New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1894-05-09

with reference to church dogmas and not
with reference to belief in God. There
is wide distinction between belief in
God and belief in dogma, just as much
rs there is wide and radical difference
between faith in God and belief in the in
fallibility of the Pope or the immaculate
conception of Mary.
In the last issue of the Review, Mr..
Sheran writes four column article, the
principal part of which is devoted to
showing that faith in God means conf
dence in God; that no other authority
than God himself is sufficient for an act
of divine faith and that this faith is a
spontaneous act without further demon
strations. Now this is all perfectly true
as far as that kind of faith or belief is
concerned. But this is not and never
has been the question. There has been
no argument, neither could there be any
argument against the idea of confidence
in God. Such. an argument would be
absurd and ridiculous. But to assume
that this is the point at issue is simply
the old trick of mixing God and priest
so together as to make it impossible to
hit one without hurting the other, and
then pretending to be defending God
and his authority. God don't need any
body to defend him: he is perfectly able
to take care of himself. There would
be nothing, then, to defend, if people
would quit coming counterfeits at GODS
expense.
Fhis matter of faith in God, or belief
in him, must be an Individual affair and
every Individual must be free to follow
his own convictions. That the ideas
will be different is to be expected, for
the capacity OF different minds are also
different. Creed making therefore is a
nuisance and an encroachment upon men,
tai liberty, because upon the subject .un-
der consideration, creed-makers know 70
more than the rest of mankind, and creeds
are accordingly made, not for the sake
of developing new aud additional light
but rather for the purpose of dominating
the minds of the masses of people.
1t is true that faith in God, to some
extent at least, is independent of ration.
al demonstration, but wherever we can
make observation by means of our nat
ural senses, collect evidence and deduct
results, reason must rule supreme. We
cannot question the authority OF God
but if a man claims to carry a message
from God, it becomes necessary that he
should authenticate that message; other
wise any tramp may claim to he the mes
! senger of DivineAuthority IAN occurrence,
by the way, of too considerable frequency
If the messenger cannot substantiate his
! divine mission by adequate evidence, he
must be treated as an imposter and fraud
and the rule must apply alike to all from
Prophet and Apostle, Pope and Bishop
down to the shabby tramp preacher OF
| the present day.. A man cannot be held
| accountable to anybody for his faith in
God or for his individual belief, but if he
undertakes to formulate creeds and laws
for the conscience of others and then
condemn his fellowmen for not except
ing them. then the burden of proof rests
| on that man to substantiate the divine
authority of that creed. Mr.. Sheran has,
during the course of his arguments, at.
tempted to prove several church doctrines
and in what manner? Simply by citing
authorities, apostles, prophets, noted men
of the early period of the church and
decisions of concil;ums. Now how does
this avail in proof of his position? The
question which he must meet fairly
and squarely is this: Did those men see
more of God and the spiritual things
than the people of our own time? Did
they possess any other faculties for COM
pretending spiritual and divine princi-
pies than men of to-day? Were they
endowed with more perfect reasoning
power than people now living, and,if so,
where is the proof? The whole trouble
with Mr.. Sheran is that in his argument
he starts with the same assumption that
the orthodox church always starts from
the idea of inspiration and revelation.
| And it is right on this line that he feels
so keenly the necessity of having 55eliev-
ers to deal with; otherwise the whole
fabric of his theology goes to pieces. But
before you can use that assumption, Mr.,
Sheran, to prove your doctrines, you
must first prove the assumption. If you
can prove inspiration and revelation
| fhor ho ~ ~, IL.