The Sun.
London, England, 1838-10-23 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SlR—The Editor of the Morning Post having, for some time
past, volunteered his services, in defence of the " Oxford
Writers," in the " Tracts for the Times," I addressed him in two
communications, in which I showed, by references to the tracts in
question, that the authors of them might clearly be convicted
of pr:nciples, not merely anti- Protestant, but Popish, in cha-
racter. The Editor of the Post, notwithstanding his refusal
to insert my communications, as well as those of another Cor-
respondent, on the ground that the subject, being a " religious
one, was not suited to the columns of a newspaper," has, actu.
ally, since his refusal, given inaertion to no less than four com-
munications on the same subject on his own side of the ques-
tion, and has not only done this, but has resumed the contro-
versy in two of his leading articles ! It is impossible not to feel
the most utter contempt for such bare-faced hypocrisy as that
exhibited by the Post, and equally impossible to avoid the convic-
tion, that some very weighty and powerful consideration must
have operated with its Editor, thus (in defiance of his twice re-
peated resolution) not only to open his columns to communi-
cations on the subject, but to resume it, with all the zeal of a
bigotted partizan. In my first commun'cation to the Post I
showed that in his controversy with a " Churchman," he had
entirely misunderstood the design of the writer in the 7th page
of No. 71 in the Oxford Tracts, which was not (as the Post
understood) to prove that the argument urged by some, in fa-
vour of the " Invocation" of the Stints was " shocking and
profane to the feelings of a Romanist, and shallow, even in the
judgment of a philosopher," but, that the argument urged by
some, against the doctrine of invocation, " was shocking to the
feelings of a Romanist and shallow in the judgment of a philo-
sopher." I showed that, although the writers in the Tracts dis-
claim the doctrine of the' Invocation" of saints, they maintain
that of the " Intercession" of the saints—and I also showed
that the design of the writer in the Tract, No. 71, page 7, was
to show, that, inasmuch as the argument adduced by some
Protestants, against the doctrine of " Invocation," was no dis-
proof of it—though the writer in the Tract does not defend the
eoctriae—the same argument would be, and is, no disproof of
the doctrine of the " Intercession," of the saints, which the
writers in the " Oxford" Tracts do defend and maintain. In
prOof of my assertion, I referred the Editor of the Post to page
53, in No. 75, in regard to " Intercession." I pointed out to
him, amongst the " Selections" from the Roman breviary, re-
commended by the writers to Protestant use, a Collect, which
follows an " Antiphon," invocatory of the Virgin—the " An-
tiphon" is spoken of; as decidedly exceptionable, as are, indeed,
all the " gratuitous invocations," but the Collects are consi-
dered proper to be " re-appropriated," for Protestant use.
The Collect is in page 53 as follows : —" Grant, 0 Lord God,
we beseech thee, that we, thy servants, may ever prosper in
perpetual health of body and mind, and by the glorious inter-
cession of the blessed Mary, ever Virgin, may be delivered
from present sadness and enjoy eternal bliss." A similar Col.
leet also occurs in page 86, No. 75, and in page 81 is a prayer,
that " by the deserts of both Peter and Paul, we may obtain
everlasting glory 1" In the same page is a prayer for the
souls of the " faithful that they may rest in peace," and in
another a prayer, that " they may have a merciful judgment."
And in page 168 is the following :—" Let us keep vigil on the
Sabbath, with the blessed Apostle Peter, through whose deeds of
grace, working together with our prayers, we may obtain what we
ask, ,Fec ;" and in pages 61 and 82, are " Confessions," which,
in page 10, are defended, though the " use of them now" is
discouraged ; but only discouraged, lest they " might sanction
the direct invocation of the Saints." Now, Sir, all this, with
a great deal more which I could quote, is decidedly anti-Pro-
testant in doctrine; and it is, I verily believe, because the
Editor of the Post was convinced of this, that he hypocriti-
cally declined inserting my communications; on the ground
Ora " the subject," which he is still pursuing, in favour of the
Oxford Tracts, " is unsuited to the columns of a newspaper 11"
But, Sir, I believe the Editor of the Post was most sorely
touched with my reference to page 8, in No. 71,
where
the Pope's authority and " precedence" over other Bishops
in England and elsewhere is vindicated. The writers
speak of it as a " matter suspended and under abeyance," but
" not to be denied." "At present," they say, "
he ought to
ilave no jurisdiction," but " he has," the maintain, " legitimate claims which may be settled certain
ing impediments to our acknowledg in him !I" whyen he removes exist-
guage this, Sir, for those who have subscribed tor thegautho-
Stan e
stlan-
rized
thformu the la
Pries of the Church, which (whether right or not)
ate at ope is " Antichrist, ' not the successor of St.
Peter but of the Scribes and Pharieees," and the Church of
Rome the Babylonieal Beast arid the Whore of Ba-
talittienmhpgt
bylon 1 I believe, Sir, the object of the Oxford writers is to
hteorbqriunarters my firmlz convic-
tion us after the Romish fashion, and, should their opi-
nions
us back to ..ome.—
itiiinotni si
so
therebtairi artywill sanction ca
nt
I am, Sir, your's, faithfully,
LATIMER.
P. S —1 do not write under the iefluence of any political
feeling, not taki, g much part in politics, but I prefer Whig-
Radical honesty to high-Tory hypocrisy and insincerity,