The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1868-10-04
Tradition


from which we quote elsewhere, as to the
feud between the two wings of Episcopa-
lianism, directly attacks the vencration
with which High Churchmen are in the
habit of quoting the Early Fathers" 1t
commences by admitting "that there Is
widespread feeling, even among Protest
ants, of the need of some authority to which
appeal can be made in the Interpretation of
the Bible, This is due" it says, to the
fact that when we look around. we see 80
many sects and divisions among Christians,
all based ON the same Bible, and all claim
ing to have the true reading OF it's pages"
The Churctman here enters into an argu-
ment to prove that the appeal to the au-
thority of the early Fathers is useless, and
concludes: ave are, tFen, thrown back on
our own reading of the Bible, and dare not
rest on anything else" Again, it asks and
answers the question as follows:
Is there then no appeal--no. arbiter-by
which to tell who is right and who is wrong,
among these divided and differing Christian
bodies They all say they have the truth has
God provided no authority to decide who really
careful study Of Tie Bible. That is alone and
final From the result in in, the case of any man,
there is no appeal. What calamity" we
| meant that there should be source of au-
thortfy, for while none is admitted, divisions
aboj ind and His utention in giving His Revela-
iion is frustrated"
It's mode of answering the last mentioned
difficulty is SO unique in the annals of in
copclusiveness as to merit insertion whole,
as follows:
What was the Bible given fort For one soil
tary end, viz: to bring men to salvation
+ throu gh faith in Jesus. And to this end it at
taius; consequently, Gods object is not frus-
trated, whatever else may occur. Men may,
, and do find in it different views of TRUTH and
bases of divergence, but no man ever went
. astray that soug ht in it the way TO heaven. He
+ may have read other things there amiss, but he
!. never failed to read that Alright. And if to
!, teach this is the mission OF that Bible: ,honsi
II there be no authoritative interpreter OF its
e pages, it has not failed of its object-but has
gsoriouslX succeeded.
:, The Bible, it says, was given for one soil
tary end, viz: F" To bring men to salvation
ETC." and 60 this end it attains," that is, il
brings men to salvation Now, it is per
fectly evident that the word "men" is uset
!. in different sense, as to its generality, il
l. the two propositions, therefore, no conclu
= sion can be drawn. In the first proposition
rs it means all men, in the second it mean
o some men. In order to justify the conclusion
:, that Goods object is not frustrated" i
!. must be shown that all men are brought t.
;, salvation by the Bible, or, at least, all mel
for whom it was intended as the means o
salvation. This cannot be done; conse
II quently, the attempt to dodge the ificult!
&c so Ostentatiously set forth that division
;, abound where by the intention OF Revelation
,t is at least partially frustrated, is a shalloy
-, sophism.
:. Again, " Men find in it (the Bible) differ
- ent r;ews Of truth" "bnt no man ever wen
astray who sought in it the scay to heauen.
AS the Churchman does not think it wort
= while to explain what it means by tn
IS "way to heaven" must suppose tina
al the truth itself is that way, and as men ar
e. allowed to take different views of truth,
they may take different views of the way {
be heaven. How, then, can it be said tina
ne none Of these men went astrayf
N It is true that it is not necessary to k,,O
ia all the truths of Revelation TO be saved