Ne

swman

^tiit^imtiJ

A LETTER

ADDRESSED TO

THE REV. R. W. JELF, D.D.

CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH,

IN EXPLANATION OF No. 90.

IN THE SERIES CALLED

THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.

BY THE AUTHOR.

SECOND EDITION.

OXFORD,
JOHN HENRY PARKER :
J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON.
MDCCCXLI.

oxford: printed by i. shrimpton.

A LETTER,

My Dear Dr. Jelf,
I have known you so many years that I trust
I may fitly address the present pages to you, on the
subject of my recent Tract, without its being sus
pected in consequence that one, v,ho from circum
stances has taken no share whatever in any of the
recent controversies in our Church, is implicated in
any approval or sanction of it. It is merely as a
friend that I write to you, through whom I may
convey to others some explanations which seem
necessary at this moment.
Four Gentlemen, Tutors of their respective Col
leges, have published a protest against the Tract in
question. I have no cause at all to complain of
their so doing, though as I shall directly say, I con
sider that they have misunderstood me. They do
not, I trust, suppose that I feel any offence or sore
ness at their proceeding ; of course I naturally
think that I am right and they are wrong ; but this
persuasion is quite consistent both with my honoring
their zeal for Christian truth and their anxiety for
the welfare of our younger members, and with my
very great consciousness that, even though I be right
in my principle, I may have advocated truth in a
wrong way. Such acts as theirs when done honestly,
as they have done them, must benefit all parties,

and draw them nearer to each other in good will, if
not in opinion. But to proceed to the subject of
this letter.
I propose to offer some explanation of the Tract
in two respects, — as to its principal statement and
its object.
1. These Four Gentlemen, whom I have men
tioned, have misunderstood me in so material a
point, that it certainly is necessary to enter into the
subject at some length. They consider that the
Tract asserts that the Thirty-Nine Articles
" do not contain any condemnation of the doctrines of
Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration of Images
and Relics, the Invocation of Saints, and the Mass, as they
are taught authoritatively by the Church' of Rome, but only
of certain absurd practices and opinions, which intelligent
Romanists repudiate as much as we do."
On the contrary I consider that they do con
tain a condemnation of the authoritative teaching
of the Church of Rome on these points ; I only say
that, whereas they were written before the decrees
of Trent, they were not directed against those
decrees. The Church of Rome taught authorita
tively before those decrees, as well as since. Those
decrees expressed her authoritative teaching, and
they will continue to express it, while she so teaches.
The simple question is, whether taken by them
selves in their mere letter, they express it ; whether
in fact other senses, short of the sense conveyed in
the present authoritative teaching of the Roman
Church will not fulfil their letter, and may not even
now in point of fact be held in that Church.

As to the present authoritative teaching of the
Church of Rome, to judge by what we see of it in
public, I think it goes very far indeed to substitute
another Gospel for the true one. Instead of setting
before the soul the Holy Trinity, and Heaven and
Hell ; it does seem to me, as a popular system, to
preach the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, and Pur
gatory. If there ever was a system which required
reformation, it is that of Rome at this day, or in
other words (as I should call it) Romanism or
Popery. Or, to use words in which I have only a year
ago expressed myself, when contrasting Romanism
with the teaching of the ancient Church, —
" In antiquity, the main aspect in the economy of redemp
tion contains Christ, the Son of God, the Author and
Dispenser of all grace and pardon, the Church His hving
representative, the Sacraments her instruments. Bishops
her rulers, their collective decisions her voice, and Scripture
her standard of truth. In the Roman Schools we find
St. Mary and the Saints the prominent objects of regard
and dispensers of mercy. Purgatory or Indulgences the
means of obtaining it, the Pope the ruler and teacher of the
Church, and miracles the warrant of doctrine. As to the
doctrines of Christ's merits and eternal life and death, these
are points not denied (God forbid), but taken for granted
and passed by, in order to make way for others of more
present, pressing, and lively interest. That a certain change
then in objective and external rehgion has come over the
Latin, nay, and in a measure the Greek Church, we con
sider to be a plain historical fact ; a change  suffi
ciently startling to recal to our minds, with very unpleasant
sensations, the awfiil words, ' Though we, or an Angel
from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that
ye have received, let him be accursed.' "

On the doctrine of Purgatory, this received
Romanism goes beyond the Decrees of Trent thus :
the Council of Trent says,
" There is a Purgatory, and the souls there detained are
helped by the suffrages of the faithful, and especially by the
acceptable sacrifice of the Altar."
This definition does not explain the meaning of
the word Purgatory — and it is not incompatible
with the doctrine of the Greeks ; — ^but the Catechism
of Trent, which expresses the existing Roman
doctrine says,
" There is a Purgatorial fire, in which the souls of the
pious are tormented for a certain time, and expiated, in order
that an entrance may lie open to them into their eternal
home, into which nothing defiled enters."
And the popular notions go very far beyond this,
as the extracts from the Homily, Jeremy Taylor,
&c. in the Tract shew.
Again, the doctrine of Pardons is conveyed by the
Divines of Trent in these words : —
" The use of Indulgences, which is most salutary to the
Christian people, and approved by the authority of Councils,
is to be retained in the Church ;"
it does not explain what the word Indulgence
means : — it is unnecessary to observe how very
definite and how monstrous is the doctrine which
Luther assailed.
Again, the Divines at Trent say that "to Images
are to be paid due honour and veneration;" and to
those who honour the sacred volume, pictures of

friends and the like, as we all do, I do not see that
these very words of themselves can be the subject of
objection. Far otherwise when we see the com
ment which the Church of Rome has put on them
in teaching and practice. I consider its existing
creed and popular worship to be as near idolatry as
any portion of that Church can be, from which it is
said that " the idols" shall be " utterly abolished."
Again, the Divines of Trent say that "it is good
and useful suppliantly to invoke the saints ;" they
do not even command the practice. But the actual
honours paid to them in Roman Catholic countries,
are in my judgment, as I have already said, a sub
stitution of a wrong object of worship for a right
one. Again, the Divines at Trent say that the Mass is
" a sacrifice truly propitiatory :" words which (con
sidering they add, " The fruits of the Bloody Oblation
are through this most abundantly obtained, — so far
is the latter from detracting in any way from the
former,") to my mind have no strength at all com
pared with the comment contained in the actual
teaching and practice of the Church, as regards
private masses.
This distinction between the words of the Tri-
dentine divines and the authoritative teaching of
the present Church, is made in the Tract itself, and
would have been made in far stronger terms, had I
not so very often before spoken against the actual
state of the Church of Rome, or could I have antici
pated the sensation which the appearance of the
Tract has excited. I say.

" By ' the Romish doctrine' is not meant the Tridentine
doctrine, because this article was drawn up before the
decree of the Council of Trent. What is opposed is the
received doctrine of the day, and unhappily of this day too, or
the doctrine of the Roman Schools." — p. 24.
This doctrine of the Schools is at present, on the
whole, the established creed of the Roman Church, and
this I call Romanism or Popery, and against this I
think the Thirty-nine Articles speak. I think they
speak, not of certain accidental practices, but of a
body and substance of divinity, and that traditionary,
an existing ruling spirit and view in the Church ;
which, whereas it is a corruption and perversion of
the truth, is also a very active and energetic prin
ciple, and, whatever holier manifestations there may
be in the same Church, manifests itself in ambition,
insincerity, craft, cruelty, and all such other grave
evils as are connected with these.
Further, I believe that the decrees of Trent, though
not necessarily in themselves tending to the corrup
tions which we see, yet considering these corrup
tions exist, will ever tend to foster and produce
them, as if principles and elements of them — that is,
while these decrees remain unexplained in any truer
and more Catholic way.
The distinction I have been making, is familiar
with our controversialists. Dr. Lloyd, the late
Bishop of Oxford, whose memory both you and
myself hold in affection and veneration, brings it
out strongly in a review which he wrote in the
British Critic in 1825. Nay he goes further than
any thing I have said on one point, for he thinks the

Roman Catholics are not what they once were, at
least among ourselves. I pronounce no opinion on
this point ; nor do I feel able to follow his revered
guidance in some other things which he says, but
I quote him in proof that the Reformers did not
aim at decrees or abstract dogmas, but against
a living system, and a system which it is quite pos
sible to separate from the formal statements which
have served to represent it.
" Happy was it," he says, " for the Protestant contro-
versiahst, when his own eyes and ears could bear witness
to the doctrine of Papal satisfactions and meritorious works,
when he could point to the benighted wanderer, working
his way to the shrine of our Lady of Walsingham or
Ipswich, and hear him confess with his own mouth, that he
trusted to such works for the expiation of his sins ; or
when every eye could behold ' our churches full of images,
wondrously decked and adorned, garlands and coronets set
on their heads, precious pearls hanging about their necks,
their fingers shining with rings, set with precious stones ;
their dead and stiU bodies, clothed with garments stiff with
gold.' " Horn. 3. ay. Idol p. 97.
On the other hand he says :
" Our full beUef is that the Roman Cathohcs of the
United Kingdom, from their long residence among
Protestants, their disuse .of processions and other Romish
ceremonies, have been brought gradually and almost un
knowingly to a more spiritual religion and a purer faith, — that
they themselves see with sorrow the disgraceful tenets and
principles that were professed and carried into practice by
their forefathers, — and are too fond of removing this
disgrace from them, by denying the former existence of
these tenets, and ascribing the imputation of them to the
calumnies of the Protestants. This we cannot allow: and

10
while we cherish the hope that they are now gone for ever,
we still assert boldly and fearlessly, that they did once
exist." p. 148.
Again :
"That latria is due only to the Trinity, is con
tinually asserted in the Councils; but the terms of duHa
and hyperdulia, have not been adopted or acknowledged hy them
in their public documents; they are, however, employed
unanimously by all the best writers of the Romish Church,
and their use is maintained and defended by them."
p. 101.
I conceive that what " all the best writers" say is
authoritative teaching, and a sufficient object for
the censures conveyed in the Articles, though the
decrees of Trent, taken by themselves, remain
untouched. " This part of the enquiry" [to define exactly the acts
peculiar to the different species of worship] " however
is more theoretical than useful ; and, as every thing that
can be said on it must be derived, not from Councils, but
from Doctors of the Romish Church, whose authority
would be called in question, it is not worth while to enter
upon it now. And therefore, observing only that the
Catechism of Trent still retains the term of, adoratio
angelorum, we pass on, &c." p. 102.
Again :
" On the question whether the Invocation of Saints,
professed and practised by the Church of Rome, is
idolatrous or not, our opinion is this ; that in the public
Formularies of their Church, and even in the belief and
practice of the best informed among them, there is nothing
of idolatry, although, as we have said, we deem that
practice altogether unscriptural and unwarranted ; but we

11
do consider the principles relating to the worship of the
Virgin, calculated to lead in the end to positive idolatry;
and we are well convinced, and we have strong grounds
for our conviction, that a large portion of the lower classes
are in this point guilty of it. "WTiether the Invocation of
Angels or of Saints has produced the same effect, we are
not able to decide." p. 113.
I accept this view entirely with a single expla
nation. By "principles" relating to the worship of
the Blessed Virgin, I understand either the received
principles as distinct from those laid down in the
Tridentine statements ; or the principles contained
in those statements, viewed as practically operating
on the existing feelings of the Church.
Again :
" She [the Church of England] is unwilling to fix upon
the principles of the Romish Church the charge of positive
idolatry; and contents herself with declaring that 'the
Romish doctrine concerning the Adoration as well of Images
as of Relics, is a fond thing, &c. &c.' But in regard to
the universal practice of the Romish Church, she adheres to
the declaration of her Homilies ; and professes her conviction
that this fond and unwarranted and unscriptural doctrine
has at all times produced, and will hereafter, as long
as it is suffered to prevail, produce the sin of practical
idolatry." p. 121.
I will add my belief that the only thing which
can stop this tendency in the decrees of Rome, as
things are, is its making some formal declaration the
other way.
Once more :
" We reject the second [Indulgences] not only because
they are altogether unwarranted by any word of Holy

12
Writ, and contrary to every principle of reason, but
because we conceive the foundations on which they rest
to be, in the highest degree, blasphemous and absurd.
These principles are, 1. that the power of the Pope,
great as it is, does not properly extend beyond the limits
of this present world. 2. That the power which he pos
sesses of releasing souls from Purgatory arises out of
the treasure committed to his care, a treasure consisting
of the supererogatory merits of our blessed Saviour, the
Virgin, and the Saints  This is the treasure of which
Pope Leo, in his Bull of the present year, 1825, speaks in
the following terms : ' We have resolved, in virtue of the
authority given to us by Heaven, fully to unlock that
sacred treasure, composed of the merits, sufferings, and
virtues of Christ our Lord, and of His Virgin Mother, and
of all the Saints, which the Author of human salvation has
entrusted to our dispensation.'" p. 143.
This is what our Article means by Pardons ; but it
is more than is said in the Council of Trent.
And Bramhall :
" A comprecation [with the Saints] both the Grecians
and we do allow ; an ultimate invocation both the Grecians
and we detest ; so do the Church of Rome in their doctrine,
but they vary from it in their practice." Works, p. 418.
And Bull :
" This Article [the Tridentine] of a Purgatory after this
life, as it is understood and taught by the Roman Church
{that is, to be a place and state of misery and torment,
whereunto many faithful souls go presently after death, and
there remain till they are thoroughly purged from their
dross, or delivered thence by Classes, Indulgences, &c.) is con
trary to Scripture, and the sense of the Catholic Church for
at least the first four Centuries, &c." Corrupt, of Rom. §. 3.

13
And Wake :
" The Council of Trent has spoken so uncertainly in this
point [of Merits] as plainly shews that they in this did not
know themselves, what they would establish, or were
unvdlling that others should." Def. of Expos. 5.
I have now said enough on the point of distinc
tion between the existing creed, or what the Gen
tlemen who signed the protest call the "authoritative
teaching" of the Church of Rome, and its decrees.
And while this distinction seems acknowledged by
our controversialists, it is a fact that our Articles
were written before those decrees, and therefore are
levelled not against them, but against the authori
tative teaching.
I will put the subject in another way, which will
lead us to the same point. If there is one doctrine
more than another which characterizes the present
Church of Rome, and on which all its obnoxious
tenets depend, it is the doctrine of its infallibility.
Now I am not aware that this doctrine is any where
embodied in its formal decrees. Here then is a
critical 'difference between its decrees and its re
ceived and established creed. Any one who believed
that the Pope and Church of Rome are the essence
of the infallibility of the Catholic Church, ought to
join their communion. If a person remains in our
Church, he thereby disowns the infallibility of Rome
— and is its infallibility a slight characteristic of the
Romish, or Romanistic, or Papal system, by whatever
name we call it ? is it not, I repeat, that on which
all the other errors of its received teaching depend ?

14
The Four Gentlemen
" are at a loss to see what security would remain, were his
[tlie writer's] principles generally recognised, that the most
plainly erroneous doctrines and practices of the Church of
Rome might not be inculcated in the Lecture Rooms of the
University and from the Pulpits of our Churches."
Here is a doctrine, which could not enter our
Lecture Rooms and Pulpits — Rome's infallibility —
and if this is excluded, then also are excluded
those doctrines which depend, I may say, solely
on it, not on Scripture, not on reason, not on
antiquity, not on Catholicity. For who is it
that gives the doctrine of Pardons their existing
meaning which our Article condemns ? The Pope ;
as in the words of Leo in 1825, as above quoted
from Bishop Lloyd. Who is it that has exalted the
honour of the Blessed Virgin into worship of an
idolatrous character ? The Pope ; as when he sanc
tioned Bonaventura's Psalter. In a word, who is
the recognised interpreter of all the Councils but
the Pope ?
On this whole subject I will quote from a work,
in which, with some little variation of wording, I
said the very same thing four years ago without
offence. " There are in fact two elements in operation within the
system. As far as it is Catholic and Scriptural, it appeals
to the Fathers ; as far as it is a corruption, it finds it neces
sary to supersede them. Viewed in its formal principles
and authoritative statements, it professes to be the champion
of past times ; viewed as an active and political power,
as a ruling, grasping, and ambitious principle, in a word,
what is expressively called Popery, it exalts the vnll and

15
pleasure of the existing Church above all authority, whether
of Scripture or Antiquity, interpreting the one and disposing
of the other by its absolute and arbitrary decree. . . . A^'e
must deal with her as we would towards a friend who is
visited by derangement . . . she is her real self only in name.
. . . Viewed as a practical system, its main tenet, wh?<^h
gives a colour to all its parts, is the Church's infallibility, as
on the other hand the principle of that genuine theology out
of which it has arisen, is the authority of Catholic antiquity."
— On Romanism, pp. 102 — 4.
Nothing more then is implied in the Tract
than that Rome is capable of a reformation ; its
corrupt system indeed cannot be reformed ; it can
only be destroyed ; and that destruction is its refor
mation. I do not think that there is any thing-
very erroneous or very blameable in such a belief;
and it seems to be a very satisfactory omen in its
favour, that at the Council of Trent such protests,
as are quoted in the Tract, were entered against so
many of the very errors and corruptions which our
Articles and Homilies also condemn. I do not
think it is any great excess of charity towards the
largest portion of Christendom, to rejoice to detect
such a point of agreement between them and us, as
a joint protest against some of their greatest cor
ruptions, though they in practice cherish them,
though they still differ from us in other points
besides. That I have not always consistently kept
to this view in all that I have written, I am well
aware ; yet I have made very partial deviations
from it.
I should not be honest if I did not add, that I con-

16
sider our own Church, on the other hand, to have in
it a traditionary system, as well as the Roman,
beyond and beside the letter of its formularies, and
to be ruled by a spirit far inferior to its own nature.
And this traditionary system, not only inculcates
what I cannot receive, but would exclude any differ
ence of belief from itself. To this excWsive modern
system, I desire to oppose myself ; and it is as doing
this, doubtless, that I am incurring the censure of
the Four Gentlemen who have come before the
public. I want certain points to be left open which
they would close. I am not speaking for myself in
one way or another ; I am not examining the
scripturalness, safety, propriety, or expedience of
the points in question ; but I desire that it may not
be supposed to be utterly unlawful for such private
Christians as feel they can do it with a clear con
science, to allow a comprecation with the Saints as
Bramhall does ; or to hold with Andrewes that, taking
away the doctrine of Transubstantiation from the
Mass, we shall have no dispute about the Sacrifice ;
or with Hooker to treat even Transubstantiation as
an opinion which by itself need not cause separation ;
or to hold with Hammond that no General Coun
cil, truly such, ever did, or shall err in any matter of
faith ; or with Bull, that man was in a supernatural
state of grace before the fall, by which he could
attain to immortality, and that he has recovered it
in Christ ; or with Thorndike, that works of humi
liation and penance are requisite to render God
again propitious to those who fall from the grace of
Baptism ; or with Pearson that the Name of Jesus

17
is no otherwise given under Heaven than in the
Catholic Church.
In thus maintaining that we have open questions,
or as I have expressed it in the Tract " ambiguous
Formularies," I observe, first, that I am introducing
no novelty. ' For instance, it is commonly said that
the Articles admit both Arminians and Calvinists ;
the principile then is admitted, as indeed the Four
Gentlemen, whom I have several times noticed,
themselves observe. I do not think it a greater lati
tude than this, to admit those who hold, and those
who do not hold, the points above specified.
Nor, secondly, can it be said that such an inter
pretation throws any uncertainty upon the primary
and most sacred doctrines of our religion. These are
consigned to the Creed ; the Articles did not define
them ; they existed before the Articles ; they are
referred to in the Articles as existing facts, just as
the broad Roman errors are referred to ; but the
decrees of Trent were drawn up after the Articles.
On these two points, I may be allowed to quote
what I said four years ago in a former Tract.
" The meaning of the Creed ... is known : there is no op
portunity for doubt here ; it means but one thing, and he
who does not hold that one meaning, does not hold it at
all. But the case is different (to take an illustration)
in the drawing up of a Political Declaration or a Petition
to Parliament. It is composed by persons, differing in
matters of detail, agreeing together to a certain point and for
a certain end. Each narrowly watches that nothing is
inserted to prejudice his own particular opinion, or stipu
lates for the insertion of what may rescue it. Hence
B

18
general words are used, or particular words inserted, which
by superficial enquirers afterwards are criticised as vague
and indeterminate on the one hand, or inconsistent on the
other ; but in fact, they all have a meaning and a history,
could we ascertain it. And if the parties concerned in
such a document are legislating and determining for
posterity, they are respective representatives of corre
sponding parties in the generations after them. Now the
Thirty-Nine Articles lie between these two, between a
Creed and a mere joint Declaration ; to a certain point
they have one meaning, beyond that they have no one
meaning. They have one meaning so far as they embody
the doctrine of the Creed ; they have different meanings,
so far as they are drawn up by men influenced by the
discordant opinions of the day." Tract 82.
These two points — that our Church allows (1.) a
great diversity in doctrine, (2.) except as to the
Creed, — are abundantly confirmed by the following
testimonies of Bramhall, Laud, Hall, Taylor, Bull,
and Stillingfleet, which indeed go far beyond any
thing I have said.
For instance. Bull :
" What next he [a Roman Catholic objector] saith con
cerning our notorious prevarication from the Articles of our
Church, I do not perfectly understand. He very well
knows, that all our Clergy doth still subscribe them : and if
any man hath dared openly to oppose the declared sense of
the Church of England in any one of those Articles, he is
liable to ecclesiastical censure, which would be more duly
passed and executed, did not the divisions and fanatic
disturbances, first raised and still fomented by the blessed
emissaries of the Apostolic See, hinder and blunt the edge
of our discipline. But possibly he intends that latitude of
sense, which our Church, as an indulgent mother, allows

19
her sons in some abstruser points, (such as Predestination,
&c.) not particularly and precisely defined in her Articles,
but in general words capable of an indifferent construction.
If this be his meaning, this is so far from being a fault, that
it is the singular praise and commendation of our Church.
As for our being concluded by the Articles of our Church,
if he means our being obliged to give our internal assent to
every thing delivered in them upon peril of damnation, it
is confessed that few, yea none of us, that are well advised,
wUl acknowledge ourselves so concluded by them, nor did
our Church ever intend we should. For she professeth
not to deliver all her Articles (all I say, for some of them
are coincident with the fundamental points of Christianity)
as essentials of faith, without the belief whereof no man
can be saved ; but only propounds them as a body of safe
and pious principles, for the preservation of peace to be
subscribed, and not openly contradicted by her sons. And
therefore she requires subscription to them only from
the Clergy, and not from the laity, who yet are obliged to
acknowledge and profess all the fiindamental Articles of
the Christian faith, no less than the most learned Doctors.
This hath often been told the Papists by many learned
writers of our Church. I shall content myself (at present)
only with two illustrious testimonies of two famous Prelates.
The late terror of the Romanists, Dr. Usher, [Bramhall ?]
the most learned and reverend Primate of Ireland, thus
expresseth the sense of the Church of England, as to the
subscription required to the Thirty-Nine Articles ; ' We
do not suffer any man to reject the Thirty-Nine Articles
of the Church of England at his pleasure, yet neither
do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith, or
legacies of Christ and His Apostles ; but in a mean,
as pious opinions, fitted for the preservation of peace and
unity ; neither do we oblige any man to believe' fherfi,
but only not to contradict them.' So the excellent
Bishop Hall, in his Catholic Propositions, (truly so called,)
B 2

20
denieth, in general, that any Church can lawfully propose
any Articles to her sons, besides those contained in the
common rule of faith, to be believed under pain of damna
tion. His third proposition is this ; ' The sum of the
Christian faith are those principles of the Christian reli-
ligion, and fundamental grounds and points of faith, which
are undoubtedly contained and laid down in the canonical
Scriptures, whether in express terms or by necessary con
sequence, and in the ancient Creeds universally received
and allowed by the whole Church of God."
And then in the seventh and eighth Propositions,
he speaks fully to our purpose. — Prop. 7. ' There
are and may be many theological points, which are
wont to be believed and maintained, and so may law
fully be, of this or that particular Church, or the Doctors
thereof, or their followers, as godly doctrines and profitable
truths, besides those other essential and main matters of
faith, without any prejudice at aU. of the common peace of
the Church.' Prop. 8. ' Howsoever it may be lawful for
learned men and particular Churches to believe and main
tain those probable or (as they may think) certain points
of theological verities, yet it is not lawfid for them to
impose and obtrude the same doctrines upon any Church
or person, to be believed and held, as upon the necessity of
salvation ; or to anathematize or eject out of the Church
any person or company of men that think otherwise.'
"As for the fundamental principles of the Christian
religion, undoubtedly dehvered in the Scriptures, and
allowed (except the Romanists, who have so affected
singularity, as to frame to themselves a new Christianity)
by the whole Church of God, they are by the consent' of all
Christians acknowledged to be contained in that called the
Creed, or rule of faith.
" This rule of faith, and that also as it is more fiilly ex
plained by the first General Councils, our Church heartily
embraceth, and hath made a part of her Liturgy, and so

21
hath obhged all her sons to make solemn profession thereof.
To declare this more distinctly to your ladyship, our
Church receiveth that which is called the Apostles' Creed,
and enjoins the public profession thereof to all her sons in
her daily Service. And if this Creed be not thought express
enough fully to declare the sense of the Catholic Church
in points of necessary belief, and to obviate the precise in
terpretations of heretics, she receiveth also that admirable
summary of the Christian faith, which is called the Nicene
Creed, (but is indeed the entire ancient Creed of the
Oriental Churches, togethei: with the necessary additional
exphcations thereof, made by Fathers both of the Council
of Nice against Arius, and the Council of Constantinople
against Macedonius,) the pubhc profession whereof she also
enjoins all her sons (without any exception) to make in the
Morning Service of every Sunday and holy day. This
creed she professeth (consentaneously to her own prin
ciples) to- receive upon this ground primarily, because she
finds that the articles thereof may be proved by most
evident testimonies of Scripture; although she deny not,
that she is confirmed in her behef of this Creed, because she
finds all the articles thereof, in all ages, received by the
CathoUc Church." Vindication of the Church of Eng-
and, 27.
And Stillingfleet : ¦
" The Church of England makes no Articles of Faith,
but such as have the testimony and approbation of the
whole Christian world of aU ages, and are acknowledged
to be such by Rome itself, and in other things she requires
subscription to them not as Articles of Faith, but as Inferior
Truths which she expects a submission to, in order to her
Peace and Tranquillity. So the late learned L. Primate
of Ireland [Bramhall] often expresseth the sense of the
Church of England, as to her Thirty-Nine Articles.
' Neither doth the Church of England,' saith he, ' define

22
any of these questions, as necessary to be believed, either
necessitate medii, or necessitate praecepti, which is much
less ; but only bindeth her sons for peace sake, not to oppose
them.'' And in another place more fully. We do not
suffer any man to reject the Thirty-nine Articles of the
Church of England at his pleasure ; yet neither do we look .
upon them as Essentials of saving Faith, or Legacies of
Christ and His Apostles : but in a mean, as pious Opinions
fitted for the preservation of Unity ; neither do we oblige
any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them.'
By which we see, what a vast difference there is between
those things which are required by the Church of England,
in order to Peace; and those which are imposed by the
Church of Rome, as part of that Faith, extra quam non est
salus, without the belief of which there is no salvation. In
which she hath as much violated the Unity of the Catholic
Church, as the Church of England by her Prudence and
Moderation hath studied to preserve it." Grounds of Pro
testant Rel. part i. chap. 1 1 .
And Laud :
" A. C. will prove the Church of England a Shrew, and
such a Shrew. For in her Book of Canons she excommu
nicates every man, who shall hold any thing contrary to
any part of the said Articles. So A. C. But surely these
are not the very words of the Canon nor perhaps the sense.
Not the words ; for they are : Whosoever shall affirm that
the Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous, &c.
And perhaps not the sense. For it is one thing for a man
to hold an opinion privately within himself, and another thing
boldly and publicly to affirm it. And again, 'tis one thing
to hold contrary to some part of an Article, which perhaps
may be but in the manner of Expression, and another thing
positively to affirm, that the Articles in any part of them
are superstitious, and erroneous. On Tradition, xiv. 2.

23
And Taylor : —
"I will not pretend to beheve that those doctors who
first framed the article, did all of them mean as I mean ; I
am not sure they did, or that they did not ; but this I am
sure, that they framed the words with much caution and
prudence, and so as might abstain from grieving the
contrary minds of differing men  It is not un
usual for Chm-ches, in matters of difficulty, to frame
their articles so as to serve the ends of peace, and yet
not to endanger truth, or to destroy liberty of im
proving truth, or a further reformation. And since there
are so very many questions and opinions in this point,
either all the Dissenters must be allowed to reconcile the
Article and their opinion, or must refuse her communion ;
which whosoever shall enforce, is a great schismatic and
an uncharitable man. This only is certain, that to tie the
article and our doctrine together, is an excellent art of
peace, and a certain signification of obedience ; and yet is
a security of truth, and that just liberty of understanding,
which, because it is only God's subject, is then sufficiently
submitted to men, when we consent in the same form of
words." — Further Explic. Orig. Sin. § 6.
This view of the Articles conveyed in these ex
tracts evidently allows, as I have said above, of much
greater freedom in the private opinions of indivi
duals, subscribing them, than I have contended
for. While I am on this subject, I will make this remark
in addition: — That though I consider that the
wording of the Articles is wide enough to admit
persons of very different sentiments from each other
in detail, provided they agree in some broad gene
ral sense of them, (e. g. differing from each other
whether or not there is ani/ state of purification

24
after death, or whether or not any addresses are
allowable to Saints departed, so that they one and
all condemn the Roman doctrine of Purgatory and of
Invocation as actually taught and carried into effect,)
yet I do not leave the Articles without their one
legitimate sense in preference to all other senses. The
only peculiarity of the view I advocate, if I must so
call it, is this, — that, whereas it is usual at this day
to make the particular belief of their writers their true
interpretation, I would make the belief of the Catholic
Church such. That is, as it is often said that infants
are regenerated in Baptism, not on the faith of their
parents but of the Church, so in like manner I
would say the Articles are received, not in the sense
of their framers, but (as far as the wording will admit
or any ambiguity requires it,) in the one Catholic
sense. For instance as to Purgatory, I consider
(with the Homily) that the Article opposes the
main idea really encouraged by Rome, that tempo
rary punishment is a substitute for hell in the case
of the unholy, and all the superstitions consequent
thereupon. As to Invocation, that the Article op
poses, not every sort of calling on beings short of
God, (for certain passages in the Psalms are such)
but all that trenches on worship, (as the Homily
puts it,) the question whether ora pro nobis be such,
being open, — not indifferent indeed, but a most grave
and serious one for any individual who feels drawn
to it, but still undecided by the Article. As to
Images, the Article condemns all approach to idola-^
trous regard, such as Rome does in point of fact
encourage. As to the Mass, all that impairs or

25
obscures the doctrine of the one Atonement, once
offered, which Masses, as observed in the Church of
Rome, actually have done.
2. And now, if you will permit me to add a few
words more, I will briefly state why I am anxious
about securing this liberty for us.
Every one sees a different portion of society ; and,
judging of what is done by its effect upon that por
tion, comes to very different conclusions about its
utility, expedience, and propriety. That the Tract
in question has been very inexpedient as addressed
to one class of persons is quite certain ; but it was
meant for another, and I sincerely think is necessary
for them. And in giving the reason, I earnestly
wish even those who do not admit or feel it, yet to
observe that I had a reason.
In truth there is at this moment a great progress
of the religious mind of our Church to something
deeper and truer than satisfied the last century. I
always have contended, and will contend, that it is
not satisfactorily accounted for by any particular
movements of individuals on a particular spot.
The poets and philosophers of the age have borne
witness to it many years. Those great names in
our literature. Sir Walter Scott, Mr. Wordsworth,
Mr. Coleridge, though in different ways and with
essential differences one from another, and perhaps
from any Church system, still all bear witness to it.
Mr. Alexander Knox in Ireland bears a most sur
prising witness to it. The system of Mr. Irving is
another witness to it. The age is moving towards

26
something, and most unhappily the one religious
communion among us which has of late years been
practically in possession of this something, is the
Church of Rome. She alone, amid all the errors
and evils of her practical system, has given free
scope to the feelings of awe, mystery, tender
ness, reverence, devotedness, and other feelings
which may be especially called Catholic. The
question then is, whether we shall give them up
to the Roman Church or clairn them for ourselves,
as we well may, by reverting to that older system,
which has of late years indeed been superseded,
but which has been, and is, quite congenial (to say
the least), I should rather say proper and natural,
or even necessary to our Church. But if we do
give them up, then we must give up the men who
cherish them. We must consent either to give up
the men, or to admit their principles.
Now, I say, I speak of what especially comes
under my eye, when I express my conviction that
this is a very serious question at this time. It is
not a theoretical question at all. I may be wrong
in my conviction, I may be wrong in the mode I
adopt to meet it, but still the Tract is grounded on
the belief that the Articles need not be so closed as
the received method of teaching closes them, and
ought not to be for the sake of many persons. If
we will close them, we run the risk of subjecting
persons whom we should least like to lose or dis
tress, to the temptation of joining the Church of
Rome, or to the necessity of withdrawing from
the Church as established, or to the misery of

27
subscribing with doubt and hesitation. And, as to
myself, I was led especially to exert myself with
reference to this difficulty, from having ' had it
earnestly urged upon me by parties I revere, to do
all I could to keep members of our Church from
straggling in the direction of Rome ; and, not being
able to pursue the methods commonly adopted,
and being persuaded that the view of the Articles
I have taken is true and honest, I was anxious to
set it before them. I thought it would be useful
to them, without hurting any one else.
I have no wish or thought to do more than to
claim an admission for these persons to the right
of subscription. Of course I should rejoice if the
members of our Church were all of one mind ; but
they are not ; and till they are, one can but submit
to what is at present the will, or rather the
chastisement, of Providence. And let me now im
plore my brethren to submit, and not to force an
agreement at the risk of a schism.
In conclusion, I will but express my great sorrow
that I have at all startled or offended those for
whom I have nothing but respectful and kind feel
ings. That I am startled myself in turn, that
persons, who have in years past and present borne
patiently disclaimers of the Athanasian Creed, or of
the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, or of belief
in many of the Scripture miracles, should now be
alarmed so much, when a private Member of the
University, without his name, makes statements in
an opposite direction, I must also avow. Nor can I
repent of what 1 ha^c published. Still, whatever has

28
been said, or is to be done in consequence, is, I am
sure, to be ascribed to the most conscientious feel
ings ; and though it may grieve me, I trust it will
not vex me, or make me less contented and peaceful
in myself. Ever yours most sincerely,
J. H. N.

Saturday,
March I3th, 1841.

It may be necessary to notice one or two inaccuracies in
the Tract. Such is a quotation from Bp. Andrewes, instead of
one from Bp. Ken ; and the word Jngel for Spirit, in page 36,
(though the passage itself perhaps had better have been omitted,)
and Ratification for Declaration, in page 80.
^ Since the above was in type, it has been told me that the
Hebdomadal Board has recorded its opinion about the Tract.

POSTSCRIPT.
I am led by circumstances, in order to €xplain the
Tract more fully, to add :
1. That I have most honestiy stated in the above Letter
what was intended, though not expressed in the Tract,
about the actual dominant errors of the Church of Rome.
The Tract was no feeler, as it is called, put forth to see how
far one might go without notice, nor is the Letter a retracta
tion. Those who are immediately about me, know that in
the interval between the printing and publication of the
Tract, I was engaged in writing some Letters about
Romanism in which I spoke of the impossibility of any
approach of the English towards the Roman Church, arising
out of the present state of the latter, as strongly as I did a
year ago, or as I do now in my Letter.
2. Again as to the object of my Pamphlet. I can de
clare most honestly that my reason for writing and pub-
hshing it, without which I should not have done it, and
which was before my mind from first to last, was, as I
have stated it in my Letter, the quieting the consciences of
persons who considered (falsely as I think) that the
Articles prevent them holding views found in the Pri
mitive Church. That while I was writing it, I was not
unwilling to shew that the Decrees of Trent were but
partially, if at aU, committed to certain popular errors, I
fully grant ; but even this I did with reference to others.
In explanation of the sensation which the Tract has
caused (as far as it arises from the Tract itself), I observe :
1. The Tract was addressed to one set of persons, and
has been used and commented on by another.
2. As its Author had very frequently and lately entered
his protest against many things in the Roman system, he

30
did not see that it was necessary to repeat them, when that
system did not form the direct object of the Tract ; and
the consciousness how strongly he had pledged himself
against Rome, as it is, made him, as persons about him
know full well, quite unsuspicious of the possibility of any
sort of misunderstanding arising out of his statements in it.
3. Those who had happened to read his former pubhca-
tions, understanding him to identify rather than connect the
decrees of Trent with the peculiar Roman errors, were led
perhaps to think, that in speaking charitably of those decrees
he was speaking tenderly of those errors. And it must
be confessed that, though he has uniformly maintained the
existence of the errors in the Church of Rome both before
and after the Tridentine Council, yet he has sometimes
spoken of the decrees rather as the essential development,
than the existing symbol and index of the errors.
4. There was, confessedly, a vagueness and deficiency in
some places as to the conclusions he would draw from the
premises stated, and a consequent opening to the charge
of a disingenuous understatement of the contrariety between
the Articles and the actual Roman system. This arose in
great measure from his being more bent on laying down
his principle than defining its results.
5. It arose also from the circumstance that, the main drift
of the Tract being that of illustrating the Articles from the
Homilies, the doctrines of the Articles are sometimes
brought out only so far as the Homilies explain them,
which is in some cases an inadequate representation.
I will add, moreover, 1. That in the expression "ambigu
ous Formularies," I did not think of referring to the Prayer
Book. And I suppose all persons will grant, that if the
Articles treat of Predestination, and yet can be signed by
Arminians and Calvinists, they are not clear on all points.
But I gladly withdraw the phrase. And I express now, as
I often have done before, my great veneration for those

31
ancient forms of worship which, by God's good providence,
are preserved to us.
2. That I did not mean at all to assert that persons
called High-Churchmen have a difficulty in holding Catho
lic principles consistentiy with a subscription to the Arti
cles; on the contrary, I observe in the Tract, that "the
objection" on this score " is groundless ;" yet that there are
many who have felt it, however causelessly, I know, and
certainly have said.
3. That I had no intention whatever of implying that
there are not many persons of Catholic views in our Church,
and those more worthy of consideration than myself, who
deny that the Reformers were uncatholic. I consider the
question quite an open one.
4. That, in implying that certain modified kinds of Invo
cation, veneration of Relics, &c. might be Catholic, I did not
mean to rule it, that they were so ; but considered it an open
question, whether they were or not, which I did not wish
decided one way or the other, and which I considered the
Articles left open. At the same time it is quite certain,
that such practices as the Invocation of Saints, cannot
justly be called Catholic in the same sense in which the
doctrine of the Incarnation is, or the Episcopal principle.
5. That my mode of interpreting the Articles is not of a
lax and indefinite character, but one which goes upon a
plain and intelligible principle, viz. that of the Catholic
sense ; or, in the words of the Tract, " in the most
Catholic sense they will admit.''

OXFORD: FEINTED BV I. SHRIMPTON.

3 9002 00747 9604