human
In a pamphlet of yours, a year old, you spoke of
gpt
who
human
The concluding words you were thought to quote from my
gpt
Apologia. In consequence, Dr. Manning, now our archbishop, replied to you, asserting, as you say,
human
In that counter-assertion he was at the time generally considered (rightly or wrongly, as it may be), though writing to you, to be really correcting statements in my
gpt
Apologia, without introducing my name. Further, in the volume which you have now published, you recur to the saying, and you speak of its author in terms which, did I not know your partial kindness for me, would hinder me from identifying him with myself. You say,
human
The saying was not mine, but that of one of the deepest thinkers and observers in the Roman communion, p. 7. A friend has suggested to me that, perhaps, you mean De Maistre; and, from an anonymous letter which I have received from Dublin, I find it is certain that the very words in question were once used by Archbishop Murray; but you speak of the author of them as if now alive. At length a reviewer of your volume, in the
gpt
Weekly Register, distinctly attributes them to me by name, and gives me the first opportunity I have had of disowning them; and this I now do. What, at some time or other, I may have said in conversation or private letter, of course, I cannot tell; but I have never, I am sure, used the word
human
of the Anglican Church deliberately. What I said in my
gpt
Apologia was this: That that church was
human
A bulwark is an integral part of the thing it defends; whereas the words
gpt
and
human
imply a kind of protection which is accidental and _de facto_. Again, in saying that the Anglican Church is a defence against