Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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