Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-04-08

bible to be human facts, which ordinary history
can prove, the inspiration of the bibe can be
made more satisfactory to the human reason
than any theory of papal infallibility.' He
will be satisfied with comparative evidence
strange basis for divine faith, which requires
the shedding of ones blood rather than the
denial of tenet of its teachings. And then
such comparative evidence, from Mr.. Thomas
standpoint, More satisfactory than any theory
all of papal infallibility! Mr.. Thomas declares
theories of papal infallibility utterly untenable,
and then boasts that he has more grounds for
inspiration than we have for infallibility. The
only conclusion his hearers would be likely to
draw, is that no form of Christianity, Catholic
or Protestant, can be established upon abso-
lutte moral certainty. He finally gives what
proof he can. II rest my belief, he says, in the
inspiration of the new testament in the words
(recorded by credible witnesses) of the blessed
Master Himself" His mode OF arguing Is in
itself correct. He takes up the books of the
new testament as reliable, historical docu-
ments, and ascertains what the founder OF
christianity may have said regarding 1nsp1r-
alton. This is precisely the mode of arguing,
which Catholics follow, when proving the
church-a mode of arguing, which, when we
use it, MIR. Thomas called, arguing in {. circle.
Well, what are the words Of Christ? His words
relating to the church are plain and significant.
On another occasion will place them before
you. His words, which could be made to prove
the inspiration Of the new testament-history
records no such words. Here is the one fact
upon which the whole controversy depends for
it's solution. Our Lord never even made any
allusion to the testament. Mr. Thomas
quotes this promise to the disciples that, HE
would send them the comforter, who would
unto them, and would lead them unto all
TRUTH But what conclusion do these words
furnish for Mr.. Thomas thesis? The COM
forter promised to the apostles
for the fulflment of the Office to which
Christ had appointed them. This office
was plainly marked out. 1t was not the writ
ing of books, which our Lord never bade them
to do. It was the teaching of the nations, the
preaching of the word. "Preach the gospel to
every creature. Teach all nations And going
forth they preached everywhere. And not for
them only do pray: but for them also who
through their word shall believe in Me" Then,
the words quoted apply either to the first apos-
ties exclusively. or to the apostles and their dis
ciples. IF to the apostles exclusively, how are
we to prove the inspiration of Luke, Mark and
Paul? If to the apostles and their disciples,
why do we not accept as inspired the writings
of Barnabas and Clement who as the disciples
and associates of the apostles, were the same in
rank as Luke, Mark and Paul? The dilemma,
taken either way, is most conclusive against
the arguments OF Mr.. Thomas. Other consid-
erations advanced by Mr.. Thomas will scarce
ly pause to notice, as they have no probative
force whatever '"Thc facts and teachings of
the bible are all in harmony" So are the facts
and teachings recorded in the epistles of Barna-
has and Clement. They contain truths which
been revealed The question is not on revela-
ton, but on the record of revela-
ton. 1.-THE whole church in every age
has always appealed to the bible as the infalli-
BILE work of God''-the testimony of the church
avails only in the supposition that the church
is infallible in her teaching and the divinely-
instituted rule of faith, and, furthermore, as
has not for centuries come to final decision
regarding the canonicity of certain books of
the bible.
Protestant controversialists will never prove,
on Protestant principles the inspiration of the
several books of the bible; they will never
prove that Christ instituted the bible to be the
rule of faith, or the complete record of revela-
ton. Professionalism, as religious system, will
always remain mere castle in the air, with no
foundation whatever in history. Christ insti-
tuted the church as the keeper and teacher of
His revelation, and all who set aside the infali-
BILE church are necessarily at sea on the most
vital questions of religion.
I now take up my third charge, that the
Protestant Episcopal church is not branch of
Christie church. The affirmation of this charge
will occupy me during the remainder of the
present lecture Whatever points contained in
the discourses of my opponents, may not this
evening review, will be considered in another
lecture, which [ will give next Sunday on the
infallibility of the church.
The Protestant E piscopal church is no branch,
no part Of Chrst's church. What has already
been said proves this statement. Christ estab-
lished His church for purpose, and Christ
does not fail in His purposes. The church was
instituted to teach, to take on earth the place
of the Master, to continue during ages the
school of divine truth, which existed in Pales-
tine, when He himself spoke, and the multi
tudes watched eagerly for the words falling
from His own divine lips. Christ's teaching
as became the teaching Of God, was clear
positive, definite, authoritative: the same fea-
lures the church will reproduce in her teach
higher mission and her authority His
own-''as the father sent me, SO also L send
you.' Glance now upon Anglicanisrn-wi it
remind you of Christ's school of truth? It dis
cards all idea of infallbility: in its organic
articles it announces that no reliance can be
placed on church utterances. So conscious is
it, that no authority inheres in it's ministers,
that it will not even teach; it merely ''begs
men to Think And men in the fold
Of Anglicanism do think, each one
are multitudinous on most vital matters of re-
ligion, until the Anglican church is simply
religious communism, in practice, as we'll as
in theory. How intense the misery of the poor
soul, entangled in the meshes of Anglicanism!
1t pants for truth; it signs for a knowledge of
the conditions of salvation-and when it calls
for teacher Of revelation, the answer is-you
must Judge for yourself, from scripture and
creeds the church does not teach she is silent at
least, for the last thirteen hundred years. No;
such church is not Christ's work, neither part
a branch of that church into which He
breathed His own life, when He said to the
apostles: ''All power is given to Me in heaven
and on earth. Going teach all nations. Teach
to every creature he that believeth not shall
be condemned, and behold am with YOU all
days, even unto the contamination of the
world"
The usual high-church doctrine among An
glicans, regarding the church of Christ, is that
wherever there may be apostolic succession, or
valid orders, there the church is, or rather
there is part of the church. There would be
thus three main branches of the church
upon the earth to-day-the Latin or
Roman the Greek and the Anglican. The sup
porters of this doctrine defend Anglicanism,
proving it to be branch Of Gods church, by
tracing back its orders, not only to Augustine
of Canterbury, whom Pope Gregory sent tc
evangelize the Saxons, but to the early British
bishops, through whom Christianity had beer
preached in the island long before Augustine
had received their orders from the church OF
Lyons, in France, this church itself being the
child OF Ireneus, disciple Of Polycarp Of
Smyrna. This theory of the church is set forth
by DR.. Pusey, writer, as we know, of no Sigh
authority among >me st. Paul Episcopalians
However, on this one point, my opponents DE-
~