ARTICLE TWENTY-SECOND.-THE ROMISH DOCTRINE.

569

and the character of the Church required that such a mode of interpreting her Formularies should be publicly discountenanced.

55. But, on the other hand, suspicions have been suggested by the Tract, as to the drift of the whole, and the ultimate tendency of the author's views, which appear to be wide of his real aim and meaning.

56. His interpretation of the Twenty-second Article, which, more than any other part of his Remarks, has given rise to these suspicions, is indeed, in my judgment, quite untenable. Even if the compilers of that Article had not been acquainted with the Decrees of the Council of Trent on the subjects mentioned in it, they could not have described some of the grossest abuses of the unreformed practice as the Romish Doctrine, nor would they probably have pronounced so mild a censure on such enormities as is expressed in the terms, "a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God." This would surely have been, at the same time, much less and much more than belonged to such a subject. And again, whatever might have been the case with the framers of the Article, the authority which imposed it, after the Decrees of the Council had been published, could not have thought that it did not condemn the Romish Doctrine according to the latest and most authentic exposition of it. In fact, however, it was the Doctrine of the Schoolmen that the framers of the Article originally condemned, and the epithet Romish was afterwards substituted, with distinct reference to the Decrees of Trent. The author of the Tract, therefore, seems to have fallen into a manifest error, when he attempts, on chronological grounds, to limit the meaning of the Articles, so as not to comprehend the Decrees of the Council of Trent on the same points. But though his remark as to the date of the Article is general, still, since the distinction which he draws between the Romish Doctrine and that of Trent is strictly limited to this single Article for in no other does the expression Romish Doctrine occur-it cannot be inferred that he intended to intimate, that the teaching of the Council is consistent with that of the Church of England on any other points. It would, indeed, be

8 MR. NEWMAN cannot be confining himself to one "single Article" when he says, "Our Articles were written before those Decrees, and therefore are levelled, not against them, but against the authoritative teaching."-Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 15, ed. 1. And again; "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 themselves remain untouched.-Ibid., p. 12.-MR. WARD, too, admits that "the Tract did imply that, on the points mentioned in the Letter of the Four Tutors," (inIcluding the Doctrine of the Mass, Art. 31,) "the Articles do not condemn the Decrees of the Council of Trent." Few Words in Support of Tract 90, p. 4. DR. WISEMAN takes the same view of the case :-"It seems unaccountable that you should now court that title" (Tridentine), "and assert as your Tract does that, while we have abandoned the Doctrines of Trent, you, and those who take the Articles in your sense, interpret them in accordance with these Doctrines."-Letter to the Rev. J. H. Newman, p. 29.-ED.

sufficiently alarming to believe that he thought this was the case with regard to these. But though the language of the Tract, taken by itself, might very easily suggest such a surmise, and is on that account deserving of censure, as it might fall in the way of persons who had no other means of learning the author's real sentiments, I think it is clear, from his subsequent explanation of his meaning, that the immediate purport of his remark was to signify a distinction between the letter of the Decrees of Trent and the spirit in which it has been interpreted in the Romish Schools, and by the practice of the Church of Rome; and also, that what he would have licensed as an admissible private opinion on the subject of the Article, is not reconcilable even with the letter of those Decrees, unless on a very forced and arbitrary interpretation.

57. But I must add, that the liberty for which he pleads on some points, is much larger than the grounds which he assigns for it. On subjects as to which nothing can be known to us but by Revelation, it cannot be altogether innocent or safe to adopt, even as matter on private belief, any Doctrine which has not been revealed. It is either a presumptuous abuse of our mental faculties, or it is suffering ourselves to be "beguiled" by others, who have rashly and vainly "intruded into those things which they have not seen." It diverts the mind from the contemplation of certain and useful truths; it tends directly to introduce superstitious practice. Even, therefore, if our Church had been silent as to the state of the departed-which is far from the case, since she makes it the subject of prayer-it would not have followed that any of her children are at liberty to hold a Doctrine on that subject, as matter of belief, whatever be its merits, merely because it is in some sense primitive, and is a possible or probable opinion that is to say, a conjecture not involving any absurdity much less to hold a Doctrine which is apparently as much opposed to that of our Church, as the idea of punishment is to that of joy and felicity, and the absence of God's presence to the living with Him.

*

I subjoin a list of publications connected with Tract 90 and the Interpretation of the Articles, for the benefit of those who may be disposed to pursue the investigation of this most important branch of the controversy.—ED.

1. TRACTARIAN.

A Letter to the Bishop of Oxford on occasion of Tract 90. By J. H. NEWMAN, B.D., Vicar of St. Mary the Virgin, Oxford.

A Letter to the Rev. R. W. Jelf, D.D., Canon of Christ Church, in explanation of Tract 90. BY THE AUTHOR.

The Articles treated of in Tract 90 reconsidered, and their interpretation vindicated, in a Letter to the Rev. R. W. Jelf, D.D., &c. By the REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church.

The Case of Catholic Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles considered. A Letter to Mr. Justice Coleridge. By the REV. JOHN KEBLE, M.A., Professor of Poetry, &c. A Vindication of the Principles of the Authors of the Tracts for the Times. By the HON. AND REV. A. P. PERCEVAL, B.C.L.

The Subject of Tract 90 examined in connexion with the History of the Thirty-nine Articles, &c. By the REV. FREDERICK (AKELEY, M.A., Fellow of Balliol College, &c.

PUBLICATIONS CONNECTED WITH TRACT 90.

571

Letter to the Lord Bishop of Ripon. By WALTER FARQUHAR HOOK, D.D., Vicar of Leeds.

A Few Words in support of Tract No. 90. By the REV. W. G. WARD, M.A., Fellow of Balliol College.

A Few More Words in support of Tract No. 90. By the REV. W. G. WARD.

2. ROMISH.

Some Remarks on Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf in explanation of Tract 90. By AMBROSE LISLE PHILLIPPS, of Grace Dieu Manor.

A Letter respectfully addressed to the Rev. J. H. Newman, upon some passages in his Letter to Dr. Jelf. By N. WISEMAN, D.D., Bishop of Melipotamus.

Remarks on Tract 90, Francis a Sancta Clara, Newman, Sibthorp, Wiseman, Palmer. By A CATHOLIC PRIEST.

Oxford or Rome? A Letter to the Rev. J. H. Newman on Tract No. 90. By AN ENGLISH CATHOLIC.

3. ANTI-TRACTARIAN.

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. A Lecture before the University of Oxford. By R. D. HAMPDEN, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity.

The Thirty-nine Articles considered as the Standard and Test of the Doctrines of the Church of England. A Lecture before the University of Oxford. By GODFREY FAUSSETT, D.D., the Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity.

Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles. - An Answer to the Hon. and Rev. A, P. Perceval BY CHARLES R. ELRINGTON, D.D., Regius Profesor of Divinity in the University of Dublin. 1842.

A Letter to the Rev. T. T. Churton, M.A. By the REV. H. B. WILSON, M.A., Fellow of St. John's College.

Strictures on No. 90 of the Tracts for the Times. By a Member of the University of Oxford. Parts 1 and 2.

The Articles construed by themselves.

Provincial Letters from the County Palatine of Durham, &c. By the Rev. G. STANLEY FABER, D.D. Letter XIV. and Appendix to Letter III.

A Review of No. 90 of the Tracts for the Times. By the REV. R. PRETYMAN, M. A., Precentor of Lincoln.

Remarks on Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf and on Tract No. 90. By the REV. J. JORDAN, Vicar of Enstone.

Brief Remarks on Tract 90, ed. 2, and some subsequent Publications in defence of it. By the REV. C. P. GOLIGHTLY, M.A., Oriel College.

Remarks on certain Passages in the Rules and Regulations of the PSociety.

Friendly

Observations suggested by Mr. Ward's Few More Words in support of Tract 90. By ROBERT LOWE, ESQ., Magdalen College.

Resignation and Lay Communion. Professor Keble's View of the Position and Duties of the Tractarians, as exhibited in his Letter to Mr. Justice Coleridge. By the EDITOR OF THIS VOLUME.

A second Appeal to the Bishop of Oxford, on the Divinity of the Tract Writers, &c. By the REV. J. JORDAN, Vicar of Enstone.

4. UNCERTAIN.

A Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey,"D.D., on the Publication of No. 90 of the Tracts for the Times. By WILLIAM SEWELL, M.A., Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Oxford.

Some documents connected with Tract 90 will be found in Appendix A.-ED.

572

CHAPTER XXII.

THE RUBRIC AND CANONS.

BAGOT, BISHOP OF OXFORD.-1838.

Vide Par. 4, in Chap. XXIV., and 7, in Chap. VI.

PHILLPOTTS, BISHOP OF EXETER.-1839.

Vide Pars. 26, 27, 28, in Chap. XIV., and Par. 43, in Chap. VIII.

HOWLEY, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.-1840.

4. But whilst we are deeply impressed with the importance of these objects, and are anxious to assist in promoting them, we can never lose sight of our proper and immediate concern,-the care of our own flocks. The extraordinary quantity of matter relating to the general interests of our Church, has left me little time for adverting to details which form a great part of a Clergyman's duty, and affect the efficiency of his ministrations as they are well or ill performed. I must, therefore, confine my observations to a few points.

5. The attention of the Clergy has been of late more carefully turned to the observance of the directions of the Rubric, in respect to the Liturgy and Offices of the Church; and this laudable regard to order and law cannot fail to be useful, if conducted with sound judgment. The impropriety of performing Offices in private houses which are appointed to be publicly used, is now generally admitted, and I trust we shall speedily see the discontinuance of so irregular a practice. But some allowance may fairly be made to bodily infirmity, and perhaps even to inveterate prejudice or mental weakness. In the correction of irregularities of long standing, much discretion is requisite; and in cases where argument has been found ineffectual, the ultimate object may sometimes be more surely attained by temporary indulgence, than by insisting on immediate compliance with rule.

See also Par. 7, in Chap. XXIII.

ALLOWED DISUSE A FAIR DISPENSATION.

573

BROUGHTON, BISHOP OF AUSTRALIA.-1841.

Vide Pars. 19-23, in Chap. X.

MALTBY, BISHOP OF DURHAM.-1841.

Vide Par. 8, in Chap. III.

LONGLEY, BISHOP OF RIPON.-1841.

4. In reference, however, to the general question of a literal obedience to the injunctions of the Rubric, it may be urged that in some instances the lapse of time and altered circumstances have rendered a compliance with it impossible; in others, the practice enjoined has become so universally obsolete, that the obligation to return to it may seem doubtful. In the former case, I need not say that necessity provides a sufficient dispensation.* In the latter, it would seem that where a usage enjoined by the Rubric has been in universal abeyance for many generations, and that disuse has been allowed of the several Ordinaries, the like dispensation may fairly be claimed. For although it be in strictness true, that whatever was enacted by the authority of Convocation and of Parliament, can be repealed by the same authority alone, yet if the whole body from whom the Convocation would be selected have tacitly consented to abandon the practice, the obligation to resume it would not seem to be very strong; and such is the opinion of the most experienced Canonists, even in cases where the Order is clear and undisputed. But where the expressions are ambiguous, and the authority doubtful, it can be still less binding on the Clergy to resume antiquated customs, without first referring the matter to the Ordinary, in whom a discretionary power is vested for appeasing such-like doubts.

See also Pars. 2 and 3, in Chap, XXIII., and 48, in Chap. XXIV.

MANT, BISHOP OF DOWN AND CONNOR, AND DROMORE.-1842. Vide Par. 53, in Chap. X.; Pars. 66-74, in Chap. XXIV.; Par. 80, in Chap. XIV.; and Pars. 83-86, in Chap. XXIII.

* Under this head may be classed the Rubric in the Order for Confirmation, requiring the Bishop to "lay his hand upon the head of every one severally, saying, Defend, O Lord,'" &c. The growth of population, in some quarters especially, since this Rubric was framed, has rendered the compliance with it almost, if not altogether, a physical impossibility. For my own part, I would say that nothing but this vast numerical increase would reconcile me to a deviation from the prescribed Order.

9 See the same sentiment expressed by the BISHOPS OF EXETER, 1842, Par. 11; LONDON, 1842, Par. 42; SALISBURY, extract from Ordination Charge, 1842; WORCESTER, 1842, Par. 18; and EDINBURGH, note 5, p. 579, infra.

MR. KEBLE, in his Letter to Mr. Justice Coleridge, speaks of the "silence of our Bishops" as "amounting to a virtual dispensation," in a matter of far greater moment than the observance of the Rubrics. See Resignation and Lay Communion, p. 15.-ED.