principles of the Reformation. The Bishop of Lincoln
urges temperate and unexaggerated exposure of the
erroneousness of the Romish tenets; and prays God to
remove internal dissension, and whatever may hinder
godly union and concord.—The Bishop of Chester
resents the treatment of our Established Church as a
nullity, and the taking possession of the country as a
spiritual waste: he confidently relies that the Government
and Legislature will take effectual care of the
Royal supremacy and national independence.—The
Bishops of Bristol and of Bath and Wells concur in
deeming the act schismatical; and the Bishop of Ripon
reminds the Pope of the declaration by his predecessor
Gregory the First, that "whosoever doth call himself
universal bishop doth forerun Antichrist."—The Bishop
of Exeter, speaking of Lord John Russell's letter,
"which throws the whole blame of encouraging the
Pope on a few silly or unfaithful ministers of our own
church," declares that he "stands aghast at the prodigious
hardihood of the noble lord's reliance on such
entire forgetfulness of recent facts, or such utter
disregard of truth and justice, as he is thus pleased to
attribute to the people of England." With reference to
"the Roman Catholic schism in this country," he counsels
his clergy "to avoid giving any reasonable ground
of offence to the feelings or even the prejudices of your
people. As far as outward observances are concerned,
I repeat what I said to you five or six years ago, 'The
peculiar dangers of the times, as well as the prevailing
tone of public opinion, call upon you most powerfully,
as you would avoid being in the number of those by
whom offences come, to forbear all unnecessary innovation,
especially that worst kind of innovation the
revival of obsolete usages not required by law, which
are associated in the minds of the people with the
superstitions and corruptions of Rome." And he meekly
thanks them for their affectionate attachment to their
bishop, through twenty years of more than ordinary
difficulties and perplexities.

The Dean of Bristol, in a speech delivered at a
meeting of clergy in that city on the 6th, entered
fully into the different points of the question. He
warned his hearers against being hurried into
exaggeration, and into complaints and fears which would
eventually only excite ridicule. "Let us feel," he said,
"very contentedly aware that the Pope can neither
confirm nor invalidate our orders nor any other orders
than those of his own communion; and let us feel
perfectly persuaded that our two most reverend prelates
have not less sure and comfortable possession of the
rights and revenues of their provinces at this moment
than they have had hitherto. And let us not for a
moment believe that the Pope can secure to himself, or
to any delegates of his, so much as one atom of jurisdiction
in England, no, not even over the most abject slave
to his superstition. Nor let us trouble ourselves to show,
as some take great pains to do, that the Pope has no
claim to dominion in this realm, because of some
independence of the Church of England prior to the Pope's
usurpation of supremacy here, through Augustine, or
through the Norman princes. Let us be very well content
to know that, if this priest of Italy had had dominion over
us up to this very hour, it would have been quite enough
cause and excuse to us that he should cease to have it
simply in our choosing no longer to submit to it. Let those
grovel who will in this unworthy inquiry. Let us
rather learn to know what is Christian liberty, and to
thank God that we have it. Nor let us rail against
'the schism' of the Pope's measure, and talk of its
being a 'fundamental principle of the universal church
that there can be but one bishop in a diocese.' So
doing, we condemn our own church, who at the
Reformation sent bishops to Ireland, in my opinion then
Catholic, and since to Canada, and to our colonies, to
Malta, and to Jerusalem; we condemn the Bishop of
London, who does not scruple to confirm when he is in
France, and to license a clergyman in a Roman diocese
at Madeira; we condemn the episcopal church of Scotland,
who sent a bishop to reside at Paris; we condemn
ourselves, who, I presume, without scruple, would use
the ministrations of a Protestant bishop if we happened
to sojourn in a Catholic diocese." He considered,
however, that the manner of the Pope's measures should
meet with proper reprobation; and he suggested that
an address should be prepared to the Queen, conveying
—First, our regret that any foreign potentate should
appear to lay claim to supremacy which is vested
in the Crown, and to a jurisdiction in direct
contravention to our law; next, our very humble but urgent
request that her Majesty should withdraw those marks
of favour and of confidence which she has been pleased
so graciously to confer on the prelates of a church, both
in Ireland and the colonies, who gave her no other
return than ingratitude and indignity; and lastly, a
renewed declaration of our perfectly unreserved
attribution to the Crown of 'the supremacy in all causes,
&c.,' adding that we feel ourselves impelled to that
declaration because of the denial of that supremacy
by some who, having made the declaration at their
ordination, think fit now to modify it, and yet to
retain their degrees and benefices. I would further
suggest that we adopt partially the advice of the
Bishop of London, and petition Parliament to the effect
that if the law be not already such as shall prevent any
person or persons whatever from claiming jurisdiction
in the British dominions, or delegating an authority
independent of the Crown, or superior to the law, or
conferring titles of honour, or designations which seem
meant to convey independent authority, a law shall be
forthwith passed which shall secure such result." But,
the Dean contended, the real danger arose from the
Tractarian party in the Church itself. "The Papists,
themselves," he observed, "seem to admit that all this
unwonted success, astonishing themselves, and all their
new-born hopes, are attributable to the existence and to
the working of Tractarianism. They allege freely, they
have never concealed that Tractarianism is doing their
work. It is when Tractarianism has unsettled the
Protestant that the Romanists step in. They haunt
Tractarian congregations; they track and note those
unto whom they "think they may most safely address
themselves; they arrange the meeting with them, as if
it were casual; they convey letters to them—I speak of
what I know; their argument is, that the Church of
England does not, with any certainty, teach or offer
what the Tractarian minister tells them, and as they
admit, rightly tells them, is necessary either to a saving
faith, or to spiritual life, but that the Church of Rome
does; and so they ply and gain their victims." "But
how," the Dean asked, "was the evil to be counteracted?
How best oppose Tractarianism? How best
not only show its identity with Romish falsehood, and
its most plain contrariety with the history, the
formularies, the temper, and aim of the Church of
England? How best remove it from contact with our
unsuspecting people? The Bishop of London desires us,
in this crisis, to preach controversial sermons; I
presume his lordship means against the Romanists,
and not the Tractarians. But what if we
preached controversial sermons all our lives long,
and every day of our lives, either against
Romanism or Tractarianism, what effect would this
have if our authorities countenanced, shielded,
promoted, or were by law unable to rebuke the Tractarians?
Tractarianism will never be effectually checked;
Tractarianism will only smile, or deride our every effort,
until the authorities of our church can be induced to
perceive and acknowledge the utter repugnance between
Tractarianism and the teaching of our church, and the
teaching of the Saviour and his Apostles." The
Dean therefore concluded that the Bishops should
separately be memorialised by the clergy and laity, in
conjunction, of their several dioceses, urging them to
remove, or at least to discountenance and restrain,
Tractarian teaching and practice. He desired that
such addresses should emanate from mixed meetings.
"For too long (he said) and too much it has been the
effort of one part of the clergy to make a distinction,
and so cause division, between the clergy and the laity.
We cannot too soon connect ourselves with the laity
in all common counsels, and most especially connect the
laity with the Bishops in kind, equal, and unreserved
communication on all that concerns the interests of the
church and of religion."

Numerous public meetings on the subject of the
Papal Aggression have been held in the metropolis and