this book have failed to know, that Protestants of the Church of England begin with faith as much as Roman Catholics; that they are taught this implicit faith in childhood; that it is the first lesson conveyed to them; that the Anglican Church gives her entire doctrinal teaching as so many positive facts, not as problematical possibilities.

Again, on pages 113, 114, 115, &c., Mr. Upton, a staunch Anglican, is made to lay down, that "divine truth" is "not given," but only "proposed;" that "our highest state here is one of doubt;" that the Athanasian Creed only exists as a sort of "protest," not an affirmation; that the Articles say nothing on the subject how sins after baptism are to be forgiven; that Christ is present in the Eucharist "in effect," not in fact, which is of course tantamount to a denial of his Presence altogether; with other decisions of the same order. Is it worth while to answer these implied or expressed calumnies? The first has been already dealt with; the second, that our highest state is one of doubt, is simply monstrous to any true member of the Church of England, though it may not appear so to the author of "Loss and Gain!" that, for which we have catholic consent, the voice of Scripture, and the assent of conscience and intellect, is rather beyond a doubt; the third, that the Athanasian Creed is not felt to be affirmative as well as negative, is meaningless; the next, that the Articles say nothing about "how sins after baptism are to be forgiven," is simply grotesque, inasmuch as the sixteenth Article expressly states, that they are forgiven through grace and by faith, of course assuming the ordinary and universal means,-prayer, reading of Scripture, confession and absolution, and reception of the Eucharist; the next, that Christ is not present, in fact, in the Sacrament, is so utterly at variance with our Services, and even with the spirit of the twenty-eighth Article, that it may safely be dismissed without further comment.

But we must resume our list of instances. On page 117, the hero of the book, Charles Reding, an earnest-minded youthful Anglican, who, singularly enough, never appears to consult a single Anglican authority, and whose intellect seems rather below than above the usual average, is made to say, that the Articles are to him unintelligible; whereupon the bore of the book, a certain Bateman, who with remarkable adroitness is used to represent the closest approach permitted in it to High Church Anglicanism, rejoins that the Protestant sense of the Articles is no doubt heretical; as for instance, the assertion that we are justified by faith only, in Article XI. Now, it is perfectly true that a weak man, in slipshod talk, might say any thing even as silly as this; but when this is represented as a fair sample of Anglicanism,

66

we feel the monstrosity of the calumny. We know that justification, or "being accounted righteous before God," is only for the merit of our Lord, received by faith, and manifested forth in works, as the next Article declares: not for our own merits or deserving, nor in any sense for our own works. But we shall return to this subject when we treat of this author's sweeping calumnies on so called Evangelicals. This same worthy, Bateman, is made to suggest seriously, also on page 119, that the Articles are meant to have no sense at all,-a notion conveyed with his usual adroitness by our author, so as to leave its sting without being fixed on him. The same Bateman talks (p. 120) as if the most monstrous errors were confessedly common among our clergy. In the next page we learn from the ingenuous Charles, that the Articles are avowedly ambiguous," and have no one sense; and a little further on we learn from Bateman, that they can only be rightly held in a catholic sense, so as to force their meaning; while it is suggested, at the same time, that it is, practically speaking, impossible to hold them in any such catholic sense. All this loose talk is far more mischievous than a serious attack would be; it may mean any thing or nothing, you know not where to lay hold of it. But we explicitly deny that the ambiguities alluded to exist, at least to any degree or in any evil sense. It is true that the seventeenth Article, for instance, on Predestination, is so expressed that even the ultra-Calvinist could not refuse to sign it; but this is only because it goes with him as far as Scripture goes, and no further. The anti-Calvinist can sign it also; for Predestination, explain the term as you will, is distinctly asserted in Scripture. So no doubt is Free-will also in the baptized Christian. He who only holds half the truth is likely to end in error; but that half is not the less truth on that account. The very tenth Article which denies absolute free-will for good, independent of God's grace, plainly declares that we have power to will and do good works with the grace of God. Thus understood, it supplies the remaining half of the truth, which is not fully expressed in the seventeenth Article. And what more can be required?

The Articles, then, do not need to be read in any unnatural sense. When we are told that Charles "cannot make out their doctrine about faith, about the Sacraments, about Predestination, about the Church, about the inspiration of Scripture," we can only deplore his want of capacity, but really know not how to give him sense. Their doctrine is, that faith justifies; that active faith, or faith in action, in works, sanctifies; that the Sacraments are the great appointed means of grace, and convey God's Presence, the Holy Ghost in baptism, the Son in the Lord's Supper,

consequently God; that Predestination is set forth in Scripture, which whoever doubts must be unable to read or think; that the Church is visible, organized according to Christ's ordinance, orthodox in essentials, minister of the Sacraments; that holy Scripture is of undoubted and absolute authority. But why answer these silly cavils, or rather suggestions of cavils, which might as well have been raised on any other of the thirty-nine, from the first to the last? We repeat, if any thing can be complained of in the Articles, it is an occasional absence of perfect definiteness; but taking them as a whole, we hold them, in their natural sense, to be self-consistent, orthodox, and highly valuable.

But we must proceed with our list, passing over much nugatory cavilling, which is too void of purpose to be met. On page 147 it is incidentally and adroitly suggested, that Anglicans cannot be logical.-Carlton, a model Anglican, is made to say (p. 173), "In the Church of Rome great good, I see, comes of celibacy;" while he goes on to declare, that it would be a blunder to introduce it into the Anglican Church: which is obviously wrong both ways; for while the greatest doubt may be entertained as to the propriety or good effects of compulsory celibacy, there can be no doubt whatever that it may have its uses in individual members of a clergy who, as a body, follow another rule. Was celibacy a blunder in St. Paul? Yet it was not obligatory. But the impression here intended to be conveyed, (as also on p. 174,) by Carlton's speeches, is, that celibacy can have no place at all in the Anglican system; whence it would follow that that system must be deplorably defective. Again, the same Carlton is made (p. 179) to deliver this opinion. Charles Reding asks whether a sinful man on saying the confession, (saying it with that contrition with which such persons ought to say it,) is pardoned at once, AND has nothing more to fear about his past sins? I should say, Yes,' answered Carlton. Really,' said Charles thoughtfully."- We cannot quote the whole; but the impression conveyed is, that our public absolution either does nothing, or does a great deal too much. Remark the "and" above, and what follows it. The penitent is, no doubt, pardoned at once, if he has fully and entirely repented; but contrition is not so easily attained. Attrition, or mere sorrow and wish for pardon, will not suffice; but if contrition is attained, then no doubt the pardon is absolute for the time being. But, in how far can it erase the past even then? Only, as far as that past is not afterwards renewed by sin! This is why we can never discharge our old sins, and simply leave them behind us; the first new sin will recall all the old to life with their penalty of guilt, though they appeared erased before. Thus, as we advance, we

constantly accumulate sins, if we again fall into sin; though true penitence may procure us pardon on each occasion. We cannot dilate on the subject; but it is obvious that Carlton is made to state the Anglican doctrine after such wise, as would render it altogether untenable and uncatholic. The question of penance is closely connected with this. Carlton, as the representative of Anglican theology, rejects it altogether. Can our Church do this? Surely not, for one moment; if penance mean the working of repentance, repentance in action; not "a make up" for sin, as the author of "Loss and Gain" heretically calls it (p. 180), but an imperfect medium of realizing sorrow for sin. In this sense, penance is not only natural, but necessary, however it may be expressed. Who can question that a man who should in a passion have slain a fellow-creature, say his own brother, but this in time of war or otherwise, so as not to render himself amenable to law, might be right in inflicting on himself a life-long penance, possibly even of the severest nature? There would be nothing un-Anglican,-in a right sense, we may even say, nothing un-Protestant, in this. If such a penitent fancied indeed that his penance were "a make-up" for his sins, he would destroy all its possible virtue as a means of realizing his grief, and all its beauty; nay, he would convert it into something essentially low and base, something destructive of his own soul. The bare idea is Romish, in the worst sense; consequently, anti-Christian. When Carlton, then, is made to reject all suffering for sin, because human suffering cannot be meritorious, he altogether misrepresents our Church. Were this her doctrine, she would indeed have lost hold of the very essence of Christian sorrow. pentance, it is true, true repentance suffices for pardon, and that alone; penance cannot stand in lieu of it: so regarded, it is accursed; but penance is a fruit of repentance, and as such is blessed.

Re

This same Anglican, Carlton, denies explicitly (p. 195) that Christian theology and Christian polity came from heaven, like the Jewish. There is an ambiguity, as usual, about the terms employed; but the inference to be drawn from the passage is, that the Anglican Church never receives doctrines as positively true, but only as problematically so. We have already dealt with this calumny. It is obvious, that Christian theology and polity, being established by our Lord and his Apostles, and confirmed by Scripture, did come from heaven; at least as far as all essentials are concerned; but, as a law of liberty has taken the place of the Jewish letter, there is undeniably more latitude in the Christian covenant as to minor details of doctrine and practice. There is a moral certainty, not an external absolutism, in the Church's mani

festation of Christianity. "We walk by faith, not by sight; are on earth, not in heaven. Once more, Carlton is made to admit, that you cannot take the Articles "on faith," acting on your moral certainty of the Church's orthodoxy, without binding yourself to her infallibility. (p. 198.) Is it needful to controvert this folly, which is yet adroitly made to appear the Anglican theory? The old calumnies respecting the Articles are renewed in the speeches of Charles Reding, (p. 199,) and virtually yielded to by Carlton. They are said to receive the Lutheran doctrine of justification, which is elsewhere declared to be monstrous, as implying that faith justifies without love; which "the Prayer Book opposes in every one of its offices!" This passage alone would seem to betray the authorship of Newman, who always thus confounds justification and sanctification; nay, explicitly declares, that the one is the other. We shall expose this error more fully when we come to the attack on the Evangelicals. Again, Reding says, the Articles refer to the Homilies, yet do not tally with them on all points : "The Articles about Ordination are in their spirit contrary to the Ordination Service." We deny it utterly: but why fight with shadows? Again, "One Article on the Sacraments speaks the doctrine of Melanchthon, another that of Calvin." Both, we reply, speak the doctrine of Scripture, and of Catholic tradition. Once more, "One Article speaks of the Church's authority in controversies of faith, yet another makes Scripture the ultimate appeal." We answer, there is no contradiction here; the ultimate appeal for each individual must be to his conscience, which must be guided by the authority of the Church; yet not despotically so. Authority need not be absolute to be real, or every constitutional monarchy is a delusion. Again, it is suggested as self-evident, by an Anglican, (p. 201,) that every messenger from Heaven in any sense must be infallible, or is no messenger at all. This is simply begging the question quietly, and, as it were, unobtrusively; which is frequently done throughout this book. Again, we are informed, through Charles Reding, that the Articles no where define what justification is; although the eleventh Article expressly states, that it is "being accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith." On page 243, we may remark a passage suggestive of what is elsewhere hinted, that earnest Anglicans are extremely apt to be dolts. The author of this book is well aware that a little dry sarcasm goes much further than sound argument with many, perhaps most men. On page 261, it is incidentally implied that Anglicans cannot know what Christianity is. Another staunch Anglican is introduced in the person of a Mr.