Apologia Pro Vita Sua — 09 - Chapter 2, Part 4

* * * * * From the time that I had entered upon the duties of Public Tutor at my College, when my doctrinal views were very different from what they were in 1841, I had meditated a comment upon the Articles.

Then, when the Movement was in its swing, friends had said to me, "What will you make of the Articles?"

but I did not share the apprehension which their question implied.

Whether, as time went on, I should have been forced, by the necessities of the original theory of the Movement, to put on paper the speculations which I had about them, I am not able to conjecture.

The actual cause of my doing so, in the beginning of 1841, was the restlessness, actual and prospective, of those who neither liked the _Via Media_, nor my strong judgment against Rome.

I had been enjoined, I think by my Bishop, to keep these men straight, and I wished so to do: but their tangible difficulty was subscription to the Articles; and thus the question of the Articles came before me.

It was thrown in our teeth; "How can you manage to sign the Articles?

they are directly against Rome."

"Against Rome?"

I made answer, "What do you mean by 'Rome?'

" and then I proceeded to make distinctions, of which I shall now give an account.

By "Roman doctrine" might be meant one of three things: 1, the _Catholic teaching_ of the early centuries; or 2, the _formal dogmas of Rome_ as contained in the later Councils, especially the Council of Trent, and as condensed in the Creed of Pope Pius IV.

; 3, the _actual popular beliefs and usages_ sanctioned by Rome in the countries in communion with it, over and above the dogmas; and these I called "dominant errors."

Now Protestants commonly thought that in all three senses, "Roman doctrine" was condemned in the Articles: I thought that the _Catholic teaching_ was not condemned; that the _dominant errors_ were; and as to the _formal dogmas_, that some were, some were not, and that the line had to be drawn between them.

Thus, 1. The use of Prayers for the dead was a Catholic doctrine,--not condemned in the Articles; 2. The prison of Purgatory was a Roman dogma,--which was condemned in them; but the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils was a Roman dogma,--not condemned;

and 3. The fire of Purgatory was an authorized and popular error, not a dogma,--which was condemned.

Further, I considered that the difficulties, felt by the persons whom I have mentioned, mainly lay in their mistaking, 1, Catholic teaching, which was not condemned in the Articles, for Roman dogma which was condemned; and 2, Roman dogma, which was not condemned in the Articles, for dominant error which was.

If they went further than this, I had nothing more to say to them.

A further motive which I had for my attempt, was the desire to ascertain the ultimate points of contrariety between the Roman and Anglican creeds, and to make them as few as possible.

I thought that each creed was obscured and misrepresented by a dominant circumambient "Popery" and "Protestantism."

The main thesis then of my Essay was this:--the Articles do not oppose Catholic teaching; they but partially oppose Roman dogma; they for the most part oppose the dominant errors of Rome.

And the problem was, as I have said, to draw the line as to what they allowed and what they condemned.

Such being the object which I had in view, what were my prospects of widening and of defining their meaning?

The prospect was encouraging;

there was no doubt at all of the elasticity of the Articles: to take a palmary instance, the seventeenth was assumed by one party to be Lutheran, by another Calvinistic, though the two interpretations were contradictory of each other; why then should not other Articles be drawn up with a vagueness of an equally intense character?

I wanted to ascertain what was the limit of that elasticity in the direction of Roman dogma.

But next, I had a way of inquiry of my own, which I state without defending.

I instanced it afterwards in my Essay on Doctrinal Development.

That work, I believe, I have not read since I published it, and I do not doubt at all I have made many mistakes in it;--partly, from my ignorance of the details of doctrine, as the Church of Rome holds them, but partly from my impatience to clear as large a range for the _principle_ of doctrinal Development (waiving the question of historical _fact_) as was consistent with the strict Apostolicity and identity of the Catholic Creed.

In like manner, as regards the 39 Articles, my method of inquiry was to leap _in medias res_.

I wished to institute an inquiry how far, in critical fairness, the text _could_ be opened; I was aiming far more at ascertaining what a man who subscribed it might hold than what he must, so that my conclusions were negative rather than positive.

It was but a first essay.

And I made it with the full recognition and consciousness, which I had already expressed in my Prophetical Office, as regards the _Via Media_, that I was making only "a first approximation to the required solution;"--"a series of illustrations supplying hints for the removal" of a difficulty, and with full acknowledgment "that in minor points, whether in question of fact or of judgment, there was room for difference or error of opinion," and that I "should not be ashamed to own a mistake, if it were proved against me, nor reluctant to bear the just blame of it."

--Proph.

Off.

p. 31. I will add, I was embarrassed in consequence of my wish to go as far as was possible in interpreting the Articles in the direction of Roman dogma, without disclosing what I was doing to the parties whose doubts I was meeting; who, if they understood at once the full extent of the licence which the Articles admitted, might be thereby encouraged to proceed still further than at present they found in themselves any call to go.

1. But in the way of such an attempt comes the prompt objection that the Articles were actually drawn up against "Popery," and therefore it was transcendently absurd and dishonest to suppose that Popery, in any shape,--patristic belief, Tridentine dogma, or popular corruption authoritatively sanctioned,--would be able to take refuge under their text.

This premiss I denied.

Not any religious doctrine at all, but a political principle, was the primary English idea of "Popery" at the date of the Reformation.

And what was that political principle, and how could it best be suppressed in England?

What was the great question in the days of Henry and Elizabeth?

The _Supremacy_;--now, was I saying one single word in favour of the Supremacy of the Holy See, in favour of the foreign jurisdiction?

No, I did not believe in it myself.

Did Henry VIII.

religiously hold Justification by faith only?

did he disbelieve Purgatory?

Was Elizabeth zealous for the marriage of the Clergy?

or had she a conscience against the Mass?

The Supremacy of the Pope was the essence of the "Popery" to which, at the time of the composition of the Articles, the Supreme Head or Governor of the English Church was so violently hostile.

2. But again I said this:--let "Popery" mean what it would in the mouths of the compilers of the Articles, let it even, for argument's sake, include the doctrines of that Tridentine Council, which was not yet over when the Articles were drawn up, and against which they could not be simply directed, yet, consider, what was the object of the Government in their imposition?

merely to get rid of "Popery?"

No; it had the further object of gaining the "Papists."

What then was the best way to induce reluctant or wavering minds, and these, I supposed, were the majority, to give in their adhesion to the new symbol?

how had the Arians drawn up their Creeds?

was it not on the principle of using vague ambiguous language, which to the subscribers would seem to bear a Catholic sense, but which, when worked out on the long run, would prove to be heterodox?

Accordingly, there was great antecedent probability, that, fierce as the Articles might look at first sight, their bark would prove worse than their bite.

I say antecedent probability, for to what extent that surmise might be true, could only be ascertained by investigation.

3. But a consideration came up at once, which threw light on this surmise:--what if it should turn out that the very men who drew up the Articles, in the very act of doing so, had avowed, or rather in one of those very Articles themselves had imposed on subscribers, a number of those very "Papistical" doctrines, which they were now thought to deny, as part and parcel of that very Protestantism, which they were now thought to consider divine?

and this was the fact, and I showed it in my Essay.

Let the reader observe:--the 35th Article says: "The second Book of Homilies doth contain _a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for_ these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies."

Here the _doctrine_ of the Homilies is recognized as godly and wholesome, and concurrence in that recognition is imposed on all subscribers of the Articles.

Let us then turn to the Homilies, and see what this godly doctrine is: I quoted from them to the following effect: 1. They declare that the so-called "apocryphal" book of Tobit is the teaching of the Holy Ghost, and is Scripture.

2. That the so-called "apocryphal" book of Wisdom is Scripture, and the infallible and undeceivable word of God.

3. That the Primitive Church, next to the Apostles' time, and, as they imply, for almost 700 years, is no doubt most pure.

4. That the Primitive Church is specially to be followed.

5. That the Four first General Councils belong to the Primitive Church.

6. That there are Six Councils which are allowed and received by all men.

7. Again, they speak of a certain truth, and say that it is declared by God's word, the sentences of the ancient doctors, and judgment of the Primitive Church.

8. Of the learned and holy Bishops and doctors of the Church of the first eight centuries being of great authority and credit with the people.

9. Of the declaration of Christ and His Apostles and all the rest of the Holy Fathers.

10. Of the authority both of Scripture and also of Augustine.

11. Of Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, and about thirty other Fathers, to some of whom they give the title of "Saint," to others of "ancient Catholic Fathers and doctors, &c." 12. They declare that, not only the holy Apostles and disciples of Christ, but the godly Fathers also, before and since Christ, were endued without doubt with the Holy Ghost.

13. That the ancient Catholic Fathers say that the "Lord's Supper" is the salve of immortality, the sovereign preservative against death, the food of immortality, the healthful grace.

14. That the Lord's Blessed Body and Blood are received under the form of bread and wine.

15. That the meat in the Sacrament is an invisible meat and a ghostly substance.

16. That the holy Body and Blood of thy God ought to be touched with the mind.

17. That Ordination is a Sacrament.

18. That Matrimony is a Sacrament.

19. That there are other Sacraments besides "Baptism and the Lord's Supper," though not "such as" they.

20. That the souls of the Saints are reigning in joy and in heaven with God.

21. That alms-deeds purge the soul from the infection and filthy spots of sin, and are a precious medicine, an inestimable jewel.

22. That mercifulness wipes out and washes away sins, as salves and remedies to heal sores and grievous diseases.

23. That the duty of fasting is a truth more manifest than it should need to be proved.

24. That fasting, used with prayer, is of great efficacy and weigheth much with God; so the Angel Raphael told Tobias.

25. That the puissant and mighty Emperor Theodosius was, in the Primitive Church which was most holy and godly, excommunicated by St. Ambrose.

26. That Constantine, Bishop of Rome, did condemn Philippicus, then Emperor, not without a cause indeed, but very justly.

Putting altogether aside the question how far these separate theses came under the matter to which subscription was to be made, it was quite plain, that in the minds of the men who wrote the Homilies, and who thus incorporated them into the Anglican system of doctrine, there was no such nice discrimination between the Catholic and the Protestant faith, no such clear recognition of formal Protestant principles and tenets, no such accurate definition of "Roman doctrine," as is received at the present day:--hence great probability accrued to my presentiment, that the Articles were tolerant, not only of what I called "Catholic teaching," but of much that was "Roman."

4. And here was another reason against the notion that the Articles directly attacked the Roman dogmas as declared at Trent and as promulgated by Pius the Fourth:--the Council of Trent was not over, nor its Canons promulgated at the date when the Articles were drawn up[5], so that those Articles must be aiming at something else?

What was that something else?

The Homilies tell us: the Homilies are the best comment upon the Articles.

Let us turn to the Homilies, and we shall find from first to last that, not only is not the Catholic teaching of the first centuries, but neither again are the dogmas of Rome, the objects of the protest of the compilers of the Articles, but the dominant errors, the popular corruptions, authorized or suffered by the high name of Rome.

The eloquent declamation of the Homilies finds its matter almost exclusively in the dominant errors.

As to Catholic teaching, nay as to Roman dogma, of such theology those Homilies, as I have shown, contained no small portion themselves.

[5] The Pope's Confirmation of the Council, by which its Canons became _de fide_, and his Bull _super confirmatione_ by which they were promulgated to the world, are dated January 26, 1564. The Articles are dated 1562. 5. So much for the writers of the Articles and Homilies;--they were witnesses, not authorities, and I used them as such; but in the next place, who were the actual authorities imposing them?

I reasonably considered the authority _imponens_ to be the Convocation of 1571; but here again, it would be found that the very Convocation, which received and confirmed the 39 Articles, also enjoined by Canon that "preachers should be _careful_, that they should _never_ teach aught in a sermon, to be religiously held and believed by the people, except that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and _which the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have collected_ from that very doctrine."

Here, let it be observed, an appeal is made by the Convocation _imponens_ to the very same ancient authorities, as had been mentioned with such profound veneration by the writers of the Homilies and the Articles, and thus, if the Homilies contained views of doctrine which now would be called Roman, there seemed to me to be an extreme probability that the Convocation of 1571 also countenanced and received, or at least did not reject, those doctrines.

6. And further, when at length I came actually to look into the text of the Articles, I saw in many cases a patent justification of all that I had surmised as to their vagueness and indecisiveness, and that, not only on questions which lay between Lutherans, Calvinists, and Zuinglians, but on Catholic questions also; and I have noticed them in my Tract.

In the conclusion of my Tract I observe: The Articles are "evidently framed on the principle of leaving open large questions on which the controversy hinges.

They state broadly extreme truths, and are silent about their adjustment.

For instance, they say that all necessary faith must be proved from Scripture; but do not say _who_ is to prove it.

They say, that the Church has authority in controversies; they do not say _what_ authority.

They say that it may enforce nothing beyond Scripture, but do not say _where_ the remedy lies when it does.

They say that works _before_ grace _and_ justification are worthless and worse, and that works _after_ grace _and_ justification are acceptable, but they do not speak at all of works _with_ God's aid _before_ justification.

They say that men are lawfully called and sent to minister and preach, who are chosen and called by men who have public authority _given_ them in the Congregation; but they do not add _by whom_ the authority is to be given.

They say that Councils called by _princes_ may err; they do not determine whether Councils called in the name of Christ may err."

Such were the considerations which weighed with me in my inquiry how far the Articles were tolerant of a Catholic, or even a Roman interpretation; and such was the defence which I made in my Tract for having attempted it.

From what I have already said, it will appear that I have no need or intention at this day to maintain every particular interpretation which I suggested in the course of my Tract, nor indeed had I then.

Whether it was prudent or not, whether it was sensible or not, any how I attempted only a first essay of a necessary work, an essay which, as I was quite prepared to find, would require revision and modification by means of the lights which I should gain from the criticism of others.

I should have gladly withdrawn any statement, which could be proved to me to be erroneous; I considered my work to be faulty and open to objection in the same sense in which I now consider my Anglican interpretations of Scripture to be erroneous; but in no other sense.

I am surprised that men do not apply to the interpreters of Scripture generally the hard names which they apply to the author of Tract 90. He held a large system of theology, and applied it to the Articles: Episcopalians, or Lutherans, or Presbyterians, or Unitarians, hold a large system of theology and apply it to Scripture.

Every theology has its difficulties; Protestants hold justification by faith only, though there is no text in St. Paul which enunciates it, and though St. James expressly denies it; do we therefore call Protestants dishonest?

they deny that the Church has a divine mission, though St. Paul says that it is "the Pillar and ground of Truth;" they keep the Sabbath, though St. Paul says, "Let no man judge you in meat or drink or in respect of ...

the sabbath days."

Every creed has texts in its favour, and again texts which run counter to it: and this is generally confessed.

And this is what I felt keenly:--how had I done worse in Tract 90 than Anglicans, Wesleyans, and Calvinists did daily in their Sermons and their publications?

how had I done worse, than the Evangelical party in their _ex animo_ reception of the Services for Baptism and Visitation of the Sick[6]?

Why was I to be dishonest and they immaculate?

There was an occasion on which our Lord gave an answer, which seemed to be appropriate to my own case, when the tumult broke out against my Tract:--"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at him."

I could have fancied that a sense of their own difficulties of interpretation would have persuaded the great party I have mentioned to some prudence, or at least moderation, in opposing a teacher of an opposite school.

But I suppose their alarm and their anger overcame their sense of justice.

[6] For instance, let candid men consider the form of Absolution contained in that Prayer Book, of which all clergymen, Evangelical and Liberal as well as high Church, and (I think) all persons in University office declare that "it containeth _nothing contrary to the Word of God_."

I challenge, in the sight of all England, Evangelical clergymen generally, to put on paper an interpretation of this form of words, consistent with their sentiments, which shall be less forced than the most objectionable of the interpretations which Tract 90 puts upon any passage in the Articles.

"Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left _power_ to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him, of His great mercy forgive thee thine offences; and by _His authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins_, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Amen."

I subjoin the Roman form, as used in England and elsewhere: "Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat; et ego auctoritate ipsius te absolvo, ab omni vinculo excommunicationis et interdicti, in quantum possum et tu indiges.

Deinde ego te absolvo à peccatis tuis, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritûs Sancti.

Amen."

* * * * * In the sudden storm of indignation with which the Tract was received throughout the country on its appearance, I recognize much of real religious feeling, much of honest and true principle, much of straightforward ignorant common sense.

In Oxford there was genuine feeling too; but there had been a smouldering, stern, energetic animosity, not at all unnatural, partly rational, against its author.

A

false step had been made; now was the time for action.

I am told that, even before the publication of the Tract, rumours of its contents had got into the hostile camp in an exaggerated form; and not a moment was lost in proceeding to action, when I was actually fallen into the hands of the Philistines.

I was quite unprepared for the outbreak, and was startled at its violence.

I do not think I had any fear.

Nay, I will add, I am not sure that it was not in one point of view a relief to me.

I saw indeed clearly that my place in the Movement was lost; public confidence was at an end; my occupation was gone.

It was simply an impossibility that I could say any thing henceforth to good effect, when I had been posted up by the marshal on the buttery-hatch of every College of my University, after the manner of discommoned pastry-cooks, and when in every part of the country and every class of society, through every organ and opportunity of opinion, in newspapers, in periodicals, at meetings, in pulpits, at dinner-tables, in coffee-rooms, in railway carriages, I was denounced as a traitor who had laid his train and was detected in the very act of firing it against the time-honoured Establishment.

There were indeed men, besides my own immediate friends, men of name and position, who gallantly took my part, as Dr. Hook, Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Perceval; it must have been a grievous trial for themselves; yet what after all could they do for me?

Confidence in me was lost;--but I had already lost full confidence in myself.

Thoughts had passed over me a year and a half before in respect to the Anglican claims, which for the time had profoundly troubled me.

They had gone: I had not less confidence in the power and the prospects of the Apostolical movement than before; not less confidence than before in the grievousness of what I called the "dominant errors" of Rome: but how was I any more to have absolute confidence in myself?

how was I to have confidence in my present confidence?

how was I to be sure that I should always think as I thought now?

I felt that by this event a kind Providence had saved me from an impossible position in the future.

* * * * * First, if I remember right, they wished me to withdraw the Tract.

This I refused to do: I would not do so for the sake of those who were unsettled or in danger of unsettlement.

I would not do so for my own sake; for how could I acquiesce in a mere Protestant interpretation of the Articles?

how could I range myself among the professors of a theology, of which it put my teeth on edge even to hear the sound?

Next they said, "Keep silence; do not defend the Tract;" I answered, "Yes, if you will not condemn it,--if you will allow it to continue on sale."

They pressed on me whenever I gave way; they fell back when they saw me obstinate.

Their line of action was to get out of me as much as they could; but upon the point of their tolerating the Tract I _was_ obstinate.

So they let me continue it on sale; and they said they would not condemn it.

But they said that this was on condition that I did not defend it, that I stopped the series, and that I myself published my own condemnation in a letter to the Bishop of Oxford.

I impute nothing whatever to him, he was ever most kind to me.

Also, they said they could not answer for what some individual Bishops might perhaps say about the Tract in their own charges.

I agreed to their conditions.

My one point was to save the Tract.

Not a line in writing was given me, as a pledge of the observance of the main article on their side of the engagement.

Parts of letters from them were read to me, without being put into my hands.

It was an "understanding."

A clever man had warned me against "understandings" some thirteen years before: I have hated them ever since.

In the last words of my letter to the Bishop of Oxford I thus resigned my place in the Movement:-- "I have nothing to be sorry for," I say to him, "except having made your Lordship anxious, and others whom I am bound to revere.

I have nothing to be sorry for, but everything to rejoice in and be thankful for.

I

have never taken pleasure in seeming to be able to move a party, and whatever influence I have had, has been found, not sought after.

I have acted because others did not act, and have sacrificed a quiet which I prized.

May God be with me in time to come, as He has been hitherto!

and He will be, if I can but keep my hand clean and my heart pure.

I think I can bear, or at least will try to bear, any personal humiliation, so that I am preserved from betraying sacred interests, which the Lord of grace and power has given into my charge[7]."

[7] To the Pamphlets published in my behalf at this time I should add "One Tract more," an able and generous defence of Tractarianism and No. 90, by the present Lord Houghton.