ic questions also; and I have noticed them
in my Tract. In the conclusion of my Tract I observe: They 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, anyhow 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withdrawn any statement, which could be proved to me to be erroneous;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 objectionable 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 i