The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1901-12-21
estantisn

! to believe all the essentials, and
! that what, and only what, is
( clearly and manifestly revealed in
| the scriptures is essential or. with
out essential error. can be believed to
[ be essential. That excludes Catholics,
/ by asserting the sutTiciency of the scrip
lures, which they do not admit"
/ But besides the essentials are the
essentials, which may without es-
sential error be either believed or dis
/ believed, to be the word of God?"
That is what L contend"
But they who believe them to be
the word of God must believe them to
, be essential"
! why SOP
Remember Toby and his dog. He
who believes a thing to be the word of
| God must either believe it essential
! to be believed, or else believe that it
| is no essential error To disbelieve God.
/ Can l. without essential error. believe
| 1t is no essential error to disbelieve
! God?"
mo, for that is tantamount to MAX
| ing him liar, since there is no essen
tial difference between believing that
/ it is no essential error to disbelieve
! God and actually disbeieving him"
/ Then they who believe the non-es-
sential to be the word of God must
/
virtually make God a Iiar?''
That follows"
But it is essential error to believe
anything to be essential which is not
| essential?"
so 1 have implied"
| Then it follows. does it not. that he
| who believes any of the non-essentials
to be the word OF God errs essentially"
so it would SEEM"
"All who differ from Presbyterians
differ from them either by believing
| some things to be the word of God
which Presbyterians deny to be his
word, or vice versa"
True"
IF the latter, they err essentially. as
Stunning Presbyterians to be right by
not BELIEVING all the essentials"
Agreed"
IF the former, they err essentially
by believing some things to be essen
tial which are not
THAT also follows"
Then all who differ from Presbyter-
| ianS in matters of faith err essentially.
Therefore. none who differ from them
as to matters of faith can he assem-
TALLY orthodox. IT, then. you say none
can be essentially orthodox VINO be
Iieve any of the on-essentials to be 81
sentiaI, you exclude all who differ
from Presbyterians, make Fresbyter
ianism ana Professionalism equivalent
and convertible terms, and declare none
but Presbyterians are Protestants,
which [ understand you to deny"
az do deny it. for Presbyterians are
not the only essential orthodox Pro-
testants"
How then can you say that Pres
byterianism is to believe the essentials,
and that only the essentials can,
without essential error, be believed to
be essential? Dc you insist on saying
this still?"
II do"
rs infant baptism an essential or a
non essential
"A non-essential. as I have told you
more than once
But Presbyterians believe it to be
a revealed command
They do
Therefore believe it to be the word
of God
Certainly"
'1hen they believe it essential and
therefore, err essentially by believing q
non essential to be essential. Hence.
If you insist on saying that they who
believe anything but the essentials to
be essential err essentially, You will ex-
cluda Presbytsrians themselves from
the number OF essentially orthodox
Professionals"
But 7 have just told you Presby-
tertans hold infant baptism to be a
non essential
Then they hold il is no essential err
ror to disbelieve God, which is itself
d most essential error for it virtually
makes God liar, a. you have con-
ceded. in either case then. Presby-
terians are excluded; In the one case
by believing a non-essentiaI to be es-
septial and the other. by believing it
no essential error TO make God a liar
Do you still insist that it is essential
error to believe anything in addition
to the essentials to be essentiaI?"
II do
"Then you abandon your distinction
between the essentials and the non-es-
seDtials?"
Not at ALL"
You still say there are portions of
the revealed word which may be eth
er believed or disbelieved to be the
word of God without essential error?''
I do. To deny this would be to place
myself in opposition TO the whole Pro-
testant world, from the time of the
Reformation down to the present mo-
ment. 1t is by means of this distinc-
ton that we have met and repealed |
the charge which Papists bring against
us. that there is no unity OF faith
amongst US. In uon-essentials we have
always admitted we do not agree; but |
in essentials we have always contend
ed we do agree; and. therefore. that |
there is among us substantial unity as
to faith"
These non-essentials, as to which |
Protestants have differed and still diff
fer. have they been held to be non |
essentials alike by those who believed !
and those who disbelieved them to
be the word of God?"
They have"
"All have agreed, then, that there |
is portion of the word of God which |
it is no essential error to disbelteYe?" |
Such is the fact"
Are you not mistaken"
81 think not
Then you hold that the Whole Pro
testant world, from the time Of the |
Reformation down to the present mo- |
lnent, have believed it no essential err |
ror TO disbelieve God. that II is no |
essential error to make God a liar: |
in word. you hold that all Protest |
ants always have been, and still are. |
virtual infdels. You win still insist |
on the distinction between. essentials |
and non-essentiaIs?"
Il tell you cannot surrender that
distinction without placing myself in
opposition to the whole Protestant |
world"
you still say that there are portions
of the word which are not essentials?"
Il do"
And these may be believed to be the
word of God?"
"They may"
(To be continued.)