canterbury for his false
teaching, and by his diocesan for his illegal practice. After a fair
and open trial by the Archbishop sitting in person, and assisted by
eminent divines and ecclesiastical lawyers, the following judgment
was given against him! October 22, 1856 —
" We, John Bird, by Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury,
&c, having deliberated, and the offence proved," &c, that this doctrine is
" directly contrary and repugnant to the 28th and 29th Articles of the
Church of England, declare that the Ven. G. A. Denison ought by law to be
deprived ofhis ecclesiastical promotions," &c.
In the year 1872, Denison's diocesan, the present Bishop of Bath
and Wells, in fidelity to Christ and His Church, was compelled to
administer to his Archdeacon the following rebuke, probably the
severest ever administered by a Bishop to an Archdeacon since the
introduction of Christianity in England : —
" From your own admission I know enough to guide me in making the
following order, which I must ask you to receive as my formal and
peremptory directions, as your Ordinary and Bishop, to whom you have
sworn to pay canonieal obedience in all lawful and honest things. I therefore
prohibit the practice of all such by yourself, or those who act under your
orders. The burning of lights on the altar during the celebration of the
Holy Communion, whether two or more, is, as you must very well know,
illegal. As regards the Invocation of the Virgin Mary, your answer, ' This
is not true,' hardly conveys an accurate impression. Such invocation has
been made in your Church, though it is now discontinued. I have only t.q

136

DR. PUSEY.

add, that it is a bitter disappointment to me, that I find your parish the one
in the whole diocese from which I have now most trouble, sorrow, and
perplexity. Improvements made in the spirit of the Prayer Book, and
sanctioned by the law of the Church, your parishioners will cheerfully
accept. Dangerous approximations to the ritual and doctrine of the Church
of Eome, they neither will nor ought to tolerate."
(Signed) " Aethur C. Bath and Wells."
Archdeacon Denison, in addition to his common practice of
" speaking evil of dignities," occasionally makes the most reckless
charges, which prove to be entirely unfounded. I will mention an
instance in which I happened to take a part. A few years ago
the Guardian reported a meeting of the English Church Union at
Bristol, at which Archdeacon Denison was represented as saying,
that " he knew as a certain fact that Sir Stafford Northcote had said
to a friend, ' The sooner the Bishops are out of the House of Lords
the better.' " Knowing Sir Stafford Northcote personally, I wrote at
once to ask if there was any truth in this charge. He was kind
enough to return an immediate reply, denying the Archdeacon's
extraordinary misstatement.
I pass on to another Ritualistic clergyman, who appears to follow
Denison's example of " speaking evil of dignities."
(2.) Mr. Temple West, Vicar of St. Mary Magdalene, at a meeting
of the English Church Union held in Paddington, Dec. 13, 1876,
expressed his opinion of the members of the Privy Council, who
are the legal and authorized advisers and assessors of the Sovereign,
who is " supreme in all spiritual causes," in the following terms :—
" To tell me that because the Privy Council — a tribunal which is ignorant,
incompetent, and unjust — has decided that a particular thing is wrong —
I will not obey it for one moment " (Church Union Gazette, vol. ii., p. 12).
On another occasion, at a meeting of the English Church Union,
reported in the Pall Mall Gazette of Dec. 8, 1874, Mr. Temple
West brought so many false statements respecting the behaviour of
the Bishops at the passing of the Public Worship Regulation Act,
that several of them wrote publicly to declare that they were
"untrue." A correspondence took place in consequence between
the Bishop of Peterborough and his accuser, which ended by the
Bishop rebuking Mr. Temple West in the following terms : —
" I have only, in concluding our correspondence to express my sincere
regret, that a clergyman of your character and standing in our Church,
should have placed himself in the humiliating position of having made a
public accusation, couched in studiously offensive terms, which he had neither
the ability to prove, nor the candour to withdraw,"

THE oxford movement. 137
(3.) Mr. C. S. Grueber, Vicar of Hambridge, backed up Mr. T.
West, at the Paddington meeting of the English Church Union, by
speaking as follows : —
"I say now what I have said before, and I wish never to cease saying,
that the Churoh of England, by the judgments in the case of Martin v.
Mackonochie, stands condemned before the world as an untrue Church. If
these judgments speak the truth (as every loyal and faithful Churchman
knows they do), the Church of England is no more to he believed, and is no
more to be trusted ; she is false, and in plain words she is a lying Church."
(Church Union Gazette, vol. ii., p. 10.)
(4.) Dr. F. G. Lee, of Lambeth, is reported in the Chureh of
England Pulpit and Ecclesiastical Review of March 18, 1876, to have
preached a sermon, in which he declared that —
" If he could live to see the traitorous Bishops turned out of their Sees, he
would gladly take off his surplice and stole, and say, ' Nunc Dimittis,' " &c.
And in another sermon, Dr. Lee is reported in the South London
Observer of May, 1877, to have expressed his opinion of one of the
authorized Courts of the realm in the following language : —
"The Court of Lord Penzance was a blasphemous and odious farce, a
scandal upon Christendom, lost in the darkness of a well-thumbed Protes
tantism, and a Court as odious as it was disgusting."
(5.) The Rev. T. W. Mossman, Rector of East and West
Torrington, in a letter to the Church News of April, 1868, thought
it becoming his position, as a beneficed clergyman, who had sworn
to obey the Queen as " supreme in all spiritual causes," to compare
her to " Nero, Domitian, and Diocletian," the three noted perse
cutors of the early Christians, because she ruled as she did in the
" Purchas case." Nevertheless, he had no hesitation in accepting
a grant of £100 in 1880, as it was said at the time, " in aid of his
labours in the literature of ecclesiastical history." Mr. Mossman
is said to be connected with Dr. Lee's organization for bringing the
Church of England under the dominion of the Church of Rome,
called " the Order of Corporate Reunion."
(6.) Mr. Stanton, one of the curates at St. Alban's, after one of
Mr. Mackonochie's many condemnations by a lawful court, in a
sermon on the text, " Man shall not live by bread alone," explained
the text as applicable to the Bishop of London for having allowed
the trial, which he describes as " a burning shame," " a blow on the
cheek," and an " insult," in the following way : —
"The prelate who had condemned their incumbent, never had kept, and
never intended to keep the regulations of the Prayer Book ; and although

138 DR. PUSEY.
he received £10,000 a year, he did not, or ought not to live by bread alone :
and this same prelate must take care that he did not go down to the grave
dishonoured, and certainly unloved."
(7.) When Deacon Lyne, or according to the title he has assumed
of the Monk " Ignatius," according to his wont, thrust himself on
the people of Cheltenham, not only unasked and unwanted, but
contrary to the urgent remonstrance of the Rector, Canon Bell, who
held that important office, very wisely distributed some hand-bills,
containing extracts from the writings of this disloyal monk, which
was sufficient to show the sort of character he really was. As he
had never gone honestly over to Rome, or repudiated the office of
deacon which he had obtained in the Church of England, we may
appreciate the sort of religion he professes by his railings of various
authorities in Chureh and State.
Of our Bishops this " fierce and heady " monk thus speaks —
" The Bishops are usurpers, appointed to lord it in God's heritage by
unbelievers ; they are Judas-like, ready and desirous of betraying the flock
of the Lord ; they have ' climbed up some other way ' than by the Church's
call into the fold ; they are ' thieves and robbers,' living upon the holy
Church's rights, and betraying the Church that feeds them in their palaces
of luxury and wealth."
Of Her Majesty's Privy Councillors the monk thus raves —
"The Privy Councillors of our gracious Queen are bidding her trample
under foot the Son of God, and are daringly blaspheming Jesus in the
Sacrament of His dearest love. They would strip England's altars yet
again, and forbid us to worship the Most High."
Of the Book of Common Prayer Mr. Lyne declares —
"It is the produce of heretics and Church robbers, and therefore a
calamity which Christians (of the Eitualistic sort) have too long borne in
silence. The anoient Missal and Breviary are the only service books
authorized by the Church of England." ! ! !
Although these sayings of the Monk Ignatius are not worthy a
moment's consideration by any believer in the Christian religion,
they are significant of the feelings which actuate those "lawless
and disobedient" clergy, whose appearance in the Church St. Paul
predicted as certain to take place in the perilous times of the last
days —
" Of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly
women .... men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they
shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all"
(2 Tim. iii. 6-9).

the oxford movement. 139
Such is the manner in which many of the leaders of the
Ritualistic-Romanizing party, who still remain in the Church of
England, speak of those in authority, and fulfil the apostolic
prediction to the letter, of being—
" Boasters,* proud, disobedient, despisers of those that are good, traitors,
heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a
form of godliness, but denying the power thereof."
The Ritualists have certainly zeal, but it is not according to
knowledge. They have toiled to introduce into our Protestant
Church what St. Paul calls "another Gospel;" to show how the
Roman Mass may be secretly performed, while outwardly the
Communion service of the Church of England is being used ; how
every order of the Church may be evaded, every law trampled on,
and every vow broken ; every authority despised and defied, every
heresy of the Roman Church gradually and cautiously introduced,
until, as they themselves confess —
* " Boasters." I find a significant speeimen of these men in Danison's
Autobiography. Speaking of the Eitualistic party, of which he is so fiery
a member, ahd whom he attempts to dignify, according to the wont of his
sect, by the misnomer of " Catholic," he boastingly proclaims that they
have "ninety parts in a hundred of all the devotion, self-denial, learning,
knowledge, reverence, care for souls, to he found in the Church of
England" (Notes of my Life, p. 63). Poor deluded, self-conceited man!
It would be quite useless attempting to convince him of his errors ; but I
will mention one instance out of many, to show the sort of "learning and
knowledge " whieh Denison considers are the special property of his party.
One of them, a cleric of the name of Eamsay, M.A. of Trinity College,
Cambridge, published a work with the boasting title of The Catechiser's
Manual of the Church Catechism ; for the Use of Clergymen, School-masters,
and Teachers, in whieh the author displays his scientific knowledge by
teaching the Eitualistic clergy that "the natives of Thibet worship the
lama."!!! This "learned" Eitualist evidently confounded the high
priest of Buddhism, or, as he is termed, the " Grand Lama of Thibet," with
the " llama " or " alpaca " of Peru ! ! ! The Church Review of Nov., 1880,
appears to be on a par with the learning of Mr. Eamsay, as in its desire to
prove Lord Penzance wrong, and the Eitualists right in their craving after
the " Eastward " position, it declared that Daniel afforded an example of
" disobeying the law, and praying towards the east, as he did aforetime,"
Now Daniel (vi. 10) certainly teaches that Daniel, when he was in
Babylon, prayed " toward Jerusalem, as he did aforetime." But as Babylon
was north-east of Jerusalem, the prophet must have been praying with his
face towards the west!!! The " knowledge " of Geography and of
Natural History seems rather weak with the Eitualists.

140 DR. PUSEY.
" It is reasonable to hope that twenty (now/ow) years hence (Eoman)
Catholicism will have so leavened our Church, that she herself, in her
corporate capacity, will be able to say to Eome, 'Let the hands which
political force have parted these 300 years, he once more joined.' We are
one with Eome in faith, and have a common foe to fight " ( Union Review,
July, 1867, then edited hy Dr. Lee, p. 409).
Justly has our present Prime Minister, Mr. Gladstone, condemned
this treacherous proposal to unite with the Papacy, in his article in
the Contemporary Review of October, 1874, p. 674, entitled, "Ritualism
and Ritual," by observing —
" The question is, whether a handful of the clergy are or are not
engaged in an utterly hopeless and visionary effort to Romanize the Church
and people. But if it had been possible in the seventeenth or eighteenth
centuries, it would still have become impossible in the nineteenth, when
Eome has substituted a policy of violence and change in faith .... when she
has equally repudiated modern thought and ancient history. I cannot
persuade myself to feel alarm as to the final issue of her crusades in
England; and this although I do not undervalue her great powers of
misohief." Eleven years ago, the late Bishop Thirlwall forcibly remarked
in his Charge of 1872 on the conduct of these treacherous "false
brethren," by saying —
" While the Evangelicals were slow of growth and willing to make con
cessions, the Ritualists desired io re- Catholicize the Church of England in
every particular— short, perhaps, of submission to the Pope, and thus they
agitated for disestablishment. It was saddening to think that any hody of
the clergy could transfer their allegiance from a Church to which they
professedly belonged, to any ideal body which had no existence save in their
own imagination."
I am constrained, therefore, to point out, with the abundant
evidence before us, that the result of the Oxford Movement during
the last half -century has been to produce a religion in this fair
realm and Church of England, the characteristic marks of whioh
are — 1. Heresies; 2. An illegal and anti-Catholic Ritual; 3. Con
tumacy and disobedience; 4. Perjury; 5. Daring defiance of all law
and order ; 6. Railing and reviling of opponents, whether high or
low, clergy or people ; 7. Speaking evil of dignities in Church and
State, whether the Sovereign, as "supreme in all spiritual causes
as temporal," or Bishops, or Judges, or every one who differs from
their illegal practices, the outcome of their own unhallowed private
judgment. In conclusion, I think it well to give the opinions of four

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 141
different representative men, purposely excluding those of the
Evangelical school, respecting the result of the Oxford Movement,
which has culminated in the production of a numerous body of
Ritualistic-Romanizers, the most reckless and lawless class of men
that have appeared in the Church of Christ since the day of Pente
cost. These four representative parties are —
1. One of the London leading journals.
2. The oldest Roman Catholic newspaper in England.
3. A learned High Churchman and dignitary of the Established
Church. And —
4. A distinguished statesman not long deceased.
1. The Daily Telegraph of June 17th, 1878, in commenting on
Mr. Temple West's language at a meeting held in support of the
disobedience of Mr. Mackonochie, thus characterises the sect of
Ritualists to which these two law-breaking clergymen belonged : —
" The gist of this cleric's discourse was to the effect that the troubles of
the Eitualists were due to the enactments of the State, the autocracy of the
Bishops, and the ' prostration of discipline.' But who has prostrated disci
pline f Is it not the duty of a clergyman to obey his Bishop ? and, if he
deny episcopal authority, where is the use of any Bishops at all ? The
remedy for Eitualistic grievances was, according to Dr. West, the erection
of Courts of Appeal sanctioned by the Church. But where is the Church ?
Manifestly, in Dr. West's opinion, nowhere save in St. Alban's, Holborn,
and St. Mary Magdalene's, Paddington, and the other ecclesiastical toy
shops where Eitualism sets up its much-bedizened head, and impudently
preaches disobedience to the behests of all constituted authority, episcopal
as well as lay. . . . The antics and the gewgaw ornaments of Eitualism are
only part of a larger and more audacious scheme. The ' great and vital
principle ' for which they are fighting is, that the Queen and the Bishops
should surrender their authority to a knot of clergymen and their lay
supporters. The proposal for Synods is so much dust thrown in the public
eyes. A Synod must have a head ; it must represent the entire Church ;
and the Eitualists are only a mutinous and turbulent fraction of that
Church. They would never obey the decision of a majority. They are
incorrigibly insubordinate ; and it is for that reason that they win not the
sympathy, but the contempt and aversion of the Roman Catholics, whose
tenets they plagiarise, and whose solemn and ancient rites they caricature,
but whose implicit obedience to episcopal authority they are too vain and too
headstrong to imitate,"
2. I adduce the testimony of the Tablet newspaper of May, 1877,
as representing the opinion entertained by respectable Roman
Catholics on the conduct of the Ritualists at the present time.

142 DR. PUSEY.
The following description of a normal Ritualist is not flattering
certainly, but it is very true, and worthy of an attentive
perusal: —
"Profuse as the Bitualist is in words of bitter enmity towards the
Bishops of the (Eoman) Catholic Church, he is still more contemptuous
towards his own. Nothing under the wide canopy of heaven is safe from
his sneers and invectives. Even in his own community he despises all
authority and counsel but his own. His religion is simply a xoar-cry. It
is a motive, not for love, but for hate. Accusing all Christians of error
except his own narrow circle qf associates, he is as peremptory and self-
sufficient in proclaiming his own crude ideas, as if he alone had nothing to
learn from God or man. He is right because everybody else is wrong. All
the saints of our own and every other land are for him knaves and dotards.
The most extravagant sectary of ancient or modern times never conceived
a baser estimate of the Christian Church than he. Whatever gifts of God
were deemed in past ages a condition of salvation — humility, reverence,
charity, and submission — have no place in his system. He suffices to him
self. He can teaeh the (Eoman) Catholic Church and his own. But
nobody can teach him. After doing all he could to sink the ark of God, he
is now constructing a raft without sails or rudder. As he contemplates
the crazy fabric, of which Ignorance is the builder and Folly the pilot,
he is filled with admiration at his own work, and marvels that none
Bhare it."
3. My next witness shall be that of a very learned and pro
nounced High Churchman, Dr. Burgon, the present Dean of
Chichester, who, when Vicar of St. Mary's, Oxford, preached in
1873 two sermons on " Romanizing within the Church of England,"
from which I make the following extracts.
Dr. Burgon commences by acknowledging —
" The present portentous development of Eomanizing practices within the
Church of England .... An Englishman is apt to say, Why am I
and my family to he driven away from our Parish Churoh, because a young
man, remarkably ill-furnished with divinity, or learning, or experience, or
good sense, takes it into his head that he will imitate the dress and adopt
the method of the Eomish Communion f . . . . This little handful of
disloyal men are already teaching Eomish doctrine and inculcating Eomish
principles by every means in their power .... Tlie greatest blot and
most fatal perversion of Evangelical truth is the pretence of the change of
the substance of Bread and Wine in tlie Supper of the Lord. It is further
pretended that in the sacrifice of the Mass, the priest offers Christ for the
quick and the dead, which is idolatry ; and which our Churoh designates as
• a blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit '. . . . By adopting vestments and
ornaments of the person generally, unauthorized for the use of our parochial

the oxford movement. 14*3
clergy, but worn by the clergy of the Eomish Churoh, those men display their
secret sympathy with the teaching which those vestments symbolize ; to which
must be added significant gestures, significant postures and acts, especially
consecration of the Eucharist with the back towards the people— a practice
unknown to our Church for full 300 years, and only familiar to us as pre
vailing in Churches under the Eoman obedience .... High Mass, Low
Mass, Conf essional Boxes, Extreme Unction, Mass for the Soul, Clouds of
Incense, Stations of the Cross, New Litanies— all these things are wholly
unsoriptural, and essentially un-English; silence becomes no longer possible.
It is to connive at the scandal to witness it without remonstrance .... The
solemn foppery, the effeminate i>assion for finery, the pitiful millinery of
fhis new sect is distasteful to me ; their coloured stoles, and curt surplices,
and imported ' birettas,' and melodramatic gesticulations, their sing-song
prayers and their gabbled lessons, are a weariness of the flesh, and an exas
peration of the spirit ; the disloyal and dishonest adoption of tenets and
practices from which our Church purged herself at the era of the Eeforma
tion, together with a certain fidgety anxiety to make everything assimilate
to foreign usage, and a kind of apologizing for the Church of England.
To use the language of the late Bishop Wilberforce, I should as soon think
of apologizing for the virtue of my mother to a harlot, as of apologizing for
the Church of England to the Church of Eome .... This spurious thing
calling itself Ritualism — this bad imitation of what is seen and heard in
Roman Catholic Churches, is the great difficulty with numbers of the
clergy in our large towns. The working people simply hate it. Thus the
cause of Christianity itself is suffering by the extravagances of a little
handful qf misguided men. They assume that their outlandish ivays are
' Catholic,' whereas they are schismatical entirely, the outcome of a lawless
spirit, a morbid appetite, and an undisciplined will. Indecent self-assertion
and undutiful disregard for lawful authority are conspicuous notes of this
new sect. The organs of the party denounce the proposed interference of
the Ordinary in the most unmeasured language; and the vocabulary of
defiance, contumely, and invective is exhausted on as many as avow them
selves on the side of authority and order."
80 in a public letter, addressed to the late Dr. Pusey, Dean
Burgon writes —
" In common with thousands of our brethren, I view with extreme
jealousy and displeasure the attempt hy a party to identify the name of
Keble with their cause, and to claim his sanction for their proceedings.
The party which thus acts calls itself ' Ritualistic' Its ringleaders defy
the law, repudiate the authority of the Bishops, and set themselves up
against the Book of Common Prayer. They openly adopt Romish dresses,
Romish practices, Romish phraseology. They teach Eomish doctrines. I
must he allowed to designate English clergymen who so act as immoral

144 DR. PUSEY.
persons. Their method is schismatical. The heart of England loathes and
abhors them." *
4. My last witness shall be that of the late Lord Beaconsfield.
When the Public Worship Regulation Bill was before the house of
Commons, Mr. Disraeli, who was then Prime Minister, took the
opportunity of explaining the nature of Ritualism, and the reason
why such a bill was necessary for restraining " criminous clerks,"
though probably neither the Prime Minister nor any other member
of Parliament had any idea of the depth of degradation to which
the Ritualistic clergy would descend in their determination to over
ride the laws of God and man, and to violate their most solemn vows,
by which the wisdom of our forefathers had sought to prevent one
of the basest acts of treachery that has ever been attempted in the
Church of Christ since the days of Christianity.
" I mean by Eitualism," said the late Lord Beaconsfield, when in the
House of Commons, " the practice by a certain portion of the clergy of the
Church of England of ceremonies, which, as they themselves oonfess, are
symbolical of doctrines which they are pledged by every solemn compact
that can bind men to their Sovereign and their country to renounce and
repudiate. And of all the false pretences of this body of men, there is, in
my opinion, none more glaring and pernioious than their pretending that
they are a portion of the great High Church party in England."
It is true that the Ritualists prove themselves apt disciples in
that self-laudation school characterized by St. Paul as "proud,
boasters, false accusers, deceivers and being deceived," of which
we have a striking specimen in the boast of the Church Review
*For Dean Burgon's faithful remonstrance with Canon Gregory on the
conduct of the Eitualists, the Church Times of June 3, 1881, has reviled
him in the following characteristic language. The Dean is compared to a
" shark, whose ferocity and voracity have become proverbial. His original
tartness has fermented into acrid violence, whioh is consuming itself instead
of the purpose to which he would fain apply it — that of material for vitriol-
throwing against the objects of his dislike .... He has branded himself
as a false witness, and needs no further attention .... Dyspepsia is
responsible for much of the Dean's wild and furious invective." The
Church Times further compares the Dean to the man possessed with an
unclean spirit, "crying and cutting himself;" whereas, by accepting the
Eitualistic nostrums, he might be proved to be " not only in his right mind,
but clothed in Eucharistic vestments." ! ! ! Such are the revilings of this
specimen of the Eitualistic press, which, nevertheless, wrote in November
of the following year—" We cannot have recourse to violence of any kind,
not even to violence of language," .'.'/

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 145
(Jan. 30, 1875), that, "the Ritualists were the sole defenders of
revealed truth. The Evangelicals are united against all definite faith
and practice " / / /
We know how justly Clement, St. Paul's "fellow-labourer,"
rebuked the Sacerdotal or Ritualistic party, which, began to appear
even in those early days amongst the believers at Corinth, when he
says —
" Let our praise be in God, and not in ourselves ; for God hateth those
that commend themselves. Let testimony to our good deeds be borne by
others, as was the case with our righteous fathers. Boldness, and arrogance,
and audacity belong to those that are accursed of God ; but moderation,
humility, and meekness to such as are blessed by Him" (1 Epist. to Cor.
ch. 30.)
Having thus considered at length the practical result of the
Oxford Movement, and the fundamental differences between the
Evangelicals and Ritualists — as seen, e.g., in the doctrines which the
latter teach; the practices which they have plagiarisedfrom the Church
of Rome ; the lawlessness and disobedience which they exhibit to
all constituted authority, and contempt for " the powers that be ; "
the violation of their most solemn vows when the law has pro
nounced against them ; the " hard speeches " which they utter
against those who detect and oppose their aims ; their expressed
determination to " unprotestantize the Church of England ; " * their
unceasing attempt to override the law ; to copy as closely as possible
that paganized form of Christianity, as Coleridge described it,
which once prevailed in England, and is now gradually decaying in
Rome, and eventually to effect a corporate reunion with that
doomed and fallen Church ; — we are driven slowly and sorrowfully
to the same tremendous conclusion at which Dr. Pusey arrived
* As early as 1841, the leaders of the Oxfoed Movement avowed their
determination to make the attempt, as their chief organ then wrote as
follows : — -
" The Protestant tone of doctrine is essentially antichristian ; our object
is to un- Protestantize the National Church. As we go on, we must recede
more and more from the principles, if such there he, of the English
Eeformation" (The British Critic, July 1841).
This shows not only the treachery, but the disloyalty of the Eitualistic
party, as the oath, which the Supreme Ordinary of the Church of England,
" supreme in all spiritual causes," as the Sovereign undoubtedly is, takes
at his coronation, is to maintain " the Protestant Reformed religion,
established by law " (see Coronation Oath in Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Law, i,
p. 1060).

140 , de. pusey.
during his controversy with Professor Maurioe, as Canon Farrar
related at the Croydon Church Congress in 1877, that the
differences between the Evangelicals and Ritualists being so many,
so fundamental, and so great, that virtually to all intents and
purposes — We do not believe in the same God !

Since writing the above sketch of the Oxford Movement from its
dawn unto the present day, I have had an opportunity of reading
with great care the third and last volume of the Life of Bishop
Wilberforce, who played so important a part as the Bishop of the
diocese in every thing connected with that movement, or perhaps I
should rather say in everything external to Evangelical truth ; and
I regret to be obliged to say, how sadly my opinion of the Bishop
has been changed thereby. I had been a good deal shaken in the
esteem whioh I had entertained for him during his lifetime, by the
perusal of the second volume. But now that we can read his life so
frankly placed before us by the partiality of a filial biographer, and
his many failings so lightly touched on, or so carefully concealed,
I cannot hesitate to say that he has fallen in my humble opinion to
an extent which I had not previously conceived possible. It is not
only that the third volume shows him to be a mere man of the
world, spending so much of his time apparently in the abodes of
the great and rich, but that he had so very feeble a notion of the
Gospel in its Scriptural and primitive sense ; the exhibition of so
much temper — though this he seems occasionally to lament— and the
use of such "bitter words " towards opponents, and above all his con
tempt of Evangelical men and Evangelical principles. Everything
of a Gospel nature seems to be subordinated to the misuse of that
unhappy word " Church," as invariably employed by Sacerdotalists,
and so different from the Scriptural term as used by St. Paul. It
reminds one of the epigram which reads —
" A man may cry, ' Church ! ' ' Church ! ' at every word,
Without more piety than other people ;
A daw's not reckoned a religious bird,
Because it keeps caw-cawing from the steeple ! "
I will give one or two specimens of his treatment of Evangelical
men and principles. At p. 177 of vol. iii. we have an account of
the Bishop's visit to the notorious Ritualistic Church of St. Albans,
Holborn, and his opinion that a sermon he then heard by Mr.

THE oxford movement. 147
Stanton, one of the curates, whose invectives against the Bishop of
London in another sermon have been already given, was that it
was "thoroughly Evangelical." But judging from that Bishop's
own deeds, I am afraid his understanding of the word "Evangelical"
was very different from the way in which it has been understood
during the last 150 years by that large party, which has borne the
despised but honoured name of "Evangelical." If there be one
layman in England of the present century more deserving of that
glorious epithet than any other, it is the present Earl of Shaftesbury,
who has so long filled in the English Church the place once occupied
by the Bishop's father, the honoured and noble-minded Evangelical
William Wilberforce. Now how was Lord Shaftesbury estimated
by the Bishop of Oxford ? A few sentences extracted from the third
volume of his biography will tell their own tale.
When Lord Shaftesbury, in 1867, endeavoured to carry a measure
in the House of Lords for trying "criminous" clerics, which was
afterwards accomplished by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the
fidelity of a Protestant House of Commons, Bishop Wilberforce was
so enraged that he tried by every means in his power to thwart and
prevent so useful and necessary a measure. In a letter to the Bishop
of Salisbury, he speaks of " the terrible evil of the English Episco
pate supporting Shaftesbury in such a step, the party colour given
to the whole by his lead  It was thereupon agreed that Shaftes
bury should be hounded off by being told that the Archbishop was
preparing such a bill," &c. (p. 205).
In the next page we have a letter from the Bishop to Mr. Glad
stone, in which he says that Lord Shaftesbury had prepared a bill
"for making the 50th Canon the absolute and sole rule of the
Church of England, as to ornaments, dresses, &c, throwing over the
rights of congregations, the discretion of bishops, and the liberty of
the Church for all future expansion. It was exactly the idea for his
cramped, puritanical, persecuting mind." ! ! !
Considering that the 50th Canon— or rather, I suppose, the Bishop
meant the 58th Canon, as the former only refers to strangers
preaching without licences— has been the rule and practice for all
loyal and faithful Churchmen during the last three centuries, it is
difficult to explain the Bishop's " bitter words," save because it
was the attempt of an Evangelical nobleman to enforce decency
and order against the lawless and disobedient clergy of the present
A few pages further on the Bishop, in writing to Bishop Milman of
l 2

148 DR. PUSEY
Calcutta, recurs again to the subject by glorying over "the defeat
of Shaftesbury's short and easy method of persecution " / / /*
In the same spirit Bishop Wilberforce displays his enmity
against the two ablest and most distinguished Evangelical Bishops,
Baring and Waldegrave, which the Church of England has possessed
during the nineteenth century, both of them having been, I believe,
"double-firsts" at Oxford, as the following words will show.
Writing to Mr. Gladstone, March 29th, 1863, he says— "Lord
Palmerston's iciclced appointments meet us here at every turn ; "
which means, as the Bishop says in a letter to Mr. Gordon at the
time, " Palmerston nominated Baring for Canterbury, and Walde
grave for York " (p. 84). This enmity to Evangelical Bishops is
again repeated at p. 161, when he speak so scornfully " of a govern
ment which gave Waldegrave to Carlisle, and Baring to Durham,
and the youngest Bishop on the Bench to York," though in this last
instance it was apparently because the grapes were very sour ; as
there is ample evidence in the biography of the Bishop's incessant
craving after promotion, either to London, York or Canterbury,
though eventually he was compelled to be content with only Win
chester, and that with a reduced income during the lifetime of his
distinguished predecessor. I happened to be on a visit to some
friends in the diocese of Oxford at the time when his translation
was accomplished, who did not belong to the Evangelical school,
and was rather surprised at the contemptuous tone with which these
High Churchmen spoke of Bishop Wilberforce on account of his
desertion of the diocese of Oxford.
* Bishop Wilberforee's idea of the word "persecution," is not to be under
stood in its ordinary sense, such as we^find the word defined in the English
dictionary, but in the Denisonian or Eitualistic sense of the term ; e.g., at
p. 301, writing of the death of Bishop Hamilton, of Salisbury, he says —
" It was the hardness of the Dorsetshire clergy after his last Charge, and
their long persecution, which broke his heart ; and as much killed him as if
they had used the knife." A grosser misstatement was never made. Bishop
Hamilton, who had once professed Evangelical views, passed over to the ranks
of the enemy, and delivered a Charge brimful of Sacerdotalism and con
sequent error. The faithful Dorsetshire clergy protested mildly and cour
teously as in duty bound, and in a very different spirit from that displayed
invariably by the lawless Eitualists, against their diocesan's unfaithful
teaching. And this Bishop Wilberforce terms " long persecution." ! ! ! It only
proves the extreme partisanship of Bishop Wilberforce, and how " bitter "
his words were against Evangelical men in general ; and notably against
Lords Shaftesbury, Palmerston, and Beaconsfield in particular.

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 149
iudLlf^ TT' ^ Bish0p,S ™ks on the "Gorham
judgment display his great enmity to Evangelical truth. We
now know, asl have already noticed, on Archbishop Taifs authority,
that the Gorham judgment was drawn up by Archbishop Sumner
concurred in by the Archbishop of York,* and defended by two
noted High Churchmen, Messrs. Dodsworth and Maskell, before they
left the Church, as well as by the late Canon Mozley of Oxford
and was a faithful expression of the Chureh of England's doctrine on
the subject of Baptism, which has been cordially accepted by every
sound Evangelical Churchman throughout the world. It only
required the insulting language which Bishop Wilberforce heaped
upon the judges, as Mr. Malcomb MacColl on another occasion
reviled the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (see p. 12),
when he spoke of "the folly and self-contradiction and ignorant
arrogance of Dr. Lushington's judgment," to prove what ideas the
Bishop had of either decorous language, charity, or Evangelical
truth. How different from that apostolic exhortation which St.
Paul delivered to the Ephesian Christians, and which is so painfully
disregarded by the Ritualists of the present day, "Let all bitterness,
and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil-speaking, be put away
from you, with all malice. And be ye kind one to another, tender
hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath
forgiven you."

It may be well, in closing, to remind the reader of the different
way in which certain ecclesiastical terms are used by controver
sialists in the present day ; e.g. —
1. "Priest." This word, which is never applied in the New
Testament to the minister of Christ, as it was under the Mosaic
dispensation to the Jewish priests, is understood by Evangelical
men, as Hooker understood it to mean, simply the term ' ' presbyter
writ short." In Scripture the term is used to denote all the faithful,
* I have noticed (see p. 41) the Archbishop of York's denial of Bishop
Wilberforce's fabulous account of the way in which the judges voted on the
Gorham case, on the truth of the Archbishop's word, has been officially con
firmed by a letter from the Clerk of the Privy Council, which appeared in
the Times of Jan. 23rd, 1883, defending the conduct and explaining the
votes of the Archbishop of York and Earl Cairns, made public with
the permission of the Queen, against the aspersions of Bishop Wilberforce.
This exposure reflects no small amount of discredit upon the whilom
Bishop of Oxford.

150 dr. pusey.
whether laymen or ministers ; as St. Peter describes such to belong
to the "holy priesthood," who can and do offer the only sacrifice
which God will accept under the Gospel dispensation, viz., that of a
contrite heart humbled on account of sin. The Ritualists, on the
other hand, assert that all ministers ordained by a bishop are
" priests " in the Jewish sense of the term ; and that at the Lord's
Supper, when the elements are changed into the same body which
was born of Mary and crucified under Pilate, the "priest " re-presents
the sacrifice, which Christ offered once for all when He died at
Calvary. This we believe to be a fatal and fundamental error, one
of the "damnable heresies," as St. Peter calls them, which no one
who has been taught " the truth as it is in Jesus," can receive for a
moment. 2. "Sacrifice." This term is never used by the faithful other
wise than as the Church of England uses it in the Communion
Service, when the minister says —
" Here we offer and present unto thee, 0 Lord, ourselves, our souls and
bodies, to be a reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice unto Thee " —
for, as we have already shown (see pp. 10, 11), the Homilies, and
our great divines, like Hooker and Bishop Beveridge, have clearly
laid down the rule that the Ritualistic pretension of the "priest "
offering a sacrifice at the Lord's Supper is " contrary to Scripture,"
because " Sacrifice is now no part of the Church ministry."
3. "Altar." The Ritualists invariably use this term to denote
the Lord's Table. The Evangelicals, never. Why so? Because
neither Scripture nor the Church of England so apply it. The
latter in her Communion Service uses the term " The Lord's Table "
four times; " the holy Table," twice ; " the Table," once ; but the
word " Altar," not once. We meet with the term in Hebrews xiii.
10, " We have an Altar," * which refers, not to the Lord's Table of
* A Eitualist clergyman was once heard teaching his school children in
the following way : " What does St. Paul say we Christians have ? " "An
altar." "And an altar is for — ? " " Sacrifice." " And the person who offers
sacrifice is called — ? " " A priest." " Then what are the three things which
St. Paul says we Christians have P" " An altar, a sacrifice, and a priest."
Now had this Eitualist "priest " a better acquaintance with God's Word, he
would have reasoned more in accordance with Catholic truth, if he had taught
his children thus : — " Where does Scripture say the priests go to perform their
service?" "Into the first tabernacle." "Is the first tabernacle standing
now?" "No." "Why not?" "Because the way into the Holiest of all
was not yet made manifest, while the first tabernacle was standing." " Is

THE 0XF0ED MOVEMENT. 151
the Christian, but to that which God commanded in the Jewish
Church, as may be proved by the fact that this passage is never so
applied by any of the early Christian teachers. I once took the
pains to count the quotations of Holy Scripture found in the ante-
Nicene fathers. They amounted to 26,243 texts, but not one
referring to Hebrews xiii. 10. Hence the unanimous teaching of
the Catholic Church in those early ages was as Arnobius in his
work Against the Gentiles (1. vi. § 1), written in the beginning ofthe
fourth century, and Lactantius iu his Divine Institutes (1. ii. c. 2),
written about the same time, declare. For they set forth this
important truth, as proving the great gulf between the Christians
and the heathen, that the former had " neither temples, altars, nor
images." About a century and a half later we find the word " altar "
in use among Christians, but there only as denoting the holy Table
of the Lord. Thus the historian Socrates, in the middle of the fifth
century (Ecc. Hist. 1. i. c. 37), speaks of a certain person—
" Going alone into the church, called Irene, and approaching the altar,
he throws himself on his face beneath the holy Table, and prays with
tears." 4. " Obedience." Enough has been said in the foregoing pages to
show that Evangelicals interpret this in the plain ordinary sense of
the word, as Scripture commands us to obey those that bear rule,
and as the Catechism so clearly teaches. The Ritualists virtually
teach, whether of the Supreme Ordinary or the Judges, as " governors
sent by him for the punishment of evil doers," or bishops, " Obey
them only when they agree with our own private judgment."
5. " Persecution." Evangelicals interpret this word as the High
Church Laud treated Archbishop Leighton's father and the
" Puritan " clergy in the sixteenth century, of which we have
given a specimen at p. 23. Archdeacon Denison and other
the way into the Holiest of all made manifest to Christians now ? " " Yes ;
Scripture says, we have ' boldness to enter into the Holiest by the blood of
Jesus by a new and living way.' " " Then what has become of the first
tabernacle ? " " It has no standing now." " And where are the priests to
minister?" "They have no place appointed on earth." "Then if there
be no place appointed for a priest on earth, there can be no — ? " " Altar"
" And if there is no altar, then oan be no — ? " " Sacrifice." " Then what
are the three things which Scripture teaches Christians have not, and can
not have on earth P " " No Altae, no Sacrifice, and no Priest." Such
is the gulf between Protestant Primitive Catholic truth, and Eitualistiq
Eomanizing error.

152 DE. PUSEY.
Ritualists contend that the endeavours of the Church Association
to obtain a legal decision of the Church's law, not the private
opinion of any one whether Evangelical or Ritualistic, and then
to compel obedience to that legal decision, is "Persecution."
Hence the opprobrious terms which the party delight to heap upon
Evangelical men, who dare to be consistent, and faithful, and law
abiding. As a specimen of the language with which the Ritualists,
like the "ungodly" of St. Jude's days, who delighted in "hard
speeches," revile the members of the Chureh Association, I quote
the Church Times' description of a meeting of the Wolverhampton
branch of the Church Association as "tke drunken Mots of
Puritanism in fill debauch" (March 7, 1873). Every Christian mind
will agree with the late Archbishop of Canterbury, who in an
address to his clergy at Maidstone in 1876, spoke of the Ritualistic
press as " certain inferior newspapers, which by their ignorance
and malevolence constantly disgraced, so far as they were able, the
Church which tliey misrepresented."
6. " Rebels " and " Teaitoes." It will be seen in the foregoing
pages that the Secretary of the miscalled English Church Union,
Col. Hardy, salutes Evangelicals by the former term; and Dr. F. G.
Lee, in the Directorium Anglicanum, applies the latter term to the
same body likewise. Considering that the English Church Union
has been for years in a chronic state of rebellion against all law and
order in the Church, and that Dr. Lee is now engaged in what the
late Primate termed " a conspiracy " to effect a Corporate Union
with the Church of Rome, such railing language proceeding from
Ritualistic Romanizers will naturally remind the faithful of the
anecdote long current in Westminster Hall, when the counsel found
his brief labelled, "No case — abuse the plaintiff."
There are other " hard speeches " which Ritualists delight to
utter against Evangelicals as terms of reproach, but which the latter
accept as glorious and honourable ; and of these three are especially
significant — "Protestant," " Evangelical," and "Puritan."
1, Peotestant. This word, which in its true signification means
one who witnesses against all unfaithfulness to God's word, and
also in behalf of all Primitive and Catholic truth. We have already
seen (p. 145), in what railing terms the organ of the Ritualistic party
over forty years ago spake against the principles of Protestantism,
or as the Coronation Oath expresses it, " the Protestant Reformed
Religion established by law," declaring that "the Protestant tone
of doctrine was essentially antichristian," and the determination of

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 153
the party to " uwprotestantize the Church of England." In the same
year (1841), a pretended minister of the Church of England, W.
Palmer, of Magdalene College, Oxford, in his Letter to Golightly,
uttered the following invectives against the Protestant Religion—
" I say anathema to the principles of Protestantism and to all its
forms ; "
and consistently carried out his own opinions by openly aposta
tizing to the Church of Rome.
The same undying hatred to Protestant truth has been manifested
by the chief Ritualistic organ of tho present day. Thus the Church
Times speaks of the duty of —
"Extirpating the ulcerous cancer of Protestantism" (Sept. 3rd, 1869).
"We are contending for the extirpation of Protestant opinions and practices
not merely within the Church itself, but throughout all England" (March
24th, 1871). " Protestantism, besides being the religion of unbelief, has
also from its earliest origin been the religion of unehastity " (March 7th,
1873). In similar strains the Church News (now absorbed in the Church
Review) of May 5th, 1869, declared that —
" The Evangelical clergy carry on schools, and are indefatigable in visit
ing the poor, and infusing the poison of, Protestant heresy."
It is unnecessary to quote the opinion of multitudes of the greatest
and holiest divines against these antichristian revilings, one will
suffice. It is that of the illustrious Chillingworth, who in one short
emphatic golden sentence has for ever shattered all the ravings and
railings, " the hard speeches" and ungodly utterances of Ritualists
and Romanizers — "The Bible and the Bible alone is the Religion of
Protestants." Of this most precious truth our enemies have not the
slightest conception. Hence the late Rev. J. E. Vaux, a zealous
Ritualistic clergyman, declares it to be —
" A thorough mistake to suppose that the Bible is intended to teach us our
Religion " ! ! ! (Vaux's Open Bible, p. 18).
Respecting the term "Protestant," or "godless figment of Protes
tantism," as Mr. Mackonockie once defined it, it is marvellous what
ignorance the Ritualists display concerning it, of which we have a
specimen in what a young clergyman of the name of Nicholson
once preached at the notorious St. Vedast's Church, in Sept. 1875,
that " Cain was thefirst Protestant, and that he slew Abel, who was a
Catholic." ! ! ! It is true that the term " Protestant " first occurs in
a certain version of the Bible, but in a very different place and sense
from that which the Ritualists suppose. In the year B.C. 840, in

154 DR. PUSEY.
the reign of Joash King of Judah, after the death of the faithful
high priest Jehoiada, the Sacerdotal party of the time persuaded
the king to undo all the good which had been effected by Jehoiada's
sound teaching. Hence when it is said that these Saeerdotalists in
the Jewish Church introduced the worship of idols and images, in
place of the exclusive worship of Jehovah, just as the Church of
Rome has long done, and Ritualists are endeavouring to do in the
Church of England at the present time, the faithful at once protested
against this fatal heresy. If any one will turn to 2 Chron. xxiv. 19,
as it is read in the Vulgate, or Roman Catholic version of the
Bible, he will find that these faithful Jews are called " Protestants,"
who bore witness against the sin and folly of their brethren, who
nevertheless "refused to give ear unto them."' Quos Protestantes
illi audire nolebant. Such is the origin of the word " Peotestant ; "
of which the faithful have as much reason to be proud in the present
day, as they were twenty-seven centuries ago.
2. " Evangelical." Though this term did not come into use
for a thousand years after the term " Protestant," yet as descriptive
of the faithful who accept the Bible, like the noble Bereans, as the
religion of Protestants, it is the most glorious epithet which can be
applied to any of the children of men. Cyril, Patriarch of
Alexandria in the sixth century, in one short sentence, already
quoted, has given perhaps the best and most complete definition of
Evangelical truth of any which has come down to us since the days
of the apostles. "Evangelical teaching," he says, in the third
book of his Commentary on Isaiah, "is grace by faith, justification
in Christ ; and sanctification through the power of the Holy Ghost."
And although these precious truths seem to have had very little
effect on the life of the Patriarch of Alexandria, still they are an
accurate description of the doctrines which the great Evangelical
party in -the Church of England have taught in all ages, and more
especially during the last hundred and fifty years, since the rise of
those two godly ministers of Christ, George Whitfield and John
Wesley. 3. " Puritan." The best definition of this term is to be found in
the First General Epistle of St. John, chap. iii. 1 — 3; though,
alas ! it seems to have excited the ungovernable ire of certain non-
Ritualists like Bishop Wilberforce, as well as Ritualists proper
like the writers of the Church Times — the former frequently reviling
that eminent Evangelical nobleman, Lord Shaftesbury, with such
terms as his "Puritan craft " and "Puritan clique," &c ; the latter

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 155
describing the members ofthe Church Association as "the drunken
helots oi Puritanism in full debauch," &c.
I fear there are some Evangelicals who are unwilling to accept
the term of Puritan " as belonging to them, either through fear of
man or some other cause. Such is not my opinion : I frankly own
I glory in it ; being persuaded that the name of " Puritan" is a
title of honour, and has been rightly applied to the greatest names
in English history, whether in Church or State. The greatest
divines ever given to the Church of Christ since the days of the
apostles, are tho Puritan divines of the sixteenth century. What
age of the Church has ever produced such a galaxy of holy and
intellectual teachers as that which produced the learned Usher
the saintly Baxter, the seraphic Milton, and holy Archbishop
Leighton, and many others ? The same lesson is taught us in the
statesmen of that age likewise, the names of Elliot, Hampden, Pym,
Blake, Fairfax, and last but not least, the great Protector Oliver
Cromwell, may well bear comparison with the statesmen and
warriors which have appeared in any other age since the days of
Alfred, and who have done more than any other body of men to
make England what she really is, the chief among the nations of
the earth.
Thus the terms " Protestant," " Evangelical," and " Puritan,"
which are treated so scornfully by our opponents, are indeed titles
of the highest honour; as will be acknowledged when the Lord
comes to call His Bride home. But ignorant as the Ritualists
appear to be of the proper meaning of the above-mentioned terms,
the one which probably they have abused more than any other is
the venerable name of "Catholic." The Papist consistently
applies this epithet to those only who are members of the Church
of Rome, and who regard the Pope as Vicar of the Lord, or Vice-
Christ, and who, as one of their "infallible " Popes, Boniface VIIL,
hath decreed, believe that it is —
"necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the
Eoman Pontiff" (Corp. Juv. Can., lib. i., tit. viii., cap. 1).
The Protestant, on the other hand, while allowing the term
"Roman Catholic" for courtesy sake, is conscious that it is in
reality a most absurd definition, as it expresses, according to
Coleridge, the contradictory idea of "particular universal."
Moreover, he feels that the Church of Rome, whose character is
portrayed in Scripture in such terrible lines as "Babylon the
Great, the Mother of Harlots, and Abominations of the earth,"

156 DR. PUSEY.
is none other, as the Church of England authoritatively declares,
than "that Man of Sin," whom the Lord will destroy with the
brightness of His appearing.
The Ritualist, however, with his Romanizing principles, not only
assumes the distinctive title of " Catholic " as peculiar to his own
tiny sect in Christendom, but willingly concedes it to Rome as
belonging to her of right. It is unfortunate, however, for the
Ritualistic party that Rome totally ignores all their claims to the
title of " Catholic." Nothing can exceed the contempt and
scorn with which Roman Catholic writers treat the pretensions of
the Ritualists to be considered as genuine "Catholics" (see
p. 100). Sometimes Ritualistic clergymen have descended to the
incredible meanness abroad of seeking to pass themselves off as
Roman Catholic priests, in the hope of being able to take part
in the services of -the Church of Rome undetected.*
Now let us briefly consider the way in which the early Christians
and the Reformers of blessed memory understood the term
"Catholic." The earliest mention of the term is found in an
Epistle to the Church of the Smyrnmans, attributed to Ignatius of
Antioch, who was martyred at Rome a.d. 107. Very beautiful is his
definition of the term in these words —
" Wheresoever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (c.viii).
The next occasion when we meet with the term is in the account
of the martyrdom of Polycarp, who was put to death about forty
years after the time of Ignatius, which reads thus —
" The Church of God which sojourns at Smyrna to the Church of God
sojourning at Philomelium, and to all the congregations of the holy and
Catholic Church in every place. Mercy, peace and love from God the
Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ be multiplied."
The term, however, was not authoritatively defined until three
centuries later, when a decree of the Emperor Theodotius declared —
"That Church should alone be called Catholic, which equally worshipped
and glorified the three persons in the blessed Trinity " (Sozomen, Ecc.
Hist., vii. 4.)
Thus we have the authority of the early Church for asserting that
* In the Rock of March 2, 1883, quoting the Daily News, there is a de
tailed account of some English clergymen endeavouring to pass themselves
off at a foreign church as Eoman Catholic priests, which fully justifies the
severe language of Monsignor Capel, when describing such acts as "the
organized dishonesty of Eitualism, and its deleterious influence on English
family life."

The oxFORb movement. 157
SjiS-^nQ,iPi 5* Tl'inity ln Unity Me e»titled t0 the term
Catholic -and though the Church of Rome and the Ritualistic
party may equally profess to worship the Trinity, they have deve
loped such fatally erroneous doctrines not found in Scripture but
contrary to the teaching of the word of God, that they have forfeited
all claim to the name of "Catholic," as it was understood by the
early Christians, in accordance with the just aphorism of Tertullian,
"That which was first is true; that which came after is false"
(Prces. ag. Her., §31). '
To descend to more modern times, one of the national Churches
of the United Kingdom, the Church of Ireland, by her Convocation,
has very faithfully defined the true meaning of the term in the
following way : —
" The Catholic Church, out of which there is no salvation, consisteth
of all those whieh are elected by God unto salvation, and regenerated by the
power of His Spirit " (The Dublin Articles of 1615).
In contending, therefore, as St. Jude exhorts, " earnestly for the faith
once ffor all J delivered to the saints," we confidently assert that the
Evangelical or Puritan party of the present day are the truest and
best representatives of the " Catholic " religion, as it has been
taught " always, everywhere, and by all," by the faithful of every
age from the day of Pentecost until now ; and has been accepted by
all who believe with the martyr Ignatius, "Wheresoever Jesus
Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." And notwithstanding
Archdeacon Denison's boast to the contrary, that almost all the
learning, devotion, and care for souls are confined to the Ritualistic
party ! we may challenge with confidence those disloyal and lawless
men to produce three such characters as George Whitfield, John
Fletcher, and Charles Simeon, all and each of whom were honoured
members of the Evangelical School. The first, like the great
Apostle to the Gentiles, "in labours more abundant; " the second, for
saintliness of life ; the third for extensive usefulness — as a loyal,
obedient, and devoted son of the Church of England. These three
"saints," in the true sense of the term, may be said to stand
unrivalled as compared with the acts and deeds, the teaching, and the
' practice of our Ritualistic opponents in the present day. Tbe one
were " living epistles " of the grace of God ; the other belong to
that class foretold by the apostle, who would arise in the Church
during the perilous times of the last days, as having and making
much of the " form of godliness without knowing the power
thereof."

158 DR. PUSEY.
Ritualism is only another instance of history repeating itself.
The followers of Laud in the days of Charles I. were doing exactly
the same treacherous work which the Ritualists are attempting at
the present time. And just as they failed in the seventeenth
century, so may we find comfort in the Master's assurance that "the
gates of hell will not prevail " against the Protestant-Evangelical-
Puritan and Catholic Church of Christ. We may therefore conclude
in the words which a Christian nobleman addressed to the
Parliament of 1642, and which might appropriately be addressed to
the Parliament of 1883. The young and gifted Lord Falkland,
thus described the deeds of the Ritualistic party of his own day : —
" It seemed their work was to try how much of a Papist might be brought
in without Popery ; and to destroy as much as they could of the Gospel into
danger of being destroyed by the law. Mr. Speaker, to go yet further,
some of them have so industriously laboured to deduce themselves from
Rome, that they have given great suspicion that in gratitude they desire to
return thither, or at least to meet it half way. Some have evidently
laboured to bring in an English, though not » Roman Popery : I mean not
only the outside and dress of it, but equally absolute a blind dependence ofthe
people upon the clergy, and of the clergy upon themselves, and have opposed
the Papacy beyond the seas, that they might settle one beyond the water :
nay, common fame is more than ordinarily false, if none of them have found
a way to reconcile the opinions of Eome with the preferments of England ;
and to be so absolutely, directly and cordially Papist, that it is all that
£1500 a year can do lo keep them from confessing it " (Eushworth's
Historical Collections, vol. i., fol. iii).

CONTENTS

Inteoductoey, pp. 3—6.
Anecdotes respecting Dr. Pusey— His chief works on Daniel and the Minor
Prophets. The Loed's Suppee, pp. 6—34,
Dr. Pusey's Eucharistic Doctrine " precisely the same as that of the Church
of Eome " — Answered hy Dean Goode, Canon Trevor, Drs. Harrison,
Jacob, Herbert, and Vogan — Dr. Pusey's treatment of the last exposed
by Bishop Thirlwall — His suspension from the University Pulpit — Arch
deacon Denison's meaning of " Persecution."
Baptism, pp. 34 — 45.
Dr, Pusey on " Unlaw '' — His acknowledgment of error on the Gorham
controversy — his view of Baptism — contradicted by Messrs. Maskel and
Dodsworth, and by Canon Mozley — The Gorham Judgment approved by
the Archbishops of Canterbury and York — Bishop Blomfield's change of
front in the Council Eoom — Bishop Wilberforce's rash words.
Justification by Faith, pp. 46—50.
Dr. Pusey's assertion of the identity between England and Eome on the
subject of Justification examined by Mr. Maskell — The doctrine of
Justification by Faith pronounced by Dr. Pusey's disciples to be
"radically and fundamentally monstrous, immoral, heretical, anti
christian, and the most blasphemous theory which man ever invented."
Tract No. XC, pp. 50—60.
Dr. Stanley on the Eitualists' treatment of Bishops — The Eitualistic Press
on the late Primate and the Evangelical party — Cardinal Newman's
former opinion of the Church of Eome — The Four Oxford Tutors, the
University Authorities, Archbishop Whateley, Bishop Phillpotts and
Dean Goode unanimous in their opinion respecting the meaning of
" Tract No. XC."— All contradicted by Dr. Pusey.
The Confessional Controversy, pp. 61—104.
Condition of the Convents in England before the Eeformation— Effects of
the practice of Confession on Protestant and Eoman Catholic States —
Testimony of Pope Paul IV. and certain Eoman Catholic priests respecting