And to you especially, dear AMBROSE ST. JOHN; whom God gave me, when He took every one else away; who are the link between my old life and my new; who have now for twenty-one years been so devoted to me, so patient, so zealous, so tender; who have let me lean so hard upon you; who have watched me so narrowly; who have never thought of yourself, if I was in question.

And in you I gather up and bear in memory those familiar affectionate companions and counsellors, who in Oxford were given to me, one after another, to be my daily solace and relief; and all those others, of great name and high example, who were my thorough friends, and showed me true attachment in times long past; and also those many younger men, whether I knew them or not, who have never been disloyal to me by word or by deed; and of all these, thus various in their relations to me, those more especially who have since joined the Catholic Church.

And I earnestly pray for this whole company, with a hope against hope, that all of us, who once were so united, and so happy in our union, may even now be brought at length, by the Power of the Divine Will, into One Fold and under One Shepherd.

May 26, 1864.
In Festo Corp. Christ.

APPENDIX.

ANSWER IN DETAIL TO MR. KINGSLEY'S ACCUSATIONS.

IN proceeding now, according to the engagement with which I entered upon my undertaking, to examine in detail the Pamphlet which has been written against me, I am very sorry to be obliged to say, that it is as slovenly and random and futile in its definite charges, as it is iniquitous in its method of disputation. And now I proceed to show this without any delay; and shall consider in order,

1. My Sermon on the Apostolical Christian
2. My Sermon on Wisdom and Innocence.

3. The Anglican Church.

4. The Lives of the English Saints.

5. Ecclesiastical Miracles.

6. Popular Religion.

7. The Economy.

8. Lying and Equivocation.

I.

My Sermon on "The Apostolical Christian," being the 19th of "Sermons on Subjects of the Day."

This writer says,

"What Dr. Newman means by Christians... he has not left in doubt;" and then, quoting a passage from this Sermon which speaks of "the humble monk and the holy nun" being "Christians after the very pattern

given us in Scripture,” he observes, "This is his definition of Christians."-p. 9.

This is not the case. I have neither given a definition, nor implied one, nor intended one; nor could I either now or in 1843-4, or at any time, allow of the particular definition he ascribes to me. As if all Christians must be monks or nuns !

What I have said is, that monks and nuns are patterns of Christian perfection; and that Scripture itself supplies us with this pattern. Who can deny this? Who is bold enough to say that St. John Baptist, who, I suppose, is a Scripture Character, is not a pattern-monk; and that Mary, who “sat at our Lord's feet," was not a pattern-nun? and “Anna too, who served God with fastings and prayers night and day?" Again, what is meant but this by St. Paul's saying, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman?” and, when speaking of the father or guardian of a young girl, "He that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better?" And what does St. John mean but to praise virginity, when he says of the hundred forty and four thousand on Mount Sion, "These are they which were not defiled with women, for they are virgins?" And what else did our Lord mean, when He said, "There be eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it?" He ought to know his logic better: I have said that "monks and nuns find their pattern in Scripture: " he adds, Therefore I hold all Christians are monks and nuns. This is Blot one.

Now then for Blot two.

"Monks and nuns the only perfect Christians more?"-p. 9.

A second fault in logic. I said no more than that monks and nuns were perfect Christians: he adds, Therefore "monks and nuns are the only perfect Christians." Monks and nuns

are not the only perfect Christians; I never thought so or said so, now or at any other time.

"In the Sermon

monks and nuns are

P. 42. spoken of as the only true Bible Christians." This, again, is not the case. What I said is, that "monks and nuns are Bible Christians: 99 it does not follow, nor "all Bible Christians are monks and nuns."

did I mean, that

Bad logic again.

Blot three.

II.

My Sermon on "Wisdom and Innocence," being the 20th of "Sermons on Subjects of the Day."

This writer says, p. 8, about my Sermon 20, "By the world appears to be signified, especially, the Protestant public of these realms."

He also asks, p. 14, "Why was it preached? to insinuate, that the admiring young gentlemen, who listened to him, stood to their fellow-countrymen in the relation of the early Christians to the heathen Romans? or that Queen Victoria's Government was to the Church of England, what Nero's or Dioclesian's was to the Church of Rome? It may have been so."

May or may not, it wasn't. He insinuates, what not even with his little finger does he attempt to prove. Blot four.

He asserts, p. 9, that I said in the Sermon in question, that "Sacramental Confession and the celibacy of the clergy are notes' of the Church." And, just before, he puts the word "notes" in inverted commas, as if it was mine. That is, he garbles. It is not mine. Blot five

He says that I "define what I mean by the Church in two 'notes' of her character." I do not define, or dream of defining.

1. He says that I teach that the celibacy of the clergy enters into the definition of the Church. I do no such thing; that is the blunt truth. Define the Church by the celibacy of the clergy! why, let him read 1 Tim. iii.; there he will find that bishops and deacons are spoken of as married. How, then, could I be the dolt to say or imply that the celibacy of the clergy was a part of the definition of the Church? Blot six. And again in p. 42, "In the Sermon a celibate clergy is made a note of the Church." Thus the untruth is repeated.

Blot seven.

2. And now for Blot eight. Neither did I say that "Sacramental confession" was a "note of the Church." Nor is it. Nor could I with any cogency have brought this as an argument against the Church of England, for the Church of England has retained Confession, nay, Sacramental Confession. No fair man can read the form of Absolution in the Anglican Prayer in the Visitation of the Sick, without seeing that that Church does sanction and provide for Confession and Absolution. If that form does not contain the profession of a grave Sacramental act, words have no meaning. The form is almost in the words of the Roman form; and, by the time that this Clergyman has succeeded in explaining it away, he will have also got skill enough to explain away the Roman form; and if he did but handle my words with that latitude with which he interprets his own formularies, he would prove that, instead of my being superstitious and frantic, I was the most Protestant of preachers and the most latitudinarian of thinkers. It would be charity in him, in his reading of my words, to use some of that power of evasion, of which he shows himself such a master in his dealing with his own Prayer Book. Yet he has the assurance at p. 14 to ask, "Why was the Sermon preached? to insinuate that a Church which had sacramental confession and a celibate clergy was the only true Church?"

66

Why?" I will tell the reader, why; and with this view