William Goode's "The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice," Chap.4.1

William Goode's "The Divine Rule Of Faith And Practice" in three volumes, produced between 1842-1853. Chapter Four: THAT THERE ARE NO WRITINGS EXTANT ENTITLED TO THE NAME OF APOSTOLICAL TRADITIONS BUT THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES, pp.106-136.

Goode is--point by point-- building his case that the Tractators or Newmanians view tradition in the same way as Trent. This will go to the heart of "authority" for doctrine, worship and piety.

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 work stands alongside the benchmarks of Chemnitz and Gerhard in the Lutheran faith; also William Whitaker and John Jewel in the Anglican tradition; also, Louis Gaussen and B.B. Warfield in the Reformed tradition.

It has, as a corrollary, an immediate "application" to the phenomenon of those with "open canons" and their modern claims to apostolicity and co-ordinate claims to authority with the Scripture.

Additional help may be had:
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-sola-scriptura-in-bible.html
Archbishop Whitgift on the necessity of the Bible and use of the Reformed Confessions
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2009/07/english-reformer-archbishop-john.html
Ambrose notes that Bible reading quells passions at: http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/02/ambrose-339-97-necessity-of-scripture.html
Hilary of Poitiers on the necessity, sufficiency and perspicuity of Scriptures
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/02/hilary-of-poitiers-315-367-perspicuity.html

Goode's 3 volumes were the salvoes the Tractarians and Anglo-Catholics never answered. This fact too was noted by Tractarians themselves, as well as many Reformed Churchmen in the Church of England. Again, a little known fact.

Semper Fidelis.

Volume One is free and downloadable at:

http://www.archive.org/stream/divinerulefaith01goodgoog/divinerulefaith01goodgoog_djvu.txt

-----------------------------
CHAPTER IV.

THAT THERE ARE NO WRITINGS EXTANT ENTITLED TO THE NAME OF APOSTOLICAL TRADITIONS BUT THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES.

In entering upon the inquiry whether there remain to us any apostolical traditions besides the Scriptures of the apostles in the New Testament the first point which we have to ascertain is whether there are any writings extant of which the apostles may be considered as the authors besides those in the New
Testament.

That there are writings claiming to be so considered is well known. Such for instance are various apocryphal gospels and epistles, the apostolical canons, the apostolical constitutions, and various liturgies called by the names of the apostles. With respect to all these, however, it is so generally agreed that they cannot be considered the genuine productions of the apostles, that it is unnecessary to notice them any farther in this place. It is quite possible, indeed, that in these canons, constitutions,
and liturgies, there may be remains of apostolical teaching, though probably to a very small extent ; and negatively they may be made of considerable use in manifesting the corruptions that have been introduced into the Church since the primitive times. But there is no need now of arguments to prove that in their present form they are not the productions of the apostles, nor the genuine representations of apostolical teaching. And who is to separate what is apostolical from that which proceeded
from another source?

But besides these there is one relic of antiquity which has been contended for by some as a genuine relic of the apostles and for which Mr. Newman evidently claims an apostolical origin and authority — namely, what is commonly called the Apostles Creed. Mr. Newman calls it ''the formal symbol which the apostles adopted and bequeathed to the Church, (p. 270 ;) '' a collection of definite articles set apart from the first"' (p. 296;) and says that it ''is of the nature of a " written document" and has an evidence of its apostolical " origin the same in kind with that for the Scriptures.'' (p. 297.) And upon such grounds he would make it part of the authoritative rule of faith.

Now however great may be the value to be attached to this venerable relic of the primitive Church such claims as are here made in its behalf are utterly without foundation. Indeed to hear such a claim advanced for it in the present day is not a little remarkable. To say with Mosheim "All who have the
least knowledge of antiquity look upon this opinion as entirely false, and destitute of a foundation would perhaps seem inconsistent with the remarks which have dropped from the pen of one or two learned men on the subject ; but certainly I will venture to say, that Mr. Newman will find an overwhelming
majority of the learned divines of the last three centuries who have examined the subject, altogether against him.

As this matter is of some moment, I will enter somewhat fully into it, and in proof of the statement just made will endeavour to establish the following positions : —

1. That no precise form of words was left by the apostles.

footnote. Of coarse I am not here denying their value as important and interesting relics of the early Church. And the various copies of (so called) Apostolical Constitutions and Liturgies that have been discovered in modem times, particularly within the last few years, in different Oriental languages have afforded the opportunity of critical revision to an extent that much increases their value. But to authority as apostolical remains they have no daim; and that consequently from the first when the different Churches and early writers wished to give a brief summary of the Christian faith they did so in different words.

2. That there was no such definite summary of the chief articles of belief given by the apostles to the Christian Church as the Creed, the baptismal Creed being originally merely a declaration of belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and afterwards amplified by the different Churches and bishops
as each thought it desirable; and that what is called "the Apostles' Creed'' is merely the antient Creed of the Church of Rome, and no more entitled to the name than any other of the ancient Creeds.

3. That what is called "the Apostles' Creed" gradually attained its present form, and that two at least of the articles it now contains were not inserted in it before the fourth century.

4. That the Creeds of the primitive Church were derived originally from the Holy Scriptures.

And therefore,

5. That none of the antient Creeds can be considered as an apostolical production.

I. That no precise form of words was left by the apostles as the Christian Creed; and that consequently, from the first, when the different churches and early writers wished to give a brief summary of the Christian faith, they did so in different words.

On this point we naturally refer, first, to the canonical Scriptures of the apostles and disciples of our Lord. And considering the nature of those writings, we might not unreasonably expect to find some notice of such a formula having been published by them, if so it had been. But for such a notice we shall search in vain. Mr. Newman, indeed, without any hesitation, but also without any proof, maintains the contrary, and, silently assuming the correctness of his own private interpretation of one or two passages that seem to him to favour his views, boldly speaks of St. Paul quoting the Creed, and even tells us the name he gives to it. For, after observing that history informs us that the Creed was drawn up in the apostles' days he adds "Indeed St. Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians so speaks of it when quoting part of it, viz. as that which had been committed to him and which he had committed in turn to his converts. (1 Cor. xv. 3.)"' (p. 261.) "To guard and to transmit it, [i. e. the Creed,] not to remodel it, is her sole duty, as St. Paul has determined in his second epistle to Timothy (p. 267.)" It is delineated and recognised in Scripture itself, where it is called the Hypotyposis, or an "outline of sound words.'' (p. 297.) These cool assumptions are certainly very convenient, because they cut all knots at once, and by many readers are doubtless much preferred to the cautious and guarded statements of one who has well weighed his positions, and speaks only according to the evidence he possesses, but nevertheless must not be allowed to usurp the place of proof by one who wishes to know the truth. On what authority has Mr. Newman made these confident assertions of St. Paul quoting " the Creed?"There
is not a word about " the Creed" in either of the passages here referred to, nor, as it appears to me, would the expressions lead to Mr. Newman's view of their meaning, even if we knew from independent sources that a Creed had been at that time drawn up. In the first passage the apostle says, " I delivered unto you "first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for "our sins according to the Scriptures," &c. (1 Cor. xv. 8.) Now compare this passage with one just preceding it, in the
eleventh chapter, "For I have received of the Lord that which" also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night " in which he was betrayed took bread," &c. (xi. 28.) The expressions are all but identical, and surely, therefore, the obvious mode of interpreting the passage in the 15th is by that in the 11th chapter, where there is evidently no quotation from the Creed, And if anything further is wanting to show that the apostle did not " receive" his faith from "the Creed," we have it in his own words in his epistle to the Galatians, where he says, " The gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.'' (Gal. i. 11, 12.) So much then for this "quotation from the Creed." The next passage is an exhortation to Timothy, "Hold fast the form (or outline) of sound words which thou hast heard of me"' &c. (2 Tim. i. 13.) Now the construction of these words in the original completely overthrows Mr. Newman's interpre-
tation. For the apostle does not say that Timothy had ''heard from him'' ''an outline of sound words" but that he had heard from him sound words of which he was to hold fast the outline, that is the great characteristic features. The English reader will observe that the word ''which" refers to the "sound
words so that the meaning of the passage would be more accurately conveyed to the English reader by the following translation : "Hold fast the form (or outline) of those sound words which thou hast heard of me." I admit that the passage has often been quoted in the sense which Mr. Newman has attributed to it and a remarkable instance it is among the many that might be mentioned of the way in which observations are handed down from one to another and repeated on the mere authority of their having once been made.

I repeat, then, we shall search Scripture in vain for any even the slightest intimation that the apostles drew up a Creed for the use of the Church. And it is hardly to be credited, that, had the apostles drawn up such a formula, we should have had no notice of it in the Acts of the Apostles.

Further ; if there was such a form of words, where is it? Which form, among all the various ones that have come down to us, is that of the apostles ? The form called by us "the Apostles' Creed" cannot be traced higher than the fourth century. And the forms given in the early writers vary much both from this and among themselves.

For instance the earliest extant is in Irenseus who having spoken of "'the unalterable rule of truth which he received by baptism" gives the faith preached by the Church thus, — "The Church, though scattered over all the world from one end of the earth to the other, received from the apostles and their disciples the " belief in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven, and the earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them ; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate for our salvation ; and in the Holy Spirit, who preached by the prophets the dispensations, and the advents, and the birth by a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Jesus Christ our Lord, and his advent from heaven in the glory of the Father to restore all things, and to raise all flesh of all mankind; that to Christ Jesus our Lord and God and Saviour and King, according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father, every knee should bow of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to him; and that he may execute just judgment upon all; that he may send the spirits of wickedness, and transgressing and apostate angels, and all impious and wicked and lawless and blasphemous men into everlasting fire ; and to the just and holy, and those that have kept his commandments, and remained stedfast in his love, some from the beginning, others after repentance, having given life, may confer on them immortality, and put them in possession of eternal glory."

The same writer, however, having occasion again to refer to the rule of faith, which he now calls, "the order, or rule, of that tradition which the apostles delivered to those to whom they committed the churches, gives it in the following words, — " Believing in one God, the maker of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them, through Christ Jesus the Son of God; who on account of his extraordinary love for his creature, submitted to be bom of a virgin, uniting man to God in his own person and having suffered under Pontius Pilate and rising again and being received in glory shall come in glory as the Saviour of those who are saved and the Judge of those who are condemned, sending the corrupters of the truth (transfiguratores veritatis) and the despisers of his Father and of his advent into eternal fire."

Passing from Irenseus to one who flourished shortly after him, viz. Tertullian, we have a '' Rule of faith" delivered to us in quite different terms. Tertullian himself, indeed, gives it us in three different forms of words.

In his book, "De prsescriptione hareticorum," he says, — " The rule of faith, — that we may now at once state what we believe, — is that by which we believe that there is but one God, and no other beside, the Maker of the world, who produced all things out of nothing by his Word which he sent forth first of all things. That that Word was called his Son, was seen at various times by the patriarchs under the name of Ood, was always heard by the prophets, and at last was brought down by the Spirit and power of God the Father into the Virgin Mary, and made flesh in her womb, and being born of her, lived in the person of Jesus Christ ; that from that time he preached a new law and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven ; that he performed miracles, was crucifled, rose again the third day, and being taken up into heaven, sat at the right hand of the Father, and in his stead sent the power of the Holy Spirit to guide believers; and that he shall come with glory to take the saints into the fruition of eternal life and the heavenly promises, and adjudge the wicked to everlasting fire, having restored to life both the one and the other, and raised their bodies. "This rule," he adds, " instituted by Christ, raises no disputes among us except such as heresies introduce, or such as make heretics."

Again, in his treatise "On virgins being veiled," he says,"The Rule of Faith is but one, alone unchangeable and unreformable, namely, of believing in one God Almighty, the Maker of the world, and his Son Jesus Christ, bom of the Virgin Mary crucified under Pontius Pilate raised the third day from the dead, received in the heavens, and now sitting at the right hand of the Father who shall come to judge the quick and the dead by the resurrection of the flesh."

He refers to it again in his treatise against Praxeas where he states it thus : — " We believe indeed one God, nevertheless under this mode of existence (dispensatione) which we call economy (oeconomiam), namely, that there is also a Son of that one God, to wit, his Word, who proceeded from him, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made; that he was sent by the Father into a virgin, and born of her man as well as God, the Son of man and the Son of God, and called Jesus Christ ; that he suffered and was dead and buried according to the Scriptures, and raised again by the Father, and taken back again into the heavens, and now sits at the right hand of the Father, about to come to judge the quick and the dead, from whence also he sent from the Father according to his promise the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, as the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and Son and Holy Spirit." And he adds, that "this rule had come down from the beginning of the Gospel.

The passages just quoted are, as far as I can find, (and as is generally understood,) the only passages in the writings extant of the first two centuries in which we have a formal and succinct delivery of the chief articles of the Christian belief, the next occurring in the writings of Origen who flourished towards
the middle of the next century.

It follows, therefore, I conceive, beyond question, that there was no form of words left by the Apostles as the Christian Creed; for had there been, that certainly would have been quoted in these passages. Had there been such a form left by the Apostles, there can be no doubt that it would have been religiously preserved by the Church, and recognised in such passages as those just quoted. But for the first three centuries and more there is not the slightest indication given us that the Apostles left such
a form. Each person who has occasion to give a summary of the chief articles of the faith gives it in different words, and if more than once, does not himself give always the same form.

The silence of the Nicene Council upon the matter is particularly observable, because then at least there would have been a recognition of such a form, had it existed. There were at that time no difficulties in the way to prevent its being openly brought forward, if there had been such a formula; for persecution had then ceased, and there could be no reason for concealing it, especially when the Council was about to promulge one intended for the same purposes as this is supposed to have answered. The rise of heresies might have rendered some addition desirable, but there would have been at least some respectful recognition of the formula left by the Apostles, had there been one. The silence of this council upon the subject appears to me conclusive against the idea.

Further, the early Fathers apply themselves to prove the Articles of the Creeds they give, from the writings of the Apostles, which obviously would have been altogether useless and absurd for one composed by the Apostles. Such a Creed would in fact have formed a portion of the Canonical Scriptures, and a portion of the highest authority, as sanctioned by the unanimous voice of the Apostles.

If it is replied, from a misunderstanding of the words of Jerome (quoted in the next page), that "the Creed" was not written, but delivered orally from one to another, I answer, that this is evidently a misinterpretation of his words, for "the Creed" had been before that time delivered without hesitation in writing by Rufinus, and so had been the Jerusalem form of it by Cyril, to say nothing of the forms given by Irenaeus and Tertullian ; and therefore the meaning of Jerome, when he says, that "the Creed is not written on paper or with ink, but on the fleshly tables of the heart," is, that true Christians, as a body, were to inscribe it on their hearts, and not on paper, which would be useless; and perhaps there may be also an allusion to the fact that " the Creed" was not to be written by the baptized, lest the catechumens might peruse it before they were prepared to receive the faith it contained, as we learn from Cyril. But such passages do not mean that " the Creed'' was not to be anywhere written for authors that make similar remarks have themselves left it in writing, as for instance Cyril of Jerusalem and Rufinus. It is not till the close of the fourth century that we meet with the report of its being composed by the Apostles. We do not even find the name "the Apostles' Creed"' (a name which
might have been given to it on many other grounds than from the Apostles having been considered its authors,) earlier than a letter of Ambrose, written about the year 389. The first assertion of its having been composed by the Apostles is found in Rufinus, who, in his Exposition of the Creed, written about the year 390, tells us that it was said to be written by them, though he himself, in a subsequent part of the same treatise, speaks in a manner that seems to show he at least felt doubts on the subject. Jerome also speaks of the Creed as having been delivered by the Apostles, and similar language is held respecting it by several writers in the fifth and sixth centuries, and those that follow, and hence for a time the notion gained credit that the Apostles were the authors of it. But the language of Jerome is
not decisive as to what his own view of the matter was for it may mean as Du Pin supposes it to mean merely that the Creed contained the apostolical faith. And his great contemporary Augustine not only has nowhere in his genuine works even given to it the name of "the Apostles' Creed" but has expressly
said as we shall show presently that it was compiled from the Scriptures.

The account of Rufinus is this, — "Our Fathers say, that after the ascension of our Lord .... the Apostles .... went each to different nations. Therefore, being ahout to separate from each other, they settle among themselves beforehand a " rule for their future preaching, lest perchance when apart from
one another, they should preach to those who were invited to the faith of Christ doctrines at all dissimilar. Therefore, being assembled all together and filled with the Holy Spirit, they composed that short summary of their future preaching, putting together what each one thought fit to supply, and resolve that this should be given to the faithful as a rule.''

And the Author of the Sermon numbered 115 of the "Semones De Tempore" of Augustine, kindly tells us what articles each apostle supplied, Thomas supplying the words, "he descended into hell," and Simon Zelotes, "the communion of saints;" which articles, as is well known, were not in the Creed till some two centuries at least after the death of all the Apostles.

A very pretty story, but coming rather too late in the day in the year 390, to make much impression, and withal not very complimentary to inspired men, that they should be so careful to confer with one another before they separated, lest they should preach different doctrines.

We assert further,

2. That there was no such definite summary of the chief articles of belief given by the Apostles to the Christian Church, as " the Creed ;" the baptismal Creed being originally merely a declaration of belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy

footnote. * Serm. 115 and 181 of his Sermones de Tempore are confessedly spurions, and
rejected by the Benedictines.

Ghost, and afterwards amplified by the different churches and bishops as each thought it desirable ; and that what is called "the Apostles Creed" is merely the ancient Creed of the Church of Rome, and no more entitled to the name than any other of the antient Creeds.

In the first place, as we observed on the former head Scripture is silent as to their having left any such summary.

That they required a confession of faith from candidates for baptism is doubtless true, but how far that confession extended we have at least no evidence in Scripture, and the only recorded confession is, I think, that of the Ethiopian eunuch, — "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,'' — which was
evidently accepted by Philip as a sufficient baptismal confession, and which might be said to include virtually a confession of the whole Trinity. (Acts viii. 37.) And a similar confession is spoken of on other occasions as involving virtually an avowal of the Christian faith. (See ch. xvi. 31.)

So much, then, is of course freely granted, that the Apostles required a confession of faith previous to baptism, which mighty and probably did, include several of the articles now in "the Apostles' Creed." But as to the extent of that confession, or that it had any definite limits, there is at least no evidence upon which we can depend. Ingenious as are the conjectures which have been offered, founded upon the catechetical instructions of the Apostles, that such and such articles must have formed part of the baptismal Creed, they are but conjectures, and grounded upon a mode of argument which would
prove too much ; for if, as has been argued the articles of the resurrection of the dead and life everlasting are to be admitted, because the Apostle mentions in one place the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment as doctrines belonging to the foundation,'' on the same ground we must conclude that the doctrine of baptisms and of laying on of hands" formed part of that Creed in the time of the Apostles.

Moreover, had there been such a fixed and definite summary there would not have been so great a variation in the Creed given by the early writers. Had there been a collection of certain definite articles made by the Apostles, and left with the Church on the understanding that those were the articles
which should form the Creed there would not have been this variation.

Nor can there be any doubt that we should have had some reference to this fact in the Fathers of the first three centuries, and the proceedings of the Nicene council. They would have told us, especially when delivering " the rule of faith" that the Apostles had left a rule of faith consisting of certain definite
articles; but instead of this, when giving the Rule of faith, they vary in the number of articles given, and uniformly leave out some of those given in our present Creed.

Nay, more, the sunmaries given by the same Father vary in extent, so as to show that the selection was made by the individual writer. And all that is stated merely amounts to this, that the summary so given was agreeable to the faith delivered by the Apostles, or in other words, that the faith delivered in it had come from the Apostles.

To the argument, that unless there had been such a summary there would not have been the similarity we find in these Creeds, it is quite a sufficient answer to refer to the parting direction of our Lord to his disciples, "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost," (Matt, xxviii. 1 9,) in which we find at once the rudiments of the earliest Creeds, and from which "the Creed" appears to have derived its origin.

Such is the view taken of this passage by the great Athanasius.

" Let us moreover," he says, " observe, that this was from the beginning the tradition and doctrine and faith of the catholic church, which the Lord gave, and the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. For upon this the Church was founded, and he who falls away from this could not be, nor be called, a Christian. Therefore, there is a holy and perfect Trinity, &c. . . [proceeding to deliver the doctrine
of the Trinity] . . . And that this faith is the faith of the Church, let them learn from this, that the Lord, when he sent forth his disciples, commanded them to lay this foundation for the Church, saying, "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost;"and the Apostles went and taught thus; and this is what is preached to every church under heaven. Therefore, since the Church has this as the foundation of its faith, let them again address us and answer, whether there is a Trinity or a Duality?

And so again; — "This is the faith of the catholic Church. For the Lord hath founded and rooted it upon the Trinity, saying to his disciples, "Go and teach all nations, baptizing " them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. ''

And again, speaking of the name Father as being more appropriate for the first Person of the Trinity than Uncreated, he says, " Moreover, when teaching us to pray, he [i. e. our Lord] did not say. But when ye pray, say, God, uncreated, " But when ye pray, say. Our Father who art in heaven ; and also he wished the summary of our faith to lead likewise to this [name], where having commanded that we should be baptized, it is not in the name of the Uncreated and the created, nor in the name of the Creator and the creature, but in the name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost."

Hence it is said in the "Catholic Letter'' attributed to Athanasius, " The symbol, therefore, of our faith is the Consubstantial Trinity."

Hence, therefore, Tertullian, after giving "the Creed,'' adds, (in a passage already quoted, p. 112 above,) that "this rule" was " instituted by Christ."

So Basil, after giving a summary of "the Creed," taken professedly rom Scripture, adds, "Thus we believe, and thus we baptize into the Consubstantial Trinity, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ, when he said, ' Go and " teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' "

So in the Creed of Lucian, (quoted p. 129 below), these words of our Lord are referred to as the foundation upon which the Creed was built.

Thus also Gregory of Nyssa says, "And afterwards he [i. e. our Lord] adds the words by which they [i.e. his disciples] " were about to take captive as in a net the whole earth, and " in which is contained the whole mystery of true religion ; for he says, 'Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." And so in another place he says, " We believe in accordance with that faith which our Lord set forth to the disciples, saying, ' Go and teach all nations/ &c.' This is the declaration of the mystery by which, through the birth from above, our nature is changed from that which is mortal to that which is immortal."

And thus speaks Augustine: " Who can be ignorant that it is not Christ's baptism, if the words of the Gospel, in which the Creed is contained, have been there wanting."

Thus also Hilary: "To believers the word of God, which was transfused into our ears by the testimony of the Evangelist united with the power of its own truth, was sufficient, when the Lord says, ' Go and teach all nations, baptizing them,' &c. [Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.] For what is there which concerns the mystery of the salvation of man, which is not contained in it? Or what is there which remains to be said, or is obscure ? All things are complete, as from one who is complete, and perfect, as from one who is perfect. . . . But we are compelled, through the sins of heretics and blasphemers, to handle points of which we have no permission to speak ; to climb the heights of Divine truth; to speak of ineffable mysteries ; to presume beyond what is revealed to us. . . . Their infidelity carries us into the region of doubt and danger, when it is necessary to put forward anything concerning things so great and recondite beyond the heavenly rule. The Lord had, said, that the nations were to be baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The form (or, rule) of faith is certain ; but as it regards the heretics, the whole meaning is ambiguous."

And lastly, thus speaks Theodoret : "'Go,' said he, 'and teach all nations, baptizing them, &c.' And, according to this law, both the divine apostles, and the teachers of the Church who followed them, teach those who come to them to believe in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; and baptize those who are thus taught, in the 'name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'"

The foundation of ''the Creed,'' therefore, was laid in these words delivered by our Lord himself. Each bishop or church, baptizing, according to our Saviour's command, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, required first and principally a brief confession of belief in the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, in the terms which they thought most suitable to the orthodox faith ; and this direction of our Lord was evidently considered by the early Fathers as intimating that the sum and substance of the Christian faith consisted in such a confession; and hence Christians are called by Tertullian, "those who believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

William Goode's "Divine Rule of Faith and Practice," (3.78-80): Tractarians like Trent

William Goode's "The Divine Rule Of Faith And Practice" in three volumes, produced between 1842-1853. Chapter Three: "View of the Tractators." pp. 78-80. Valuable comments here with respect to "Patristal and Ecclesiastical Tradition" and "Scriptures", the latter being the sole rule of faith and practice. It will be important to keep this distinction in mind as reading Goode.

Goode is building his case that the Tractators view tradition in the same way as Trent. This will go to the heart of "authority" for doctrine, worship and piety.

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.

We believe this work stands alongside the benchmarks of Chemnitz and Gerhard in the Lutheran faith; also William Whitaker and John Jewel in the Anglican tradition; also, Louis Gaussen and B.B. Warfield in the Reformed tradition.

Goode's 3 volumes were the salvoes the Tractarians and Anglo-Catholics never answered. This fact too was noted by Tractarians themselves, as well as many Reformed Churchmen in the Church of England. Again, a little known fact.

Semper Fidelis.

Volume One is free and downloadable at:

http://www.archive.org/stream/divinerulefaith01goodgoog/divinerulefaith01goodgoog_djvu.txt

-----------------------
CHAPTER III.

COMPARISON OP THE DOCTRINE MAINTAINED IN THE WORKS ABOVE MENTIONED ON THE SUBJECT OP PATRISTICAL TRADITION WITH THAT OP THE ROMISH CHURCH.

After the explicit declaration of Dr. Pusey quoted in the preceding chapter that our controversy with Rome on this subject is not a doctrinal but a “purely historical" controversy, i.e. relating only to the validity of some particular traditions, and also some intimations of a very similar kind from Mr. Newman,such as that “we agree with the Romanist in appealing to antiquity as our great teacher" (p. 47,) it may seem almost superfluous to attempt to prove the identity of the doctrine maintained by the writers whose views we have been considering, with that of the Romanists. As, however, in other places they speak as if there was some not inconsiderable difference between their views and those of the Romanists on the subject, and as such an impression is likely to be entertained almost involuntarily by their readers, from the fact of their being ministers of the Church of England, it is desirable to show that the doctrines of the two parties are precisely the
same.

The reader will bear in mind that I am not now speaking of the traditions received by either party, but of their doctrine on the subject of tradition.

The doctrine on this point advocated in the works under the reader will recollect that this chapter was written before Mr. Newman’s secession to the Church of Borne, and refers to the statements made by him as the princpal leader of the Tractarian party.

The consideration may be summed up as we have already observed, in the five propositions which we have given in the preceding chapter; (pp. 36, 37 ;) and these propositions represent precisely the doctrine of the Church of Rome in this matter, as I shall now proceed to show with respect to each of them seriatim.

I. That consentient patristical tradition, or “catholic consent,” is an unwritten word of God, a divine informant in religion, and consequently entitled, as to its substance, to equal respect with the Holy Scriptures.

"We assert,” says Bellarmine, "that the whole necessary doctrine either concerning faith or manners is not contained explicitly (expressly) in the Scriptures ; and that consequently "beyond the written word of God is required also the unwritten “word of God, that is, the divine and apostolical traditions. ”They [i.e. the Protestants] think, that if there were any apostolical traditions, they do not now exist, that is, that there cannot be any certain proof had of any apostolical tradition……We, on the contrary, assert, that there are not wanting certain ways and methods by which apostolical traditions may be manifested. ... If the authority of an apostle when giving an oral precept is not less than when giving a written one, there certainly is no temerity in considering anything unwritten equivalent to the written word.” [Which last observation is of course very true, and its truth is admitted by all, and therefore it answers no purpose except that of leading the reader to misapprehend the views of the Protestants; but I notice it to show how precisely the Tractators have echoed the statements of the Romanists on this subject.] (De Verb. Dei,lib. iv. c. 3.)

The Council of Trent says, — "The most holy synod seeing that the evangelical doctrine and polity are contained in the written books and those unwritten traditions which were received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or, emanating from the apostles themselves, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and delivered down from hand to hand, have descended to us, following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with a like feeling of piety and reverence all the books as well of the Old as of the New Tesament since one God is the author of both, as also traditions themselves, as well those relating to faith as those relating to manners, as either uttered by Christ or dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the catholic Church by an uninterrupted succession/' (Conc.. Trid. Sess. 4.) And the rules given by Bellarmine for ascertaining such traditions are delivered by him thus; — "The first rule is, When the whole Church embraces anything as an article of faith which is not found in the divine Scriptures, we must say, that that is derived from the tradition of the apostles…The second rule is. When the whole Church observes anything which none but God could ordain, which nevertheless is nowhere found written, it must be admitted that it was delivered (traditum) by Christ himself and his apostles. The third rule is...That which has been observed in the whole Church, and in all past times, is justly considered to have been instituted by the apostles, although it is of such a nature that it might have been ordained by the Church. The fourth rule is. When all the doctors of the Church declare with one consent that anything descends from apostolical tradition, either when assembled in a general council, or writing individually in their works, that is to be considered to be an apostolical tradition. . . . The fifth rule is. That is to be believed beyond doubt to descend from apostolical tradition which is considered to be such in those churches where there is an entire and uninterrupted succession from the apostles."

It is hardly necessary to say, that he adds the limitation, — We admit no tradition that is contrary to Scripture…we never defend traditions that are at variance with Scripture.”

The first four of these rules for ascertaining what is supposed to remain to us of oral apostolical tradition, are in effect the same as those of Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble. That the fourth accords with the views of our opponents will not be questioned. And so does the first practically. For when Bellarmine speaks of the universal Church holding this or that, he means not merely the present Churchy but the Church as including the Fathers; and both he and I believe I might say all the best writers of the Romish communion hold that the testimony of the Fathers in their writings is necessary for the establishment of anything as having proceeded from the oral teaching of the apostles. The examples given by Bellarmine on this rule show this, being the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord, and the number of the canonical books, for a proof of both which they would send us to the Fathers. And he says, "That is called unwritten doctrine, not such as is nowhere written, but that which is not written by its first author. As, for instance, the baptism of infants. That infants are to be baptized is called an unwritten apostolical tradition, because it is not found written in any apostolical book, although it is written in the books of almost all the ancient Fathers.” And again, “Those rites only we receive as apostolical which we can prove to be apostolical by firm testimonies of the ancients." And one of his notes of the true Church is, “agreement in doctrine with the primitive Church.”

William Goode's "The Divine Rule Of Faith And Practice" in three volumes, produced between 1842-1853. "The Preface to the Second Edition," pp. xxxi-xl

William Goode's "The Divine Rule Of Faith And Practice" in three volumes, produced between 1842-1853. "The Preface to the Second Edition," pp. xxxi-xli. We publish the second preface to the second edition, 12 years after the first edition, in search of updates by Goode on the development of Tractarianism. Tractarianism was emerging, but given their practice of "reserve" or "economy," that is, the self-conscious practice of "secrecy" that Newman found in second century Christianity (to avoid imperial persecutions), it was hard at first to connect the dots. Goode refers to the Tractarian duplicities in 1853. Other Reformed and Evangelical Anglicans have pointed this up as well, but little is now about the secretive and duplictous behaviours of the Tractarians.

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.

We believe this work stands alongside the benchmarks of Chemnitz and Gerhard in the Lutheran faith; also William Whitaker and John Jewel in the Anglican tradition; also, Louis Gaussen and B.B. Warfield in the Reformed tradition.

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. Anglo-Catholicism has no place in authentic Anglicanism. 3) Women's ordination and relativization of the text to religious pluralism. 4) The serious flirtations of contemporary evangelicalism with false and mysticist 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. I have seen this often...new joins falling for Anglo-Catholicism like "reformed drunks" with little background in the issue. I have one such sop in mind, but there are more. I have no use for it. Bob Duncan, ACNA, will not discipline these modern Tractarians. Nor will the double-dealing REC Bishops. 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://www.archive.org/stream/divinerulefaith01goodgoog/divinerulefaith01goodgoog_djvu.txt

---------------------------
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

Since the first edition of this work was published, the true nature and tendency of Tractarianism have been so fully proved, that it seems hardly necessary here to address any further warnings to the Reader on that point. But no one can view the present state of our Church without feeling, that, notwithstanding the Romish character of the movement, and the large secession it has caused from our ranks in the direction of Rome, it has produced an efifect upon our Church, the consequences of
which are likely to be at least of long duration and serious moment.

When the conflict commenced by the publication of the " Tracts for the Times," the almost total neglect of theological studies had left the great mass of the Clergy an easy prey to the most superficial writers on the subject of theology. Almost any representation of the doctrines of the Fathers, and even
of our own great divines of former times, might be made with comparative impunity, for few knew, or cared to know, what they were. The state of things among us was precisely such as enables a few earnest men of settled purpose and strong will, especially if not over scrupulous in the means used for the attainment of their end, to stamp upon the prevailing tone of the theology of a Church, almost any character they please. And largely have the Tractators availed themselves of the facilities afforded them by these and other circumstance, which a future historian may havei less difficulty than a contemporaneous one in specifying, to carry on their schemes for 'unprotestantizing " our Church.

I have already noticed, however, in the Preface to the first edition of this work, the various causes which conspired to aid the efforts of the Tractators at the commencement of their course, in the promotion of their designs; and among them, one, — adverted to in pp. xxiii, xxiv, — which I
acknowledge with thankfulness has long ceased to exist, I mean that spirit of hostility to the Church, which grew out of the peculiar political circumstances of the period. We have reason to be grateful to the good providence of God, that amidst all the drawbacks which the manifold practical abuses
and corruptions existing in our Church present to the confidence and affection of the people, the spirit of active hostility exhibited on the part of some, at the period alluded to, has either subsided
or become innocuous, and the alienation of mind existing in others has issued in the work, not of destruction, but of conservative reform.

Such a movement, however, as that made by the authors of the ' Tracts for the Times,'' and their adherents, involving great and important principles, if it once attains a hold upon the public mind, has a course to run, longer or shorter according to circumstances, which nothing can wholly prevent. It ought
not, therefore, to be a matter for surprise, that the effect produced by the writings and labors of the Tractarian party, however erroneous and opposed to the genuine doctrine of our Church, has been of a deep, extensive, and lasting kind. Rather ought we to be prepared to view it as but the commencement of a struggle, which will be long continued, for the re-establishment in our Church of those principles and practices which she repudiated at the Reformation.

It is impossible for one who reads with any degree of attention the history of our Church since that period, not to remark, how, at various subsequent times, retrograde principles have been at work, modifying the views put forth by all our great divines of the Reformation era, gradually altering the current tone of our theology, and even, as at the period of the Restoration, when a few Laudian divines were in the ascendant, tampering, as far as the circumstances of the times would permit, with our public Formularies.

He who seeks a proof of this, may find it exhibited in a very remarkable way, by taking the works of any number of the bishops and divines of leading station in our Church for the first fifty years after its settlement on its present basis, at the accession of Queen Elizabeth, and comparing them with those of the same number of persons in a similar position at any period since the time of Laud. Few, I believe, have any notion of the difference of the theological atmosphere (so to speak) in which such a person would find himself in the two cases. And it would be a curious subject of inquiry, how many of the (so called) High Churchmen of the present day would have had even a locus standi left them in our Church, if the views held by the former as the doctrines of our Church, and as established by the Formularies they themselves drew up, had been made the standard by which those Formularies were to be interpreted. To that precise standard, I for my part have no desire that those who minister in our Church should be limited. But surely there are bounds, within which the interpretation given to those Formularies, by those who are admitted to the ministerial office in our Church on the condition of their belief in the doctrines there laid down, ought to be found. And if there are any, they are certainly such as to exclude an Anii-Protestant interpretation of Protestant Articles.

It may be right on the part of those who are the genuine doctrinal successors of our Reformers, to overlook the change in the position assigned in our Church for the last two centuries to the doctrines they hold, and to leave even the ascendancy of views scarcely tolerated in our Church for many years after the Reformation, without a protest, to God's providential dispensations. But when those views reach a point at which they become almost identical with those of Rome itself, then surely it becomes the duty of such as desire to preserve to their country the blessings of the Reformation, to call public attention to the dangers to which our Church is exposed.

That such is the case at the present time, few will be disposed to deny. And among the signs of the times indicating the nature of the theology which is being pressed upon our Church, even in some places of the highest authority the subject of this work leads me more particularly to notice the last Charge
of the Bishop of Oxford. In that address to his clergy his Lordship touches upon a subject of undoubtedly great importance, and one which demands the attention of all who have a regard for the souls of men, namely, "our danger from the spirit of infidelity," (pp. 80 et seq.) But in his description
of the mode in which this spirit is manifested, and more especially of the way in which it is to be encountered, we meet with an enunciation of views and principles painfully divergent from those upon which our Protestant Church stands. He tells us, that " the one thing which it resists is authority : it would '' PLACE EVERY SINGLE SOUL IN DIRECT AND INDEPENDENT COMMUNION WITH THE CREATIVE Spirit of whose nature he partakes, and to whom alone he is responsible. So far as Christianity promotes this, it is to be encouraged ; but it is not, " they urge, to be borne, that any dogma should be enforced on such seekers after truth by any external authority as essential to salvation, or in itself necessarily true; or any medium' interposed between their spirits and the Universal Father, In their first stage, therefore, these principles begin commonly by resisting the authority of the Church, as that which meets them most immediately ; they proceed to raise questions as to the "inspiration of some parts of Holy Scripture; they end by denying altogether its authority, and leaving their victim with an entire unbelief as to the objective truth of any spiritual " agency beyond those of the one Great Spirit of the Universe, "and his own soul as an emanation from Him, seeking reunion with Him." And he refers to the history of the author of " The Phases of Faith," as given by himself, in illustration of these remarks ; and assures us, that " he has marked down 'with the utmost accuracy the logical sequence of every one
'of his steps, from an ardent love of Evangelical truth, combined " with a denial of all spiritual authority save in the letter of the" Written Word, down to its close, in a mystical but universal " scepticism" (pp. 80, 81.) So that his Lordship supposes, that if a man begins with "an ardent love of Evangelical truth,"
but denies all spiritual authority but that of tbe Holy Scriptures ''the logical sequence" will be ''a mystical but universal scepticism." " It is with this spirit," the Right Rev. Prelate tells us, ''in unnumbered degrees, forms, and combinations, that we have to struggle ;" and he assures us, that it ''can be " successfully resisted amongst ourselves only by a full and "faithful maintenance of the teaching and authority of our
"Church." (p. 81.)

And he proceeds to quote, as an exemplification of this spirit. Dr. Arnold's teaching on the subject of the Church, contrasting with it what he considers the true doctrine, namely, that "we" are under an appointed spiritual economy, in which human " instruments and outward acts are made the channels of Divine grace; that we are in a spiritual kingdom, which has its appointed officers, through whom God works ;" (p. 88 ;) in short, that we derive all spiritual gifts and graces through ordinances ministered by the clergy of the Apostolic Succession; " the constitution of the Church" " securing for men" " access
to God ;" (p. 81 ;) and " the Church " being dwelt in by the "Spirit of Grod, and so becoming an instrument whereby, through " appointed channels, the gifts of the Spirit are ministered to "men." (p. 85.)

To any one who has but an ordinary acquaintance with such subjects, the views and principles pervading these remarks are too manifest to need one word to point out their seriously anti-
Protestant character. But, being written more particularly against those who deny the inspiration of parts of Holy Scripture, and maintain some kindred errors, they may not, in the case of many readers, attract the attention they deserve. But the system here advocated is scarcely one step removed from
Romanism. So far as concerns the views of Dr. Arnold or others here alluded to, this is not the place to discuss them, but to the system here put forward as their opponent it is necessary to direct attention, as it is in fact the Tractarian system developed to its full proportions ; and if such a system ever prevails in our Church, it will not be long before she will again be absorbed in the Romish Apostasy. The great fundamental principles upon which Popciy rests are precisely those here advocated, namely, (1) the interposition of a mediating priest through whose ministrations alone we can hold communion with God,
and the consequent denial of the soul's'' direct and independent communion" with Him, (2) the denial of the supremacy of '' the written word" to the consciences of individuals, and the setting up of another " spiritual authority" in " the teaching and authority of the Church," that is, the clergy, superior to
it ; and (3) the making the laity of the Church dependent upon the clergy for all spiritual gifts and graces.

As it respects the first and last of these points, I must content myself here with thus pointing them out to the reader's notice. But as it respects the second, which is intimately connected with the subject of this work, there is one remark which I cannot but offer, and that is, that it is a doctrine which, what-
ever may be its character in other respects, is at least utterly subversive of the very foundation upon which the Reformed Church of England stands. With the doctrine of the Supremacy of Holy Scripture to the consciences of individuals, and the right of private judgment in contradistinction to '' the authority
of the Church," she stands or falls. For, her Reformation was effected by comparatively a few individuals acting against the authority of the Church both of the East and West, and going back (as one of her most illustrious Reformers, Bishop Jewel, tells us) to the word of God, to draw from it the pure doctrine of the Gospel of Christ. The faith of almost the whole Catholic Church was at the time, and had been for centuries, opposed to that which she established as the foundation upon which she
was built up. And that which alone enabled her to effect her Reformation was, the gracious providence of God inclining the Civil Power to aid a minority of the clergy and laity in re-establishing a Scriptural faith in the place of the corrupt system of Rome. The very ground, therefore, upon which our Church
stands, is that of the right of private judgment ; and the question it exactly corresponds with the thesis recently offered to be maintained by against Dr. Gaussen at Geneva, which was this, — " The
supernatural faith necessary to salvation has for foundation and for rule, not the Bible submitted to private judgment, or interpreted by the reason of eacli individual, which is the foundation of all heresies, and the source of all errors, but the infallible authority of the Church as interpreter."

Of tbe justice of her charge of heterodoxy against so large a portion of Christendom she leaves to the judgment of the great day. When, therefore, her ministers advocate the doctrine of "the authority of the Church" over the consciences of men, they are in fact subverting the very foundations on which their Church is built. And if they succeed in impressing their doctrines on the minds of men, the necessary consequence, in the case of well-informed persons of ingenuous and independent minds, is a conviction, that the Reformed Church of England is built upon a foundation that will not stand the test of investgation. And the result of such a conviction is obvious. This is now, alas ! no mere theoretical speculation. We have seen the operation of the doctrine in producing the conviction, and the result to which that conviction has led, in a way that can leave no doubt what is the legitimate consequence of such a tenet.

The effects upon our Church, and the country at large, in various ways, from the spread of such views within her communion, are of no trivial moment, even to the mere politician. But the political dangers of Popery having been supposed to cease with the death of the last Popish Pretender, the doctrine
maintained by the clergy has been to the State a matter of comparative indifference. How far prudently so, time will jhow. It is not a matter of little moment to any State what are the doctrines and principles taught by the clergy. The history of those countries in which Romanism has been predominant, espe-
cially Ireland, is a sufficient proof of the effect of its principles upon the general condition and interests of any community in which it holds sway.

It only remains for me to give some account of the present edition of this work. As it respects, then, the entire substance of the work, the doctrine maintained, and all the arguments of any importance by which it was defended, the present edition will be found altogether to correspond with the last. Further
reading and observation have only confirmed me in the views advocated, and led me more and more to feel their importance, and their consonancy with the doctrine of our Church. In fact, the more consideration I give to the matter, the more difficult I find it to understand how any one can reconcile subscription to our Formularies with the system of doctrine put forth by the Tractarian party, and the deeper the conviction, that if that system is allowed to prevail in our Church, its days, as a Protestant Church, are numbered.

But while the work, so far, remains the same, I have carefully revised it throughout ; and the remarks made on the former edition, and the progress of the controversy, have led me to make various additions in different parts, including a final chapter containing a few general remarks on the whole
subject. Among the additions will be found a new section, at the end of Chapter v., pointing out the remarkable testimony afforded to the correctness of the view here maintained of the famous Canon of Vincent of Lerins, by Mr. Newman's total abandonment of the position originally taken up by him, and
here opposed, respecting it. The notion of Primitive Catholic Consent, ascertained by the application of the Vincentian Canon, being a sure guide to the truth and part of the Rule of faith, —which he originally advocated with such unbounded confidence, —has been exchanged by him for the doctrine of Development.

In this edition, also, most of the quotations from the Fathers have been again collated with the originals, and a few more added. But it seemed needless much to increase their number. The same may be said of the quotations from the divines of our own Church. They might easily have been increased fifty or a hundred-fold from the writings of the most eminent bishops and doctors of our Church. But it would have been only a useless trial of the patience of the reader. And the Tractators certainly
cannot object to have their views tested by a selection of the most eminent and able of the witnesses they have themselves chosen.

To the Tractarian answer given to the former edition of this work, in a Review written in the British Critic, by one who not long after passed over to the Church of Rome, my reply will be found in connexion with those parts of the work to which the animadversions applied, and I believe there is no point of any moment touched upon in that Review which I have not noticed. It in worthy of observatioii, that the writer of this Review, though a leading man of the party, and speaking in the Review as one
thoroughly acquainted with the writings of the Fathers and the state of things in the early Church was his own subsequent admission, very little acquainted with them. And I might add, that what the Review pretty clearly indicates as to his own views, was shortly after admitted by himself even before his departure to Rome, namely, that some of the Articles of our Church he could only subscribe in a non-natural sense, maintaining even that one of them contains an ' atrocious and most immoral sentiment.' This is the more observable, as he clearly speaks of it as a matter in which his whole party were in a similar position, and pleads in their defence, that,in his view, the party opposed to them were equally obliged to take other statements in our Formularies in a similar non-natural sense; forgetting, not
merely that his view of the matter does not bind the consciences of others, but also that, even if his charge were a just one, companionship in sin is no palliation of the fault. And in the midst of these admissions he maintains as " the key to a moral and religious knowledge," and the " leading idea" of his work, that ''careful moral discipline is the necessary foundation whereon alone Christian faith can be reared" ( Warde's Ideal of a Christian Church. Lond. 1844. Pref. p. vii.) How far, therefore, even
according to his own view of the matter, his party, while so acting, could expect to become acquainted with the true nature of the Christian faith, is a subject for his and their serious consideration; nay, whether there is not good ground for fear, according to his own principles, that, under such circumstances, it was not to be expected that they should arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

It is with sorrow and reluctance that I point the attention of the reader to such melancholy exhibitions of the self-deluding spirit in which men sometimes allow themselves to indulge. And were it only one of a few isolated cases, I should gladly have left it without notice. But, in fact, the case is one of which it is
to be feared hundreds remain among us, while but few comparatively have taken the more honest course of quitting a ministry which they can only hold upon such terms. And it is absolutely necessary that the public should be acquainted with the real views and principles of the leaders of a party which now has its ramifications through the whole length and breadth of the Church, and is aiming, accoidiug to the confession of Dr. Pusey himself at the extermination of all doctrines opposed to their system.

The sentiment with which Mr. Newman commenced his career is one which might alone serve to place us on our guard, and I must add is to my mind a sufficient, but painful, explanation of his whole subsequent course. In his work entitled, " The Arians of the Fourth Century" published in 1833, just about the period when the "Tracts" commenced advocating " the mode of arguing and teaching " '' called economical by the ancients"' he thus describes its nature, — 'The Alexandrian father [Clement] who has already been referred to, accurately describes the rules which " should guide the Christian in speaking and acting economically. " Being ever persuaded of the omnipresence of God," he says, " and ashamed to come short of the truth, he is satisfied with " the approval of God, and of his own conscience. Whatever is " in his mind, is also on his tongue ; towards those who are fit " recipients, both in speaking and living, he harmonizes his profession with his opinions. He both thinks and speaks the " truth, EXCEPT WHEN CONSIDERATION IS NECESSARY, AND *' THEN, AS A PHYSICIAN FOR THE OOOD OF HIS PATIENTS, HE '' WILL BE FALSE, OR UTTER A FALSEHOOD, AS THE SOPHISTS SAY.

" . . . Nothing, however, but his neighbour's good will lead him "to jdo this, . . . He gives himself up /or the Church/ 8m;. " (Clem. Strom, vii. 8, 9.)'' (pp. 72; 81, 82.) I leave this passage without comment in the hands of the reader.

The Reviewer greatly complains at my leaving so much the authorities I have quoted to speak for themselves, and regrets my want of "the poetical and imaginative temper " which '' is absolutely necessary in such inquiries." This defect, I confess, I have not attempted to supply. It appears to me that the less " imagination " has to do with such matters, the better. And I must assure my censor, that if he has found my array of authorities wearisome, I have found it still more so to wade through
those seas of philosophizing disquisitions in which his party delight to indulge, founded upon imaginations, the erroneousness of which a very small amount of research is sufficient to demonstrate. A discourse upon the excellence and value of 'Catholic Consent " and our duty to believe and do what "every body, always, everywhere" has believed and done, however beautiful in itself, is to my mind as uninteresting an affair as a disquisition founded on the notion that all the ancients were of precisely the same size and height. I have, therefore, dealt by others as I would wish to be dealt
by myself, and applied myself principally to the task of supplying the reader with those facts and authorities which may enable him to judge for himself on the points at issue. For instance, to meet the dream of ''Catholic consent" I have supplied the reader with passages from the Fathers directly opposed
to each other. To show what was their view as to the alleged obscurity of Scripture, I have placed before the reader abundant extracts testifying to its self-sufficiency and manifest plainness in all necessary points. And so on other points. In my humble apprehension, men really in search after the truth will prefer this mode of dealing with the matter to any poetic and imaginative ducursus on the subject, written on the supposition that "Catholic" principles must be true, and the study of the Fathers
quite unnecessary.

To this edition are added three Indices, which, it is hoped, will be a great help to those who desire to make use of the work beyond a general perusal. The first, which is an ''Index of the Works cited" I have drawn up myself; the two others have been compiled by a gentleman who is favorably known to
the public as an author ; but for them I must not be held answerable.

A singular misstatement respecting the former edition, emanating from a quarter where it must have been altogether the result of some mistake, the reader will find noticed below.

I trust I may be permitted, without being supposed to

footnote. * I allode to a passage in the Memoir of the Rev. Joniab Pratt, p. 351, where an extract is given from one of Mr. Pratt's s letters stating, respecting the worst contained in these volumes, — ' Bishop Meade of Virginia was in London last summer, and rendered Mr. Goode advice and assistance in this work." How such a misapprehension could have arisen, I know not ; and I am anxious to correct it, as if such a thing had occurred, either on the part of Bishop Meade or any other person I should have felt it a duty to have acknowledged the obligation. The truth, however, is, that not the slightest commnunication ever passed between the Bishop, or any other individual, and myself, respecting anything in the work previous to its publication. In fact, the Bishop and myself were total strangers.

arrogate any undue claims to express my thankfulness for the way in which the former edition of this work was received, and the encouragement given me to hope, that it might not be without its use in strengthening the foundation on which our belief in the incalculably important doctrine of the supremacy of Holy Scripture as the sole Divine Rule of faith and practice rests. That doctrine is at the root of Protestantism. With it Protestantism stands or falls. Any Church that surrenders that doctrine becomes the slave of a human priesthood ; and, as all experience shows, will be dragged by that priesthood, according to the natural course of human infirmity, into the depths of superstition and idolatry. It is therefore a ground for thankfulness to have been permitted in any way to do service in such a cause.
In the present day more especially, when Popery is again lifting its head among us, and an energetic and unscrupulous party in our own Church has formed a " conspiracy"' (to use their own
term) to " un-Protestantize" her, and justly regards a belief in the doctrine of the supremacy of Holy Scripture as the great obstacle to its success, it is a matter of the deepest moment to the welfare of our Church, that the public mind should be made acquainted with the proofs and evidence on which it stands, and the groundlessness of the arguments and misapplication of the testimonies by which it has been assailed. To say nothing of the mistake, now admitted by Mr. Newman, of the reference to the Fathers for"Cathohc consent,'' never surely was the blindness of party zeal more displayed, than in the Catenas put forth by the Tractarian party, for the purpose of leading the public to suppose, that their views were held by those great divines of our Church who have, in the most express and direct terms, opposed the doctrine of which they were cited as the advocates. This is one of the most painful parts of the subject ; and while it is to be feared, that by this means a large portion to each other, until he called upon me just before his return to America, for the purpose of obtaining a copy of the work so far as it was then printed ; and about three-fourths of it had then passed through the press. A letter from the
Bishop on the subject, confirming the above statement, was published shortly after the appearance of the Memoir ; but it seems unnecessary to dwell further on the point.

Of the public has been first misled and then brought to love the views into which it has been as it were, entrapped, the effect upon more ingenuous minds has been, to cause them to leave a communion which they could only adhere to through a palpable misrepresentation of the doctrines both of her Formularies and the great body of her divines. But alas ! a larger number remain, whose minds appear too much absorbed by the object they have in view, to allow them calmly to consider the nature of the means by which they are seeking to attain their end ; and we have been long ago warned by Dr. Pusey, that the struggle in owr Church will be continued, until the principles he advocates are either ejectedy or triumph and become supreme. With this warning before us, to shut our eyes to the momentous character of the conflict going on among us, and act as if the Protestant principles of our Church were exposed to no dangers, or not worth contending for, may obtain in this world the praise of moderation and its attendant privileges, and save us from much trouble and reproach, but will with difficulty be reconciled with the solemn engagements entered into by us on our undertaking the ministerial office. This is my apology, if any is needed, for the republication of this work. May He who condescends to work by the feeblest instruments make it effectual for the estabUshment of his truth, nullifying what may be erroneous, and giving His blessing to that which is consonant with his word and will.

W. GOODE.

31. Charterhouse Square,
June 21, 1853.