Apologia pro vita sua being a history of his religious opinions
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.
CHAPTER III.
HISTORY OF MY RELIGIOUS OPINIONS FROM 1839 TO 1841.
And now that I am about to trace, as far as I can, the course of that
great revolution of mind, which led me to leave my own home, to which I