me, by implication, that in a matter wherein every thoughtful man occupying my position would most deeply feel its painful responsibilities, I have acted without due deliberation, and am capable of being influenced by many to concede that which I have already denied to a few. Assuming it to be addressed to me in my public capacity, a graver character attaches to it. If it be not altogether nugatory, then is it an unbecoming and unstatutable attempt to overawe the Resident Governor of the University in the execution of his office. In either case, I refuse to receive it, and I hold it to be my duty to admonish those who may have hastily signed it, while I warn others, who may have been active in promoting it, to have a more careful regard to the oaths by which they bound themselves upon admission to their several degrees; this act of theirs having a direct tendency to foment, if not create, divisions in the University, to disturb its peace, and interfere with its orderly government. I am, Sir, your faithful humble servant, E. Badeley, Esq., M.A. P. WYNTER, V. C. Temple, Aug. 5, 1843. Rev. Sir-Your bedel delivered to me last evening the address which I had the honour of forwarding to you on Wednesday, and your letter, in which you state that you "refuse to receive it, and regard it as deserving of the strongest censure." Upon the course which you have thus thought it proper to adopt I forbear to make any comments; but with regard to the address, I must be permitted to say, that of all the persons who have seen it, you, I believe, are the only one who has discovered in it anything inconsistent with that respect which is due to your character and office; while, on behalf of myself and the other gentlemen who signed it, I entirely disclaim all intention of giving you offence, or of exciting those feelings which your letter indicates. That you should suppose that the address is applicable to you in your individual, rather than in your official capacity, surprises me not a little, as it contains no reference to you except in your official capacity, and relates exclusively to an act which you could only perform as Vice-Chancellor. In that capacity I consider myself entitled, as an independent member of convocation, to address you upon a subject in which the interests of the University are very deeply concerned; and, while I claim for the signers of this memorial the credit of at least as conscientious a regard for our oaths as, I doubt not, is felt by those who have been instrumental to the proceedings which occasioned it, I must assure you that "to foment divisions in the University, to disturb its peace, or to interfere with its orderly government," is not its object, nor, I would hope, its tendency-an imputation from which I should have thought that the high station and character of many of those whose respected names it bears might fairly have protected it. And whether it now remains in your hand, or in the hands of its authors, its real intention has been effected, as it has conveyed to you the opinion of a large number of the members of convocation upon a question of painful interest and of the last importance. I have the honour to be, Rev. Sir, your most obedient humble servant, The Rev. the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, &c. Southend, Aug. 8, 1843. Sir-I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 5th instant, addressed to me at Oxford. E. Badeley, Esq. Temple, August 14, 1843. Reverend Sir-As the address which you have refused to receive is about to be published in the newspapers, with the names of those persons who signed it, I beg leave to inform you that I propose to publish at the same time, and in the same manner, the correspondence which has passed between us. To this I presume that you can have no objection, as the correspondence is of an official character, and your letter of the 4th of August is intended, not for one only, but for all the parties to the address, to many of whom it is almost impossible to communicate its contents except through the medium of the newspapers. I have the honour to be, Rev. Sir, your most obedient humble servant, The Rev. the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford. EDWARD BADELEY. London: W. E. Painter, Church and State Gazette Office, 342, Strand. THE CHURCHMAN, A MAGAZINE IN SUPPORT OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. [NEW AND ENLARGED SERIES.] OCTOBER, 1843. DR. PUSEY'S PREFACE TO HIS SERMON. THE Church and State Gazette of the 28th of July has so ably and justly defined the nature and tendency of Dr. Pusey's sermon, that it is unnecessary to pronounce an opinion a second time on its Papal propensities. I wish to call your attention to the preface which is attached to the printed discourse. In this he says: "The first duty of a minister of Christ is to his little ones. For their sakes, lest any be perplexed in consequence of all which has lately been said, this sermon is published, and for them the following explanation is intended-and lest any difficulties might be entertained by pious minds, trained in an opposed and defective system of teaching, before whom this sermon may now be brought." As Dr. Pusey had possession of a pulpit in which the little ones around him were the youth of the University, and as the pious minds trained in an opposed and defective system are members of the Church of England, the Church of England not only trains in a system opposed to his, but also her teaching is a defective system. "And to relieve (says Dr. Pusey) any difficulties these minds might entertain, the sermon is published." In other words, it is made public for the sake of making Puseyites, and telling the world that his scheme is opposed to the present method of teaching divinity in Oxford. And these are not all his motives, for he has further to say that that same system is defective; and he adds also, that throughout the whole transaction he is conscious of his own entire adherence to the formularies of the Church. It is asserted, "that throughout the sermon controversy was far from the preacher's thoughts." Some time has passed since the delivery of the discourse and its printing: the University censure came between the two acts, and an occasion has been offered that might have led to conciliation-an expression of regret at having disturbed the peace of the University, or some faint indication that there might have been some error of judgment, or some want of caution in expression. But the preface sets aside all these hopes of peace, and scems, indeed, to proclaim future opposition; for it speaks of an opposite and defective system of teaching. It defines his opinions with more force and peculiarity than they are conveyed in the sermon-declaring that he has already repeatedly expressed himself on this subject, and in the very outset of his sermon conveyed at once that he believed the elements to remain in their natural substances, and that he did not attempt to define the mode of the mystery; but that they were also the body and blood of Christ, and that he wished not to be misunderstood; that he had learned to receive in their literal sense our blessed Lord's solemn words, "This is my body;" and from them while I believe the consecrated elements to become, by virtue of his consecrating words, truly and really, yet spiritually, and in an ineffable way, his body and blood; he learnt also to withhold his thoughts as to the mode of this great mystery, but, as a mystery, to adore it. Says he "With the fathers, then, and our own great divines, explaining, as I believe, the true meaning of our Church, I could not but speak of the consecrated elements as being what (since he, Christ, has so called them) I believe them to become-his body and blood; and I feared not that, using their language, I should, when speaking of divine and spiritual things, be thought to mean otherwise than spiritually; or, having disclaimed all thoughts as to the mode of their being, that any should suppose I meant a mode which our Church disallows." Who that reads this preface will not confirm the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor, and convict Dr. Pusey of two errors-first, his own, in believing in any mystery, and consequently any mode of it as to the sacramental bread and wine; and, secondly, that he means any particular mode of mystery, with respect to them, which the Church disallows? As to the sacramental bread and wine, the Church of England recognizes neither mystery nor mode of it. Whatever mysterious operation there may be in the communion, they wholly consist in the spiritual presence and the working of the Holy Spirit. Who that reads the two declarations in the preface-that the elements remain in their natural substances, and yet that they were also the body and blood of Christ-can avoid coming to the conclusion, that these assertions bring with them contradictions more dangerous to truth and religion than the old gross error of transubstantiation; and that they are of such a dangerous nature, that wherever they shall be admitted, they destroy all confidence in interpretation, by affirming of one and the same thing the most gross contradictions, and things directly opposite to each other? It is impossible for any man to understand or believe this, for it is greater than the old error. Dr. Pusey may, as he expresses himself, entertain no fear of being misunderstood. This gentleman may understand himself, and he may take shelter in some mysterious mode of his own; but the only understanding that any intelligent and honest man can come to, on the reading of these contradictory assertions, is, that if such constructions are to be put on things and words, human intercourse must cease for want of common sense, and confidence and human language be suspended, because it leads only to doubt and confusion. Very early the Church of England held her present plain and simple doctrine; for Du Pin, though a believer in the real presence himself, has, in his Ecclesiastical History of the tenth century, the candour to say (I use his translator's words): "Nevertheless, there were in England some clergymen who positively affirmed that the bread and wine on the altar remained the very same substances after consecration, and that they were only representative of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and not his real body and blood." This expression, " representative," used by the ancient BritoAnglican Church, is most just and happy; and it is in perfect concordance with the official declaration of our Church, which Dr. Pusey is much to be blamed for not consulting, rather than the ambiguous expressions of divines not speaking both collectively and officially. It is to opinions of this kind Dr. Pusey ought to have remembered that he had sworn to accord, and not to detached authorities, but to the Communion service itself. Had he so done, he would have found the fullest rejection of his own mysterious conceptions, and an exact agree ment between the Brito-Anglican Church and the present Episcopal English. Our service of the Communion contains, at the end of it, an explanatory declaration, which runs thus :— "It is hereby declared that no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians): and the natural body and blood of Christ are in heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one." This declaration of the Church completely destroys Dr. Pusey's theory. It is not only a denial of gross transubstantiation, but of that semitransubstantiation-that mysterious, dreamy mode of miraculous change which is supposed to take place after consecration. For the declaration says, that "the sacramental bread and wine remain still (that is, after consecration) in their very natural substances;" and then any species of presence but the spiritual one of Christ is denied in these words, "And the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one." Dr. Pusey, therefore, may still hold his own opinions, but this declaration would be alone sufficient to prevent his fastening them on the Church of England. But there are other parts of the Communion service, and those the most important ones, which equally deny these mysteries, or any modes of them which forbid a man to say and unsay in the same breath; and, by the convenient introduction of a mystery or a mode, to carry the Reformed Church half-way back into the discarded errors of Popery. At the end of the Communion to the Sick there is this note in the rubric, which sufficiently explains the meaning of the different expressions used in the Church, which, as they relate to types, and as Christ himself spoke in types, have been retained, and they must decide the real intentions of those who compiled our Liturgy, whose ambiguous words have been used: "The curate shall instruct the sick man, that if he do truly repent him of his sins, and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the cross for him, and shed his blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefore, he doth eat and drink the body and blood of Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth." Thus it follows from these words, that if the body and blood of Christ are spoken of as eaten and drank, in a case where there is actually no eating or drinking with the mouth at all, then spiritual and typical eating and drinking can only be meant; and with them the sacramental bread and wine can have no material or actual connexion, or indeed any other. The chain of types, or metaphor, is in these expressions carried through the whole act; for spiritual food is not only mentioned, but also spiritual eating and drinking is spoken of as taking place, when the mouth of the communicant receives nothing. This note in the rubric is unanswerable; for it must be admitted, from the sense conveyed by all these passages, that our Church does not mean the use of the actual corporal organs of eating and drinking. And if Dr. Pusey could establish his mysterious mode of converting spiritually the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, he has still only half established his theory; he has still to carry his mystery also into the actual eating and drinking for it is impossible to collect, from such wording, that our Church contemplates any positive eating when the body of Christ is spoken of; but only typical, metaphorical, and spiritual feeding: he has to invent some mysterious mode of eating and drinking, as well as of changing the sacraments. The same clear intention as to the unchanged state of the sacramental bread and wine appears in all the public acts of the Church of England, although there is a constant reference to the figurative language of the Scriptures. In the beginning of the Communion service the sacrament is called the "sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, to be received in remembrance." In this expression the real presence is denied. And again, in the exhortation to attend, people are "exhorted to attend the holy communion in remembrance of his death, and not to separate from their brethren who come to feed on the banquet of that most heavenly food." And again, "Ye that mind to come to the Communion of the body and blood of Christ, before they presume to eat of that bread and drink of that cup." Here no change is admitted. When the priest advances to the communicants to give them the sacramental bread and wine, he makes a declaration affirming the means of salvation, and invokes a blessing on the communicants in these words :-" The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee." And then very remarkable expressions are used, which render it certain, that not only spiritual food, but spiritual eating, is meant, and the words of Christ are interpreted spiritually; for the attention is called off from actual eating and from natural mastication, by the words "Feed on him in thy heart." Would any person, not contemplating spiritual eating as well as spiritual food, have talked of feeding on Christ in his heart? To feed by faith might have been open to both actions and both senses; but no man in his senses ever yet described actual feeding |