Rabbinism? and what is it that we mean by Romanism? By Rabbinism, I understand modern Judaism-the religion of modern Jews, as taught by their Rabbis; and by Romanism, I understand the religion of Christ, as inculcated by the Church of Rome, more especially since the Council of Trent, in 1545. There are great mistakes prevalent respecting both these matters. Modern Judaism, or Rabbinism, has been mistaken for the religion taught by Moses, and contained in the Old Testament Scriptures. It has been said, that we Christians derive our religion from them,-that theirs is the foundation of ours, so that we cannot condemn their system without putting the axe to the root of our own; and politicians have gone on (though my province is not politics) to argue from this that Jews ought to be admitted to Parliament. After a similar manner, modern Romanism for that must be modern which has only had the stamp of infallibility put upon it since the year 1545— has been mistaken for the religion of Christ, taught by the apostles, and held by the early Church; and it has been said, that we Protestants derived the most important part of our religion from them; that theirs is the old religion, and ours the new; that the Protestant religion was nowhere, in fact, before the time of Luther. The truth is, however, that Rabbinism is no more the religion of Moses, than modern Romanism is the religion of Christ. Both are bad copies of the originals-perverted representations of the truth. There is light in both, but it comes through a false medium. It is not the light of the sun, but the dark shadow cast by his bright beams, coming through the painted window of human devices. Judaism has been described as the religious system contained and acknowledged in the prayers of the Jewish synagogue, and professed by all who use them as their ritual of worship; and after the same manner, I may say, that Romanism is contained in the breviary and missal, and decrees, and councils of the Church of Rome. In short, Rabbinism, or Judaism, is the Old Testament explained according to the traditional or oral law, which owes its origin to the Rabbis: Romanism is the Bible explained according to what are termed apostolical and ecclesiastica'

traditions; but which really owe their origin to Popes, and monks, and councils. Rabbinism is Jewish Popery; and Popery is Gentile Rabbinism. In both there is a

substitution of a human system for the truth of God, and a teaching of men to rely upon that which is human as if it was Divine.

Now, in instituting a comparison between these two systems, a difficulty arises from the prevailing ignorance -if I may use the term without offence-on both of them. They have passed in the world unchallenged, because persons have either been unacquainted with their real nature, or have not suspected their hidden evils. But we are met to-night to challenge them, to tell them to stand until we can see what is the mask they wear, what is their real nature, and what their hidden deformities. In doing so, I shall appeal to authorized documents; but I wish most anxiously to explain, that I trust I shall be enabled to follow the example of Him whom we all, as Christians, acknowledge to be our Lord and Master. Rabbinism existed in his day, and He drew a very 'careful distinction between the system, and the people who were its victims. He condemned, indeed, in most severe language, the Rabbis, the scribes, and pharisees, who were the authors of the delusion that was practised upon the people; but for the people themselves He had no other feeling but that of the tenderest compassion and the most unbounded love. So I trust that, whether speaking of Rabbinism or Romanism to-night, I may be led in all that I say, carefully to distinguish between the system and the people. I would condemn Rabbinism, but I would pity the Jews, and pray for the hastening of that blessed time of which some of us heard in the discourse last night at church,—the time when Jesus shall appear as a light to lighten the Gentiles, and to be the glory of his people Israel," and when God will remember his covenant with Jacob, and with Isaac, and with Abraham, and will remember the land. And so, while I cannot, in common faithfulness to the convictions which I hold, but condemn Romanism, I would earnestly pray for those who are at present addicted to that system, that the yoice may be heard among them, and responded to, "Come

66

out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

I shall have occasion to make use of terms which may not be familiar to some; therefore, I would just explain what I mean by Talmud, and Mishna, and Gemara, and Breviary, and Missal, and so on. The Talmud signifies wisdom, or doctrine: it is a Jewish book, divided into two parts; the first is Mishna, or second law; the second part is Gemara, which is a sort of commentary. The Breviary is a book used in the Church of Rome, and by Romish priests, and contains a great number of legends concerning their canonized saints; and the Missal is the book of the mass, containing an account of their devotional services. I proceed at once, then, to the subject.

And I desire to state, in the first place, most distinctly, that the present system of Rabbinism, and the present system of Romanism, are both the results of tradition. Our blessed Lord rebuked the authors of Rabbinism, when He said unto them,-"Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees, ye have made the Word of God of none effect by your traditions." The same condemnation, I verily believe, is equally applicable to the system of Romanism. But I am not here to speak of matters for which I give no proof. us come to the proof. I charge Rabbinism with undervaluing the Word of God, in comparison with tradition; and I will give you a few samples. Speaking of the law, the Mishna and the Gemara, this is the language of the Rabbis ::- "The law is water, the Mishna is wine, the Gemara is spiced wine," the best of all. The Talmud is

Let

spoken of as being of as good authority as the Bible. It is taught that all the traditions of the Rabbis are to be . completely believed and followed; that the commentators, Jarchi and others, are to settle the meaning of Scripture, and not private judgment: yea, there is a curse fulminated against those who interpret passages differently. Then it is laid down, that the plain grammatical sense of Scripture is to be taught to few, and that none but Hebrew prayers must be used, however few understand them. Here again it is declared," Read much of the law, and the histories, and the Psalms, little of the prophets. read much of the Scriptures, he is an Epicurus,

that is, a heretic, or infidel; but, if he study much of the Talmud, this is meritorious." You observe in these extracts, that Rabbinism teaches, that although the law is to be reverenced, and read, and studied, the Talmud is to be a great deal more reverenced, and thought of, and studied; that if the one is as water, very necessary; yet the other is as wine, and must be valued more.

Now, I am sure that every one at all acquainted with Romanism must see here, in the first place, a complete similarity; for what is said in the creed of Pope Pius IV., which you will remember dates from the period of the Council of Trent? After reciting the Nicene Creed, the Pope goes on to say: "I most firmly admit and embrace apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other constitutions and observances of the same Church." Then, "I also admit the sacred Scriptures." Mark the different way the two are spoken of. First, "I most firmly admit and embrace traditions." "I also admit the Scriptures," comes in the second place. Does not this sound very much like the Rabbis' saying "that the law is water and the Talmud wine?" Accordingly, some of the Romish doctors have declared that the Scriptures are now unnecessary, seeing that the Church has determined all truth.

But I proceed to notice the ideas of infallibility which we find in the system of Rabbinism. We are told that the Rabbis and the authors of the Talmud cannot err. Here is infallibility claimed at once. We are told that their honour is as sacred as that of God himself; and in the advice given we find the following passage:-" Thou must consider no honour greater than the honour of the Rabbi, and no fear greater than the fear of the Rabbi. The wise men have said, 'The fear of thy Rabbi is as the fear of God."" So that when this is carried out, the Rabbi occupies to the Talmudical Jew, the Jew who completely follows out the system in the present day(let me just observe that many do not-that since the publication of a work by Dr. M'Caul, who I hoped would have taken this lecture, called "The Old Paths," there has been a very great reformation taking place among the Jews, and there is a reformed synagogue in London

itself)—but to those who completely follow out the system, the Rabbi occupies the place of God. And does not this sound like what we have been accustomed to hear of Romanism? We are told especially that in the case of confession, the priest is not bound to reveal what is said to him upon his oath, and may deny that he knows anything about the matter upon which he is examined, because he knows it when it has been told him in the confessional, not as man, but as God; and the penitent is taught that the confessor before whom he appears, occupies for the time the place of God. It is very remarkable—and I have been very much struck with this-that the very same argument, modified, is used by both Rabbis and Romish priests, to defend their notions of infallibility. The Rabbis first of all quote that passage in Exodus about the murmuring of the Jews-"Ye have murmured not against us, but against the Lord;" but in doing so, they take for granted that every Rabbi is invested with the office and authority of Moses; just as the Romanists take for granted, what they never can prove, that the Pope is invested with the office and authority of Peter. But the passage to which I refer particularly is one that you must all be acquainted with who know anything of the Romish controversy. The Romanists continually direct us to the book of Deuteronomy, the 17th chapter and the 8th verse. This is a reference given in some of their catechism books. "If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment: And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall show thee ; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judg ment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show