00B.38 Chapter 31. The Bible An Authority On In Catholic Hands

XXXI. "The Bible an Authority Only in Catholic Hands" A brother who has been endeavoring to teach his Catholic neighbor the word of the Lord has run into a difficulty. He has found that the Catholic claims that the Bible is not the Bible until it has been "declared to be the Bible" by the Roman Church, and that the church has not so declared in reference to the Protestant Bible. Furthermore, the Bible must be "officially interpreted" before it can be understood. "The church"—meaning the priests—must interpret the Scriptures for the "layman." Of course, these claims are not new to us, as this has been the boast of the Roman Church for more than a thousand years, and it was against this arrogant assumption that the Protestants protested in the beginning of the Reformation. But the Catholic neighbors of our brother are well supplied with printed propaganda and literature of a controversial nature. Our brother has sent some of these tracts to the Gospel Advocate office, with the request that we reply to them. These have been turned over to this department for attention. One of the tracts bears the title that is used as a heading for this article. It issues from Our Sunday Visitor Press, and is in the form of a dialogue between a Catholic and a Protestant, and the Catholic drives the Protestant to silence on every argument! Of course, this is an imaginary discussion, for all the elo­quence of all the orators of earth could not persuade a Catholic to enter a real discussion with an informed Protes­tant. There is an ever-standing challenge to the Catholics on this point. They will not accept. If the editor of Our Sunday Visitor were personally willing to engage in such a discussion, his bishop would not allow him to do it. The Catholic Church does not believe in a fair, honorable, open investigation of the points discussed in these tracts. It, however, pronounces a papal benediction upon the supposed debates in which the Protestant’s answers are written by a Catholic. This point should be brought to the attention of our Catholic neighbors who have been distributing these pamphlets, for they, no doubt, are sincere, and they think that the Protestants are really vanquished and silenced by the Catholic arguments. In order that our readers may see the arrogance of this Catholic disputer, and also get the full force of his argu­ments, we here give the first division of the dialogue ver­batim. This brings us down to the first pathetic silence of the poor Protestant. This will fill our space for this week, and we shall have to wait till next week for our replies to the Catholic’s contention. We, therefore, number each point, and we shall reply next week by number without repeating the argument. This will make it necessary for our readers to keep this copy of the paper, and to have it in hand when they read the next issue. We shall not reply to the entire tract after this manner, but on the claim in reference to the Bible we believe that our readers need to be thoroughly informed. When the Bible is cleared of the slander cast upon it and is accepted as a standard, then any Protestant who knows his Bible can rout the whole Romish hierarchy. But here is our dialogue in the exact language of the tract:

(This is still put out by Our Sunday Visitor). Quote—

Let us suppose an oral debate were to take place. To be logical, it would start something like this:

• Catholic: Before launching into this discussion, it seems to me that we must first determine what will be the authority mutually recognized whereby we shall each endeavor to prove our claims.

• Protestant: Agreed; and, it goes without saying, that this au­thority will be the Bible.

• Catholic: But the Bible can be reliable authority only for me.

• Protestant:    What    impertinence! Every Protestant recognizes the Bible as authority—in fact, the only authority in religious mat­ters.

• Catholic: But most inconsistently; and surely it cannot be so regarded by these judges, who are to decide the merits of our argu­ments in this debate.

• Protestant: Why, I do not understand you; and I doubt whether the judges, or anyone else here present, understand you.

• Catholic: Then I will explain: neither you nor the judges are sure that the Bible contains God’s revelation, pure and unadulterated, whilst I am. If you are not sure of this, how can you appeal to it as decisive authority?

• Protestant: But I am sure of it.

• Catholic: I would be pleased to hear your proofs. And you surely will concede that the reliability of the Bible, as undisputed authority, must be settled before we can presume to prove anything from it.

• Protestant: Why, where is there a Protestant Christian who hesitates to accept the Bible as a book containing God’s revelation? And since the judges are not unbelievers, why try to prove what is accepted as a fact?

• Catholic:    Our    audience will probably comprise some unbe­lievers; and even if it did not, since our arguments are to be sup­ported by the Bible, the solidity of this foundation is the first point to prove.

• Protestant: It is a recognized fact both by yourself and me, and that should be sufficient.

• Catholic: It is a fact accepted solely on my church’s word, which you claim may err, and, therefore, might have erred when she declared the Bible’s authenticity and inspiration. Moreover, there are many in this audience, possibly some of our judges, who are not sure that the Holy Book is what we claim for it.

• Protestant: Anyone familiar with the Bible must be convinced that it was written at the instigation of God.

• Catholic: Some parts of the Old Testament bear contrary ear­marks. The Mohammedans say about the Koran, and the Mormons about Joe Smith’s revelations, what you say about the Bible; yet you and I, and millions of others, fail to see it that way. No book or written document proves its own authenticity. A last will or other important document is accepted as genuine only when proved to be so by credible living witnesses. Moreover, none of the apostolic writings, unless it be Revelation, whose authenticity many Protestants deny, assert their own inspiration. St. Paul tells us that "all scrip­ture divinely inspired is profitable," but he nowhere tells us what portion or books are inspired. The present Bible omits many writ­ings which were long reputed to be inspired.

• Protestant: There were such witnesses as you demand.

• Catholic: Do you know this from the Bible?

• Protestant: No.

• Catholic: Then even your first act of faith is not based on the Bible, is not supported by the Bible; yet you say the Bible is the sole foundation of the faith which you profess. If you cannot prove the first fundamental of your creed by the Bible, how can you say that the Bible is your only rule of faith? Moreover, consistency is the first requisite which judges must require of a disputant. If the "Bible-and-Bible-only" theory and the "private-judgment" the­ory are the boasts of Protestants, people must needs expect that they are provable.

• Protestant: I have said that we have witnesses to prove the genuineness of the Bible, but you do not admit them.

• Catholic: Because that is tantamount to an admission of tra­dition as a "rule of faith" which you reject. However, tell me who those witnesses are.

• Protestant: The early Christian writers.

• Catholic: Not very early, because the New Testament writings were not gathered together and declared to be divinely inspired until the fourth century. Moreover, these witnesses were Catholics, and accepted the Scriptures as divinely inspired because their church declared them to be so. Was their church infallible then?

• Protestant: I am not prepared to grant that it was.

• Catholic: Then how can you hold as an infallible truth that the writings, known as the sacred Scriptures, for whose reliability you have the Catholic Church’s word alone, are inspired? It is, as I foreknew, you simply take for granted, and most inconsistently (because you say you accept nothing in religion unless it is supported by the Bible), that the Bible contains God’s revelation. You take more than this for granted—viz., that followers of the Catholic Church transcribed and translated the original writings without mak­ing any errors, that they never altered a line, that they preserved them until the sixteenth century in their original purity and same­ness. Unless you grant all this, while believing that the Catholic Church fell into gross errors otherwise, you cannot appeal to the Scriptures, as they now exist, as divine authority.

• Protestant: . . . (silent).

ANOTHER PROTESTANT SPEAKS Dear Brother Catholic:

Last week we published the first division of your con­troversy with an unnamed Protestant, in which, we must admit, the Protestant made a very poor showing. He seemed to be not only very poorly informed, but also very timid and, at times, even speechless. In this division of the dis­cussion, which was published on this page last week, you used by actual count ten times as many words as your Protestant opponent used. So it seems that we will have to concede you a ten-to-one victory in your fictitious fight with that imaginary Protestant.

But, Brother Catholic, since you were the winner in that fight, you will naturally expect to be challenged by others. A champion always has to defend his title, you know. We would not put ourself up as a representative of the Protes­tants in a fight with such a formidable foe—in fact, we never entered any polemical battle without being first selected by our brethren and asked to uphold our side of the question; but even now we are writing to you at the request of the editor of this paper and others, and we are sure that if you do not like what is said in reply to your arguments on this page, we can arrange to divide time in an oral debate, or space in a written debate with an opponent who will not be merely self-appointed, and we shall have a fair, honorable, and earnest investigation of this issue. Let us not "suppose an oral debate" between two shadow disputants, but let us have a real debate between two living, visible, audible con­tenders who have both hearts and habitations. What do you say, Brother Catholic? Is your "infallible church" afraid to have its claims tested in a fair, sincere study, but willing to deceive its members as to the strength of those claims by pretending to rout its Protestant opponents in sham battles?

While we wait for you to answer that question, Brother Catholic, we shall examine, in a brotherly manner, some of the points that we published from you last week and see if we can convince you that the Protestants have something to say on these points. Do you have a copy of last week’s paper before you? Very well; we shall proceed.

You first say that in the debate there must be some "authority mutually recognized whereby we shall each en­deavor to prove our claims." To this the Protestant agreed, and suggested that the Bible be that authority. Whereupon you ostensibly agreed to accept the Bible as authority, but in reality you refused this outright and made the church— the Roman Catholic Church—the authority. The Bible, you say, is accepted as inspired and authentic only because the church has declared it to be so. And you refused to let the Protestant offer any proof that the Bible is inspired and authentic. Is not your logic a little lame here? You reject that which the Protestant suggests as a "mutual’ authority and immediately set up in an arbitrary way that which you alone recognize as authority, and thus propose to prove your claims by this authority, when, in fact, this itself is the most colossal claim that you make and the one we challenge with the greatest emphasis. Thus you attempt to prove your minor claims by your major claim. It is as if you tried to prove a little falsehood true by telling a bigger one. W e deny that your church is infallible, and that it has any authority to declare anything in reference to the Bible, or anything else that pertains t o salvation. We challenge you to prove that our Lord ever delegated any such authority to his church, or that he has any vicegerent or vicar on earth. When you undertake to meet this challenge, as you do in this sham debate, what do you appeal to as authority, Brother Catholic? Why, you immediately have recourse to the Bible, and you cite Matthew 16:13-19; Matthew 18:15-21; John 20:23. So you reason in a circle. You prove your church authentic by the Bible, and you prove the Bible authentic by your church! If an unbeliever denies the authority and credibility of the Bible, you prove it by the decree of your church. Then if he denies the authority of your church, you prove it by the Bible!

It is not surprising that your church can make you be­lieve whatever she pleases to tell you, for you start with the assumption that she is infallible. Then she decrees and declares that the Bible i s inspired. Next she decrees the language in which the Bible must be read, if read at all— the Latin. Then if the Bible must be translated into English, she authorizes or decrees the translation that you must read —a translation made from the "decreed" Latin version, not from the original Greek in which the inspired men wrote. Then if in reading this decreed version you come upon some teaching that contradicts the claims of your church, you are taught to come to your church for instruction, whereupon your church decrees that the Scriptures do not mean what they say, and that you have no right to try to understand the Scriptures for yourself, but that you must come to the church for an "official interpretation"! So you see. Brother Catholic, your church has shut off every way of escape from you and made you her helpless, irresponsible subject. The only thing you can do, dear Brother Catholic, is to protest against the assumptions of your church, and then your church will excommunicate you and you will be like the rest of us—an anathematized Protestant. But there is another fallacy in your reasoning on your first point that we must bring to your attention, Brother Catholic. You say that we cannot claim to rest our faith on the testimony of the Scriptures and then prove the reliability of the Scriptures by recourse to other sources, such as his­tory, the writings of uninspired men, both the friends and the enemies of the Bible. In order that you may see your error here, take this illustration: Mr. A is charged with murder, and is being tried in the courts for this crime. The state has in Mr. B an eyewitness of the crime. B testifies on oath that he saw A shoot and kill X. If the jury believes B’s testimony, it cannot do otherwise than convict A. But to establish the fact that B is worthy of full credence, the state introduces as character witnesses C, D, E, and F. These witnesses—C, D, E, and F—know nothing at all about the crime—the very point on which B is testifying—but they show that B is a truthful man; and when that is established, his testimony concerning the crime must be believed. Do you see the point? Our faith in God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, heaven, eternal life, and all that pertains to the service of God, is based upon the testimony of the Scrip­tures; but our faith in the reliability of the Scriptures is based upon the testimony of many witnesses, and upon evidence of every nature in which evidence is ever allowed in any trial. We can prove that we have the Bible as it was written by inspired men, and our arguments will not be in a class with the monstrous absurdities adduced in favor of the Koran or the Book of Mormons. Do you want to try this statement, Brother Catholic?

You state (No. 15) that an "important document is ac­cepted as genuine only when proved to be so by credible living witnesses." What an assertion! What living wit­nesses do the Catholics have by whom to prove the credi­bility of the Bible? Have you been made to believe that some of your priests who are now living were living when Christ was here and when Peter and Paul lived? We Protestants have just as many living witnesses as you have. But you claim that your pope is a successor of Peter, and as such has received knowledge from person to person of Christ, and that he is also infallible in his utterances concerning the Bible. But you must not forget that this is the claim we deny most positively and challenge you to prove it. By what authority will you prove this? Shall we set you down as "silent," Brother Catholic?

Next week we shall show you that we did not and do not get our Bible through your church. Wait with us.

BROTHER CATHOLIC FURTHER ADDRESSED Dear Brother Catholic:

While we are still waiting for you to tell us what you intend to do about a fair discussion of the questions which you raised in your hypothetical debate, we shall continue to examine some of the things you said in vanquishing your opponent. Of course you have kept your copy of the Gospel Advocate, and you will now please read your speech No. 15. You say there that "none of the apostolic writings assert their own inspiration," and you, therefore, conclude that they were not inspired until your church declared them to be inspired! This shows that you are not well acquainted with the apostolic writings, Brother Catholic. They all assert their own inspiration and recognize each other’s writings as in­spired. Why did Peter and Paul announce themselves as apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ in the beginning of their Epistles if they did not expect their writings to be recognized as authoritative? John said that he wrote that we might believe (John 20:31), and he further asserted that what he had written was true (John 21:24). He said he announced in his Epistles what he had received from God and what also he had seen and heard. (1 John 1:1-5) Paul called upon all to "acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 14:37) Peter told us that he had made known unto us that of which he was an eyewitness. (2 Peter 1:16-17) Peter also spoke of Paul as writing according to the "wisdom given unto him," and said that some wrested Paul’s writings as they do also the "other scriptures." Paul’s writings are thus called "scriptures" by Peter. (2 Peter 3:15-17) Is not Peter’s declaration as authoritative as the declaration of 3’our pre­tended successor of Peter, Brother Catholic? And then you misquoted Paul. That apostle said that "all scripture i s given by inspiration" (A. V.), or that "every scripture is given by inspiration" (R. V., margin). (2 Timothy 3:16)

These are only a few suggestions of what could be cited to show you that the writers of the New Testament an­nounced their inspiration.

But, Brother Catholic, you "do err, not knowing the Scriptures," more grievously than ever when you say (No. 23): "The New Testament writings were not gathered together and declared to be divinely inspired until the fourth century." You are just astoundingly ignorant of the history of the Bible, Brother Catholic. The statement just quoted, and your often-repeated statement that we got the Bible only through the medium of your church, is at sad variance with the facts, which we shall now show you, if you will give candid attention to what we tell you. You say the writings were not "declared to be divinely inspired" until the fourth century! The writings were all made in the first century, and all the apostles except John sealed their testi­mony by their martyrdom before that century closed; but you think these writings were uninspired and nonauthorita­tive for about three hundred years, and then your church declared them to be divinely inspired! Even you ought to be ashamed of that statement, Brother Catholic. We have already shown you that these writers asserted their own in­spiration. But you say these writings were not compiled until the fourth century. Why, Brother Catholic, it is an undisputed fact that these writings were not only gathered together, but were translated from the Greek into the Syriac and the Coptic in the second century, and before the third century closed there were many translations into the Latin language. We have today hundreds of Greek manuscript copies of the New Testament in the great libraries of earth. Some of these were made before the fourth century. The three oldest manuscripts now known are: (1) The Vatican manuscript, which is held by your church, but which is accessible to Protestants, and which Protestant scholars consult in their study and in making their translations, but which your scholars do not use because of your foolish idea that your Vulgate or Latin version has been declared to be perfect, infallible, and, therefore, not susceptible to, or pos­sible of, improvement. This Vatican manuscript is not quite complete. (2) The Sinaitic manuscript, which is complete— the entire New Testament—and which is not and never was in the hands of your church. This manuscript is written in beautiful Greek, on the skins of a hundred antelopes, and it was made before the fourth century. The whole New Testa­ment is there, and you said these writings were not gathered together until the fourth century. You also said we got our Bible through your church, but here is the oldest complete manuscript on earth, and your church never had it! A Protestant scholar, Dr. Tischendorf, found this manuscript and gave the world the benefit of it, and our Revised Version is made from it; but your scholars cannot avail themselves of this wonderful Greek text, because your church will not allow them to go behind its declared perfect version—the Latin Vulgate, and the English translation made from this old Latin version, known as the Rheims-Douay translation. (3) The Alexandrian manuscript, which belongs to a Protes­tant church and is in the great British Museum at London, accessible to all scholars, your scholars included, but their church will not allow them to use it. Your church never held this manuscript. So you see we get our Bible entirely independent of your church, and we have Greek manuscript copies, and Syriac, Coptic, and Latin translations that were made before the fourth century. It was the Vulgate that was made in the fourth century.

Here are the facts about that version and that declared compilation: In the fourth century there were so many Latin versions of the Scriptures in circulation, these translations having been made by any individual scholar who chose to undertake the task, and they differed so widely in their readings that Damasus, Bishop of Rome (your church. Brother Catholic, catalogues Damasus as a pope, one in the line of succession back to Peter, but there was no pope of Rome until the year 606, when Boniface III induced the emperor, Phocas, who had murdered Maurice, his prede cessor, to take from John the Faster of Constantinople the title of Universal Bishop o f the Church and confer it upon him. When John assumed this title, Gregory the Great, whom your church lists as a pope, and also as a saint, denounced the assumption as diabolical, and the one who wore that title as antichrist. Yet, all your popes from Boniface down have worn it!), commissioned a monk of Dalmatia, named Eusebius Hieronymus, but better known to us as Jerome, and in your church as Saint Jerome, to revise the old Latin versions. Jerome was a man who had traveled widely and studied deeply, and was the best scholar of his day. During Jerome’s long and tedious labor in searching for manuscripts and in comparing Latin trans­lations and other versions, he found a Greek Bible that had belonged to Origen in the second century. (Yet you said the books of the Bible had not been gathered together until the fourth century.) Jerome recognized only the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament which the Protestant Bible now contains, and which were recognized by the Jews of Pales­tine, including our Lord and his apostles. Jerome was the first man to apply the word "Apocrypha" to those books which your church has added to the Old Testament. When Jerome had finished his translation, which has ever since been called the Vulgate, it was accepted by the bishops assembled in the Council of Carthage and declared to be the authentic Bible and infallible as to translation even. But the African bishops, led by Augustine—Saint Augustine in your church—opposed Jerome on the "Apocrypha"; hence, the council voted to include those books in your Bible— your Bible now by this council declared to be inspired and authentic. Thus the council at once voted that Jerome was infallibly guided in his translation and could not make a mistake, and that he did at the same time make a mistake in the rejection of certain books! Hence, you have some Old Testament books included in your Bible and declared to be inspired which are manifestly not inspired, and which you yourself say (No. 15) do not bear the "earmarks" of in­spiration! But we shall tell you more about your Bible with its apocryphal books in our next letter. Are you still silent, Brother Catholic?

ANOTHER LETTER TO BROTHER CATHOLIC Dear Brother Catholic: In my last letter I showed you that your church has declared some books—the Apocrypha—to be inspired which your own scholars say are not inspired. Your New Testa­ment contains not only the same number of books, but ex­actly the same books that compose the Protestant New Testament. So the books in dispute are Old Testament books. This is fortunate, since we have the example of Christ and the apostles to follow in our decision. There are in the New Testament about two hundred sixty-three direct quotations from, and about three hundred seventy allusions to, passages in the Old Testament; yet among all of these there is not a single reference, either by Christ or by any inspired man, to the apocryphal writings. They have not the remotest recognition from any New Testament writer. Furthermore, we know that the Jews, from the time that the Septuagint translation was made—277 B.C.— until long after the days of Christ, recognized only the thirty-nine books which our Old Testament now contains, although they were so grouped as to be twenty-two in number. They made the number work out this way to correspond with the number of letters in the Hebrew alpha­bet. In order to do this they grouped all the minor prophets —twelve books—and counted them as one book. They counted the two books of Samuel as one book, and did like­wise with Kings and Chronicles. But how would they ever have managed to get the fourteen extra books which your church has declared to belong to the Old Testament into their canon of twenty-two books? Your Old Testament has more than fifty books. Joseph us, who was born in the year A.D. 37, and was, therefore, a contemporary of the apostles, wrote in his book, "Against Apion," Book 1, Section 8, as follows: For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another (as the Greeks have), but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times, which are justly believed to be divine; and of them, five belong to Moses, which contain his law and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them.

Then, to add to this testimony from Josephus, we quote from Cyril, of Jerusalem, who was born about A.D. 315, and whom your church has catalogued as Saint Cyril. He said: "Read the divine Scriptures—namely, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament which the seventy-two interpreters translated" (i.e., the Septuagint translation). This clearly shows that even at that date the apocryphal books were not included in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. So you see, Brother Catholic, that neither the Jews nor Christ and his apostles nor any of the early Christians ever recognized these apocryphal books which your church now recognizes. What your church recognizes and declares on any question depends upon the caprice or whims of the men who control your church at the time, and not upon facts or truth or Scripture. This point is further illustrated, and your statement to the effect that your church has been divinely protected from error in giving you your Bible is completely refuted, by the contradictory infallible (?) declarations made by your popes in reference to your infallible (?) translations. In the six­teenth century there was much controversy among your church officials about what version was to be the "authentic" version among Catholics, for many editions of the Latin Bible were being put out. In the year 1585 a man who was interested in Bible revision became pope as Sixtus V. He soon published a fine edition of the Greek Bible; then one of the Old Latin, a mosaic of quotations from the early Latin writers; and in 1590 completed his work by a three- volume edition of the common Latin version, printed from early copies carefully corrected by quotations. He pref­aced it by a bull, approving it by his apostolic authority transmitted from the Lord, and announcing that this was to be used "as true, legitimate, authentic, and undoubted in all public and private debates, readings, preachings, and explanations; and that anyone who ventured to change it without papal authority would incur the wrath of God Almighty and of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul." He reserved copyright for ten years, and ordered that after that period all further editions should be conformed to it, all existing copies—even missiles and breviaries—should be cor­rected by it and should be officially certified by inquisitor or bishop. He forbade any marginal notes, whether of various readings or explanation. This might seem final; but Sixtus died that year, leaving behind the revisers whose work he had personally corrected, including the famous Jesuit cardinal, Bellarmine, whom he had offended by the suppression of one of his books. The next pope died in ten days. His successor was induced to disown this legitimate and authorized version. And though he, too, died soon, and the next within a few months, Bellar- mine was appointed to buy up this official edition and issue another. Clement VIII appointed Cardinal Allen, of Oxford, and Douay, together with an Italian prelate, to revise the text of his predecessor. Allen had studied the principles of textual criticism, as is shown in the preface to the Rheims Testament. Instead of relying chiefly on early quotations, he referred to the original languages. This resulted in more than three thousand alterations from the text of Sixtus— whole passages being omitted or introduced, and the verses being divided differently. Bellarmine, however, saved ap­pearances by saying in the preface that Sixtus himself had intended to do this, owing to the misprints and other errors. This second edition had a new bull by Clement, which specified among other things that, as before, no word of the text might be altered, that no various readings might be registered in the margin, and that all copies were to be conformed to it. So you see, Brother Catholic, one of your popes declares a version to be "authentic and undoubted," and pronounces a curse upon anyone who makes any change in it, and then another pope comes along and corrects his errors and puts out another infallible (?) version!

What do you say to this, Brother Catholic? Oh, you are still silent! Well, I am going to write you one more letter, anyway, and next week we will study that private-interpre­tation idea at which you scoff.

LETTER TO BROTHER CATHOLIC Dear Brother Catholic: In your controversy with Protestant you insist that the Bible speaks plainly against what you call the "private- judgment" theory. By "private-judgment" theory you refer to our claim that every man has the right to read and to understand the Scriptures for himself. You and your church deny the people this right and privilege. In fact, you deny that the people have the ability to understand the Scriptures. You claim that the Scriptures must be officially interpreted for the people. You think that while the Bible is a revelation from God, it yet does not reveal anything except to those who are inspired, or given divine power to under­stand it. Why was the Bible given at all? Would it not be just as easy to give the message by inspiration each time a message is due as it is to inspire some man to find and ferret out a message from an unintelligible book which was written long ago? Your priests adopted this theory, Brother Catholic, to deprive you of your liberty and to keep you under their power. You cannot learn the will of God except through them, according to your theory, and they can tell you anything that they choose to tell you, as they have always done. But you think that the New Testament itself speaks against the "private-judgment" idea and you cite 2 Peter 1:19-21. Why did you cite this reference, Brother Catholic, unless you expected us to read it and understand it? Can we understand this passage, or will we have to get your church officials to tell us what it means? If we cannot understand it, why did you cite it? If we can understand it, then our claim of ability to read and understand the Scrip­tures is established, and your assumption of "authority to interpret" is false. Do you see your absurd predicament, Brother Catholic, in asking us to read and understand from a book, which we cannot understand, that we should never attempt to read and understand this book? Or do you think we can understand this passage to tell us that we cannot understand this passage? The trouble with you, Brother Catholic, is that you have listened to "authority" so long you have become incapable of correct thinking. The passage you cite refutes your claim absolutely. It does not say that the prophecies of Scripture cannot be privately or individually understood. It says that they are not "privately interpreted." and that is exactly what your church officials claim to do. They claim the special and private power and right to interpret the Scriptures for the whole world! They say the Scriptures are not for public understanding and use, but that they must be privately interpreted by themselves, the priests, as special agents!

If we understand the word "interpret" in the sense in which you use it—to explain or understand—this passage ruins your claim forever. Or if we give the word its true meaning here—its contextual meaning—it ruins you, world without end. You used the passage to teach something that it does not teach at all. It has no reference at all to those who read the Scriptures, but refers clearly to those who wrote the Scriptures. You quote the passage thus:" "No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation." That is a good rendering of the text, for it refers to the way the Scriptures came or were made. Another good rendering is: "No prophecy of Scripture is of the prophet’s own inven­tion. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." The Greek word epilusis, which is here translated inter­pret, means primarily to loose, untie, release. No prophecy of Scripture was, therefore, ever released, loosed, or given out by the prophets’ own promptings or inventions, but those prophets were carried along by the Holy Spirit. But just let us take the whole passage as it reads in the King James Version, and it ruins your claim. Peter tells us that we d o well t o take heed unto the prophecy of Scripture "as unto a light that shinetli in a dark place." But you say that the common people should not attempt t o give heed to the Scriptures, as they could not understand them, and would have to appeal to special, private agents to in­terpret them, for the Scriptures are not "a light that shineth in a dark place," but a dark cloud and a lowering fog that confuseth in any place! There is a great difference in what the apostle Peter said and in what your church says, you see.

You are all wrong, Brother Catholic. The Scriptures were written for all the people and not for a few presumptuous officials. We are admonished to (1) read (1 Timothy 4:13); (2) to study (2 Timothy 2:15); (3) "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly" (Colossians 3:16): (4) to "desire the sincere milk of the word" (1 Peter 2:2). The Scriptures were written for our learning (Romans 15:4), for our admonition (1 Corinthians 10:11), and as a standard for us to measure religious claims by (1 Corinthians 14:37).

Paul was afraid that some of the leaders at Thessalonica might arrogate to themselves such authority as your priests claim, and appoint themselves to read Paul’s Epistle and to tell the brethren what he said and what it meant, and he, therefore, strictly charged them in the sight of the Lord that his Epistle be read to all the holy brethren. (1 Thessalonians 5:27)

Diotrephes got some small amount of the spirit which dwells in your hierarchy in him, and he would not let the church—this means the people, for it says he loved the pre­eminence among them —see the letter which the apostle John wrote. (3 John 1:9) He forbade the brethren even to receive those who brought the letter. Yes, indeed, he as­sumed the power of interdiction, and also issued the bull of excommunication. He was a miniature pope as surely as you live. But, Brother Catholic, do you like his reputa­tion in the Scriptures? Do you think the beloved apostle John endorsed him? Did he approve this impudent assumption of power? You know he did not, but that he con­demned Diotrephes. Then, what do you think John would have said of your pope, if there had been any such pope, in John’s day? Are you still silent, Brother Catholic?

You were so vocal and so valiant in your fight with Brother Protestant that your silence now surprises us, Brother Catholic. Can you speak up just once and let us know that you are not suffering from loss of speech? Your taciturnity is becoming touching, Brother Catholic, and we are afraid the sympathy of the people will turn to you. We will, therefore, hold up a while and wait for an answer from you.

BROTHER CATHOLIC SPEAKS

Some months ago we had something to say in this de­partment in reply to some controversial tracts that are being distributed by the Catholics. We called upon these Catholic controversialists to come to the defense of their claims, and offered to give them space for a fair discussion. Of course, this call and offer had in mind the authors of the tracts that we were reviewing or any other official representative of that church. The tracts were official publications, put out with papal benedictions. So far no recognition whatever has been given our offer by these officials. They are as silent as the tomb of Moses so far as our strictures were con­cerned, but they still carry on their one-sided controversies through the press, by radio, and by private and public teaching.

Below we have the effort of a private individual, a lay­man among the Catholics, to defend their claims. He shows courage and sincerity, and we naturally wonder why a man like this brother would not be disappointed that his priests or bishops will not meet a fair offer to study—inves­tigate—examine their claims. We here give in full all that this Catholic brother says in reference to the Gospel Advo­cate, and then offer a few remarks that, we trust, will be helpful to him and to others. Read his replies first, as follows:

In the matter of private interpretation of the Bible, how can you expect anyone to do so correctly when leaders of your denomination and others cannot agree to the teaching of the New Testament in regard to the use of instrumental music in church service? Is it not a fact that the private interpretation of the Scriptures and the ab­sence of church authority are the cause of the continuous division of the Christian denominations? The Catholic Church rules in all cases where the meaning is not clear, and we Catholics like it, and we hear much less about those rulings inside the flock than you seem to imagine. During my more than forty years in the Catholic Church here and in Europe, I have known hundreds of priests, and I have been able to judge their life and their teachings and their sincerity, devotion to Christ, and abnegation in the service of the Lord, and it would take you more than forty years to prove your contention that they are false preachers.

EDWARD GOFFAUX.

11 Park Avenue, Charleston, West Virginia.

REMARKS

Do you not see also that this claim about tradition clearly shows that your "authority"—therefore, your church—rests upon tradition and not upon the Bible alone? But now, as to the evangelists failing to record some things that Christ taught which are essential for us to know, you "do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." This is not a question of interpreting the Scriptures, yBrother Catholic; it is a question of believing what our Lord said. He charged and commissioned his apostles to teach "all things whatsoever I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:18-20) Did they do this, or did they just do their best and fail, Brother Catholic? And the Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would "bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26) You had never read that promise, had you, Brother Catholic? If you had, you surely would have been ashamed to say that these writers who were thus guided by the Holy Spirit forgot some of the things Christ "uttered while he was preaching," and that we will have to learn these from uninspired tradition! You did not know that the Holy Spirit was to teach "all things" to these writers and to guide them "into all the truth," either, did you, Brother Catholic? That is just what our Lord promised. (John 14:26; John 16:13) The Lord’s promise to be with us always, even to the end of the world, is true. He is still with us. But we are not confirming the things he spoke, for we did not hear him. Those who heard him "confirmed unto us" the great sal­vation, and God bore them witness with signs, etc. (Hebrews 2:1-4) We did not hear, we cannot as they did confirm the word, and, therefore, do not need the signs. What we must do is to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints"—viz., those who heard him, etc. (Jude 1:3) "These are written, that ye might be­lieve" (John 20:31), Brother Catholic.

Your point about men failing to understand what God’s word teaches on instrumental music, etc., is a transparent fallacy so far as overthrowing our claim is concerned, but it does convict Protestants of a serious inconsistency. The trouble does not come about by our inability to understand what the New Testament says, and we all know what the New Testament churches practiced. There is no room for dispute there. The trouble is that some Protestants, like you, Brother Catholic, think that while the inspired writers did the best they could, they left out some things they should have told us! Some Protestants will not abide within and submit to the authority of the Holy Scriptures as willingly, as loyally, and as implicitly as you do the authority of your "church." They want to do as they please, and they want to go back to tradition and to the practices that came from your pope and not from Christ and the apostles. You should taunt them with that, Brother Catholic, till you make them hang their heads in shame. But the "firm foundation of God standeth," and "all scripture is given by inspiration" and furnishes us "unto every good work" (2 Timothy 2:19; 2 Timothy 3:16-17), whether we can convince you in forty years or not. Do not judge yourself unworthy of eternal life, Brother Catholic. (Acts 13:46)