IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 |50 "'"= •" IIIIIM !i: m |M M i.8 U il 1.6 n Pnotograpnic Sciences Corporation iV #^ V %< ■1>' <^ « *> yj ^V o^ ^■.=.> 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 .\iUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les images suivantes ont 6X6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat di fiimage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmis en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to righ'; and top to bottom, as mcry frames as required. The following diagrams iliustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s d des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film6 6 partir de i'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche 6 droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessairn. Les diagrammes suivants iliustrent la m4thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 84 flei *», P284-07 -R28l-k .^^ RC ( . The nndse was a who p leged . .1 ■it * ^^■1 KEMARKS OxN SOME IM3RT10XS OF lUB PASTORAL LE'lTER TOR LENT, 1853. OF THF. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF HALIFAX, ,-v *. ."."-■ '■■v -•v-^.^." BY A rilOlESTAjST. ^A -•-..• ■ "v ( The Jews of Berea are justly commended for their eagerly cmbiacing the truth tod searching the Scriptares, to find out the texts alleged by tha Apostle ; which was a far more generous proceeding than that of their countrymen at Theasalonica who peraecuted the preachers of the gospel, without examining the grounds they al- leged for what they taught.— ^brt in Domjf Version on AcU xvii. U. "^ < < . • I • , . I • • . « ' . • HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA: PRI^-TED BY JAMES BARNES, ll9 HOLLlS STREET. 1853. I * ' • • • • * , H • • • i PJ!MARKS ON SOME FORTIONS OF THE PASTORAL LETTER FOR LENT, 1803, OK THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF HALIFAX, BY A PROTESTANT. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Halifax has lately published his yearly pastoral letter to his people, and for tbe cood of ' many" others " who have few opportunities of hearing any thing of Catholic Doctrine", and yet may, he thinks, read a printed document. Of course, if Dr. Walsh be on the right side it is to be hoped many will be led by his pages to embrace the true faith ; if he be wrong it is necessary some antidote be sent out to prevent the poseiblo evil. Of the first half of his pamphlet we shall say nothing, as it is confined to an inculcation of moral duties, and to the defence of some doctrines of his Church which are not likely to do much harm even when thus set in the most favoura- ble light In the latter half, however, ae passes from defence to attack on those who differ from him. dealing liberally in hard terms, and invective ; makes staiements, which we believe rash and unfounded, to exalt his Church and de- grade Protestantism, and not contented with hostility to his fellow-men when opposed to his system, ventures against the sacred oracles themselves, and en- deavours to depreciate the Word of God in order to set in its place the autho- rity of his priesthood. We could bear much misrepresentation when we our- selves only are assailed, but it is assuredly not to be permitted that one who fills the place of a christian Teacher— an Archbishop of a Province— should, without at least a show of resistance, head a crusade against the Book which is the Voice oi' God to the Race, thf fiery pillar to lead it by day and night : the hope of the wretched, the strength of the weary, the balm to the wounded, the Heavenly Hand that scatters blessings on our way in our path to Immortality. We lilt up again the Bible he has thrown in the dust; we reverence it, as we would its Blessed Author, none the less, for being reviled, and spat upon and buffeted. But let U3 turn to Dr. Walsh's pages and listen to the first notes of his at- tack : be begins at a distance, and only gradually comes to tho direct awault on the Scriptures. 60659 ( 4 ) He introduces tlie subject hulUm- the guise of a dcfonce of tho *' lluly (?atho- iio Church" against the charge of" bating the Scripturei, of preferring human tradition to the inspired Word ofCJod, and of having concealed it most care- fully from tho people until the Religious Revolution of the 16th century ;" theHe are his own words : we shall see as wo proceed in how far the alleged 9hargC9 are just. Let ma, however, deprecate the idea of entertaining any nueh views of the laity of Dr. Walsh's communion. With Roman Catholics aa a peo- ple, I have not only no quarrel ; I teel towards them the love of a brother a.^d a friend. Nor do I accept the woifJs in which Dr. W^alsh states the indictmen,. I make no specific charge, but let the facts I shall bring forward make their own charges in the mind of the reader. Dr. Walsh's definition of cxr creed ■with regard to the standard of human faith, that it is " the Bible, the whole Bi- ble, and nothing but the Bible," wo accept and glory in. " Our painfully no- torious disunion on every other point" I deny. Protestants are one on all the great truths of salvation — their diflerences arc not those of principles by any means so mnuh asofsinf"' human jealousy and passions, and even from this source they are not more uisunited than the rival parties that have struggled within the Church of lionie have been in all ages. You cannot cut out a uni- form for I he mind. It cannot be drilled to a mechanical regularity of move- ment like the legs and arms of sohliers, and remain a mind. It must think— thinking is its life. Mind and thought are interchangeable terms. — Protestants, moreover, never get so far as is said of the Council of Trent in its discHSMon of the authority of Tradition, in which says Pallavicini : " there were nImoHt as many opinions as there were heads"* Dr. Walsh will not dispute Pallavicini's authority The silence of the muzzle is no sign of a universal peace among those who wear it. ' Dr. Walsh's opening paragraph (page i?) is followed by a brief sketch of tho history of the Canon ot the sacred .Scriptures (page 28), in which it is not easy to avoid a smile at the coolness with which assertions are made without the sha- dow of proof, and at the cortsiant assumption of the Christian Church In the «arly ages being the same as the Roman Catholic Church of the present. The Church 6f Rome is not synonymous with the churches of the first centuries, nor is the Church of Rome now at all the same as theUhurch at Rome in the times of the Apostles It difiers alike in doctrine and practice The proof lies on the iurface ot any book of ecclesiastical history. Dr W xlsh tells us ihat it was the Church of Rome which " collected the sa- cred books and formed them inio a Canon, and distinguished the true from the false, and the genuine and authentic from tliosc which were spurious." We dis- tinctly deny the assertion. The Canon of the Old Testament was fixed so far back 98 the days of Ezra, and has remained unaltered to the present day. It was received by Christ and his Apostles as we have it ; it was the same in the days of Josephus as it is now. The Jews themselves have always received it aa we Uave it. So that this part of the Bible which is the larger half, was received M the Bible before there was any church but the Jewish ! As to the books of * Quoted in Bungener's History of Council of Trent. 88. i. Hi I ( * ) the New Ti«tatnant, the aiaertion is equnlly unfounded. We Lave more evi- dence for tho genuineness and authenticity of the books which compose it, without going to the decrees or action of tho church at all, than we have fcr those of any writings of the past. The testimony of the early christian writers in every section of the church and the recorded history of the practices of the churches in every part, are a- bundantly suflicient to settle the question. Were any thing wantinfr to com- plete the proof that we are not indebted to Dr. Walsh's church in this matt(y, ic would be supplied by the fact thai, at the Council of Trent, the Apocryphal books were sanctioned as canonical in the face of the testimony, nenative and positive, of the Jow8 themselves, of tho christian Fathers, including Jerome himself, the Author of the Vulgate Version, and by many authorities in the church, down to the time of the Council. So that so far from owinT tho Can- on to the Church of Rome, we are forced to defend it from the Fathers and other sources, against her. The Archbishop, when it serves his purpose, can write in a very diffV«rent strain. In this passage it suits him to speak of the church as " carefully col- lecting" the sacred books, &c. &c — but in another place (34) when he wishet to run down these sacred writings, lie changes his language wonderfully, and tells us that so far from the Church '• carefully collecting" them, they were left «' floating about the world for hundreds of years before they we. i collected to- gether," (84). Certainly a strange diffe •ence of statement ! The Archbishop, of course, takes tho credit to the Roman Church of all the martyrs who witnessed for the truth, but in doing so he forgets to prove what is very necessary in this matter, that the church with which any of these mar- tyrs were connected was the same as that to which he belongs. The Unitari- an Churches of New England might claim the Pilgrim Fathers as the illustri- ous confessors of their church, but with their present corruptions and departure from the faith of these venerable men, would any acknowledge their ri"ht to do 80 ? Passing to tho origin of the Vulgate, the Archbishop introduces J<>rom« to us as the Latin Secretary of Pope Damasus. He forgets that for a hundred years after Damasus, the names Pope, Vjcar of Christ, Chief Pastor and such like, which the Pope takes to himself now, were a^'olied to other Bishops also.* So far was the Bishop of Rome then from being what he now is, as the Archbish- op would insinuate. He omits, also, to tell, that afler his two year's secretariat was ended by the death of Damasus, Jerome left Rome for the East, declar- ing that she was " Babylon" and the " purple" or, as we should say, scarlat •' whore." f If this was right language, then what was Rome ! if it was wrong language, then where is the unearthly sanctity of the Fathers ? The Archbishop passes a eulogium on the Vulgate, for which Jerome would, no doubt, thank him, were he now alive. Besides its usefulness in the past and its beauty, Dr. Walsh tells us as another feature of his commfeBdation, that * Gieseler's Eccles. Histery, I. 453. t Neaiider's Ch. Hiifory.IV.4§5. " it lias Uf 11 »iic« deuhueJ by a general council to b»; ao aulheutio eiposiiiou of the meaning of (he Holy Ghost." Who will say what ia meant by thia word "authentic" which is that oniployod in the Cauoas of the Council of Trcn? thus allutlod to V Roman Catholic authara have ditfered ad to its meaning — One thinks it means that the Vuljjato is inspired— another that it is to be pla- ced above tlie original texts iu which the Bible was dictated by the Holy Ghost —some that it is infallible only so far as faith and morald are concerned— and some, asain, that it is intended by the word " authentic" only to be placed a bbvo any other Latin versi^": in use. Now, if there has been so much dilTer- «nce of opinion as to the meaning of a single word, of a single decree of an in- fallible council— and (hat, too, among the doctors of the church— what is the ' sense of the church' worth as an interpretation or judge of all Scripture and faith and practice ? We ? hall surely need an explanation of the explanation. Does not this show how impossible it is to explain things so that only one right meaning shall be taught even to the humble and obedient ? Dr. Walsh paaso3 on to enlogize the church for her ' faithful guardianship' of the Scriptures iiriug the middle ages. Wo give all praisa to the worthy and venerable moii who, in these ages ot darkness and corruption, valued the Scrip- tures. Some thui'vi were in the long intellectual night that hung over Europe who were still faithful ; some who, in humble convents and in lonely' parishes, and sometimes in the high posts of the church, still clung to the faith once delivered to the saints ; but they were only a remnant like the seven thousand in Israel who had not bowed tho knee to Baal. The copying of the Scriptures did not, however, come principally from them. The Benedictine Monks were the chief preservers of the Sacred and Profane Literature of the past, it being one ot the rules of the order that they should thus copy books. It was their pride, and their business, in fulfilment of their necessary duties. Dr. Walsh's highly wrought sketch which makes these copyists such single-minded and enthusias- tic Bible multipliers, is a mere tlight of fancy. Some, no doubt, copied the Word because they lovpd it, but generally they transcribed their manuscripts " mechanically, as a mouastic duty, and often with much incovrectness."* The books they transcribed so far from being exclusively, or chiefly the Scriptures, " were in a vast proportion such as we do not highly value at this day." " It ^as done iti an ignorant and slovenly manner," says Hallam, speaking of the centuries preceding the Reformation. It is unfortunate for Dr. Walsh's asser-- tion of the zeal of these brotherhoods, for multiplying the Scriptures "in every direciion " that he has given no better illustration than that of their "most taste- fully illuminating the sacred page with gold and colours, enshrining it in a co- vering of the most cosily materials, atid adorning it with gold and silver, with jewels and precious stones." This was not certainly the Avay to give the whole Bible or even a part of it, even to the *' one in a thousand" who could read, nor likfe "spreading it in every direction." The truth is, copying was a trade as fnuch as printing is now. If there had been a general desire for the spread of the Scriptuiros, cheap copies of parts of them might have been circulated to a * Lit. of Knropfl.1.97. ..^K; T ( 7 ) much Krealur .-Titciit than they were. Hut w« a.e in no moo.l to Jcpreciuto thff icrviccs of these ' sciibes' in the dark times in which their lot was cast. All thanks.to I5onedicf and those who obeyed hiin or (bllowci his example. To the Papacy, however, the world h certainly under no oblijjation in tho matter.— The voice of GrC2;ory the (Jrcat was the chief authority in the dnrk n^o<(. and he, so fur from oncouraging such literary arts, or the studies of those "Father, and Doctors of the Church" whom Dr. Walsh culopizes in the next senten.cs, was as inveterate an enemy of learning as ever lived. Even snoh an ordinarr accoiuplishmcnt as good grammar ho viewed with " superlative contempt "« So that here wc have to be grateful not to iho Church, but to individuals in it. Of" the Saints, Fathers and Doctors" of those days, we have, as I have said, a eulogy It is u gladdening truth, that the fire never altogether went out on iJie altar, evvjn in the worst times. We rejoice for ihe sake of humanity in thosa ages that some of the salt of tbo earth was still loft to prevent uujvorsal corruo- lion. IJut both the pioty and learning then were the exception— the feeble t x- ception— to the general rule. Now in ono country, now in another, there w<»» a partial rev" ^ ,il oi Scriptural truth and intelligence. lk\t It was only like the pale lifeht of the aurora, shining now for a moment here, and again for a ao' .Tjent elsewhere on the face of the night. It is r<''-.., able that in bis whjla aketch of those worthies— he, of course, iuclud! i^-^ a^^jong thorn the teachers of the church as a whole, we, the few illustrious exceptions- Br. WaLsh speaks of the Bible only, as their study or instructor. The Church or Tradition is not so mwch as once mentioned by him. " The pure well of undefM revelation was the living source and fountain of a« their knowledge." « They lived in an at- mosphere of the Bible ; its precious truths were familiar to thtm as household words— the love of Scripture was interwoven with their, very thoughts." If Scripture alone can make men so holy and so eminent, there is suroly little left ^.r the church to do. Why keep back from any what so greatly elovatoa and blesses ? Dr. Walsh frowns on thd millions who, as he affirms, « Jgnorantly" call the- centuries before the revival of learning * dark ages ' Ph)testants at any rate- •would call any ages dark, in which, as Dt. Walsh says of these, "not one in a thousand could read, and not one in twenty or even fifty thousand could get a copy of tho whole Bibb." (42). As to the general state of the ch roh in those ages of" Saints and Fathers and Doctors," I qyote the following passa^,> from Halhm, whom l>v. Walsh himself ues as an authority :—« The greater part of literature in the middle a^es, at least from the twelfth century" (beginning, of course, a. d. 11 00) « mfty be considered as artillery levelled against the clergy ♦ * * * If tijgfe ^^ ^^g Ibeme upon which the most serious as well as the lightest, the most orihodox as woU as the most heretical writer9 ^r9 u lited, it 19 ecclesiastical cori ..^jtion.— Divided among themselves, the secular clergy detested tho regular ; the regu- lar uion^s satirized the mendicant fViars; who in^thcir.turn, after exposing * llallam'8 Lit. Europe, 1. 29, 142 . v I ,J ! I ( 8 ) both to the ilhvill of the people, incurred a Joublo portion of It thenisclTcs." * Tantraut tliis with Dr. Walsh's picture of these times, in which he makes cha <.huich so holy— so diligent— busy only in copying or studying God's word.— Yet certainly Uallam is as faithful and learned a historian as Dr. Walsh. From the middle ages the Archbishop comes to our own days, and gives u« to understand that in the Roman Catholic syslem the Bible is first, midst and last. It is " the Text-Book and Manual of the Catholic Church." Her clergy •' seven times in every day of their lives, are enjoined to repeat many portions" —many portions, seven times a day— the Bible must thus be read over and over in a very short time. But this, we presume, is not the meaning of the Arch- bishop. He, doubtless, refers to the requirement that each ecclesiastical per- ■oa in his church shall repeat each day, in public or private, the whole service for the day contained in the Breviary, which, so far from being the whole Bi- ble, consists of a few Psalms in Latin, a few chapters of the Old Testament, and a few fragments of the gospels and epistles, mixed up with an immense far- rago of lesends of the Saints, tuU of all sorts of incredible tales, wild adventures and ridiculous practices. Here, then, we have the kind of teaching the Church of Rome estimates most highly, and aims most to diffuse among her children.— Wonderful training for infallible interpreters ! In speaking of the use of tho Bible in the public worship of his church, the Archbishop conveniently forgets to tell U8 in how many cases it is a wholly unintelligible eervicft lo his people —a mere sound without sense—how often, I mean, it is read in an unknown tongue. Yet this was surely an important item. Dr. Walsh now undertakes to prove that the Church of Rome has always been a friend to Bible circulation— much more so than Protestants. In sup- port of this be adduces alleged facts. Let us premise a few thin,' i and then examine the statement. Before the apprehension of danger from it, there was no uefid for the Church ©f Rome to withhold the Sacred Volume from the people. The doing so was one of Ihe advances in corruption of which Protestants /:omplain. As that corruption increased, however, so did the jealousy of the word of God, on the part of the church. As soon as it feared danger to its authority from the read- ing of the Scriptures, it strove to keep them back from the laity. Thus, for example, when those primitive Protestants— the Vaudois, were sought to be crushed, their principles having spread in various countries through the hum- ble study of the Bible, the church decreed that the word of God should be tak- en irom the people in order that this Reformation might be put down. The Council of Toulouse held in the year 1229 decreed, with this view, that " tho laity were not to be allowed the books either of the Old or New Testaments." The Synod (Council) " most strictly prohibited" their having translations of tlie sacred books in the vulgar tongue.f The French version of this canon is «B that " no laic shall have by him the books of the Old or New Testaments." Hagenbach mentions two other such prohibitions, one of Pope lunocent III. (A. D. 1199), and one in the year 1234, (Hist, of Doct. L 441.) How doM • HaUam'ii Lit. of Europe, I. 185. 4 t Edgar's Variations of Popery, 250. lenisclTcs." * e makes cbor od'3 word. — rValsh. and gives u« it, midst and Her clergy ny portions" ver and over of the Arcli- liasiical per- ?hole service e whole Bi- Testatnent, immense far- I adventures y the Church r children. — 3 use of the ently forgets 10 bis peoplo m unknown has alwsyt its. In enp- 1 and then r tfcc Church oing so was n. As that God, on the om the read- . Thus, for sought to be ;h the hum* lould be tak> down. The ¥, that " tho restaments." Einslations of lis canon ia Cestaments." unocent III. How doe> this agree with th« Arubbitbop's aisertioD that ths vburoh not only do«t not forbid but earnestly recommends the devout reading of the Bible? As soon as it fears danger from it, it seeks to take it away from the people or to hedge it round with such restrictions as to make nominal permission useless— or final- ly, as in the Archbishop's case, to run it down and make so httle of it, that no one would care about seeing it. Besides this fact that, as long as it is not used by the laity, the church lets her prohibitions, in a measure, sleep, let the statements as to the corruptions of the clergy which I quoted before from Hallam be remembered. Rome at iha leginning of the century in which the Reformation took place was as sunken and depraved as it could be. Dr. Walsh will not, I presume, defend Alexan- der VI , than whom history knows few greater monsters of iniquity. When the very centre of the church was drenched in pollution, thert could not be a ▼ery vigilant spiritual police to suppress every act of insubordination at once. Let it be remembered also that even in the church there were some who, de- siring a return to primitive practice and purity, were anxious to spread the circulation oS the Scriptures without reference to the will of their superiors, as we have seen in this century in the case of Leander Van Ess, an eminent . Roman Catholic clergyman in Europe who, in spite of Papal rescripts and pro- hibitions, circulated more than one hundred thousand of the Bible Society's •- dit'.ons of the Scriptures. And, still further, it is to be remembered that the Reformation did not be- gin with Luther ; the storm long gathering only burst in his day ; a cry had risen long before him for the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue. Keeping these thoughts in mind let us examine the Archbishop's statements. He lays great stress on a German Bible having been printed in 1466, and having gone through " no less than 1 7 edittons" before Luther's Bible appear- ed. But was it the Church of Rome which translated and printed it t Was it not a private speculation of the printer, which he ventured on from the per- ceived desire of many for a version in the vulgar tongue ? It will be remark- ed that Dr. Walsh does not speak about its being published officially. He did not because he could not. Let us listen again to Dr. Walsh's authority " the celebrated Protestant historian'' Hallam. The government ot Europe early saw the danger, especially in such a country as Germany where " a deep sense of the corruptions of the church pervaded every class," and '* where the princi- ples that were to burst out in the Reformation were evidently germinating" of allowing a free religious press. They accordingly early appointed censorship* under the superintendence of the clergy. The University of Cologne, perhaps to counteract the influence of previous translations, or perhaps from a spirit; like *hat I have noticed in Leander Van Ess, sanctioned the printing of an e- dition in that city in 1479. But even after this the Church was ill at »est from the prevalence of God's word. In 1486 tbe Archbishop of Menta published a mandate, formally threatening with excommunication, &c. *' any person who translated, or circulated when translated, any books upon any subject what- ever, from the Greek or Latin, or any other tongue, into German, until, before printingi and ^gs,h before their sale, an-.'h translationi shall be approved by I li 1 ( 10 ) rout doctors herein named." n,e zeal 6f the Church for the translation of the Scriptures mto G*nnan, and the extent to which anr edition they might put T\T^ .1?'^'.^°' **" P'°^''' "^y ^^ J"'^g«^ f"-^ ^l''* f^l'o^i'^S estimate by the Archbishop m the same document, of the capabilities of German as a fengua-e into which to translate even human compositions, far less the inspired volume "Can such men," (translators,) says he, '• assert, that our German language a. capable of expressing what groat authors have written in Greek and I^tm on the high mysteries of the Christian faith, and on general science— aria^n/y^^..„a/." If incapable of expresdng general science v^n^i theohqy, wha must the Archbishop have thought of it as the vehicle of expressing the revelationofGoiy Could he have been vdry anxious to diffJe a bo^k so feulty as a Germaa Bible must in his opinion have been ? That the early edi- tions^of the Scriptures in German were not published by the Church, is suffi- ciently clear from the fact that Hallam tells us that it was on account of " reli- JT.OUS translations, especially those of the Scripture, which had been very early printed m Germany, that this alarm was taken by the Archbishop."* What nth Ohu'rThf '' '^' °^"" ^^'^'^ """^^^^ '''''"'"° '^''' ^^'^'°"' ^'^ ^ Ko- ^ As^ to the Latin Bible printed in 1455, mentioned by Dr Walsh, page 81 , he has no more right to claim it for his Church than he has to claim the paper on which It was prmted. Its very existence was unknown till the middle of last century. It was a private venture of the discoverers of printing. Dr. Walsh has a note on the printing of the Bible, which, as he seems to ^.nk bis case very strong, we had better examine while on the point. » John Dietemberg, says he, " published a version under the auspices of the Arch- bishop Albert in 1534." Dr. \Y. must know that this edition was an utter fai. ure-that ,t was intended to supersede Luther's, and was so ineffectual, that he edition which he next mentions, by Drs. Kck and Empser, had to be pub- lished m 537 to take its place. If the Church of Home do let " twenty ^diti- ons of a translation ofthe Scriptures be sold, as Dr. W. asserts of Dietem- berg s, she should take care that it be a tolevably correct one. Is there any mont m givmg versions when they are dragged out by those of the opposite Italian versions come next. Dr. W. tells us that there were two Italian ver- sions before Luther. The first, he says, was by Archbishop Voraglne in 1290. But IS Dr , W. not aware that it is questioned if it ever existed ? It never was printed. It was the work of an individual, if ,t ever was executed, not of the Church. The second version was «' by Malermi, a monk of Camaldoli, which >v^s prmted at Rome and Venice in 1471." Before 1525 he tells us « thirteen editions of this translation were published." But because it was the work of a monk was ,t therefore the work of the Church. Luther's books, and those of Zwingle and Melancthon, at that time were circulated extensively in Italy docs tbat prove that the Church printed or circulated tl^mf As to Maler- m^ible let us judge from tto case of Van Ess, and Borrow'a friends in the ♦ Hift. Lit, I, 319, ranslation of the they might put owing estimate f German As a less the inspired It our German n in Greek and eral science. — e and theology, expressing the fi'use a book so ; the early edi- hurch, is suffi- :'ount of" reli- een very early hop."* What IS for the Ro- sh, page 81 , he I the paper on middle of last s he seems to ioint. " John of the Arch- s an utter fai- 3ffectual, that ad to be pub- ' twenty editi- I of Dietem- Is there any the opposite Italian ver- glne in 1290. It never was i, not of the ildoli, which us " thirteen le work of a ind those of 3ly in Italy, s to Maler- ricnds in the ( n ) priesthood in Spain. So far iwm being put out by the Church, HM'aai teJli us that these editions were the result of the early and wide sowing in Italy of the prmciples of the Reformation.* They were continually reprinted for the Reformers, who were found in every considerable city of Italy, and were fa- voured, even there, in some parts, by those in power. Editions being sanction- ed alter 1525 by the Inquisition, as Dr. Waleh speaks of, means that the lioly Office had at last found it necessary to do something to counteract the efforts of those who held the n .v doctrines. What an inquisition edition means may be easily judged. The next version Dr Walsh mentions, is that of Bruccioli, printed at Venice 1532. AVe certainly little thought Dr. Walsh would have boldness enough to put it among ' Catholic versions,' Bruccioli was the editor of the posthumoua sermons of Savonarola who was burned as a hereticft He was himself throwa into prison as a heretic, and escaped death only to be banished. His edition of the Bible was printed at Venice, a ':ity which was a refuge from the oppres» sion of the church, and which Paul V. accuses of allowing the publication oC books that had been censured at Rome.f Moro than all, it was condemned by the Council of Trent, and was put in the first list of prohibited books f Should Dr. Waleh have placed this among Catholic versions ? Marmochiuo's edition was only Bruccioli's retouched.§ • As to the early editions in other languages, we may judge what right Dr. Walsh has to call them Catholic versions, from the facts already stated respect- ing the early German and Italian editions. Lefevre's translation published in 1512, is set down in Dr. Walsh's list. Now will it be believed (hat Lefevro had to flee from France, under a borrowed name, to escape condemnation as a heretic — that he belonged to a circle of reformers, some of whom fled before, the persecution of the Romish Church, some were imprisoned, and smne were burned alive ? Will it be believed that this version paraded in this list as a Roman Catholic one was actuallv T>ut on the list of prohibited books in France, and that having been refused permissiou in 1523 to print it in France he had to get it printed at Antwiirp. || What would we say of a Protestant clergym^i^i who could do as Dr. Walsh has done here '/ : ,,/ Lefevre's versioi' was " revised" says Dr. Walsh, " in 1551, by the Theolo- gians of Louvain." He omits to say that they did it by command of Charles Fifth, and put it forth as a new Translation.** That they needed to do so to try to couViterac<; the other translations that filled France, may be judged from the fact that about the time it appeared it was estimated that more than one sixth of the population of France had forsaken the Roman communion, I pp,ss the other French editions. Dr. Walsh mentions, on each of which I cpuldsay son > thing. Tp make a remark on De Sacy's, which likewise he assertf ♦ Hallam's Lit. of Europe, 1 . 502. t Hallam's Hist, of Lit II. 507. J McCrie's Reformation in Italy. \ Hallam, I. 326. ft Savonarola was sentenced to be hanged, and then l)urned. II D'Aubitrne's lleformatiou, III, 40O. Hallam. I. 529. **llallain Hist. Lit. L 629. B ( 11 ) among hU Caibolio veriiona. >ViU it b« credited that this venioa wa<) formaltj condemned by Popea Clement IX. and Innocent XI., and that it was mada while the luthor was lying in jail on a charge of heresy ? So much again for Dr. Walsh's list 1 Let us turn now to Spain. " In 1405, Boniface Ferrer translated the whole Bible into the Valencian Dialect of Spanish. This was printed in 1478andaga'n in 1515, with the approbation of the Spanish Inquisition. Montesma published a version of the epistles and gospels in 1512, which was reprinted frequently after at Madrid, Barcelona, Antwerp, &c." The Archbishop forgets to tell that as faithful children of the church, Juan of Arragon had prohibited the use of any part of the Scriptures in the Vernacular in 1263, and that in the end of the 15th century Ferdinand and Isabella prohibited all, under the severest pe- nalties, from translating the sacred Scripture into the vulgar tongues, or from using it when translated by others (McCrie's Keformation in Spain, 146). Bo- niface Ferrer, notwithstanding prohibitions, did translate the Bible as Dr. Walsh tells us, and it was printed in 1478, as he says But he forgets to tell that though as usual it was printed at private expense— though it was the work of a Catholic— and though ir underwent the examination and correction of the Inquisitor, James Borrell, it had scarcely made i's appearance when it was iuppressed by the Inquisition, who ordcied the whole edition to be burned — As to its being reprinted in 1515 Dr. Walsh must know that its having been »o is greatly questioned, and that if it was, it was immediately proscribed in the ^ame manner. So totally had the whole book been destroyed that its ever hav- ing existed at all was proved only by the discovery, two hundred years after, ef the four concluding leaves, in a Monastery, by which the name of the trans- lator and printer, and place, and time of the impression were brought to light. As to Dr. Walsh's notice of the epistles and gospels having been printed in 1512, it is worthy of notice that Enzinas, who published a translation of the Spanish Testament at Antwerp in 1548, for which he was thrown into prison at qnce, at Brussels, says in his preface to Chas. V , that one reason why he haU undertaken the work was, that Spain had not as yet the Sacred Scriptures in its own tongue, and should have it. Of the Flemish versions in Dr. Walsh's list I may state that Hallam, after reciting the various editions published in that language, says : " Most of these were taken from Luther, but some from the Vulgate."*' But there is one fact that speaks volumes. The first list of hooks proJiibited by the church was published by Paul IV. in 1559 It includes all Bibles in modern language^, enumerating forty-eight editions, chiefly printed in Roman Catholic countries And as if to mark the hatred of the papacy to free inqui- ry, Bixty-one printers were by that list put under a general ban ; all works of every description from their presses being forbidden f The Archbishop's next pages are devoted to an attempt lo write down the Bi- ble, and make it appear almost worthless and wholly unnecessary One could • Hallam llht Lit I 55S. ' t Hallam Hin. Lit, U 508 ( 18 ) 1 was forniallj it was mada uch agaia for ted the whole i78 and again ma published ;d frequently ets to tell that id the use of n the end of i severest pe- Tues, or from n, 146). Bo- Bible as Dr. forgots to tell was the work •ectioD of the when it was be burned — • having been scribed in the t its ever hav- l years after, I of the trans- »ught to light, jn printed in slation of the n into prison iasou why he ed Scriptures Hal I am, after Iflost of these )ks prohibited all Bibles in id in Roman free inqui- all works o( down the Bi- One could tcarucly tupposc it wai a chri^jtian, far lass an Aruhbishop, who speaks In sack Ik way of the sacred books of our Faith. Where will he £nd a ProtottaiU in- sinuate such suspicions respecting them, or speak so meanly of them. But he only follows the true Jesuit plan — down with the Bible— up with the church. I am surprised Dr Walsh should have used such a questionable course— a course which must make men either lay aside reason and conviction in religion, or drive them into utter infidelity. If a mar's faith in the Bible be shaken, h« must either accept the church in a lump, or have nothing. Why venture un- stable souls to the borders of atheism under pretence of leadmg tbcm to the church ? Was this the method of Christ and bis apostles i!) drawing men to tli« faith of the gospel ? Is there no way ro exalt the church but by questioninj; the authority of Christ and the truth of the Scripture ? But let us examine his words more closely. He tells us that " the Bible is not the book of one au- thor" " but of thirty" — " some known" — some " respecting whom all is ignorance or doubt " That they were " of different nations, but principally Jews" — that " they wroce at different periods, and frequently at long intervals" — " two thou- sand years having intervened from the composition of Genesis to that of the Apocalypse," &e. Now, what is the object in telling us this ? If, on these grounds, he doubts the divine authority of the Bible, it can be easily defended against him. If he would have us believe that it is on this account dark tnd mysterious, we would remind him that the same God who dictated the first of it dictated the last, and that, to use a metaphor of Pope Gregory, its authors were but so many different " pens" in the hand of the unchanging King of Kings.— •' Both Testaments," says Irenrous, '• hath one and the same master of the household produced, even our Lord Jesus Christ." And even apart from their divine oris'n it does not suiely affect the simplicity and clearness of a man's style, when or where he was born, if he was comraonly con,ver6ant with his subject and with the language in which he wrote, and was fit for the task he undertook. As to not knowing the authors of some of the books of Scripture, if Dr. Walsh see a difficulty in this, he differs from his master, Gregory the Great, to whom I have just referred, who tells us that it is not necessary to know the pen with which the King of Kings has written his royal letter, but that it suffices to have a full conviction of its divine contents. * But " not one word" of the New Testament •' was written during the life of Christ." How could it be when his dea*h is its great subject and origin ? — Christ, he says, " gave no advice, or command, or direction to write any part of it." Did they then write it against his will ? If not, to what end this in- sinuation against it? Is it not the 'mind of Christ'? did be not directly inspire them to write it ? And if so, is it not as much written by his " advice, directi- on and command," when the voice thus came from the excellent glory, as if it had been uttered while he was still in the form of a servant? But how does Dr. Walsh know )hat, because it is not recorded, Christ did not bpeak of it ? Have we all that Christ s?id ? Dr. Walsh's church especially, says ne. Why stab at the Scriptures thus ? Their inspiration is certified by overwheUa- ■ • Hageab»eli, I. 8J3. (14) in not recorded that Christ himself ever wrote" exetpt once, " upon the ground, and even these few words have not been preserved." What has this tod<> with the point in hand ? ' Jesus himself baptized not'— is tliere therefore to be no baptism ? Is not his commission to his apostles to write by his giving them in- spfration, sufHcient ? Had he been author as well as Saviour, would it have made the Scriptures any more his will than they are ? But I leave it to tho Archbishop to tell what Christ should have done, and rest contented with know- ing what he has done. As to his having made no recorded allusion to writing the Scriptures when he gave his apostles their last commission, are we to say when Christ ought to have spoken of one thing and ^vhen of another ? Is it not enough that he has spoken of each at the time he thought best V If he said both at any tin:e are not both equally binding ? And were there not' many things' which Jesus had yei at his death to tell to the apostles, but which ' ihey could not bear* until ' the Spirit' had ' come' aiter his ascension, and taught them 'all truth.' — John xvi. 12. The next assertion of the Archbishop is, that " when the apostles met toge- ther for the last time, and dispersed themselves throughout the world to fulfil their great commission, not one word of the New Covenant" that j^s, the New Testament, " was written." The last time the apostles met together is record- ed in the 15th chapter of Acts, and is agreed by the best chronologies to have been a. d. 52, or nineteen years after Christ's ascension.* But St. Matthew's gospel was written, according to tho great bulk of authorities f within, at the furthest, fifteen years of this great event and, in all probability, within eight. — So that it, at least, was in circulation for four years, and for most likely eleven, before the apostolic meeting took place. So much for Dr. Walsh's assertion ! It was written in Syro Chaldaic, the language of the christians of Palestine, and was designed for their use ; nor can any thing shew more convincingly how far God is from wishing us to trust to human tradition, than that, to preserve tb« truth uncorrupted, he caused, in addition to the Jewish Scriptures they al- ready possessed, a written gospel to be sent thus early to the very people among whom Christ had lived and died, and the whole of the apostles had laboured. — That no other gospels or sacred writings of the New Testament were written earlier, is easily understood when we remember Di. Walsh's own words, that the apostles met " before dispersing themselves throughout the world to fulfi' thfeir great commission". There were consequently as yet, we may say, no com. n»i'nities ift the Gentile world to which they could be seat, the only pioneer tour that had then been made beyond Palestine having been that of St. Paul and Barnabas, recorded in the 13th and Uth chapters of Acts. But so far from its being thefaet that" very many years" were allowed to elapse before the writing of the other parts of the New Testament, the same year in which the apostolic ojceting took place, saw Paul's first epistle sent to the Thessaloni- ana, whom he had visited shortly bftforje^in the missionary journey justreferred to, and also, if it wat not written even earlier, the epistle to the Galaiians, w"hUa * See the very full Chronological Tables in Olshausen. t Seo Campt)«ll, Bloomfield, Alexaudorou the Canon, and olhori, IH ( 1> ) ;aio, " it it he ground, iStodo wiih e to be no ng them in- uld it have e it to tbo with know- to wriling I we to say ? Is it not be said both lany things' I hey could ht them 'all 3 met toge- rld to fulfil J, the New r is reeord- ies to have Matthew's hiu, at the in eight. — ely eleven, > assertion! f Palestine, icingly how to preserve res they al- jple among abouied. — 3re written words, that 'Id to fulfil sy, no com. ily pioneer of St. Paul But so far ipse before ir in which Thessaloni- astreferred liana, wVila the ntxt, gavfa tha Thessaloniaus their second. And still furthvr, notwithttand- ing all his mighty labours and constant journeying, within six or seven years from the first dispersion of the apostles, we may say, to treat on the contrary, the founder of a the- ory which led ultimately to all tho horrorslitf ecclesiastical despotism— the dun- geon—the torture — the stake— he loses the prestige of oracular wisdom, and we are forced for self-protection in other matters also to examine his views, and test thei - intrinsic worth. Indeed, even in reference to the points in question, we doubt whether Dr. Walsh himself would assent to all that Augustine at any time wrote. He speaks thus in one place of one of the great texts on which the ' church' seeks to build her apostolic authority : " On this account," says he, " our Lord declares, ' on this rock I will found my churoh', because Peter had said : ' Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God', ' on this rock which thou hast confessed', he declares, ' I will build my church' ; for Christ was the Rock on whose foundation Peter himself was built ; for other foundation hath no man aui tuaa that wbicb ia laid, which is Chrisi" Jesus". * He thus founds * Neandtir TTL, 224. { 20 ) llie Lhurcl, not o,, St I'eter. but dirocflv o« Christ. Hn^onbacl, niPtitions « confrovrrsy wl.ifh r.iged in tlie linivorMty of f.ouvaiu in i:.i;7, in silencii.a which Popo Pius V. condemned, ainongf.t other propositions, neveral which were fak.'ii literally from Au-rustine'd writings. * A RotuAn (Jatbolic edition of bis works was published at Ver.ico in 1581, in the title pa^e of which it was proclaimed: " in which we bavo taken caro that all those things should bo re- moved which could infect the minds of the tUithful with heretical error, f Those facts, to which J mi^ht add others, certaiidy show that even in the ' church' ev- ery one does not receive every tliinjf Auj,'UHtine ha.s written. Hur, after all, Avas the church to which Aniirusthie belonged the same as that which now calls itself the ' Catholic (l)Uich' y ' Mere sncces^sion of Bishops, sup- posing it could bo proved, which very many learned men think impossible, would by no moans establish its identity. Even if the same husk could be now fhewn, it would be a poor substitute, in Aurrustine'seyca ; for the kernel of doc^ trine, which, ^in^o his da\ , has grown 60 corrupt and rotten " The gospel" which Augustine says he received on the anthority of the Ca- tholic Church, Dr. Walsh defines to mean the 'divine composition' known by that name— that is the Scriptures, rakeii in this sense, the vhole that can ba made of the words is, ihar he received as valid and siifKcimt th"^ evidence pre- sented by tho known opiniojis of the first christians and of their c'lildren in t'jc churches uihis own day, and of the various chri.vian writers who had lived be- fore him, as to what books were to be received as inspired— whether, in short, the Bible as he then had it was, as Dr. Walsh says, a ' divine composition'.— This is just what every one does now who wifhus to form a juJsment on the same matter, or on other points capable of similar proof. That th,> sanction of all orthodox churches in his day wa» given to some books and withheld from others, that accumulated evidence was presenccd for some and none for others, Avas good ground for accepting the former and rejecting the latter. We are told for our imifatior. ihat Augustine » believed in the Catholic Church" " before he believed in .he inspiration of Scripture", and " without having any scriptural rule of Faith.' The real truth is that belief in both the ' church' and the Scriptures Avas part of the faith of hia childhood from which he could never entirely get free, oven when abandoned as ho long Avas to tho dcninion of victe and passion. Froi» thi.s depth of sin he was roused by noth- .r. so much ii. the siudy of the word of.God, which revived in his (leadened heart the power of the creed he had learned from the lips of his mother. He was an intense student of St. Paul's epistles long before his baptism. It was to theraa voice he fancied he heard from heaven directed him, when prostrate in agony en account of his sins. It told him with repeated command- Takk,Read, and it was Avhen, in obedience to this, he opened the Epistlt to the Romans which he had with him in the garden where he was, that his eyes fell on the words that spoke peace to his soul. The reading r( the Scriptures Avas the im- mediate means of Augustine's conversion. If he ' believed in the Catholic Church' befo re this, it was not the faith of a christian : if he believed in it at- * ilugeubiich H., 27t). t Gieselti's Kcrlc. lli,ce3 the following : — " Ho goes to church and listens to God's word ; ho returns home, finds a Bible there, and opens and reads it." f " Faith," says he, " will totter, if the authority of tlio Sacred Scriptures be shaken". J Very dil- ferent ';his, from the language of Dr. Walsh. One word as to his being "one of the greatest prodigies of learning" He was a profound thinker, we all know, btft as to learnin«, it was the want of it that led him into many of his mistakes. He knew no Hebrew, and was but lit- tle acquaint .d w'th Greek, and was verj* deficient in the knowledge of t'le rules of the correct interpretation of Scripture, as may be judged from the instance I quoted on a former page. Dr. Walsh deduces the following strange sentences from his quotations from Augustine. " It is certain then, and it cannot be denied that the church exist- ed before the Bible ; that the church wa:? established, was fully organized, was furnished with every thing essential for the conversion of the world ; it was ad- ministering the Sacraments, and prcachmg the gospel, and converting the Gea- * Neander Ch. Hist. IIL 377. t Neander Ch. Hist, IIL 379. f Hngenbach Hist. Doct 1. 317, I ■..../ y, . ( 'i-i ) (ilei, and dift'using far and near the knowledge of saving faith, heforc a single line of the New Testament was written." This lengthy «entencs is, through- out, a mere play upon words. The larger half of tlie Bible was completed for four hundrfid years before Christ came. As to the ' church' being organized . &c. &c. &c " " before a single line of the New Testament was written", the as- sertion is mere dust for the eyes of a credulous reader. From the very begin- ning our Lord constantly recognized the written Word of God as the one di- vine and authoritative standard of faith and duty, and supported its claims by appeals to its contents. That the apostles constantly used it in the same way wherever it was known, is the concurrent testimony of a multitude of passag- es. They were " mighty iu the Scriptures". Often we read such statements as the following— varying in language, identical in fact : " And Paul according to hia custom went in unto them, and for three Sabbath days he reasoned with them out of the Scriptures", Acts xvii. 2. Douay Version. This was at Thessa- lonica, a city of Macedonia. Wherever the Scriptures were found, and they were scattered more or less in every country in synagogues and private fami- lies, we read that the first christian Teachers invariably appealed to them, " convincing", or " persuading", or " reasoning" from them in favour of the doc- trines of Christ. As to the want of the New Testament among the Gentiles we have already seen how early and widely book after book of it was sent abroad. But, besides this, it is to be remembered that the Apostles may be said to have spoken the New Testament day by day; for the tesSimony of early ecclesiastical history tells us— and with self-evident correctness — that it is in reality only an abstract of their constant teaching, put, under inspired guidance, in writing, that all ages might have a permanent and uncorrupted standard and epitome of the Truth. They ' delivered that which they received'. Yet men under the immediate and copious inspiration of the Holy Spirit — who only repeated through human lips the words of the Holy Ghost— they, forsooth, had no New Testament with them! But it is further " certain that the Primitive christians of the first century, including even the apostles and disciples themselves, never saw, never heard never read the whole Bible." As to the Primitive Christians, we have seen already how immediately the want was supplied, even though they had direct revelations from heaven fVom the lips of the apostles, and miraculous gifts of wisdom, teaching, prophecy, &c., to instruct and establish them, till the spread cf the Scriptures made such an e.\traoidinary state of things unueces&ary. As to the apostles and disciples themselves never having seen the whole Bible, it is altogether terrible to htar an Archbishop speak thus of men to whom Christ once and again revealed himseif in the midst of his dazzling glory, or, as in the case of Peter, by a voice calling him by name from out the canopy of heaven, or, as in the case of Paul, Hvhc was cau^'it up to the third heaven itself and heard the unspeakable words of paradise, The next certainty is that " many pagan nations were converted to Christi- anity without the Bible." Wo suppose our Micmacs are an example, or that ifore a single 2 13, through- ompletod for ng organized tten", the as- ! very begin- 3 the one di- its claims by lie same way le ofpassag- h statemcnis aul according i3asoned -with as at Thessa- id, and they private fami- iled to thetu, ir of the doc- lave already But, besides ; spoken the ticdl history y an abstract , that all ages )f the Truth, e immediate ough human itament with rst century, ever heard, e have seen r had direct lous gifts of II the spread jes&ary. As )le Bible, it (vhom Christ or, as in the of heaven, n itself and d to christi- ple, or that ( 23 ) caw mentioned by Seymour, » when a friend of his was present at the bap- tism of a whole settlement of Indians. " They were marched down to a riv- er, where the missionary waited for them[; he baptized them all, hung a lirtle crucifix round the neck of each, told them that now they were christians, and they, pleased at tue pretty ornament they received, marched back, as instruct- ed and as wise, as naked and as savage, as they came !" Dr. Walsh further icUs us that " it is impossible to shew any one idolatrous country that has been so converted by the Bible alone". In the case of most " idolatrous nations" it would be very strange if they had been. Pagans without a written language arc not likely to profit by the Bible— in such cases it does its work as soon as the way for it is opened. But in countries like China, where reading exists, we hear the most happy accounts of the spread of the truth by the circulation of the word of God. He forgeis that the two great revivals of religion among the Jews, when they turned from their idolatry or gross declensions, in the days of Josiah and Ezra, were the direct results of the reading of the Scriptures, the previous neglect of which, in the manner he would recommend, had led to such universal apostacy and corruption ^ Another certainty of Dr. Walsh is that " if the Bible were the only Rule of Faith appointed by God he would have revealed this essential doctrine, and made known in the clearest manner this cardinal point." Ws might surely turn the sentence against him and say that, if the Bible were not tho"onlyRule this would be the case. There are few doctrines more clearly revealed than that of the Protestant world on this point. The Old Testament writers appeal to the " Law and the Testimony" as the only Divine and authoritative Rule, as in Isaiah viii. 20, and elsewhere. Christ, as we have seen, refers the Jews to the Scriptures for the proof of his claims. He himself tells us that " His word is to judge us at the last day," John xii. 48 ; and to the question, " What shall I do that I may possess eternal life" ? Ho answers, " What is written in the Law, how readest thou V" Luke x. 25, 26. Abraham refers the brethren of Dives to Moses and the Prophets only, in order to secure their salvation, Luke xvi. 29. «' What saith the Scriptures ?" is the final and conclusive ap- peal of the evangelists and apostles. 3t. Paul tells us (Douay vn. 2 Tim. iii. 15-17.) that the Holy Scriptures can " irstrucl" the believer "to salvation,'' and are given that the " man of God may be perfect;" and surely if even the Old Testament Scriptures were thus sufficient, not only to form and direct our faith, so as to secure salvation, but to make us " perfect," the whole Bible can- not be less so now that the New Testament also is given. On how many points of doctrine is revelation more clear and explicit ihan here ? Dr. Walsh tells us that, io far from attaching much importance to his own sacred and blessed Word, God has « no where declared that Faith was to come from the dead letter of books," (it is thus a Roman Catholic Archbishop pre- sumes to speak of the ' Word of Life') " but from the living voice of apostles and doctors." If the teachers of Christianity should be called ' doctors' every time they are mentioned in the New Testament, it would make strange read- * Rev. M. U. Seymour, M. A. Christ. Assoc. Lectures, ISIiO, page 235. i I r trt ^ ing. ( 2i ) " It is certain that ' Faith cometh from //earm^' according to the Scri[)- tureg; but it irf not said that Faith cometh from reading" Not in these very ■words, Archbishop, but is it not implied and expressed in as clear words, once and again ? What can we'.make of the' passages I have just quoted from Ti- mothy y But let me add one or two more that we may see the full worth of this pitiful catch. I do so from the Douay Bible. " The Law of the Lord is unspotted" says David, " converting souls '" Psalm 'xviii. 8. " These are leriUen that, ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may liave life^in his name John xx. 31. If what he has thus written be not suflicient to lead people to believe, w^at can wc say of St John who asserts that he wrote it expressly that they should? '• Blessed is ho that readeth and heareth- the words of this prophecy," &c. ; Rev. i. .'J This is the Douay version. Tti« original Greek is literally "Blessed is he that readoth, and they that hear," &c. Take the words as they stand, ask yourselves what you would have meant by t'lcm if you had been in the posi- tion to use them. It is remarkable that this sentence stands at the beginning of the most difficult portion of Scripture. Many passages of a similar strain 1 have not room to adduce. Dr. Walsh, in order to prove still move conclusively that we are to look only to the " Church," next brings forward a strange argument. " The greater part of mankind cannot read"; says he, " for fifteen centuries after the establishment of the Church (the church again put first) not one in a thousand was able to read, and not one in 20 or 50,000 could get a copy of the whole Bible." * * * Was God " more indifferent to the salvation of his creatures" before prirxting than he has been since '?" or ^yould he deprive the poor of " any essential spi- ritual help and give the rich and thedearnei all those necessary advantages which unlettered poverty could not help to share ? No ; dearly beloved Brethren, our merciful Redeemer has not acted in this preposterous manner." The italics arc outs. Have a care, Axjhbishop, lest you sin and «' speak a fool- ish thing against God." Suppose you were wrong, what fearful language is this to use respecting your Maker. And can we always tell what God will do from our ideas of what so good and gracious a Being should do ? Then (iod would no lon«Ter dwell in the thick darkness, >Ve could foretell his policy at all times. Then would the high mysteries of bfe government— those clouds of dark and awful state which hang round his pavilion be dissipated for ever, and man ■would *• comprohen-i the steps of Got! -and find out the Almighty perfectly."— O Archbishop, " He is higher than heaven, and what wilt thou do ? He is deeper than hell, and how wilt thou know ? The measure of him h longer than the earth, and broader than the sea. If he shall orverturn all things and press them together who shall contradict him ?" But is there nothing in the moral government of God whicli we cannot un- dorstancl ? Whit shall we make of tlie existence of evil at all under the reign of a God of Love ? " Was God more indifferent," we aoighi ask, in Dr. Walsh's own words, " to the salvation of his creatures" before Christ's coming, than since ? Yet he Icir, ibc world at large through its broa?^ continents .«nd myriad islands in heathen darkness for thousands of years, and a revelation was given % I M ( w ) Jiiig lo the Scri[)- Not in these very I clear words, once ist quoted from Ti- the full worth of -.aw of the Lord ii viii. 8. " These the Son of God; 1. ! to believe, w'-^at • that they should? phecy," &c. ; Rev. srally " Blessed is as they stand, ask been in the posi- at the beginning fa similar strain 1 ve are to look only " The greater part r the establishment usand was able to loie Bible." * * * is" before printing any essential spi- essary advantages ) ; dearly beloved )Osterous manner." ind *' speak a fool- ful language is this t God will do from Then (iod would policy at all times, ilouds of dark and )r ever, and man gbtv perfectly," — thou do? lie is •e of him 13 longer irn all things and icli we cannot un- kU under the reign isk, in Dr. Walsh's riet's couuug. than velation was given i only to a ttuiiU tribd in CaaaaR. Doei thii provt that th« (i^oip«l is, tberufore, no " essential spiritual help ?" Or that we would be just as wtll without it ?— Christ came to seek and to save the lost of all nations — the ends of the eart^ are to look unto him and be saved. But to this day the swarming populati- ons of many tribes, and peoples and tongues, have never heard his blessed nama. Are they, then, deprived of no " essential spiritual help" in the want of the go»- pel — a help which we — the ' rich' and the ' learned' in comparison with them, have so long enjoyed ? Does their not having heard the news of salvation through Jesus show that they do not need to hear it, and are equally well with- out it ? Apply this reasoning to the case of the Bible- But the Archbishop is, as usual, only trying to pass off a sophism for a sound argument. We dc not say that it is " essential" to " salvation" ihat a man should be able to read. Far from it. There are multitudes of the unlettered poor in glory, and they were admitted there as freely it they had believed in Christ from hearing, as if they had done so from reading. Heaven is open to all alike who wash their I'obes and mako them white in the Blood of the Lamb. The Archbishop, therefore, attributes that to us which we do not in the remo- test way hold, and hence his argument is of no worth and falls pointless to the ground. But, on the other hand, is the conclusion he draws from the fact that a man may be saved without being able to read, — in any way just — that there- fore the Bible is of no value, or of little to those who can read ? Assuredly not. We are to add to our faith ' knowledge.' Dr. Walsh tells us that God has not acted in such a " preposterous manner" as to hinge the spiritual benefit of his people to any degree on his word. If ho had spoken only of the reading of the Bible, and pointed us to the hearing it read or expounded, as the source of religious health and growth, it would have been only a partial injury or "rror. But, instead of this, he puts aside the Bible altogether, and substitutes for it the " church". Through three pages and a half he expatiates on the glory and design of this 'Blessed Kingdom' with- out once mentioning the Scriptures. They are, in fact, completely ignored.— There is no need of them. The ' church' does and provides everything neces- sary. Obedience to her commands is alone required. Thus is the sun of God's word sought to be plucked from its place, and the world left to grope bj- eccle- siastical candles. But, thank God, it shines, and will still shine, till it fill a cloudless sky with its light, and the witfe landscape be bathed in its living splendour. >: It would be well if Dr. Walsh woutd show how such a verse as " Ho that hears you hears me, and he that despises you despises mc," applies any mor« to a Roman Catholic than to a Protestant clergyman who preaches Christ faith- fully. In either case Christ is despised if hils office of mercy clearly and faith- fully stated is rejected. He is heard if his offer be accepted Having descanted on the blessings held out by the church, Dr. Walsh pro- ceeds to tell us what she expects from our hands in return. The first moder- ate item is that wo acknowledge hor as " the great living authority, which, in epiritual things, all mankind are bound to obey," and as " the guardian and in- ./•/■'_ J >• iErprcier oi lae i«aw c; uou. ■I* 'f? i^^ i i^i ( 26 ) UBual, takcu far Rranicd,. ^vithoiit auy further proof iLao th« bjue asseriiou ; liaving made which he liastens to justify her monopoly by statirjg some of the grounls on which she refuses the world the liberty to " expound" the hook that has been sent to it. " It was not," says he, " the mode in which Christ in- structed her to evangelize the world ?" Can we deduce a momentous doctrine from^ what^ Christ did not say ? Surely IIis will is more clearly seen from tho way in which it wus understood and acted on by his inspired apostles. Yet they " reasoned" and " disputed" with the Jews out of the Scriptures, aod commend- ed the Bereans, as even my motto tells us, for searching these sacred writings to judge for themselves respecting the things they were told. But, further, the «:hurch knows by ' Divine instinct' (nol, certainly, by the Divine Word) that " if such a practice wore permitted there would be neither the ' unity of the spint,' nor the ' bond of peace.'" Did not the aposths, then, desire both, as m«ch as the church can or does., when they commended the Bereans for this very 'practice,' or wrote to the Thessaloaians to " Prove all things : hold fast that which is good." (Douay vn 1 Thess. v. 7.) In what does real ^nity con- sist? Does a family in order to enjoy it, and to have cast round their happy circle the 'bond of peace,' need to be in every particular of exactly the same opinion ? It is Paul who tells the Roman Christians, when they were making points of conscience about clean and unclean mears, and holy and common days, and striving to ,;et a dead uniformity iufroduced-that they should each do as he thought was his duty and not judge his brother, for ' the kingdom of God was not in meats and drinks ; but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost "— (Douay vn. Kom. xiv.) The former were things indifferent- the latter made the Unity of the church or ' kingdoin of God.' Again, the " unlearned and unstable would pervert the Scriptures to their own destruction". But why go further than St. Peter himself? He does not breathe a word about withholding them on this account. It is even clear froa. the very words he uses that the sacred writings, including those of St. Paul were in the hands of the fl/aople at large, else how could they pervert them ?- Nothmg is said about an infallible interpreter of any kind. 2Jor is it o: men HI general he speaks, but only of the ' ignorant' and 'unstable,' and, surely, when It IS not enjoined or even reaommended to withhold the Scriptures even Irom them, it is not just, on account of their mistakes or abuses, to take it from all, a:he best way to prevent error is, i|bt to perpetuate ignorance, but to re- move It, and the most effectual means of securing the trjth from the crude and changeful fancies of the ' unstable' is to diffuse correct views of its meauin- Dr. Walsh's next proof is from the words, "no prophecy of Scriptur°e is made by private interpretation." . But why establish a great doctrine on ate-t M s which has been more variously understood than almost ..uy other ?~- As quoted by him, li-om the Douay version, it seems to speak ofthc ^ 7>iaUng' of prophecy at first by the prophets themselves, not our use of it after, and to mean that what thoy revealed Avas not 'mace' or disclosed by their own power in findino: out what was future-not by their ' private internrctalion' of wh-.. Tfas to come, but that they spake only ' as they Trere moved by the Holy Ghost' <;ven I line of with re whispei even oi ful in I confide turp. Churcl Asl the Bil ,: with. " all th ing tru astoanc ■: "itwa ji mankii m ceeds i I says h( ^ presen of a r( Walsh Godtl phet. write ti I (Isaiah pheticj raised of the self, (1 I and pr time w under Walsh writtei pensat which teachii of the bc'ue asseriion ; iiig some of the )und" (he hook which Christ in- lentoiis doctrine seen from the ostles. Yet they , aod commend- sacred writings iiit, further, the nc "Word) that > ' unity of the desire both, as ereans for this ings : hold fast real X^'ty con- ind their happy sactly the same aking points of mon days, and each do as he lom of God was rioly Ghost."— he latter made ptures to their He does not ven clear frooi e of St. Paul, rvert them ?— )r is it of men ;,' and, surely, icripturcs even to take it from ice, but to re- the crude and its meauinc )f Scripture is trine on a te^-ls "ijy other? — »f the ' making' : after, and to eir own power stion' of v.'lvi!', he Holy Ghost' * (27) —propliecy thus not coming 'by the will of man.' At the best to what does all that Dr. Walsh can draw from these words amount? Whatever the expres- sion mean it is confined to prophecy : it does not embrace the whole Bible, nor ifl any thing said of the church or any other party being empowered or appoint- ed to give an authoritative interpretation of any part of it. Such a tLing is not even hinted. Nothing is said about restricting any from the study of even a line of it — nothing to discourage the freest access to it of alK A tact is stated with respect to the 'making' of the piophecies, but it is accompanied by no whisper of denial to any of the right to seek for thomiolves an explanation even of them. We are told what should make us ai once humble and prayer- ful in opening the Sacred Oracles, and should restrain us from presumptuous confidence in our views of the purport of that of which the fulfilment is still fu- ture. But we are told nothing more, and even this is addressed as much to the Church itself as to the private Christian. As he draws nearer his close Dr. "Walsh waxes still bolder. He cow gives the Bible the final coup de grace. It maybe sent to the trunkmaker's forth- with. He tells r.s that even if there had never been a New Testament, or if " all that has been written had perished," the church could ' still teach the sav- ing trutiis of salvation, and securely guide her children to eternal life.' This astounding announcement he endeavours to make probable by telling us that *' it was not by writing that the truths of Revelation were first made known to mankind, either under the Old or New Covenant," an assertion which he pro- ceeds to sustain by quoting a series of illnstrative proofs. " The Almighty," says he, " spoke to man in Paradise !" as if he could argue from Eden to the present, and from the communion of a holy creature with his Maker to the case of a revolted and sinful race ! Next *' He spoke through the Prophets.' Dr. "V\'^alsh surely forgets the common Hebrew phrase respecting revelations from God through these holy men. It is that he spoke " by the hand ot" the pro- phet. He omits to tell us how often such expressions occur as " the Lord said write the "Vision" — " the Lord said take thee a great book and write in it." — (Isaiah viii. 1, Hab. ii. 2.) He forgets how great a part of the Script:.ire is pro- phetical, and that, besides what they wrote, during all the period in which God raised up the prophets, there was a written Law — a portion of which consisted of the Tables of Testimony written on botii-sides by the Finger of God Him- self, (Exod. xxxii. lo) and that this law was the High and only Rule of Faith and practice. As to God's " speaking by his Son" we have seen how litthj time was allowed to pass before what was thus spoken was embodied ia writing under the direction of the Holy Spirit, to keep it from being corrupted. Dr. "Walsh tells us that for " 2400 years", from Adam to Moses, there " was no written revelation." But does he know all the details of the patriarchal dis- pensation ? It ho do, no man else does. Still as he claims it as a period in which " the will of God was made known" through " oral tradition and oral teaching" alone, we will give him the benefit of it as aflbrding a striking proof of the worth of these highly extolled means of preserving and spreading religi- ous truths. It would have besn Hettsr for the bo.^t of the church bcini? jthls by their means alone, without any sacred writings whatever, as be maintains, to !ni: t « ( ^8) rvansmit ths tratb to all ages in all itt integrity, if h« bad let Jhis illustraiioa alone, for wo find that the first half of these palmy days of « oral tradition' and * oral teaching' ended by leaving no more religion in the; world Jhan was found ju tho Ark, and thai the second exhibits almost as great a corruption, when well nigh the only godliness left was found in the household of Abraham. Dr Walsh tells us th^t under the Mosaic dispensation, the " sole meanu" for •' determining the true doctrine, or deciding religious disputes" was the " au- thoriiyofthe Jewish Priesthood and the Jewish Church", and, in support of this extraordinary assertion, quotes, as an * evident' proof of its correctness, our r.ord's saying, " The Scribes and I'harisecs sit in tho chair of Moses, accord- ing to what they say to you do ye: but according to their woiks do ye cot".— Unfortunately for the sense Dr. Walsh draws from these words, we have an in- disputable statement of their meaning from Christ himself, who, so tar from in- culcating on the people a blind and implicit obedience, or investinc even the Pharisees with 'authority* in matters of faith, expressly tells his disciples to •' take heed and beware of their doctrine" (Matt. xvi. 6. 12.) ; denounces them as ' blind guides', and affirms thai they made their proselytes " children of Hell". Still more-he speaks thus of their " oral tradition", so lauded by Dr. VValsh, which was a great part of their teaching: " Why do ye also trans.^ress the commandment of God for your tradition-you have made void the com- mandment of (Jod for your tiadition. Hypocrites! * * in vain do they wor- ship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men" ! (Matt xv Dy vn) Now is it conceivable that Christ would enjoin the people to obey them in those .hmgsin which ihey n^ade "void" and " transgressed" the " 'commandment Pt (.od , and iheir worship was ".vain" from their " teaching doctrines an-l commandments of men"? Would he require them implicitlv to follow " blind j(uidcs' , or to listen to all they said, and sp be made " children of Hell" ? Far be It from us ever to cast such an jn.putatioi ,n our blessed Lord. The quota- tion of Dr. ^\al9h, then, amounts only to (his, ihat, as public teachers of the I^w, and as muchof their jns-uciion, notwithstanding all their corruptions, was iq harmony with it, Jesus des.ed to uphold them so far as they kept by its pre- cepts. W hen they > transgressed- jt or ' made' it ' void', (he command was- " lake heed and beware of their d,^tiino". ^^•ill Dr. Walsh allow his people the same liberty to try his - doctrines^ bv Scripture ? It is not the case that vtbe Jewish :£hurch and Priesthood" we|e thelauthoritative interpreters of , ho the hcriptures^p any sense like that claltned by the Church of Rome. Neith- er the Pnesrs nor any other class laid claimjto tho right of exclusive or autho- ptativu interpretation, as Dr. Walsh would have us believe. Jesus ' preached' and ' taught in the synagogues'. Yet assuredly he did not give the imerpreta- t.ons of the 'Jewish Church and Priesthood'; nor, certainly, did his aposUes, a^d jet they, aUo. as we see in the book of Acts.JhadJthe synagogues freely op- f-L , ''"" ?'' '''' "' '^'' «">' P«-°» ^'- --« thought to b: able, was S l«M«y ..0 read or to preach, especially, among others, one who appeared in the wlmrac.er of the head or leader of a new sect, probably that the audience m^.y., ^ia.ni^iu!ormed of their principle., and not condemn them unheard or «n- .Pictorial Elble, Vol. iy, 162 W"IP is illustratioB tradition' and lan was found jpiion, when iraham. e meanis" for ivas the " au- jn support of rrectness, our [oscs, accord- lo ye cot". — e have an in- ) far from in- ng even the 3 disciples to lounces them children of ided by Dr. io transgress aid the com- lo they wor- XV Dy. vn). hem in ihoso nomandment octriniis an«l illow " blind Hell"? Far The quota* chers of tl»e uptioiis, was )t by its pre* wand was — V his pooplo le case tJiai retersof iho ne. iJeith- m or autho- ' preached' ! interpreta- us apostles, !3 freely op- ble, was at ared in the ionee iniaht a?d 01 iin-. ■*^: 4( 29) Dr. Walsh ne^t endeavours to show the necesjity for an authoritative ajid exclusive interpretation of the Scriptures by the,' church", under the christian economy. Ho tells us thai " auihoriiy" is essential to the stability and exist- ence of all human jjovcrninent, and, hence, must be necessary in the things of religion. " If the subject were permitted", says he, " to take the code of "laws in each country, and interpret them according to hio own judgment or inclination, what law would be ever obeyed, or what legal dispute would be over settled"? But he omits in this (question a mocst important particular. The opinions or decisi- ons of courts owe ail their 'authority' to their being enfoned by a background of pains and penalties. Without tliese they Avould sink from 'auihoritv' to simple advice. And so it must bo in all other ' authoriiy* It cease.', to be fo if it cannot enforce its ^^.:ision3. It comes, as I have said, to be mere advice Now, has the cliurch any power to carry out its decrees on a singl ; point con- nected with man's belief? Most assuredly not. Man has no means of com- pelling the mind to receive an opinion. lie has no power to force ic to reject what it feels to be true. " You may sew up my mouth," said a philosopher to a tyrant, " shut nic up, load me with chains ; but my soul is free and will re- main free". The only power to which such language cannot be used is that of God. Authority over the soul belongs io Him alone. The ' authority' of the church, then, or of any body of men" in matters of faith, is. after all, only ad- vice—it is like the decree of a court which has no power tn enforce obedience. Now can it be supposed that God would ever invest the church with what is 80 wholly nominal; that He would put such a reeu in its hands for a sceptre; that Ho would establish an ' authority' which was wholly powerless to secure it» end ? Again, a.ssuredly not. There is an ' authoritative interpretation' of faith which is no illusion. It is that which is given when the Throne is set and the books are opened, and every man shall.4^Te account of himself to God — The only jurisdiction over the human soul that is not a mockery is the Judg- ment Seat. We answer Dr Walsh's claim of 'authority' for his church, therefore, by sim- ply asserting its impossibility. The only power man can exert over the mind is that of persuasion, which is the very reverse of that 'authority' demanded by Rome. If convincing arguments are advanced tor a point, thejie alone are suf- ficient, and the ' authority' of the church is not needed. If the arguments .gccm to us weak, we remain where we were, and the priest is in the position of any, private man who has failed for want of new proofs. What can the churchV • authority' do after this ? Can it compel belief ? A man cannot believe by command any more than he can love by commaatl- There is, then, no' autho- rity' here. And if, as the last resort, the use of force is employed, to what docs it amount ? Can the bars of a prison convince ? Can the rack or the stake touch the soul ? There is, then, heie, fina,H^, no human ' authority' over tho mind. The * church' knows that there is nj^— -that the name is only an illnsion— a sound, and hence seeks to gain her end by an indirect means. Ileeling she i« powerless if reasons be asked, she bends all her efforts to get meft to dispens* with them altogether. She strives to get her doctrines taken in the lump as a child takes Bluebeard. Even Dr. Walsh draws his model of the obedience that should be rendered, from that of the "Soldier" to the " Articles of War", or tho " Sailor" to the " Naval Code". As the " first duty of a Soldier is obedience" --blind, dumb, machine-like, obedience, so he would have that of the mind ia accepting its opinions and its faith. Tho first duty of a Soldier is that be b« silent — asking no questions— doing as he is ordered ; and so the first duty of' the soul is to be silent, ask no questions, but believe what the church bommaads. What kind of belief can that be which is rendered as the " obedience" of s •' Srtlftioj.'" io tn II Aytly^].^^" _„/• I I... .U.. 1-_1_ 1 .1 _ , ,. r, »,. . .,. . does it prove the ' authority' of the church over the mind ? It does not, for tbe mind has not been consulted, it has stood altogether aside in ihe matter. Tb« evidence that it has, shines out in tho fact, that, if it awake to think, tho doubt 0/ the humblest and hitherto most implicit believer can only be removed by ( »'> ) presenting reason on reason till he be satisrimJ. To speajc of ' inftibriy'', then, in inattere of faitlj, is only to cheat us by words. It js simply itirpos.'4pI<^, and the only substitute the church can find is to habituate the miud to silence— to train it to dispense with reasons altogether, auu perpetuate the crecljjlity of childhood. ". ! '.,' Notwithstanding this, Dr. Walsh ominously commends the churchj for having, as he says, "proscribed the heretics of every ag« and coumry". If ii he impossi- ble, as we have seen it is, from the very nature of the mind, to believe, except on conviction, how deadly the wrong to " proscribe" men for what t..hcir con- victions have forced upom them ? How utterly wrong must it be to maintain in the church itself a system which only makes men Catholics by making them less :han men ? Dr. Walsh approves of" proscribing heretics" !' ! One thing in connection with the asserted ' authority' of the church is much to be noticed. If we ask the grounds on which it is claimed. Dr. Walsh nuist refer us to the Scriptures for proof. IIu cannot refuse to do so, but must quoto passages, in which, in his opinion, the doctrine is maintained But, before it can be leceived as well founded anLrbinding,.^ach incjuirer must judge the mean- ing of these jor himself. Nor can it be permitted that the church should aflix any authoritative interpretation to them beforehand, for her right and ability to do so, either with them or any other part of Scripture, is the very point to be proved, and can bu acknowledged at all only after their correct meaning is o- therwise ascertained. Until this is done, she stands in exactly the same posi- tion at the bar of the private judgment of each inquirer, as the claimant ot a worldly dignity or privilege does at the bar of the constituted tribunals of the land. Thus she has to submit to this much abused right of the human mind to receive its belief only when convinced by satisfactory reasons, as the sole means of establishing her claims at all. We must use our private judgment to ascertain her title to demand of us <^ot to use it! Surely if it be competent to decide on a fundamental like this, it is competent to .ecide on the simple state- ments of Uie plan of salvation. If the church must be built on thu convictions of mankind, what pretence can there be for underrating their value as a means of deciding truth ? Dr. Walsh miist beware of speaking lightly of the justness and necessity of his people weighing the reasons advanced for their faith else he honeycoivibs the foundation of the church itself. Dr Walsh tells us of the evil effects on " society at large", of ^he general li- berty to examine and study the Bible. Yet, including all the scandal' and ' turbulence', and ' immorality', &c., of which one can think in Protestant countries, whether, on the wjiole, are they, or those in which Popery flourishes, most paaceful, and prospftrou^,' and intelligent ? " Throughout Christendom", says Macaulay, speaking of the Church of Rome since the Reformation, " what- ever advance ^aa been made in knowledge, in freedom, in wealth, and in the arts of life, has been made in spite of her, and has evei'y where been in inverse proportion toiler power. The loveliest $^id most fertile provinces in Europe have, under lier rule, been sunk in ppverjy, in political servitude, and in intel- lectual torporj^ while Protestant countr::.s once proverbial for sterility and bar- barism, have been turned, by skill and industry, into gardens, and can boast of a long list of heroes and statesmein, philosophers and poets. Whoever, know- ing wuat Italy and Scotland naturally are, and what four hundred yearg ago they actually were, shall now compare the country round Rome with the country round Edinburgh, will be able to form some judgment as to the tenden- cy of Papal domination. * * Whoever passes in Germany from a Roman Ca- £faolic to a Protestant principality ; in Switzerland irom a Roman Catholic to a Protestant Canton, fmds that he has passed from a lower to a higher gr^de of civilization". * Dr. W.ai3h even as ho draws to a clo.ie has another thrust 9t the Bible. On .♦ Iir«t. pfKmjlaml, Vol. i. 49, riy', then. i^hf and iHence— to :'edjjlit}' of same posi- imaiit ot a lals of the man mind IS the sole idgment to npetent to mple state- louvictions as a means he justness faith else general li- andal' and Protestant flourishes, istendora", )n, " what- 1)1 d in the in inverse in Europe id in intel- y and lar- in boast oC er, know- yearg ago ! with the he tendeu- loman Ca- itholic to a r grftde of Hble. On ( 31 ) paK^.^^iMf****"*^ '•^'^ "' *hat 'a great portion of it Is lost', and Jms a long nOjfo ia^fW ^'ijpondljs. to support this asKeriion. " Some learned Biblical sphol- ar,", he fella Uct, "are pf opmion, and not without reason, that about twenty di tie re n t Ibook^j of Scripture haiu b"en e Uirely Inst". It is a pity he did not give us the names of this mysterious "8omo". He certainly was rij.»ht in not sayinc " many". But the attempt thus to throw suspicion on the Scriptures is not original : in this, also, he >>"t follows in the footsteps ol oihers who, in the^r zeal to exalt the church, would degrade and discredit even these holy oracles. Let him, if be can, produce the " reasons" which justify the " opinion". As to Ae bpoks quoted as named in the Bible and not now extant, what evi- dence has he that they were inspired, or, if inspired, that they were not dictv ted by God for a temporary purpose, without being designed for the perma- nent use of his people ? Paul quotes from the Greek poets : were they inspir- ed ? Had tlie Jews no books except those of the Scriptures V Some at least of the writings Dr. Walsh names were merely secular compositions — one seem» to have been a collection of popular songs, and another a mere muster roll of the army. The proverbs and canticles of Solomon to which he refers are only said to have been spoken, not written. And, if they were written, what proof Lave we that they were insj'rod any more than his treatises on Natural Histo- ry mentioned in Scripture, or the royal documents of his government ? Others of these so called ' lost books' are thought to be only diflerent names for some of the books of our present Bible. And if the names of prophets be mentioned, we must bear in mind that these holy men were only inspired or especial oc- casions, and that, hence, all even they wrote was not necessarily canonical; and tliat, as I have stared above, they were doubtless often inspired to convey God's will on subjects of local .id passing importance, the communications of which the Holy Spirit may not have seen it necessary to preserve. Before, then, he can with any justice speak of books of the Scriptures being lost. Dr. Walsh would require to prove that it was ever God's design thev should be part of the Bible at all. Of the New Testament Dr Walsh says "'St. Paul di- rects the Colossians (iv. 16) to read the Epistle of the Laodiceans." But almost all the best commentators suppose that tjiis epistle was only another copy of that of the Ephesian3 which was in a measure a circular letter to the churches.* So of the words " and in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians Paul says ' I wrote to you in an epistle." The literal meaning of the original is " I have written to you in the Epistle",or "in this Epistle" — that is, in the former part of the one he was then writing As to the " two quotations given by St. Matthew from the Old Testament (Matt. ii. 23, xxvii. 9) which are not now to be found in the Scriptures," all that is needed to expose the .pitiful catch is to tiirn to the pages of any popular commentary. He next gives us a list of Apocryphal books and a few. writings of ancient Christian authors to try to perplex the simple by asking respecting them, how private individuals ai; this day can know wl.sther they, as well as the Scrip- tures, should not be received as inspired. Some he names were esteemed by the ancient church as at once impious'and absurd Some were fcVen the writ- ings of heretics. iNone were received as, canonical. Yet here they are, dragg- ed out trom obscurity, lo drive away " the unlearned and unstable" from the word of God ! " How any private individual can know at this day whether they were not inspired" may be easily answered. If they have doubts on tho matter any Protestant clergymen will give or procure iheni the information they need from historical proof. Meanwhile, that so many of various opinions should agree in rejecting these writings iseulficient to satisfy most. Dr Walsh boasts of the ' vast number 6f editions' of the Douay Bible whicTi ht says have been published, as a proof that thu- Church of Roiao, with proper restrict ions, ' earneitljf ,v£ic}:iqjmen