(tOOclfe.

IhSl

9^4 2L

Co

REV. W. GOODES
LETTER
TO THB
LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD.
Price One Shilling.

SOME DIFFICULTIES

THE LATE CHARGE

LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD,
RESPECTFULLY POINTED OUT
IN
A LETTER TO HIS LORDSHIP.
BY
WILLIAM GOODE, M.A.
OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE ; RECTOR OF ST. ANTHOLIN,
LONDON. - ' M ~^x

LONDON:
J. HATCHARD AND SON, 187, PICCADILLY.
1842.

LONDON :
pniNTKD BY G. J. lALMEK, SAVOY-STHKET, STRAND.

ERRATUM.
Pitye 1&, note, line 9 from bottom, for discovered, in the abstract, that
the, read discovered that, in the abstract, the

My Lord,
It has been remarked by Dr. Pusey with reference to
the recent Charges of some of the most distinguished
ornaments of the Episcopal Bench, that " it is, of course,
a sad state of things in any church, that they who should
be overseers should need remonstrance from those in in
ferior office ; but, not to go back to more ancient prece
dents, one of the most important controversies in our
church was carried on by a Presbyter against a Bishop,
and succeeding Bishops could not but approve of the strong
vindications of the principles of the church by Law against
Hoadley."* And these remarks are followed up by others
containing animadversions of so severe a character upon the
Charges of those bishops who have opposed his views of
catholic truth, that I quote no more, lest I should seem
to be adopting the same language towards the prelate
whom I am now addressing.
Your Lordship, then, after the public testimony you have
just borne to the reverence of episcopal authority, which
has been displayed by the Tractators, will not, I am sure,
accuse even an humble presbyter like myself of any want
of proper respect for your character and office, in offer
ing a few remarks upon the Charge of that single member
of the Episcopal Bench, who has so treated the present
controversy in the Church, as to be quoted by its Romish
observants as " the apologist of the Tractarians."
And if, my Lord, it was the duty of Law earnestly to
* Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 39, (33, 3rd edition.)
B 2

contend for the true nature and constitution of the church
when brought in question by the statements of Bishop
Hoadley, how much more is it the duty of every presbyter
to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the
saints, written by the finger of God in the pages of Holy
Scripture, and sealed as the truth of God by the testimony
and the blood of a cloud of witnesses from the earliest
times, by whomsoever it may be even indirectly en
dangered !
Lest, however, there should be any misapprehension in
your Lordship's mind as to the real meaning of these re
marks, and any supposition that I am seeking to identify
the truth of God either with Lutheranism or Calvinism or
Arminianism, properly so called, I will at once avow that
I should utterly and heartily oppose the imposition of any
one such system as the exclusive doctrine of our church.
That the present controversy has been so described as
to lead the unsuspecting reader far astray from the real
state of the case, is a fact of which I hope there is no need
to apprize your Lordship ; and allow me to remind you,
that it is not, alas ! an uncommon practice for zealous con
troversialists to endeavour to abridge the labour of refuta
tion by affixing a name to their opponents which will at
once bring them into discredit. And if one of the most
able of our modern prelates, Bishop Horsley, found
it necessary to warn his clergy to take heed lest, while they
were aiming their shafts at Calvinism, they should be un
consciously attacking Christianity itself, I would humbly
submit to better judgments, whether there is less need
now of a similar admonition against those, who are repre
senting the present controversy in our church as one be
tween " the Genevan" and the Catholic systems.*
But, my Lord, whatever names may be applied to the
combatants on either side of this painful controversy, all
must allow that the points in question are of no ordinary
moment; that one side or the other must be very far
removed from the truth in points vitally affecting the
* See Dr. Pusey'a Letter to the Abp. of Cant., p. 8i. (70, 3rd «d.)

5
etei'nal interests of all those who are under their teaching-
The importance of the controversy, then, cannot be exag
gerated ; the responsibility of those who engage in it can
not be overrated.
Such being the case, it was impossible for any one.
interested in the peace and prosperity of our church, not
to look with feelings of deep interest to your recent
Charge. Your Lordship has been placed by the provi
dence of God in a post of authority in that very part of our
church, from which the Tractarian movement emanated.
Tractarianism has been nursed under your eye. It has
professed a readiness to act according to your bidding.
You have suffered it to spread its principles in all direc
tions throughout the church. You have permitted it to
proceed in its career unchecked, until, upon its condemna
tion by several of the bishops, its supposed leader boast
fully informs the Primate, that effectually to oppose the
movement is now beyond even his power, that it is " too
late" to attempt to check it, and therefore that the only
course left for our ecclesiastical rulers is to put them
selves at the head of it.* That this is to a great extent
the language but of arrogant menace and intimidation, is
willingly conceded. But neither can it be denied, that the
movement is one, which, having come upon men while they
slept and were utterly unprepared for such a controversy,
has taken thousands by surprise. So much so, that your
Lordship assures us that it " has brought many older
persons, persons of the highest talents and deepest reli
gious feelings, into a miserable state of doubt and disquie-
tude,"-f than which nothing can more fully show how
little they had acquainted themselves with the grounds of
their own belief And there can be no doubt that it is
of a character such that " upon its issue hangs the des
tiny of our church. "J
You will agree with me that I am not here exaggerat-
» Letter to Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 1 36—139. (112—1 14, 3rd ed.)
t P. 27.
{ Dr. Pusey 's Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, pp. 84, 5. (70,
3rd ed.)

ing the formidable nature of the present crisis, as you
have yourself stated that the Tractarian " principles "
"are forming at this moment the most remarkable move
ment which, for three centuries at least, has taken place
amongst us."*
Under these circumstances, your Lordship's Charge was
one of no common interest. It was a turning point in the
controversy. And the publication of it gives it the
quality of not merely a Charge to those under your juris
diction, in which character I should not have presumed
to offer a single remark upon it, but a hortatory address
to the whole church on the subject of that controversy.
Into a general examination of its contents I have no
desire or intention to enter, otherwise there are several
points on which I might feel it necessary to ofier a remark.
For instance, you express great surprise at the success
which doctrines having no " powerful patronage," and a
" system " " uncompromisingly stern and severe," have
met with among us. Is there, then, my Lord, anything
in that success more extraordinary than what is recorded
of heresies without number in the pages of ecclesiastical
history ?
Again, your Lordship bitterly complains of " the tone
which" (and you say that you are here speaking " gene
rally") " has been adopted by those who have set them
selves," " I hope conscientiously," you add, " to oppose
the opinions in question. "f And you observe " I am glad
to avail myself of this public opportunity of expressing
my admiration of the meek and christian spirit they
[" the authors of the Tracts for the Times "] have inva
riably shown. "I And is it really the case, my Lord, that
all the violence and bitterness have been on one side?
If not, it would have been but fair to have bestowed both
praise and censure, in a way more calculated to do justice
to all parties.
Again, your Lordship speaks as if you considered the
disciples of the Tractators only were likely to take a too
favourable view of the Church of Rome ; in which you
' P. 9. t P. 13. t Pnges 14, 15.

there is an almost incalculable amount of error and
jtition," and which, you add, is " still as subtle, as
irous, and as false as she has ever been, as shame-
perverter of the truth, and as cruel a persecutor,"
smatical and an ti- Christian."* Now I find an in-
able difficulty in reconciling this with the following
age of Mr. Newman (to quote no more) respecting
Jhurch. " She alone," he says, " amid all the errors
vils of her practical system, has given free scope to
elings of awe, mystery, tenderness, reverence, devo-
3S, and other feelings, which may be especially
catholic." -y
1 1 will not detain your Lordship or the reader on
jcondary points. The great, the all-important ques-
s, What is the character of the doctrines advocated
works of the authors of the Tracts for the Times ?
ley the doctrines of Holy Scripture and our Church ?
Lordship's Charge was anxiously looked to for a
lent upon this question. May I be pardoned, then,
spectfully drawing your attention to the difficulties
encountered me in the perusal of it, when looking
ur answer to this question 1
ur Lordship affirms that the " opinions " of the
itors " accord with those of our Divines who resisted
iritanical temper of the 16th and 17th centuries;":}:
hey have been " held, in whole or in part, by such
,s Bull, and Beveridge, and Andrewes, and Hooker,
ay lor, and Jackson, and a host besides, of those who
ir day were, and are still, the soundest Divines of the
¦h of England." §
w this seems sufficiently explicit. Your Lordship
sre distinctly affirmed that the doctrines advocated
: Tractators have the support of the soundest divines
Church. Doubtless, then, the controversy, to which
lave led, has been to your Lordship perfectly unin-
ble. The supposition that there is anything unusual
Pages 28, 29. t Lett, to Jelf, pages 25, 6.
: Page 1 8. § Page 32.

or extraordinary in the advocacy of such doctrines in our
Church must be quite inexplicable.
The doctrines or principles of the Tractators are, ac
cording to your Lordship, nothing more than what our
soundest divines have held even from the 16th century.
I will confess that when I read these passages my first
thought was to place before your Lordship the doctrines
of the Tractators, and by the side of them the emphatic
condemnation recorded against them by the authors to
whom you have yourself referred. Let Hooker serve as
a specimen.

1. On Tkadition and the Rule of Faith.

Tractators.
" We agree with the Romanist
in appealing to antiquity as our
great teacher." — Newtnan.
" If we will be impartial we can
not hide it from ourselves that
God's unwritten word, if it can be
anyhow authenticated, [and the
position contended for is that it
can be authenticated and is in the
writings of the Fathers,] must ne
cessarily demand the same rever
ence from us, [as his written word,]
and for exactly the same reason,be-
cause it is his word." Consentient
patristical tradition is the record of
that "oral teaching" of theapostles
which the "Holy Spirit inspired."
—Keble. " The Bible and catholic tradi
tion " " together make up a joint
mle [of faith] ."— Newman .
The "rule of faith" is "made
up of Scripture and tradition to
gether." "The points of catholic
consent known by tradition con
stitute the knots and ties of the
whole system." — Keble.
" The unanimous witness of

Hooker.
" They that so earnestly plead
for the authority of tradition, as if
nothing were more safely conveyed
than that which spreadeth itself by
report, and descendeth by relation
of former generations unto the
ages that succeed, are not all of
them — surely a miracle it were if
they should be — so simple as thus
to persuade themselves."
" They which add traditions as
a part of supernatural necessary
truth have not the truth but are in
error." " The absolute perfection of
Scripture is seen by relation unto
that end whereto it tendeth . . .
God did thereby intend to deliver
a full instruction in all things unto
salvation necessary. . . . We utterly
refuse as much as once to acquaint
ourselves with anything further.
AVhatsoever to make up the doc
trine of man's salvation is added,
as in supply of the Scripture's un-
sufficiency, we reject it. Scripture
purposing this hath perfectly and
fully done it."

Christendom is the only . . . guar
antee of the whole revealed faith."
~Tract7S. "Though Scripture be
considered to be altogether silent
as to the intermediate state ....
there is nothing in this circum
stance to disprove the Church's
doctrine (if there be other ground
for it) that there is an intermedi
ate state, and that it is important."
—Tract 85. "They [popular Pro
testants] must either give up their
maxim about the Bible and the
Bible only, or they must give up
the Nicene formulary. The Bible
does not carry with it its own in
terpretation.'' — Newman. " The
gospel doctrine or message " " is
but indirectly and covertly re
corded in Scripture under the sur
face." — Tract 85.

"To urge anything as part of
that supernatural and celestially
revealed truth which God hath
taught, and not to show it in Scrip
ture, this did the ancient Fathers
evermore think unlawful, impious,
execrable." " Neither can I find that men of
soundest judgment have any other
wise taught than that articles of
belief and things which all men
must of necessity do to the end
they may be saved, are either ex
pressly set down in Scripture or
else plainly thereby tobe gathered."
" Things necessary to all men's
salvation" " are in Scripture plain
and easy to be understood."
" Scripture is not so hard but that
the only reading thereof may give
life unto willing hearers." " We
need for knowledge but to read
and hve." " I would know by
some special instance what one
article of Christian faith, or what
duty, required necessarily unto all
men's salvation, there is, which the
very reading of the word of God is
not apt to notify.''
I will only add that Hooker is on the Tractators' Ca
tena as a witness for their doctrine on this subject.

2. The Apostolical Succession.

Tractators.
" The necessity of the apostolical
commission to the derivation of
sacramental grace and to our mys -
tical communion with Christ." —
Keble. " That the participation of the
body and blood of Christ is essen
tial to the maintenance of Chris
tian hfe and hope in each indivi-

HOOKER.
" Now whereas hereupon some
do infer that no ordination can
stand, but only such as is made by
bishops which have had their or
dination hkewise by other bishops
before them, tiU we come to the
very Apostles of Christ themselves ;
in which respect it was demanded
of Beza at Poissie, ' By what au-

10

dual. That it is conveyed to indi
vidual Christians only by the hands
of the successors of the apostles
and their delegates." The foun
dation principle on which the
"Tracts" were written. — See App.
to Perceval's Letter to Arnold.
" The attempt to substitute any
other form of ordination for it
[episcopal ordination], or to seek
communion with Christ through
any non-episcopal association, is
to be regarded not as a schism
merely, but as an impossibility." —
Frovde.

thority he could administer the
Holy Sacraments, &c.' ... to this
we answer that there may be some
times very just and sufficient rea
son to allow ordination made
without a bishop."

I have here, alas ! to add again that Hooker is on the
Catena of the Tractators as a witness for their doctrine
of the Apostolical succession.
3. The Euchahistic Sacrifice.

Tractators.
The Tractators hold that there
ought to be a solemn offering up of
the consecrated elements to God as
a " commemorative impetratory
sacrifice" to be made by the minis
ter in a strictly priestly character;
and that by this sacrifice is ob
tained remission of sins for the
whole church, and some additional
refreshment for the souls of the
dead in the intermediate state. —
Tract 81, pp. 4— 7, &c.

Hooker.
" Sacrifice is now no part of the
church ministry." " The word
presbyter doth seem more fit and in
propriety of speech more agreeable
than priest, with the drift of the
whole gospel of Jesus Christ."

Hooker again is on the Catena of the Tractators, for
their doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

4. Justification.
Tractators. Hooker.
" It is usual at the present day " There be two kinds of Chris-
to lay great stress on the distinc- tian righteousness, the one without

11

a between dehverance from
lit and dehverance from sin ; to
down as a first principle that
se are two coincident indeed,
1 contemporary, but altogether
iependent benefits ; to call
imjustification and renewal; and
consider that any confusion be-
3en them argues serious and
rming ignorance of Christian
th." "This distinction is not
iptural." " Scripture speaks of
t one gift which it sometimes
Is renewal, sometimes justifica-
Q, according as it views it, pass-
l to and fro, from one to the
ler, so rapidly, so abruptly, as to
ce upon us irresistibly the in-
ence that they are really one."
stification " is the habitation in
of God the Father and the
ord Incarnate through the Holy
lost." " Christ is our righteous-
is by dwelling in us by his Spirit,
tifies by entering into us, con-
ues to justify us by remaining in
" " Justification is an imparting
righteousness, a work of the
ily Ghost, a spiritual gift or pre-
ice in the heart." — Newman.

us, which we have by imputation ;
the other in us, which consisteth
of faith, hope, charity, and other
Christian wtues — God giveth us
both the one justice and the other;
the one by accepting us for righte
ous in Christ, the other by work
ing Christian righteousness in us."
" The Church of Rome, in teach
ing Justification by inherent grace,
doth pervert the truth of Christ."
" Concerning the righteousness
of sanctification, we deny it not to
be inherent ; we grant that unless
we work, we have it not ; only we
distinguish it as a thing different
in nature from the righteousness
of justification." "Faith alone
justifieth .... by this speech we
never meant to exclude either hope
or charity from being always
joined as inseparable mates with
faith in the man that is justified ;
or works from being added as ne
cessary duties, required at the
hands of every justified man ; but
to show that faith is the only hand
which putteth on Christ unto jus
tification, and Christ the only gar
ment which being so put on,
covereth the shame of our defiled
natures," &c.

Now these doctrines form the most important part
the Tractarian system. Are they the doctrines of
ooker ?
It would be easy to enlarge this Catena to almost any
tent, but to repeat what has been already so fully done
)uld be tedious both to your Lordship and the reader ;*
That this has been done, I suppose I need hardly point out more par-
ilarly. Dr. Pusey, indeed, while professing to have "now these many
irs read diligently what has been written against" the Tractators (Lett, to
p. p. S9, or 49, 3rd ed.), assures his readers that their opponents have
iroughout avoided this question. Whether the chief divines of the seven-

12
and I feel it to be the less necessary, because, on turn
ing to other parts of your Charge, I find more than one
passage which seems wholly irreconcileable with the asser
tion that tlie doctrines of the Tractators are those of the
soundest divines of our Church.
For instance, your Lordship states that the " prin
ciples" of the Tractators "are forming at this moment
the most remarkable movement which, for three centu
ries at least, has taken place amongst us."* But how can
this be, my Lord, if these principles are only those of our
soundest divines of the sixteenth and seventeenth centu
ries? Can these two statements be reconciled with each
other? Which of the two, then, is to be taken as the
exponent of your Lordship's mind on the subject ? For my
own part, I will venture to hope that the latter more accu
rately expresses your views ; for certainly, if there is any
faith to be placed in the documents that have come down
to us, the assertion of such principles as those of the
Tractators, by any body of the clergy in our Church, is a
teenth century are most with us or with them." (lb. p. 99 ; or 81, 3rd ed.)
One of these opponents is Bishop Mac Ilvaine, who in introducing a volume
full of references to these divines to his readers observes, " If it shall be the
honour of this volume in any degree to revive the attention of the members of
the church, especially of her clergy and candidates for orders, to the works of
the elder divines of the seventeenth century, . . . this book will be
amply rewarded." (Oxford Divinity, pref. p. xi.) I have myself humbly
laboured in the same field ; and finding that the Tractators founded their
chief claim to public attention upon their agreement with our standard
divines, and had constructed several Catenas of extracts from them to support
that claim, I took upon me to investigate those Catenas, and of one in particu
lar showed that all the best divines there quoted, instead of being in their
favour, were altogether against them. The reply to me is, " Were the author
even to prove (to put fm- argumenCs sake an extreme and most extravagant
hypothesis) that all our standard writers since the Reformation were of his
way of thinking, this would still be irrelevant as regards the Oxford opinions'^
not merely to the qtiestion of their truth, but even of their consistency with tlie
formularies we have subscribed : we are in no w.ay called then to discuss
THE subject." (Brit. Crit. for July 1842, p. 105.) Such is the reply of the
Tractarians when convicted of a misrepresentation of the sentiments of our
standard divines such as, it might be supposed, any ingenuous mind would
shrink from with horror. WeU ; what then ? If they were all against us, it
would be of no consequence. After this, the reader will know how to estimate
a Xrattarian " Catena."
* Pasre 9.

13
phenomenon which even the times of Archbishop Laud
himself were spared the pain of witnessing.
And if your Lordship will refer to the leading ex
ponents of Roman Catholic principles in this country,
you will find that this view of the case is shared even by
them. " The Tractarians," they say, " are defending our
doctrines."* Was this ever said by the Romanists of
" Bull, and Beveridge, and Andrews, and Hooker, and
Taylor, and Jackson, and the soundest divines of the
Church of England " ? The Romanists, therefore, are
now standing by, the happy spectators of a controversy
in which their battle is waged by soldiers within the
camp. And they hail your Lordship's Charge with un-
dissembled satisfaction. They express themselves as
" greatly edified " by it, your Lordship having come
forward as " the Apologist of the Tractarians." It is
honoured with a place in the pages of the " Catholic"
Magazine. You have won the praises of Mr. O'Connell
himself. And your denunciations of " Popery," when
coming forward, as it seems to them, as " the apologist " of
those who are " defending their doctrines," are of course
received with all possible urbanity.f What they seek is,
to have the Protestant mind imbued with their system of
doctrine : and if this can be done under the colours
of Tractarianism, (which a free-spoken partisan has some
what incautiously described as " false colours,")^ so much
the better for their cause. All the rest will follow as a
matter of course. My Lord, I make no comment on this.
I merely state the fact in order to call your Lordship's
attention to it.
Nor is this the only passage, which I find myself utterly
unable to reconcile with your identification of the doc
trines of the Tractators with those of our soundest divines.
There is another which is still more perplexing. Mr.
Newman, feeling the difficulty which ingenuous and
unsophisticated minds would have in reconciling his
* Report of meeting of CathoUc Institute in Tablet for June 1 1 , 1 842.
t Tablet, ib. J Brit. Crit. for July 1841, p. 44.

14
"catholic truths" with the statements of the thirty-nine
Articles, and being given to understand that many of his
disciples were in consequence likely to go over at once to
Rome, set himself to the task of showing how the Articles
might be interpreted so as not absolutely to condemn bis
doctrines. He did not pretend to affirm that the writers
of the Articles meant to inculcate his doctrines, but, on
the contrary, admitted that they intended to establish an
opposite doctrine ; but attempted to show that the Articles
might be so explained, as not directly to condemn his
views ; which to his mind was sufficient for his purpose.
Now, my Lord, in what terms have you spoken of the
'' system of interpretation" here adopted ? You say that
it is " so subtle, that by it the Articles may be made to
mean anything or nothing." * But Mr. Newman tells
you that for the admission of his doctrines you must adopt
such a mode of interpretation, and that even then his
doctrines have only just a hair-breadth escape from con
demnation. And certainly you will not deny that to
maintain Mr. Newman's doctrines in our Church, you
must adopt his mode of interpretation. And yet your
Lordship tells us that these were the doctrines of the
soundest divines of our Church ! Do you really mean to
assert that our soundest divines dealt with the Articles
in this way ? that they adopted a system of interpretation
" so subtle, that by it the Articles may be made to mean
anything or nothing ?"
My Lord, these are difficulties which I must confess
myself utterly unable to master. One part of the Charge
seems to be answered by another. Your condemnation
of No. 90 is a condemnation of the whole system, (for the
doctrines of the Tractators cannot, as they themselves tell
you, be reconciled with our Articles but by the process of
interpretation there adopted,) while, nevertheless, of those
very doctrines you say that they were held by our soundest
divines. Nor can I conceive what the disciples of the Tractators
» Page 18.

15
II your Lordship's diocese, who were kept by No. 90
rom " straggling in the direction of Rome," can con-
istentlg do ; for you have taken from them even the
hadow of apology, which that Tract offered, for remaining
a our Church. True, you assert elsewhere that an equal
icence of interpretation has been taken by others in an
opposite direction, and most indulgently intimate that, if
ne party is tolerated, you see no reason why the other
hould not meet with equal favour. But then the professed
)rinciple of the Tractarians is to " do nothing without the
>ishop." I cannot conceive, therefore, a situation of greater
>erplexity than that of a Tractarian, convinced that the
nterpretation given to the Articles in No. 90 is the only
>ne, by which his doctrines can escape the condemnation
if those Articles, and at the same time warned by his
lishop that such a mode of interpretation is quite inad-
aissible. This is a knot for Mr. Newman and his dis-
iples, which it will require another No. 90 to untie.
Pardon me, then, for adding that though you say, " As
or those, the success of whose system would be to drive
heir brethren into secession, it seems to me they little
:now of what spirit they are," * you have here yourself
dministered a reproof which would at once drive them,
f consistent, into secession. And I confess that I feel
omewhat curious to see the result, and how this new im-
ediment will be got over.
And this principle, of doing nothing without the bishop,
i maintained by your Lordship as " a first principle of
/atholicism." Here again I must confess that I find
onsiderable difficulty.
For, first, were I to ask for the evidence, upon which
[lis assertion is made, I think your Lordship would find
: an exceedingly difficult task to produce such, as would
onvince any plain impartial person, that you had not
lentified Catholicism with the dictum of a favourite
uthor. And that dictum, be it remembered, was uttered
nder very different circumstances to those to which it is
? Pages 31, 32.

16
here applied, in a church where bishop and priest are
alike bound by full and precise formularies both of faith
and worship.
And then, as a practical man, not willing to profess a
principle which I am not prepared to carry out into prac
tice, as much when it crosses my views as when it favours
them, I would ask your Lordship to look at the case
to which you apply this " first principle." Dr. Pusey has
informed us, that several of the bishops have, even in their
Charges to the clergy, committed themselves to state
ments hardly reconcileable to Catholic truth, (and cer
tainly they are not reconcileable with his " Catholic"
truth,) have condemned without consideration, and with
out " any thorough understanding of the views which are
condemned," have spoken " in the bald and naked way
which characterizes the Genevan school," and upheld
" the nonconformist system." And he adds a delicate
hint of" unconscious heresy."* And the view taken by
a Tractarian of the statements of an Anti-tractarian bishop,
may be reciprocated by an Anti-tractarian towards those
of (if such there be) a Tractarian bishop.
Now this surely is an awkward state of things, if the
clergy are to do nothing without the bishop.
Dr. Pusey indeed makes no difficulty in throwing over
at once any bishops who should oppose his views, as oppo
nents of catholic truth. He thinks that " catholic truth"
stands out so clearly in the writings of antiquity, that
nobody can make any mistake about it who consults those
writings, and therefore enjoys so comfortable an assurance
that what he has derived hence is catholic truth, that
he thinks himself entitled to call any one to account who
opposes it.f
And Mr. Newman says that " the doctrine of the
apostles" is " an historical fact, and ascertainable as other
facts, and obvious to the intelligence of inquirers as other
• Lett, to Abp. of Cant. pp. 76, 7; 143; 61; (63,4; 117; SI. 3rd ed.)
+ Lett, to Abp. of Cant. pp. 40 — 4J, (33—35, 3rd ed.)

17
facts," and " private judgment has as little exercise here
as in any matters of sense and experience." * " The
humblest and meanest among Christians may defend the
faith against the whole Church if the need arise," and
" all that learning has to do for him is to ascertain the
fact, what is the meaning of the Creed in particular points,
since matter of opinion it is not any more than the rise
and spread of Christianity itself" f Consequently, what,
in effect, either one or the other says to the Bishop is just
this, — I will do nothing without you ; but mind, this only
holds as long as you and I agree. For my doctrine being
the catholic doctrine, if you oppose me, you oppose
catholic truth, and opposing catholic truth, you may be
resisted by the meanest individual in the Church.
Now with this explanation! suppose that the most cele
brated opponent of prelacy himself would have found little
difficulty in giving in his adhesion to this principle.
And if your Lordship will look back to the past, I think
you will soon find how far this principle of doing nothing
without the bishop, is really a principle of action with the
Tractators. For, did they consult your Lordship when
they originated the Tracts for the Times, and commenced
that " mighty movement," which they now tell the bishops
it is too late to check, however much they may wish to do
so ? No ; presuming upon their fancied knowledge, they
opened the floodgates, let who would like it or dislike it ;
and now that the torrent is rushing through with a force
which they think none can control, turn round and sub
missively offer to do what you prescribe.
If such, then, is the case with such " high churchmen"
as the Tractators, surely no surprise can be felt, if others
hesitate to pledge themselves to a principle, which its
most earnest advocates find themselves unable to carry out,
and prefer rather to abide by the prescribed rules of our
church. True, the Tractators pride themselves upon finding " the
doctrine of the apostles" so clearly revealed in the catho-
• On Rom. pp. 224, 5. t lb. C

18
lie consent of the Fathers that they cannot make any mis
take in the matter, while others make no such boast.
" A private Christian," says Mr. Newman, " may put what
meaning he pleases on many parts of Scripture, and no
one can hinder him. If interfered with, he can promptly
answer that it is his opinion, and may appeal to his right
of private judgment. But he cannot so deal with anti
quity." Antiquity " does not allow scope to the off-hand or
capricious decisions of private judgment."* But, alas!
some of their own party have already discovered that this
notion of " catholic truth" being a mere " historical fact,"
" obvious to the intelligence of inquirers," and of antiquity
" not allowing scope to the decisions of private judgment,"
is altogether a mistake. Hear the words of one of their
latest publications : " Is not private judgment as apt to
mislead in the interpretation of antiquity as in that
of Scripture ?" -y And thus speaks the last; — "We
have in no way maintained that an ordinary religious
inquirer would have A'NY chance of discovering for himself
the truth by his personal study of the Fathers ; and should
any have been inclined to think otherwise, we shall be very
much pleased if the facts brought together hy Mr. Goode
prove to him his mistake .... We have no hesitation in
speaking of the existing necessity of resorting to Church
history in the manner we do, as the mere result of our
present degraded position. In the time of St. Augustine,
or St. Thomas Aquinas, it would be as little a matter of
conscious inquiry with Christians, whether they should
follow the Churches instructions, as it is in our days with
infants whether they shall believe what their parents
teach them .... What greater theologian has lived or that
[sic] has conferred more lasting benefits on the church than
St. Thomas Aquinas ? and yet with all his astonishing fund
of knowledge, the systematic study of Church history seems
to have had no place in the educatioiH of his mind."X " The
study of the Fathers is indeed most valuable as deepen-
• On Rom. pp. 48, 9. f Letter to the Rev. C. S. Bird, p. 18.
J Brit. Crit. No 63, for July 1 842 ; pp. 97, 8. See also p. 75.

19
and cherishing the catholic spirit amongst ns, which
le can interpret Scripture : but at last, their writings
but one index of the Church's voice in one age ; Holy
ipture is tlie word of God for all ages ;"* the meaning i
'hich last remark may be understood from what we are |
I elsewhere, " that the Bible is in the hands of the i
irch, to be dealt with in such a way as the Church \
11 consider best for the expression of her own mind at
time . . . may surely be considered as a catholic
ini."t Brit. Crit. No. 63, p. 103.
Brit. Crit. No. 60, p. 453. I would take the opportunity of a note for
ng your Lordship's attention to the whole of the article in the 63rd num-
just pubhshed, from which I have given the above extracts. The
ushing effrontery with which the most unqualified Romanism is advo-
d in that article by a clergyman of the English church, is a sign of the
IS, as painful as it is extraordinary. If there is anything in it which might
have been written by a Romanist, it has escaped my observation. And
it was composed in the midst of a Protestant university under your Lord
's own eye.
s far as my own work is concerned, a reply is little needed, for the main
ts are in fact yielded, and an answer to the others attempted only by
ns of dogmatic assertion, personal depreciation, or misstatements of the
ire of the arguments replied to ; and it is curious to observe how the vague
declamatory charges of the reviewer are directed to the very points in
;h the work has more especially obtained the approval of those whose
;ment even he himself, with all the supercilious arrogance of the party, is
polled to respect, and whose approval he can only account for by supposing
they have not read the book (p. 106) ; a somewhat indiscreet remark, be-
ie, as most readers would give them credit for a little conscientiousness, his
•ges return upon his own head, to convict him either of utter incompetency
the task he has undertaken, or of that want of conscientiousness with
ch he has so freely charged others, and which so peculiarly charac-
les the publications of the party. But the most remarkable feature of
article, as a reply, is the position into which a plain statement of the
B and arguments upon which the questions at issue depend has driven the
ctarians. They have discovered, in the abstract, that the study of Church
ory is an unnecessary burthen (pp. 97, 8), (and most inconvenient to their
ie it no doubt is), and that one great requisite for the task of ascertaining
it testimony is given by ancient documents to the points in question, is a
)etical and imaginative temper," (pp. 35, 88), and that the " Divine Rule"
3 not contain one bit of poetry or imagination from beginning to end,
ch I hope is quite true, my object being not to impose upon mankind any
amy reveries of my own, but to give them an opportunity of judging of
real state of the case. The whole article is remarkably illustrative of the
c2

20
Yes, after all the Tracts and dissertations that have been
inflicted upon us, to prove to us, that the truth, though
only obscurely hinted and covertly recorded in Scripture,
is so clear in the Fathers that nobody can fail of finding
character of Tractarian teaching ; — dreamy, self-confident, abounding in
names, and words, and large statements, which when investigated are often
without any practical meaning, but upon which a shadowy superstructure is
built, which men are taught to look upon as a reality, and a guide to action,
and proceeding constantly upon a petitio principii, which makes the whole
argument, plausible as it may appear to a superficial observer, simply absurd.
Partly from the circumstances of the times, partly from predisposition,
partly from the influence of other causes, the Tractarians appear to have been
led to the cordial admiration of a certain system of theology. With minds
thus imbued with prejudices in its favour, — prejudices carefully nourished as
the touchstone of truth from their having fallen in with the current of their
feelings, (pp. 42, 43, &c.) — they have gone to our elder divines and the
Fathers, and upon a few shreds and patches of these writers (taken often, as
is evident, second-hand, and even from Romish sources), by the aid of that
" poetical and imaginative temper" which they think so necessary in such a
matter, have constructed a system corresponding to the idol of their worship,
and called it " Catholicism ;" and by this, as a standard, try every thing that
falls in their way.
The reply (pp. 88 — 102,) to the patristical part of the work amounts but to
this, that the Fathers and their works have not been judged by that standard
of judgment which the reviewer thinks the right one. But what he had to
prove was that his standard is the right one, and reconcileable with their state
ments, which he has not attempted to do. This is as if a man should put on
green spectacles, and then accuse the rest of the world of ignorance for
denying that every thing is green. As to the remarks about the need of
" imagination" and " philosophy" to a " historian," and the work exhibiting
neither, it is difficult to conceive what other purpose they could have been in
tended to answer than that of salving something against the author under
review, as the only thing attempted was to place before the reader passages
from the Fathers either directly opposing the Tractarian doctrines or indi
rectly showing their incorrectness ; with which neither "philosophy" nor "ima
gination" had anything to do, except for the Tractarians, to aid them in mys
tifying what is plain, and overlaying the whole case with " Catholic" colours.
The passages of the Fathers asserting the clearness of Scripture only mean, it
seems, (as the Romanists have taught him to say,) that catholic truth is clear in
Scripture to those who know and believe it ; u reply which a glance at the pas
sages quoted utterly annihilates. (See particularly vol. ii. pp. 543,4.) But
what Tractarian " philosophy" and " imagination" can effect, the reader may
judge from the foUomng passage. I have shown that in the second and third
centuries the perpetual virginity of the Mother of our Lord, so far from
being looked upon as any article of faith, was denied by some, and certainly
by many not maintained, but that in the fifth century Augustine pronounced
those heretical who did not hold it ; upon which the reviewer remarks, —

21
it there, that if we would only go to the Fathers we
should find " catholic truth" upheld by " everybody al
ways everywhere," it is now maintained that if we will go
by our own private judgment, " antiquity" will be as full
of dangers to us as Scripture.
" Real or living principles differ froin mere formulae, as the works of nature
from the works of art ; a table or a chair is made once for all, and remains
stationary in size and proportions as it came from the maker's hand ; but a
small seed, small and almost imperceptible, grows and expands without hu
man cognizance, and ends, not begins, by banishing all rival claimants from
the space it is destined to occupy. It may well be then, as Mr. Goode has
pointed out (vol. ii. p. 202 — 214), that the fifth century was far more decided
and interested than the second in the defence of St. Mary's perpetual virginity,
and may yet have been altogether right in such increased love of the doctrine.
Such love may well have been the natural and legitimate development of prin
ciples taught by the apostles (e. g. the blessedness of celibacy, the sacramental
efficacy of proximity to our Lord, the unspeakable dignity to which human na
ture is raised by the Incarnation, &c. &c.); and St. Augustine may have been
most pious and wisely zealous in denouncing those as heretics (vol. ii. pp. 211,
213,) who did not receive a statement which ihe orthodox, by that time,
[somewhat slow learners surely] had discovered to have been ever morally
involved in the principles they held from thefi^st."' (p. 92.) ! ! !
I will not, however, detain your Lordship or the reader upon such puerilities.
The groimd on which I have ventured to call your Lordship's attention to the
Article is its open defence of pure Romanism ; and this surely is a matter de
manding your gravest consideration.
Dr. Pusey, as your Lordship is aware, has taken great care to draw some
verbal distinctions between his doctrine and that of the Romanists on the
subject of Scripture and tradition, conscious that if they were identical, his
doctrine was not the doctrine of our Church. I have endeavoured to show,
(and in the judgment of persons well able to decide such a question, suc
ceeded in showing,) the identity of the two. " But," says the reviewer, " this
[" supposed identity"] of course would only make their truth more proba
ble, as manifesting so great an amount of consent for them in so many
Churches." And he " earnestly hopes" that in my " attempt to prove it to be
the case" my arguments will be found " cogent and satisfactory." (p. 105.)
Again ; we have had a long Catena of extracts from English divines given
us on these subjects, to prove that the Tractarian doctrine was that of all our
great divines, and no argument has been more pressed upon us, or been more
useful to the Tractarian cause than this, that the Tractarians were only
reviving the doctrines of all the best writers of our Church. I have given in
reply a Catena of extracts from the same divines, showing how completely they
had been misrepresented. The only answer given, is that which I have
already mentioned p. 12, above. The value of the argument in the way of
scaffolding to build the house was fully appreciated, but -now the house is
built, it may be at once tossed away.

22
Now that full and undeniable evidence has been given,
that patristical tradition is anything but what it has been
represented to be, the " golden" rule of Vincent, of
which we have heard so much the last seven years, and
which has been put forward as the very foundation of
their system, is flung to the winds, depreciated even
below its real value, and we are sent to " the Church."
Pardon me for digressing for a moment to remind your
Lordship, how precisely this accords with what has always
been the course of such controversies. The first cry of the
Romanists in any controversy has invariably been. The
Fathers, the Fathers. How can you oppose what all
the Fathers have with one voice proclaimed? And truly a
wood is a most convenient place to flee into when pursued.
For how many are there who will say. It is useless to pur
sue them any further ; they will dodge you for ever. But
there are ways of driving men even out of a wood. And
To the texts quoted in proof of the sufficiency of Scripture to act as the
judge of controversies, which with the expositions given are, as I need hardly
remind your Lordship, those of all our great divines in their controversies with
the Romanists, the answer given is, " On what other subject in the world,
except controversial theology, could reasoning of this sort be ventured upon,
and its author's statements continue to receive a moment's toleration ? "
(p. 65.) a sort of reply with which the article abounds ; and which almost
invariably applies equally to all our great divines, and is merely a repetition
of the old Romish abuse of them.
The Church of Rome " alone has produced saints," (p. 86). Luther was
not even " a religious man," (p. 52 ; note.)
To a remark of mine corresponding almost in terms to the declaration of
our Church in the rubric to the " Communion of the Sick," the reply is, that
it is " plain Zuinglianism," (p. 70,) and then follows a direct defence of the
doctrine of Transubstantiation, maintaining "the literal sense" of " This is my
body," and that " if' my body" may be taken as ' the representative and sign
of my body,' how much more may ' God ' be understood to mean ' the repre
sentative and moral image of God ;' " the phrase " Real Presence" being
used in true Romish fashion to catch the unwary, though the " Real Pre
sence" is the doctrine of the English Church ; but certiiiuly with the addition,
" the Real Presence even to the extent of the Tridentine definition.^' (pp. 71
—73.) Now, as one great object of my work was to show that the Tractarian
doctrine is not that of the Church of England, but that of the Romish
Church, it is difhcult to conceive a statement more thoroughly establishing
the most important point I sought to prove, than the above attempt at a
reply.

23
iriably the next cry has been. The Church, the Church !
ch, in the sense intended, that is, of the universal
rch being a definite and sure guide in controversies, is
ignis fatuus which may dazzle the pursuer, but will
ever mock his efforts to come up with it. It is a
eful sign, however, that we have at least got to the
nd stage of the controversy, when our opponents
quitting the wood of the Fathers, and making the
of their way in various directions after " the Church."
nd the next question will no doubt be, how we are to
introduced to " the Church ;" whether by the Pope
self, or whether the good offices of any individual
3t will suffice ; and if by the Pope, whether by the
e in tke chair, or whether the Pope out of the chair
do ; or whether, rejecting all these, we must apply to a
eral Council, or whether it must be a Pope and Gene-
Uouncil together; or whether the only thing that can
;is a General Council universally received ; and then,
e question be decided in favour of either of the latter
the practical question will be how to find them.
bere appears to me, then, (to return to the subject,)
; no one at all prepared for tbe practical reception of
principle of doing nothing without the bishop, (ex-
with a proviso which makes it a dead letter,) and I
3ss I cannot see my way further than to the adoption
le wise and temperate judgment of our Church, that
)bedience due to the bishop is " canonical" obedience ;
is, obedience according to rules which bind alike
ip and priest ; and I hope I may without disrespect
it the wisdom of your Lordship's demanding an obe-
ze far greater than the constitution of our Church
orizes you to require, — a demand which is a source
isquiet and anxiety to the weak conscience, and an
ce to the strong : and one for the enforcement of
h you certainly would appeal in vain to any tribunal,
or ecclesiastical, in this country.
readily admit that this demand is a mere theoretical
for alas ! I find it difficult to place any limits to the

24
liberty which your Lordship, practically, grants to those
under your jurisdiction, even in the highest points of
faith. And this leads me to the last point which I would
take the liberty of noticing.
Your Lordship, though in some parts you have ex
pressed your sense of the vast importance of the ques
tions at issue, observes in another, that " what has been
spoken has not been uttered with the view of either sup
porting or depressing any man or set of men," and that
" while the world stands there must be points on which
good men will differ, and so long as those points of dif
ference do not contravene the Prayer-book and formula
ries of the Church, it seems to me, that one set of opinions
has the same right to expect toleration as tke other ,•"* words
which of course must be understood as applying to those
of whom your Lordship has been speaking in the former
part of the Charge.
In what situation, then, do you leave the Church of
England in these remarks ? You say that " nothing can
exceed the licence which has been assumed" in the inter
pretation of the Articles on one side,i- and that on the op
posite side there are those who are adopting " a system of
interpretation," " so subtle, that by it the Articles may be
made to mean anything or nothing •"% but you assure your
auditors that nothing you have said is intended to " sup
port or depress any man, or set of men," and that the lat
ter party are entitled to equal toleration with the former.
Now it needs no proof, that among the doctrines which
may be deduced from a confession of faith, by processes of
interpretation, so lax, that " nothing can exceed the
licence" taken, and " so subtle, that by it" that confession
" may be made to mean anything or nothing," must be
included almost all the heresies which the Church has
ever witnessed. Does your Lordship really mean that
you will look on with indifference at this state of things ?
You have indeed reminded us of the advice once given
by Gamaliel, " Refrain from these men and let them
' rnm-' :U. t Page 17. X Pages 17, 18.

25
alone, for if this counsel, or this work, be of men, it will
come to nought; but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow
it."* " A system," you say, " which has grown up under
such disadvantages, and which professes at least to be that of
the ancient catholic church, deserves at any rate to be treated
with as much of prudence and circumspection as Gamaliel
prescribed in a not very dissimilar instance,"t that is, de
serves, at any rate, to be let alone, and left without opposition.
But I think you can scarcely have remembered, at the
moment, how hardly this reference would press upon many,
whom I am sure you would regard with all possible reve
rence ; for instance, the defenders of the Nicene faith
against the Arians. And I confess I feel an insuperable
difficulty, in reconciling the kind licence, here granted to
all parties, to run riot in the interpretation of the Articles,
to such an extent that on one side " nothing can exceed
the licence" taken, and on the other " the system of inter
pretation" is " so subtle, that by it the Articles may be made
to mean anything or nothing," with the obligation to
" banish and drive away, with all faithful diligence, all
erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word,
and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage
others to the same." For however mistaken individuals
may be as to what is truth and error, yet on one side or
the other there must he fearful errors, even, as you are
yourself conscious, on " tke essentials of religion,"^ and
therefore some things to be banisked and driven away with
all faithful diligence.
And I hope that active obedience to this injunction
may be reconciled with the earnest desire and endeavour
to " maintain and set forward, quietness, peace, and love,
among all men ;"§ otherwise our Church would indeed be
laying a heavy burthen upon us, in the vows she calls
upon her clergy to make to this effect.
Your Lordship earnestly desires the peace of the
Church. Most heartily and fervently do I echo the wish.
* Acts V. 38, 9. t Page 12.
t Page 21. § See p. 34.

26
If the whole controversy could be buried in the depths
of the sea, we should have great cause for thankfulness.
But, my Lord, what are the facts of the case ? A few
individuals form " a conspiracy" in the Church for intro
ducing into it certain doctrines, irreconcileable with our
Articles except by adopting a mode of interpretation " so
subtle, that by it the Articles may be made to mean
anything or nothing ;" they gain adherents, they pro
claim to the world that they " intend to have a suc
cessful fight ,-" * they (to use the language of one of
the party) " venture upon the part of ' ecclesiastical
agitators,' intrude upon the peace of the contented, and
raise doubts in the minds of the uncomplaining, vex the
Church with controversy, alarm serious men, and inter
rupt the established order of things ; set the ' father
against the son, and the mother against the daughter ;"f
they admit having commenced a struggle, on the issue of
which hangs the destiny of our church ; and as they pro
ceed, their doctrines become more and more opposed to
those of the Church, and they openly avow their desire
and intention to " reappropriate"" from Popery doctrines
which our Reformers rejected, and drew up our Articles to
eradicate from among us. J
Hear the words of one whose learning and orthodoxy
your Lordship, at least, will not question — Bishop Mant
He admonishes the Church, in his recent Charge, that
the doctrines which Mr. Newman attempts to reconcile
with our Articles, in No. 90, are, " the very errors which
the Articles themselves were framed to counteract . • . Tlie
points on wkich this latitude of interpretation is sought,
and a reference is pleaded to the testimony of Catholic an
tiquity, are the points on wkich our national Church is
at variance with the Romish Church."
After a time the Church becomes roused to a sense of
its danger. Their attempts to propagate their errors are
* Adv. to vol. iv. of Tracts by Mr. Newman.
+ Brit. Crit. for July 1841, p. 44.
J Dr. Piisey's Letter to Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 15. (13, 3rd ed.)

27
it by refutations of their misstatements and corruptions
the faith, and earnest admonitions and protests against
eir doctrines. And then, when their cause is perilled by
e exposure of their blunders, and misrepresentations, and
se doctrine, and desires to " reappropriate " Popish
rors, they, (with the subtilty that seems the never-failing
tendant upon Romish doctrines,) turn round upon their
ponents, and accuse them of raising a disturbance in
e Church ; and amidst many protestations of the pain
th which they view the present excitement, and the
ve they have for peace and harmony, entreat the au-
orities of the Church to put an end to the opposition
at has been raised against them.* Take heed, say
ey, how you touch us. Nay, it is too late to oppose
y impediment to our movement. It " cannot be
ecked."t " It is too late for any mere check."J " When
e whole ocean is stirred from its depths, to what end to
ly, if we could, a single wave ?"§ But it grieves us to
e the state of things which arises from our views being
iposed. If you cannot give us your sympathy, at least
•ocure peace for us.||
And to whom is this admonition addressed ? To the
rimate of all England : and with especial reference to
irious Episcopal Charges, in which their errors havebeen
indemned. And the threat is added, that if the bishops
intinue to speak as they have hitherto done, the flower
' our youth are prepared to go over to Rome.^
My Lord, these are facts which would justify strong
nguage. I feel almost an apology to be due to the
,use of truth, for not adopting such language. But
irely I may ask your Lordship, whether you really think
at it will tend to the ultimate wellbeing and prosperity of
* lb. pp. 136—140. (112—115, 3rd ed.) and see pp. 151, &s. (125, &s.
ded.) t Ib. page 137. (112, 3rd ed.)
t Ib.p. 138. (113, 3rded.)
§ Ib.p. 139. (114, 3rd ed.)
II Ib. pp. 136,7. (112, 3rd ed.)
t lb. pp. 89, 90, (73, 74, 3rd ed.) ; and see p. 31. (2«, 3rd ed.)

28
the Church, that such parties should be brought before
the public in the character of ill-used and persecuted
men, and an endeavour made to enlist in their favour all
the feelings which injured virtue, persecuted philan
thropy, and miraculous success can suggest, and their
opponents stigmatized as " gratuitous agitators, and un
bidden accusers of their brethren ;" and opposition to their
proceedings be forbidden, because the Church needs
peace. Your Lordship adds, that the Church needs " peace,
in order that she may calmly prepare, not merely for any
crisis of opinions among her own children, but for that
tremendous final contest between good and evil, to which
all things seem hastening with rapidity."*
But will a peace, which arises from an equal toleration
of doctrines of all kinds on the most important points of
Christianity, prepare the Church for a " crisis of opinions''
among her children, or the " final contest between good
and evil?" Moreover, a conflict of opinions in the Church
more decisive and painful than that which now exists,
when, as your Lordship states, its confession of faith is
stretched on the one side, so that " nothing can exceed the
licence" taken, and on the contrary side by a mode of inter
pretation " so subtle, that by it the Articles may be made
to mean anything or nothing," — and when, therefore, of
course all the different shades of doctrine between the two
extremes are to be found among us, — can hardly be con
ceived. We are not, then, in the period of preparation
for such a conflict, but in the conflict itself; a conflict so
severe, that Dr. Pusey can only compare it to that period
in the case of a demoniac, when the evil spirit is about to
be cast out.f A conflict of so vital a character, that, upon
its issue, Dr. Pusey assures us, depends the destiny of
our Church. J And the question is, not what is to be
done in the way of preparation for such a conflict, but
what it behoves us to do when the conflict is at its height.
' Page ;i5. t Lellcr to Al^:). of Cant. p. 152. (126, 3rd ed.)
I III. p. «1. (70, 3rd ed.)

29
Will it, then, tend to restore that peace which has been
already taken from us, for our ecclesiastical authorities to
say, Both sides are entitled to equal toleration, and I will
give no judgment in the matter?
Granting that you should be successful in putting an end
to all reclamation against error on all sides, and obtain
ing for all the parties of whom you speak equal toleration,
and thus creating the peace of which you speak, — does
your Lordship really hold that the state of things that
would result therefrom is one which would prepare the
Church to meet the " final contest between good and
evil?" Is this indeed the state in which your Lordship would
wish our Church to be found to meet that contest?
Think you that that contest will be successfully waged by
a Church which, instead of having its teachers agreed in
all the vitally important points of Christian doctrine, has,
for the sake of patching up a temporary peace, granted
a latitudinarian indulgence to them to adopt any creed
they please ? Can the Divine blessing be expected by us
as a Church, while pursuing such a course ?
My Lord, if the Tractarians are preaching the Gospel of
Christ in any degree of purity, their opponents are not
so preaching it ; and if their opponents are so preaching
it, they are not. This they have themselves admitted,
nay urged upon us. And the contest is between Refor
mation-truth and Reformation-principles, on one side,
and Romish truth and Romish principles, on the other.
And the simple question is, By which are we prepared to
abide? The decision of this question may be deferred, as
the parent may shut his eyes to a serious fault in his
child, for the sake of getting over the day peaceably.
But the question will recur to-morrow under a still more
serious aspect, impunity and delay giving boldness and
decision even to the timid offender. Four years ago
your Lordship gently intimated the " possible tenden
cies"* of Tractarian doctrines on the minds of their dis-
* Newm. on Rom., quoted by Dr. Pusey. Letter to Archbishop of Can
terbury, p. 42, (35, 3rd ed.)

30
ciples. You have now to deal with No. 90, from the
pen of one of the heads of the party. The reflection
forces itself upon the most unthinking. How different
would have been the state of things, if four years ago
the admonitions of the Bishop of Oxford had been distinct
and decisive ! God grant that another four years may
not force upon your Lordship and the Church reflections
still more painful.
My Lord, I should exceedingly regret, if there were any
thing throughout these remarks approaching to disre
spect, or showing any want of due regard for your Lord
ship's character and office. I hope such is not the case.
I write, desirous of bearing in mind the great disparity
between the situations we hold in the Church ; but I have
what your Lordship at least will consider good authority,
for pleading the privilege even of " the humblest and
meanest among Christians," to " defend the faith" under
all circumstances, and in the present case I seem to
myself to find in some parts of your Lordship's own Charge
the most complete vindication for this address. It can
hardly but be by an oversight, that doctrines which barely
(if at all) escape condemnation by the Articles, even after
the adoption of a mode of interpretation " so subtle, that
by it the Articles may be made to mean anything or no
thing," can have been pronounced by your Lordship to
be those of our soundest divines. And such an oversight
is of such vast importance to the peace and welfare of the
Church at the present crisis, that the most humble indi
vidual may be pardoned for pointing it out.
I am, My Lord,
Your obedient humble servant,
W. GOODE.
31, Charterhouse Square, London.
July 9, 1842. LONDON :
PRINTED BY Q. J. PALMER, SAVUV STREET, STRAND.

9758

7

Vfk