Campbell, a clergyman, who is made to affirm with the utmost coolness, (p. 269,) that the Calendar and Rubrics are in no sense binding on the churchman; not even morally so, where higher laws do not supervene; but may be treated with contempt. This champion of the English Church, who is represented as quite a model, takes occasion to condemn all fasting as quite out of date. A little further on, he is made to affirm, that the Church shall absolutely fail, and "the gates of hell prevail against her." Page 281, even Bateman, the bore, is made use of, for the purpose of conceding, "as an Anglican," that an educated Romanist may worship the Virgin, because he will not yield divine worship to her; though the author of "Loss and Gain” must well know that the standard authors of the Church of England reject all creature-worship as idolatrous, and refuse to admit the distinctions of latria, dulia, and hyper-dulia. And here we terminate this list of concessions, confessions, or heretical statements, placed in the mouths of men represented as more or less worthy champions of the English Church.

Have we now shown, or not shown, that vile calumnies on the English Church are suggested in this book in any underhand way; that is, either by implication, and as it were accidentally in the light speeches of flippant people, or by extraordinary concessions, confessions, and statements placed in the mouths of presumedly sound and earnest Anglicans? We proceed. We have said that the author of "Loss and Gain" has further sinned in provoking irreverence, and in denying those excellences to the Church of England which he must know her to possess. We hope that our readers will not find these unavoidable details unprofitable; we have to cover a vast space of controverted matter within, say, from some thirty to forty pages. The main object of this mischievous book appears to be to unsettle the minds of Anglicans on almost all subjects; and having once undertaken to attempt the supply of an antidote, we should not omit any points of consequence. To resume then. On the score of irreverence, it may fairly be said, that the whole work breathes its spirit in an eminent degree. The most sacred subjects are treated of as a jest, or at least jestingly; but what we especially refer to under this head, is the evident wish on the author's part to promote the most besetting foible of Englishmen and English society in the nineteenth century; the tendency to look at the worst or most earthly side of all things, and employ a tone of ridicule in treating of all dignities, ceremonies, and institutions. Men constantly do this among us, who love and honour what they talk most lightly of: it is the fashion to affect a silly superiority to all the forms and shows of government and order, whether in the capital or the

university. Those who most respect and value the Peerage will talk habitually of them as "old fellows," or in some other exquisitively humorous phrase. It seems to be held next to impossible to speak seriously on any subject, attributing that importance to things which they in reality possess, without being vulgarly or commonly considered "a snob." The expression of earnest feeling or the confession of principle is unworthy of an Oxford man. Now there is no doubt a noble instinct at the root of this fear or shame; for nothing is so odious as false enthusiasm; and as people cannot be perpetually enthusiastic, or ready to sympathize with those who are so, it is better to speak moderately and temperately, as a general rule. But this virtue may be carried to excess, and then becomes a vice; and a vice it is amongst us. Humour and even ridicule are well in their due stations; for there is a time for all things: but it is eminently undesirable to encourage that tone of mind, which speaks evil of dignities, and looks at the ridiculous side of all things; and such a side can almost always be discovered, because humanity is imperfect, and the contrast of the real with the ideal may ever give occasion for a sneer. Thus, for instance, it need scarcely be said, that there is a natural tendency amongst young men at an university to ridicule their heads and teachers, the representatives of order and government, and to look with a satirical eye on all university ceremonies, &c. This is encouraged and developed by the author of "Loss and Gain," to the utmost extent of his power; and as Oxford is closely connected with Anglicanism, he thus strikes at the latter through the former. Thus we find him placing the procession of heads at St. Mary's in a most ludicrous point of view, (p. 8,) and representing Charles as somewhat mawkish for the natural desire on his part to appreciate its ideal, as a manifestation of dignity and authority. A yet more offensive instance of the same general endeavour will be discovered on page 66, where Vincent, a junior tutor, a sincere Anglican and a good man, is thus discoursed of: "He preached good sermons, read prayers with unction, and in his conversation sometimes had even a touch of evangelical spirituality. The young men even declared they could tell how much port he had taken in common-room by the devoutness of his responses in evening chapel; and it was on record that once, during the confession, he had, in the heat of his contrition, shoved over the huge velvet cushion in which his arms were imbedded upon the heads of the gentlemen commoners who sat under him.' A fit subject for humour truly is this odious suggestion! Who sees not that Oxford men are here taught to regard the unction of their tutors' prayers with distrust and ridicule, if not contempt? Who sees not that the effect of such a

suggestion might also be to restrain future symptoms of what is so devoutly entitled unction? Nay, remark even the slight, and as it were the accidental, references to the huge velvet cushion, and the gentlemen commoners sitting beneath. This is pious jesting; likely, certainly, to promote a spirit of reverence and devotion. On page 90, we have all manner of by-gone stories respecting the misdoings of heads in "three-bottle days," raked from the dust again, to effect the same object,—the suggestion of contempt for the university. On page 209, the Vice-Principal of a college is introduced, whose speeches and proceedings, given as things of course, tend to make the heads appear alike odious, ignorant, and ridiculous. On page 113, we are most flippantly informed, that it was but a "toss-up that Anglicans at this day are not Calvinists, or Presbyterians, or Lutherans, equally well as Episcopalians;" as if Episcopacy had for a moment been a matter of question among our greatest reformers, a Cranmer, a Ridley, a Latimer, or with the sovereigns who, by divine right, swayed this realm; because some foreign reformers were consulted as to the wording of articles respecting predestination and justification by faith.

But we must refrain from further citations, for simple want of space, merely referring to this author's adroit ridicule of Anglican interpretations of prophecy, and of the by no means unweighty theory, that the Church of Jerusalem, not the Church of Rome, is destined to be the future centre of Catholic unity. And we pass the more willingly to our next division, the affectation of denying such excellences to the Church of England as this author must inwardly recognize, because it is so nearly connected with that just treated of. We must be brief also in our remarks on this branch of calumnies, and content ourselves with a few instances. We find our author then very cleverly suggesting that Anglican fasts are a farce, on page 72, where Vincent, a good Anglican, is made to deliver a grossly absurd and even Iudicrous speech connected with this subject. We shall not quote it. It is clenched, however, by the subsequent declaration, already referred to, of Campbell, a positively model Anglican, that fasting is quite out of fashion, and can find no place in the Church of England. Now does not the author of this book well know, that fasting does find a place? that many thousands of Anglicans do fast regularly, after some fashion, on the vigils and days of abstinence appointed by the Church? Our Church has laid down no explicit rule as to the due method of fasting; and this is therefore left, as it appears to us most expediently, to the good sense and good feeling of individuals. But to suggest that there is no real fasting in the Church VOL. X.-NO. XIX.-SEPT. 1848.

F

999

6

of England, is to suggest a notorious untruth; to assert or imply that it can have no natural place in the Anglican system is grossly unjust; nay, monstrous. The words of our blessed Lord, " And then shall they fast in those days," must be surely as applicable to the Church of England, as to all other Churches. At page 75, we find an even more mischievous suggestion; a species of underhand sneer at the greatest Anglican divines, who are praised by a superficial man after a fashion equivalent to the weightiest censure. "Our great divines,' and he stood upright, were models; there were giants on the earth in those days, as King George the Third had once said of them to Dr. Johnson. They had that depth, and power, and gravity, and fulness, and erudition; and they were so racy, always racy, and what might be called English. They had that richness too, such a mine of thought, such a world of opinion, such activity of mind, such inexhaustible resource, such diversity too. Then they were so eloquent; the majestic Hooker, the imaginative Taylor, the brilliant Hall, the learning of Barrow, the strong sense of South, the keen logic of Chillingworth, good honest old Burnet, &c. &c." It is difficult to castigate, some would say unjust, to censure this; yet is not the whole passage studied ridicule? Is not its undoubted tendency to make young men especially, neglect the very authors thus praised? Is it not a kind of covert attempt at a denial of those beauties and excellences which the author of "Loss and Gain" well knows, and dares not explicitly deny? Further, it is suggested that Anglicans think little of the Holy Communion; not only in a passage adverted to, in which a good Anglican enumerates the Church's services, omitting the greatest, but also, by inference, in a passage, where even a commemorative sacrifice in the English Communion, corresponding in an orthodox sense to the Roman Mass, is "ignoré," or treated as having no existence, as well as in Sheffield's quiet declaration that "the Sacrament comes next in order after preaching. Again, what a gross injustice as to a matter of fact is knowingly wrought us, on page 266, where we learn that the soundest Anglicans may treat the Calendar and Rubrics with contempt, and habitually do so. Finally, for though we might cite much more of the same kind, we have proved the truth of our charge sufficiently, it is contended on pages 292 and 381, after various fashions, that there is no beauty in our English Church Services. We shall return to this matter, and will only ask here, whether the author of "Loss and Gain" can really have not felt the beauty of our services? If he have not, we leave our readers to decide what his habitual state of grace must be.

We have now shown that the three main charges brought by

us against this book, were individually and collectively well founded. Before we proceed to view the main bearing of the entire work, we must still direct our attention to some calumnious and erroneous suggestions of various orders, which do not come under either of the categories already treated of. Thus, a chapter making a violent attack on the so-called Evangelicals should be noted, both for its unfairness, and the ignorance of sound theology manifested in it. Therein, imaginary average Evangelicals are made to declare that there "can be nothing holy in Baptism," that sin is permitted to the elect, that theology "should be altogether swept away," &c. The simple truth is, that this author, as already suggested, confuses justification and sanctification, despite the great distinctions, that the first is wrought for us, the second, in us; the first, for the merits of Christ only, by faith; the second, through the medium of faith in action, or good works; the first, perfectly; the second, always imperfectly in this life. When Luther asserts that faith justifies without love, he can and does only mean, that faith lays the foundation of the Christian life, is the medium of receiving Christ's merits, as faith, and not as love; though in a certain sense, true faith must include love. Still love is built upon it; love sanctifies, love does not per se justify, which faith does, according to the explicit declaration of St. Paul, and of the English Church. We see then, that whilst we are justified through Christ by faith only, we are sanctified, though never wholly sanctified, by the works of faith; while we may be said to be saved, in various senses, through grace, through faith, nay, even through works, or such holiness as shall be accepted in Christ; but meritoriously, through Christ alone! This is the explicit doctrine of the Church, which, for the avoiding of future cavils, it might perhaps be as well to add, in equivalent phraseology, to one of the Articles. Evangelicals, we cannot but admit, dwell too prominently on justification; other churchmen may make sanctification a too exclusive object of teaching; but all classes of English churchmen are obviously agreed, as to essentials, if they will only understand one another in charity, and are all diametrically opposed to the Romish and heretical tenet of human merit; betwixt which and our Church's doctrine, a wide gulf may indeed be said to interpose. We are afraid that, despite the explicitness of this statement, we shall not have conveyed our meaning to the author of "Loss and Gain," who makes Charles Reding spontaneously arrive at the conclusion, that faith "may be the reward of previous obedience!" However, even here, a half-truth is indicated; for the faith which first justifies by God's grace, and receives the blessing of baptism, may undoubtedly be strength