The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-09-27
For the Central Presbyterian
The Bible Question.
A Lecture Delivered in Leesburg, Va,
by Bishop Keene.

by Bishop Keene.
The usual monotony of our town was
broken on Tuesday last, by the an
nouncement that the Rt. Rev. Bishop
Keene, of Richmond, Va, would lecture
at u P. M. in the Court House, on the
subject of Skepticism and the Bible
The wide reputation of Bishop Keene
as an attractive public speaker ensured
him good audience. The subject, too,
one of absorbing interest to the Christian
world, encouraged the hope that the
talents and attainments of the speaker,
would be employed for the defense of the
Bible from the assaults of rationalism
and "science falsely so-called." Many
of the audience were disappointed, there
fore, when it was discovered that the aim
OF the speaker was not to plant himself
on ground common to all Christians, and
there to combat the assailants of the
common faith, but to address an adroit
and plausible plea in behalf of the
Roman Church, to an audience almost
entirely Protestant.
The speaker began by reading certain
passages from the New Testament, viz {:
2 Timothy iii: 16; 2 Peter i: 81; iii:
Is, 16; l John iv: l, g, 6. From these
he inferred that the Bible is from God,
that the Holy Ghost was its author, that
as the Holy Ghost was its author, so He
must be its interpreter, and that the
right of private Interpretation is con-
trary to the divine word.
He then gave succinct account of the
collection of the Proto-canonical books
by Ezra, Of the translation of the Old
Testament by the Seventy, and of the
corroborative testimony to the books of
Moses, to be derived from the Samaritan
Penteteuch. The providence of God was
illustrated in the separation of the
Jewish people to be the custodians of the
Old Testament, which they still read
with veil before their eyes. Passing
to the New Testament, he briefly alluded
to the historical facts connected with the
composition of the sacred books, and
spoke, more at length, of the large num-
Der Of apocryphal writings, which, in the
first Christian centuries, claimed to be
inspired. How were these writing sepa-
rated from those now recognized as
canonical? He answered that the Church
assembled in the councils of Hippo and
Carthage, defined the extent of the canon.
Hence, said he, we learn that every blow
aimed at "the old Church which thus
authoritatively defined the canon, is a
wound inflicted on the New Testament
The common sense minds of Germany
have recognized this; and, beginning
with the denial of the claims of the old
Church, they have. been driven by ne
cessary and memorable logic, first to alter
the canon, then to reject the inspira-
ton of the Scripture and then to divest
Christ of His divinity"
This conclusion may seem unavoidable
to Romanist, but it will be hard to
convince others than Romanists, that to
alternative after the rejection of the
claims of Rome, is the infdelity of Ger
many; and hence, that all Protestants
are either rationalists in heart, or else
destitute Of the logical faculty.
The speaker then referred to Jerome's
appointment, in the providence of God,
for the work of preparing the Vulgate;
and claimed a vast superiority for this YER
sion over all other translations whatever,
on the grounds Of Jerome's great e77loli-
ton, and his familiarity aOith Greek, Latin,
and Syro Chaldoic, as living tongues
The Church of Rome is to reap the whole
benefit of the comparison of the peculiar
advantages of Jerome, for this work as
compared with modern translators.-
Perhaps the following quotations from
Chambers Encyclopedia (a0hich tie
speaker expressly named as an indis-
putabIe authority may dissipate some of
the sanctity which is associated with the
VUlgate from this alleged antiquity:
Not long, however, did it (the Vulgate
of Jerome), exist in its pure and unadul-
terated form. Partly through the in
fuence of the emendated italia, partly
through the manifold general causes of
neglect, haste, and the rest which have
gone 80 far to spoil almost every ancient
Ms, the text Of the Vulgate became so
corrupted that in 802, Charlemagne com
missioned Alcuin to revise it by old
MSS, and to compare it with the Hebrew
text. This revision, however, to which
afterwards came other emendations' in
the 18th and 18th centuries, completely
changed the original character of the
work The confusion between the diff
ferent goddess was chiefly remarked
when the Tridentine Council in 1916
first declared the Vulgate the authorized
version Of the Roman Church, and de-
creed the preparation of an authenticated
edition. In 1854, the Papal Chair un-
I 1 4 L