Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-08-06
RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY.
A Lay Reader Takes Issue with Lay
mans Views.

To the Editor of the Sunday Globe:
SIR:-Having noticed in your issue of
Sunday last an article headed "Bishop
lreland's Recent Lectures on Papal
Supremacy Reviewed. over the sigma
ture "Layman," and deeming it too much
to expect the Right Rev. Bishop to come
down to the arena to which "Layman"
invites him, knowing, as he does,
that any one of the laity belonging to his
Hook who only knows little logic and
the force of terms, can easily answer all
"Layman's" objections, they having been
as often answered as one has fingers and
toes, beg leave to make few remarks
In the way, not of explaining difficulties,
but of showing that there are no diff
culties at all to be explained. From what
l know Of the GLOBE have reason to
trust you will extend the privilege of its
columns to another laymau who wishes
to take up short amicable discussion of
the very interesting subject introduced
by your correspondent.
He says: "I unhesitatingly assented
therefore to Bishop Ireland's position
that the Apostolic church was infallible.
But pointed out that the bishop in his
discourse had wholly failed to offer any
proof whatever that the Roman Catholic
ourch of to-day is the only true success
SCR of the Apostolic church, and that he
had contented himself in his argument
in this behalf with very evident petite
primcipii in alleging that, because las he
. said the Roman Catholic church is the
only church of to-day which claims to
possess the attribute of infallibility,
therefore it is the only church which
does in fact possess that attribute.
"That such an argument, especially
when addressed to those outside the Ro-
man Catholic communion, is utterly
worthless, is too apparent to need eluci-
dation."
Now this is the very point, contend,
that does need calculation at the hands
of "Layman," for it is by no means ap-
parent that the bishops argument, as
stated by "Layman,'; is worthless, nor
does it labor under a petite principta, as l
shall now proceed to show.
PetitiO principis is the logical fallacy of
requiring us to admit as certain that
which it is proposed to prove. Now
Bishop Ireland proposed to prove that
the Catholic church is the only true
church. The true church, Layman
himself admits, as we shall presently see,
must be infalible. This same lnfallible
church, he further admits, must continue
to exist, from its commission to teach
given it by Christ even to his second
coming, i. e., to the end of the world
The bishop argues that the Catholic
church is the only church that claims the
attribute Of infallibilIty, and, therefore,
is the only church that actually has it.
The infaIlible church exists, Layman
says. Those churches that say they are
conscious to themselves of not having
this attribute must be held as not having
it, unless, indeed, we try TO persuade all
the world that a certain man knows what
himseNpersists in telling us what he
knows not. Now Bishop Ireland argues
very conclusively that, whereas an infal-
lible church does most certainly exist to-
day, and whereas all the nom Catholic
churches are known to be destitute of the
attribute of infallibility, therefore the
Catholic church must have it. There is
no more fallacy involved in this argu-
ment than there is when we say the line
A is shown to be neither greater nor less
than B, therefore it Is equal to it. For
all the. relations possible in
comparing A with 3 are those
of equality. majority and minority,
The two latter are disproved, therefore
the first must exist according to the law
of distinctive syllogism. Is not this
method of argument, if it is indirect,
30 yxntaV
ployed, and is it not also perfectly iden-
teal with that employed by the bishop!
Where then is the "evident petite pr91s-
cipa?
Let US now hear the reviewer touching
the admissions l referred to above 81,
of course" be writes, "assented without
reservation to Bishop 1reland's position
that our Lord, just prior TO his ascension,
had incorporated the eleven apostles and
their associates and successors into
body ecclesiastic to be the witness and
custodian of his word, and to exercise
the powers and dispense the benefits of
his kingdom on earth until his second
coming to this body the
work of making disciples of all nations,
and'of inducing all nations into his king
dom by the holy sacrament of baptism,
and at the same time solemnly assuring
this body that he is with them always,
even unto the end of the world. OF
course this body corporate, acting under
this commission and this promise, must
necessarily be infallible in its official and
corporate acts"
From these statement of his proceed
to show the conclusiveness of the bishops
position, that the Catholic church alone
is infallible, and therefore is the only
true church
1t is assumed at the outset as admitted
by Layman that Christ is God, therefore
truthful. yea, the truth itself. 1t is ad-
mitted also that he communicated his
own infallibility to the apostles and their
successors to the end of the world, nay,
it is further admitted by Layman, but to
this l object, that the associates
of the apostles and their sue
cessors were equally included in the
"body corporate" who, "acting under this
commission and this promise, must nee
essarily be infallible in its official and
corporate acts"
If Christ promised, and it is admitted
he did promise, that his ministers, in
teaching his doctrine, would continue in
fallible through all time, then must there
be perforce at the present day, such in
fallible body corporate thus teaching all