[Following the publication of Newman's response, Pusey, with his permission, republished the famous Tract 90. In his introduction he revisited its condemnation, again stressing the point that one needs to distinguish between what has to be held de fide and what may be allowed by pious opinion. But this, as we shall see, violated Newman's faith in the ability of the Church to distinguish, aright, true development of doctrine. This extract gives us a flavour of Pusey's argument.]

It has often been told us, that no part of the popular system is to be held de fide, except what is, in terms, contained within it; nay, I am informed by one whose word is of great authority, that that only of the Council of Trent is to be held de fide which is, in terms, contained in canons, i.e.. those proposals which are guarded by anathemata ... [therefore] the condemnation of Tract 90 involved the violation of that principle in both respects. The English Articles are held to mean what no grammatical construction of the words in their know sense could make them mean. The articles, so construed were held, under pain of being charged with 'evading not explaining their meaning' to condemn the Council of Trent, for what no construction of its words could make it mean.