Edward Bouverie Pusey · 10 of 21

Main Body · Part 10

A detailed account was given to the Regent and the Court, which also did not, for the time, appear to disapprove of it. An oration, made by De Girardin to the Doctors of the Sorbonne, to recommend the union, and to prepare them for the treatise itself, was favorably heard and applauded. Du Pin wrote Jan. 13, 1719, “The Theological Faculty at Paris, whose authority is great in this realm, will not be out of harmony with our object. This seems to me a thing to be earnestly set about in these times, but maturely weighing and discussing every thing accurately. To accomplish the work belongs to God, in Whose hand are the hearts, not of kings only, but of all men.” De Girardin gives an account of the reception of a letter of Wake’s by the Doctors of the Sorbonne, with which they were much delighted, and said, that “the foundations of concord had been laid by him, and that they must make their contribution towards so beautiful a work.” It is said that “the treatise itself was read to the Doctors of the Sorbonne.” It had the hearty concurrence of De Girardin. Du Pin stated to M. Beauvoir, that “he had communicated his design to the Cardinal de Noailles, who had approved of it.” In his official account Du Pin says, that Wake “sent” him “the Confession of Faith and the Liturgy of the English Church, and that M. Du Pin formed thereon a memorial, containing the Articles upon which they were agreed, those which were indifferent, and those upon which it was necessary to confer, in order to explain them;—articles, which came to few.” This was in accordance to Du Pin previous conviction “that we [the two Churches] were not so far apart as to preclude reunion; that there were many articles upon which we were agreed; others which related to discipline only, in regard to which there could be no dispute on either side; and

that in regard to the other articles, few in number, upon mutual explanation the two parties might agree.’’ The “Commonitorium” then of Du Pin was no common document; it may be supposed to represent the mind of the moderate Gallicans of 1719. Cardinal de Noailles had desired to peruse it before it should be sent. It is exceedingly to be regretted that, at present, the “Commonitorium” cannot be found, and that so little of it is preserved verbatim. But, as appears from Maclaine’s epitome of it, Du Pin approved unconditionally of twenty-three of our Articles; passed over that on the Homilies, as not knowing them; proposed slight explanations of ten; so that there remained a difficulty in regard to five only, and on these also he mostly offered explanations of the Roman Doctrine.

On the VIth he agrees as the principle, that “Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation,” and affirms no more as to tradition than many of our Divines have done. “This (viz., that Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation) we will gladly admit, provided that tradition be not excluded, which does not exhibit new articles of faith, hut confirms and explains those things which are contained in Holy Scripture, and fences them by new safeguards against those who are otherwise minded, so that nothing new is said, but only the old in a way.

He thought that the Apocryphal books would not occasion much difficulty, and allowed them to be called Deutero-canonical.

Our Homilies inculcate a secondary inspiration of some, at least, of the Apocrypha, since they speak of its words as said by the Holy Ghost, and as Scripture. On the other hand the Roman Church could hardly condemn the statement of S. Jerome, which our Article quotes, received, as it was, by unquestioned authorities down to the Council of Trent.

The Xth he allowed, provided that by the word “power” (“we have no power to do good works”) be understood what school-Divines call “Potentia proxima,” or a direct and immediate power [which plainly it does], since without a remote power of doing good works sin could not be imputed.

On the XIth he says, “We do not deny that we are justified by faith only, as is set forth in the XIth Article.” Maclaine paraphrases him, “we maintain that faith, charity, and good works are necessary to salvation, and this is acknowledged in the following (the

XIIth) Article.”

It does not seem to me clear whether Du Pin understood Article XIII. He says, “On the XIIIth Article there will be no controversy, since many divines are of the same mind. It appears somewhat harsh to say, that all those actions which are not done out of the grace of Christ are sins [‘have the nature of sin’]. Yet I would not have any discussion thereon, except among theologians.”

On the XIVth Article Du Pin explained away the offensive sense of the term “works of supererogation,” was willing to drop the term, and only wished the distinction to be maintained between “w orks of strict precept,” and those which were of “counsel” only. This distinction our people must, of course, admit, since our Lord says of celibacy, “All cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” It is a further question whether a person’s salvation may not be very seriously involved in his obeying a call from God, even although that to which he is called may not be in itself necessary to salvation. So that the Roman aspect may be, to look upon the act or condition as not in itself necessary to salvation; ours, in the concrete, to look on ourselves as unprofitable servants at the best. And each must admit the statement of the other.

On Article XIX. he wished for the word “under lawful pastors,” and said that “although all particular Churches, even that of Home, may err, it is needless to say this in a Confession of Faith.” So that, in principle, he agreed with us.

On Article XX. he again agreed with us in the principle, that” the Church may not ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written; “but said that it must be taken for granted that the Church would not do this in matters “which overthrow the substance of the faith” [“quæ fidei substantiam evertant”]. This, too, our Church must hold, by virtue of our Lord’s words, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

On Article XXI. he made two statements, neither of which are contradicted by the Article, and both of which have often been affirmed among us. 1) That “General Councils, received by the Universal Church, cannot err.” It would be more accurate to word it, “No General Council, received by the Universal Church, has erred; “or, “It may not be thought that the Universal Church will receive a General Council which has erred;” or, doubtless, Du Pin said, “General Councils, received by the Universal Church, cannot have erred.” For when they have been received, their whole action is a thing past, whereas “cannot err” implies a thing yet future. 2) “That, though particular Councils may err, yet every private man has not a right to reject what he thinks contrary to Scripture,”

which is self-evident on the principle of our Article, “The Church has authority in controversies of faith.”

On Article XXII. he said, “a) as to Purgatory, that souls must be purged, i. e. purified from all defilement of sin, before they are admitted to celestial bliss; that the Church of Rome doth not affirm this to be done by fire; that b) indulgences are only relaxations or remissions of temporal penalties in this life; c) that the Roman Catholics do not worship the Cross, nor relics, nor images, nor even saints before their images, but only pay them an external respect, which is not of a religious nature; and that even this external demonstration of respect is a matter of indifference, which may be laid aside or retained without harm.”

On Article XXIV. he allows that “Divine Service might be performed in the vulgar tongue, where that was customary,” and, according to Maclaine, “excused” (I suppose, “defended”) “the Latin and Greek Churches for preserving their ancient languages, alleging that great care had been taken that every thing should be understood by translations.”

On the XXVth Article he required the acknowledgment “of the five Sacraments, whether instituted immediately by Christ or no.”

As all our controversialists have said, the controversy turns not on the word, but on the meaning of the word. Even Jewell quoted Cardinal Bessarion, who, in the 15th century, A.D. 1436, distinguished, as we do, the two sacraments instituted by our Lord Himself. “This, too, seems a thing not to be disregarded, that, whereas two Sacraments were delivered to us by the Saviour, Baptism and the Eucharist, He commanded each to be effected in His own words.” “If, then, there we read of these two Sacraments alone as having been manifestly delivered in the Gospels, but one of them, Baptism, is effected in the words of the Lord, then we must think that the other also, the Eucharist,, must be effected through these Divine and God-given words.” Yet Bessarion gives as the definition of other sacraments of the Church, that “they have something which is seen, something which is comprehended, not by the bodily eyes, but by the mind alone,” viz. the invisible grace which all believe to be given in Confirmation, orders, absolution, and in marriage also, hallowing its act. A distinction allowed in Bessarion might well be allowed to us also.

The only real difference is mainly practical, in regard to the Anointing of the sick. In this the Greek Church follows strictly the direction of S. James. The devout sick, at least, send to the physician of the soul as well as of the body, and in the “anointing of the sick,” they look for benefit both to the body, if it should so please God, and to the soul. A Russian Priest informed me of a case, which he knew, of a man, who, by the use of anointing, with the prayer of faith by the Presbyters, had been raised up three times from dangerous illness. Had the Roman Church adhered to this practice, we could never have had the mention of “the corrupt following of the Apostles;” for that language relates to

the then custom, not to anoint the sick until they were “in extremis,” so that the Council of Trent had to provide, that, “if the sick should recover after receiving this unction, they may again be aided by the succour of this sacrament, when they should come into a like peril of life.” The Article plainly means, by “the corrupt following of the Apostles,” that what S. James directed, with a view (at least in part, to the restoration of health, was administered only, when, in man’s sight, such restoration was impossible. Had they in the Roman Church retained the practice as the Greek Church retains it, we should doubtless have retained it also. As it is, the English Church, even in the unhappy time towards the close of the reign of Edward VI., virtually sanctioned it. The first Prayer Book in his reign had a special prayer for “the Anointing of the sick,” with this direction:

“If the sick person desire to be anointed, then shall the Priest anoint him upon the forehead or breast only, making the sign of the cross, saying thus,

“As with this visible oil thy body outwardly is anointed, so our heavenly Father, Almighty God, grant of His infinite goodness that, thy soul inwardly may be anointed with the Holy Ghost, Who is the Spirit of all strength, comfort, relief, and gladness. And vouchsafe for His great mercy (if it be His blessed will) to restore unto thee thy bodily health and strength, to serve Him; and send thee release of all thy pains, troubles, and diseases, both in body and mind. And howsoever His goodness (by His Divine and unsearchable Providence) shall dispose of thee; we, His unworthy ministers and servants, humbly beseech the eternal Majesty to do with thee according to the multitude of His innumerable mercies, and to pardon thee all thy sins and offences committed by all thy bodily

senses, passions, and carnal affections: Who also vouchsafe mercifully to grant unto thee ghostly strength, by His Holy Spirit, to withstand and overcome all temptations and assaults of thine adversary, that in no wise he prevail against thee, but that thou mayest have perfect victory and triumph against the devil, sin, and death: through Christ our Lord: Who by His death hath overcome the Prince of death; and with the Father and the Holy Ghost evermore liveth and reigneth, God, world without end. Amen.”

This Prayer Book was declared by the Parliament to have been written “by the aid of the Holy Ghost.” The statement, so often quoted from the Act for substituting “the second book,” that the first was a “very godly order, agreeable to the word of God and the primitive Church,” and that the doubts raised about it were “rather by the curiosity of the minister and mistakers than of any other worthy cause,” shows that, even in those evil times, no slur was ever cast upon the Scriptural practice of anointing the sick. The practice existed in the Scotch Church. Bishop Jolly was always prepared to anoint any sick person who should desire it. Nor do I know of any ground, except the custom of the Church, why it should not be used in England. Certainly, there is nothing herein to separate us from the Eastern Church. It is difficult to understand what its office “to remit sins “can be, which the Council of Trent sanctioned under anathema, seeing that the Church of Rome too holds that, upon confession, sins would just before have been remitted by the Absolution. Nor, looked upon, as the Roman Church practically does, as a mere preparation for death (not, as the Greek does, as a means, if God so will, of restoring the sick), does one see, what there -can be lacking to our dying, whose sins, if they will, Christ absolves by the words which He gave us to pronounce with His authority and in His Name, and to whom He gives, as Food for the way, His own Body and Blood.

One statement of the Council of Trent, as to a spiritual effect of the unction of the sick, might the rather be explained to us, because Roman Catholic writers are at issue about its meaning. The Council says, “The substance and effect of this sacrament is explained by those words, ‘and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall alleviate him, and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.’ For the substance is this grace of the Holy Spirit, Whose anointing wipes away offences, if any remain to be expiated, and the remains of sin.” And the Canon anathematizes those who deny this: “If any say that the holy anointing of the sick does not confer grace, nor remit sins, nor alleviate the sick, but have now ceased, as though it were only formerly a grace of healing.” But Bellarmine says plainly, “All Theologians do not explain in the same way what are the remains of sin. Some would have them to be venial sins; but this is

improbable, for they can be effaced without a Sacrament, nor is any new infusion of grace required, which is the effect of all Sacraments. So, if this were the proper and chief effect of this anointing, we could not easily prove it to be a Sacrament, nor would James say, ‘If he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him;’ for all have venial sins, as he says again, ‘in many things we all offend.’ Lastly, it is not safe to restrain to venial sins, what James calls, generally, ‘sins.’ Others, by the name of ‘remains,’ understand the proneness or habit left from [past] sin. But this is still more improbable. For the ‘if he have committed sin’ of James cannot be conveniently understood of this. Then too such habits do not appear to be taken away by this sacrament; for it often happens that they who recover feel the same proneness to sin as before.”

Bellarmine then himself explains “the remains of sin” to mean “either 1) of deadly sins into which a person may have fallen through ignorance; or, 2) torpor, sadness, anxiety, which are wont to be left from sin, and which may chiefly vex a man at the point of death.” But 1) deadly sins could hardly be committed in ignorance by any one of well-instructed conscience; so that this explanation would apply to very few out of the vast multitude who fall sick; viz. to those only who were truly penitent, and yet had deadly sin on their conscience contracted since their last absolution, of which they were ignorant. 2) “Torpor, sadness,” &c., though they might be consequences of sin, are, of course, not sin, and so are no explanation of the Apostle’s words, “if any have committed sin, it shall be forgiven,” nor of that which the Canon of the Council of Trent affirms, under anathema, that the Unction “remits” not merely “the remains of sin,” but the “sins “the mselves.

The difficulty is, since sins are forgiven authoritatively upon true contrition through the Absolution, what sins there can remain afterwards to be remitted; and this the more, since the sick is to be anointed by the priests, and therefore, except in extremis, confession could be made, and the absolution pronounced. The earliest authority, enumerating the ways in which forgiveness of sins were given, blends the confession of sins and the anointing of the sick together. “There is yet a seventh, although hard and laborious, remission of sins, through penitence, when the sinner washes his bed in tears, and his tears become his bread day and night, and when he is not ashamed to tell his sins to the priest of the Lord, and to seek the medicine, according to him who saith, ‘I said, I will declare my unrighteousness against myself unto the Lord.’ Wherein also is fulfilled that which the Apostle writes, ‘If any is sick, let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them lay hands upon him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.’” S. Chrysostome quotes the text of S. James, only as a proof of the power of the prayer of

the priests, and so, doubtless, of the power of the keys.

Innocent I. explains that it could not be given to those who were yet doing penance, i. e. who had not yet received absolution. So far, then, from remitting deadly sin, it could not, according to Innocent I., be given to those who, having fallen into deadly sin, had not as yet, after the course of penitential discipline, been absolved from it. Two sacraments alone, they say, are “given to the dead,” Baptism and Penitence; Baptism, or the new birth, to give spiritual life; Penitence to restore it when lost. But neither is it given to remit venial sin. It is then not a captious question, but a reasonable request for explanation, that we ask, what that remission of sins through the anointing of the sick is, the denial of which the Roman Church has anathematized, and, as things stand, requires us, as terms of communion, to anathematize? In S. James, the forgiveness of sin is ascribed, apparently, to the whole action, including the prayer of the priest, to which alone S. Chrysostome attributes it.

In the Latin Church, too, Aquinas speaks of unction of the sick as “not being of necessity to salvation.”

The statement of the Russian Catechism could cause no difficulty to the English Church. “Unction with oil is a mystery, in which, while the body is anointed with oil, God’s grace is invoked on the sick, to heal him of spiritual and bodily infirmities.” The prayer in the Euchologion expresses, so far, what we could all use, “Holy Father, Healer of souls and bodies, Who didst send Thine Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, healing every disease and redeeming from death, heal this Thy servant also of the sickness of soul and body which encompasses him, and quicken him through the grace of Thy Christ—for Thou art the Fountain of healings, O Christ our God, and to Thee we send up the glory to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

On the XXVIIIth Du Pin was willing to omit the word “transubstantiation,” and to substitute “changed.” But the question remained the same, whether the “change” intended was physical or hyperphysical. He wished the statement to be adopted, “That the bread and wine are really changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, which are truly and really received by all, though none but the faithful partake of any benefit from them.” The real question between the English and Roman Church is as to the nature of the change, whether it is understood in Thorndike’s words, to be “a change destructive to the bodily

substance of the elements, or cumulative of them.” Properly speaking, Scotus and others say “transubstantiation is not change.” Since du Pin, as well as others, owned their Communion service to be orthodox, I should hope that the belief of the “real objective Presence” as therein contained, and so often expressed in our writers, or even the formula in the notice at the close of our fir st Book of Homilies, “the due receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ under the form of bread and wine,” might become the basis of mutual understanding, instead of any inquiries into the meaning of the words Substance or Change. Plainly, since the meaning of the word “substance “has been changed, since the word “Transubstantiation” was adopted in the Latin Church, to express the “change” produced by consecration in the Holy Eucharist, it is not too much to ask the Roman Church to explain what that “substance” is, which they believe to be changed. For since they require a belief in Transubstantiation, as terms of communion, and since the meaning has been changed since the times of the Schoolmen, it is but reasonable that they should explain the meaning of that, which they require us to express our belief in. My own conviction is, that our Articles deny Transubstantiation in one sense, and that the Roman Church, according to the explanation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, affirms it in another.

A very eminent foreign Divine, of the Roman Communion, allows (I am informed) that “the ‘materia’ of bread and wine remains,” and that, following Theodoret, Pope Gelasius and other Fathers, we may say that “there are two natures in the Sacrament.” But if so, the whole controversy between us is at an end. The rest is a question of the schools, not for ordinary pious Christians.

On Article XXX. he would have the reception “in both kinds,” or “in one kind” only, left free to each Church.

On the XXXIst Article Du Pin maintained that “the Sacrifice of Christ is not only commemorated but continued in the Eucharist, and that every communicant offers Christ with the Priest.” The words “we still continue and commemorate that Sacrifice, which

Christ once made upon the Cross,” were used by Bishop Cosins also, presupposing, of course, the fundamental truth, that that Sacrifice was finished upon the Cross, and that nothing can add to Its infinite value. We can but plead It and Its merits.

On Article XXXII. Du Pin himself advocated the celibacy of the Clergy, but allowed of their marriage, “where not prohibited by the laws of the Church.”

On the XXXVIth Article, since he allows that, in the case of an union, the English clergy might remain in their beneficies, “either of right, or of the indulgence of the Church,” he must have acknowledged the validity of our ordinations; since, of course, no indulgence of the Church could make that valid which is invalid. Du Pin wrote to Wake, admiring the theory of our election and confirmation of bishops; he used always the tone of one writing to an Archbishop, and signed one of his letters “your Son in Christ,” “tuus in Christo filius;” and in his “relation “to “a very great man “(doubtless the Regent), mentions an answer of Wake, “in which, without entering into any detail as to the Articles, he justified the succession of Archbishops and Bishops of England, of which

M. Du Pin seems to have doubted.” In Oct. 22, 1718, Beauvoir wrote to Archbishop Wake: “They [Du Pin and De Girardin] are extremely satisfied with the account of the succession of the English bishops. For before they were in error about it.” De Girardin himself wrote in December, 1718,—“You can hardly think, most illustrious Prelate, with what joy it filled us, that we learnt at last from this your most learned letter, that the consecrations of the English Bishops, in due succession from the first foundation to the Reformation (as they speak), is supported by the testimony and authority of public documents; so that the enemies of ecclesiastical union have no ground, on this head at least, to disturb the communion of minds and of religion, now to be renewed among Christians.”

Du Pin expressed his satisfaction in these words:

“I was exceedingly pleased with what you were so good as to write to me so elegantly and accurately about the election and consecration of the Bishops in England. It does not seem to me to differ much from the customs which flourished in the time of Charlemagne, as is clear from the Capitulars of this and the following Emperors, and the formulae of Marculfus. And I cannot sufficiently praise the precautions which you use to prevent any unworthy person from stealing into the Episcopate, Would that Bishops were proved in the same way every where, before they were consecrated!” It has indeed escaped observation, that the form adopted at the consecration of Archbishop Parker was carefully framed on the old form used in the consecration of Archbishop Chichele, a century before (as I found by collation of the Registers in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, now many years ago). The form used in Chichele’s time, I could not trace

further back. Its use was exceptional, having been resorted to at a time when the English Church did net acknowledge either of the claimants of the Papacy. The tradition of that consecration was then only a century old. It was of the Providence of God, that they had that precedent to fall back upon. But the selection of this one precedent (amidst the number of Archbishops, consecrated in obedience to Papal Bulls, in which case the form was wholly different), shows how careful Parker and his consecrators were to follow the ancient precedents. This fact is in itself the contradictory of the allegations of carelessness, so recklessly made by Roman Catholic controversialists. It is almost inconceivable that such an historian as Lingard (the first Roman Catholic writer who ventured to discard the Nag’s Head fable) should himself have asserted that in Parker’s consecration the words “Receive the Holy Ghost,” were not used, in face of the Lambeth Register, which states that they were. But to return.

Article XXXVII. Du Pin “admitted, so far as relates to the civil power, and denied all temporal and all immediate spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope, and held that every Church ought to enjoy its own liberties and privileges, which the Pope has no right to infringe.” It seems as if what he left to the Pope was “to see that the canons be enforced, the true faith maintained, and any violation of either be redressed, according to the Canonical laws.” On this subject there is a fuller statement in a letter of Du Pin to Wake, Dec. 1, 1718, —“In regard to the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, as regards the State, it is restricted within narrow bounds, so that it can be of no prejudice to us. For as to temporals he has no power; and in spirituals, he is held within the rules of the ancient Canons. He can do nothing in those things which relate to the government of the Bishop in his own diocese; he cannot ordain or enact any thing pertaining to discipline; he cannot excommunicate any one, or claim any thing else to himself.”

“His Primacy (i. e. that he holds the first place among Bishops, as all antiquity affirms, and the Greeks themselves, although rent from the Roman Church, confess) we acknowledge. But that Primacy does not give him a higher grade among Bishops; he is only their fellow-bishop, although first among Bishops.”

Wake wrote: “The honour which you give to the Roman Pontiff differs so little, I deem, from that which our sounder Theologians readily grant him, that, on this point, I think, it will not be difficult, on either side, either to agree altogether in the same opinion, or mutually to bear with a dissent of no moment.”

One more extract from Du Pin will be especially interesting to you, as illustrating how earnest the good old man was in his love for peace and union, and on what terms he thought it might be effected. Indeed, his whole plan seems to be an anticipation of our

dear friend’s Tract 90.

“In these days I have read the book of William Forbes, Bishop of Edinburgh, entitled ‘Considerationes Modestæ et Pacificæ Controversiarum,’ &c., London, 1658. The Bishop seems to be of the same mind as you and I; for the whole subject of the work turns on this, to show that the controversies between us may easily be settled, if only the fairer Theologians are heard on both sides, if dictating is avoided, and we are led, not by party-spirit, but by love of seeking the truth. The posthumous works of Lancelot [Bishop Andrewes], published A.D. 1629, aim at the same end. I propose to transcribe from these and other works of the like sort, and from those of the more peace-loving on our side, testimonies on each Article, side by side, and to send them to you.”