erected on a definite basis. This took me to the great
Anglican divines; and then of course I found at once that it was
impossible to form any such theory, without cutting across the teaching
of the Church of Rome. Thus came in the Roman controversy.

When I first turned myself to it, I had neither doubt on the subject,
nor suspicion that doubt would ever come upon me. It was in this state
of mind that I began to read up Bellarmine on the one hand, and
numberless Anglican writers on the other. But I soon found, as others
had found before me, that it was a tangled and manifold controversy,
difficult to master, more difficult to put out of hand with neatness and
precision. It was easy to make points, not easy to sum up and settle. It
was not easy to find a clear issue for the dispute, and still less by a
logical process to decide it in favour of Anglicanism. This difficulty,
however, had no tendency whatever to harass or perplex me: it was a
matter which bore not on convictions, but on proofs.

First I saw, as all see who study the subject, that a broad distinction
had to be drawn between the actual state of belief and of usage in the
countries which were in communion with the Roman Church, and her formal
dogmas; the latter did not cover the former. Sensible pain, for
instance, is not implied in the Tridentine decree upon Purgatory; but it
was the tradition of the Latin Church, and I had seen the pictures of
souls in flames in the streets of Naples. Bishop Lloyd had brought this
distinction out strongly in an Article in the British Critic in 1825;
indeed, it was one of the most common objections made to the Church of
Rome, that she dared not commit herself by formal decree, to what
nevertheless she sanctioned and allowed. Accordingly, in my Prophetical
Office, I view as simply separate ideas, Rome quiescent, and Rome in
action. I contrasted her creed on the one hand, with her ordinary
teaching, her controversial tone, her political and social bearing, and
her popular beliefs and practices, on the other.

While I made this distinction between the decrees and the traditions of
Rome, I drew a parallel distinction between Anglicanism quiescent, and
Anglicanism in action. In its formal creed Anglicanism was not at a
great distance from Rome: far otherwise, when viewed in its insular
spirit, the traditions of its establishment, its historical
characteristics, its controversial rancour, and its private judgment. I
disavowed an