CiciU^Ktiy

HhcitS IS it

(.5

BRIEF REMARKS

UPON No. 90, SECOND EDITION,

SOME SUBSEQUENT PUBLICATIONS

IN DEFENCE OF IT.

BY THE REV. C. P. GOLIGHTLY, M.A.
OP ORIEL COLLEGE,
AND CHAPLAIN TO LORD DE L'iSLE AND DUDLEY.

OXFORD,
WILLIAM GRAHAM ;
HATCHARD AND SON, PICCADILLY, LONDON.
1841.

BAXTlill, PaiNTEB, OXFOED.

BRIEF REMARKS,
8fc.

The author of these pages, having taken the
opportunity of the Long Vacation to reexamine
No. 90, and some subsequent publications in
defence of it, ventures to call pubhc attention to
the following remarkable particulars. In doing so,
it is not his intention to charge Mr. Newman and
his friends with wilful unfairness. He is quite sure
that they are conscientious men, and therefore
incapable of deliberately advancing what they be
lieve to be untrue. But inattention to the point
at issue, too eager a pursuit of a favourite theory,
and other infirmities to which the human mind is
liable, will lead even good men into very strange
errors; and this, he thinks, he will be able to shew
has been the case on the present occasion.
I. The Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.
Upon the position in the XXXVIIth Article,
that ' The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in
this realm of England,' Dr. Pusey remarks ", that
' The Articles- treated on in Tract 90 reconsidered, p. 136.
A 2

' it relates to temporals, not to spirituals;' and quotes
in illustration, as Mr. Newman had done in No. 90,
(p. 77) the Oath of Supremacy, which oath accord
ing to him is as follows ;
" No foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate
hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority,
preeminence, or authority within this realm."
Here it will be observed, that he has omitted the
words ' Ecclesiastical or Spiritual '',' which are not
irrelevant to his argument, but totally overthrow it:
the oath, as Dr. Pusey himself subscribed it, being
as follows ;
" No foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate
hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority,
preeminence, or authority, Ecclesiastical oe Spiritual,
within this realm."

II. The Propitiatory Virtue of Good Works.
Mr. Newman in No. 90, p. 74, quotes several
passages from the Homilies to prove, that one of
the doctrines taught in them is, ' the propitiatory
virtue of good works:' e. g.
'' Dr. Pusey was led into error by the section upon this Article
iu No. 90, where the oath is twice quoted, once in full, and once
as above. He mistook the latter for the correct form. The
accidental discovery of so very satisfactory a way of accounting
for an awkward omission, should teach us the duty of charitable
judgment in other cases, and the reader is earnestly requested to
bear this in mind in his perusal of other parts of this Tract.

" Merciful alms-dealing is profitable to purge the soul
from the infection, and filthy spots of sin." 2 Book, xi. 2.
" The same lesson doth the Holy Ghost teach in sundry
places of the Scripture, saying, mercifulness and alms-
dealing, &c. (Tobit iv.) .... The wise preacher, the son
of Sirach, confirmeth the same, when he says, that ' as
water quencheth fire,' &c." Ibid.
" And therefore that holy father Cyprian admonisheth
to consider how wholesome and profitable it is to relieve
the needy, &c. by the which we may purge our sins, and
heal our wounded souls,'''' Ibid.

But Mr. Newman has not quoted the following
explanation of these passages, which occurs in the
very next paragraph of the same Homily ;
" But yet some will say unto me, If alms-giving and
our charitable works towards the poor be able to wash
away sins, to reconcile us to God, to deliver us from the
peril of damnation, and make us the sons and heirs of
God's kingdom ; then are Christ's merits defaced, and his
blood shed in vain ; then are we justified by works, and by
our deeds may we merit Heaven ; then do we in vain
believe that Christ died for our sins, and rose again for
our justification, as St. Paul teacheth. But ye shall un
derstand, dearly beloved, that neither those places of the
Scripture before alleged, neither the doctrine of the blessed
Martyr Cyprian, neither any other godly and learned
man, when they in extolling the dignity, profit, fruit, and
effect of virtuous and liberal alms, do say that it washeth
away sins, and bringeth us to the favour of God, do mean,
that our work and charitable deed is the original cause of

our acception before God, or that for the dignity or worthi
ness thereof our sins may be washed away, and we purged
and cleansed of all the spots of our iniquity ; for That
WERE INDEED TO DEFACE ChRIST, AND TO DEFRAUD HIM
OF HIS GLORY. But they mean this, and this is the under
standing of those and such like sayings, that God ofhis mercy
and special favour towards them, whom he hath appointed
to everlasting salvation, hath so offered his grace especially,
and they have so received it fruitfully, that, although by
reason of their sinful living outwardly, the}* seemed before
to have been the children of wrath and perdition ; yet now,
the Spirit of God mightily working in them, unto obedi
ence to God's will and commandments, they declare by
their outward deeds and life, in the shewing of mercy and
charity, (which cannot come but of the Spirit of God,
and his especial grace,) that they are the undoubted
children of God appointed to everlasting life  For as
the good fruit is not the cause that the tree is good, but
the tree must first be good before it can bring forth good
fruit; so the good deeds of man are not the cause that
maketh man good, but he is first made good by the
Spirit and grace of God, that effectually worketh in him,
and afterward he bringeth forth good fruits  Alms-
deeds do wash away our sins, because God doth vouchsafe
then to repute us clean and pure, when we do them for his
sake, and not because they deserve or merit our purging,
or for that they have any such strength and virtue in
themselves,"" Surely, far from attaching any ' propitiatory
virtue' to good works, the Homilist here repudiates
the idea, and says that to do so is to deface Christ,
AND TO DEFRAUD HIM OF HIS GLORY.

III. The mixing Water with Wine at the Eucharist,
The next passage I shall cite requires a little
prefatory explanation. I published last year some
Strictures upon Dr. Pusey 's Letter to the Bishop
of Oxford, in which I charged Mr. Newman at St.
Mary's, and his Curate at Littlemoor, with violating
the rubric by mixing water with the wine at the
Eucharist. In Mr. Newman's own Letter" to the
Bishop ' on occasion of No. 90,' he makes the
following reply ;
" And here, with your Lordship's leave, I will make
allusion to one mistake concerning me, which I believe has
reached your Lordship's ears, and which I only care to ex
plain to my Bishop. The explanation, I trust, will be an
additional proof of my adherence to the principle of
acquiescing in the state of things in which I find myself.
It has been said, I believe, that in the Communion Service
I am in the practice of mixing water with the wine, and
that of course on a religious or ecclesiastical ground.
This is not the case. We are in the custom at St. Mary's
of celebrating the Holy Communion every Sunday, and
most weeks early in the morning. When I began the
early celebration, communicants represented to me, that
the wine was so strong as to distress them at that early
hour. Accordingly I mixed it with water in the bottle.
However it became corrupt. On this I mixed it at the
time. I speak honestly when I say, that this has been my
only motive. I have not mixed it when the Service has
been in the middle of the day." p. 42.

8
Now admitting that the very small quantity of
wine which we receive at the Eucharist, administered
early in the morning, might be more distressing to a
weak stomach than the same quantity of wine and
water, it may be asked.
Ought not Mr, Newman to have consulted his
Diocesan before he ventured to depart from the rubric,
especially when by so doing he knew that he was
reverting to a practice discarded at the Reformation ?
Again, ' the wine,' he says, ' became corrupt
upon his mixing it with water in the bottle.'
Indeed ! Water mixed with wine on Saturday
night become corrupt on Sunday morning ! But
if so, what prevented his mixing it beforehand in
the vestry ? Surely it is quite unaccountable
that Mr. Newman should have allowed himself to
make such an excuse.
But why has he made no allusion to his Curate at
Littlemoor ? He says himself that he does not
depart from the usual practice ' when the service
is in the middle of the day.' But his Curate did
at Littlemoor ; and if Mr. Newman knew^ it, I must
maintain that his silence here is as unaccountable
as the foregoing excuse.
IV. Pamphlets in defence of No, 90.
But to proceed to a matter of more immediate
importance. Mr. Newman, in his Letter to the
Bishop already referred to, puts the public in pos-

session of the following message, which he had
received from his Lordship ; viz.
" That his Lordship considered that the Tract No. 90, in
the series called the Tracts for the Times, was ' objectionable,
and might tend to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the
Church,' and that it was his Lordship's ' advice that the
Tracts for the Times should be discontinued.' "
And yet Dr. Pusey, Mr. Ward, and Mr. Oakeley,
all three members of a party who have been com
plimented by his Lordship upon their anxiety to
' uphold and defend Episcopal authority,' have each
of them published a defence of the Tract,
Mr. Ward maintains, that the decision of the
Bishop is pointedly irrespective of the doctrine of
the Tract, and that in calling it ' objectionable,'
his Lordship may have meant to say that it was
so ' in the time of its appearance, or in the manner
in which it advocated its point, as being indirect,
or satirical, or ambiguous and incomplete in its
statements '' ;' and that, if the latter were the
reason, he was even cooperating with his Lordship's
judgment in throwing the same positions, so far as
might be, into another shape.'
I must leave the public to judge of the validity
of this reasoning, and pass on.
'' This is a very happy description of the style and spirit of
the Tract. And yet in the Introduction Mr. Newman urges our
cultivating a spirit of ' mutual love,' ' returning to each other in
heart,' and ' seeking one another as brethren.'

10

V. No. 90, 2d Edition.
Mr. Newman has gone beyond his friends, and
after professing to submit to the Bishop's authority,
published a second edition of the Tract ! with ad
ditional arguments in support of the principles
maintained in it ! I
And this is the more remarkable, from the very
strong terms in which he expressed his submission
to his Lordship. He writes ;
" I trust I may 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 even in the widest circulation of
the volumes in question'," i. e. the Tracts for the Times.
After this, will it be credited, that the second
edition of No. 90 continues to be sold up to this
very hour ?

' Letter, p. 5. What a contrast is presented to us in the
sentiments and spirit of this passage, to the following from the
last number of the British Critic. " Give us this divine auxiliary
(i. e. Poetry) on our side, and we will let you dictate, denounce,
proscribe, and even persecute, as you please. Providence has
placed in our hands powers that laugh to scorn your petty
dominion." At the end of the same Review (p. 508) is a fling
at the Bp. of Gloucester. But the reader is requested to turn to
the July number of the British Critic, where he will find an article
upon Dr. Faussett, containing less of argument and more of coarse
personalities and vulgar invective than he ever before met with in
any publication, much less in a Theological Review, conducted
by a Clergyman of the Anglican Church.

II
Tn conversation, I have been met with the follow
ing excuse for Mr. Newman's conduct. It has been
said, that the statements of the Tract had been
misrepresented, and that it was necessary that it
should continue to be circulated, in order that the
pubUc might judge of it for themselves. I have
also heard great fault found with the decision of
the Hebdomadal Board.
But if an appeal were to be made to the judgment
of the pubhc, the Tract should have been reprinted
word for word, whereas the second edition exhibits
some very important alterations.
Mr. Newman indeed continues to assert respecting
the XXIst Article, that it determines that ' Coun
cils called by princes may err,' but does not determine
whether 'Councils called in the name of Christ may
err,' a 'mode of interpretation' which, it is almost
needless to observe, would render any religious
test whatever a nullity. But he has made the fol
lowing changes in passages which had been much
objected to.
At 1st Edition, page 4, we read thus ;
" Till her members are stirred up to this religious course,
(i. e. seeking one another as brethren, returning to one
another in heart, &c.) let the Church sit still ; let her
work in chains ; let her submit to her imperfections as a
punishment; let her go on teaching with the stammering
lips of ambiguous formularies, and inconsistent precedents,
and principles but partially developed."

12
But at 2d Edition, page 4, instead of ' teaching
with the stammering lips of ambiguous formularies,'
we read, ' teaching through the medium of indeter
minate statements ;' a far less offensive expression.
Again, on the Invocation of Saints, 1st Edition,
page 36 ;
" By ' invocation' here is not meant the mere circum
stance of addressing beings out of sight, because we use the
Psalms in our daily service, which are frequent in invoca
tions of Angels to praise and bless God. In the Benedicite
too we address ' the spirits and souls of the righteous,'
and in the Benedictus, St. John Baptist.
" Nor is it a ' fond ' invocation to pray that unseen
beings may bless us ; for this Bp. Andrews does in his
Morning Prayer, supplicating that ' the Angel of peace,
a faithful guide, may go before us, ever suggesting what
is salutary.' Indeed it is not unnatural, if ' the seven
Angels before the throne' have sent us, through St. John
the Evangelist, ' grace and peace,' that we, in turn, should
send up our thoughts aud desires to them."
But at page 37, 2d Edition, Mr. Newman seems
to have dropped the idea, that in using the words of
Zacharias, ' And thou, child, shalt be called the
prophet, &c.' we invoke St. John the Baptist, and
accordingly leaves out the words in the foregoing
extract, ' and in the Benedictus,' &c. Again, he
omits the whole of the paragraph that follows,
substituting for it some hnes from a hymn of Bp.

13
Ken'sf, in which the worthy Bishop, perhaps through
inadvertence, ascribes to his guardian Angel one of
the offices of the Holy Spirit.
The omitted paragraph, to borrow the language
of the Hebdomadal Board, labours to * reconcile
subscription to the Articles with the adoption of an
error which they were designed to counteract.'
But it was suggested to Mr. Newman, that he had
fallen into the further error of misquoting both Bp.
Andrews, and the Book of Revelations; and accord
ingly we find the following acknowledgment in the
Letter to Dr. Jelf ;
" It may be necessary to notice one or two inaccuracies
in the Tract. Such is a quotation from Bp. Andrews
instead of one from Bp. Ken ; and the word Angel for
Spirit in page 36, although the passage itself perhaps had
better have been omitted."
Now this, together with the original passage
in the Tract, should have appeared, at all events, in
a note to the second edition, if an appeal were to
be made to the pubhc from the decision of the
Hebdomadal Board. But Mr. Newman has not
inserted them ; and in lieu of the acknowledg
ment above cited from the Letter to Dr. Jelf, we

' O may my Guardian, while I sleep,
Close to my bed his vigils keep,
His love angelical instil.
Stop all the avenues of ill.

14
have merely the following, [' a passage here oc
curred in first edition, upon Rev. i. 4.'] ; a very
uninteresting piece of information.

VI. Purgatory. Tract 90, 2d Edition.
I am now approaching a subject of the very
gravest importance, because, if I can make out my
case, it destroys the entire theory upon which
Tract 90 is built.
It appears from Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr.
Jelf ^, that the object of the Tract was to prove, that
the Articles in condemning ' Romish doctrine' do
not mean the ' doctrine of the Council of Trent,
nor indeed of any other Council, but only' ' the
received doctrine of the day, and unhappily of this
day too, or the doctrine of the Roman Schools:' and
again, that ' Rome is capable of Reformation,' i. e.
without giving up the infallibility of her Councils.
Again, he puts this construction upon the ex
pression, ' Romish doctrine,' with especial reference
to the XXIId Article.
" The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons,
&c. is a fond thing, vainly invented, &c."
Now here the Bishop of Ripon (Charge, p. 26.)
has cited a very important observation of Bishop
" pp. 4, 10, 15.

15
Burnet's ^ which by some strange accident appears
hitherto to have been overlooked in the controversy.
" There are two small variations in this Article from
that pubhshed in King Edward's reign. What is here
called the Romish doctrine, is there called the doctrine of
the Schoolmen. The plain reason of this is, that these
errors were not so fully espoused by the body of the
Roman Church, when those Articles were first published,
so that some writers that softened matters threw them
upon the Schoolmen ; and therefore the Article was cau
tiously worded in laying them there : but before these that
we have now were published, the decree and canons con
cerning the Mass had passed at Trent, in which most of
the heads of this Article are either affirmed or supposed ;
though the formal decree concerning them was made some
months after these Articles were published. This will
serve to justify that diversity."
Again, the particular doctrine of Purgatory had
been settled in the sixth session of the Council, which
was held Jan. 13, 1547, De Justificatione ', six
teen years before the Articles were drawn up. In
the 30th Canon we read,
" Si quis post acceptam justificationis gratiam
cuilibet peccatori poenitenti it^ culpam remitti et
reatum seternse pcenae deleri dixerit, ut nullus rema-
neat reatus pcense temporalis exsolvendse vel in hoc
>¦ Exposition of the XXXIX Articles, p. 290.
' Mr. Wilson had remarked this in his Letter to Mr. Churton,
P. 11.

16
sseculo, vel in futuro in purgatorio, antequam ad
regna coelorum aditus patere possit: anathema sit."
Surely then the ' Romish doctrine' condemned
in this Article is not that of the Schoolmen, as
Mr. N. supposes, but that of the Council of Trent ;
and he has failed to establish what was his main
object in the publication of the Tract.

But it would appear, from a clause inserted in
No. 90, Edit. 2, that there had been suggested to
Mr. Newman another objection to his theory.
The Romish doctrine of PaROATORY had been
SETTLED AT THE CoUNCIL OF FLORENCE A. D. 1439,
OR 123 YEARS BEFORE THE XXXIX AllTlCLES
WERE DRAWN UP, in the following decree.
" Si ver^ poenitentes in Dei caritate decesserint
antequam dignis pcenitentiae fructibus de commissis
satisfecerint, et de omissis ; eorum animas poenis
purgatoriis post mortem purgari ; et ad poenas
hujusmodi relevandas prodesse eis fidelium suffra-
gia; missarura scilicet sacrificia, orationes, et
eleemosynas," 8fc.
The difficulty is thus met by Mr. Newman.
" For what the doctrine which is reprobated is, we
might refer in the first place to the Council of Florence
where a decree was passed on the subject, were not that
decree almost as vague as the Tridentine ; viz. that defi
ciency of penance is made up by pcenae purgatorise."
No. 90, 2d edit. p. 25.

17
Now most of Mr. Newman's readers would not
consider that the language of the decree is vague,
but, on the contrary, that it contains a very precise
statement. But conceding this point, it does not
strengthen his argument. The decree, however
vague, expresses the Romish doctrine of Purgatory,
and that is it which the 22d Article condemns.

VII. Mr. Oakeley's defence of No. 90.
I now proceed to the work of another writer, con
taining arguments, I must needs think, as little con
clusive as any which it has been the object of the
foregoing pages to refute.
At p. 14. Mr. Oakeley remarks, that
" as to the Articles, he can not find that they were
ever urged or felt as a ground of disunion between the
Churches of England and Rome."
And yet, in direct contradiction to this statement,
at p. 35, he gives an account of Francis a Sancta
Clara, a Dominican friar,
" who entertained the idea of the possibility of recon
ciling the Churches of England and Bome ; and with
THIS VIEW (!) composed a short Treatise, in which he
endeavoured to shew that the Articles of the Church of
England were in accordance with the doctrine of the Roman
Catholic Church! r

18
I shall cite but one more passage.
In proof of the foregoing assertion, that the
Articles have never been urged or felt as a ground
for disunion between the two Churches, Mr. Oakeley
urges that many Members of the Lower House of
Convocation who were Roman Catholics, sub
scribed the Articles upon the revision in 1562.
Their names, he remarks, are given by Strype, (Ann.
of Ref. c. xxviii.) and he will forgive me, I trust, for
saying, that I examined them with some curiosity
to discover if possible whether the Vicar of Bray ^
were one of them. Instead of him, however, among
those ' who in Queen Mary's reign complied with
the popish religion, and were dignified in the
Church,' I find mention made of one Thomas
White, ' who is spoken of in a letter of Bishop
Grindal's, writ soon after this synod to the secretary,
as a great papist, and yet at the synod ;' and who
'' It is not to be supposed that this farfamed personage had
only a fabulous existence. Fuller gives the following account of
him in his ' 'Worthies of England.'
" But first we will dispatch the sole proverb of this county,
(Berkshire,) viz.
' The Vicar of Bray will be Vicar of Bray still.'
" Bray is a village well known in this county  The
vivacious Vicar hereof living under King Henry the Eighth,
King Edward the Sixth, Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth, was
first a Papist, then a Protestant, then a Papist, then a Protestant
again  This Vicar being taxed by one with being a turn
coat, and an unconstant changeling, " Not so," said he, " for I
always kept my principle, which is this, to live and die Vicar of
Bray."

19
was the same person as Strype supposes, as Dr.
Thomas White, Warden of New College, reproached
by Gregory of Rheims in 1575, with 'following the
world, and dissembling in religion against his con
science and knowledge.' But whatever may have
been the case with respect to any individual,
the Roman Catholics as a body forsook the com
munion of the Church of England upon the excom
munication of Queen Ehzabeth. Now if the
Romish Clergy who subscribed the Articles in 1562
were of the number, what was the worth of their
subscription ? They had not only expressed their
behef that ' the Church of Rome had erred, even
in matters of faith,' (Article XIX.) not only con
demned ' the doctrines of Purgatory, Pardons,
worshipping and adoration of Images and Relics,
the Invocation of Saints, and the Mass, as taught
authoritatively" by the same Church, but likewise
DENIED that ' the Bishop of Rome hath any juris
diction in this realm of England,' which jurisdiction
they AFTERWARDS RECOGNIZED BY WITHDRAWING
FROM THE Church upon the excommunication
OF Elizabeth ! ! Surely, upon further consider
ation, Mr. Oakeley would be loth to construe such a
case into a precedent for the conduct of himself and
his friends.
' See Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 4.

BAXTEE, PRINTER, OXrOED.

3 9002 08561 8602

f