They had, however, our Lord for an example. Once our Lord looked upon St. Peter, and that look went to the apostle's innermost soul, and "he went out and wept bitterly." And the very first announcement of the resurrection, by the angel, is accompanied with this command-"But go your way; tell his disciples AND PETER that he goeth before you into Galilee." Jewel ought, I suppose, to have done penance for twelve years, glad enough to escape with that; but St. Paul, as soon as he had heard of the Corinthian's repentance, wrote to the church "to forgive him, and comfort him, lest, perhaps, be should be swallowed up by overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you, that ye would confirm your love towards him." Such are the ways of God; how different often the ways of man!

But to return to Jewel; he knew, it seems, nay, he was most intimate with Peter Martyr. I admit it all; and sad to say, I should have been most glad of the acquaintance myself; and yet it would not follow that either he, Jewel, or I, had been Zuinglians, or deceivers and falsifiers. But he treated lightly of vestments; I admit it all, and I think his views were a mistake in human nature, and that the "sticks" he speaks of wanted some clothing, though the extracts in the review do not, I think, accurately represent him.* Still he is not thereby a heretic, deceiver and falsifier. Nay, but

"All the parts of the holy catholic system do hang together; if it be a delusion then, even surplices are sinful; if, on the other hand, it be a life giving ordinance of divine appointment, one vast sacrament (so to say) then even surplices are in their way essential. It is one or it is the other, it cannot be something between both. If surplices and the like be, as the moderate reformers said, merely indifferent, if they do not indicate something real and divine, if they be not part of a system necessary to keep up the true knowledge of God in an imperfect state, if they be not essential in their place, to the sacramental principle of the church, the principle of engaging the soul through the body in behalf of things divine; then, indeed, they are of the very essence of formalism, and may truly be called in the language of Bishop Jewel' theatrical.' The essence of the theatrical' is doing things for mere show, and this is precisely the course recommended by those who would have only just so much of external religion as is necessary towards conveying to the popular mind a semblance of decency and order. Such a course would be, at best,

e.g. the last extract in page 21 is very obscure, and perverted by the sense which it appears to me the British Critic wishes to attach to the word comic, (comical.) Jewel means scenic. My idea of the passage is," They who take delight in such matters have determined, as I imagine, to use vestments on account of the extreme ignorance of the clergy, who are mere sticks, possessed neither of mind, learning, nor conduct; and therefore they give them a scenic dress to commend them to the people, for there is no care for learning; and since the true way is not taken to make an efficient clergy, they adopt this foolish one."

With respect to σκυθιστι πιειν. Jewel was a scholar and a gentleman, and writing in Latin, adopted a common Greek proverb to express his meaning (by metaphor) of "a thorough work." Mr. Le Bas, it seems, entering into Jewel's character, translating, still retains the classical expression. The writer in the British Critic, in his bitterness against Jewel, forgets Jewel and himself, and uses the vulgar language of the tap-room. Had Jewel partaken of such coarseness, he would himself have Latinized the Greek after that fashion.

Your readers may feel assured that the British Critic contains all that is offensive in Jewel's private correspondence. No dirt could escape this writer's curious eye in such matters; he even finds what is not there, as many commentators have done.

one of pure formalism; and as such unworthy and dangerous; but it is more than this when it has a tendency, as beyond all doubt it has, to offend certain minds, and so to break the peace of the Christian society. If surplices be things merely indifferent, in that case never were persons more cruelly used than the puritans. For the puritans felt them in their consciences to be sinful; and it was preposterous to expect them to sacrifice an objection of this nature to a mere law of uniformity." (B. C. p. 24.)

How fortunate the puritans would have thought themselves could they have exchanged Hooker for this writer! There would have been no malicious attempt to conceal his works.

I can have no object in replying to such remarks, they are the best defence of Jewel that I have seen; but I will quote Hooker's observations on this subject. (Vol. ii. p. 164.)

"The attire which the minister of God is by order to use at times of divine service, being but a matter of mere formality, yet such as for comeliness' sake hath hitherto been judged, by the wiser sort of men, not unecessary, to concur with other sensible notes betokening the different kind or quality of persons and actions whereto it is tied; as we think not ourselves the holier because we use it, so neither should they, with whom no such thing is in use, think us therefore unholy because we submit ourselves unto that which, in a matter so indifferent, the wisdom of authority and law hath thought comely. To solemn actions of royalty and justice, their suitable ornaments are a beauty. Are they only in religion a stain?"

And now, sir, I have alluded to the previous part of the critique, and what better is the position of the writer in the British Critic? "K. K." has not thereby proved that Jewel outraged Scripture, held heretically on the sacraments, or falsified the fathers; and this is what he has to do, and I beg to keep him to these statements. Oh, yes, "K. K." will say, "he has been shewn to have been intimate with P. Martyr;" but, at any rate, P. Martyr must first be proved to be a Zuinglian, and

Many reasons may be imagined why a Zuinglian should use catholic language, especially in Jewel's position, whose line was appealing to the fathers against Rome. Can any one reason be devised which could make a catholic minded person endure such language as Jewel adopts? "M." contents himself with replying virtually that no man of honour or common sense could think the reviewer's conduct justifiable; but as to my argument in defence of it, he is wholly silent. Yet surely the ground I took is very intelligible, and requires an answer. Archbishop Whately says somewhere that if a writer published fourteen volumes, in thirteen of which he spoke of Christianity, with the greatest submission and deference, and in the remaining one of which he assailed its authority, no one would have much doubt what his real opinions were. I repeat my challenge to "M." Let him read the extracts in the preface to Mr. Froude's volume," &c.

And this is very gravely said, as if "K. K." did not know that I denied any such discrepancy. How can I be expected to account for that which I do not see? Oh, but there are such passages. Where? let them be shewn and examined. What he and the British Critic have produced, I have shewn to be misrepresented; and I have not been refuted; but I am treated in this way

If I shew that Jewel's language and opinions are opposed to Zainglianism, he says Jewel is not to be believed.

If I shew that the language which he adduces in support of his incredulity be erroneously adduced, he pays no attention to me, but maintains his charge by equivocation.

If I affirm that Jewel's doctrine is not Zuinglian, but the same with the church of England, he makes no reply to that, but writes as if there was no such doctrine; thereby insinuating that the church of England is Zuinglian.

This is a curious style of controversy. But I am directed to Mr. Fronde's book. I have seen it since I wrote my last letter, and I believe that I may truly say that not only those passages already examined and exposed, but also most others on the controverted points, are all more or less unfair. I maintain that many are garbled and defective, conveying a different meaning in the extract from what they possess in their place, or requiring explanation from their context; or if any of them come not under these heads, then that they are substantially in conformity with the holy Scriptures and the early church. But offence is taken at Jewel's language, and it is maintained that his statements are to be disbelieved, because his manner of writing displeases these writers. This is a very dangerous and unsatisfactory way of arguing. Before we blame a writer's language, so as to deny his statement, much is to be taken into account; we ought to know what caused it. The same writer even will vary his style on the same subject, according as he is addressing different parties, or has different objects in view; e. g., on Succession. Some of the instances published by Mr. Froude's editor are unfair, since they relate to the papal claim of being successors to Peter's universal bishoprick, and such a claim of succession Jewel considered too absurd for argument, and met it by ridicule. And others are not directly on succession; Jewel was not discussing the doctrine of succession, but he was expressing his opinion of worthless bishops. It must be remembered, since his words are so rigidly examined, that his argument is against an extreme case, a positively doing of nothing; and I believe not so very uncommon a case in the continental papal countries during the preceding centuries. And on the other hand, it must be remembered that when Harding was trying to fasten upon him Wicliffe's supposed doctrine, that "a bishop in mortal sin is no bishop," he distinctly denies it twice over in his works, and declares it to be an error which he defends not. Bad bishops with Jewel are bishops-they have the jurisdiction of bishops-the power of performing episcopal duties; and if they do not do those duties, still they are bishops, though but shadows of what they ought to be. And he said, considering what a bishop is required to be, (see St. Paul's and St. Peter's Epistles,) the bishop who does not perform any part of his duties "ought not, of right, once to be called a bishop, or so much as an elder. For a bishop, as saith Augustine, is a name of labour and not of honour; that the man that seeketh to have pre-eminence and not to profit may understand himself to be no bishop." These are Augustine's words, by which Jewel explained his meaning, and which Harding explains in this way,-that where two things, both of which are to be affirmed, are compared, one of which is of greater importance

than the other, the one is denied in comparison of the other, which is exactly what I understand Jewel to mean; and Jewel says that he and Harding shall have no great contention about that. When, then, these "nothings" and "do nothings" were triumphantly contrasted with the pious and laborious reformed bishops, and proclaimed as the only true bishops, because they had succession as being in communion with Rome, a papal succession; Jewel replied, that the English bishops had succession also; the reformed bishops were as truly elected, consecrated, &c., as the papal; and that they besides exemplified that something of "more importance," which Harding had spoken of, when explaining Augustine's language, that they had not only possession of place, but also, and much rather, doctrine and diligence, all that was requisite to make out the perfection of an individual bishop's episcopal character. Where all things are important, it is difficult to say which is more important than another; but generally in argument a writer exalts that for the defect of which he is blaming his opponent; more especially if, as in the present case, it is that without which what his opponent has is apparently useless, while the converse cannot be said. Your readers will, I think, see that in all this there is nothing really disrespectful to succession; he is speaking in extreme contrast; he is not denying the necessity of succession; he affirms it; and both parties had it. These, I think, were Jewel's opinions; how far they agree with the opinions of the British Critic is of trifling importance, except so far as these are true, and I shall be curious to see how the holy Scriptures and the early church repudiate the bishop's statements.

Again, his language on the sacraments is condemned. And if it can be shewn that he spoke disrespectfully of the sacraments of Christ, I will join with the British Critic in his condemnation. But it is the height of unfairness to apply the language which Jewel uses of the private mass to the sacrament of Christ; and conclude that, therefore, he denied the sacraments to be means of grace. He viewed the private mass as no sacrament, but a most wicked substitution for a divine sacrament. He not only saw, by its means, the people deprived of the grace of the Lord's Supper, but also the most deadly corruptions destroying the life of Christianity. He beheld it as a mart of priestly gains. Now, before Mr. Froude's editors can have any right to apply Jewel's language concerning private mass to a sacrament of Christ, they must first shew that the private mass is a sacrament of Christ, and that Jewel knew it to be so. If it was not, but on the contrary, a most pernicious substitution for it, then, I say, that they are acting most unfairly towards Bishop Jewel's memory by such an application.

The same reasoning applies to his expressions respecting priests and altars. It is all very easy to say that the consecrated elements are offered up to God as a commemorative sacrifice, and that the church catholic ever held it so. But I never saw it proved; and the evidence, to my mind, inclines the other way. I consider it unscriptural and unprimitive. Jewel thought so, too; although I think that he somewhere says, that if it were divested of transubstantiation, it would be

no serious ground of quarrel. But when he saw before his eyes how awfully it was working under the doctrine of transubstantiation, he held it profaneness and idolatry. No wonder, then, that he does not spare it; but do not apply the language which he used to what he considered most profane and idolatrous, to what he considered most holy, and to be reverenced, and say that he denied the virtue of the latter. Whether he was right or wrong in his views, yet his language, when you are estimating his character and opinions, must be interpreted by his views. As to the manner in which he did it, we may each, without giving mutual offence, differ about it, according to our different casts of mind; and yet few, I think, who, without prejudice, read through his 1500 close folio pages, and see the wretched sophistries and falsehoods of his opponent, will find much cause, perhaps none justly, for blame from us. But be this as it may, we ought not, in all fairness, because he adopts a different style from what we think we should have used in his place, or now use, in his overthrow of a corrupt substitution, to argue that therefore he did not reverence the original, and denied its grace, which he is ever speaking of with reverence, and labouring to restore. A fairer deduction would be, that the more vehement that he was in his attack on the corruption, the deeper was his reverence for the original.

And now let us take another view in reference to Archbishop Whateley's expression, whom both the British Critic and "K. K." seem to appropriate to themselves; and yet, I suspect, if I might take the liberty of using his grace's name, that I should have him on my side. What Archbishop Whateley's words really are, or how applied, I do not know; and I have at present but a limited access to books; but this I say, that the case put is not parallel with Jewel's case. Jewel maintains, we will say, in thirteen volumes, the doctrine of the sacraments being means of grace, according to the church-of-England view. (He knows no nonsense about pictures giving remission of sin, or the body and blood of the Lord.) Where, I ask, is the 14th volume, where he assails them, or denies that they are means of grace in the sense above stated? I will produce a passage where he calls it BLASPHEMY to say that they are merely significant. Jewel therefore is a character of most awful depravity if he is deceiving on such a subject; and yet, strange to say, this man was beloved and honoured by his cotemporaries; and the church of England, for three hundred years, has ever held him in respect. There never was "a catholic-minded person" whose catholicity was so acute as to find him out until Mr. Froude made the discovery; and his editors, unhappily, I think, for Mr. Froude's memory, published it. Well, then, if Jewel never thus openly assails or denies this doctrine of the sacraments, still less would Archbishop Whateley accord with these writers in their real position, which is this:Jewel, we will say, in the thirteen volumes, maintains the church-ofEngland view fully; but in the fourteenth, he speaks of the sacraments partially, as significant and commemorative: what Fathers and all writers do, and have done, and which it is impossible for a writer not to do, who is discussing the sacraments. No passage is brought forward wherein he states them to be only significant and commemorative.