Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-01-29


Episcopal Bishop Browne, on the Articles,
page 100. had reference to the original
Hebrew. Is not the assertion of Mr..
Thomas that the Alexandrian Jews were in
religious war with their PaIestinian breth-
rem entirely gratuitous? The erection of
the temple at Lentopolis is not to the
point.
The temple was erected near Heliopolis,
long distance from Alexandria: Onias,
who erected it, had small following and
on the very page where Josephus tells of
the permission to erect it given by
Ptolemy to Onias, he relates another fact
showing the answering loyalty of the
Alexandrian Jews to the temple in Jeru-
salem. AS to my assertions that the
Fathers did not positively reject the
Apocrypha they still hold. Mr.. Thomas
brings up quotations to show that some of
the early Fathers were in doubt about
them, did not admit them into the canon,
called them uncanonical and apocryphal
taking this last word in the sense of
extra-canonical or uncanonical - all of
which abundantly grant. But what he
does not do is to bring up quotations to
prove his statements, that Several Fathers
denied their inspiration If Mr. Thomas
uANOAoOOOO HO44 VIC " u0Sb1Ou do IdASOu OO-
tween him and me, there would be no men
ton made in my regard ''of an assurance
almost sublime" That some Fathers
doubted of the canonicity of these books,
excluded them from the canon aSthen held
by the church, is no argument against
posterior decision of the church
in their favor, and it is on
this decision, which nothing can be brought
fo1,v1ya ri 70 onY,1I on 1vaoIvo,, .o.4
plea in their favor. In regard to Mr..
Thomas proofs that prophecy had ceased
in Israel after Esdras, he must remember
that prophecy is taken in scripture in va
rious senses. It means inspiration for
writers of books, whether these books mar
rate past events, or announce future hap
penings-in this sense it did not cease in
Israel. 1t means also prediction of future
events, as in Isaias, or, again, an .extraor-
binary commission to judge and lead
Israel, as in Samuel-in this sense I am
not discussing the fact.
NIB. THOMAS RULE OF FAITH.
1 now come to the important statement
in Mr.. Thomas discourse-his Rule of
Faith, which of itself settles not only the
discussion on the Apocrypha, but many
other discussions which have arisen be-
tween us, or may at another day arise.
MY rule, if the Bishop desires to know, is
a very simple one. . * x In regard
to the New Testament canon, [
refer to the common consent of
the Christian church, for it is
the witness and keeper of Christian truth.
x . The bishop understands what l
mean by common consent"
We are both, now, well agreed that the
canon of the New Testament could never
have been formed without the church, and
that in point of fact it was not formed un-
til the fourth century. In making this
statement Mr.. Thomas leaves out in the
cold Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists,
ETC., who admit no need of the church, and
whom, 1 remember, he took by name under
the sheltering wing of st. PauPs pulpit
four or five years ago. But no matter for
the nonce about them.
l will mark the logical consequences of
the rule to which, as we'll as to the rule it
self, Mr.. Thomas undoubtedly will sub
scribe for consistency sake.
l. The church in the fourth century was
infallible. If not, her consent or teaching
would give US no security as to the canon.
If she was infallible in the fourth century
it must have been in virtue of Christs COM
mission to her. This commission was
to last for ever. She is, then,
always infallible. The privilege
being divine gift, men by their faults
and schisms could not deprive her Of it.
If certain church, the Anglican, for in
stance, boasts that she is not infallible,
she cannot be the church of the fourth
century, the church appointed by Christ
to teach until the end of time.
2. If the church was competent to form
the canon of the New Testament, why is
she not competent to form that of the
Old? and why does Mr.. Thomas object to
the Apocrypha? The assumption that on
books of the Old Testament the synagogue
alone had right to issue decision is en-
tirely gratuitous, and does injustice to
Christs commission to the church. Christ
was the Judge of all truth, by whatever
prophet spoken; he contided his own
teaching authority to the church "As the
Father sent me, so l send you" The
church inherits through him all the privi-
leges of Israel with rich blessings never
vouchsafed to Israel. What Israel left IN
done, she completes. She is the keeper
of all revealed truth, consequently of the
Old, as well as the New Testament. More
over. being an infallible teacher
she Is sole judge of the extent
of her infallibility in matters
religious. ORce the church confessed to be
our teacher. The controversy on the
Apochrypha is over.
8. Mr. Thomas, in accepting the canon
of the New Testament from the church,
must, as Catholics do, accept all other doc
trinal points upon which there is the same
common consent of the church; nor can it
matter at what period of history we find
this common consent, as the infallibility in
the church is from her charter continuous.
But, to confne ourselves for the present to
the fourth and fifth centuries, during which
Mr.. Thomas discerns common consent on
the canon of the New Testament, have to
remark that there are points upon which he
and 1 have not heretofore been of one
mind, for more wildly marked IN the
church of those times as received by COM
mon consent than this canon. 1 refer to the
supremacy of the bishop of Rome, the
Real Presence in the Eucharist, the lnvo-
cation of Saints, etc., etc. Does
Mr.. Thomas subscribe to these dogmas?
It is clear that the field of controversy
has been wondrously narrowed between
as. The result is most suspicious. The
discussion on the "Apocrypha," which at
first seemed to be dry, and sterile of prac-