« PreviousContinue »
Mr. D'Esterre was wounded by Mr. O'Connell, and died on the 3d following. A brave man has fallen! Was it proper that he should have set his life against that of his antagonist? What right has a mag to place his life in circucistances of needless jeopardy? The com, mandment (Protestants call it the sixth) “ thou shalt do no murder," is pointed against the duellist, the suicide, and all who put themselves in a situation to shed blood, or extinguish life, unsanctioned by law. Mr Justice Day, the newspapers have told us, had an interview with Mr. O‘Coonell. Why did he not require sureties of both parties to keep the peace? However this may be, the behaviour of the Popish multitude in Dublin was brutal. They congratulated one another on the wound which D'Esterre received, and called the blood-stained achievement of O‘Consell " a glorious victory!!!THB CORPORATION OF DUBLIN will, we trust, condescend to accept the thanks, of THE PROTESTANT ADVOCATE. We hope that tie example which they have set will be fol. lowed by cvery corporation, commanity, and district throughout the United Kingdom. They know, from sad experience, the danger of placing power in the hands of the Papists.
LIST OF PROTESTANT PUBLICATIONS, &c.
35. 4 Comparative View of the Churches of England and Rome. By
Herbert Marsh, D.D. & C.
(Review continued from page 222.) On reading an interesting book with an intention to lay an account of it before the public, cany passages present themselves worthy of notice, and the reviewer makes as many references, in the hope of doing justice to his author, and communicating information to his readers; but tha sequel of his labour brings with it a variety of mortification ;-one passage, however important, is too long for insertion in his review,-another is so connected with those parts of the work which precede or follow it, that it cannot, without unseemly violence, or suffering in its sense and bearings, appear in an insulated form,-apother, delightful in itself, is not suited to the generality of those who condescend to read a periodical miscellaoy, or perhaps the terrific words, Entered at Stationer's-Hall, printed on the back of the title-page, in the awful majesty, of black letter, lay bina under a cruel interdict at once. The Editor of the Protestant Advocate begs pardon of the Margaret Professor of Divinity, for having
VOL. III. [Prot. Adv. March 1815.)
ventured to print so large a portion of his book, as that which has already enriched these pages, and fears that he shall trespass afresh ; but at the same time he entertainy a hope, that as general information must be the professor's object, the Editor has, in a certain degree promoted it by bis former quotations, and that, for (he good of the Protestant cause, any further selections which he may reprint will be pardoned on account of the motive.
iiin After having treated, in the most satisfactory way, concerning tradition, Dr. Marsh discusses tho question arising out of the canon of scripture received by the two chutebės teciprocally. The books called Apocrypha are of great service to the church of Rome, which uses the apocrypbal writings, as well as the unwtillen word (as she calle tradition) to establish doctrines--authorities entirely rejected by the church of England. With regard to the New Testament, both churches receive as canonical the same books; but as to the canon of the Old Testament the professor lays down a decisive criterion to guide the judgment of Christians. He says (P. 100)- the writings of the Old Testament, which received the sanction of our Suviour, are the writings, and the only writings of the Old Testament, which can be admitted into the canon of scripture by those, who bear the name of Christian. - But the scriptures, which he sanctioned, were the very scriptures, which are now contained in the Hebrew Bible, and which constitute in the Old Testament) the canon of the church of England. When our Saviour appeared to the apostles after his resurrection, he said to them: " These are the words, which I spake uonto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning nie." Now it is well known, that the Jews divide the books of the Hebrew Bible into three classes. The first class contains the five books, which compose the Law of Moses. The second class contains the books of the Prophets, including not only the books, which we call by that name, but various historical books, proceeding from writers, to whom the Jews gave likewise the title of prophet ; such as the books of Josbua, the Judges, Samael, &c. The tbird class contains the books, which in Hebrew are called Chetubim, in Greek Hagiographa; among which books the Psalms occupy the first place in the Hebrew Bible, and hence have given name to the whole class. When our Saviour therefore spake of the Old Testament, as composed of three parts, the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, he gave an exact description of the Hebrew Bible. It is true, that our Saviour did not enumerate the books of each class : but it may be easily shewn, that the three classes comprehended the present books of the Hebrew Bible, and no more. For the first class was devoted exclosively to the writings of Moses : and the sea cond class admitted only the writings of those, whom the Jews denominated The Prophets. Neither the first nor the second class therefore ever could have contained the productions of later writers, whom the Jews could not possibly regard in tñe same light as their ancient prophets. Nor could even the third class have contained any of those books, which we call Apocrypha. For most of them were Greek in their very origin, and consequently were incapable of admission into the Habrew canon. 'And with respect to the few among them, which may have been written in that kind of Hebrew,* which was spoken in latter times by the Jews of Palestine, it would have beco. quite inconsistent with the veneration of the Jews for their ancient Hebrew scriptures, to have admitted whole books written in Chaldee, though they did not exclude the works either of Ezra or 'of Daniel on account of some parts of them being Chaldee.". He sums op bis argument (p. 111) in these words, “ Upon the whole then we may conclode, that ibe canon of the Old Testament, which is adopted by the church of England, is the canon, which received the sanction of our Sa. viour. But the canon, adopted by the church of Rome, was sanctioned, neither by Christ, nor by kis apostles. They call it indeed a canon,' received by apostolical tradition. But it is a canon, which was fouoded, from ihe very beginning, on a glaring mistake. The Greek Bible, with its numerous interpolations, being from ignorance of Hebrew regarded ja the light of an original, canonical and apocryphal writings were adinitted indiscriminately, and finally ratified by the council of Trent, as writings to be received pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia."
Respecting ceremonies, we admire his liberal reasoning, (p. 133) “ If the church of England refuses to recognise tradition as sufficient authority for the admission of rites and ceremonies, it does not go into the opposite extreme of requiring for them the authority of scripture. Chrissianity was not, like Judaism, intended for a single nation: but was meant for all mankind. Though Moses therefore prescribed, with the most miogte exactness, the ceremonies of the Jewish church, we find no such restrictions imposed upon Christians, either by our Saviour, or by his Apostles. Even St. Paul, who had more occasion than any other apostle, to give directions about the management of particular churches, has mani. festly left the delail of the arrangements to be determined by the churches themselves, according to their respective situations and circumstances,
Concerning this species of Hebrew, we beg to refer those who wish for full satisfaction to the very luminous note which occurs in the Professor's book, p. 90. Edit.
When, in reference to public worship, he directed the Corinthians, that “ all things be done unto edifying," and again that “ all things be done decently and in order," these general directions of course implied, that the particular regulations, in regard to public worship, were left to them. selves, only keeping in view, that such regulations must tend to order and edification. But the very things, which in one community may contribute to order and edification, may in another community produce effects of a very different description. Nor is it alway, practicable to use in one country the ceremonics, which are used in another. Even in the same country, and among the same people, an alteration of manpcrs, babite, and circumstances may require a correspondent alteration in the mode of poblíc worship. Thus the Jews themselves had religious iostitutions after the Babylonish captivity, which existed not before the captivity. Their synagogue Worship, which was attended by Christ himself, comprehended various ceremonies, which had not been prescribed by the Levitical law. But if the Jews adopted ceremonies, not appointed by scripture, and Christ himself conformed to them, we may surely be allowed as Christians to adopt ceremonies, not prescribed in scripture, provid. ed they are consistent with scripture, and at the same time tend to edificalion.
"Nor indeed is it possible to find authority in scripture for every single segulation, which a religious society may find expedient to introduce. And those very persons, who object to the admission of ceremonies, nof prescribed in scripture, shew by their own practice, that they object to what cannot be avoided. However simple their forms of worship may be, there are some forms, which are indispensable, and yet are no where prescribed in scripture. Men cannot assemble to worship God, unless the time of assembling, as well as the place of assembly, is previously fixed. And when they are assembled, there must be some authority to determine, both the offices thomselves, and the order, in which the offices shall be performed. Even if the offices are confined to the most simple acts of worship, yet, as the three forms of praying, preaching, and singing, are adopted by Protestant dissenters, as well as by Protestant chorchmen, the former, as well as the latter, must determine by some common authority, whether praying shall precede preaching, or preaching shall precede praying'; wbether the singing sball go before, or follow after both; whether they shall sing from a Hymn Book, or from the Psalms of David ; if from the former, what Hymn Book shall be used, if from the latter, what version shall be used; with many other questions, which must be previously determined by some authority, or the place of worship will become a place of confusion. But surely ao one will pretend that questions of this kind can be determined by a reference to scripture." ..
Oor author thus exposes a real or an affected misapprehension of Me Gandolphy, in a note (p. 140).-" I take this opportunity of noticing a very extraordinary misapplication of what I said about tradition in any letter to Mr. Gandolphy. Speaking of the difference between the Romaoists and the Protestants, in regard to the foundations of their faith, I observed, at p. 11, “ The one party appealed to the Bible and tradition: the other party rejected the authority of tradition and appeal to the Bible alone." Aod again at p. 16, I said, " You will not be able to bring satisfactory evidence, that we have inherited from the apostles any other doctrines than those which are recorded in their gengine writings, as cortained in the New Testament. Hence it was that our reformers rejected the authority of tradition ; and this very rejection is tbat which constitutes the vital principle of the Reformation." When I said, therefore, that our reformers “gejected the authority of tradition, and appealed to the Bible alone,” it was manifest that no other tradition either was or even could be meant, than the tradition which to the church of Rome is a rule of failk. For there is no other tradition of which the authority is capable of being compared with the authority of scripture; whereas the authority of this tradition is always compared with the authority of scrip ture. For the latter is called the wrillen word, the former the unwritten word; and both of them, in the church of Rome, have equal authority No reader, therefore, who reflected on what he read, could possibly im.giac that I was speaking of a tradition of ceremonies, and attempt to con fute the assertion by an appeal to the thirty-fourth asticle.
He confutes M. Delahogue, in an attempt to exemplify the authority of tradition, in the following passage, (p. 142)—" It has been asserted, that he institotion of the Christian sabbath, or the keeping the first day of the week holy instead of the seventh, is founded on tradition. And the aothor of the treatise De Ecclesiâ Cbristi-has quoted it as one of the apostolical traditions. The institution, therefore, of the Christian sabbath is represented as having its foundation in tradition as a rule of faith, that is the unwritten word of God. Now one should really suppose, from this representation, that the institution had no foundation in tbe written word. But it is evident from Acts-xx. 7, and I Cor. xvi. 1, 2, ihat the practice of the primitive Christians to assemble, for the purpose of worship, on the first day of the week, in commemoration of Christ's resora rection, had the sanction of St. Paul himself. And since this is recorded in the written word, what necessity is there for an appeal to the unwritten word ?"