Sidor som bilder

turning on this point, Has the church of Rome any just ground for claiming submission from the church of England ?' * But into this controversy the writer does not enter, although it is well to warn Dr. Wiseman's readers that this, in the view of a member of the church of England, is the real point at issue, while Dr. Wiseman loses sight of it constantly, and would of course object vehemently to the statement. The writer's object is merely to maintain what he conceives to be the truth against Dr. Wiseman's arguments, and to meet the Roman Goliath, armed in all his panoply, by the prevailing weapons of simplicity and truth. Without further preface, therefore, he begins upon his task :

Note 1.-Dr. Wiseman, like some other controversialists, first makes a phantom, and then destroys it. Let us see how he demolishes his first protestant at one blow. The purpose of his lectures he proclaims to be,“ to examine the fundamental principles of the catholic and protestant religions”-(p. 2,) and he begins by complaining that protestants, in their reasonings concerning the Roman-catholic church, are guilty of a logical error, which almost amounts to a petitio principii, or assumption of the point at issue. His argument may be thus abridged, and nearly in his own words :

1. Protestants blame many of the doctrines of the Romish church as errors engrafted on the revelations of Christ, and “ many principles of morals and practice” adopted by her “ as directly at variance with those which he (Jesus Christ) and his apostles inculcated.”—(p.3.).

2. He asserts that protestants, on being closely pressed, will usually take refuge in one argument. They will say, « that the besetting sin of the catholic" (i.e., the Romish) “church is, having rejected God's written word in his Scriptures as the only rule and authority of faith ;" and thus, that all these other grounds of accusation, having arisen from this one cause, merge in this one accusation.

3. He adds, that “the question,” therefore, “ divides itself into two”—“ one of fact,” and “one of right;" and that the first relates to the individual instances of corruption, whether dogma or practice, such as transubstantiation, or confession, &c. “ These," he says, “ form matters of separate consideration, involving distinct facts, each whereof may rest upon its own peculiar proofs."-(p. 4.) “ Now, the catholics,” according to him, “ maintain them all exclusively by the same principle,-their being taught by an infallible authority vested in the church ; and hence all these questions of fact are united and concentrated in one—i. e., the inquiry whether there is any authority which could sanction them, and upon which we are justified in believing them.”—(p. 4.)

His complaint, then, is, that in arguing the question, protestants who “tax catholics” (i. e., Romanists) “ with additions to the word of God, or with restraining the people from its use, assume the iden

* Some persons will even go farther, and contend that the question is—Whether the Romish church deserves to be considered as a branch of the catholic church at all, whether, in fact, it be not a schismatical and apostate body?

tical question at issue-namely, that Scripture is the only rule of faith.'”—(p. 5.) He adds, “assuredly it cannot be difficult to prove catholics in the wrong, when the protestant principle of faith is taken as a lemma.”-(p. 5.)

That is to say, if we argue on Scripture alone, Dr. Wiseman's church cannot stand. This is an admission for which we Anglicans thank him, as we are bound to do ; but it is one which we think is hardly likely to avail him in England. This, however, is by the way; we must be careful not to assume anything. In the conclusion, it will be seen how far Dr. Wiseman is free from logical errors, but it may be remarked, en passant, that, if protestants allow themselves to be driven up into this corner, it only proves that there are some weak brethren who are not able fully to argue their own cause. It is worth while to observe the reluctance which is here exhibited to arguing the question on Scripture grounds, and to admit Scripture at once as the test of truth. If the « morals and practice” enjoined by Rome, are at variance with Scripture, Dr. Wiseman stands, it must be confessed, in an awkward dilemma: One of his two grounds, Scripture or authority, must be out of joint, for it will hardly be allowed that the one may interpret the other in a sense plainly repugnant to its meaning. But Dr. Wiseman, doubtless, besides the attribute of infallibility which he undertakes to prove, will claim for his church the sole right of interpreting Scripture,-a mode of argument which, of course, puts the protestant at once in the wrong. Under the shadow of this shield Dr. Wiseman and his church may say that black is white, and no one dare to contradict them. “Oh! but the catholic church never has said, and never can say, that black is white," will of course be the reply. “It is preserved from error by its infallibility.” How logical an answer this must be to a specific charge of error the blindest man may see quite clearly. It is observable that Dr. Wiseman, in the first part of his argument, offers battle on each of the points separately, but afterwards reduces all of them to this one question. Let us see, therefore, whether his reasoning is not chargeable with a logical error which as completely vitiates his conclusions as that with which he charges protestants.

“ You contradict Scripture by your doctrines and traditions” is the charge of the protestant. That is impossible," is the reply of the Romanist, “ for neither

you, nor any but the catholic (i. e., the Roman-catholic church has any right to interpret it; therefore, if your interpretation contradict our church, the Roman-catholic interpretation must be the true one, even though it should be, to a well-educated mind, capable of reading and understanding the Scripture, as clear as the noon-day, that it makes black, white." This is the plain English of the reply which sets the question on the one ground of infallibility. “Assuredly, (to use Dr. Wiseman's own phrase, mutatis mutandis) it is not difficult to prove the protestant in the wrong, if we assume the Roman-catholic principle of faith, as a lemma.

Which of the two parties has the most just ground for its assumption may, perhaps, appear in the sequel. The fact is, that these logical dilemmas do not accurately express the full course of reasoning of either party, and may always be rebutted by a tu quoque. One might also ask Dr. Wiseman whether he engages to prove the infallible authority without taking upon himself, during the discussion, the privilege of interpreting Scripture ? Secondly, perhaps, also, Dr. Wiseman will not object to defining, strictly, where this infallibility resides; and when he says “vested in the church,he will explain his phrase so clearly as to make it certain which of the views maintained by different parties in his own church he may have happened, by chance, to adopt. These points will appear, we hope, when his argument is fully displayed. In the meantime, the unhappy reader is unfortunately kept in suspense as to the foundation of the faith, as the lectures come forth one by one, and somewhat slowly. The writer must not, therefore, anticipate, but may close his notice of Dr. Wiseman by one or two simple remarks.

Dr. Wiseman, after having reduced all the points to the one fundamental question, adds—« This is an important consideration : because it must be manifest that if we establish that right whereon, alone, we base all particular doctrines; if, in other words, we can prove that, besides the written word of God, an infallible authority exists, and always has existed in the church, which, being under the guidance of God, cannot be deceived in sanctioning anything as having been revealed by him-assuredly, we likewise make good all those several points on which we are charged with having fallen into error, but which thus will be proved to have their foundation on an authority derived from God.”—p. 4.

Assuredly, Dr. Wiseman might have spared himself the trouble of a journey from Rome to prove to benighted protestants, that “if* his church is infallible, she must be in the right.This, certainly, is a logical conclusion ; the only question will be about the truth (of the minor premiss] of the first part—the infallibility of Rome. When that is proved, we must, no doubt, lay down both our reason and our Bibles at her feet, and be fed with exactly what food she may please to impart. It is not easy, however, to anticipate much improvement in our logical powers, if Dr. Wiseman is to be our teacher.

In conclusion, the writer will only add, that Dr. Wiseman understates the protestant objections to his church. The Romish church is accused, not only of being at variance with Scripture, but of departing from the first path of the church itself. Her errors are accused of being innovations on the doctrines and practice maintained in the first ages of Christianity by that body, which we Anglicans profess, equally with Dr. Wiseman, to venerate and follow-—" the holy catholic church."

It is an example of the logical figure, called the ymeme, which

may be recommended for Dr. Whately's next edition of his logic. The full syllogism is-An infallible church must be right.] The church of Rome is infallible. Therefore the church of Rome is always in the right. The suppressed premiss is clearly true! the second proposition is the point at issue.

VOL. IX.-June, 1836.

4 p

The New Testament, &c., 8c. By William Tyndale, (first published

in 1526.) With a Memoir of his Life and Writings, by George

Offor. London: J. Bagster. 1836. MR. Bagster is a publisher to whom every one must feel kindly for his many spirited and useful endeavours towards supplying us with useful editions of the Bible, both in foreign and our own languages. This republication of Tyndale deserves every possible encouragement. It is most important to every one who is studying the history of our versions, and especially that of our translation, and interesting to the philologer as a record of the language of that day, which can be easily used from familiarity with the contents. The reprint has been executed with the greatest care and diligence, under Mr. Offor's inspection, from the only perfect copy of the first edition known, in the Baptist Library at Bristol. Mr. Offor has collected a great many curious and valuable particulars respectingTyndale, and deserves great praise for his diligence in this respect. The reviewer would, however, have preferred these particulars being simply stated, without any attempt at a life. The subjects are very difficult, and

require more space and consideration than in a preface can be given. The facsimile of the title page—the woodcuts, (except the modern one in p. 83,) and the engraving of Tyndale, are all excellent. Mr. Bagster is now undertaking a republication of Coverdale's Bible. The reviewer sincerely hopes that both enterprises

may succeed.

Wesley's Compendium of Natural Philosophy (revised and corrected.)

By Robert Mudie. În 3 vols. Vol. I. (Family Library, vol. 56.)

Tegg and Son. A PUBLICATION of a religious natural history in these days deserves all praise. This work Mr. Mudie has endeavoured to make such. He has taken Wesley's arrangement, and endeavoured to catch his spirit and views, but has nearly re-written the whole work, giving the newer discoveries of natural philosophers.

Memoirs of John Howard, Esq. By Thomas Taylor, (author of the

Life of Cowper, &c.) London: Hatchards. 1836. This book should have been noticed before. It is in Mr. Taylor's usual unpretending and pleasant manner, and gives a very interesting and complete (though succinct) account of all the labours and struggles of Howard in favour of suffering humanity.

A Speech delivered in the House of Lords, March 15th, 1836, (on

Natural Education in Ireland,) by the Bishop of Exeter. London:

Murray. 1836. It is a source of real satisfaction to see that this admirable speech, (of which a brief view has been in type for the last two months, but deferred for want of room,) admirable alike for matter and manner, is now reprinted by authority. Its statements will, doubtless, attract the attention, and make the impression they deserve.

Reflections, after a Visit to Oxford. By E. W. Grinfield, M.A., Lon

don: Fellowes. 1836. All which Mr. Grinfield says from friendship to Dr. Hampden does high honour to his feelings of friendship; but it is a sad pity that hardly any one can write in favour of Dr. Hampden without personalities towards his opponents. Mr. Grinfield does not approve of Dr. Hampden's opinions, but complains most of not having himself been supported at Oxford, where, as he says, he attacked the same doctrines as Dr. H.'s when proposed by persons who are now prelates. With Mr.Grinfield's own reasons for anger with Oxford people, or with the “ British Critic,” this is not the place to deal. But when he accuses Dr. Hampden's opponents (p. 7) of artifice and imposture, because in 1822 they did not assist him, and then (in p. 9) designates these persons as authors of the Oxford tracts, he really says and does what is not at all justifiable. The authors of the Oxford tracts surely could have been only B.A. at all events in 1822!

When Mr. Grinfield accuses them of artifice, imposture, love of money, and acting from political motives, he says, doubtless, what he believes to be true, because Mr. Grinfield would not say anything else; but he says what, the reviewer will venture to say, Dr. Hampden himself would not countenance him in saying or believing. When Mr. Grinfield again talks of these gentlemen as teaching young divines to bleat out (.) apologies for Romish errors, he says what is directly contrary to the fact, as he will find if he pernses the Oxford tracts. In Mr. Grinfield's denunciation of saints' days and holidays, and of putting episcopacy on its proper grounds, the reviewer wholly disagrees with Mr. Grinfield. In his opinion this is the proper time for all this, and it is only to be regretted that it was not done before. We must teach men to know the blessings and the treasures which the church has set before them in all her ordinances, and not take up the liberal and latitudinarian notions of despising commemorations of the great events of our Lord's life, or those of the holy apostles, saints, and martyrs, and of holding all church government as equally good. When Mr. Grinfield began this attack on the authors of the Oxford tracts, surely it would have been well to refer to the Common Prayer Book, and read a few of the collects and services for saints' days, and the consecration of bishops.

Lectures on Prophecy. By C. N. Davies. London : Tegg and Son.

1836. 12mo. Without pledging himself to agree in all Mr. Davies' views on genealogies or interpretations,* it is only just to him to say that this little volume displays both thought and reading on a subject of the

• He is not at all borne out by Virgil's words, in what he says in pp. 112, 113.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »