The Irish standard., 1898-03-26
ANOTHER INTERESTING DISCOURSE
BY REV. Il. DANEHY.
INDIFFERENCE IN MATTERS OF FAITH.
PLAIN PROOF OF THE NECESSITY OF
CHRISTIAN DELIEF.
A LUCID AND foaCIBlE ARGUMENT.
SERMON PREACHED LAST SUNDAY AT
ST. PAUL CATREDRAi..

Rev. P. Danehy, continuing his course
Of doctrinal sermons, spoke last Sunday
evening at the cathedral on "Indiffer-
ence in Matters of Faith" His text was
taken from Mark xvi: Preach the gos-
pei to every creature. He that believeth
not shall be condemned" He spoke in
substance as follows:
us those duties by the fulfillment of
which we can be saved. First among
those duties is that of believing in him
and in all that he has revealed. His
revelation is brought to the world by
his divine son, Jesus Christ, and spread
to all nations by that body Of men whom
he commissioned to teach It, This is
plain from the words of the text Jesus
Christ did not leave men any room for
reasonable doubt either as to what he
taught or as to their duty to believe
every article contained in that revela-
tion.
But at the same time that he tells lis
we must believe somewhat, he tells us
also what 1t Is that we must believe.
His divine revelation he entrusted to
faithful men who should be fit to teach
others also.' All that the apostles and
their lawful successors teach as re-
vealed by him is to be believed under
pain of Gods condemnation.
That a doctrine is contradicted does
not lessen it's truth. The plain and SIM
pie teaching of the Catholic church,
confirmed as it is by the writing of the
apostles and their companions, is today
contradicted or disregarded by millions
of men. These men are Christian men,
too. In our own country, which we are
proud to call Christian land, this ele-
mentary truth is set aside by majority
of our fellow citizens. They belong to
no church, or they attach themselves to
some church that suits their fancy or
convenience They seem, too, to be con-
tented to go on in this way. 1t has be-
come a common saying with them that
1t is of no consequence what religion a
man processes, or whether he processes
none at all, provided he be good man.
If this reasoning were true, indiffer-
entism would be the only religion. All
would be we'll with men of any church
or no church. Their religious state
would be as safe as it is sometimes con-
venient. But this reasoning is false. It's
falsity is as grave as 1t is palpable.
The indifferentist himself admits as
much when he acknowledges that the
moral law, as contained in the COM
mandments is binding upon him. These
commandments create moral obliga-
tion for the human conscience only be-
cause they express Gods will If they
guide the human heart or curb it In its
longings, shall not the same divine Will
guide the heart of man and check 1t
when it strays? Gods supremacy cx-
tends equally over the mind and over
the heart of man. Neither intellect nor
will can rightfully refuse him obedience.
Again, unless God requires of man
some definite form of religious worship,
1t was sheer cruelty to send forth the
apostles to teach it. He knew, and
even they foresaw, that their mission
would bring upon them cruel suffering
and death. Yet they went forth from
the presence of their judges rejoicing
that they had been found worthy to
suffer contumely for the name of Jesus
They began again straightway to preach
the same faith for which they had just
been tortured. His command to preach
under such circumstances was the height
of cruelty, and their obedience was the
veriest folly unless the faith they
preached was the supremest thing in
life. There were no two Christianites
then. There are not two now. One
Lord, one faith, one baptism, one heav-
en- and one church to lead us thither.
We recognize without hesitation in
civil life the principle which Gods
church here enforces. Men are not at
liberty to tamper with the civil law, or
to obey so much of it as suits them, or
none at ALL They are not even permit
ted to explain 1t after their own fashion
The courts interpret the law. To their
Interpretation Of 1t all must bow
Men are not at liberty to
adulterate the coin of the
land. The standard is established, and,
think what they may of it, to that
standard they must conform. Nor
did any man every think of justifying
his violation OF 1t by saying that what
he holds to be good money is good The
defense is too absurd to be thought on.
Yet this is what men do in religion.
They claim the right to expound Gods