(III.) The new Anglican Doctrine. — The so-called Tractarian party in the Church of England adopted, almost at its first beginning in Oxford, in substance, the Romanist theory of the rule of faith ; so, e. g. ^^ Tracts for the Times'" (No. 70): "Catholic tradition teaches revealed truth. Scripture proves it : Scripture is the document of faith, tradition the witness of it : Scripture and tradition, taken together, are the joint rule of faith." Tlie truth was, that the men compris- ing this new party had alreadj' embraced several of the Romanist doctrines, and, not finding any warrant for them in Scri])tnre, sought it in tradition. Thus Keble {Sermon on Tradition) asserts that without tra- dition it would be impossilde to demonstrate the doc- trine of the "real presence," that of the "clergy as a distinct order," and that "consecration by ajiostol- ical authority is essential to the Eucharist" (see fur- ther in (joode. Divine Rule of Fail k and Practice, ii, 18 sq.). Some of these writers soon began to decry Protestantism as a failure, and tlie Reformation as a schism ; and the next step was to assert that the Scrip- tures are both defective and obscure, and that manj^ doctrines necessary to faith are not in Scripture at all, but must be learned from tradition, which is " partlj^ the interpretation and partly the supplement of Scrip- ture" (see an able article in the Princeton Rev, 1842, p.
598 sq.). Dr. Arnold remarks {Edinh. Rev. April, 1^4.3), that, according to the Tractarian theory, "the Scrip- tures are not the sole or a perfect rule of faith ; thej' are to be supplemented by tradition; thej' furnish at best but the germ of an imperfectly developed Chii^tiani- ty, which is to be found full blown and perfect some- where (no one can tell where) in the third, or fourth, or fifth, or sixth century, or some centuiy still later; and the fathers have much to tell us of undoulited apostolical authoritj', which the apostles themselves have failed to tell. Infinite are the disputes which such a theory instantly gives rise to. In essence and principle it in nowise differs from that of Rome (for it affirms both a written and an iinicritfen word) ; it dif- fers only in the pleasant and gratuitously perplexing addition that it is impossible to assign the period with- in which the circle of Catholic verities may be su])- posed complete — the period when the slowl}' developed Church sj'stem became ripe, but had not yet become rotten. The unity of faith which is thus sought is far- ther off than ever, for the materials of discord are en- larged a thousand fold. 1. There is the dispute as to whetlier there be any such authoritative lule of faith at all, and tliis alone promises to be an endless contro- versy. 2. Even if we were to admit the possible ex- istence of such a rule, the uncertainty in its applica- tion would preclude the possibilitj^ of its being of any use. 3. Even if men in general are told that they need not inquire for themselves, but just receive what their 'authorized guides' clioose to tell them, private judg- ment is still pressed with insuperable difficulties ; for, alas! we find that the 'authorized guides' themselves, in the exercise of their private judgment, have arrived at very different conclusions as to what is Catholic verity and what is not. It is very easy for jMr. New- man to talk in magniloquent phrase of that much abused abstraction, the 'Church,' and to represent his sj'stem of Church principles' as one and complete in eveiy age. But when we inquire zrhick is that Church, what are the doctrines it has delivered iis the complete circle of verity, and who are its infallible interpreters, we find those whom these authorized guides proclaim equally authorized at endless variance — Romanists, Greeks, and Anglicans differing in judgment from each other and from themselves. In a word, we find the 'Church' is just Mr. Newman or Dr. Pusej- — not unbecomingly disguised in the habiliments of a s-onie- what antiquated lady, and uttering their ' private judg- ments' as veritable oracles. A\'hat can one of these 'guides' saj" to 'a brother guide' who declares, 'I adopt j'our principles, and it appears to me and many others that, on the same grounds on wliich you con- tend for the apostolical succession — th;it is, on the au- thority of the ancient Church— I n.ust contend for the celibacy of the clergy ?' Or to another, who declares, 'On our common principles I think there is good rea- son to admit the invocation of saints, the worship of images, the doctrine of the efficac}' of holy relics, the monastic institute, to be of apostolical origin ?' Or to another, ' It appears to me that the doctrine of purga- tory is but a development of the doctrine which justifies prayers for the dead .'' " Dr. Arnold was right in his view of the tendency of the Tractarian doctrine : J. H.Newman and many others went logically to L'ome, M'hile Dr. Puse}^ illogicallj' remained in the Churcli of England to corrupt it. And now, 1809, the Romaniz- ing party in that Church bids defiance to both "Pro- testant tradition" and the state law.
III. It is one of tlie charges brought by Romanists against Protestantism tliat it has violently separated itself from the histo ical life of Christianity by its de- nial of tradition. But the charge is unfounded. Pro- testantism is the continuation of the true life of Chris- tianity, reformed from the errors of Rome, among which errors was tlie exaltation of tradition to a level with Scripture as an caithority. No such view of tra- dition can be found either in Scripture or in the early