OCR Text |
Show 'Cbe'Xwo ErolI)er$.fB0Slon Controversial Dialogue Between a Presbyterian and His Catholic Brother, Leading Up to Former's Conversion. The debate last week concluded iu qui s ions which follow, John Mil wood. Catholic, propounding this query: "Can, anything but truth be taught with divine authority?" ' "No," answered James, the Presbyterian. Presby-terian. 1 "God cannot authorize the teaching of error?" "No; for that would be the same as to teach it." '"then no one not able to teach the truth, and not preserved from error in teaching it. can be said to teach by divine authority?" i Sn ir would seem." "You say that for God to authorize the teaching of error would be the same as for him to teach it?" "I do." John directs the next question, beginning begin-ning this week's installment of the con-, troversy. Ed. I. M. C NXH. "And on the principle that what is done by another's authority, it is virtually vir-tually "that other that does it? Thus, what the agent does by the authority of j the principal is held to be done by the principal himself, who is responsible for it. What an ambassador does by the authority of his government is done by his government. Consequently, what one does by the authority of God is clone by God himself, and the responsibility re-sponsibility "rests on him, and not on his agent. So when one teaches by divine di-vine authority is taught by God himself, him-self, and God is responsible for it. No one can. then, be divinely commis sioned to teach what God may not himself teach immediately, and for which he will not hold himself responsible." respon-sible." "I do not deny it." "Can God teach or be responsible for error, or for anything but truth?". "He cannot." "Then he can authorize no one to teach anything but truth?" "He cannot." "Then he who is divinely commissioned commis-sioned 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 I have said, the warrant of infallibility, and as one cannot be infallible without the assistance of the holy ghost, it necessarily implies that assistance. Consequently, Con-sequently, the. claim to the divine commission 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?" "I have been accustomed to think differently, but let it pass." "Then my position, that the essential essen-tial claim of the church is that she teaches the word infallibly, is not different dif-ferent from the one I assumed the other day, when I declared it to be the claim to the commission to teach, or t4. 1 1 Jl i. - ...1 f tlnA nnil -11-i O Iliac sue imu mc nuiu viuu n"u its legal keeper and expounder?" "Be it so." ' "Then you produce no adverse claimant, claim-ant, since you produce none that even pretends to be able to teach the word infallibly." "Very well." "But in pleading an adverse title, you conceded that the title was issued, and vests somawhere; or, in other words, that there Is and must be somewhere some-where such a '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 God; 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 Protestant Prot-estant theology, which makes everything every-thing pertaining to religion a sham. Thus, justification is with it, not making mak-ing one just, but reputing him just a forensic, not an inward, intrinsic, justification. It is no real justification at all, but a mere make-believe justification, justi-fication, to say nothing of the blasphemy blas-phemy of representing God as accounting account-ing or reputing a man just who is intrinsically in-trinsically 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 a lie! A queer thing is this Protestant' Prot-estant' theologyJ Well may its authors and adherents boast themselves the lights of the age! 1 111a notion inai cue uuliioiiij uues not necessarily imply the ability to teach is the source of much of that prejudice which exists in the Protestant 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 Protestants Protest-ants that there can be no divine authority au-thority to teach where there is not the ability to' teach; and seeing nowhere no-where among themselves any teacher who has the ability, they very naturally nat-urally conclude that no one has the authority. It is absurd, say they, to suppose that God authorizes a man like ourselves to teach a man who knows no more than we do, and is no better able to teach than the rest of us. When the Catholic speaks to them of the commission of his church to teach, and that God gives her authority to teach all nations, they turn up their noses and ask us if we suppose they are such fools as to believe that God, the common Father of us all, has given to mortals like ourselves authority to teach us, and command us to yield up our own reason and judgment to our fellow men! Now probe 11e matter to the bottom, bot-tom, and you' will find that these people peo-ple object by no means to the idea that God may authorize men to teach his word,' but simply to the notion that the authority can exist where the requisite qualifications to teach are wanting. Their real objection is to the doctrine which Mr. James Mil wood attempts at-tempts to maintain, that teachers confessedly con-fessedly fallible as teachers may nev- ortholPoc lio divinetv riimmieslnnml to teach. They object, not to the Catholic doctrine of authority, but to the Protestant- To real'v God-commissioned teachers, that is, teachers who, in their judgment, have the intrinsic ability to teach truly and infallibly the word of God, they do not object, as is evident from their tendency to hero-worship. J and their common remark that he who j is able is divinely commissioned. Read Carlyle. Emerson, the transcendental- 1 ists generally, and you will find that it is always to the notion of authority without the intrinsic ability that they object, and that wherever they fancy 1 the ability they are ready to concede ti e commission. They err in making I the ability the warrant of the author- j ity, instead of making the commission 1 the warrant of the ability: yet they are right against Protestantism, and perceive a great and essential truth which old fashioned Protestantism denies, de-nies, namely that the authority and the intrinsic ability to teach are inseparable, in-separable, and that any authority separate sep-arate from the ability cannot be conferred con-ferred by God, and is. therefore, a usurpation. To one who is familiar with the Protestant community.- and who comprehends its more recent developments de-velopments of thought, it is evident that Protestants are very, generally growing tired and sick of sham and j , shamming. They are rapidly becoming becom-ing unable to satisfy themselves with a religion which is no real religion, but La mere make-believe religion. They cry out from the depths of their hearts for something real, few something which is. not merely seems. They see that the reformers built on mere seeming, seem-ing, and taught and acted a lie gave them hollow appearances, and no solid realities at best, the mere hull without with-out the kernal a symbol symbolizing symbol-izing nothing a mere pretence; and they grow indignant, turn away in disgust, dis-gust, and say: "Give us something real, something that is. it if be but the devil: for anvthinsr that is is better than nothing seeming to be something. If your religion is a mere sham, call it I a sham arid away with it; for the oldest old-est gospel is, that a lie is a lie. and no j truth. Stop lying, stop neeming. and , begin to be." So deep is this feeling of the hollowness of all Protestant pretentions, and so strong is the craving crav-ing for something real, that it has al-' al-' most one of the cants of the day. It is true, that, knowing no religion I but the Protestant, they to whom we j refer conclude rashly that Catholicity i is also a sham, also a mere hollow pre-j pre-j tence, and that no religion is real but ! that of nature. But in this they draw a conclusion quite too broad for their j premises. The church detests Protestantism Protes-tantism as heartily as they do, and in most cases, for like reasons. She detests de-tests it because it is outward, lifeless, empty, and no living reality: because it contains nothing solid, substantial, has no bottom, but is bottomless, like the pit from which it is an exhalation, and into which, as the religious atmosphere at-mosphere clears up, it subsides. She condemns with all her energy whatever what-ever is mere pretence or make-believe. She tolerates no empty forms, no insignificant in-significant rites, no vain ceremonies. She will and can approve nothing which is not real, solid, substantial. She teaches the doctrine of the real presence, and always presents the very reality she symbolizes. She can call no man justified who is not intrinsically intrinsical-ly just, and recognize no teacher as teaching by divine authority who does not teach God's word infallibly. If these people woujd turn their attention atten-tion to her. they would find the truth and reality for which their hearts cry out: for. to say the least, grace Is not less true ant real than nature. (To be continued.) |