“ Then you must say, since you allow men to believe or reject them, without essential error, that a portion of the word of God, of the truth Almighty God has revealed, may be denied without essential error. Do you hold that one can be substantially orthodox, and yet deny a portion of God's word ? "

“Even your own doctors distinguish between fundamentals and non-fundamentals, and teach that faith in the fundamentals suffices for salvation.”

“ This, even if true, would not avail you ; for our doctors are no authority for you, and you cannot urge them against me in this discussion, since I am not defending the Church. But it is not true. Our doctors distinguish between the articles of the creed which are logically fundamental or primary, and those which are secondary, I admit; but they do not teach that faith in the primary alone suffices for salvation. They teach that the whole must be believed, either explicitly or implicitly, and simply add, that explicit faith in the primary articles, with implicit faith in the secondary, is all that is necessary, necessitate medii."

“ That is all I ask. He who believes explicitly the primary believes implicitly the secondary ; for the primary imply the secondary."

“So, on the other hand, he who explicitly disbelieves the secondary, implicitly disbelieves the primary; for the secondary presuppose or imply the primary. No man believes implicitly what he explicitly denies. But you hold the non-fundamentals may be explicitly denied without essential error ; therefore, you cannot assume that they are implicitly believed."

“But do you pretend that every thing, however unimportant or insignificant, is essential to be believed ? "

" Your faith, not mine, is the matter in question.”

" As a Catholic, you are bound to hold that the book of Tobias is the word of God. In that book I read that Toby had a dog, and that the dog came to his master, wagging his tail. Is it essential to your salvation, that you believe with a firm faith that Toby really had a dog, and that the dog actually did wag his tail"

“ That is not precisely the question. Assuming the inspiration of the book, can you deny the fact without essential error ? »

Why not? Common sense teaches us that the fact is not and cannot be in itself essential.”

a

“ And do you hold that there can be essential error only where the matter denied is in itself essential ?"

" How can there be ?" “What, in religious faith, is the immediate object believed ?"

6. The truth of the particular proposition, whatever it may be."

“Not exactly ; for the faith is religious only where the proposition believed is a revealed proposition."

" The truth of the particular revealed proposition, then, whatever it may be."

“In believing, does the mind perceive the truth of the proposition believed, or only the proposition itself ? "

“ Explain yourself.”

“ What is faith, as distinguished from knowledge or science ?"

“ Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

"Or, as says St. Augustine, · Fides est credere quod non vides,' Faith is to believe what you do not see. But you must see or mentally apprehend the proposition, or you cannot assent to it. What, then, is that in the proposition which you assent to, but which you do not see ? "

" The truth of the proposition.'

“ As in the proposition, God exists in unity of essence and trinity of persons, you distinctly apprehend the proposition, but not its truth ; for if you could apprehend or mentally perceive its truth, it would be a proposition, not of faith, but of knowledge or science, — knowledge, if perceived intuitively; science, if perceived only by means of discursion. Hence, rationalists, when they refuse to believe the mysteries of faith because they cannot perceive their truth, deny, virtually, the possibility of faith, and fall into the absurdity of contending that they cannot have faith, unless it be knowledge or science; that is, inless faith be impossible! Where there is sight, there is not faith. Hence we say, faith will lose itself in sight, hope be swallowed in fruition, but charity abideth for ever. tally perceive the propositions of faith, or the credenda; but I do not mentally perceive their truth. Therefore, the truth of the revealed proposition cannot be that which is immediately believed or assented to.”

" So it would seem." " If it is not immediately believed, it must be mediately

I men

believed; that is, must be believed in some thing else, on or by some authority, as is commonly said, at least formally distinct from itself."

"That must be true; for faith is always by some authority distinct from the believer and the proposition believed."

"Then the immediate object believed will be, not the truth of the proposition, but this something else, this authority in, on, or by means of which it is believed?"

"That I do not deny."

"Now, in religious faith, what is this?"

"The Bible, as all Protestants contend, in opposition to Romanists, who say it is the Church."

"Catholics do not say the Church is the authority for believing the truth of the revealed proposition, but simply for believing the proposition is revealed; and, if you reflect a moment, you must admit that the Bible is at best only authority for believing this or that is revealed, not authority for believing it true.'

"We recognize no authority above the Bible."

"Then you place the Bible above God himself, which I own is what you who call yourselves Protestants often have the appearance of doing; but this cannot be your meaning. All you can mean is, that, in determining what God has revealed, the Bible is a higher authority than the Church. But the Bible, although assumed to be the highest authority for determining what God has revealed, is yet no authority for saying what he reveals is true. Why do you believe what God reveals in or through the Bible is true?"

"Because it is his revelation, his word."

"That is, you believe it because God says it, because God says so. But, in believing it because God says so, what is it you immediately believe?"

"God himself."

"That is, you believe the proposition because it is God's word, and you believe his word because you believe him. But why do you believe him?"

"Because it is impossible for him to lie."

"That is, because he is infinitely true, is truth itself, and can neither deceive nor be deceived?"

"I have no objection to that."

"Then the object immediately believed, in believing a revealed proposition, is the infinite truth or veracity of God who reveals it."

you?

“ Be it so.”

" Which, in religious faith, then, shall we say is the more essential point to be believed, — the matter revealed, or the infinite veracity of God who reveals it ?"

" What is the difference ?"

“ The difference, perhaps, will appear, if you tell me what it is that makes the faith religious faith, or distinguishes it, as religious faith, from all other kinds of faith."

" It is religious faith because the proposition believed is a revealed proposition.”

“ If I believe the proposition, 'God exists in unity of essence and trinity of persons,' because you teach it, or because I think I have discovered and demonstrated it by my own reason, is my belief religious belief?”

" Why not, since the proposition in either case is the same? What difference can it make, if it be believed, for what reason or on what ground it is believed ?"

“ If I believe it because you teach it, I believe you, and what I immediately believe is that you are a man of truth and worthy of credit. 'Is there any thing religious in my believing

- Not necessarily.”

« If I believe it because I think I have discovered and demonstrated it by my own reason, I simply believe my own reason. Is to believe my own reason religious belief ? "

“ Certainly not.”

“ For, if it were, every belief, whether intuitive or scientific, would be religious, and the belief of falsehood as much as truth ; since, in every act of belief, whether the belief be well founded or not, I believe my reason. But if I believe the proposition, not because you teach it, not because I discover or demonstrate it by my own reason, but because God says it, and therefore because I believe him, and that he is infinitely true, and can neither deceive me nor be deceived, and, furthermore, because he commands me to believe it, is my act now religious ?

" It is."

“ Then it would seem that it is believing and obeying God, which makes the belief religious belief?”

“ That appears to be so.”

" Then the more essential point in religious belief is not simply belief of the matter revealed, but of God who reveals it?"

"Very well, let it be so."

"In every proposition, be it what it may, which I believe because God reveals it, I do believe him, do I not?"

"So it follows from what we have said."

"But if the more essential point is to believe God, the more essential error must be to disbelieve him, must it not?" "Certainly, to disbelieve God is the most heinous offence of which man can be guilty. The grossest insult we can offer even to a fellow-mortal is to call him a liar; and we call God a liar, whenever we disbelieve or refuse to believe him.”

"But do I not disbelieve or refuse to believe God, and therefore make God a liar, whenever I refuse to believe a proposition because I have only his word for it?"

"You do, and are guilty of the sin of infidelity."

"Then, if God has told me, no matter for what reason, that Toby had a dog and the dog wagged his tail, and I refuse to believe it, do I or do I not err essentially?"

"You err essentially, as it appears from what we have said."

"Then there may be essential error, where the matter or proposition denied is not in itself essential?"

"So it would seem."

"Then you will concede what you call the non-fundamentals, if revealed truths, can no more be denied without essential error than the fundamentals themselves?"

"Not at all. Doubtless, where the matter is clearly and manifestly revealed, refusal to believe is essential error; but it does not therefore follow that it is essential error to refuse to believe, where it is not clearly and manifestly revealed, where it is uncertain that God speaks, and, if he does, what is the exact meaning of what he says.'

"This uncertainty, not the fundamental or non-fundamental nature of the matter in question, then, is that which saves the refusal to believe from being essential error?"

"That seems to follow."

"If the same uncertainty existed with regard to what is fundamental, the refusal to believe it would, then, no more be essential, than the refusal to believe the non-fundamentals ?” "That seems also to follow."

"In order, then, to determine what are the essentials, that is, what must be believed, and cannot be denied without essential error, and what are the non-essentials, that is, what without essential error may be either believed or denied, it will