Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-01-08

say, in speaking Of the canon Of scrip
ture, says:
''This stringent decree did not prevent
individual Catholics from making dis
tinction between the books declared canoni
cal in assuming q first and second cannon
or books proto- economical and deutero-
canonical as did Sixtus Sinensis: B. Lamy:
Anto a matre Del: John and others, though
it is hardly consistent with orthodox Ca
tholicism or the view of those who passed
the decree. When the writings are said to
be of different authority, some more,
others less, the intent of the council is
violated" If you turn to the Bibliothica
Sancta of Sixtus Sinensis, to which Prof.
Davidson refers, you will find that
the term proto-canonical is used
in the sense of acknowledged"
which there never had been any doubt in
the church. Not simply those who we're
first in order of time, as the bishop of st.
Paul defines, and the deutero- canonical
books were not those who had been re-
ceived into the canon later, but those
about which there had been grave ques-
ton.
This eminent Dominican speaks also of
certain New Testament books as deutero
canonical
He puts Hebrews and James in the same
category with Judith and Tobit. This
strategy therefore, is not original with the
bishop of St.Paul. l shall have occa-
sion later on to show that this
grouping together under a common term
of the Hellenestic books of the
Old Testament and the questioned
book of the New Testament is an
ingenious device of late Catholic theo-
logians to leave the impression that as
the church had the right to admit the
writings Of the apostles after they had
been properly authenticated into the New
Testament canon, so the church
had the right to admit the writings Of
Hellenistic Jews without the consent or
witness of orthodox Isreal into the canon
of the Old Testament.
Again says Bishop Ireland, the meaning
of the word deuteros may be seen in the
title of the book Deuteronomy, which
literally translated means the second
law.
Deuteronomy means indeed the second
law, but second in quite different sense
from that which the bishop gives. 1t
u1C6n6 bUo EOPcdtOO ldWs IOOS bllO O1ohOR
desire to affirm that the Hellenistic canon
was repetition Of the Hebrew canon?
He is, am sure, too familiar with the
vagaries of the Alexandrian canon, to
claim any such thing. Is Bel and the
Dragon, Susanna and Judith repeated?
Having now defended sufficiently, trust
the language Of the Trentine council
against Roman afterthoughts; having
shown that authentic means authentic and
not relatively or respectively authentic,
and canonical means canonlcal
and not dsutsro or trito-canoni-
cal, proceed to examine the bishops ar
guments in favor Of canonicity and inspi-
ration Of the Apoerypha.
At the outset, however, let me say that
in his criticism Of my argument, he IS
obliged to make the following admissions:
First, he admits that the Apocrypha did
not belong to the Hebrew canon. For he
assigns reason. 1.-THE books" he says,
@wsre for the grestsr part written either in
Chaldaic or Greek. The reverence
of the Jews Of Jerusalem for
the old Hebrew prsjudiced them against
other languages as the recognized channels
Of divine thought" But the reason is in
adequate, for the Jews Of Jerusalem ad-
mittsd 10 the cancn the books Of Daniel
and Ezra, both of which were written
originally if not entirely in Ohaldaic.
Secondly, the bishop admits that ID was
the Jews Of Alsxandria who placed the
esussro economical books among she
sacred volumes OF the Septuagint, yea he
misigatss the fact by adding shat the
AlexandriaA Jews sought always to live In
religious harmony with their brethren OF
Jerusalem" Has the bishop forgotten
that the Alexandrian Jews became SO he
retIoal that shsy soon erected rival sem
pie at Lsentopolisi The enlargement OF
the canon was second, and if possible q
still greater offeRss in the eyes Of their
PalistiniaR brethren.
These admissions, though modified with
great ingenuity are noteworthy. They are
sufficient OF themselves TO cast great doubt
upon the action of Trent if not to coz
denim it altogether. For unto whom were
committed tho oracles OF God: Into
whose sacred care and keeping wero they
placed? They were given to the Jews.
They therefore and they only are compe-
tent judges OF their own records. The An
glicen church takes the Old Testament as
it has bsen handed down by the common
consent OF the orthodox or Palestinian
aevs aud she sakes the New Testament as
it has bssn given to her by the common
consent of early Christendom. The coun-
ell of Carthage has no weight with her OK
espt in 80 far as her rulings received the
universal appreciation of the church.
Now, what arguments does the bishop
advance to overcome the testimony Of
Israel and the Judgment of the Sanho-
drim?
First-Hs says ''the early Christian
church in her synods, through her fathers,
in her dictionaries admitted Them" This
is broad assertion and only partially
true. But suppose it were universally
true. The common consent Of the Christ
ian church is the supreme authority in re-
gard to her own writings but not in regard
to the writings of the Jews. The early
Latin fathers knew less of Hebrew than
We. Their judgment, therefore, has COM
parstiyely little worth.
Ssoondly-The bishop says: There are
numerous quotations from the Apocrypha
in the inspired writings of the New Tesla
ment." This il an error of Judgment.
Examine every one Of the instances given
by Bishop Ireland and you will find no
greater similarity than may be found be-
tween many passages taken from the writ
ings of Confucius and Zoroaster and indi-
vidaal texts of holy scripture. There are