TRACTARIAN?***


Transcribed from the 1855 Charles Westerton edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org





                                  IS THE
                            VICAR OF BROMPTON
                                    A
                               TRACTARIAN?


                     A QUESTION FOR THE PARISHIONERS.

                                    BY
                                A LAYMAN.

                                * * * * *

    “You call me a Tractarian, I am not so in any sense.”—See the _Letter
    of Dr. Irons to the Editor of the Record_.

    “He that is first in his own cause seemeth just, but his neighbour
    cometh and searcheth him”.—_Proverbs_ 18 chap. 17 verse.

                                * * * * *

                                 LONDON:
                            CHARLES WESTERTON,
                           WESTERTON’S LIBRARY,
                20, ST. GEORGE’S PLACE, HYDE PARK CORNER;
                         SEELEY’S, FLEET STREET.

                                * * * * *

                                  1855.

                            _Price Sixpence_.

                                * * * * *

  _If any profits arise from the sale of this little publication_, _they
  will be given to the funds of the Chelsea_, _Brompton_, _and Belgrave
  Dispensary_.

                                * * * * *




PREFATORY REMARKS.


IN placing before my fellow parishioners this publication, I think it
necessary most distinctly to disavow any personal hostility to the Vicar,
as an individual.

I feel it the more incumbent on me to say this, as my object is not so
much to prove the errors and unscriptural teaching of the “Tractarians,”
as to make it plain (by his own words and actions) that Dr. Irons must be
considered as altogether identified with the “Tractarian” party.

On a fitting occasion, however, I shall be ready (the Lord enabling me)
to shew, that the principles and practices of those clergymen who have
unhappily embraced “Tractarian” error, are as contrary to God’s blessed
Word as they are to the Articles of our Church; and that these principles
(if honestly carried out) as necessarily lead to Rome, as a humble and
prayerful study of the Bible, will assuredly lead the sincere enquirer
into the light and liberty of Gospel truth.

It is the policy of the more wily amongst the “Tractarians” to keep aloof
in some measure from the “Ultras” of their party, and to follow the
Jesuitical advice given from a certain quarter, not to be over hasty in
bringing in Anglican forms and observances amongst their congregations,
but to win them over by little and little.

This policy will account for much that is going on in our parish, where
we have a Vicar who _says_ that he is not a Tractarian “in any sense.”

I feel assured that the parishioners of Brompton are not prepared for
that open and undisguised “Tractarianism” practised in some of our
churches; but when I bear in mind the fact, that during the past year two
or three of the most noted amongst the “Tractarian” Clergy have been
preaching in the Parish Church, it shews the necessity of being on our
guard to resist the insidious attempts made from within, as well as the
endeavours now making from without, to bring us into the bondage of
“Tractarianism,” or into the more open and unadulterated principles and
practices of Romanism.  It may be well for us to remember that at the
recent opening of the Popish Institution (the Oratory) in our Parish,
there were reported as being present twelve Romish priests or laymen, who
until the last few years were clergymen of the Established Church, and
belonging to the “Tractarian” party.

In making use of the word “Tractarian” a necessity has been laid upon me,
for though I deprecate the use of party names, I know of no other term
(not even Puseyism) that would so distinctly point out the principles
which have led to such melancholy results to the Church of England.

We must not however suppose these principles are in themselves _new_;
they are as old as the earliest ages of Christianity.  The Galatian
Converts were seduced from the simplicity of the Gospel by them; and
coming down to the days of Charles the First, our own Church has great
cause to lament the progress they made at that unhappy period.

I am the more solicitous that this should not be lost sight of, as Dr.
Irons says his own views “were not obtained from the Oxford Tracts.”
This is very possible, but has nothing to do with the fact, that the
Reverend Doctor holds substantially all the errors of the “Tractarians.”

That the principles of sound Protestanism still prevailing in this
neighbourhood, combined with the faithful preaching of the gospel in many
of our churches and chapels, may by God’s blessing be an effectual
bulwark against the covert, as well as against the open, enemies of our
time-honoured Church, is my earnest prayer.

                                                                     A. E.

19, _Alfred Place West_, _Brompton_,
         11_th_ _December_, 1854.




IS THE VICAR OF BROMPTON
A TRACTARIAN?


IN a letter bearing the signature of the Reverend Dr. Irons, which
appeared some time ago in the “Record,” there is a distinct denial on the
part of the Reverend Doctor as to his being a “Tractarian.”

In making a few comments upon the letter alluded to, I feel that I am not
overstepping my duty as a parishioner of Brompton, and much more my duty
as a professed lover of Scriptural truth, in opposition to Romish and
Romanizing error.

Dr. Irons says, in the letter alluded to, “I am not a Tractarian in any
sense,” and adds, “that he has always differed from the teaching of some
of the Oxford Tracts.”

If the English language is to be understood in its plain grammatical
sense, _some_ refers to a few, or the smaller portion, and, consequently,
Doctor Irons _does not_ differ from the teaching of the Tracts,
generally.

I have never met a “Tractarian” who did not profess to be at issue with
one or more of the ninety Tracts; and I have no doubt but Dr. Pusey
himself would unhesitatingly affirm, that there was teaching in _some_ of
them from which even he dissented.

Could we have asked the reverend gentlemen who have lately apostatized to
Rome from one of the churches at Stoke Newington, I can easily imagine
that they too would have differed from the teaching of _some_ of the
Tracts, though their principles and practices, before they finally left
the Church of England, were daily giving evidence how completely (as a
whole) they were identified with the party.

It must be borne in mind that from the time this “Tractarian” blight came
over our Church, it has been the practice of its clerical adherents to
deny any affinity with Romish error, and to beguile their congregations
with the assurance, that the holding of “Tractarian” principles was the
best safeguard to the Church of England.

Not only did their most talented men write and preach in this strain, but
the literary organs of the party still say so; and when, from time to
time, the more honest among them secede to Rome, their friends attribute
their apostacy to any cause but the right one, sometimes laying the blame
upon the evangelical party for protesting against their unsound and
unscriptural teaching.

Dr. Irons, in the letter referred to, defends himself from the charge of
refusing to sign the Anti-Papal Petition in 1850:—the charge, however, is
neither (as the Doctor calls it) “practically unjust, or untrue.”

Dr. Irons _did_ refuse to sign the Petition, and the reason given at the
time for this refusal was, {6}—that a “rider” was added to it (by a vote
at the public meeting); “that the Romanizing principles and practices of
a portion of the clergy had encouraged the Pope to act as he had done.”

It is not here necessary to prove that the “rider” enunciated a fact; it
is sufficient to shew that Dr. Irons refused to sign the Petition, and to
state the reasons he gave for that refusal; and then to leave it to the
unbiased judgment of his parishioners to decide between his actions, and
the paragraph in the letter, which says, “I am not a Tractarian in any
sense.”

Dr. Irons refers to the ‘_Morning Post_’ and other papers for his
sentiments as expressed on the occasion of the meeting.  I was present at
the meeting, and paid some attention to the speech of the Reverend
Doctor.

I do not deny but there was indignation expressed against the
“aggression,” but this indignation went very little beyond what might
have been said, and what was actually said, by sincere Romanists, ere the
glorious reformation of the sixteenth century had shone upon our country.

Our forefathers of that period felt the galling chain of ecclesiastical
and civil oppression laid upon them by the Papacy, but the light of
gospel truth had not penetrated their hearts, and, therefore, in their
opposition to Rome they made no protest against her soul-destroying
doctrines.

The speech of Dr. Irons certainly amounted to something more than what
took place in Scotland, where one of the Bishops of the _Scotch_
Episcopal Church signed a protest against the aggression, “because it was
contrary to Ecclesiastical order that one bishop should intrude into the
diocese of another.”

In referring to the ‘_Morning Post_,’ as giving the speech of Dr. Irons
at the public meeting, it must be remembered that the ‘_Post_’ was then
(if not now) an organ of the “Tractarians,” and that the tactics of the
party it represented were to hoodwink us, and under cover of a zeal for
“Church principles” to disseminate Anti-Protestant views.

I respect the liberty of the Press, and would not willingly give up its
great advantages, but I bear in mind that it would be about as
preposterous to expect from the columns of a “Tractarian” periodical any
thing favourable to sound Protestanism, as it would be to look for a true
exposition of constitutional principles in civil government from the pen
of the Russian Autocrat.

One of the most remarkable features in the Anti-Papal demonstration in
the autumn of 1850, was the part acted by a portion of the “Tractarians.”

Sensible that their party were more than suspected of being the origin of
the “Aggression,” they were generally very early in the field to hold
meetings, and to display an _apparent_ opposition to Rome; but if we take
the trouble to look into their proceedings at these meetings, we shall
find that their principal aim was to get credit for zeal against Popery,
and thus to blind the people to their own Romish practices, and prevent
(as far as they could) anything like a real expression of Protestant
feeling on the occasion.

As to the fact that two of the most noted “Tractarian” clergymen in
London were lately invited to preach in the Parish Church, Dr. Irons
says, they were his friends; “one of them a very old one;” but if the
Doctor is not a Tractarian “in any sense,” he might have shewn
hospitality and kindness under his own roof, rather than give these
gentlemen the opportunity of propagating the errors of their principles
and party in the pulpit of the Parish Church.  More recently, a third
well known “Tractarian” Clergyman was advertised to preach in Dr. Irons’
pulpit.

There is an old homely proverb, “Shew me the company a man keeps, and I
will tell you what sort of a man he is.”

Having thus commented upon the communication of Dr. Irons in the
“Record,” I would place before my fellow parishioners copies of some
letters which passed between the Reverend Doctor and myself several years
ago.  My object in doing this is not to say harsh things against the
individual, but to demonstrate that the Doctor is by his own admission a
“Tractarian.”

I do not presume to sit in judgment on Dr. Irons, though I should think
more highly of his candour and consistency, if he did not deny the
holding of those opinions which I am constrained to believe he does
entertain.

I am no admirer of a certain bishop in the West of England, but we must
do him the justice to acknowledge that he is an exception to many of his
“Tractarian” brethren.

There is no faltering on his part as to what his principles really are,
and though we differ from him entirely, we recognize that we have a
plain-spoken Englishman to deal with, who would feel it beneath his
dignity to deny that he does not heartily side with the “Tractarians,”
and endeavour by every means to advance their views and opinions.

Lamentable to the Church of England as are the proceedings of this
dignitary, we should not think the more highly of him were he to assert
that he is not a Tractarian “in any sense.”

The four following letters passed between Dr. Irons and myself soon after
the public meeting relative to the Papal Aggression in 1850. {8}

                                     “19, _Alfred Place West_, _Brompton_,
                                                  “2_nd_ _December_, 1850.

“SIR,

“At the Meeting of the 15th November, one of the speakers alluded to the
fact, that of the many clergymen, who had apostatized to Rome, all, or
nearly all, were from the ‘Tractarian,’ or High Church party, whilst few
or none were from that section of the Church, usually known as the
Evangelical, or Low Church party.  You replied (or remarked) to the
statement, ‘Six of one, and half-a-dozen of the other.’

“It would not, sir, become me to attribute to you, the Chairman of the
Meeting, an intentional misrepresentation; but I may be permitted
respectfully to remark that your assertion is entirely at variance with
clear and well established facts.

“It is very possible that amongst the Perverts, some three or four once
belonged to the Evangelical party, but in every case these clergymen had
embraced High Church or Tractarian principles, before they finally joined
the Church of Rome.

“Apologizing for troubling you with this communication.

                               “I am, Sir,

                                              “Your very obedient Servant,
                                                   (Signed) “ARTHUR ELLIS.

“The Rev. W. J. IRONS.”

                                * * * * *

                                                              “_Brompton_,
                                                 “_December_, 3_rd_, 1850.

“DEAR SIR,

“Your note needs no apology—I believe the facts of these unhappy
secessions to Rome, to be far more fatal to the Evangelical party, than I
at all implied.  I am not able to give you a list of the ascertainable
and presentable names of Converts, though I am anxious to get it.  My
belief is, that a very large majority had received a very unsound
religious education among the Low Church people (and some among
Dissenters), and embraced Popery, in consequence of having no thorough
hold on the principles of their own Church.

“Whether in their progress towards Popery, they travelled through our
territory as travellers, and not as dwellers, or natives, does not seem
very important to me.

“I know that some have gone straight from a Dissenting Chapel to Popery;
one case in particular has been brought to my notice; but I do not wish
to cast stones at others, on account of these things.  I only said what I
did, in consequence of the accidental remark of the speaker, and if I
annoyed you, I am sorry for it.

                               “Believe me,

                                                        “Faithfully yours,
                                               (Signed) “WILLIAM J. IRONS.

“To ARTHUR ELLIS, Esq., R.N.

“P.S.  Mr. Sibthorp was a very low Churchman, Mr. Newman was brought up
an Evangelical, and Mr. Pownall’s son, and Mr. Capes.  If I get a list I
will send it to you.  Mr. Capes preached very strongly in my former
neighbourhood against High Churchmen, and I said at the time, it is he
that is in danger of Popery, and not I.”

                                * * * * *

                                                 “19, _Alfred Place West_,
                                                 “12_th_ _December_, 1850.

“SIR,

“I have been favoured with your note of the 3rd instant, to which I
should have replied before this time, had I not waited for the list
mentioned in your postscript.

“As this list does not appear to be forthcoming, I am the more confirmed
in the conviction expressed in my former communication, that your
statement at the Meeting is altogether at variance with clear and well
established facts.

“Instead, however, of bringing forward proof as to the correctness of
your remark, you are pleased to take a step in advance, and to express
your belief, that a very large majority of the clergymen, (not a mere
‘six of one and half-a-dozen of the other,’) who have gone over to Rome,
received their religious education ‘among the Low Church people.’

“I do not, sir, presume to question what you believe: all I ask for, is
something in the shape of satisfactory evidence, that your belief has any
better foundation to rest upon, than that of Dr. Pusey, who believes that
the Protestant Church of England, and the Apostate Church of Rome, ‘are
almost identical in their views on the doctrines of original sin and
justification.’

“If your opinion as to the effect of Evangelical teaching, had any
foundation in fact, how comes it to pass, that the Perverts to Rome,
whether from the clergy or laity, are in almost every case, from
‘Tractarian’ congregations.

“I have not, sir, received a University education, nor does it require
the mathematical powers of a senior wrangler to discover, that if your
premises are correct, the friends and apologists of Romish error would be
found not in ‘Tractarian’ Churches, but in the congregations of St.
Saviour’s and Park Chapel, where from Sabbath to Sabbath, the blessed
truths of the Gospel are preached, in all their Evangelical fulness.

“I may very well leave it to my Dissenting neighbours to answer for
themselves, if they feel inclined to do so; but I may be permitted to
remark, that if your belief has any foundation to rest upon, the
principles you imbibed at Oxford, may not, in the opinion of your
‘Tractarian’ friends, be considered a sufficient guard to counteract that
Evangelical teaching, which I believe it was your privilege to partake of
in your earlier years {11} and that consequently (reasoning in your own
belief), your present position is not free from danger: as you must be
looked upon rather as a ‘traveller’ pursuing your onward course to Rome,
than as a ‘native’ or ‘dweller.’

“I beg leave to attach hereto the opinion of Cardinal Wiseman, as
expressed several years ago, ere ‘Tractarian’ buds had in so many
instances opened out into Romish flowers.  The Cardinal does not say one
word as to his expectations from the Evangelical party; his hopes are
built on Oxford, and on those ‘to whom our Saints, our Popes, are become
very dear, and in whose eyes our rites, our ceremonies, nay our very
Rubrics are precious.’

“You are kind enough to say you are sorry if you have annoyed me by your
observation at the Meeting.  I assure you I was not annoyed; I certainly
felt pain and sorrow, similar to what I experienced when I read the
statement of Dr. Pusey before referred to.

“I believed there was no foundation for either of the statements, and I
thought I saw in both of them the fatal effects of that teaching, and
those principles which led the present Romish Priest at Islington, to
claim the right, whilst officiating as a minister of the Protestant
Church of England, ‘to hold all Romish doctrine, so long as he did not
teach it from the pulpit;’ and which led another individual of the
‘Tractarian’ party to defend the lawfulness of subscribing to the
articles and formularies of our Church, in a ‘non-natural sense.’

“My paper reminds me I must draw this letter to a conclusion, and in
doing so, I earnestly pray, sir, that Our Heavenly Father may enlighten
your understanding, dispel from your mind all error and prejudice, and
lead you by the teaching of His Holy Spirit, to retrace your steps from
the perilous position you now occupy, amidst the shifting sands of
‘Church Principles,’ until you find yourself in safety in the impregnable
fortress of Bible Truth, and of that article of our church, which so
truly says, ‘Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary for
salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved
thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as
an article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary for salvation.’

                                  “I am
                              “Reverend Sir,

                                                   “Your obedient Servant,
                                                   (Signed) “ARTHUR ELLIS.

“The Rev. W. J. IRONS.”

                                * * * * *

The opinion of Cardinal Wiseman referred to in my letter.

    “It seems impossible to read the works of the Oxford divines, and
    especially to follow them chronologically without discovering a daily
    approach towards our Holy Church, both in doctrine and in
    affectionate feeling.  Our Saints, our Popes, have become dear to
    them by little and little; our rites and ceremonies, our offices,
    nay, our very rubrics are precious in their eyes, far alas, beyond
    what many of us consider them.  Our monastic institutions, our
    charitable and educational provisions, have become more and more
    objects with them of earnest study; and every thing in fine, that
    concerns our religion, deeply interests their attention.”

See “Letter on Catholic Unity,” addressed to the Earl of Shrewsbury.

                                * * * * *

                                                              “_Brompton_,
                                                 “_December_ 13_th_, 1850.

“DEAR SIR,

“If you really wish to believe that all Converts to Rome, or most of
them, come from the ranks of ‘the Tractarians’ I cannot help it.  I can
only assure you it is contrary to all my experience.  In every case which
has come under my notice for the last ten years, there is proof of the
truth of what I said in my former note; but I did not, and do not, like
to bring a railing accusation against my Evangelical brethren, else I
would, as you find, have said, that my experience was quite against the
assertion now commonly made.  I supposed, however, that other persons had
had a different experience from my own, and I charitably allowed ‘Six of
one and half-a-dozen of the other.’  For myself I can only say, that
though I should like to know well enough how the case stands, I should
attach no importance to the fact, if the balance of advantage were a
trifle on one side or other; much less would I think of writing to you in
an uncourteous or uncharitable tone about it.  The extract from Wiseman
which you kindly sent me, I easily understand.  He, Jesuit like, wishes
to damage High Churchmen, because he knows that ours is the only strong
ground against Rome; {13} just as in the days of Queen Elizabeth, Jesuits
preached Calvinism as Evangelical Ministers and Dissenters, on purpose to
divide and destroy Churchmen and their principles.  Dr. Wiseman never
abuses Low Churchmen.  But may I request, that as I have not time for
letters on such small points, you rather would, (if you desire it,) call
on me any morning you please, and in a Christian and gentle spirit,
converse on any important topic which you may desire to discuss.

                                                  “I am, faithfully yours,
                                              (Signed) “WILLIAM. J. IRONS.

“To ARTHUR ELLIS, ESQ., R.N.”

                                * * * * *

In the foregoing Correspondence between Dr. IRONS and myself it will be
seen, that I addressed him under the conviction that he was one with the
“Tractarian” party, and that his statement about “six of one and
half-a-dozen of the other,” was offered as a kind of defence of his
friends.

In the answers of Dr. IRONS to my communications, it is quite evident,
that he never thought of denying his identity with the “Tractarian”
party; the tenor of his letters is not to shew that he is not a
Tractarian “in any sense,” but to defend “Tractarianism” from the charge
of being the primary cause of the many secessions to Rome from amongst
his clerical brethren.

Compare the letters of the Rev. Doctor with his more recent statement of
not being a Tractarian “in any sense,” and there can be no doubt as to
what must be the verdict.

There are, however, some points in both the letters of Dr. IRONS to which
I would allude more fully, and comment upon more at length.

The Rev. Doctor states that he is anxious to get a list of the
“ascertainable and presentable names of the Converts.”

If such a list would have given so formidable an array of Evangelical
Churchmen and Dissenters, I can hardly suppose but Dr. IRONS (giving him
all credit for not wishing to cast stones at others), would have procured
it, from the desire to shew me and other of his parishioners, that the
real cause of these perversions was in the “unsound religious education
received amongst the ‘Low Church People and Dissenters,’” and that
“Tractarian” teaching and principles had nothing to do in the matter.

When Dr. IRONS can make good his position by an “ascertainable and
presentable list,” or by any other evidence equally convincing, I feel
assured, that many who are now under the conviction that “Tractarianism”
is the Broad Road to Rome, will acknowledge their error, and confess that
they have done the “Tractarian” party much injustice.

In the second letter of Dr. IRONS I would especially draw attention to
what he says in reference to the praise so lavishly bestowed upon the
“Tractarian” party by Cardinal Wiseman.

The question, be it remembered, is not as to the honesty of the motives
which led the Cardinal to bestow such eulogiums on his Oxford friends.

It is a much more simple question and much more easy of satisfactory
proof.

Is the Cardinal’s opinion of “Tractarians” warranted by facts?

Let the names of Wilberforce, Manning, Thynne, Haskell, Allies, and a
host of others, now Priests of the Church of Rome, give the answer.

We must not lose sight of the fact in dealing with “Tractarians,” that
just in proportion as they have received the commendation of Cardinal
Wiseman and the Organs of the Romanists; in like proportion, have all
true Protestants been energetic in the condemnation of their teaching and
principles.

Dr. IRONS says that Cardinal Wiseman “never abuses Low Churchmen,” but he
omits to say (what is much more to the point), that the Cardinal never
_praises_ them.

When Romanists shall praise Low Churchmen and Dissenters, we may be
assured that serious errors are creeping in amongst them.  If friends
condemn, we may yet be right.  But if enemies bestow their praises upon
us, there can be little doubt but we are wrong.

I will not attempt to put my knowledge of Church History on a par with
that of Dr. IRONS.  A life spent on the watery element has precluded me
from the opportunity of being deeply versant on such subjects; but I have
always understood, that in the days of Queen Elizabeth, the Protestant
Ministers of the Church of England were, with few exceptions, Calvinists:
and the idea of a Jesuit pretending to be a Calvinist and preaching to
_Dissenters_ in such a character in Elizabeth’s reign, appears to me
altogether an imagination of the Reverend Doctor; and must have reference
to a subsequent period, when principles (the exact counterpart of
“Tractarian”), had crept into the Church and were bidding fair to lead
the nation back to Rome.

The Puritans of Elizabeth’s reign were not Dissenters, they had not then
been driven out of the Church.  If Elizabeth did carry a high hand
towards them, her conduct was merciful and humane if put in contrast with
the tyranny and oppression they suffered at a later period, when the
Monarchs of the Stuart line were aided by the bigotry and persecuting
principles of Archbishop Laud and others, whose memories are held in such
high esteem by the “Tractarians” of the present day.

In endeavouring to ignore the evidence of Cardinal Wiseman in favour of
“Tractarianism,” Dr. IRONS certainly has the example of high
ecclesiastical authority.  In a correspondence lately published between a
Bishop of our Church (whose “Tractarian” leanings are but too evident)
and an esteemed Clergyman; the Bishop takes nearly the same line of
argument (if such tortuous reasoning can be called argument), in regard
to “Tractarian” publications highly eulogized by the literary organs of
the Romanists.

The Bishop, however, omits to mention, that these publications, so highly
thought of by <DW7>s, are altogether condemned by every sound
Protestant.

In bringing this little publication to a close, I find it has run out to
a length I did not look for when I took up my pen.

I would express a hope that in any thing I may have said of individuals,
I have not given way to unkind or acrimonious expressions.  It is foreign
to my feelings to have done so; and I would desire to remember “that the
wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.”

Far abler pens than mine have already shown forth the true character of
“Tractarianism,” and unmasked its semi-popish principles and practices.
If, in the object I had in view (as alluded to at the commencement of my
prefatory remarks), I have said any thing to serve as a warning to my
Protestant friends and neighbours, and to lead them to be more in earnest
in contending for the faith “once delivered to the saints,” I have an
ample reward.

I now leave the question (Is the Vicar of Brompton a Tractarian?) to the
judgment of those who may take the trouble to read this Pamphlet.  I can
truly say, I shall sincerely rejoice to have it made plain to me that
what Dr. IRONS says of himself is a true picture, and that he is not a
Tractarian “in any sense.”




FOOTNOTES.


{6}  The official statement, with the names of the (then) Churchwardens
attached to it, says, “that the Vicar has declined to be a party to the
Memorial in consequence of the words in italics being added.”  These
words were the “Rider.”

{8}  I asked for, and obtained, the sanction of Dr. IRONS to publish
these letters (if I thought it worth while,) soon after the
correspondence had taken place.

{11}  DR. IRONS is the son of a respected Dissenting Minister, who was
held in high esteem by many eminent Clergymen of the Evangelical party.

{13}  “The nearer the candle the safer the moth.”  Such is Tractarian
logic.  I respectfully borrow this apt illustration from the “Heir of
Montresor Abbey,” a work published by Nisbet & Co., and written by the
Protestant Authoress of “The Two Paths.”




***