form. "Every official document has its proper forms; and, had those who blame the tenour of this taken any pains to examine those of papal documents, they would have found nothing new or unusual in this." If this be true, it is no valid defence; but we cannot credit such a statement on mere assertion. It was the duty of Cardinal Wiseman to have proved the fact by at least referring us to the evidences of its accuracy. If it be accurate, we are to believe that the Pope, when exercising the solemn business of his office, uses words which do not mean what they profess to mean, and that the Cardinal in his Pastoral stirred up the hearts of his people on account of that which was mere "form;" and declared that the saints and martyrs rejoiced over that which was mere "form;" and excited his people to give thanks to God for that which was mere "form;" for the rejoicing, and the sympathy, and the prayers have relation to what the Pope has done, not for the Roman Catholics, but for the "kingdom of England." This is a defence too subtle to be admitted by English people.

Cardinal Wiseman s argument on the point of the Roman Catholics to possess a hierarchy is this :—

"By the Emancipation Act we were made as free as any other class of persons to profess and exercise our religion in every respect.

"To exercise our religion fully we must have bishops.

"When therefore emancipation was granted to Catholics, full power was given them to have an episcopate."

If, for argument sake, all this be conceded, there still remains the question, Where, when, how, has anything been given to the Catholics which entitled the Pope to deal with "the kingdom of England"?

When the Emancipation Act was passed the Roman Catholics were unquestionably placed upon the same footing as other Dissenters. They became entitled to partake in all civil rights; they became entitled also to the free exercise of their religion. But they were not entitled, any more than anyotherDissenters,either to set upas a ruling dominant sect, or to do anything which is detrimental to the just rights of the Church established by the State. They were not entitled to deal with

Gent. M40. Vol. XXXIV.

the "kingdom," to declare that it had ceased to be Protestant and had become Catholic, to create cities, or to govern counties. If these pretensions are mere matters of form, they are offensive and foolish forms, and should be withdrawn. If they mean what they assert and seem to moan, they constitute a grave offence; they are totally at variance with the assertions of the Catholics themselves when emancipation was granted to them; they are an outrage against the principle of toleration, a high indignity to the English crown and people, and they render necessary an entire revision of the terms upon which Catholics were admitted to share the privileges of the constitution.

But it is said that the Pope could not be expected to admit the supremacy of the Queen or the validity of our orders. Certainly not. But what the Pope might have admitted, and should have admitted, is the fact of the existence of our Queen and her authority, and the fact thatEngland has an established Church, and is a Protestant nation, in which the people who adhere to His Holiness have only certain rights and no more. It does not impugn Papal infallibility to admit the existence of facts. Roman Catholics, and especially the laity, should consider that if their supreme head is wilfully blind to the existence of great facts, if he regards all mankind who do not acknowledge his sway as mere stocks or stones, and acts as if he himself had all power and authority, it may become a question whether it is possible for his subjects to be allowed to continue in the exer-. cise of the privileges of complete toleration, which is based upon the notion of equality of pretensions. Whilst all sects merely claim to be right, all sects may be tolerated; but, when one sets up a pretence of universal dominion, complete toleration becomes difficult if not impossible. Of course we do not mean that Roman Catholics, or any other Dissenters, should not have freedom to exercise their religion; but it may be doubted whether there arc not civil privileges included in the idea of complete toleration to which, under such circumstances, Roman Catholics cannot safely be admitted; more especially, as we are now told, both by Mr. Bowyer and by Cardinal Wiseman, 4 L

that complete toleration of any particular sect means toleration of whatever that sect may consider essential to its "perfect development." The "perfect development of Roman Catholicism has hitherto, both in our own country and in others, generally been found to include many things (the Inquisition for instance), the introduction of which was certainly not aontemplated by the passers of the Emancipation Act. According to the doctrine of these gentlemen, convenient and no doubt conclusive in their own estimation, but a doctrine which we do not think will find favour in this country, we are now bound to allow whatever they may think fit to introduce, under pain of being considered intolerant and unjust.

As between the English nation and the Roman Catholics, the question, so far as it rests upon this Bull and Pastoral, is one of politics, or of political philosophy, rather than of religion. But there is another phase of the matter which these documents bring before us, and which must not be overlooked.

Since the establishment of our Reformed Protestant Church on the accession of Queen Elizabeth, Rome has made five distinct attempts to regain her ascendancy in this kingdom. The first •was by an open rebellion in 1569, instigated by papal agents. The second was by the fulmmation of a Papal Bull, by which Queen Elizabeth was declared to be excommunicated and deposed, and all her subjects were released from their oath of allegiance to her. This was followed by the long series of intrigues and plots, of which the assassination of Elizabeth and the consequent accession of Mary Queen of'Scotswere the real aims. The MM was the attempt at conquest by the Invincible Armada. The fourth (not to include the Gunpowder Treason) was in the reign of Charles I. and was sought to be effected more craftily through the influence of the queen and the seduction of a Romanising clergy. The fifth was under James II. when the same object was

attempted by a Romish sovereign. We have now, in the reign of Queen Victoria, a sixth attempt made for the same purpose. The means employed are, 1. The exercise of the influence obtained through Roman Catholic Emancipation, and by the expenditure in missionary efforts of large sums of money supplied by the society of the Propaganda; 2. The seduction of our youth, especially of those educating for the ministry, at our universities; 3. The gradual perversion of the people by means of unworthy ministers of the English Protestant Church, won over to preach Roman doctrines and to practise Roman superstitions. The partial effect of these means is palpable to all men. More than a hundred of our clergy and a large number of the laity have gone over to Rome; and young men, puffed up by those notions of selfimportance which are inseparable from the possession of the priestly office as understood by Rome, are sent forth, year by year, from our universities, to scatter the seed of Romish doctrine all over the kingdom. The results are thus stated in a sermon just put into our hands,

"Romish doctrines [are] taught every where. The Bible superseded by Tradition, Justification by works, Prayers for the Dead, Purgatory, the Real Presence, the Sacrifice of the Altar, the Mediation of Mary, insisted on as Catholic truths. Roman Catholic books of devotion, rosaries and crucifixes introduced into our churches, and insidiously finding their way into our houses under the sanction of Ministers of Religion. Clergymen in thU great metropolis like schoolboys playing at Popery, openly performing their miserable imitations of the Romish ceremonial amidst the derisive applause of the actual adherents of the Papal See. The sacrament of Penance commonly administered by those who have vowed its renunciation. Confessionals set up in every diocese, and Confessors, aptly instructed in all the dark mysteries of their art, ready to occupy them. The genuine honesty of our English youth trained to underhand dealing and concealment, under the specious guise of privilege to be enjoyed or dutv to be fulfilled.'-*

* "Romish Sacraments and the Confessional as now taught and practised "in the English Church, and the Duty of the Church at the present Crisis. Two Sermons by thi! Rev. Henry Hughes, M.A." 8vo. Rivingtons. 1850. We heartily recommend

thesr «enno;:s l> general attention and consideration.

What is even still more disgraceful is asserted by one of the gentlemen who have gone over to Rome, when speaking of the practice of the persons who heralded him on his way, and yet themselves linger still behind in the ministry of the English Church. He says that they secretly receive the confessions of young persons against the known will of their parents, and hear confessions in the houses of common friends. He tells us "of clandestine correspondence to arrange meetings [for receiving confessions] under initials, or in envelopes addressed to other persons; and, more than this, of such confessions recommended and urged as a part of the spiritual life and among religious duties."*

Now, with these things staring us in the face, it is right and necessary to consider the recent papal instruments in connection with them. On the one side, we see Rome marching forward triumphantly towards that "perfect development," full permission for which it professes to believe that we have conceded; on the other side, our church is being dressed up in the trappings of the Roman system, and prepared by its own sons to follow in the wake of Roman progress. Our material buildings are being made ready for Roman ceremonials, and we ourselves are familiarised to Roman doctrine and Roman practices. We are taught to repent over the misdeeds of our heaven-enlightened ancestors, who set free the human soul from the trammels of superstition, and the Pope is made to believe that, if he will but extend his paternal arms, England will rush like a repentant son into his embrace.

AVill this be so? Will the people of England allow themselves to be fooled out of their Protestantism? Is it reserved for us and our times to overthrow that noblest monument of religious and civil liberty which the world has ever seen—the Protestant State and Church of England? And for



? To deliver it over,

bound hand and foot in those chains of Rome which the Cardinal describes so beautifully, to the authorities whose rights the Pope and the Cardinal inform us they still recognise, and whose continuous existence they now intimate to us;—the successors of Gardiner and Bonner in the "ancient sees of England," and the Benedictine Abbot of Westminster,f with all his brethren, monks, nuns, and friars, "white, black, and grey, with all their trumpery?" We will never believe that this will happen. But if it is not to be, we must" up and be doing." Our Church must be purified. Our children must be protected. If existing tests are insufficient, they must be extended. Romanising holders of benefices, or offices in our universities, must be expelled. We must support our Queen and her Ministers in the measures necessary for excluding from the Church the lewd hirelings who have crept into it, and for evidencing to the world that civil and religious liberty, which never has existed under any other shelter than that of Protestantism, is still dear to the hearts of Englishmen. Five times has Romish aggression upon our country been foiled shamefully. The sixth time, with the blessing of God, its repulse will neither be more difficult nor less complete.

* Maskell's Letter to Dr. Pusey, p. 21, as quoted by Mr. Hughes, p. 28.

t In a part of Cardinal Wiseman's Appeal, which contrasts strangely with the professed humility of other passages, and the forbearance which he inculcates upon the "docile and obedient children of the Catholic faith," he informs the Dean and Chapter of Westminster that they need not entertain any fear of him, for that, if he were to set up any right to their cathedral, there is a person in existence who "might step in with a prior claim," namely, an Abhot of Westminster, kept up from generation to generation, to the present time, in the Benedictine order. The Dean and Chapter are no doubt very much obliged to the Cardinal for this piece of information.

The Rev. John Jackson, Rector of St. James's Westminster, refers, in his Sermon entitled "Rome and her Claims" (8vo. Skeffington), to an article in the English Review, No. ix. p. 18, for some particulars of the expenditure of the Society of the Propaganda in missionary efforts in Great Britain and her dependencies. In 1844 the sum expended was 40,085/. (Jackson, p. 13.)


Portrait of Mr. Amyol—Bradford's " Complaint of Verity"Appendix to the Report of the Commissioners on the British MuseumMusical Commemoration at Windsor Lord Mayor's ShowGlastonbury AbbeyMediaeval Exhibition of 1851—A Ragged School suggested in 1715 by Robert KelsonMichael Angela's portrait of Vittoria ColonnaIntended Exhibition of Sacred Incidents"Imagination"Recent Thenloyical WorksSea-Bathing Infirmary.

We have been kindly favoured with the use of an original portrait af Mr. Amyot. It was not possible to get it engraved in tinie for the present mouth, and we have therefore thought it right to postpone the memoir until our next Magazine, when wc hope to publish it together with the portrait.

In our Magazine for October last, at p. 401, in an article upon The New Catalogue of the British Museum, we stated, "At the sale of Mr. Bright's printed books, some three or four years ago, a very scarce volume entitled ',the Complaint Of Verity, 1559,' a work of John Bradford the Martyr, was bought by Rodd the bookseller for (wc believe) 71. [This should have been 17'.] Wc have the most unquestionable authority for saying that it was bought for the British Museum;" and we then proceeded at some length to state that the volume could not be found in the Catalogue, concluding thus: "We do not at all think there is any dishonesty in the matter, onjy a great deal of overrefined bibliographical subtilty." Now our authority, which we thought we might justly term the most unquestionable, for stating that this volume was bought by Mr. Rodd for the British Museum, was that of Mr. Rodd himself. On one occasion he stated the fact personally to the gentleman who is editing the works of Bradford for the Parker Society ; and, on another occasion, when applied to by letter to know for whom he had bought the book, the answer Received was, that the book was purchased " for the Library of the British Museum." The original of this letter, dated 1st December, 1845, is now before us. But it turns out that Mr. Rodd had got into a confusion respecting this book. Besides having, probably, some sort of commission for the book from the British Museum, he had also a commission for it from the Rev. Mr. Corser, Rector of Stand near Manchester, and the well-known possessor of one of the choicest libraries in the kingdom. After the sale the book was duly delivered by Mr. Rodd to Mr. Corser, and that gentleman (knowing the value of information respecting the place of deposit of a rare volume) has kindly authorised us to state

that it remains in his possession; a treasure which he duly values. One would have thought that when the book was delivered to Mr. Corser all confusion respecting it would have been at an end. But it was not so. Although delivered and no doubt charged by Mr. Rodd to Mr. Corser, it was also, as we are told, somehow or other charged also to the British Museum, aud was believed by the gentlemen connected with the Printed Book Department to have been delivered there. At various different periods since that time the catalogues of the Museum have been anxiously searched for the book, of course in vain. Inquiries have also been made of official persons respecting it, and the answer given has been, that the " Complaint of Verity " had certainly been purchased by Mr. Rodd for the Museum, but that it could not at the moment be found. In 1846 the book was declared to be amongst a pile of recent purchases, and could not be discovered until it turned up in the regular course of cataloguing. We are now told that ultimately, but not until shortly before Mr. Rodd's decease in 1849, it was ascertained at the Museum, after much troublesome inquiry, that the book hud not been purchased for the Museum, and Rodd then cancelled the entry of the book in his accounts with the Trustees, This was not known to us when we wrote the remarks published in our October Magazine.

Such are the facts, so far as we have at present ascertained them. They relieve the cataloguers of the Museum from the suspicion of having inserted the book under some one of the subtle recondite heads in their catalogue; but what sort of light do they throw upon the management of the Museum? What kind of management is it under which a book which never was at the Museum at all could be supposed to be there, amongst a pile of recent purchases, and such a mistake have remained unrectified for three or four years? Was Mr. Rodd paid for the book by the Museum?

Our readers are aware that the AppenDix To The Report Op The CommisSioners On The British Muselm, although vouched and referred to many times in the course of the Report as the authority for conclusions and recommendations of the Commissioners, has never been published. An incomplete impression of 100 copies was struck off and sent to certain persons; but, contrary to the custom which applies to all public and parliamentary documents, no copy of it has ever been on sale at the places appointed for sale of parliamentary papers or elsewhere. The result of this non-publication is, that the public and Parliament are called upon to adopt the conclusions of the Commissioners without having access to that part of the evidence which is contained in the Appendix. We know not by whom this strange dealing with a public document has been sanctioned. As a precedent, it is one of very dangerous moment, and, on public grounds, ought not to pass without proper inquiry and censure. The apologist for the Printed Book Department in the lust number of the Edinburgh Review, perceives the character of such a mode of treating the public, and meets the objection with a downright untruth. "The Appendix," he says, " has been printed and published," which means,—Of the Report 1000 or 1250 copies (the usual number of parliamentary papers), were printed; it has been published, and can be bought like any other parliamentary paper;—the Appendix was all let up in type, but only 100 incomplete copies were struck off, and those were gratuitously distributed in certain selected quarters. This is the dealing which the Edinburgh Reviewer describes, when he says, "The Appendix has been printed andpublished." The same writer, speaking of the portions of the Appendix omitted out of the 100 copies, has been misled into asserting, "we have reason to believe that the omissions consist mostly of Mr. Panizzi's own reports on the Grenville Library." This assertion bears its own mint-mark, and its accuracy may be judged from the following particular account of the omitted portions which has been sent to us by a correspondent. The papers omitted are numbered from 24 to 29.

"No. 24 is a memorial of the supernumerary assistants in the department of printed books, in which they state that the compilation of the new Catalogue up only to 1838 cannot be completed before the end of 1854, and will not occupy less than six years in addition in revision. Also memorials from the attendants in the printed department, and from the transcribers, relative to their pay.

"No. 25 is a letter from Mr. J. Y. Akerman to Mr. Collier on the subject of a collection of national antiquities, which letter is referred to by the Commissioners

in their Report, p. 38, as being in the Appendix.

"No. 26 contains a list of the visitors to the Banksian department.

"No. 27 is a report from Mr. Panizzi on the Grenville library, dated 31 Jan. 1848.

"No. 28 contains letters on the subject of the appropriation of the new houses.

"No. 29 contains letters between Mr. Panizzi and the secretary in Feb. 1840, relative to the appointment of attendants."

A very interesting Commemoration Of English Church Composers was celebrated with perfect success at St. George's Chapel, Windsor, on the 8th Nov. under the superintendence of Dr. G. J. Elvcy. His original idea was to pay a tribute to the memory of those who had been his predecessors in the office of Organist at St. George's Chapel. The morning service was performed with chants by Humphreys, Morley, and Crotch, and an anthem by Gibbons, who was organist of the Chapel Royal in 1620. The Litany and Responses were those of Tallis (1570), who was also Organist of the Chapel Royal. After the performance of morning service, a series of anthems commemorated the works of John Marbeck (1550), Richard Farrant (1580), Dr. Child (1660), all organists of St. George's Chapel; Dr. Blow (1675), organist of St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey; Henry Purcell (1685), organist of Westminster Abbey; John Goldwin (1710), organist of St. George's Chapel; Dr. Croft (1*20), organist of the Chapel Royal and Westminster Abbey; Dr. Greene (1740), organist of the Chapel Royal and St. Paul's; Dr. Boyce (1760), organist of the Chapel Royal; and lastly one by Dr. Elvey himself,—" In that day shall this song be sung." The design was well supported by Dr. Elvey's musical friends, many of whom came from distant parts of the country. In all, the choir consisted of seventy-two adult singers and twentyseven boys. The solo parts were ably sustained by Messrs. Turner, Knowles, Marriott, Hobbs, Mudge, Bridgewater, and Whitehouse. The service was impressively chanted by the Rev. H. Butterfield, minor canon. The afternoon service was accompanied by Purcell's beautiful anthem " Oh sing unto the Lord a new song;" and after its conclusion Dr. Elvey's anthem was repeated by desire of H. R. H. Prince Albert, who was in the royal closet. Altogether the performance was a perfect triumph of English sacred music, and fully vindicated its claims as a school of art that need not fear any comparison with those of the older but corrupted Church. In the evening the whole

« 前へ次へ »