Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1869-04-29
The Primitive Faith and the Sac.
ramenls.

pounded by me few days ago, on the
subject stated at the head of this article
Let us see how the case now stands.
"a Catholic Churchman" denies him
self the pleasure of explaining "What
is meant by the primitive faith" because
/ said it was of mo account" as it might
be erroneous, like that of the Corinthian
Christians, on the same subject, in the
first century And yet he does explain
that by "the primitive faith" he means
the doctrine of "the primitive church"
was too dull to apprehend so much. My
impression was, when / wrote, that by
primitive faith" the writer meant the
creed held in common and taught by the
teacher or bishops of the churches, from
the time of the Apostles down to the
Council of Nice in 3S1-men known by
the title of "Ante-Nicene Fathers" 1t
was the views of such men that l set
down as of "no account" meaning by this
that they were subject to scripture tests
the same as the beliefs of other men, and
no more authoritative upon me than the
faith of "Catholic Churchman" himself
He will see, under this aspect of the case,
how irrevelant, in my estimation, are
these words of his =
GAS he seems to have so much rever-
ence for the Holy Scriptures, let him ask
himself on whose authority these very
scriptures, land no Others were decided
to be genuine, unless on the authority of
that very primitive church, whose import
ance he denies"
Here is two-fold assumption:
l. With reference to the Holy Scrip
lures
2. With reference to the Importance l
attach to "the primitive church"
1t were more candid to suppose that
my regard for the authority of what l
consider to be the primitive church, is not
whit less than that of "a Catholic
Churchman" for what he holds to be the
primitive church. My belief in this mat
ter is of no account, further than | can
substantiate it by scriptural citations, and
is of no concern to either of my respond
ents further than as they are DESTROYS
that should perceive the truth as they
view it, and be led to receive and hold it
as they hold it.
Just here may be permitted to ask, on
what ground / am presumed by the re-
spondents to hold faith different from
their own? ! have not avowed my belief
on any point. When I shall do SO, it may
be found that we agree more than We dis
agree. However that may he it remains
for the sequel to disclose, and / submit
that it is premature for the respondents
to surmise me into . position OF antagon-
ism to themselves 1t is not proper to
solely for the purpose of dispufation. 1t
may be for the purpose of giving an
affirmant opportunity TO fortify his posi-
ton by evidence and argument; it may
be to bring important topics more pro-
minently before the public; it may be to
ascertain how far the interrogator's belief
agrees with the faith of those he interro-
gates, or to develop more fully the fact
that there is an entire agreement.
l have my own views upon the points
in question but it will be time enough
to treat me as IL disputer after not before
1 take ground against any of the express
ed tenets of the respondents. / expect
them to treat me as an honest inquirer
after truth, willing to sit at their feet for
instruction On receiving .t,if find myself
compelled to differ from them on any es-
sential point, l viii candidly exhibit my
reasons for the existing difference.
"a Cathol.a" VIII excuse me for asking
him to .rase1xe himself until "a Catholic
ChuIchmen" is through with the points
to which attention Is called. After that
1 will give him opportunity to develop his
sacramento theory as fully as the inter
ests of truth may require.
AS new matter has been introduced by
ga Catholic Churchman." | shall defer
illusions to the former points in question
until they are re cached in their order.
have read somewhere, that there are
in the world only two schools of religion
l. That which holds the Holy Script
ures to be above everything in their au.
thoritative teachings
2. That which places something above
the Holy Scriptures as an authority in
matters of faith and practice.
Am to understand that "a Catholic
Churchman" places "the Church" above
the Bible ]? "The Church was before the
Bible" is Popish dogma, which 1 am
surprised to see re-asserted by Q Protes-
tant pen. But, as this is the case, l
would like to be relieved from some little
embarrassment by an answer to the fol-
lowing queries:
1. Were there no writings, regarded as
the inspired word of God, in existence
prior to the existence of any collective
body Of persons called church
2, Did any body of persons, called a
church, ever come together to decide a. to
what writings should be received As in
spired declarations from God?
s. Are there no means of ascertainins
the writings that comprise the inspired