Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-06-20
the true moral sentiment in man; for divine
revelation cannot contradict reason.

When, then, Mr.. Smith adds: "We are tol
that intrinsic truth is nothing" and ths
whatever the pope says is true, even if is
lle;" he speaks simply nonsense, and he is pu
ting himself beyond criticism A disputar
owes it to himself to state correctly the pos
ton OF the opponent, and | am sorry, for MI
Smiths sake, that he could have penned thes
words: "We are told that intrinsic truth /
nothing" that " we must believe what thi
arrogant pretender (the pope) says, though
defies all knowledge and reason, and we ar
sure it is false" Mr.. Smith had before hin
Manning's Vatican Council. He could hav
read in it this assertion of the council: ether
can never be any real discrepancy betwee
faith and reason; truth cannot contra
dict truth
| If Catholics were sure that what the pop
says is false, they would know at once that h
is not Christ's vicar. Prove to us if you ca
that the pope, in the capacity in which We be
lieve him to be infallible, has preached what
| false; but cease in the meantime attributing t.
us ideas which we loathe, and presenting thes
ideas to your hearers as papal infallibility
The same mistatement of the doctrine occur
when Mr.. Smith says: "The pope is the make
of TRUTH" and that "The pope is created into
subjective standard of truth" The pope bu
explains and interprets revelation, and he is tn
standard OF truth, only inasmuch as he i
Gods infallible representative. Mr.. Smith fol
lows mode too prevalent in Professionalism
of refuting Catholic doctrine; he misrepre
sents the doctrine.
"Though the definitions were infal
lible, they can never be practically
useful. There must be an infallible priest tC
explain the infallible decree; and that will no
suffice. There must be an infallible under
standing in the man that listens, or else he
will corrupt in his Interpretation the infallible
rlrIQ ha 1aIn fhn infoI nfrir <N
the infallible pope. A man with two atoms
of sense will see that any practical application
of infallibility, even though true, is gro.
tesque lnfallibllity." A man with two atoms
of sense will see that Mr.. Smith places him.
self by these words in very singular predica-
ment. He evidently denies all infallibility to
reason in all circumstances, and yet rightly
supposes its necessity for an act of faith. How
then, would he have acted, had he lived when
our Lord was in the world. You may be in
fallible, he should have said to him according
to his present argument, but the application
of your infallibility is grotesque impossi-
bility. There must be an infallible under
standing in the man who listens to you. Faith
is Impossible. I will extricate Mr.. Smith from
his predicament. Reason is intalible within
its own proper sphere; the Catholic joyously
admits the power of reason, and uses the val
ued gift, within its own sphere, and using his
own reason he does not need an infallible
priest. The individual Catholic easily finds
out the Common law" the universal teach
ing of the church; priest could not impose
upon him, if he differed from this teaching.
He easily finds out through the agencies for
popular instruction which exist in the church
the pronouncements of popes. What he would
not find out for himself-because it is beyond
the sphere of reasOn-is the correct interpre-
tation, at a distance of nineteen centuries from
Christ, of all Christian revelation. For this
he needs and he admits an infallible church.
''You are reduced,' says Mr.. Smith, ''to the
same poor strait as Protestant You must
study and find out for yourself, and use your
own reason after all" Well, does Mr.. Smith
suppose that Catholics do not use their
reason? l wish he would use his reason in
giving one proof for the fundamental princi-
pies Of Protestantism. The Catholic uses his
reason within the proper limits. The Protes-
tant aims at raising it beyond these limits, and
does not use it at all. This is the difference.
OBJECTIONS FROM HISTORY.
History, we are told, shows that the doc
trine of papal infallibility is speculatively
false. Mr.. Smith presents supposed facts from
Janus" to overthrow the doctrine. Popes,
it is asserted, have contradicted one another.
if within the limitations affixed by
the church to papal infallibility, popes have
one another, the dogma is false.
Before presenting the facts of "Janus' Mr..
Smith deals out a few characteristic blows of
his own. 'The doctrine had been heard of be-
fore the vatican council, and had been con-
demned." "Imight show that the dogma has
been condemned by popes and councils" He
did not show it, however, or make
he did not show it, if he could! as
then the whole controversy would be brought
to an end. A pity he said he could show it,
if, as 1 asserted, be could not show it. But
there is another thing, which he thinks he
can do, and which he proceeds to dot is to
demolish Cardinal Manning. "You may in
quire, 1.-THE asks, chow it Is possible for men,
confessedly intelligent, to support the church,
if facts are so notoriously against her.
These men adopt principles of investigation
that make a mock of Intellectual consistency
and honest investigation. # | say
this is an apology for these men," 1t is very
kind indeed, on the part of Mr. Smith, to
apologize for us before the members of the
the Methodist Episcopal church; and in sup
port of his words, Mr.. Smith quotes from
Cardinal Manning: "When the church out of
the proper fountains of TRUTH the word of
God, written or unwritten, declares any doc
trine to be revealed, no difficulties of human
history can prevail against it.
But against neither the one nor the
other of these things-the two ele-
ments of traditlon-can human histO-
ries prevail; because against the church the
gates of hell cannot prevail" "In plain En-
glish," according to Mr. Smith, "this is the
Catholic position, if there are any facts of
history that contradict our dogmas, so much
the worse for the facts "The facts of his
tory are against you, says the objector, Oh,
never mind, says the cardinal, smiling, we can
easily fix up the facts" Poor Cardinal Man
ming, away in London, does not know how he
is being demolished in st. Paul. | trust he
may survive. "No difficulties of human his
tory, says Cardinal Manning, can prevail
against the church" which words Mr.. Smith
translates, no facts of hsto-
ry can prevail. You see the
literary fraud. Cardinal Manning is laying
down merely the principle which l have my
self stated, that in case of "difficulties'' the
church is to be allowed the benefit of the
doubt. Facts are positive, certain occurrences;
difficulties" are not facts. If facts are
against the church no Catholic will defend
her. "Human histories says Mr. Smith,
quoting the cardinal, "cannOt prevail" Will
you believe that Mr. Smith leaves out the vital
words of the cardinals sentence: Human
histories written by men not inspired by the
spirit of God, not seldom inspired by any other
than the spirit of God," i. e., histories, as the
context plainly shows, not above critical sus-
picion. "Oh, never mind" says the cardinal,
smiling, 1--WE can easily fix up facts" Mr..
Smith never fixes up facts or quotations; he is
too ingenious, and has too much regard for a
st. Paul public. 1t is not all. He sums up
as follows the cardinals argument
in the case of EHonorius: eff out oI
$50 popes, one, Honorius, is heretcal
ought we to deny infallibility?" And sure
this time of his case, he rides on with all the
pomp of plumed conqueror: "One hereto
among them breaks the series and destroys the
dogma. Suppose telegraphic wire, brother
Catholic, $50 miles long, and one mile is eu
out. Why do you not send messages, Mr.
Operator, on the rest of the wire? The reply
is: The 249 miles are simply useless with on
mile gone"
1t is needless to tell you that Cardinal Man
ming never penned a line from which the sum
mary of words attributed by Mr.. Smith to hin
can be drawn. Cardinal Manning, in develop
ment of the principle have alluded to, says