protest. We might boldly welcome,
even what we did not ourselves think right to adopt. And, when we were obliged
on the contrary boldly to denounce, we should do so with pain, not with
exultation. By very reason of our protest, which we had made, and made ex
animo, we could agree to differ. What the members of the Bible Society did
on the basis of Scripture, we could do on the basis of the Church; Trinitarian
and Unitarian were further apart than Roman and Anglican. Thus we had a real
wish to co-operate with Rome in all lawful things, if she would let us, and if
the rules of our own Church let us; and we thought there was no better way
towards the restoration of doctrinal purity and unity. And we thought that Rome
was not committed by her formal decrees to all that she actually taught: and
again, if her disputants had been unfair to us, or her rulers tyrannical, we
bore in mind that on our side too there had been rancour and slander in our
controversial attacks upon her, and violence in our political measures. As to
ourselves being direct instruments in improving her belief or practice, I used
to say, "Look at home; let us first, (or at least let us the while,) supply our
own shortcomings, before we attempt to be physicians to any one else." This is
very much the spirit of Tract 71, to which I referred just now. I am well aware
that there is a paragraph inconsistent with it in the Prospectus to the Library
of the Fathers; but I do not consider myself responsible for it. Indeed, I have
no intention whatever of implying that Dr. Pusey concurred in the ecclesiastical
theory, which I have been now drawing out; nor that I took it up myself except
by degrees in the course of ten years. It was necessarily the growth of time. In
fact, hardly any two persons, who took part in the Movement, agreed in their
view of the limit to which our general principles might religiously be
carried.
And now I have said enough on what I consider to have been the general objects of the
various works, which I wrote, edited, or prompted in the years which I am
reviewing. I wanted to bring out in a substantive form a living Church of
England, in a position proper to herself, and founded on distinct principles; as
far as paper could do it, as far as earnestly preaching it and influencing
others towards it, could tend to make it a fact;—a living Church, made of flesh
and blood, with voice, complexion, and motion and action, and a will of its own.
I believe I had no private motive, and no personal aim. Nor did I ask for more
than "a fair stage and no favour," nor expect the work would be accomplished in
my days; but I thought that enough would be secured to continue it in the
future, under, perhaps, more hopeful circumstances and prospects than the
present.
I will mention in illustration some of the principal works, doctrinal and
historical, which originated in the object which I have stated.
I wrote my Essay on Justification in 1837; it was aimed at the Lutheran
dictum that justification by faith only was the cardinal doctrine of
Christianity. I considered that this doctrine was either a paradox or a
truism,—a paradox in Luther's mouth, a truism in Melanchthon's. I thought that
the Anglican Church followed Melanchthon, and that in consequence between Rome
and Anglicanism, between high Church and low Church, there was no real
intellectual difference on the point. I wished to fill up a ditch, the work of
man. In this Volume again, I express my desire to build up a system of theology
out of the Anglican divines, and imply that my dissertation was a tentative
Inquiry. I speak in the Preface of "offering suggestions towards a work, which
must be uppermost in the mind of every true son of the English Church at this
day,—the consolidation of a theological system, which, built upon those
formularies, to which all clergymen are bound, may tend to inform, persuade, and absorb
into itself religious minds, which hitherto have fancied, that, on the peculiar
Protestant questions, they were seriously opposed to each other."—P. vii.
In my University Sermons there is a series of discussions upon the subject of
Faith and Reason; these again were the tentative commencement of a grave and
necessary work, viz. an inquiry into the ultimate basis of religious faith,
prior to the distinction into Creeds.
In like manner in a Pamphlet, which I published in the summer of 1838, is an
attempt at placing the doctrine of the Real Presence on an intellectual basis.
The fundamental idea is consonant to that to which I had been so long attached:
it is the denial of the existence of space except as a subjective idea of our
minds.
The Church of the Fathers is one of the earliest productions of the Movement,
and appeared in numbers in the British Magazine, being written with the aim of
introducing the religious sentiments, views, and customs of the first ages into
the modern Church of England.
The Translation of Fleury's Church History was commenced under these
circumstances:—I was fond of Fleury for a reason which I express in the
Advertisement; because it presented a sort of photograph of ecclesiastical
history without any comment upon it. In the event, that simple representation of
the early centuries had a good deal to do with unsettling me in my Anglicanism;
but how little I could anticipate this, will be seen in the fact that the
publication of Fleury was a favourite scheme with Mr. Rose. He proposed it to me
twice, between the years 1834 and 1837; and I mention it as one out of many
particulars curiously illustrating how truly my change of opinion arose, not
from foreign influences, but from the working of my own mind, and the accidents
around me. The date, from which the portion actually translated began, was determined by
the Publisher on reasons with which we were not concerned.
Another historical work, but drawn from original sources, was given to the
world by my old friend Mr. Bowden, being a Life of Pope Gregory VII. I need
scarcely recall to those who have read it, the power and the liveliness of the
narrative. This composition was the author's relaxation, on evenings and in his
summer vacations, from his ordinary engagements in London. It had been suggested
to him originally by me, at the instance of Hurrell Froude.
The Series of the Lives of the English Saints was projected at a later
period, under circumstances which I shall have in the sequel to describe. Those
beautiful compositions have nothing in them, as far as I recollect, simply
inconsistent with the general objects which I have been assigning to my labours
in these years, though the immediate occasion which led to them, and the tone in
which they were written, had little that was congenial with Anglicanism.
At a comparatively early date I drew up the Tract on the Roman Breviary. It
frightened my own friends on its first appearance; and several years afterwards,
when younger men began to translate for publication the four volumes in
extenso, they were dissuaded from doing so by advice to which from a sense
of duty they listened. It was an apparent accident, which introduced me to the
knowledge of that most wonderful and most attractive monument of the devotion of
saints. On Hurrell Froude's death, in 1836, I was asked to select one of his
books as a keepsake. I selected Butler's Analogy; finding that it had been
already chosen, I looked with some perplexity along the shelves as they stood
before me, when an intimate friend at my elbow said, "Take that." It was the
Breviary which Hurrell had had with him at Barbadoes. Accordingly I took it, studied it,
wrote my Tract from it, and have it on my table in constant use till this
day.
That dear and familiar companion, who thus put the Breviary into my hands, is
still in the Anglican Church. So, too, is that early venerated long-loved
friend, together with whom I edited a work which, more perhaps than any other,
caused disturbance and annoyance in the Anglican world,—Froude's Remains; yet,
however judgments might run as to the prudence of publishing it, I never heard
any one impute to Mr. Keble the very shadow of dishonesty or treachery towards
his Church in so acting.
The annotated Translation of the Treatises of St. Athanasius was of course in
no sense of a tentative character; it belongs to another order of thought. This
historico-dogmatic work employed me for years. I had made preparations for
following it up with a doctrinal history of the heresies which succeeded to the
Arian.
I should make mention also of the British Critic. I was Editor of it for
three years, from July 1838 to July 1841. My writers belonged to various
schools, some to none at all. The subjects are various,—classical, academical,
political, critical, and artistic, as well as theological, and upon the Movement
none are to be found which do not keep quite clear of advocating the cause of
Rome.
So I went on for years up to 1841. It was, in a human point of view, the
happiest time of my life. I was truly at home. I had in one of my volumes
appropriated to myself the words of Bramhall, "Bees, by the instinct of nature,
do love their hives, and birds their nests." I did not suppose that such
sunshine would last, though I knew not what would be its termination. It was the
time of plenty, and, during its seven years, I tried to lay up as much as I
could for the dearth which was to follow it. We prospered and spread. I have spoken of the
doings of these years, since I was a Catholic, in a passage, part of which I
will here quote:
"From beginnings so small," I said, "from elements of thought so fortuitous,
with prospects so unpromising, the Anglo-Catholic party suddenly became a power
in the National Church, and an object of alarm to her rulers and friends. Its
originators would have found it difficult to say what they aimed at of a
practical kind: rather, they put forth views and principles for their own sake,
because they were true, as if they were obliged to say them; and, as they might
be themselves surprised at their earnestness in uttering them, they had as great
cause to be surprised at the success which attended their propagation. And, in
fact, they could only say that those doctrines were in the air; that to assert
was to prove, and that to explain was to persuade; and that the Movement in
which they were taking part was the birth of a crisis rather than of a place. In
a very few years a school of opinion was formed, fixed in its principles,
indefinite and progressive in their range; and it extended itself into every
part of the country. If we inquire what the world thought of it, we have still
more to raise our wonder; for, not to mention the excitement it caused in
England, the Movement and its party-names were known to the police of Italy and
to the back-woodmen of America. And so it proceeded, getting stronger and
stronger every year, till it came into collision with the Nation, and that
Church of the Nation, which it began by professing especially to serve."
The greater its success, the nearer was that collision at hand. The first
threatenings of what was coming were heard in 1838. At that time, my Bishop in a
Charge made some light animadversions, but they were animadversions, on
the Tracts for the Times. At once I offered to stop them. What took place on the
occasion I prefer to state in the words, in which I related it in a Pamphlet
addressed to him in a later year, when the blow actually came down upon me.
"In your Lordship's Charge for 1838," I said, "an allusion was made to the
Tracts for the Times. Some opponents of the Tracts said that you treated them
with undue indulgence.... I wrote to the Archdeacon on the subject, submitting
the Tracts entirely to your Lordship's disposal. What I thought about your
Charge will appear from the words I then used to him. I said, 'A Bishop's
lightest word ex cathedrâ is heavy. His judgment on a book cannot be
light. It is a rare occurrence.' And I offered to withdraw any of the Tracts
over which I had control, if I were informed which were those to which your
Lordship had objections. I afterwards wrote to your Lordship to this effect,
that 'I trusted I might say sincerely, that I should feel a more lively pleasure
in knowing that I was submitting myself to your Lordship's expressed judgment in
a matter of that kind, than I could have even in the widest circulation of the
volumes in question.' Your Lordship did not think it necessary to proceed to
such a measure, but I felt, and always have felt, that, if ever you determined
on it, I was bound to obey."
That day at length came, and I conclude this portion of my narrative, with
relating the circumstances of it.
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. 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.
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.