« PreviousContinue »
of Mahomet, Ai D. 632, and established the Arabian in its stead, dividing amongst several sultans their vast dominions, which they retained till the eleventh century, when they were overpowered by the Turks.—Pp. 79, 80.
We beg our readers to observe, that we by no means pledge ourselves to the accuracy of our author's adopted interpretations of this interesting portion of holy Scripture, much as we are pleased with the style and form of his volume as a compendium easily consulted, and multifold in matter. Nor let it be imagined, that we mean to recommend this sort of work to students as a royal road to the understanding of so difficult a branch of theology as the Prophecies, which the life of the most laborious scholar shall hardly be found sufficient to grasp in all the details of their complicated application. A well digested knowledge of the Prophecies, whether general or particular, whether announced by words or by signs, or by both taken together, can be acquired only by assiduous study and indefatigable research ; and presupposes an accurate acquaintance with general history, the rules of grammar, the nature of language, and the principles of interpretation. Of the divine, who should be thought to have mastered these several topics, who would not say, “ Multa tulit fecitque, sudavit et alsit?" Who, then, shall hope to attain,—we will not say the same ripeness of scholarship,—but a satisfactory knowledge of prophecy, or merely of the Apocalyptic chapter of prophecy, by the short and easy method of compendiarious epitome? This expeditious and summary method of imparting instruction, so flattering to the idleness of smatterers in modern sciolism, may make men pert, indeed, and pedantic, and proud; but, thus " professing to be wise,” they are really “ fools," prepared, perhaps, to manifest their " adhesion" to some popular leader by loud and indiscriminate praise, yet unable to "give a reason of the hope that is in them.”
From these observations, our readers will collect, we hope, to what extent our recommendation of the volume before us goes; and to whom we would be understood to address ourselves. In good truth, neither our purpose nor our limits permit more than a few hints, which may serve to mark our opinion of Mr. Ashe's labours, and to guard our readers against mistake.
We should ill discharge our function of criticism, did we forbear to add our regret that Mr. Ashe has neglected to append to his “ Notes" the names of the commentators, whose opinions he has condensed in the work, upon which we are giving our official verdict, after the example of the Family, or what is commonly called Mant's, Bible. The utility of such a plan is so obvious,-it is so desirable to have the means of consulting the respective authors themselves, and of learning the grounds of their peculiar opinions,—and the proposed insertion of their names would so little increase the bulk of his volume, that we earnestly entreat our author, in a second edition, to deprive us of this source of regret.
We have, moreover, somewhat further to urge against Mr. Ashe,a sin of no deep dye, perhaps, but yet an offence deserving, we submit, proper remark. In these lax times of Neological latitudinarianism, we think it necessary to read publications with “ spectacle on nose," and minutest care, lest undetected mischief should circulate under the imprimatur of our Christian Magazine. And though we might hesitate to adopt the witty scheme of “ a verbarian attorney-general, authorised to bring informations, ex officio, against the writer or editor of any work in extensive circulation, who, after due notice issued, should persevere in misusing a word ;"*“ we feel it incumbent upon us to stay, as far as in us lies, the lust of paradox, and the tide of innovation, by which the good old paths of sound learning and established faith are so pitilessly inundated. A new translation of the Holy Scriptures stands conspicuous amongst the artifices by which crafty impugners of the faith have often sought to undermine her foundations; and we hold it to be no mean objection to any scheme of prophetic interpretation, that it challenges an unlimited right to adopt such unauthorised versions. What, then, shall we say to the reverend commentator, before us? He is a minister, we gather from his title page, of our Church, and he publishes in that character—" The Book of Revelation, with compendious Notes." Under these circumstances, his readers would naturally, we think, and fairly, expect to meet with the text of the Apocalypse “according to the authorized version." In that natural and fair expectation, however, they will be deceived ; for Mr. Ashe has not only followed the readings of Griesbach, but has ventured, moreover, to give a new translation of many words without the most distant hint of the fact, sometimes, without any amendment of the sense, and often, as far as we can discover, without any necessity. Why not forewarn his readers of this practice? We have called his alterations unnecessary, and we appeal to Rev. i. 4, where we have, “ which is, and which was, and which is to come,” modernised into, “who is, and who was, and who is to come,” and we challenge our author to disprove the truth of an allegation ; which, indeed, we could substantiate by very many other examples from his volume. We have said that his secret alterations from the received text, by means of his unauthorized translation, are sometimes without any amendment of the sense ; and we fearlessly appeal to Rev. i. 13, where the authorized version runs thus, “ Girt about the Paps with a golden girdle," whereas, in Mr. Ashe's translation, (or, we should rather say, mistranslation,) it stands thus, “ Girt about the breast with a golden girdle.” The word in the original is “ paotois," mamma; why does Mr. Ashe substitute othbois, and give us, consequently, " breast," in preference to "paps ?” Is this
• The constitution of Church and State. By S. T. Coleridge. 2d Ed. p. 23.
any amendment of the sense of the passage? Be it so: then, who authorizes the amendment? Who is authorized to give a better sense than what St. John himself gave, who uses “pastos," and not “orhoog?”. He means to use a different symbol, probably, in this passage, from that employed in chap. xv. 6, where he says, “ nepì tà othon," and which our authorized version faithfully renders “ their breasts ;” and, therefore, we repeat our allegation, that Mr. Ashe's new translation is without any amendment of the sense of the passage ; and, not only so, but that it actually alters the symbol from the form assigned to it by the inspired penman. We could easily multiply our proofs, but we content ourselves with a slight notice of these blemishes, persuaded, as far as we can judge from his present compendium, that such liberties are not objects of much apprehension in the hands of Mr. Ashe. The practice, however, we utterly condemn; nor shall his impunity be pleaded in bar of punishment to future delinquents, to whom we would say, “ Decipit exemplar vitiis imitabile.” If there be those amongst our readers who think this hypercriticism, we would remind them that these errors, though venial in appearance, and trifling, involve the integrity of God's holy word, and must, therefore, be classed amongst the trifles “quæ seria ducunt in mala."
ART. III.-An Essay, Religious and Political, on Ecclesiastical Finance,
as regards the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland; interspersed with other Matter not irrelevant to the Subject. By the Rev. David O. CROLY, Parish Priest of Ovens and Aglis. Cork: Drew. Dublin : Curry, Jun. & Co. London: R. Groombridge. 1834. Pp. 96. A Stipendiary Romish Priesthood, being a Review of “ An Essay, Reli
gious and Political, as regards the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, by the Rev. D. 0. Croly, Parish Priest of Ovens and Aglis.” Originally published in the Dublin University Magazine for December, 1834. Dublin : Curry, Jun. & Co. London : Simpkin, Marshall,
& Co.; Roake & Varty. Edinburgh: Fraser & Co. 1835. Pp. 31. Prospects of England. An Inquiry into the Character and Tendency'
of the Revolutionary Movement. By BritannICUS. London: Sherwood, Gilbert, & Piper. 1835. Pp. 40. A Letter to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, on the Right of
the Convocation to l'ax the Clergy for the service of the Church." London: J. G. & F. Rivington. 1835. Pp. 19.
(England. arty. Ploding Co. Lety Magazine degli Ireland
of Canterburvice of the
We have already, in a former Number, sketched a notice of the pamphlet the title of which occupies the head of this article. We do not therefore cite it for formal review; although the perusal of it will
astonish and instruct those who are unacquainted (they are too many) with the Popish 'ecclesiastical system in Ireland. Our present object in classing together the above pamphlets is to show, by aid of the materials they supply, the present position of the Church. Not however that we shall confine ourselves either to the facts or arguments furnished by these publications.
si When the Popish Bill passed in 1829, we spoke decided language. We were taunted with the vast preponderance of intellect against our opinion; nor do we at all deny that some men of very superior ability were in the number of our opponents ; although it is equally unquestionable that we had likewise the honour of concurring with some of the most profound and sagacious minds that have adorned the present age. But our appeal was less directed to intellect than to common sense. A plain knowledge of history, and an ordinary acquaintance with the workings of the human mind appeared to us to be the sole requisites for a practical comprehension of the question. To make the subject an exercise of intellect appeared to us like summing a bill of parcels by algebra ;-confusing, by the introduction of inapplicable agency, operations easily to be accomplished by humble and ordinary
The general propositions involved in the fatal measure were two only: 1. That the Romanists, in seeking power, intended to make no sectarian use of it; and 2. That a hostile party, threatening, like Catiline, flame and sword, would be “ conciliated” by the concession of whạt they demanded. To judge of the first of these propositions, nothing was needed but a solid, though by no means extraordinarily profound, acquaintance with the history of Popery. When was that system ever contented with concessions ? Has it not been its invariable policy to gain point by point with subtle stratagem ?—How came the bishop of a single city to cast out his shoe over the swords and sceptres of conquerors and emperors ? Was it a single step from the dust of the Suburra to the neck of Henry? No! it was an insensible advance of power ;-—and must have been. If Clement, or Anicet, or Linus, could have conceived the bold design, the indignation of Christians would have proved as sure a bar to its success as the racks and fires of imperial Rome. But gradual extension familiarized the world with the monstrous claims of the Popes, till the horrors of the great Western Apostasy were contemplated with tranquil and obsequious submission. Popery never has asked but to claim. Thus “the Catholic claims" was the general term for the demand of the parliamentary privilege. And Mr. O'Connell, speaking of a partial robbery of the Church, calls it the first instalment of the debt due to Ireland ; the debt itself being, of course, whatever the Papists choose to demand. As to the second proposition, it requires only the application of that common observation which every mind is capable of making, and most have made. When was "conciliation" ever obtained by concession to violence? When was the, avowal of weakness and cowardice a sedative for turbulence and clamour ? Who ever “conciliated" a highwaynan by the concession of his watch, while he retained his purse? These simple questions were urged, and an answer urgently demanded :—but nom" intellect,--intellect, is against you,” was the cry.
We were prophesying then, and it was easy to despise us.-We are writing history now, which must be met after another fashion. All the intellect cn earth cannot neutralise historical fact. Let our readers then review the history of the last six years. Six years! What are they in the history of a nation? Alas! in that of ours they have been important as some centuries. Let us see what they have brought forth. The bill of 1829 had disgusted consistent Whigs;* the Minister who introduced it to the Commons acknowledged in terms that it was an infraction of the Constitution; the confidence of the country in the Ministry was gone, and a trifling pretext was eagerly caught at to eject them. But, alas ! what calamities were in reserve for the country! The Parliament who passed the Act became an object of hatred to the insulted people ; reform of any kind was welcome ; and a desperate party was thus enabled to degrade the Peerage, debase the Commons, and trample on the Monarchy of England. The principle of concession to tumultuous violence, once brought into day, was not permitted to do single service, and retire. It was employed by reckless desperados, to obtain whatever they chose to demand; it was employed by an unprincipled Cabinet, as the most eligible means of retaining place, Accordingly charters and muniments were torn to shreds, vested rights openly violated, the whole constitution of the Lower House changed, the just independence of the Higher unconstitutionally overawed, and all to gratify the Political Unionists and Papists. In the mean time the clergy of Ireland were persécuted with famine, sword, and bullet. And now came the time when the Papists were enabled to exhibit the genuine fruits of concession to Romanism. Instantly they poured into the Lower House ; in fourteen months from the passing of the Parliamentary Reform Act,the Legislative Union was repealed! Yes,—the Union was repealed, if the repeal of an essential and integral part of a law be the repeal of the law itself—if the destruction of a vital organ be the destruction of life if,“ when the brains are out, the man will die." For thus runs the Fifth article of the Imperial Union : “ The Churches of England and Ireland as now by law established shall be united into
• We use the term here to designate all persons who hold the opinions of the Revolution of 1688, whatever political term they may chuse to affect.