« AnteriorContinuar »
PUBLICATION OF LECTURES. SIR, -Having observed by the papers that a bill has been brought into the House of Commons to prevent the publication of lectures without the consent of the authors, I beg to call the attention of your readers to the case of those persons who are regularly in the habit of taking down sermons from the mouths of various preachers (especially in London), and publishing them, not only without the authors' consent, but even in spite of their repeated remonstrances.
Might not a clause (a word) be introduced into the Act to prevent this shameful conduct ?*
I am, Sir, your obliged servant.
ST. PATRICK. SIR,—You seem, in your article on St. Patrick, in the last number of the “ British Magazine,"to speak with some reprobation (though rather implied than expressed) of Ledwich's scepticism on that head. You will be glad to hear that, in the year 1815, he published, in a Dublin paper, a renunciation of his former disbelief.
In a list of Lives of the Saints in question, published at Cork many years ago, containing marks of some research and much jesuitry, I find this assertion—“Probus's Life of St. Patrick was written a long time before Egbert, Archbishop of York, who obtained a transcript of it for the library founded by him in that city, and celebrated by his scholar Alcuin. Egbert was promoted to the see in 705." Milner has something to the same effect, and refers to Gale, De Pontificibus et Sanctis Eboracensibus.
Yours, &c., 0. M.
ON SCOTT'S “ FORCE OF TRUTH.” SIR,—I merely send this to correct a misstatement of your correspondent “E. C.,” respecting Scott's “ Force of Truth,” at page 312 of the last number of the “ British Magazine.”
It is true, that my late grandfather did misapply the quotation from Hooker to which “E. Č.” refers. But it is equally true that the mistake was corrected, at least so early as the year 1823. If“ E. C.” had been at the pains to turn to the first volume of Scott's Works,
There are few things which shew more entirely the degraded state of moral feeling in this country than the open, unblushing practice and support of this most dishonest invasion of property, and scornful violation of all feeling. That a clergyman is to be brought before the public, not only without his consent, but against his will; that his words are to be taken down by a person hired to do it as cheaply as possible, who often cannot hear what is said, and cannot understand what he hears; and that then his labours for his own people (thus misrepresented and abused) should be made an object of traffic and gain by any one, honest or dishonest, Jew, Turk, or atheist, who wants money, and does not know how to get it; and that sermons thus taken down should be bought by respectable persons, who would prosecute any one who stole one of their silver spoons; is, indeed, a sad history. Mr. Melville, and the late Mr. Cowells, have both publicly complained of the miserable reports and misunderstandings of their sermons, and declared that they will not be answerable for anything thus published. En.
p. 48, or to the edition of the “ Force of Truth," with notes and illustrations, (in 12mo, 1824, p. 63, he would have found that the passage was omitted, and a reference made to the following explanatory note, written by my father, at the end of the treatise.
“ A short paragraph is here omitted, in which the author, as many others have done, quotes Hooker as saying, “ As for such,'" &c. &c.
This quotation is from Hooker's “ Discourse of Justification,” $ 19. But to any one who will take the pains to examine that discourse, with a view to this particular point, it will be evident that the words are not intended to convey Hooker's own sentiment.
[To save space, the Editor begs to refer readers to Mr. Scott's work for the argument by which he proves this,-the only point of consequence here being, that he did thus correct his former statement.
After stating his reasons, he concludes thus] “ But let it not be supposed that the mistake into which the author has fallen, in this particular, at all affects the question of Hooker's doctrine concerning justification; it regards merely the point of the church of Rome's deuying the foundation of faith directly,' or denying it only · by consequence.'--J. S.”
I am much mistaken if "E. C.” does not intend to leave upon the reader's mind the impression against which the last sentence in the preceding note is levelled. It is true, that Hooker does give a very full answer to the objections supposed by him in his nineteenth section, but in such a way as to shew that he is directly opposed to Knox's views on justification. I will only quote the following passage. Referring to the errors of the Romanists, he says :
“ Whether they speak of the first or second justification, they make the essence of a divine quality inherent—they make it righteousness which is in us. If it be in us, then is it ours, as our souls are ours, though we have them from God, and can hold them no longer than it pleaseth him ; for, if he withdraw the breath of our nostrils, we fall to dust : but the righteousness wherein we must be found, if we will be justified, is not our own, therefore we cannot be justified by any inherent quality. Christ hath merited righteousness for as many as are found in him."Discourse on Justification, sect. 6.
I doubt not that the foregoing explanation will satisfy “ E. C." that the friends of the Rev. T. Scott have not been guilty of the negligence with which he has charged them, and will suggest to his mind à nearer application of the tranchante sentence with which he concludes:-ούτως αταλαίπωρος τους πολλοίς ή ζήτησις ΤΗΣ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑΣ.
SOME ACCOUNT OF WRITERS AGAINST THE ROMANISTS.
(Continued from page 436.) In addition to the foregoing, Archbishop Usher's “ Answer to a Challenge made by a Jesuit,” with his other tracts, which the University of Cambridge has lately reprinted; Bishop Hall's “Old Religion,” and other works against the papists;* Birkbeck's “Protestant Evidence," Sir H. Lynde's “Via Tuta, or Safe Way," and his “ Via
* Hall's “ Peace of Rome" is not to be found in the late edition of his works. This is to be lamented, as it points out some hundreds of cases wherein Romanists differ among themselves upon material points.
Devia,” which have been reprinted some few years since ; Bishop Bedell's “Letters to Waddesworth,” of which there are several editions, and Bishop Forbes's “Instructiones Historico-Theologicæ," written in the times of James and Charles I., together with Bishop Davenant's “Prælectiones et Determinationes," deserve remembrance. After the restoration of Charles II., we ought not to forget Poole’s “ Nullity of the Romish Faith," and his “Dialogue between a Popish Priest and an English Protestant," of which there are several editions ; Bishop Barlow's tracts, “ Popery: or the Principles and Positions approved by the Church of Rome, dangerous to all;" his “ Brutum Fulmen, or the Bull of Pius V. against Queen Elizabeth ;" both of these bad more than one edition ; and his “Few Plain Reasons why a Protestant of the Church of England should not turn Roman Catholic.” I may also notice the Hon. R. Boyle's tract, with a like title, “Reasons why a Protestant should not turn Papist;" Dr. Comber's “Plausible Arguments of a Romish Priest answered from Scripture ;''* also “ Plausible Arguments of a Romish Priest from Antiquity answered ;" and his “ Friendly and Seasonable Advice to the Roman Catholicks of England,” of which the fourth edition, in 1685, is now before me. Bishop Williams's “Catechism, truly representing the doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome," (the third edition, in 1713,) has the doctrine of the Roman church stated in its own words ;-to which I would add, Bishop Lloyd's “Seasonable Discourse, shewing the necessity of maintaining the Established Religion in opposition to Popery," (the fourth edition in 1673,) and Staveley's “ Romish Horseleech," (of several editions, which two last, in addition to other particulars, give “An Impartial Account of the intolerable Charge of Popery to this Nation” in the times of its former domination.
The successful labours of the learned men of the foreign Reformed Churches against Popery claim our attention; not that I would now speak of the chief three-Luther, Melancthon, and Calvin—nor of their immediate contemporaries, but of those who followed them. Among these, Chamier, in his “Panstratia Catholica,”+ may be compared to
• Gibson's Collection contains “ The Texts examined which Papists cite out of the Bible, to prove their doctrine concerning-1. Celibacy and Vows, by Payne2. Supremacy of Peter and the Pope, by Patrick—3. Visibility of the Church, by Resbury_4. Infallibility, by Tully-5. Insufficiency of Scripture, and Necessity of Tradition, by Williams-6. Obscurity of the Holy Scriptures, by Fowler-7. Sacrifice of the Mass, by Gee and Kidder-8. Prayer in an unknown Tongue, by Scott-9. Worship of Angels and Saints, by Freeman-10. Worship of Images and Relicks, by Gee--11. Seven Sacraments, by Gee- 12. Transubstantiation, by Williams, 13. Auricular Confession, by Linford—14. Satisfactions, by Gascarth-15. Merits, by Linford—16. Purgatory, by Brampston.” These were collected into one volume, by Dr. Tenison, with a Preface by himself, and printed in 1688, under the title of “ Popery not founded on Scripture: or the Texts which the Papists cite out of the Bible,” &c. This volume I hope to see shortly reprinted. A single tract, which embraced several of these subjects, published in the same year as the above, was reprinted in 1825, under the title of “ Popish Errors exposed; or a Selection of Texts of Scripture,” &c. Fulke's “ Confutation of the Notes, &c., of the Rheimish New Testament” deserves especial regard. It has been lately reprinted in the United States.
† Printed at Geneva, in 1629. VOL. VIII.-Nov. 1835.
“the Tachmonite, that sat in the seat, chief among the captains.” (2 Sam. xxiii. 8.) This vast undertaking, fully equal to Bellarmine's Disputations in extent, he has divided into four parts. 1. De Canone. 2. De Deo. 3. De Homine. 4. De Sacramentis. The first division includes whatever disputes there are raised on the part of the Romanists, concerning the Scriptures; as to the Authority of the Church ; the Apocryphal books; the Perfection; the right of reading the various Versions and Interpretation of the Scriptures. The second division, concerning God, relates to the Trinity; the Attributes of God; the Author of Sin ; the Incarnation of Christ ; the Descent into Hell; the Body of Christ; his Office as Mediator ; the Head of the Church, whether Peter or the Bishop of Rome is such ; the temporal power of the latter, and the question of Antichrist; also of Worship of Creatures, Saints and Angels; of Images, and the Cross. The third division, concerning man, is arranged under those of Sin ; Freewill; the question concerning the Virgin Mary, as to Original Sin, &c.; also, Predestination, Sanctification, Justification, Faith, Works, Wedlock, including Celibacy and impediments to Marriage; of Fasts, Vows, &c., Satisfactions, Indulgences, Purgatory. The fourth division relates to the Sacraments; their efficacy; their number, wherein first the five Romish ones, Confirmation, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony, are considered; then Baptism, and the Eucharist ; its Adoration, &c.; the Administration in both kinds—the words of Consecration and of Manducation.—Thus far Chamier proceeded, when, unexpectedly deprived of life, he left the subject of the Eucharist unfinished. Alstedius, in his Supplement, has considered the questions of the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Transubstantiation, and the Sacrifice of the Mass. The fifth part, also by him, relating to the Church, is divided into five books: the first relates to its Nature and Privileges ; the second, to its Notes, particularly as laid down by Bellarmine; the third, as to Councils, their convoking, authority, &c.; the fourth, as to the Members of the Church Militant, its clergy and laity, and the authority of the magistrate therein ; the fifth, and last book, concerns the Jurisdiction of the Church Militant, and slightly touches upon the state of the Church triumphant, and that of the pretended Church.- After Chamier, we may mention Hospinian, who, like the former, was unable to finish what he designed. His work, “De Templis," contains much against the Romanists, concerning Images, Invocation of Saints, Holy Water, Votive Offerings, Pilgrimages, the Vessels and Instruments employed in Worship. Of his “ De Festis Christianorum,” to pass over those relating to the heathen and the Jews, I may be allowed to say that, in many respects, important proofs will be obtained against the false pretences of the papists, as to the saints which have had, or never had, any existence. His “ Historia Sacramentaria,” part the first, treats of the origin, progress, and ceremonies of the Mass, and of Transubstantiation, at great length; his work, “ De Monachis,” discovers the rise, progress, and mischiefs of Monkery; as also his “ Historia Jesuitica,” of another and worse scourge of Christianity.* Of Rivet's
* Hospinian's works were printed at Geneva in 1681, &c.
“Treatise against the Romanists, on the Worship of the Virgin" mention has been already made ; his “ Catholicus Orthodoxus," is a reply to their errors generally ; his “Isagoge ad Sacram Scripturam, on our Disputes with the Papists concerning the Scriptures ;” and, not to insist on other of his productions, his “ Animadversions upon Grotius's Annotations upon Cassander's Consultation” deserve consideration.*
On the Reformation of the Church from the errors of Popery, Hottinger's “ Historia Ecclesiastica,” the fifth, and following parts, will be of good service; as also his tract, “ De Necessitate Reformationis,” contained in his “Analecta Historico-Theologica ;' to which inay be added many things in Wolfius's “ Lectiones Memorabiles,” against the pretended power of the Bishop of Rome, as unfolded in Baronius's"Annals;" Isaac Casaubon's "Exercitationes," and Basnage's continuation, under the same title, together with his “Annales,” must be noticed; which last work deserves to be better known than, I fear, it is, among us, containing, as it does, an examination of many principal matters in history, chronology, doctrines, rites, and the works of the Fathers, &c., for the first six centuries. Against the papal power, generally, that excellent man, Plessis du Mornay's work, “Historia Papatus,” which is also translated into English; De Dominis’s “De Republica Ecclesiastica," the first six books; (which, however, contain some other matters of controversy, particularly on the Eucharist;)+ ought to be noticed; and also Du Moulin's “ De Monarchia Temporali," &c.
On the subject of the Eucharist, Aubertin's great work will claim the precedence ; # after which, I would name Mornay's “ De Sacra Eucharistia,” and L’Arroque's, with a similar title, to be had both in French and English ; as is De Rodon's “Funeral of the Mass."'s What Daille has written on this subject, in his “De Cultus religiosi objecto, and in his “ De Cultibus," ought not to be passed over; nor his various works on Purgatory, the Romish Sacraments, and the worship of Saints and Images, as contained in the last-mentioned book.
The family of Spanheim cannot be forgotten ; for the Reformed Churches are under considerable obligation to it.
Of the elder Frederick Spanheim, we have the “ Dubia Evangelica,” wherein many passages of Scripture are vindicated against the papists. Of the younger, of the same name, we have the “ Geographia Sacra et Ecclesiastica," wherein we see the government of the ancient church set forth, and how small a portion of it fell to the lot of the Roman bishop; in his “ Historia Christiana," the general history of the Church, the rise and
progress of the Papacy, its errors and corruptions; in his “ De Ficta Profectione Petri," the subject of Peter's arrival at Rome; not to insist upon what he has written on the Sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, on the pretended agreement of the Greek and Roman Churches, on Pope Joan, the history of Images, the vindication of
Rivet's works, at Rotterdam, in 1651, &c. + The first vol. of De Doininis was published at Heidelberg in 1618; the second, at London in 1620. These contain the six first books. As to the following books, see " Maresii Systema Theologicum.” Loc. 17, s. 17, note (a).
I “ De Eucharistia." Davent. 1654, and also in French.