The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-08-06 00:00:00

Scriptures and these eXpounders, Which would prop up the su-
perstitions of our Church of Route? But what is the disap-
pointment when, with one solitary exception from beginning to
end of his two vo:uines, rot one sings argument, deduced from
the Scriptures, either by himself or the Falters, is brought for-
ward in defence of Popery. We sometimes meet a soLitary text
quoted or. perverted,—several passages blasphemously ridiculed,
or adduced wito an indecent mockery which none but a slave
of Popery or a votary of infidelity could dare to exercise,—but
nothing that even ahects the setnb.anre of art argument, save
one on the Eucharist, deduced from the tith chapter of St..fohn's
Gospel, which we shall examine in its place, and which he re-
iterates with a pertinacity of self-sufficient triumph that only
proves how ontenub,e must, be the wretched superstition which
he endeavours to defend,—what indeed does the very primii
facie evidence of the case exhibit? Here is a thing called
system or Christiauity. Here is a man who sits down to write
a defence of all its doctrines. Be profsses to take the whole
of the Bible, an,t all those who expounded it for tour centuries.
to aid Min in his vindication of it,—and what does he produce
front the sacred volume? One solitary chapter is the sum total
on which he even dares to hazard an argument or to challenge
au inves,igation ! What must any man conclude ? Either
that the system is utter.y irleconciieable with Christianity, or
that this writer is the most contenviole coutrovercialist that
ever attempted to write a line in its defence. Both indeed are
true. The.'e is ne work on the Popish -controversy extant in
which there is not a more reputable effort to give a gloss of
Scriptural authority to the superstitious .of Rome: Moore ac-
knowledges the necessity of this iu the principle with which he
sets out; but his total epo,:tacy from his principle evinces not
only the untenable nature of his super-titian on that ground,
but that he is unable to make even an -effort to defend it; and
when he informs us th 4 he sets out upon his travels with the
Bih.e for his guide, and We find, when he has got to the end of
his journey, not outs that he has not taken a single step by its
direction, but left it entirety behind him, he is like a mariner
who professed to have mane a careful provision of every neces-
sary for his voyage, and Was discovered I eddy. to fouuder in the
high seas, without sun or stars in the heavens, or chart or com-
pass in the ship.
ac •

The pare abstract question is--" are the prhiciples of the
Ch,tich ,y-* Rome cufifi, motile to that word which slte herself'
admits to be divinely inspied or not?"
't his, as we have shown, is the princip!e Moore sets out
with, and to determine , this priuciptE—to find a religion pure
as the fountain, he re,o.ves to study the sacred volume, with
the aids of the writings of its first expounders, as he cal.s
them, so that text and comment might, by such juxta-position,
throw light on each other.

Now Co reason with any common propriety on any subject,
much less on one so solemn and important as this, Mr. Moore
shou,d have•conducted his readers to thiS conclusion, that hay-
ing studied the Scrip.utes, and compared the principles of the
Popish Church with them in such and such sei ies of particu-
lars, which series ought to have constituted the body of his
he had come to this conclusion, that the p.incip.es of
the Pop's° Church were cox-aid:mat/le to the Sciiptures and
consecpent.y pure and genuine Christianity, and, therefore,
being, tu search of a tieagion he should. adopt this one as the
true Religion of Christ.

But.wit7t is Mr. Moore's conclusion ? Let any human being
capable or appreciating an argument compare the principle
with which he sets out in the -12,h page of his first volume
with the conclusion at which he arrives in the close of his
second.

lie sets out to ascertain the truth of his religion by'compar
ing it with the Sacred Scripturesaud the writings of the Fatherse
and the conclusion to winch he comes is—that thice of th
Gospels are spurious, nay, that none of books of the New
Testament are inspired (fur this is his statement, compare p
337 with note-p. 191, vol. '2O and that it every letter of it were
in the bottom of the sea the piincip.es aria authority of his
Church would be totally unaffected by its destruction !! !
Now what,. on his own principles, can he inure unutterably
absurd? lt, indeed, Popery can stand independent of the
Scriptures, why assume •• the study of the Sucted L'ufteme" as
necessary to de,ermine the truth of Popery ? and if that volume
is n,essary to determine the truth of Popery, how can he pos-
sibiy arriv.: at the conclusion that Popery would be unaffeezed
by its total destruction ? _ .

'This is merely considering the question. in a logical point of
view; but when we examine the nature of his principies, it is
impossible to decide whether we feel more disgust at their
wickedueSs or their foliv.
He tiistlays it down as a fact—that criticism has made " the
strange and startling discovery" " that the three,first Gospels are
but ttanscriptions Jim some older documents, and nut the ?cooks
of the writers whose names they bear," and .asserts that this is
calculated to strike consternation into Protestants who find their
sole role of faith thus unsettled.
When we, who are a litt.e more sceptical of this criticism,
however formidable, than of these saute three GO6pe.S which
it has so conc.usiv,Ay. subverted, begin to enquire where are we
to find it ? who ate these redoubtable critics who .have- so up-
set the found itions of our faith ? as Mr. Moore •gives us uo
reference to then here, we find our question solved in this
second vo.ume of our author's travels, p.p. 19;) 191, and we
take this opportunity of introducing to our readers another fea-
ture of his pi oduction.
For the purpose of proving that the riOt of appealing to the
Word of God in defiance of the tyranny of the Church of Ithine,
which he nicknames raiumali..m, necessarily leads to neology
or infidelity, Mr. Moore professes to have gone in his bawls
to Germany, and to have attended lectures the University of
Gottengen, under pretence of prosecuting his search after a
ragion. He is here introduced to a certain professor of
th.2o,ogy. or rather of neo.ogv, whom he names Scratches).
bach, iii plain English •Scratcnidg back, a very appropriate ap-
pellation, mil-lying the agreement of tnutual -and tesponsive
assistance between Pop.iry and intidelitv,4 whose co tyeration
in attacking the Bible is well 11.ustrated by the vulgar adage—
" scratch my back and PH scratch frours." Mr. Moore lays
such stress on the aid of this Professor that he emp.oys no less
than seven chapters, amounting to It 5 pages, in a lecture
which he supposes to have been de.iveted by his leaned
and we will venture to assert, that a more stupid drawling
tirade of ma!evoient infidelity MIS never yet composed—if
Satan were iistening to it in a butona -folio, we think it diffi-
cult to decide whether the stapidLy would oWrio the cumin 0
a, to put him to seep, or the venous the stupidity so as to keep
him awake.