Page images

'letter of April 20, 1854, to the late Bishop of Bath and Wells, (See Corre'spondence, pp. 10, 11,) I had been allowed an opportunity of offering ' explanation respecting the manner of my teaching.

[ocr errors]

This, then, is THE DOCTRINE,-Scriptural, Primitive, Catholic, Anglican, —held, unconsciously, perhaps, and without examination of terms, but firmly, deeply, universally, so to speak, by the poor and simple-minded ' of God's Church in this land, this is THE DOCTRINE for teaching which 'it is now sought to deprive me, after a ministry of more than twenty years '-upon which, from its commencement to this day, it is not possible to 'fasten any charge of unfaithfulness to the Church of England, under 13th · Eliz., as a depraver of the XXXIX Articles, or some one or more of them. If the present case shall find its way into Court, it appears scarcely 'possible-having regard to the accumulation of evidence—that any judg'ment can be given against me; or, if so given, can be confirmed upon appeal. But it is well to be prepared for the worst; and I think it due to the 'Church at large to state here the course which, in that event, I am pre'pared to take.

'Having been deprived of my temporalities, as a teacher of false doctrine, by sentence of Court of Appeal, I shall appeal, touching THE DOCTRINE 'so condemned, first, to the Bishops of the Church at home, assembled in 'Convocation. If, unhappily, my appeal be by them either refused, or be 'entertained with an adverse issue, I shall further appeal to all the Bishops of the Anglican Communion. (Vide Preface to Sermon I. p. 6.)

I reprint here the Propositions published by me March 22, 1854, being 'a condensed and formal statement, under eight heads, of what I had 'affirmed and proved in Sermons I. and II.

'I have set out below, in VIII. Propositions, THE DOCTRINE OF THE 'HOLY EUCHARIST maintained in my two published Sermons, intituled "THE REAL PRESENCE."

'I maintain this DOCTRINE. I have not anywhere, at any time, main'tained any other DOCTRINE.

'I. That the Bread and Wine become, by the act of Consecration, “the ' outward part or sign of the LORD's Supper:" and, considered as objects ' of sense, are unchanged by the act of Consecration; remaining still in 'their very natural substances."

II. That "the inward part or THING signified," is "the BODY and BLOOD ' of CHRIST."

III. That "the BODY and BLOOD of CHRIST," being Present naturally ' in Heaven, are, supernaturally and invisibly, but Really, Present in the ' LORD's Supper, through the elements, by virtue of the act of Consecration. IV. That by "the Real Presence of the BODY and BLOOD of CHRIST in 'the LORD's Supper," is not to be understood the presence of an Influence ' emanating from a THING absent, but the supernatural and invisible 'Presence of a THING Present; of His very BODY and very BLOOD, Present ""under the form of Bread and Wine."

V. That the "outward part or sign," and "the inward part or THING 'signified," being brought together in and by the act of Consecration, make 'THE SACRAMENT.

VI. That THE SACRAMENT-i.e. "the outward part or sign "-and "the

[ocr errors]

inward part, or THING signified "—is given to, and is received by, all who I communicate,

VII. That "in such only as worthily receive the same [THE SACRA'MENTS of the BODY and the BLOOD of CHRIST] they have a wholesome effect or operation; but they that receive them unworthily purchase to 'themselves damnation, as S. Paul saith."

'VIII. That worship is due to "the BODY and BLOOD of CHRIST," supernaturally and invisibly, but Really, Present in the LORD's Supper, "under the form of Bread and Wine," by reason of that GODHEAD with which THEY are Personally united. But that the elements, through which "the BODY and BLOOD of CHRIST" are given and received, may not be 'worshipped.'

In connexion with this subject, we are informed that an important pamphlet,' On Article XXIX.' by Mr.Grueber, (Masters,) deserves a very attentive and careful perusal. By some accident, it has not reached us; but it is said to be very carefully written.

Mr. Gresley's Sermon on the Unity of the Church,' (Masters,) proves that he is now as ever ready on any emergency to issue one of his manly, sensible, and well-timed appeals to our patience and consistency.

And this sermon in its occasional propriety reminds us to acknowledge Mr. R. I. Wilberforce's work On the Royal Supremacy,' (Longman,) and to observe, which is all that at present we are called upon to say, that it reproduces, with little or no novelty of argument, a position, the settlement of which we had always considered to lie at the very threshold of communion with the Church of England. Mr. Wilberforce's assumption is, that all theology and ecclesiastical status must admit of a sharp, formal, logical, and almost mathematical symmetry and completeness. Unless it exhausts every difficulty, it confesses not only a weakness but a vice. The Church of England has its logical difficulties: the Church of Rome professes a completeness. The consequence is, that the formal claimant, because it demands, must receive our allegiance.

We welcome Mr. Newland's little volume of Sermons, which he calls Postils.' (Masters.) The thought is a happy one to work out patristic teaching into sensible idiomatic English. The preacher's object has been rather to convey the spirit and method than the words and style of the ancient and authoritative Doctors. In a very unassuming preface, Mr. Newland desires not to take credit for learning which he does not possess. But if he has read little he has read well. And we only repeat the experience of others when we say, that better sermon-thoughts are to be gathered from these ancient sources than from any conceivable or unconceivable perusal of Scott and Henry.

Mr F. Meyrick has printed at the Vice-Chancellor's request, 'Two Sermons preached before the University of Oxford on 29th May, and 5th November.' (J. H. Parker.) They exhibit that same loving spirit, to the furtherance of which Mr. Meyrick's many and useful labours have been directed. The preacher does justice to those who, among ourselves, teach differently from himself; we should be glad to have fuller evidence that this meekness and charity were in any degree reciprocated.



APRIL, 1855.

ART. I. Histoire de l'Empire Ottoman, depuis son Origine jusqu'à nos Jours. Par J. DE HAMMER. Traduit de l'Allemand sur les Notes et sous la Direction de l'Auteur. Par J.J.Hellert. 18 vols. 8vo. Paris, 1835-1843.

THE Ottomans were the last of those conquering races who, during the middle ages, broke into Europe, and fixed the present. arrangement of its map; and the Ottoman State may be said to be, with one partial exception, the last great territorial conquest made in Europe. Never assimilating to those whom they had conquered, and but imperfectly able to incorporate their subjects with themselves, divided by what seems an eternal bar from the fellowship of other European nations, the Ottomans, in the period of their prosperity and strength, afflicted Europe with incessant and singularly terrible warfare; and long after they had learned not to be ambitious, insulted it with their domestic ferocity and untamed barbarian pride. The curse which they had brought with them clings to their presence still, in the hour of their deep decay. By the very decline of their power, jealousies have been awakened which could not be appeased, and questions raised which could not be solved, without plunging Europe into a war, of which no one can forecast the issues. At a moment like the present,' when, while verging to their fall, they have once more become the occasion of calamity to Christendom, it may not be without interest to recal briefly the steps by which they arose from the most insignificant beginnings to their eventful eminence.

The history of the early Ottomans has been very imperfectly told, and much still remains dark and uncertain in the features which distinguish in its origin that strange and mighty race from its kindred tribes. It is a history, in the main, of wasteful and unscrupulous conquest, like that of other successful barbarians of Europe and Asia. But we seem to discern, even 1 The following pages were in type in December 1854.


from the beginning, some points of special interest. We seem to perceive in it the remarkable history of a single family, gradually gathering round itself the materials of a vast ambition, and shaping a people and a nation to support it, out of heterogeneous elements, by the informing power and spirit of one household and line. It is an advance of which the earlier steps were as slow and gradual as its subsequent strides suddenly became gigantic. It is a story of great patience and resolution; of an ambition, which, unlike that of most barbarians, was not in a hurry, but could keep its object in view and devise the means for its achievement without restlessness and without weariness. It was content to work by degrees, and, without losing sight of the highest prizes, was satisfied with smaller ones, while they were proportionate to its strength. And among the institutions of which the foundations were early laid, as the permanent supports of the greatness which it meditated, one was at once the most original, the most terrible, and, for the time, the most effective that is to be found recorded among the inventions of deep craft and heartless love of power, of which history is full. The Ottomans found the art of borrowing their strength systematically, and from the very first, from the races they were subduing; of forcing into their own service, and moulding to their own purpose, the promise and energy which was their natural antagonist. Their history is one at first of few disasters, so cautious and so steadily provident, even while they were most enterprising, were these builders of a new empire. A reverse did come at length, unexpected and crushing. It retarded for some score of years their ambition; but it neither broke up their institutions, nor dismayed their spirit, nor turned aside their purposes, nor in the end crippled their power. It is a painful, but it is an instructive lesson, to compare their stout and persevering course, so wisely compliant to circumstances, but so inflexible in its ultimate direction, their imperious and exacting urgency in the opportunities of success, their selfrestraint when it was the time to wait or pause, with the shortsightedness, the despair, the worn-out and spiritless imbecility, the random efforts, of those whom they were menacing. Thus, at length, Christianity was beaten down, the remains of ancient civilization swept away, and the seed and promise of that to come destroyed, not by a passing burst of barbarian ravage, but by a polity new and uncongenial to Europe, which had early attained its maturity and secured its permanence; religious in its groundwork of ideas and laws, with a religion bitterly hostile to all that is sacred in Europe; purely and fixedly military, in its organization and aims, as well as its spirit and habits. No glimmering of political life or thought, no dim image of civil

rights or duties, ever gave hope, while the Ottomans were rising to greatness, that they would gradually open, from the tastes and tempers of their ancestral deserts, to the gentler manners, the wider thoughts, the nobler pursuits, the wiser and more equal laws, by which alone nations can be preserved from corruption and decay. There was no germ of improvement in their institutions; yet they succeeded in raising on those institutions a great monarchy, which with all its inherent seeds of ruin, has already stood the wear of four centuries.

In the following pages we shall confine ourselves to that period of their history during which they were preparing for their future greatness, the period from their first appearance on the outskirts of the Greek empire, till they felt themselves ready to take the great step, for which they had so steadily been preparing, and claim the imperial city, round whose walls they had been closing for more than a century. Our chief guide, as he probably must be of most who study Ottoman history for some time to come, will be Von Hammer. His diffuse and ponderous, yet noble work, is the production of a scholar, a diplomatist, and a traveller, who for thirty years prepared himself for his task by an unwearied study, both of the people whose history he meant to write, and of the original monuments of that history. None but he has yet examined, systematically and critically, the Ottoman records. He ransacked the libraries of Europe from Naples to Oxford; he was able to command the use of the archives of those powers which had most connexion with the Porte, at Vienna and Venice; his agents searched for manuscripts in Cairo and Bagdad, Aleppo and Damascus. Of his absolute success, few probably in the West can be competent to judge; and few are likely to qualify themselves for testing his accuracy, by invading once more that strange mass of semi-barbarous literature, Turkish, Persian, Arabic, only existing in manuscript, and dispersed in distant libraries, from which he drew his materials. We must take on trust his reports of Turkish authorities. In the early part of the history, though they are not absolutely wanting, they furnish, even according to his estimate of them, but scanty and uncertain light: but it is all we have, to check the evidence, perhaps even less to be relied on, of the Greeks. But it is necessary, in accepting the testimony of Ottoman historians,' to remember the criticism of Seadeddin, one of the

The earliest sources of Ottoman history to which Von Hammer could get access in the originals, and which he used, are as follows:


1. The History of Aaschik-Paschazade. The writer was a witness of Amurath II.'s Hungarian war in 1438 (Von Hammer, i. 345, and infra, p. 294), and wrote under Bajazet II., the son of Mahomet the Conqueror, (1481-1512.) He drew materials from the Book of Sheikh Yachshi, the Imam of Sultan Orchan, (1325—1359,) (one of the seven who attended Othman's death-bed, Von Hammer, i. 86,) who relates

« PreviousContinue »