I have been asked to give a ten-minute talk on the importance of accuracy and dependability in the use-of quotations and historical data by ministers, writers, Bible workers, and our people generally. To illustrate the need of carefulness along this line, I will refer to an incident which occurred quite recently in connection with a series of evangelistic meetings in the city of Philadelphia, Pa. In delivering his sermon the evangelist read a quotation which is found on page 410 of the "Source Book for Bible Students," as follows: "If it were possible that the angels might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith, they could be judged and excommunicated by the pope."
This statement, translated by Elder W. W. Prescott from the original Latin of a standard Catholic work entitled, "Ferraris' Ecclesiastical Dictionary," was denied by two prominent Catholic laymen who were present when it was read, and the evangelist was challenged to produce the Catholic author. ity. This he was able to do a few days later, producing the original work, with the result that not only the Catholic laymen who challenged the quotation, but also the head of a Catholic college who was with them, acknowledged the authority of the statement and the accuracy of the translation, and manifested a very courteous and friendly spirit. How vastly different would have been the result if the evangelist had been unable to prove the accuracy and dependability of the quotation!
I think that all our editors can testify to the fact that there is great need of writers' exercising more care, both in quoting and in giving accurate references to citations. Frequently we receive clippings from newspapers without any information as to the source or the date of publication. Such clippings are of little value.
But at this time I wish to deal, not so much with the mistakes of the rank and file of our good people who are unskilled in the technique of making and using quotations, but more particularly with the carelessness of not a few of our public speakers and writers who not only fail in the technique of the use of quotations, but who, in their zeal, actually read into quotations meanings which are not there at all.
An example of this tendency is found in the use made by some of our good brethren of a statement by Mr. George Eastman, which appeared in print a year ago last February, which was, in substance, that almost a century ago the identical plan of calendar revision, now sponsored by Mr. Cotsworth and Mr. Eastman, had at that time received ecclesiastical sanction; and also that some thirty-seven years later, practically the same plan had again received ecclesiastical approval. In the two instances referred to, the ecclesiastical sanction meant nothing more than the imprimatur of a Catholic bishop or other important ecclesiastic. "Imprimatur" means simply permission to print. But the statement has been made, and printed in some of our own papers, that this century-old plan had received the approval of two popes, and that the present pope had practically promised to "submit the question to the next ecumenical council," which he is planning to convene in the near future.
Now the fact is that, so far as the official records of the Congressional hearings show, no pope has ever approved this particular scheme of calendar revision, neither has the present pope committed himself upon the subject. The papal nuncio at Geneva, in reply to a questionnaire sent to the Holy See, said that "the Holy See would not be prepared to consider the question except on the advice of an ecumenical council." May I be permitted to suggest that it is not prudent, ethical, or in any way helpful to the cause of present truth to inject into any statement, for the sake of emphasis, anything that is not fully warranted by the facts in the case.
In an article printed not long ago in one of our denominational papers, one of our accredited ministers, referring to the division of the Roman Empire into its ten parts, said: "The division was fulfilled in the fifth and sixth centuries." He should have said in the fourth and fifth centuries, because the breaking up of the colossus built by the Caesars occurred between 351 and 476 A. D. I recognize the fact that in some of our publications the years are given as 351-483, but I know of no authority whatever for the latter date.
Perhaps all have had occasion, in years past, to refer to 538 as the beginning of the 1260 years of papal supremacy. Now I am not attacking that date. It works in very nicely with the giving of the wound by the sword in 1798, and can, I think, be defended reasonably. But it requires defense, for the monarchy of the Eastern Goths survived their defeat of 538 for fifteen years, during five years of which they maintained their capital at Ravenna. Twice within that fifteen years they sacked Rome itself.
In "Italy and Her Invaders," Volume IV, page 286, Thomas Hodgkin says: "Rome did not, as might have been expected, immediately bring about the fall of Ravenna [the Gothic capital], Unskillful as was the strategy of the Ostrogoths, there was yet far more power of resistance shown by them than by the Vandals. In three months the invasion of Africa had been brought to a triumphant conclusion. The war in Italy had now lasted for three years, two more were still to elapse before the fall of the Gothic capital announced even its apparent conclusion." But of their defeat before Rome in 538, the same author says: "Some of them [the retreating Goths] must have suspected the melancholy truth that they had dug one grave deeper and wider than all,—the grave of the Gothic monarchy in Italy."--I.d, pg. 285.
In speaking of the 1260 years of papal supremacy, we should be careful to avoid giving the impression that during all that long period of time the popes had everything their own way. We need go no further than to Volume VI of the Catholic Encyclopedia, pages 427 and 428, to learn that Pope Vigilius was by Justinian summoned to Constantinople where he was detained by the emperor for eight years, a virtual exile, from which he never returned. Though he finally obtained permission from the emperor to turn his weary steps toward Rome, death overtook him at Syracuse in the spring of 555.
The case of Henry IV, of Germany, is one that we- often choose to enlarge upon as showing the great power which enabled the popes to bestride the necks of kings, but seldom is mention made of the fact that Henry later unseated and drove into exile that same pope who had humiliated him., The pope lamented his fate thus: "I have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile?'
The real facts do not change the lessons of history, but a knowledge of all facts may save us from serious embarrassment, and at times from defeat which might otherwise come to us.
