[3]See Mr. Oakeley’s Pamphlet with that title.
[4a]In the original printing these sub-headings are side-notes. They have been turned to headings (and in a few cases paragraphs split) in order to make the text more readable.—DP.
[4b]See his Lordship’s Speech in the House of Lords, May 19.
[7]The term “High Churchmen” is, of course, quite ambiguous:—“At theinstanceof High Churchmen,” p. 33.—Yet the learned Editor of Beveridge records that prelate’s “staunch opposition to Comprehension.”
[18]Dr. Cardwell, with his great carefulness (Synod, i. 7), even says of the Forty-two Articles, “It was certainly enjoined that they should besubscribedgenerally by the clergy throughout the kingdom, and this design, carried probably to some extent into execution, was only prevented from being fully accomplished by the death of King Edward, July 6, 1553.”
[24]An intelligent Wesleyan was recently urged by a friend of mine to return to the Church, and solemnly replied, “Never, till you have Discipline.” But the attracting of non-conformists to the Church is not what Dr.Stanleyproposes to aim at by his plan to abolish Subscriptions. Certainly they have not been attracted to Oxford during the last nine years of non-subscription there.
[28]In other places, it is not the “early” age at which (p. 52) we are “trapped into it” which is complained of, but the maturer time of “Holy Orders” and “Mastership” (pp. 29, 30)—which, then, is the grievance?
[32]It is worse than his very exaggerated contradiction of the saying in the Twenty-ninth Article, that certain words were St Augustine’s. See the reference inBeveridge.
[36]Since writing this, I have heard that a protest of this kind has actually been mooted at a meeting of clergy in this diocese.
[37]It is not saidby whomnow “disputed.” The Sixth Article says thatwe, without dispute, take the books of the New Testament ascommonlyreceived. Dr.Stanleydoes not seem aware of the distinction between the “Canonical” and “Sacred” Books. See theReformatio Legum, chap. vii.