Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-06-06

-
earliest of the fathers also describe the apoc-
ryphal gospels as being countless in mum.
Der" Nor, again, can we account for the adj
mission into the new testament of the writings
Of st. Mark and st. Luke by alleging that, as
friends and companions Of the apostles, these
-evangelists had opportunities OF gaining. such
accurate information respecting the doctrines
OF the Christian faith as was not within the
reach of Others. For, if this be so, why did
the church never recognize as canonical the
epistle OF st. Clement of Rome. my fellow
laborer," writes St. Paul, "whose name is in
the book of lfe?" or, what is still more re-
markable, when we recollect the relation of
st. Barnabls to St. Paul, how comes it to pass
that the epistle of St. Barnabas was rejected
from the new testament while the gospel of
st. Mark, "his sisters son." was received?
If Rev. Mr.. Smith would really like to read
an excellent work on the subject of inspiration,
can recommend to him "The Inspiration of
the Scriptures" by DR.. Lee, of Dublin.
The late revision has brought to public
notice another difficulty which Protestant
ism has to encounter when the subject of in
splration is under discussion. 1t has to assume
that the writers of the several books of the
bible were inspired. It's troubles do not end
here. Is it always certain that it possesses
cor, ect copies of these books9 1t is declared
by the authors of the revision that passages
contained in King James version, and held by
English Professionalism for three hundred years
as Gods pure word, are interpretations, insert
ed by Ignorant scrbes in some ancient manu-
scripts. For three hundred years, then, Prot
estants have been grossly deceived. And no
better off are Protestants to-day, after the re-
vision has appeared. What authority have
they to believe in it except the word of select
number OF biblical scholars, who were not al
ways OF one mind among themselves. To
quote but one instance of disagreement: The
English revisers insisted on leaving at the
head of the eplstle to the Hebrews, the name
of Paul, the apostle, while the American re-
visers wished to have it removed, thereby en-
cOuraging the opinion current among certain
schools of Protestant biblical literature that
st. Paul is not the author of this epistle, and
considerably lesseniug its claims to be part
of the canon. Not few outside of the revis-
ers assert that the revision is far too conserva-
tive and that several other changes should
have been made, while it is far from being GER
tain that the passages considered as interpola-
tons should not have been preserved and
are not still a part of Gods
word. The authorities of the
revisers are three manuscripts of the fourth
and fifth centuries. Some other manuscript
may be, one day, discovered in some remote
convent Of Greece or Asia Minor, that will
differ from the Alexandrine, the Vatican, and
the Shuttle, and set biblical scholarship all at
sea again. Not many years ago was the Sinaitic
manuscript brought down by Tischendorf
from the dusty shelves of monastic library
on Mount Sinia. If the written word of God
IS, as the cardinal principles of Professionalism
declare, the sole rule of faith, it becomes a
question of most serious Importance to know,
down to the briefest sentence, to the simplest
particle, what is or what is not the word, and
the impossibilties of Professionalism become
glaring, when the faith of Protestant is
made to depend on ancient manuscripts, few in
number, and not always in harmony with one
another. But this question of religion through
manuscripts will be discussed more at length
when my friend Rev. E. s. Thomas will, in
the fall, give us his long promised lecture in
answer to remarks of mine made last Lent.
The revisers did not at all open the question
what books are entitled to place in the canon
of scripture. If they at all touched this ques-
ton, the difficulties of proving the inspiration
might appear more appalling yet to Rev. Mr..
Smith than they do at present, insuperable as
they are even now. One of their valued manu-
scripts, the Sinaitic, includes books rejected by
Professionalism, and the following significant
remark occurs in somewhat able article pub
lshed some days ago in the New York Sun on
the revision. "There will be not a few who,
not content with the rejection of particular
sentences and paragraphs, will demand that
the next committee of revision shall investi-
gate the formation of the canon, and inquire
whether certain of the documents now en-
braced in 1t, have more valid claim to be re-
garded as the revealed word of God than is
possessed by other documents which were ex-
clud-d by the councils of the fourth century,"
Will now beg leave to call your attention
to second assumption of Professionalism, al
though no suggestion of it occurs in Mr..
Smiths letters or lectures. 1t is SO closely
connected with the one to which have here
tofore been referring, that a notice of Protes-
tantism is not complete without an allusion to
it. Professionalism assumes that the bible is
the inspired word of God; next, to complete
its statement of It's rule of faith, it assumes
that the bible has been appointed by heaven as
the sole rule of faith, to be read and interpreted
by each person individually. The assertion
that the bible is the Christian rule of faith,
is a most unfounded assumption. My Protest
ant friends will again be astonished to hear me
say that not only this assertion is not sustain
ed in revelation or in history, but that it is in
most fragrant contradiction with revelation
and history. Yet such is the plain, undeniable
fact. Whoever will undertake to prove that
the bible is the rule of faith, will prove his
thesis by lecture-on the pretensions of Ro-
mansm.
Christ, as it was fitting to the God of truth,
made the fact of his revelation most clear and
manifest to us. Prophecies and miracles were
SO multiplied In atteStatlOn OF his divine au-
thority to speak, that no room is left to doubt
the great fact that God did speak in Palestine.
Must .he not have made equally clear to us
what means he instituted to convey to us the
contents of this revelation? Of no use would
it be that he had spoken, if we cannot know
the message he bore to us. If the bible is
Christ's rule of faith, there are proofs.
Will Professionalism furnish us such proofs?
There is no word, no act, in the whole life of
the savior that could be construed even most
remotely into proof of this cardinal princi-
pie of Professionalism. Christ never wrote a
line, save, if you wish, some tracing made one
day with his finger on the floor of the temple.
He never told his apostles to write; he never
alluded to the new testament, which had no
existence for years after his ascension. On the
contrary, he spoke frequently and clearly of
another rule of faith, altogether different from
the Protestant rule-the oral teaching
of the church. Professionalism has
been accustomed heretofore to seek
some confirmation of its rule in these words
of King James version "Search the Scrip
lures" They were at best small comfort to
it, They had reference to the old tesla
ment and to special circumstances from
which no general law could he drawn. But
small as the comfort was, the revision has
taken it away, by translating the Greek verb
into eye search the scriptures" making our
Lord declare simply fact which he turns into