it is not the first time that people see the mote in their neighbour's eye and forget the beam in their own. When privileges are to be enjoyed, every one knows what is due to him; when duties are to be performed he can clearly point out what is to be done by-another.

Let us for a moment suppose that the editor of the Jewish Chronicle is animated by the kindliest feeling towards Protestants, and that moved with pity he is anxious to forewarn us, and to give us his best advice, even when not asked for. Well, then, what is our danger if we remain what we are, and why must we return to Rome or to the Synagogue?

"Distractions in the Church" is the attractive title of the leading article in the first number of the Jewish Chronicle for March. On this theme Jewish and Popish writers always delight to comment, and very frequently we are first taunted with the dissensions which exist among Protestants, and then pathetically invited to behold the spectacle of uniformity which exists in the Popish Church, and the comparatively insignificant differences which are to be met with in modern Judaism. We lament over every sign of uncharitableness and bitterness to be met with amongst Protestants belonging to different denominations, but we make bold to state, that in the midst of the variety which is inseparable from life, and liberty, and progress, there exists more true unity amongst us than amongst our kind advisers. Romanism exists by man-made uniformity, brought about by means of diplomacy and violence at the price of liberty of religious thought and worship. If you wish to judge of Popish uniformity you must not look at Romanism in nations where Protestant science and religious life compel it to bestir itself, but to those lands where Popery has full sway, and where infidelity and indifferentism in the higher classes, and ignorance and bigotry in the lower, stare you in the face at every step. The Synagogue disguises all differences, and is, compared with the wonderful manifestations of life, activity, and energy of Protestantism, very much like unto a churchyard, and we know that there is no disputing among the dead. The Synagogue is the result of Rabbinism (which is not the religion of Moses and the Prophets), of the spirit which rejected that Jesus, who is the Resurrection and the Life; and Judaism will never regain

the position it was, and is destined to occupy, till it bows before the Son and Lord of David, and exclaims : "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord."

But what of the "distractions in the Church?" It is very natural that not only Christians but Jews should take deep interest in the baneful Ritualistic movement which disturbs the peace and endangers the very existence of the Church of England. As these Popish practices pave the way to Rome, Jews ought to detest them, because everything that approaches Rome, the great antagonist of Jerusalem, and persecutor of the Jew-pretending to serve thereby the King of the Jews,--everything that is like idolatrous Rome ought to inspire every rightminded Jew with horror. The editor of the Jewish Chronicle has nothing to say on that allimportant point, instead of which he fully describes the distractions in the Church, and we frankly confess that some of his remarks deserve consideration. We quote the following as a specimen :—

Between Bishop Colenso, to whom Moses is scarcely more than a myth, and the Ritualists, who hold fast by the Roman doctrine of Transsubstantiation, there is a distance which even the imagination is appalled to traverse. Between them yawns a gulph so deep and so wide that no bridge we can conceive can span it. Moreover, immense as is the distance in matters of faith which separates the two extremes supposed to be held in the lap of the same Church, that in matters of practice is still greater. To realize this to ourselves, we must consider that while the South African prelate-impliedly, to be sure, but for all that undoubtedly and necessarily so-denies the divinity of the founder of the Christian religion, and consequently cannot but be opposed to prayers to and trust in Him, his religious antipodes not only hold that they can reproduce Him at pleasure, but must necessarily invest Him in the reproduced shape with all Divine attributes, pay Him Divine honours and adoration, and expect from Him all those graces and effects with which their imagination has invested Him. Again, look at the terrible practical consequences involved in the doctrines of Confession and Absolution, as understood by this school.

So far all right; but our readers are no doubt acquainted with the story of the painter who took the advice of the bootmaker as long as he spoke about something pertaining to his trade, but when the worthy man advised him in things he had no knowledge of, re

April 1, 1867.

minded him to limit himself to his "last." Well, let our readers judge how far this is applicable to what now follows. The editor of the Jewish Chronicle has inserted in his paper this resolution of the general body of Dissenting Ministers of all the denominations in and about London:

While we are of opinion that neither the formularies nor the past usages of the Church of England sanction all the Romanist dogmas and practices which Anglo-Catholics would found on them, we feel bound to say that these distractions in that Church would not have arisen had the wisdom of our Puritan and Nonconformist forefathers been heeded, who knowing it to be in the nature of seed that it should bear fruit after its kind, never failed to protest against the latent Romanism allowed to remain in the services of the Established Church.

One would suppose that the Nonconformists of the past and present age knew something about the matter, but the editor of the Jewish Chronicle understands it much better, at least he tells us

In one of the resolutions upon which we are commenting we are assured that the Ritualistic movement has arisen from the remains of Roman Catholic doctrines still lingering in the Prayerbook, and against which the Puritans and Nonconformists of old protested. Now this is altogether a mistake. The cause of these distractions lies much deeper. No expurgated Prayer-book could have kept out the movement; it must sooner or later have broken out. It arises from the very nature of Protestantism.

And now we are told what is the nature of Protestantism, and wherein it sinned. Protestantism, the Jewish Chronicle teaches

Protestantism, when it broke away from Rome, arbitrarily drew a line of demarcation, saying, So far will I go, and no further! In doing so, it bade defiance to all logic and consistency. Let us exemplify what we mean. Protestantism accepted from Roman Catholicism the belief in the Divine nature of the author of its religion and the inspiration of the Gospels. It follows, as a matter of course, that any of His utterances must be received as an emanation from Supreme Wisdom, and command man's implicit obedience. A similar view must be taken of the dicta that fell from the lips of the Apostles, who, it is said, were moved by the Spirit, and whose opinions, therefore, partake of the nature of Him who prompted them.

If the Jewish editor really knew Protes

tantism, he would know that Protestantism has not accepted from Roman Catholicism what the Church Universal had learnt to believe from the Word of God before Roman Catholicism existed. Yea, the divinity of the Messiah is not to be learnt from the New Testament only, but was already proclaimed by the Law-giver and the Prophets, and was taught by Jesus Himself and all His apostles, who surely lived before the Popish Church had perverted the teaching of God's Word.

Not satisfied, however, with the general statement, the editor illustrates it by borrowing his proofs from the known infidels, Strauss and Renan. But we shall state his arguments in order to show more especially to our Jewish readers, how little these their leaders can be trusted as safe guides.

MARRIAGE.

Now, it is undeniable that Jesus, and at least some of His Apostles, assigned to celibacy a much higher rank than wedlock. Indeed, marriage was represented as a concession made to man's weakness in order to prevent his sinking still lower. These precepts were still more confirmed by the example of some of the personages represented as holy in the Christian records. There is no allusion whatever to John the Baptist having ever been married. The conjugal state of scarcely any of the Apostles and immediate disciples of Jesus is very rarely, if ever, referred to. Indeed, if we read Paul's Epistles aright, he was not married. The followers of the new religion would recoil with horror from the very thought that the founder of their faith was ever united to a woman in wedlock, although they freely admit that he took upon himself human nature. Roman Catholicism, therefore, logically infers that those who wish to serve God by way of distinction should take His counsel and imitate His example while leading the life of a human being, and abstain from marriage. The same religious system naturally attaches a special degree of sanctity to celibacy, which it encourages among men and women, organizing those devoted to is into brotherhoods and sisterhoods, and placing them under the protection of the Church. Yet Protestantism neither approves of monks nor of nuns. Is this consistency?

We pretend to know the New Testament as much as the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, but we know not one passage where Jesus and some of His apostles (who are they?) assigned to celibacy a much higher rank than wedlock. The Jewish editor confounds divorce with marriage, when he speaks of "a concession

made to man's weakness" (Matthew xix. 8). Who assigns a higher rank to marriage, Jesus, who only admits fornication as a solid cause of divorce, or your Rabbis who permit a wife to be put away because she has spoiled the dinner, or even because another woman is preferred?

It is nowhere said that John the Baptist was married. And what of Elijah, his type? Of how many of the prophets is it said that they were married? And if Paul was unmarried, does he not distinctly say, “Have we not power to lead about a sister or wife as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" (1 Cor. ix. 5.) Mark, Cephas, or Peter, the very man whose successor the Pope pretends to be. No Protestant objects to a man or a woman thinking it better for them not to marry and take upon themselves the cares of a household, but to devote their whole time to the more direct but not superior service of God; but must we therefore have all the horrors and abominations connected with convents, and the sins frequently practised by monks and nups, yea, must we therefore approve of vows of celibacy for life? In Exodus xxxviii. 8, and 1 Samuel ii. 22, women are spoken of that served God with fasting and praying, devoting themselves to the service of God for a limited time and a special purpose, even as the Nazarites did. Is the editor of the Jewish Chronicle prepared to admit that in the Old Testament, monks and nuns and convents are recommended?

PREDILECTION FOR POVERTY.

The founder of Christianity, the same authority tells us, had a special predilection for poverty. The poor he extols as much as he denounces the rich. It is, according to him, as hard for the rich to get into heaven as for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Lazarus sits in glory in the other world simply because in this he languished in poverty; while the rich man, before whose door he picked up a few crumbs, is tortured in the next world simply because plenty was his lot while on earth. The beggars are Jesus' favourites. No thought was to be had of the morrow; sufficient for the day was the evil thereof. Consistently enough the Roman Catholics, in imitation of their divine master, encourage beggary, and have raised voluntary poverty to the rank of a high virtue, which the monks of most monastic orders must take upon themselves. Nay, there are some orders

which are not allowed to possess any property, its members being enjoined to make a profession of begging. Yet Protestants systematically discourage mendicancy, and will not tolerate begging friars.

I may content myself with simply reproducing this masterly description of New Testament teaching. It is easy enough for a Jewish writer to give a caricature of the teaching of Christ and of His Apostles, because he knows that Jews are branded as apostates as soon as they are supposed to read the New Testament, and that they who are poor and dependent lose all support if they are only suspected of inquiring into the truths of the Gospel. But it is a positive transgression of the commandment, "Thou shalt bear no false witness," to say that beggars are Jesus' favourites, and that the noble saying, "Not to take thought of the morrow," which is so fully in accordance with Psalm xxxvii. 3-5, encourages beggary, and must tend to "countenance begging friars."

FAITH AND PRIVATE JUDGMENT.

Jesus as well as his Apostles exalted faith above every other virtue. The latter, especially Paul, could not sufficiently decry the wisdom of the world. The poor in spirit were to be blessed. Theirs was to be the kingdom of heaven. Roman Catholicism, therefore, acts consistently in seeking to suppress free thought that may lead to doubt, and circumscribes education that may undermine faith. It is no great admirer of science, for it is generally critical and requires sufficient evidence before it will admit any proposition as true. Rome acts in the spirit of Paul when it endeavours to place the education of mankind in the hands of the priest, who alone can judge what kind of knowledge is not dangerous to faith. But Protestantism raises the banner of private judgment, and thus allows every individual to undermine and subvert his own faith, and thereby to insure his perdition, to which all non-believers, as repeatedly declared by its formularies, are doomed irretrievably. This is just the same as if the Legislature authorised chemists to sell poison to any individual wishing to kill himself. Where is the logic of Protestantism?

If the editor of the Jewish Chronicle cannot understand the practical parts, how can he ever understand the doctrinal teaching of the New Testament? A man that writes, "Jesus as well as his Apostles exalted faith above every other virtue," clearly proves that he

Scattered Nation

1, 1867

has no notion whatever of the nature of faith, which, as every well-trained child in a Sunday-school would tell the learned writer, is not a virtue at all. Again, because Paul testifies against the wisdom of the world in its opposition to the wisdom of God, therefore Paul is opposed to science; and because he proclaims the glory of faith, therefore the Romanists are consistent in placing the education of mankind in the hands of the priest. The Jewish writer ought to know that in the days of the Old Testament the priests, with the Levites, were the divinely-appointed teachers of the people, so much so that in doubtful cases the Jews were commanded to consult the priest, and to abide by his decision under the penalty of death. (Deut. xvii. 8-13.) And is the Roman Catholic, then, justified in the place he now allots to his priest, when the whole New Testament protests against the whole notion of a priest in the Popish sense of the word?

Why should faith and private judgment exclude one another? Why must the latter be opposed to the former? For if I am to find out that the Scriptures are the Word of God, why may I not use my private judgment; and if, having been convinced of the divine authority of the Word of God, I believe in it, and accept by faith its teaching, its promises, and its threatenings, why must my private judgment overthrow my faith? I feel almost ashamed to trouble the reader with these trivial things, things which every child amongst us understands, and which a learned Jewish Doctorwho pretends to be a teacher of others—seems unable to comprehend. Well has Jesus said of these teachers: "Do ye not therefore err, because ye do not know the Scriptures, neither of God. (Mark xii. 24.)

the power

PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS.

Protestantism, we are told, in the first heat of the contest, when the propositions defended were quite new (this first heat has now lasted 350 years, for it was in 1517 that Luther protested against the creed of Rome) could not perceive the anomalies in which it was involved, but now it has become clear that the position is untenable; Protestants must either follow Dr. Colenso or the Pope. No other choice is left us. There is only one way out of the dilemma, viz., to return to the Revelation on

Sinai. And then the editor of the Jewish Chronicle continues:

"The Law with all its minutiæ has been given to the Jewish people. They are its Heaven-appointed custodians, and as such have to be distinguished by peculiar badges and special observances. But the principles upon which this law is based have been laid down for the benefit and instruction of all mankind. These principles are easily ascertained. The general may easily be separated from the special. For the Jew the latter, for the Gentile the former. There will be no peace in Protestantism until this great truth shall have been acknowledged by it."

The editor of the Jewish Chronicle must allow us to tell him that he has made his task very easy, but has at the same time proved by these assertions that he does not know the Revelation on Sinai. We pass by the fact that the present Judaism is not the result of the Revelation on Sinai, but of Rabbinism, much younger than Christianity, and contrary in many important points to the Law or the Prophets; but we ask him to tell "our neighbours," as he calls the Christians, whom he really tries to change into apostates, as he exhorts them to forsake their present faith and to become Jews, what "the general principles are which can be so easily ascertained." We ask him whether the Law was not given to separate the Jews from all other nations, and where it is said in the Law that the Gentiles were to be free from it? Is there any passage in the whole Old Testament which declares that the Gentiles are to be brought to the knowledge of the God of Israel and His Revelation, except through the MESSIAH and in HIS day? And as you deny that Jesus was the Messiah, who authorizes you to give any counsel to the Gentiles, and to ask them to return to the Revelation on Sinai?

In October, 1866, we laid these propositions before the editor of the Jewish Chronicle:

1. Prove that the Old Testament Scriptures are inspired by God, and we shall prove by the same reasons the divine authority of the New.

2. Prove that the religion you profess is in agreement with the teaching of the Law and Prophets, and we shall prove that the New Testament is in full accordance with these Scriptures and your present or Rabbinical religion opposed to them.

3. Prove from the Old Testament who the Messiah was to be, and what He was to accomplish for Israel and the nations, and we shall then prove