| OCR Text |
Show Controversial Dialogue Between a Presbyterian and His Catholic Brother, Leading Up to Former's Conversion. i In the religious controversy between John and James Milwood, John (the j Catholic) towards the close pressed the aggressive side of debate home to his brother, the Presbyterian clergyman assenting to the propositions because the manner of their presentation left : him no other mode of reply. For ex- : ample, James consented to the proposition propo-sition that belief in one's own reason was not religious belief, agreeing with his Catholic brother that if such were the case every belief, whether intuitive , or scientific, would be religious and the belief of falsehood as much as truth. The dialogue was broken off last week where John put the query: "Then the more essential point in religious belief be-lief is not simply belief of the matter revealed, but of God who reveals it?" To which James replied, "Very well, let it be so." The next question is directed di-rected by John, the Catholic Editor Intermountain Catholic IV. "In every proposition, be it what it may. which I believe because God reveals re-veals it, I do believe him, do I not?" "So it follows from what we have said." "But if the more essential point is to believe God, the more essential error er-ror must be to disbelieve him, must it not?" "Certainly, to disbelieve God is the most heinous offense of which man can be guilty. The grossest insult we can offer even to a fellow-mortal is to call him a liar: and we call God a liar whenever we disbelieve or refuse to believe be-lieve him." "But do I not disbelieve or refuse to believe God, and therefore make God a liar, whenever I refuse to believe a proposition because I have only His word for it?" "You do, and are guilty of the sin of infidelity." "Then, if God has told me, no matter mat-ter for what reason, that Toby had a dog and the dog wagged his tail, and I refuse to believe it, do I or do I not err essentially?" "You err essentially, as it appears from what we have said." "Then there may be essential error, where the matter or proposition denied is not in itself essential?" "So it would seem." "Then you will concede what you call the non-fundamentals, if revealed truths can no more be denied without essential error than the fundamentals themselves?" "Not at all. Doubtless,, where the matter is clearly and manifestly re- j vealed, refusal to believe is essential error; but it does not therefore follow that it is essential error to refuse to believe, where it is not clearly and manifestly revealed, where it is uncertain un-certain that God 'speaks, and, if he does, what is the exact meaning of what he says." : "This uncertainty, not the fundamental funda-mental or non-fundamental nature of the matter in question, then, is that which saves the refusal to believe from being essential error?" "That seems to follow." "If the same uncertainty existed with regard to what is fundamental, the refusal to believe the non-fundamentals?" "That seems also to follow." "In order, then, to determine what are the essentials, that is, what must be believed, and cannot be denied without essential error, and what are the non-essentials; that is, what without with-out essential error may be either believed be-lieved or denied, it will be necessary to Inquire not what are the fundamentals, and what are the non-fundamentala, but what Is or is not clearly and manifestly mani-festly revealed?" "Since the fundamentals are all clearly and manifestly revealed, I have no objections to saying so." "Whether the fundamentals are nil clearly and manifestly revealed or not, you must so say, or abandon the grouid you have taken. The essentials, essen-tials, then, are what is clearly and manifestly revealed?" "Be it so." ' "The non-essentials what Is not clearly and manifestly revealed?" "Agreed." "He who believes all that is clearly and manifestly revealed believes all the essentials, is free from essential error, is substantially orthodox?" "Agreed, again." "He who rejects any truth clearly and manifestly revealed errs essentially?" essen-tially?" "He does." "But he who rejects only the nonessentials non-essentials does not err essentially?" "Stop there a moment. Men may differ as to the non-essentials without essential error, but to differ in opinion opin-ion about a point is not necessarily to deny it, for both parties may intend to believe it. and would, if they could only ascertain the truth involved." "But individuals may differ in some respects, even as to matters of faith, from Presbyterians, without erring essentially?" es-sentially?" "I do not deny it." "The point on which they differ must be non-essentials, otherwise the difference dif-ference would be essential. In regard to tliese points they must differ from Presbyterians, either by holding some things to be revealed truths which Presbyterians do not, or by denying some things to be revealed truths which Presbyterians believe are revealed re-vealed truths?" "They also differ from them by simple sim-ple ignorance." "That is true, but then they differ only, negatively, not positively. Presbyterians Pres-byterians in this respect must differ from one another, for some are better informed as to what Presbyterlanism j is than others are or can be, but they ' are. nevertheless, all alike Presbyter-I Presbyter-I ians. So I, as a Catholic, may be ig-I ig-I norant of some points of the Catholic faith, and in this . respect differ from I the one who knows them all, but I am as true a Catholic as he. because I in- 1 j tend to believe all the Church teaches, because I am ready to believe all as ; soon as explicity propounded to me, land because the points on which I. j J am ignorant I believe Implicitly, since j ' they are implied in what I believe ex- pllcitly. This is, therefore, a mere neg- I ative difference and amounts, to noth- ing. The differences In question are 1 positive differences, and these must ; consist either in believing things to be revealed which you deny to be revealed re-vealed or in denying certain things to be revealed which you believe to be revealed." "I do not see how that follows." "The differences "we are considering' concern matters of faith, and nothing, I suppose you will grant, is or can be matter of faith . which is not a divinely di-vinely revealed truth. Or, rather, no man can hold anything to ,be a mat- ter of faith unless he, holds ' it to-be matter of revelation, ',that . is, a re- , vealed truth."" ,'-"I ,'-"I do not know about that." ' ! "But you do, for the faith we are speaking of is religious faith, and we x have agreed that there can be religious faith only where the proposition believed be-lieved is a revealed proposition." "Very well, proceed." "If. then, you Admit differences as to matters of faith may exist without essential error, you must admit that the non-essentials may be either believed be-lieved or disbelieved "without essential error, unless you choose to admit that you yourselves are in essential error." "How so?" ' ' ; 1 "You certainly deny some things. j . which you call non-essentials, to be j 'revealed truths; such, for instance, as I I the divine institution of the episcopacy, j which is asserted by Protestant Epis- : copalians. But if the non-essentials cannot be denied without essential error, er-ror, then you err essentially in denying deny-ing it. On the other hand, you assert infant baptism to be a divine command, com-mand, which your Baptist brethren deny. Ir.fant baptism, you say, is a non-essential: if, then, non-essentials cannot be positively denied without essential error, your Baptist brethren err essentially, and are not. as you have admitted, substantially orthodox. Moreover, unless you admit that nonessentials non-essentials may be either believed or disbelieved without essential error, your distinction between essentials and non-essentials avails you nothing, and : you must come back and assert that ; none. who differ positively in any j matter from Presbyterians, have or can have ths essential faith, and then you must recall your denial and say that Presbyierianism and Protestantism Protestant-ism are one and the same thing and that Presbyterians are the only Protestants." Prot-estants." "Very well. I will not insist on the point. Say the non-essentials are matters mat-ters which one may either believe or disbelieve without erring essentiiHy." "We now seem to be in a fair way of determining what Protestantism is. It is, you say, the essentials, and the essentials es-sentials are the truths clearly and manifestly revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Toll me what these truths are and you will tell me what Protestantism is. and take the preliminary step towards answering an-swering my question, Why are you a Protestant?" j (To be continued.) |
