LETTER VI. The Discussion.

My DEAR EUGENIO,-.
It is too true that one should think well before promising anything. I promised you to relate faithfully the whole discussion I should have with my friends, and now I almost repent of my promise, and could desire not to have made it. And do you know why? I fear that hearing the arguments of the Waldensian will but confirm you in your Protestant errors. But I pique myself upon being an honorable man, and so I faithfully keep my promise. Only I pray you not to judge me hastily. You will well understand that I cannot in one letter relate the whole discussion; and it may be that in one you will find the arguments of my opponents, in another my answers. Therefore, wait to have all the letters before giving your judgment.

As the day was not fixed on which we were to begin our discussion, I profited by this forgetfulness, and for many days I did not allow myself to see Mr. Manson, ready to make that circumstance a plausible excuse for not having gone.

To write to you with all sincerity, I had two plausible motives for delay; the first was to prepare myself by study for the discussion; the second, because I hoped that there would arise some opportunity for discussing tete-a-tete with Mr. Manson, without the tiresome presence of the Waldensian, who, to tell you the truth, causes me to feel not a little restraint. If this could take place, I felt certain of victory; Mr. Manson would become a Catholic, and thus I should come out of the affair with honour. Night and day I thought over the way in which to realize such a project.

Whilst I was thus thinking, the landlady of the house where I was a boarder, came into my room, and with much politeness told me that she could no longer keep me, as she positively had need of my room. Do what I could, I was unable to find out why I had deserved to be sent out of her house. I only recognized clearly that she unwillingly obeyed some mysterious order. It came into my mind that her confessor, a Jesuit Father, had given her this order, but I had no proof of it. Then I went to a convent, took a room, and caused my effects to be transported thither. My friends, not seeing me, went to seek for me, but my landlady, who knew where I gone gone to lodge, told them she did not know my address. In the school, also, there occurred a change with regard to me. The professor no longer looked on me, as at first, with a kindly eye. From time to time also he launched sarcasm against the Catholic friends of heretics, and ridiculed those who, before having finished their theological course, and without having any mission, pretended to discuss with them. Then he cast on me a very significant look, which was not lost on my companions.

All these things, whilst, on the one hand, they irritated me, on the other hand gave me sorrow, and made me determine not to embarrass myself by discussion. I thanked God that I had changed my lodging, because thus, perhaps my friends would seek me no longer, and I should get free.

The convent where I went to live did not close its door until late. One evening, whilst I was in my study, I heard a knock at the door; I opened it, aand saw my three Protestant friends.

“Poor Signor Abbe,” said the Waldensian, shaking my hamd with great affection, “you are found out; your good Jesuit Fathers do not wish that you should enter into discussion with me. I will not compromise you against your will. We are come to propose two courses, and you shall choose that which you like best; the first course is to continue, or rather, to begin our discussions, the second is, to release you from your word, if your conscience should permit you to leave in error three souls whom you think lost. If you accept this course, I pray you to reflect that you cannot prevent us from thinking that you fear discussion, and that your masters,.who prevent you; have more fear than you.” (Webmaster’s emphasis.)

I accepted discussion, and then it was arranged that, to avoid espionage as much as possible, it should take place sometime in my room, sometime elsewhere.

Matters thus arranged, the Waldensian began to discuss the doctrine of justification, which he said was the fundamental doctrine of Christianity. To tell the truth, I am not very strong on that doctrine; on the contrary, until now it has seemed to me the most obscure and most involved doctrine of our theology, and I did not much like our discussion to begin with that. I proposed, therefore, that we should begin with the supremacy of the Pope. “The supremacy admitted,” said I, “as a legitimate consequence one must admit all the Catholic doctrine taught by him who is the successor of St. Peter, and the infallible Head of the Church, established by Jesus Christ Himself; and once exclude the supremacy all Catholicism must necessarily fall.” They made some difficulties, but at last my proposition was accepted. Then Signor Pasquali rising from his seat, said: “Before we begin to discuss, we ought to invoke the assistance of the Holy Spirit,” and he invited me to pray. I excused myself by saying that we were not accustomed to extempore prayer. Then he turned to Mr. Manson who said he had not his prayer-book with him. “The prayer-book of the Christian is a renewed heart,” said the Waldensian; and rising his eyes to heaven he uttered so fervent a prayer, as to draw tears from my eyes. This prayer amazed me. “However” said I to myself, “can a heretic pray with so much faith, with so much fervour! How can he, with such confidence, invoke Jesus Christ!” I, who had only known the doctrine of the Protestants by what I had heard my masters of it in lessons and in preaching, and by what I had read of it in our books, found myself in a very different position to that which I had imagined, when face to face with this Waldensian.

Signor Pasquali, having finished his prayer, made us observe that truth being a unity, in treating of a religious question, it can only be found in the Bible; but that as the different religious systems interpret the doctrines of the Bible differently, he thought for the better understanding of, and to hasten the solution of the question on the supremacy of the Pope, it would be well that each one should explain his belief on that point, in order that, confronting there different beliefs with the Bible, we might come to a decisive conclusion.

Such a proposal pleased all, and I began to explain in few words the Catholic doctrine on the supremacy of the Pope, reserving the demonstration of it to the fitting moment. I said then that Jesus Christ had declared St. Peter the head and the prince of the Apostles; that He had constituted him His vicar, and in that quality had left him as visible Head of His Church. I said that the dignity of St. Peter was not a personal thing, but was to be transmitted to his successors, and since the Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter, he has the same prerogatives that Jesus Christ gave to St. Peter, and he has transmitted these to his successors-viz.: supremacy and infallibility. This is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and I am ready to prove it with the Bible.

“I agree,” said Mr. Manson, “as regards the supremacy of St. Peter; I admit Apostolic succession in the Bishop of Rome, and I should recognise him also as Head of the Church, provided his authority should not be arbitrary but regulated by the ecclesiastical canons, established by councils. But I cannot admit his infallibility, because the monuments of ecclesiastical antiquity show that many Popes have erred.”

“With regard to myself,” said Mr. Sweeteman, “I do not admit so much. In the things of religion, I know no other authority than that of the Bible and that of the Church, which I do not think can be represented by one single man. The Bishop of Rome is a bishop like all others, he may be considered the Primate of all Italy, but I should never believe him to be the Head or Sovereign of the Church. If you speak of him only as first in honor, I shall not find great difficulty in according this to him, but never as first in authority. I recognise the authority of the Church in the Episcopate, and not in one single man.”

The Waldensian then drew from his pocket a Bible, and placing it on the table, said, “Now that each one of you has expressed what he believes concerning the authority of the Pope, I must expound my doctrine; but I myself cannot expound anything – the Bible is my only authority in matters of religion. Religions systems are for the most part fallacious; the Bible alone cannot lead astray; let us then justly and simply attend to its instructions; and I think that by this method, if we discuss sincerely, we shall easily find ourselves agreed, because all four confess that all religious doctrine ought to have its foundation in the Bible.”

The rest of “The Discussion” is on hold for now.

Download a PDF file of this article.

Please follow and like us: