“Though the distinction,” says the same writer, “was so well known to all our Reformers in this nation, yet their prudence and moderation would not suffer them to take notice of it in any public and authentic manner. They would not recede from _Rome_ any further than was necessary, upon the account of the _Roman_ corruptions, and therefore they did not reject the _filioque_ from the _Nicene_ Creed or the Creed of _St. Athanasius_, nor did they declare themselves against the _Greek_ Church by adding any such term, as must necessarily determine in what sense they understood the _procession_.” {48a} _Literally_ taken, therefore, the Greek Church is _not of necessity_ included in this sweeping anathema, and as his Lordship states it, “excluded from the merits of the Redeemer’s death hereafter,” any more than five hundred millions of Heathens are condemned to irretrievable perdition by the _literal_ acceptation of Mark xvi. 16. To affirm the necessity of the Catholic Faith to salvation, is simply to say what our Lord himself says, in the above text. To affirm that he who _having had_ the Catholic Faith _rejects_ it, is to say no more than is said, Heb. vi. 4, Luke ix. 62, Matt x. 13, and 2 Peter ii. 21, with many other like places. It would appear then from page 51 of your pamphlet, that we differ nothing in our application of these clauses; the only difference between us is, that taking this view of it, I can _unreservedly_ make my Subscription, and conscientiously hold with our eighth Article, that this Creed “_ought thoroughly to be received and believed_.” But if in my conscience I believed that such an application of them was untenable, I confess I could not so easily lay aside my scruples, as it would appear you were ready to do, provided you could obtain the “sanction of the opinion of the Archbishop of Canterbury,” an opinion which being not _ex cathedra_, but private and personal, his Grace would not permit you to consider as “of greater value than that of any other _individual_, who may possess in an equal degree the qualifications of a competent judge in such a matter.” {48b} But you ask “whether when we read Mark xvi. 16, we can find in that awful threat against those who do not receive the GOSPEL, a sanction for the even more appalling threat contained in the Creed.” {49a} In what sense it is more appalling you have left us to discover. But by this observation, you would seem to aim at some distinction between not receiving the _Gospel_ and rejecting the “very essentials of Christianity.”