William Goode's "The Divine Rule Of Faith And Practice" in three volumes, produced between 1842-1853. "The Preface," pp. 6-23. This is a most thorough refutation of the Roman notion that the Bible cannot stand as the sufficient source of saving truth. The massive case is developed from the early church fathers down to the romanizing Oxford Movement of Goode’s own day.
This has collateral, practical and pastoral implications. 1) The canonicity, inspiration, authority, sovereignty, sufficiency, and perspicuity of Scriptures, in light of charismania, extra-canonical revelations (TBN, 700 Club, and associated enthusiasts). 2) The continuuing inconsistencies between Reformed, Confessional, Evangelical Anglicanism and the Tractarianism in the ACNA, to wit, Bp. Jack Iker avering Tract XC and the disavowal of Reformed thinking. 3) Women's ordination and relativization of the text to religious pluralism. 4) The serious flirtations of contemporary evangelicalism with odd entities, e.g. Emergent Church, etc. 5) The role of the Bible in reading, home life, education, and pulpit exposition. 6) The influx of expatriates from non-liturgical traditions without exposure to the classical English Reformed faith and their "evangelical" enthusiasm for Anglicanism without information and with their vulnerabilities. 7) The absence of a genuinely consistent and authentic Reformed and Protestant voice in doctrine, worship and piety, in the Anglican way.
Goode's 3 volumes were the salvoes the Tractarians and Anglo-Catholics never answered.
Volume One is free and downloadable at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=pVkXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR31&dq=william+goode+divine+rule&lr=&as_brr=1&output=text#c_top---------------------------
TO THE MOST REV. WILLIAM, LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, AND THE RIGHT REV. CHARLES JAMES, LORD BISHOP OF LONDON, THIS WORK IS MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY THEIR OBLIGED AND OBEDIENT SERVANT, THE AUTHOR.
PREFACE.
The movement that has lately taken place in our Church under the auspices of the Authors of the Tracts for the Times, whatever may be the view taken of it, must be admitted to be one of a very important kind. Whether for good or evil, the degree of development it has already attained, amply shows that its success must be attended with a grent and thorough change in the principles and practices of our Church in various most important points.
That such would be the case, was for a long time studiously concealed from public view. So much caution, indeed, was exercised in the earlier part of their career by the Tractators, that to none but those who were somewhat acquainted with the controversial writings of divines on the points touched upon, so as to see the full force and tendency of the terms used, was it apparent whither they were going ; though to such, I may add, it was abundantly evident. And the first intimation of it to the public mind was in the very seasonable publication of Mr. Froude's Remains, a work which clearly and most opportunely revealed the real spirit and views of the (to use Mr. Froude's awn term) " conspirators" against the present order of things in our Church. As time has advanced, and the number of their adherents increased, the reserve formerly practised has been gradually thrown aside. Perhaps, indeed, their own views have become more fixed and definite than when they commenced their labours. And we are far from laying to their charge any other concealment than such as they judged to be wise and prudent for the inculcation of new and unpalatable truths ; though we may be pardoned for observing, that a more open course appears to us to be (to use a mild term) much freer from objections.
It is now, then, openly avowed, that the Articles, though " it is notorious that they were drawn up by Protestants and intended for the establishment of Protestantism" are not to be interpreted according to " the known opinions of their framers," but in what the Tractators are pleased to call a "Catholic" sense,1 which interpretation we are informed " was intended to be admissible, though not that which their authors took themselves," in order to " comprehend those who did not go so far in Protestantism as themselves ;"" though the Articles are said, in the very title prefixed to them, to have been drawn up " for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true religion ;" and were put forth in compliance with the request of the lower House of Convocation, " that certain articles containing the principal grounds of the Christian religion be set forth, as well to determine the truth of things this day in controversy, as also to show what errors are chiefly to be eschewed."1 And the " Declaration" prefixed to the Articles, requiring them to be interpreted in the "literal and grammatical sense," " sanctions" such a mode of interpretation.4 That is, the " literal and grammatical sense" comprehends that "uncatholic" and Protestant doctrine against which the Tractators protest, and also that opposite "catholic" doctrine which they embrace. And this " catholic" doctrine is such as is consistent with the decrees of the Council of Trent.* And the Declaration, forbidding any person to "affix any new sense to any article," " was promulgated," we are told, "at a time when the leading men of our Church were especially noted for catholic views."" But surely, if the "literal and grammatical sense" of the Articles comprehends so much as the Tractators suppose, and men had all along subscribed the Articles with propriety, though varying in their sentiments from the Protestantism of Bishop Jewell,7 to the " Catholicism" which squared with the Decrees of the Council of Trent. it was rather a useless admonition, for the wit of man could hardly devise a sense of the Articles not to be found within such an extensive range as this.
And the very men, be it observed, who say that these Articles, carefully drawn up " for the establishment of Protestantism," will bear meanings ranging from Protestantism to that Anti-protestantism that agrees with the decisions of the Council of Trent, tell us, that in the writings of the Fathers, a representation of the orthodox faith is to be found, so clearly and
footnote. i No. 90. p. 80. j lb. p. 81. 2d edit. p. 83. » Wilk. Cone. iv. 240.
footnote. No. 90. p. 80. s See the whole of No. 90.
footnote. lb. p. 80.
footnote. The opposition of which to the Catholicism of the Tractators may be judged of by an article in the British Critic for July, 1841.
definitely delivered in the consentient testimony of all of them, that so far from there being any uncertainty as to their meaning, the orthodox faith as thus delivered is "an obvious historical fact;" from which flows the very convenient consequence, that he who follows it has all the benefit of infallibility without incurring the odium of claiming it.1
Moreover, to " talk of the ' blessings of emancipation from the Papal yoke,'" is to use a phrase of a " bold and undutiful tenour."* " To call the earlier reformers martyrs, is to beg the question, which of course Protestants do not consider a question; but which no one pretending to the name of Catholic can for a moment think of conceding to them, viz. whether that for which these persons suffered were the 'truth.'"3 "Protestantism, in its essence, and in all its bearings, is characteristically the religion of corrupt human nature."4 "The Proiestant tone of doctrine and thought is essentially antichristian."4 The reader will observe, that the term used in these denunciations is no longer, as at first, " ultra-Protestantism," but (with a candour which we should have been glad to have seen from the commencement) " Protestantism."
The present feelings and objects of the Tractators have been clearly set forth by themselves in the following words. "By clinging to the authority of these reformers, as individuals," they say, "are we not Dealing Unfairly both with Protestants and other branches ,of the Catholic Church ? Are we not holding out false colours to the former, and drawing them near us, only in the end to be alienated from us more completely than ever ? On the other hand, are we not cutting ourselves off from the latter, (who are our natural allies,) by making common cause with
A SET OF WRITERS WITH WHOM, IN SUCH MEASURE AS WE HAVE IMBIBED THE TRUE CATHOLIC SPIRIT, WE CAN HAVE NO SORT OF SYMPATHY ? Meanwhile, to the unprejudiced inquirers after truth (a large and growing number) are we not, until we have shaken off such auxiliaries as these, exhibiting a very distorted and unreal representation of the Catholicism to which we desire to attract them; holding before them a phantom which will elude their grasp, alight which will cheat their pursuit ; unsettling their early prepossessions, without affording a complete and satisfactory equivalent; disquieting ihem in their present home, without furnishing them even with a shelter ? This should be well considered. It ought not to be for nothing ; no, nor for anything short of some very vital truth; some truth riot to be rejected without fatal error, nor embraced without radical change; that persons of name and influence should 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 interrupt the established order of things; set the 'father against the son, and the mother against the daughter;' and lead the taught to say, « I have more understanding than my teaeher.' All This Has Been Done; and all this is worth hazarding in a matter of life and death; much of it is predicted as the characteristic result, and therefore the sure criterion, of the Truth. An object thus momentous we believe to be the Unprotestantizing (to use an offensive but forcible word) of the national Church; and accordingly we are ready to endure, however we may lament, the undeniable, and in
footnote. i See Newman's Lect. pp. 224, 5. « Brit. Crit. July, 1841. p. 2.
footnote.* lb. p. 14. « Ik p. 27.
footnote. 4 lb. p. 29.
themselves disastrous, effects of the pending controversy
We cannot stand where we are, we must go backwards or forwards ; and it, wilt surely he the latter. It is absolutely necessary towards the consistency of the system which certain parties are labouring to restore, that truths should be clearly stated, which as yet have been but intimated, and others developed, which are now but in germ. And As We Go On, We Mdst Recede More And
MORE FROM THE PRINCIPLES. IF ANY SUCH THERE BE, OF THE ENGLISH Reformation."1 Such is the language now held by the Tractators, in their organ the British Critic.
Now if by " we" in this passage they mean themselves, it is only what all who really understood their principles foresaw from the commencement of their career. But if by "we'' they mean the English Church, then we trust that they will find that there is much difference between the temporary impression produced by taking men by surprise under " false colours" and that which is made by the power of truth, accompanied by the blessingof God. That the English Church is to go "forwards" with the Tractators into all the false doctrines and mummeries of Popery now openly advocated by them, even to the primary false principle, that the Church ought to assume the appearance of one great spiritual monarchy, with the Pope at the head of it,9 is, we trust a prediction that has little probability of being realized.
It is, if possible, still more painful to contemplate the fact,
footnoe. British Critic for July 1841, pp. 44, 45.
footnote. j " Of course, union of the whole Church under one visible government is abstractedly the most perfect state. We were so united, and now are not. And the history of this great struggle for religious independence . . is, in any case, the record of the origin and progress of that deplorable schism. . . . We talk of the ' blessings of emancipation from the Papal yoke,' and use other phrases of a like bold and undutiful tenour"— Brit . Crit. for July 184t, p. 2.
that these remarks were published by those who profess the highest possible regard for the authority of their spiritual rulers, and not long after one of the heads of the party had, with many professions of submission to the wishes of his Diocesan, consented to close the series of the "Tracts for the Times ;" while he is here identified with " ecclesiastical agitators," ready to use every effort, and brave every difficulty, and throw the Church into confusion, to the setting of "father against son, and mother against daughter," for the purpose of effecting the design of " unprotestantizing" the Church! Such is the practical influence of their inordinate views of Church authority.
The reader will observe that in their use of the word " Catholic," the Tractators are directly opposed to our Reformers. Our Reformers were so fur from thinking that Protestantism and Catholicism were opposed to each other, that one ground for their supporting the former was, their conviction that it best deserved the title of the latter. Bishop Jewell believed that it was the-Reformation that restored the "antient religion" (to use the reviewer's phrase) to our Church. And both he and, I believe I may say, all the more learned Reformers claimed the name "Catholic," as belonging more peculiarly to themselves, than to those who, both in the Western and Eastern Churches, had corrupted the pure faith and worship of the primitive Church. The Tractators, therefore, like the Romanists, are at issue with the Reformers as to what is "Catholicism," and the "ancient religion." This the reader ought carefully to bear in mind, lest he be deceived, as too many suffer themselves to be, by words and phrases.' And the same caution must be given as to the Tractators' repudiation of the charge of holding Romish tenets. Their repudiation of it is grounded merely upon their rejection of certain more gross impositions and practices of the Church of Rome ; while, upon various most important points and leading features in that vast system of religious priestcraft, they are altogether in agreement with her. There is a previous question, then, to be determined, before their repudiation of the charge can be of any practical use, viz. What is Romanism ? If, as our Archbishop Whitgift tells us, their doctrine on the rule of faith is ''the ground of all Papistry" their verbal disclaimer of Papistry is mere idle talk. But unfortunately, to the ordinary reader, this equivocal use of terms throws the whole subject into inextricable confusion. It is very hard, he will say, that those should be accused of holding Romish doctrines, who have expressly repudiated and even abused Romanism. And is it not most desirable that we should hold "Catholic" doctrines and the " ancient religion ?" On these points, however, this is not the place to enlarge, as they will more properly come under our consideration in a subsequent page.
With these facts and statements before bis eyes, the reader will not be surprised to learn that the Romanists are loudly hailing the efforts of the Tractators, as directly tending to the re-establishment of their doctrines, as the doctrines of the Anglican Church. " We may depend," says Dr. Wiseman,1" upon a willing, an able, and a most zealous co-operation [i. e. on the part of the Tractators] with any effort which we may make towards bringing her [i. e. the Anglican Church] into her rightful position in catholic unity with the Holy See, and the Churches of its obedience—in other words, with'the Church Catholic." (p. 11.) And among other proofs of the truth of this, he remarks,—" It seems to me impossible to read the works of the Oxford divines, and especially to follow them chronologically, without discovering a daily approach towards our holy Church, both in doctrine and in affectionate feeling. Our saints, our popes, have become dear to them by little and little ; our rites and ceremonies, our offices, nay, our very rubrics, are precious in their eyes, far, as beyond what many of us consider them; our monastic institutions, our charitable add educational provisions, have become more arid more objects with them of earnest study; an deverything, in fine, that concerns our religion, deeply interests their attention. ..... Their admiration of our institutions and practices, and their regret at having lost them, manifestly spring from the value which they set upon everything Catholic ; and to suppose them (without an insincerity which they have given us no right to charge them with,) to love the parts of a system and wish for them, while they would reject the root and only secure support of them—the system itself—is to my mind revoltingly contradictory." (pp. 13, 14.) "Further proof of the view which I present, is this ; that general dissatisfaction at the system of the Anglican Church is clearly expressed in the works of these authors; it is not a blame cast on one article or another, it is not blemish found in one practice, or a Catholic want in a second, or a Protestant redundancy in a third: but there is an impatient sickness of the whale ; it is the weariness of a man who carries a burthen,—it is not of any individual stick of his faggot that he complains,—-it is the bundle which tires and worries him . . . the Protestant spirit of the Articles in the aggregate, and their insupportable uncatholicism in specific points, the loss of ordinances, sacraments, and liturgical rites; the extinction of the monastic and ascetic feeling and observances ; the decay of' awe, mystery, tenderness, reverence, devotedness, and other feelings which may be specially called Catholic'(Letter to Dr Jelf, p. 26.); the miserable feeling of solitariness and separation above described,—these are but a portion of the grievances whereof we meet complaints at every turn, the removal of which would involve so thorough a change in the essential condition of the Anglican Church, as these writers must feel would bring her within the sphere of attraction of all absorbing unity, and could not long withhold her from the embrace of its centre." (pp. 16, 17.)
footnote. i A letter on Catholic Unity, to the Earl of Shrewsbury, by Nicholas, Bishop of Melipotamus. , '
Still further proof is justly found in the statements of Mr. Warde, who deeply regrets our Church's "present corruption and degradation," hears with pain the words "pure and apostolical" applied to her ; thinks that " the mark of being Christ's kingdom" " is obscured and but faintly traced on the English. Church ;" and speaks of " those sisters in other lands from whom she has been so long and so fatally dissevered," and of her restoration to "active communion with the rest of Christendom ;" in terms, the meaning of which cannot be misunderstood, (pp. 18, 19.) As might be excepted, the endeavour to pervert our Articles to a Tridentine sense, is eagerly caught at, as smoothing the way to a full and complete return to Popery. " A still more promising circumstance," he says, " I think your lordship with me will consider, the plan which the eventful Tract No. 90 has pursued ; and in which Mr. Warde, Mr. Oakley, and even Dr. Pusey, have agreed. I allude to the method of bringing their doctrines into accordance with ours, by explanation. A foreign priest has pointed out to us a valuable document for our consideration,—' Bossuet's Reply to the Pope,'—when consulted on the best method of reconciling the followers of the Augsburg Confession with the Holy See. . The learned Bishop observes, that Providence had allowed so much Catholic truth to be preserved in that Confession, that full advantage should be taken of the circumstance : that no retractions should be demanded, but an explanation of the Confession in accordance with Catholic doctrines. Now, for such a method as this, the way is in part prepared by the demonstration that such interpretation may be given of the most difficult Articles, as will strip them of all contradiction to the decrees of the Tridentine Synod." (p. 38.) This instructive passage the reader will do well to ponder. Notwithstanding " the Protestant spirit of the Articles in the aggregate, and their insupportable uncatholicism'm specific points," the magic wand of an "explanation" will "strip them of all contradiction to the decrees of the Tridentine Synod itself, and the statements for which Rome has so often made thousands pay the penalty with their blood, are now found to be nothing more than what are easily reconcilable with the statements of Trent itself.
It may not be known to many that a very similar attempt to reconcile our Articles with the doctrines of the Romish Church was made two centuries ago by an English convert to Popery, named Christopher Davenport, but who is better known by his Romish name of Francis a Sancta Clara. The work is entitled "Deus, Natura, Gratia,"1 and was written for the purpose of explaining many of the most important of the Thirty-nine Articles, so as to make them conformable to the Tridentine statements: and he adds, at the end, a " paraphrastic exposition" of the rest of them, proceeding upon the same principles, wherein he maintains that they need only a befitting gloss to reconcile them all to good sound Popery. And for learning and ingenuity our modern Reconciler is not to be compared to him. But, in all the most important points, the similarity between the two is remarkable.
Thus, when it is said in Art. xi. that " we are justified by faith only," here, saith Mr. Newman, "faith, as being the beginning of perfect or justifying righteousness, is taken for what it tends towards, or ultimately will be. It is said, by anticipation, to be that which it promises; just as one might pay a la~ bourer his hire, before he begun his work," &c. &c. (No. 90, 2d ed. p. 13.) So Francis a Sancta Clara says that, "because faith is the foundation of our justification and spiritual life," therefwe justification, and the salvation of man is attributed to faith." Justification is often attributed to faith ; " because faith is the gate and foundation of it, and the whole spiritual structure."" " If you say that justification is acquired through faith, by means of an application or apprehension of the merits or righteousness of Christ, I think that it may bear a sound and Catholic sense; because, in good truth, we, through faith, . . by believing the promises of God in Christ, or the merits of Christ's sufferings, by praying, by loving, &c. at length obtain, through Christ, our righteousness. This is their doctrine and ours ; nor do they give more to faith than the Council of Trent, in the matter of justification, if they are cautiously explained ; namely, in the way just mentioned. But the point in dispute is, what faith we are to understand They themselves attribute it, not to that special kind of faith, but to the faith of Christ, as we do. For, in the Articles of the English Confession, no faith is specified, but points, &C."1 " And further, by the 'Romish doctrine,' is not meant the Tridentine statement . . . there are portions in the Tridentine statements on these subjects which the Article, far from condemning, by anticipation approves as far as they go."J And what he considers condemned, is" the received doctrine" among Romanists, or " the doctrine of the Roman schools;" but how determined, he does not tell us. So Francis a Sancta Clara says of this Article, " The words, as they stand, are doubtless very harsh. But it is to be observed that the force of this Article is not directed against invocation of saints simply, or in itself, as is evident, but the Romish doctrine of Invocation." And to see what was meant by " the Romish doctrine," he says, we must observe how it is described by Protestants ; and having (like Mr. Newman) extracted some honest representations of it from Protestant writers, he adds, that it is not to be wondered at that such a doctrine was condemned ; they themselves condemned it ; and he points to the Tridentine statements as showing this. " The conclusion," he says, " is, that the Anglican Confession has determined nothing against the truth of the faith ; it has only exploded the impious and heathen doctrine falsely imputed to the Church."3 " In the same way evidently, and by the same mode of speaking," he adds, "they reject, in the same Article, not Purgatory, Indulgences, the adoration of images and relics in themselves, but as before, the Romish doctrine on all these points ; that is, the doctrine falsely imputed to us ;"* proceeding to show that the Article did not condemn good sound Tridentine doctrine. " Here, therefore," he concludes, "there will be peace altogether with the Anglican Confession, if only all things are weighed as they deserve, without party spirit, and with only a regard to truth."5
footnote. i Dea«, Natura, Gratia. Sire Tractatua de Prsdeatinatione, de Meritia et pecratorum remiaaione, xea de Juetificatione et denique de Sanctorum Invocatione. Ubi ad trulinam fidei Catholics examinatur Conlesxio Anglicana, &c. Acceaait paraphraxiica Expoaitio reliquorum Articulorum Confeosionia Anglicc. 2a. ed. Lngd. 1634. 8to. >p. 192.
These, with similar explanations of other Articles, occur in the body of the work. In the " Paraphrastic Exposition of the other Articles," at the end, the same course is adopted. We will compare those on Art. xxviii. on Transubstantiation, and Art. xxxi. on Masses.
"What is here opposed as ' Transubstantiation,"' says Mr. Newman on Art. xxviii., "is the shocking doctrine that 'the body of Christ,' as the Article goes on to express it, is not 'given, taken, and eaten after an heavenly and spiritual manner, but is carnally pressed with the teeth ;' that it is a body or substance of a certain extension, &c. . . . whereas we hold that the only substance such is the bread which we see." (p. 47.) " In denying a * mutatio panis et vim','" it is not " denying every kind of change." (p. 51.) But it is "literally true" that "the consecrated writing the said book,"1 &c., the Archbishop tells us* that his reply was, that the author of this work, having come tp him to ask his license for printing it, and having communicated to him its substance, " I found the scope of his book to be such as that the Church of England would have little cause to thank him for it, and so absolutely denied it."
footnote. 'p. 33. «p. 24. 3pp. 349,50. «p. 381. » p. 353.
The object which the Tractators and the Romanists have in view in thus putting our Articles upon the rack to make them consistent with their views, is, from the foregoing extracts, sufficiently clear, namely, the more easy reduction of our Church, as a whole, to its former union with the Romish See, when the explanation, having served its purpose, would be, with the Articles themselves, indignantly thrown overboard, to make way for a truly " Catholic" exposition of the faith dictated at Rome. And then I suspect the poor remnant of the despised Protestants might sigh in vain for a " Catholic" confession sufficiently indulgent to include an uncatholic" meaning, thankful as they would be to be indulged only with life. And if perchance the new light of another age should enable some gifted Protestant to show how easily Pope Pius's creed might be understood in a good Protestant sense, let us hope that Rome also would see in a new light her duty to her neighbour.
May God in his infinite mercy avert from us the evils which threaten us.
It would be difficult to overrate the responsibility resting at the present time upon the heads of our Church. There are those within the Church who, so far from being affectionately attached to her doctrines and practices, think that the very "mark of being Christ's kingdom" is "but faintly traced on her," mourn over her Articles and services as framed by persons of a thoroughly uncatholic spirit, and framed "for the establishment" of a system which they believe to be even Antichristian, "the religion of corrupt human nature ;" and avow themselves " ecclesiastical agitators," purposing to avail themselves of every means of overturning that system, and " unprotestantizing" the Church. There are others who, having adopted, with all the ardour of youth and inexperience, the same views, are seeking to enter our Church, that they may add their efforts to the accomplishment of the same end. All the oaths, declarations, and subscriptions required by the Protestant restorers of our Church as safeguards against the re-introduction of those
footnote. 1 Canterbury'* Daora, or Prynne'e Account of Trial of Archbishop Laud, p. .31. as quoted in Wood's Ath. Oxon.
footnote. 1 See Archbishop Laud's History of his Troubles, p. 335.
writers, gathered from their works as a whole, altogether repudiate.
Is this fair and ingenuous ? Was there not a more candid course open to them ? Might they not have said, There is much in the Church of England that we love, much in the writings of her great divines that we approve; but in the Articles and services of the one, and in the writings of the other, there are also various things of which we disapprove, conceiving them to be opposed to antiquity. We will not quit her communion till we see what effect a statement of our views may have upon the minds of her members, though ultimately, if such changes are not made, we shall be compelled to do so. For such a course an apology might perhaps be found. It might not, indeed, have gained for them so many adherents, but it would have been far more likely to have produced a permanent effect than their present conduct. In the place of this they have chosen to wiredraw a Protestant confession of faith, so as to make it appear to support Anti-protestant views, to publish extracts from staunch Protestant writers, to convert them, in the eye of the public, into opponents of Protestant principles; in a word, to represent our Church as being what it is not, in order to effect more easily the change they desire to bring about in it from what it is.
Almost equally incorrect and fallacious are their references to the early Fathers, of whose writings one might suppose, from the language they have used, that their knowledge was most accurate and extensive. I must be permitted to say, that the blunder Mr. Newman has made in the interpretation of a common phrase in a passage of Athanasius, the meaning of that phrase being a turning point in the bearing of many passages with relation to the present controversy,1 shows a want of acquaintance with the phraseology of the Fathers, which ought to make us receive his citations with considerable caution. Nor can I at all account for various other erroneous representations and allegations of passages from the Fathers, to some of which I give a reference below, that the reader may at once see that there is ground for the remark,j) but upon the supposition that much has been taken on trust from other and even Romish writers. And if the heads of the party are not free from such errors, it is not surprising that there are others among them still more deeply
footnote. i See vol. i. pp. 67—69.
footnote. j See vol. i. pp. 61—69 ; also the remarks of Mr. Keble respecting the Council of Nice, compared with the statements of those from whom he has himself quoted, noticed vol. ii. pp. 246 et seq.; also the citations from Chrysostom, prefixed to Tract 34, in a sense which no one reading the context could for a moment dream of, noticed vol. ii. p. 334.
involved in them. Since public attention has been more directed to antiquity, we have been inundated with papers, and letters, and remarks, especially in the periodical publications, laying down this or that doctrine with all the calm dignity of an oracular response, as what everybody always everywhere in the primitive Church from the beginning proclaimed and maintained with one consent, and showing nothing more than that their authors need to go to school on the subject on which they would fain be teachers of others. One might suppose, from the tone of some of these writers, that all that has been done or said in all past ages of the Church was to be ascertained without the smallest difficulty or uncertainty, and could even be gathered second-hand from the notices of a few modern divines. For my own part, I freely confess to being in no small degree sceptical as to the possibility of any man knowing what " everybody always everywhere" in the primitive Church thought on any point; even from a careful perusal of the records of antiquity themselves that remain to us. Indeed, though 1 can quite conceive a monk in his cell getting together the works of some few dozen authors of great name, and fancying himself able hence to vouch for the sentiments of "everybody always everywhere," I feel a difficulty in understanding how men of judgment and experience can allow themselves to be so deluded. But still less are such representations to be taken from those who have not even made themselves acquainted with those sources of information that are open to us. It would be amusing, were it a less important subject, to see the way in which, under the much-abused name of "Catholic," mistakes and corruptions are recommended to public attention, almost as if our salvation depended upon them. Statements, indeed, more uncatholic than some that the Tractators themselves have made,—as for instance that of Dr. Pusey, that "to the decisions of the Church Universal we owe faith,"1—were never uttered. We appeal for proof to the writings of the early Church.
For myself I make no pretensions to any superior knowledge of antiquity, nor desire to set up my own judgment of its verdict as a standard for others to go by, but only to place before the reader the testimonies upon which his conclusions should be formed. And though it is almost impossible to suppose that where so many references occur there should not be some errors, I trust that the impartial reader will find that no labour has been spared to avoid them, and that the representation given of the sentiments of the Fathers is a fair, and, upon the whole, a correct one.
footnote. 1 Letter to Bishop of Oxford, p. 53.
The success of the Tractators has been to many a subject of surprise, and among others, as it sterns, to themselves.1 For my own part, when I reflect upon the temporary success that has often attended heresies and delusions of the most extravagant nature, I cannot participate in such feelings. For the partial and temporary success that they have met with in the inculcation of their doctrines there are, I think, beyond the fact of novelty, several reasons, and I trust and believe many also that may be assigned, for the hope that, under the Divine blessing, that success may be but partial and temporary. Such trials from internal and external foes are the Church's predicted portion in this world, and the purer any Church is, the more may she expect that her great enemy will thus afflict her. If, however, she be upon the whole found faithful to her God, such trials will assuredly be overruled for her good ; and there is perhaps nothing more inimical to her real welfare than a state of long and uninterrupted calm and prosperity.
One principal cause, then, of the temporary success of the movement made by the Tractators, has evidently been, that it fell in with the current of men's feelings in the Church at the time. At the period when they commenced their labours, the Church was beset with dangers. The various sects that have separated themselves from her communion had (with one honourable exception) risen up against her with all the bitterness and jealousy of a sordid spirit of worldly rivalry, and had avowed that nothing would satisfy them but her complete overthrow as the National Church, and the extinction of all her peculiar privileges. A Ministry which, if not directly hostile, was made so by its dependence upon the enemies of the Church, a hostile House of Commons, a country kept in agitation for party purposes, and from various causes excited against all its constituted authorities and ancient institutions, combined to menace her welfare. Such events had made all her friends anxious for her safety. That which might perhaps have been a permissable relaxation of principle in the conduct of her members towards the dissenters became so no longer, when it was clearly seen that the leading object of those dissenters as a body was to deprive the Church of all her peculiar privileges and opportunities for the promotion of Christianity throughout the land. Co-operation with bodies influenced by such views was no longer an act of Christian charity, but a direct breach of Christian duty. The ship was in a storm. Her existence was at stake. Everything conspired to show the importance, the necessity, of union, order, regularity, subordination, obedience to constituted authorities. In a word, the dangers
footnote. ' Brit. CriU for July, 1841, p. 28.
that beset the Church, and the conduct and nature of the foes that assailed her, combined to lead all those who knew anything of Church principles, and had any regard for the Church, to serious reflection. There was in consequence a healthy reaction in favour of those principles. At this time, and under these circumstances, the Tractators commenced their labours. A more favourable moment could hardly have been found. Events had so completely prepared the way for them, that in the minds of many there was a strong'predisposition in their favour. Their professions were those of warm friends of our Protestant Church. All that they blamed was "ultra-Protestantism." They claimed the support of all our great divines without exception. Antiquity was, beyond contradiction, wholly with them. Their language was cautious and plausible, and full of that self-confidence that is so influential with the popular mind. Is it surprising, then, that they should have pleased many ears, and gained many hearts, and that while they fell in with the current of feeling created by events, they should have succeeded in giving it an additional impetus in its own direction, tending to carry it to an unsalutary extreme? So far, alas! they have indeed succeeded, and thus in many cases have converted a healthy reaction into one which threatens to carry away its victims, and has indeed carried away several, into the bosom of Rome itself. ,
The circumstances of the times had evidently much influence upon the Tractators themselves in leading them to embrace the views they have taken up.* They saw that the influence of the Church over the public mind was not such as it had been in former times, and might reasonably be expected to be. And, apparently, the great problem which they thought they had to solve was, how that influence might be restored. They have not unnaturally (whether wisely or not is another question) found the hope of regaining it in the assertion of those Church principles which form the foundation of Popery. The abuses caused by the liberty of conscience and free use of private judgment, conceded by Protestants, are to be cured by a re-establishment of the iron grasp with which popery holds its votaries in subjection. And I must add, that their works bear such constant and manifest traces of their having been imposed upon and misled by Romish writers, that one cannot but fear that they have suffered themselves to be prejudiced in favour of that system of doctrine to which the circumstances of the times had given them a favourable bias, before they had well studied the subject in a way which alone could have entitled them to assume the
footnote. i See Newman's Led. p. 14. Keble'a Scrm. pp 6—7.
office of reformers and correctors of the Church. I am much mistaken if their "Catenas" do not show either an unfairness, which I should be indeed pained at being obliged to charge them with, or a great want of acquaintance even with the works of our own great divines. And hence, instead of keeping within the bounds of that sound moderation that has always characterized the Church of England, they have, while rejecting some of the most offensive practices in the Romish church, adopted almost all the doctrines and principles which have hitherto distinguished us as a body from that corrupt Church, and seem gradually progressing to the reception of the whole system ; witness the remarks that have been more than once published by them in favour even of the fopperies of monkery itself. We have Dr. Hook's authority for saying that the extreme of high Church principles is Popery. We beg the reader to ask himself whether those principles can well be carried further than they are stretched in the works of the Tractators.
And it must be added, (and this is another reason for their success,) that in the inculcation of their views they came upon those who were generally, and, as a body, unprepared by previous study for an impartial and judicious view of the subject. The low state of ecclesiastical learning among us for many past years is a truth so generally acknowledged and lamented, that it would be a waste of words to offer either an apology or a proof for the assertion. The consequences of such a want of information could not fail to be seen under such circumstances. The slightest appearance of learning carried with it a weight which, in other times, would hardly have been conceded to that which had tenfold claims to it. And under the abused name of "catholic," by the aid of Romish sophisms, and partial and inaccurate citations from the Fathers, the corrupt doctrines and practices of which our truly learned Reformers were, by God's blessing, enabled to purge the Church, are urged upon us as veritable parts of that Divine revelation delivered to the world by the Apostles. And herein, be it observed, the Tractators are at issue with those whose learning it would be idle to dispute, not merely as to the foundation upon which their system rests, the authority of patristical tradition, but as to the fact whether that tradition, whatever its authority may be, is in their favour. Our reformers contended that the name catholic, and the support of the great body of the Fathers, belonged to that system of doctrine and practice which, from its opposition to the corruptions of Romanism, was called Protestantism. And as to any of the attempts hitherto made by the Traciators or their adherents to pluck the laurels from the brows of the Reformers, and to show the inaccuracy of their allegations from the Fathers, such as that of the British Critic in the case of Jewel it reminds one but of the puny efforts of a dwarf to espy holes in the armour of a giant.
We may add also, as a still further reason for their success, that their doctrines are such as will always, as long as human nature remains what it is, attract many to them ; of the clergy, from the power they give them over the minds of men ; of the laity, from their greater suitability to the notions and feelings of the natural mind. To the clergy particularly such views will always be attractive. The system of the Tractators is a far more easy and simple one to work ; likely also to produce more extended and visible results. Only bring men to acknowledge the authority thus claimed for the Church and the Clergy, and their instrumentality in the work of human salvation, and you wield a power over the minds both of the religious and the superstitious almost irresistible. But address a man merely as a witness for the truth, acknowledging your fallibility, and appealing to his judgment, " I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say," and your personal influence over him is not to be compared with that which exists in the former case. The truth is left to work its way by its own intrinsic power, and faith is, as it ought to be, the result of a conviction of the heart. But the cases where such conviction is wrought will be much fewer than those in which a nominal adherence to the truth will be professed under the former system of teaching. And even were it not so, the personal influence of the clergy over their respective flocks in the two cases will not bear a comparison ; in the one case, the voice of the pastor is almost like the voice of God himself, for an inspired messenger could hardly demand greater deference ; in the other, the pastor himself merges his own claims in that of the message, and sends his hearers to search for themselves in the book of God, whether the things that he preaches unto them are so. It cannot be a question, then, which system is naturally the most attractive to the clergy. Nay, a zealous, earnest minister of Christ, who desires nothing more than to promote the best interests of mankind, may be so attracted by the influence given by the former, purposing to use that influence only for the good of his fellowcreatures, as to have at ouce a secret prejudice in its favour, which blinds his eyes to the baselessness of the claims upon which it rests.
All these causes have operated in favour of the Tractators.
But there are at the same time not a few reasons also for hoping that, in the mercy of God, their success may be but partial and temporary.
There are encouraging symptoms of a prevalent desire among us to search into the matter, especially since the recent publications of the Tractators have shown more fully their real views and aims. Now it is impossible for this desire to be carried into effect without their being detected in such inconsistencies, misrepresentations, and mistakes as will infallibly alter their position very materially in the eyes of many who may have been originally inclined to favour them. To some of these I have already alluded, and it would be easy to add to the list. While I am writing, my eye lights upon one in a late number of the British Critic (a number, by the way, which, for its flippant impertinences and gross personalities upon men who had the highest claims to at least respectful treatment, is unparalleled in such a work), made with all the coolness and confidence of one who is uttering an incontrovertible truth. For the sake of disparaging the Reformation, it is said, "Nothing is more remarkable in the theology of the Reforming age (to speak generally) than the deficiency of all writings of a devotional, or even a practical cast." (Brit. Crit. for July 1841, p. 3.) Now the writer of this is either profoundly ignorant of the ecclesiastical literature of that period, or he has misrepresented it tor the sake of his party, and in either case is deserving of no little censure for thus misleading his readers, of whom few probably (speaking comparatively) would have the means of judging of the truth of his remark. Considering the character of the period, and the comparatively limited number of original works then published to what there are now, it is surprising how many practical works issued from the pens of our reformers and early divines, engaged as they were in the struggle with Popery. These things give reason to hope that such writers will ultimately find their level. Men do not like to be deceived, especially by those who put forth high claims to wisdom and learning. Their " quiet, self-complacent, supercilious language," as an able writer in the British Magazine has justly called it,1 will be doubly offensive when found to be wanting in that which alone could afford the shadow of an apology for it . Their misrepresentation*, in particular, of the sentiments of our great divines, by a few loose and indefinite extracts from their writings, though for a time they have (as might be expected) deceived many, can ultimately only recoil upon themselves. The disingenuousness also with which Articles of religion, drawn up by Protestant divines, "for the establishment," as is confessed, "of Protestantism," are tortured to an Antiprotestant sense, in order to enable Antiprotestants to retain their places in our Church, is so utterly irreconcilable with those common
footnote. 1 Brit. Mag. for May, 1839, p. 618.
principles that hold society together, that it cannot fail ultimately, as indeed it has done already, to estrange the minds of simple and upright Christian men from such teaching. Indeed it is impossible not to see that it is a mere temporary expedient, which cannot long satisfy even those who have availed themselves of it, a hastily constructed refuge within the walls of our Church for those who are seeking to gain possession of the citadel, and who suppose that they have better opportunities to do so within the walls than without, but whose avowed objects make it clear that the present state of things cannot last, that one party or the other must give way. And when this becomes clearly appreciated by the Church at large, may we not justly hope that many who have been attracted to their standard while they were holding out, according to their own confession, " false colours," will, when they come to see the real state of the case, look upon them only as betrayers, and that their very best defences, their " Catenas," and high pretensions to learning and wisdom, antiquity and Catholicism, will only be sources of moral weakness to their cause, and tend more than anything else to its overthrow.
That such a controversy should have arisen in our Church is deeply to be regretted. The agitation of such questions necessarily produces disunion and party spirit, the great causes of weakness, disorder, and ruin to any community that is afflicted by them. The powers of the Church are thus paralyzed, her energies spent in useless, and worse than useless contentions ; her friends are discouraged and perplexed, her enemies triumph ; her God is displeased, and her strength departs from her. How great the responsibility of those who have raised such a strife within her, and made it a duty incumbent upon those who have any regard for her preservation, to arm themselves against their brethren for the defence of her very foundations ! But when matters of such moment are at stake, when the question is, whether the true Catholicism of our reformers is to give place to a system of doctrine and practice altogether unsound, and the corruptions from which our faith and worship have through the mercy of God been purged, are to be reintroduced into our Church, it would be culpable indeed to remain a neutral, a silent, or an indifferent spectator. It becomes the duty of all to do what may be in their power to prevent such a result. The zeal, and earnestness, and perseverance with which Popish views and principles are urged upon the public mind, under the abused name of Catholicism, must be met with correspondent efforts to unmask their unsoundness and dangerous tendency. In a word, if the cause for which our martyrs laid down their lives was one worthy of their blood, it is the duty of those who have succeeded to the possession of privileges so dearly purchased, to contend with similar devotedness for their preservation and transmission unimpared to their children. And we may humbly hope that He who out of evil produceth good, may grant that even this controversy may not be without its good effects. The real principles of our Church will be better known and appreciated, even among its own members and ministers. The foundation upon which it stands will, we are convinced, bear examination, and therefore, if God's blessing rest upon it, we fear not for the result.
I am aware that it may be said, and with truth, that in the present day the majority need no arguments to induce them to slight human authority, and are scarcely willing to pay deference to any other guide than their own self-will. This I fully admit, and believe that judicious works, calculated to show the danger of such a disposition of mind, might, under the Divine blessing, be of essential service to the community, both as it respects their spiritual and temporal interests. But I see no reason hence to suppose that unfounded claims to their obedience would counteract the evil. Such doctrines as those of our opponents appear to me calculated to do anything rather than become a cure. I deny not, indeed, that to many minds they are likely to appear plausible, and calculated to act as a remedy for the evils which internal dissensions have produced in the Protestant body. The liberty obtained by ihe Reformation has no doubt been in some cases abused. And the panacea for the evils so caused may appear to many to be the re-establishment of the iron tyranny under which the minds of men were held previous to that event. I believe this to be a growing impression in the minds of many both in this country and elsewhere, and Rome is largely availing herself of it. But whatever may be in store for this or other countries as a temporary dispensation, as a punishment for their sins, we trust that the substitution of a system in which "the Church" and "the priest" are thrust almost into the place of God and Christ, for the everlasting gospel, will be permitted to have but a very precarious and temporary hold upon the minds of men. Of this at least we are assured, that it is the duty of all who are interested in the real welfare of mankind to lay open the anti-christian nature and tendencies of such a system. Glad therefore as we should have been in being engaged in urging the just claims of antiquity and our Church to the deferential respect of mankind, and pointing but the evils and the guilt connected with that wild and lawless spirit of independence of constituted authorities now so prevalent, and painful as it is to have to point out the blemishes rather than the excellencies of the Church, can hardly, I suppose, be needed. It was impossible to see the deadly leaven of Popery insinuating itself into ihe very vitals of our Church, and that too under the venerable names of those whose lives were spent in purging it out of her, or preserving her from re-infection, without feeling that any warning (from .whatever quarter it might proceed) could not be mistimed ; that any effort, however it might, fall short of doing full justice to the subject, could not. be misplaced. I trust I shall not be misunderstood by the amiable authors of the works upon which I have here ventured to animadvert, when I say that it appeared to me to be—certainly it is equivalent in its effects to—treason in the camp. They have surrendered to Rome the principles upon which that vast system of religious fraud and imposition is built, and while they give themselves out to be the opponents, nay the best opponents, of Romanism, though limiting their opposition to a few of her most crying sins and practical abuses, they are in fact paving the way for her by upholding those first principles of Popery, upon which her dominion over the minds of men principally rests.
In the prosecution of the work, I have spared neither time nor labour in endeavouring to place before the reader the facts and arguments upon which his conclusions ought to rest, and further, to put him in possession of the views of the best and most able and pious writers upon the subject, both of the primitive Church and of ourown. That more might have been done in this respect I freely own. But it was not composed in the calm quietude of the College, with every literary aid at hand, but (I may say it emphatically) amidst the cares and trials of active life. For the proper execution moreover of such a work many things are required ; facilities of which the great body of the parochial clergy are destitute. Those who know what opportunities such have of supplying themselves with the original sources of information, will understand the difficulties to be encountered in the performance of such a task. I tru6t, however, that the work will be found, upon the whole, to contain a fair and correct representation of the facts upon which the question rests, and of the sentiments of those referred to ; and that if there are some slighter inaccuracies, they are such as will not be found to affect the main argument of the work,—a circumstance which those who are in search of truth will appreciate, when drawing their conclusions upon the points at issue.
And here I would, once for all, acknowledge my obligations to those who have laboured in the same field before me, for many references to the Fathers, of which I have freely availed myself, when I have found them, on viewing them in their context, to afford good proof of that for which they are cited. The authorities our earlier divines have adduced in their works against the Romanists have no doubt enabled me to push my researches much beyond what my own unassisted labours would have enabled me to do. I may be permitted to say, however, that I have endeavoured to explore the ground again with more attention to the original sources of information than has usually been paid to them here of late years, and trust that by so doing I have been enabled to add somewhat to what has been done by previous labourers in the same field.
Of the replies already published to the writings of the Tractators, I have abstained almost wholly from the perusal; the principal of them, indeed, I have not seen; any similarity, therefore, of views or statements is wholly accidental.
I appear before the public as the advocate of no particular party or system, but that of the Church of England itself. As far as human infirmity (to the effects of which no man ought to shut his eyes) may permit the remark to be made, truth has been my only object, and I have followed where it appeared to lead me. And but for the establishment of great and important truths, I trust I shall never be found upon the field of controversy. It is one which nothing but a sense of duty should ever induce me to enter.
In conclusion, I would express my sincere hope that there is nothing in the tone, or spirit, or language of the following work, of which my opponents can justly complain. If there is, I most sincerely regret it. On such important points as are there discussed, one cannot but feel warmly, and he who feels warmly is apt to express himself warmly. I must beg pardon, however, for saying, that there are some circumstances in the present controversy which appear to me to justify, and indeed to require, strong language. There are many points in the system itself of our opponents, which it is impossible too strongly to denounce and reprobate. The means also by which that system has been enforced and recommended, are such as to require grave reprehension. Our opponents appear to me like men who, thinking that a great change is needed in the views and practices of their Church, endeavour, by explaining away its formularies, and bringing forward a few isolated passages from the works of some of its great divines, to persuade people that it is no change at all ; for while they admit and bewail the fact, that their system has been nowhere and at no time put in practice in our Church, they persist in calling it the Anglican system. They must not then be surprised if this (however well intentioned) is not considered plain and fair dealing. Nor can I help adding, that the anonymous publications of the party more particularly are, many of them, characterized by a self-complacent spirit, and scornful tone towards their opponents, such as intimate, more plainly than words could do, that the only possible reason for men not holding the views of the Tractators must be sheer ignorance ; a spirit and tone which, I will venture to say, the degree of learning and research shown in those productions renders worse than ridiculous. These are circumstances that would well justify strong language. We are far from disputing the piety or the learning of the Tractators, but (let us not conceal from ourselves the fact) neither can we dispute the piety or learning of many others who have at various times misled portions of the Church. Such recommendations, then, are wholly insufficient as proofs of the truth of their doctrines. These evidences are to be found with many different parties. The question, therefore, must be determined by an impartial investigation, in which all prejudices derived from such sources must be laid aside. To enable the reader to conduct such an inquiry, is the object of the following work ; and thankful indeed shall I be, if it shall tend to bring back into the old paths of our Church any who have been misled, or preserve any who are in danger of being misled, by the specious arguments and plausible statements of the Tractators. I commend it humbly to His blessing who alone can make it instrumental to the good of His Church.
WILLIAM GOODE.
MEMO BY CATHY MICKELS: 
