The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1902-03-01
XVI.

Nv l.
The Church spreads her claim over
everything. and leaves me, according
to your principles OF logic, no possible
means of adopting any line of argu-
ment against her. which does not, in
some sense assume the point to be
proved. So subtle and crafty in her
tyranny, that it leaves absolutely moth
ing to those who would resist it, This
to me is only another evidence of her
wicked origin and pernicious influence
SO you are of the opinion, that, il
Almighty God should establish
church, he would take good care to
leave it open to attack, to give its en-
emies a fair and solid ground on which
to carry on their operations against ii.
1 am of a different opinion. and pre-
disposed to believe the Almighty to be
more than a match for the devil, and
that, if he should establish church,
he would so constitute it that no at
tack could be made upon it which
should not recoil upon those who made
it-no argument be framed against 1t
which should not serve to demonstrate
the folly and absurdity of its trainers.
1t is unqueStionably very difficult
matter to make an action lie against
the Church. or to find a court in which
all ciCIIOll Ocill DC lCScilly commenced
against her; but l have yet to learn
that this is her fault. The Church is
in possession of universal and supreme
authority, under God. has a prescrip
tive right to that authority. and must
be presumed to have a valid right to
it till the contrary is shown. You can
not assume the contrary. but are
bound to prove it. Now you must
prove it; for proofs which are sus
tanned by no authority prove nothing.
You must, then, prove it with author
ity, or not prove it at ALL That it is
difficult to find any authority whose
assertion does not assume the nullity
of the supreme authority which is to
be presumed, is undoubtedly true. You
wish to arraign the actual poSsessOr
of the supreme authority, but you can
not do so unless you have some court
of competent jurisdiction. But any
court which should claim authority to
issue a precept against the possesor
of supreme authority, and summon him
to answer at its bar. would assume au-
thOrity over him, and by so doing pre-
judge the case. This is in the nature
of things, and cannot be avoided; but
whose is the fault? The reformers, if
they had been lawyers, would have
seen that what they attempted was
against the law, and a prima facie
crime on their part, for which they
were liable to suffer the full vengeance
of the law. If they had been even toll
cradle logicians they would have seen
that they could urge no argument
which did not assume what was in
question. But surely the Church is not
to be censured, because they were mis-
cradle pettifoggers and shallow soph-
lists.
But there is a court competent to
institute proceedings against the
Church"
What cOurt?"
The court of conscience
You must prove that conscience is
supreme, before you can say that: for
the Church. as the vicegerent of the
Almighty, claims and possesses juris-
diction over conscience, and is supreme
judge in foro conscientiae. This is an
integral part of her possession to which
she has a prescriptive right. You must
dispossess her before you can compel
her to plead at the bar of conscience"
But she is at least bound to answer
at the bar of the Bible, interpreted by
private reason
Not till you dispossess her. or place
the Bible interpreted by private rea-
son in possession; for she possesses jur-
isdiction over them
"At the bar of reason. then"
reason has and can have no juris-
diction in the premises; for the ques-
ton turns on a supernatural fact, lies
within the supernatural order, ana
therefore out of the province of rea-
son.