Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-08-06

1t Is just as unreasonable to say that there
must be an infallible church, and yet
deny that the only church claiming it,
and the one which history witnesses to
have claimed it from the DAYS of the
apostles, has it. The attribute exists in
some corporate body, according to Lay
man, and, strange to say, no body can be
admitted to have it. He might as well
say: II am not logician, therefore you
are not, nobody you can name is, and
yet there are Ioglcians. .
But perhaps he means to hold that
Catholics and non Catholics taken to-
gether have it,. How can Henry Ward
Beecher, then, teach there Is no hell, or
hades, as the revised edition. has it,
and Bishop Ireland teach there Is a hell!
How can Lsymsn and his
church maintain the Roman Cath
olic church is not infaIIible, and and
the Catholic church maintain it iss
Surely it cannot be and not be infall1ble
at the same time in the same point of
doctrine. This, indeed, would be 'sBed-
lam let loose" Either then there is NO
infallibility existing in any body corpor-
ate to-day, or that body is the Catholic
church. Layman denies the former, he
must of necessity logically admit the lat
ter. Else let him tell us where the in
fallible body corporate is; who constitute
it. But let him not be amusing us with
mere words, or contradicting himself, or
both.
What was the body corporate that pos
sessed infallibillty flor Layman says such
body must have existed uninterruptedly
from the ascension of Christ, must now
exist, and must exist in the future
till the end of the world,) in
the age Immediately succeeding that
of the Apostles? Not any Protestant
body, for they did not come into exist
ence till the sixteenth century. Not the
Nocolaites, who are reproved in the Apo
calypso; not the Simonians, who are rep
rotated IN the acts of the apostles: not
the Corinthians, nor the Ebionites, nor
any of the early herities who are described
in the Apocalypse under the figure of
"locusts," according TO the Interpretation
OF some OF the fathers and other learned
commentators. Where was the infallibie
corporate body up to the first general
council, that of Mecca, in 1926? History
answers it was the Catholic church, which
with infallible authority there anathama-
the divinity of Christ The most re-
answer it was the Catholic church: for
they hold that it remained in
its original purity and integrity of
doctrine and morals for the first three
centuries. 4. e., was the legitimate sue
cessor of the Apostolic church, which
successor Layman says must necessarily
be infalllble to the end of the world by
virtue of the promise of Christ What
says our reviewer in the presence of these
facts? l hope he will not refuse to en-
tighten us. Please tell us whether. in
the fourth century, the till then infallible
church of Christ, retained its infallibil
ity, or did not. If it did, then it remains
to show in what subsequent century it
lost it, or admit it never lost it at all. and
the lnfallible Catholic church of the
three first centuries is the infallible church
of the fourth and of the nineteenth CEN
turtles, of all the centuries, the legitimate
successor of the Apostolic church, the
only true church of Christ
But perhaps Layman admits the
infallibility of the Catholic church,
and merely denies that it is the only BODY
possessing that attribute. For he saws:
"But pointed out that the bishop in his
discourse had wholly failed to offer any
proof whatever that the Roman Catholic
church of to-day is the only true success
sor or the Apostolic church, implying
that there are other true successors of
the Apostolic church besides the Catho-
lie church. Patience! Logic! Now, be-
| sides that the Protestant churches came
into existence fifteen centuries too late
to be the legitimate successors of the
| Apostolic church, according to Lay
mans own showing, these nom Catholic
successors of the Apostolic church must
be possessed of the attribute of infali-
blllty, for this was promised to the apos-
| tlesand their successors to the end of the
| world. Here then Layman maintains there
are at present non- Catholic infallible
| bodies.
Will he name them They, themselves.
deny they are infallible; he insists they
are. This looks very much like the case
of those New York generous men who,
some years ago, were wont to insist that
the fine looking pocket book they picked
up at the feet of some newly landed immi-
grant was really his, and were ready to
hand it to him with its rich contents up-
on his giving them the trife of some $50
out of his pocket, not his fallen pocket
book, he all the time denying he had drop
ped any pocket book, or had any pocket
book to drop.
But from the intrinsic nature of infaIli
bility we can prove that the Catholic
church alone possesses, has possessed,
and therefore, according to Layman, will
possess this attribute, necessary. as he
says, to entitle anybody whatever to
claim to be the successor of the Apostolic
church. Infallibility Is inerrancy in
doctrine and morals, security and abso-
lutte certainty of possessing the truth IN
what is taught. Now, truth cannot
change, for truth is that which is, ac-
cording to st. Augustine, and it is i'm
possible for the same thing to be and not
to be at the same time, in the same re-
spect, according to the dictate of COM
mon sense, no less that the profoundest
axiom Of metaphysics. 1t is, and it is not.
are not both practicable of any point of
doctrine taught infallibly, according to
the apostle of the Gentiles. Now, the
Catholic church is shown by history never
to have reversed or changed, or in any
way TO have altered any one
dogma taught by any legiti-
mate ecumenical council or by any pope
teaching eS cathedra, that is, any dogma
taught officially and therefore infallibly;
for an ecumenical or general council and
the pope teaching er catbedra are the two
exclusive organs of 1nfallible doctrine in