day when all who have met on earth will meet at the bar of God. And he was right. We were perfect strangers at Hastings, but it was full of invalids; a few were restored, but many were removed. The season was unusually favourable, though it brought no relief to my suffering brother; he became. worse and worse, weaker and weaker, and in the beginning of March his dear face bore that painful, that agonizing impression -Bury me out of thy sight. Edward was dead and his sister was left alone.

Did I mourn over his departure to the world beyond the gravedid I grudge him that happy, that glorious meeting with the loved ones who had gone before? Did I repine at his blessed exchange, and wish him back in this vale of tears? Oh no, I loved him too well to entertain such a wish. But I mourned over my own heavy

bereavement-over the fruitless attempt to prolong his existence which occasioned our removal from that spot he loved so well-from the quiet and secluded church-yard in which are the graves of our household, and where I would fain he had rested from his labours.

And when I remembered how unwilling he had been to leave his parish and his people, and how I had been the means of persuading him to do so, and how easily I had allowed myself to indulge the pleasant fancy that dear Edward might recover, because his physicians said he would, I felt most rebellious-I had no comfort in any thing-no peace in believing.The things that used to delight me most were distasteful, unheeded -unnoticed because he was not there to enjoy them with me. I 'would not be comforted because

he was not.' How selfish a thing is sorrow-how many a cup of consolation is dashed to the ground because we cannot, we will not believe it suited to our condition. How many of those fair relics of Eden, the flowers which strew our path are trampled upon; whereas did we regard them in their true character as emblems of the tenderness, the sympathy of a Father in heaven, we might gather some balm to heal our woe. How many a word in season, which might yield the same sweetening influence to the wounded spirit as the branch that sweetened the bitter waters of Marah, falls on a dull a heavy ear which refuseth to listen to the voice of comfort. We are

ready to admire the cup or analyze its contents-to praise the flower or pull it in pieces-to admire or cavil at the expression; but we are not ready to believe in the efficacy of the remedy, because we do not see how it can minister to our necessity. Like Naaman we are apt to imagine that God will do great things for us in an extraordinary manner, and because his ways do not accord with our preconceived expectations, we neglect, despise, are offended by the simplicity of the means used. But our heavenly Physician is our heavenly Father, and with what care does he watch for the best opportunity, and with what tenderness does he apply the medicine to heal our sickness'-he knoweth our frame-he is touched with a feeling of our infirmities-his omnipotence provides, his wisdom selects, his mercy suits the remedy to the necessity of the case. In measure

he debateth with it. He stayeth his rough wind in the days of the east-wind.

WE have long deferred noticing these Publications ; for which delay we owe some apology to our Readers. Indeed we take them up even now with some reluctance; but our aim in so doing is, to point out some of their leading errors, and to detect the dangerous spirit which pervades several of the Tracts. In this attempt we humbly pray that we may be preserved from fallacy and error, and from any thing of a bitter or unchristian temper. May it be our sole effort to contend earnestly for the faith ONCE delivered to the saints!

A few preliminary observations must be allowed us, on the tone and temper by which these Tracts are too often characterized. It is commonly thought, that wide and sweeping assertions, especially if condemnatory of others, are to be expected from persons of limited education: yet here we shall find, proceeding from one of the first seats of learning in the realm, such broad expressions of complacency towards one set of opinions, and censure towards another, as cannot be justified by any evidence which these volumes produce. We refer to the Advertisement to the second volume. Pleased, apparently, with their success in the first volume, the Writers proceed to represent "what, it is conceived, is the present position of the great body of churchmen in reference to the subject before them: they state that they "have cause to be thankful for the sounder and more accurate language, which is now very generally adopted among welljudging men on ecclesiastical subjects." All this is very flattering to one class of churchmen. On the other side it is mourned by them that " Rationalistic, or (as they may be more properly called) car

MAY 1838.

nal notions concerning the sacraments, and on the other hand a superstitious apprehension of resting in them, and a slowness to believe the possibility of God's having literally blessed ordinances with invisible power, have, alas! infected a large mass of men in our communion. There are those whose word will eat as doth a canker." Thus two divisions of churchmen are at once set before the Reader; the sound, accurate, and well-judging men; and, the rationalistic, infected and infecting

men.

It appeared advisable to advert to this style of writing in limine. It proceeds on the assumption that the writers have accurately ascertained the opinions of some 15000 clergymen, together with the very numerous body of intelligent laymen guided by their instructions. But the ability to do this is far too much to concede to these writers, be they numerous or few, anonymous or otherwise. It is an evil practice thus to set up one party, and throw down another for, after all, the inquiry of thinking men will be, and ought to be, What is the opinion held?' not, Who hold it?" The thing, not the person, should weigh with those who desire to bring truth to the proof.

6

As to the criterion by which we believe that opinions ought tobe tried, we unhesitatingly avow that it is the Bible, and the Bible only: the Tract writers add to this, Catholicism and Antiquity. If, besides the Bible, we shall adduce passages from the documents of the Church of England, it is because those documents are found to be in accordance with Scripture.

We have a further preliminary remark to make on the temper of these Tracts. At p. 6, in the 41st Tract, Vol. I. we early find the

tactics of the writers developed. Amiddle way' is referred to, as lying between Popery and the notion of Protestantism.' And our church is lauded as having taken this middle way.' Now as the writers avouch themselves determined haters of Popery, they must, to keep the middle way, equally declare their hostility to the above-mentioned ' notion of Protestantism.' They mean to be ultra-protestant, or as they call it, more Protestant than our Reformers.' Regarding, for argument's sake, the question of Popery as settled, and taking to themselves credit for being very staunch Popery-haters, they must needs turn to the opposite side, and deal out very heavy words upon the ears of the Rationalistics. Singularly enough they discover here, where a majority lies: we quote their own words, (Tract 41, p. 6, Vol. I.)

L. What do you mean by Protestant in your present use of the word?

C. A number of distinct doctrines are included in the notion of Protestantism: and as to all these, our Church has taken the VIA MEDIA between it and popery. At present I will use it in the sense most apposite to the topics we have been discussing; viz. as the religion of so-called freedom and independence, as hating superstition, suspicious of forms, jealous of priestcraft, advocating heart-worship; characteristics which admit of a good or a bad interpretation, but which, understood as they are instanced in the majority of persons who are zealous for what is called Protestant doctrine, are (I maintain) very inconsistent with the Liturgy of our Church.

That is to say, the “characteristics" abovementioned, and delineated in some six epithets or phrases (characteristics, which admit of a good or a bad interpretation")-these characteristics, in their bad sense, we, the Tractwriters, attribute to "the majority of persons who are zealous for what is called Protestant doctrine."

But here let the incautious reader or critic beware lest he be

found tripping. For, after all, the qualifying clause," what is called Protestant doctrine," may allow the writer to shelter himself from the charge of fixing a majority, where he might find it afterwards inconvenient to have had it fixed. We have, in fact, such a dividing and subdividing of parties, as can only tend, practically, to promote confusion. Popery, Protestantism, Church-of-Englandism, so-calledProtestantism, superlative Protestantism, with many other similar distinctions, will never help the investigation of pure truth. Loose statistics are, on the other hand, peculiarly favourable to the indefinite extension of polemical theology.

66

But we proceed to consider the opinions of these writers on the subject of justification by faith. The very term, "justifying faith," seems to them to be but the badge of a party, viz., of the "so-called Protestants." And therefore, after having, in the 41st Tract, p. 7, attributed to this party (apparently in disrespect) the use of such terms as newness of heart, and appropriation of the mercies of redemption, and such like phrases" (!)— phrases, in which we have cause rather to glory-they reserve the very point of their arrow for this " phrase," Justifying Faith. As to the manner in which they unfavourably represent not only the "so-called Protestants," but even the Liturgy itself, we shall speak hereafter. We only notice just now the blow levelled at a term of the greatest importance, and the uneasiness, consequently, with which the Tract-writers would infect all their followers, whenever Justifying Faith is insisted on.

Advancing one step further, we find these writers studiously putting out of view one of the most important senses of faith. That we may not be misunderstood ourselves, and that we may not incur the charge of misrepresenting them,

we will first quote the passage referred to:

L. Faith is mentioned in an earlier part of the Catechism.

C. Yes, and it affords a remarkable contrast to the modern use of the word. Now-a-days, the prominent notion conveyed by it regards its properties, whether spiritual or not, warm, heartfelt, vital. But in the Catechism, the prominent notion is that of its object, the believing "all the Articles of the Christian faith," according to the Apostle's declaration, that it is, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Thus we find the modest Layman putting an inquiry, whether faith is not mentioned in the early part of the Catechism. The astute Clergyman, in his reply, dexterously (as he evidently thinks) aims a blow at the " now-a-days Protestants," and extols the Catechism as favouring his own view of the matter. On what does the whole On nothing more question turn? or less than the distinction between objective faith and subjective faith. To make the point clear, let us simply quote Watts's definition of terms; substituting faith for the word certainty. He observes, in his "Logic," Part II. Ch. 2. § 8.

Certainty, (faith,) according to the schools, is distinguished into objective and subjective. Objective certainty, is when the proposition is certainly true in itself; and subjective, when we are certain of the truth of it. The one is in things; the other is in our minds.

"

Now Clericus, in the Tract, would have his docile Layman to understand that the Church Catechism makes objective faith the prominent notion: he therefore puts the words, "All the Articles" in Italics. Suppose he had put the word believing" in Italics; then, subjective faith would have been the prominent notion. By what right does this author bisect the sentence, That I should believe all the Articles,' and then say, here the prominent notion is not believe, but Articles? Is not this partiality and unfairness?

6

In fact, though it is perfectly.

easy to distinguish objective and subjective faith, and useful for some purposes to treat of each one separately; yet it is unwise and unsafe, because unscriptural, so to separate them, and so to exalt the one, as to exclude, or virtually exclude the other. To the mind of the youngest catechumen, according to his ability, both the ideas should be made plain and forcible : still more so to Laicus, in Tract 41.; whom we take to be a man of like age, statue, and ripeness of understanding with Clericus. The two ideas are correlative, and coessential in practical Christianity: and practical Christianity is, we apprehend, the true scope of our Church Catechism. But more of this presently: we have enlarged a little on this point, merely to show the animus of the writer.

What then are, really and truly, the sentiments advanced in these volumes concerning justifying faith? The writer of Tract 41 comes at

length so far (in page 10,) as to

observe that the articulus stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiæ is true and important in a controversial statement.' He deems its direct mention,' however, not so apposite in devotional and practical subjects

as

Our

modern Protestants of church would consider it.' But to ascertain what the writers do mean, we must turn to volume the second, where in a long Treatise, Professor Pusey so weaves together his own remarks and extracts from the Fathers, that we must of necessity consider the extracts as conveying the genuine sentiments of the writers of these Tracts.

The following lengthened extract exhibits fully the views entertained by the writer on the subject of the pardon of sin committed after Baptism. They consider justification to take place at the moment of Baptism: the method of obtaining pardon for sin after Baptism, is thus propounded by

them.

The Fathers urge the difficulty of the cure of sin after Baptism, at the same time that they urge men to seek it: they set side by side the possibility and the pains of repentance: they urge against the Novatian heretic, that there is still 'mercy with God," that he " may be feared; they urge this truth against our own fears, and the insinuations of the evil one, who would suggest hard and desponding thoughts of God, in order to keep in his chain those more energetic spirits, who feel the greatness of their fall, and would undergo any pains whereby they might be restored; but the Antient Church consulted at the same time for that more relaxed and listless sort, (of whom the greater part of mankind consist) who would make the incurring of eternal damnation, the breaking of Covenant with God, the forfeiture of his Spirit, the profanation of His Temple (ourselves) a light thing and easy to be repaired. Therefore, while they set forth the greatness of God's mercy, they concealed not the greatness of man's sin, in again defiling what God had anew hallowed; they concealed not that such a fall was worse than Adam's, since it was a fall from a higher state and in despite of greater aids; that though God's mercy was ever open, yet it required more enduring pains, more abiding self-discipline, more continued sorrow, again to become capable of that mercy. God is always ready to forgive; the sins can be forgiven; and yet they are not ! why? but because to rise again after falling from Baptismal grace, is far more difficult than the easiness with which men forgive their own sins, leads them to think; the frame of mind which would really seek forgiveness, requires greater conflict, more earnest prayers, more complete self-abasement, and real renunciation of self, than men can bring them. selves to think necessary, or comply with. Men will not confess to themselves how far astray they have gone they cannot endure that all should be begun anew and so they keep their sins and perish! But on that very account did the early Church the more earnestly warn them of the greatness of the effort needed. While she affectionately tendered the hopes of pardon held out in God's word, she faithfully warned men not to build those hopes on the sand. She called on men to return-not as if now they could' at once lay down all their burthen at their Saviour's feet, but to wash his feet with their tears; to turn, not with the mockery of woe, but with weeping, fasting, mourning, and rending of the heart. They separated not what God had joined. This the Romish Church has done in its way. They held in words, as well as we, that the Sacrament of Baptism could not

be repeated, and that its efficacy alone would not wash away sins subsequently committed; but by devising the new Sacrament of Penance, they did contrive, without more cost, to restore men, however fallen, to the same state of undis. turbed security in which God had by Baptism placed tham. Penance became a second Baptism. Man's longing to be once again secure, was complied with; his old sins were effaced, not to rise up again against him-again and again he began afresh-again and again he was told, "Thy sins are forgiven thee,” and so the salutary anxiety about past sin, and its fruit, a righteous, godly, and sober life," were in ordinary minds choked and effaced. Perverting the earnest sayings of the Fathers, they turned the hard and toilsome way of Repentance into the easy and royal road of Penance. Let us beware lest by an opposite course we arrive at the same result. The blood of Christ is indeed all-powerful to wash away sin; but it is not at our discretion, at once, on the first expression of what may be a passing sorrow, to apply it. On true repentance it will yet "cleanse men from all sin; " but how much belongs to true repentance !— The fountain has been indeed opened to wash away sin and uncleanness, but we dare not promise men a second time the same easy access to it, which they once had; that way is open but once; it were to abuse the power of the keys entrusted to us, again to pretend to admit them thus; now there remains only the "Baptism of tears," a Baptism obtained, as the same fathers said, with much fasting, and with many prayers. We are familiar with the striking saying of Tertullian against despair. "God would not threaten the impenitent, unless He forgave the penitent." Would that we equally laid to heart what he says in the same place, of the greatness of that penitence ! "Thus far, (namely of Baptismal repentance), thus far, O Christ the Lord, may Thy servants hear and learn of the discipline of repentance, to hear which it needs not that [while Thy servants] they should have offended; henceforth let them know and require nothing of [such] repentance. I am loath to subjoin the mention of a second, yea of a last, hope; lest treating again of a yet remaining aid of penitence, I should seem to mark out a space for sin. God forbid, that men should so interpret this, as if a door was open to sin, because it is open to repentance; and the redundancy of divine benevolence should make human rashness to wax wanton. Let no one become the worse, because God is the more good; sinning again, because there is again forgiveness; there will be an end of escaping, if there is not of offending." After praising those then who have shrunk