true religion cannot be found by the Bible alone." Nothing, however, could be more plain to every careful reader of Dr. Marsh's "Inquiry into the Consequences of neglecting to give the Prayer-Book with the Bible," than that his apprehensions applied merely to the danger likely to be incurred by the Church as an establishment. If Mr. Gandolphy did, indeed, seriously imagine otherwise, Dr. Marsh has most unequivocally, in his Letter to that gentleman, denied that his notions of danger had any reference to the question of what might be considered true religion; and thus fairly states the cause of Mr. Gandolphy's misapprehension : "The chief cause of misapprehension on this subject must be sought in the common error of confounding two things, which though united in our Church, are in themselves distinct; namely, true religion,' and 'established religion.' Men have argued, as if those terms were synonymous; and hence conclusions, which may be fairly deduced from the one, have been falsely deduced from the other. If the terms were synonymous, Truth would be often at variance with itself; it would apply, or not apply to the very same thing, according to mere accident. And as a religion does not become true, because it is established, so, on the other' hand, a religion is not necessarily the established religion, because it is the true one. For whether (for the sake of argument) we suppose the Church of England, or the Church of Rome, or the Church of Geneva, or any other Church, to be the true and genuine form of Christianity, such form would then, of necessity, be every where adopted. In fact, the establishment of a religion in any country (as both Bishop Warburton and Drs Paley have clearly shewn) is not founded in the consideration of its truth. The establishment of a religion is an act of the Legislature: but no legislative enactment can decide the question, whether a religion be true or false. This question lies without the province of the legislature : it is a question of theology, and not of civil government. When a religion is established by law, the honours and emoluments, set apart for the ministers of religion, are exclusively appropriated to one religious party. But the legislature, in the selection of this party, and in preferring it to all the rest, is guided solely by the consideration of its superior utility to the state. And, as that religion, which is professed by the most numerous and most powerful party, is likely to be most useful to the state, it is this party, with which the state allies itself, and to which it affords an establishment. The persons, who profess the religion so established, both may be, and ought to be, directed in their choice, by a belief that the object of their choice is a true religion and so far the truth of a religion may operate remotely or indirectly on the decision of the legislature. But the immediate and direct motive, which operates in the establishment of a religion, is its utility to the state: and that utility (namely, to the state) will be great or less in proportion to the number and influence of the party which professes it. Thus, before the Reformation, the Church of Rome was the established church in this country: but when the great body of the people agreed to profess Christianity under a different form, this form became the established religion and it would cease to be the established religion, if, at any time, the great body of the people should determine to profess Christianity under another form." : Hence it clearly appears, that Dr. Marsh's apprehensions from the neglect of giving the Prayer-Book with the Bible, applied to the injury which the Church might suffer as an establishment, and as an establishment merely. When we first perused the " Inquiry," before Mr. Gan dolphy's Letter reached us, and of course before Dr. Marsh's Letter to Mr. Gandolphy was published, we never entertained any other opinion, nor, we will venture to add, could any reflecting person, who had not some private views, or some favourite opinions to promote. On the whole, we cannot help expressing our surprise that Mr. Gandolphy should, with any appearance of seriousness, have written a letter to Dr. Marsh, which he concludes thus:-"Once more I congratulate with you and myself, on the opposition which you make to the Bible alone," when it is most plain that Dr. Marsh no otherwise objected to the Bible alone, than that the omission of distributing the Liturgy of the Church of England might prove injurious to that Church; an objection upon which Mr. Gandolphy, in his zeal for the Romish Church, can surely find little cause of congratulation. Nor can we avoid repeating our regret, that the Margaret Professor of Divinity in the university of Cambridge, should, in a controversy of the nature now before us, have been satisfied with defending the Church of England merely as an establishment, depending upon the will of the majority, and supported, for the time, by legislative enactments. Surely, the learned Professor might have taken far higher grounds, and such as would have been better adapted to afford the Church that support which she needs, in this day of general indifference to religious truth,-vix. a demonstrative proof of her conformity to the Scriptures and primitive usage. By stopping, as he has done, at utility, he has left it questionable with all, less attached to the Church than he is, and less able to derive a knowledge of her excellence and truth from comparing her doctrines with the Scriptures, whether, the Church of England is, indeed, the religion which ought to be established; and perhaps he has stimulated the exertions of some of her enemies to join the Bible Society as a most powerful auxiliary to create a diversion to her prejudice; and, if they at length shall gain a superiority of numbers on their side (which, God forbid!), then, according to the Professor's own position, the majority may call upon the State to sanction Socinianism, Quakerism, or whatever unscriptural opinions may chance to be entertained by that majority. Had a different course been taken, by shewing that an association of Churchmen with all denominations of dissenters must tend, as it certainly does, to promote indifference to any particular opinions, and, consequently, to those professed by the Church of England,--not only would the friends of the Church of England have been furnished with more religious objections than are to be derived from a perusal of the Professor's "Inquiry" against joining the Bible Society; but the dissenters also, who are serious in a wish to maintain their individual opinions, might have felt some danger likely to arise from the levelling principle of the Bible Society." The Sermon of Mr. Gandolphy on the Inadequacy of the Bible to be an exclusive Rule of Faith, is constructed on the same frail foundation as his Congratulatory Letter, namely, that Dr. Marsh intended to urge the necessity of accompanying the Bible with the Liturgy, in order to render the Bible efficacious in teaching true religion. It has been fully shewn, that Dr. Marsh's object was exclusively to insist on the importance of accompanying the Bible with the Liturgy, in order the better to teach the doctrines of the Church, without insisting on the truth of those doctrines. This Mr. Gandolphy perverts to the purpose of establishing what is a favourite position with him, in common with all Papists, "that the Bible was not intended by God to be the common instructor of mankind." When the truth of any doctrines is to be proved, Dr. Marsh would appeal to the Scriptures, and to the Scriptures only; but, when any doctrine, as an established doctrine, is to be upholden, then Dr. Marsh, with much propriety, insists on the necessity of accompanying the Bible with whatever Liturgy may best teach that established doctrine. Mr. Gandolphy writes as though he were serious; though we honestly confess that we were once inclined to believe that some deist had made free, under the cover of his name, to address the Professor ironically; and we are still at a loss to conceive how he could mistake this distinction, and reason as if Dr. Marsh had given any countenance to the Roman Catholic dogma, that the Bible was not intended by Divine Providence to be as the rule of faith. In this sermon, Mr. Gandolphy, without producing any proofs, indulges his hostility against the Protestant faith, by general invective against Protestant editions of the Scriptures, denominating them "mutilated edi- ̈ ́ tions," and the corruptions of " the heretical Luther." It would lead us far beyond our limits to shew the falsity of this cruel invective. It is sufficient VOL. I. Prot. Ad. May, 1813.] 3 G to observe, that the authorized editions of the Scriptures read in the Protestant Churches, have received the approbation of persons equally distinguished by their learning and their piety. Differences of opinion, as to the translation of some passages might be expected; but it may safely be affirmed, that the translations used by Protestants never so importantly vary in the sense which would be affixed to those passages by those best acquainted with the original languages of the Holy Scriptures, as to authorize any false doctrine, or to sanction the neglect of any true doctrine. Whoever wishes to see this subject fully and satisfactorily discussed, may be referred to the seasonable and judicious work of the Reverend Richard Grier, A. M. entitled, "An Answer to Ward's Errata of the Protestant Bible." At the time that the Papists are clamouring for additional indulgencies, they have had the effontery to publish a new edition of Ward's offensive book, as though his calumnies had never been refuted, and as though there were no competent judges of the Scriptures, in their original language, out of the pale of the Papal church. REVIEW OF SIR JOHN COXE HIPPISLEY'S SPEECHES. (Continued from page 356) WE left Sir John, if we mistake not, upon the woolsacks of one of his Parliaments of Christendom, (as he facetiously calls these general councils of the Romish Church) together with other laymen giving advice to the Popes and their Doctors, and in return receiving the law from the learned conclave: thus, in a surprizing manner, transferring the province of giving counsel precisely to those who are usually supposed to stand in need of it, so common indeed is (or was, we should rather say, in former times) this supposition, that in our old books, as Sir John very well knows, the expression of lay gents, or laity, is taken as signifying unlearned or ignorant people, whether in the higher or lower classes: yet such is the influence of Catholicity, under the magic touch of our worthy Baronet, that all at once he turns this uninformed body into Counsellors of those who were to counsel others;-he sets them up as instructors of the wise. We should not have insisted further upon this, we should have left the honourable representative of universal Christianity, (which is the literal meaning of Catholicity) to enjoy the fruits of this notable discovery; but that we find that the idea has been taken up by others, and is likely to become popular: and we must therefore take care that our hero be not de. prived of the honour of having first brought it into repute; and we can. not therefore quit it without a few more observations. A certain Mr. • See Protestant Advocate for March, p. 297. : "6 were John Lingard, a great wit, who has undertaken by the mere force of raillery, to put down the Bishop of Durham,* has now proceeded in the same manner to shew, that the apprehensions of the Bishops of Lincoln and of Gloucester in their late charges, as well as of Lord Kenyon in his observations on the Roman Catholic Question, are not only unfounded, but really ridiculous; fit only to be laughed at. In the course of this he appears to us indeed to go a little out of bis way to quizz Sir John Coxe Hippisley for taking up his solemn accounts of these Parliaments of Christendom, he bas inserted one word (we were going to say one little word, but it is rather a long one) which, as is often the case with these wags, gives a different colour to the whole, and turns it into absolute farce. He says that these General Councils "were in a manner, as has been said," (that is, by Sir John Coxe Hippisley) "General Parliaments of Christendom: and in them important subjects of a mixed nature," (the dose, it may be observed, was never simple but always compound) SATISFACTORILY decided by the joint approbation of the civil" (and he puts civil first!) and ecclesiastical authorities.”—P. 65.—Now if the reader will recollect of what nature those decisions were, that they frequently concerned the deposing of Kings and Emperors, and giving their domi. nions to others: if he will bear in mind also what has been said, and is commonly repeated, by Mr. Lingard and others of his liberal brethren, of this same claim of the Popes; that it is "unfounded and impious, and de rimental to religion,"-see p. 86),-it is apparent that this word SATISFACTORILY" could not have been used by Mr. Lingard in its ordinary sense; but, as is indeed the case with the greatest part of his writings, ironically: and as a sly hit at Sir John Coxe Hippisley, as if the Baronet did not very well understand these matters. Considering that these gentlemen are embarked in the same cause, this may seem somewhat strange but we all know that the jealousy which subsists between rival wits is apt to carry them to great lengths. The reader may have been puzzled, as we confess that we were, at the word "mixed," which Mr. Lingard applies to the cases that came before these General Councils or Parliaments. We could not divine what were the ingredients of which this mixture must have been composed. First we guessed that it meant civil and ecclesiastical; but we afterwards recollected that Mr. Lingard, and those who think with him, stifly deny (and without such denial we do not know how they can at all meet the argu * See Tracts occasioned by the Bishop of Durham's Charges in 1806. Keatings and Co., and Booker. See Review of certain Anti-Catholic Publications, &c. by the Rev. John Lingard.Booker, 1813. |