IN the first edition I briefly alluded to the Rev. C. Green, of this
Diocese, as having made some comments on a former publication of my own.
I am sorry to find that this reference was a mistake, Mr. Green not
having mentioned my name, as I erroneously supposed he had, writing from
an imperfect recollection. Having explained to him how the mistake
arose, I have now publicly to offer my apology for it, which I tendered
in private as soon as it became known to me.
_Since the first edition_ of this publication, many of the views here
offered have been confirmed by no mean authorities.
On July 4th, His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin, on presenting a Petition
to the House of Lords relating to Church Government, will be found, on a
reference to his speech, to have used several arguments exactly similar
to some of those here advanced.
In the very able Dedication prefixed to a Sermon on “The Unity of the
Church,” by Archdeacon Hare, recently published, will be found again a
similar coincidence on other points.
In the Charge of the Bishop of Calcutta, also very recently published in
this country, the following passages so strongly confirm _the main
argument and title_ of this publication that I am tempted to transcribe
them:—
Page 60. “But it is useless to speak of their manner of defending
themselves, after the incredible attempt of the Ninetieth Tract,
which brought down upon them that merited disapprobation of their
respected Diocesan, the disavowal of the Heads of Colleges at Oxford,
and the contempt or pity of every Protestant Divine. Nothing so
dishonourable to a clergyman—the word is strong, but in my judgment
not too strong—has occurred in our Church since the time when the
blessed Reformation exempted us for ever, as we hoped, from these
Popish errors.”
Page 100. “I must confess for myself that, after reading with all
the attention in my power Mr. Newman’s _Lectures on Justification_, I
consider them the greatest insult—not intentionally, of course, but
in fact, the greatest insult ever offered to our Church and the whole
body of our Reformers, by any divine of talent and reputation for
orthodoxy since the 16th Century.”
Page 108. “The substantial disagreement of these divines with Holy
Scripture, and their substantial agreement with the Romanists, are as
clear as the day. To speak of their disagreement with our Articles
and Homilies after the incredible sophistry of Tract No. 90, would be
useless.”
“Give me the principles of interpretation by which justification is
thus, as by a magic wand, enchanted away, and I will prove or
disprove anything. Let me apply such a process to the word
sanctification or glorification, or faith or law, and I will disprove
all the doctrines of the Gospel.”
“Nay, give me these principles—I speak it with awe—and I will defend
the Arian, the Socinian, the Antinomian, the Neological, the
Rationalist heresies.”
In any other profession such opinions as these could not be published
without compelling the individuals thus censured to take some steps to
vindicate their character. Laudable endeavours are on foot to prevent
duelling. The only profession clear of that practice ought to be
foremost in showing that means can be provided for guarding the
reputation of its members. At this time no clergyman knows how to meet
such a reproach as that conveyed in the above Charge. There is no
individual or body of men to whom he can appeal as possessing, in public
estimation, authority to clear him from the reproach, or to direct his
conduct. Thus, language is continually used amongst clergymen which, if
it became common in all professions, would lower the standard of English
manners, and, thus far, degrade the national character.
If only _for the credit of the clergy_, and to check the injury of a bad
example in a quarter where it should be especially guarded against, some
authoritative decision ought to be pronounced on the meaning of
Subscription.
_August_ 23, 1843.
* * * * *
NORWICH:
PRINTED BY CHARLES MUSKETT,
OLD HAYMARKET.