Apologia pro vita sua being a history of his religious opinions
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