The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-09-12 00:00:00

DR. PUSEY'S CITATIONS

• •
[We believe that any impression produced by the Ptiol
cation of -Dr. Pusey's recent memorable sermon was not
occasioned so much by any thing advanced by that learned
divine himself, as by the " host of witnesses" whose
names were brought forward as apparently supporting his
erroneous opinions. We anticipate that this impression
will be entirely removed by a candid perusal of the follow-
ing article, which we extract trom the Churchman's
Alonthly Review for the present month, a publication
which we again take the opportunity of recommending in
the strongest possible manner upon the attention of the
Protestant public. Such a catalogue of perverted quotations
was never to our knowledge given to the world. Turn
such a compiler into the British Museum or the Bodleian
Library, and give him liberty to cull four lines from
Bishop A.'s sermons, and half a sentence from Dr. B.'s
treatise, and what heresy is there that he will not be able
to maintain
" Such h the doctrine which Dr. Pusey says he 116'
learnt of ' Our great divines,' and he then cites Ridley,
Hooker, Andrewes, Jackson, and a crowd of inferior
names, in an appendix of authorities.
The question, then, is, has he fairly cited them ? And
that he has not done so, we shall show, by remarking, in
three or four instances, his very' singular and unfortunate

omissions.
Bishop Ridley, who died at the stake rather than con-
cede to the doctrine of transubstantiation, is the first wit-
ness cited by Dr. Pusey. And we cannot but regard it
as a most disengenuous act, to refuse, as Dr. Pusey did,
—to aid in raising the Martyrs' Memorial,—to refuse also
to subscribe to the Parker Society, from an avowed con-
viction, that Ridley and Latimer died in serious error;
and yet to cite Ridley himself as teaching a doctrine which
Dr. Pusey well knows he held in detestation.
The passages cited in Dr. P.'s appendix, are taken from
pages 201 and 202 of the Parker Society's edition of Rid-
ley. Now on the very leaf immediately preceding, in that
same volume, stands this passage, of which Dr. Pusey
therefore, cannot plead ignorance, but which could not
conveniently be cited.
"This carnal presence is contrary to the word of God, as ap-
peareth thus I tell you the truth It is profitable to you that
Igo a"-ay ; for if Igo not away, the Comforter shall not come
unto you.' • Whom the heavens must receive until the time of
restoring of all things which God bath spoken.' • The children
of the bridegroom cannot mourn so long as the bridegroom is
with them but now is the time of mourning.' But I will see
you again, and your hearts shall rejoice.' ' I will come again
and take you to myself.' If they shall say unto you, Behold
here is Christ, or there is Christ, believe them not for where-
soever the dead carcase is, thither the eagles will resort.'
•• It varieth trom the articles of the faith : Ile ascended into
heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father, from
whence (and not from any other place, saith St. Augustine), he
shall come to judge both the quick and the dead.'
" It destroyeth and taketh away the institution of the Lord's
supper, which was commanded only to be used and continued
until the Lord himself should acme. If, therefore, he be now
really present in the body of his flesh, then must the supper
cease : for the remembrance is not of a thing present, but of a
thing past and absent. And there is a difference between re-
membrance and presence, and, as one of the fathers saith, ' A
figure is in vain where the thing figured is present.'
" It maketh precious things common to profane and ungodly
persons, and constraineth men to confess many absurdities,
For it affirmeth, that whoremongers and murderers, yea, and

(as some of them hold opinion) the wicked and faithless, mice,
rats, and dogs also, may receive the very real and corporal body
of the Lord, wherein the fulness of the Spirit of light and grace
dwelleth : contrary to the manifest words of Christ in six places
and sentences of John vi."—(l, idley's Works, pp. 198. 199.)

Such is the first witness cited by Dr. Pusey, and such
is the candour displayed in citing him !
But Hooker is even yet more unfairly represented. We
crave the reader's attention to this instance of the mode
in which an Oxford Catena is often made up.
Dr. Pusey quotes from the Ecclesiastical Polity (to give
his own references) " Book v. chap. lxvii. §4, 5." He
then quotes " Book v. chap. lxvii. § 7, 8." To a cautions
reader this singular passing over § 6, would naturally
cause some suspicion. But what is this § 6? We will
give it to oar readers entire.

" [6.1 The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and
flood is NOT therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but in
the worthy receiver of the sacrament.

" And with this the very order of our Saviour's words agreeth.
First ' take and eat ;" then ' this is my body which was broken
for you :' first ' drink ye all of this ;' then followeth• ' this is my
blood of the New Testattent which is shed for many for the re-
mission of sins.' I see not which way it would be gathered by
the words of Christ, when and where the bread is His body or
the cup His blood, hut only in the very heart and soul of him
which receiveth them. As for the sacraments, they really ex-
hibit, but for aught we can gather out of that which is written
of them, they are not really nor do really contain in themselves,
that grace which with them Or by them it pleaseth God to be:
stow.

" If on all sides it be confessed that the grace of baptism is
poured into the soul of man, that by water we receive it although
it be neither seated in the water nor the water changed into it,
what should induce men to think that the grace of the Eucharist
must needs be in the Eucharist before it can be in us that re-
ceive it.

"The fruit of the Eucharist is the participation of the body
and blood of Christ. There is no sentence of Holy Scripture
which saith that we cannot by this sacrannentbe Made partakers
or his body and blood except they be first contained in the sa-
crament, or the sacrament converted into them. This is my
body,' and ' this is my blood,' being words of promise, sith we
all agree that by the sacrament Christ cloth really and truly in
us perform his promise, why do we vainly trouble ourselves with
so fierce contentions whether by consubstantiation, or else by
transubstantiation the sacrament itself be first• possessed with
Christ, or no ? A thing which can no way either further or
hinder us howsoever it stand, because our participation of Christ
in this sacrament dependeth on the co operation of his-omnipo-
tent power Which maketh it his body and blood to us, whether
with change or without alteration of the element such as they
imagine we need not greatly to care nor inquire:—(Works,
(Oxon. 1811,) vol. ii. p. 352, 353.)

Such is the passage which Dr. Pusey and his assisting
friend have chosen to leave out from between two pas-
sages which they have cited. They have printed', p. 351
and a half of p. 352;—and pp. 3b4, 355 ;—but the latter
part of p. 352, and all p. 353 they pass over. The reason
for the omission is obvious. This 5',6, at once sets Hooker
in direct opposition to Dr. Pusey's scheme. Words can-
not more distinctly condemn the whole of Dr. Pusey's
system, than do those of Hooker ;—" I see not which way
it should be gathered by the words of Christ, when and
where the bread is his-body or the cup his blood, but only
in the very heart and soul of him which receiveth them."
But what shall we say tb the honesty which can thus ad-
duce select passages from Ridley, and Irboker, and others„
to cause it to be believed that Dr. Pusey had been con-
demned for preaching merely what Ridley and Hooker
preached, when they knew well, all the time, that if they
had but fairly cited these writers, it woulUbave been seen
that they opposed, not supported, the semi- Romish theory
which Dr. Pusey espouses.
The third witness cited, of any note, is• Bishop An-
drewes. And he is similarly misused. From Sermon xv.
on the resurrection, a passage is taken, which is broken
off, like that from Hooker, rather too soon. Here is the
rest of it, conveniently omitted in Dr. Pusey's Appendix :

" Do but ask the Church of Rome : even with them it is not
the bodily touch in the sacrament that doth the good. Wicked
men, verTreprobates, have that touch, and remain reprobates
as before. Nay, I will go farther; it is not that toucheth
Christ at all. Example, "the multitude that thronged and
thrust Him," yet for all that, as if none of them all had touched
Him, He asks, Quis Me titigit ? So that one may rudely thrust
Him, and not touch Him though, not to any purpose so.
" Christ-resolves the point in that very place. The flesh, the
touching, the eating it, profits nothing. `• The words he spake
were spirit ;" so the touching, the eating, to be spiritual. And
Et. Thomas and Mary Magdalene, or whosoever touched Him
here on earth, nisi fcelicius fide quam mane tetigissent 'if they
had not been more happy to touch Him with their faith than
with theirfingers' end,' they had had no part in Him; no good
by it all. It was found better wittrit to " touch the hem of His
garment," than without it to touch any part of His body.
"Now, if faith be to touch, that will touch Him no less in
Heaven than here; one that is in heaven may be touched so.
No ascending can hinder that touch, Faith will elevate itself,
that ascending in spirit we shall touch Him, and take hold of
Him. Mittefidem et tenuisti—itis St. Augustine. It is a touch
to which there is never a null, fear it not.

" So do we then ; send up onr faith, and that shall touch
Him, and there will virtue come from him; and it shall take
such hold on Him, as it shall rai.ie us up to where He ; bring
us to the end of the verse, and to the end of all our desires; to
Ascendo ad Put rem, a joyful ascension to our Father and His,
and to himself,•and to the unity of the Blessed Spirit. TO whom,
in the Trinity of Persons, &c."

The next is Dr. Donne ; who is handled after a like
fashion. A piece is taken from his fourth Serman•ok the
Nativity* in which Dr. Douce appears to use exceedingly
" high language" in speaking of the sacrament. But almost
immediately before the few sentences which Dr. Pusey
extracts,. there appear these words

" That bread which thou seest after the consecration is not
the same bread which it was before ; not that it is transubstan-
tiated into another substance, forit is bread still,"—" bPA that
it is severed and appropriated by ,Goct in that ordinance to
another use. It is other bread, ; as 6tl judge is a:tot/ter man
upon the bench, thian, he is at homain hi.sount house."

And the vent next words wLich follow Dr. Fusey's ci-
tation are these:—

" Yomwould have said, at 110013, this light is the sun; and you
will say,now, this light is the -candle ; that light WAS not the
sun ; this light is not the media, but it is that portion: of the air
whic.br the saw did then, and the candle doth now, enlighten.
We say the sacramental bread is the body of Christ, because
God bath shedhisordinanceupon.it, arid made it of another na-
ture in. the use, though not tite; substance." (Seam, iftr. p. 75.)

Thus, Dr. Donne advocates the use of the expression,
This CAarist's body, and then explains that he uses the
words in the same way as.when he speaks alight as being
the sun vrhen it is not. really tend truly the sun. Dr.
Pusey considers it honest to quote the " high language"!
which answers his purpose, and to omit the exp lanation
Dr. Jackson is the next authority cited; and he is
quoted with equal dishonesty. A passage is taken from
his works, vol. iii. 333, 33l ; but the Catena-compiler
stops short in the middle. Here is the close of the pas-
sage, which gives Dr. Pusey's interpretation of Joha vi.
56, a direct denial.

" So then a man by.eating Christ's body merely sacramentally
may be hardened—may be excluded from his gracious presence.
But no man hath Cluist dwelling in him by this manner of
eating his flesh auddrink bag his blood, unless withal ho eat the
one and drink the, other spiritually. The eating, then, of
Christ's body, arid drinking his blood 'merely sacramentally, is
tot the eating and drinking here meant." (John 560

We pass over, a crowd of people like " Bishop Forbes„"
Sutton, White, Thornelike, &c. &c. who, if they yet lived,
would stare to.find themselves ranked among." our Gzeat
Divines of the English Church,"---and pass on to Bishop
Beveridge.. Here the Catena-maker, advances in auda-
city„—venturing even to the mutilation. of sentences, to
suit his purpose. From the Bishop's tract On F)requent
Commatnion, he gives this citation :
" When.we hear the words of consecration repeated as they
came from our Lord's own. mouth, 'This is My Body which:is
given for you" and. ' This is My Blood which was shed for you
and for many fur the rmission of sins ;' we are then steadfastly
to believe, that -although the substance of the Bread and Wire
ren'alu, yet now is not common breast and wine, RS to its
use ~ but tht, Body apt Blood of Christ ha that Sacramental
sen,serwher.ein he wake, the words."

Aps., but Bib-hop Bevosidge did not thus end the sen-
iMm°-. He thus contimmed

- insomuch. that whosoever duly reeeiars these his
~creaturee of bread and wine according to Christ's holy institu,
tioh. iA ststembtaatt of his death, and paSsißtl. art partakers, 0

his most preciods body and blood, as it is expressed in the
prayer of consecration."

Again, from the next page of the same tract, the fol-
lowing passage is given by Dr. Posey

" When it comes to our turn to receive it, then we are to lay
aside all thoughts of bread and wine, and the minister and every
thing else that is or can be seen, and fix our faith, as it is the
evidence of things not Seen,' wholly and solely upon our blessed
Saviour, as offering us His own Body and Blood to preserve our
bodies and sons to everlasting life, which we are therefore to
receive by faith, as it is' the substance of things hoped for,'
steadrastly believing it to be, as our Saviour said, • His Body
and blood,' which our Church teacheth us are verily and indeed
taken and reed% ed by the faithful in the Lord's Supper."

But this was not the close of the Bishop's sentence. He
went on to say,—

" " by which means, whatsoever it is to others, it will be
to us who receive it with such a faith, the body and blood of
Christ our Saviour, the very ' substance of all things hoped for,'
upon the account of his body that was broken, and his blood
that was shed, for us." I

Now these are not unimportant suppressions. Dr.
Pusey's doctrine is, that " It (the body) is there, inde-
pendently of our faith." The teaching of Bishop Bever-
idge is, that only to faith is there any presence or recep-
tion of Christ's body at all. Yet the Bishop is cited as
supporting Dr. Pusey's doctrine !
We shall give but one more instance, and it is that of
an Archbishop. whose name, remembering the moderation
of his views, we were not a little astonished to see in Dr.
Pusey's Catena. We will give the citation entire :
"Archbishop Wake."

"The bread which we break, is, not only in figure and simi-
litude. but by a real spiritual Communion, His Body. The Cup
of Blessing which we bless is, by the same Communion, His
Blood." 2

There was something very suspicious in the look of this
citation, standing, as it does, without reference to any
chapter or page, or even work, from whence it was taken.
However, we took the trouble to seek for the passage,
and we found it at p. 165 of the " Archbishop's Commen-
tary on the Catechism, sixth edition." But at page 163,
of the same volume, we found these plain declarations :

" Q. Are the body and blood of Christ really distributed to
every Communicant. in this Sacrament?
" A. No, they are not; for then every Communicant, whether
prepared or not for it, would alike receive Christ's body and
blood there. That which is g ven by the priest to the Commu•
nicant is, as to its nature, the same after consecration that it
was before, viz., bread and wine : only altered as to its use and
signification.

Q. If the body and blood of Christ be not really given and
distributed by the priest, how can they be verily and indeed
taken and received by the faithful Communicant?
" A. That which is given by the priest is, as to its substance,
bread and wine : as to its sacramental nature and signification,
it is the figure. or representation, of Christ's body and blood,
which was broken and shed for us. The very body and blood of
Christ, as yet it is not. But being with faith and piety received
by the Communicant, it becomes to him, by the blessing of God,
and the grace of the Holy Spirit, the very body and blood of
Christ."

Here, then, again, we have Dr. Pusey's false doctrine
eschewed and condemned in the plainest and most distinct
manner. That which he holds, the. Archbishop flatly de-
nies : that which the Archbishop teaches, he condemns.

1 Bishop Beveridge's Works, 1824, vol. i. p. 603, 604
2 Dr. Pusey's Sermon: Appendix, p. 78.

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE BISHOP OF OSSORY'S CHARGE AND

" THE TRACTS" (RESERVE)

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

SIR,—I forbear noticing the earlier parts of this• admi-
rable charge, not that they are deficient in interest or less
ably dealt with, but by reason of their being more in the
ordinary routine of similar publications—and come at
once to the subject of _Reserve, being one of those on
which the bishop feels it necessary " to correct or deter-
mine the views of others, and even beyond what that pur-
pose requires, to make known hi's own" (p. 5).

,
But first we must bear in mind the extreme reverence
with which the disciples of the tract school affect to treat
the opinions of a bishop. Mr. Newman, in his letter to
the Bishop of Oxford, 1841, repeats the sentiment he had
uttered three years before to the archdeacon—A bishop's
lightest word, ex cathedrd, is heavy. His judgment on
a book earrnot be light. It is a rare oceurrence." Dr.
Pusey, also, in his letter to Dr. Jelf, of the same date,
writes in the same strain. It is to be feared, however,
that this professed' respect for the sentence of a bishop
is to be received' with considerable limitation., and holds
valid only when his feelings are in unison with those of
the party ; else what iS to be said of Dr. Pusey's stric-
tures on the bishops, conveyed in the blandest terms ima-
ginable in his letter (1842) to- his Grace the Archbishop
of Canterbury, "on the present crisis on the English
church .
'" or still more, of that vaunt (cited in the
Churekman's Monthly Review, January, 1812) lately
issued from the lips of a tractarian, that "steps must
shortly be taken to bring the refractory bishops to their
senses."

......____
The learned prelate, whose charge is now before me,
after pressing upon his assembled clergy the obligation to
a patient, prayerful and reverent study of the whole sa-
cred volume, that they may be enabled rightly to divide
and to declare the whole counsel and truth of God, is led
to grapple with those tracts especially in which an oppo-
site doctrine is taught and defended. Both tracts 80 and
87 are entitled "'on Reserve in COmmunicating Religious
Knowledge;" brit' the bishop confines himself to the re-
serve recommended in communicating the great doctrine
of the atonement. We have large- quotations from the
tracts in question, in order (as he says—p. 41) "to fix
beyond any reasonable doubt their true object as regards
this doctrine." Against No. 80 it had been urged, that
it discountenanced tile preaching of the atonement to im-
penitent ainnora to bring Ilion, to vopertaneo; and to pe-
nitent sinners to confirm them in holiness—that it con-
demned any preaching which makes this truth the
foundation of offers of mercy to sinners; the source of
Christitm morals to holiness, which makes it the instru-
ment' of converting and reforming, of drawing men to
Christ, and after Christ. After a lapse of nearly three
years No. 87 appears, in which the writer gives what
seems to be a disavowal of the object imputed to the pre-
ceding tract on the same subject, but what really leaves
the full weight of the charge upon him still ; for he dis-
claims having ever recommended that "it (the doctrine
of the atonement) should be intentionally and designedly
withdrawn from all public mention" (Tract 87-p. 52).
He is not charged with having condemned all public•
mention-of that doctrine, and his disclaimer goes not a
whit further; while multiplied posseges from the tracts in
question leave it beyond doubt that the charge,- already
given in substance, is well founded', and which after all is
not inconsistent with the literal truth of his disclaimer.
A " mass of sophistry and misrepresfutation and 'con-
fusion," " arguments scattered without much regard to
order," through "these very kng,. very rambling and
very misty treatises," philosophy and natural instinct,
Scripture and tradition, are all made to combine in en-
forcing the duty of Reserve for which the writer pleads.
And if the writtr's statements left his purpose in any re-
spect doubtful, the course of the reasoning by which they
are sustained must make it perfectly clear." Such are
the sentiments and such the expressions of Dr. O'Brien
with reference to these tracts : and to every one acquainted-
with the mind and'manncr of that amiable and eminent
Christian and prelate, they will convey a- more than ordi-
nary weight of deliberate censure upon "that series of
publications which- (as he observes elsewhere) have ac-
quired such unhappy celebrity."
Instead of entering into a detailed examination of all the
arguments in these tracts, the bishop confines himself to a
single division, choosing (as he says) the arguments which
have been drawn from the example of the-teaching of our
blessed Lord in the-course of his earthly ministry. " I
select those arguments (adds his lordehip) because, while
they are in their own nature the most important, they
seem to have been most relied on in' the tract, and they
certaiuly have contributed more to the impression which
it has made than any other which it contains; and, more-
over, they furnish a fair specimen of the-general character-
of the reasoning employed in the divisions which I am
obliged to omit."' (p. 46)
Before entering, however, on this examination, his lord--
ship finds it necessary, by way of safeguard against the
insidious poison-of these-tracts, to forewarn his clergy of
the equivocal use of the principal term that obtains almost,
universally throughout them. Reserve-is not merely used
for holding back-certain truths, and keeping silence about
them, but also for- caution, and for discretion, and for
rererence in treating them. And all that the author can
find in support of the duty of reserve in any of the latter
senses, is taken by him, apparently without any doubt, as,
ofiso less force to prove it to be a duty in a former sense ;
and when pressed with, arguments against his rule of -re.
serve in one of the senses of the word, he is able to retreat
into one of the-other senses, in which-he is safe from all
disturbance."' (p-. 4:.'-)..
This letter has already so far eleeeded the limits I in-
tended for it, that I must reserve for a farther communi- ,
cation the bishep's exposure of " the wonderful careless.. 1
ness of the tract writers in dealing with Holy Scripture,"
'the arbitrary violenee with which they treat it, making it
nprove anddiepxove what they like, and seeing in it what
they want--and nothing else," not merely misrepresenting
and perverting Holy Scripture„ but even attempting to
maintaiatheir.point against its positive and express testi-
mony!' (p.p. 224-5).
I cannot conclude better than by extracting the note
(p. 21) in the last charge of our, own revered Bishop of
Chester : " The divinity of the-Oxford tracts has been as
completely refuted in all its parts as any erroneous opinions
can ever be refuted ; and it is a. sign of the discretion, if
not: of the candour of the writers, to treat these answers
. generally as if they had never been written. If this con-
tinueto be the case after the recent publication of Mr.,
Goode's elaborate " Rule obFaith and Practice," it must
, ! be considered as a tacit acknowledgment of.complete rein,-
' tation." _ _

It has continued to be the case, (since the puny drilel-
ling,in this instance of tho British Critic, having neither
grappled with a single fact, nor disproved a single argu-
ment, cannot be considered as an answer)—it still con.
tinues, and is likely so to remain, for reasons best known
to those discreet gentlemen themselves, notwithstanding
the publication of the charge no's under our conside-
ration. Mr. Williams, the defeated candidate for the
Professorship of Poetry, the author of the treats in ques-
tion' is more lik;;Iy to imitate the flippant assumption of
his leader, Mr. Newman, (coolly gettirg rid of Dr.
O'Brien's masterly work on `l, 3ustification by Faith only"
as undeserving of notice, because only setting forth, b
Mr. N.'s account, the old Lutheran view of the subject,)
than fairly to canvass the statements put forward by the
learned prelate, and candidly to admit the convincing
power q the truth they contain.

I am, Sir.

Your's, &c.
A. M.

Lire Tool, Septqm&gr 902 1841