Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-12-18

history. and the admissions of Protestants
themselves be in contradiction with such
superstition, so much the worse for Prot
estantism and Protestant consistency.
THE BIBLE IN THE CATHOLIC CuUECH.
The Catholic church is altogether
in different position regarding the
Bible. As Cardinal Manning says:
eve neither derive our religion from
the scriptures, nor does it depend
upon them. Our faith was in the world
before the New Testament was written.
The scripture itself depends for its attes-
tation upon the witness who teaches us our
faith, and that witness is divine. Our faith
rests upon an order of divine facts which
was already spread throughout the world,
when as yet the Gospel of st. John was not
written The Catholic rule of faith is
the living church; the scriptures are a most
sacred and precious gift to her from heaven,
but they are not necessary to her life, or to
tho fulflment of her divine mission. 1t is
quite supposable in accordance with her
principles, that the canon of the scriptures
was not for certain period of time fixed be-
yond doubt by an infallible, authoritative
decree. But, of course, when she does is
sue dogmatic decree regarding the canon
of scripture, defining what books and parts
of books belong to the canon, or regard
ing the authenticity of any version
of the scriptures, the decree
as issuing from an infallible teacher, is
certain and final.
THB DECREE OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT ON
THE CANON.
The thesis of Rev. Mr.. Thomas reads:
''The Roman Catholic church in defining
concerning the scriptures that the old Latin
vulgate edition of the Bible entire with all
its parts, as has been used to be read in the
Catholic church is sacred and canonical,
has ceased to be a faithful conservator OF
holy scripture, has committed herself to
all the mistakes and interpretations Of the
past, and has bid defiance to Christian
scholarship" The thesis is very clearly
stated, and nothing is needed, confess,
but the proof of the premises to blow into
minute fragments beyond power of re-
building the citadel of the Catholic church,
and to explode forever her. dogma of in
fallibility. Has he proved the premises9
Hoe opus, hic labor. The reader who would
accept without challenge his apparently
plausible statements of history, his render
ings of the DEGREES of Catholic councils
and Catholic pontiffs might believe proofs
had been offered. The temptation, too,
would come to him to imagine that the
proofs are simply irrefragible rs Rev. Mr..
Thomas, confident of victory, rushes
through the vocabulary of the language to
find words the one stronger than the other,
wherewith to stigmatize the old church.
Ecclesiastical suicide" ''blunder of im-
perious haste and provincial prejudice"
''Alexandrian blnnder," "Western ignov-
ance''--boid expressions of this kind are
the condiments of the argument through
out the lecture, and ought to have an eff
feet.
The proofs will examine. I DO not wish
to use Mr.. Thomas bold expressions in
characterlzing them; will simply say,
each one is Mr.. Thomas 'sipse dixit," and
nothing more.
The Council of Trent placed in the canon
of holy scripture the books of Baruch,
Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and
the First and Second Macchabees. In the
Protestant Bible they are relegated among
the "Apocrypha."
The Catholic chuch claims TO be infalli-
BILE. Her position in relation to her
dogmatic DEGREES is this: Unless her claim
has been disproved, her decree is the proof
of the truth of the subject matter of her
definition. Her opponents, if the decree
is to be set aside, must bring forward pos
tive evidence that she has made mis-
take; negative evidence is of no account.
1t is quite supposable that before the de-
cree of the church there would be no evil
dence on hand sufficient to establish ths
truth of a proposition. Her decree
supplies that evidence, the result of her
infallibiiity. Proofs that the proposition
is false, il on hand, would be in order on
the part OF her opponents, and if pro-
duced in sufficient force would not only
disprove her decree, but her claim to in
faliibility.
THE ARGUMENTS OF Mr.. THOMAS.
Mr.. Thomas arguments against The in
SEPARATION Of the ''Apocrypha,' or, as the
Catholic church calls them, ''The Deutero-
canonical books of the Old Testament,
are either negative III their nature OF
based on misconception of facts.
They were not, he says, in the Hebrew
canon of the Jews. This is a mere negative
argument. The Hebrew synagogue, if ii did
not admit them, did not lex
clude them; it left their right
to place in the canon an open question
as during long time the right of certain
books to place in the canon of the New
| Testament was an open question among
| Christians. The absence of the books from
the Hebrew canon is easily explained. The
Hebrew language had become dead Ian
guage. These books were for the greater
part written either in Chaldaic or Greek
| The reverence of the Jews of Jerusalem fol
the old Hebrew prejudiced them against
other languages as the recognized channels
of divine thought. Again, as Josephus
remarks, in those troublesome ages OF
Israers history, the succession of prophets
who would put upon books the official sea-
of canonicity was not as clear and exac'
as it had been in former days. Josephu;
was far from accounting those books
as certainly inspired. "They were
not" he said, accounted worthy Of q!
great faith and authority as other books
because the succession of prophets was no
Clear In other words, 10 official dec
laration had Deer made regarding
them.
Mr. Thomas IS as:ray when hi
says they were written after the gift OF