Radio Replies Vol 3 - Catholic Apologetics Online

Yes. They are the unenlightened people from whom we expect unbelief; from people who have never bothered to examine any evidence, but whose opinions are dictated by their prejudices.

Yes, and very strict proof. She takes little notice of people's private opinions concerning the cause of a given event. Before the Church will publicly admit and sanction any event as being a miraculous manifestation of God's power, she demands proof that no merely natural means could account for it.

There is no need to know all that nature can do, before we can be sure of a miracle. It is enough to know what nature cannot do. And we know that when we perceive an absolute lack of proportion between the means used and the effect produced. That a man rotten with leprosy should suddenly be cured at the men sound of Christ's voice saying, "Be thou clean," is obviously outside the scope of merely natural laws, and, therefore, miraculous. So, too, it is certain that the dead do not naturally rise from the grave and resume their earthly lives. So true is this law that, if one who was actually dead did rise, God alone could have made him do so by a quite supernatural intervention. Here the very thing accomplished is not against, but absolutely beyond the scope of the ordinary laws of nature. Thus all admit that the resurrection of Christ must be ranked as miraculous. Those who refuse to believe in it simply deny that it happened; but they do not deny that, if it did happen, it would be miraculous.

I do. In fact, since not the abnormal but the normal is ordinary, and the miraculous necessarily rare, a prudent judgment will incline on the side of the greater probabilities, and prefer to regard events as nonmiraculous rather than as miraculous. If God really wishes to show His power to men in a miraculous way He will do so in a way which leaves no prudent doubt in the minds of those who study closely the whole affair. Thus, at Lourdes, many cures have taken place. But the Medical Bureau of Inquiry will not register as miraculous any cures which are explicable by natural causes. For example, if a person is cured suddenly of a nervous disease of many years' standing, the doctors will say, "We congratulate you on what seems to be a great favor from God, but we cannot accept it as a miracle. The natural factors of excitement, or of autosuggestion, may be responsible for it; and it does not necessarily, therefore, manifest God's direct intervention." But if a broken leg is healed instantaneously, an inch of bone being supplied to make it the same length as the other, that is a different matter. No amount of subjective persuasion, and no merely natural influences could accomplish that. In the presence of such an occurrence we can but say, "The finger of God is here"; and all reasonable men would admit it to be a miracle.

It is impossible to eliminate the miraculous element from the Gospels without rejecting them completely as fraud and forgery. You might just as well suggest a life of Napoleon without any military exploits as suggest a life of Christ without miracles. The texts describing the miracles were there from the very beginning, and were written by those who saw them, and who wrote the rest of the matter contained in the Gospels. It is unreasonable to say that the authors were quite reliable in setting down what you happen to approve in the accounts of Christ, but that they suddenly became unreliable in sections which do not happen to appeal to you.

The miracles in the Gospels are not legendary. They are a matter of history. Nor do they belittle Christ. There is no element in them of the merely curious, ostentatious, and puerile. They bear directly upon His mission as Redeemer. Christ manifested His goodness by curing bodies as well as souls, and proved His divine power against objectors by such sayings as, "Which is easier, to forgive sin, or to say: Arise and walk?" And He bade the crippled to rise and walk; which they did. By His miracles Christ proved both the truth and the necessity of the religion He taught.

Not entirely. There are other and independent grounds for their historical character. Being historical, of course, general agreement would be one of their notable characteristics.

I account for that by the fact that men wrote them, and gave the different version you mention. If you ask why these men wrote them, I can but say that some did so from rather romantic motives in order to fill in in an imaginative way the brief accounts given in the genuine Gospels; others did so with the evil intention of discrediting the genuine Gospel accounts. Some of the writers of the apocryphal gospels were, therefore, orthodox in faith; others were heretics.

It would not matter much if I could not. However, I am able to do so. Prior to Irenaeus, Tatian had written his Diatessaron, or Harmony of the Four Gospels, which is certainly a tribute to the existence of those Gospels. Tatian's teacher, Justin Martyr, was quoting the Gospels 30 years before Irenaeus wrote on the subject. Earlier than Justin, Papias had written that the First Gospel was by St. Matthew; and that St. Mark had also written a Gospel. Almost 30 years before Papias, Hermas, in his "Shepherd," had written that the Third Gospel was by St. Luke, and the Fourth by St. John. The Epistle of Barnabas, written nearly 80 years before Irenaeus, contains quotations from St. Matthew's Gospel. St. Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles about the year 63, speaks of his having written a former treatise, clearly referring to the Third Gospel, as all reputable scholars admit.

The selection of the Gospels depended upon the authoritative decisions of the Catholic Church, decisions formulated in her official Councils, and always to be approved by the Pope. And it is the authority of the Pope which alone counts in the final analysis. Above all, such matters are not dependent upon the authority of "various" Councils, when you wish to include false gatherings of recalcitrant bishops whose proceedings have been repudiated by the Church, and whose decisions have been declared null and void. The authority of Councils can be cited only when those Councils have been authorized by the Holy See, and when their decisions have been approved and sanctioned by the Pope. Under these conditions, the decisions of Councils are quite reliable.

Matthew Tindal was a rationalist, and an enemy of the Christian religion. His verdict, therefore, is prejudiced. But any man who says that no good ever came of any Council stands self-condemned. He is talking obvious nonsense. As for the First Oecumenical Council, if the accusations and libels of the bishops are not extant, information concerning them is wanting, and to hazard a guess is valueless. The First Oecumenical Council of Nicea, in 325 A. D., was a Council of the utmost importance to the Church, and did immense good. That it condemned heretics is not surprising, since it was convened for the purpose of safeguarding the truth against false teachings. And that the heretics who were condemned should have taken their condemnation badly is not surprising. They were not men of outstanding patience and virtue.

It is a fact that the heretical Bishop Dioscurus assaulted Flavian, the lawful Patriarch of Constantinople. But the Second Synod of Ephesus is known as the "Robber Council," and its proceedings were at once declared null and void by the Pope. Flavian died of his injuries, in reality a martyr for the true faith. But the citation of the bad conduct of a heretical bishop in an abortive Council in no way supports any of your contentions where the Gospels are concerned.

No. The original manuscripts have perished, the Gospels surviving in later copies only. Manuscripts cannot last forever. If we have the Odes of Horace, or the Annals of Tacitus today, we have them only in copies derived from the now perished original writings of those authors. An elaborate attempt to prove that the Annals of Tacitus were really composed by an Italian scholar named Poggio was rejected as absurd; but for definite refutation scholars had to rely upon one allusion to them occurring some three hundred years after the death of Tacitus himself. The evidence was a thousand times more slender than that available for the Gospels; yet all scholars accepted it.

The earliest copies containing the complete Gospels are the Vatican and Sinaitic Codices, dating from the fourth century. There are several fragments of Gospel manuscripts dating from the third century, and one of St. John's Gospels belonging to the second century, a copy probably made within fifty years of the Apostle's death. But besides these actual Gospel copies, of course, we have a wealth of citations in the earliest Christian writers, citations which presuppose the existence of the Gospel manuscripts.

Because, although a Catholic believes that miracles can occur, and have occurred when God has willed to grant them, he does not expect miracles where God has not willed to grant them, nor that God should will to grant them wherever men might think it wise that He should do so.

Any one miracle would provide an unshakable basis for faith in any person of good will. But, if the original Gospel manuscripts were in fact preserved by a miracle, you would not accept that as a miracle any more than you accept existent miracles already wrought by God. If you want miracles for your consideration, there are plenty available. "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets," said Christ, "neither will they believe if one rise from the dead." He said this because the refusal of the Jews to be guided by Moses and the Prophets was due to bad will. And a man who has a bad will and does not want to believe, will not believe, no matter what motives are put before him. If you reject the Christian religion despite all its present credentials, neither would you believe even were the original Gospel manuscripts miraculously preserved.

Miracles do not go by "psychological momentum." And, in any case, if there is to be talk of possible miracles God might have thought fit to grant, I could think of a thousand miracles which would have much wider and more efficacious appeal than the preservation of the original Gospel manuscripts.

I must say precisely that. If I want to read the works of Charles Dickens, it makes no difference whether I read them in the original edition, or in a reprint of a hundred years later. So long as we have the Word of God, it does not matter by what medium it comes to us. All this, of course, is supposing that the Gospels are necessary at all. Absolutely speaking, quite apart from any written Gospels the Catholic Church would have been sufficient provision in itself for the preservation of the Christian religion. But of that, more later.

Dr. Hort held the highest opinion of the accuracy of transmission of the Gospel text. His allusion to mistakes and to lack of fidelity must be taken in a very restricted sense. He would certainly have admitted that such minor variations as crept into early copies do not hinder us from getting back to the original text in all important and substantial matters, and even in almost all unimportant points The minor error of one copyist would not be that of another. And a comparative study of texts proves a corrective of minor variations.

No. Textual criticism could never give an entirely different text of Scripture. In their interpretations of the meaning of Scripture, of course, independent readers will arrive at very different conclusions as to the sense of what is written. But what is written will not undergo any substantial change. For example, a close study of manuscripts, whether of copies or translations, together with quotations in the early Fathers, reveals some 150,000 variant leadings. But the vast majority of these are merely transpositions of words, or the substitution of synonyms. Scarcely 100 have any significance, and only about 10 of them could have any relation to doctrinal matters. Nor would any of these 10 have any substantial effect upon Christian doctrine. Moreover, any possible doubt concerning any essential Christian doctrine would be excluded by its being clearly laid down elsewhere in undisputed section of the text. It is impossible that critical research should ever render an entirely different version of Sacred Scripture necessary.

The Greek Septuagint Version is the name given to a translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, made by seventy Jewish scholars at Alexandria for the benefit of the Jewish colony there about 250 B. C. In Palestine copies of what are called the Palestinian Hebrew Scriptures were in use. At the time of Christ, both the Palestinian Hebrew Scriptures, and the Alexandrian Septuagint Greek were equally acknowledged by the Jews as authoritative. It is certain that neither Christ nor the Apostles ever challenged the value of the Septuagint. Both direct and indirect references to the Greek Septuagint abound in the New Testament.Now, at the time of our Lord, the original Hebrew writings had already perished. And many minor errors and discrepancies had crept into the copies through inadvertence on the part of copyists. There was no officially corrected Hebrew text at the time of Christ. And errors went on increasing as handwritten copies were multiplied. The Jewish Rabbis, therefore, about the second century after Christ, determined to secure a correct official Hebrew text; and in order to do so they used the Greek Septuagint translation to check discrepancies. Not the errors of the Septuagint, therefore, but the errors of the Hebrew text were being corrected. In his preparation of his Latin version, called the Vulgate, St. Jerome used both the Hebrew text and the Greek Septuagint.

Christ made use of existent copies of the Bible, despite their errors. For those copies were substantially correct. The errors were isolated, and of minor importance. And there is no reason why He should not use existent copies for the matter in them which He knew to be quite correct. For that matter, the Protestant Authorized Version in English today contains many errors. But it is not entirely erroneous. And where it is not erroneous, it is certainly the inspired Word of God, and could be quoted as such.

I am not surprised. And to me they would seem often enough quite impossible from the merely natural viewpoint. If I were expected to believe in these things as being the result of any merely natural laws or forces, I would refuse to do so. They become credible only when they are attributed to some cause outside merely natural forces; and to me they are credible only because Almighty God Himself has stepped in with a special manifestation of His infinite power. Every reasonable man has to admit that God could cause such things to happen; and a Christian is obliged to believe that He did so, wherever the Bible obviously intends to declare such events to be matters of historical fact.

We have to believe in the inspiration and truth of the Bible. But we have to believe in the truth intended by God, not in the first superficial idea that comes to our mind. In other words, we have to believe in the Bible rightly interpreted. Of various passages we must ask whether God intended them to be taken as literally true, or whether they are meant to convey the truth in a metaphorical way. Normally speaking, presumption stands for the literal sense, and no details are to be taken as metaphorical without sufficiently grave reason. It must be noted also that an historical event may be described in such a way that figurative expressions abound. In such a case, we have to accept the account as substantially historical fact, but need not accept every secondary detail in a similar way.Now let us take the examples you give. Are we obliged to believe that God intended all the cases you give to be taken entirely in their literal sense? There are certainly metaphorical details blended with the history of Adam and Eve. But we are obliged to believe in the substantial accuracy of the narrative. The Catholic Church insists on our acceptance of those basic facts which are at the very foundation of the Christian religion. We must believe that God did create all beings apart from Himself; that the creation of man was a distinct action; that the first woman was formed from the first man; that the whole human race is descended from the first pair, Adam and Eve; that this first pair disobeyed God, and by their sin put themselves and all their posterity into a state of evil from which they needed redemption by Christ. We have to believe in the historical interpretation of these fundamental details in a spirit of obedience to the Church, and because there are no sound reasons for thinking otherwise.Personally, also, I see no sound reason for rejecting the historical character of the accounts of Noah and the Ark; of Lot's wife; of Samson; and of the crossing of the Red Sea by the Jews. There is no room for a metaphorical interpretation of these things. It is possible to accept the story of Jonah and the whale as a kind of parable, truly typifying the burial and resurrection of Christ, just as the parable of the Prodigal Son truly typified God's mercy towards sinners. But I cannot see any real need to do this. I would have no difficulty in accepting the story of Jonah and the whale as literally true once I was certain that the account was intended by the original writer in that sense.

God did not test Abraham in order to secure further knowledge concerning him, but in order to give Abraham an opportunity of performing a meritorious act of obedience which Abraham would not otherwise have received. The trial was not necessary from God's point of view. It was necessary from Abraham's point of view. It was God's immutable will, based upon His infinite knowledge of all things, that Abraham should first be asked to offer his son; and then that he should be freed from the necessity of sacrificing that son in actual practice. But even had God intended Abraham to kill the boy, God, as supreme Lord and Master of life and death, would not have exceeded His rights.

The expression, "God hardened the heart of Pharaoh" occurs only after the repeated statement, as in Exodus VIII., 15, "And Pharaoh hardened his own heart." The context shows that God did not positively harden Pharaoh's heart, but that He merely permitted Pharaoh to harden his own heart. Pharaoh himself admitted, in Exodus IX., 27, "I have sinned this time also. The Lord is just. I and my people are wicked." Pharaoh knew quite well that he could have yielded to God's commands and released the Jews.

Yes. Our speculations as to what God would or would not do are not evidence. I might be inclined to say, "Surely God would not permit cancer!" But God has permitted it. The prudence of man's limited intelligence is not the measure of God's wisdom. As for the innocent Egyptian children, we must not view them merely as individuals. It is essential that they be viewed as social units. One nation as a nation was grinding another nation down in abject slavery and immense suffering- a nation whose services God wanted for a special purpose. The offending nation was punished as a nation, the parents suffering through their children. Those individually innocent children had their lives in this world curtailed, but they continued their existence in the next where they received just treatment from God. Meantime, if those children lacked some of the joys experienced by others who live longer, they also escaped many of the sorrows and afflictions of this world. In any case, a created being is completely owned by its Creator, and we have a right to life only so long as our Creator decrees.

You could. But nothing would be gained by doing so. It would be surprising if an account of an omnipotent God's dealings with men did not contain extraordinary things. Once God's rights and God's power are in question, the extraordinary cannot be advanced as disproof of the events recorded. The Bible certainly cannot be proved untrue in that way.

Yes.

From the viewpoint of the human beings to whom God spoke. Naturally, in addressing a message to men, God speaks in a way which is intelligible to them. Now, when a man makes a thing which will not fulfill the purpose for which he made it, he destroys it, and sets to work again. Men did not fulfill God's will, and in quite a human way God says that He regrets having made man, and predicts mankind's destruction by the flood. But there was no change in God. There is a big difference between changing one's will, and willing a change in the destiny of others. God had always willed that if man did good, man would not be destroyed; and that if he did evil, he would be destroyed. The change was in the fortunes of men, not in God. The words, "God repented," therefore, are to be understood metaphorically according to human analogies, and from the aspect of the effects experienced by men.

Your only reason for terming it a myth is the fact that you cannot see how it happened according to forces which no one claims to have been responsible for it, and according to conditions arbitrarily appointed by yourself. That is not a rational position. You should first ask what exactly is claimed concerning the flood, and what forces are supposed to have caused it.

The Bible attributes the flood, not only to the rain, but also to an invasion of water from the sea. Moreover, the flood did not cover the whole of the earth, but the whole of the particular region where it occurred. The interpretation of the flood as local is not opposed to the expression in the Bible referring to "the whole of the earth." That is quite a usual expression for the whole of some given region. Thus, the famine in Egypt is described as a famine "over all the face of the earth."

You forget that the Bible declares God to have been the cause of the flood. God is omnipotent. He can suspend, dispense with, and regulate the physical laws He established as He pleases, and without the slightest difficulty. Imagined difficulties by one who thinks only of created natural laws, leaving out the direct power of God, are of no value. The only way to refute the account of the flood is to refute the historical character of Genesis on other grounds: or to show that there is no God, or that He is not omnipotent. In other words, you must show that the cause alleged by Genesis either does not exist, or could not accomplish what is attributed to Him. But it is of no use to say that you do not see how it could happen in accordance with merely natural factors, when we grant that merely natural factors could not account for it. The waters were maintained in position by God's power during the time willed by God. This involved a miracle, insofar as God acted in a way outside the ordinary course of nature. But an omnipotent God who can create a universe can do with that universe, or any part of it, what He wills. The question is not as to whether God could do it, but as to whether He did do it. The Bible says that He did. There is positive evidence for it. There is no evidence against it. The flood is not a myth. It happened.

The flood did not cover the whole face of the earth, but the whole area of that locality in which men existed. Animals, created prior to man, could have spread much farther afield, or could have been created according to their specific kinds in various places over the face of the earth. If we consider all types of animals in the whole of the world, there is a difficulty as to how the Ark, with its known measurements, could accommodate representatives of every type. But there is no need to imagine such conditions. Innumerable varieties of animals could have existed outside the flood area, and not come into contact with the disaster. It is sufficient that types of those animals in the locality subject to the flood were represented in the Ark.

Allowing for the local character of the flood, the Ark would not have to be of so great a size as you think. As a matter of fact, the Bible tells us the size of the Ark. It was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet deep. It was, therefore, much smaller than the Berengaria, which was 883 feet long, 98 feet wide, and 57 feet deep. We can scarcely estimate comparative tonnage, as the Berengaria was of steel, with immense inner constructions and heavy engines. Its gross tonnage was 52,226. But the Ark was built of wood. I would say that in size it would have been much about the same as the average 6,000-ton steamer of today.

The animals taken into the Ark for the sake of preservation were duly preserved, and emerged safely after the flood. Noah took on board stores of suitable food, at least sufficient to preserve life, even though it were possibly not the normal diet of every given animal. Keep in mind that the number of animals was far fewer than many imagine, for they were local specimens only. And here is a remarkable fact: In 1609, Peter Jansen, of Horn, in Holland, built a vessel according to the dimensions of the Ark as given in Scripture. And it was found that, even if a quarter of the space were given to storage of food, there would still be left more than 50 cubic feet for each 7,000 pairs of animals. But it is doubtful whether there were 7,000 pairs of animals in the Ark. And the provision of food for the duration of the flood was not so great a problem as is imagined.

That is true.

That is not an article of faith. The opinion could be held, though it is the far less probable opinion, that not all men were drowned in the flood, but that some races had proceeded far afield, and had escaped it. Personally, I do not accept that opinion, which raises far greater difficulties than the ordinary view.

That would not affect the doctrine of the flood, for Moses wrote of the flood many centuries after it occurred. I might mention that anthropologists are growing more and more modest in their attempts to gauge the antiquity of various races. They admit that many of their earlier speculations have failed to allow sufficiently for all the factors involved. Moreover, expert opinion declares that the Australian aboriginal belongs to the Caucasian group of peoples, and that his presence in Australia is due to migration from Asia.

No great difficulty presents itself. America was almost certainly joined to Asia in the remote past, at least in the North where Alaska almost touches Siberia. Australia, too, was probably connected by continuous land with Asia where today we have the numerous islands from Cape York to Singapore. But actual union between the countries would not be necessary. From time immemorial men have traveled vast distances in skiffs, or on rafts. In our own times, natives travel great distances in primitive boats made of the bark of trees, or of hollow logs. The difficulty of getting to remote places by water is not regarded today as any serious objection to the doctrine of a common source for the human race.

Yes, in the sense intended. Wherever there is love, there must be some kind of jealousy, for jealousy is but zeal on behalf of the object of one's love. But, just as there are different kinds of love, selfish or unselfish, so there are different kinds of jealousy. The more one loves, of course, the more one tries to exclude whatever could come between himself and the object of his love. Where a man, however, is usually jealous of others who would take from him one whom he thinks necessary for his happiness, God is jealous of all that would prevent Him from giving happiness to the souls He loves. To bring this home to the Jews, as His chosen people, and the particular object of His love, God spoke to them through the prophets in a way they could understand. He told them that Israel was wedded to Him; that He had espoused His chosen people; that idolatry, or worship of false gods, was simply "adultery" in His sight. And just as a man is jealous of his wife lest another should rob him of his exclusive right to her affection, so the Jews understood that, on the religious and spiritual plane, God insisted on His exclusive right to their devotedness and love. God's very justice demanded such a return for all the benefits His love had lavished upon them. His use of the human term "jealousy," therefore, was meant to bring home to them on their own level His exclusive claim to their spiritual allegiance. But in God, the term would have to be understood in a way proper to God, and not in a way proper to men.

The authorized and just death penalty ordered in the latter case was not in conflict with the commandment forbidding unauthorized and unjust killing. You must note, firstly, that this death penalty was ordered by the very God who forbade men to kill unjustly and on their own personal responsibility. And God should know His own law. Secondly, you should note the theocratic nature of the Jewish regime.The Jews had God Himself as their Supreme Ruler even as regards their earthly welfare. Those who abandoned God for idolatry were guilty of treason, and punitive measures were justified. Also, they were giving themselves up to all manner of wickedness and immorality, and did not deserve to retain a life they were so abusing. God, therefore, the Supreme Author of life and death, decreed their extinction, but only after they had been afforded an opportunity to repent and return to Him. Those who refused to repent were to be put to death, and no tie of friendship was to hinder the execution of justice.You speak as though God the Creator were conditioned by and limited to the rights of a creature. God is the Author of life, and we have no right to live longer than He wills. He who makes a thing has the right to unmake it, if it does not fulfill the purpose for which he made it. God has no obligation to keep rebellious men in existence; and He can appoint any given means of removing them from this world; above all, when it is supremely necessary to impress the gravity of man's obligations upon others.All that is by way of explanation of God's command. The absence of contradiction between the two passages you quote is evident quite independently of the reasons for the particular event mentioned in your second reference.

Moses certainly could not have written those words. Joshua might thus have completed the Book, or else some other inspired, but unknown writer.

It is not surprising that the writer was unaware of facts not discovered until hundreds of centuries after his time. But that has nothing to do with the inspiration or truth of the Bible. The writer set down the truth as it appeared in the external order. Even had he known that the earth is a globe, that it rotates on its own axis, and that it moves 'round the sun, he would probably and in fact certainly should have described the phenomenon just as he did. With all our scientific enlightenment we still speak of sunrise and sunset, though the sun does not rise, nor "go down." We express the apparent truth in everyday speech without any fear of being challenged concerning our veracity.

Relatively to this earth the sun is always still. It only appears to rise, move across the heavens, and set. The question should be, "Did God suspend the rotation of the earth for a given period?" There is no need to admit that He did so. The prolongation of daylight was a miracle wrought by God, but it could have been accomplished by a prolongation of the sun's rays. We all know how density of atmosphere apparently enlarges the sun towards evening, and how, too, by the refraction or bending of the sun's rays, the sun appears to remain visible even after we know that it must have gone below the ordinary line of vision with the actual horizon. By a miraculously caused refraction of the sun's rays God probably caused a prolongation of daylight, giving an effect which men would naturally describe as the sun standing still.

That depends upon the further question as to whether the incident be intended as strictly historical, or as a kind of parable with typical truth only. Catholic interpreters are free to regard it as an allegory. Most Catholic authors regard the story as historical. Granted the intervention of an omnipotent God, no one can say that it would be impossible. However, the Church has defined nothing concerning the interpretation of the Book of Jonah save that it is truly canonical and inspired by God.

There are no real contradictions in Scripture. A superficial reading may find passages which appear to be contradictory, but an examination of text and context by one who has the requisite knowledge and training in Biblical scholarship removes all idea of conflict. There is not a single instance of alleged contradiction that has not proved capable of rational solution. Enemies of revealed religion could continue asking captious questions interminably, stating objections in two or three plausible sentences, leaving to us the minute research, laborious examination, and the thirty pages of explanation necessary to educate them up to the standard required for an understanding of the problems they raise. From the earliest years of Christianity, critics have thus attacked the Scriptures, and they will do so till the end of the world. But the Scriptures remain, and will remain, accepted by intelligent and expert men of good will as the inspired Word of God. These men are as conversant with the objections as those who make them; but they are aware, too, of their superficial character in the vast majority of cases, and they know how all such difficulties yield to further examination and research. There is scarcely need to point out the folly of the man who thinks that, because he does not see the solution of a difficulty at once, no solution is possible!

No contradiction occurs there. St. Luke merely omits the additional details given by St. Paul to the Galatians. In writing to them, St. Paul wished to impress upon them that he had received the Christian revelation from God quite independently of the other Apostles. He practically says, "Do not think for a moment that any human being taught me what I preach to you. After my conversion I did not consult others, and I did not even go to Jerusalem to see the Apostles. I went into Arabia, and thence returned to Damascus. Then, three years after my conversion, I went to Jerusalem to see Peter." You see, St. Paul does not deny that he went to Jerusalem. He merely says that three years elapsed before he did so. St. Luke simply omits reference to St. Paul's solitude in Arabia, and merely states for the purpose of his summary of events that he went from Damascus to Jerusalem. He does not say that he did so immediately after his conversion. If a man left England, spent three vears in Colombo, and then came on to Australia, a shorter account of his life could say, "He left England and went to Australia." By its omission of reference to Colombo, the shorter account would not contradict a longer one which included such reference.

There is no contradiction there. When he wrote to the Galatians he was speaking of the time before he had preached throughout Judea. When he was speaking to Agrippa, he had already preached there. The fact that he preached there subsequently cannot alter the fact that he was unknown by sight to the people of Judea before he did so.

St. Paul puts that question only to refute the suggestion. He puts the question in Rom. III., 7, but in the very next verse says, "We are slandered, as some affirm that we say let us do evil that good may come, whose damnation is just." In Eph. IV., 25, the same St. Paul writes, "Wherefore, putting away lying, speak ye the truth every man with his neighbor."

There is no contradiction in that. Our Lord says that, if a man does marry, he leaves father and mother in order to live with his wife. But He Himself counsels the renunciation of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Matt. XIX., 12. St. Paul therefore declares that one who chooses not to marry makes quite a good choice. The context shows, of course, that St. Paul had in mind not any merely selfish motives, but a choice based upon the idea of self-sacrifice, and a complete consecration of oneself to the love of God and the service of one's fellow men.

St. Paul in no way contradicted what was written in the Acts. Personal prophetical gifts were bestowed by God upon both men and women in the first days of the Church. But there is no trace of suggestion that they necessarily conferred any judicial authority or administrative rights in the Church; and St. Paul is dealing precisely with such rights. Also there is no suggestion that the bestowal of prophetical gifts was to be a permanent feature in the Church; and St. Paul's subsequent legislation that women were not to teach publicly in the Churches contradicted no acquired rights of such women. Apart from all this, however, a woman could still receive the gift of prophecy from God without any conflict arising with St. Paul's legislation forbidding women to teach or usurp authority.

St. Paul justifies legitimate authority acting within the limits of its proper jurisdiction, and in accordance with the demands of justice. There is no obligation to admit that legislators are right when they exceed their powers, and are manifestly unjust. To have power is one thing. To abuse that power is quite another. And the condemnation of Christ was a criminal abuse of power which it is impossible to justify.

There is no conflict here. Christ was not referring to ordinary relationships between masters and servants, but used the term "master" in the sense of "teacher'": and He declared that He only was the source of doctrine, and that all were to be taught by Him and to hand on His teachings. No one was to set himself up as an independent teacher in his own right. Such words certainly do not gainsay the necessity of obedience on the part of servants to the authority of masters in ordinary everyday affairs. The explanation of St. Paul's words, "Be ye not the servants of men," is given by St. Paul himself. He is speaking of our allegiance to Christ as Christians, and merely declares that that allegiance must never be abandoned in favor of men. We must regard our souls as belonging to Christ, and to no one else. But this does not exempt us from duties within their own proper limits to earthly employers and masters. In fact, St. Paul adds, "Let everyone remain in the condition of life wherein he was called, but abide therein with God." Servants of men will, therefore, remain servants of men; but once they have become Christians they will regard their duties as duties to be fulfilled for the love of God, and not as before, a matter of routine and with no spiritual motives whatever.

St. Paul warns us not to go to excess and commit sin when we have just reason for resentment and indignation. St. James is dealing precisely with that excess. Man's tendency to anger is implanted by God as part of our very nature, and is quite a good thing in itself. It braces us to ward off things that could be to our harm. Indignation and anger are certainly good when they help a girl to repel unwelcome advances on the part of some evil man. Far from being sinful, anger is then a preservative against sin. In such a case St. Paul's advice is sound. "Be angry, and sin not." Unfortunately, however, anger, like all other passions, tends to get out of hand. It easily becomes immoderate, and we get angry over trifling matters, or merely because we dislike people, and then it is true that the anger of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Anger then tends to vent itself upon others without just cause, and often without any restraint at all. There is no contradiction therefore between St. Paul, who urges us to make a good use only of our tendency to resentment of evil; and St. James, who warns us against bad temper and excessive irascibility.

St. Paul's doctrine is that good works cannot contribute to a man's salvation before he is united with Christ by faith. Because the gift of faith is supernatural, no previous good works can deserve it. A man can ask the gift of faith from God, and if he receives it, it is the first step towards his salvation. St. James tells us that after a man has received the gift of faith he is expected to live up to it. The two passages show that both faith and a life of good works in accordance with faith are necessary if one is to be justified in God's sight. Such has ever been the Catholic doctrine, and it excludes the two extremes of rationalism and early Protestantism. For the rationalist says that natural goodness without faith is enough for any man; whilst the early Protestants attacked the Catholic doctrine that good works are necessary for salvation, and taught that salvation depends on faith alone. But I have said enough to show that there is no trace of contradiction between St. Paul and St. James in this matter.

I do not merely think it to be the only true religion. I know it to be so. I know that religion is as necessary to the human race as breathing. I know that there must be a true religion. I know that all other religions save that revealed by God and recorded in the Bible are false. Reason alone can provide sufficient grounds for that. Moreover, I know by the gift of divine faith that the contents of the Christian religion are true with the very truth of God.

I deny that either a Mahometan or a Buddhist, or a member of any other non-Christian religion can ever have the same kind of certainty concerning his religious beliefs as that which is given by that particular grace of God known as the gift of Christian faith. Meantime, that others are convinced of the truth of their various religions merely shows that the human mind is limited; that men are affected by heredity and environment; and that they are prone to form very decided opinions without sufficient knowledge. But that does not affect the truth as it is in itself, and does not make all religions equal in value.

It would be very surprising were that not so. Religion is natural to man; and if men try to construct religious systems in accordance with their natural instinct and needs, they will naturally hit on some truth. And the basic natural truths in their various systems tend to content those who know no other religion, and to distract their attention from the accompanying human errors.

Where it is practiced, it undoubtedly has that beneficial effect. Life is benefited by the Gospels. That could not but be the case, since both life and the Gospels have the same Author, God.

If we consider Christ's person, His doctrine in itself, the manner in which He taught it, together with its effect upon the lives of those who have practiced it sincerely, we have moral certainty that the religion of the Gospels is from God. We cannot account for it by merely human ingenuity. In fact, the greatest miracle of all would be for the merely natural ingenuity of Christ, were He nothing more than the son of Joseph, the carpenter, to evolve such a doctrine out of a merely human mind. In fact, it is impossible that a religion so perfect in all respects should be wrong in one point only, and that of such fundamental importance, its claim to a divine origin. Christ has been able to do what no other religion, and no philosopher, has ever been able to accomplish. He has given a doctrine which completely satisfies every legitimate aspiration of mankind. The argument is strengthened when we see that the loss of Christian faith and of the grace of Christ in a soul, or even in a nation, leads to vice, discord, pessimism and despair.

Not reasonably. Christendom drew its wisdom from the Gospels, and every departure from them has resulted in but a manifestation of folly.

Idon't think we could say that any more than we could say that a baby, being nourished, is giving, and not receiving milk. It is not human wisdom that made the Gospels. They are the Gospels that correct human folly.

Because not every particle of truth is "the" truth. Non-Christian religions are wrong because side by side with such natural truth as they have, they contain many errors; and because they say they are from God, whereas they are not.

Even if you take those two religions together that is not true. If you were to include all other non-Christian religions in the world you would attain your desired majority. Taken individually, neither Buddhism nor Confucianism is numerically equal to Catholicism. It would not matter if they were, for error could not become truth merely because those who are wrong happen to outnumber those who are right. As a matter of fact, the approximate and proportionate figures are as follows: Catholicism, 400 millions; Greek Orthodox Christians, 150 million; Protestantism, 220 million: Confucianism and Taoism, 350 million; Buddhism, 150 million; Hinduism, 230 million; Mahometans, 210 million. You apparently regard Buddhism as including Hinduism, though they differ. Also it must be noted that the Indian and Chinese systems are rather moral philosophies than religions strictly so-called; and that the religious elements in them are due to the natural religious inclinations of men trying to find vague expression through these philosophies.

Superficially that may seem to be true, insofar as Christianity dates from Christ, whilst Buddhism originated with Buddha or Gautama, who was born about 557 B. C. In reality, however, Christianity is very much older in origin, for it is but the legitimate development of the primitive revelation given by God to our first parents, and of the progressive revelations given through the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as through Moses and subsequent Prophets. The primitive, patriarchal, and Mosaic religions were simply preparatory Christianity. And centuries before Buddha was born, men were looking forward to Christ their Savior, as we ourselves look back to Him for our salvation through His death on Calvary.

You must not confuse external similarities in conduct with the code of that conduct. Man is essentially a social being, and it is not surprising that a leader should attract disciples and inculcate naturally good principles of morality. But the code of conduct in Buddhism differs immensely from the Christian code. Buddhism knows nothing of God nor of duties to God. It is based on a pessimistic view of life, and is entirely self-centered. It teaches that man is not essentially different from animals; that he goes through a series of transmigrations, ending practically in annihilation. Whilst Christians believe that they are created by God, and owe to God obedience and worship, serving Him in humility, and doing all for the love of Him, Buddhists regard man as a particle of a blind universe, whose whole aim is to escape distress and be at peace in this world. Even charity to others is based on love of self insofar as enmity disturbs one so much interiorly. Where Christians are saved by Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, Buddhists need no savior. Buddha saves no one. He indicates his way, and each can attain the end by his own powers. Again there is but one Christ for all ages. But there must be a series of Buddhas, a new Buddha appearing as the work of each one fails. I cannot go through all the differences. But I have said enough to show that the codes of Buddhism and of Christianity are essentially different.

That has been claimed, but by writers who have judged too hastily from apparent resemblances. Some scholars have asserted a derivation of certain Christian practices from Buddhism; others, that later Buddhistic practices have been derived from Christianity. But deeper research has led scholars to deny both suppositions, holding that the similarities are more apparent than real; and that they are natural developments, independently of one another, from the respective aspirations of the two systems.

No authentic claims can be advanced on behalf of any abnormal birth in regard to Buddha. The oldest writings concerning him were compiled several centuries after his death, and they are full of imaginary elements. But even the legend of Buddha does not claim a virgin birth. We are told that Buddha was born of Maya, the wife of Suddhodana. Suddhodana and Maya had lived as husband and wife for years, but Maya was childless. Maya, however, miraculously conceived a child "by a ray of the sun." The child was named Siddhartha, with the surname Gautama, in honor of a Vedic poet. His followers speak of him as Buddha, the "wise one." The Buddhist tradition, therefore, does not say that Gautama was born of a virgin; and the cause of his conception-a ray of the sun-is obviously folklore. There is no parallel between the legendary birth of Buddha, and the historical virgin birth of Christ.

So far as solidity is concerned neither Buddhism nor Confucianism has preserved a really consistent body of doctrine through the ages. There is nothing in them like the stability of dogmatic teaching in the Catholic Church. Both are rather ethical systems of conduct. Their perseverance is easily accounted for. Man is naturally religious, and he will tend to cling to the religion he has been taught, above all, when the true religion has not been brought within his reach. And even when the true religion has been put before him. the influence of heredity and environment, together with prejudice, may prevent his viewing it impartially.

They cannot be ranked as on the same plane as that of Christ. Neither Buddha nor Confucius claimed to be more than ordinary human beings. They did not even claim to be able to show their fellow men the way to God, for they knew nothing of God. They claimed to show men the way to peace of soul, and how to escape the worries and trials of this life. Christ claimed to be God, and demanded for Himself the love and absolute service of men. There is all the difference in the world between the Divine Personality of Christ and the merely human personalities of Buddha and of Confucius. According to Buddha's own teachings, he himself has gone through various transmigrations, having previously been a beggar, a lion, a bird, an elephant, a king, and various other types. He attained perfection, so the legend says, and had a right to enter Nirvana; but he preferred to be born again in order to teach men the road to wisdom and to freedom from the miseries of life.Confucius was born about six years earlier than Buddha. This Chinese philosopher was a great reader and collector rather than an original thinker. He edited the ancient Chinese classics, and taught a system of natural ethics. He concentrated on behavior in this world, and admitted that he knew nothing beyond this world, although he did not deny a future life.Of no other person in history could such words be written as those used by St. John in speaking of Christ: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us."

It does, but in the wrong way. No one with a sense of logic and a knowledge of history could accept Mahometanism as a religion truly revealed by God. Mahomet was born about 570 A. D. He founded a religion of his own, blended of Arabic, Jewish, and Christian elements. But his moral standards fall infinitely below those of the Christian teachings, whilst many of his doctrines and the history of his religious movement cannot possibly claim a divine origin and protection in the light of critical analysis.

You have no grounds for that supposition. Of one thing I am quite certain. If there be any true religion in this world today it is the Catholic religion. It is a choice, therefore, between Catholicism, or no religion at all. But to have no religion is such a complete violation of reason that no instructed and intelligent man could entertain such an idea for a moment. You can be quite sure that I will spend the rest of my life as a Catholic, and die in that faith. If such absolute certainty seems strange to you, it is only because your own religion has never been able to enkindle a similar confidence within you.

I have been doing it practically all my life. Like everybody else, of course, I was born a pagan. But after a few weeks I was christened in the Anglican Church, and took Anglicanism for granted until later reflection altered my views. Despite my being an Anglican, I attended Methodist and Presbyterian Sunday Schools as a child; but later on, when I left school and went to work, dropped all religion in practice. When, for the first time the claims of the Catholic Church were brought to my notice, I reacted against them rather violently, and resumed my attendance at the Anglican Church, and sought the help of the Anglican rector of the parish to preserve my Protestant faith. With him I went into the whole question of religion deeply, and he ended by telling me that he thought I ought to become a Catholic, considering the convictions at which I had arrived. I had no thought then of becoming a priest, of course. But later on, I felt that such was God's will, and after a twelve years' course of studies here in Australia, I was ordained as a Catholic priest. Thereupon I went to Rome to do two more years of study there, and ever since have been engaged chiefly in the study of comparative religion. This has necessitated the constant reading of what other religions and churches have to say for themselves, andI can but assure you that the more knowledge I have attained, the greater has become my certainty of the truth of the Catholic Church.

I have. It is a popular religion of mushroom growth in recent times, though it claims to be very ancient in origin.

According to the Bahais, the last of the Mahometan Shiite sect of 12 Imans died in Persia about 940 A. D. But he did not really die. He continued to live in the beyond, directing the world from a distance through an intermediary or a gate called a Bab. This went on for 69 years when the last Bab died without appointing a successor. In 1844, a young Persian decided to announce himself as a Bab, restoring communication with the last Iman. This young Persian was murdered in 1850, but his followers, the Babis, said that he had promised the advent of the One longed for by all peoples, the Mighty Educator, who would give the Most Great Peace to all mankind. One of the leaders of the Babis, named Baha'u'llah, suddenly declared, in 1863, that he was the Mighty One promised. Baha'u'llah preached his religion chiefly in Baghdad. One of his followers, named Ibrahim George Khay-ar'u'llah, who had married an English wife, went to America about 1892, and began to spread the worship of Baha'u'llah there. The movement so grew that in 1902 a magnificent temple was commenced in Chicago, on the shores of Lake Michigan. In 1911, Abdul-Baha, whom Baha'u'llah, before his death, had appointed Chief Apostle, went to America, and Protestant Churches of various denominations were thrown open to him for lectures. He taught that Confucius, Buddha, Zoroaster, Christ, and Mahomet, had all been precursors of Baha'u'llah, and that in Baha'u'llah men would find the fullness of God's revelation, and the Most Great Peace. Moreover, Baha'u'llah is responsible for all that happens in the world, and those who become Bahais will attain true spiritual power and share with him in supreme control of all things. A National Assembly has been formed in America to rule the cause of the Most Great Peace there, and to see to its expansion. This strange religious aberration is winning many credulous souls who have lost their grip on such religion as they previously possessed, and are in search of a new one.

Because they are not sufficiently interested to go into the question. Most of them are content with what their fathers before them have believed. Then, too, the Jews have a most strong national bond identified with their religion, and their very sense of isolation from other peoples even whilst in the midst of them keeps them aloof from the religion of others. Furthermore, the Jews still center their hopes and expectations upon a salvation restricted to this world, devoting little thought to the hereafter and to the supernatural. Finally, I think most Jews have a latent consciousness of the ill-treatment to which they have been subject, often most unjustly, by professing Christians; and this in itself would leave a kind of repugnance for the religion of those who injured them, predisposing them against so much as considering its claims.

Judaism as a religion is no longer acceptable to God. The one true religion in this world is the Christian religion. But the Jewish people, as a whole, are a witness to the Christian religion in spite of themselves. They are dispersed everywhere, yet are one race and a permanent feature of this world. They manifest the very predictions of their own Scriptures, and of Christ, by their very refusal to sec the realization of those predictions. They preserve the very texts and prophecies announcing that they will love the promises, yet reject the fulfillment of those promises. It is a marvelous thing. How far individual Jews are responsible to God for their rejection of Christ must, of course, be left to God. The modern Jew would not be nearly so responsible as those Jews who actually saw and heard Christ in person.

Yes, provided through no fault of his own he did not at any time advert to the truth of Christianity, and to the necessity of actual baptism; and provided he sincerely believed Judaism to be still the true religion, and died truly repentant of all serious violations of conscience during life.

No. You see, as a Catholic, I believe that miracles can occur, and I know from history that miracles have occurred. But I do not therefore think that miracles should occur whenever human speculation decides that they would be opportune. As for the appalling conditions of today, history makes me doubt whether it is relatively more appalling than in other ages. There is a danger that we, who are sensitive to the present ills of humanity, will tend to discount the miseries of previous ages to which others were sensitive, and to think that no one has suffered as we.

That is not a reasonable expectation. How could it be, when we know definitely that when God did appear in the midst of men, He declared that His next coming would be at the end of time? That necessarily excludes occasional reappearances in our midst. Nor can I see what benefits you think would arise from such reappearances. When God did become incarnate and dwelt amongst men, multitudes who met Him refused to believe in Him. The same thing would happen again. He came once to pay the price of man's redemption; and that having been done, all who have the good will may benefit by it. If they have not the good will, they would not benefit by His coming again. And such times as these have no greater claim upon Him than any other times.

The problem is extraordinarily difficult yet extraordinarily simple. The simplest truth revealed by God is extraordinarily deep when we try to sound it to its full depths. Yet faith in all that God has taught is a simple act, based not on the understanding of every least thing God has revealed, but on a consciousness of the claims of God to our allegiance no matter what He reveals. By this faith, which a child can possess, we accept all that He reveals in general, and each thing as further study reveals it to us as contained in the general revelation. But this faith is a gift of God, to be prayed for rather than to be attained by our own efforts, even though our own efforts are required as a disposing condition.

I maintain that Christ is the Savior of mankind, and that there is no salvation except through Christ. A man's own efforts cannot accomplish his salvation, for man cannot be his own redeemer. If any man is saved, therefore, he will owe it to the grace of Christ. But as regards actual faith in Christ, professed during one's lifetime, that will be required only of those who have had Christian teaching sufficiently manifested to them. One who has had sufficient opportunity to believe in Christ is guilty before God if he refuses deliberately to do so, and dies still rejecting His teaching authority. Therefore, Christ said, "He who believes shall be saved; he who believes not, shall be condemned."

God obliges no one to the impossible. If these people are sincere in their mistaken beliefs, try to obey natural conscience, and repent of their failures and sins, God will give them the necessary interior graces for their salvation, graces due to the merits of Christ. The moment after their death they will know that Christ has been their Redeemer, even though, through no fault of their own, they did not recognize the fact during life.

The same answer applies to them also. Those who knew of the Old Testament promises of the Redeemer to come had to have faith in those promises of God as a condition of their salvation. Others were in the same position as those today who have never heard of Christ. But all graces given prior to Christ, whether to those who believed in God's revelation, or to the inculpably ignorant, were given in view of Christ's death on the Cross; and He is the Savior of all.

The Christian faith is certainly not blind. It is wide-awake acceptance of what God has taught only after one has solid evidence that God has so spoken. If a man is ill, it is faith in the medical profession that takes him to the operating table; and far from this being an ignorant action, it is a most wise one. The same principle is involved in an act of faith in God's reliability when He deigns to teach us truth in the supernatural order.

Not if one's own beliefs happen to be the result of one's own speculations, with nothing particularly in their favor save that one desires to maintain them. It is a virtue, however, to maintain the absolute truth of what Christ has taught, once one has attained the reasonable conviction that He is God. For true virtue refuses to admit that God does not know what He is talking about, or that He is given to telling lies. It is not a question of refusing to admit a possibility of our being wrong. It is a question of refusing to admit the possibility of God being wrong. Virtue forbids blasphemous insults against God.

You are confusing two things, a religion as a religion, and the contents of its teachings. For example, we can know in the strict sense that Christ really existed, that He claimed to be God, and wrought more than enough signs to justify belief in that claim. A Christian knows that his religion is the one true religion. The teachings of that religion, which deal with the infinite and supernatural, he believes by faith. He knows that God teaches certain things, but because they are beyond human comprehension, he believes them by faith in God's knowledge and veracity.

You are not making sufficient allowance for the different kinds of demonstration, the one from intrinsic evidence, the other from extrinsic evidence. For example, I know that two and two make four by intrinsic evidence. I have only to set out two units with another two units before me, and I know that there are four units. But proof by extrinsic evidence differs. I prove that God exists from reason. By history I prove that He said this thing. But since what He says is as far above me as the Einstein theory of relativity is above the powers of a child of seven, I believe it simply because He says so. And I have a genuine knowledge of the truth based upon His authority. It is not mere theory. A theory is a probable guess, a conjecture, or an hypothesis. But the doctrine I believe is not a guess, conjecture, or hypothesis of my own.

We know the truth of the Trinity beyond all doubt. We cannot demonstrate the existence of three divine Persons in the one divine Nature by intrinsic evidence drawn from an experimental knowledge of the divine Nature as it is in itself. But we can give all that reason requires to exclude all doubt as to its truth. Negatively we can show that the doctrine does not violate any rational principles. Positively we can show that God has revealed the doctrine.

Not for a single moment can one speak of the theory of evolution and of the doctrine of the Trinity as if they were on a par in the realm of our knowledge. Evolution is a conjecture of men based on a probable guess of human reason alone, and without adequate data. The doctrine of the Trinity is the authentic teaching of Christ with all the authority of God, who obviously must know the facts. The Trinity, therefore, is not a theory; it is absolutely certain with all the certainty of God's omniscience.

We have a mediate knowledge of its truth. We know that God is a reliable source of information, and that He has taught the doctrine. We believe it because God teaches it, and our faith gives us a knowledge of the truth which has an extrinsic certainty far above all degrees of mere probability. Evolution is a mere theory because man has not sufficient evidence to demonstrate its truth, and has no other source of information concerning it save that of the world about him. If, however, God stepped in and revealed to man that the evolutionary theory is true, then it would no longer be a mere theory, but a certainty, even though men discovered not a scrap more natural evidence to support it. Men would know of its truth just as a child would know the right answer to a sum if told by a teacher, despite omission or inability on the part of the child to do the preliminary work necessary to arrive at that answer. In the same way we have certainty of the religious truths God has revealed.

Yes, for difficulties concerning revealed mysteries do not affect the sound and reasonable foundation for one's acceptance of Christianity as the revelation of God. A difficulty in comprehending the full significance of a thing is not a doubt concerning its existence. There are scores of difficulties concerning things we know to be facts in the natural order with scientific certainty; but we do not deny them because of that.

I have never said that. It may demand faith in doctrines above the powers of human reason in themselves, but it can prove itself to have been revealed by God.

Professor Haldane is not deeply versed in the arguments for Christianity. He has made the most elementary blunders in his attempts at stating them. And however well versed he may be in his own department of natural science, I am afraid that he is incurably stupid in at least some other matters. Listen to one of his considered statements: "I am prepared to admit the possibility," he writes, "that I am nothing but a biologically and socially convenient fiction." That is certainly a stupid statement, and a repudiation of reason as a guide to truth at all.

I do not mean that. Men have been convinced by the evidence for Christianity who were not in the least inclined to Christian beliefs when they took up the study of the question. And of those convinced, some have yielded to their convictions, making their act of faith in Christian teaching; others have not. Whether a man is inclined to accept Christian beliefs or not, sufficient proof is available for every reasonable man to show that the Christian religion has been revealed by God, and that its teachings have the guarantee of His authority.

I deny that they want salvation as we Christians understand it. They may thirst for panaceas of this world's ills so that they can enjoy this world's goods and bodily comforts and pleasures without concomitant penalties. They want what they desire, not what God tells them they ought to desire. And the end in view being wrong, they naturally ignore the means to the right end. Rejecting the supernatural end or destiny which God offers, they propose another end to be attained independently of Him. All they know is that all the means they have tried so far to get to their self-constituted end have failed. But they will not renounce the material and selfish end they propose to attain. So they are still trying and grasping at all sorts of panaceas, and are left still thirsty.

That is precisely what I must say. Some people are so intellectually lazy that it is too hard on them to undertake the study of God's revelation. Others are so proud that it is too hard on their self-esteem to ask them to submit to authoritative teaching of any kind. Others are so immersed in earthly ambitions that it is too hard on them to accept supernatural and spiritual ideals instead. Others again are so subject to self-indulgence in a hundred and one ways that a religion asking self-denial is altogether too hard for them to consider for a moment.

You well say "their" ideals. But they are not prepared to sacrifice "their" ideals for those proposed to them by Almighty God. Men will sacrifice what they consider the lesser good for what they consider the greater good. And often some good of the present moment will seem greater than a future good which in their calm moments men will admit to be really the higher and better. People whose one ideal is to have a good time will sacrifice rest, health, and money in the cause. Others, whose ideals are based on utilitarian rather than upon pleasurable earthly ambitions, will sacrifice comfort and well-being in the fight for their objective. With some people individual motives prevail. But they stake all on earthly and materialistic considerations, which they are not prepared to sacrifice for supernatural and spiritual considerations. They will not serve God. It is humanity that is to be served and worshipped, either in their own precious persons, or in mankind as a whole. Man is lord of creation to a certain extent, but he is a vassal king, subject to God, and obliged to serve God. But human pride revolts. Men refuse to admit that they owe homage to God. They will be independent, self-sufficient, the sole object of their own worship. All must minister to them, and they to nobody. And all must be measured according to its relationship to their earthly progress, comfort, and welfare. In other words, man is made for man, and not for God. And this deification of man is the great idolatry. Men are fascinated by it. Humanity is set up on an altar, as was a woman as the goddess of reason in the Cathedral of Notre Dame during the French Revolution. And sacrifices are made for the glorification and satisfaction of humanity whether in self, or the nation, or the race, to the accompaniment of clouds of incense in the form of adulation, and of hymns of praise for men's noble ideals of themselves. This is the great obstacle to religious belief in God, and to the acceptance of His revelation.

These things are bound up only with the earthly and material interests of humanity. Men are striving for what they think will serve themselves best, not that they themselves may serve God. And whatever they may be prepared to sacrifice for their own sake, they are not prepared to sacrifice themselves for God's sake. That they find too hard; and that is why they refuse to consider a revealed religion which demands an abdication of self and detachment from the fascination of earthly attractions. Even did they study it scientifically and sufficiently to realize that God's revelation is credible, they would refuse to make its teachings the object of their faith and conduct. Not every man yields to evidence; and there is a lot of truth in the saying that "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." The basic difficulty as regards the Christian religion is that men's wills are wrong. And that hinders the perception of the truth. So Christ said, "Everyone that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved." And to love this world as if it were the be-all and end-all of man is doing evil. It is the repudiation of God. And Christ warned us against it when He said, "Love not the world," indicating the supreme law, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and soul, and mind, and strength." Lack of the good will to do that is the basic reason for intellectual rejection of God's revelation.

God

Man

Religion

The Religion of the Bible

The Christian Religion

A Definite Christian Faith

The Problem of Reunion

The Truth of Catholicism

The Church and the Bible

The Dogmas of the Catholic Church

Moral Teachings of the Catholic Church

The Church in Her Worship

The Church and Social Welfare

Catholic Apologetics in Question & Answer Form

God

Man

Religion

The Religion of the Bible

The Christian Religion

A Definite Christian Faith

The Problem of Reunion

The Truth of Catholicism

The Church and the Bible

The Dogmas of the Catholic Church

Moral Teachings of the Catholic Church

The Church in Her Worship

The Church and Social Welfare

QUESTIONS IN VOLUME 3

101. Can you expect enlightened people to believe in miracles?

102. Does the Church require proof before she will accept any event as miraculous?

103. That could never be, because we do not yet know all the forces of nature. There may be natural laws which we do not yet know, yet which could account for an event thought to be miraculous.

104. You at least advise caution in the matter?

105. I agree with those who wish to purify the Gospels by eliminating the miraculous element embodied in them side by side with so much good teaching.

106. The miracles envelop His life in legend, and belittle Him rather than magnify Him.

107. I presume you accept the Canonical Gospels as historical because they give general support to one another?

108. How do you account for the fact that there are other uncanonical writings which give a different version of these affairs?

109. Can you quote any reference prior to Irenaeus, 182 A. D., which so much as alludes to the existence of your Gospels?

110. Did not the selection of the Gospels to be regarded as Canonical depend upon the various Councils?

111. Matthew Tindal says that no good ever came of any Council, and that if all the accusations and libels were extant which the bishops hurled at each other, few would have reason to boast of the First Oecumenical Council.

112. Is it not a fact that, in the Second Council of Ephesus, Dioscurus, Bishop of Alexandria, assaulted Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, with such violence that the Patriarch died within three days of his injuries? Can we accept the verdict of such Councils?

113. Are any of the original manuscripts of any of the Gospels extant?

114. What is the date of the earliest copies available?

115. Why should not a Catholic who believes in miracles expect that the original Gospel manuscripts should last forever?

116. Here surely was an occasion that could provide an unshakable basis for faith.

117. Here surely was psychological momentum for a miracle, if such things are.

118. Do not say there was no need for the survival of the originals because transcriptions could be made without fundamental error.

119. Rev. Dr. Hort has said that absolute fidelity of transcription in the first three centuries was little valued.

120. If all errors were rectified, is it not possible that an entirely different conception of the Scriptures would become inevitable?

121. I have read that the Greek Septuagint contained many errors which were not corrected until about 200 A.D.

122. Would Christ use Scriptures which contained errors?

123. From the natural point of view I find the stories of Adam and Eve, of Noah and the Ark, of Lot's wife, of Samson, of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea, of Jonah and the whale, etc., very difficult to believe.

124. Must these be accepted in the literal sense?

125. Is it not absurd not only that God should want to try Abraham's faith, but that He should order Abraham to kill his own son?

126. Can you believe it true that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, so that he refused to release the Jews from Egypt?

127. Do you believe that God sent the plagues upon Egypt, and above all, had the innocent children of the Egyptians killed?

128. I could go on almost forever quoting extraordinary things believers in the Bible must accept.

129. Did the flood recorded in Genesis really occur?

130. So you believe that God repented that He had made man? In what sense do you understand that expression?

131. To my mind the flood is simply a myth.

132. Do you believe that rain for forty days could cover the whole earth with water above the highest mountains?

133. The water could not remain banked up in a given region even to the height necessary to cover the mountains.

134. How could Noah build an Ark capable of holding two animals of every kind in the world?

135. To contain types of all animals in the world the Ark must have been of a tremendous size, probably larger than the Berengaria. What was its probable tonnage?

136. With two of every living thing on the Ark, the food problem would have to be considered. Many of the animals would have eaten the others, or would have died themselves.

137. If only the human beings in the Ark were saved, all men today must be descended from Noah and his family.

138. Is it necessary to believe that there were no human survivors except those in the Ark?

139. Anthropologists say that the Australian aboriginals are the most ancient of all peoples. In that case, they must have been in Australia when the flood occurred, contemporaneously with Moses.

140. You see no difficulty in accounting for the presence of the aboriginal in Australia, and the Indian in America?

141. In Exodus XX., 5, we are told that God is a jealous God. Do you believe that to be true?

142. In Exodus XX., God is recorded as forbidding us to kill, yet in XXXII., as ordering the Israelites to kill even brothers, friends, and neighbors!

143. If Moses is the author of Deuteronomy, who wrote the account of his death and burial towards the close of the Book?

144. In Joshua X., 13, we read that the "sun stood still." Quite evidently the writer thought that the world was flat, and that the sun moved across the firmament.

145. Did the sun stand still?

146. Did Jonah actually live in the whale for three days?

147. Are there not many such contradictory passages in the New Testament?

148. In Galatians I., 15-22, .St. Paul says he did not go to Jerusalem to see the Apostles, but into Arabia, and then back to Damascus. In Acts IX., 25-30, St. Luke says that he went from Damascus to Jerusalem, and there met the Apostles.

149. In Galatians I., 22, St. Paul says that he was unknown by face to the whole of Judea. Yet in Acts XXVI., 20, he tells Agrippa that he preached unto all the country of Judea.

150. The Old Testament says that lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, yet St. Paul writes to the Romans, "If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie, am I to be judged a sinner?"

151. Christ praises marriage saying that, "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife." But St. Paul says, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

152. The Acts of the Apostles declare that women will prophesy, and speaks of a man's four daughters who did prophesy; yet St. Paul writes, "Suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."