the second, then they must adopt an absurdity too gross even for them to swallow. What, then, could they do? Mystify themselves and others with high-sounding words, meaning nothing. They must say, Scripture interprets itself, and the Holy Ghost is the supreme judge of controversies. But as the Holy Ghost decides, according to them, only as speaking in the Scriptures, and as the Bible has never been heard to utter a single syllable, they gain nothing, but are ultimately reduced to the rule, Each one understands the Scriptures as he chooses, the great fundamental principle of Protestantism, and nearly the only one in which all Protestants are able to agree. So, after all, in trying to avoid one sand-bar, they stick fast on the other, or as one of our former legislators would express it, "In keeping clear of Skiller, they run foul of Charybogus." We do not intend, on this occasion, to give the various and satisfactory proofs of the necessity or of the fact of a living tribunal in the Christian Church for determining religious controversies. But we may say, the tribunal alleged by Presbyterians is obviously no tribunal at all; and the fact, that they are ashamed to avow it, and seek in every possible way to disguise it, is a sufficient refutation of the principle of private interpretation, or, if not, it has already been several times and amply refuted in the pages of this journal, as well as elsewhere. It will suffice for our present purpose to adduce a couple of edifying commentaries on the Presbyterian rule, supplied by the very volume before us. In the Form of Government, p. 364, we read, "To the General Assembly belongs the power of deciding in all controversies respecting doctrine and discipline, of reproving, warning, or bearing testimony against error in doctrine, or immorality in practice, in any church, presbytery, or synod, . . . of suppressing schismatical contentions and disputations"; and on page 378, that the Presbyterian minister who preaches at the ordination of a candidate is to propose to him the following questions "Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice? Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures? . . . . . Do you promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord?" To all these questions the candidate answers in the affirmative. Well done, O ye learned divines! These lessons of sub mission given to the candidate are admirable; these enactments to enforce obedience to the decisions of the General Assembly are truly edifying! But, dear friends, how could you so soon and so completely forget and abandon your cherished and favorite doctrine? How could you write one thing in the beginning of your book, and give it such a flat denial in the end? How could you establish one principle in the Confession, and a contrary principle in the Form of Government? Indeed, most amiable doctors, you hardly treat us fairly. Which are we to believe, the Confession or the Form of Government ? In one place you tell us the Scripture and the Scripture alone can interpret itself; and now in another, instead of the Scriptures, you give us the decisions of the General Assembly. You told us that the supreme judge in controversies can be none other than the Holy Spirit ; and now, when controversies arise among you, instead of having recourse to "the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures,' you modestly invest the General Assembly with "the power of deciding all controversies." In the Confession you solemnly assert that "the decrees of councils, the opinions of ancient writers, the doctrines of men, and private spirits, to be brought only before the bar of the supreme judge, "the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures"; and now you summon us before the bar of the General Assembly, that is to say, before a couple of hundred of Presbyterian ministers, and a like number of Presbyterian elders! You were telling us, a moment ago, that the Holy Spirit speaks only through the Scriptures; and now you tell us, that he speaks through the Presbyterian elders of the United States! Really, gentlemen, this obliviousness on your part is too bad, altogether too bad. Alas for the poor candidate! How deplorable is his fate! After having received the assurance of having no other interpreter of Scripture than Scripture itself, and no other judge but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures, he now finds that all was a delusion, and that he must tamely promise subjection to his brethren, and follow their decision, or be ignominiously dismissed and branded for life. are Alas! how many lies does that first lie render necessary! Thus it is that error must necessarily stamp all its proceedings with contradiction and lie. Mentita est iniquitas sibi. Protestants, and Presbyterians in particular, were at first most obstreporous against all authority; for this was necessary in order to be able to wrest a portion of the faithful from their legitimate pastors. But having done this, and finding that no shadow of government or society was possible on the principles they at first set up, they turn round, and with admirable. coolness deny and reject those very principles without which they had never existed, and institute in their novel and selfconstituted tribunals the most intolerable tyranny, in the place of the paternal authority they threw off, and which had received the traditions of all Christian nations, and the promise of the Divine protection and guidance. But it was not to be supposed that such tribunals, such supreme judges, would command any respect, or much submission. Dissent breeds dissent. The first dissenters authorize by precept and example the new dissenters. What right had you to dissent from the authority to which you were born subject, which we have not to dissent from you? Hence, the decisions of these tribunals and judges are followed only so long as force, or selfinterest, money, or social position are present to back them; when not supported by such or like considerations, they are mere cobwebs. Hence, Protestantism is everywhere cut up into divisions, sects, parties, and factions, too numerous to count, and which serve only to worry and devour each other, and to place in bold contrast the majestic and compact unity of the Catholic Church. ART. III.1. A New Version of the Four Gospels, with Notes Critical and Explanatory. By a Catholic. London. 1836. 2. The Four Gospels, translated from the Greek, with Preliminary Dissertations and Notes Critical and Explanatory. By George Campbell, D. D., Principal of Marischal College, and one of the Ministers of Aberdeen. From the latest London Edition. Andover. 1837. THE learned work of Dr. Campbell was first published in Scotland long before the appearance of the anonymous work "by a Catholic." The object of both writers has been to present a clear and fluent translation of the Gospels, divested of antiquated terms and ungrammatical phrases. It must be acknowledged that the received versions, Catholic as well as Protestant, admit of much improvement in phraseology and construction; on which account we should hail with pleasure any effort directed to this end, which may not endanger the fidelity of the rendering, or shock popular feeling by the appearance of bold innovation. Dr. Campbell's translation has been in part adopted, but in reality disfigured, by his namesake on this side of the Atlantic, whose edition of the New Testament, made up from different sources, is used as a text-book throughout the numerous congregations in the West that call him master. The anonymous writer has not been so successful, and although he may have escaped censure, which his assumption of the incognito leads us to believe he apprehended, he has not disturbed the possession of the Douay or Rheimish version, which, from long use and hallowed associations, has a strong hold on the affections and reverence of the Catholic community. The first provincial council of Baltimore, having in view the acts of a preceding ecclesiastical assembly held by the founder of the American hierarchy, decreed that the Douay version should be retained; which regulation, we suppose, was directed to secure uniformity in quotations from the pulpit or the press. Had the measure which the prelates then contemplated been put in execution, and an accurate edition of that version been issued, we should be slow to favor essays at a new translation; but although episcopal approbation has been obtained for the several editions since issued in various cities of the Union, these present no evidence of extraordinary diligence on the part of the publishers, so that an accurate edition is still a desideratum. The want of an authorized version is often objected to us by controversial antagonists, who, however, may be well left to indulge self-gratulation on their possession of the translation published by the authority of his Majesty, King James. The Douay version, although not specially approved of by the Holy See, is authoritative, inasmuch as it has the express approval of very many bishops, as well as of the Baltimore council, and is in general use with Catholics throughout the countries in which the English language prevails. This, surely, is enough for all practical purposes, the faithful being thus assured of its soundness and fidelity. It is not desirable that any vernacular version should be solemnly adopted by the Church, so as to preclude improve *See Campbell, Diss. XI., Part II. VOL. III, NO. IV. ment, which the changeableness of living languages might render necessary. The sanction given to the Douay version cannot preclude judicious efforts for its improvement. That it is imperfect may be acknowledged, without detracting from its authority as a safe guide in all that regards the substance of the sacred text, and without disrespect to the eminent men who prepared it, the English language having undergone considerable changes since their time. The Italian version of Martini is acknowledged to be excellent, and it was published with the approbation of Pope Pius the Sixth; yet in Italy no one hesitates to give a new rendering of any passage of the Vulgate, which alone is deemed a standard. În France and Spain, the same freedom is enjoyed, although the Bible de Vence, and the translation of P. Phelipe Scio de S. Michel, are in general use. We know not why the Douay version should enjoy a more exclusive authority. The attempts already made by several editors to modernize the style have, indeed, resulted in throwing doubt on the true reading; but this only shows the importance of having a revised version. published by authority, for which measure the critical labors of learned individuals might be a useful preparation. All unnecessary changes should be avoided, so as to take away the appearance of fluctuation in a matter so grave; and no change, however advisable it might appear, should be introduced into the public reading of the Scriptures, until approved of by competent authority; but every respectful suggestion and judicious effort should meet with due consideration. The ancient Latin version, called the Vulgate, was declared authentic by the Council of Trent. The New Testament not having been translated by St. Jerome, who contented himself with retouching the work of the ancient interpreter, the version of the Gospels is, in the main, that which was made, probably, in the first century, and which, by its own excellence, gained the ascendency over all other Latin translations, and maintained its sway until the revolutionary struggle miscalled the Reformation. The fathers assembled at Trent did not invest the Vulgate with any adventitious authority; they declared that which it was entitled to from its intrinsic worth, and which immemorial and universal usage had given it. The many Latin translations of the Bible which were circulated at that period, and which were daily on the increase, in consequence of the doctrinal disputes which then raged, determined the prelates to point to the Vulgate as a faithful representation of |