The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1902-04-05

nave SHOWN you. COHlIluS'
John, that God must, because he can
not authorize either the teaching q
error, without contracting his own ma
ture, which is infinitely and essential,
true: and that he does. to the full
extent of their commission to teach
you yourself do and must hold or Civ
UP all belief in external revelation"
Not at all.
Why do you believe our Lord wal
son of God?''
Because he himself so declared"
Why do you believe his declara
tions?''
Because he was the Son of God anc
could not lie"
"A good reason. after it is proved
that he was the Son of God; none a
all before"
BE it So
| John Milwood begins the dialogue, Il
prove the infallibiiity of Gods minis
ters, holding the divine commission &c
teach the word OF God.-Ed I. NJ. CT
XXI
'The miracles. then, simply proved
| his divine commission, that is, accred-
! tied him as a teacher sent from God
! But how from the fact of his com
:
| said if the divine commission be not
! the warrant of infallibility? If one
| who is divinely commissioned to teach
Notwithstanding his commission. may
| err, how can you say that our Lord
| himself did not err. and that you do
not err in believing him to be the Son
Of God? Indeed, ii is only on the
ground that the divine commission is
the warrant of infallibility that your
profession of faith in the Bible as the
infallible word of God is not ridiculous
and absurd"
THE sacred RS were inspired.
but the divinely COZ, nissioned teachers
you speak of are not. Being inspired,
they could know the truth of what
they affirmed; and being honest and
cody men, they would not affirm what
they did not know"
That is nothing to your purpose.
The inspiration was nothing more nor
less than God simply telling or COM
municating to them what they were
to teach, and they have in this respect
no advantage over the church. in case
she be fully instructed as to what she
is to propose as the word of God. If
instructed, it matters not, as to her
ability to teach, whether instructed by
immediate inspiration to herself, or
only mediately through that of the
prophets and apostles. She claims to
have been fully instructed, for the
commission under which she processes
to act was, Going, teach all nations
teaching them 10 observe all
things whatsoever / have commanded
YOU Est. Matt. xviii, 49, The al
legged defect of immediate inspiration
in her case. or it's presence in the case
of the sacred writer's, can, therefore.
of itself, be no reason for believing one
in preference to the other. The real
reason for believing the sacred writer's
Is that God authorized them to teach;
and you have the same reason for be-
lieving the church, if you have equal
reason for believing her authorized by
God to teach his word. The commits
sion is warrant of infallibility in her
case, as much as it was in theirs.
But you forget that l gave as my
reason for believing the sacred writer's
that they were honest and cody men.
and would not affirm what they did
not know"
You. then. consider the personal
character OK the teacher better au-
thority than the divine commission?
This is a common Protestant blunder
and hence the worthlessness of the
greater part of your treatises on the
evidences of Christianity. Gods au
thority for believing is not sufficient
till man indorses it! The best men are
fallible, and may be deceived. If we
had nothing but the personal charac-
ters of the writer's on which to rely.
honest and cody as they certainly
were. we should have no sufficient rea-
son for believing what they wrote to
be the word of God. Their personal
character may be important when the
question turns on their credibility as
witnesses to the facts they record. but
does not enter into the account when
the question is on their authority as
teachers of revealed truth No mans
character is a sufficient war
rant for believing that anything he as
sertS to be a doctrine of revelation is
really and truly doctrine of revela-
ton. If it were. we should be obliged
to believe whatever any man, whose
character, so far as we know, is honest
and irreproachab1 bic, chooses to teach US
as the word of God. How, then. can
you maintain that the personal char
acter of the teacher is a surer warrant
Of infallibility than the divine commits
sion?'''
The simple fact that the writer's
we're honest and cody men may not
be alone a sufficient reason for believ-
ing them. yet if they had been bad
men. that would alone have been suf-
1cient reason for not believing them.
For God does not and will not speak by
bad men,
THAT is not so certain. Balaam. the
son of Peor, was bad man; yet God
spoke by him, and caused him to utter
| glorious prophecy. Do you believe his
hi
because divinely commissioned teachers
nave told YOU that it was not he who
spoke from himself, but the Lord who
spoke by him."
Il believe the sacred writer's because
Tod authorized them to teach his word.
Ind the Holy Ghost was with them to
'nable them to teach it, and to preserve |
hem from error in teaching it,
is not the assistance of the Holy
Ghost, so far as needed, necessarily !
implied in the commission or authority |
o teach?"
If the commission were the warrant
# infallibility, it would be so implied; |
'ut that is precisely what 1 deny"
No man can teach infallibility with. |
tut ito"
No"
But with it any man can teach in
Perhaps So"
No perhaps about it. 1t must be |
10 positively or you cannot assert the |
of the sacred penmen"
God leaves the will free any one !
Who has the assistance may teach in
abby, il he chooses; but it does not,
therefore,, follow that he must and will
o teach
I'm what concerns personal moral
ty. natural or Christian. the will is
rec: but in teaching at the command
f God, it is not The individual speaks
ot as moved by his own WILL but as
moved by the Holy Ghost. Thus Ba-
lam was forced against his will to