The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1901-11-16
Che Cwo Brothers. p PY b 1gsstss
Controversial Dialogue Between Presbyterian and His
Catholic Brother, Leading Up TO Formers Conversion.

In nOn-eSsentidlS, but not in essen
tials. All who embrace the essential
are Protestants."
DO Catholics embrace the essen
tials?"
According to the opinion of Protest
ants they do
Then, according to the general opin
ion of PrOtestants, Catholics are Pro
testants?"
But I think differently, and oul
General Assembly will soon. I hope
solemnly declare that Rome does no
retain even the essentials of the Chris
tan faith
THAT will be sad blow for Rome
no doubt; but WHAT, IN your judgment
are the essentials"
They are the great evangelical doc
trines of the Reformation. embraced by
all orthodox ProtestantS.'
And orthodox Protestants are
All who agree in accepting the suffi-
cheney of the Scriptures, and the great
essential doctrines of revelation
Which means that the essential doc
trines are the essential doctrines and
orthodox Protestants are orthodox
Protestants."
The essential doctrines are substan-
TALLY what is held by Presbyterians. "
Those orthodox Protestants who are
not Presbyterians differ from Presby-
terians only in relation to non-essen-
tials?"
That is ALL"
same thing, the orthodox faith, then is
made up of two parts, one essential, the
other nOn-esSential?"
All parts of the orthodox faith are
not alike essential. But there may be
differences which are not differences of
faith. The COngrega tionalists. Evan
gelical Episcopalians, Dutch Reformed,
the Calvinistic Baptists etc. differ
from us in matters of discipline and
church government. while they embrace
substantially the same faith we do"
is infant baptism a matter of
Not strictly"
Then you do not baptize infants be-
cause you believe Almighty God COM
mands you to baptize them?"
we do; but the point is not so es-
sential, that those who differ from us
must needs err essentially"
One may then. reject a positive
command of God, without essential err
ror?"
We think our Baptist brethren err
but, as they hold the great
cardinal doctrines of the Gospel. we
do not think their error is absolutely
essential. In the present state of the
religious world, it is the duty of Gods
people to make the platform of Chris
tan union as broad as possible, to dis
countenance theological wranglings, to
seek to heal sectarian divisions, and to
follow after the things which make for
peace"
But if you had no fears of Popery.
and felt that your own sect had the
power to make converts, 1 suppose you
would regard the Baptists as of the
number of those who bring in damn
able heresies'"
You are ungenerous; 1 regret the
unsoundness of my Baptist brethren,
but [ do not consider them as essen
TALLY wrong
Not even when they deny you the
Christian character, by denying that
your baptism is baptism-and when
they refuse to commune with you, on
the ground that you are unbaptized
persons: that is, infideIs, in the proper
sense of the word ?"
There they are wrong; but still not
essentially so, because baptism itself
is non-essential."
Then you do not agree in opinion
with our Lord, who says. Unless a
nan be born again of water and of the
Holy Ghost, he shall not enter in the
kingdom OF heaven"
Christian doctrines are distinguish
able into fundamentals and non-funda-
nentals The fundamentals are the
essentials, the on-fundamentals are
he non-essentials All who believe the
'ormer are substantially orthodox.
hough they may differ about the lat
err"
.sr-,a ,,o,, f,,,5,.,41 -,
evealed truths, or they are not. If
hey are not, your distinction of fun
amentals and non-fundamentals is
imply a distinction between what is
evealed and what is not revealed, be-
ween the word of God and the words |
t men or of devils; and, on this sup |
osltton, the essentials will be what |
iod has revealed. and the non-essen- |
ials what he has not revealed If |
hey are revealed truths, you imply |
hat portion of the revealed word is
nessential, and may be disbelieved or
elected without essential error. Which
b you say?'
Suppose we say they are no por-
ion of the revealed word?"
You cannot say that, because you
ave declared them to be revealed
'uths, by asserting that Christian
WV iAtCo al z LlllS ulSIldDlG IIlIO Iun-
amentals and non-fundamentals. But |
ass over this. If you say the non
that is, the non essen
ais, are not revealed truths, you i'm
ly, by making the fundamentals es-
entail to be believed and therefore
eny that there can be any differences
opinions to any portion of what is
,vealed, without essential error, which
.nder5 your distinction between fun
and non-fundamentals of no
vail; since no one, unless a Protest
ut. is likely to contend for anything
ore than what is revealed. Is it not
p"
so it appears"
Then, again, you say men, though
fering about the non essentials, that
about what is not revealed, are sub
antially orthodox, if they believe the
sentials, that is. what is revealed
ow, they may differ about the nom
septials, by believing, some, that
ey are, and some, that they are not,
vealed truths, or portions of the
ord of God, as we see in the case of
u and the Baptists concerning in
mt baptism; you believing it to be
vealed and commanded by God him
If, they believing it not revealed and
plicitly forbidden. Now, if men may
lieve the non-essentials to be re-
aled, they may, according to you,
thout essential error, believe that to
the word of God which is the word
men or of devils. Do you admit Z
ls?"
of course not. Cursed is every one
at addeth to the words of this book Il
lie condemnation of Rome is not so =
1ch that she denies the essential
this of the Christian religion. as that
2 overlays them by her corrupt addi-
ms and renders them of no effect
-ough the tradition of men. 1t is as
lch an error to add to the word as
take from it." =
Then you abandon this supposition, a
Il toI-a tho 0tbar-that tho pop-ac | -