WHAT does the Lord say? not only in that extract that I have read, but what does he say? “Consider what I say; for the Lord shall give thee understanding in all things.” 2 Timothy 2:7,R.V. That is what the word says. What does it say further on that same point? “And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us a mind [Dr. Young] that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ.” 1 John 5:20. He has given us a mind that we may know him that is true. That is what the word says. Now let us see the argument that is built upon the statement quoted above:—GCB March 3, 1895, page 429.7

Therefore when a Protestant says: “I stand by the Bible alone,” he does not mean that he stands by the Bible uninterpreted, for in such case the Bible is mute. He does not mean that he stands by the Bible as interpreted by the Church, for that would not be the Protestant, but the Catholic principle. Nor does he mean that he stands by the Bible as interpreted by somebody else: as that would be, according to his notion, to give up his right of private interpretation. But he means that he stands by the Bible alone as interpreted by himself, and that the sense in which he himself understands it is the word of God.GCB March 3, 1895, page 429.8

And therefore a person who is guided by this principle says in effect: “The Bible interpreted by the Fathers may or may not be the word of God; the Bible interpreted by the Church may or may not be the word of God; the Bible interpreted by any one besides myself may or may not be the word of God; but the Bible interpreted by me, — that is indeed the word of God, my only teacher, my guide, my infallible authority. — “Catholic Belief,” pp. 49,50.GCB March 3, 1895, page 429.9

You will observe that the Catholic view of what the Bible is, degrades it, and belittles it:—GCB March 3, 1895, page 429.10

Those who refuse to hear and to follow the legitimate interpretation and the faith of the Church, instead of the word of God, — that is, what God really meant in Holy Scripture, — have often only their own inventions and errors, and these they mistake for the word of God. — Ib.pp.53,54.GCB March 3, 1895, page 429.11

Now think whether you stand on that ground, and whether professed Protestants would stand on that ground. Observe a word further from Cardinal Gibbons in his book, “Faith of our Fathers,” page 160:—GCB March 3, 1895, page 429.12

A Protestant bishop in the course of a sermon against papal infallibility recently used the following language: “For my part I have an infallible Bible, and this is the only infallibility that I require.”GCB March 3, 1895, page 429.13

Now, says Cardinal Gibbons:—GCB March 3, 1895, page 429.14

This assertion, though plausible at first sight, cannot for a moment stand the test of sound criticism. Let us see, sir, whether the infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct, or you are not.GCB March 3, 1895, page 429.15

If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny to the pope, and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own pope.GCB March 3, 1895, page 429.16

If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible, — and this is a privilege you do not claim, — then, I ask, Of what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible, without an infallible interpreter?GCB March 3, 1895, page 429.17

So he says on page 86:—GCB March 3, 1895, page 429.18

An infallible book is of no use to me without an infallible interpreter, as the history of Protestantism too clearly demonstrates.GCB March 3, 1895, page 429.19

“An infallible book is of no use to me without an infallible interpreter” of that book. We will not have any quarrel with him over that, will we? — No, but we will not call any human being an infallible interpreter. But we will have him to be an infallible interpreter, who, when he was here, interpreted to his disciples in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Why, Cardinal Gibbons really touches upon the right principle here, when he says:—GCB March 3, 1895, page 429.20

If, indeed, our Saviour had visibly remained among us, no interpreter would be needed, since he would explain his gospel to us; but as he withdrew his visible presence from us, it was eminently reasonable that he should designate some one to expound for us the meaning of his word.GCB March 3, 1895, page 429.21

But, says the Scripture, “We see Jesus,” and Moses “endured as seeing him who is invisible.” And Jesus Christ himself says: “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Well, then, upon that very doctrine there is no need of any other interpreter; for we have an infallible interpreter, and we do not need to put any human being in that place. Jesus Christ himself fills that place; but without going into the Catholic Church you can find those who do put and have put, themselves right upon that ground - either going wholly upon Catholic ground in their attempts to define the meaning of the Scriptures, or taking from underneath their feet the very foundation that they should stand upon; for they deny the whole question of infallibility. Now the true way to meet the infallibility doctrine is not to deny the doctrine of infallibility in the church, but it is to put infallibility in the right place; and then there is no argument that can move it; there is no sophistry that can becloud it;there is no inconsistency that can overthrow it; it stands as everything should stand that is built upon the rock Jesus Christ. Going further:—GCB March 3, 1895, page 430.1

The Bible is not the word of God, nor infallible, with regard to us, unless rightly interpreted, — that is, interpreted with authority, certainty, and infallibility. For if the interpretation be wrong, the Bible ceases to be, with regard to the reader, the word of God; and if the interpretation be unauthorized, doubtful, fallible, the Bible becomes, with regard to the reader, unbinding, doubtful, fallible. — “Catholic Belief,” pp.50,51.GCB March 3, 1895, page 430.2

There is the whole thing. A man, or a set of men, tells what God means in his word. Now don’t you be caught on that very thing by telling somebody what the Bible means. You know you have asked, “What does that text mean?” and perhaps you felt a little ruffled because somebody said, It means just what it says. Well, you would better take that answer then to get him to tell you what it means; because that is going right onto that ground that is occupied by the Catholic Church. Is not God able to teach us himself? But it does not follow at all that we are able to understand all there is in the Scripture, and we need not attempt to explain everything there is in the Bible. So don’t ask some one to explain to you these two texts that seem to contradict each other; don’t fall into that way, because that is tending toward the papal idea.GCB March 3, 1895, page 430.3

Now that does not preclude our helping each other and counseling together; but understand on what ground you do it. The human agent is not to teach what God means. He is to teach what God says. Why, was not God able to tell what he means? When one of the churches in olden time received a letter from Paul the apostle, do you suppose they called the church together, and said: Now, brethren we have got a letter from Paul, and of course we do not know what it means; and would not we better have a council, and decide what is the meaning of the letter, and then bring in a carefully-prepared statement, so that we will know what it means? What was God’s purpose in committing to the church his word? Was he not imparting to them something that he wanted them to know? And has he not given his Spirit in order that we may understand it? “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.”GCB March 3, 1895, page 430.4

March 3, 1895 - EXTRA, NO. 18

JAPAN