text always fully informs us when anything was made out of any previous matter. He instances the production of the green herb from the earth, the creeping creature and fowl from the waters, and so forth. He then argues, that if the Scripture so carefully informs us whence everything was produced, it would equally have made it known if the earth had been made of previous matter; then follows the extract, as "Clement" gives it. H. B. has taken it from some dishonest controversialist, who suppresses the first clause, upon which the whole sentence depends. I ask any of my readers, Does this extract prove that Tertullian held that the Bible contains all things necessary to salvation? or whether the following quotation is not undeniable evidence that he held the contrary opinion:-"What will you gain by recurring to Scripture, when one denies what the other asserts? Learn rather who it is that proposes the faith of Christ; to whom the Scriptures belong; from whom, by whom, and when that faith was delivered, by which we are made Christians. Now, to know what the apostles taught, that is, what Christ revealed to them, recourse must be had to the churches which they founded, and which they instructed by word of mouth and by their epistles. For it is plain that all doctrine which is conformable to the faith of these mother churches is true; being that which they received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God; and that all other opinions must be novel and false."* As H. B. disdains all references except to an 66 unanswerable " work of Tillotson's, to which I have not access, I must pass the remainder of his extracts from the Fathers over. I do not, however, think St. Chrysostom could have said, as H. B. makes him say, that all things in the Scripture are plain and straight, considering what St. Peter says in his 2nd Epistle, iii. 16. Here is a passage from St. Chrysostom himself, which shows his theological opinions were very different from those of H. B.:"Hence it is plain that all things were not delivered in writing; but many otherwise, and are equally to be believed. Wherefore let us hold fast the traditions of the Church. It is tradition; let this suffice."+ There is nothing in Clement's extract from St. Irenæus, at page 92, to show the sufficiency of the Bible as a Rule of Faith. There is a good deal in the very paragraph from which "Clement" quotes which might be used against Protestants of the present day. It is from a treatise on "Heresy." St. Irenæus was one of the most strenuous advocates for Church authority and traditions, as we shall presently see. Why does not "Clement" insert the usual marks, to show that he has made some omissions? His coolness in this respect is unparalleled. In page 92, he makes a continuous paragraph of a few words culled here and there from the 2nd, 4th, "Da Præscrip. Hæratic.," p. 334; ed. 1642. 66 5th, 47th, and 53rd chapters of St. Clement's "Epistle to the Corinthians"! Some of the extracts (see page 94) are absolutely in favour of Divine tradition; for when Catholics talk of tradition, they mean exactly what the early Fathers meant, viz., doctrines revealed by God, and practices taught by Christ and the apostles, which have been "handed down" to us. of men as resolutely as any Protestant can wish. Are we not We reject the "traditions obliged to believe what God has revealed, whether it be written or not? I do not see the applicability of the passage which "Clement" quotes from St. Irenæus at page 94. For St. Irenæus is not condemning the Divine tradition held by the Church, but the traditions of Valentius, Marcion, Cerinthus, and Basilides; "for each one of them is utterly perverse, and does not blush to preach up himself, perverting the rule of truth;"* and then he goes on to say, in the passage given by "Clement," they oppose tradition to the heretics. This tradition by the work of Dr. Bennett, understands to be the Holy ScripClement," being guided tures; but "Clement," if he sought for himself, would have found that this could not be its meaning; for a little further on the Father says:-"It turns out, therefore, that they agree neither with the Scriptures nor with tradition.' description given of the practice of these ancient heretics reads as "Clement" says, "The though we were listening to a modern Jesuit arguing against Scripture.' Indeed! then because Jesuits as well as all Catholics contend that Divine tradition must be obeyed equally with holy Scripture, they are said to argue against holy Scripture. Rather uncharitable this; but "Clement" will at least allow us to be classed with St. Irenæus, when he has read the next quotation from him. The efficacy of Divine tradition he thus proves :-' apostles had not left us the Scripture, should we not have had to follow the order of tradition, which they deposited in the hands of "What! if the those to, whom they entrusted the Churches? Many barbarous nations, who have received the faith in Jesus Christ, have followed this order, preserving, without the help of an alphabet or of ink, the truths of salvation written in their hearts by the Holy Spirit, keeping with care the ancient tradition. ing to them in their language, was to propose to them the tenets invented by the heretics, they would immediately stop their ears, and If any one, speakfly away to a distance, not enduring to hear language so replete with blasphemies. Thus being upheld by the ancient tradition of the apostles, they could not admit into their simple minds the least resemblance of those monstrous errors."+ Let it be remembered, this is the writing of the disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the angel of the Church at Smyrna, Rev. ii. 8, and one of those whom my opponents profess to reverence. . In conclusion, I repeat, the mere fact of the Bible requiring an interpreter proves that it is not alone a sufficient Rule of Faith, * "Adversus Hæris.," lib. ii., ch. 2. † Ibid., lib. iii. for that interpretation, whether human or Divine, must necessarily be a part of the rule. I have shown that the texts, which my opponents have produced in support of their theory, either do not apply to the debate, or recoil upon themselves; and, knowing the Church and the Bible alike to be the work of the same Divine Being, I exclaim with every Catholic, and therefore with every Father of the Church, in the words of the great St. Augustine, "I would not have believed the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church had not led A LAYMAN. me." Politics. OUGHT THE INDIAN OPIUM TRADE TO BE SUPPRESSED? AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-III. CONNECTED With the spread of the Anglo-Saxon family are two great evils, which stand conspicuous above the catalogue of benefits of which its extension has been the source, i. e.-African slavery, and the Opium Trade. The former, though uprooted from the old family stock, still exists in the household of its western relative. The latter still exists, permitted, by our indifference, to scatter its blighting influence over the races of the Eastern continent. It is with this latter evil that we propose to deal very briefly in the present article. Firstly. The cultivators of the plant are not benefited by its growth and production. Only in Bengal, and in a few unimportant native states, is the growth of the poppy allowed. In the native states, previously to the drug being exported, it is subjected to a heavy duty by the Indian Government; and in Bengal, the principal opium district, very stringent restrictions on the grower are imposed. It is remarkable that the cultivation of a plant yielding some four millions annually to the Government should be constantly unprofitable to the ryot, or cultivator. Yet from the fact of the crop requiring and exhausting the richest soil, and from the extreme uncertainty of the harvest, none of the ryots would hazard the growth of the plant without an advance of capital on the part of the Government; an advance, the repayment of which is the exception, not the rule. The ryot is therefore placed, bound hand and foot, at the mercy of the Government. Another cause operates unfavourably to the cultivator. He is required to deliver all the produce to the Government, at a certain arbitrary sum. The chief element of all business transactions is thus abstracted, and anything like pecuniary success placed entirely without the question. A bad harvest is synonymous with complete ruin. From these premises it cannot be inferred that the suppression of the trade would operate unfavourably to the ryot; on the contrary, the substitution of the growth of rice, cotton, and the sugar cane, would meet with a very general welcome. The main point of the negative defence, we apprehend, is the temporal loss to the revenue which would arise from the suppression of the traffic. The gross revenue now obtained from this source is £5,800,000, subject, however, to a deduction of the price advanced to the cultivator, the cost of collection, and several other contingent expenses, which would leave the net returns nearer £4,000,000. This revenue a war with China might entirely destroy, or, indeed, render the trade a mere instrument of loss; but on this we will not dwell. Can it be asserted that a trade in the mental and physical energies of a people will be eventually productive to the finances and prosperity of a country? Can we be told, without a comedy on reason, that it is advantageous to the well-being of a state that finances should be raised from a drug radiating wretchedness and misery alike to the consumer and producer, only for the purpose of carrying into effect the opposite qualities, the duties of all governments, viz. the promotion of peace, order, and contentment ? Strange absurdity! Machiavelli, we are inclined to believe, has not left us his mantle. There admits of no dispute that the consumption of opium has the certain tendency of enervating a people, and of destroying their affluence. It is impossible to shadow forth the destitution and paralyzation of industry that would ensue, were there anything like a consumption of opium prevalent in our manufacturing districts. Are we, then, to expect that the finances of India, a country semi-civilized, will ever prosper whilst this source operates to destroy the industry of the people? Are we to expect that the plant of commerce will flourish, while its root is destroyed? The exchequer may well be in danger of bankruptcy, the revenue be naturally insufficient, and the prosperity of the country be blighted and destroyed, whilst this evil is allowed to remain? This fact is one of the pleaders for our case; and the want of an extended railway and canal system farther has proved a formidable barrier to the commercial prosperity of India. Exactly so long as commercial intercourse is difficult, so long may we expect a want of mercantile success. A further means of advancing the welfare of the country would be the encouragement of the growth of cotton. Were every possible inducement afforded to promote its growth, together with an extension of the railway system, and a prohibition of the poppy cultivation, a living principle would circulate through the whole empire, reorganizing and strengthening it in every part. An inducement to suppress the traffic in opium presents itself to our home merchants. Some fifteen years ago our annual exports to China amounted to £1,987,016; a year or two previous to the commencement of the recent war with China, the average was £1,964,242, showing a slight decrease of our exports to that country, whilst our total exports to other countries, within the same lapse of time, have been more than doubled. Our exports to the islands of Cuba and St. Domingo, with an insignificant population, are much larger than those to the extensive and populous empire of China. When, however, we state that our imports from China have, during the twelve intervening years, doubled, and that they are quintuple the amount of our exports, it is clear that some cause operates to produce so unnatural a discrepancy. This cause is found in the fact that the exports of opium from India have increased within that particular period from £5,000,000 to £8,000,000. Were this trade suppressed, at least £8,000,000 of value in honest manufacture would be annually required. We are thus continually suffering a pecuniary loss for the benefit of a trade in the most powerful of physical and moral poisons. The opacity displayed by such a course of conduct is perfectly astounding. 66 We feel a certain tenderness in dealing with our friend "Poppy." To his arguments against free trade in opium, or against the introduction of a prohibitory tax, we have really nothing to object. His paper contains many real crystals of thought, and the reasoning is exactly that of our own. Poppy" deserves well for his painstaking. He has written an article on the subject-"Would it be beneficial if either Free Trade or a Protective Duty on Opium were adopted ?" This being the texture of his article, there yet, at intervals, peep out some remarks to which we take decided exception. One of these "fitful will-o'-the wisps" runs :-" The proposal would benefit the foreign producer and trader in an article which, either as a luxury, if not abased, or as a medicinal drug, is a perfectly legitimate source of gain." A perfectly legitimate source of gain! Listen. "While these notes were preparing, the writer had occasion to go into the city, and just inside the north gate, in front of a temple, he saw one of such destitute persons, unable to procure either food or the drug, lying at the last gasp. There were two or three others, with drooping heads, sitting near, who looked as if they would soon be prostrated too. The next day the writer passed, and found the first of the group dead and stiff, with a coarse mat wound round his body for a shroud. The rest were now lying down, unable to rise. The third day another was dead, and the remainder almost near it. Help was vain; and pity for their wretched condition the only feeling that could be indulged." This is a single instance related by Dr. Medhurst. The other benefits from this "perfectly legitimate source of gain" may be described as murders, robberies, and gross licentiousness. The Rev. Alexander Williamson observes, "There is hardly an evil which I have not heard or seen perpetrated by these infatuated mortals." With respect to the influence in the neighbourhood of its growth, it has been remarked that, "One opium cultivator demoralizes a whole village ;" but the evidence on this part of our subject is so undisputed, that we will not further dwell on it. We have, again, been |