Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-03-13

be the Interpreter thereof agree With Bishop
Ireland as to The infallbillty of the Apostolic and
Catholic church"
TaE INFALLIBLE eHUECH TO-DAY.
These conc usions before US, what further step
remains 10 be taken in the establishment OF our
thesis, that In the Catholic church to-day and la
that church alone, there resides infallbihty? The
same correspondent "LaSmaD," will tell us. II must
explain he says, THAT if Bishop Ireland means to
classify creek aud Anglican churches as Protestant
in the sensei In which he evidently .sinS that
word, shall most decidedly take issue with him
npon question If fact. 1he bishop aiduced ab-
solutey uothipg which estsbi he'd or tended to es-
tab sh the objective poiEt CT his oisccurses, VIZ:
That the church OF Rome is the sole and only true
Apostolic and Catholic church" 1t Ia my lresent
duty to establish this peint.
II is needless 10 remark, presume, that by 1.-THE
church Of RoInsp "Laynsn" undoubtedly intends,
church in communion with the Bishop of RIO,
which he, In other terms, w-ud call the Roman
Catholic church.
will state my undo standing of " Layman's" OBJ.
lection. 1t being evident from history that Christ
instituted, the rule of faith infalible teaching
church, we have no longer to busy ourselves with
the non-historc churches Of christendom. They
at once put out Of the questio because, having
no continued existence from APOSTOLIC days, they
can In way, and, indeed, do not pretend to hava
inherited the PROMISES made to the apostles and tbs
powers conferred upou them. But different by far
Is the case Of the historic churches. those whi-h
have had from the apostles their regular succession
of ministers They are entitled to claim the iDher-
itance, and denial of this inheritance to aDy of
them must be specifically proven. The historic
churches which are to be considered In the prem.
ises are, besides the Roman Catholic the Greek and
tho Anglican c0nnubions.
Will not bring into discussion the fact Of spos-
tolic succession in the several churches. But must
protest against the supp sition. which might sug-
ge.t Itself to the minds Of my hearers that the SIM
pie fact of continucus orders, however well estab-
shed the fact may be, gives to the church the pcs
nf 10 mr. nj ha n
church. The church of Christ was constituted as
one body, one kingdom, and there were fundament.
laws regulating citizenship IA this body, OF kingdom.
After tiny had been legally aggregated to 1t, men
could leave it, they had the physical power recede
from 1t, and in this manner were formed the
schisms and heresies which the apostles condemned
In most severe language It is suppossble, the fact
occurred esain and again, that In these schisms
and hefesies, men we've included who had received
from the apostles their SUCCESSORS valid ord,na.
ton as ministers OF the church, whether priests OF
carried with them their rights of Office, and formed
still the church as well as those who remained In the
original unity? No one will maintain lis PROPOSE
h iioa' Or Ordination once given remained ed
mystical body OF Christ the church. was
suspended this exercise is possible only under the
laws of unity laid down by Christ. Let us put q
strong imaginary case to illustrate our statement
of Crete, Suppose Titus had summoned the
Oretsn church to follow him into state Of separa-
ton from the apostolic society. What would have
happened? First, he and all his followers would
have committed mortal sin; but, secondly. they
would have also rendered themselves external to
the visible church, although they would have
REFINED the material succession OF orders. The
early here.ics, Arians, HISTORIANS Donatists, had
undoubtedly ministry with valid orders; were they
for all that, entitled to claim the mission and the
authority of the apostolic church,
But, for brevity's sake, / will not permit the his.
tory Of the three churches nsmed-ihe Roman Oath.
Ole the Greek and the AnRlican-to enter into the
scope of my present. argument will take them
as find then, existing to-day, and will show that
one, and alone, wears the unmistakable robes of
the infa ible apostolic church.
Bear well in mind that I am arguing
from premises proven IN previous lee
rspreseptatiye in this controversy Of AnaIicanism
These premises are, that Christ tbs words Of the
commission in Matthew and Mark plainly show. in
stituted infaible apostolic church, to abb ie with
us in the full enjoyment Of her original attributes,
until the eud of time, and that, consequently, this
i1fable church lives and falfs It's mission in the
world this present day. The sole question now be-
foye US is to point out this infallible church.
1t should not be difficult sk to find her. Infal-
lbiity is earth singular privilege: ts presence,
Its absence, is easily discovered. If there Is an
infallb.e church she has purpose In her existence
to teach to men revealed truth; and II her where
abous cannot with slight observation be discovered
her purpose is frustrated.
prove the infAlllbihty of the Catholic church by
her claim to infallbillty, and by the fruits of nfa
b,l ty within her pale The absence Of the claim to
infalitity and Of the fruits Of infabilty from the
Greek and Anglican churches wi be evidences that
neither ia tbs insa!lible church.
THE CLAIM TO AVAILABILITY.
In one of my notes to the papers in answer to
Z" Layman," I presented my argument under the
form of syllogsm said: 1. The claim to infslIi.
bIity Is necessary attribute of the church OF
Christ (Which church Is admitted to-day to be in
actual e1istence). 2. But the Roman Catholic
church alone POSSESSES this necessary attribute.
The Roman Catholic church alone can be and Is
the church of Christ. repeat the syl,ogsm, and
will ex plain its several propositions.
1t s very clear to all that the mere claim on the
part of church to infaliibihy Is not per Sc, proof
That the church Is infallible. Any church, fifty
churches at once might claim the gatiye with
We're from the simple claim to deduct directly the
thing claimed. then, truly woul be, as was re-
preached for doing, assuming what profes, to
prove AL this is self-eviaent. But this much
cay the claim to infal ibiiity is negative proof OF
The possession CT infslLbiiity, e.. where the claim
does not exist, there certaioy exists no nfallby.
Nov are all agreed that infal1bility does exist,
and IT, say, but church ola infallibility,
that enc church is the infalbie church. The claim
to the prerogat,ve becomes per 0ccidenS, owing to
the peculiar circum OF the case, proof, indi
rect In its nature but conclusive Ia It's strength
The claim to infalbility is necessary attribute
of the chur. of Christ. "Lagman" replied: "The
rs or msjor premise is manifesty false. 1t is not
the claim to Instability, but infabhty ITSELF which
Is q ues 6esdEy oI lno CuuECu VI CuElbt.
Bishop Iresnd's great infirmy seems to be his In.
ability to distinguish between what the Church of
Rome claims to possess an what 1t does, In fact,
possess l distinguish very well the difference
between the claim 70 thing aud the possession OF
the thing, What I do say is that in the case OF q
church the claim to infa libilty results from the
possession of nfsbility, that 1t exists where nfal
bility exists "Lsyman' contradcts this assertion,
but he does not prove his contradiction. will prove
my assertion that the clsim to infalbiy is neces-
sarily attribute trait of the church of Christ.
10 which, without suicidal &C she cannot ba dis
loyal It s to teach all nations, and bring every intel!
lecs into captivity to Christ's truths. How wi
she command attention and obtain assent to her
message, unless she puts forth the authority in
whore name she speaks, AID the assurance which
she has that she delivers the message Alright? A
demand for faith must be preceded by claim to
Instability, otherwise the demand were the veriest
insult to our reason. HE that believeth and Is
baptized shall be saved he that believesh not shall
be condemned" the words with which she has to
conclude her message What meaning could these
words have, unless she had previously
asserted that she cannot teach error? Fancy
st, Paul, making claim to infali-
bity for apostolic teaching, and, then, de-
claring that II an angel from heaven were to come
aud teach differently, he should be received with
anathemas! church that lays aide all claim to
Instability cannot teach she IL not fulfilling the
claim to Instability. less than Instability ITSELF is
a necessary feature OF tbs church of Christ.
But the Roman Catholic church alone possesses
this fezture-a claim to infallibilty. 'The second
premise OF the Bishops syosism," is said. Ifs
bad "a the frat His proposition Is, The Roman
oattoiic church alone possesses this necessary at
tribute What necessary attribute? The claim to
- - Al. Ia