DR. TEMPLE AND HIS DETRACTORS.
[TO THE Bum OF THE " SPECTATOR:7
Sra,—There is so much tenderness and pathos and piety, as well as so much manifest earnestness and sincerity, in the man Dr. Pusey and in Dr. Pusey's works, that it is really painful to a right- thinking man to cast a stone at him.
I have no wish to do so. I have over and over again in private conversations defended Dr. Pusey's position as a clergyman of the Anglican Church, when his honesty as a member of that Church has been assailed by those who distrust him. But when he cornea forward as an accuser of his brethren, when he uses such language as he used in last week's Guardian in reference to Dr. Temple's appointment, one can hardly help asking whether Dr. Posey is exactly the man to make himself the mouthpiece of the whole Church of England. For who are these two foremost assailants of Dr. Temple? As might have been expected, in the forefront, together with Dr. Posey, is the Venerable George Anthony Deni- son, taking upon himself to write in his own name to the dean and chapter of a diocese with which he has nothing to do, advising them, in Lord Russell's phrase, to break the law. Then he writes to the Standard, Telegraph, &c., complaining of bishops and archbishops for not remonstrating with Mr. Gladstone about this horrible scandal and ruin which he is bringing upon the Church of England, and assuring us that to make the Church of England a Broad Church is to steal away her life. Does it never occur to these two theologians that it is only because the Church of England is a broad Church and a national Church that they are tolerated within her? Both of them in the eyes of a very large section of the Church have con- tradicted the obvious teaching of the Articles on the Lord's Supper. Whether rightly or wrongly, Dr. Pusey was silenced for preaching heretical doctrine by his university, and that heretical teaching, if such it was, he has never disclaimed ; but, if I mistake not, he has said that he holds now and teaches now what he held and taught then. A prosecution of Archdeacon Denison for the same heresy broke down on a mere technicality. I am glad it did. I hate prosecutions. They do no good. But are these the men who are to dictate to the National Church, and to tell us what is the faith of the National Church, and to pronounce judg- ment on their fellow-clergymen as being unfaithful or heretical members of that Church? I put the question to Dr. Pusey or Archdeacon Denison—What part of the Creed or what article of religion has Dr. Temple ever impugned, either in his essay, or in his volume of Rugby Sermons, or in his public teaching? Let us have a definite accusation. We know what the accusations are against Dr. Pusey and Archdeacon Denison. In the view of many plain-thinking people, their Romish teaching about the Eucharist contravenes the 29th Article. Yet their explanation of the article, which satisfies their own consciences, is allowed, and they very properly retain their position as ministers in the National Church.
Why, I ask, should not Dr. Temple be a Bishop of the National Church ? What unfaithfulness to the Church has he ever mani- fested? Of course, the answer is that he contributed to an heretical book, Essays and Reviews, and that he has never expressed a disap- proval of the essays contributed byhis coadjutors. There was no call whatever on Dr. Temple to make any declaration of this kind. It had been stated in the preface, as plainly as words could express it, that each contributor was responsible only for his own essay, and it is customary in English society to believe the words of well-educated gentlemen. Certainly, there was not much timidity in the essayists. It was their outspoken candour which shocked so many. But whether Dr. Temple agreed with the other essayists or not, it was clearly no duty of his to come forward and swell the almost universal voice of the clergy which condemned them. Had he done so, no doubt there would have been a howl at such unchi- valrous conduct. As Dr. Benson well points out, "One word from him, with his reputation and his broad views, would have meant nothing short of this : The views of you, my late co-mates, are not within the circle of the Church. Repudiation from him would have been a decision on this point, which was, in more than one instance, a question for the judicature to decide."
Dr. Temple's answer to those who inquire concerning his theo- logical belief and his theological teaching is given in the volume of Rugby Sermons published shortly after the outcry raised at Essays and Reviews I believe that that volume is very much more in accordance with the spirit of the Reformation, with the spirit of the Articles, than the teaching of Dr. Pusey or Archdeacon Denison. The compilers of the Articles reverenced the Bible and hated sacerdotalism. They believed in a future for the Church, and all themore glorious a future in that we were delivered from the temporal and spiritual despotism of Rome. Dr. Pusey and Archdeacon Denison have always shown themselves out of sympathy with that great Reformation movement. They have distrusted it and its results. Under altered conditions perhaps no one is a better representative of the true spirit of Reformation and its living faith in the Bible as a revelation of God, a revelation with which the people may be trusted, than Dr. Temple. Few likewise will be more able than he to help in raising the Church to what it professes to be, a national Church, and wage in the name of Christ an unremitting war against ignorance, intolerance, and superstition. If the Sacerdotal party try on the work of intimi- dating Mr. Gladstone, let all Liberal Churchmen sign an address of thanks to the Premier for the courageous appointment which he has
Previous page
