Cap. ix. declares that we are able to make satisfaction to God the Father through Christ Jesus, not only by punishments voluntarily endured by us as chastisements for sin, or imposed at the pleasure of the priest according to the degree of the offence, but also by temporal pains inflicted by God himself, and by us patiently borne." The Catechism adds, "They are an abundant source of satisfaction and merit." Hence we see why the notion lingers, even in this Protestant country, among those who are ignorant of God's righteousness, that voluntary deeds of penance, or the enduring of pain or illness, will make atonement for sin. But enough. We have quoted from the Articles of Trent, because we see no substantial discrepancy between them and the doctrines in Mr. Wordsworth's sermon. If there be, let it be pointed out. We do not indeed say that Mr. Wordsworth, Mr. Newman, or Dr. Pusey speaks as intelligibly as the Tridentine Fathers; they may even entertain some minor differences of opinion among themselves, or with the Romanist; but the agreement is substantial, and we believe not now denied by those who are willing to "speak out" without "reserve." We have from the first remonstrated upon the "stealthiness of the Tractarian writers, in interjecting their statements with equivocal limitations, which, though they by no means lessen the obvious force of the passage upon the mind of the reader, serve to fall back upon, should the doctrine, in its real drift, be impugned. There may be sentences in their writings which seem to exclude the notion of justification by merit; yet when they admit that their views of "justification, merit, and the like," are irreconcileable with the language of the Anglican Article on justification by faith, except by such a black-is-white and whiteis-black argument as that of No. 90, they in effect go the wholelength of Tridentine "meritorious satisfaction." There is, and can be, no medium. Justification, as St. Paul shews, must be either of grace through faith, or of desert through works; there is no via media, otherwise grace is not grace; or works, works. In imputing therefore to Mr. Wordsworth, and the writers of the Tracts for the Times, the Tridentine notions respecting the meritorious satisfaction to be purchased by "the sacrament of Penance"-for the Tractarians agree with the Romanists in considering it a sacrament*—we proceed upon the broad basis of what they have repeatedly urged; as seven : * Some readers may think this impossible, seeing that the divines alluded to have subscribed to Article xxv., which asserts that there are but two sacraments, not "Those five commonly called sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are NOT to be counted sacraments of the Gospel ;" which the Article proves by saying that "they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God," but have grown "partly from the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly from states of life allowed in the Scriptures." But what says No. 90? "This Article does not deny the five rites in question to be sacraments, but to be sacraments in the sense in which Baptism and the Lord's Supper are sacraments." That they are sacraments is argued in the following extraordinary manner. "They are not sacraments in any sense, unless the Church has the power of dispensing grace through rites of its own appointing, or is endued with the gift of blessing and hallowing the rites or ceremonies' which, according to the twentieth Article, it hath power to decree; but we may well believe that the Church has this gift." Ergo, the Church having power to dispense grace through rites of its own appointing;" and Popery being the Church, and having declared Penance and the rest to be sacraments, they are so in spite of the puny denial of the Anglican Reformers. for example, Dr. Pusey, in his work upon baptism, where he speaks of "energetic spirits who feel the greatness of their fall, (by sin after baptism), and would undergo any pains whereby they might be restored;" seeing that for a sin after baptism it requires "more enduring pains, (more than what?) more abiding selfdiscipline, more continued sorrow, again to become capable of that mercy;" "not as if they could at once lay down all their burden at their Saviour's feet," but "by a hard and toilsome path" they must earn uncovenanted mercy through fasting, tears, and grievous bodily endurances; and "by embracing the knees of the presbyters and of the friends of God;" in short, submitting to what the priest says may haply, if severe enough, make " meritorious satisfaction," and incline him to administer plenary absolution. In thus asserting the obvious drift of the Tractarian doctrine upon penance, we do its advocates no injustice; for though there may be scattered here and there a few qualifying words, Dr. Pusey himself argues that "A man's belief is not what he abstractedly holds, or what he would, if questioned, ultimately fall back upon; but his habitual belief is just so much of his system as is habitually interwoven in his mind and thoughts other thoughts may have been, or may again be, made part of his belief; but if habitually thrown into the shade by the greater prominence given to another view of the subject, they can scarcely be called part of his actual belief; they are for the time in a state of abeyance and listlessness, almost as if they were not held at all." But even if we were to exempt the Tractarian teachers from the application of this principle, and to admit that their notions are not to be ga thered from the obvious scope and pressure of their writings, but from nice discriminations and modifying words "thrown into the shade" and "in a state of abeyance and listlessness," still the effect of their lucubrations upon the minds of their readers results from "the greater prominence given to another view of the subject;" and this, in the particulars in question, is the Tridentine, not the Scriptural or Anglican, view. Dr. Pusey shall again be our witness; for he remarks: "The influence which a man [say a Tractarian] has upon his contemporaries, or upon posterity, depends entirely upon his prominent system of belief. That which has seized possession of his own mind is that whereby he influences the minds of others. The more retiring parts of his system, by which it may be to him occasionally modified and controlled, have but little influence on himself; how then should they have strength enough to reach others?" On the ground so clearly expressed in this passage, we collect the intended drift, and still more, the obvious effects, of Mr. Keble's sermon on Tradition; of Mr. Wordsworth's on Penance (he uses this word freely in his discourse, though the title-page reads "Evangelical Repentance"), of Mr. Newman's Sermons; of Mr. Sewell's Essays; and of the "Tracts for the Times." We have given many "illustrations of this; but as the point is important we will adduce one more from one of the early Tracts, No. 2 of the Via Media. "Laicus: What do you mean by Protestant in your present view of it? Clericus...... At present I will use it in the sense most apposite to the topics we have been discussing; viz. as the religion of so-called freedom and independence, as hating superstition, suspicious of forms, jealous of priestcraft, advocating heart-worship; characteristics which admit of a good or a bad interpretation, but which, understood as they are instanced in the majority of persons who are zealous for what is called Protestant doctrine, are (I maintain) very inconsistent with the Liturgy of our Church. . . . . A modern Protestant, even though he granted that children were regenerated in Baptism, would, in the Confirmation Service, have made them some address about the necessity of spiritual renovation, of becoming new creatures, &c. ? I do not say such warning is not appropriate; nor do I propose to account for our Church's not giving it; but is it not quite certain that the present prevailing temper in the temper in the Church, would have given it, judging from the prayers and sermons of the day, and that the Liturgy does not ? Were that day like this, would it not have been deemed formal and cold, and deficient in spiritual-mindedness, to have proposed a declaration such as has been actually adopted, that to the end that Confirmation may be ministered to the more edifying of such as shall receive it, none hereafter shall be confirmed, but such as can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments,' &c.; nothing being said of a change of heart or spiritual affections?.... Take again the Catechism. What can be more technical and formal (as the persons I speak of would say) than the division of our duties into our duty towards God and our duty towards our neighbour? Indeed would not the very word duty be objected to by them, as obscuring the evangelical character of Christianity? Why is there no mention of newness of heart, of appropriating the mercies of redemption, and such-like phrases, which are now common among so-called Protestants? Why no mention of justifying faith? L. Faith is mentioned in an earlier part of the Catechism. C. Yes, and it affords a remarkable contrast to the modern use of the word. Nowadays, the prominent notion conveyed by it regards its properties, whether spiritual or not, warm, self-renouncing. But in the Catechism, the prominent notion is that of its object, the believing all the Articles of the Christian faith...... In the order for Visiting the Sick, a modern Protestant would rather have instituted some more search ing examination (as he would call it) of the state of the sick man's heart; whereas the whole of the minister's exhortation is what the modern school calls cold and formal. . . . . . Not a word of looking to Christ, resting on Him, and renovation of heart. Such are the expressions which modern Protestantism would have considered necessary, and would have inserted as such. They are good words; still they are not those which our Church considers the words for a sick-bed examination." Nothing can be more clear than the insidious drift of these pasBut does the writer really sages. mean to denounce the hatred of superstition, the jealousy of forms being substituted for religion, and the advocacy of heart-religion? Oh no! they are “characteristics which admit of a good or a bad interpretation." Does he object to candidates for confirmation being addressed about the necessity of spiritual renovation, of becoming new creatures, &c.?" Oh dear no! "I do not say such warning is not appropriate." Does he find fault with what he calls "modern Protestants" for speaking of "justifying faith," looking to Christ, resting on him, and renovation?" No, no; for does he not say "they are good words?" Upon these quiet interjections the Tractarian will "fall back," if taxed with the undeniable animus of the whole dialogue ; which is to cast "spiritual" religion "into the shade;" to unprotestantize the Anglican church, and in the most cool manner possible to affect to take for granted that she does not urge "heart-worship," "looking to Christ, resting on him, and renovation of heart." Does the writer advocate such "good words?" So far from it, he makes their goodness very questionable; they admit indeed of "a good or a bad interpretation;" but the insinuation is, that "the bad" is the obvious one; what the good one is he does not tell us. No person can mistake the real scope of this style of writing; any more than Mr. O'Connell's hoping the people would not pump upon their enemies; or 1842.] than "Brutus is an honourable modern preaching) is often imagined; man." Though we have not yet directly noticed Mr. Wordsworth's discourse, we have been reviewing it by anticipation; for, if the Tridentine doctrine is such as we have described; and if the Tractarian doctrine, which Mr. Wordsworth follows, is in essence and spirit identical with it, notwithstanding some nice distinctions "thrown into the shade," and such " good words" as "Evangelical Repentance" instead of and "meritorious " penance satisfaction;" then as the Tridentine doctrine on this subject is allowed by every true Anglican to be unscriptural, and the doctrine of our Articles scriptural, we have only, as Anglicans addressing Anglicans, in a notice of a book and not as writing a treatise, to shew by fair quotations what Mr. Wordsworth's doctrine is, so as to bring it within the range of the argument. This we will now do. He lays down the following six positions. as "It may be well to state, as clearly I can, in this place, the leading positions upon which the argument proceeds. They are the following: "i. That the inspired Epistles, which the Apostles addressed respectively to the primitive Churches, are the main standard to which we should refer for guidance in addressing a Christian congregation upon the doctrine of Repent ance. “2. That the application of the rest of Holy Scripture upon the same point is liable to such restrictions (and no other) as arise from these two propositions; namely, that increased spiritual gifts (entailing increased responsibilities) are vouchsafed to Christians since the day of Pentecost; and that our blessed Lord himself referred to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, to descend after his ascension, for the full develop ment of all truth. "3. That (these propositions admitted) the direct testimony of Holy Scripture is much less full, and less definite upon the doctrine of the forgiveness of deadly sins after baptism, than (to judge from the tone and language of much of our -that, in fact, it is scanty; and no "I earnestly hope that any who may "4. That the safe, and divinelyappointed way for the recovery of fallen Christians would seem to be by ecclesiastical discipline, ending in ministerial absolution-both from the testimony of Scripture and the practice of the primitive Church. "5. That the absence of any such discipline, in effect and practice, among ourselves, i. e. in our own Church, as at regretted. And however the attempt present administered, is deeply to be at restoring it may now be unwise or impracticable, the bearing it in mind, and representing it as a loss, repeatedly, both to our own consciences, and in the ears of our congregations, is highly proper and salutary, and especially needful to make us cautious in preaching the momentous doctrines, and in describing the true measures of sin and of repentance. "6. That good works are a necessary part not only of our duty as Christians, but also of our discipline as penitents. "If these positions are granted to me, but still it is objected that the following discourse exhibits a one-sided view of the truth-I admit the objection-so far as this that all views, designed to be corrective of prevailing error, are of necessity one-sided. Above all, I must not be supposed to deny, what rather I trust will be understood only the more clearly from the view which I have taken, that there is another side of the faith once delivered to the saints,' though it did not fall within the scope of this discourse to treat of it." affirm that the blood of Christ is not be able to sustain his doctrine not available for post-baptismal of penance by Scripture, still sin; but that it must be atoned the authority of the Catholic for by the macerations of peChurch would bear him out in nance ? The simple question is asserting it, as one of those traYes or No; and the whole system ditional verities which his neighof satisfaction by penance depends bour Mr. Keble says are equally upon the answer being in the the gift of God with Holy Writ.— affirmative. Does Mr. Words- And by the way, by what warrant worth assert this affirmative ? do the Tractators so grievously Does he venture to say that disparage the Old Testament? Scripture excludes post-baptismal There is a trace of this in the sin from pardon through the above extract; but the writer blood of Christ? No; but he afterwards boldly declares that says that the "direct testimony he puts "some limitation in the of Scripture is less full and less application of the older scripdefinite upon the doctrine of the tures" in the matter in question. forgiveness of deadly sin after This contradicts Article vii. baptism than is often imagined; it is scanty; and no more than sufficient to prove what our Church teaches in her 16th Article." Here we are plunged in a sea of ambiguities. The writer would not assert that the Scriptures preclude post-baptismal application of the blood of Christ; but the evidence that they admit it is "scanty;" it just covers our 16th Article, as pared down in its meaning in No. 90; but that is all; and thus the reader is left in dim mistiness shrewdly to infer that what is so indefinite and evanescent is in truth non-existent. But should he close with the offer to make Scripture the "main" standard of appeal, and prove that it is "full" and "definite," still Mr. Wordsworth will not give up the point; the Scriptural evidence to which he offered to appeal would indeed be " materially invalidated," but "the doctrine itself, in all the main features of it, will still be true;"-all that he will have lost will be some unessential corroboration; "the balance of the truth, and of the testimony of Scripture, will not be such as I have represented it." What he means by this he afterwards explains ; namely, that should he There is another of the ambiguities complained of, in the last sentence of the extract. The author had expressed his conviction that the way of recovery of fallen Christians is "by ecclesiastical discipline, ending in ministerial absolution," he says not one syllable in these propositions about the blood of Christ cleansing from sin;-it is by "good works," and "our discipline as penitents," that we effect our restoration to the favour of God; but he adds that there is "another side of the faith once delivered to the saints, though it did not fall within the scope of this discourse to treat of it." What is this other side? Unaffectedly we cannot conjecture. Anglicans affirm that the pardon of the penitent is free through the blood of Christ, and not in virtue of our discipline as penitents," or of "ecclesiastical discipline ending in ministerial absolution;" Tridentines and Tractarians affirm the reverse; but what is that "other side" which Mr. Wordsworth alludes to, we know not. It is, at all events, something "thrown into the shade," which does not affect his present conclusions; or even if it modify them to his own mind, it does not; |