New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1894-05-23

as it came down the ages? Take the
Bible which contains only part of the
Divine Message and read the changes
and transformations through which it
went from King David to King James.
Hence we see the necessity of an infalli-
BILE Guardian. Finally there is needed
an infallible Interpreter of Revelation
otherwise how could be certain that I
understand Alright its teaching9 Admit
tedly, Revelation is open to m.re than
one Interpretation. As matter of fact
the most opposite meanings are drawn
from it, and it is made tho author of
most contradictory beliefs. I may quote
| a few of these contradictions. Unitari-
ans deny the Trinity; other protestants
hold it. Both prove their positions from
Revelation. Universalists. deny the Di-
vinity of Christ; Presbyterians hold it.
Revelation is made responsible for both
creeds. The HISTORIANS deny the Holy
Ghost; the Congregationalists hold it..
Again, Revelation is appealed to. The
Baptists admit the sacrament of Baptism
the Anabaptists deny it. Revelation
once more made responsible for con-
tradition! The Lutherans admit the
Sacrament of Holy Communion and the
Real Presence; The Adventists deny it.
EACH of these sects interpret Revelation
SO with the other sacraments and every
portion Of Revealed Truth. Some deny.
Some admit. And the denials and ad-
missions make series of beautiful con-
| tradictions. And these contradictory
| opinions held by the Christian sects are
not about Indifferent or accidental mat
ter but about the essential and vital
truths of Revelation. Hence the peces-
sity of an infalllble Interpreter-i relig-
ious history impresses anything on the
mind, it is such a necessity there is a
large body of professed Christians out
side the Catholic fold: read the annals
of their religious abberratlons and see
how necessary an unerring Guide has
ever been.
Without an infalible Interpreter of
Revelation, we must content ourselves
with the absurd conclusion that an infin-
| itely wise God sent from heaven no less
a person than his own Son to make for
mans guidance a Revelation of His will
and that at the same time He made no
adequate provision for its proper iden-
tification, preservation or, usefulness in
after ages; that He delivered a most i'm
portant Message and appointed no one
| to bear witness to it before future zen
erations-no one to safeguard it against
the encroachments of heresy-no one to
| define its contents or to declare it's mean
ing or to decide the many gravo contro-
versies that we've sure to arise in the
course Of time concerning it; that He
left His sacred truth to be the sport of
the theories, fancies, follies, disputes,
contradictions, private judgments of
men, not caring whether they received it
or not or in what sense they received it,
whether true or false, or whether they
received it in different or even contra
| dictory senses; in word that, God was
perfectly Indifferent both as to the Gust
ody of the Revelation itself and as to the
success of it's mission. Is such a view
of the case acceptable to reason or COM
mon sense2 Is 1t very flattering to that
Wisdom that orders all thing wisely and
we'll? Yet reject Infallibility and you
have the above alternative; you have no
unerring Guide and you have the Divine
message reduced to chaos of private
whims and fancies. VIM. Sheran