her station in society, or the number of carriage horses in her stable.

It may be objected to this advocacy of detachment that, were that quality more universal, patriotism would dwindle towards extinction. We are approaching very tender ground here, for it is necessary to be conscious of the boundary between patriotism and particularism, not easily to be defined. It would not be difficult to argue that a good deal of confusion has arisen between the two from lack of the very quality under discussion. The man with a detached mind is, it has been suggested above, a man of the world; one, that is to say, of the mental fibre which, under favourable circumstances, develops into a wise citizen. The mind of such a man is alive to a variety of considerations beyond the instinctive attachment of every creature to the locality of his birth. He is capable of throwing himself with ardour into the enterprise of a nation struggling, and rightly struggling, to be free—of a nation, that is, which is suffering from actual tyranny and oppression. But he has no sympathy with the efforts of those who will rouse a people, enjoying the actuality of political and social liberty in the land of their birth, to revolt against a dynasty which may be archæologically, or even historically, foreign to them, and to clamour for the chimera of autonomy. He knows how often it has been the destiny of nations to strain at the shadow of independence and lose the substance of freedom, as when the people of Italy, released from the firm but even restraint of the Empire, plunged into centuries of frightful misgovernment under their native princes; and he holds in horror the perilous sentimentality which works to disintegrate powerful empires and restore the so-called independence of their component parts. But to follow this line of suggestion would lead one far afield.

One last illustration may be added of a very common result of deficient power of detachment. It may be recognised in the all but universal tendency to depreciate the present in comparison with the past. Every succeeding generation declares that decadence set in in the last generation but one. Society in general, and wine, women, wits, workmen, in particular—all that ministers to human enjoyment

-were much better in the good old days, they say. This fallacy can only be overcome by applying our intelligence to the past, and learning how similar imperfections, and far greater, had to be encountered by our ancestors. It is thus that great minds free themselves from deception and obtain insight into the true relations of past and present.

It is a defect (said Tacitus) of human perversity that old things are always held in esteem, new ones in evil repute; we never tire of contemplating ancient ways, but we deride and despise the pursuits of the present.

Horace and Ovid sounded the same warning. Ecclesiastes, too,

"Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days are better than these? for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this.'

In short-thou hast not detachment

To take the lowest view of the matter, it is much more comforting to embrace the faith that things have been much less satisfactory in the past than they are now. To detach ourselves from the immediate influence of our own little experience, private worries, and personal adversity, and acquire a large view of the current of human society, increases our capacity not only of enjoying life, but of making it better for others.



CHAPTER 12 of the third volume of Dr. Pusey's Life, published under the name of Canon Liddon, deals almost exclusively with a correspondence carried on between Bishop Wilberforce and Dr. Pusey from November 1850 to April 1852. The chapter with which this article deals opens with a statement that a Bull issued by Pius the Ninth struck the whole English Episcopate, with one exception—that of the Bishop of Exeter-with terror; and it emphasises the statement by a declaration that the Anglican Episcopate chronically suffered from an excess of timidity' which alone could account for the 'singular want of judgment displayed by the Bishops. There is no intention in this article to attempt to justify the conduct of the English Bishops—that can be left to others—but exception must be taken to the statement that Bishop Wilberforce's actions were ever marked by an excess of timidity. With the skill of the practised advocate rather than with the sense of truth which should ever be predominant in the biographer, the keynote struck in the opening to the chapter is resonant throughout. Bishop Wilberforce is represented as gradually receding from his position with reference to Dr. Pusey for fear of consequences, or from pressure brought to bear upon him.

It may be that Dr. Pusey's biographers have made their own ignorance of the true state of affairs the measure of the Bishop's wisdom and far-sightedness; but, whatever the reason, it is imperative that the whole story should now be told without any reservation, so that the real truth should be known on the matter in question.

A suggestion, perhaps unintentional, that the Bishop tried to win popularity at Dr. Pusey's expense is almost too contemptible to need disproof, and is easily disposed of. In December 1850, Dr. Dallas, the well-known Evangelical clergyman, writes to Bishop Wilberforce :- If you were to inhibit Dr. Pusey from preaching in Mr. Marriott's church you would show us that your sympathies were not all on the side of Tractarianism.' As will be soon apparent, it was in the month of November of that year that Bishop Wilberforce had

[ocr errors]

desired Dr. Pusey not to preach in the diocese of Oxford, yet in his reply to Dr. Dallas he does not give a hint that what his correspondent asked had already been informally done. He would not, however much ‘reviled as uncertain,''cast off the burden by adopting party cries.'1

At this time Dr. Pusey, who filled the Hebrew Professorial Chair at Oxford, was the leader of the Tractarian party. I do not mean that he was the chosen leader, but after Mr. Newman's secession to the Roman Catholic Church Dr. Pusey became the leader of a party that comprised within its ranks John Keble, and very soon assumed, or was given, the title of the Puseyite party. Dr. Pusey's action in connection with St. Saviour's, Leeds, and his adaptation of certain Roman Catholic books of devotion, naturally drew attention towards him, and this attention was increased by the publication of a singularly spiteful lettera addressed to him by Mr. Dodsworth, of Christ Church, Albany Street, in which Mr. Dodsworth brought Romanising charges against Dr. Pusey based on passages in the adapted books. So serious were these allegations that the Bishop of London (Dr. Blomfield) forbade Dr. Pusey's preaching in his diocese, so long as these charges remained unanswered.

Bishop Wilberforce did not traverse Dr. Pusey's doctrinal position; in doctrine Dr. Pusey himself was, according to all public utterances, sound. He had never committed himself, as one of his followers and pupils, Mr. Pollen of Merton, did, who openly preached the doctrine of Seven Sacraments in a sermon for the delivery of which Bishop Wilberforce promptly inhibited him.

Bishop Wilberforce never had any doubt as to Dr. Pusey's loyalty to the Church of England. Dr. Pusey's biographers state : “As years passed, both the Bishop of Ripon and Bishop Wilberforce learnt to believe in that loyalty. At the present moment Rome, they thought, was the natural goal of the advanced Tractarian, whether at Oxford, London, or Leeds,'* and, Only after the lapse of years . . . did the clouds so far clear away as to enable the Bishop not only to appreciate the drift of Pusey's efforts and his sincere loyalty to the English Church ...5 and, 'He no longer maintained that Pusey's teaching was directly condemned by the judgment of the English Church.'6 Also · The Bishop entered on his work in the diocese with considerable divergences from Pusey's doctrinal position.” These sentences are evidently meant to convey to the reader the impression that Bishop Wilberforce called in question Dr. Pusey's doctrine, his teaching, and his loyalty to the Church of England, and

For the whole of this letter, see Life of Bishop Wilberforce, ii 65. 2 Mr. Dodsworth joined the Roman Catholic Church almost simultaneously with the issue of this letter. : Life of Bishop Wilberforce, ii. 100.

· Ibid. p. 367. * Life of Dr. Pusey, iii. 49. * Ibid. p. 327. ; Ibid. p. 302.

that, as time went on, he altered what was an ill-informed and hasty judgment. In March 1851, writing to Mr. Keble, the Bishop says: 'I am fully convinced of the loyalty of his own feelings towards the Church of England. I have no suspicion that he will desert her. I believe that a great part of the outcry against him arises from his firmly holding great truths which the Church of England teaches.' 8 Again, in a letter to Mr. Marriott, he says : ‘Dr. Pusey, as to whose conscientious attachment to our Church I have no shadow of doubt.'9 This is scarcely the language of a man who required clouds to roll away' or ' years to pass by 'before he became convinced of Dr. Pusey's loyalty and attachment to the English Church.

But if Bishop Wilberforce was as assured of Dr. Pusey's loyalty to the Church of England as his letters at the time show that he was, why, it may be asked, did the Bishop desire that Dr. Pusey should not preach in the diocese of Oxford ? The answer is to be found in the Bishop's own words : 'I accuse you of a mode of teaching which leads to Rome, though you admit all the propositions of the Church of England.'10 "A mode of teaching,' then, was the charge. The reasons for this accusation were (a) the publication of certain translations of Roman Catholic books of devotion adapted by Dr. Pusey to the use of the Church of England; (b) the effect of his teaching on Confession, his encouragement of persons seeking to establish the relation of director as the regular and normal condition. As regards the first, the danger of the adapted books is admirably exposed in a letter from Archdeacon Randall to Bishop Wilberforce, in which he says: “The author would be misrepresented by having his name affixed without his consent to a publication designedly suppressing his sentiments on material parts of his subject, and incautious readers would be deceived into a belief that a book bearing the name of a distinguished member of the Church of Rome might be taken as a fair specimen of the doctrinal system of that Church, and that the system was not really open to the objections commonly taken to it by Protestants, nor the Roman Church chargeable with such errors in doctrine as we might impute to it. The second reason must be dealt with later. The adapted works formed the basis of Mr. Dodsworth's published charges, and Dr. Pusey met Bishop Wilberforce's letter to him on the effects which these adapted books of devotion were likely to produce by a long letter dated November 21, which is published " as part of the correspondence, but which he, Dr. Pusey, recalled the very next day, apologising for having written it, and saying, 'I should wish to recall that letter and to remain suspended from preaching by your lordship until I shall have time to write and publish more carefully.' It is important to observe here that at first only Mr. Dodsworth's charges are referred to, and that the non-preaching in the diocese of Oxford was in the first instance suggested by Dr. Pusey.

* Life of Bishop Wilberforse, ij. 96. 9 Ibid. p. 85. 10 Ibid. p. 73. P. 303.

« ElőzőTovább »