POSTSCRIPT TO THE SECOND EDITION.

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.