lied. Whether, as time went on, I should have been forced,
by the necessities of the original theory of the Movement, to put on
paper the speculations which I had about them, I am not able to
conjecture. The actual cause of my doing so, in the beginning of 1841,
was the restlessness, actual and prospective, of those who neither liked
the _Via Media_, nor my strong judgment against Rome. I had been
enjoined, I think by my Bishop, to keep these men straight, and I wished
so to do: but their tangible difficulty was subscription to the
Articles; and thus the question of the Articles came before me. It was
thrown in our teeth; "How can you manage to sign the Articles? they are
directly against Rome." "Against Rome?" I made answer, "What do you mean
by 'Rome?'" and then I proceeded to make distinctions, of which I shall
now give an account.

By "Roman doctrine" might be meant one of three things: 1, the _Catholic
teaching_ of the early centuries; or 2, the _formal dogmas of Rome_ as
contained in the later Councils, especially the Council of Trent, and as
condensed in the Creed of Pope Pius IV.; 3, the _actual popular beliefs
and usages_ sanctioned by Rome in the countries in communion with it,
over and above the dogmas; and these I called "dominant errors." Now
Protestants commonly thought that in all three senses, "Roman doctrine"
was condemned in the Articles: I thought that the _Catholic teaching_
was not condemned; that the _dominant errors_ were; and as to the
_formal dogmas_, that some were, some were not, and that the line had to
be drawn between them. Thus, 1. The use of Prayers for the dead was a
Catholic doctrine,--not condemned in the Articles; 2. The prison of
Purgatory was a Roman dogma,--which was condemned in them; but the
infallibility of Ecumenical Councils was a Roman dogma,--not condemned;
and 3. The fire of Purgatory was an authorized and popular error, not a
dogma,--which was condemned.

Further, I considered that the difficulties, felt by the persons whom I
have mentioned, mainly lay in their mistaking, 1, Catholic teaching,
which was not condemned in the Articles, for Roman dogma which was
condemned; and 2, Roman dogma, which was not condemned in the Articles,
for dominant error which was. If they went further than this, I had
nothing more to say to them.

A further motive which I had for my attempt, was the desire to ascertain
the ultimate points of contrariety between the Roman and Anglican
creeds,