Chats With Prospective Converts

by
Rev. M. D. Forrest, M.S.C.

with preface by
Monsignor Fulton J. Sheen, Ph.D., D.D., L.L.D.

Copyright, 1943
Radio Replies Press
St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A.

Table of Contents

Dedication--Dedicated to St. Teresa.
Author's Forword--by M. D. Forrest
Forword--by N. T. Gilroy (Archbishop of Sydney).
Preface--by Monsignor Fulton J. Sheen.
Chapter One--The Existence of God.
Chapter Two--Revelation and Faith.
Chapter Three--The New Testament as an Historical Document.
Chapter Four--The Divinity of Christ.
Chapter FiveThe True Church.

DEDICATION

To St. Teresa of the Child Jesus; "The little flower"; styled by Pope Pius 11. "My guiding star" and "the child beloved of the world"; whose virginal heart ever glowed with the loving zeal for souls; who expressed the ardent wish to "spend her heaven in doing good on earth," these "Chats with Prospective Converts" are humbly, gratefully, and lovingly dedicated.

AUTHOR'S FOREWORD

These "Chats with Prospective Converts" have already appeared as a series of articles in the "New Zealand Tablet," and the Sydney "Catholic Weekly," and are now published in book form with permission of the management of those excellent journals.

My purpose in publishing this book is to furnish instructors with a Manual for Converts; but I hope that the work will be of some help also to Study Clubs and to the senior pupils of our schools in their study of Apologetics.

In writing these articles, I had in mind a course of instructions extending over a period of about six months, with one lesson a week; or of three months, with two talks a week. Though I am of opinion that this should be the normal course of preparation for a convert, I am aware that at times converts have to be instructed and received within a shorter period. In the latter case the instructor should either choose what he considers the more important subjects or condense and summarize the matter of each chapter.

I wish to place on record my grateful appreciation of the many kind messages of encouragement and approval received from readers, clerical and lay, while the series was appearing in the two Catholic papers mentioned, and to express my sincerest gratitude to His Grace, the Archbishop of Sydney, for graciously and gracefully writing the Foreword.

Through the great courtesy, unflagging zeal, and efficient management of the nationally known Rev. Charles M. Carty, I now have the pleasure of presenting this new edition to the American public.

M. D. FORREST, M. S. C.,
Sacred Heart Monastery,
Croydon, Victoria, Australia.

FOREWORD

As you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner.

Thus spoke the Divine Teacher. The lesson was for men of the twentieth century as for those of the first: for you, and me, as for the Jews of old.

If you were bewildered and vainly sought for the path that would lead to your destination, you would be grateful for the guidance of anyone who, knowing the way, shared his knowledge of it with you.

The articles written in this book by Father M. D. Forrest, M.S.C., will assist every Catholic layman to be such a guide, warning of danger and indicating safety.

Just as eternity is of greater importance than time, the soul of greater importance than the body, so is it more important to warn men of dangers to salvation than of dangers to life, more charitable to indicate the path to Heaven than to any destination here below.

· Nearly all have friends and acquaintances who are Journeying along the road of life without ever thinking seriously of the eternity that awaits them.

The safe road through life: the road to Heaven along which every earthly pilgrim (and each of us is only that) may travel if he so desires, was indicated by Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. It is indicated today by the Church which Christ Himself established for that purpose.

To tell men who do not know it of the existence of that safe and sure path to Heaven, to show them how to reach and traverse it, is the apostolate, the honorable apostolate, every Catholic layman may exercise.

These Chats of Father Forrest, himself an apostolic Priest remarkable for his learning and zeal, will assist laymen to understand more clearly how precious is the treasure of which they are custodians; will assist and encourage them to share with others God's greatest gift to man, the True Faith.

N. T. Gilroy,
Archbishop of Sydney.

PREFACE

The Preface by Monsignor Fulton J. Sheen, D.D., to the Third Volume of Radio Replies brought so many favorable letters from converts to our office that we are reprinting the same message because of its merit and popularity as a Preface to this companion book to the three volumes of Radio Replies by Fathers Rumble and Carty.

Once there were lost islands, but most of them have been · found; once there were lost causes, but many of them have been retrieved; but there is one lost art that has not been definitely recovered, and without which no civilization can long survive, and that is the art of controversy. The hardest thing to find in the world today is an argument. Because so few are thinking, naturally there are found but few to argue. Prejudice there is in abundance and sentiment too, for these things are born of enthusiasms. without the pain of labor. Thinking, on the contrary, is a difficult task; it is the hardest work a man can do-that is perhaps why so few indulge in it. Thought-saving devices have been invented that rival labor-saving devices in their ingenuity. Fine-sounding phrases like "Life is bigger than logic," or "Progress is the spirit of the age," go rattling by us like express trains, carrying the burden of those who are too lazy to think for themselves.

Not even philosophers argue today; they only explain away. A book full of bad logic, advocating all manner of moral laxity, is not refuted by critics; it is merely called "bold, honest, and fearless." Even those periodicals which pride themselves upon their open-mindedness on all questions are far from practicing the lost art of controversy. Their pages contain no controversies, but only presentations of points of view; these never rise to the level of abstract thought in which argument clashes with argument like steel with steel, but rather they content themselves with the personal reflections of one who has lost his faith, writing against the sanctity of marriage, and of another who has kept his faith, writing in favor of it. Both sides are shooting off firecrackers, making all the noise of an intellectual warfare and creating the illusion of conflict, but it is only a sham battle in which there are no casualties; there are plenty of explosions, but never an exploded argument.

The causes underlying this decline in the art of controversy are twofold: religious and philosophical. Modern religion has enunciated one great and fundamental dogma that is at the basis of all the other dogmas, and that is, that religion must be freed from dogmas. Creeds and confessions of faith are no longer the fashion; religious leaders have agreed not to disagree and those beliefs for which some of our ancestors would have died they have melted into a spineless Humanism. Like other Pilates they have turned their backs on the uniqueness of truth and have opened their arms wide to all the moods and fancies the hour might dictate. The passing of creeds and dogmas means the passing of controversies. Creeds and dogmas are social; prejudices are private. Believers bump into one another at a thousand different angles, but bigots keep out of one another's way, because prejudice is anti-social. I can imagine an old-fashioned Calvinist who holds that the word "damn" has a tremendous dogmatic significance, coming to intellectual blows with an old-fashioned Methodist who holds that it is only a curse word; but I cannot imagine a controversy if both decide to damn damnation, like our Modernists who no longer believe in Hell.

The second cause, which is philosophical, bases itself on that peculiar American philosophy called "Pragmatism," the aim of which is to prove that all proofs are useless. Hegel, of Germany, rationalized error; James, of America, derationalized truth. As a result, there has sprung up a disturbing indifference to truth, and a tendency to regard the useful as the true, and the impractical as the false. The man who can make up his mind when proofs are presented to him is looked upon as a bigot, and the man who ignores proofs and the search for truth is looked upon as broad-minded and tolerant.

Another evidence of this same disrespect for rational foundations is the general readiness of the modern mind to accept a statement because of the literary way in which it is couched, or because of the popularity of the one who says it, rather than for the reasons behind the statement. In this sense, it is unfortunate that some men who think poorly can write so well. Bergson has written a philosophy grounded on the assumption that the greater comes from the less, but he has so camouflaged that intellectual monstrosity with mellifluous French that he has been credited with being a great and original thinker. To some minds, of course, the startling will always appear to be the profound. It is easier to get the attention of the press when one says, as Ibsen did, that "two and two make five," than to be orthodox and say that two and two make four.

The Catholic Church perhaps more than the other forms of Christianity notices the decline in the art of controversy. Never before, perhaps, in the whole history of Christianity has she been so intellectually impoverished for want of good, sound intellectual opposition as she is at the present time. Today there are no foe-men worthy of her steel. And if the Church today is not producing great chunks of thought, or what might be called ... thinkage," it is because she has not been challenged to do so. The best in everything comes from the throwing down of a gauntlet-even the best in thought.

The Church loves controversy, and loves it for two reasons: because intellectual conflict is informing, and because she is madly in love with rationalism. The great structure of the Catholic Church has been built up through controversy. It was the attacks of the Docetists and the Monophysites in the early centuries of the Church that made her clear on the doctrine concerning the nature of Christ; it was the controversy with the Reformers that clarified her teaching on justification. And if today there are not nearly so many dogmas defined as in the early ages of the Church, it is because there is less controversy-and less thinking. One must think to be a heretic, even though it be wrong thinking.

Even though one did not accept the infallible authority of the Church, he would still have to admit that the Church in the course of centuries has bad her finger on the pulse of the world, ever defining those dogmas which needed definition at the moment. In the light of this fact, it would be interesting to inquire if our boasted theory of intellectual progress is true. What was the Christian world thinking about in the early centuries? What doctrines had to be clarified when controversy was keen? In the early centuries, controversy centered on such lofty and delicate problems as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the union of Natures in the person of the Son of God. What was the last doctrine to be defined in 1870? It was the capability of man to use his brain and come to a knowledge of God. Now, if the world is progressing intellectually, should not the existence of God have been defined in the first century, and the nature of the Trinity have been defined in the nineteenth? In the order of mathematics this is like defining the complexities of logarithms in the year 42, and the simplification of the addition table in the year 1942. The fact is that there is now less intellectual opposition to the Church and more prejudice, which, being interpreted, means less thinking, even less bad thinking.

Not only does the Church love controversy because it helps her sharpen her wits; she loves it also for its own sake. The Church is accused of being the enemy of reason; as a matter of fact, she is the only one who believes in it. Using her reason in the Council of the Vatican, she officially went on record in favor of Rationalism, and declared, against the mock humility of the Agnostics and the sentimental faith of the Fideists, that human reason by its own power can know something besides the contents of test tubes and retorts, and that working on mere sensible phenomena it can soar even to the "hid battlements of eternity," there to discover the Timeless beyond time and the Spaceless beyond space which is God, the Alpha and Omega of all things.

The Church asks her children to think hard and think clean. Then she asks them to do two things with their thoughts: First, she asks them to externalize them in the concrete world of economics, government, commerce, and education, and by this externalization of beautiful, clean thoughts to produce a beautiful and clean civilization. The quality of any civilization depends upon the nature of the thoughts its great minds bequeath to it. If the thoughts that are externalized in the press, in the senate chamber, on the public platform, are base, civilization itself will take on their base character with the same readiness with which a chameleon takes on the color of the object upon which it is placed. But if the thoughts that are vocalized and articulated are high and lofty, civilization will be fined, like a crucible, with the gold of the things worth while.

The Church asks her children not only to externalize their thoughts and thus produce culture, but also to internalize their thoughts and thus produce spirituality. The constant giving would be dissipation unless new energy was supplied from within. In fact, before a thought can be bequeathed to the outside, it must have been born on the inside. But no thought is born without silence and con. temptation. It is in the stillness and quiet of one's own intellectual pastures wherein man meditates on the purpose of life and its goal, that real and true character is developed. A character is made by the kind of thoughts a man thinks when alone, and a civilization is made by the kind of thoughts a man speaks to his neighbor.

On the other hand, the Church discourages bad thinking, for a bad thought set loose is more dangerous than a wild man. Thinkers live; toilers die in a day. When society finds it is too late to electrocute a thought, it electrocutes the man. There was once a time when Christian society burned the thought in order to save society, and after all, something can be said in favor of this practice. To kill one bad thought may mean the salvation of ten thousand thinkers. The Roman emperors were alive to this fact; they killed the Christians not because they wanted their hearts, but because they wanted their heads, or better, their brains--brains that were thinking out the death of Paganism.

It is to this task of thinking out the death of New Paganism that these chapters are published.

MONSIGNOR FULTON J. SHEEN, Ph.D., D.D., L.L.D.

CHAPTER 1.
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

In our first heart to heart chat, my dear friend, I am going to speak quite simply to you about God, or, in other words, I am going to comment on the first question and answer in our children's Catechism. The question asked is: Who made the world? And the simple answer given is: God.

Now, I do not imply that you need my insistence on this truth, for practically everyone who has come for a chat on religion is already persuaded of it. Indeed, an atheist is as foolish as a boy who would deny that he had a father or mother because he never saw them. And the Scriptures, about which I shall speak later on during the course of our chats, state that only a fool says there is no God. Still, since I intend explaining the whole Catholic religion to you, it will be well to begin with the foundation, even though you already accept it.

Now, our reason clearly shows us that there is a God-a Supreme Being, a Sovereign Lord, a first Cause, an Intelligent, Eternal Power. The normal, rational man perceives, without any difficult process of reasoning, that there is a God, one God, who is endowed with wonderful knowledge, wisdom, and power. I shall give you some of the proofs of God's existence, without burdening you with any difficult scientific terms or abstruse principles of philosophy. Of course if at any time you wish to delve more deeply into this matter, I shall gladly do so with you or recommend to you pamphlets and books which treat of this truth in a more learned way.

ORDER AND DESIGN.

The order and design everywhere discernible is a clear proof of God's existence. You are familiar with the terms order, design, purpose, for they are frequently used in our daily conversation. Order really means unity in variety, or harmony amidst a number of elements. We say that there is order in the arrangement of the various parts of a building, in the combination of the various parts of a motor-car, in the different parts of a clock. By order we mean that a number of things are so arranged as to give a single effect or result. The arrangement of the parts of a house-the bricks or boards, the cement or mortar or nails, the floor, the windows, the ceiling, the roof, etc., so as to produce the single effect known as a dwelling, is a simple example of order. The word design or purpose is sometimes used instead of order when the first simple proof of God's existence is given. But order is really the result or effect of design or purpose; design means planning order or devising a suitable arrangement. There can be no true order without design or purpose, as there can be no effective designing without order.

The argument drawn from order and design might be stated thus: The evident order that exists throughout our earth and, indeed, throughout the visible universe, the undoubted prevalence of universal law, and the clear adaptation of means to ends convince any reasonable, normal individual that all things that we see have been arranged by a Being external to the world and ' that this Being must have the greatest knowledge, wisdom, and power.

Look at the printed page before you. Is it conceivable that, by throwing up thousands of letters and letting them fall at random, such an orderly arrangement, consisting of words and sentences, all expressing consecutive thought, could be produced? No one in his right mind would say yes. And yet the order of a typed page is as nothing compared with the order of the vast universe or the order discernible in even a small organic faculty such as the eye or the ear. If the typed or printed page clearly tells of an intelligent and skillful agent behind it, what of the great world and each of the marvelous things we see in it?

Just consider our own earth. It rotates on its axis once every twenty-four hours before the great sun and thus gives us successive day and night. It revolves round the sun once every three hundred and sixty-five days while its axis is constantly inclined to the plane of its orbit at an angle of 66i degrees, and thus are caused the successive seasons. Here we have evident expression of wondrous intelligence and skill. Then consider our solar system and the whole stellar system, and the marvelous order so clearly telling of the Great Designer overwhelms us.

But I must not lead you too far into the realms of astronomy. I may, however, narrate a simple incident, told by a non-Catholic writer: One fine night on deck, amid a clatter of materialism, Bonaparte pointed to the stars and said: "You may talk as long as you please, gentlemen, but who made all that?"

Joseph Addison has written a beautiful poem which I may appropriately quote for you in this chat:

The spacious firmament on high,
With all the blue ethereal sky,
And spangled heavens, a shining frame,
Their great Original proclaim.
The' unwearied sun from day to day
Does his Creator's power display;
And publishes, to every land,
The work of an almighty hand.

We might descend to smaller things and see how design is stamped on every inorganic (non-living) and organic (living) being in this world, but it will suffice to draw your attention to a few examples. Take the human eye, for instance. It is like a living camera, and is as manifestly designed for the purpose of seeing as the camera is for the purpose of photographing. The ear, too, displays a wondrous mechanism; in fact, some consider it more wonderful than the eye. Even the scoffer, Voltaire, wrote: "To affirm that the eye is not made to see, nor the ear to hear, nor the stomach to digest food, would be the most monstrous absurdity and the most revolting stupidity that ever beset a human mind. Skeptical as I am, I declare such to be evident madness." He who made. the eye to see and the ear to hear and the lungs to breathe must, indeed, be a Designer of surpassing knowledge and consummate skill, endowed with knowledge and power and skill immeasurably beyond the perfection's of any human genius.

CAUSE AND EFFECT.

Another proof of God's existence is known as the argument from causality. It may be briefly stated thus: All around us we see effects proceeding from causes and causes producing effects. An effect is something brought into existence by something else, e.g., steam is produced by heat and water. A cause is that which brings into existence or produces something else, i.e., that which produces an effect. Thus a bullet discharged from a rifle is the cause of the mortal wound inflicted on a rabbit. Now, our experience tells us that every cause that comes under our observation is itself produced by another cause; that it is the effect of another cause. In a word, every cause that comes within the range of our experience is a subordinate or dependent cause. But our reason tells us that the whole series of causes, no matter how far back we may go, must have a First Cause, a cause that is not also an effect, an uncaused cause; else we should have an infinite number of causes (which is a contradiction), and, besides, this infinite number of finite causes would still need its own; for, if each member of the series is caused, the whole series likewise is caused. Thus, in sheer logic or commonsense, we must get outside all caused causes or finite causes and arrive at an uncaused or First Cause, the Being that is self-existent and eternal, whom we call God.

I have but summarized this proof for you. A book might be written on it, but I must keep to our simple chats.

OTHER PROOFS

There are other proofs of God's existence, but what I have said will be quite sufficient for one chat. I could outline the argument from conscience, from the laws of nature, from motion, from dependent (or contingent) beings, from the dissipation or degradation of energy (a scientific proof), and the persuasion of mankind. But I am not giving you a treatise on God's existence.

Remember, too, my dear friend, that there is such a thing as blinding one's mind or dulling one's moral sense by pride or impurity or avarice, and that God may not be intellectually or spiritually perceived by a soul afflicted by or addicted to one of these vices. "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God. . . . God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble." The proofs of God's existence are conclusive, though not coercive; sufficient, though not resistless; convincing, though not compelling. They are clear to all whose minds are normal and whose wills and hearts are honest and upright.

DIMNESS OF HUMAN REASON.

Although human reason can prove that there is a God and can grasp the fundamental truths or principles of religion and morality, still the natural light of our mind is but dim. But God, in His goodness, has not left us poor mortals groping in the dim twilight of unaided reason, as I shall explain in our next chat.

CHAPTER 2
REVELATION AND FAITH

The purpose of the present chat, my dear inquirer, is to prepare you for the acceptance of God's revelation by an act of faith. I shall explain the words revelation and faith presently. First of all, it will be better to say a few words about knowledge, for faith is one kind of knowledge.

THREE KINDS OF KNOWLEDGE

There are three kinds of knowledge, which we may term evidence, science, and faith.

A truth or fact is evident (or, as some would prefer to say, self-evident) when it can be seen, as it were, in its own light; that is, when it needs no other fact or truth to make it known to us; when it is seen by itself; when it so strikes the senses or the mind that it needs no proof whatever, and cannot be doubted by any normal being. I see a piece of bread on my plate-its existence or presence is evident. I am absolutely conscious that I exist-my own existence is evident.

There are other truths which, though not evident, are clearly deduced or inferred or proved from evident truths. Those who have studied geometry know that in this subject one proceeds from what is evident to what must be proved. Thus we proceed by a process of demonstration to the truth that the three angles of every triangle are equal to two right angles. The latter truth may be called science, or, better, the knowledge of it may be called science. If you wish, you may call the first kind of knowledge (of the presence of the piece of bread, of my existence) self-evidence or immediate evidence, and the second kind of knowledge (that the three angles of a triangle equal two right angles) mediate evidence. If you are not interested in geometry, and want a simpler example, consider book-keeping. ' It is evident (self-evident) to you that on the first line you have $5.43, that you have $12.24 on the second line, $7.19 on the third line, $16.85 on the fourth line, $74.53 on the fifth line, and $39.44 on the sixth line. To know this you need just look at each line. But the total of all those sums is not evident to you; you must add up those sums to get the total; you must 91 work out" the answer. But, if you are any good at arithmetic, you will not need any outside help; you will be able to get the answer by your own addition. Your knowledge, however, of the result will be only mediate evidence (or science). I am not here using the term science as that branch of stud known as physical science.

Besides evidence (self-evidence) and science (mediate evidence), there is another kind of knowledge which is admitted and acted on by all reasonable persons. It is Called faith. I am not for the moment speaking of religious faith. I am speaking of ordinary human faith which is exercised even by atheists and agnostics.

We often assent to a truth not because it is immediately or mediately evident (as I have explained), but because it is revealed (made known) to us by a reliable witness or authority.

EXPLANATION OF HUMAN FAITH

The reliability of a witness requires two elements, knowledge and veracity. We do not accept a statement made by one whom we know to be quite ignorant of the matter he mentions, or by one whom we know to be lying. Before we can reasonably assent to a truth that is not evident (immediately or mediately) to us, we must be satisfied that the person who reveals or makes known such a truth or fact has true knowledge of what he tells us and that he is speaking truthfully; that is, we must be sure that such a witness is not deceived himself and is not deceiving us. When these two conditions are fulfilled, a witness is said to be reliable, and, if we are reasonable, we shall accept the statement made by such a witness. This means, in other words, that every reasonable person must assent to, or accept, a revelation or revealed truth or fact that is proposed for our acceptance by a reliable witness.

Let us consider some simple examples of human faith. You are sick, and a friend sends for a doctor. Your acceptance of the doctor is an act of faith, unless you personally witnessed him follow his medical studies and receive his diploma. The doctor prescribes for you, and you send a messenger with the prescription to the pharmacist. Here you elicit at, least two new acts of faith-one in the messenger, the other in the pharmacist. Only by faith you admit that the latter is a true pharmacist (unless, again, you witnessed him qualify), and by faith you accept and take his medicine as corresponding to the doctor's prescription.

Murder has been committed, and a certain man happens to be arrested and brought to trial. The jury is sworn in, and the witnesses give their evidence. It may be that not one of the jurymen knows the prisoner, or has any personal evidence of his guilt. Yet, if it is clear from the trial that the witnesses have evidence that the accused committed the murder and that they are truthful-in a word, that they are reliable witnesses-the jury brings in a verdict of guilty, and the judge pronounces sentence of death. Thus the murderer's execution is the result of an act of faith made by the jury and judge on the testimony of reliable witnesses. Their state of mind might be analyzed thus: "We do not know this man, nor have we any personal evidence that he committed the murder in question. But we believe that he did so, because reliable witnesses (i.e., persons who were neither deceived as to what they stated, nor deceiving us) have revealed or made known or declared that this man committed the murder."

Scientists predict an eclipse of the sun. On the day and hour specified crowds of people, who could not personally calculate an eclipse, gather confidently to witness the event. These people are making a simple act of faith, believing on testimony of reliable men that the eclipse will occur according to schedule. Only when the event actually occurs have they evidence of the eclipse.

Why, our very family life is founded on faith. Only by an act of faith can we accept this man and this woman as our father and mother; only by an act of faith do we accept these girls and these boys as our sisters and brothers.

DIVINE REVELATION AND FAITH

Now, if we accept the testimony of reliable human beings, as we all do in our daily life, surely we should, with far greater reason, assent to truths revealed to us by God. Our reason shows that there is a Supreme Being, the Lord of the universe, the infinite, the eternal One. Our reason clearly tells us that He is infinite Truth-that he must know all things and that He cannot utter an untruth or deceive us. Our reason likewise shows that He may, if He choose, make known to us many truths of which we are ignorant, and that, if He speak, He can make it certain, by divine signs, such as miracles and prophecies, that it is He who is teaching us, even though He employ a human agency.

Before Christ came God gave a revelation to one people whom He chose from amongst the various races. This people was not the most intelligent or most advanced in culture, as we understand it. But God gives His graces freely. The people He specially chose for the Old Testament or Covenant was the Jewish people. But we need not go into that matter at present. I just want to emphasize the fact that God did give a revelation, that He did reveal a religion, before Christ, though such revelation was far less perfect or complete than the Christian revelation.

God raised up holy men, Moses and the Prophets, through whom He made known His truth and His law to the Jewish people. He made it clear that the messengers or teachers He employed-Moses and the Prophets-were sent by Him or used by Him to give His revelation to men. How did He make it clear that they were speaking in His name, or that He was speaking through them? He did so by endowing these men with extraordinary holiness and by granting them the gift of prophecy-of foretelling future free events known only to Him-or giving them the power to perform miracles-works that only God can perform. The gift of prophecy and the power to work miracles were like a divine seal stamped on the message these men delivered to God's chosen people.

But the great revelation of God to man-the fullness of Divine Revelation-has come through Jesus Christ, who is not merely a Divine Messenger or Ambassador, but the very Son of God made man, that is, God Incarnate.

CHAPTER 3
THE NEW TESTAMENT AS AN HISTORICAL DOCUMENT

In this chat, my dear friend, I am going to introduce you to the New Testament (or the New Testament to you). Here is a copy of this wonderful work; I shall give it to you at the end of this talk. Read it carefully.

The New Testament consists of four Gospels (written records of the life of Christ), the Acts of the Apostles (a written record of the first sixty years of Christianity), twenty- one Epistles (letters written by Apostles to their converts), and the Apocalypse or Book of Revelations (the written account of a prophetic vision granted to one of the Apostles in his old age).

I have no intention of giving you a lesson in Scripture. The Catholic Church teaches that each of the written records I have just now mentioned is inspired by God- that, although these works were written by men, the real author is God, who simply made use of human beings as secondary agents. All Protestants, too, or practically all (until recent times), have been strenuous defenders of the inspiration of the Bible-of both the Old and the New Testaments. But there will be time enough later on to talk of inspiration. We must proceed gradually and logically -step by step-in these chats. And at present I am going to consider the books of the New Testament merely as genuine, truthful, intact, historical records. Once we have established the reliability of these books, especially of the Gospels, I shall proceed to show how they clearly prove the Divinity of Christ and the truth of His Church.

SPURIOUS AND AUTHENTIC DOCUMENTS

As a witness must be reliable before we can reasonably accept his statement, and as we must assent to his statement if he be reliable, SO a document must be reliable before we can reasonably accept what it records, and we must accept what i t records if it be reliable. I have already explained what is meant by the reliability of a witness. -But what is meant by the reliability of an historical document? What conditions must be fulfilled before its reliability is established?

The simplest way, perhaps, to illustrate this is to consider, first, what is meant by an unreliable document. A document that Professes to be reliable or trustworthy may be discredited for one (or more) of three reasons: (1) forgery, (2) deception or lying or untruthfulness, (3) corruption of the original text by addition, change, or diminution especially by change.

If, for instance, a certain book purported to be written by a close friend of the Duke of Windsor-let us say by George Dyson-and to give a full account of Edward the Eighth's brief span of life as king; i careful investigation it f, after were found that no such person as George Dyson ever existed or that George Dyson, a personal friend of the Duke, never wrote a single line of the book, then we should at once cast aside such a work as a mere fairy tale or, what is worse, a forgery.

Secondly, even though it is certain that a certain author or authoress, e.g., Maria Monk, wrote such a book, if it is also clearly established that such writer is either deceived or deceiving, i.e., either a lunatic or a liar, then no reasonable person will accept the statements or charges contained in such a discredited production.

Thirdly, even though we are certain that Gerald McIvor wrote an account of his three years' sojourn in Madagascar, and that he was a reliable writer, still if it be proved that a great deal of his original writing has been cut out, that what was kept has been constantly changed, and that much fiction, or untruth, has been added, then no thinking person will swallow the account as given in the present work.

But every reasonable person must accept a work as a true historical document, or a faithful or correct record of past events, if it can be clearly proved (1) that the work under consideration was written by the author to whom it is attributed, (2) that this author is reliable, i.e., neither deceived as to the events he recorded nor deceptive or untruthful in narrating them (that is, that he had evidence or at least true knowledge of such events and faithfully or truthfully chronicled them), and (3) that the work he wrote has not been substantially corrupted, i.e., that the record he wrote is substantially entire or intact. I say substantially, for the reliability of a work is not affected if some sentences have undergone slight changes which preserve the original meaning, if some minor or unimportant phrase has happened to drop out, etc.

Now, when the New Testament is submitted to these tests, it is abundantly clear to every well-disposed and right-thinking person that the books it contains are reliable historical documents. The Epistles, of course, are chiefly doctrinal instructions and moral exhortations, but they obviously contain many historical facts concerning Christ. The Apocalypse is essentially a prophetic book, though it, too, contains a certain narrative of Christ and His work. But we are concerned especially with the four Gospels, which are historical narratives of Christ's earthly life.

HISTORICAL VALUE OF NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS

Let me quote from an excellent work on the matter I am explaining. The title of the work is "The Gospels-Fact, Myth, or Legend," and the author is the well-known scholar and writer, J. P. Arendzen, Ph.D., D.D., M.A. Cantab. I shall gladly lend you this book. You need not read the whole of it, although this would be very beneficial if you had the time. In fact, I shall not ask you to read the book at all, though you are welcome to it. Listen to this passage, which refers to the Epistles:

"Let us take the collection of letters first. Practically no modern scholar who teaches at any University or recognized center of learning, whether he be Christian or not, and who is acknowledged to be an expert in these matters, denies that the bulk of these letters, nine-tenths of them, was written between the years 50 and 90 A.D. of the first century, and three fourths between 50 and 65 A.D. . . The only letter which is still impugned by some scholars as perhaps a second-century forgery is the short epistle known as Second Peter" (p. 2). I shall not here prove the genuineness of the second Epistle of St. Peter, for we shall not require that document in the chats which immediately follow.

As for the Gospels, the proofs of their reliability as historical records is simply overwhelming. If you are fond of reading and have the leisure, I shall lend you a pamphlet on "Bible Quizzes to a Street Preacher" and "Radio Replies," Volumes I, II and III, by Fathers Rumble and Carty. But again I am not asking you to do so, for our chats alone will give you a sufficient knowledge and sufficient proof of the Catholic religion.

We might summarize thus the detailed proofs of the trustworthiness of the Gospels:

1. General Argument: Every scholar (I mean every genuine historian) admits that by the end of the second century the four Gospels were received and admitted throughout Christendom as genuine, truthful, intact records of the life and teaching of Christ, written by the four authors to whom they were ascribed: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In fact, it is historically certain that the Gospels were thus well known amongst Christians during the first part of the second century. But, in the light of all the circumstances of the time, it is a sheer impossibility to explain such unreserved acceptance of these four documents unless they were reliable records of the events they narrate.

The Apostles, who sealed their faith with their blood, would never have allowed spurious or untruthful records of Christianity to be circulated; converts from Judaism would never have given them the same authority as the books of the Old Testament; the Jews who attacked the Christian religion would have disproved the reliability of such documents, as they could so easily have done in the case of forgeries and myths; pagan scholars of the first rank would never have admitted them, much less put complete faith in them; heretics-those who broke away from the Christian Church- would have repudiated them; Christians would not have died in thousands rather than deny them.

2. Particular Argument: Testimony of early writers. I shall not weary you, my dear inquirer, with a string of quotations. You may, if you wish, read them carefully in the works mentioned, which I shall gladly lend you. But let me give you one very striking testimony.

ST. IRENAEUS

St. John the Apostle and Evangelist had amongst his disciples a distinguished pupil named Polycarp, who later laid down his life for the Christian faith. Polycarp instructed Irenaeus, who was born in Asia Minor and lived there in his younger days. Irenaeus, after leaving his native country, spent some time in Rome and became Bishop of Lyons (in France). He is admittedly one of the great scholars of the second century and one of the most illustrious martyrs. His testimony, then, regarding the Gospels, is surely of immense value. This is what Irenaeus wrote in his well-known work, "Against Heresies":

"Matthew wrote a Gospel for the Jews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and establishing the Church at Rome. After their departure Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed down to us in writing the information which Peter had given. And Luke, the follower of Paul, wrote out the Gospel which Paul used to preach. Later John, the disciple of the Lord, who had reclined on His breast, published his Gospel during his sojourn in Asia Minor."

GOSPELS AND CLASSICS COMPARED

We must remember that printing was not invented for long centuries after the first appearance of the Gospels, and that they had to be transcribed as had all written works of the time. Although the original copies and, indeed, the first transcribed copies of religious and secular works have perished, faithfully made copies continued. Now, although the earliest manuscripts we have of the Latin and Greek classics, which are accepted as genuine by classical scholars, date from the eighth or ninth centuries, our manuscripts of the Gospels go back to the fourth and fifth centuries, and even earlier. Again, the earliest references to Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War are not found till one hundred years after Caesar's death, and then only in the writings of Plutarch and Suetonius, whereas there are abundant references to the four Gospels and their authors within a much shorter time from the death of the writers. If certain prejudiced critics applied to the Greek and Latin classics the same method as they do in examining the Gospels, we should have to say a long farewell to our cherished Greek and Latin classical works (probably to the great joy of many a high school student).

Nothing but pride or prejudice or mental blindness can prevent our accepting as a collection of genuine, truthful, intact historical documents of the New Testament, which I shall quote in detail in our subsequent chats.

CHAPTER 4
THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

In our last chapter I concluded by saying that I would quote from the New Testament in this talk. I shall do this in order to prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; that He is truly God, Who became man for love of us; that He is the God- Man.

I would ask you to read, in your leisure moments, the four Gospels, which you will find in the New Testament I gave you. In this chat I shall single out some prominent passages which clearly show that Christ is God.

No one (I mean no person in his right senses, or at least no person who has a shred of historical knowledge) denies that Christ is a true historic figure; that He lived and died in Palestine at the beginning of the Christian era; that, in fact, the letters B.C. and A.D. (Anno Domini-the Year of the Lord), which are universally used, proclaim the historic existence Of Jesus Christ. But, while Christians-at least all genuine Christians-firmly believe that Christ is God as well as man, unbelievers- rationalists, agnostics, and atheists-hold that Jesus was simply an outstanding personality, a great man, a wonderful teacher of what is noble and good. Even no Jew who lays claim to any scholarship doubts the existence of Christ. Indeed, it is a sad fact that since the year 88 A.D. the Jews have added to their most solemn prayer a bitter curse against the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, thus reluctantly testifying to both His existence and His influence on men. Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, prominent Jewish Liberal of New York City, proclaimed Jesus to be "the radiant Jewish teacher of Palestine" (January 3, 1926). I was in America at the time, and I well remember the brilliant and beautiful open letter which Dr. David Goldstein, a distinguished convert from Judaism to Christianity (to the very fullness of Catholicity), wrote on that occasion to Rabbi Wise. In this letter Dr. Goldstein conclusively proves the Divinity of Christ. Here is one striking passage:

"If, as you aver, Jesus attained to heavenly heights -if He lived divinely as a man-He must necessarily have been the personification of truth, since the adherence to truth is the test of any man's integrity. What, then, my dear Rabbi Wise? Is it too much to expect that yourself and your admirers should be willing to listen to and also to accept the statements of so sublime a Jewish teacher as to who in truth He says He is?"

That is just the point. Since, as Rabbi Wise admits, and with him prominent rationalists like Lecky and Renan, Christ, the true, historical Christ, was a man of most eminent integrity and holiness, it follows that we must accept what He says of Himself. If He declares, explicitly or implicitly, that He is God, then we are bound to render Him divine homage. If He claims to be God, and we are unwilling to admit such claims, t en not only could we not proclaim Him to be a radiant teacher or a man of sublime integrity, but we should be obliged to regard Him as a tremendous impostor. Once we admit the character of Jesus as portrayed by Lecky, Renan, Wise, and others outside the pale of Christianity, we must, if we are logical, go one step further and acknowledge Christ as God, for He clearly claimed to be divine, to be the Son of God, to be God Himself. Let us consider Christ's own words and acts.

CHRIST'S OWN CLAIMS

1. He teaches as God. You have heard that it was said to them of old . . . but I say to you. . . (Matt. V., 21). Here He teaches and legislates as God. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Luke 6:40).

2. He claims to be the Supreme Judge of man and gives, as the reason for rewarding the charitable: "As often as you have done it to one of these, the least of my little ones, you have done it to Me" (Matt. 25).

3. He forgives sin by His own authority. (Mark 2; Luke 8)

4. He prescribes faith in Himself and love for Himself as conditions of salvation (Matt. 10 and 18).

5. Any work, He declares, that is done for His sake, will be eternally rewarded (Mark 10; Matt. 5, 10, 19).

6. He promises His disciples His own abiding presence and help (Matt. X11, 18, 28).

7. He receives homage as the natural Son of God (Matt. 16).

8. In prescribing the form of baptism, He places Himself on an equality with the Father (Matt. 28).

9. The chief scope of the fourth Gospel, whose reliability cannot be reasonably questioned, is to show that Christ is truly God. From the opening passage, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," to the final words, "But these things have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God," the Divinity of Jesus Christ is clearly taught and insisted on by the Beloved Disciple, John the Evangelist. In this Gospel, too, the claims made by Christ Himself are narrated in a striking manner, and His divinity is expressed as clearly as possible in the discourses which are recorded of Him. He claims to be the only- begotten Son of God (John 3); He declares that He works together with the Father (John 5); He claims the power to raise whom He wishes from the dead (John 5); He teaches that He is one with the Father (John 10); that whoever sees Him sees the Father (John 14); that He is eternal (John 8); that He is the resurrection and the life; the way, the truth, and the life (John 11 and 14); He accepts the adoration of the man whose sight He had restored (john 10), and of St. Thomas, who exclaimed: "My Lord and my God" (John 20).

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS

A miracle is an external action or fact which shows forth God's almighty power and infinite knowledge; or a f act or deed, perceptible by us, that is produced outside or above the order of all nature, i.e., an external action or f act that only God can do or perform. A man may throw a stone into the air; that is not a miracle because the natural power of man performs the act. An immense ship is blown up by shells or torpedoes; that is not a miracle, because it is effected by means devised by man and fashioned from the natural forces and material of Nature. But no created agent can raise a dead man to life, such an act is beyond the forces or order of the whole of created Nature; such an action can be performed by God alone; it is an external act, because it is visible to man; it is a divine act, because only God's omnipotence can effect it. And therefore it is a miracle.

But, my dear friend, I am not giving you a talk on miracles. If you desire more information about them, I shall gladly lend you some literature. And later on, if you have time, I shall tell you all about two visits I paid to Lourdes and the study I made of the records kept there, which show beyond doubt that many miracles have been wrought at that world-famed shrine. But let us consider the miracles worked by Jesus Christ.

In the presence of many witnesses of every rank in life; in various places and at different times; on behalf of all kinds of sufferers and persons in need, Christ worked miracle after miracle during the three years of His public life. The miracles performed by Christ are genuine historical facts which no person of normal intelligence, unbiased mind, and upright heart can fail to accept.

Christ, by an act of His will, gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, speech to the dumb, health to the sick; He quelled the storm raging on the sea of Tiberias, multiplied a few loaves and fishes to feed thousands of people, and caused the rabble to fall prostrate in the Garden of Olives; He even raised the dead to life. So striking and public was the resurrection of Lazarus, who had already been buried, that the Jewish leaders wished to kill Lazarus, as if (remarks St. Augustine) He Who had already raised Lazarus from the dead could not raise him again if he were killed!

All these miracles Christ worked by His own power, as is shown in the Gospels and expressly declared by Himself. And He claimed that these divine works were performed in testimony of His doctrine. Hence that doctrine must be divine. And one of the cardinal points of His teaching, the very fundamental truth of His doctrine, is that He is truly the Son of God, the only-begotten Son of God, one with the Father, the eternal One. Thus, both because of the miracles themselves and because of the doctrine to which they give unmistakably divine testimony, we must acknowledge Christ as God.

While dealing with the miracles of Christ, I could treat also of His prophecies, His accurate foretelling of future events known to God alone. The argument drawn from a consideration of His prophecies is akin to the proof derived from His miracles.

CHRIST'S GLORIOUS RESURRECTION

The resurrection of Christ may be termed His supreme miracle. He clearly foretold that He would be put to death (by crucifixion) and that He would rise again on the third day. Even His enemies were aware of this prophecy and set a guard over the tomb in which Jesus, who had certainly died on the Cross, was laid. But Christ came forth gloriously living from the tomb and was seen by the Apostles and hundreds of other witnesses during the forty days that followed. His resurrection is the crowning proof of His divinity, as His death on the Cross is an evident proof of His mortal human nature. Our simple Catechism rightly says: "By dying on the Cross Christ showed Himself a real mortal man, and by raising Himself from the dead He proved Himself God."

TESTIMONY OF THE MARTYRS

This chat, my dear friend, has been long enough. I have condensed the chief proofs that Christ is truly God, and these proofs are abundantly clear and convincing. In conclusion, however, I would stress the fact that the Apostles and others who had lived during Christ's life and heard Him gladly shed their blood to confess His divinity. Would they have given up all that the world holds dear, even life itself, unless they were absolutely convinced that Christ was God and rightly claimed their whole-hearted love and service. Since the days of the Apostles millions of Christians have also joyfully sealed with their blood their faith in the Divinity of Jesus Christ. May you also, my dear inquirer, not only recognize Christ as God, but also submit your mind and heart to the teachings of the Church which He founded. Of Christ's one Church I shall tell you in our next chat.

CHAPTER 5
THE TRUE CHURCH

While Christ lived on this earth, He, the Incarnate Son of God, "the Way, the Truth, and the Life," taught men. During the three years of His public life He proclaimed God's revealed truth-Divine Revelation. This He did in the Jewish synagogues (which were like smaller churches), in the temple (which was like a glorious cathedral), at the lakeside, on the mountain, in desert places, and from Peter's barque. At times He discoursed with but a few persons, at other times in the presence of great crowds, and again to one person at a time. But He almost always had with Him His twelve chosen Apostles. To these He often explained in private what He had taught in public.

Since Christ was not to remain always on this earth, in His visible presence, how was His doctrine to be perpetuated, or taught forever, on this earth? The answer is that He instituted a teaching body of men, a living college of teachers, who were appointed by Him to make known His teaching till the end of time. In other words, He founded a church to carry on, until the end of the world, His own work of teaching and sanctifying (making holy) mankind.

HOW MANY CHURCHES ARE?

But, my dear friend, you may ask: How many churches are there? To me, you may say, there seems no end of churches or religious denominations. I have heard of the Church of England, the Methodists, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, the Mormons, the Baptists, the Salvation Army, the Witnesses of Jehovah, and the other denominations. And, of course, I am aware of the existence of the Catholic Church, or, as some call it, the Church of Rome. This is all bewildering to an inquirer.

To Your inquiry in this matter, I would answer that You may, if you wish, speak of those different churches, though I would prefer to call all of them, with one exception, just religious denominations or sects. However, let the term church pass for the present. Then I shall say that there is only one true church. For the moment You need not ask which is that Church, but I am sure you Will readily admit that all the churches or denominations You have mentioned cannot be equally true. Why, there is hopeless contradiction in their teachings or tenets or doctrines. Suppose you were teaching a class of children and you gave them the simple question: How many dozen are there in one hundred and twenty? And suppose one child said five, another six, a third fourteen, and a fourth ten, would you tell the class that all the answers were right? Certainly not, for, if the child who answered ten is right, the others are evidently wrong.

Again, if you asked two boys whether gold is more precious than brass, and one boy replied yes while the other answered -no, would you tell the boys that both were right?

Well, just as we cannot admit contrary or contradictory answers to the same question, so we cannot admit that religious bodies which are quite opposed in their teachings and principles are all equally true. Our reason tells us that there can be but one true religion or one true church. Only if we admit the absurd statement that there can be a dozen true Gods, or a dozen different Christ's, can we hold that there are a dozen true churches. Besides, Christ always spoke of the Church in the singular number--my Church, the Church.

Some well-meaning, though illogical, persons say that, after all, we are but taking different roads to the same destination. Now, if you wished to travel from .San Francisco to Los Angeles, and one person told you to go north, while another bade you go south, would you accept both directions as equally good, as equally true? Obviously not. But how, I ask, is it that people can be so logical or reasonable in ordinary life-in school, in business, in motoring, etc.-and yet admit, or unquestioningly accept, such absurd principles and statements in the matter of religion?

WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH?

Well, my dear friend, you may say: Yes, all that you say is quite reasonable; there clearly can be but one true church; but how am I to recognize it or "sort it out" from the medley around me?

I shall answer your question in the words of a little child. I have often put your question to our school-children and the little ones have frequently replied: The Catholic Church is the one true Church, because all the other churches were made by men, but only the Catholic Church was made by Jesus Christ.

Let us now examine this simple answer. Were all the other churches made by mere men? A knowledge of history will convince you that such is the case. Let us first of all take the Anglican Church, which seems to be the largest religious body in many English-speaking countries, though not in all of them. What is the origin of this religious body? Undoubtedly it was not in existence before the sixteenth century. When Henry VIII. ascended the throne, the whole of England was Catholic (or, as some would say, Roman Catholic). But Henry wanted to put away his lawful wife, Catherine of Aragon, and marry Anne Boleyn. He appealed to the Pope, the recognized Head of the Church, for a divorce, or an annulment of his marriage with Catherine. This, of course, the Pope could not grant. So Henry declared himself Head of the Church in England, set up his own ecclesiastical tribunal, got the desired divorce, and married Anne. The "Act of Supremacy," which declared the King Head of the Church in England, is known to every student of English history. And the "Oath of Supremacy," which Sir Thomas More, like other faithful Catholics, refused to take, though his heroism cost his life, is also well known. That "Bluff King Hal" is the founder and father of the Anglican Church cannot be denied by anyone who squarely faces the facts of history.

The Lutheran Church or religion was founded in Germany by Martin Luther, who is called the real father of Protestantism. The Presbyterian religion owes its origin to Calvin, and, in Scotland, to his disciple, John Knox. The Methodist Church traces its beginning to John Wesley and his brother Charles. And nowadays we have still newer religions. Brigham Young, Mrs. Eddy, "Judge" Rutherford, and a score of others have gone their own ways, starting their own peculiar denominations.

We can tell the name of the founder of every non-Catholic denomination, the country in which it sprang up, the year of its beginning, and the circumstances of its origin. But, when we turn to our separated brethren and ask them to answer the same questions regarding the Catholic Church, they are compelled to remain silent or else to admit that the Catholic Church was founded nineteen centuries ago by Jesus Christ. No wonder that scholarly Englishman, saintly churchman, and distinguished convert from Anglicanism, John Henry Newman, exclaimed: "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant."

In our next chat, I shall show how Christ established His Church and shall prove that the Church is surely the Church of Rome, or, as it is more correctly called, the Catholic Church.

REMOVING SOME MISGIVINGS

But before closing let me, in a truly friendly spirit, remove one or two misgivings.

First, we do not pass judgment on the conscience of our non-Catholic friends. They have been born and brought up in their respective denominations and cannot be held responsible for what Henry VIII. or Martin Luther or Calvin or John Knox did. Many of them are in good faith and are leading edifying Christian lives. Certainly we Catholics have no wish to quarrel about religion. Religion is too sacred a thing to quarrel about. But it is. of supreme importance and should, therefore, be carefully and prayerfully examined.

Secondly, the only reason why we are desirous of showing our separated brethren the truth of the Catholic faith is that we love them and wish them to share with us the blessings of the Church established by Jesus Christ. We invite them to enter the grand kingdom instituted by our loving Redeemer in order that they may be as rich as we are in the gifts of God (without any merit on our part) in this life, and as blessed and happy as we hope to be in eternity.

And now, my dear inquirer, while awaiting further instruction, pray fervently that God may give you light to see His holy will and strength to accomplish it. I recommend you to say earnestly that beautiful hymn composed by Newman and now sung throughout the English-speaking world:

Lead, Kindly Light, amid the encircling- gloom,
Lead Thou me on.

The night is dark, and I am far from home;
Lead Thou me on.

Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see

The distant scene. One step enough for me.