The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

lard Sewing Everybody "Y Baguio. we I)". in Nation] r price . . m price our ptico $2.00 rice 03.25. our . ........ 82.75 mpion Seed veek. Mm has. vent. lower. ml ourselves .ng' Shoes they’re not HIS : Tarket. :Waa t0 M umer ..81.00 ..31.00 . ”.150 32. 25. ”81.7.” “81.75 ”81.50 95-h. ting These mysteriousliturgies. Thu is. from a book published no 030 knowa when. ccmpiled by IIporOti- tious Jewish Doctors and ntuflod with endless traditions and “ imfiflifl' ufiuns " which had been gttbbl’ed like a show ball from age '0. ‘80; from this authentic and "unworthy source “8 are informed ” we In" 0b tuir. proofs of facts and events occur- ring m the time of our Lord, and previuus to His time.- and out of its Vurz’unmzs pages have the priViIORO 0! exfz‘mting true copies of than 801- mm: ;. myers, through the medium of \\ hm. Jesus worshipped the Father.” I'r. l‘rideaux \Connection p. 418) fur- the-r 52138. the Shemoneh Bahrain. or eightm-u prayers, were. ”“303 “’9 COIULUSFJ and instituted by E33. .3d the Great Synagogue.” T1103 “5" imlemlf I might ask if thoy "9" actually written by Ezrt. why ”0 mm not in the Bible? But let tbs: Pass. The Dr. continues (now. p. 111") it must be acknowledged tho: -- ltt't'rs‘sar)’ to put all these traditions int.) writings. For they were then ,zxt “u to 5'0 great a number and en- lax gall to so huge a heap as to exceed tim toss: bility of being an) 1008" put-penal by the memory of man.’ tL‘numxlODS Vol. I. p. 364). HO fur- tlmr H” 3 us (p 360) that a certain Rabii luduh collected and compiled them ID six books. each consisting of set-«ml tracts. amounting in all to sixtythree. This compilation he 83:91 t5 was reduced to writing about A. It. 15:0; but Dr. Lardner and Dr. Lighticut say it appeared in 190 A, l). \\ Mle later scholars say definitely that it was net commited to writinfl until the year 550 A. D. (3110“. Hist'y of Jews IV p. 494) whatsoever it a“ cared. one thing is certain, on the authority of Dr. Prideaux him. self and admitted ty Bingham (Orig. ”194) that it is "the ancientest book" which the Jews have. It, with the Gemara or Commentary forms the Talmud. Here then. ‘70 have at last arrived at the source and fountain-bead of evidence respec- we have still extant, fragments tchiefly the prayers of Ezra) o! a- Jewish Liturgy? Why,ontheanth- ority of the Mishnah. The Miahnah is the text of the Talmud. 1t isa mass of ancient Jewish traditions which our Lord condemned (Marl: 7: 13. and which Horne (Intro. vol. II p. 417) says, “ they pretend were deliv- ered to Moses during his abode on the Mount.” Dr. Prideaux himself tells us concerning these traditions. that individuals ” continually added their own imaginations to what they hael received from those that went hefure them, whereby these tradi- tions. becoming as asnowhall, the further they rolled down from one grin-X'ztflon to another. the more they gutht-retl and the greater the bulk of {lit'lll grew.” and thus, says he. ” ll. mm m to the middle 0! the second t‘tfliiut')’ after Christ.” when it became stxzr (‘5 those prayers seem to here bun unpose-d after the destructron of .jrkaxlem. and to have reference to .8 .specially the 10th, 11th. 14th and .Tth." This is the Dr’s fetal ed- mivion. The Destruction of Jerus- alem was in A. D. 70. Some of these prayers were therefore in the opinion 0f 1Le learned Dr. composed at 10‘“ “Vent? years after they ere ellel'd “he“: been regularly used in the Synaurxgue. We may thud“. “3" Dec: that these four of Ezre’e p11?!" ”0 absolute forgerlel. In, 30‘ *0 gt: fourteen also it spam? . . a ' ‘ 1’ ‘ e?- Twice in this paragraph, Reader cites the Jewish Rabbis to prove thtt some ful'm of liturgical service exist- ed. He does not inlorm us where the Rabbis have given this informa- tion lest. if known, it might discredit his argument. But I must perform his lack of service in this regard. It is not enough that Dean Prideaux says so, we must know the ground he had for saying so. Reader will doubtless consider it daring on my part to call the Dean’s conclusions in question, but since his time0648-l724) modern research has thrown light upon many points that were dark to him and apparently are still dark to Reader. What then is the authoritv upon which Lightioot. Prideaux and others have ventured to assert that gugpxionâ€"a presumption that is at least as improbable as it is probable. If God had prescribed forms of prayer that were to be used by his people. they would be given in bi. His Holy word. But it is certain that the Old Testament never speaks a syllable about prayer books or service books of any kind. Yet Reader says thnt the .. Temple Service ” (note the cap- itals» was remodelled by King Heze- kiab ._II Chron. 29: 30). If the read- er will turn to the passage he will see what King Hezekiah did. He did nut remodel the Temple Service as such for the simple reason that he never heard of such a thing. Yet he .jhl order a certain Psalm to be sung in words which David and Asaph had already used : " And he commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord. with the words of David and of As»; h the Seer and they sang praises With gladness ”â€"To maintain that this mm a form of prayer. an instance of the church addressing prayer to 00.1 in a fixed liturny is to confound the meaning of language and to out- rage} common sense. In the next per. Beeder’e oredulity “am becomes epnrent. Hie megic .. pruOfS ” are once more in evidence. \\ hen will he leern whet o proof ie? That which “follows down the hie- wry of the people ” can never be taken as a. prool of the orrgin of lit- urgiwl prayers. It is merely o pre- t n. on amen. wonum. ”ply to Reader’s Lotto of Aug. ‘Cominued Prom Lat Week.) an inference we must be prepared to show that this element of the wor- ship of Judaism. which it is alleged, met his approbation, He took occasion to embody in tne Christian system; that those fixed forms, the propriety of which He is said to have recognized among His people Israel He used means to introduce into the Gospel church to be observed by its mem- bers throughout all succeeding ages. Did he do this? Did He prepare or instruct His Apostles to prepare a liturgy for the Christian Church? Did He in aught that He said or did througoht the whole of His ministry, give the slightest reason to believe that He wished His people in this manner to worship God? From the it necessary expressly to condemn them. Even if it could be shown that He sanctioned forms of prayer for the Jews. it is impossible to de- duce that he commends them to the Christian church. To justify such ‘Cuâ€"vâ€" Citation I made from Archbishop \Vhatelv in my last letter it will be seen that he did nothing of the kind. The very reverse seems to be the case. The only apparent exception to this 28 the Lord’s Prayer to which Reader confidently appeals in support of his theory. This claim regarding the Lord’s Prayer I shall now proceed to examine. First. let me remark that at the be- ginning of Reader’s paragraph on this subject (Aug. 28) he gives an- other beautiful specimen of his in- ebility to make n correct “inference” I shall now proceed to examine Reader’s assumption that Liturgies were in use in the Synagogue in the time of our Lord and that our Lord sanctioned and approved by example and by precept of such liturgies for the Jews and for us. Reader ap- pears to place great Stress upon this circumsmnce hence I shall take each point in order. Let me premise first however, that evtn it it were true that forms of prayer were used by the Jews. unles- it can be shown that these were enjoined by human auth- ority and were not to be deviated from in the slightest particular Reader can get no precedent for his liturgies. Again the fact of our Lord’s being present when. as Read. er asserts, these forms were used can never be made to prove that he san- ctioned them. It seems absurd tC imagine that when Christ attended on the service of the Synagogue, he fully approved of every part of it which he did not single out and rep rehend. Was there nothing in the priests or in the people, in the mat- ter or manner of their devotions throughout the whole routine of their public worship that He disliked, though He did not expressly condemn it? Yet Reader’s whole argument rests upon that assumption. Our Lord’s silence does not give approval in this case. All that can reasonably be concluded is that in that particul- ar age of the Jewish church, when its whole connection was on the eve of being abolished, he did not deem I would go further, did space per- mit, and show that while God has not altogether prohibited, in certain cases. the use of forms, yet extem- poraneous supplication is the mode which His Spirit recommends to His church. It is perfectly easy to show that the great majority of the pray- ers of God’s people under the ancient dispensation were in the strictest sense free, suggested by, and adapt- ed to, the circumstances in which they were placed. In proof of this I refer to the prayer of Solomon (I Kgs. 8: 22). of Asa (II Chron. 14: ll) of Jehosaphat (II Chron. ‘20: 5), of Hezekiah (II Kings 19:14) of Ezra (Ezra 9: 5) and of the Levites (Neh. 9: 5). These'passages are too long to quate but the reader will not fail to see that they are all striking exam- ples of unrestricted suplication, con- ceived at the moment. and varying with the circumstances in which those who uttered them were placed. The very fact that such prayers as those were subsequently used by the Jews in their worship furnishes a cogent argument that forms were not prescribed under the ancient dis- pensation at which time we might expect that such forms would have been more especially required because the gifts of the Holy Spirit were far less generally and abundantly poured out than under the New TeStament Now. I have taken up one by one Reader’s arguments for Liturgical Services from the Old Testament Scriptures and I think I have shown conclusively that Reader has not ad- duced a scrap of evidence from these Sacred Books that when carefully ex. amined will support his rather con- fident as-ertion that ” God directed their use among his people,” so far as precomposed and prescribed forms of prayer in the public worship are concerned. er quotes them with approval as certainly forming part of the Liturgy of the Jewish service. This kind of evidence may suit Reader but Pres~ byteriens demand proof and no men who knows what Lightioot end Prideeux end other more recent scholars have written about the Tel- mud will venture to dignity any of its statements as sufilcient to prove enything. I have gone into this matter so fully here because Reader has placed much stress upon the so- called prayers of Ezra. He asks me to note the resemblance of the prey- ers quoted to those in the Prayer Book Doubtless they are alike. Why not? They are both man made -â€"both of human originâ€"It is quite probable that the Roman prayer book, of which theBook of Common Prayer is largely atrauslation, capied|from the Mishuah these collectsâ€"Why should they not be alike? But what authority does this give for a liturgy in the Christian Church? That is the question which is still unanswer- ed. where do these words occur? In ,4 uke’s Gospel. But in the prayer there recorded we find many Verbal variations from that recorded by Matthew (Matt. 6: 9). If the argu- ment were good for anything it would prevent us from ever using the form given by Matthew. The Prayer Book has dared to discard both forms and substitute one of its own. Are not the words “ When ye pray, say, Our Father,” used elliptically. meaning when ye pray do so in this manner or to this purpose? Are they not to be understood as, “ After this manner therefore pray ye,” in Mat- thew? lf not, why the contradic- tion? This elliptical form is not un- known in Scripture. Thus in Matt. 10: 7, Our Lord says to His disciples ” As ye go, preach saying. the King- dom of heaven is at hand.” Did our Lord here intend that these words were only and always to be used in preaching? Such an interpretation would be ridiculous. Yet no more so than Reader’s interpretation of our Saviour’s words. "When ye pray. say.” Dean Stanley says, “ But as He (our Lord) gave a fixed form, so neither did He bind His disciples to every word of it always and exclus- ively. He did nOt say, ‘In these words pray ye,’ but on one occasion, ‘ After this manner pray ye.’ And as if to bring out still more distinct- ly that even in this most sacred of all prayers, it is the Spirit and net the letter that is of any avail, there are two separate forms of it given in the Gospels.” (Christ. lnst. p. 318). In this way Presbyterians regard it. Our Larger Catechism says. “ The special rule of direction is that form of prayer which Christ taught His disciples,” and again, " The Lord‘s Prayer is not only for direc- tion asa pattern, but may also be used as a prayer, so that it be done with understanding.” Our church here declares that the Lord’s Prayer is mainly intended for direction but may ocassionaly he used as a form. And thisis the practice of most Pres- byterian Ministers to-day as any one knows who attends divine Service in their churches. This is the view also of Dr. Scott’s (Anglican) Commentary, “ It. may often be proper to use the very words, but it is not always necessary; for we do not find that the aposfles thus used it.” And Maldonatus (R. C.) in Matthew says, “ Not necessar- ily with these words are we to prey. but with this or similar meaning. for, we never read thet the Apostles were Reader further says that on ac- count of being acustomed to liturgic- al forms for 20 years. our Lord en- joins the same mode of worship upon His disciples. and to support this purely Speculative position be ad vat ces the argument. that the words of our Lord viz: " When ye pray. say,”etc., are noc “merely permissive but. a positive command.” This in hisopinion makes it certain that our Lord intended us to use His exact words in our worship. Let me ask, ed by the Evangelists. To give them a form of prayer for the Spirit of it would be to give them the shadow for the substance. astone when they asked for bread. a scor- pion when they asked for a fish. No. No. to impute such trifling to our blessed Master borders on the blas- phemous. If one were to ask Read- er to teach him to reason. it would be simple mockery to give the en- quirer a “form of reasoning” instead though perhaps it is all the enquirer could expect from any one who makes such an inference as that made here It seems to me that the very coming of the disciples with a request “Teach us to pray ” argues strongly against Reader’s assumption that there w. re Liturgies in use in the Synagogue and that our Lord approved of them If the disciples knew that their M as- ter approved of these alleged forms and used tnem. would they come asking for a new form or for any form new or old? Would they not follow his own ”ex=imple?” It is also a strong presumption against liturgies to find even John teaching his disciples to pray, and stronger still if he taught them, as Reader al- leges, a " form of prayer.” If there were forms in use, prescribed, as asserted by Reader, by God Himself, would John dare to teach a new form? I cannot. think so, henceI believe there were no such forms prescribed or used as Reader fondly imagines. If Reader choose the only alternative. that the prayers asked for were for private not public worship then it shuts out the use of the whole passage from his argument. -â€"He says the disciples went to their in the habit of praying in these exact Master with the petition “Lord teach words." . usto pray as John also taught his 'desoiples."-â€"From this request he “ infers ” that John the Baptist had given his followers a “ form of pray. er,” and that Jesus’ Disciples went to their Master also requesting a “ Form of Prayer.” How it is pos- sible to twist that meaning out of the plain words of the request I can~ not tell. Does not such a statement underestimate the intelligence of his readers ? The disciples came to our Saviour asking, “ Lord teach us to pray.” If they Wanted a form of prayer they would haveasked for it. “ Teach us to pray ” does not involve a “ form of prayer.” It is an insult to the intelligence of the desciples that they did not know what they wanted in such a matter as thisâ€"It is not a parallel case to that recorded in Matt. 20: 21, and our Saviour does not treat it as such. Instead. We may be certain that He taught them to prav. that he gave them the knowledge they desired. The lesson by which He did this is not revealed. Only the sublime summary of it, as in so many other instances is record- Reader appears tothink it “worthy of remark ” that our Lord’s prayer is not an original composition but ccm- piled by stringing|together sentences out of the Jewish Liturgy. Leaving aside for the present the dishonor and discredit which he thus casts unwit- tinuly I may say. upon our blessed Saviour. I may say that some of the wisest men in his own church think Otherwise as I shall show later on if space permit. 1 would here ask the reader to remember that according to the best scholarship, none of these alleged Jewish Liturgies are preserVo ed anywhere but in the Mishnah which was not committed to writing for hundreds of years after the time of our Saviour. It is altogether like- ly, as pointed out by set eral writers. that these Liturgies. instead of fur- nishing materials for the Lord’s Prayer, stole from it and garbled in the stealing those sentences which appear similar in both. Ebrard (on the Lord’s Prayer) points out that the proof adduced by Lightfoot and; others for the rabbinical origin of the , Lord’s Prayer reduces itself to thiszl 16?? _. f It is amazing to find Reader really believing that the sublime supplica- tion recorded in Acts 4 : 24-30. “ So seasouable in its appeals, so exactly adapted to the perilous position in which the church was then placed.” had been long previously composed and was now carefully recited or read out of a book by the Apostles It is another striking example of 'now far a person is willing to be deluded to give a color of plausibility toa preconceived notion or pet theory. Still further. it will be noticed that. twice. Reader misquotes the Scrip- ture statement, ” they lifted up their voice with one accord.” He del1ber- ately substitutes .. voices ” for ‘ vo1ce ” in the passage for what purpose may be easily imagined. He dare not assert on the per1l of his reputation as even an ordinary schol ar that the two meanings are iden- tical. Such methods at argument are beneath contempt and deserve the detestation of alljust men. There is nota scrap of evidence to show that this prayer was precomposed and its very petitions. giving the names of the Roman rulers, then in power. show conclusively to any un- prejudiced mind that such an asser- tion is mere nonsense. The Holy Ghost caused the Apostles and breth. ten to be “ moved by a common im- pulse ” and in all probibility this impulse found expression in the words of one of the leaders, most likely one of the Apostles and they all “ with one acCord ” joined in the prayer so set forth. In any 'of our Presbyterian churches, when prayer is oflered up. it may be said with .porlact propriety that the whole can- The next argument of Reader is, "the practice of the inspired Apos- tles.” He asserts that “ the Church under the guidance of the Apostles soon shaped to itself by adaption and by composition, a Liturgical Service.’ Again we ask for proof. It is easy to make sweeping assertions such as this. Had he left out the phrase “uuder the guidance of the Apostles” and extended " soon ” to 400 or 500 years,-â€"he would find it easier to prove his statement. Is it not strange. that in all the Ministrations of the New Testament. we have n0t one single instance that even the Lord’s Prayer was used by the Apos- tles? And if not this prayer of pray- ers, how in the natne of common sense can any other “ forms ” be said to have been used? It is simply conjecture. There is abundant evid- ence that the Lord’s Prayer was the earliest " form ” adOpted in the Christian Church but not one of the advocates of Liturgies has yet ad duced a scintilla of proof that the Apostles used it at all or their im- mediate successms used it invati bly or even regarded it in any sense nec-g essary or even desirable. The bur-‘ den of proof is on the shoulders of the advocates of liturgies and until ' such proof- is forthcoming. others may rest satisfied that more asser- tions will avail but little except with the ignorant and superstitious. Reader appears to,think it “worthy of remark " that our Lord’s prayer is i not an original composition but ccm- piled by stringinfitogether sentences ‘ out of the Jewish Liturgy. Leaving aside for the present the dishonor and discredit which he thus casts unwit- tinuly I may say. upon our blessed Saviour. I may say that some of the wisest men in his own church think Otherwise as I shall show later on if space permit. 1 would here ask the reader to remember that according to the best scholarship, none of these alleged Jewish Liturgies are preserv- ed anywhere but in the Mishnah which was not committed to writing for hundreds of years after the time of our Saviour. It is altogether like- ly, as pointed out by set eral writers, that these Liturgies, instead of fur- nishing materials for the Lord’s Prayer, stole from it and garbled in the stealing those sentences which appear similar in both. Ebrard (on the Lord’s Prayer) points out that the proof adduced by Lightfoot and others for the rabbinical origin of the Lord’s Prayer reduces itself to this: that in the rabbinical prayers. “ God is sometimes called ‘ Father ;’ that the restoration of the Kingdom of Israel is pleaded for and that the petition occurs, ‘ Hallowed he 'I‘hy name through our works ”â€"And fur- ther on he says “ The best refutation of the idea of compilation is the Lord’s Prayer itself, so symmetrical in arrangement, so vrogressive in its thought and so inexhaustable in its depth.” (S.-H. p. 1343). So also Ur. Alfred Pluinmer, Master of Univ. Coll. Durham (Anglican) says after referring to suppOsed Hebrew paial- lelsâ€"" But the parallels do not carry us very far. The use of ‘ Father’ is a very common later Jeaish title to designate God, and the petition ' Hallowed be Thy name thiough our works.’ are perhaps the strongest in- stances. Others are similarities oft Wording rather than of meaning and some of these are not at all close. In most cases the date of the Jewish prayers in which the expressions 00 «or is either late or uncertain so that the borrowing, if there is any, is on the side of the Jews, or may be so.” 1 might go on to quote similar teati- monies by Bernard, Chancellor and Canon of Salisbury Cathedral, Rev S. Gayford. Exeter Coll Oxford, Dean Stanley, Calvin, GI‘OtiUS. and many others but want of epace for- bids. From these considerations I think it is clear that the example and precept of our Lord do not furnish a shadow of evidence that he sanction- ed or approved of Liturgical worship or that the Lord’s Prayer was cer- tainly “derived from the Jewish Liturgy.” Continued on Page 8. A. C. BEATUN. Bunessan P. October mth. 102. tf. Fall Wheat. . . . . ..... Spring When... . ..... Oats...... .. Peas ................ Barley .............. Hay ................. Butter .............. Eggs per dozen ...... Apples per bag ...... . Dried Apples ........ Potatoes per bag . . .. . Flour per cwt ..... Oatmeal per suck. . . .. Chop per cwt ......... Dressed Hoes per cwz. Hides per lb ......... Sheepskins .......... Turkeys per 1b.. . . . .. Beef ................ Lamb ............... Tallow . ........ Lard ................ Ducks per pair ....... Geese per lb. ......... Live Hogs per cwt. . . Middaugh House DURHAM, on Wednesday, Oct. 29, ’02 --â€"â€"â€" ONE DAY ONLY â€"-â€" 1 ing Lot 11 and 12. Can. I. and Lots It and 12, Con. '2. and Luts '3 and 14. (Jon. 3, N. D. R., Glenelg. Mostly cleared and in first class state of cultivation. well watered. Four miles from Durham. good buildings on all. Will be sold separately or in block on reasonable terms of payment. For further particulars apply to ‘HBEE HUNDRED ACRES. BE ing Lot 11 and 12. Can. I. and Lots 1 comma: 90min“ COMING! Graduate New York, Philadelphia, and Toronto Optical Colleges. Call early and avail yourself of his valuable‘service s. as this is a rare opportunity to have your eyes proper- ly tested, free of charge. N o uess work but a scientific certainty. ifli- cult cases ac c u r ate 1. y fitted. Au. WORK GUARANTEED. T. P. SMITH, SOIEITIFIO m ”comm We have two ovary special lines in Wool. Men’s Wool Socks. extra special.2 pairs for 25¢. Men's very heavy Wool Socks 1!. 35c min See them. In light. medium or Ila-ivy weight for men, wanna and children. Ask for the M910 Len! or Maltese Cm Busts Union Underwear. nice for fall. at 25c. Wool Underwear at 45c and 50c. Pure “'00! Wear. white and natural. 0.1 750. MEN’S WATERPROOF COATS 6: JACKETS Long Coats from $3.00 up. Juckets. lined, at .8200 um! 82.50. . Every man should hcve one. ~ Fleece lined from 50c up. All-wool at 50c to 81.00. Allowool Unshriokable “81.00 a piece. For men. women and children to stand the went and tear and Winter. Sterling goods are the best. We hnve " It’s Rather . . Cold Weather We have just receive 3 fresh consignment a! the” goods and can supply you. Prices range from .550 to .8315. J AS. IRELAND a! never call at pflvnto I.“ WILL BE AT THE Farms for Sale. nm'r REPORT. REUEUBER THEPLAOE - - MIDLAWS 0L0 HAND-MADE LEATHER BOOTS. REMEMBER THE PLA 0E Dumuu. Oct. 22, 1902. And you want Clothing to keep you warm and dry. We have it. LADIES’ UNDERWEAR. MEN’S UNDERWEAR. LADIES’ RA! N COATS. MEN’S HOSE. RUBBERS. 6 265 40 10 19. 65 65 4O 15 15 75 Our Pad Locks. Meat Cutters. Water Paints. Kitchen Scales. Fall Mitts. Pant Stretchers. Satisfying. Guns and Ammunition. Hardware. Just to hand an assortment of Meat Cutters. Some of them are great bargains. Every man should have a pnir of our Pant Snatchers. They are the right kind. Our sole of Guns and Ammunh tion has been something extra, and we have been obliged to se- cure another stock of that fut selling Double Barrel Gun. Cell and examine them before they are all gone. W'e have a nice line of Kitchen Scales. Do not lose thin oppor- tunity if in need at good cculee. Secure a pair of our Fall Mitto and be comfortable. Suitable for Plonghing or any kind of out- door work. We an astonish the wholo com- munity in Pad Locks. Enquire show our Water Paints. Every person :Izur own pninter. LAIDLA “”8 OLD STAND. By sutisfying the want: of the needy we ure getting well repaid. of Ft“