Table of Contents

Chapter 11--The Sources of Revelation
Chapter 12--Catholic and Protestant Rules of Faith
Chapter 13--Private Judgement
Chapter 14--The Creation of Man
Chapter 15--Original Sin

NOTE: At this stage of the chats or instructions, or even earlier, many an inquirer will have arrived at the conviction that the Catholic Church is the infallible exponent of revealed truth, and will be ready, by the grace of faith, to assent firmly to whatever the Church teaches as revealed by God and also to accept wholeheartedly whatever else she officially teaches (for the moment this last sentence need not be amplified). At any rate, the writer's experience has been that many inquirers, who at the beginning had no intention of embracing the Catholic faith, have gladly made their submission after a few chats.

From now on, in these chats, I shall treat our inquirer as a prospective convert, who has clearly expressed his intention of entering the Fold of Peter. Of course, as I deal with individual doctrines, I shall continue to offer suitable proofs of them.

THE FOUNTAINS OF REVEALED TRUTH

You have now, my dear friend, definitely accepted the Catholic position, and I heartily congratulate you. You readily admit and assent to the truth that there is a God, the infinite Being. You are convinced that He has graciously given a revelation to mankind, the fullness of that revelation having been given by Jesus Christ, God Incarnate. You firmly hold that the Catholic Church is divine and that she is the infallible exponent or teacher of God's revealed truth. And you are quite ready to assent explicitly or expressly to each doctrine, which she officially teaches, and which you have now already accepted at least implicitly. You have, my dear friend, arrived at this blessed state of mind by the aid of Gods grace, about which you will be told in due time. In a word, you have now, by God’s grace, made your Act of Faith. You are now desirous of learning the individual doctrines of the Church with a view to being received into the Church. Thus you are what is termed a catechumen--one who is at heart a Catholic and is being prepared for formal reception into the Church.

While setting before you the official teaching of the Church and explaining each doctrine, I shall at the same time give you suitable proofs of these doctrines, so that you may grasp them more easily and be able to give a reason of the faith that is in you But, before descending to particulars, I wish to tell you about the Fountains of Revealed Truth-those wells or springs whence the Church draws forth for us her divine doctrines, and which are aptly termed the Sources of Revelation (or Revealed Truth). Having done this, I shall then show you the great difference, the essential difference, between the Catholic religion and Protestantism-the fundamental difference between the two. I shall show you, that is, the fundamental difference between the Catholic and Protestant Rule of Faith--the important, underlying principle which guides us in determining what doctrines exactly we must believe.

In order to explain to you the source-or, rather, the twin sources-of God's revealed truth, I shall first offer you an easy illustration'

A SIMPLE EXAMPLE

Imagine two lovely tanks or wells, connected by a pipe, which will allow the water to pass from one to the other. Then picture a great shower of rain falling from the clouds and filling both tanks. See a number of thirsty children standing near those tanks or wells while their mother draws pure, crystal, refreshing water for each child.

Well, you may ask, what has that to do with our chat? It is an example, my dear convert, that will be helpful to you. The thirsty children represent human souls (the members of the human race in this life), the mother represents the Church, the heavenly shower signifies Divine Revelation, and the two tanks or wells stand for the twin source in which are contained the truths of revelation. These two sources are called Scripture and Tradition.

MEANING OF SACRED SCRIPTURE AND DIVINE TRADITION

The Sacred Scriptures comprise the books of the Old and the New Testament. I have already proved to you that the New Testament is a collection of genuine, truthful, historical documents. But the infallible Church teaches that they are also inspired, that is, that they were written by Apostles (or disciples of Apostles) under the direct influence of God, Who moved the sacred writers to write what they did and guided them in the actual writing so as to exclude all possible error. The Church teaches likewise that the Old Testament is inspired. You will have time enough to learn more about the Old Testament later on. Thus whatever is found in the Bible is God's Own Truth. But the Bible is not the only (or complete) fountain or source of revealed truth, for only a few of the Apostles were inspired to write Gospels or Epistles, and even these few did not profess to write a full record of Christ's teaching, as we shall see in our next chat.

Whatever revealed truths were not written down under divine inspiration, but were handed down by the Apostles by word of mouth to their lawful successors (and have been constantly taught by the Church) are known as Divine Tradition. "Scripture" means "writing" or "something written"; "Tradition" means "handing down" or "something handed down."

Sometimes our non-Catholic friends ask us where a certain Catholic doctrine is found in the Bible. The answer is that Sacred Scripture does not contain all the water that fell from the heavens. Some of the truths which God has revealed are contained in Tradition, which is as pure and holy a spring or source as the Bible.

As the children mentioned could not, by themselves, get that refreshing water from the tanks or wells, but needed their mother's sure help, so men cannot safely or reliably get doctrines-at least all revealed doctrines-from the two sources I have mentioned (the Bible and Tradition) without the unfailing help, the infallible guidance, of the Church.

You must have noticed that I pictured the two tanks or wells as connected by a pipe, so that water may flow from one to the other. For years after Christ's ascension there was no written New Testament, and the doctrines of Christ were preached and taught by the Apostles by word of mouth. Only by degrees and after long years was the full New Testament completed in written form-I mean the books which make up what we call the New Testament. Some of the waters of revelation were gradually flowing from the well of Tradition into the well of Scripture, although all the water did not pass into the latter well.

Let me now, my dear catechumen, sum up this chat: All the truths that God has revealed to His Church are contained in two sources, Scripture and Tradition, and only the Catholic Church can tell us, without the slightest error, what those truths are. We firmly believe all that God has revealed because God is Truth itself. And we know with the greatest certainty what God- has revealed because the Church infallibly (without the slightest danger of error) tells US.

 Those Christians who reject the infallible authority of the Catholic Church offer a strange substitute. They say that the Bible is the complete record or only source of God's revelation to mankind and that it should be interpreted according to the private judgment of each individual. The Catholic Church, on the contrary, maintains that the Bible is but a partial depository of Divine Revelation (as I explained in our last chat), and that the inspired Book is to be interpreted not according to the private judgment of the individual, but by the living, infallible Church.

Thus Protestantism and Catholicism differ fundamentally on two matters-the source-or fountain of Revelation, and the means of recognizing the truths contained in that source. In this Chat, my dear catechumen, I shall prove that the Bible is not the complete record or only source of Revelation; in our next chat I shall deal with the question of Private Judgment.

THE BIBLE CANNOT PROVE ITS OWN INSPIRATION

We ask our non-Catholic friends this fair question: If you reject the authority of the Church, how can you know which book is the Bible?

Let us bear in mind that the Bible is not really a single book, but a collection of many books which were written at various times. Now, take any particular book in the Bible. How do you know that such a work is inspired? Obviously, unless you wish to contradict your own rule of faith, you must banish every authority or extrinsic agent and prove the inspiration of such work from within.

Do you hold that the book is inspired just because it says it is inspired? But this would be supposing the very thing to be proved, what we call begging the question (petitio principii)-supposing the inspiration of the very book whose inspiration you wish to prove. Besides, how many books of the Bible speak of their own inspiration? It would be surprising to you to find the answer to this question.

Is it the subject-matter of the book that convinces you that the work is inspired? This test also fails to work, for in the Bible we find (in certain books) accounts of revolting sins and atrocious crimes. God no doubt had His wise reasons for moving the human writer to record these things, but, from the nature of the matter, we should not infer that the record is inspired. And, if you apply the test of sublime matter, why do you, after granting that Genesis is inspired, reject the Book of Wisdom, which the Catholic Church teaches to be inspired? Why, after admitting as inspired the Song of Solomon (the Canticle of Canticles), do you reject the Book of Ecclesiasticus? These two books which Protestantism rejects are certainly more sublime and elevating than those two which it admits as inspired.

Our Protestant friend may say that he accepts as inspired those books of the Old Testament which Christ quoted, and those books of the New Testament which were written by Apostles. We reply: As regards the first part of your statement, we would remind you that you are appealing to an authority which is extrinsic to the book in question. Besides Christ gave comparatively few quotations from the Old Testament, and you can logically attribute inspiration only to these isolated quotations. As to the second part of your statement, we ask: Why, then, admit the inspiration of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, who were not Apostles?

You have a greater difficulty when we come to the question of the inspiration of the whole Bible. Certainly it required an extrinsic agent to recognize as inspired each book-to choose it from amongst so many other documents-and to collect all those various books from Genesis to the Apocalypse (the Book of Revelations). This is evident, for a number of inanimate documents, written at various times and places during the course of long centuries, could not fly spontaneously together into one volume, and exclaim triumphantly: "Look at me; I am the Bible!" An extrinsic, living agent must have recognized those documents or books and collected them into the present Bible. Do you, my dear Protestant friend, admit the reliability or rather infallibility of this agent? If not, then, alas! you can never be sure that your Bible is God's word. For us Catholics, of course, there is no difficulty; this agent is certainly infallible, for it is the Church of Christ, without which we could not determine which books are inspired.

If the Bible alone is the source of Revelation; if we are not to believe as revealed by God anything not found in the Bible, then we should not believe this very truth (that the Bible contains all God's teaching), unless it is contained in the Bible. But in vain will our non-Catholic search the Scriptures for any such claim on the part of the Bible. In fact, quite the contrary is stated and, indeed, most emphatically. It is rather amusing to find that the most emphatic condemnation of the Bible alone theory is found in the Bible itself. Protestants, therefore, who profess to believe the Bible, should admit, on the Bible's own word, that the Bible is not the complete record, the only fount, of God's revealed truth.

I would ask our Protestant friends to consider the following stern facts:

During the three years' training of the Apostles Christ did not once tell them to write (if we take the written Gospel as the source of our information). Texts in abundance are found which show that their Divine Master commanded them to teach and preach but not a single text is found to show that He commanded them to write. Now, if Christ's revelation was to be contained only in the written Word, is it conceivable that He would have 'left them free not to write that Revelation? And is it likely that only two out of the twelve would have written Gospels, and then so long after their Master's ascension? Is it credible that only four of them would have written Epistles, some of which are exceedingly meager?

Of the Bible alone contains all God's revelation, then, strange to say, Christians could not have known for the first sixty years of the Church's existence what truths Christ had taught, for the Gospels were not completed until sixty years had passed.

1. St. John was the last Evangelist to write. Yet his closing words ran thus: "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; but if every one of these should be written, not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have-to be written."
2. The Epistles of St. Paul, which Protestants rightly accept as part of the inspired Bible, most clearly assert that the Scriptures alone do not contain all that we must believe. Consider, e.g., the following passages:

"How shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? . . . Therefore faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Romans 10, 14-17).

IMPOSSIBLE FOR MANY TO GET OR READ THE BIBLE

Even had the Apostles written a complete exposition of the Christian religion (which, as I have shown, they had not the remotest intention of.doing), how were they to disseminate or circulate 'their books? Printing was not invented as yet, and to transcribe the New Testament, not to speak of the entire Bible, would have taken a very considerable time, and consequently but few copies, comparatively speaking, would have been procurable. Besides, written works were very costly; what were those poor people to do who could not buy a Bible? Again, many persons were unable to read; was God's Revelation intended only for the learned? Then what of those numberless people who could read, but who could not understand Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek? Were they to look for a learned friend to translate into their own language the Scriptures? And, if they could find such a friend, what guarantee would they have had that he was giving them a true translation?

Surely our loving Redeemer, Who shed His blood for all men, never intended the precious graces of Redemption, which flow from His enlightening doctrine, to reach only the rich and the learned?

In our last chat, my dear convert, I showed you that the Bible does not contain the whole of God's revealed truth; that it is but a partial depository of Revelation; that it is only one of two equally pure fountains of Divine Teaching. In the present chat I am going to prove to you that the Bible should not be interpreted by what is called private judgment, or the sense or understanding of each individual. Let me first give you a simple example.

We shall suppose that a discussion arises about the meaning of a certain law of the land-some important enactment of the State. Now, just imagine what would happen if every citizen put his own interpretation on that statutory or legal document and acted accordingly! You may work this out for your own amusement regarding dozens of laws that you know. The principle is absurd. In every well regulated State there is a duly appointed supreme tribunal of competent jurists-a group of eminent judges-whose verdict determines the meaning of the laws of the State when controversies arise. I shall mention one such interesting case. When I arrived in America in 1923 (in November), a law had been passed in the State of Oregon, according to which law all children in that State would be obliged, from the age of eight (I think) to sixteen, to attend some public school. Thus, according to that law, all Catholic children would have been compelled to give up attending a Catholic school. The law was passed under the influence of the Ku Klux Klan (a crazy, bigoted, secret organization), whose pernicious influence dominated the members of both houses of the legislature in the State of Oregon and also evidently the Governor, who signed the Bill. But the Catholics knew the Constitution of the United States, and so they appealed to the Supreme Court, which, after duly hearing the case, declared the law unconstitutional. Every intelligent American then "had the laugh on" the wiseacres in the Oregon legislative houses and on the wonderful Governor of the State!

Sometimes, rather, more often-the supreme legal authority in a country has to decide, not the question as to whether a certain law is constitutional, but the meaning of certain clauses of the law.

Now, can we imagine that, while ordinary men, often pagans, have the sense to establish a competent authority for the correct interpretation of human laws, Christ would have failed in so vital a matter and left His written Law (the inspired Bible) to be understood and interpreted just as each member of the human race, or each individual Christian, thought fit? Such a supposition is evidently absurd and is also are insult to the wisdom of God Incarnate.

THE BIBLE A DIFFICULT BOOK TO INTERPRET

The very difficulty of such interpretation renders private judgment impracticable as a means of ascertaining the true meaning of the Scriptures. When we consider the various human authors (under God's inspiration) who have written, each in his own style, the books that constitute the Bible; when we consider the many figures of speech (generally oriental) they employ; when we realize the sublimity of the matter of which they frequently treat, and especially the vagueness and obscurity of the prophetic books-when we consider all this, we can easily see that private judgment is a futile principle.

PRIVATE JUDGMENT SELF-CONTRADICTORY

This means fails also for the reason that, in practice, it is self-contradictory. Just look at the number of conflicting sects that have sprung up from the application of the principle of private judgment, and consider the hopeless differences of opinion within the same sect, without any competent authority to decide which is right. Why, a few years ago Dr. Angus, a Presbyterian minister and professor in Sydney, publicly denied the Divinity of Christ. Vehement discussions ensued, but Dr. Angus still maintains his opinion-and his place of honor as a Presbyterian! In the Anglican Church we see Bishop Barnes, of Birmingham, England, teaching doctrines opposed to the very essence of Christianity, and yet going along "smiling and serene," continuing his work as bishop (save the mark!). I know from personal chats with fervent Anglicans how keenly they feel this, but they are powerless to do anything about it, just as the Presbyterians of Sydney are unable to do anything effective in the case of Dr. Angus. Once the principle of the Bible alone and private judgment is admitted, I fail to see what effectual steps they can take.

THE BIBLE ITSELF CONDEMNS PRIVATE JUDGMENT

The Scriptures themselves not only do not approve of the free exercise of private judgment, in matters of faith, but, on the contrary, emphatically condemn it.

Our Divine Lord threatens with everlasting condemnation those who will not believe the doctrines preached by the living, authoritative voice of the Apostles, and He places on a level with the heathen and the publican those who will not hear the Church. Evidently, then, private judgment, far from being the prescribed means of interpreting Scripture, can even lead souls to perdition.

The Bible expressly repudiates private judgment. Thus St. Peter writes of St. Paul's Epistles: "As also in his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16). The same Apostle tells us that "no prophecyof Scripture is made by private interpretation" (2 Peter 1: 20).

The need of an authoritative exponent of the written word is shown by several striking examples. The two disciples, journeying to Emmaus, although they knew well the Scriptures, were quite at a loss to understand them until Christ Himself explained them. And, when Philip the deacon heard the Ethiopian reading the prophecy of Isaiah, he asked: "Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?" To which the eunuch replied: "And how can I, unless someone show me!" Whereupon Philip explained to him the mystery of Redemption, got him to make his act of faith, and forthwith baptized him.

PRACTICE OF PROTESTANTS CONTRADICTS THEIR OWN THEORY

Since the Protestant Rule of Faith is really unworkable, non-Catholics contradict in practice what they formulate in theory. The Protestant child receives the Bible on a merely human authority-on the word of its parents or Sunday school teacher. The educated Protestant admits the inspiration of the Bible on the authority of Tradition, or, what may seem more remarkable still, on the authority of the Church of Rome "Deny the Scripture also," wrote Luther in sarcasm to Zwingli, "for we have received it, too, from the Pope."

"I would not believe the Gospel," wrote the great luminary St. Augustine, eleven centuries before Luther, "unless the authority of the Church moved me to do so."

Nor do our non-Catholic friends embrace only those doctrines and laws taught in Scripture; otherwise they would keep holy the Sabbath (Saturday) and not Sunday. For us Catholics there is no difficulty in this matter, for, as I have already explained, the Bible is not the only depository of God's truth, and, besides, the Church has power to legislate. The observance of the Sabbath was, at least in part, a mere ceremonial law of the Jewish religion. Certainly the natural law prescribes that we should set apart some time for the worship of our Creator. In the Old Law God designated the seventh day of the week (the Sabbath) as the day of rest and prayer and prescribed in detail how it was to be spent. Protestants, who profess to follow the Bible alone, should return to that Jewish practice. The Catholic explanation is that this ceremonial law of the Jewish law ceased, like the Jewish sacrifices and circumcision, by the establishment of the New Testament by Jesus Christ. Then the Church, exercising her legislative power, commanded her members to observe, instead of the seventh day of the week, the first day, in honor of Christ's glorious Resurrection. She also determined, and still determines, in what way her members are to sanctify that day.

It is evident, too, that the Protestant privilege of private judgment is greatly circumscribed in practice. Why all this disturbance in a home (in so many cases) when a member of a Protestant family decides to become a Catholic? To those who object, surely the convert may reasonably answer: "You tell me that I must interpret the Bible by my own intelligence, or according to my own private judgment. Well, my dear family that is just what I am doing. I have read the Gospels and the Epistles, and it is as clear as day to me that Christ founded a living, infallible Church, which could not change. That Church must be the Catholic Church. I have fully satisfied my private judgment on that important point. Now, in seeking admission into the Catholic Church, whose doctrines I shall then wholeheartedly accept by the gift of faith, I am but following my own interpretation of the Bible. Please allow me to exercise this grand privilege of private judgment and let us all live together affectionately and happily."

NOT A VICIOUS CIRCLE

A vicious circle is the name given to one example of false reasoning. It is committed if one proved A from B, and then B from A. Here is an example: "William is Samuel's father, because Samuel is William's son." I once heard a Bishop examining a number of children for Confirmation. The Bishop asked a certain boy: "How should we keep Sunday?" The boy at once answered: "As we keep holidays." "And how should we keep holidays?" asked his Lordship. To the evident amusement of the Bishop and parish priest, the lad answered promptly: "As we keep Sunday."

Now, some persons who think themselves smart sometimes object: "You Catholics argue in a vicious circle, for you prove the Church from the Bible and then the Bible from the Church."

The answer is simple. One method of proving the truth of the Catholic Church is the historical method, although it is not the only one. I have given it special (though not exclusive) attention in these chats. I would sum it up thus:

First we prove, by the accepted rules of historical criticism, that, as ordinary human documents, as ordinary historical records, the four Gospels are genuine, intact, and truthful. The inspiration of the Scriptures does not enter into this matter at all.

We next prove, as I have done in these chats, from the reliable historical documents mentioned, that Christ established a living, infallible Church. And on the authority of this Church we accept by faith whatever she proposes to our belief. One of the articles she teaches is that the Bible is inspired. This we assent to as an article of Divine and Catholic faith, a truth revealed by God to His Church and declared to us as such by her infallible authority.

You have now, my dear catechumen, traversed the whole field of general or fundamental defense of the Church's position in this world. It remains for me to talk over with you her individual doctrines.

Our reason tells us that God alone is eternal, self-existent, infinite, and that all else was made by Him. In this chat I shall talk of the visible world that world of things that come under our senses. This includes men, although the chief element in man his soul-is a spirit, that is, something that can exist and act independently of matter. But in this life the human soul is united to the body to form a complete human nature. However, my dear catechumen, we shall come to the soul presently.

The world was created by God. To create means to produce or make out of nothing. When we make a thing, e.g., a bench or a bicycle or a house, we always require some previous or already existing material to work with. But God, since He is all-powerful, can create. He created the first material elements and fashioned the world in its present form from them. And we shall see presently that He created the first human soul, as He continues to create every human soul.

THE BIBLE AND CREATION

Here is a complete Bible. You may take it with you if you wish, though I certainly do not ask you to read it through just now or in the near future. In fact, I do not ask you to read it through at all. But it will be well to have it at least for reference. In this chat I shall go over the first chapter, which begins: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."

Although the writer of the chapter (as the writers of every portion of the Bible) was inspired, we must remember that it was not his intention to write what we call a scientific treatise on astronomy or geology or biology or natural history. It has been well said that "the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, and not how the heavens go. The first chapter of Genesis (that is the name of the first book in the Bible) is a wonderful account of the origin of things. But it was written for a simple people, and the inspired author (Moses) adapted his account to the capacity of that people. He had no intention of giving a recital of the scientific order, even if he knew this, which is not likely. Nor had he any intention of giving us a strictly chronological order-an account of events in the exact order in which they proceeded.

His real aim was to teach us that God created the world and especially man. The account he gives us is historical and popular; this means that it is a narrative of actual events or true occurrences, but given in a form that any ordinary chronicler or historian chooses to suit his readers.

EXAMPLE OF HISTORICAL AND POPULAR NARRATIVE

Let us suppose that an American writer decided to produce a life of Theodore Roosevelt. He would naturally divide the work into chapters. But, chronologically, these chapters would overlap. What I mean is that certain events mentioned in the first chapter might have occurred after other events mentioned in the second chapter, and so on. The author might consider Mr. Roosevelt's life as a student or reader, as a, politician, as a sportsman, as a friend, as a man interested in works of charity, etc. Suppose that the writer divided the life into seven chapters. It can be seen quite easily that, although all the events recorded in the book do not follow in strict chronological order, still the work is historical. In a word, it would be "historical and popular."

Now, the inspired writer very probably grouped, for the sake of an easy narrative, the works of creation. Thus he used the word day, not to express a period of twenty-four hours, but to facilitate the order of the historical narrative-the account of actual events. In this way he grouped day and night (first day); sea and sky, or sea and atmosphere, including clouds (second day); land under water, or sea, and land over water, or continents and islands (third day); sun and moon and stars (fourth day); fish, reptiles, and birds (fifth day); animals and man (sixth day).

Such an interpretation, which is quite reasonable, can never conflict with the genuine discoveries of science, which the Church heartily welcomes. As I have already pointed out, my dear convert, the inspired writer had no intention of writing a work on science. But I would stress the fact, in passing, that there can never be any real conflict between the official teaching of the Church and the discoveries and genuine conclusions of true science, for God, who is Infinite Truth, is the author of both Nature and Revelation, and Truth cannot contradict itself.

Some Catholic writers understand the word day in Genesis as an indefinite period, extending over even thousands of years. And, indeed, it is remarkable how the general order of creation given in the Book of Genesis corresponds with that outlined by great scientists who have studied the development of the universe and this earth of ours.

If you wish to go deeper into these questions, I shall lend you suitable books, especially "The Church and Science," by a distinguished scholar in science and a great convert to the Catholic Faith, Sir Bertram Windle. But the summary I have given you is sufficient for our present purpose.

CREATION OF MAN

The noblest creature in the visible universe is man. He is essentially superior to the brute creation, for he has a spiritual, immortal soul, which is the principle of all his life. Our reason tells us that we have such a soul. Man can think, judge, and reason. He has a free-will. He has a moral sense or conscience. He has articulate speech, whereby he can communicate his ideas and knowledge to his fellow-men. These attributes can belong only to a spiritual principle (such as a rational soul), which renders man essentially superior to irrational animals. He is, in a sense, the lord of the world, subject, of course, to his Creator. God's revelation also teaches us that we have a soul, that it is endowed with freedom, and that it is immortal. The Bible tells us, therefore, that God made or created man "to His own image and likeness." Man is the image of God especially in his spiritual, intelligent (or, rather, rational), free soul; and he is the likeness of God especially in the supernatural life with which God gifted our first parents, Adam and Eve. I must explain this expression.

SUPERNATURAL LIFE

The word supernatural means above nature. Reason, free-will, and the moral law are natural to man. But God elevated (lifted up) man from the beginning to a life far higher and nobler than the natural life--to the supernatural life. He gave our first parents a wondrous gift known as grace, whereby they partook of God's own life; He endowed them with faith and hope and charity. Of these gifts you will learn more later on. And God gave them also freedom from death, suffering, ignorance, and the lust of the flesh. He intended that tall these wonderful gifts should pass to Adam’s descendants. How Adam lost them both for himself and for us, though he kept his natural gifts, I shall explain in our next chat, in which I shall tell you about original sin.

NOTE: In this chat, in speaking of the creation of man, I have not treated the question of evolution (1) because the average convert is not greatly concerned with this matter and is quite prepared, when he has reached the present stage of the chats, to accept wholeheartedly the teaching of the Church, and (2) because I wish to keep these chats within a reasonable limit. The instructor may, however, briefly explain that, although God directly or immediately created the soul of Adam and also immediately creates every human soul, He did not immediately create the body of Adam, but formed it from the earth, as the second chapter of Genesis, verse 7, tells us. It is the traditional teaching of the Church that God directly formed this body from the earth, although it is not against any official teaching to hold that the body of the first man was evolved from a higher animal. Still, this opinion is scientifically improbable. To those inquirers who are particularly interested in the question of evolution, the instructor may devote a speci I session or two or recommend such works as Windle's "The Church and Science" and Archbishop Sheehan's "Apologeties and Christian Doctrine."

A SIMPLE ILLUSTRATION

In order to explain to you, my dear friend, the Catholic doctrine of original sin (a doctrine taught also by many Protestant denominations, at least in the earlier stage of their existence), I am going to give you a simple example or illustration. Many object that this doctrine is against God's justice. How can God, they ask, justly punish us for a sin that Adam committed thousands and thousands of years ago? (By the way, we don't know how long ago our first parents were created. The Bible gives us no definite data, and the Church has made no pronouncement on this matter. The human race may be six, eight, ten, twelve thousand years old-its age does not effect Catholic doctrine.)

Here is an easy example to illustrate original sin. A certain splendid concert was arranged. Star singers of international fame were to take part; the best actors in the world were going to perform; the finest pianists and violinists known were to play. The program was magnificent, and the tickets of admission were very costly-front seats, twenty dollars, back seats, ten dollars.

In the city where the great concert was to be held a certain man, James Stanwell, was working for a wealthy man named William Astor. Stanwell was receiving $50 a week, was paying $20 a week rent, and had a wife and seven children to support. A short time before the concert Astor invited Stanwell into his office and thus addressed him: "I know, James, that yourself and your wife and children would be delighted to attend the forthcoming concert, and so I have bought nine front seat tickets for you. They are a gift from me to you and your family. The only condition I lay down for you before you receive them is that for the next few days you take the place of Dickens in driving one of our trucks. This work will be no heavier than your present duties, but since you are a good driver, I am asking you to relieve Dickens, who is ill. Dickens is receiving the same salary as yourself."

After a day or two Stanwell got tired of his new job and objected to continue driving the truck. He walked into Astor’s office and said truculently: "Look here; I’ve had enough of this truck-driving. I refuse to do any more of it. Get someone else."

"Very well, James," replied Mr. Astor, "since you refuse to do this particular work which I gave you and laid down as a condition for your receiving the nine tickets to the concert, I now withdraw your gift. Neither yourself nor your family will receive a ticket. However, I’ll not be too hard on you; you may go back to your former work and I shall continue to give you the usual $50 a week."

No one could reasonably accuse William Astor of acting unjustly towards James. Stanwell. Nor could Astor be reasonably accused of acting unjustly towards Stanwell’s wife and children, from whom he withdrew or withheld the tickets for the grand concert, for those tickets were a free gift on his part, and consequently he was perfectly free to lay down the condition he did.

APPLICATION OF THIS FABLE

In this parable William Astor represents God, James Stanwell represents Adam, and Stanwell's family represents ourselves-Adam's descendants. The nine tickets represent the supernatural gifts-gifts of grace-which God bestowed on Adam and intended to pass on to Adam's descendants. The weekly salary of $50 a week represents the gifts or faculties of Nature -what are called natural gifts or endowments.

God laid down one special condition for Adam if he was to keep the supernatural life for himself and transmit it to his descendants, viz., that he should not eat the fruit of one particular tree in the Garden of Eden. But Adam willfully disobeyed God and thus forfeited for himself and for us, his descendants, the gift of the supernatural life, which consists especially in what is called sanctifying grace, and of which I spoke in our last chat.

Adam committed a personal sin by his deliberate disobedience, but we, his children, did not do so, for we were not yet born. Yet Adam, as the head of the whole human race, represented us or stood for us and acted in our name, so that, in a sense, we all sinned in Adam. According to God's wish, we should all have come into this world with our souls adorned with sanctifying grace; we should all have been born in a state of grace, which we would have had from the moment of conception. Of course, any individual might have later sinned and lost grace for himself and his own descendants. But, had Adam remained faithful, the human race as such would have remained on that high plane of the supernatural life.

The absence of grace from our soul, which grace should be there and would be there but for Adam's disobedience, is like a blot or stain on our soul, and is known as original sin.

TEMPTATION OF ADAM

The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were tempted before they fell. Yes, the devil an evil spirit, a fallen angel, tempted them. He appeared to Eve as a shining serpent and talked her into disobeying God, and she in turn talked Adam into committing sin.

Before creating man, God had created countless pure spirits-spirits who were not united to bodies. They are called Angels. God, too, put them, to the test. The majority obeyed and were at once rewarded by the everlasting vision and love and enjoyment of God; that is, they were at once admitted to heaven. But a large number disobeyed through pride and were cast away into everlasting punishment, which we call hell.

If we commit a serious sin-a mortal sin-and die in that state, we also shall be condemned to hell. Had Adam and Eve died without repentance, they would also have been condemned to hell, which consists essentially in the eternal loss of God, the eternal separation from God. There are other pains of hell-secondary pains-of which you will be told in due time.

REDEMPTION

Thus Adam's primal sin cut off the whole human race from God's supernatural friendship. And countless individuals, in the course of ages, added their own personal sins to the sin of Adam. A bottomless chasm yawned, as it were between mankind and God. Man, a mere creature, was powerless to make adequate atonement or complete satisfaction for the offence or insult offered to an Infinite Being, for the malice of an offence is measured by the dignity of Him who is offended. Likewise, man could offer the Godhead no adequate or complete price to buy back the priceless boon of the supernatural life-the gifts of grace which he had lost.

But God took pity on fallen man and redeemed him. To redeem means to buy back. We have been purchased or bought back at a wondrous price-the precious Blood of the God-Man.

THE INCARNATION

God has revealed to us that in Him there are three Persons, really distinct and yet equal in all perfection’s -the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This truth is known as the mystery of the Blessed Trinity.

God the Son, the second Divine Person, became man. While remaining God, He took on Himself a human nature-a human soul and a human body and in that human nature, personally united to God the Son, He, as the Great High Priest and the Great Victim-offered Himself on Calvary as a sacrifice of atonement and ransom for the whole human race. I shall tell you more about sacrifice when I come to -the doctrine of the Mass. By offering Himself on the Cross Christ redeemed us. His suffering or satisfaction or atonement for our sins was infinite, for it was offered by a Divine Person. Thus Jesus offered the Eternal Father infinite satisfaction for the sins of men. And the loving gi ft of His life-the voluntary offering of His Precious Blood-was infinite. Thus Christ offered the Eternal Father a price of infinite value to buy back the priceless gifts of grace-the supernatural life, which means grace in this life and eternal glory in the next.

A BRIEF REVIEW

In this chat, my dear catechumen, I have touched, in simple language, on the very essence of the Christian religion. I cannot expect you to grasp everything clearly at once; you will learn more in detail as we proceed about these sublime truths. Indeed, in this life we always see, as St. Paul reminds us, "dimly, as it were through a glass." Only in the eternal light, when we see God "face to face," shall we understand the mysteries which we now believe by faith.

To sum up: From the beginning God raised man up in His arms to a very high level. He lifted man the supernatural life, to which man had no right. But man fell from that high level. Yet God did not leave him on a mere natural level. He redeemed man and thus restored him to his supernatural level. God the Son became man and offered the Eternal Father infinite atonement for our sins and an infinite price to buy back the supernatural life. Thus we are redeemed "not with gold or silver or precious stones, but with the Precious Blood of the unspotted Lamb of God, Jesus Christ."