The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1902-04-19

| "Unouestionably," at length James
replied, there is no other church which
J makes the same specific claim as the
Fomish, and if any plea of an adverse
| title is TO be taken as a concession that
| Cod has founded such Il church. |, of
course. must concede that she is il,
! and that the reformers cannot De JUS
/ titled"
/ II have not confined You to her spe-
cific character; | have only restricted
you to her general character. to what
she must absolutely be. if church at
all, with divine authority to teach"
We'll. let that pass. l made the con-
cession. not absolutely, but provisorily:
since, as you we'll know, l do not and
cannot, as Presbyterian admit that
our Lord ever founded specifically or
generally, such a church as the Romish
claims to be, and which is no church
of Christ, but a syna gogue Of Satan"
Then you retract your plea of an
adverse title, and revoke your conces-
sion?"
Il do"
Very we'll: as have no wish to take
! advantage of your mistakes, you may
do so. What do you plead now?"
The Romish church is corrupt, and
by her corruptions has forfeited her
title to be the church of God
That is your original plea, which you
withdrew for the sake of pleading that
no title was ever issued, or, in other
words, that our Lord had founded no
such church as she claims to be. You
will remember that you cannot plead
at one and the same time the forfeiture
of title, and that no title ever existed.
a title which never existed cannot have
been forfeited. The allegation that the
church has forfeited her title con-
cedes, then. that the title originally
existed, and was herSs Am l to under
stand you as meaning to concede that
our Lord did originally found such
church as the Roman claims to be,
and that she was originally that
church,"
Not at all. | do not admit that
such a title as she claims ever existed"
You deny then, that our Lord ever
founded such church as she claims
to be, that is. church with authority
from him to teach?''
Il do"
But she is in possession as such a
church, and possession is prima facie
evidence of title. If. then. you allege
that no such title ever existed, the
burden of proof is on YOU but you can
not prove that no such title ever eX-
listed, as you learned in our converse
ton the other day. Moreover, you have
just alleged forfeiture of title. which
comedies that the title originally eX-
listed, and was vested in the church of
Rome. You cannot now deny that it
ever existed"
Il admit a title once existed. and
was vested in her, though not such
title as she claims: and when | say
that she has forfeited her title. | mean
not that she has forfeited such a title
as she now claims. but such a title as
she originally had
That is nothing to the purpose But
what is that title?'
Il have told you already, in declaring
that she has forfeited her title to be
the church of God. l do not deny that
the church offRome was once a pure
church, but / contend that she is now
corrupt, and no longer Gods church,
or any portion. of it
But the same church, the church of
God, is either such a church as the
Roman claims to be, or a different
church" 7,5..-
1T is widely different"
Is the church of God one, or many?"
Properly speaking, there is but one
church, although the one church may |
be composedsisof many particular !
churches"
But such must be the character of |
the particular churches as not to de-
tract from the real unity of the whole?"
Granted"
And this one church composed of
many particular churches is the church. |
and the only church our Lord found |
ed?1
1T is. g7a-
And it is widely different from such
a church as the Roman claims to be?"
Certainly it is.
Then you simply deny that our
Lord ever founded such church as
the Roman claims to be. and merely
reiterate the plea you have with
drawn
Il do not care for that; 1 am not
10 be tied down by your arbitrary
Jules of special pleading. The church
Of Rome was once pure. She then be-
onged to the church of God: she is
now corrupt, and has forfeited her
4 church as she pretends to be. but |
o be an integral part of the church
If God
She has degenerated from her orig
nal purity, and is now a corrupt
THAT is what I allege7
But she is in possession as the pure
md authoritative church of God, and
he burden of proof that she is corrupt
$ on you"
I accept it. and am ready to prove
Ter corruption" !,
Corruption implies change from
former or primitive state. You must
now that state, or you cannot know
hat she is corrupt"