Scatterbrained takes on tract 90
Last Edited: Wed Dec 24 21:51:13 UTC 2025
In something of a continuation from my last post, I read Tract 90. To restate, my mission for the month of December is to gain a better understanding of Anglo-Catholic theology and the 39 articles. I'm also interested in exploring how the Anglo-Catholics interpret the articles.
I decided, after reading a Liberal Anglo-Catholic systematic, to go back and read the OG Anglo-Catholic text, the one people constantly point to,
Tract 90
For starters, the Good:
- Short, easy to understand arguments with plenty of quotations and cross-references to dig into
Now the bad:
- I don't love the 'Tract' format
- Sometimes his quotations got to be a bit much. So many of the chapters are filled with Author, "proof text", And Again, "proof text", Author, "proof text", and so on.
My general impression is that the Tract was poorly written, and I don't levy this unsubstantiated. Indeed, immediately after reading Tract 90 I read *A Letter addressed to the Rev. R. W. Jelf, D.D* which sought to address criticism that "Four Gentlemen, Tutors of their respective Colleges," gave against Tract 90 where in a Postscript of the letter Newman writes
That I have most honestly stated in the above Letter what was intended, ***though not expressed in the Tract***, about the actual errors of the Church of Rome.
Another seemingly absurd point of defense of the tract is about the format. My understanding of a "Tract" is that it's a short, cheap to produce and publish, work of theology that, by virtue of its cheap price, is meant to be disseminated widely. J. H. N. on the other hand has further statements like:
The tract was addressed to one set of persons, and has been used and commented on by another.
Who were the Tracts for the Times for? I would urge you to not place too much weight on this criticism as it's really really minor, and I'm open to being corrected. I would search it up now, but I'm writing this on a flight w/o wifi.
A distinctly Roman tenor
This is my biggest critique of the Tracts, and, quite frankly, a great deal of apologetics for any Church. I have long held criticism of the academic study of Religion and their insistence that it's somehow "incorrect" to label one group "not Christian" (like Mormons for example) on the grounds of the "No true Scotsmen" fallacy. When entering the arena of the academic study of Religion, I'm fully willing to abide by their terms, but the issue is that many people take the whole field as though it contains scientific knowledge universally applicable to all persons and groups. People outside of Christianity sometimes even go as far as to say that it's rude to assert that X, Y, or Z group isn't Christian on the grounds of the Religious Studies discipline and a general sentiment of "Who are you to make that claim." Anyways, I'm getting off track.
My criticism of apologetic content is that it's very often so deliberately divorced from the lived reality of people in religious institutions. I can say, "You should become Episcopalian because our doctrines on X, Y, and Z are the best," but if your local Episcopal church has a non-theist pastor, is full of unwelcoming old people, or some other aspect that makes it undesirable, you're right to protest. Many apologists will posit a least common denominator Romanism with only a few select doctrines that someone needs to hold. They force their interlocutor to become a weak form of the Scholar of Religion by claiming that "You can only judge me on true Romanism, not the vast swaths of its history and of conetmporary errors."
This is exactly what J. H. N. is doing, and it's explicitly stated. This, to me, is why Tract 90 falls quite flat.
Modern Romanist developments
I do want to temper my criticism of Tract 90 and let it sit and breathe in its historical time. Tract 90, published in 1841, is about 30 years too soon for Vatican I. Whenever I judge his remarks, it's a bit difficult to make robust assessments because I don't have an understanding of the Church of England, and the Roman church in 1843.
So, whenever he's discussing the Papacy, it's important to know that while papal infalibility was within the Roman church's understanding of herself, she hadn't yet stated that it was a dogma until Pastor Aeternus and the decrees of Vat. I. Furthermore, certain Marian Dogmas were not yet formulated as Dogmas. I certainly wonder if I would have been able to, in good conscience, convert to Roman Catholicism in 1843. After all, my biggest criticism of Romanism is that it has defined the faith half to death with her Dogmas. Should I have been born into the church, I could find no reason to leave her, but if I were to convert, I would have to go in with my fingers crossed behind my back. For the sake of honesty, I can't convert.
Altogether it's hard to pass judgement on Tract 90. If you are to read it, I would urge you to withold certain interpolations to Modern romanism and to treat it on its terms as a Tract for the time in which it was written.
Closing remarks
Tract 90 was a bit of a slog to read, but, still an interesting read for my journey of exploring the Articles and the history of Anglo-Catholicism. I enjoy Newman's authorial voice, and I have several of his works flagged for later reading (in particular I'm interested in The Dream of Gerontius and the realm of High Church devotional material and Poetry).
I would say that the average person interested in Tract 90 would be best served by the collection found on archive.org which contains a number of letters that clarify Newman's true views. I suppose this is the clearest damnation of Tract 90 in that it requires almost a whole book for Newman to clarify "No but I actually mean XYZ when I only said X".
For the average person interested in Anglo-Catholicism thinking they're going to get Anglo-Catholic theology from Tract 90, I'd say skip it and read Bicknell's Theological Introduction to the 39 Articles, some other Anglo-Catholic systematic theology, or better yet, visit an Anglo Catholic church.