Newspaper Page Text
Vo Vol. Vl.]
[lii i tie number of the Missionary, we
considered the very striking analogy be
tween the worship of images in the Roman
Catholick church, and that which the hea
tfcertlf? to their idols. This the CotAo
licfcil Tiscellany considers 1 as an adventure
beyond our depth,” and has attempted to
prove that the ground which we occupied
is altogether untenable. But before we
yield it we must be met by a power strong
er than that which his long “ critique” ex
hibits—a power to which common sense i®
not a stranger, which warps not the obvi
ous declarations of the word of God, nor
makes it speak a language in accordance
with the vain imaginations of men. Hi?
extreme anxiety to have his Remarks re
published in full, argues no want of confi
dence in the goodness of his cause, and we
shall gratify him in this instance without
trembling in the least for the result. He
may expect, however, that a rejoinder win
ensue.]
From the U.States’Catholick Miscellany, Aug. 25.
THE MISSIONARY.
We thought our labours had been closed,
but we have been disappointed. We fre
quently declared our determination not to
enter it.to any controversy upon a doctrinal
subject with this writer, if we could fairly
and properly avoid it. But we fear we
must give up that determination. The
Missionary ha® broken new ground. He
comes forward to preach that Roman
Catholick® are Idolaters; but however of
fensive the charge may he, we do not com
plain of the ‘angu ige in which il is convey
ed. We shall then take up thp sermon for
such it appear® to he, and examine itfairlv,
and should he reply, and we tee! ourselves
called upon to rejoin, we pledge ourselv-’
not to use nnconrteous language, we shah
not let slip a harsh expre®-ion. We would
also suggest that if he means to act fatrlv
be •uight to publish the answers as we do
the attack®.
[ The Miscellany here, publishes the article to
which we have alluded, from the Missionary of
August 9.]
Our first remark is respecting ‘he two
tex u one from the Snmma of St. Thomas
of Aqum, the other from Arnohius. That
fiotn St. Thomas though not correctly quo!
ed is substantially correct. It merely shew
us that whoever made* the extract is not
much to he depended upon, for the otnis
sion of one word would change the entire
meaning of the phrase. Another role of
sound criticism is, that a solitary passage
without its context, so far ftom leading to a
knowledge of thp. author’s meaning will
Tory frequently mislead. We admit that
although much distorted as to the placing
of all the words, and much changed as to
some of the words, the doctrine of St
Thomas is fairly given. The Catholick
Church has approved of that doctrine, thus
the doctrine is fairly ours.
Now h 9 to Arriobiu*: vpe have not jut
now a copy of hi* jvork by os, hut we rec
ollect sufficient for our purpose of it* oa
tore, and we al*o have by us works which
refer to it. When we come to treat of hi*
text in the argument, we shall shew that
hi* text cannot mean what it would there
appear t ’ insinuate
The argument of the sermon is thi
The Heathens were id"!.iters, because they
worshipped the invisible Gons, by sta'ue*
which they did not believe to be Gods, but
the representation of Gods Rot Roman
Catholicks worship the invisible God.
th rough the medium of Images, which they
do not believe to be God, hut the repregen
tation of God. Therefore the Roman
Cafholicks are Idolater*. We deny the
conclusiveness of the reasoning, because we
deny the parity of the cases. The Hea
thens worshipped many Gods Roman
Catholicks wor*hip only ore God. The
Heathens were polytheists, the Roman
Catholicks are not polytheists. If we now
admit a part of the first commandment to he
taken as the second: we say the principal
aim of the second commandment, was verv
different from what is here insinuated
The Heathen violated the first command
Went. Thou shalt have no other Gods he
fore me, if then through the image or with
out it, he did worship more Gods than one,
lie was a transgressor. Ev-u if he wnr
shipped but one God , suppose Jupiter , the
Jew would have been still a lr.ii-gre*s"r,
because the one God, whom he should
adore was specified, “the Lord thy God,
which have brought thee out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” We
may then admit the paragraph from Arno
bius, and still it will make nothing against
the Roman Catholick.
We now take the case of Michah. He
bad at least two Gods, “a graven image and
n molten image.” “An house of Gods”
Now a Roman Catholick, has hut one God
—God had forbidden any person to conse
crate Priests, or to wear the Priestly dress
except those of the tribe of Levi, of the
seed of Aaron. Micah violated (hi* law in
all its parts. Micah did more, he violat'd
the special law ot Deuteronomy, which i
taken a* the text of ‘he sermon. Also, we
say bis criminality consisted in the violation
THE MISSIONARY.
of a law which does not oblige Christians
as we will subsequently shew, if we can
shew this, of course the Christian may do
without any crime, what would he criminal
in Mtcah.
We have now to complain of wilful mis
representation of the meaning of a text of
Scripture or else the preacher has under
taken a task for which he is unqualified.
The object of the preacher is to show that
the word Baalim means God. and he asserts
‘hat the prophet Hosea, testifies the fact;
■uch is not the case, the word Baalim is
plural and signifies Gods, the Prophet dops
not testify as the preacher states, but he
testifies that the sinful people of Israel will
call the Lord Ishi after their repentance
and not Baali, a in the days of their wick
edoess. There are two charges made by
the Prophet against the people. 1. That
•hey served Baalim, the plural, Gods , that
i®, fell into Polytheism. 2. That they cal
led the Lord, Baali, the singulai;, that is,
• hey gave him the name of the Deity of the
Heathen®, in place of bis own name Ishi.
Thus as Baalim is plural, like Cherubim,
Seraphim Sue. all Hebrew or Syro chaldaic
plurals, which terminate in im: when (he
writer of the book of Judges, complains
mat the children of Israel served Baalim,
he complain® of their having fallen into
Polytheism, now the Roman Catholick
adore only one God, therefore their case is
not “irniiar to any of those adduced.
Hosea 11. 5. For their mother hath played the
harlot: she that conceived them hath done shame
fully for she said, I will go after my lovers, &c.
7. And she shall follow after her lovers, but she
shall not overtake them and she shall seek them
but shall not fold them, then shall she say, I shall
go and return *o my first husband, for then it was
better with me than imsv. ‘
8. For she did not kuow that I gave her corn
and wine and oil, and multiplied her silver and
gold winch they prepared for Baal, ( singular )
9. Therefore will I return and take away uiy
corn, &c.
13. And I will visit upon her the days of Baa
lim, ( plural ) when she burned incense to them
**** and she went after her lovers and forgot me,
sailh the Lord.*
Gao any thing ba more plain than that
God who always calls a desertion of his ser
‘ice to serve strange Gods, by the name
hich designates the crime of a woman,
who leaves her covenanted Husband to
-erve the lewdness of one or more lovers,
here complain® first of desertion of him®p|f,
ind next serving strange Gods , many lovers.
Baalim? All plural! Now a Roman Catho
i do-- not desert the Lord, does not forget
the Lord, does nm serve other Gods, there
fore no one of those ca®es applies to him.—
It is upon the same principle the Lord
when he demands fidelity to himself only,
forhiddii.g the criminality ofservirg strange
Gods, gives the monition, that he is a Jf.al
ops God. Me will admit no participation.
We have here but very slightly touched
the proofs, but we feel we have given
enough. Now, why did not the preacher
give ns all the text from the hook of Judges?
Judge®, 11. v 11. And the children of Israel
did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baa
lim.
12. And they forsook the Lord God of their
f.ithers, which brought them out of the laiel of
Egypt, and followed olher Gods, of the Gods of
the people that were round about them, and
bowed themselves down and provoked the Lord
to anger.
13. And they forsook the Lord, and served
Baal and Ashtaroth, &c.
hl’ow can we complain of having our wri
lings garbled for certain purposes when the
divine won! of God, the sacred volume is
garbled, and made *o say what it does not
contain? In the book of Judges the Israel
ites are accused for having forsaken God,
and served Beal and A-hiarolh; the Baalim
or Gods of the surrounding nations, the de
sertion of the true God, and the other crime
of Polytheism. Now, will the preacher
ay Roman Catholicks have done this ?
As to the case of the golden calf we shall
not allow any “urmi-es or probabilities of
the preacher against the direct testimony
of the word of God Now that testifies to
us 1. Polytheism in their principle; 2, a
desertion of the gieat principle which God
had given them: we admit of no suppose
lions where we have fact*. Now, we have
in the word of God the following facts, 1,
ibis people had been a long time in Egypt,
part of whose idolatrous worship was that
of a hull, that of a calf &c. 2, In Egypt
there was Polytheism. 3, This people
gathered unto Aaron and said unto him “ up
and make us Gods,” then Gods of gold.”
4 The great principle which was covenan
ted between God and the people, at their
own request, was ihat God should not speak
to them, except through Moses, and that
they would wait she return of Moses and
from him receive the law. We now need
not have recourse to surmises or to proba
bilities for the word of God gives us posi
tive testimony of those facts. 1, The peo
ple violated the principles of agreement;
they did not wait the return of Moses. 2,
* What could be the “ Miscellany’s” object, in
the abundance of his quotations, to supply by
means of asterisks in this verse, tbe following
words ? —“ And she decked herself with her ear
rings i.nd her jewels ?” Was il to remind usof
the costly ornaments which they profusely lav
ish < n the Virgin Mar> and other saints ? He has
sure)) no* much reason to complain of garbling
the sacred word, till be can set os a better ex
ample, ‘
Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. —Jesus Christ. ‘
Os all the disposition# and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.— Washington.
MOUNT ZION, (HANCOCK COUNTV, GEORGIA,) MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1824.
They asked fur Gods which was Polythe-j
ism, 3, they made the likeness of a calf
which was Egyptian idolatry, and 4, they !
had in their worship very shameful and
criminal rites. Upon all those grounds they
were in a very different situation from what,
Roman Catholicks are.
We now lay down an essential difference
between the Roman Catholick practice and
idolatry. It is stated by the preacher
that the heathen looked upon the statues
not to have any inherent divinity, not to be
Gods, but to be merely the representation
of Gods, to be exactly what tbe Roman
Catholicks look upon their images to be,
and to be nothing more. Upon what doe®
the preacher found this assertion? 1. Upon
the testimony of Arnohius. 2. Upon his
own surmises, probabilities, conjectures,
common sense. Let us examine the only
direct testimony which he adduces. Anm
bins says they did not look upon bras®, Sic.
to be Gods. Granted. We do not want
such a statement, but the proposition, “thi
brass is not God” and this other “God re
sides in or about this brass” are not th.
same. Now, the heathen might not boh!
the first, though he did hold the last, autl
in fact the greater part of the heathens did
hold the last. They thought that when
the statue was dedicated an infusion of the
divinity immediately took place at its dedi
cation, and that the Godwvns either in or
about the statue, and thus though the hea
then did not believe the brass to be God,
he looked opon God and the brass to be in
separably connected, and this was idolatry,
for this image which thus became as if hy
postatically and indivisibly united to the di
vimty became an Idol and the object of his
adoration; just as the Christian believes
the divinity to be hypostaticaHy and indivis
ibly united to the human nature of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and this divine person though
partly of human nature becomes (he object
of the Christian adoration. Thus no Ro
man Catholic believes any connexion of this
sort between God and the image ; the im
age is than a mere repre-entation, oat to be
adored, it is not an Idol and (he Roman Ca
• holick is not an Idolater.
We have supposed the quotation from
Arnobius to be correctly given, of this we
have great doubts,tor where we find so ina
oy olher mistakes in its company we need
not be quite certain here. Now we suspect
that in the original there are some qualify
ing passages, which would reduce this sen
‘ence from the geueval or rather universal
character that it ha 9 here to be merely
particular. Our reasons for this suspicion
are i, the whole of the 4th book of Arno
bins is a very severe censure, and many
times witty and elegant railley of the heath
ens for the general belief that there was
some inherent divinity in the idol. In his
fir*t book he writes thus of himself before
his conversion to Christianity :
Vetierabar, o coecitas, nnper simulacra mode
ex fornaoibus prompts, in incudibus Deos, et ex
malleis fabricatos.
t lately venerated, O, blindness! images just
taken from the furnaces, and Gods made by sledg
es.
Tanquam inesset vis preseDS, adulabar, affabar,
et beneficia posnebain.
As if there bad been some power present in
them 1 used to flatter, to address and to ask fa*
vours of them
Deos esse rredebam ligna, lapides, ossa, ant in
hujusmodi rerum hahitare materia.
/ used to believe that stocks of wood, stones,
bones, were. Gods , or that in matter of this kind
they used io inhabit.
2 All the heathen writers, Virgil, Hor
ace, Hermes Trismegistus, all in fact testify
that such was their belief.
3. The Holy Scriptures are full of the
direct charge* of this belief.
Acts xix. 26.—This Paul hath persuaded and
turned away ranch people saying that they be no
Gods, which are made with hands.
Daniel, v. 4. They drank wine and praised
the gods of gold, of silver and of brass, and of
iron, of wood and of stone.
23. But hast lift up thyself against the Lord of
heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his
house before thee, and thou, and thy Lords, thy
wives and thy concubines have drunk wine in
them ; and thou hast praised the gods of silver &
gold, of brass, iron, wood and stone, which see
not nor hear nor know : and the god in whose
hand thy breatti is, and whose are all thy ways,
thou hast not glorified.
3. All the early writers of the Christian
church charge thereat hens with this be
lief. Now, we consider the direct testimo
ny flf the sacred volume, and all this other
evidence to be better than the surmise of
the preacher.
But if he warns a reason for the stupidity,
he will find it in the fact that at this day
many nations are equally besotted. Let
him ask the worshippers of Juggenaut, of
the venerable Boodho: the Tartar, or the
people of some of the islands of the Pacifick
—ls he has not seen it himself we could
describe to him a very convenient nut
cracker with an eye and a half of mother
of pearl, and a bit of hair nailed on its chin,
and having some distant resemblance to a
deformed human figure which some of his
brethren sent round to beg fonrpences at
schools and at churches from little and big
children, and which was exhibited as the
very God, the indeotical God which those
islands had given up for the Bible that they
were not yet able to spell. Now the time
was when all nation* sat in darkness and the
shadow of death. The time was when in
tbe moat enlightened cities the most learn-j
ed men were bewildered, and used to try
and feel lor God, and used to hear every
person that was a setter forth of strange
Gods, and they took all and raised altars
even to the unknown God; their Priests
told them that tbe divinity resided in those
idols, they heard answers, oracles were de
livered, Pythose-ses were found not at Del
phos only. The whole world followed
blindly, we have evidence of the fact, we
want no conjecture.
Now we could easily give to the preach
er abundant evidence from the sacred vol
ume to shew that many times previous to
the making of the calf and the other idols,
for though the calf w as the principal others
are alluded to, the people of Israel did fall
into idolatry. We will content ourselves
with referring him to the study of Ezekiel
xxiii They were idolatrous in Egypt, and
this was but a relapse into Egyptian idolatry.
The Egyptians and other Gentiles, did not,
by images, worship the true God. If Baal
and Ashtaroth were names for the true
God, why would the people be asked, which
will you choose Baal which is a name of
the true God, or the true God who brought
you from Egypt? Would the preacher ask
us to believe that the erring Israelites, who
were idolaters, did believe Baal to be the
God who brought their father® from Egypt ?
What does Moses say of tho-e sacrifices?
Will he tell us they adored God under the
appearance of images ? Hear what he ays:
Deut. xxxii. 16. They provoked him to jea
lousy with strange Gods, with abominations pro
voked hiiu to anger.
17. They sacrificed unto devils, not to God:
to Go'ds whom they knew not, to new Gods that
came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.
Thi- alludes to the worship of the calf and
its appurtenances, yet the preacher would
have us believe contrary to thp written word
of God, that they sacrificed to God and not
to Devils.
But, says the preacher, those tilings
which were consecrated and celebrated
were to the Lord, that is to the true God.
Our answer is short, the record and the fact
say no; the word which is translated Jeho
vafi, means indiscriminately any Lord G and,
whether il he Baal, or Jupiter, orNilus, or
Apollo, or Apis; our Lord, oui God. Thus
we find in all those cases, 1, Polytheism;
2, the belief of a divinity in the idol; 3. the
worship of Devils in oppo®itioo to that of
the true God. Not one of those circum
“lances is found in the use ofimages among-t
Roman C atholic®.
The Protestant version of the Scriptures
has many changes for special purposes,
amongst which is one of which we may fair
ly avail ourselves here, in the Psalm which
it number* xevi. v. 5, it has “For all the
Gods of the nations are idols; but the Lord
made the heavens.” We know the (rans
lation i incorrect, but addre—ing ourselves
to those who look upon it to be coriect we
say ; you distinguish between the Lord who
made the heavens and idols, now you ac
knowledge that Roman Catholics adore the
God who made the heavens, thus it does not
require, “ powers of discrimination beyond
ordinary capacities” to say that they do not
in adoring the Lord who made the heaven®,
adore idols.
We did hope we should he able to close
our critique upon the sermon in this, but
•ve mu-i deter the remainder to our next,
lest we -h"iild overload the columns of the
Missionary, who will doubtless have the
honor, the candor and the conscience to
give insertion to our reply.
MISSIONARY.
From the Journal of Messrs. Fisk & Parsons,
RUINS OF TYRE.
We set out from tbe north side of the
village, and rowed some distance from land
around (he west end of the island to the
south *ide, till we came near the neck,
which now joins the island to the maio land.
Then we returned, keeping a little nearer
to ihe land, though we couid not approach
very near on account of the waves which
ran high, and the rocks and shoals with
which thp island is surrounded. (I *Hy
island, referring to what it was former
‘*l
During our excursion,we saw a vast num
her of columns, at a considerable distance
from the land, and some of them ten or fit
teen feet under water. In some places we
sdw eight or ten lying in a row near each
other; and in one place ferry or fifty. Os
these last, some were above the water,
some half under, and others wholly immer
sed. The shore on the west, in some pla
ces, seemed to be lined with them. Those
under water, are, for the most part, to
he found on the sooth and the north of the
island.
Beyond them, rises above the water
what appears, at a distance, to be a rock,
or ledgq of rocks. Those on the south we
went to, and found them to be, evidently,
the remains of an ancient wall, the cement
of which has became hard a9 the stones
which are joined to it. Those on the north,
we were told, were similar ; but our host
did not like to go with us, as tbe waves ran
high.
That tbe island was once of far greater
extent than it is now, I haver no doubt, both
from the appearance of she ancient walls
above mentioned) nd from tbe vast rams,
[Price S3 50 per min.
both of columns and hewn stones, which
lie between them and the present island.
That such an immense number of large
columns should have been carried and
throw n into the sea, merely to get them off
•from the land, i cannot believe. And bad
they been transplanted for any military pur
poses, they would not have been thrown
about in such a promiscuous manner. It
seems to me roost probable, that where
the waves of the sea now roll, once stood
beautiful and lofty mansions supported by
these majestick columns; so that it may be
emphatically said, that Tyre “ has never
been any more,” according to the prophe
cy of Ezekiel.
Though the present village of Tyre is a
handsome little village for this country, and
occupies perhaps half the present island,
still, compared with what it was once, it is
nothing, either in size or in grandeur.
Suppose that, by some disaster of war,
the great city of Paris should be laid in ru
ins—tbe trees ofherElisian fields and beau
tiful gardens, cut down; and the statues,
which adorn them, overthrown and broken
in pieces—her fountains of water stopped
up—and the royal palace* razed to tbe
ground; and every high house, and every
low hou-e mingled in one common ruin ; so
that it should become a dwelling place for
owls, and for satyrs to dance in. Suppose
that, in the course of time, a few French
men should build up, out of its ruins, two
or three hundred houses, one or two stories
high, withoot taste, without order; and an
Eng!i“h or American traveller, who has
-epn Pari- as it now is, should happen to
arrive there, without knowing beforehand
of its de-truction: would he not stand
in astonishment, and say, “ Paris is no
more!”
So no man can read the grand description
given of Tyre, by the prophet Ezekiel,
(chapters xxviith and xxviii,) and then view
it as it now is, without confessing, that the
Lord of Hosts hath indeed stained the pride
of all gtorv ! (Isaiah xxiii, 9th) and that
Tyre is no more !
An awful les-on is this to all great mer
cantile cities, which grow proud of their
wealth, and forget the God, who ha? given
them prosperity ! One day of indigna
tion from the Lord may lay all their beauty
in the du-t, and sweep them from the face
ol*the earth.
Mr. Fuk, also, surveyed these ruins, on
another occasion ; and some further infor
mation respecting them,from his journal,will
, come into a future number. Mis. Her.
THE CHARACTER OF
THE TRUE MISSIONARY.
From the Speech of the Right Hon. Charles
Grant. M. P at the late Anniversary of
the London Church Missionary Society.
There is something peculiarly attractive
and admirable in the character of zealous
and devoted missionaries—in (heir separa
tion from the common objects of human de
sire—in their decided preference to these,
of even difficulties and dangers in theoause
of Christ—in their systematirk abstraction
from the practices and pleasures of man
kind—in that love of Christ, which tears
asunder the dearest charities and sympa
thies of our nature: there is something in
this, and in (he concentration of all the
powers ot the heart to one purpose, which
must strike every pious and well disciplined
mind with admiration. And when we add
to this the real object of these effort*—and
(here is no object which we are *o apt to
forget—but look at the object of the Chris
tian Missionary, as contrasted with that of
the heroes and conquerors of this world—
look at the standard under which the Mis
sionary marches, aod look at the standards
of the followers of earthly ambition and of
worldly power: their mottos and theic
standards are indicative of universal con
quest, and their trophies are the spoils of
conquered nations : but, look at the stand
ard of the Missionary—the Cross ofthe Sav
iour whom be follows—and there you see, at
once, the motive aod the object, the princi
ple and the example, the suffering and the
triumph ! Here you may ee unravelled, in
a moment, all that was paradoxical before.
Here you see how a man can be the meek
est, and yet the most resolute man in the
world. Here you may see bow he, who is
in temper mild and manners winning, is yet
in conduct firm, aod even inexorable-
Here you may see why he, who pants only
for death, should yet rejoice to submit to a
long life of privation, and sorrow, and suf
fering.
My Lord, is this an imaginary picture?
Can we not appeal to recent experience, in
proof, that the picture is, in fact, too family
drawn? Need I mention to yon the name
ot MARTYN ? Need 1 1 sav that it is q ques
tion, whether, in all history, there is a spec
tacle more sublime and more deeply touch
ing, than the spectacle of Marlyn, unaided
and alone, pasmg month after month in the
Capital of Mahomedan Persia, and there ex
hausting his health and strength io pro
claiming that Name which he bad found
dearer to him than his life?
Ur, if a spectacle still more touching can
be exhibited, it is the same individual,
sinking, under excessive anguish and suffer
ing, into that disease which termin'*ted hie