roved
against me, nor reluctant to bear the just blame of it."--Proph. Off. p.
31.

I will add, I was embarrassed in consequence of my wish to go as far as
was possible in interpreting the Articles in the direction of Roman
dogma, without disclosing what I was doing to the parties whose doubts I
was meeting; who, if they understood at once the full extent of the
licence which the Articles admitted, might be thereby encouraged to
proceed still further than at present they found in themselves any call
to go.

1. But in the way of such an attempt comes the prompt objection that the
Articles were actually drawn up against "Popery," and therefore it was
transcendently absurd and dishonest to suppose that Popery, in any
shape,--patristic belief, Tridentine dogma, or popular corruption
authoritatively sanctioned,--would be able to take refuge under their
text. This premiss I denied. Not any religious doctrine at all, but a
political principle, was the primary English idea of "Popery" at the
date of the Reformation. And what was that political principle, and how
could it best be suppressed in England? What was the great question in
the days of Henry and Elizabeth? The _Supremacy_;--now, was I saying one
single word in favour of the Supremacy of the Holy See, in favour of the
foreign jurisdiction? No, I did not believe in it myself. Did Henry
VIII. religiously hold Justification by faith only? did he disbelieve
Purgatory? Was Elizabeth zealous for the marriage of the Clergy? or had
she a conscience against the Mass? The Supremacy of the Pope was the
essence of the "Popery" to which, at the time of the composition of the
Articles, the Supreme Head or Governor of the English Church was so
violently hostile.

2. But again I said this:--let "Popery" mean what it would in the mouths
of the compilers of the Articles, let it even, for argument's sake,
include the doctrines of that Tridentine Council, which was not yet over
when the Articles were drawn up, and against which they could not be
simply directed, yet, consider, what was the object of the Government in
their imposition? merely to get rid of "Popery?" No; it had the further
object of gaining the "Papists." What then was the best way to induce
reluctant or wavering minds, and these, I supposed, were the majority,
to give in their adhesion to the new symbol? how had the Arians drawn up
their Creeds? was it not on the principle of using vague ambiguous
language, which to the