The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1902-03-08
XVII

XVII.
Only few days elapsed before John
! finding his brother apparently at lets-
ure, pressed him to redeem his prom
| Use.
| You are prepared, brother, by this
time, presume, to undertake your VIM
! dication of the reformers, and to prove
that they were sound lawyers and rigid
reasoners ?"
The church has so spread out heI
| claims over everything that it is hard
| to construct an argument against her
which does not apparently take fol-
granted some point which she contends
| is the point to be proved; but the devil
though cunning, can be outwitted.'
| What! by heretics?"
| "Protestants are not heretics.'
| The church is in possession: and
since Professionals break away from heI
| and contend for what she declares to
| be contrary TO the faith, they are al
| least presumtively heretics. and are to
be treated as such, unless they prove
the contrary"
THE church is in possession de facto
not de jure. She is a usurper.'
Possession de facto, we have agreed
is prima facie evidence of title. The
reformers were, therefore, as we have
! seen, bound either to admit it, or show
good and valid reasons for questioning
it,
True; but they showed such rea-
sons
so you have said but you have not
told me the reasons themselves.
Il gave you as one of those reasons,
the fact that our Lord founded no such
church as the Romish.
But that was a reason you could not
assign, because the simple fact of the
existence of the church in possession
was prima facie evidence to the con-
trary.
Il offered to prove my position from
the word of God.
But could not, because the church
was in possession as the keeper and
interpreter of the word, and you could
not adduce it in a sense. contrary to
hers without begging the question.
II have the word as we'll as she, and
it interprets ITSELF
THAT you have the word, or thatit
interprets itself, YOU were not able to
prove. Moreover, the argument may
be retorted. The church has the word
as well as you, and the word interprets
itself She alleges that the word is
against you, and her allegation. at the
very lowest is as good against your
position as yours is. against her."
II deny her infallibility.'
DO you claim infallibility for your
self?''
Il claim infallibility for the word of
Cod
THAT is what logicians call ignoran-
tia elenchi. But do you claim infalli-
bility for your own private under
standing of the word?"
No
''Then you are fallible, and may fall
into error"
Il do not deny it."
1.-The church at the very worst is only
falIible, and, therefore, at the very
worst is as good as you at the very
best, for at the very best you are not
infallible. Consequently, your allega-
lions of what is the word of God can
never be a sufficient motive for setting
aside hers. Nothing, then, which you
can adduce from the scriptures. even
cOnceding you all the right to appeal to
them you claim can be sufficient to in
validate her title. AS she, at worst.
stands on as high ground as you can
even, at best, her simple declaration
that the word of God is in her favor is
as good as any declarations you can
make to the contrary. The proof, then,
which you offered to introduce, would
have availed you nothing, even if you
had been permitted to introduce it.