« AnteriorContinuar »
violated in the book which calls them forth. The first is couched in the words of inspiration, “No man can find out the work that God maketh, from the beginning to the end." (Eccles, iii. 11.) Assuredly not; but not even the deistical author of the Vestiges pretends to any such impossibility. He adınits the beginning of all things to be an incomprehensible fiat of an almighty and all-comprehending mind. This, therefore, touches him not.
The second canon is entirely unsupported by the holy Scriptures“ That whatever may have existed before the beginning of revealed history, God created all things anew at the Mosaic creation.” The writer appears, by the subsequent passages, to mean all forms of organic life; but then a canon should have been worded more accurately, since he would not include the stars, nor even perhaps the primary strata of the earth, in this category, by denying an interval between the first and second verses of Genesis.
The third canon is, “that God created all things perfect.”
Doubtless everything was created, as Infinite Wisdom saw it best that it should be at the time of its creation; and, perhaps, the probabilities may be in favour of universal maturity, such as man's actually was. I have my doubts, because I read they were created “good,” and being surveyed afterwards by the Great Artificer, were found “very good.” Further than this, I apprehend, we know nothing about it, and the canon is worthless.
Other positions follow, which have double meanings, but the obvious one is occasionally (I submit) fallacious. • Solomon reasoned and wrote of all the kingdoms of nature; and we may not doubt that his conclusions were as profound and wise as those which modern instruments of philosophic research have brought us to." No doubt, Solomon's conclusions on the data his investigations accumulated were as wise, and wiser, than the conclusions of any other man upon the same data. But does Mr. Bosanquet mean that all Solomon's knowledge was inspired? or that he kept to himself the information thus divinely afforded him, instead of teaching men to use it, and making it a blessing to his country? It will not do to say he would not have his people ensnared by the luxuries of civilization-his whole conduct contradicts such a notion; and nothing remains, but to believe that though he reasoned with the profoundest wisdom on all he knew, he did not know the facts modern philosophy has brought to light, nor share the information which God kept for these latter days, to prove his church and people, whether they would use it for good or evil. His wisdom lay in the things which belong to man's peace on earth and his hope of heaven. His cultivation of science was chiefly valuable as an example for us to follow, and well had it been for him. self if his mind had been so filled with the study of God's handyworks, from the stars of heaven to the hyssop upon the wall, as to leave no room for the entrance of more ensnaring and less inspiring pleasures.
I am, my dear Sir, yours truly, J. O. W. H.
NOTICES AND REVIEWS.
obap The Hebrew Text, and a Latin Version of the Book of Solomon, called
Ecclesiastes, with Original Notes, &c. By Theodore Preston, M. A., Fellow of
Trinity College, Cambridge. London: J. W. Parker. 1845. 8vo. pp. 359. It is with unfeigned pleasure that one is able to recommend another contribution towards a better acquaintance with Rabbinical Jews, and their literature. Although Mendelsohn was altogether a disciple of Maimonides, and it may, therefore, be doubted, whether he believed any more of Judaism, or even of Revelation, than his master, he was a man of unquestionable genius, philosophical acumen, and a profound Hebrew scholar. The revolution which his works have effected amongst his brethren make them a subject of deserved interest to all who desire to understand the Jewish history of the last fifty years. In selecting the commentary on Ecclesiastes, Mr. Preston has, however, also made an important accession to biblical literature. Mendelsohn's acute remarks, and well-considered view of the scope of a difficult book, are well worthy of consideration, and instruct even where they do not convince. Mr. Preston's preliminary dissertation and notes are very valuable, and, as well as the translation, lead one to hope that he will continue his labours in this unfrequented field.
The Holy City; or, Historical and Topographical Notices of Jerusalem. By the
Rev. George Williams, M.A., Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, and late Chaplain to Bishop Alexander, at Jerusalem. With Illustrations from Sketches by the Rev. W. F. Witts, B.A., Fellow of King's College, Cam
bridge. London: Parker. 8vo, pp. 512. There is so much to excite the feelings of an enthusiastic and poetical mind in the topography of the Holy City, that one is always willing to receive without severe criticism the arguments by which travellers of this sort contrive to persuade themselves into a belief of the legendary traditions of the place. But, to the writer of this notice it has long appeared a matter of surprise, how any one can calmly treat these traditions as deserving of serious consideration. If one did not know that the ground on which the aucient city stood was covered with a mountain of rubbish to the depth of many feet, the very language which foretold that not one stone should be left upon another, would seem to render perfectly vain and fruitless all attempts at tracing out sites and localities, beyond the great and permanent geographical features of the place, which, to a devout mind, that lives more on truth than fancy, must ever be the objects of chief interest. Nor is it easy to imagine, how the memory of these places could have been preserved. The Jewish Christians who lived during the period of Christ's ministry on earth, were extremely unlikely to entertain a thought of preserving it at all. They were taught to look on Jerusalem as a place doomed to speedy destruction and total desolation. The idea of another city being raised, after its destruction, to bear its name was not likely to occur to them, much less that it should occupy
the site of the ancient city. But, indeed, to reason with one who believes the legend of the Invention of the Cross, as Mr. Williams does, would seem but labour lost. Considering also that Mr. Williams's residence in Jerusalem was in the capacity of chaplain to Bishop Alexander, the total absence of anything like kindliness of tone in his language regarding that prelate, to say nothing of hints and insinuations in the text and notes, cannot fail to strike the reader with surprise. Nor can his mode of speaking of the Jewish mission there seem much less surprising, to those who know anything of the nature of his connexion with the London Society, while in the service of the bishop. But what does Mr. Williams mean by saying, that the King of Prussia “ has a right to complain that the object with which he established the bishopric has been virtually superseded by one which it does not appear that he ever contemplated.” Of whom has the King of Prussia “ a right to complain”? Does Mr. Williams desire to have it believed, that the personages in this country who took so lively an interest in the establishment of a bishop in connexion with the Jewish mission at Jerusalem, practised any deception in the matter? If not, what does he mean?
One is sorry to observe such serious defects in this volume, which, if written with more judgment and better feeling, might have proved as valuable as its beautifully executed illustrations render it attractive.
The Act for the more Effectual Application of Charitable Donations and Be
quests in Ireland, (7 & 8 Victoria, cap. xcvii.) With Explanatory Notes on the Several Sections. By Charles H. Todd, Esq., LL.D., Barrister-at
Law. London: Parker. 8vo. pp. 44. This pamphlet will be read by those who wish to understand the subject, and to whom it is important to have an answer to Mr. O'Connell's erroneous and inaccurate statements. But the following extract from the Introduction, in which Dr. Todd has answered some of the follies which Mr. Serjeant Shee has lately put forward in a pamphlet intended for the meridian of London, will be read with interest, as the view which a layman of knowledge, and of a calm and discriminating judgment, and a temper as remote as need be from what is understood by ultraProtestantism, takes of the projects for the destruction of the church in Ireland—a church which, as Dr. Todd truly observes, “is rooted in the affections of its members [and they comprehend, with scarcely any exception, the education and respectability of Ireland] by deeper, holier, and purer ties than can be severed by the plunder of its property, even though sufficiently extensive" to secure the affections of the Catholics, or to win them from their day-dream of legislative independence.”
The following are Dr. Todd's observations on Serjeant Shee's pamphlet :
“ The learned Serjeant considers it a very illiberal thing, that certain persons of eminent learning and piety should not be called by their right names -that Drs. Crolly and Murray should not be called the Roman-catholic archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, which they are ;" yet, though he indulges in much angry observation upon this point, which, after all, he assures is of VOL. XXVII.-May, 1815.
no kind of importance, one way or the other, he refuses to designate a prelate, no less eminent in learning and piety, by his right title, and stripping the primate of both his spiritual and temporal rank, is pleased to show his great liberality by styling him · Dr. Beresford!' I altogether differ from the learned Serjeant in regarding this as a point of no kind of importance-I consider it of the utmost importance that all things and persons should be designated by their right names. There is more in a name than appears perhaps at first sight
, ard I think it is especially important that · Drs. Crolly and Murray'should be called by their right names, because by giving them the titles they claim an important principle is sacrificed. The church of Ireland—the church of St. Patrick and St. Colum-kille,-when she re-asserted her right to independence of the see of Rome, which she had enjoyed until the twelfth century ; when she taught her people to pray in a language which they understood, to pray not only with the spirit, but with the understanding also ; when she claimed for all faithful people the right to partake of the cup of the Lord, she deither destroyed her identity, nor forfeited her claims to catholicity, nor rendered herself unfit to be the guide and instructress of the faithful Irish. She is, then, a portion of the catholic church, and claims the right to be recognised as such. Her bishops are in the possession of the ancient Irish sees, and their right to that possession is recognised by the laws of this country. The primate is, therefore, the catholic archbishop, and the only catholic archbishop of Armagh; for it is a well-known law of the Christian church, that there cannot be two bishops in the same see. Even when a bishop lapsed into heresy,—though in an extreme case, any catholic bishop, as being a bishop of the universal church, might ordain orthodox men in the diocese, - yet no bishop could intrude into the see until the other was canonically deposed. The church of Rome, as well as the other continental churches, are acknowledged by the Irish church to be portions of that one catholic church, of which she herself forms a part: she therefore recognises the clergy and bishops of those churches to be priests and bishops. Dr. Crolly, deriving his orders from the church of Rome, is therefore acknowledged by the Irish church to be a bishop. But he has no see; the law could not recognise his right to the see of Armagh, without denying the right of the primate. Dr. Crolly is, therefore, neither by the laws of the church nor of the land, the Archbishop of Armagh ; his right name, by which it is exceedingly important he should be called, and which it would be very illiberal to withhold from him, is, Bishop Crolly-he has no see in Ireland.
“Serjeant Shee also introduces the subject of the revenues of the Irish church, and the Church Temporalities Acts, which he considers a 'wellconcerted measure of reform,' worthy of all praise, had its object been the church of a nation !' The repeal party in Ireland is very much in the habit of styling itself a nation, and the Romish communion the church of that nation. Will Serjeant Shee assist Lord Stanley to apply to the property and constitution of this church of a nation the same 'well-concerted measure of reform,' which these acts have effected in the ancient Irish church? First, however, let him understand what those acts have done. In consequence of an agitation encouraged and fomented by Christian priests ! they abolished the power of levying from the parish any rate for the purposes of building or repairing the houses of God, and supporting Christian worship within the parish. By a most unjustifiable interference with the constitution of the church, they united ten episcopal sees with others, vesting the revenues belonging to those sees in certain commissioners, who were empowered to sell the see-houses and bishops' lands. They enabled the privy council, on the recommendation of these commissioners, to suspend the appointment of dignitaries or preben. daries in cathedral churches ; as well as the appointment to many rectories.
“ Such is the measure which obtains Serjeant Shee's warm approbation. Does he think it would increase the efficiency of the church of Rome in Ireland, were her bishops to be reduced in number—her religious houses suppressed
her dignitaries suspended, and their incomes applied to parochial purposes? It is strange that no attempt has been made to ascertain the wealth of the Romancatholic church in Ireland. Looking at the large and expensive chapels which are being built throughout the country, the number of religious houses, col. leges, nuoneries, &c., which are not necessary, nor intended for the supply of parochial ministers, the revenues of that church must be very considerable ; and yet Serjeant Shee proposes, as almost necessary for the preservation of the integrity of the British empire, that these bishops and clergy should be incorporated, under the style of the Governors of the Bounty of Queen Victoria,' for the purpose of spoliating the Irish church, and applying its property to their own benefit!! It is unnecessary to expose the iniquity of such a measure, which must be plain to any honest mind. If these ecclesiastics are in need of funds for parochial purposes, let them adopt some wise measure of reform, worthy of all praise;' and abolishing their bishops and religious houses, and stopping the appointment of sinecurists, apply the funds heretofore directed to their support to parochial purposes, and they will
, in the opinion of Serjeant Shee, only render their church more efficient. It is, indeed, sincerely to be hoped, that no desire of power will ever induce any minister to countenance so wicked a scheme, under the delusive expectation of conciliating thereby the enemies of England."
Nothing can be more just or timely than these remarks. Of all the cant of political party, the most absurd and disgusting is the lamentations over the poverty of the Romish priests and bishops in Ireland. Sprung, generally speaking, from almost the lowest rank in society, without families to provide for, or establishments to support, they are perhaps as independent, and, for their habits and position in society, as wealthy a class as any in the empire. The writer would like to have three or four simple questions answered. What aggregate amount of money is given annually to the Roman-catholic poor of Ireland by the whole body of their prelates and clergy? What amount of money has been amassed by them, during the last forty years, from the produce of their clerical incomes ? What amount of money have they received from the bequests of Roman-catholic laymen, particularly under wills executed in the last moments of the testators, during the same period? And, lastly,—what amount they would consider sufficient as an endowment from Parliament, in compensation for a real and bona fide relinquishment of all income from what are facetiously called voluntary payments? The answers to these questions, if accurate answers could be obtained, would probably surprise a large portion of the community. Perhaps, also, the answer to the last would throw some light on the extraordinary repugnance which the prelates and priests have so long manifested to any proposal for a state endowment.
The Mabinagion, with an English Translation and Notes. By Lady Charlotte
Guest. Part VI. London: Longman. 8vo. pp. 260. The writer of this notice does not undertake to meddle with the subject of Welsh antiquities, but he cannot refrain from expressing his admiration for the zeal and public spirit which Lady Charlotte Guest has manifested in her efforts to make the public acquainted with ancient British literature. The work is beautifully printed and illustrated.