and unction, be advocated on the same principles ?" The plain answer is, that neither trine baptism nor unction forms a portion of the ordinances of our church, and no one instance of departure from, or addition to those ordinances, as appointed in our liturgy, can be imputed, with a shadow of truth to the objects of the reviewer's vituperation; while, with reference to "total immersion, I must again refer the reviewer to the Prayer Book, where he will find dipping into the water enjoined, provided that the "child may well endure it." So much for the want of candour, and, I will not say of learning, but of mere ordinary information, on this head. Prayers for the dead form the next convenient topic of attack; and an expectation is held out that they will be, in course of time, introduced. I shall only observe in reply, that such prayers are not to be found in the formularies of the church of England, the strictest adherence to which is both enjoined and practised by the objects of the reviewer's attacks; still I may be permitted to say that, for my own part, (I speak my own sentiments, no one else is answerable for them,) I regret such prayers have been discontinued (be it recollected, they are nowhere forbidden) in our present liturgy. And then, how concludes the passage which I have quoted, "Their progress has been stealthy and dangerous; and if the Bishop of Oxford will tolerate such mountebankism, and such doctrines, in his diocese, no one can tell where these innovations on our established ecclesiastical practice will end. If the church, according to our articles, has the sole power of deciding on her rites, no member of that church has a right to add to them, or subtract from them, under any pretext; if any one be dissatisfied with her formularies and institutions, let him leave her communion, and not try to establish a new sect within her pale." Brave words, Mr. Reviewer. Is this the mode of shewing respect for the episcopal office? "Tolerate mountebankism!" the very cry of sectarians, who ridicule and revile our rites and ceremonies, the episcopal robe, and the priest's surplice, with quite as much reason as, and a little more consistency than, the "Church of England" Quarterly Reviewer; and then, again, in respect of the concluding words of the quotation, I challenge the writer to point out one single departure from, or addition to, the Book of Common Prayer; while, with regard to the advice about quitting the communion of our church, I will take leave to observe, that the learned and pious individuals who have incurred the reviewer's displeasure hold schism to be a sin. Evil speaking and slandering seem venial offences in the estimation of this thorough-going critic, for assuredly neither is spared when any purpose of misrepresentation is to be achieved. The reviewer then proceeds to attack Mr. Froude's “Remains,”—a publication which will be remembered and valued when all that its assailants can urge against it will be despised or forgotten. I should be prepared, if occasion required, to defend not merely the whole tenour, but each individual passage, of Mr. Froude's noble legacy to our church; if, however, the reviewer will take the pains of reading Mr. Newman's admirable letter to Dr. Faussett, and the article on Mr. Froude's book in the "British Critic" for January, 1838, he would there find a complete refutation of the cavils and

carpings with which the spirit and instruction embodied and conveyed in the Remains have been from time to time impugned. Another attack upon the bishop follows, and then an attempt to criticize Professor Keble's noble apostrophe to the Blessed Virgin, to be found in the Christian Year, in the Thoughts on the Feast of the Annunciation. I will not presume to attempt its defence; it carries its own triumphant vindication in every line, in every sentiment; while it is impossible to imagine a hymn more distinguished by a Catholic and pious spirit. Again, Mr. Newman is assailed for affirming, that "the Blessed Virgin Mary need have made no offering," as requiring no purification, calling her the "mother of God-the Deipara of the Romanists." Here is another proof of lamentable ignorance. If the reviewer had consulted the unmutilated editions of the " Companion for the Festivals and Fasts" of the Church of England, drawn up by the pious and learned Nelson, he would have found the same truths asserted, and vindicated. I refer him especially to the Companion for the Feasts of the Purification and Annunciation of our Lady. To deny, moreover, that the Blessed Virgin is the mother of God, is rank Nestorianism, a heresy condemned in the strongest manner by the holy catholic church, and one, both in itself and in its consequences, of the most grievous and fearful nature. Let me briefly caution the author of this flippant paragraph: they who begin by treating with disrespect the highly favoured, her who was "blessed among women," her whose visit to the holy Elizabeth was attended with circumstances on which I dare not dwell, will, and must, if consistent, go on in their unhappy course of contempt and disregard of serious matters, until they arrive insensibly at a point which, viewed from a distance, would fill even them with horror and dismay.

I will now proceed to another extract from this article, which runs as follows:-" Mr. Newman, too, on the Arians of the fourth century, says, Surely the sacred volume was never intended to teach us our creed, however certain it is that we can prove our creed from it when it has once been taught us;' which words the Roman-catholic Dr. Wiseman avers to be sufficient for his purpose." Nothing can possibly be more catholic and orthodox than this statement of Mr. Newman; it is the doctrine especially distinguished from the doctrine of the Roman church, however it may suit Dr. Wiseman's purpose to assert the contrary, and I would remind the reviewer, that the "Eclectic Review," the principal monthly organ of the protestant (as distinguished from the Romanist) dissenters, triumphantly appeals in the number for December, 1838, to the volume of Dr. Shuttleworth, so much bepraised by the reviewer, as admitting the very points it requires in the controversy, a fact of which the reviewer might as well have previously informed himself. But to proceed: Dr. Hook, the learned and exemplary vicar of Leeds, whose exertions in the blessed cause of the church have been rewarded by fruits of no ordinary value and abundance, does not escape the reviewer's pen. Suffice it to say, that the reverend Doctor is an independent witness to the great truths disparaged, and even denied, by the Quarterly critic, a witness unconnected with the authors of the "Tracts for the Times,"

save as far as agreement on certain grand principles produces sympathy and mutual esteem. The excellent object of the attack cannot however be forgiven his catholic views; but as abuse, not argument, characterizes the passage, I may safely leave such abuse to the disregard it merits. But with reference to the outbreak against the 71st Tract for the Times, written expressly against Romanism, scarcely any language can be too strong to describe or expose the malignity with which the attack abounds. An isolated portion, distinguished by the candour which dictated its composition, is quoted; while the context, which exposes fearlessly and faithfully the errors of the church of Rome, is carefully excluded; and thus a fragment, which conveys no idea of the tenour of the whole, is deliberately set down, in order that people who will not read and examine the entire tract—and, alas, how many are contented to take that for granted which, if sifted, proves utterly unfounded-may be misled and confused by extracts made and culled with an intention of deceiving, and all this in a publication which calls itself the "Church of England Quarterly Review." I placed, some months back, that tract in the hands of a Romanist, because it appeared then as it appears now, to me, to contain arguments against popery which could not be refuted; yet, because the tract in question does not call hard names, but meets questions calmly and dispassionately-because it does not style the church of England infallible, or the Bishop of Rome antichrist, calumny and abuse are unsparingly heaped upon it. The reviewer returns to Mr. Froude's "Remains," and sundry passages are quoted which do not meet with his approval. I will again refer him to Mr. Newman's letter to Dr. Faussett, observing at the same time that the remark, "The custom of excommunication and the council of Trent seem to have been his (Mr. Froude's) chief objection to Romanism; for we cannot discover any others which were momentous"-reflects upon the reviewer's powers of perception, or disposition for inquiry, not upon the book reviewed; for if the critic had referred to passage after passage, he would have found varied protests against Romanism, of the strongest and most uncompromising kind. Had Mr. Froude, however, chosen only to dwell upon the council of Trent as the main objection to the Romish system, he would have been perfectly justified, inasmuch as the decrees of that council are, according to the teaching of the church of Rome, infallible and immutable, and have permanently embodied, and made articles of faith and conditions of communion, doctrines which the church catholic does not recognise, and practices which are, to say the least, vain and superstitious. I do not, therefore, see how greater objections can be urged or maintained; but even truth, if holden by the Romanists, appears to the mind of the reviewer to have lost its value, force, and power. The passage bearing reference to Bishops Maltby and Stanley is so irreverent in feeling and expression, that I will not quote it; sacred matters are not to be handled with the tone and temper of a jester. Even the poetry of your magazine cannot escape the critic's censure, and the lines

"Oh that thy creed were sound!

For thou dost soothe the heart, thou church of Rome,

By thy unwearied watch and varied round

Of service, in thy Saviour's holy name”

beautiful and truthful as they are, I find thus misquoted in the third line

"By thy unwearied watch, and 'raised sound" "

And then, in a note, a sneer is cast upon a rhyme which has no existence save in the critic's imagination; and to such devices, forsooth, has the critic recourse. Under the wing of Mr. Peter Maurice, the reviewer returns to his attacks on the mode of performing divine service at the chapel of ease to St. Mary the Virgin; but I do not think it necessary or advisable to follow his example in renewing the discussion on that subject, and thus to weary your readers by tautology and reiteration. I may add, that Popery, Popery, Popery, is the senseless cry with which this reviewer, apparently one of a party conspicuous for its activity, but not distinguished by its learning, or its charity, assails every catholic custom, every catholic observance, every catholic rite. Nay, even the catholic faith itself is not safe from his attacks; for whatsoever does not meet or square with his ideas of propriety or orthodoxy must be immediately rejected or disbelieved: of such materials is ultra-protestantism composed. To conclude; if the reviewer, and those who think with him, would consult the old martyrs, prelates, doctors, and confessors of the Anglo-catholic church, since the period known by the name of the Reformation,-our Lauds, our Bramhalls, our Hammonds, our Cosins, our Wilsons, and our Kens,-and compare them with the writers of the "Tracts for the Times," they would find a harmony and an agreement of which I would fain hope that they are at present unconscious: if they would peruse carefully the works they venture to assail, before they write upon them, and learn what the sentiments embodied really are, and, when this essential, this indispensable, preliminary knowledge is acquired, if they would ascertain whether the doctrines taught, and the discipline enforced, in those works, are not based upon, and in strict accordance with, the authorized formularies of the Anglican branch of the holy catholic church, they would escape a grievous display of unpardonable ignorance, and avoid a disregard of the very first principles of charity

and truth.

I have the honour to be, &c.

A BARRISTER-AT-LAW,
M. A. of Exeter College, Oxford.

ON KEEPING THE FASTS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

"The scriptures bid us fast; the church says, now
Give to thy mother what thou wouldst allow

To any corporation."-G. HERBERT on Lent.

SIR,-I do not think that many words need be used in defence of the principle embodied in the above quotation, for it is put forward in

such a way as to make it almost impossible for any objection to be seriously raised against it. If fasting is enjoined on us in the word of God as a means of spiritual good, it is little less than profaneness to dispense with it as unnecessary; and if the church of which we profess ourselves members, in order the better to secure our performance of this duty, has appointed certain seasons for it, it certainly betrays a want of due respect for her if we choose our own times for fasting rather than those selected by her. We should indeed be thankful that the disregard hitherto too generally paid to this subject, is now in a great measure passing away; and that many are beginning to feel the importance of this exercise in a spiritual point of view, and directly to observe the occasions appointed by the church for its observance.

May I be permitted, however, to point out what appears to me an inconsistency, of which churchmen, I fear, in general are guilty in reference to this duty? I do so in order to suggest a useful topic of consideration to others, and to have my own opinions on it corrected if erroneous. It appears to me, then, inconsistent that, on the days set apart for fasting-ex. gr., on the Fridays throughout the year, the same preparation for meals should be made in our families as on other days, or that we should give and accept invitations to dinner on such occasions.

It may be objected (indeed I have heard the objection stated) that if we make such a distinction between these days and others, we shall thereby necessarily make known our fasting unto men, contrary to the express injunction of our Lord, Matt. vi. 16. But this injunction no more condemns our avowedly fasting on appointed days than his injunction, verse fifth, forbids publicly praying at appointed times. It is the making a display of a religious act that is condemned in both cases. If a Christian feels it necessary (as well he may) to use abstinence on other occasions, then he should shut to the door, nor let the world see in what he is engaged. But when the church appoints him to fast, he should not be studious to dissemble his observance of her rules. Indeed, it should be taken for granted that he fasts on those days, as it is taken for granted that he rests from labour on Sundays. And it would be equally preposterous, in order to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, to assume the appearance of feasting in the one case, as to assume the appearance of labour in the other. Besides, if we make not the distinction which I have suggested between these days and others, we must either allow our servants and household to grow up in ignorance of the rules of the church of which they are members, or teach them by our own example to set them at nought. This plan of making a difference in our domestic arrange ments on days of abstinence may subject us to some inconvenience and annoyances; but surely we have not learned the first lessons of Christianity if we have not been taught that we must take up our cross if we would follow Christ. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, B.

VOL. XV.-Feb. 1839.

2 v