Untitled

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXIII, Issue 35, 27 December 1895, Page 23

A. SHORT REPIA TO THE REVEREND JOHN DICKSON, PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER, TBMUKA, TO HIS ATTACK AGAINST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. *~ . (By the Veby Rev Fatheb Thkophiltjs Lb Mennant DEB CHEBNAIB, S.M.) Temuka, December 17, 1895. The following letter was refused publication by the editor of the Temuka Leader :—: — If we were to judge of the Reverend John Dickßon's intellectual attainments by the letter which appeared in the last Dumber of your paper (Temuka, Leader) we should indeed form a very low estimate of them. Hear bis wonderful ntterauces :— (1) " All Protestants stand or fall by the Bible, rb we find it in the'original Hebrew or Greek, or at least, as we have it translated from the original|tongues into onr own, with all the light and knowledge of the nineteenth century.' Does the Rev John Dickson forget that our Blessed Lord, the Divine Founder of the Christian Church i has not written a single word of the Bible ? That even after the coming down of the Holy Ghost, on the day of Ptntccost, the Apostles established Christianity by oral teaching, and, for many years, not one of them wrote a line, because they did not consider it necessary.' They preached the Divinity of Jesus Christ and confirmed their preaching with miracle?. Can the Rev J. Dickson deny this? Can he point out one single early Christian Gburch which was established or converted by the diffusion or reading of the Holy Scriptures ? It was nearly four hundred years before the Rible was collected together and put into

book shape as we have it now ; can the Bey J. Diokson controvert ' this f Daring that time— and this was the golden age of Christianity —how oottld people have form ad their religion from the reading of the Bible which was cot yet published ? Yet, millions of persons professed Christianity at that time, although they had never so much as opened a Bible. This is not all. For 1440 years, that is, before the iovention of printing, every copy of the Sacred Scriptures bad to be made with the pen ; it took many years to complete it and a fortune to buy it. During these 1440 years, when the majority of the faithful could not possibly get a complete copy of the Bible, how could they have been saved, it they had had to form their religion from the reading of the Bible 1 Before the invention of the printing press, if anyone had spoken of forming his religion by tbe reading of the Holy Scriptures, he would have been taken to a lunatic asylum. During these 1440 years, I challenge my reverend frieud to point out ons single church in the .Christian world, whether in the Eaßt or in the West, which believed that Christianity was to be propagated or preserved by the diffusion, reading and private interpretation of the Holy Scriptures? If be cannot do it, then his rule of faith, "The Bible and the Bible only," is a false rule, a thing unknown to all Christian peoples until the so-called Beformation of the sixteenth century. This is not all : from the time of the Apostles until tbe Beformation, the Church of Borne was tbe sole custodian, translator, and interpreter of the Holy Scriptures, especially those of the New Testament ; if tbe Bey J. Dickson does not believe in the infallibility of that Church, bow can be be sum that, during that time, she may not have corrupted the Scriptures to suit her system f Has he not every reason to suppose so ; and, as it is only through the Roman Church tbe Scriptures bave been preserved to us, how can the Bey J> Dickson or any other Protestant be sure that tbe Bible is the Word of God at all. How can they be certain tbat it is not the work of tbe infernal spirit, since it came to them through a Church which they believe to have been steeped in error and superstition ? Can the Bey J. Dickson solve this difficulty ? Catholics believe in the divinity and infallibility of the Church. The Church tells them the Bible is the Word of God and they accept it as such, but Protestants who deny the divinity and infallibility of the Church have do certainty at all that tbe Bible which they read is not a falsehood from beginning to end. (2). •' The writer of these articles," he says, " dissatisfied with the Bible, and apparently unable to find there sufficient support for hit doctrine, appeals to and often takes his text from what ii known as the Apocryphal (donbtful) Books. These Books are not written, like the other Old Testament Books, in ancient Hebrew, but suspiciously in modern Greek, are nevtr quoted from by Our Lord and His Apostles, and are ostensibly as full of folly as an egg is full of meat." It is painful in the extremt to tee a Christian minister use such impious, blasphemous language of the Divine Word, for, bear it in mind, the authority, integrity and inspiration of the Books, which the Bey J. Dickson and the Reformers call 41 Apocryphal," is as great as that of tbe Holy Gospels of St Matthew, St Mark, 8t Luke or St John, since we have them oo the authority of the Bame Church; The Canon or the Bible, that is, the list of the Books which were to be considered as authentic, veridic and inspired, was fixed by the Church at the Council of flippo, 393, the third Council of Carthage, 397, and confirmed by the sixth Council of of Carthage, 419, at which 200 bishops and two apostolic legate, sent by the Pope were present. Were not those holy pontiffs and doctors in a better position to judge which Scriptures wsre genuine and really inspired than the innovators of the sixteenth century ? Yet, because those Books which bave since been acknowledged by all the Cburohes of the East and of the West, were rejected by the Reformers of the sixteenth century, tbe Bey J. Dickson styles them as being "as full of folly as an egg is full of meat." Munscher, Berthold, Bretscbneider, etc. acknowledge that it was through party spirit that tbe Reformers rejected the Deuterocanonical Books, which have the same authority as the other Books of the Bible (see Muoscher, Hanbuch der Christ Dog. 1802, Berthold Hist. Kritish, T. 11. 1812, BretSchneider T. I.) If there is not an infallible tribunal, how can we be sure which are the true Scnptnres at all ? This can be known only by tradition, which tbe Bey J. Dickson repudiates, for he says (3), speaking of me, " He resorts for sapport to tradition and the decrees of Councils and the writings of the early Fathers , . . wbicb. being uninspired, all Protestants consider of small importance." The Bey J. Dickson is calumniating even some of the most enlightened Protestants who admit the authority of the first four (Ecumenical Councils, namely, that of Nice, 325, which condemned the heresy of Arius ; Irtst of Constantinople, 381, which condemned the heresy of Macedomus; of Bphesus, 431, which condemned the heresy of Nestoriue, and the Council of Ohalcedon, 451 which condemned the heresy of fiutiches. Many learned divines of the Aoglican Church admit also tbe authority of the Fathers of the four first centuries, and, therefore, he calumniates thousands, nay, millions of honest Protestants who do not, like the Bey J. Dickion, consider osoumenical councils and the testimony ot the early Fathers as of small importance. Admitting each Father is fallible, yet if all the Fathers of the early ages agree about any particular matter although they lived in different countries, spoke different languages

and did not commnnicatbe with each other, there being no railway, no telegraph*, no steamers in those days, their joint testimony is ■imp]y unanswerable, because each was a witness of the faith and customi of the country be lived in. If their notarial testimony can be traoed back to the time of the Apostles, it shows apostolieity of origin for that particular thing, which is of the utmost importance no matter what Bey J. Diokson may say to the contrary. Wherefore, I am perfectly right to quote the early Fathers and counsels which knew apostolic truths much more accurately than my revtrend friend. (3) He goes on " More than this, the Bible itself, though founded on reason and addressed to reason and bearing the internal injunction < Search the Scriptures,' must not according to this writer be interpreted by each man privately, but by the so called ' Infallible Church.' " Where dots the Reverend J. Dickson fiod in the Bible that that it is to be interpreted by private reason ? Why did not onr Blessed Lord write a Bible ? Why did be not say to His Apostles : 11 Go and distribute this book everywhere, I will give meo intellect to read it and understand it, it is the only gnlde they want to secure heavenly bliss? Instead of that, He said to them : (1) "To preach to all nations " (Matthew xxviii, 29,) even to the utmost parts of the world " (Acts, i, 8) and that this ministry was to be continued by their successors until all be united in faith (Ephes. iv, 2,). (2) He promised to prestrve them and their successors from error by the assistance of His holy spirit till the end of the world (3) He commanded all to hear them and be guilded by them " Be that hearetb you, hearetb Me, he that despitheth you despiseth Me," (Luke,x, 16) What was the utility of the preaching of the Apostles, if every one was to believe what he liked and to do what he pleased f If all were commanded to bear the Apostles, as Christ Himself, therefore the doctrine of private judgment is unscriptural, misleading and false When agaio Jesus said to His Apostles : " All power ii given to me in heaven and on earth, going, therefore, teaoh ye all nations whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matth xxviii, 19, 20,) that it, to preach and explain to the people His doctrine. Is not this a dear proof that he did not want the Scriptures privately interpreted to be onr only rule of faith, but the living authority of his Ohuroh ; Private interpretation is the floodgate of error and immorality ; for how can you convince of error or of wrong-doing a man who believes that his privato reason is to be his only guide and that he it to believe and practice only what suits bis reason ? Will you claim fo» everyone the infallibility which you deny to the Church and to the Pope in matters of faith and morals ? The contradictions of the various sects which all quote the Bcriptures in support of their opinions, show the fallacy of this assumption. The text, " Search ye the Scriptures," is not an injunction to interpret the Bcriptures by private reason as the Bey J. Dickson does pretend. These words were addressed by our bleased Lord to the Pharisees, whose dv y it was to study the Scriptures and explain them to the people ; neither did He allow them to put their privats interpretation on them, but interpreting them Himself, He declared that they gave testimony of Jlim. He refers them to the Bible as proof of His divinity, not as to the source from which they were to form their religious belief. Is it not a great perversion of this text, on the part of my rev opponent, to say that in it there is an injunction to read and interpret privately the Bible ? If the Bey J. Dickson believes, as he pretends he does, that every one is to form his belief from the private reading of the Scriptures, why Sunday after Sunday, does be inculcate bin Presbyterian principles' to his congregation, instead of leaving them to read the Bible privately and pot any construction they please upon it ? Why does he write pamphlets to propagate his opinions? Why does he teach little children his private views, as if they were infallible definitions? This shows that, in theory, be believes in private judgment, but, in practice, he acts by authority— that is, he contradicts himself! A Catholic does nothing of the kind ; he believes be is to receive the explanation of the doctrine of Jesus Christ from the Church, and that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost to explain it to him with infallible accuracy. A Catholic is logical, the Bey J. Dickson is not. All Catholic priests preach the same doctrine everywhere; every non-Catholic minister, like the Bey J. Dickson, has a system of his own, and tries to persuade people his system is the best of any and the most approved by God ; this is bow people are permitted to practice private judgment. With the doctrine of private judgment, how caa the unity of faith be kept ? "Be careful to keep the unity of the Spirit, one faith "— (Ephes iv, 3). How could we speak the same thing, ba of the same mind and of the same judgment ? "I besiech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all tpeak the came tbing, tbat you be perfect in the same mind, and the Bame judgment "—(I. Cor. 1, 10). Do the advocates of private judgment Bpeak the same thing, be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment ? Can God be indifferent if we follow truth or embrace error, do good or evil ? Yet He must be, if the doctrine of private judgment be true. Let the Bey J. Dickson know that all Catholics believe the same things, arc perfect in the same mind and in the leme judgment in matters of faith and morals ; it is a wicked calumoy on bis part to suppose that I or any other Catholic priest do not believe what we preach ; we believe it, and we are ready to die for our faith any day. Would the Bey J. Dickson be willing to do the

same f Catholics do not condemn to " tbe Blackness 1 of Darkness for ever" tho«e who differ from them ; they say their Church is the only true Church ; that Jesus established no other Church but the Catholic Church ; that all who can are bonnd to become members of it to seenre salvation. But they jndge no one personally ; they leave them to God, who will puniih them only if their refusing to enter His Obnrch was wilful ; if it waa not, and if they led a good life, according to the light that was in them, they shall be saved. I do not intend "cutting my stick" and going to other regions wheo those lectures are over. I have beeß over fifteen years in New Zealand, and do not think of leaving New Zealand. Let it not be imagined that Catholics despise the Holy Scriptures. The early Christian Fathers explained them from tbe first chapter of Genesis to the last verse of the Apocalypse, and clearly answered all the objections of pagan philosophers and sceptics. Origeo, bt Jerome, St Augustine, Arnobe, Athenagoras, Hegesipu*, St John Chrysostom, St Gregory Naziaosen, St Iraaeus, St Hilary, etc, have left ns many admirable comments on every part of the Bible, shown its veracity. Integrity and inspiration, and composed magnificent discourses on the principal truths it contains. These men of genius were in a better position to know the true meaning of the Bible than we are, and their testimony is most precious to ns. The reason why the reformers rejected the Fathers is because they all teach the same doctrine aB Catholics do to-day, and if people were to read them, they would be bonnd to return to the Church of their ancestors and the primitive Christians. This is why, like the Rev J. Dickson, they try to prejudice the mind of tbe people against them. What is J. Dickson when compared to these men of genius who astonished the world by their erudition, wisdom, judgment, aa well as by the sanctity of their lives, about which non-Oatholicß know almost absolutely nothing. Before i the Reformation it was out of extracts of the Bible tbat little children learned to read and write. Learned doctors studied the Holy Scriptures, the explanations given of them by the most famous doctors, the traditions and customs of the early Christians; they arranged tbe Christian doctrine in a systematical form. They bad a short abridgment made of what is most necessary to be known and practised, and it was taught verbally to the children and illiterate people. Por tbe learned they bad large, complete, scientific and historical explanations. These being approved by the Ohorcb, everywhere the same doctrine was taught and the unity of belief preserved, and people had an infallible certainty tbat whatever they believed was what Jesus Christ and His Apostles taught. Is not this preferable to the of private judgment advocated by the Bey J. Dickson ? If this method had been preserved, should we have tbe hundreds of contradictory sects which surround us, eich pretending to have tbe true doctrine of Christ and quoting texta of the Bible iv support of its assumption, and thus make Christianity a Tower of Babel and religion a motkery J Without the authority of the Church we cannot be sure we have the true Bible. Witness tbe Rev J. Dick■on, who styles as " full of folly " certain books of the Bible because they are a condemnation of his false teaching ; we could not be sure to have a true translation since the original texts and early translations have, for more than fifteen hundred years, been exclusively in tbe bands of the Catholic Church, except the Od Testament, of which the Jews have been the custodians ; we would never be certain of having the right meaning of it, and faith would be impossible. What has the Bey J. Dickson to say to this 1