ANSWER TO LECTURE I.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXIII, Issue 46, 13 March 1896, Page 21

ANSWER TO LECTURE I.

"My sole aim will be ... to honour truth, glorify God, and His Son Jesus Christ." Such is the admirable preamble of the Rev J. Dickson's first lecture "on Catholicism." We shall see directly how my friend honours truth and glorifies His Son Jesus Christ. Standard of Appeal. The first thing to be settled in any controversy is the standard of appeal — with this we perfectly agree. "Is the Bible the only infallible rule of faith and practice? taking for his text: "Woe to you lawyers, for you have taken away the key of knowledge ; you yourselves have not entered in, and these that were entering in, you have hindered (Luke xi, 52). Hear now his interpretation of the text : "The knowledge here spoken of by Christ is the general knowledge of God, which He represents as a temple, the golden key of entrance into whose beautiful and life-giving courts, is the Scriptures, and these Jewish doctors of the law are charged by Christ with the crime of taking away the key by their carnal, letter-killing, false interpretations, and closing the temple against the people of God, and thus taking- away the key to the temple of spiritual knowledge given by God Himself into the hands of every individual." How could my friend show that God had given the Holy Scriptures into the hands of every individual? He knows very well, or at least, he should know, that the priests alone were the custodians ot the Sacred Scriptures. A copy was kept in the treasury of the temple under several locks and keys. In every synagogue an authentic copy was kept, but the people never had it put into their hands. It suits him to say so, in order to uphold his favourite doctrine of private judgment, but is this honest? Is it conformable to historical truth? Can he substantiate it from the Bible? By his rash, false interpretation of the sacred text, is he not misleading his congregation into manifest error? Then, he goes on : " Mark, these lawyers did not prohibit the use of the key," that is, the reading of the Scriptures. How could they, if, as my friend affirms, "God Himself has given them into the hands of every individual ?" The Bible Society gives the Scriptures to millions of persons ; can those persons be prevented from reading the Bibles given them ' But where did the Rev. Dickson see in the Scriptures that they were to be given into the hands of every individual Could he quote one solitary instance of such a universal distribution taking place? Let us proceed. "The doctors ot the law, in their interpretations so tampered with the wards, that the temple ot divine knowledge could not be opened, and so both lawyers and people were shut out." If every one was to follow his private judgment, no one was obliged to believe the interpretations of the lawyers, no more than the people of Temuka are obliged to believe the explanations of my rev. friend; and if they, from private conviction, admit them, would he find fault with them If "private judgment is the only rule ot faith and practice " how can people be led astray by false interpretations ? Should not God guide their reason and judgment so as to prevent them from frilling into any dangerous error 9 If not, then, what is the utility of a rule of faith which cannot preserve us trom error, and may shut us out ot heaven, as my triend says the Jewish doctors and people were 9 They virtually said "these scriptures are undoubtedly trom God, but they are too full of difficulties and obscurities for your dull, stupid, erring brains to comprehend." It our judgment is enlightened by God to lead us to salvation by the reading of His Holy Word, is He not bound to give us understanding to comprehend it so that we may not tall into any error which might endangci salvation? It the Israelites had thought they were to be the judges, would they have listened to the false interpretations ot their doctors ? No, no more than Protestants would listen to the interpretation of a Catholic priest. By the very fact that the Jews credited the false interpretations of the Pharisees, it is evident that they admitted the principle of authoritative teaching, and did not believe in private judgment. Let me remark also that the n-pro ich here made by our Blessed Lord applied only to the Pharisees, not to all the doctors of the law, many of whom rejected their false interpretations. One who protests to honour tiuth, should be precise. The Jewish priests never claimed infallibility as a personal privilege; what is, therefore, the meaning of these words of my rev. friend : " We are learned and inlallible guides, and you must take the interpretation trom v-> under pain of being eternally lost. Must ot the people said Amen, took the interpretation, rejected Christ." The priests were indeed appointed by God to explain the law to the people, but they were not free to follow their own judgment. In so doing, they had to give the explanation approved ot by the Sanhedrim and the High Priest. Many of the Pharisees added interpretations of their own and un-approved oi tradition^; for these additions and false traditions they are condemned by our Blessed Lord, just as a Catholic pi icst would be condemned by the Pope were he

to add to the apostolical tradition or give a wrong interpretation of Divine Revelation. The conduct of such a priest or of many of the them would not affect the infallibility of the Church or of the Pope, or show that the apostolical traditions are not absolutely certain ; yet this is the inference of my friend. Speaking of me he say : " Does it not seem as though the position taken up by our friend bore some resemblance to that of these lawyers? For the doctors of the modern Church to which he belongs, he claims, on the same grounds, the sole right of infallibly interpreting what is contained in the Bible, and of adding to it by means of traditition." I — How can my rev friend, in consistency with historical truth, say that the Catholic Church is a modern Church ? Let him read and refute, if he be able, what I have said about the Catholicity and Apostolicity of the Church, and he will see that no fact is better established from history than the unbroken succession of the Pontiffs of the Catholic Church from the Apostles until the present time. Could the Reverend Dickson, who calls the Catholic Church "a modern Church," point to us the antiquity of Presbyterianism ? For fifteen hundred years or more, who heard of Presbyterians ? Can Presbyterian pastors trace their pedigree by an unbroken line of ministers to the time of the Apostles as every Catholic bishop or priest is able to do from the most reliable and authentic historical documents ? Right of Private Judgment. " I freely accord to every man the right of private judgment. Without that, preaching, and reasoning, and religion would be a farce." You freely grant to every man the right of private judgment, but God does not and never did. Who is right, you or Almighty God? What authority have you to permit that which God forbids, or to forbid that which He permits? What are your credentials for such a bold and false assertion? I defy you to quote one single proof showing that God ever permitted His holy law to be interpreted by private judgment. He always rejected those who preferred their private interpretation to that of His prophets, the synagogue or His holy Church. God said to our first parent : "Of every tree of Paradise thou shalt eat. But of the tree of the knowlege of good and evil thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it thou shalt die the death " (Gen. li, 16-17). The internal serpent tried to make Eve use her private judgment in order to lead her into sin. He said to her : " Why hath God commanded you that you should not eat of every tree of Paradise? The woman answered him saying : "Of the fruits of the trees that are in Paradise we do eat, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of Paradise God hath commanded us that we should not eat, and that we should not touch it lest, perhaps, we die." Here Eve calls into doubt the Divine threat. "God h ith positively declared that they should die if they disobeyed Him." live, interpreting the command her own way, said : " Lest, perhaps, we should die." Seeing she was wavering, the serpent boldly said : " No, you shall not die thereof. For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil" (Gen , iii, 1-5). Eve had to choose between the free interpretation ot the serpent and that of God ; she used her private judgment, being anxious to be like God, knowing good and evil, and by her disobedience brought the malediction of God upon herself. Whenever the demon wints to dr ig us into sin it is by making us use, like Eve, our private jud^'rie-nt in opposition to God's judgment or the teaching ot His Church. "It would indeed have astonished us it under any economy God hid prohibited the right of private judgment, i.e., have given reison to nun and prohibited its exercise." My triend may be astonished as much as he please-., but the fact i«, God never g tve man the right of private judgment about His revelation, yet He does not forbid the use ot re ison nor prohibit its legitim ite exercise, as we shall see presently. The position taken by the Rev. J. Dickson and other se^ irated Churches is the following. Die Bible interpreted by private judgment is the only means to arrive at the knowledge ot the truths necessary tor salvation. There is no magisterial teaching authority in tlu Church. The mission of ministers is to assist the faithtul to find out in the Bible the word of God. With this doctrine the Bible loses its divine character ; every one \s free to rej( ct whatever suits not his limited intellect often biassed by ignorance, prejudice or passion. As private judgment is the ultimate tribunal, he firmly adheres to his own opinion, and, by this means, sects are being continually multiplied, to the great di-editication ot outsiders. Many seeing the glaring contradictions ot the sects tall into agnosticism and even into infidelity. If the written Word of God were to be our only rule of taith and our guide in the matter of salvation, how is it that Christ left no writings nor instructions for His Apostles'' Why did He preach His Gospel by word of mouth? "He went about all Gdilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching t>ie Gospel of the kingdom " (Matthew, iv, 2s). There is not in the Gospels the faintest allusion to written teaching. Christ knew the Scriptures. He appealed to Moses and the prophets and told the doctors of the law to search them in order to be convinced that all the prophecies were tulfilled in Him, but He did not deem it expedient to write Himself. Hear St John Chrysostom on this point. Cod gave no ivrittin^s to th l\",'/cs, but in their

stead He promised the grace of the Holy Spirit. For He, said Jesus, will call to your mind all that I have said to you" (St Chrysostom Horn, im Matth., i, 2) Christ left behind Him no written document for them. He commanded them to spread His doctrine by speaking and preaching. How, said St Paul, could people believe in Jesus unless they should hear about Him? and how could they hear about Him without a preacher? How shall they call on Him in Whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe Him of Whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear -without a preacher? "Rom., x, 14-15). To found churches and convert unbelievers a mere book would never have sufficed. By their burning words and heavenly miracles, the Apostles scattered the piejudices ingrained in the minds of their hearers. St. Paul praises the Corinthians because they had held fast to the traditions that he had handed down to them. " Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me, and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you " fl. Cor., xi, 2). He entreats the Christians of Thessalonica to holdfast to the traditions they had received, whether by word of mouth or by epistle (11. Thessal., ii, 15). Writing to Timothy, he says : " Hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard from vie" (11. Tim,, 1, 13). Note well also that preaching nowhere began with epistles; they were intended to supplement preaching or encourage certain good works. The Apostles, it is true, commanded their epistles to be read during divine service and to be sent to the Churches, but they never established a Christian community by writing, the only exception being the epistle to the Romans which was addressed by St. Paul to a church not founded by him. The Gospels were not written with a view of giving a complete account of the life of our Saviour, but to serve as a basis for preaching and instruction. " The Gospel concerning Christ," says Weiss, "had little in common with the early life of Jesus" (Weiss, Leben Jesu, i, 17). The Gospel was intended to consolidate the faith which had already been preached. The Church -was not founded by Holy Scriptures but by the Living Word. The Bible, and the Bible only, is a principle both unbiblical and unhistorical, as is evident from the famous disputation between Lessing and Go/e. In the days of the Apostles the Scriptures had not been collected so as to form a complete book. Had they wished the j Bible to be the rule of faith alter them, how is it they did not see that it be carefully collected and revised by their authority? They transmitted the doctrine of Christ as they had received it by Oral Tradition, as history testifies. St. Clement says : — " The Apostles, sent by God, preached the Gospel to us " (S. Clem. Ep. ad Corinth), and then the same father says: "but they ordained bishops and deacons, who were likewise to work in the Holy Spirit" (Clem. Rom. i., 14). Papias, who was a disciple of St. John, says that " the Apostles received their doctrine from the lips of our Lord, and ha>ided it down by word of moutli " (Eusebius H. E. ni., 39-40). St. Ireneus, writing to his friend Florinus, tells him how St. John made known to him and his other disciples the doctrine and miracles of Christ by words of mouth. The apostolic Fathers quoted the Scriptures mostly from memory, or rather from tradition. St. Justin, a learned philosopher and apologist, says : " The spoken word, preaching, was the ordinary medium in his time for teaching and converting " (S. Just. Apol. 1., 67)- Ecclesiastical tradition in the early ages was the sole judge ot controversies in matters of faith. All heretics quoted this Scriptures in favour of their tenets; the Gnostics, the Savelhans, the Arians, the Nestorians, the Pelagians, the Albigenses, the Waldenses, etc. St. Augustine, the greatest genius perhaps Christianity ever had, says: "That the Scriptures are not wanted, except to convince others" (S. Aug. De Doct. Christ i., 39(. Apostolic tradition was the menns to plant the faith ; it alone gives us the key to the true meaning of the Scriptures. The Church admits of none but apostolical traditions, which are absolutely certain, according to the rules I have given in my lecture on that subject. Tertulhan challenges heretics to settle points of faith from Scriptures (Tert. De Prescript. C, xv. and xxxvii.). Heretics use the Scriptures to find out a justification of their opinion, not to find out what the Apostles taught and the early Christians believed. The Greek Church, on this point, agrees perfectly with the Latin Church. To be brief, we shall mention in support of this : Clement of Alexandria (I. Tim. vi., 20) "We must hold fast to the Church's teaching," he says, "which has come down in an unbroken line from the Apostles. Only that is to be believed which deflects not in any way from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition " (In Hierm. xxi., >). Can anything more precise, more definite, be expected to show that the Bible and the Bible alone is not our rule of faith? The objection ot my rev. friend, that St. John in Apocalypse was commanded to write the visions he had and the prophecies he received is not to the point. Prophecies have to be written that their fulfilment may be ascertained, and certainly it would be a crime to alter or modify them in any wav ; yet alter this quotation, and the text of St. Matthew condemning the false traditions ot the Pharisees, he cries out, as if he had achieved a victory : "So much for tradition. It is put out of court by Christ Himselt " (Matth. xv., 6-y ; Eph. iii., 1). The Catholic Church, like her Divine Master, condemns false, uncertain traditions. Does that show that there are no true traditions at all ? Some give wrong interpretations

of the Scriptures, is there not also a true one? If my friend knows this, how can he be a lover of truth, in speaking as he did, to prejudice his hearers against the Holy Catholic Church, which he would admire and defend if he were to study attentively and try to get rid of his preconceived ideas. The instruction of Catechumens did not begin by the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, but with an explanation by word of mouth taken from the Apostles' Creed, as maybe seen from the writings of the Fathers on Catechumens (Aug. Ep. Fund, C. v. ; Damascen. De Imag.). St. Augustine rightly said : " I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Church move me thereto." The early Christians never believed in the doctrine of private judgment ; they, indeed, believed in the Scriptures, but interpreted by tradition as approved by the Church. Whenever tic Holy Fathers exhort the faithful to read the Scriptures, it is always with the explanations of the Church and the Fathers from apostolical tradition. In the first centuries only the priests and bishops had a copy of the Scriptures, which they preserved with the greatest care, and used to instruct the people. How could Christians have formed their belief from the reading of the Bible? How could the millions who could not read have saved their souls, if the Bible and the Bible only were our guide to salvation? Let my reverend friend think of this, and try to reconcile it with his favourite fiction of private judgment. How can we know better the teaching of Jesus Christ than by the writings of the converts made by the apostles, the prayer books, hymns and customs of the primitive Christians, who had been trained by the Apostles or their immediate successors? If, in all places, they are found to agree, is it not a proof of apostolical institution ? The rule of the commonitorium of St. Vincent of Lerins is a golden one to discriminate true from spurious traditions. " Quod semper, quod übique, quod ab omnibus traditum est.' We are to admit what has always been admitted by all and everywhere from the apostolical times. Hear the great Bisbop of Hippo: " That which the entire Church firmly holds, and has not been introduced by any council, but has always been held, is most justly believed to have been handed down from the Apostles" (S. Aug. De Bapt. iv., 24). The various creeds which have been made from time to time are a clear proof that the Holy Scriptures alone are not sufficient, without an authority, for our spiritual guidance. You could never know which are the true Sciptures without tradition. How do you know that this Gospel is of St. Matthew, that one of St. John, this epistle of St. Peter or of St. Paul ? Simply by tradition, because it is quoted by the early apostolic Fathers ; because, in all places, they were attributed to the authors whose name they bear, because the various copies and translations, when collated, substantially agree ; what is all this but tradition ? If you want to know the meaning of a difficult text, an obscure passage, what others means can you employ but to study carefully how the primitive Christian doctors explained it, how the bishops assembled together, after a conscientious examination of the apostolical tradition, defined it? That is, without tradition and the authority of the Church, the Scriptures would be simply incomprehensibly ? How could quarrels about the Bible be settled 9 How could errors be condemned? Why, those hundreds ot jarring, contradictory sects, each holding to its opinion, each pretending to be right, each quoting the Scriptuies 111 its favour, and denouncing as wrong those who diiier trom it? Is not this lamentable state of things the result ot piiv.ite judgment? In everything else, we consult the most learned doctors and scientists, the most reliable authorities ; why arc we so unwise and blind in spiritual matters ? Let us open our eyes, let us get rid of our prejudices, let us study the wntings ot the saints and doctors, the definitions of the Church and we shall see all^our principal doubts explained and our difficulties will vanish away. The Reverend J. Dickson, being a pastor ot souls, should know all this , yet, he says with a boldness, an etfrontery which cannot be too strongly stigmatised, "1 IREI.LY \LCORD TO FAERY MAN THE RIGHT OF trivatk judgmknt — without that, preaching, and reasoning, and religion would be a farce." The contrary is the truth. " With private judgment preaching is an absurdity and a contradiction, and religion a mockery, a comedy of errors, a farce." The Canon of Scriptures, the Vulgate of St. Jerome and the Douay Version. The Reverend J. Dickson rejects what he calls "The Apocryphal Books of Scriptures." Speaking of them, he says : " We assert that the Apocryphal Books are of no more value in establishing moral truth than Homer's Illiad, the Milesian tales, or Gulliver's travels." We have the word of Reverend Dickson for it. The Apocryphals, as he calls them, have no more value to establish moral truth than Homer's Illiad, the Milesian tales, or Gulliver's travels . we shall see the truth of this sweeping impious assertion ; yet he declared to us at the beginning his sole aim was to honour truth, glorify God and His Son, Jesus C hnst. Before answering him, let me explain what is meant by the Canon of Scriptures and how it was formed. C\M)N Ol THE SCRII'TURCS. The word Canon signifies Rule. It is the rule to discern , the genuine from the doubtful or spurious Scriptures. When

we speak of the Canon of Scriptures we mean the collection of the authentic books of the Bible. Christian Churches are generally agreed about the Canon of the New Testament, the difficulty is about that of the Old Testament. The Books of the Old Testament are divided into : Proto-Canonical and Deutero-Canonical Books, which my friend and the Reformers call " Apocryphals." — (i) The Proto-Canonical Books are those recognised by Jews and Christians as inspired, whose authenticity has never seriously been ca I led into doubt. (2) The Deutero-Canonical Books are those which were not recognised by the Hebrews, but were admitted by the Hellenic Jews, and afterwards by the Catholic Church as really authentic and inspired, although before they were examined and recognised by the Church some Fathers whilst acknowledging their utility to promote piety and edify, hesitated to admit them as positively inspired. These are: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, some parts of the Book of Esther and of the Prophet Daniel, the history of Susannah, the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus and the two Books of the Macchabees, also the history of Belus and the dragon. Most of the DeuteroCanonical Books were probably written in Armenian., but we have only their translation. The Septuagint Version of the Bible includes them all. It is so called because it was commenced by seventy-two learned Jews, at the time of Ptolemy Philadelphos. It was highly esteemed in Egypt and Palestine. It was received by the Jews at the time of Our Blessed Lord, as is evident from the numerous quotations from it by the apostolical Fathers. " Many of the quotations ascribed in the New Testament to Our Blessed Saviour are taken from it, and not from the Old Hebrew text (Most Rev Dr. Carr, the Church and the Bible)" By thus quoting the Septuagint Our Blessed Lord implicitly, at least, acknowledged its veracity, for we cannot for a moment suppose that He would have quoted an inaccurate or false version ; yet, my rev friend, because it contains the Books he rejects, says it contains dangerous errors and ridiculous stories. Is the history of Esther, of Tobias, or of the Macchabees ridiculous ? Do not the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus contain most beautiful precepts of morality? For the Rev. J. Dickson "they are of no more value than the Ilhad of Homer, the Milesian tales, or Gulliver's travels." How can a minister of God speak in such an impious manner? Contrary to the testimony of the greatest students of sacred hermeneutics, he falsely affirms that " they were never recognised as canonical by the Jews, nor by the primitive Christian Churches." They were not received by the Hebrews, but the Hellenic or Greek Jews admitted them and also many of the early Christian Fathers and Churches. As the Church had not pronounced on the matter, several Fathers, although they considered them as instructive, pious and edifying, hesitated to give them the same authority as to the Proto-Canonical Books, whose inspiration wis never seriously contested. There is a great difference between this respectful reserve and the Rev. J. Dickson, who, in a former letter, said the) were " as ostensibly full of folly as an egg is full of meat,'' and in his first lecture he wantonly declares that " they advocate suicide and lying and incantation and other errors." They indeed relate facls involving lyin,', incantation and other crimes, but they do not advocate them, no more than the other crimes related in the Proto-Canonical Books are advocated as an example for our imitation. Whatever is wrong and wicked or deceitful must be condemned and abhorred. Sometimes those who did such things may have acted with an erroneous conscience without adverting to the malice of what they were doing, thinking they were iu-Uified to think and speak as they did. In that c.ise we must give them credit for their pure intention without justifying the deed itself. Evidently the object of my friend is to insinuate that the Church of Rome in acknowledging those Books as inspired and true is thereby an abettor of crime, and cannot, consequently, be the true Church of Christ. But is such line of argumentation "honest"? Is it calculated to promote truth, the love of God and His Son, Jesus Christ. The Septuagint was received by St. Clement of Rome (i. Cor. 55) ; St. Polycarp (Phil, x) ; Clement of Alexandria (Strom, i.) ; St. Ireneus (Haer. vi. 5) : the Fathers of the second and third centuries, the Latin Version, called Vetus Itala, dating back to the first century, which formed the basis of the translation of St. Jerome, the Councils of Hippo, 393, and Carthage, 419, and sanctioned by Pope Damasus and Innocent I. Were not these holy, learned Doctors and Pontiffs in a better position to ascertain whether the controverted Books were authentic, veridic and inspired than the Reformers of the sixteenth century, who, as I have shown, and am in position to prove, rejected them simply because they were a condemnation of their errors opposed to the faith of of all Christian annquitv. The hesitation of some Fathers to receive them as inspired before the final decision of the Church was an act of prudence ; it did not show these Scriptures were not Divine, but simply that there was not an infallible decision telling us that they were so. From the decision of the VI. Council of Carthage 419, all the Fathers and doctors of Christendom quoted them and declared them to be the pure word of God. Authority for authority, even from a human point of view the authority of the Fathers and of the councils is a thou- j

sand times greater than the unfounded opinion of the reformers. The Rev. J. Dickson does not blush to affirm that St Jerome was an imposter who translated the Bible " confessedly in the interests of a particular set 0/ doctrines held by a particular Church." Let me completely refute this vile calumny. St Jerome has always been considered as the most learned of the Latin Fathers. He was born at Strigonium, near Aquilea. He had for his tutor the famous rhetor and literator Donatus and Victorinus, in whose honour a statue was raised by the Senate, and was considered the marvel of his time. He obtained the greatest honours as a Greek and Latin scholar. In order to improve himself and converse with the wisest and most learned in every place he resolved to travel. Knowing that the Romans had established in Gaul many celebrated schools, he repaired thither. St. Jerome purchased a great many rare books and copied others, and had others translated by his friends. He next travelled through eastern countries, Pontus, Bithinia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, visiting persons of eminent sanctity and learning. He carried nothing with him but his library. Evagrious, Bishop of Antioch, who was rich, gave him many rare and precious books and helped him with his purse. He spent some time at Antioch, and in the desert of Chalcis. He learned Hebrew the better to understand the Scriptures. He next travelled through Palestine, and visited all places sanctified by the presence of our Blessed Lord. He also went to Constantinople to consult St Gregory Nazianzen about certain obscure and difficult passages of Holy Scriptures. Thence, he went to Rome where he astonished every one by his vast erudition, eloquence and piety. The greatest doctors went to listen to him ; the clergy and the nobility were guided to a great extent by his advice. Roman ladies looked upon him as a saint and an oracle. Albina, Melania, Marcella, Asella, Fabiola, etc., took him for their spiritual guide, and he explained to them the Holy Scriptures with the explanations of the Fathers and traditions of the early Christians. He next went to Cyprus, where he was received with the greatest honours by St. Epiphanius. He went after that to Alexandria to consult about some biblical difficulties, Didymus, the famous director of that seat of learning. Didymus, besides the Holy Scriptures, was thoroughly acquainted with geometry, astronomy aud music; he explained the works of Plato and Aristotle along with the Holy Scriptures. Could Pope Damasus have chosen a more fit man to revise and correct the Latin version of the Bible? He translated from the Hebrew the books of the Old Testament, the Gospels from the original Greek, and the rest from the old Latin Vulgate, or Vetus Itala. This great work occupied him for twenty years, that is, from 38310 403. This alone shows how conscientious he was about his statements. The probity and honesty of St. Jerome has never been called into doubt by any great bcholar in Holy Scriptures. To say, as the Rev. J. Dickson has the temerity to affirm, " that he confessedly translated it in the interests of a particular set of doctrines, held by a particular church," is to suppose that he was knowingly and purposely falsifying the word of God for the interests of the Holy Catholic Church he belonged to. Is not this a frightlul accusation ? It is the more so that no man ever less merited it than St. Jerome, as we shall show to evidence. From the VI century that is, from the days of Pope Gregory the Great 590604 all the western churches recognised his as the most accurate version. The Fathers of the Conncil of Trent having compared it with the most ancient copies o f the Hebrew and Greek, declared it to be the mo->t faithful and correct. . . Far from being written " conle^sedly in the interests of a particular sect," as my friend maliciously or erroneously asserts, what especially recommends the translation of St. Jerome is tlvit it was written when both the Eastern and Western Churches were perlcctly united in faith and government, before all the sects now subsisting, and therefore he could not have been biassed by party spirit. Hugo De Groot, generally known as Grotious, so celebrated for his vast erudition, in the preface ot his commentaries on Holy Scriptures, declares "that the Vulgate of St. Jerome contains no unsound doctrine, but much erudition" (Grot. Praef. in Vet. Test. I.Amsterdam. 1679). This eminent Protestant did not think like the Rev. Dickson "it was as full of folly as an egg is full of meat." John Henri Michaelis, the learned Orientalist of Klettenberg, who had studied eastern languages and made a special study of Holy Scriptures, and ought to be at least as well informed as the Rev. J. Dickson, says " that the version of St. Jerome is the most perfect of all," (Bibliotheca Orientals, xxi. n. 31 1). I)r Schaft, of Switzerland, calls it " unrivalled and unique " (Relig. Encyclop. Art Bible version). Dr. Campbell, a Scotchman, declares " that the Vulgate of St. Jerome having been completed long before the rise oj those controversies -which are the foundation of most of the sects at present existing,^ is, as we may rest assured exempt from all party influence" (Dr Campbell, Incunabula Biblica. ii. p. 239). For moie proofs, see Australasian Catholic Record, Vol. ii. The Church and the Bible (Most Rev Dr Carr). Will my friend still uphold that the Vulgate of St. Jerome was translated " confessedly in the interests of a particular set of doctrines, held by a particular Church? This p irtKular Churc'i, I will soon show him was the universal Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ.

THE DOUAY VERSION. It is an English translation of the Vulgate of St Jerome. The language is a little antiquated, because English adapts itself more and more to times and places, but it has the advantage to be perfectly correct, no matter what my friend may think about it. Of the new Knglish Protestant translation, it would be premature to speak, before it has been carefully examined. The Rev. Dickson is again at sea when he tells us that the Church of Rome has no ancient manuscripts like the one lately discovered. There are in the library of the Vatican and elsewhere many precious manuscripts, and we have the Syrian version called Peschitto, that is, clear, self-evident, literal, which was commenced in the first century and completed in the fourth, when the Dcutero-Canonical books were added to it, a manifest proof that the early Christians recognised the authority of the Church to fix the canon of inspired writings, which the faithful may read unhesitatingly with absolute confidence. We have the " Codex Claramontanus " of the second century; the " Fragmentum Muratorium " of the second century ; we have manuscripts in Syriac, Egytian, Abyssian, Arabic, Armenian, Gothic, Tartar, Sclavonic, Bulgarian, Hungrian, Polish, Bohemian and Moldavian ; the Teutonic version made by order of Charlemagne in the eighth century ; the manuscript Bible of the Cathedral Wurtburg, written in Teutonic Saxon of the eighth century. All the old manuscipt Bibles, even the one to which my friend alludes are the property of the Catholic Church, which, at the time they were written, was universally acknowledged as no one acquainted with history can deny. The Rev. J. Dickson will not acknowledge it ; this only shows how one may be blinded by ignorance and prejudice. Luther, notwithstanding his hatred of the Catholic Church, was more candid: "We must acknowledge," he says, "that it is in Poperyive have found the true Scriptures" (Lutheri Opera. Janae., fol. 408-409) What has my friend to say to this ? The Books of the New Testament were addressed to some particular persons or Churches, and kept in particular places. They were copied under due supervision, and sent to other Churches. St. Paul sent his letters by a special messenger, and ordered them to be read to the faithful (I. Thes. v, 7). He requested also hat they should be forwarded to other Churches (Coloss., iv, 16) . At the conclusion of the Apocalypse, there is an anathema against those who would add or subtract anything from it. The Epistles were preserved wiLh the greatest care by those to whom they were sent, but it required a superior authority to collect all those writings together, to ascertain their authenticity, their integrity, and veracity ; to see if the copies agreed with the original, if the various translations were correct and faithfully rendered the meaning of the original text, etc. If this authority were not infallible, then we cannot be sure to have the true Scriptures, we may mistake the word of man for the word of God ; wherefore it is apriori certain that without an infallible Chuich we could not have, as our friend says, "an infallible Bible; indeed, we should have no Bible at all. Not only is the authority of the Church absolutely necessary for the collection of the Bible and the fixing of the canon, or list or authentic Scriptures, but it is equally and even more so for the proper understanding of the Scriptures. That the Bible needs an interpreter is obvious irom the difficult ard obscure passages it contains, which have perplexed the greatest donors* Many books of the Bible were written in languages unknown to most of our peop'e. In order to understand the meaning ot the sacred text, versions and translations must be collated; the allusions to the customs of the time taken into consideration : how can this be done by millions who have neither the t me nor the science requisite for that purpose '' To say the Bible miy be understood even by the illiterate is the height of folly. God did not intend the Bible to be a sealed book, but to the end that people might be able to understand it. He, as we shall see in our next reply to the Rev. Dickson, gave the Church as an infallible interpreter of the Sacred Writings. The fact that the Deutero-Canonical Books are not quoted by the Apostles nor by our Saviour has no significance. Our Lord quoted the prophets in order to show that they foretold His conn ng and H is miracles, and that He was the Messiah they had announced. These prophecies were contained in the Proto-Canonica! Books, and thereiore He referred to them. The Apostles did the same to show the divinity of their divine Master. They never refer to many of the books received by the Hebrews, because they had no occasion to do it. Would it be right to conclude Iroin this that they are not inspired nor to be received as such ' Yet this should be the only thing to do if the objection of the Rev. j. Dickson had any value whatever. Of all the Apostles St Matthew is the only one who quoted the Hebrew text, not because the Greek text was not equally correct, but because he wrote for the converted Hebrews, who were more familiar with it. Let us also observe that as our Saviour and His Apostles frequently quoted the Scriptures from memory, it is not very easy to positively determine which version they quoted. Unfairness of the Reverend J. Dickson. (1.) He passes unnoticed all the arguments and solid proofs 1 have given, showing that the Scriptures interpreted by private judgment are not our only cr principal rule of fiitli. (2.) He ignores the great authorities I have given in favoui m

apostolical tradition ; and the prudent and easy rules to discern, without any fear of error, the Divine tradition, and and distinguish them from doubtful or spurious ones. (3.) He attaches no value to the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers and Doctors of the Church and the most eminent and holy men, on the plea that being fallible their testimony is of no importance. But, although personally fallible, were they not the reliable witnesses of the faith and customs of the age they lived in ; and if, although living in different places, speaking different languages, in many cases having no possible means of communicating with one another, is not their unanimous testimony a proof of apostolicity ? As they have been trained by the Apostles or their immediate successors, are not their works most valuable to find out the true sense of the Scriptures? In a former letter he even reproached me tor quoting their testimony. "He resorts for support," he said, "to the writings of the early Fathers, which, being uninspired, all Protestants consider of small importance." How can you argue with a man who admits of no other authority but his own judgment, and is practically to himself his own Church and his own God ? (4.) He does not care a straw about Oecumenical Councils : " We attach no Divine authority to the decrees of councils, which are just the decrees of a section of a fallible church." What ! the Oecumenical Councils, to which the bishops of the whole world were invited, which had representatives of all the principal nations of Christendom, were only a section of the Church? I am afraid prejudice, or ignorance, or both have so much warped the judgment of my friend, that it seems almost impossible for him to see the truth of a logical, solid argumentation. He pronounces the Catholic Church "A section of a fallible Church." Has he, perchance, the gift of infallibility, which he refuses to the whole teaching body of the bishops assembled under their chief pastor? Let us have patience, we shall hear more, next time, of the utterances of this selfappointed Pope of Presbyterianism.