Hear what an accredited Roman Catholic author writes: "HOLY SCRIPTURE has never sufficed in itself; it always stood in need of DIVINE TRADITION: for it is only by Divine Tradition that we learn that Holy Scripture is an inspired book. It is only Tradition that can give with authority and certainty the right meaning of Holy Scripture " (Catholic Belief. Very Rev. J. Fail Di Bruno, D.D. (35th edition, p. 23)). "HOLY SCRIPTURE and the TRADITION just described are both the Word of God " (Catholic Belief, p. 16).
One stands aghast on the threshold of our inquiry at such a statement as this. The latter extract puts Romish Tradition on a level with the Word of God. The former extract, indeed, puts Tradition on a higher level than the Word of God, for it states that only by Tradition can we know that the Bible is inspired.
The Council of Trent (1545-1563) decreed that "No one confiding in his own judgment shall dare to wrest the sacred Scriptures to his own sense of them, contrary to that which hath been held, and still is held, by Holy Mother Church, whose right it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of sacred writ."
It then proceeded to anathematize any who would dare to read the Scriptures for themselves. Such were to be denounced by the ordinaries and punished according to law. It shows how little these things were really held in estimation, even by their own promulgators, that Cardinal Hosius, who was appointed president of the said Council of Trent, declared in one of his polemical writings, that were it not for the authority of the Church, the Scriptures would have no more weight with him than the fables of JEsop. Bailly, the Jesuit, was no better, when he declared that without the authority of the Church, he would believe St. Matthew no more than he would believe Titus Livius.
Rome accepts the Apocrypha, thus polluting the purity of God's Holy Word. This was settled by the Council of Trent. We read: "That Council, in its fourth session, decreed the divine authority of the Apocrypha, notwithstanding that the books are not found in the Hebrew Bible, were not received as canonical by the Jews, are never quoted by Christ or His apostles, were repudiated by the early Christian fathers, and contain within themselves manifold proofs that they are not inspired. At the same moment that the Church of Rome was exposing herself to the curse pronounced on those who shall add to the words of inspiration, she pronounced an anathema on all who should refuse to take part with her in the iniquity of maintaining the divine authority of the Apocrypha (The Papacy. Dr. Wylie, pp. 173, 174).
We are told that not one of the bishops at the Council of Trent knew Hebrew, and only a few Greek. And yet this incompetent body of men decreed that the Apocrypha was to be received as on an equality with the Scriptures on pain of anathema. "This fatal decree... was ratified by fifty-three prelates, among whom was not one scholar distinguished for historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study to deal with the subject in which the truth could be determined by a careful examination of the records of antiquity... a decision equally untrue morally and historically " (Bible in the Church, The late Bishop Westcott).
And as to Tradition, the Abbe Migne made a compilation of the decrees of councils and writings of the ancients in 220 thick volumes, and called it "The Catholic Tradition ".
Tradition is indeed mountainous. We read: "To the Scripture the Roman Catholic adds, first, the Apocrypha; second, traditions; third, acts and decisions of the Church, embracing numerous of the popes' bulls, ten folio volumes of decretals, thirty-one folio volumes of acts of councils, fifty-one volumes of the Acta Sanctorum, or the doings and sayings of saints; fourth, add to these at least thirty-five volumes of the Greek and Latin fathers, in which, he says, is to be found the unanimous consent of the fathers; fifth, to all these one hundred and thirty-five folio volumes add the chaos of unwritten traditions which have floated to us down from the apostolic times. But we must not stop here; for the expositions of every priest and bishop must be added. The truth is, such a rule is no rule; unless an endless and contradictory mass of uncertainties could be a rule. No Romanist can soberly believe, much less learn, his own rule of faith" (Delineation of Romanism. Elliott, p. 13. London, 1851).
The question may well be asked, Are these mountains of chaff to be dug through before Christ can be found? None but knaves and fools could pretend to think so.
We all know the taunt of the Traditionalist devotee: "Where was your Church before Martin Luther?" And what is the answer? The Scriptures were in existence before there was any Church of Rome. The Church of God is older than the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome contains very many members, who are not members of the Church of God. The Church of God was founded on the Day of Pentecost, and consists of every true believer on the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, and who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God. The answer to the question, Where was your Church before Martin Luther? is indicated by the retort, Where was your face before it was washed? Evidently the Church's face badly needed washing when the Reformation arrived, and the face of the Church was washed by that wonderful movement of the Spirit of God. The Church existed before the washing, and goes back without a break before the Romish Church existed at all.
If we reject the utterly foolish claim of Romish Tradition as being our warrant for believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God, on what then do we base our belief? Our answer is that the Bible claims inspiration for itself. We read: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works " (2 Tim. 3: 16, 57).
Out of twenty-seven chapters in the Book of Leviticus no less than twenty chapters begin with the words, "And the Lord spake unto Moses," a very full claiming of inspiration surely. Nay, more, our Lord often quoted from the Old Testament, the only Scriptures at that time, as being authoritative and the inspired word of God. Our Lord freely quoted from the Books of Moses, the Psalms and the Prophets. The New Testament freely quotes, too, from the Old Testament as inspired. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, all quote the Old Testament as inspired.
We read: "The Word of God is quick [that is, living] and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart " (Heb. 4:1212For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)).
Millions of Christians all down the centuries, of all classes and nationalities, can claim that the word of God has been living and powerful in their cases. It was used to their being convicted of sin, and to their being led to trust the Savior, and when they trusted Him they found the inward peace and joy that God alone can give. The word of God proves itself. God has watched over it, used servant after servant in the writing of it, infused it with His own Spirit throughout, watched over it, guarded it from daring hands that would fain destroy it. We can but throw out these fragmentary thoughts on the subject, and continue with our examination.
At the very outset of our inquiry Roman Catholicism stands condemned in setting up a tribunal, claimed by them to be superior to the word of the living God. Knowing this, it is not surprising that