Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-08-21

pretty substantially for his blunder-no
matter to what straits he may be reduced
and hence the woman in four cases out Of
six has won the sordid gain she counted
on-while he is mostly "out'' in senti-
ment and substance.
In modern fiction and the drama we
want such combinations-and when we
see plays dealing with these things-we
all say, chow true to life!"
How do we know?
From observation or experience, laughs
Mrs. Harris.
Bishop Ireland's Final Reply to Rec. Mr.
! Smith.
| To the Editor of the Globe.
Rev. Mr.. Smith in last Sundays GLOBE
defines his position in such way as to
| render any further notice of him by me
unnecessary.
l. He afirms the contrary of my prop
osition, "That right reason and true his
tory cannot contradict faith That is
to say, he affirms that right reason and
true history may and can be in contradic-
ton with divinely revealed truth. Ally
ing himself thus with the
school of Thomas Paine and
Robert Ingersoll, the issue l made with
him as Christian minister is at an end
l would ask even the least intelligent
among the members of the Methodist
church what answer will they give to-
Remains reasons against the divinity of
Christ, and what reply to the statements
and representations, based on their views
of history, of Gibbon, Hume and In
gersoll, against the divine character of
the Christian religion? Their good sense
will give the prompt answer that the
reasons of Renan are not fright
reasons and the statements and repre-
sensations Of Gibbon, Hume and Ingersoll,
not ''true statements or that the infer
ences from them are not warranted.
There is no other possible ground
upon which to meet the objections Of
the enemies of Christianity. Yet
this is the position the de-
Tense of which Mr.. Smith calls "gush and
dogmatism," and which he utterly re-
pudiates.
O. Mr.. Smith assumes all responsible
ity for the quotation from Belfarmine by
which part of a sentence is wrested
from the remainder, and given to the
reader as complete sentence in itself,
the sense thereby being so distorted as to
make the conclusion the reverse of what
the author intended. Mr. Smith claiming
this to be legitimate in controversy, of
course all controversy between him and
me IS at an end. For the benefit of the
readers of the GLOBE I will place again
before them the passage from Bellarmine.
"That the Pope cannot err in morals,
good or bad per Sc is proved: First, be-
cause, then, the church could not be said
with truth to be holy as she is termed
in the symbol of the apostles, for she IS
called holy principally on account of her
profession. of holiness; because she
puts forth law of holiness which teach.
es nothing false and commands nothing
wrong. Secondly, because, then he would
necessarily err in faith, for Catholic faith
teaches that every virtue is good and
every vice bad; but If the Pope could err
by enjoinaag oices or for6idding 0irtates,
the church aoou1d be bound to 5elsege oices
good and oirtues bad, or else sin against
conscience. For in doubtful things the
church is bound to submit to the judg
ment of the supreme pontiff.
The words italicized are those quoted
as an independent and complete SEN
tence by Mr.. Smith. In the context they
are part of the argument indicated by
the word secondly" to prove that the
Pope cannot err in matters of morals.
The argument is one styled in logic ERE
dacta0 a0 0bsurdum." The conclusion
from the argument, according to Mr..
Smith, would be-therefore the Pope can
err IN matters of morals, making Bellar-
mine prove the contradictory of his own
thesis. Bellarmine supposed he was
| writing for men who had intelligence
enough to understand the meaning of
words and the common forms of logical
augmentation.
If Mr.. Smith does not understand an ar
gument alb absurdo, and thinks that what
an author puts forth as an impossible alb
surd proposition, is the positive settled
teaching Of that author, l have no help
| for him.
Bellarmine states very plainly the
Catholic doctrine, 'sthat every virtue is
good and every vice bad" and thereby
| implicitly marks the duty of Catholics,
in case the pope were certainly to define
vice virtue and virtue vice, to be to re-
ject him and his teaching. 1t is in
ssdoubtful cases." where the individual
would not know the pope's decision to be
wrong, that he would be liable to be mis-
led, as in such cases-doubtful ones-the
subject on general principles should yield
obedience to the voice of authority-the
same general principles which regulate
in human law the submission of the in
dividual conscience to the requirements
of civil rulers.
| 3. Rev. Mr. Smith wants his readers to
believe that he had not quoted Bellar-
mine at second hand-so careful and
conscientious controversallst is
he! This is a slight mat
ter in itself, but still added to other
things already mentioned, it explains
why l can have no further words with
him. "My ingenious friend" he says,
supposed that I had quoted at second
hand, and so supposed that brazen
challenge would throw me into panic,
in which the main question could
be sneered down. I did not
| of anv finn O c,,ppoco thot Mr. Smith cou1d