Such are some of the notorious uses of this subterfuge of limitation. In short we never knew a good cause which was thus supported.

3. With regard to the doctrine to which the principle is applied-we have yet to be convinced that true repentance, even as true faith, is not essentially the same in all ages. For ourselves we have no higher wish than to repent as David repented, and to weep as Peter wept; nor have we a particle of misgiving that in such case, we should not meet with the same free and gracious pardon, even though ours were "sin after baptism." The New Testament dispensation, whether that of the gospels, or of the epistles, (for Catholic writers see a broad line between the two) leaves repentance where it found it. True, the gospel may-it does-communicate new powers; it may-it does-supply more constraining motives, better promises, more astonishing "patterns of long-suffering." In this respect "grace and truth" did not "come by Christ Jesus" in vain. We are now taught to "look on him whom we have pierced and mourn "-the cross is our penitential alphabet. We are now encouraged to pray to him who is "exalted to give repentance," and are assured that his "blood cleanseth from all sin." We are told of a prevailing "advocate" who intercedes, as for backsliding Peter, that our "faith may not fail," but that "remembering the word which Jesus hath spoken," we may repent and "weep bitterly." Yes! all this the gospel hath done, and important indeed is the vantage-ground we occupy, as compared with the penitent of the former dispensation; but still repentance itself is unchanged-even as sin, in its essence, is unchanged, and for the same reason; they both are relative terms, and terminate in God. Sin is the transgression of his law, and repentance is the turning from sin to God; and, for our own part, had we been asked, in our innocence, to define the character of " evangelical repentance," we should have been inclined to answer, "it is that which flows from an apprehension of God's mercy in Christ Jesus." Such, we believe, was Adam's, when he received the first promise—such, we are sure, was Peter's, when he melted beneath the expostulating, yet tender "look" of his master. There is, unquestionably, another side of the subject-on which we are prepared to speak quite as strongly as the author himself. The guilt and the punishment of the finally impenitent, are unquestionably aggravated in the case of nominal Christians, in precise proportion to the means and privileges they have enjoyed. For once we can quote with satisfaction an authority of our preacher. Bishop Taylor" says very well: ". "says

"Under the gospel he that sins and repents is in a far better condition than

he that sinned under the law and repented. For Repentance was not then allowed of; the man was to die without mercy. But he that sins and repents not, is under the gospel in a far worse condition than under the law: for under the gospel he shall have a far sorer punishment than under the law was threatened."--(p. 31, note.)

We pass now to the Author's 3rd proposition, which is in sub

stance thus reiterated :

"It is a question, I think, which admits of more consideration than it generally receives, how far the statement of our 16th Article ("on Sin after Baptism") may be actually read in Holy Scripture, and how far only it may be confirmed thereby ;-whether texts and illustrations are not frequently alleged in immediate support, or even as direct proof of it, which, strictly speaking, have little or no reference to a Christian congregation; and whether a disproportionate prominence be not thus given to that single doctrine in the scheme of our redemption, which chimes in most agreeably with the frailties of our corrupt nature, to the disparagement of others -(who shall presume to say, less essential?-) from which the weakness and corruption of man's heart no less naturally recoils. And, if this be so, surely, my brethren, it concerns us deeply. Surely it is no true service to the sacred cause in which we are engaged-but rather a pernicious and fatal injury-to use as Promoters of Christian Knowledge the language and the arguments, which we can rightly employ only as its Propagators."-(pp. 14, 15.)

In the same strain :

"And, to sum up all, whereas they warn us by the doom of the fallen angels; by the judgment of the old world; by the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah; by the hardening of Pharaoh's heart; by the ensamples of them that despised Moses' law; albeit they adduce numberless instances of those who by faith wrought righteousness, not one single passage or example of the Old Testament, of Lot or David, of Ahab or Manasseh; or even of the Gospel History, of the sinner woman, or of the crucified thief, is to be found adverted to in all their writings, in order to extenuate the weakness, or to calm the fears of the penitent; while, on the other hand, Esau is pointed at as a solitary but awful warning to the profane Christian, who despises his spiritual birthright, lest he also find no place for Repentance, though he seek it carefully with tears."-(pp. 34, 35.)

Once more :

nor adul

"Be not deceived (writes the Apostle, as if anticipating the corruption which should force and defile these doctrines, not only in His own time, but still more in these latter ages of the Church)-Be not deceived: God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. And again twice in another epistle-Be not deceived: neither fornicators, terers, ... nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. Do you say, that is, unless they repent?-we do not find it so written (!) We do not find, either here or elsewhere, the great Apostle allowing himself in those terms of reservation of God's judgments, and of tenderness for sinners, without which, according to the wisdom of this our day, the Gospel is not preached.”—(pp. 27, 28,)

True, we find a passage to the following purport:

"My brethren, let me not be understood for a moment to doubt the efficacy of sincere repentance (so to call it), in the case even of the most grievous and presumptuous sins.'-(pp. 20, 21.)

But how is this statement qualified?—

"I say not that the testimony of Scripture is insufficient. It is sufficientsufficient clearly to prove all that our Church has taught us; sufficient wholly to quell the fears of every true penitent; of every one, however heretofore wilful and abandoned, who submits to the course which itself prescribes for the recovery of grievous and deliberate sins."-(pp. 22, 23.)

In other words-genuine repentance, plus penance, may equal saving repentance! And that there may be no mistake as to the nature of the penance, the following extract is cited, with evident approbation, from Dr. Nicholl's "Defensio Ecclesiæ Anglicana" :

"Jam pœnitentiam acturus, paulo ante matutinas preces, in Porticu Ecclesiæ stat amictus linteo, ab summo capite usque ad talos demisso. Hic cum gemitibus fletuque uberrimo preces prætereuntium tenetur efflagitare; mox in Ecclesiam vocatur: cujus limen prætergressus, se humi debet prosternere, terramque osculari: deinde ab œconomicis elevatus, ac in Ecclesiæ locum eminentiorem collocatus, ubi ipse melius a populo cerni possit, et Pastoris, ob fœdum illud quo tenetur crimen, increpationes, admonitionesque facilius exaudiat. Postquam vero Poenitens religiose pollicitus fuerit se contra carnis illecebras in posterum diligentius vigilaturum, et veniam tum a Deo pro crimine, tum ab Ecclesia pro scandalo, impetraverit, a Pastore tandem absolvitur. Hominibus honestioris gradus, quibus Pœnitentiæ publicæ, propter honorem suum, pœna istiusmodi haud æqua fuerit, infamiam hanc fas est redimere magno æris pondere vel in pauperum usus, vel ad ædes sacras reficiendas erogando."-(pp. 49, 50, note.)

Admit now, for argument's sake, that all this was wise and expedient then, and worthy of revival now, (a point with which it does not concern us to meddle,) what in point of fact was the real benefit and happy issue of all this affliction? After confession, and fasting, and alms—after having thus observed Bishop Andrewes' "triplicitie of penance"-after having been "denied the peace for three, for seven, for ten, for thirteen years together," but at length "on repeated imposition of hands having been reconciled"--what was the efficacy of "the peace" and the "why truly not much reconciliation?" First of all-"as baptism, so penance, was but once administered,"—" the Church loosed never again." Bishop Taylor moreover insists that "the particulars of every naughty man's case" (even after penance) "are infinitely uncertain;""whether his sin is pardoned or not, few men ever know till they be dead;" and as for the Church, "it many times could not give a competent judg ment whether any man that had committed great sins, had made his amends, and done a sufficient penance." So much for the

comfort of the system; and as for its sanctifying efficacy, let any man read through Bingham's sixth Book (something like a volume and a half), and he will not form a very high estimate of the purity of that Church which required such a penitential code as is there exhibited.

But of all other points connected with Mr. Wordsworth's homily, the one which most moves our indignation is the covert, yet systematic method of suspending over the consciences of the timid and the superstitious, the possibility of having committed the sin against the Holy Ghost! Modern preachers (poor Bishop Burnet among the rest) are charged with explaining away, or hushing up in silence, the awful passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews. According to this Tractarian's great authority (St. Augustin), he who dies disbelieving the authority of the Church to forgive sins, is guilty of the irremissible sin against the Holy Ghost. In the same note (p. 55) we find "the unpardonable sin"" the great offence"-" sin against the Holy Ghost"repentance impossible' wilful sin after Baptism,"-all classed together in a most suspicious and significant manner."

What, we ask, is the tendency of all this doctrine, when dexterously wielded by an ambitious priesthood, but to a spiritual and fatal tyranny!

Perhaps the only remaining charge to be substantiated, is that which relates to the tone assumed by the author as respects the Church of England. We have already seen that the 16th Article does not "sit lightly on his bosom's throne." The complaints on the subject of discipline meet one at every turn. Constant sighs for the "Exomologesis," the "weekly Excommunication," the "quarterly Commination," "penitental stations," &c., evince how far a communion, which is destitute of these, is found wanting in this preacher's esteem :

"It is thus," he exclaims, we have drifted from the moorings even of the Reformation-itself confessedly imperfect, and coming short of the original rock of Christ's Church!"-(p. 51, note.)

By the "rock" thus styled "original," we presume is meant the very hard rock of Cyprian's African Church.

How are our Offices spoken of? The following extract most probably refers to the Confessions, Litany, and such-like por

tions:

"At the same time, from the composition and tone of many parts of our Church Services, it can hardly be doubted that 'the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments" was drawn up in wise and charitable condescension to the circumstances of our church, (in respect of the vicious lives of a large proportion of her members, until some effective system of discipline should be introduced,) so as to fit every conscience, and to include alike the returning prodigal, and the faithful, who need no such repentance. It is well known that offence has been taken at the selection of the 'Introductory Sentences' in the beginning of the Morning and Evening Prayer, (of which three only out of eleven are taken from the New Testament); but this upon very different grounds, and out of a very different point of view from that in which we might here regard them."-(pp. 11, note.)

The cheerless character of this whole system is sufficiently

obvious; and the cause of this desired subjection to "a yoke which our fathers were not able to bear," is want of the real principle of liberty-Faith. What province this grace has, in the whole scheme, beyond the first act of Confession in Baptism, it is hard to discover. The life of faith is-where? "Enoch," it is written, "walked with God"—and how? The Apostle says, "by faith." Yet Mr. W., quoting from the Apocrypha, whilst he does not reject the testimony of inspiration, makes it simply co-ordinate with, if not subordinate to, that of the uncanonical writer :

"Compare Ecclesiasticus xliv. 16. Enoch pleased God, and was translated, being an example of Repentance to all nations (!) But without faith it is impossible to please Him. Heb. xi. 6."-(pp. 3, note.)

As a supplemental count of our indictment, we ventured to accuse our Author of perversions of Scripture, and of false criticism. Adequately to enter into this branch would require as much space as we have already occupied. A few references must suffice.

We do not like to hear priestly absolution characterized as the "word of reconciliation committed to the ambassadors for Christ"(p. 40) or alluded to as the "wedding-garment."

We regard an expression such as the following to be absolutely

monstrous:

"On the other hand, St. Peter, to whom were given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, (Matt. xvi. 19,) promises, not to say ministers, an abundant entrance." (p. 40, note.)

The subjoined text is either misunderstood or misapplied :

"What blessed results abounded from their severer system, we know well. Where there was peradventure overmuch sorrow for sin, there was also excess of bountifulness. To their power, yea, and beyond their power, they were willing of themselves.”—(p. 69.)

The Churches thus highly commended were not those of Corinth, then smarting under the rod, and weeping under Apostolic displeasure;—the liberality thus extolled formed no aliquot part of penance-but it proceeded from "the Churches of Macedonia;" it was offered out of "the abundance of their" spiritual "joy ;" and is instanced to stimulate the inferior charity of those who, though" forward" to profess, were somewhat tardy to "make up their bounty."

We were not a little surprised to find a single divine who could in any degree countenance Dr. Hey's notion, that the "locus pœnitentia" in our Article, denotes a place or station in the Church for penitents!

Neither can we say much for the acumen displayed in the following criticism (the animus of which is transparent) :

"It may be many are deceived by the misinterpretation of St. Paul's words,