enumeration, except that her name is mentioned apart from the other women, a distinction naturally due to her maternal relation: but neither upon this, nor upon any other occasion, is she treated with peculiar deference: she is not appealed to as an authority; she is not consulted for her advice. She appears in fact as nothing more than one of the ordinary disciples,' one of the other 'women' with whom she is classed. And thenceforth she sinks into obscurity, and her name is totally omitted in the history of the infant Church. 66 Again, it is also to be remarked, that whilst the Scriptures attribute to the Virgin Mary nothing above the human character, and represent her in the few transactions, in which she is engaged, as treated with no peculiar veneration; they specify particulars which seem to prove that she was not exempt from the weaknesses and failings of our common nature. In answer to her expostulation in the temple, when Jesus demanded, 'How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?' his inquiry seems to imply a want of discernment and spiritual intelligence in his mother; or a want of due attention in her to his own divine character. When, in answer to her remark at the marriage feast in Cana, he demanded, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come:' his language seems to intimate on her part an undue interference with his authority, and an undue precipitation in urging him to display his power. And when, on occasion of her desiring to speak with him during his conversation with the people, he said, 'My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it,' his language seems to convey a tacit censure on the interruption, accompanied by an intimation that there were others who might be entitled to a higher rank in his regard, than those, whoever they might be, who were connected with him by the nearest natural relation: agreeably to the sentiment which he uttered, when in answer to a certain woman of the company who lifted up her voice, and said unto him, 'Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked,' he said, 'Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.' Upon the whole, the Scriptures represent to us the Virgin Mary as one highly favoured of God, but as a woman, and as a fallible woman: as a creature of the same nature as ourselves, entitled to respect and imitation so far as her conduct was holy and exemplary; but not entitled to be followed with implicit admiration and observance; still less to be treated by us, any more than she was by the first Christians, with more than human respect, as is her blessed Son, or to be made partaker of those honours which are peculiarly and exclusively his own." 66 Dr. Mant, it is clear, while he justly reveres the memory of this highly favoured woman, does not, from the silence of Scripture respecting her history after our Lord's resurrection, draw the inference that this is because we sinful mortals could not sustain the brightness of the vision, or gaze upon the creature's holiness in its fulness," and that her " assumption" to her joy in paradise was because she was too pure and holy a flower to be more than seen upon earth." What "the contemplation" is, which Mr. Newman keeps in "reserve," because "it runs to a higher subject, did we dare to follow it," I will not violate my own maxim of not drawing doubtful inferences, by pretending to guess; but he owns that is something which he dares not disclose. A FOE TO NON-SEQUITURS. REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. PROFESSOR SEWELL'S CHRISTIAN MORALS. Christian Morals. By the Rev. W. SEWELL, M.A., Fellow, and Tutor of Exeter College, and Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Oxford. After the Anti-Tractarian re- in our last two or three numbers, views, and other kindred papers, we had hoped that our readers were sated for a time with the subject, and that we might be allowed to muse on topics more grateful; but so many queries have been put to us respecting one very extraordinary book of the Tractarian class,-Professor Sewell's "Christian Morals,"that we feel called upon to respond to them. The name of Mr. Sewell has been of late very familiar to the public ear, not only in reference to his avowed authorship, but in connexion with papers in the Quarterly Review and elsewhere, popularly attributed to his pen; the drift of which is to advocate, with more or less of " reserve," as the occasion may render most prudent and effective, the principles avowed in the Tracts for the Times. But with unavowed papers, whether rightly or wrongly attributed to individuals, we have at present no concern; Mr. Sewell's own book is before us, and in it his scheme is disclosed, if not with lucid perspicuity, and in its full-blown result, at least with so much copiousness of statement as enables us to follow it out; and having fairly done so, we feel convinced that it must necessarily land us in the darkest Popery of the dark ages; a consummation which Mr. Sewell must consider most devoutly to be wished, if he agrees with his coadjutor in the British Critic (No. 76), who says: "People really use this term, The dark ages,' as if to excuse their own gross ignorance of the most interesting, the most soul-stirring, the most enthusiastic, and perhaps the most truly religious eras the world has seen." If this be so, we do much honour to Mr. Sewell in concluding that he wishes to bring England back to what it was in the ages of Becket, and Dunstan, and Lanfranc, and Aquinas ; "the most interesting, the most soul-stirring, the most enthusiastic, and perhaps the most truly religious ages the world has seen." Upon Mr. Sewell's scheme this is true; for the "fides carbonaria," which it is the main object of his book to inculcate, was then in its full vigour, and brought forth its fruits abundantly, though we cannot say for the spiritual healing of the nations. The posts which Mr. Sewell occupies in the University of Oxford, as a College Tutor and Professor of "Moral Philosophy," are highly responsible; and we are sure that he estimates most conscientiously that responsibility : as well he may; for he cannot but feel that his observations in the lecture room; his theological views; his recorded sentiments; his religious counsel; his conversation with his pupils (to say nothing of personal character), must have considerable weight with those of whose academical and moral interests he is an appointed guardian. To them his influence must prove either beneficial or hurtful in no ordinary measure; and especially when that influence is wielded by one possessing so many claims to respectful attention as the individual to whom we are alluding; whether we regard the natural compass and the superior cultivation of his mind; its rich and varied furniture; his obvious command of ideas, language, images, and illustrations; his abstractions, his researches, or his reasongs (which rarely fail except where his premises are faulty),— of in short that mass of intellect which meets us in almost every page of his book, and which saddens our view in consequence of the perverted use which the respectable and amiable author, unsuspected by himself, too often makes of it. He would perhaps consider it a degradation were we to place, in juxta-position with his book, ano : ther bearing the very same title"Christian Morals," by Hannah More and yet certain it is, that while that highly gifted and eminently pious woman, in almost all her pages, either directly or indirectly, treats of "Christian morals," and felicitously connects them with the doctrines of the Gospel, as under God their parent source, Mr. Sewell presents us with a concatenation of thoughts, bearing upon a scheme which, however ingeniously devised, vanishes into thin air the moment it is exposed to the noontide beam of scriptural truth, unsophisticated by philosophical speculations and ecclesiastical traditions. Mr. Sewell's account of Christian morals is singularly complicated; but one master principle pervades the whole, and which, if attentively regarded, will serve to explain the views and intentions of the author. It is that of gravitation to "the Church," as the centre of Christianity; and (in spite of the right intentions of the author), with any result rather than that of its harmony and permanent prosperity. Scarcely did the mind of Newton more resolutely apply the principle of gravitation to the subject of natural philosophy, than does Mr. Sewell the same principle in morals and theology. Yes, and we too would gravitate towards the Church, as a luminary warned and enlightened by the sun of righteousness; or, to drop metaphor, would mark the footsteps of Christ's flock, and highly appreciate the value of membership with his Church; but the evil in the Tractarian system is, that the moon, as the Church is called in sacred writ, is put in place of the sun; so that we are taught to gravitate towards it, as if it were the life-giving soul of the system. It is a prominent doctrine of the Tractarians that something may and ought to be "interposed" (that is their word) between Christ and the soul of the believer. We will quote, from the above-mentioned number of the British Critic, a passage in which this doctrine is defended; and we are not wandering from Mr. Sewell's arguments, but only explicating his views from a brother's pen : "The essence of the doctrine con cerning the 'one only Catholic and apostolic Church 'lies in this ;-that it is the representative of our absent Lord, or a something divinely interposed between the soul and God, or a visible body with invisible privileges. All its subordinate characteristics flow from this description. Does it impose a creed, or impose rites and ceremonies, or change ordinances, or remit and retain sins, or rebuke or punish, or accept offerings, or send out ministers, or invest its ministers with authority, or accept of reverence or devotion in their persons? all this is because it is Christ's visible presence. It stands for Christ. Can it convey the power of the Spirit ? does grace attend its acts? can it touch, or bathe, or seal, or lay on hands? can it use material things for spiritual purposes? are its temples boly? all this comes of its being, so far, what Christ was on earth. Is it a ruler, prophet, priest, intercessor, teacher? It has titles such as these, in its measure, as being the representative and instrument of him who is unseen. Does it claim a palace and a throne, an altar and a doctor's chair, the gold, frankincense, and myrrh of the rich and wise, an universal empire and a never-ending succession? -all this is so, because it is what Christ is. All the offices, names, honours, powers, which it claims, depend upon the determination of the simple question, Has Christ, or has he not, left a representative behind him? Now if he has, then all is easy and intelligible: this is what churchmen maintain; they welcome the news; and they recognise in the Church's acts but the fulfilment of the high trust committed to her." and ceremonies? We have a service book. In ministers of religion? We have bishops, priests, and deacons. In claiming an imperium in imperio? Such was the convocation, such are elective chapters. In the high state of prelacy? Our bishops have palaces, and sit among princes. In supporting religion by temporal sanctions? We are established. In the mixture of good and bad? We are national. In the discipline of the body? We fast. England does not differ then from Rome in principles, but in questions of fact, of degree, of practice; and whereas Antichrist differs from Christ, as darkness from light, if one of the two Churches is Antichrist, the other must be also." We almost hope that the writer of the above is a Jesuit in disguise; for disgraceful were it to any member of the Church of England to write in such fashion; defending the atrocities of Rome, by professing to see something analogous in the Anglican communion. Of course, while the Church is militant upon earth, it needs ordi. nances and means of grace; but they are but" means," not ends; intended to lead us to God, not to "interpose" between us and God. Where do we read in Scripture that the church is "a something divinely interposed between the soul and God?" It was, alas! so interposed by the fraud, superstition, and cupidity of Popish priestcraft; but not "divinely." There lurks also a running misrepresentation throughout the statement; for the Tractators first endue "the Church" and "her sacraments" with Romanist attributes, and then argue upon the assumption that these attributes scripturally belong to them. We readily admit that both Popery and Tractism do interpose many things between the soul and God; but this is their sin and danger; and they are not to be allowed to take for granted that the interposition was divine. It would be affectation to offer any apology for making Mr. Sewell's name a key-note for our general remarks upon Tractarian matters; for not only does his book embody the essentials of the system, and many of its worst developments; but he stands in the well-managed two-fold position of an avowed advocate or a moderating friend, as either may best aid the common cause. He is not perfectly satisfied with Mr. Newman's much famed No. 90 ; but for that reason he is just the convenient ally to put in a good word for it when denounced by the weekly Board of the ViceChancellor, Heads of Houses, and Proctors, maintaining that this proceeding is not an academical act; quoting a letter from the Vice-Chancellor to himself, to prove that after all there was no formal censure; and expressing his own good opinion, as an umpire, of the superlative excellence of the Tractarian publications. It has been from the first the practice of the confederates of this "conspiracy," (as their honest colleague Mr. Froude justly called it) to bring forward their doctrine "stealthily," disclosing, urging, hinting, or keeping back, as they considered that the minds of those whom they wish to proselyte were able to bear; and when anything has been published which has been generally regarded as "too bad," and has caused some recoil, throwing the blame on the individual writer, so as to shelter the party; but nevertheless adroitly upholding his opinions by professing to prune off some trifling excrescences, which are alleged not to be essential to them. Poor Froude's posthumous volumes were exposed to this sham fire; but though the party coquetted a little, their love was true; and of no publication have they made more pertinacious or baneful use. So again, in regard to the unfortunate No. 90. What is there in that Tract which has not been said again and again in other ways, and in other publica tions, by the leaders and followers of this sect? What has Mr. Newman there written about the Thirty-nine Articles which he did not express in substance in his letters to the Christian Observer four years ago? We there argued that he meant precisely what Tract 90 proves he did mean. In republishing his letters to us, at the commencement of the fourth volume of the Tracts for the Times, (suppressing all allusion to the fact that we had largely replied to him, and even concealing the name of the periodical publication to which he addressed them, as if afraid of giving his readers any clue to the reply,) he says that he broke off his correspondence with the unnamed periodical, because its editor refused to say in what respect Dr. Pusey's doctrines contravene the Thirty-nine Articles; whereas we proved with minute specification that the doctrines in question (not confining ourselves to Dr. Pusey's individual share of the Tracts) are opposed to the Articles in precisely those very particulars in which No. 90 attempts to shew that the Articles may be got over, or got under; for that when nicely examined they assert nothing which binds Anglicans in the chief matters in controversy between Rome and us, to take part against that holy mother; -that is, in precisely those matters which the Hebdomadal Board alludes to, and the "Four Tutors" specify. The Board asserts that "Modes of interpretation such as are suggested in the said Tract, evading rather than explaining the sense of the Thirty-nine Articles, and reconciling subscription to them with the adoption of errors which they were designed to counteract, defeat the object, and are inconsistent with the due observance of the above-mentioned statutes." It was for asserting the same of former Tracts four years ago that we were represented, and continue to be represented, as false accusers. The simple fact was, that the more wary leaders of the sect saw that the time was not quite ripe for such disclosure; and indeed even now, the Hon. and Rev. A. Perceval, in his recent "Vindication of the Authors of the Tracts for the Times"-himself being one of them-remarks in reference to to Tract No. 90, "As to the main object of the Tract, I must repeat that I think it deserves the commendation of every member of the Church of England. I own at the first I doubted very much whether the time for the promulgation of it was well chosen; but I know not how even this objection can, upon consideration, be maintained." This habit of putting out one's antenna to ascertain how far "The times," will allow us prudently to advance, and where we had better draw back, (not boldly maintaining what we believe to be the truth, and the whole truth, but Jesuitical "reserve" to lull suspicion and gain our ends) has been from the first characteristic of the proceedings of the Tractarian confederators; and when an unfortunate brother lets out too much, it is the individual, we are told, not the party, that is to be blamed; though if his adventure had proved successful, all would have had the benefit of it. The four tutors say of No. 90: "The tract has, in our apprehension, a highly dangerous tendency, from its suggesting that certain very important errors of the Church of Rome are not condemned by the Articles of the Church of England; for instance, that those Articles do not contain any condemnation of the doctrines-1. Of purgatory-2. Of pardons-3. Of the worshipping and adoration of images and relics-4. Of the invocation of saints - 5. Of the mass; as they are taught authoritatively by the Church of Rome; but only of certain absurd practices and opinions, which intelligent Romanists repudiate as much as we do." |