therefore, the body of Jesus cannot be present in the sacrament, or it cannot be like ours.

The Scriptures declare that Christ alone is our Redeemer; but you teach that the priest can redeem souls from purgatory. The Bible asserts again and again that we are justified by faith alone; but the Church of Rome declares that man is formally justified by works.

We believe that Jesus Christ was wounded for our transgressions, and that by his stripes we are healed; but you perform certain penances, from which you expect pardon.

We believe, on the authority of the Bible, that the sins of man are purged away by the blood of Christ; you teach that they are purged away in the fire of purgatory, and by your own satisfaction.

We, on the authority of the Bible, believe that all sins deserve eternal death. See Gal. iii. 10; Rom. vi. 23; you teach that some sins are venial and others mortal, and that the former may be done away by holy water and certain ceremonies.

We rely on one sacrifice once offered, the Lord Jesus Christ; you assert that a sacrifice is daily offered in the mass. Thus, according to the Church of Rome, the Saviour is sacrificed daily by a priest. A new saviour made of bread is offered the worship of a new mediator to whom you erect altars.

up.

It is

We pray to God alone through Christ; you pray to the Virgin and to saints; nay, you even make God an intercessor to the saints, for you pray to him that you may obtain your desires through the intercession of the saints.

We believe that oaths and promises are sacred things, and binding on the conscience; but the Church of Rome teaches that faith is not to be kept with heretics, and that solemn engagements may be broken for the good of the Church.

By comparing your doctrines with sacred writ, it will be seen that the Popish dogmas and the Bible are opposite to each other. The most unlearned Protestant may adopt this method; nor will the most learned Papist be able to confute him. The process is a simple one, and must be successful. It is a truth which cannot be disputed, that no one becomes a Papist till he despises the Bible, and believes the word of the priest rather than the Word of God.

Thus have I established the antiquity of the Church of England, and the novelty and heresy of the Church of Rome; and I defy and challenge you to dispute the facts, or to shew the fallacy of the arguments.

Rom. Cat. Priest.-It will take me a very long time to attempt to do either, so that with your permission we will adjourn to some future day.

Clergyman.-Granted; go then and consult with your brother priests, and do not advance anything but what has received their sanction. I by no means wish to hurry you, the subject is too important for a hasty conclusion; I will give you two months or more, if you please, for your defence. Till then, PEACE BE WITH

YOU.

SUBJECT.

ART. VIII.-1. Tracts for the Times.*

By Members of the University of Oxford. London: Rivingtons. 1838.

OPPONENTS.

2. The Authority of Tradition in Matters of Religion. By the Rev. GEORGE HOLDER, M.A. London: Rivingtons. 1838. 3. Not Tradition, but Revelation. By PHILLIP N. SHUTTLEWORTH, D.D., Warden of New College, Oxford, and Rector of Foxley, Wilts. London: Rivingtons. 1838.

4. The Popery of Oxford confronted, disavowed, and repudiated. By PETER MAURICE, M.A. (late of Jesus College) Chaplain of New and All Souls' Colleges, and Officiating Minister of Kennington, Berks. London: Baisler. 1837. 5. Modern High Church Principles examined. London: Seeleys. 1837.

6. A Brief Examination of Professor Keble's Visitation Sermon, entitled "Primitive Tradition recognized in Holy Scripture," and preached in the Cathedral of Winchester. By WM. WILSON, D.D., Prebendary of Winchester. Oxford: Parker; London: Rivingtons. 1837.

7. Letters on the Writings of the Fathers of the two first Centuries. By MISOPAPISTICUS. London: Seeleys. 1838.

PARTISANS.

8. Remains of the late Rev. Richard Hurrell Froude, M.A., Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. In 2 vols. London: Rivingtons. 1838.

9. A Sermon preached at the primary Visitation of Charles Thomas Lord Bishop of Ripon. By WALTER FARQUHAR Hook, D.D. London: Rivingtons. 1838.

WE are now about to enter upon one of the most momentous inquiries by which the Church of Christ has been agitated for many years; one, in which we are called upon to determine,

* The Author of a publication, entitled Travels in Town, in his

whether the zeal be according to knowledge or contrary to it. The question is one in which we must weigh without bias the Moyos and the didacκalia; one, in which we must decide, whether the authors of the Tracts for the Times have a tendency to Popery, or whether they can be accounted orthodox. We are aware that we are not discussing the merits of ordinary men ; nevertheless, we shall make our remarks freely, but without seeking unduly to give offence.

The Tracts seem at first to have obtained respect and circulation, from their enforcement of Apostolical Succession in our Church; nor was it suspected that any purpose of innovation and of raising Tradition to the standard of God's Word was contemplated. For some time afterwards, they appeared more injudicious than dangerous: but now no one can avoid perceiving that they are making new and serious breaches in the Christian world, and dividing our house against itself. The authority of the Fathers, which is claimed for their assertions, will only be admitted according to the opinions which each may have formed of it: the varying sentiments and contradictions of the Fathers will prevent general deference from being paid to it. All, therefore, that the writers will effect, will be the rise of a new party in the Church, which, if we may judge from its present deportment, will ultimately lapse into Romanism.

As Mr. Holden has very clearly shewn that a great proportion of what is pressed on our attention depends upon Tradition: the question is, can "the traditionary creed of the Church, so far as it is known to us, be proved to be identically the same as that which was preached by Christ and the Apostles?" If this proof can be given, it should be received, as the test of Orthodoxy; if it cannot, it should be only respected as human testimony: and it will need but little reflection to decide, that the required proof is impossible; that the ecclesiastical Traditions, on which so great a stress is now laid, can never be authenticated, as purely and trans

allusion to the Editor of this periodical, says: "The charge of Puseyism lies against him, inasmuch as he has so lavishly praised the men, and recommended their works, who were the first to broach, and still continue the leading champions of those sentiments;" and in another place calls this Review the organ of the Puseyites! The Editor wishes distinctly to disclaim any connection with the party alluded to if he has praised any of their works, it has only been when they have contained sound Church principles; but when the authors have departed from them, he has, in the same independent spirit by which this Quarterly has always been conducted, reproved and exposed the tendency of their peculiar opinions, as the present Article will testify.

missively conveying the declarations of our Saviour and his Apostles, that even an uniformity with the Scriptures in certain parts will not amount to a demonstration, that they proceeded from the same source as the Scriptures, and that no one thing to be discovered in the early ecclesiastical writings can fix on them the character of divine. Mr. Holden very properly urges, that corruptions existed in the primitive age of the Church, and thus that there will be the same difficulty in distinguishing the true Church in the primitive as in subsequent ages. Of these corruptions, the epistolary parts of the New Testament give an overwhelming evidence; in the age too succeeding the Apostles, schisms and heretical opinions abounded, and most of the Churches were lacerated with intestine divisions. But though the Church was at no time free from the pernicious doctrines of heretics, "the essentials of the faith, which was at first delivered by the Holy Ghost and sent down from heaven, are still taught:" and the errors of particular Churches have never destroyed the substance of sound doctrine.

It is, however, asserted in the Tracts (No. 71), that the heretics were always distinguished from the Catholic body; that the sects in every country bore their own refutation on their forehead, in that they were of recent origin; that all those societies in every country which the Apostles had founded, did agree together in one; and that no time short of the Apostles could be assigned with any show of argument for the rise of their existing doctrine. Mr. Holden rejoins, that this assertion bears its own refutation on its forehead; that since heresy is proved by the Scriptures to have existed in the lifetime. of the Apostles, it cannot be called of recent origin; that there is no evidence, that all the societies founded by the apostles agreed in one; and that to allege "that the faith of the orthodox had its rise at no time short of the Apostles, is a mere assumption, which, if proved, would not of itself prove also, that it was the creed delivered by the inspired teachers of Christianity." Further, the simple fact of this or that doctrine having been received by several early Churches, does not absolutely prove apostolicity; for the inerrancy of these Churches must be first established; and as a corruption of religion soon began, and as we know not that these Churches may not have erred, no article of faith, solely because they received it, can therefore be pronounced apostolical. But the coincidence of many ancient Churches in religious opinions is said, on the other hand, to amount to more than a presumption, that these transmissive doctrines had a divine origin; yet what avails the presumption, when the evidence, which is required to verify these writers, is

wanting? It will also be required for this, that the coincidence should be universal; and not merely universal, but that proofs of apostolical origin should be produced. With respect, likewise, to the inference that the transmissive belief of the primitive Christians must have been in exact unison with the doctrines promulgated by the Apostles, it is one which will not bear an examination. When we consider the eagerness of the spirit of heathenism in the early ages to intrude into the sanctuary the false philosophy which often successfully corrupted the doctrines of the gospel-the darkness of pagan idolatry, in which the human mind had been long involved-the difficulty with which the early Christian converts comprehended a pure and spiritual religion-the deficiency of the primitive teachers in cautious inquiry, in close reasoning and hermeneutical skill, (as Mr. Holden continues), it is no wonder that they were sometimes led away by the errors of the times, which became difficult of detection, on account of the paucity of written documents:—and it is plain, that the primitive Christians could not have derived from their proximity to the apostolic age all the advantages which are supposed. The oral instruction of the Apostles, as these writers understand it, would have been yet more liable to be mistaken, more liable to misconception on the part of the hearers: the preaching of their cotemporaries would have been equally liable to misapprehension, and the probability of error must have increased at every remove: no steady light of divine truth could have been therefore thus communicated: no oral instructions could have descended to the second generation without some mixture of error. If idolatry found an entrance into the households of Nahor and Terah, (Gen. xxxi. 30-53); of Isaac, Esau, and Jacob, (Gen. xxxi. 22.-xxxv. 2); if the true religion had become corrupted during the servitude in Egypt, (Josh. xxiv. 14), parallel examples of the truth of these remarks are before us; and it is absurd to argue, that what took place in these instances could not have taken place with the early Christians. Oral Tradition is always unsafe: it has always been that to which the advocates of a corrupt faith have applied as to a paramount authority: it was that by which the Jews, in our Saviour's time, rendered the word of God of no effect: it is that which the Papist still claims as the sanction of his doctrines. If Oral Tradition had been designed to direct the Church, we cannot conceive why the New Testament should have been written-why the Apostles should have committed to writing the substance of the doctrines which they preached. On the same principle as they wrote, Moses was desired to write the law, as a protection against the insecurity of Oral Tradition!