It is not the writer’s object to point public scorn against individuals, neither is it any satisfaction to him to notice at all the supposed defects of other men: rather is it a source of real sorrow to him to observe how censure has been cast to and fro, with an unsparing hand, by Christian writers and ministers of his own day and church. He speaks simply for the sake of truth, and in that attempt unwillingly adduces only what is necessary to his purpose. He speaks also in very general terms, considering it sufficient only to allude to opinions which unnumbered publications have rendered familiar. While the terms of our Subscription are strong and decided, several sections of the English clergy embrace a different view with respect to it. If there be any conclusion which the history of England irresistibly conveys to readers of honest minds, it is this, that our Reformers in forty-two Articles, and afterwards in thirty-nine, intended to put forth a strong and unequivocal protest against the errors and corruptions of Romanism. Much would it have startled them to be told that the time would arrive when English clergymen would subscribe to these Articles, and then proceed to contend that they are not to be estimated as a protest against the anti-Protestant proceedings of the Council of Trent. They were accustomed, no doubt, to insincere subscription from men still Romanists at heart; but the deed was secret, it shunned the light: it was, with a very few exceptions, practised without open defence. It is not intended to affirm that an interminable war is to be carried on by us against the Romish church: rather it is our duty to desire, without compromise, union with all Christendom. Subscription alone is now in view; and while that remains as it is, and English words retain their meaning, and an English history of facts can be found, and any clear apprehension of the meaning of truth remains with us, the perversion of our Form of Subscription, and the misrepresentation of our Articles, attempted by any who argue that they were not intended to condemn Romanism, whether as held before or after the Council of Trent, ought to excite, in every honest mind, an indignation which it is a virtue to feel, and a duty to express. If it be questioned where such views have been advanced, it is sufficient to refer to Tract No. 90, now before the writer of these pages, though other instances might be cited from authors who have subscribed the Articles.