deference shown to the See of Peter, developed into unqualified submission; the early reverence for relics and intimate reliance on the merits and prayers of saints, developed into their invocation and worship; the early celibacy of hermits developed into the ascetic system of modern Rome; or, on the other hand, we must admit that the principle of partial corruption was in the Church from the beginning, and developed itself into Gnostic asceticism, into a belief in human merits, into idolatry of various orders, into slavish submission to a fallible individual, &c. We repeat, there is no alternative. Now, without going into the subject, if we may so express ourselves; without setting forth an array of texts, or inquiring in how far those texts may be held to apply to Romanism and the Roman Church, so much we might be permitted to say if we knew nothing of existing facts, if having died in the first, we were to wake up suddenly in the nineteenth century, we should have strong antecedent reasons for presuming that great corruptions would at least partially prevail in the Church, because Scripture has distinctly foretold their existence; ay, has even specifically denounced some one future system of error as arising within the Church of God itself and seducing the saints. Without going too far, then, we think we may, as Churchmen (assuming the general validity of our position and the orthodoxy of our doctrines, on the authority of Scripture and Catholic tradition), we think we may further assume, that that specific system which denounces and anathematizes us, which teaches what we are bound to consider idolatry, which usurps sway over various national churches, is in itself anti-Christian, and may safely be condemned as such. We are fully aware that its existence within a Church, nay, its partial supremacy over it, is perfectly consistent with that Church's being; for otherwise the Church of England, which was for centuries subject to this yoke, and only three centuries ago emancipated itself, would have long ceased to be. But the fact remains: Romanism, as a distinct development, is in our eyes not of God. It therefore must be of Satan.

And now we can ask with yet greater force, how was it possible to cast off a system such as this, which had interwoven itself more or less with every good and holy thing, without losing much that was precious? The only wonder must be, that we have kept so much; that we have retained all essentials. As instances of our losses, Daily Communion and the due use of Discipline may be especially referred to. But could such defects, or any others, which leave fundamentals intact, justify our Church's children in deserting her? Surely not so. Nevertheless, and this is the point at which we wish to arrive at present, the failure of the

perception of which has probably led to the defection of many :— this is distinctly a period of trial and perplexity, of loss and trouble, in the Church's history. We are not now justified in demanding absolute infallibility, unlimited authority, perfect catholic communion, in fine, millennial glory; all which our perverts, as a class, have sought for unjustly in the Church of England, and have finally imagined to discover in the Church of Rome. The hour has not yet arrived when it can be said, "Thy sun shall no more go down, neither shall thy moon withdraw itself; for the Lord shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended." This, on the contrary, is a season of affliction. We must endure unto the end. "In quietness and confidence shall be our strength."

It is, we repeat, a matter of great doubt, whether this central verity has at any time been duly realized by Mr. Newman and his immediate followers. They have indeed used language, here and there, which might appear suggestive of this truth; but could they, if they had realized it, have sought for an actual Ideal in the Church of Rome, have recognized her as already possessed of all millennial gifts of perfection, have abandoned faith to obtain possession of the impossible? The very remarkable book which lies before us, and the perusal of which has in some degree suggested the peculiar line of argument assumed in the foregoing observations, namely, the tale, if we may so call it, of "Loss and Gain," is now generally supposed to owe its existence in every sense to the author of the "Essay on Development,” the teacher of Littlemore, Mr. Newman. We adverted, but very briefly, to this tale in our last Number, as at once odious and insolent, and a closer examination has by no means modified our opinion in this respect. On the other hand, we have learnt to see that the book may be of more practical importance than we at first anticipated, and may exercise a wider and more pernicious influence than we imagined possible. We spoke in the natural disgust inspired by its marvellous flippancy of tone and painfully irreverential and unloving spirit: but this tale is undoubtedly clever; nay, it is even extremely subtle, and calculated to work extensive injury amongst young men at our Universities. Therefore do we consider it worthy of a more detailed criticism and a more determined exposure than we have as yet bestowed on it.

Whether fame errs in attributing this work to Mr. Newman we venture not to decide. So much, however, we may say, the book has some of his cleverness, and much, alas! too much, of his spirit. We have his cold sneers, his politely-hinted calumnies, his general coldness and deadness of heart, as evinced in the Essay on Development,” his rationalistic hints and queries, and

finally, his exaggerated demonstrations of fervour with respect to the beauties of Romish worship and Romish service. We may seem to speak too unkindly; too severely. God is our Judge, that we would yet weep, yet pray for our brother. But "a spell is on us," to speak the truth in Christ: we dare not lie to our own souls. If this book then be not Mr. Newman's, despite the many almost infallible marks that it is,—if it be not his in the sense of direct authorship, it has surely been written by one of his nearest and closest disciples. It indubitably bears the Littlemore stamp.

Leaving this point, let us proceed to show why it is not only a most dangerous, but, in many respects, even a most wicked book; first, as tending to suggest, in an underhand way, a hundred vile calumnies which its author had not the daring to bring openly against us; secondly, as promoting the spirit of irreverence; thirdly, as explicitly and purposely teaching the youth of our Church to close their eyes to those merits and excellences which the author of this book is well aware that she possesses. Its utter unspirituality of tone, contrasting as it does with a few sudden bursts of almost theatrical devotion, is the least charge we have to bring against this work. Where there is so much to urge, we might afford to pass it over altogether.

We have said that "Loss and Gain" suggests calumnies in an underhand way; let us quote some instances in confirmation. And, first, we must remark, that one very common mode of proceeding here adopted is to plan attacks on the English Church, which are left unanswered in the mouths of persons of professedly loose principles, or otherwise unsound, so as to escape the responsibility of them, and yet communicate all their venom; to throw them out as if of little moment, as if not worthy to be dwelt on amidst such a multitude of testimonies; which is just the way, as every sensible person knows, to make them produce the greatest effect, especially with the young and thoughtless, who are likely to be mainly influenced by the book. Another course is to place the most extraordinary confessions, involving calumnies respecting their own community, in the mouths of those, who are represented as ideals of their Church's members.

First, then, for the former class. An average Oxford student, Sheffield, a little free and easy in his notions, but a sensible fellow and tolerable churchman, is made to say (p. 24), quite as a matter of course, that preaching is the highest ordinance in the English Church, whereby it is implied that such is the average Oxford and English view, yet so that the author may turn round upon us and explain, he only meant Sheffield to speak in jest. On

the next page we find in the same speech: "NEXT comes the Sacrament' (i. e. next in order after the Sermon), ‘and has the surplice and hood. And hood!' he repeated, musing; 'what's that for? No, it's the scarf."" This appears earnest enough, and can scarcely be converted into a joke. A more striking instance, perhaps, will be discovered pages 110 and 111, where it is suggested that Anglican clergymen may, and pretty commonly do, reject all creeds, more or less openly contenting themselves with "principles." "The Dean of Oxford" would say, "The Athanasian Creed was a mistake," "not in Scripture, but a scholastic addition." And this, we are given to understand, is quite natural, and even usual. And here let us remark on this author's frequent and cunning substitution of one word for another, which easily escapes attention, and yet makes an all-important difference. There are Anglican divines who might rightly or wrongly say, that the substance of the Athanasian Creed was in Scripture, but that its wording was a scholastic definition, not a scholastic "addition." This makes all the difference. Again, it is mentioned incidentally in the course of talk (p. 173), that an English Bishop makes a rule of bestowing his best livings on clergymen as marriage portions "for deserving young ladies,"-one of those vague calumnies which, however absurd, do not fail of their effect. On page 187 we find a still more serious suggestion again placed in the mouth of the lax Sheffield, that Anglicans, clergy and laity, are generally speaking Arians; further, the laity, Sabellians: and this in such bold, unprofitable, apparently aimless chat, as defies controversy. Advantage is here taken, in the most jesuitical manner, of a possible prejudice or slightly unfavourable feeling towards St. Athanasius, supposed to exist in the minds of some of the English clergy, whence their Arianism is plainly inferred; though it would be obvious to any candid and reflecting mind, even if the thing itself was true, that it could only be attributed to a misapprehension of the anathema in the Creed on the part of these clergy, as too sweeping in its range. Remove this anathema, and we scruple not to affirm, that even simpletonsthat is, well meaning but weak objectors-would no longer object to the use of the Creed. Heaven forbid that it ever should be removed; for it says no more than that those are self-condemned who reject the primary essentials of the Christian faith; by no means interfering with the universal exception of "invincible ignorance," or, more clearly expressed, of that ignorance which is consistent with Christian love. And here we may be permitted to observe incidentally, that the bare word Trinity, or Tri-Unity, involves the Co-equality, the Distinct Personality, the Oneness,

and, in fine, the entire definition of the Athanasian Creed; and could not, as far as we can humanly see, be substantially expressed in any other form.

To resume our theme or list of calumnies, we find it suggested on page 189 of "Loss and Gain," that "good old clergymen" of the Church of England care nothing for doctrines, nay, hold no substantial doctrines whatever; and on page 193, that they never "make an act of faith in the Trinitarian mystery ;" and all this is suggested in the same loose talk of Sheffield's, so that the author cannot be held responsible for such assertions. On page 213 it is inferred, from the language and conduct of the VicePrincipal, "Mr. Jennings," that the English Church confounds the Invocation of the Saints with their Intercession for us; the latter of course an indisputable fact to him who knows from the Revelation of St. John that the souls of the righteous cry "beneath the altar," for their brethren on earth, for the hastening of the day of the Lord. On page 235 it is most adroitly suggested, that Anglicans think little or nothing of the Eucharist; for in a summary of the Church's services there given by an earnest and good churchwoman, all allusion to it is omitted; surely not accidentally. But this belongs rather to another category. In the usual calumnious fashion, Willis, a Romanizer, and White, another of the same class, both very young, the latter flippant, are made to suggest in their speeches, that the Church of England services are cold and heartless. Finally, however, not contented with this, the author of "Loss and Gain" makes the same assertion directly, on his own account. We shall deal with this in its place.

Meanwhile we have seen that general infidelity, Arianism, and Sabellianism, ignorance, and disorder, are thus flippantly laid to the charge of the Church of England, or rather suggested, in speeches which may or may not be taken in earnest. Is this to be palliated? But we proceed. Professed representatives, nay, ideals of Anglicanism, are introduced as making confessions, if possible, yet more injurious. Let us look at some of these. On the very first page a remarkably sound and earnest clergyman is made to deplore, in a soliloquy, his utter ignorance of the hearts of his parishioners. The implication not expressed is, that without the use of the confessional, there cannot be an operative ministry. But what sensible observer among the clergy could make such a confession or remark? On page 103 it is assumed as the Anglican rule, and subsequently a model Anglican, Carlton, is made to say, that Protestants of the Church of England should and do begin with inquiry. Artfully put as this is, young men may thoughtlessly presume it to be true; but could the author of