'f ,'

'

\ s,

^'

'4
:v.'.
V '.
4i.
Mm'
I f
If
'.f'l ,
¦'^M-
1*^',
'^i,
*K.' .1'
•\<v\J' "•' -
ftt i,\ ,-1 '.'- 1 ¦/

THE

CONTROVERSY

TRACT NO XC.

THE OXFORD TUTORS.

LONDON:
HOW & PARSONS, 132, FLEET STREET.

. . 1841.
W5^

has hitherto looked on, unconcerned but not uninterested, is
tempted to enter the arena, and she-sr, that Tract No. XC has
no peculiar right to he stigmatised as "objectionable and
tending to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the Church."
Such a course is suggested to the spectator by the example
of Mr. Newman ; he has 'written a new Tract, (A Letter to
the Bishop of Oxford), for the purpose of explaining his read
iness to obey the Bishop's injunction, that "the Tracts for
the Times should be discontinued." This may appear incon
sistent, but it can be justified on high authority, for the
act of Parliament commanding that the statutes of the
realm should be promulgated in English, is itself -written in
French. But in this Tract Mr. Newman has improved on
" the vagueness and deficiency" 'which he confesses to exist
in the Tract No. XC, and has endeavoured to involve his po
sition in a cloud such as shrouded the Homeric heroes when
about to be 'withdrawn by their Olympian protectors from
unequal combat. His courage, while he 'writes, " oozes out
at the tips of his fingers," and this, not from any moral defi
ciency, so much as from the false position in 'which he has
been placed by unexpected and scarcely warrantable censure.
The Tracts of which No. XC forms a part were not the pro
duction of an individual, but of an association, the members
of which boasted and still boast that their members are great
and their influence extensive. The object for which they
combined in publication, was " to prove that certain views
of religion, now generally discarded amongst Protestants, are,
to say the least, more probable than not, and that all things
considered, it is our safest course to act on them."*
We are not left to guess where these views of religion are
to be sought, for the official organ of the party informs us,
" Romanism has great truths in it, which we of this day have
almost forgotten, and its preachers will recal numbers of
Churchmen and Dissenters to a remembrance of them : Dis
senters who never had them will embrace them in their Roman
form : Churchmen who have received but forgotten them, will
discern them and use them in the Church."t
* Froude's Remains, Second Series. f British Critic, Vol. XX.

And again, " It is better to be fixed and quiet than to be
restless and changing ; better to be superstitious than pro
fane ; better to have the ordinances of grace than to be with
out them ; and in these three ways Romanism wUl benefit
the mere Protestants it converts." *
Finally, the ultimate tendency of these " certain views" is
stated to be, that they will render men " Catholics without
the Popery, and Church of England-men without the Pro-
testantism."t The first, perhaps the most important of these " certain
views" relates to the constitution of Church and State, aud
the connection between them. It has usuaUy been deemed
an attribute of Romanism to regard the essence of the
Church to be its priesthood, and not its " congregation of
the faithful," and to look upon the State as the government
and not as the organized society. The assertion that the
19th article contains "not an abstract definition of a Church,
but a description of the actually existing one Catholic
Church, difi"used throughout the world," though for the first
time formally enunciated in No. XC, is very plainly intimated
in all the preceding publications of the party. It is scarcely
possible to find one Tract in which apostolic succession is
not declared to be an essential element of the Church ; and
hence we find " the successors of the apostles" frequently
put for the Church taken in its aggregate, congregations
being regarded as accidents or non-essentials. From this
view the Church is spoken of as an independent Theocracy,
having a distinct and separate existence from all other social
powers. Thus the British Critic, " We are historically able to con
template the Church as distinct from the State, though we
cannot conceive the State as distinct from the Church, for it
never was out of the Church. The State is a member, or an
organ, or a child, of the Church."
" The Church is no mere function of the State, not even
merely co-ordinate and fellow with the other powers of the
State, but infinitely superior and paramount of Divine
right."! • British Critic, Vol. XX. + British Critic, Vol. XXV.
t Froude's Remains, First Series.

Hence the present relations between Church and State as
estabhshed by the Anglican reformers are regarded as a
species of bondage. " As for ourselves," says Mr. Newman,
" what was the exact measure of the offences of our fore
fathers in the faith, when they tired of the Christian The
ocracy, and clothed the Church with 'the purple robe of
Csesar, it avails not to determine.' Not denying their sin,
still, after contemplating the glories of the Temple which
they built, we may well bewail our present fallen estate." *
It is not obscurely intimated that the restoration of this
Theocracy is a main object with the party. Their great con
fessor says, " there is now in France a high-church party
who are Republicans, and wish for universal sufirage, on the
ground that in proportion as the franchise falls lower, the in
fluence of the Church makes itself more felt : at present its
limits about coincide with those of the infidel faction. Do
not be surprised if one of these days you find us turning
Radicals on the same ground."t
A preference for the Latin ecclesiastical system is strongly
expressed in Mr. Newman's sermons. " The Latin ecclesias
tical system of the Middle Ages may be considered the
shadow, dark indeed and shapeless, still the shadow of that
gracious design, which would have been accomplished, had
Christians possessed faith enough to keep closely to God's re
vealed will. For what we know, it was intended that all the
kingdoms of the earth should have been made subject to the
spiritual rule of the Church. The presumption of man de
feated this purpose ; but it could not so far defeat it, but some
sort of fulfilment took place ."{
It would be easy to multiply quotations on this point, but
enough has been adduced to show that the Christian theo
cracy of the Tractarians is something different from the
Church described in the nineteenth article, and that it
needed not Tract No. XC to point out that there is such a
discrepancy. It is true, that Mr. Newman endeavours to reconcUe
his theocracy with the Church described in the Article;
* Parochial Sermons, Vol. II. -f- Froude's Remains, First Series.
X Newman's Par. Sermons, Vol. II.

and that in so doing he treats the authority of the latter
with little respect, regarding the whole thirty-nine as
"the offspring of an uncatholic age." But for this, his
readers should have been prepared, we were told long ago.
" In the preface to the Articles' it is said, that we are to un
derstand them in their grammatical sense, which I interpret
into a permission to think nothing of the opinion of their
framers."* In the Slst Tract the Articles are said indeed " to express
the truth," but "maimed, and not with the simple unre-
servedness of primitive days." Even Mr. Sewell in his pam
phlet on subscription says, "there are some things in our
creeds and articles too much associated in our minds 'with
scholastic follies and extinct errors ; some things which
seem obsolete and certainly some imperativeness of tone,
which may offend the pride of our reason; and even seems
at times to detract from our reverence for the Bible."t
These quotations are sufficient to prove that the Tract As
sociation had from the very outset framed a theory respect
ing the Christian Church, different from that propounded in
the Thirty -nine Articles : it is immaterial to the issue whe
ther the difference amounts to a contradiction, or consists
simply of unauthorized additions. And further, it appears
that the Articles are treated with somewhat less of reverence
than is exhibited towards other formularies of the Church in
England. Indeed, Mr. Newman in one of his works inti
mates something like a 'wish that we were fairly rid of them.
" If I avow my belief, that freedom from symbols and arti
cles is abstractedly the highest state of Christian communion,
and the pecuhar privilege of the primitive Church, it is not
from any tenderness towards that proud impatience of con
trol in which many exult, as in a virtue : but, first, because
technicality and formalism are, in their degree, inevitable
results of pubhc confessions of faith; and next, because
when confessions do not exist, the mysteries of divine truth,
instead of being exposed to the gaze of the profane and unin-
structed, are kept hidden in the bosom of the Church, far
more faithfully than is otherwise possible, and reserved by a
* Froude's Remains, First Series. t Thoughts on Subscription.

private teaching, through the channel of her ministers, as
rewards in due measure and season for those who are pre
pared to profit by them ; those, i. e. who are diligently pass
ing through the successive stages of faith and obedience; and
thus, while the Church is not committed to declarations,
which, most true as they are, stUl are daily wrested by
infidels to their ruin ; so, on the other hand, much of that
mischievous fanaticism is avoided, which at present abounds
from the vanity of men, who think, that they can explain the
sublime doctrines and exuberant promises of the gospel, be
fore they have yet learned to know themselves, and to dis
cern the holiness of God, under the preparatory discipline of
the law and of natural religion.*
It may be said, that those very persons who describe the
Articles, as " the offspring of an uncatholic age," as formu
laries "for the opinions of whose framers we need entertain
no respect," as "associated with scholastic folhes and ex
tinct errors," as " maimed, and destitute of the simple unre-
servedness of primitive days," and as " inconsistent with the
highest state of Christian communion," are the most stre
nuous advocates for maintaining subscription to the Articles
as they now stand. But it must be borne in mind that the
views they wish to recommend are in their own confession
" now generaUy discarded amongst Protestants ;" that
what they call the Church in England is at present in a
condition of bondage, and consequently that any changes
likely to be immediately made, would not probably be in
favour of the doctrines they recommend.
This view of the case is quite consistent with their avowed
principle of " reserve in communicating reUgious know
ledge," and indeed knowledge of any kind. Since the pub
lication of the ' Pastoral Epistle from his Holiness the Pope'
the Tractarians have made some modifications in their man
ner of promulgating their opinions. The passages quoted in
that production have been silently altered in subsequent edi
tions, and this "retractile device" has been, in all cases, em
ployed not to change but to disguise the doctrine by plau
sible qualifications.
For instance, in the earher editions of Tract No. X the
* Newman's Arians.

ministers of the Church are called " those who are intrusted
with the keys of heaven and hell, the heralds of mercy,
the denouncers of woe to wicked men, as intrusted with the
awful and mysterious gift of making the bread and wine
Christ's body and blood:" in later editions the qualifica
tion (if I may say so) introduces the paragraph; " gift"
is changed into " privUege" and " making" is altered into
"dispensing:" but it is sufficiently obvious that whoever
believes the second version may also beUeve the first, though
he is not bound to defend it as a legitimate inference from
his opinions.
There is little doubt, then, that the Tractarians are -wiUing
to take the articles as they stand, until the views " now gene
raUy discarded" shall be as generaUy diffused, and the
bondage in which the Church is held removed, either by
foUowing the example of " the High Church party in France,
and turning Radicals on the same ground," or by some other
such expedient equaUy consistent with the avowed principles
of the party.
The object of the Tract No. XC is to shew, that the Arti
cles may be subscribed " by those who aim at being catholic
in heart and doctrine ;" and that this general expression in
cludes members of the Church of Rome, as well as that of
England, has not been denied in Mr. Newman's letter to Dr.
Jelf, nor in his additional Tract addressed to the Bishop of
Oxford. But whatever may be thought of the propriety, or
wisdom, or justice of such an attempt, it is perfectly ridicu
lous to throw the entire blame of it on the Ninetieth Tract.
It was long ago declared that the blame of suspended com
munication between the Churches of Rome and England
rested not on any measures taken by our Reformers, but on
the course of proceedings adopted by the Papal party at the
Council of Trent.
In the British Critic for July, 1836, this principle is di
rectly stated. " We commonly think and speak of our Re
formers as though they had separated themselves from the
Church of Rome and put her to the ban. But such is not the
fact, for aught that they have done we would communicate
vnth her now ; but we know that should we attempt to do
so, she would put forth this list oi novel dogmas of faith, (i.e.

10
those authoritatively adopted subsequent to the Reforma
tion), and call upon us either to subscribe it, or to depart
from her altars."
The British Critic* declares with truth that we " should
rejoice in opportunities for sympathy and communities -with
the Romish branch of the Universal Church, when they
may be embraced without compromise." But we are left
in ignorance of the extent of the reservation; we are not
told what are the doctrines excluded from sympathy, what
the practices that impede communion. In an article eulo
gizing the Breviaries of the continental churches, it was rea
sonable to expect some specific declaration of the points
that could not be conceded, in order to quiet the reasonable
alarms of those who found Romanism brought into such
close and unexpected proximity with the Anglican church.
That these joyous opportunities of sympathy and commu
nion may be very abundant, appears from the writings of
the great Confessor of the party. " We cannot," he says,
" know about any seemingly indifferent practice of the Church
of Rome, that is not a development of the apostohcal r/^09,
and it is to no purpose to say that we can find no proof of it
in the writings of the six first centuries; they must find a
disproof of it if they would do anything. f
Finally, the 75th Tract is, from the beginning to the end,
a means for establishing this sympathy and communion ; it
is made up of selections from the Roman Breviary, for the
purpose of shewing, as Mr. Newman declares in his last
Tract, that such devotions would but be a continuation in
private of those public services which we use in church, and
that they might be used by individuals -with a sort of fitness,
(removing such portions as were against the Anglican creed
or practice), because they were a continuation." J
It is rather late to condemn the avowed object of the Nine
tieth Tract, for we have now seen that the same object was
avowed by the same party long ago, not only -without cen
sure, but with something more than tacit approbation. Of
whatever else the Tractarians may be accused, they assuredly
* British Critic, Vol. XXVII. f Froude's Remains, First Series.
X Letter to the Bishop of Oxford.

11
are not liable to the charge of inconsistency. They have
faithfuUy observed the Horatian precept,
Servetur ad imum
Qualis ab incepto processerit et sibi constet.
They may have been more or less direct in their mea'ns, but
they have never wavered in their object. It is therefore a
manifest injustice to stigmatize the Ninetieth Tract of a
series, for plainly stating what had been not obscurely inti
mated from the very beginning.
Passing from the general tendency of Tract No. XC to the
consideration of its separate heads, we find that Mr. New
man's opponents blame him for putting the sixth and twen-
¦tieth articles together, for the purpose of deducing an infer
ence which neither separately justifies that there are " two
instruments of Christian teaching — Holy Scripture and the
Church," — and indirectly ascribing equal authority to each.
Of the fairness or unfairness of such a mode of reasoning,
every one endowed wdth common sense is a competent judge;
it is not very unlike the story of the defence of suicide de
rived from Scripture, because it is said in one place, " Judas
went out and hanged himself," and in another, " Go and do
thou Ukewise." But assuredly the inference which Mr. New
man has deduced is not a novelty peculiar to Tract No XC ;
the insufficiency of Holy Scripture as a sufficient Christian
teacher, is a doctrine pervading all the ¦writings of the party.
" The whole Bible," says Sewell, " is, like the whole of na
ture, one great parable. . . . Our animal frames are suffi
ciently multifarious in their uses ; but, compared with the
Bible, they are simplicity itself. To fulfil aU these various
purposes the whole structure of the Bible is buUt upon con
tradictions."* Tract LXXIII, after declaring that every revelation must be
more or less a mystery, adds, " Revelation in this way of
considering it is not a revealed system, but consists of a num
ber of detached and incomplete truths, belonging to a vast
system unrevealed, of doctrines and injunctions mysteriously
connected together ; that is, connected by unknown media,
and bearing upon unknown portions of the system."
• Sewell on Subscription.

13
Again, " No prophet ends his subject ; his brethren after
him renew, enlarge, transfigure or re-construct it ; so that the
Bible, though various in its parts, forms a whole, grounded
on a few distinct doctrinal principles discernible throughout
it ; and is in consequence, though intelligible in its general
drift, yet obscure in its general text, and even tempts the stu
dent to a lax and disrespectful interpretation of it." *
Other passages, asserting the insufficiency of Scripture in a
still more offensive form, might easily be quoted, but they
would give unnecessary pain, and they are not necessary to
the argument. Enough has been quoted to shew that the
evasion of the express recognition of Scripture, as " contain
ing all things necessary to salvation," developed in Tract
No. XC, is not a novelty. The miserable subterfuge that
the truth is not contained so indirectly and reservedly, that
it can only be elicited by authorised interpretation, has been
proclaimed in most of the previous publications, and is in
fact the main argument of Sewell's Treatise on Subscrip
tion. The -violent distortion of the word " authority," in the
twentieth Article, by which the Church is set up as " an in
strument of Christian teaching" distinct from the written
word, belongs not to Mr. Newman or to Tract No. XC alone.
In fact his interpretation is little more than a repetition of
what had been previously urged in Dr. Pusey's letter to the
Bishop of Oxford. The exposition of the Articles relating to
justification has been allowed to pass without censure on the
present occasion, and it is not therefore necessary to prove its
consistency with the general tenor of the precedent Tracts.
The evasion of the twenty-first article, by making a dis
tinction between General and (Ecumenical Councils, has
escaped the Censors, though there is one glaring misre
presentation which ought not to have passed without notice.
The concluding words of the Article, which Mr. Newman,
with characteristic prudence, has omitted to quote, are,
" Wherefore things ordained by them (general councils) as
necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority,
unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy
* Newman's A'-i.-i""

13
Scripture." Mr. Newman represents this clause to be a con
dition for distinguishing between General and (Ecumenical
Councils, and not as a test by which the validity of the de
crees of all councils should be verified.
The twenty-second Article is the most important in our
present examination, and as it is short we shall quote it.
" The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons,
worshipping and adoration as well of images as of relics, and
also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented and
founded on no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant
to the Word of God."
Mr. Newman takes a curious distinction between the
Romish doctrine and the Primitive doctrine respecting these
things, and asserts that the latter is not condemned by the
Article. But, as on his own shewing, the Romish was a cor
ruption of the Primitive doctrine, the latter, if true, must,
according to the sixth Article, and even according to Mr.
Newman's gloss on it, be derivable from Scripture either
directly or by implication, it would therefore be false to
assert that the corruption had no warranty in Scripture, but
(as it stands in the Latin) contradicted the Word of God.
Mr. Newman is logician enough to know the difference be
tween contradiction and the modern sense of repugnancy.
Leaving, however, the interpretation to rest on its own
merits, we are at a loss to discover whence arises the sudden
horror of the censurers of No. XC, at the discovery that the
Tractarians regarded Purgatory "in a certain sense, as an
Article which might safely be believed by members of the
EngUsh Church."
The doctrine of Purgatory is so intimately connected with
that of Prayers for the Dead, that we may consider the two
together. It would indeed be ob-viously absurd to pray " for
the rest and peace of all those who have departed this hfe in
God's faith and fear," unless there was som£ state of exist
ence in which they might be benefited by our prayers. Dr.
Pusey says, " Indeed, the very idea of an intermediate state
involves in it a degree of prayer for God's departed servants,
since knowing them to be in a state of imperfect bliss untU
the resurrection, whenever we pray for ' the final coming of

14
God's kingdom,' we do, in fact, (if we have any thought of
the departed), pray for the perfecting of their bliss.*"
The same gentleman asks an opponent, " I would appeal
to you, if a parochial minister, whether when you heard of
the death of one of your flock, of whom you hoped weU, your
first impulse has not been to pray to God to make up to the
departed whatever had been deficient in your ministrations ?
whether (as Luther did) you have not prayed for the perfect
ing and increased blessedness of a departed friend or rela
tion, even though you have subsequently checked yourself?
whether you did not find a comfort from that prayer ? and
whether this dictate of human nature, warranted as it is by the
early church, and distinct from the Romish error, may not
after all be implanted by the God of nature — may not be the
voice of God within us?" f
From this and many other passages it is obvious that the
Tractarians long ago announced their behef in at least the
possibility of a state of existence, in which the souls of
the departed wauld receive benefit from the prayers of the
Faithful. They assert loudly enough that this belief differs
,from the Romish doctrine of Purgatory, though they have
not condescended to explain the distinctions very minutely.
Mr. Newman has not advanced one step beyond Dr. Pusey,
for he gives his readers a choice of some half dozen purgato
ries, any of which might be believed without incurring the
imputation of Romanism.
The Homily on Prayer expressly says, " Let us not deceive
ourselves, thinking that either we may help others or others
may help us by their good and charitable prayers in time to
come." Mr. Newman says, that this only condemns prayers
¦ offered in the behef that the state of the soul after death
¦would be changed, and that it does not condemn prayers for
fthe cleansing and purification of those who have been par
doned in this Ufe, that they may be fitted to behold the face
of God. Ordinary persons might suppose that the homiletic
iphrase " help" was rather more applicable to the latter than
the former, for it would be a strange use of language to say
* Pusey's Reply to the Pastoral Letter. t Reply to Pastoral Letter.

15
that prayers helped any change which they actually accom-
^plished. But whether Mr. Newman's gloss be right or
¦wrong, it was previously urged by Dr. Pusey, who says, " The
original unbiassed judgment of our reformers was to retain
prayers for the dead, and it argues no tendency to Popery to
wish, that our reformers had in this and other points, for
which they had the authority of the early church, adhered
to their first judgment." *
The doctrine of Pardons or Indulgences, which Mr. New
man indirectly advocates in Tract No. XC, that is, a power in
the Church to shorten the periods of penance and disciphne
imposed upon notorious offenders, was very clearly promul
gated in Tracts XXXVII and XXXIX, which contained the
forms of excommunication and of receiving penitents. The
conditions on which pardons may be granted by ecclesiastical
authority have not been set forth in any of the Tracts, but
the principle is, beyond all power of mistake, distinctly main
tained in the first volume of the series.
On the reverence due to the images and reUcs of saints,
the Tractarians have strictly adhered to their principle of re
serve in communicating religious knowledge. They ob
scurely hint, in many places, that some sort of reverence
ought to be paid them, and Tract XC does no more. So long
as language is employed for the concealment of thought, (and
this is frequently its chief use in those portions of the Tracts
that approach the borders of Romanism), it will not be easy
to fix censure on any statement of opinion. The language
employed respecting pictures and images of the saints may
signify the ordinary admiration of works of art, the reverence
arising from associating the representation with the thing
represented; that is, as a mere mnemonic aid, or the re
verence which would arise if the image or picture was re
garded as a symbol. Quo teneam vultus mutaiitem Protea nodo.
On the subject of the invocation of saints, we have much
clearer statements. In the Tract LXXI, Against (?) Roman
ism, Mr. Newman says, " The tridentine decree declares, that
• Reply to Pastoral Epistle.

16
it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke the saints, and that
the images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and other saints,
should receive due honour and veneration:" words which
themselves go to the very verge of what could be received by
the cautious Christian, though possibly admitting of an
honest interpretation.
In Tract LXXV certain invocations and services to the
Blessed Virgin are declared to be of modern introduction into
the Breviary. The author then adds, " This remark seems to
apply to all the intrinsicaUy exceptionable addresses in the
Breviary: for, as to the confession at prime and compline, in
which is introduced the name of the Blessed "Virgin and other
saints, this practice stands on a different ground. It is not a
simple gratuitous invocation made to them, but it is an ad
dress to Almighty God in his heavenly court, as surrounded
by his saints and angels, answering to St. Paul's charge to
Timothy, " before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ and the
elect ang6ls," and to Daniel and St. John's address to the
angels who were sent to them.*
" That the saints who are departed from the burden of the
flesh do pray for our consummation and bliss, is a pious
opinion, which many eminent Christians have held as a part
of the communion of saints. And the interest which the
saints departed evidently feel in the welfare of their brethren
on earth makes this not only pious, but probable.f
" With regard to the request of the prayers of departed
saints together with those of the congregation, it is obviously
of a different character from prayers exclusively addressed to
them. For the exclusive address of unseen beings has an
obvious tendency at once to faU into a sort of worship ; it is
too like the mode in which we address Almighty God to be
any way safe : the exclusive request of their intercessions is
Hkely to constitute them intercessors, in a way different from
God's servants on earth, and (which is the great practical evil
of these prayers in the Romish Church) to interfere ¦with the
office of the Great Intercessor. The union of members of the
Church who are yet in the body 'with those unseen, is a check
upon both these dangers, and brings do'wn the appUcation
• On the Roman Breviary, Tract 71. t British Critic, Vol. XXIII. 133.

17
from the character of worship ; it shews, that, both seen and
unseen, saints are applied to in the same way ; it lays a re
straint upon the mind, and checks feelings which might be
tray it into giving to the creature the honour due to the
Creator *.
" We are not solitary, though we seem so. Few now alive
may understand or sanction us ; but those multitudes in the
primitive time, who believed and taught and worshipped as
we do, still live unto God, and in their past deeds and present
voices cry from the altar. They animate us by their example ;
they cheer us by their company ; they are on oar right hand
and our left, martyrs, confessors and the like, high and low,
who used the same creeds, and celebrated the same ordi
nances, and preached the same gospel as we do t-"
It would be no easy matter to shew in what respect the
limitations imposed upon the invocation of saints in the pre
ceding extracts from the Tractarian writers differ from those
imposed by the Council of Trent in its 23nd session. The
divines there assembled say, " Though the Church has been
accustomed to celebrate a few masses to the honour and re
membrance of saints, yet she doth not teach that sacrifice is
offered to them, but to God alone, who crowned them : where
fore neither is the priest -wont to say, I offer sacrifice to thee,
O Peter or O Paul, but to God."
Dr. Pusey directly, and Mr. Newman by implication, make
the intercession of " God's servants on earth," " the seen
saints," a measure of the intercession we may safely ask from
the unseen and the departed. We have not been left in
doubt as to the amount of intercession which this measure
includes ; it is pretty plainly set forth in the following pas
sage : — " He (Christ) died to bestow upon him (man) that
privilege which implies or involves all others, and brings him
into nearest resemblance to himself, the privilege of inter
cession. This, I say, is the Christian's especial prerogative;
and if he does not exercise it, certainly he has not risen to
the conception of his real place among created beings. Say
not he is a son of Adam, and has to undergo a future judg-
* Dr. Pusey to the Bishop of Ox- t Newman's Parochial Sermons,
ford. Vol. III.

18
ment : I know it : but he is something besides. How far he
is advanced into that higher state of being, how far he still
languishes in his first condition, is, in the case of individuals,
a secret with God. Still every Christian is, in a certain
sense, both in the one and the other: viewed in himself he
ever prays for pardon, and confesses sin; but viewed in
Christ, ' he has access into this grace wherein we stand, and
rejoices in hope of the glory of God.' Viewed in his place
in ' the Church of the First-born enrolled in heaven,' with
his original debt cancelled in baptism, and all subsequent pe
nalties RESPITED* by absolution, standing in God's presence
upright and irreprovable, accepted in the Beloved, clad in the
garments of righteousness, anointed with oil, and with a
crown upon his head, in royal and priestly garb, as an heir of
eternity, full of grace and good works, as walking in all the
commandments of the Ijord blameless,- — such an one, I re
peat it, is plainly in his fitting place, when he intercedes.
He is made after the pattern and in the fulness of Christ, —
he is what Christ is. Christ intercedes above, and he inter
cedes below. Why should he linger in the doorway, praying
for pardon, who has been allowed to share in the grace ofthe
Lord's passion, to die with him and rise again ? He is al
ready in a capacity for higher things. His prayer thence
forth takes a higher range, and contemplates not himself
merely, but others also. He is taken into the confidence and
counsels of his Lord and Saviour f-"
If this be not the doctrine of works of supererogation, it is
something exceedingly like it; taking this account of the
intercession of the saints on earth as a measure of the value
of the intercession of the saints departed, we are at a loss to
discover what could be added to increase such an estimate of
their importance.
The twenty-fifth article limits the number of Sacraments
to two — Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, specifically
declaring, that the five additional sacraments recognized by
the Romish Church, are not to be counted for " Sacraments
of the Gospel." Tract No. XC declares that some of these
• " Respited," perhaps till depar- t Newman's Parochial Sermons,
ture into purgatory. Vol. III.

19
ordinances may and ought to be regarded as Sacraments,
though of a lower kind than those recognized by the English
Church. But this is not the first time of declaring that
there were more Sacraments than those mentioned in the
Church Catechism. Tract LXXXVI pretty plainly intimates
that Confirmation if administered with Chrism, (as it is in
the Church of Rome), has very strong claims to be regarded
as a Sacrament. " If it be aUowed that there is the strongest
Church authority for the use of this significative emblem
(Chrism), and also in Christianity that there is no such thing
as a merely external and significative rite without being in some
degree sacramental also ; if it be also the case, that if a cus
tom is found to be primitive it can hardly be conceived, with
any deference to the piety of those ages, but that it must have
been apostoUcal; if we consider, moreover, the little like
lihood that Apostles would have invented anything of a sacra
mental nature of themselves ; if, moreover, we call to mind
the typical signification of oil in Scripture as exceedingly
high and holy, &c. When we consider these things, surely no
one can say that the greatness of the gifts here withdrawn,
(Chrism in Confirmation and a white robe in Baptism) —
how much we have thereby faUen from the high appeUations
of ' a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people.' "
The claim of Orders to the Sacramental Character is still
more strongly enforced-. " Ordination, or, as it is called in
the case of Bishops, Consecration, though it does not pre
cisely come within our definition of a Sacrament, is never
theless a rite partaking in a high degree of a sacramental
character, and it is by reference to the proper sacraments
that it its nature may be most satisfactorily illustrated*."
This passage is strenuously defended by Dr. Pusey, in his
reply to the Pastoral Letter; he significantly assures us
"that we need not go so far as Rome" for a definition which
would include Orders in the Sacraments; — and he is per
fectly right; the Tractarians have provided the necessary
apparatus of definitions much nearer home.
The claims which Dr. Pusey urges for the Sacramental
character of Orders are, with scarcely less strength, brought
* Tract V.
c3

20
forward by Mr. Newman in favour of marriage, which he
associates with the mystery of the Incarnation. "Accord
ingly, from that time," he says, "marriage has not only
been restored to its original dignity, but even gifted with a
portion of spiritual grace, as the outward symbol of the hea
venly union between Christ and his Church*."
Finally, with respect to " Extreme Unction," though it is
not expressly recommended by Mr. Newman, yet he very
plainly intimates its intercessory value.
"And this agrees with St. James's direction, which seems
to invest the elders of the Church with this same pri'silege
of the priesthood. ' Is any sick among you ? Let him call
for the elders of the Church, and let him pray over him, (not
pray with him merely), anointing him with oil in the name
of the Lord ; and the prayer of faith (not the oil merely)
shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up t.' "
The twenty-eighth article on Transubstantiation, and the
thirty-first on the Sacrifice of the Mass, must next engage
our attention; and truly it is not a little surprising that the
statements in No. XC on these points should be deemed
objectionable by those who have approved of, or at least left
uncensured, much stronger declarations on these points in
the previous publications of the party. Fronde's Remains f ,
and the first edition of Tract No. X, directly claimed for our
clergy, in their character of sacrificing priests, " the power
of making the body and blood of Christ," — though in later
editions of this Tract the word " making" has been sUently
changed to " dispensing," this alteration is limited to the
offensive form of statement but not to the doctrine; for Tract
No. IV still asks, " Why should we not seriously endeavour to
impress our people with this plain truth ; — that by separating
themselves from our communion, they separate themselves
not only from a decent, orderly, useful society, but from the
ONLY Church in the realm which has a right to be
QUITE sure that SHE HAS THE LoRD's BODY TO GIVE TO THE
PEOPLE §?
We have been long ago told in plain terms that the doc-
* Newmon's Parochial Sermons, Vol. II. % Vol. I. 326.
+ Parochial Sermons, Vol. IL § Tract IV.

31
trine of Transubstantiation is not in itself objectionable,
but that it has become so from the form in which it is stated
by the Romish Church. " Rome in this respect, (the doc
trine of the Eucharist)," says Dr. Pusey, " has the truth,
though mingled with error, and clouded and injured by it.
The Zuinglo-Calvinistic school have forfeited it. In a word,
our Church holds with Rome the reality of the communion
of the Body and Blood of Christ, but denies her carnal way
of explaining it, and protests against the corruptions thereby
entaUed*." The distinction between Rome's carnal way of explaining
the reality, and " the real superlocal presence" on which the
Tracts insist, passes the powers of ordinary comprehension.
Mr. Newman indeed complains that " there are a number of
persons of practised intellects, who, with or without un
friendly motives, are ever dra'wing out the ultimate conclu
sions in which our principles result, and forcing us to af&rm
or deny what we would fain not consider or pronounce upon."
So then it is unjust, when the Tracts lay down principles
from which the doctrine of Transubstantiation may be de
duced by necessary inference, to inquire whether such a doc
trine is designed in these premises. We have been informed
in a very vaunting tone by the British Critic, that Mr. New
man is a decided enemy to modern science : are we now to
understand that he extends his hostihty to ancient logic,
and that having written so much against using reason, he
would discard reasoning into the bargain ? There was a time
when Aristotle was condemned by the Doctors of the Sor-
bonne. Mr. Newman's assertion that "the Sacrifices of Masses"
do not refer in any way to " the Sacrifice of the Mass," is
merely a foUowing out of the recommendation contained in
Tract LXIII, to revive the forms of oblation contained in
the four original liturgies, of which the author declares, " It
may perhaps be said, without exaggeration, that next to the
Holy Scriptures they possess the greatest claim on our ve
neration and our study." Let us look at one of the forms
so strongly recommended (the Galhcan) : " Sanctify those
* Letter to the Bishop of Oxford.

22
Hosts, &c., that they may confer eternal life and an everlast
ing kingdom on us, who are going to eat and drink of them,
in the transformation of the Body and Blood of our Lord
Jesus Christ, thine only begotten Son*."
In the letter to Dr. Jelf Mr. Ne-wman states, that our
Article condemns "As to the Mass, all that impairs or ob
scures the doctrine of the One Atonement, once offered,
which Masses, as observed in the Church of Rome, actually
have done." This very convenient phraseology may cover
the belief of the most zealous advocate for Romanism that
ever existed. Bellarmine himself would consent to banish
from his creed all that " impaired or obscured the doctrine of
the One Atonement," but, like Mr. Newman, he would not
be in a hurry to tell us what the amount of that all would be.
The Eighty-first Tract, on " the Eucharistic Sacrifice, strongly
recommends the Canon of the Mass, declaring it to be pure
and Catholic, although some other prayers, incidentally
blended with it, are not always so."
ButTractLXXXIfgoes much farther on the Sacrifice ofthe
Mass than Tract No. XC; it actually provides forms of obla^
tion which the priest may say silentlgX, find thus 'without de
tection introduce into the Liturgy that which had been dis
carded by the wisdom of our Reformers. Indeed the whole
introductory portion of the Tract is devoted to prove that in
the English Eucharistic Service the most important truth
connected with that sacrament has been deliberately and of
set purpose discarded by our church.
The thirty-second article, on the Marriage of the Clergy, is
treated with far greater tenderness in Tract No. XC than in
the previous publications of the party. The Eulogies of
Celibacy in Fronde's Remains, and in various writings of
Dr. Pusey, equal in extravagance anything to be found in
the Romish Hagiology. The former in set terms recom
mended the re'nval of the monastic system ; the latter, in
his defensive letter to the Bishop of Oxford, vindicated the
recommendation, and wound up his contrast between the
married and single state by declaring, " The preference of
• Tract LXIII. t Tract LXXXI, p. H.
X Tract LXXXI, p. 55.

33
ceUbacy as the higher state is scriptural, and as being such, is
primitive." Passing over the article relating to the HomUies for the
present, we come to the thirty-seventh, which is usuaUy re
garded as the most important in the controversy between the
English and Romish Churches. It is to be regretted that
Mr. Newman has confined his attention to the single sen
tence referring to the Bishop of Rome, for former pubUca
tions of the party lead us anxiously to desiderate the Tracta
rian explanation of the prerogative conceded to the crown ;
"that only prerogative which we see to have been given
always to godly princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself."
We should greatly like to know, whether this prerogative
may be refused to ungodly princes ? And if so, who is to be
the judge of the godliness ? This explanation was desirable,
and was reasonably to be expected from a writer who drew a
parallel between the present times and the age of the Arian
heresy. " Then, as now, there was the prospect, and partly the pre
sence in the church, of an heretical power enthralling it, ex
erting a varied influence and an usurped claim in the appoint
ment of her functionaries, and interfering with the manage
ment of her internal affairs  MeanwhUe we may take
comfort in reflecting, that though the present tyranny has
more of insult than has hitherto attended the ascendency of
Arianism, we may rejoice in the piety, prudence, and varied
graces of our Spiritual Rulers; and may rest in the con
fidence, that, should the hand of Satan press us sore, our
Athanasius and BasU wUl be given us in their destined
season, ' to break the bonds of the oppressor, and let the cap
tives go free *.' "
Some account of the amount of prerogative to be conceded
to the sovereign and government, in ecclesiastical affairs,
might have helped to shew the consistency of the article, with
such a declaration as the following issued by the Tractarians
at the very commencement of their career: — "Are we con
tent to be accounted the mere creation of the state, as
schoolmasters and teachers may be, or other pubhc officers ?
* Newman's Arians, p. 422.

34
Did the state make us ? Can it unmake us ? Can it send
out missionaries ? Can it arrange dioceses ? . . . Would St.
Paul, with his good will, have suffered the Roman power to ap
point Timothy Bishop of Miletus as well as of Ephesus ? Is
not the notion of such an order, such an obedience, absurd?
Yet has it not been reahzed in what has really happened ?
For in what is the English state at present different from the
Roman formerly ? Neither can be accounted members of the
Church of Christ*."
What is the meaning of the declaration : — " Since we are
no longer permitted to view the Church embodied in the
constitution of this realm, it becomes our only consolation,
and should be our spontaneous delight to realize that purer
majesty she wore before that constitution, or the very name
of England was knownf."
We are told that a Christian Theocracy is to make us
"Catholics without the Popery, and Church of England-
men without the Protestantism;" let us be edified by the
margent; is the change to be a mere substitution of a
Hierocracy for the Papacy, and a transference to Oxford of
the powers of the Vatican ? Tract No. XC exhibits too much
reserve in communicating the Tractarian doctrine of the
relations between prerogative and ecclesiastical pri^vdleges;
but Tract No. X informs us, that the reasons which bind us
to honour bishops are far higher than those which bind us
to honour the sovereign.
It is true that the doctrines of " passive obedience" and
" non-resistance" are preached in the Tracts ; but we have
not now to learn that active means have been heretofore em
ployed for the enforcement of these doctrines. Was Atter
bury passively obedient to the House of Hanover? The
non-juring bishops are praised for their adherence to the
distinction between the sovereign de jure and the sovereign
de facto, but we are not told who are to be the judges dejure,
nor by what standard the question of right is to be decided.
Is the Salic law an element in the estimate ? The non-
juring bishops are praised for reserving their allegiance to a
prince residing abroad, while they submitted to the sovereign
* Tract n. The Catholic Church. t British Critic, XXV.

35
at home; we should like to know whether their example,
suspiciously urged usque ad nauseam in the British Critic, is
at aU designed as a lesson for modern times ? We appeal to
the censurers of Tract XC, where this subject is discreetly
avoided, and to the approvers of aU the rest, where it is
treated on the principle of "reserve in communicating reli
gious knowledge," to give us some little explanation on this
subject. Mr. Newman " does not wonder that persons who
happen to fall upon certain writings of his, and are unac
quainted with others, and as is natural, do not understand
the sense in which he uses certain words and phrases, should
think that he explains away the difference between the Ro
man system and our own." We do not wonder that those who
have read every line he has ever written should think so too.
We know of no Romish declaration of Church authority
stronger than the assertion, that "the Church is infinitely
superior to the other powers of the State, and paramount of
Divine right *."
The sUence of No. XC on this point, and the omission of
the subject in the recent censure, suggest the conclusion that
this new system of "divided allegiance" between Church
and State is a settled matter. As our Church is no longer
the Church of England, but the Church in England, the
question of how it is to be governed in future is fairly
opened : the claim for imperium in imperio is made, and it is
obviously because Mr. Newman thinks such a claim cannot
be contravened that he passes over the subject as already de
cided, and proceeds to inquire how much of the ecclesiasti
cal power wrested, or to be wrested from the State is likely
to be claimed by the Pope.
Mr. Newman's cautious explanation of the clause, " The
Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of Eng
land," leaves papal interference in our ecclesiastical adminis
tration an " open question." Few Romanists in the present
day would recognize his right to interfere in the realm or
civil government of England, and none of them could draw
more broadly the line of distinction between Church and
State as independent powers than it has been laid down by
* British Critic, Vol. XXV. 353.

26
Mr. Newman and Dr. Pusey. But this abstinence from
pronouncing on the claims of papal primacy is not a pecu
harity of Tract XC. In Tract LXXI, " On the Controversy
with the Romanist," papal authority was urgently recom
mended to be left an " open question ;" one which members of
our Church need not discuss, until it was seen how far Ro
manists were inclined to favour the system of approximation,
and meet us halfway. " It will do no good," says the writer,
" with the common run of men, in the question of the Pope's
power, to draw the distinction, true though it is, between his
primacy in honour and authority, and his sovereignty or
universal jurisdiction. The force of the distinction is not
here questioned, but it will be unintelligible to minds un
practised in ecclesiastical history. Either the Bishop of
Rome has really a claim on our deference, or he has not ;
so it ¦will be ; and our safe argument at the present day will lie
in waiving the question altogether, and saying that even if he
has, according to the primitive rule, ever so much authority
(and that he has some, e. g. the precedence of other Bishops
need not be denied), that it is, in matter of fact, altogether
suspended and under abeyance, while he holds a corrupt sys
tem, against which it is our duty to protest. At present aU
will see, he ought to have no jurisdiction, power, superiority,
pre-eminence or authority within this realm." It will be time
enough to settle his legitimate claims and make distinctions
when he removes all existing impediments to our acknow
ledging him ; it wiU be time enough to argue on this subject
after first deciding the other points of the controversy*."
Here we have an acknowledgment that the Pope has
" legitimate claims" on our " deference ;" that these claims
are de facto (but not de jure) " suspended," and that the
removal of the impediments to their acknowledgment rests
with the Pope himself. And this, be it remembered, occurs
in a Tract to which Dr. Pusey in his " Reply to the Pope's
Pastoral Letter" appeals as an authoritative statement of the
differences between the Tractarians and the Romanists.
We have now seen that the doctrines contained in No. XC,
are both in letter and in spirit the same as those which have
* On the Controversy with Romanism, Tract LXXI.

37
been urged over and over again by the Tractarians without
provoking a sign of dissatisfaction from the censurers of that
production. We have defended Mr. Newman and estab
lished his consistency. So far as he personally is con
cerned, the treatment that his Tract has received is grossly
unjust. It may indeed be said, and -with truth, that this
censure is what rustics caU " chastisement with a straw ;"
the censurers felt that they must do something, and they did
as little as possible. They acted like the patriarch Job in the
Rabbinical legend, where it is said that having vowed to
punish his wife with a hundred stripes, he gave her one gen
tle tap with a palm-branch that bore a hundred leaves. Mr.
Newman, like the lady in the story, may and probably does,
bear such an infliction very lightly, but there is another
party to be considered — the public. Is this tardy and ungra
cious censure a sufficient protest against the doctrines which
the censors have been forced to confess, merit reprobation?
Have the articles been ¦vindicated, or rather, has not the
censure been directed against the form and not the substance
of the obnoxious doctrines ?
Listen to Mr. Newman's own words in his apologetic letter
to Dr. Jelf: — ^"The age is moving towards something ; and,
most unhappily, the one religious communion among us which
has of late years been in possession of this something is the
Church op Rome." To be sure, Mr. Newman in this pas
sage identifies the Age with his own party ; but such a mistake
is natural enough in his position. "The snail," says the
Hindoo proverb, " sees nothing beyond its sheU, and believes
it to be the principal palace of the universe." He declares
that we must revert to the system which has been super
seded, as being not merely " congenial," but " proper, natural,
and even necessary to the Church." Does the Censure say
one word about this tendency to an " indefinite something,"
or this revival of the " superseded system ?" Not one syllable.
It condemns the doctrines of Purgatory, Pardon, &c., as
taught authoritatively by the Church of Rome ; and under this
convenient phrase, which may mean any thing or nothing, it
leaves matters precisely as they were before. Mr. Newman,
with truth and justice, says, that the Tridentine decrees.

28
" taken in their mere letter, may express a sense short of that
conveyed in the present authoritative teaching of the Church
of Rome, and which may, in point of fact, be held by that
Church *." But we may be told, indeed we have been told
by Dr. Pusey in his reply to the Pastoral Letter, that the
tracts have been vehement and firm in protesting against
Popery ; and that therefore there are no reasonable grounds
for alarm. But this very vehemence is one great cause for
suspicion. We think the Doctors do protest too much. It is not
meant to charge them with duphcity, and to assert that under
"the system of reserve in communicating religious know-
lege," may be concealed a design different from that which
is avowed. These protests may be sincere, and yet may be '
evidences of increasing approach to the doctrines they con
demn. Men are always most vehement against that of which
they are most apprehensive. " Is thy servant a dog, that he
should do this great thing?" was a question indignantly
asked not long before the predicted crime was perpetrated.
The conduct of the Tractarians, on the question of proposed
alterations in the Liturgy, affords still stronger ground for the
suspicion with which their disclaimers of Romanism are viewed.
Tract 3 invites the clergy to resist the alteration of " one jot
or tittle" in our formularies." Tract XXXVIII asks, " Can
you point out any period of history in which doctrine remained
for any time uncorrupted ? Three hundred years is a long
time. Are you quite sure we do not need a Second Reform
ation ?" Nor is this all; Fronde's Remains urge that the
Liturgy of St. Peter, that is to say, the Canon of the Mass,
should be contrasted with our incomplete Communion service.
Forms of oblation are recommended in Tract LXIII ; and the
Liturgies in which they occur, not our own, are declared to
have claims on our reverence next to the Holy Scripture. Tract
LXXI provides additional formularies for the Communion
Service, to be said secretly by the officiating priest. The use
of the Breviary is recommended, and a tract devoted to its
translation ; and ceremonies are notoriously used in certain
churches for which there is no authority in the Rubric.
* Letter to Dr. Jelf.

29
These gentlemen eagerly contend for maintaining sub
scription to the Articles, which Mr. Sewell describes to be as
" integral a part of the Christian dispensation as the Bible
itself*." But Mr. Ne^wman treats the larger portion of these
articles far less reverently. In his "Letters to a Magazine on
the subject of Dr. Pucey's Tract on Baptism," he says : —
" I consider that the first five articles have one definite, posi
tive, dogmatic view, even that which has been from the be
ginning, the Catholic and Apostolic truth on which the
Church is built.
" From the sixth to the eighteenth, I conceive to have one
certain view also, brought out in that particular form at the
Reformation; but, as in the seventeenth, not clearly demon
strable to be such to the satisfaction of the world.
" In the remaining articles, taken as a body, I think there is
less strictness, perspicuity and plainness of meaning. Some,
though clear and definite in their meaning, are but negative
or protestant, as being directed against the Romanists;
others, which are positive, are derived from various schools;
in others the view is left open or inchoate.
" The first division I humbly receive as Divine, proveable
from Scripture, but descending to us by Catholic tradition
also. The next I admit and hold as deducible from Scripture
by private judgment, tradition only witnessing here and
there. The last division I receive only in the plain letter,
according to the injunction of the declaration, because I do
believe in my conscience that they were not written upon
any one view; and cannot be taken except in the letter,
because I think they never had any one simple meaning;
because I think I see in them the terms of various schools
mixed together — terms known by their historical associations
to be theologically discordant, though in the mere letter easy
and intelligiblet."
Now how any person holding such opinions respecting more
than half of the articles, should resist, as Mr. Newman has
done, any relaxation in the terms of subscription is to ordi
nary minds utterly incomprehensible. We should be glad to
know where is his authority for such a division of the Ar-
* Sewell, on Suhscription, p. 34. f Letter prefixed to Vol. IV. of Tracts.

80
tides. Why is latitude of interpretation to be conceded in
twenty-one cases out of thirty-nine, and refused in all the
rest? And why was the voice of censure silent when the
principle was asserted, and gently raised only when the
principle was appUed ?
Another reason for want of confidence is the manner in
which the Tracts have dealt with the doctrine, commonly
regarded as the corner-stone of Romanism, the infallibility of
the Church. So far as their views on the subject are free
from " reserve in the communication of religious know
ledge," the only thing which they find objectionable is, that
the seat of infallibility is fixed at Rome instead of Oxford.
Mr. Newman declares, " we hold that the Church Catholic
will never depart from those outlines of doctrine which the
apostles formaUy published ; " the Church Catholic, then, is
infallible ; and the only question remaining, is, " who are its
organs ?" Again, " we confine our anathema to the Atha
nasian creed; the Romanists extend it to Pope Pius's."
Where is the principle of distinction ? neither creed either is
nor claims to be apostolical ; and if the Church has a right to
impose a creed fenced by anathemas in one age, it must have
just the same right in another. Nor is it quite correct
to say that Mr. Newman limits his anathema to the Athana
sian creed, for we find him declaring from the pulpit, " there
is not a dissenter living, but inasmuch and so far as he dis
sents, is in sin*." And he has not neglected to enlighten
us on the course of conduct to be pursued towards those sin
ful dissenters.
" No economy can be employed towards those who have
been once enlightened, and have fallen way. I wish to speak
explicitly on this subject, because there is a great deal of that
spurious charity among us, which would cultivate the friend
ship of those who, in a Christian country, speak against the
Church or its creeds. Origen and others were not unwiUing
to be on a footing of intercourse with the heathen philoso
phers of their day ; in order, if it were possible, to lead them
into the truth ; but deliberate heretics and apostates, those
who had known the truth, and rejected it, were objects of
* Parochial Sermons, Vol. III. 220.

81
their abhorrence, and were avoided from the truest charity
to them. For what can be said to those who already know
aU we have to say? and how can we shew our fear for
their souls, nay, and for our own stedfastness, except by a
strong action? Thus Origen, when a youth, could not be
induced to attend the prayers of an heretic of Antioch
whom his patroness had adopted, from a loathing, as he
says, of heresy, And St. Austin himself tells us, that while
he was a Manichee, his own mother would not eat at the
same table with him in her house, from her strong aversion
to the blasphemies which were the characteristic of his sect.
And Scripture fully sanctions this mode of acting by the se
verity with which such unhappy men are spoken of, on the
different occasions when mention is made of them*."
These reasons are sufficient to justify us in refusing to rest
satisfied with the Tractarian protests against Popery. No
man acquainted with the history of the time can doubt the
hostUity of those who framed our articles to the distinctive
doctrines of Romanism ; and the Tractarian extracts we have
given sufficiently shew how small is the efficacy of their ne
gations. Are we to rest satisfied with the Oxford censure ? Does
not this censure of No. XC. virtually give a sanction to all
the preceding Tracts? The censors, if they meant fairly,
have done too much or too Uttle; for No. XC, in all the
points censured, is more discreet and temperate than the
pubhcations by which it was preceded. Can matters remain
as they are? Assuredly not. The prohibition of future
Tracts will not consign those already published to oblivion.
Tract No. XC. is declared by its author " to have been very
inexpedient as addressed to one class of people," but he
declares " it was meant for another, and he sincerely thinks
it necessary for themf." This class, it appears, consists of
persons tempted to join the Church of Rome, or withdraw
from the Established Church, in consequence, as is pretty
plainly intimated, of their ha^wng adopted the principles
inculcated in the Tracts. This class, and we believe it is not
small in amount, though not quite so numerous as Mr. Newman
* Newman's Arians, 94. t Letter to Dr. Jelf, 76.

33
insinuates, has a right to a distinct declaration of Anglican
doctrine ; and this cannot with safety be long delayed.
The able pamphlet, " An Appeal in behalf of Church Go
vernment," has shewn that the perils of our present position
arise from the want of any legislative or executive power in
the Church. The Tracts have confessedly propounded a sys
tem of doctrine and discipline dissimilar in all its parts from
that which generally prevails in our Church ; it must either
be accepted as a whole, or rejected as a whole. We must
learn what it is we are tending towards, for the days are gone
when men will be led bhndfold.
Those who compare the respective treatment of Mr. New
man and Dr. Hampden, will not be at a loss to discover
whose tendencies are most in favour with the divines of Ox
ford, though they are cautious in putting forth any distinct
declaration. Fortunately, the censure has brought matters
to something like a crisis. It is now authoritatively declared
that the principles contained in the Tract No. XC, which we
have abundantly proved to be the same as are plainly set
forth in the whole body of Tractarian divinity, remove aU
security "that the most plainly erroneous doctrines and
practices of the Church of Rome might not be inculcated in
the lecture rooms at the University and from the pulpits of
our churches." Mr. Newman, in the name of the Tracta
rians, denies that any such result wiU follow.
Who shall decide when doctors disagree? We cannot
answer the question, and must therefore conclude; having
established Mr. Newman's consistency, we leave the rulers of
Oxford to vindicate their own.

.''¦'4* ^.^lisS,' .A- " •' . ^ " * '

% V

ifc ' \v "*.M"'« '4*1'.'"" . " '-^ ' .' V , , <*•'./ %?.

if';/'' "

¦', I,;
¦n

' '¦''" s "
Uf'P.,fSt' '•
pi's V-?'.-, ,f, ,."
jmhi]' \ y^ i ;i"' " '¦
t^i^! «>,¦
> 1 ¦) J^
>,^
' .1,' «¦».
f f
''f I > , ¦
¦' ¦''' < -t » i' "'' '' "