THE OXFORD TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.

WHILST, as we have remarked in our December number, Tradition is rendered equipollent with the Scriptures by the writers who are busily employed in subverting the established opinions of the Church, and the Fathers are quoted in defence of the supposed authority of Tradition, care is taken not to bring forwards those traditionary remains which are manifestly of wilful invention, and self-refuting absurdity, apparently, lest the readers should judge of the comparative authority of those who could record such childish nonsense. Yet is it from these men that we are re

quired to receive a traditionary standard of faith, to be elevated to a rank equal to that of the Scriptures!

On the other hand, we have not seen those passages in the Fathers, which refer to the Scriptures as the all-sufficient rule and test of faith boldly produced; and as these are numerous, it is evident that the Fathers could not have entertained the notions concerning Tradition which are ascribed to them; also, that if our former observation, that by this name they often designated the Scriptures, be not correct, their works will display a contradiction which must take away their authority. Some of these Traditions, even some in Irenæus, decidedly have a rabbinical origin, and have all the appearance of having been appended to Christianity by the Judeo-Christian school and some of the early heretics, and having been recorded in the patristical works without the writers knowing that they did not belong to the orthodox Church. When we consider the difficulty of multiplying copies of books in those early times, the marginal emendations and additions of successive copyists and libraii, whether on the faith of different codices or not, and the evidence which we have that these marginal annotations were often by still later copyists inserted in the text, we shall have no difficulty in accounting for the appearance of such legends, even if we exempt the authors from the charge of having written them-but we must remember what will hold good respecting one class of Traditions, will be equally valid respecting the other.

We are now only making remarks preliminary to others contemplated in our future numbers. We are convinced that assertions may be made by us, and may be contradicted by our antagonists; and that between the opposite declarations, the uninformed may remain in doubt about the truth. As defenders of the Church, we shall therefore leave every one to judge for himself, in a way in which he cannot be mistaken. We shall submit certain of the Greek and Latin Fathers to an examination, on the one part bringing to light some of their wild legends, on the other quoting them where they mention the Scriptures as the rule of faith. There will be no need to extend the inquiry into doctrinal questions, because the authority of the Fathers will be fully determined by the process which we meditate. At the same time we would be understood, not as writing these papers in a spirit of controversy, but in a spirit of zeal, and desire to preserve the Church in her integrity. If we thus destroy the premises of the system, the influence must fall with them; and it will be very clear, that men who can record the absurdities which we shall produce as facts, can only be trusted in their other affirmations, as a critical judgment may conceive them to be trustworthy; yet the critical judgment of one or more individuals will be no final decision, taking away the right of exercising a similar judgment from others. For it must be plain, that men who have thus admitted nonsense for truth, could not separate truth from nonsense; yet these are the custodiers of Tradition!

A curious comparison between the doctrine of these Tracts and the Roman Catholic doctrine of Dr. Wiseman, has been made in Fraser's

Magazine, and when we observe one of the writers complaining that we are defrauded in not having our seven daily services in the twenty-four hours, which are those in use in the Roman Catholic Church, we can scarcely accuse those of illiberality who have charged this Triumvirate with an inclination to Popery. In the 75th Tract the Roman Breviary is translated; though it is impossible to prove the ancient Liturgies, which are accounted its foundation, authentic, and much more so, to demonstrate that they were actually used by the Apostles. We believe that the primitive Church had liturgical forms, because Scripture justifies this belief— because also, such were in force among the Jews; but we hesitate not to declare, that those which ascribe adoration to the Virgin Mary, and commemorate saints as intercessors, were not those forms. If so, how can we to a certainty separate any parts of them, as genuine portions of primitive forms?

But the writer of this Tract, who takes excessive pains to illustrate the Breviary, and discuss its antiquity, says, that it may suggest character and matter for our private devotions, over and above what our Reformers have thought fit to adopt into our public services ;-In what way? By teaching us to adore the Virgin, and the numerous canonized mortals of Popery in private, because the Church allows us not to do so in public? In defending the seven services, the writer quotes St. Paul, Eph. vi. 18, as insisting on prayer to the abridgment of sleep—ảŸрνπνôûνтES. But the term is here used in its secondary sense, and only means diligently watching; if the primary were intended, sleep altogether would be forbidden.

No one can read this Tract without perceiving it to be an occult recommendation of Romanism: the few passages which appear against it, may be interpreted on the principle stated in Fraser, that the best service which an emissary of the Church of Rome can do in England, will be to write professedly against it, allowing his recommendations of it to have more power than his censures. Why else has the Breviary been translated and cheaply published? The pretence of showing the antiquity of our Liturgy is an insult to the understanding. When indeed it is stated that this labour has been performed "to ground the reader, who chooses to pursue the subject, in the course of daily worship, as a WHOLE; "—that a week-day service has been drawn out with the same object;—that a service for the Transfiguration, and a service for the festival of St. Laurence have been added to supply specimens of a more elevated and impressive character ;— moreover, one of thanksgiving and commemoration for the anniversaries of the days of friends and relations; is it possible for any one to be deceived by the shallow assertions of those who say that this Triumvirate are not addicted to Romanism? As Froude's very communicative Remains were edited by two of this party, and as asterisks supply the place of parts which might have appeared too communicative, is it unfair to argue to a similarity of sentiment between the writer and his editors, especially as other facts corroborate it? As specimens of what should be MATTER for our private devotions-of the subject to be pursued in the course of daily worship AS A WHOLE, We offer the following idolatrous parts"Alma redemptoris Mater

*

*

*

Accepting the all-hail, be merciful towards sinners."

In another Ode the Virgin is called the root and the gate (titles of Christ), and is implored to prevail on Christ for us by prayer. We will, however, give passages at length

66

Holy Mary, succour the wretched, help the weak-hearted, comfort the mourners, pray for the people, interpose for the Clergy, intercede for the devoted females: let all feel thy assistance who observe thy 'holy commemoration." "Grant, O Lord God, we beseech thee, that we thy servants may ever prosper in perpetual health of body and mind, and by the glorious intercession of the Blessed Mary, Ever- Virgin, may be delivered from present sadness, and enjoy eternal bliss." "I confess before God Almighty, before the Blessed Mary, Ever-Virgin, the Blessed Michael Archangel, the Blessed John Baptist, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, before all Saints, and you, my brethren, that I have sinned too much in thought, word, and deed. It is my fault, my fault, my grievous fault. Therefore I beseech thee, Blessed Mary, Ever- Virgin, the Blessed Michael Archangel, the Blessed John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all Saints, and you my brethren, to pray the Lord our God for me," which words the congregation exchanging "thee my Father," for "you my brethren," repeat. Holy Mary, and all the Saints, intercede for us to the Lord." Hail, Queen, Mother of mercy, our life, sweetness, and hope; hail! we exiles cry to thee, the children of Eve. To thee we sigh with groans aud weeping in this valley of tears. Come then, O our advocate, turn on us thy merciful eyes, and shew to us after this banishment, Jesus, the Blessed fruit of thy womb. Ó kind, O pitiful, O sweet Virgin Mary! pray for us, holy mother of God. may be made worthy of the promises of Christ."

66

66

RESPONSE. That we

In the feast of Laurence, who was broiled on a gridiron, and is affirmed by Ambrose to have exclaimed, "the meat is done, turn it over, and eat it !” we read, "Blessed Laurence, Martyr of Christ, intercede for us." After this we are provided with a Roman Catholic service in honour of Bishop Ken, interlarded with a selection from the works of Jeremy Taylor, and one in commemoration of the dead in Christ, one for each Sunday in Advent, and one for the week days in Advent, each furnished with a tabular rubric, as if these presumptuous men had any right to dictate forms to the Church.

Now when it is considered, that in these extracts we have confined ourselves to ONE Tract, the immense quantum of evil which these Tracts are operating, may be easily imagined. As the services from which these extracts are taken, are recommended for private worship, the nature of the worship which these men wish to introduce into the Church cannot be misunderstood. The idolatry speaks for itself: and we well remember the time when there would have been no Bishop on the Bench who would have subscribed to the writings of this party, as now to their Library of the Fathers—when the University of Oxford would, in vindication of its own orthodoxy, have taken measures to stop this schism in its body. Why the University will not act in this instance, as it acted in that of Dr. Hampden; why the full congregation, as instructors and solemnly entrusted guardians of those to be hereafter members of the Clergy, the Senate, and the Bar, will not prevent the spread of the infection among the UnderGraduates; why, in default of this, parents will endanger the principles of their children by sending them to Oxford, whilst Cambridge has equal learning, and offers no danger, and less expense, we cannot conceive. If the University will not act, let the public act! The loss of the loaves and fishes may sharpen the dormant energies of the Heads and Tutors.

Sayings and Boings of Old Time.

QUEEN VICTORIA'S MARRIAGE.

MR. EDITOR, I have read the strictures in the last number of The Churchman, upon the rumour of a marriage intended between our most gracious Queen, and the Duke of Nemours, a younger son of the King of the French, with mortification

and surprise. They were the first intimations I received of any such scheme being in contemplation, and they have since formed a subject of conversation in every circle which I have visited; by some persons your strictures are highly approved as a salutary warning against an impending danger of no ordinary magnitude, while others condemn them as a wanton and uncalled for obtrusion of a design, at once absurd, intolerable, and revolting, upon the public mind-a design that carries in itself its own refutation. I do confess too myself strongly inclined to the former of these two conflicting opinions, and in justice to yourself I hope that you will not hesitate to record my reasons for coming to this conclusion.

Since the conquest we have had only three female Sovereigns, including her present most gracious Majesty upon the throne of England, exercising the royal authority in their own sole and exclusive right and title. Of these Queen Mary married Philip, Prince of Spain, son of the celebrated Emperor Charles V. a Papist and a bigot. Mary, being blindly attached to the Popish Clergy and superstitions, on her accession to the throne, her Minister contrived to have all the statutes passed in the preceding reign, in favour of the Church of England, swept away, so that the national religion was again placed on the same footing on which it stood at the death of Henry VIII. The Ministers of Mary, therefore, to maintain themselves in power and strengthen the government, now become Roman Catholic, suggested and contrived this foreign alliance with a Popish Prince. The first mention of the plan excited strong and general symptoms of dissatisfaction, addresses were voted in Parliament against it, and petitions were prepared from various parts of the country, expressive of the discontent which it had excited; but Ministers, frightened by the alarm thus spread, and to prevent the increasing discontent from growing into actual violence, precipitated the contract, and managed to have the marriage articles drawn as favourable as possible to the honour and interests of England, which in some measure stilled the public clamour, and prevented all further opposition.

It was under these circumstances, thus plotted, contrived, and brought about by her Ministers, this ill-fated marriage took place; its evil fruits soon began to show themselves-the disdainful behaviour of the Prince, a young, vain, and heedless libertine, made Mary miserable. Bred up in Popish superstition, she was morose and gloomy; jealousy now aggravated the defects of her natural disposition, and rendered her zeal famous in the persecution of the members of the Reformed Church. In this cause her mind appears to have been inflamed to madness-the reign of martyrdom and persecution was commenced, and scenes were enacted in Smithfield that struck the whole nation with horror. The Bishops Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, men of great learning, unaffected piety and goodness, with many other champions of the Church, suffered at the stake, and even women and children were thrown into the flames accompanied by circumstances of the most horrid barbarity.

All this mass of suffering and crime was the work of Mary, her Popish alliance, and her intriguing Ministry; and now I ask, do not the weak and tottering Ministers of Queen Victoria require support? and who that has witnessed their tenacity of place, their selfish views, their trifling measures, their abandonment of principle for expediency, their consciousness of their own weakness and incapacity, their reckless spirit, their inroads and assaults upon the Established Church, can believe or suspect that they would hesitate to recommend and approve any foreign alliance, whether with Jew or Papist, however revolting to the public feeling, and pregnant with danger to the best interests of the State, that should tend to strengthen their hands and maintain them in office?

It may be objected that with the despotic power assumed by her father, Queen Mary inherited a share of his despotic temper; that the hereditary possessions of the crown rendered it in some measure independent of Parliament, and that public opinion was then weak compared with the force and influence it now possesses, and that while the Reformed Church still contained some staunch and intrepid defenders within its bosom, the Roman Catholics had the ascendant, with its Gardiner, its Tonsal, and its Bonner at its head. All this may be granted; but look at our present Ministry and our present House of Commons, its conduct

and composition, and let us ask ourselves whether, if the marriage of Queen Victoria with the Duke of Nemours, were brought before it for the subject of debate, whether, I repeat, the most sanguine and zealous opponent of that measure would or could expect any more favourable result than a decided vote, and not an unanimous remonstrance as in the case of Queen Mary?

But it may be said Philip was a Spanish Prince, and the Duke of Nemours is a French; and that there is an inveterate hereditary spirit of jealousy, if not hostility, subsisting between France and England; and that it is preposterous to entertain an idea of such an union. But we may ask, do not Ministers boast that they have extinguished that national spirit; that "an amicable union," which is to last for ever, is established between the two countries; and are not the love and friendship of England and France the theme of their congratulation, and the never-ceasing burden of their song? We may ask further, is not a French Prince as capable of inspiring a passion in a female breast, and appearing as gracious in a female eye as a Prince of Spain? and have we not a case in point in the life of Queen Elizabeth, the sister and successor of Queen Mary on the throne ? That celebrated Princess, with all her masculine understanding, her sound judgment, and devotion to the Reformed Church, became enamoured with the Duke D'Alençon, a Frenchman and a Papist; and it was only after long reflection, and with great difficulty, she yielded to the powerful arguments and earnest entreaties of her Minister, Burleigh, to relinquish the determination she had formed to marry that foreigner? It may perhaps be superfluous here to observe, that the marriages of British Kings with French Princesses have generally proved unfortunate; why a better fate should attend the union of a British Queen with a French Prince, is beyond our comprehension. By his marriage with the Princess Catherine, Henry V. acquired a title to the crown of France, having been declared by treaty heir to the reigning sovereign; and had he not been prevented by his early death, he would have made Paris the seat of government, and England would be at this day probably little better than a colony of France!

A rumour at one time prevailed of a secret marriage having actually taken place between the Prince of Wales, subsequently George IV., and the late Mrs. Fitzherbert, a Roman Catholic lady. Although it was well known that a marriage so contracted was illegal and invalid, so great was the dread of Popish influence near the throne, it became a subject of inquiry in the House of Commons, and the public anxiety thus created, was only allayed by the assurance given to the House by Mr. Fox, the confidential friend of the Prince, who stated in his place, that he had the authority of his Royal Highness to give the report a positive contradiction. Will then the country that thus felt upon that occasion, brook a marriage between our most gracious Queen and the Papist grandson of the Duke of Orleans the vile Egalite? I hope not: but I cannot be certain. The country is not so sensitive upon the subject of religion as it was in the time of George III. We cannot have entire confidence in the spirit of the country that has so long tolerated a Ministry, the leading member of which has declared, while advocating a measure in the House of Lords, that it would be "a heavy blow and great discouragement to the Church of England!" while his colleagues in the other, denounced that Church "a curse to Ireland!" A Ministry that has made daily inroads upon our constitution and venerable institutions, and now threatens further innovations, cannot be trusted:

As to the young Prince himself, Papist though he be, he will not suffer his religious scruples to stand between him and the fair hand of our Virgin Queen, with her glorious inheritance. He can compound his scruples, as was done in the case of the marriage of his sister with a Protestant King; he may even put on the outward show and appearance of a Protestant, and receive absolution from the Pope for the sin of contamination with a heretic Queen, provided he cherish a love of Popery in his heart. The marriage contract may be drawn up as favourably as possible for British honour and interest, as in the case of the marriage of Mary with the Prince Philip, whose most memorable act, after her death, to which his ill treatment largely contributed, and his accession to the crown of Spain, was the fitting out of the celebrated Armada, filled with troops