The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1902-04-12
XXI.

/ the authority of his government is done
! by his government. Consequently
what one does by the authority of Goo
| is done by God himself, and the re
! sponsibility rests on him, and not OF
| his agent So when one teaches by di-
| vine authority is taught by God him
self, and God is responsible for it. NJ
one can. then. be divinely commits
stoned to teach what God may no
himself teach Immediately. and fol
which he will not hold himself respon'
sible.'
II do not deny it,"
Can God teach or be responsible FOL
error, or for anything but TRUTH
He cannot"
"Then he can authorize no one tc
teach anything but TRUTH
He cannot"
Then he who is divinely commits
stoned can teach nothing but TRUTH
apparently So
He who can teach nothing but truth
is infallible, is he not?''
so it would SEEM"
Then the divine commission is, as
have said, the warrant of infallibility
and as one cannot be infallible without
the assistance of the holy ghost, it
necessarily implies that assistance. Con-
sequently, the claim to the divine COM
mission to teach the word of God Is
necessarily and essentially the claim to
infallibility in teaching, and. therefore.
to the assistance of the holy ghost, so
far as needed to enable the teacher to
teach the word, and to preserve him
from error in teaching it. Is it not So
Il have been accustomed to think
differently, but let it pass.
Then my position, that the essen
tial claim of the church is that she
teaches the word infallibly, is not diff
ferent from the one L assumed the
other day, when 1 declared it to be the
claim to the commission to teach, or
that she had the word of God and was
its legal keeper and eXpounder?"
BE it So $50
Then you produce no adverse claim
ant, since you produce none that even
pretends to be able to teach the word
irfallibly.''
Very WE'LL"
But in pleading an adverse title.
you conceded that the title was issued,
and vests somewhere; or, in other
words, that there is and must be some
where such church as the Roman
claims to be. Now, as you do not and
cannot produce an adverse claimant,
you must concede that she is what she
claims to be; therefore. the church of
Cod and, therefore, that you and all
who make war upon her are rebels and
traitors to God. Is it in this way you
propose to vindicate the reformers"
Poor James was misled by his Prot
estant theology, which makes every
thing pertaining to religion a sham.
Thus, justification is with it, not max
ing one Just, but reputing him just
a forensic. not an inward, intrinsic,
justification. 1t is no real justification
at all, but a mere make believe justi-
fication, to say nothing of the bias
phemy of representing God as account
ing or reputing a man just who is in
unjust, for it leaves the man
as foul a sinner as he was before he
was justified. So in the matter of the
divine commission to teach, this same
theology teaches that one may have
the commission be authorized by God
to teach, and yet not teach infallibly,
as if God could authorize the teaching
of lie! A queer thing is this Prot
estant theology Well may its authors
and adherents boast themselves the
lights of the age!
This notion that the authority does
not necessarily imply the ability to
teach is the source of much of that
prejudice which exists in the Protest
ant community against all claims to
authority from God to teach his word.
There is a general feeling among the
great majority of intelligent Protest
ants that there can be no divine au-
-hority to teach where there is not |
he ability to teach; and seeing no
where among themselves any teacher |
who has the ability, they very nat
Irally conclude that no one has the |
authority 1t is absurd, say they. to |
suppose that God authorizes man like |
ourselves to teach a man who knows |
10 more than we do, and is no better
ible to teach than the rest of us. !
When the Catholic speaks to them of |
he commission of his church to teach, |
md that God gives her authority to |
each all nations, they turn up their |
noses and ask us if we suppose they |
Ire such fools as to believe that God, |
he common Father of US all. has given |
o mortals like ourselves authority TO |
each US, and command us to yield |
Up our own reason and judgment to |
,ur fellow men
Now probe the matter to the bot
ON. and you will find that these peO- |
de object by no means to the idea |
hat God may authorize men to teach |
lis word, but simply to the notion that |
he authority can exist where the |
qualifications to teach are !
wanting. Their real objection is to the |
doctrine which Mr.. James Milwood at
empts to maintain, that teachers con-
essedly fallible as teachers may new
rtheless be diVinely commissioned to !
each. They object not TO the Catholic
doctrine of authority. but to the Pro-
ectapt To really Cod iSSionod
eachers. that is, teachers who, in their
Judgment. have the intrinsic ability to
each truly and infallibly the word of !
sod, they do not object, as is evident
rom their tendency to hero worship
nd their common remark that he who !
5 able is divinely commissioned. Read
'arlyle Emerson. the tranScendental-i
SITS generally, and you will find that il
5 always to the notion of authority
,ithout the intrinsic ability that they
biect. and that wherever they fancy
he ability they are ready TO eoncede
lie commission. They err in making
he ability the warrant of the author
". instead of making the commission
he warrant of the ability; yet they
re right against Professionalism. and
erceive a great and essential truth
Fhich old fashioned Professionalism de-
les, namely that the authority and
he intrinsic ability to teach are in
epara BILE, and that any authority sep
rate from the ability cannot be con-
erred by God, and is, therefore. a
To one who is familiar
18th the Protestant community and
.ho comprehends its more recent de-
of thought, it is evident
nat Professionals are very generally
rowing tired and sick Of sham and