The Sun.
London, England, 1845-09-02 00:00:00

... -
the ()tier !tend, should lhave been so absolutely puzzled at
being called upon to view the Roman Church as authoritatively.
teaching error, that had I obliged myself to do so, it would
have been necessary by main force to divert my mind from spe-
culating on theological subjects at all.
In such circumstances it was natural, or rather inevitable,
to fall back on the sort of theory contained in my work. I was
led, I say, naturally to such considerations as the following :
" The progress from truth to error cannot be made in one leap;
persons cannot, on the mere word of an external authority,
embrace at once a whole class of new doctrines, foreign, and at
first even repugnant, to their moral nature. The doctrines,
again, to which I allude, are but accessories to the central
verities of the Gospel—not those verities themselves ; and will
follow in due time, in proportion as those verities are rightly
believed, heartily embraced, and fed on by prayer and contem-
plation. The Veglish Churci, then, at present, witnessing as
it does those truths in its formularies, but silent, to say the
least, on these accessories, does seem a providential ordinance
adapted to prepare minds by degrees for the doctrine and com -
munion of Rome " Almost every page of my work, I might
say, will show that this is the view 1 there advocated.
That such a course of conduct, if avowed, vi,s a course con-
sistent with perfect honesty and integrity, cannot, I conceive.
be questa.ned. As to gut scription to the Articles, I have no
wish to enter again into a worn-out controversy ; but I believe
as firmly as ever that no consis'ent person, of whatever
opinions, can subscribe all our formularies without offering the
greatest violence to the natural meaning of language ; and,
considering that the existing church, in some shape or other,
is necessarily the " impatiens," however grievous a burden
such formularies must be to any community, I do not think
any one need scruple in offering that violence, whether with
the view of reconciling the Articles to Romer, or the Prayer
Book to Lutheran opinions, so long as he says plainly, in the
face of day, what sense he does attach to the words, and re -
mains without interference from constituted authorities. But
in my case my opinions were not only avowed, they were
most conspicuously (many say with even an ostentatious pa-
rade) put forward. I called on " High Churchmen" of various
grades to combine in the objects of impressing more deeply on
the minds of our people the great truths to which I just al-
luded, and which they all profess, andwillinglf staked the truth
of my own further opinions upon the result. I was, and am,
most undoubtiogly confident that nothing more is necessary to
dispose people fully for the reception of all Roman doctrine.
when brought before them, than a hearty, unsuspicious, and
laborious appropriation of that portion of truth plainly pit-
neftsed by our Church. I might here, then, allude to the midi-
tional reason for giving up the hopes I entertained whe.l I
wrote iny work, which arises from the undeniable fact, th et
" anti-Roman High Churchmen" have shown no sort of wit •
lingness (quite the reverse) to unite with what are called " ex-•
treme" persons on any such terms. But my present purpose is?
merely to point out how completely the decision of the Eccle-
siastical Courts has destroyed whatever there might otherwise
have been of plausibility in the theory I maintained as to the
office of our Church.

I say, then, that however plausible such a theory might have
appeared so long as the holding of the Roman doctrine was'
allowed to be an open question among our clergy, riot a word!
*ore need be said to prove hoer utterly extravagant it became
from the moment that all the instructors of our people were
bound to renounce some part of that doctrine. It requires
certainly a very enthusiastic hoper to imagine that our Church.
could really be made extensively available for the object sup-.
posed, when every one who entered on her ministry, or received
a degree at either university, was called upon to renounce that
object as inconsistent with the claims of religious truth.
I have made it, I trust, sufficiently plain, that supposing me
still to agree in every sentiment I expressed in my work, nothing
which I said constitutes my defence for remaining in my
present position. My defence was grounded on two main sup-
ports ; both these supports have given way.
Bat I am bound to add, that must firm, unmoved, and (as
I believe) immoveable as is my conviction of the main prin-
ciples advocated in the " there was sine incidental
opinion, of considerable importance to the present question, on
which my views have undergone a change. To show that this
change is rather in the application of principles than in prin-
ciples, allow me to quote a passage from the last chapter in
toy work.
" He who is thus disciplined, who feels deeply his exceed.
ing blindness, helplessness, and ignorance, and the existence
without him of an unknown and unspeakably precious reality,
will eagerly believe and appropriate whatever is placed before
him in the course of nature, professing to be a voice from,
or an economical representation of that reality. Again
he will have fully learnt, &c From all this it
will follow, as a primary axiom, that
his parents have brought him into connexion with some
body professing to teach With authority, so long as he is able
to repose unchanged confidence in that body, it is that
very oracle for the conveyance to him of eternal truths before
which duty requires him to bow. Should the case be other-
wise, in a heathen country, ' he will be able to discriminate
with precision between the right and the wrong in traditionary
superstitions, and will thus elicit confirmation of his faith,' and
accessions to it ' even out of corruptions of the truth.' But
rather would he anticipate, that there is some home in which
this moral reality may have a secure rest and lodgment, that it
may be dispensed to men according to their needs ; or at least&
he would be drawn with a most eager and spontaneous longing
towards any body which would profess to be that home, I,nd
those marks, in any society, would especially attract his view,
which appear to be most kindred in their natures and origin to
eternal truth itself; for instance, to use ecclesiastical language,
unity in doctrine throughout all ages—sanctity—Catholicity,
its proclaiming one and the same messages in all lands—Apos-
tolicity, its referring back to some signal interference with the
visible course of things from the world beyond the veil." (Pp.

, .
510, 511.)
supporting
gy
nacyosneisfidinerethde,
woTulhdehapvreinpcPe esntehder e me,ri
English Church on the theory which I have been drawing out:
eviexlptrheisnske, expressed, if
m
and I should add that Mr. Newman took an early opportunity
of expressing to me his disapprobation of that theory. Ob-
serve distinctly, that I am not speaking of those who (like my-
self indeed) are unable to recognise any definite teaching what-
ever in the English Church, but who (unlike myself) find in
the Roman doctrines, as apprehended by them, things which (I
do not say merely call for an enlarged measure of faith, but
which) offer actual and serious violence to their moral nature :
what is their duty is a matter altogether distinct. Much less
am I saying a word in disparagement of the principle I have soV
earnestly advocated throughout my work, viz., that it is t' ge
duty of all persons to accept heartily, conscientiously, and
practically, in the first instance, the religious system th,ei ark
taught. But I say, in my own case, that I think I wa.l called
upon either to look on the Church of England as m; teacher,
or to unite myself to the communion of the Churc„, of Rome
and not to devise theories, under which I mig,t4 look on one
Church as my teacher, while I remained in, communion with
another.

Now it is some considerable time since Mr. Newman's
writings and teaching (howeve; edifying I found it in all other
A commend itself to me as being
rinesptehcets )I,easalttogeeitphnenr
efnMtlielac:,
tof any teaching of the English
Church. Indeed, during that time, I might have seen that..
I was deceiving tuself in thinking that 1 did simply follow
his teaching ; for, whereas he strenuously disavowed any
authority except as interpretative of the voice of the English
Church, when I was unable to accord to him that claim I was
unable to follow his teaching, in that very particular which be
himself represented as constituting his only right to teach.
I should add, too, that additional thought and experience
has much increased my sense ( which before indeed was very
great) of the extreme importance of a living and energising
dogmatic system. If the claims of such a system long re-,
main unrecognised amoeg us, I hardly know how to expre,,e,
without appearing to agitate, how great are my fears as to the
miserable error into which even very well-intentionv:s and
right-minded persons may be led, in the course of inqr.lry and
speculation. Nor need 1 say how serious an addition, this con-
stitutes to the many other grave phenomena which seem cla-
morously to enforce on us all the duty of reviewing N ery care-
fully, and weighing very accurately, the reasons adducible in
defence of our present position.
Nothing, indeed, can be more pregnant with mischief than
any step rashly and lightly undertaken, however good in itself.
For my own part, though my present convictions are not con- ;
sciously owing to any sudden external impulse, but are the
tural result of my own thought and observation, it seems nee
theless a duty to make plain to °then, as well as to myself
, that
they are staple and genuine convictions, by refraining fro in an
irrevocable step, until there may be time for my intent,so y
become known wherever they would be really cared for., anell
for any al guments or remonstrances to be duly
the same time, I should be hypocritical if I affect7d:tgtobet'ilinkAatt
likoly that my determination will be altered by anYtb%ng 'shall
hear said against it.
I remain, my har
Most sincere4y_yturs,
G. .
In the present copy of this letter I have made one orWARD two
verbal alterations ; and have, moreover, marked with an as-
terisk two passages which I find to have been misunderstood in more ths,n one quarter, and which were in fact inaccurately
expressed. In order to explain these passages, I will state
briefly (for in a letter such as this there is no room for amplifi-
cation) what now appears to me the truth, on a subject which
I regard myself as having treated erroneously in my work.
In proportion as any one realises the extreme importance,
sacredness, and necessary mysteriousness of religious truth, his
own exceeding blindness and helplessness, and the awfully se-
rious errors into which uncontrolled or misdirected speculation
may lead him, he will be unwilling, I conceive, to follow as an,
ultimate guide on matters of doctrine any authority which is
not directly entrusted by God with the office of dispensing, re-
ligious truth. No teacher, then, who does not possess a ri.irect
Divine authority, much less one who distinctly disclai:ass it,
will ever exercise despotic influence over his belief;
and if Providence has subjected him to some religious
body which does claim Divine authority to teach, from
the moment that he is deliberately unable to recognise
that authority, he will consider himself fully justified,
or rather bound, to look elsewhere, if haply he may
meet with some other body, to whose communion he may
attach himself, and to whose teaching he may submit himself.
What will be the duty of such a one in case he should dis-
cern no authority which presents to his conscience tokens of a
Divine commission, I am not considering ; but merely what
is his duty if he do discern such an one. In that case, I say
he is bound, when he is sufficiently sure of himself that it is a.
real matter of conviction, to submit himself to that authoritsj
without reserve; and I retract the contrary opinion, which Is
contained in my work, as savouring of latitudinarianism, and
of indifference to religious truth. I think that one ess-pecial
dispensation by means of which God leads humble souls to his
true Church, is the circumstance, that other religious bodies.
the more trustingly they are believed and obeyed, the more
lovingly
cruelly pierce him who leans oninthceremas:inbgut
sense thatufhihsis Charch
conveys to her children an ever-
Divine
authority, in proportion as they humbly trust her and
obey her.
Those who care to know my reasons for thinking that the
for-
mularies, or in her practical teaching, trustworthy guide
n uEnglish
for whether
thin
thinking
ienr
gv
tohihcaietubou
tihs listened
euruthef
Bibleo for n
nh
oe
rr for-
ocznatyionla,rgewhweroeprkrit,,haanetyed,watoigilafiimilmity:
(and, I may add,
an-
tiquity, interpreted by private judgment, are any trustworthy
Members
st
urfefcerunvo
questions
objection
hastreated
been of a t
lately length.
nad e
to
me
in
what has just been said, as follows :—lt has been objected
z‘guAiddedsreeistshetnr)3,
that the English Church does teach with Divine authoriiy• (the
Creeds; because, so far as they are concerned, she apt
" not as the English Church, but as convening h •
to us t faiths
of the Catholic Church, such as it was from the be • sing.'
But let gtru "
roc ask—how do we know that these Creeds, icontain.
the faith of the Catholic Church such as it was from the
baginning? If by our own private researches into antiquity,
then our rule of faith is not the English Church,
hot antiquity interpreted by private judgment; which is
altogether a different matter. The objector, indeed, to
whom I refer, altogether disclaims such a view as this, in
his own name and in that of " High Churchmen" in general.
Taking then the other alternative—let any one consider the
passages so commonly quoted in controversy from the Ante-
Nicene Fathers (passages at first sight so directly in cents-
diction with important portions of the Creed), and let I Ant
say, if he is able to trust the English Church on so diff jeaat
and historically doubtful a matter as the question wheth
Creeds really express the Church's faith from the 6e.
tr what must he not trust the English Church? In.
1,. wr wd,
(speaking of external authority only), if we recei-fe
s act (of the apostolicity of the Creeds) on the aut.!,,oritythi f
of the
English Church, so far we do not believe t-c Crerds to be in-
fallibly true.
The way is now elear to explain thee• passages in my letter
which are marked with an asterisk, I have been suppi used
to acknowledge in those PasFagn, that the English Ch, arch
witnesses these doctrines in the same sense in which the
Roman C.l,lholic Churelt vitnessel them ; that is, that , she

/ //
~.J ~ ~~2~