are but poor guides even in appointing a Liturgy; and yet one could write thus of it: "In short, this Liturgy is honoured by all but the Romanist, whose interest it opposeth, and the Dissenters, whose prejudice will not let them see its lustre." (Comber's preface.) We have given these as specimens of a painful disregard for our Liturgy and Church, and we believe that it renders the controversy much more simple. Certain we are that the Tractarians stand upon dangerous ground; they are hesitating between one principle and another; they have ceased to be dutiful and faithful sons of our Church, and yet have not shown us to what Church in the present day they belong. The Church of Rome has more scope for the feelings of awe* than we have. We have, in their opinion, much that is sinful and the consequence of sin. They are very apt to claim authority, and we will give them a fair opportunity; let them show, by a Catena Patrum, that our Hookers and long list of Divines felt the bondage which they say they are feeling. We can quite believe that they are bound; we can quite allow that they are harassed beyond measure at the every-day increasing difficulties of their position. And we are sure that they have but one remedy. The via media has ceased, and they are fluctuating upon the breakers, but every wave bears them nearer to the Tridentine rock. The English Church calls upon them to return; but she is fully aware of her own power, and, therefore, when she entreats, it is not for herself, but for the sake of their souls. She supplicates, but the reason is not that she needs them. Oh, no; she has within her walls much tried and untried strength. Hers is a giant confidence, for it is a confidence in her God. She is built upon a rock, and that no erring mortal man, but the Rock of Ages. Christ is her corner-stone; and, though men may raise a superstructure of their own devising upon a foundation of sand, and therein reject the Lord that bought them, it is an eternal truth, not, indeed, given on Sinai, or born amidst the thunders of heaven, but having on it the very seal of Omniscience, for the Omniscient respoke it, and resting on Omnipotence, for the Omnipotent God confirmed it, that "the stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner." But Mr. Newman speaks of the original Eucharistic form as with good reason assigned to Apostles and Evangelists themselves. Besides this, several phrases would lead us plainly to the conclusion that his opinion is, that it rests on sufficient evidence for our undoubting assent. This appears to us a fresh specimen of the new system of railroad reformers. Perhaps some of our readers may deem the plea hardly valid. After referring to the harsh manner in which Catholic Churches are spoken of, as being painful "to many an English Churchman," he says, "Refer only to the severe language in which those whom we revere as eminent Saints, the Popes and others of the middle ages, are popularly spoken of. Think, too, which is much to our present purpose, of the language used by Bishop Jewel, for instance, and other writers of that era themselves, with regard to those who went before them, and we shall hardly think they have much claim on the forbearance of posterity." (Page 33.) * Newman's letter to Dr. Jelf. theology, which cuts through all obstacles which authority offers, and destroys the natural impediments of learning and judgement. There are a few facts in relation to the Liturgies themselves which we will notice; but first let us ask, why is it thought right thus unnecessarily to place tradition on a par with Scripture? We have read of traditive interpretation in the Tracts for the Times, but here we find an addition to the Canon. We must leave the writer to account for its omission in our list of Canonical writings; but perhaps this may be one of many objections which they have to that Article. Scripture and tradition, taken together, are the joint Rule of Faith,* say they; and here we have an approach to a new introduction, and that, too, unwritten tradition, as we find in a work previously quoted. "There can be little, if any, doubt that Christian Liturgies were not at first committed to writing, but preserved by memory and practice." He further informs us, that "Le Brun contends that no Liturgy was written till the fifth century." He then says, that in continual use, they "necessarily received various additions to adapt them to the circumstances of successive ages. Some prayers became obsolete, and were omitted. Words, and names, and prayers were introduced, and acquired importance from the rise of heresy, from civil commotions, or some other cause." He also states a fact, which we mention for the inferences which our readers may draw, that few allusions are made to this Eucharistic service by the Fathers, and on consecration they are almost entirely silent. Mr. Palmer accounts for this on the ground of primitive discipline, but here we leave the matter. It is, however, by no means desirable that a writer, whose opinion is so much looked up to by his followers as that of Mr. Newman, should assume the very point which Cave, Fabricius, Dorschæus, Dupin, and many others have discussed. A remark of Mr.Palmer appears worthy of observation. "It seems," says he, "to have been often assumed by the learned, that there was originally some one apostolic form of Liturgy in the Christian Church, to which all the monuments of ancient Liturgies, and the notices which the Fathers supply, might be reduced. Were this hypothesis supported by facts, it would be very valuable. But the truth is, there are several different forms of liturgy now in existence which, as far as we can perceive, have been different from each other from the most remote period." Waterland says of the ancient Liturgies that "they are mostly spurious and interpolated, and answer not strictly to the names which they commonly bear," but he considers them as a good proof of the universality of a doctrine for the time they obtained.** "The Clementine, though it is not thought to have been ever in public use, is commonly * Compare No. 90, Tract 45, Tract 78, preface. + Palmer on Antiquity of English Ritual, vol. i., p. 9. § Vol. ii., pp. 11, 12. ¶ Palmer, vol. i. pp. 5, 6. ** Waterland's Review, p. 341, ed. Cam. 1737. Vol. x., p. 11. Vol. ii., p. 14. believed to be the oldest of any now extant." He further asserts that as a collection it can be set no higher than the fifth century, though it may contain many things derived from earlier times. Just so may any writing of the present day: but it will not establish it as the legacy of Apostles and Evangelists, or prove it not to be spurious and interpolated, and under names to which it has no claims. Wheatley, also, after saying that our Saviour did not prescribe any particular method, and that, therefore, "most Churches took the liberty to compose liturgies for themselves," further considers that they were used by the founders of those Churches," and are now a little altered and enlarged, and were in honour of those founders distinguished by their names: for thus the Liturgies of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Rome, have been always called St. James', St. Mark's, and St. Clement's.* But, however, none of these being received as of divine institution, therefore St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, St. Ambrose and St. Gregory, each of them composed a Liturgy of his own; and so also the excellent compilers of our Common Prayer," &c. There is, however, a fact mentioned by Mr. Palmer, which may illustrate the origin of our service and disconnect it entirely with St. Peter's Liturgy: "The present work may convince them of the injustice of representing the English Ritual as derived from the modern offices of the Roman Church. It will be seen that Romanists are loud in their hostility to our Liturgy, which in form and substance rather resembles the ancient Gallican, Spanish, Egyptian, and Oriental Liturgies, than the Roman."‡ These authorities will place the discussion relative to our Liturgy in a clearer light than Tractarians would wish, but we will conclude this notice by a few remarks, with a view of summing up the matter. We have thus far presented our readers with a few out of the many proofs of Tractarian disregard for our Liturgical forms. We have quoted from their writings early and later in proof of our assertion. It is, however, probable that many of our readers will be wearied of hearing a proof of that concerning which they have no doubt. Many may have a practical testimony of it from Tractarian friends, but this is not enough. We need assert, and repeat our assertion, that if they are tried by Anglicanism, they will be found wanting. This will not put an end to the controversy; it will only be one step in the onset; nor will the march end before the true Standard (not of the Crucifix, but) of the Cross is planted upon the basis of God's Word. Men may deny it as much as they please, but it is a truth, that the ultimate Standard of Appeal is the Scripture. From its very author it must be perfect; from having an object, it must accomplish it.§ It does not depreciate in any sense our confidence in this, that we defend the outwork first. We *Mr. Newman and Mr. Froude are pleased to call it "the Liturgy of St. Peter." There is an easy inference from this fact. Wheatley, c. 6, s. 2, pp. 250-1, ed. Oxford. ‡ Palmer, vol. ii. pp. 1, 2. This argument is very forcibly set forth by Coleridge, in Lay Sermons, p. 203. have a full right to show how much men have deviated from our Church, that we may also remind them of their allegiance, that they may not lead away unwary souls, the lambs of the Anglican fold-that they may not be enabled to perpetrate such wrong by the very influence which our Church honours them with, as ministers. If there were no other reason than this, it would be more than sufficient, for we can testify of many who are defending these errors by asserting that these writers are Clergymen, and that no formal condemnation has been passed upon them by the Prelates of our Church. We can no longer allow them to range along this vantage ground; but holding it to be the land of our fathers, on which their feet have peacefully and happily trodden, we dare not surrender it at any cost. It is our birthright-it is our joy-and we must never yield it up, because men whose sympathies are with a different land think to occupy it for strife, but not to cultivate it. We wish to grow in it safely, and live in it securely, and we would weed it of all that growth which will not endure cultivation or profit by the pruning to which their Church would subject them. We would root out all suckers which sap the root, add no beauty to the land, but occupy the place of more profitable shoots, and grow daily stronger at the expense of that tree in which they should have grown as fruitful and undistinguished branches, that is, branches undistinguished except for their heavy fruits of good works. And, be it remembered, the tendency of this very fruit is to bow the branch to the earth, as it were, in silent humility, which yet speaks louder in God's courts than the proudest vaunt of a Catholicity which is unaccompanied by this ennobling prerequisite. It is, therefore, most important that we should open the true state of the controversy before we enter upon the solemn doctrine of the Eucharist. Resting, as we do, on the basis of our Church, matured and fed by her, we feel "indignation" when we read any open or covert attacks upon her purity. We know that our Articles and Liturgy are the very reflected light from the bright sun of inspiration, and therefore we know that they are Catholic truth, for they are as extensive as the Church triumphant, as well as the Church which shall fight the good fight in its militancy here, and shall, in God's good time, join the Church triumphant hereafter. This it is which should render every English Churchman eager in his defence of his Church; because he believes his Church to represent the truth far more than Rome, and to have Christ as its way, and, therefore, that it lives and moves in his love and guidance; for this reason he will "fight manfully under Christ's banner," and, with the Bishop of Ossory, will he say, with confidence, "I do hope that these men will find that they have underrated the attachment of the Clergy, and of the people of England too, to the principles against which they (the Tractarians) have declared open war; that the astonishing success which has intoxicated them and beguiled them into this salutary manifesto, has been the result of ignorance-most incomprehensible and inexcusable, but still real ignorance of their designs; and that now they have unequivocally declared themselves, their success will come to an end."* Their plan is manifest; it is all laid bare. If we do not profit by this happy disclosure, the dark hour will have risen upon our Church. If we dare attempt to FREE ourselves from the oaths and obligations which we owe to our own Church by professing an attachment to an Antiquity, be it what it may, we shall have rung the death-knell of our Church. If they can build a Church upon such a ruin as this doubtful Jesuitism, it must also fall; and even if they could rejoice on the fall of Protestantism, Protestants will say "Ille dies utramque Ducet ruinam." But Protestantism will not fall: it is the protest against idolatry; it is therefore a protest against Rome; and Rome, by her impious assumption of infallibility, has denied all possibility of change in herself, and has, therefore, rendered our protest necessary as long as the Lord in his mercy shall spare her; but over her soon shall be heard the mighty cry-"Babylon the great is fallen! "Rome shall perish-write that word— In the blood that she has spilt ! Perish hopeless and abhorred, True are the poet's words, and "Truth shall triumph over Trent," and from her fall the stone cut out without hands shall fill the whole earth; but it is an awful truth, on whichsoever of its adversaries it shall fall it will grind him to powder. The darkness of the waters betokens the coming hurricane, and the waters of truth are deeply agitated; but out of all our troubles will God deliver his own. It is a glorious truth, that his mighty hand and stretched-out arm are as eternal as his Deity. PAPISTIC AND TRACTARIAN JOURNALISM.+ "THE Dublin Review," is a honest straight-forward publication, boldly asserting its Romanism. Of the three systems or ideas of the Catholic Church, it holds, it tells us, as the true one," that the Church in communion with the Holy See alone represents Catholicity, and that she alone has the prerogative of being the Spouse of the Lamb, and as such 'without * Charge, p. 212. †The Dublin Review. Vol. XVI., No. 30. January, 1844. C. Dolman. The Christian Remembrancer, or Monthly Magazine and Review. Vol. VII., No. 36. January, 1844. J. Burns. The British Magazine and Monthly Register. Vol. XXV. January, 1844. T. Clerc Smith. |