<4 a THE EXAMINER. [Ce tim SEE disputationes ~~ aie — of corner-stone ? On what authority does he receive the twenty-| adding of new books to the canon drawn up in the

him

a

give it wy swpport. If, ina school, there should be only ning or ten Protestant children, among forty Catholics, the allowing of these nme or ten Protestané to read in the Bible, to the moster, by themacives, could pot be either unjnst or injurious to the Catholics ; bat the prohibition of euch reading by these Protestant elildren, if such reading were Tequired by their parents or gaardimns, would bean act of great injustice to them, wen although the Catholic children were four times more than they; and, were the case the reverse, with respect to the mixed composition of scholerd in a school; that is, if there were in it four Protestants for every Casholie, the injustice to the former denomination of scholars and parents, would be stil greater end more manifest ; yet the principle of the prohibition would be the same in both cases, There should be no compulsion enther in one wey or the other; nothing arbitrary or aggressive es either side; and neither would there be, if both parties would meke true religion the rule of their conduct with respect te the question. With the present Catholic Bishop, 1 have Leen acquainted thirty years; and Lam fully persuaded that although he 1s, a8 tt weil ®ecomes him to be, duly zealous for the preservation and promotion of the rexl interests of his Chareh, be is a maa of a truly liberal and enlighteaed wind ; in no way disposed to the practice of intolerance, and Sy no means desirous of infringing upon the religious privileges of the members of any other Christian Comaunion. He condemns al! etrife eo account of a difference of epimons on questions of religion ; and, one day, freely conversing wih me, touching cigputes or misundersiandings, falsely called religious, he very pointedly said, ** Such disputes or quarrels are never caused by religion ; on the centrery, they are eceasioned by the want of it.” Phe pydiication of His Lordship’s letter, to which allusion has just been made, has, no doubt, been productive of much weaunderstanding and conseqnent bad feeling throughout the country ; dat it ought to be remembered that the publication of that Jetter was not dn act of the Bishop's. His attention had been drawn to what tad beea said, by Mr. Stark, at the »nauguration of the Normal School, about the reading and the expounding of the Bible in that Institunion, which had awakened the conscientious scruples, and areused the jealousy, of many of the Catholic Communion throughout the Island, who positively believed that the Protestants were going to thrust the Bible down their throate, as so:ne of them phrased it. This being the ease, the Bishop, simply with a view, | believe, to remove the cause of annoyance, so largely, however needlessly, experienced emoggst his flock, addressed that letter to the Board of Educa- tien, the publication of which has, unfortunately, occasioned so much undue excitement and clamour throughout the couniry. Now, however, when it has been so clearly shewn that the object of the Protestant petitioners, as expressed in the Resolution of the hon. member for Princetown (Hon. T. H. Hlaviland,) is one which, even, if carried out to its fullest exteet, can in no way interfere with the religious scruples of memb-rs of the Catholic Church, [| cannot see how any jadividual of that Communion can reasonably object to it, (To be continued.) R. B. Irvine, Reporter. ae =a

Correspondence.

rrr eer rrr rte”

ON THE CANON GF SCRIPTURE.

“If you seek to find a Jaw for this, you will find no Scripture; but @raditiva is the authority which presents itself to you.” (Terru.iian Coron. Mixit.}

To tne Eprron or tur Examiner.

Srn,—In your paper of the 29th of last March there appeared a communiration signed ‘ Common Sense,” which contained the following significant statement: “ Te Pro- testant version does not contain the whole eanon of Scripture, beeause it is defective of soma of the books which the ancient councils of the Catholic Church have ever considered as divine.” Objection has been taken against this statement by one signing himself “Student of Church History,” who, in the columns of the Protector of the 14th and 21st of April, has attempted to display bis erudition, but alas! like the mountain in labour, be has only brought forth a ridiculous mouse,

i feei pity for “ Student ;” his vanity has placed bim in an aukward plight, out of which the accumulated weight of Protestantism wil] not extricate him. The public will judge whether the bold assertion made by him in the Protectur of the 14th of last April, to wit: ** The Apocrypha never was authoritatively brought into the sacred canon of Scripture, nor regarded as of divine authority, even by the Church of Rome, till the 4th session of the council of Trent in the year 1546,” be deserving of faith, or rather of rejection and con- tempt as false and opposed to historical evidence, as the following will show.

Before, however, I enter on this matter, it will not, per- haps, be out of place to mention here what are the books he, with the generality of Protestant writers, call Apocrypha. The world knows that Protestantism is indebted to the Catholie Church for whatever vestige of Christianity it pos- geases—that it would haye no Bible itself were it not for her =the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which it wo wickedly maligns,

The books of the Old and New Testament, as in the Douay Bible, compose the canon of Scripture of the Catholic Church. Catholic divines designate a portion of these Proto canonical, the others Deutero-canonical Scripture. The former are so called because they were inserted first into the canon, the Jatter feom their being put into it gt a later period, and are ceasidered of equal authority with the first iv the church. But Protestants reject as apocrypha or uncanonical some of the Deutero-canonical books, namely, the books of Barach, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Kecclesiastiens, the first and second of the Maccabees, with fragments of the books of Daniel and Esther. The fragments of Daniel are, the prayer of Azarias, the canticle of the three children in the fiery furnace, the h stories of Susanna aud of Bel and the Dragon. In the book of Esther, the seven last chapters, from the fourth verse of the tenth chapter to the twenty-fourth verse of the six- teenth chapter. In fact, they do not agree among themselves even about al! the books of the New Testament. Those books of the New Testament which are ranked among the Proto- canouical ones they receive; but the Lutherans rejected, at one time, all the Deutero-canonical ones of both the Old and New Testament; at another time, they admitted, with the Calvinists, those of the New, and rejected with them those of tne Old, as stated. Bat [ believe there is no dispute to-day ginong them with regard to the New, which they all receive as canonical Scripture,

‘The coutroyersy they between them and Catholics regards the books and fragments, glready mentioned, of the Old Testament, Tues are rejected as apocrypha by the gene- rality of Protestant writers, because they were not contained ip the canon of Hxdras, who, as all agree, drew up the Jewish eode of Seripture, though at what precise period it is not pseertained. As [ will have to return to this again, [ will Jeave it fur the present, and be:ake myself to the point at issue.

During the first ages of the church, tradition, in an wubrokeu chain, proves the divine authority of the books termed Apocrypha, eyen should auy portion of the New Tas'ament be included by them under this title, The eccle- Bastical writers gf that period rank them in the canon of Scripture, and everywhere quote them us such, St. Clement, (A.D. 100) the fourth Pope from Ss. Peter, who filled the See of Rome, cites, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, the books of Judith, Wislom, Kcelesiasticus and Maccabees, (sve gist. 1, cor. cap. 4, cap. 55, also epist. 2, de yirginitate, cap.

}3, apud Coteler. tom. 1. apud Galiand. Biblioth. P. P.c. 1, svot.Z.) Lo theepistle attributed to 3:. Barnabas (A.D.100),

we find texts quoted from the books of Wisdom aud Keelesi- |

asticus, (see Gallaud. tow. 1, Proleg. cap. 1, sect. 2.) The euthor, moreoyer, of the Apostolical Constitutions relates the hisiory of Susanna, as tod by Daniel, calls the beok of Pobius the law of God, lex Dei, and brings forward texts t ut Judith and eelesiasticus, (lib. 2, c. 58 et 50, lib. 1, e. 1, lib, 7,.c. 11, liber. 3, cap, 14, ibid. ec. 7, lib. 2, cap. 21.)

Jesidas, Saint Ireneus (second century), in-his fourth book Contra Haereses,” the $8th chapter, takes texts from the claim ov our confidence and obedience than the Church! But let us hear F. Molinie, a Protestant, speak on this matter.

ecounts what we read in Baruch, 4, 36, under the name Scania in book 5, ¢. 85; and the whole of the fifth book of, Baruch we find in book 4, c. 26, n. 3; and the fragments of

St. Clement of Alexandria quotes thrice the book of Tobias—

Wisdom-—more than fifty-times the book of Keelesiasticus— four times the book of Barach—here and there, in his * Kelogues,” the hymn of the three Hebrew children, also the book of the Maccabees. , this Father's work, [o. Potteri Oxon. Venet. 1754.) Ter- tullian, liber de Monog. ec. 17, quotes the book of Judith, and nine times the book of Wisdom as Solomon’s—five times the book of Keclesiasticus, which he terms Scripture—as often the book of Baruch, under tne name of Jeremias—re- counts the history of Susanna, of Bel and the Dragon, and attributes it to Daniel—finally the two books, first and second, of the Maccabees. (See Script. ind. end. Cameliict Rigalt.)

St. Hyppolytus, (tom. 2, p. 442, seqq. in Susannam, apud Galland), in his * Fragment” (9) on the eanticle of canticles, praises the book of Wisdom, and aseribes it to Solomon. In his “ Demonstrat. advers. Judaeos,” same book thrice, and calls its author a Prophet (ibid. p. 490.) In his work “ De Charism. Tradit. Apostol,” 5. 2, he ranks among the Prophetesses Judith, from the 8th chapter of her book, (ibid, p. 508); in his comments on Susanna, recounts what we read in the book of Tobias, (3, 24, ibid. p. 446 )

St. Cyprian cites the same books which Tertullian calls Scripture ; besides, the book of Tobias, (see Script. index at end, Maur. ed.) St. Dionysius Alexandrinus quotes Tobias, Wisdom, Baruch and Kvclesiasticus as divine Scripture, (see Script. ind. end of his works De Magistris Romae.)

Origen, in his celebrated epistle to Africanus, not only vindieates the history of Susanna as sacred, but also the frag- ments and other books not contained in the Jewish canon, (see tom. 1, n. 4, ed. Maur. opp.,) ibid, n. 15 testifies that Tobias is read in the churches. Finally quotes (Exhortat. ad Martyr. n, 22, seqq.) the authority of the Maceabees, (in lib. 3, contr. Celsum, n. 60, and here and there) the book of Wisdom, (lib, 4, 25—see Script. ind. at end, Ke.) the book of Kecle- siasticus, to establish dogmas of faith. All these Fathers, then, and a host of others whom it is needless to refer your readers to, call these books divine Scripture. The express tradition, therefore, of the three first centuries of the church bears witness against the statement of “ Student of Church History.” ’

But let us proceed. In the 27th canon of the council of Hyppo, they are reckoned among the number of sacred books ; and four years later, 397, this canon of the council of Hyppo was adopted by the Fathers of the third council of Carthage. These venerable witnesses of Apostolical Traditions and Jatholic truth, having enumerated the books which compose tie canon of Scripture (the so called Apocrypha among them), say: “It has pleased us also to decree that nothing be read in the church, under the name of divine Scripture, but the canonical Scriptures, because,” they add, “we have received them from the Fathers to be read in the church.’ This canon was afterwards approved of, in the name of the whole Western Church, by Pope Innocent the First, in his epistle to Exuperius, bishop of Tolosa, bearing the date 405 ; in it the holy Pontiff says that he has drank in this doctrine from tradition.

St. Augustine, who was one of the forty-four bishops who assisted at the third council of Carthage, first beautifully

Daniel he ageribes to the same Prophet (lib. 8, ¢. 5, . 2),

. . ; > i } > k of ; twice the book of Judith—twenty-one times the boo ‘sistent in this line of conduct ?

(See Scriptural index at the end of |

3.8. 9, 16, he cites the |

two books of the eanon of Esdras? Is it not on the authority of the church? Why not receive the so-called apocrypha on the some authority also? Why receive the former from her and reject the latter, which, with the same breath, she declares to be equally divine Scripture? Is * Student ” con-

Leaving him to get out of this difficulty, if he can, I will betake myself to notice some of the authorities he has pro- duced in support of his statement. Among them is Bi-hop Burnet, from whom “Student” quotes as follows: ‘The Christian Church was for some agez an utter stranger to those books;” aud yet St. Clement, in the very first age of the church, quotes some of them in his epistles to the Corinthians, as already noticed, St. Barnabas takes a text from the

‘eleventh chapter of Wisdom, verse the twelfth, and places it’

alongside with one from Isaias, (epist. cap. 6, apud Galland.) The truth-speaking bishop then relates the journey of Medito, Bishop of Sardis, to the Kast, to gather a perfect catalogue of the books of the Old Testament for Onesimus, but conceals Melito’s omission of the book of Esther, a portion of which was contained in the canon of Esdras, This catalogue of the Bishop of Sardis raised the first controversy in the Kast re- speciing the books not included in it; and advantage was tuken of it by some to doubt of their canonicity. It did not, however, prevent them from being read in the Kastern Churches as before. I may as well observe here as elsewhere, that the Greek and Latin Fathers, who have recounted only the books contained in the Jewish canon, related and wished ouly to relate a fact, from whch it cannot be legitimately concluded that (admitting few wmong them wavered for a time about the canonicity of the books not contained in it) they considered them deserving of exclusion ; for they quote them everywhere as authoritative Scripture. When Rufinus charged St. Ierom with seeming to reject the Deutero- canonical fragments of Daniel, the holy Doctor defended himselfin these weighty words: “ What L relate against the history of Susanna, the eanticle of the three children, Bel and the Diagon, which are not in the Hebrew canon, is what the Jews are wont to say. He who accuses me, proves him- self a trepanuer ; fur 1 have not expressed my own sentiments, but what they are wont to say against us,” (lib. 2, n. 33, contr. Rufin.) Are not these words of the great St. Jerom sufficiently expressive of what I stated above? Do they not also indicate clearly what both he and Tufinus thought in this matter? But the enemies of the OCutholic Church, who seem to have barred every avenue to conviction lest wisdom should enter into their souls, are not satisfied with it. Hence they stop at nothing to make their views appear right in the public estimation,

nasius favour his opinion.

of the so-called apocrypha: ‘* Though the Church of the Jews place them among the apocrypha, yet the Church of Christ teaches them and hovours them as divine,” (Jib. 2, contr, QCels.) As for St. Athanasius, he not only quotes them to prove what things are of faith, but uses besides the for- mu'a, common to ancient writers, to wit: “as it is written,” to denote divine Seripture, (see epist. 3, ad Serapion. n. 4, also Apolog. ad imp. Constant. n. 17, tom, 2, opp. 5. Atha- nasti, p. 126, seqq. Maur.ed) ‘The work entitled “ Synopsis Athauasii,” critics agree, is not the work’ of the Saint, who

lays down Rules to Di-cern Sacred Seripture, and then sub- seribes the canon, which is in all the sume as the one of the) eouncil, (lib, 2, De Doctrina Christiana, cap. 8,n.13) 1) would recumnend this work of the great Father to the atten- tive perusal of “Student; he will gather from its pages | sound and venerable doctrines, which as yet he sadly laeks "4 impiously rejects.

Over aud above all these solid testimonies, there is stil another which places the canonicity of the books referred to beyond ali dispute. I meau the authority of the Vetus Ita/a, or Axcient Italic version, which was used in the Letina churches trom Apostolic days down to the times of St. Jerom, A. D. 392. Ln this version they are ranked among divine Scripture. In the year 494 Pope Gelasius held a council at Rome, in which they are also declared canomea!, and of divine authority, (tom, 4, Auastasii Buibliothe carii de vitis Rom. Pontificum.)

To all these proofs, let us add the unanimous consent of all the Kastern Churches; aud though some of them separated from the See of ome as ear'y as the fifth century, yet all held, in common with it, tse same canon of Seripture. Inu the decree of Pope Kugenius the Fourth, in the -year 1489, to the Armenians, they are numbered as canonical Scripture, (Harduin. Act. Council, tom. col, 1023.)

The Fathers of the Council of Trent, therefore, when they, in 1546, issued their decree containing them in the canon of sacred books, did nothing more than declare what had been the constant belief of Uhristian antiquity, from Apostolic times down to their own days, with respect to them, to wit: that they were canonical Scriptare, and as such must be re- ceived by all, otherwise the gainsayers would draw down upon their own heads the anger of Him who said, “ Lt ke will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican,” (Math. ch. 18, v.17.) Ayain, ** Who hears you, hears me; and who despises you, despises me; but he who despises me, despises him who sent me,” (Lake eh. 10, v.16.) They followed the rule laid down by St. Augustin, (de Bap- tism. contr. Donatist, lib. 4, c. 24), “ That which the church observes, and what is not decread by councils, but always retained, is of Apostolic origin.” Therefore, the statement of ‘‘ Student” is false; therefore, too, the one of ** Common Sense” stands good, and is based upon the irrefragable testi- monies of 1500 years.

I must not omit here to mention another important historical fact referring to this matter, to wit: the reply of the Greek Schmatica! Council, held at Jerusalem in the year 1672, under the Patriarch Dositheus, to the Reformers of Germany and France, who solicited them to a union to make common cause against the Church of Rome. ‘ We regard,” they re- plied, “these books—the so-called Apoerypha—as canonical ; we acknowledge them to be holy Scripture, because they have en handed down by an aucient usage, or rather by the Satholie Church,” (Perpetuite de la foi, tom. 5,ch.7) Be- aause the reformers mangled the canon of Scripture to suit cheir own unholy ends, this made the Greeks spurn all idea of a unioa with sych sacrilegious murderers; and hence the above significant reply, which closed further correspondence on the subject of a union, at least on the side of the Greeks, This fact alone speaks volumes. is

To return now, as | promised, to the grounds on which they are rejected as apoerypha, it will suffice to state that Ksdras could not enumerate them in his cauon, singe it is certain that some, if not ail of them, were not penned till after the death of that zealous [sraelite, Yet, though they were not in the Jewish canon, they were held in high esteem the Jews, as Joseplius (liber 1, contr, Appion.) testifies, Their canon was already drawn up; they dared not increase or diminish it, because the chain of Prophets was broken ; but a Prophet was expected by them to arise, who would, decide on the divinity of these books, and insert them in the canon. No Prophet, howeyer, arose till he, who was foretold by the Prophets, came into the world. From his divine lips then—from the lips of the Apostles delegated by him to teach all nations, ail truths—the church received those books as divine, And does “Student” presume to maintain that Ksd as and the Synagogue were invested with greater autbo- rity than the Apostles? Does he presume to maintain that the Church of Moses and the Jewish Couneils haye more

gen (370), to support his bad cause, but in vaiu; for St.

was one of the great lights of the fourth century, but of some obscure writer, who assujned the name of the Saint to get readers, (see Cf. Maurin. ed. tom. 2, p. 124 seq ) Thus it is that great men are slandered by hungry seribblers, But the uuscrupulous Scotch bishop goes on to cite, in the same way, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (348), and 3t. Gregory Nazian-

Cyril (catech. 9, un. 2, edit. Tontei et aliin) adduces texts frow Wisdow which he ealls the work of Solouv.ou; from K-cle- siastieus, (eatech. 6, n. 4. also catech. 11, n. 19, &e.); from Baruch, whom he styles a Prophet, (c. 11, n. 15); and from the last chapters of Daniel as from divine Scripture, (:atech. 16,0. 31.) St. Gregory quotes them everywhere @s Sevip- ture, and explains the passages taken from them by the heretics of his day, without ever calling their authority in doubt, (Orat. 34, n. 13, Orat. 59, p. 730, tom. 1, Urat. 36. p. 586.)

«Tne Council of Laodicea,” continues Burnet, “ should determine the whole matter, as it, by an express canon, de- livers the catalogue of the canonical books as we do, decree- ing that these only should be read in the Churches. Now the canons of this Council were afterwards received into the eode of the canons of the Universal Church; so that we have the concurring sense of the whole Church of God in the matter. Here we have four centuries clear for our) eanon, in exclusion to all additions.” Good Sishop Burne: tells a good story ! Now, audi alteram partem. Tie Council | of Laodicea, held about the years 361 er 872, was only a particular Council ; and though it published adwirable canons concerning discipline, yet it is not of such authority as to stand in the way of the tradition of the Upiversal Church. Why it omitted the so-called apocrypha is not known, But it nowhere rejected them; and onus of proving that it has impugned their divine authority still rests on good Bishop Burnet, and on his Lordship’s admirer, “* Student ;” for they maintain the negative—Catholic divines the positive side of the question. The omission, however, need not cause sur- | prise, when we remember that the bloody persecutions in- | flicted on the Church, during the first ceuturies, prevented the free communication of her numerous and widely-separa'ed members, This hindrance caused the apostolical traditions relating to these books from being clearly autheutie¢ in some particular Church or Churches; but, on peace being re- stored, as these traditions in their favor became more minutely ascertained, they were, without hesitation, considered as the genuiye and divinely-inspived Word of God. Hence the fathers of the Council of Laodicea, or their successors, did not raise their voice against those of the Council of Car- thage, who, about thirty years later, pronounced them divine Scripture. Qn our side, therefore, and not on Bishop Bur- net’s, is the © concurring sense of the whole Church of God im the matter.’ We haye the four first centuries pro- claiming them to be the divinely-inspired Word of God,

The Bishop concludes with charging the Council of Trent with the monstrosity ef first inserting them in the canon ; but [ have shown this canon of the Fathers of Trent to be the same with the earons of the Councils of Florence, under Pope Kagenius the Fourth, in 1439; of Rome, under Gela- sius, in 494; and of Carthage, St. Siricius filling the chair of Peter, in 397. [tis not a new canon, then; vor was it issued to reconcile differences bet ween Catholics in the matter ; for one and invariable was the sense of the Catholic Churches on it; but it was published only to establish, against the Reformers, the ancient and general doctrine of the whole Church relative to the canon of Scripture.

Another authority brought forward by “Student” is Dr. Angus, who, in his ** Bible Hand-book,” as “ Siudeat” quotes him says; * The New Testament, which is really authorita- tive, refers to all Seripture under the threefold division of Law, I'rophets and Writings.” We do uot dispute this with Dr. Angas or “ Student,” but we call upon them to show us where in the New Iestament the so-called Apocrypha are rejected, On the contrary, frequent allusions are wade to these books by the writers of the New—e. g Luke 12, 19; Kee esiast. 11, 19; Rom. 1,20; Wisd. 13, 1; Hebr. 11, 34; Ist Macoad. 2, 39; Hebr. 2,1; Eccles. 42, &.—which mauifestly proves what these holy writers thought of them.

sisih chapter, verses 19 and 20 of the beok of Wisdom,— ‘founded on the Apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief But whatever be the accidental causes that prevented the |

Even Bi-hop Burnet | the Gospel, the books are of value.” is not ashamed to walk in this dishonorable path. Even he’ would fain make the public believe that Origen and Aiha- | bring besides discredit on him who quotes bim as ay We have already referred to the | autho ily to support him.

works of the former, who, it is true, mentions the Jewish | canon as containing ouly tweuty-two books, yet thus wrires| noticing them [ would only go over the ground alreudy

A,

Esdras, * * ® it appears to us that the Syna time of Judea, such as it had become, was not more along Braue of in this subject, and that the Christian Church whieptene ceeded it, had also this competency, as the Synag ey ‘time of Esdras bad, when it judged of the writis yn many ages, anterior to it. Now we have seen eo _ portance the Doctors of the primitive Chure! have - to these books, which we now regard as Apoerypha, # * and we have seen also, that the Apostles, in their sop : make frequent allusions to them. even when they dn name them. as they do not name ali the books of ‘the Testament when they cite them.” (Notice sur les apoeryphes de l’ancien Testament, Geneve, 1828.) M, over, Dr. Angus appeals to the Fathers, who 7 I &. green A stated when referring to their works, ate opposed to him, I may here remark both of Angus an4 of Bishop Burnet, tat Oa huddle together a whom they neither quote nor give references to—g mode proceeding, to say the least of it, highly discreditabte, this 1 meet with a flat denial all Dr, Angus asserts their external and internal evidence. We have alrend that they possess the external evidence of the four ee turies. Let him uot, therefore, tell us that our Lord mo Apostles never mentioned them; he ought rather neh, where they have rejected them; whieh is more than be * Student” can do, Consequently of their internal evidenn there can be vo doubt. The Church of the first ¢ numbering them among her canon, has put it elena pute, It is silly, therefore, to say that they nowhere cls: ns ene divine authority ; for what portion of Serj oes? It is easy to ecavil—to allege imaginar radiction, ; and Joad with absurdities other calinan of ‘epaaasal

as well as the so-called Apocrypha. The Manicheans rid. culed as gross the Jewish ceremonial prescribed in the Olg Testament. They severely censured the conduct aya ample of some of tue Patriarchs; and objected to portions of the Dible, on the plea that they furnished th. becoming notions of the Deity, who was there represented gy a corporeal being, subject to the emotions of anger, } aud revenge, Thus it is easy to raise objections Against portions of the Bible, when guided ouly by the ever i sunds of human opinions. 1 cannot, however, let this matter drop without drawing attention to the following remarkable sentences, Here they are: ‘ These books contain statements “at variance with history, self-contradictory, and opposed ty the doctrines and precepts of Scripture.” Immediately after comes: “ For historical purposes, and for * instruction of iwanners,’ so far as they exemplify the spirit aud preceptsef Such a coutradictiog vannot but disgrace Dr. Angus's © Bibie Hand-book,” and

£2

v7

iF

Fa,

L pass over other authorities eited by Student,” because

travelled by me, ‘This would neither be agreesble to m gnelf nor to your readers, on whose patience [ have already, ats greater length than [ wished, trespassed. Still they will e@ cuse ne thus far. Uud Student’ vot presumed to preset the public with the indecorous cuipeurings of the ‘spit of the retigivus fanaticism and Bible-mania of thee days, | would not have intruded myself on their notice, As I hyve come before them, 1 hope there is no harm done, at jeast [ intend none.

From ail that has been said, then, it is clear that * Student,” rejecting the authority of the Catholic Cbereli, cannot esia'lish the divinity of any book of Seripture ree ceived by him as such; because Scripture caunot bear tes timony to itself. Lic may say the Old Testameut gras writtea by Moses and the Prophets —tbe New by the Apostles of Jesus Curis! ; but does thie prove shat vicy were ten uuder the influence of divine inspiration? These writes were by nature fallible, and from what souree can he draw that they became infallible? Let him listen to what the arch-Retormer, Lather himself, says on the point: “ Weare,* says he, * obliged to yield many things to the Panists—~that with them is the Word of God, which we reovived from them; utherwise we shou'd know nothing at all about it.” (Com ment. on John, ¢. 16.) St. Augustine, in still stronger lan guage, declares the same thing: * L would not believe,” says the great Doctor, * the Gospel itself, if the authority of the Catuolie Church did not obiige me to do so.” (Contr. Bp. Fund.) i

What ean * Student” say to this? Let him first prove to the world the tallibility of the authority ofthe Chureh before be writes against her canon of Scriprure; when be does prove it, he may then ridicule her doctrine of Tradition and Purgatory, which, it appears, 1% disordered stomuch at present joathes; but which, if he coniinues to stady history, he will be forced to acknowledge, have at jeast bistorival evidence, or else the testimony uf history most be rejected altogether as nut to’be relied upon, and, with it, the divinity ot the Scriptures.

[ would suppose “ Student’s” knowledge of history rather meagre yet, and, therefore, would recommend him to read the following works:—spineto’s Lectures om the Hements of Hieroglyphics and Kgyptian Antiqaities, page 142, &e.; Stromata or the Misecliany, by St. Clement of Alexandria, fiith book; Strabo, lib, 4; Mela, lib. 3, ¢. 2; and Virgil, lib. 6, 325, Aiveid. If he will vot find him- self, whilst perusing these works, in the Purgatory or middle state of the Catholic Church, be will at least be among the “ Amenti”? of Egyptian Mythology, the “ Hades” of the Greeks, and the * Tartarus” of the Latins.

I have done now with * Student,” and bope he will for the future remain silent on matters he knows nothing of ; nor

suffer himseif to be led any more by vanity, to appear before

the public as the doughty opponent of Popery, particularly when supported only by trash taken from the “ maggots

corrupted texts,” and defective Scripture; since they cannot afford him help to prop up his tottering edifice, but rather expose nore and more its sad state of decay, as beyoud sup:

port, divine or human.

fais communication might have appeared sooner, bat [ waited to let “ Student” say all he had to say ou the subjech which, as the public now sees, is valueless, and tending omJ to wake still more valuable what he has been jaboring @ undervalue. Iam, Mr. Editor, your obdt, servt., © COMMON SENSE Queen's County, Viewfield, May 19, 1858.

To tue Eprrox or tHe Examiner.

Srn,—What a very satisfuctory reason the Rey. Andrew Lochhead, of Georgetown, has given for his soiling lis ¢ by dabbling in polities? He ** wished. as an admirer of Mr. Haviland, to bear publie testimony to his noble aud bold feuce of the Bible and its cause in the House of Assembly;” yet, fuil of this Biblical admiration, he proposed Mr. A. Me- Donald “as a proper person to represent Georgetown ia next Assembly ;” aud this same Mr. McDonald a Romas Catholic, and one of those who opposed tne introduction of the Bible into the A-ademy and Normal School! Very oa sisteut indeed, Mr. Lochhead, very. But the reverend gear tleman’s adwiration of Mr. Haviland does not terminate He referred to * the nice way he (the Col. See’y) eomtinues to keep things going for his family interest and personal ends, just in admiration of Mr. Haviland; and said something about smuggling,” also in admiration of Mr. Haviland, But to Mr. Lochhead’s letier did I intend to refer. In the same issue of the Protector is a letter sigued “ M.C. D.,” @ new contributor tu the Sanctitied Press. M. C. D.’s letter is characterised by more evergy than usudlly pervades the soporifie artieles of that journal, besides bein somethiag smarter end worse natured. M,C. D. is no doubts mad

ee ee