The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1902-01-04


ing that there is a portion of the word
of God which it is no essential error
TO disbelieve. The next question is di-
rected by the Catholic, John Milwood.
editor Intermountain Catholicl
VIII
And some who are essentially or
thodOX do so believe them, or at least
some of them, to be the word of God?"
They do
Yet no one is essentially orthodox
who believes anything but the essen
tails to be essential?"
No one"
And no one can believe anything to
be the word of God without believing
1t to be essential, as We have proved
in the case of Toby and his dog?"
Unless it be no essential error to
disbelieve God"
Some essentially orthodox Protes-
tants believe, then, the same thing at
the same time to be both essential and
not eSSential?"
That is not possible
Then it will be convenient to drop
the distinction between essentials and
non-essentials, and say that all who
believe anything to be the word of
God, except what is clearly and mani
testify revealed, err essentially, will it
not?''
No; for all that is revealed in the
Scriptures evidently is not clearly and
manifestly revealed, and it would be
absurd to say that a man can err es-
sentially in believing, when what he
believes is the word of Cod
Then you will take the ground that
all essentially orthodox Protestants
are, and always have been virtual in
ffdels, believing it no essential error
to make God a liar?"
Not that. by any means"
You fall back, then, on your former
ground, and say Professionalism is the
essentials; he who believes these, what
ever else he believes or disbelieves, to
be the word of God, is essentially or
thodox"
very we'll"
But the non-essentials, or matters it
is lawful to believe or disbelieve to be
the word of God, are not the words of
men or of devils, but revealed truths,
as we agreed in our former conversa-
tion?''
Certainly"
But to believe the words of men or
of devils to be the word of God is, as
you have said, essential error"
True
Then, after all, we cannot say that
he who believes the essentials is es-
sentially orthodox, whatever else he
believes or disbelieves to be the word
of God; for this would imply that it is
no essential error to add to the word
o. God the words of men or of devils
Say, then. he who believes the es-
sentials is essentially orthodox. what
ever else he believes or disbelieves to
be the word of God. provided he be-
leves nothing to be the word of God
which is not his word"
Then none of those who believe any
thing to be revealed which Presby-
terians deny are essentially orthodox"
Il do not see that"
What they believe exceeds what |
you believe. you hold to be either re-
vealed or not revealed. If revealed, |
you are guilty of the sin of infidelitv !
in not believing it; if not revealed, you |
must hold they err essentially, for you
hold they believe that to be the word |
OF God which is not his word. The last |
is what you do hold, and therefore you
cannot hold that they are essentially
Professionals
BE it So
You must also deny those to be es-
sentially orthodox who believe less
than you do. If the matters you be-
lieve which they do not are not re-
Vealed truths, you err essentially in |
believing them to be revealed; if they
are revealed, you must believe they err
essentially in disbelieving them; since
IN d1sbelieving them you must hold
they disbelieve God"
That seems to be So
Then you exclude from the essen
tally orthodox all who believe more or
less than yourselves; that is. all but
yourselves If, then, you insist on the
proviso you have adopted in your def
ntion, and say no one can be essential
y orthodox who believes anything in
addition to the word, YOU must either
give up your definition, as 1 have said.
essentials and nonessentials,
Or else say it is no essential error to
1isbelieve God. Which will you do?"
Neither
But you either believe the nones-
;entials to be revealed truths. that is,
he word of God, or you do not If you
10 not. your distinction between them
md the essentials avails you nothing, as
We have seen. Hence you have insisted
hat they are revealed truths. But if
you hold them to be revealed truths.
you must hold them to be not nones-
'ential, but essential, as Toby and his
log have proved to US, since to disbe-
ieve them would be to make God a
lar This you admit. do you not?''
Il have admitted it over and over
again
Then on no ground whatever can
you admit any portion of revealed truth
o be unessential, and, willingly or un-
willingly, you must abandon your dis
inction between essentials and nom
ESSENTIALS, and either say Protestants
lave been and are virtual infidels in
eaching that it is no essential error to
lisbelieve God, or else that they have
lever meant that any portion of the
evealed word. clearly and manifestly
evealed or not, can be disbelieved