« 上一頁繼續 »
the latter to keep him company. Our readers will be pleased to remem. ber that when Dr. Marsh was engaged in a dispute with which the Papists were not immediately concerned, Mr. Gandolphy, gay and lively, “ for gentle dulness ever loves a joke," thought proper, in awkward irony, to address him as admitting one of the errors of Popery,- that the Bible alone is insofficient to direct a man in the way to salvation. The result has been very unfortunate for the meddling priest: Dr. Marsh's " Comparative View,” is a book that will be read to the end of time; and, after the blindness which has in part happeoed to Europe shall have been removed, and the bandage wbich Popish craft has passed over the eyes of our fellow Christians shall have been torn away, 'Dr. Marsh's work will be remembered as one of the chief instruments by which divine Providence worked the mighty change. By this time, Joubtless, Mr. Gandolphy is convinced that the professor is a sound Protestant, and is alarmed at the mischief which bis ill-timed, and impertinent interference has occasioned his desperate cause. The specific differences between the churches of England and Rome, are pointed out more clearly than ever. As long as the “ Comparative View" shall occupy a place on our book shelves, we may safely defy either Mr. Gandolphy, or any of thosë “ juggling" Papists “'that palter with us in a double 'sepse," or any of those deceiving or deceived Protestants who have imagined such a conceit in their hearts, -- to confound our church with that of Rome; or to make the unlearned, the unstable, or the upwary, believe that they agree. They are radically different. What have light and darkness in common? [Tis de xoivovice ;] nothing. The glorious splendor of the former, dissipates the latter. '.
Our readers may be assured thầt we do not go a hair's breadth beyond the limits of truth. Wo do very earnestly press the reading of this excellent work. It is clearly arranged, and the author leads us with him step by. step, overleaping nothing, but removing every obstacle out of the way. His training at Cambridge, his logical and (what is grounded in the purest logic,) his geometrical studies, have proved of eminent use to him;"nor has that habit of patient investigation which his biblical researches communicated to him, been without its moral benefits. Perhaps Mr. Gandolphy could not have stirred up a more powerful antagonist, or a keener opponent. If he be capable of receiving advice, or being made sensible of his absurdițies, we would advise him to let Polemics alone, and to “ Jeave off contention before it bę meddled with.” At any rate he should know himself better than to stir up the opposition of a man like Dr. Marsh. Mr. Gandolphy is now suffering for his temerity, like some unhappy wretch who has off ciously fluttered about an engine, vainly trying to impede its motion, and, at last, entangled by the machinery, is
crushed to atoms, leaving a terrible example to all who expose themselves to dangers which they are not called upon to encounter.
We shall now proceed, in our usual way, to exhibit the contents of the professor's book, which extends to 250 pages in-8vo. and is comprised in ten chapters. " Chap. I. Of the fundamental difference between the churches of England and Rome, in respect to articles of faith.-The latter founds its doctrines on two equal and independent authorities, scripture and tradition.--The former founds its doctrines on scripture alone. - The difference between the two churches, in this respect, stated and explained.-- Chap. II. Appeal to the couocil of Trent. Previous re: marks on the ose of terms.-Proof from the decrees and canons of this council, that the church of Rome acknowledges, in scripture and tradition, two equal and independent authorities for doctrines, or rules of faith. Influence of tradition, as a rule of faith, on the doctrines of the chorch of Rome, exemplified by those decrees and canons.-Conclading remarks on the authority of the council itself.- Chap. III, Appeal to the liturgy, articles, and homilies, in proof of the position, that the chorch of England rejects the authority of tradition, as a rule of faith, and founds its doctrines on the sole authority of scripture-Effects of that rejection exemplified in a review of our doctrinal articles. --Chap. IV. Examination of the question, whether the divine and apostolical traditions, which are supposed to constitnte the unwritten word of God, or tradition, as a rule of faith, have a real, or only an imagioary existence. Previous explanatory remarks.-Proof that there is no foundation for their alleged existence.-The rejection of tradition, as a rule of faith, the vital principle of the reformation. Chap. V. Difference between the churches of Eogland and Rome in respect to the canon of scripture.--The latter admits, as canonical, various books and parts of books, in the Old Testament, which the former considers as apocryphal.-History of the canon of the Old Testament, as contained in the septuagint and the volgate.The canon of the Old Testament, which was sanctioned by our Saviour, the sole canon to be received by Christians.-Proof, that this canon, is the canon of the church of England.-On the other hand, the canon of the Old Testament, adopted by the church of Rome, received the sanction, neither of Christ, nor of his apostles.- Chap. VI. Remarks on the additional influence, which the difference between the two charches, in regard to the canon of scripture, must have had on their respective doctrines.-Influence of tradition on the sense of scripture, when applied as a rule for the interpretation of it. The sense of scriptore further affected by the Latio translation, to which alone the church of Rome allows an appeal in controversies of faith-Statement of the
doctrines, which distinguish the church of Rome, as given in the Trent confession of faith.g Chap. VII. Of churcb-ceremonies, and the train dition wbich is called ecclesiastical. Explanation of our thirty-fourth article... Defence of the principles, on which the church of England bas acted in regard to ceremonies --Consequences of confounding the tradi. sion of ceremonies with the tradition of doctrines.--Additional remarks on the mişapprehension of terms in regard to tradition in general. Chap VIIL Differencej between the churches of England and Rome in he exercise of church-authority. The objection to the first sentence of our twentieth article stated, and examniped; especially in reference to the right of private judgment in matters of faith.--Proof, that the church of England carries its authority no further than is absolutely necessary for its owo preservation; and, moreover, that this authority is exercised on the same principle, and carried only to the same extent, as by Protestants in general, the dissenters themselves not excepted. Chap. IX. Proof, that the church of Rome not only carries its authority further, than is necessary for its own preservation, but that its authority is exercised in such a manner, as to extinguish the right of private judgment in its own members, and to trample on the rights of all other churcbes.-u-Chap. X. The proof of the preceding proposition, contiocod and concluded."
The professor does not dryly.copfine himself to the specified cop tents of each chapter ; for instance, at the end of the fifih' section of the last chapter, he saysms in concluding this proof, I have been led by the connexion between the church and the state in this country to the examination of subjects not promised in the title of this chapler." Our readers have already seen how he expresses himself on the wisdom which the Empress Catharine manifested in excluding the inflence of the Popo from her dominions, and constituting the archbishop of Mohilow, mee tropolitan of all the Russians professing the Romish faith, and making him perfectly independent of the Pope. See p. 120. This is the subjeat handled at the conclusion of the tenth chapter. Many curious particulars occur in the notes, in wbich several mistakes of Mr. Gandolpby, and Sir J. Cox Hippesley are noticed, many matters of a philological nature are discussed, and many errors of Dr. Delabogue and others are pointed out, as well as in the text. Dr. Marsh is most precisely correct in bis references, his quotations, and his authorities in general, whether adduced in defence of his own positions, or in refutation of those maintain ed by his adversaries. He thus opens the first chapter, and marks a strong: and fundamental line of distinction between “ the churches of England and Rome,'"-" In taking a comparative view of the churches of Eag. land and Rome, the doctrines, respectively maintained by the two
churches, present themselves as the objects of primary consideration. The truth or falschood of a religion is the truth or falsehood of its doce Erines : for alterations may be made, both in the ceremonies of a church and in the authority of a church, without affecting the truth of the religion which it professes. But that we may be enabled to judge of the truth or falsehood of doctrines, we must previously know on what foundations they are built. In the first place, then, we must inquire into the fundamental difference between the two churches, in respect to their doctripes : and when it has been proved that the two churches are furtdamentally distinct, we must, in the next place, inquire whether the foundation on which the church of Rome has built, (independently of the foondation common to both churches) is composed of solid or of sandy materials. The decision of this question will enable us to judge whether the doctrines which distinguish the church of Rome from the church of England are true or false. When the latter question has been determined, which is of peculiar importance at the present juncture, and has been rendered more so by the attempts to conceal the differences whiclr We are chiefly concerned to know, we may proceed to the examination of the priociples on which the two churches have acted in regard to church ceremonies. And, lastly, we may consider the principles on which they have acted in the exercise of church authority, a subject that will lead to the consideration of other subjects connected with it, which are now of great practical importance.
- In the first place, then, let us endeavour to prove that the two chorches, in respect to doctrines, are fundamentally distinct. For this purpose, it is necessary to shew, not only that they differ in many single articles of faith, but that the faith of the one is founded on a different tasis from the faith of the other; or (to change the metaphor) that the sources from which the two churches derive their articles of faith are not the same. If this be true, there is no agreement, either io church authority or in church ceremonies, which can remove that inherent distinction Not that they do agree in either of these respects, not cren, as is pretended, in the exercise of church authority, as will hereafter be shewn, when we have examined the spurces of faith, and the doctrines which thence respectively flow.
" That there is one source of Christian faith which is common to the two churches, may be readily granted: for the authority of the Bible, however variously interpreted, is admitted by Christians of every descriplion. But if the Bible is the sole fountain of Christian faith to the church of England, and no: the sole fountain of Christian faith to the church of Rome, the apthority admitted by the latter, in addition to the authority of the Bible, must constitụte an essential difference between the two churches. Now this essential difference can be removed by no other means than by shewing, either that the church of Rome does not add to the Bible an authority considered as equal to the Bible, or that the church of England agrees in such addition with the church of Rome. No attempt has been made to demonstrate either of these propositions in clear and express terms. But some apthority (it is said) is recognised by both churches, in addition to the authority of the Bible; and the bare recognition of a second autbority is sufficient (as is further said) to place the two churches on a level. This argument has certainly involved the present question in great confusion ; and this very confusion has enabled the advocates of the church of Rome to draw conclusions in its favour, which they could not have drawn if the proposition had been stated with precision. For the additional authorily recognised by the church of Rome is regarded as something both equal to aod independent of the Bible : whereas the church of England acknowledges no authority but such as is wholly and solely dependent on the Bible. When we appeal to our liturgy and articles, which is done only in arguing with those who have previously acknowledged them, we do not appeal to them as documents having validity in themselves, but as documents having no other validity than what they derive from the Bible ; as documents which are only so far valid as they agree with the Bible. On ihe other hand, when a Romanist appeals to tradition as a rule of faith, he appeals to an authority neither derived from nor in any way dependent on the Bible. He regards tradition as an authority, which existed even before the New Testament : as an authority proceeding equally from Christ and his Apostles, though transmitted through a different channel; as an authority conveying doctrines delivered orally by the Apostles, aod recorded in the works of the fathers."
The Professor supports this view of Romish tradition by the authorities of Bellarmine, and the theological lectures at the college of Maynooth; the former being “the most acute, most methodical, the most comprehensive, and at the same time one of the most candid, among the controversialists of the church of Rome," and the latter “officially expressing (what we are highly concerned to know) the system of divinity Now taught in the United Kingdom to the clergy of that church." .. Dr. Marsh's observation concerning the placing of Scripture under the TUTELAGE and VASSALAGE of tradition, by the church of Rome, .. pleases us much. " According to the principles which the church of Rome maintains, the authority of tradition is so far from wanting any, aid from Scripture, that the contrary is supposed to be the truth. For that church represents the written word, not merely as reo