versal consent,” as sustaining the doctrine taught at Plymouth. About this, not a word is said, in the paragraph; but tradition introduced which I said had nothing to do with it. I stated that “the demon of Popery is the active demon of the day;” and so I think, not that they were associated with it, and that in appealing to the principle of universal consent, and in addition to Scripture, “its leading introductory principle was advanced in that passage; referring to the well known canon of a father, always cited by high Churchmen, who have a leaning towards Popery. I have spoken of a principle here printed and published, using these last words in the postscript. Is it not so? Why do they introduce extracts, I really know not whence, referring to tradition, a subject I had expressly rejected as inapplicable, and put my name as the authority they quote, leaving out the point I did assail, and which is printed and published by one of their number, in a tract on the express words of which, I was commenting? Is it honest to conceal what was attacked, and implicate me, trusting to the confidence which would be had, that quotations with inverted commas must be truly given, in charges which he perfectly well knew I had nothing to say to. It was Mr. Newton, drew this up. And even in what is found in that postscript, the citations are garbled. I have stated the course clericalism takes and its issue in the full blown Romish Clericalism, but I have never charged it on them, but urged the danger of introducing its leading principle in the doctrine of universal consent. I have said I did not allude to them, but to a system. The reader may also remark that ’uphold’ is not of the quotation, nor “associated with.” And that the use I have made of the words which are, may be as different as possible from what is here stated. The truth is in the postscript, in the sentence quoted from, I have carefully set aside individuals; I have stated, that I have introduced other principles of Popery, not advanced, as a matter of general warning, because this one of universal consent, which drew forth my comments shewed the door was not closed
