Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-03-04

His lecture sustains most signally my asser-
ton that Professionalism cannot answer the
questions.
Mr. Thomas wants it understood that he is
not responsible for the defense of Protestant
ism outside of his own sect-NIr. Breeds. for
instance. Speaking of three of my questions
ne says that the Protestant denying historic
church must give answer for himself. Let us
near him for his own:
First question Can Protestants prove in
any way that the bible is Gods inspired word
all Gods word and nothing but Gods word:
Alr. Thomas tries on me what / would call a
WHY irish trick. He asks me another ques-
tion-wss Peter ever in Romeo And he ap-
pears most determined to put me off the track.
make the assertion he says-that Peter was
never in Rome-..I make it broadly. | make it
roundly No use, Nj. Thomas l understand
the trick. We will discuss ST. Peter another
bible.
lie attempts proof I've believe the bible
to be the word of God because of the testi
mony which the bible bears to itself: because
1t IS easier to believe its supernatural claims
than to account i'll natural way for their ex-
lstence. Such an argument is OF no value.
The question Is not about the supernatural
character Of the Christian religion, nor of the
divine features of the life of Christ, but of the
inspiration of those who record the words and
acts Of our Lord. The EyangeIists would have
given us no lesser idea of Christ's grandeur of
character and of the sublimity of his teachings
IT they had been but faithful historians. The
letters of Clement and Barnabas contain Chris
tian doctrine, and breathe celestial piety as
well as those of John and Jude.
We believe the bible to be the word of God.
because Of our confidence in the integrity of
the church as the witness and keeper of revela-
ton. The appeal Is Just, if the church is IN
faliible as Catholics believe her to be- 1t falls
to the ground, on Alr. Thomas premises, ac-
cording to which the testimony Of the church
must be examined by individual reason Ira
dition once declared fallible, it cannot be re-
he'd upon as witness to inspiration, which is
OF itself a supernatural, invisible act and can
be known only by revelation. Human tradi-
ton can prove an outward, visible fact as the
existence of the church, or can bring down to
US words spoken by Christ, as his commission
TO his church, but cannot establish ms piration
Then Mr.. Thomas viii remember that for a
long while Christian tradition, as it was. did
not agree regarding the inspiration Of several
books of the bible.
Second question-.'Can Protestants show
that Christ instituted the bible as the Christian
rule of faith ~ The Irish trick again. Can
Romanists show he asks, that Christ instr
tuted the Roman Church as the rule of faith %
And he not even attempts answer to my
question.
Third duestion-''WilI Protestants prove that
the Church did not exist before the bible =
.ii' IuoHide SIdltS my assertion Lnat the
Church did exist before the Bible. take as q
consequence of his words that he must then
grant that the bible is not Christs rule OF
talth--Whlch is the entire abandoning of the
whole Protestant theory.
lie here adds, If, however, the bishop means
to say that the Roman Church alone existed be
tore the bible, would make the assertion thai
| the Sees of Jerusalem and Antioch ano
Ephesus are other than the Western Sce.
confess | am puzzled to know Mr.. Thomas
| meaning. l am not talking Of the local church
of Rome, or of that OF Ephesus. or of that OF
Athens. The question is of that one Church OF
Christ which was represented in the apostolate
when he said, Going We, teach" loca
church. whether of Rome or of Jerusalem, i.
| nothing to me, except inasmuch as it is par
and parcel Of Christ s church. Verify. it seems
IS if Dir. Thomas fancicd that Catholics believe
the local church of Rome to be Christ's whole
church-instead of the church Catholic, whose
| inheritance is the earth The Church OF Rome
| is simply for US, what Antioch once was, tn,
residence of our chief pastor. Elsewhere
| under the same misrepresentation of our faith
he asked, ii could prove that Christ instituted
! the Roman Church the rule of faith. ! hav
proved that he instituted as the rule of faith
the church Catholic, whose supreme head, Lee
alll., resides to-day in Rome.
| Fourth and fifth questions What, unde
Protestant principles, of the Christians Twin,
| before the bible was written, and before tn
| bible could possibly be read by the millions
before the middle of the 18th century," Mr.
Thomas does not answer. The questions h
says, have no pertinence for his Church lie
| him prove that they have no such pertinence.
My questions are yet to be answered b,
| Professionalism.
Mr.. Thomas, | think has principles of hi
| own regarding the bible, which are neithe
Catholic nor Protestant. | already told yol
that he admits a passage of his bible to be al
| Interpolation and he speaks of the certain ad
vance of biblical scholarship, before which
Rome will be obliged to give to her children
new and more perfect collation. of the ancient
| MSS. Of course, in his view, the same advanc,
| of scholarshship will show the Protestant bibl,
to be at fault since SO far manuscript an
thority is concerned, the Protestant bible fol
lows the vulgate. Nr. Thomas is not at al
sure that he has at present u true bible. Fo
the sake Of his hearers, at least, whom h,
| teaches to rely on the bible, for their faith
hope he will hurry up his studies Of the ancien
MSS.
You have observed that Mr.. Thomas speaks of tn
Protestant Episcopal church historic church, il
contradstincton to other Protestant churches. II,
calls it "the branch Of Gods church to which we be
long, VII explain his meaning to my Catho
and non-Episcopal Protestant hearers. According
to him. Christ would, indeed, have instituted, som
eighteen centuries ago. church upon earth. This
the historic church. She lived with the organi
unity received from her builder for eight hundret
years. when she split up into two pieces, the Gree
and the Latin. Thenceforward, there were tw,
branches of tse historic church. III the sixteenth
century, the Latin branch received another voca1
shock, and divided into the Roman and the Anglican
| and we have now three branches of Gods ho
church. The Ang)icans or Episcopals, on this sys
| tenn, do "Romanism, as Mr.. Thomas terms it, tn
honor of acknowledging il as branch of the church
Their usual address to Rome is, with all thy faults
love thee STILL Indeed, when we come to analyZ
with them the faults of Rome find her to b.
guilty, in their eyes, of only mortal sinshe doe
| not return the compliment of calling Anglicanism
branch of the historic church. But Episcopals hav
such honor in store for other Protestant churches
I-Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists. These arr
not branches of the church, they dissenters.
On what ground do Episcopals deem their churcl
| a branch of the historic church? On ground mos
arbitrary. They have bishops, valid orders. 1 vii
not discuss, this evening" the validity of their orders
but beg not to be understood as admitting it. Th
ground once taken, the branches of Gods church
rapidly increase in number. We have the Jansenist
Of Utrecht, the Old Catholics Of Germany ant
SWITZERLAND the HISTORIANS Of Chaldea, the Coptict
and Abyssinians of lower Egypt-al of whom
| hundred times more certain of the validity Of the
orders than the Anglicans We have the American
Reformed Episcopal church and the Lutheran church
of Sweden, whose orders par with those OF
Anglcanism. Then, among the branches of the his
torc church IN the past, must, in all logic, Sc
| down churches that Anglica1ism has always repu
dated as manifest sects and schismsthe Donatists
the Arians, the HISTORIANS, &c. All these had mos
undoubtedly valid ORDERS and bishops, in numbers
were not only among the followers, but among The
founders. And on what principle do Anglcans mari
down, as a link that keeps them in Gods church
whatever else they may do believe, the possession
of bishops in their ranks? On the principle of the
right to their own private Interpretation of scripture
| and church tradition. But have not Presbyterian
and Methodists as much right to their version o
scripture and tradition, which tells them that bishops
| are OF no necessity at all in the church? And i
Presbyterians and Methodists style Themselves
branches Of the historic church, what objection,
any weight, can Angcans raise against their preten
sions? Once infallible authority in the church sc
aside, what constitutes church unity each ones tas
must decide, and one taste has much right to ruiz
another.
! Let me invite you to glance for moment at the
| church which the Anglican theory gives us. | car
understand the Protestant idea that Christ left II
church on earth. The Episcopal idea, that He inst
tuted church, and that His church is what Mr.
Thomas maps out for us, certainly do not under
| stand.