The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, January 12, 1896, Page 8

THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, SUNDAY, JANUARY 12, 1896 8 e rn iy s THRIEAE FTIBGEWD BE R MR BRI EY ooew . FATHER YORKE T0 DR WENDTE The Catholic Chancellor Con- | tinues His Reply to the Unitarian. ST. PETER'S COMMISSION. Christ Was Governor of His Kingdom and Bequeathed His Office. ‘W. H. BOWMAN'S CONTRIBUTION. The American Protective Association’s Champion Continues the Argu- ment. Rev. Father Yorke continues his reply to the Rev. Dr. Wendte in the following letter addressed to THE CArL: January 11, 1896. To the Editor of the Call—DEAR Sik: In my letter of vesterday I treated the first proposition | defended by Dr. Wendte Peter was never invested by Jesus Christ with any extraordinary authority or spiritual supremacy over the other discipie: In order to substantiate this denial Dr. Wendte gave the ususl objec*ions against the Catholic doctrine that Peter was appointed head of the church. objections 1 ar- ranged in the wing order: alnst the proofs alleged to sub- (a) Pete (b) His na casion, and therefore ha: (c) Peter was the Rock leading Rock. given oo a different oc- special significance. 1y because he took & rcl nse Christ re- ed him he denied Christ. The argument from the commission to con- firm the brethren is of no weight, because nothing ‘Was meant but St. Peter’s natural fervor. om the power of binding and because all the disciples re- 100sing is of no wel ceived the same power. B. Objections against the fact itself. (1) Our Lord himself expressly provided against & primacy. (2) The ancient church w hierachical basis, and th for a Pope (3) The whole histor, shows no trace of th (a) The apostles exerc: common. (») Peterdid not preside at the council of Jera- salem. (c) Paul him face to face. (d) The fourth gospel glorifies Jonu, not Peter. 1 have considered his treatment of the argu- ment drawn_from Rock metaphor, and have shown that his ctions will not hold water. Inow proc examine his answers to the argument d 2. THE COMMISSION To CONFIRM THE BRETHREN. = The accou the conf 1ch & come mission on Peter is found in the twenty-second chapter of St. Luke: 0 ATOSe & Conter tion a hem is accounted 10 be not_unirequent. not orzanized on a Tefore there was Do room of the apostolic church acy of Peter because ed their authority in i of poor fishefmen, fired with Mess cams, have been prom- ised a kingdom, and it is no wonder that they should squabble and in- trigue for the good places. Christ takes note of their contention, and does he say there shall be no piaces, no “chiefs,” no “greatest” in his k Such 2 declaration would end the dispute at once. On the con- trary he admits that there shail be grades and oftices among them, and he takes the oppor- tunity to inculcat ility on the men who are to hold thes ¥ are mot to follow the examp rule the nation lord it over the: that ha the gentiles ve authority He that and the; are called benetactors, but 1ot so ye. is greater among you let him become as the lesser, and he thatis chief as one that doth | serve.” Then he enforces this precept by his own ex- ample. No one who rcads ‘the gospels can deny that Christ acted as chief, as leader, as governor of h exercised by him & the peges of the evangelists. among them as naster and chief, vet just at this very moment he had but finithed performing the most menial service—the washing of their feet. “For whether is greater—he that sitteth meat or he that serveth? Isnothe that sitteth atmeat; but I am in the midstof you es he that serveth.’” He had not cessed to be their master though he acted as their secvant. He was still the king, though he was meek and humble of heart; so when they should receive the ap- ointed kingdom, and should sit on thrones udging Israel, they shouid not be carried away by their powe as he. Then he turned to Peter and said: Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have you"—plural, the apostles—“that he might sift you”—plural, the apostles—“as the wheat 18 sifted in the winnowing. ButI have praved for’—whom? The twelve apostles? No; but— “thee”—singular, Simon Peter—“that thy”— singular, Peter's—“faith fail not. And thou"— Peter—‘“being once converied confirm thy brethren”—tiie apostles. The hour of the passion isat hand. The lit- tle flock which he had gathered with such in- finite care and patience and love is about to be scattered. The powers of darkness are to have their day of triumph. What then will become of those to whom he has been making such mises, promises so glorious that he has en compelled to warn them agminst pride? His words give the answer. He has chosen one out of the eleven,to be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. To him he gives the office of confirming his brethren. In order that he may carry out that office he prays for him specially. Evidently he believes that his prayers shall be efficacious. Peter's faith shall not fail, and Peter, therefore, shall confirm the brethren. This duty laid upon Peter is something given to him alone. Itisa peculiar privilege, and it isa privilege which necessarily denotes au- thority. Christ sends him to restore order 1o anarmy that is demoralized. The enemy is victorious and_the soldiers ere fleeing hither and thither. He who in sucha juncture would Tally men once more to the flag must possess or must seize authority. His words must be commands, and he must be ready to shoot the mutineer deed in his tracks. In such a case men will obey authority, and authority oniv. ‘When Christ” sends Pefer to rally his panic- found strewn ali over stricken apostles shall we believe that he sent | him without as much suthority ss we would give & policeman in a stampede? Unless he has power and can speak as one having power, all his efforts will be in vain; but because he has authority and because he speeks s one having suthority he is able to confirm the brethren as his master commanded. But the Rev. Dr. Wendte thinks otherwise. “Peter,” he says, “was a man of intense and striking ' individuality, a singular blending of strength and weakness, faith and fear. He was always foremost amonz the disciples to speak and act. Hence, Jesus naturally looked to bim to be- come a pillar of the church, and by his fait. and fervor to ‘strengthen the bréthren’ in the hour of Christ's words give us a different impression. 1 do not suppose here that he is more than a man, or that he could see into the fature. or that his pravers were eflicacions. 1 take his words as expressing his thoughts, whother these thoughts were correct or not. Now, then our Lord’s words evidently imply that the devil bad got hold of the whole apostolic col. lege. To Jews, saturated with the Old Testa. ment, his expression meant that Satan had ob- tained them, as of 0l he hed obtained Job, I this juncture what did Christ do? He does not rely on Peter’s fervor; he relies on his owin rayers. Peter shall not fail, and the obyions | ntention of Christ's words is that he does not fail because of Christ's prayers. Dr. Wendte may not believe that Christ’s prayers could have this eflec, but it is evident that whoever Wrofe the gospel had a different opinion. Anyhow it little matters why Peter did not fail. Cbrist gives him a certain duty to per- form as soon as conversion comes. That d‘:l!)’ is 1o be exercised by him toward the other apos les. How on the face of this commission can any one hold that *‘Peter was never in- vested by Jesus Christ with anv extraordinary anthority over the other disciples.” 3. THE COMMISSION TO BIND AND Loosk. Ak a “1inal proof” that St. Peter receivedno specisl power or authority Dr. Wendte says: In the Gospel of Maithews (xviii:18) we read that Jesus committed the power to bind and loose, 10 retain and remit sin, uot only to Peter, bui to ali the disciples. “Verily, T sav unto vou, whaisoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ve loose ou earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Whatever weight of authoriiy we may attach 10 this mysterious passage. one thing is assured, the keys of heaven are in the hands of o oue privileged tyrants who | kingdom. Acts of authofity | He therefore was | but should use it even | mediator between man and God. Every disciple is & priest of the Most High; every pure soul Is God’s temple, every houest thought, every virtuous action and holy prayer brings us_into immediate and intimate relations with our Father in Hel_ven, promotes our present felicity and opens the King- dom of Heaven to all beifevers. This is another of these beautiful and mys- terious passages in which Dr. Wendte delights. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely nothin, anysterious about it. The expression “to bin and to loose” was one quite familiar o the Jews and possessed a well-defined meaning. Tt is a metaphor, certainly, but a metaphor easy to be understood. It means the power of making and abrogating Iaws, that legislative authority which is a function of the supreme govern- ment of any society. When, therefore, our Lord said to St. Peter, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven,” he gives him in lain terms the supreme legislative power in ! fi[schumh. Dr. Wendte, howevyer, objects that { this power is given to all the other apostles as well. In order to see the strength of his argu- ment let us read the whole text. Chrisi is | speaking to the disciples: | It thy brothersin against thee, go, shew him nis fault between thee and him alones if he hear thee thou hast gained thy brother. Butif he hear thee not take with thee one ortwo more, that at the | mouth of two witnesses or three every word may | be established. And if he refuse to hear then teil | it unto th= church; and if he refuse to hear the | church also let him be unto thee as the Gentile { and the publican, Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth ghall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosea in heaven. 1t is evident here that Christ is dealing with 8 particular circumstance; namely, excom- munication. When the church expels a man Christ promises to ratify the expulsion. Hence the object of the legislative power is restraint to this particular case. 1f. however, it be urged—and most Catholics agree—that the words, What things soever,” are universal, and that the object on which the power is exercised does not restrict the power itself, we should then grant thet by this text the legislative power wss given to the church. Dr. Wendte's claim _that the power is given to each individual disciple is as absurd as to claim that each individual member of Congress possesses the legislative power. Christ is spesking not to each, but he is speaking to some kind of a society, call it church or | congregation or what you will. He has made a complete distinction between the brother, the two witnesses and the society. To the so- ciety he gives the binding and the loosing power to each disciple. However, the privilege given to Peter was absolutely ‘personal. To him and to him by | name was given the same power which is con- | ferred upon the whole church. When the | whole church meets in council w:th Pope at its head, it nas undoubtedly supreme legisla- tive power. That very same supreme legi: tive power was given by Christ to St. Peter in- | dividually, and was not given tn ually to any other O the apostic Hence we see, Mr. Editor, that all the objec- tions brought aguinst my argument by Dr. | Wendte do not touch the case atall. He has | ot succeeded in explaining away these plain and unequivocal texts of Scripture which | demonstrate the primacy of St. Peter. Let us now see if he can, from the whole of the New | Testament, produce a single fact or saying | which will'militate against the Catholic teach- | ing that Christ constituted Peter the head of | the church. | B. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE FACT. To disprove the fact that Peter was given | 8 supremacy over the apostles, Dr. Wendte | produces tnree arguments: 1. Our Lord pro- vided against a primacy; 2. The ancient or- ganization of the church’ left no room for primacy, and, 3. The Apostolic history shows no traces of & primacy. I will consider each | of these arguments iu order. 1. CHRIST PROVIDED AGAINST A PRIMACY. “Once more,” says Dr. Wendte, “while Jesus | may have intended to make Peter prominent in the apostolic circle, it was entirely without any idea of his supremacy or rule over them. | This is shown by the striking incident, nar- rated by the synoptics, that on one occasion when the diseiples were disputing on this ve point—who shonld be the greatest in the kin dom of heaven (Matt, Xx :20-24)—Jesus olemnly putting forwerd Peter, as he would naturally have done if he had destined him for the primacy, Jesus rebukes their selfish contention by placing a child in their midst and telling them of such 1s the kingdom of h hrist himseif recognized no su- v. Hesald: “The princes of the ge s have dominion and great authority over them. But it shall not be so among you; but whosoever shall be chief among you let him be your servant.” And Jesus, to give them an example of this humble service, periorms the menial office of washing their feet. 1 have already touched on en incident simi- lar 1o this related by St. Luke, and which took vlace at the last supper. Dr. Wendte evidently | has confounded both. 1 will copy out the textin full, for there is nothing more mislead- | ing than scraps of Scripture torn from their | contex Then me to him the mother of the sons of Zebelee, with her sons, worshiping him and ask- ing & certain thing of him. And he said unto her, What wouldst tho She saith unto him, Com- mand that these my two sons may sit, one on tiny right hand and one onthy left hand, in thy king- dom. But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not | wnat ye ask. Are yeable todrink {he cup that I am about 0 drink? nto him, We are able. He saith unto the up indeed ye shall drink, but to sit on my right hand and on my left | hand is not mine to give. but 1t {8 for them tor | whom it has been prepared of my ther. And when the ten heard it they were moved with in- dignation concerning the two brethren. But Jesus called them unto him and sald, Ye know that the rulers of the gentiles lord It over them, and their great ones exercise au- thority over them. Not so shall it be among you; but whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister, and whosoever would be first_among you shall be your servant. Evenso | the Son of Man came 1ot to be mistered unto, but to minister, and to give his life & ransom for | many. | There is also another similar incident re- | lated in the eighteenth St. Matthew: |, Inthat hour came the disciples unto_Jesus, say- ing, who then is graetest in heaven?’ And he called unto him a little child and set him in the midst of them, and said, | Verily I say unto you, except ye turn and become as little children, ve shall in nq_ wise enter into the kingdom of he: n. Whosoever, therefore, shall humble himsels 4s this little cuild, the same'is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. From these texts it will be seen that Dr. Wendte has mixed up three distinct and sepa- rate events to make an argument against St. | Peter. 1am surprised that he manifests such & confused acquaintance with the words of the Holy Bible. It will be seen from an unbiased reading of all these texts that Christ tacitly acknowiedges | the existence of places of honor in his church. | He knows too well, however, how prone the heart of man is to pride and how the holiest office of religion may be prostituted to per- | sonel glory. As long as men, notangels, are | ministers of the gospei this must be. Christ | tries to guard against it as much as possible. He does not cure the sin by killing the sinner.; | hedoes not prevent pride by ubolishing places. Rether he lays down the maxim that they who are to hold the offices are to be the humblest of all. He admits that there are oflices in his kingdom, pbut they are notob- tained by intrigve or by intluence. Rather should they be sought by humility and be- coming as little children. Dr. Wendte's argument ageinst the existence | of offices in Christ's church, as I have said | above, proves 100 much. Christ was certainly, &s & matter of fact, the head of his church. He was & teacher, a rabbi, s prophet, a king. This the apostles believed. Was ne not as much a kizg in their eyes when he washed their feet as when he scourged the Pharisees | with his woes? Was he not more a king? Did not the act receive its significance from the | fact that he was the Master, and do not his ex- hortations receive their force from the fact that he was addressing those who were to be u:db?y the Holy Ghost to rule the church of Go Dr. Wendte says that Christ should naturally have set forth Peter as the head of the church When thesé contentions arose I answer that he did. Not on every oceasion it is true, for he was not exhibiting the stle as a prize | call. But on the occasion of the last supper, | when the eleven feil to fighting agaiu, he | stopped their contentions torever by telling | them that Satan had got them all except one | and thet one, Peter, was to have the duty of | confirming the rest. Hence how baseless, how unsubstantial Dr. Wendte's argument is may be seen from these considerations. I am teinpted to quote his | own words against him. Hisclaim that Carist | repudinted u primacy “is disclosed to be cn- tirely unfounded, a fiction built on the most siender basis of 1act, & myth which dissolves into thin air,” notat such an elaborate per- formance as ““the first dawning of an enlight- d reeson and conscience,” butata simple ction of tha Bible record. ow can our worthy Dr. Wendte meet such ins) H facts as these? 2, THE ANCIENT CHURCH W48 NoT HIERARCHI- CAL. The second argument uried by Dr. Wendte against the primacy of St. Was no room for it in the ancient church, says: Indeed, in the Bible the word “church” is never used (0 slgnify a_hierarchy in the Roman Catholic sense. ILalways means an assembly Or congreza- tion. - No such office #s that of Rishop. in the Romish sense of a lifelong’ tenure and supreme Ppriestiy autbority over the whole cOngregation, ia 10 be found in the early church, from Its institucion down (0 the time of Nero. The first church oficers mentioved in the New Testameni—the deacons (Acis vi:2-6) were ordained by all the aposties in comm:on, 1oL by Peter alone. I am afraid that Dr. Wendte is inventing Catholic doctrine as he has been inventing Scripture. The penny Catechism defines the church as follows: ** The church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same sacraments and are governed by thelr law ful pastors under one visible head." Hence no Catholic contends that the church is not an assembly or congregation. What we do hold is that this corgregation is not a mere moeb, but an organized body ruled by officers eter is that there He the kingdom of | constituted by Cbrist. Indeed there is noth- ing in the New Testament more cvident than the fact that Christ divided his kingdom into the teachers and the taught. From the multi- | tude of his disciples he selected twelve | (Matt. x). Them he sent forth to preach. At the end of hisstay on earth he commanded | them to make disciples of all the nations | (Matt. xxxii1). He gave them power to adminis- ter sacred rites such as baptism, penance (John xx) and the holy communion (I Cor. xi). He | made them legislators, whose laws should bind the very consciences of men. (Matt. xviii). Moreover, these powers he gave only to cer- tain officers. As St. Paul puts it, “God hatn set | some in the church; first, apostles; secondly, | rrophets; thirdly, teachers; then powers, then gifts of healing, etc. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all work- ers of miracles? Have all giftsof healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret And again (Ephes. iv: 11), *He (Jesus) gave | some to be apostles, and some prophets, and | some pestors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints unto the work of ministering | unto the building up of the body of Christ til weallattain unto_the unity of the faith.”’ That itis to say, there shall be in the church | men to instruct, to govern, to minister, by the appointment of Christ, until the last soul is gathered to the sheepiold with the Good Shep- herd on the eternal hills. Hence it is that we find the church assuming & hierarchical form immediately after the | death of Christ. Another sncceeds to the office from which Judas had fallen and obtains the same grace and apostoleship as the eleven. Paul and Barnabas are set aside for a certain | work and straightway they proceed to eppoin elders or bishops in every church. Nothing | can be conceived more diverse from the apos- tolic practice than _a modern Protestant con: gregation. If the Christians of Crete were any- thing like our California Unitarians they must have considered that Paul had un- paralleledgimpudenceswhen he handed them over to Titus. ‘‘Heretofore 1 left thee in Crete | that thou shouldst appoint elders or bishops | in eyery eity.” If by some dispensation of provideace Titus should some day appearin Oakland, accompanied hg‘ Dr. Stebbins, d order Dr. Wendte over to Franklin street, I am afraid the congregation would have e unani- | mous fit. The n)‘noslle who wrote of the over- | seers whom the Holy Ghost had piaced to rule | the church of God would have very little aym- pathy with the modern system iwhereby no | member of the church is compelled to obey | except the unfortunate pastor. { For these reasons I conclude that Dr. | Wendte’s attempt to block out St. Peter is not a success. There is no use arguing againsta fact, and the facts of apostolic history are in | favor of the Pope. 3. THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. Dr. Wendte gives four reasons for his asser- \ tion that the history of the apostolic church shows 1o traces of the primacy of Peter. I| will consider these four reasons separatel (a) The apostles exercised their authority in | common, { He says: The first church officers mentioned | in the New Testament—the deacons (A vi:2-6)—were ordained by all the apostlesin common, not by Peter alone. again, when earnest feachers are needed in Samaria (Acts vii:l4) the apostles exercise their collective authority and send Peter and John thither. 1 might remind Dr. Wendte that the practice of ordination in common is still carried on in | the Catholic Church, and does not atall prove that the bishop is not the governor of the dio- cese. When the presiding officer of the Senate ! votes for a bill, and thus passes it, he does not cease 1o be Vice-President of the United States. Some people imegine that St. Peter could not have been head of the church unless he was grabbing every hing in sight. If Imay say it without disrespect the proper enswer to Dr. Wendte's objection is that St. Peter was no hoe. | That he was sent into Semaria with John is a very peeuliar way to prove that he was not | head of the aposties. Suppose in the present war scare the English Cabinet should decide to send Queen Victoria over to Germany to mollify her grandson, would that prove she was not Queen of England? Peter and John were sent because they were considered best fitted for the work, and that Peter went only proves thet he patterned himself on his Mas. ter, who came not to be ministered unto but to minister. To what desperate straits must men be re- | duced when they bring forward such cobweb | aTguments as tuese to batter down the rock! (b) The Council of Jerusalem. Still more significant is the testimony af- forded by the council or synod of apostles mentioned in the fiftcenth chapter of the Book of Acts. Peter does not preside over it, as he would naturally have done if he had been recognized as primate. He defends his own course like a private member of the con- gregation, and James is the one_who proposes the compromise which is finally adopted by the apostles, elders and congregation in settle- ment of their differences. It would take up too much room to copy out this text. However, as this letter will appear | on Sunaay your readers, Mr. Editor, could not do better than read the whole fificenth chap- ter of the Acts of the Apostles, They will find that there is not the slightest hint given that Peter did not preside at the synod. Indeed, his words have an authoritative sound. He does not detend his conrse, as Dr. Wendte says, but he simply tells what he did, as if the fact that he did it were sufficient justification. What James has to do with thé question no one cat. tell. Thathe proposed & compromise, or that the compromise was adopted, proves | nothing for his superiority. One might as well | cleim that Mr. Wilson, the author of acnm<‘ promise tariff act, is the President of the | | United States. Hénce, 1 am afraid that Dr, Wendte will get cold comfort from the council of Jerusalem. The description of itcontains not a single sentence to show that Peter was relegated to a second place. | (¢) Panl withstood him face to face. | To prove that St. Peter wes not the head of | the chureh Dr. Wendte produces the famous | text from the Galatians. He says: “Peter was no rock when in apostolic times, | in subservience to the narrow policy of the | Jewish wing of the church, he was unfaitnful to his own highest conviction, opposed the | necessary world-historic development of Chris- | tian truth, and drew upon himself the stern rebuke of Paul (Galetians ii:11-21), who nc- | cused him of ial ; yand thwart- | ing the will of God, This iticism in which Paul indulged, does not look like an ac- | knowledgment on his part of the primacy and | sovereign authority of Peter.” | If there is anything that delights me it 1s to | see the beautiiul way in which the modern preacher can pitch into St Peter. I do not know what special spite they have ageinst him, but they seem to revel in hurling epi- thetsathim. In the beginning of his letter Dr. Wendte reproached me with solemn face and lugubrious voice for my bad language, and | here he is five minutes after calling St. Pete lier, & hypocrite and a coward. He repr me for applying to & live sinner terms which he does not scruple to apply to a dead saint. Now, let us sce what bearing St. Paul’s con- duct has upon the supremacy of Peter. The mere fact that he resisted the Pope to his face proves nothing. Many a man has resisted bis superior to his face end gloried in it Why not St. Paul? In fact, if we study the eireum- stances under whica this resistance took placo we will find another and a stronger argument in favor of St. Peter's prerogative. The statement that St. Paul withstood St. Peter is found in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians. These Galatians were troubled by mischief-makers, who insisted that the Jewish law was binding on_ail Chrisians. As this was directly opposed to St. Paul's teaching the Judaizers, es they were called, strove to belittle his authority by declaring that he was not a genuine apostle buta late- comer, who had never walked with Christ on earth, and who, therefore, was not competent 1o declare what the true faith was. The Epistle | to the Galatians was written to eniorce the | idea that St. Paul was a true apostle and capa- | ble of saying that his teaching concerning the Jewish law was correct. The proof which he offers is the testimony of St. Peter. He says that after his call at | Damascus he went into Arabia for three years to prepare for his mission. Before he entered on that mission, however, he writes: “I came | to Jerusalem to'see Peter and Iabode with nim | fifteen days.” Now, if Peter had not some Jeculier office in the churel why should st. | Paul single him ouz for a visit? Peter was not even Bishop of Jerusalem, and to James, who was_Bishop, St. Paul only refers in passing. Wheén we read in medizval history that the Apostles to the barbarians, like St. Patrick and St. Boniface, went to Rome to visit the Pope before setiing out on heir missions we under. stand_that they recognized the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. When St. Paul goes to Jerusalem to visit St. Peter beiore beginning his npostolic career is it rersonabie to suppose that it means nothing at al:? Moreover, St. Paul 15 strong on the point that Peter’s approbation was suflicient to vouch for him. He edds, “And no other apostle did I see except James, the brother of the Lord.” According to the theors of Dr. Wendte, that | James was rising into prominence, he should have called on James first; but St. Paul, just as any other good Catholic to-day would 'do, be- gan by paving his respects to the Pope. Then he goes on to make a further appeal to Peter. His visit to Jerusalem shows that he Was recognized as a true aposile, now he wants 10 show that Peter himself preaches the same doctrine about the non-binding character of the Jewish law. This he Goes by recalling the incident at_Antioch. Antioch was a Gentiie city and St. Peter made no distinctions between his conveits from paganism and his converts from Judaism. St. Paul records the fact that he ate with the Gentiles. When, however, the ex. tremists began to assertthat the Jewish law still continued in force and emissaries arrived from Jerusalem, then St. Peter, fearing to offend the Jewish party, withdrew from the conversion of the Gent This was simply a prudentinl move and recommended by St. Paul him- self on another occasion, when he says: “1will Dot eat meat if it scandalize my brother.” St Peter's action, however, though indifferent in itself, appeered to St. Paul as calculated to pro- duce a bad cffect. He realized that the Judaizers were rapidly advancing to the hereticsl position which they aiterward rezched of declaring that the law absolutely bound all. He therefore considered Peter's action as favoring a dangerous faction. For this reason “he resisted hirm to the face.”” The resistance, indeed, was 8 very simple matter, | he | the| Y | whichis sometimes made that Linus is called | spread the doc { that he had previc It consisted, so to speak, in “giving away” to he visitors from Jerusalem the fsct that St. Peter was in the habit of eating with the Gen- tiles, “I said to Peter before all,” he writes to the Galatians, “if thou who art & Jew does live like the Geatiles, why wouldst thou compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” This is practicaliy an appeal to the supreme authority of the prince of the aposties against a faction who were using him to_justify their errors. That Paul could resist Peter on this matter merely proves that Paul's doctrine was right. It brings shamefaced Peter before the Galatians to bear ywitness that this newiangled apostle is correct in his teachings. Now if Peter’s witness is not in some way suthorita- tive, why should Paul be so anxious to have him on hisside? “Does not the fact look like an acknowledgment on his part of the primacy and sovereign autiority of Peter?” (@) The glorification of John. )r. Wendte tries to show that there was a gradual obscuration of St. Peter as the chureh grew older. How this obscuration can be proved is to mc a mystery. All we know about the &postolic church is io be found in the New Testament, and surely Dr. Wendte does not consider that a bundle of old letters is a very good method for obtaining anything like the proper perspective of history. What Dr. Wendte says about the Gospel of St. John is, T am sorry to say, incorrect. In fact, John re- | Iates how our Lord washed Peter’s feet first of all. He tells of himself, how, when he outran Peter to the tomb, he waited and wouid not nter till Peter had’ preceded him. Above all, records the giving of that superhuman ta: ced my lambs, feed my sheep.” Certainly his does not look asif Peter was depreciated by the fourth Gospel. These, Mr. Editor, are all the objections against the primacy of St. Peter that I have been able 1o gather from Dr. Wendte's letter. What their value is your readers can now judge. No evidence has been brought forward | to show that Peter is not the only rock, or that the change of his neme to Rock does not indi- cate his supreme power. The commission to confirm the brethren is s special commission, not the result of a mere natural char- acteristic. His legislative power he re- ceives in common with the body of which he was a member, but he also Teceives it alone as a personal and individual gift. His primacy fits in with the hierarchical constitu- tion of the church as established by Christ and 1o word or act in all apostolical history can be alleged against that primacy. The very texts and arguments which are sent up to con- fute him range themselves upon his side. , Dr. Wendte’s honest and impartial re- view of the Bible testimony proves notning against the prince of the aposties. Clear and definite texts stand jorth in his favor. What is brought to confute him? A few strageling passages from all parts of the Bible—unwiliing conseripts who escape 8S s0On as they get an opening. Let | Dr. Wendte consider well the straits in which he puts bimself by yielding to preconceived idens. Some of the moblest passages in the scx_-xnmre Le is compelled to dismiss Wwith the epithet mysterious He loses the key which unlocks not only the obscure chambers of apostolic history but he loses the explanation of the long dealings of God with man. II. THE PER) NCY OF THE PRIMACY. In my original letter I stated the Catholic argument in the following words: 1. The society which Christ established to teach his doctrines must last forever. He is with it even to the end of the world. 2. This socicty rests upon the rock, and be- cause it rests upon the rock it is victorious over the gates of hell; hence the rock must en- dure as 1ong as the church, for no building can nd without u foundatios. Peter, thereiore, must cver remain in the church as its perpetnal defense, a< its ruler, as the shepherd of the lambs and sheep. 4. But Peter lived only for a few years. Therefore, unless he hes a successor the plans of Ch to naught almost as soon as e put into op N predicate this of him who is infinite wisdom | and infinite power. To this Dr. Wendte replies been so there is nothing to show that this authority was or could be trans- ferred to succeeding generations of dis As he gives Do reason for his deniel my po: tive statement stauds, because I have given my reason for III. ST. PETER AND ROME. Dr. Wendte has summed up his conclusions concerning the connection of St. Peter with in three propositions: r was never Bishop in Rome. Peter never abode in Kome for any such term as 1x claimed for him in the oflicial declara- tions of the Roman Catholic Church. Peter was, in all probability, never in Rome | at all 1 will consider these propositions one by one. 1. PETER WAS BISHOP OF ROME The only reason given by Dr. Wendte for his denial of Peter's episcopate in Rome is “the unanimous tradition of the chu ers designates one Linus as the fi Bishop.” Ireally do not see how he can make Such a wild statement. His own beloved Lip- sius now acknowledges that Hippolytus, in that portion of his_ chronicle from which the first part of the Liberian catalogue of the Popes was derived, counts Peter as first Bishop of Rome. My author- ity is C._F. B. Alnatt. “Was St. Peter Bishop of Rome.” He gives as his reference Dictionary of Christ, Biography and Litera- ture, vol. i, pp. 507, 555, 577. Irenmus declares that' “The blessed “aposiles having founded and built up tie Church of Rome, delivered episcopate to Linus” The difficulty the first is eas the fathers co! met by the explanation that 1t “from the apostles. they say that Ananias was the first Bishop of Alexandria after Mark. Indeed, I am very much afraid that Dr. Wendte will find it hard to prove that the fathers are unanimous, as he asserts. One statement of Dr. Wendte I notice with great surprise. He s “It is notuntil 100 years after the reported death of the Apostle Peter that'we come upon testimonies 1o the general tradition existing at Rome of Lis sojourn, primacy and death there. Now 100 years is a long time. How many legends and myths have arisen in our own enlightened country during the past_hupdred years and still persist? - How much more must this not have been the cese in the ignorent, uncritical, credulous and turbu- lent aze which witn d the downfall of the Roman empire and the transformation of the spiritual democracy of Jesus and his disciples into the monarchical constitution of the Roman hier: <pecially when it was so munifestly f interests of the clergy to ie of Peter’s Roman primacy.” With referen low me to remark, that the Christian literatiire of the first century isvery scanty and notof such a natureas would indicate anything whatsoever about matters of history. We have, however, pretty clear and convineing evidence from thirty-three years after the death Peter, that the Roman See pxercised hjs prime phatically to deny th Tant, un i Moreover, I beg em- this century was “igno- bulent or_eredulous.” It was ‘the ¥ which saw Rome's greatest glory, and as_far as learning or skepticism, or peace goes, it could well compare w own. Tam afruid Dr. Wendte has been mixing up his history &s he has been mixing up his seripture. 2. THE OFFICIAL RECORDS. Dr. Wendte goes into a long arithmetical and chronoiogical d ion to prove the Roman records wror s cinimed,” he says, “in the official declaration of the Koman Catholic church (Liber Pontificalis, ete.), that Peter re- sided in Rome twenty-five years and more, but served for ten years as B:slm(vof Antioch.” Dr. Wendte might have spared himself all the trouble. It is nowhere claimed that St. Peter’s residence at Rome or L Antiocn was continuous. He might as well try. that Archibishop Riordan is not Archbisnop of San Francisco because he spent some time in Europe. 3. Was Bt. Peter in Rome? Dr. Wendte produces n long and learned | array _of names to show that he was {not.” I can produce as long and as learned & list to prove that he was. How- ever, I would remerk that for 1300 years there Was never a suspicion breathed that Peter was notat Rome. Again the most learned scholars of Protestantism Lold with us. Dr. Wendte de- clares that Lipsius -‘has forever destroyed the so-called historical foundation for Peter’s primacy at Rome.” If he would care about teeing Lipsius himself destroved by snother Protestant I refer him to Hilgenfeld’s Zeit- schriit, 1877, pp. 486-508, where ‘“he entirely disposes of the arguments alleged by Lipsius and other critics against the presence and mar- tyrdom of St. Peter in Rome.” Dr. Wendte considers that the silence of St. Paul about Peter in his epistle to the Romans is an argument sgainst St. Peter's presence there. He should remember that the same silence is maintained concerning John in the letter to the Ephesians atatime when John was undoubtably in Ephesus. Finaily the interpretation of Babylon in St. Peter's epistle as Kome is supported by such testimony Catholic and Protestant that the truth of'it is no longer open to doubt. Dr. Wendte seems to imagine that only Catholics hold this view, but I refer him to the “Speakers’ Commentary” ‘a Protestant work) both for proofs and authorities. He will find there that the opposite theory in the words of Dr. Farrar, “will 1ot bear & moment’s consideration.”” Hence 1 conclude that Dr. Wendte's objec- tion to St. Peter's residence in Rome, like his objections to the primacy, are inspired more by the desire to down the Pope at any cost rather than by the desire for historical accu- racy. Dr. Wendte has said many thinge about the church, but in suen a vague and general way that I cannot find anything on which to base an argument. He speaksof founding an American Church upon the runs of the Papacy. Year after year the downfall of Peter has been prophesied, andlo! he stili stands. Year eafter fear the gates of hell have raged against him ut they have not prevailed. Generation after generation of his euemies has come and gone and Lie has outlived them all. Century after century passes by and he grows notold. “There are 10 gray heirs onthe head of Judah, who reneweth his youth like the cegle, whose fee_ Roman | ust as | to prove | | & fun ereas the feet of harts and underneath the everlasting arms.” Yours truly, P. C. YORKE. THE A. P, A. CHAMPIONS. @ A. Hubbell and H. W. Bowman Reply to Father Yorke, G. A. Hubbell and H. W. Bowman, manager and editor respectively of the American Patriot, submit the following: OFFICE AMERICAN PATRIOT, 819 Market street, Jan. 16, 1896. To the Edftor of the San Francisco Call—DEAR SiR: The expected has happened. Peter C. Yorke has taken to the woods. He says he ex- pects to be accused “of cowardice, and of pre- | varication, and of all the crimes'in the deca- logue, but he is content to leave his actions to the judgment of Lhelpeopleoi San Franciseo.” So are we. The public saw some time ago that Peter C. Yorke did not want tne third lawyer appointed. He is afraid of the decision. onald M. Ross promised to *‘keep faith with the publie, He will doit. He has the new Woodward’s Gardens pavilion engaged for February 26, 27, 28 and 29; one evening for each of the four propositions in dispute. Though Peter C. Yorke has taken to the woods, he looks back and grieves because Donald M. Ross will keep his word in accordance with his acceptance of Yorke's challenge. Peter C. Yorke feels very bad becanse he can’t control Mr. Ross’ part of this affair. He doesn’t want him to appearat the pavilion. He doesn’t want anything charged to meet expenses there. But we can tell him that non- Catholies and Catholics who have kept us posted on his actions will do as they please; that nis natural domineering spirit” has not yet reached the power he would like. Peter C. Yorke tries hard to meke a point be- cause the semse only of the articles quoted against him wes given by us. We admit that we did not give the whole of an articie where it was not necessary. Our typewritten copy in the hands of your printer will show omission inaicated. % We have before us the very best authority that we are correct—‘“a work which may be appealed to with confidence by every one who rizes truth and loves his country.”” ~We stand y it, and not by Peter C. Yorke., The accusation of Peter C. Yorke that we “are attempting to obtain money under false | pretenses and it is well for the people to under- stand it” surely belongs to the man who works upon his poor, deluded victims the purgatory racket. G. A. HUBBELL. BOWMAN ANSWERS YORKE. The Editor of the American Patriot Beplies to the Editor of the Monitor, H. W. Bowman, editor of the American Patriot, contributes the following letter to the famous religious controversy in the form of an answer to the recent letter of Father Yorke: OFFICE OF THE AMERICAN PATRIOT, ina 819 Market street. Editor of San Francisco Call—DEAR SIR: previous article we called attention to some of the politi tested in the buils of Popes and the indorses mentsof Catholic writers. The Papacy here in the United States upon these principles is an incontrovertible fact. We will restate the prop- ositionsand cite facts to snbstantiate our state- ments. Proposition 1: *“The Romish church has a right to exercise its authority without any limit set to it by the civil power.” Proof from American history: The refusal to con- form to the educational policy of our Govern- ment and the establishment of parochial schools in opposition to those of the state is in- ntrovertible evidence of Rome's assumption of spiritual sovereignty over the state. The ai- tempt to obtain state-endowed schools and a partof the money reised by taxation to sup- port her sectarian schools is confirmatory evi- dence of the same. Bome has denied the right of the state to educate its children. Pope Leo has guoted with approval the state- ment of Pius IX in reference to the right of the church to educate, independent of secular limitation. It is as follows: ‘‘But to exclude the chureh which God himself has constituted * % % from the teachingsof youth * * * g & great and pernicious error.”” (Quoted in the cal on“The Christian Constitution of States.”) man_ hiererchy to our school system is self. evident proof of their adherence to this papal {enet. In a Roman Cetholic publication, en- titled “Brownson’s Views,” and published by Eenziger Bros., there isan article on “Educa- tion.”. In 1t the author says: “Education should be under church control” » * * “This sort of education can be given only by the church or under her direction and control; and &s there is for us Catholics only one al principles of the Papacy as mani- | | | The determined opposition of the Ro- | church, there s and_can be no proper educa- | tion for us not given by or under direction and control of the Catholic church” (pege 61). Again on page 63 he says: “The state has no right to educate. As Anierican citizens we object to the assumption of the control of education or of any action in regard to it by the General Government.” On page 64 he asserts: “We deny, of course, as Cathiolics, the right of the civil Government to educate, for education is ion of the spiritual society.” On page 65 he declares: should be religious, and all education divorced from religion is an evil, not a good, and is sure in the long run to be ruinous to the secular or- der.” That 1s, in learniug arithmetic they should learn bhow to string beads, and in learn- ing how to sing “Hatl, Columbia!” they should be taught how to say, “Hail, Mary!” This_is a mere sample of the tone of the Romish press and pulpit. It manifesis their hostility to American law. Although some States of the Union have adopted a compnl. sory educational law they, in open defiance of it, erect parochial schools and send their chil- dren to them. Proposition 2—“The Pope and priests ought to have dominion over temporal affairs.’” Secular education is a function of the state, | yet Pope Leo sends Satolli here to dictate to the‘ American Government in regard to the education of youth. The laws of the land make marriage a civil contract, yet Pope Leo and his priests repudiate the law of the State and teach that marrizge is a sacrament; henci marriage by civil law—to use the Pope’s own words—is ‘legal concubinage instead of legiti- mate union.” (First Encyclical.) Again, in regard to the holding of property., the hier- | “All education, as all life, | | { | archy assert their right to hold proverty under | the laws of the church and in defiance to those of thestete, Thefact that Pope Leo has aic- tated the political retio proves that he claims authority over the politi- cal powers of his adhereats in America. He of American citizens | has declared that “the constitution of states | should bz modeled after the priveipies of the | true church.” Propo:ition 3—“The Romish church snd her ecelesiastics have a right to immunity from 1 law.” Civil law taxes property for the use of the state, Rome claims that her church property should be exempt from taxation. Civil law asserts that aiders and abetiors of criminals are amenable to the mey become coznizant of the nost atrocious | erimes in the confessional-box and be under | no obligation to revesi them to the state. iere in this country the Romanists ve sought to exempt their priests from civil juris- | dicticn in various instances. Romish police- men have taken drunken priests to their homes instead of the lockup. In Sun Francisco, Iast spring, & pricst was allowed o testify | without taking the oath required by law. Civillaw in many States requires children to attend the public schools, but the Romish church asserts her right to disrezard this law. | Civil 1aw decleces all marriages performed by the civil authorities are valid. Rome holds and teaches that marriage is & sacrament, Lence cannot be performed by civil authori- ties. On January 10, 1880, Pope Leo issued an encyclical on marriage and divorce, in which among other things he said: “Marriage, at least in all that concerns the substance and sanctity of the conjugal tie,is an essentially sacred and religious act which naturally ought to be regulated by the spiritual power, which holds this power not as delegated by the state or by the consent of prince: In bis first encyelical Pope Leo, after speak- ing of some of the modera evils that afflict so- ciety, says: “We are convinced that the cause of these evils lies principally in the rejection of the august authority of the church, which presides over the human race in the name of God, and is the safeguard of all legitimate au- thority.” * * * “The right of the church to instruct and educate youth is trempled under foot.)” * x % «Qh, that this salutary author- ity had never been’ neglected or repudiated! Certainly the civil power would never have lost that august and sacred glory which it re- cerved from religion.” The Romen Pontiff, in sending Satolli here as an Embassador to our Government, set aside the civil law which teaches there sheil be no union of church and state. In seeking to ob- tain funds from the state for sectarian pur- poses the Romish ecclesiastics have not only trampled upon constitutional law, but have enjoyed immuni!f' from the penalty of its vio- lation. Rome claims the right to immure young women in her convents and refuse them their liberty when they desire to go free. This is a violation of the s of civil liberty. If any other society were to thus rob people of their liberty the strong arm of the law would be invoked in their behal?. If Rome doesnot claim a right to immunity from civil law why are ds’\'mh prison pens allowed to exist in our nd? Proposition 4—“In case of a conflict be- tween the ecclesiasticel and civil powers, the ecclesiastical ought to prevail.” That Rome adheres to this as a fundamental docirine and shapes her policy in the United States in accordance with it is proved by the following facts: First, for over forty-eight years the Church of Rome has been in conflict with the United States Government in regard to the education of youth. Now, instead of sielding to the laws ot the iand and accepting the system of education sanctioned by law, it has persistently opposed it, thus proving that it seeks to prevallin this conflict. To submit to the civil power would prove its loyalty, but 10 thus stubborniy resist the laws of the land is to manifest the disloyalty of the hierarchy. Second, the following-described attempt to set aside the civil law in favor of the ecclesiastical il courts of | the land. Rome teacnes that her ecclesiasties | | for the is an filustration of Rome’s adherence to the | duced in this article prove: rinciple laid down in the above proposition. ys Mr. Hogan:* z z “While I wasa Romishgnest in Philadelphis a consultation was held between the papish priests in the diocese of Philadelphia, and it was secretly resolved by them thatthe best way of checking Hogan's heresy, as _they termed my advocating the reading of the Bible, was to take possession of the church in which I officiated in the name of the Pope. They ac- cordingly wrote to his Holiness, numbli’ pray- ing this mangod to send them out a Bishop and to give him and his successors in office a lease of St. Mary’s Chureh in Philadelphis and all the appurtenances thereunto belonging. Accordingly his royal Holiness, the Pope, sent them a Bishop with the aforesaid lease. I was immediately ordered out of the church. and having refused to depart, unless the trustees thoug%lt proper to remove me, this emissary of the Pope, only & few days or weeks in_ this country, had me indicted for officiating in St. Mary’s Church, although I had the full and ua- divided consent of the trustees. - “But the Bishop's legal right was questioned; the case was brought before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Chief Justice Tighlman presiding. I was discharged from bail and ‘custody, and the rights of tie trustees sus- tained. ' But the priests and the bishops were not content with this decision. They put their heads once more together, and fancied that they had discovered another mode by which they could rob the penple of their rights, and defeat the intention of the donors of St. Mary’s Church; and what was their plan, thi u, fellow-citizens? The Bishop called a meeting of all the priests and leading Romen Catholics in the diocese. Every lay member was ordered to bring with him a hickory stick (or cl The meeting was held in the church of St Joseph; and at the hour of 12 at night the Romish Bishop of the diocese of Pennsy.vanis, an Irishman, not more than a few months in the cointry, attended in his pontificals, told the multitude, who were there assembled, to lay down their sticks in one pile, in order that he might bless them for their use. This was done asa matter of course. The Bishop seid mass, sprinkled holy water upon the sticks, blessed them, and this done, the whole party bound themselves by a solemn VoW never to cease until they elccted a Legis- lature in Peunsylvania that would annul the charter of St. Mary’s Church; American citizen, I blush to state the fact, they succeeded. The charter was annulled by an act of the Legislature, and property worth over a million dollars would heve passed into the hands of the Pope and his agents were there not & provision in the constitution of that State empowering the Supreme Court to decide upon the constitutionality of the acts of the Legislature. “We brought the constitutionality of the act before the court, Justice Tighlman' presiding. The court decided in favor of the trustees and myself. This, I believe, is the first attempt the Pope has made to establish his temporal povers tu this country. The priesis have eaded the papists as a body aud have resolved to carry by the ballot-box their schemes,” The history of thirteen centuries bear testi- mony to the fact that Rome has taken its stand re-eminence aud supremacy of ecclesi- astical law und ecclesiastical authority when- ever the church and state are in presence to- gether and whenever civil and canon law are in antagonism. In the last fiity vears she has tried it in various countries. She tried it in England in 1651, when she parceled out the dominion of Queen Victoria into ecclesiastical principalities. She tried it i Italy &nd South America upon the marriage question. She tried it in Austria upon the question raised by the concordat. She has tried in the United States, Canada and Mexico upon the school question. “It has been meintained by the bulls of Popes, the decrees of anethemas of the priesthood. been written in the lurid flames of the auto da | fe, by the bleaching bones of earth’s noblest men and women, by dethroned kings, ex- communicated emperors, wrecked nations, ruined states and impeded civilization. In a book entitled, *Pope Leo X1, His Lifo and Letters,” by Rev. J. . Talbot, D.D., with the indorsement of Rev. P. A. McKenna, there is an encyelical upon ““The Christian Constitu- tion of States.” The following are some of his statement: First—just as the end at which the church aims is by far the noblest of ends, so its power 15 the most exalted of all powers, and canuot be held to be either inferior to_the civil power or in any way subject to it.” (Page 372.) This roves that he sets the church above the s On page 383 he says: “But to wish the ¢ in the discharge of its offices, to be sub, the civil power, is & great rashness, a great in- Justice. If this were done order would be dis. turbed, since things natural would thus be beiore those which are above nature.” * A well-regulated state cannot be when re- gion is taken away.” Second—He quotes approvingly Pope Gregory XVI in his encyclical of August, 1832, where hesays: “Nor can we hope happier results, either for religion or the Government, from the wishes of those who are eagerly désirous that the church should be seprrated from the state, and the mutual good understanding of the fovereign secular power and the swcer- dotal authority be broken up. It is evident that these lovers of most shameless liberty dread that concord which has always been fortunate end wholesome, both for sacred and civil interests.” This is indorsed by the latest infallible, hence must be authoritative. Third—He condemns as heretical errors the following vital principles of our National con- stitution: (a) That the people are the source of civil power. He says (page 884): “From these decisions of the Popes it is clearly to be understood that the origin of public power is to be sought from God himself, and not from the multitude.” To understand the pepal meaning of this statement it is necessary to quote his previous utterances relating to the same thing. On pages 370 and 371 he says: “It is clear that a state constituted on this ba- sis isaltogether bound to satisfy, oy the public profession of relizion, the very many and great duties which bring itinto reiation with God. Nature and reason, which command eve: man inaividually to serve God hoiily and re- ligiously * * * Dbinds by thesame the civil community. * * * States cannot, without a put crime, act as thougn God did_ not exist,’ or cast off the care of re- ligion as alien to them or useless, or out of several kinds of religion adopt indiffer- ently which they please, but they are abso- lutely bound, in the worship of Deity, to adopt that use and manner,in which God himself has shown thet he wills to be adored. erefore, among rulers the name of God must be holy, and it must be reckoned among the first of their duties to favor religion (Roman, of course), protect it and cover it with the au- thority of the laws, and not to institute or de- cree anvthing that is incompatible with its securi As the Romish Church claims to be the infallible teacher it follows that the | State must learn from her its relation to God and its duties to him, hence must depend upon the church for the authority of its laws. (b.) He asserted that religious liberty was a crime. “Itisacrime for States to treatin the same way different kinds of religion” (p. 384). Religious equality in the eyes of the law is one of the cardinal principles of our Government. (c.) He condemns freedom of thought, speech and press. “The uncontrolled right of think- ing and Eublicly_ proclaiming omne’s thoughts is not inherent in the rights of citizens, nor in any sense to be placed among those things Evhf}egbnm worthy of favor and patronage” p. 384). (dg He condemns the Declaration of Inde- pendence that “‘all men are born free and equal” (p. 331). “From this spring came those more recent propositions of unbridled liberty. Of those principles the chief is that one which proclaims all men, as by birth and nature they are alike, so in very deed in their actions of life are they eaual, and each is so master of himself that in no way does he come under the authority of another; that it is for him to freely think on whatever subject he likes; that noone else has a right of ruling over others. In a society founded upon these princi- ples government is only the will of the people.” In condemning such a basis of government he has sssailed the fundamental prineiples of our republican form of government. I hold in my possession a book written by a famous Cath- olic author—Rev. J. Balmes—published by John Murphy & Co., Baitimore, and entitled, ‘Protestantism and Cathelicity Compared in Their Effects on the Civilization of Europe.” It is highly recommended by priests and bishops. In his chapter upon *Resistance to the Civil Power” he begs his readers to “bear in mind the general principles at all times in- culcated by Catholicity, viz., the ohl:gmmn of obeying legitimate authori:: (P. 325.) In order to make the desired application of this principle, and to explain what he means by legitimate authority, he puts and answers a most pertinent question, as follows: “In the first place, are we to obey the civil power when it commands something that is evil in itself? No, we are noi; for the simple reason that what is evil in itself is forbidden by God; now Wwe must obey God rather than man.” (P, 32 ““In the second p.ace, are we to obey the ci g power when it interieres in matters not in cluded in the circle of its faculties? No; for in gczgsl)rd to these matters it is not a power.” (p. As he contends that the church should be left perfectly free to enact its own laws, and Wwhenever the State undertakes to subject the church to its lews it passes beyond the “cirele of its faculties,” it foilows that the laws the church opposes it need not obey. After_establishing his premises he lays down as the logical result of the doctrines maintained by the Ro: noli e e 24 man Catnolic church under any circumstances, obey the civil power when its comma; 4 ap;;n%ihm n‘:e divine law. ez “2. en laws are unjust they a - xnga\nxcnmcience. d R esind ©'3. It may become necessary to obe laws from motives of pmdeng; that isy, it'?i)s: der to avoid scandal and comnmo'tions,” When we remember that all of the edicts of the Pope are to them divine law, and that all laws are unjust that are not sanclioned by the Pope, we se¢ how that Romanists could resist our civil rulers without (to them) committing sin. Not recognizing their standard of author- ity 1t is held to be illegitimate. Thbe facts ad- (*“Popery as It Was and as It Is.") and, as an | councils and the | Its record has | f s that t:x_eA pn];fll n organization “has polities for fg“;cgngxsplne monarciy for its object and religion for its garb.” It is founded upon for- gery, maintained by fraud and defended by deceit. It has fomented sedition, incited re bellion, usurped authority and plundered the ublic to pamper its pride. It has slaughterec reedom, shackled scienc, cursed progress, and built its throne of despotism upon the ruins of liberty. Its priests kneel at the shrine of bigotry and swear to defend its unholy prin- ciples. Its head, the Pope, as its chief leglsla- tor, is held to be infailibie. Its record of blood is whitewashed, and its corruption veneered, 80 as to make it appear beautiful to the eyes of Americans. Ignorance may revere it, super- ion chant its praises, bigotry defend its errors, and ambition aid its designs; but truth wili unmesk it, education dissect it, and liberty oppose it so loiig as time endures, BowMAN. Postscriptum.—I notice that Priest Yorke hag returned to the fray after one day of silence. was of the opinion that he had petered out on Peter, and had laid down to rest after getting him safely located at Rome. And if that w ert, noi the reason it must have been that ho sought to imitate his jllustrious predecessor, “Peter_the Fisherman,” in going fishing, at while fishing for suckers caught & whale. ' He alludes to our use of the “scissors” quite offe: as if {t were a strange thing. Now, Mr. Ediior, I will a tale unfold, and explain why Mr. Hubs bell and myself used our scissors 0 such 800 advaniage. Under the new papal PEORERE ”; Priest Yorke has nrrEvezlrcd upou the stage chief actor in the role of an American \\nh a new American costume. So Wwe cone i that we would cut him outasuit of clothes from Roman cloth and let the public view bim in his native costume, Furthermore, we made use of our scissors mlcuu:lv'uz F:t:";;,‘:-;:erio apply to the papal boil on Uncle Sam’s neck. TR can thus draw the pus out it will give the atient relief. S i v In his quotation from our speech at Snlsunll{ reads “the American liberty” where it shouv(l be “our American liberty.” It so happens that read that portion from manuscript, hence know the language I used. I am pleased to learn what quotation he had reference to. My authority for the article is Bishop Marvin, ¥ quotes it in his book, “Errors of the Papacy.’ How does Priest Yorke expect me to verily it Does he want me to_go to New York and con- sult the file of the Catholic World and br the paper to THECALL office? If so, $100 would not pay expenses. To offer $100 for an article that appeared in a weekly journal over thirty-five years ago is a mere bluif game. His denial of historic facts do not lessen the valuq of the same. Our reason for suspecting his veracity is that the standard theologians of his church justify lying, perjury, stealing and murder. s 3 Our reason for chalienging Priest Yorke to de- bate the subject was to prove to the people that Romanism, like the owl, courted the dack- ness and shunned the light. Of course, it would have been at the sacrifice of my Ameri- can honor to appear on the same platform with one who was raised in a land where the pigs and chickens enjoy the luxuries of the parlor with the ‘‘childers’ but I was willing to forego that ior the sake of the A. P. A. cause. In regard to “‘pulpitless preachers,” I wish t0 remark that if I were called to choose hetween bemng a pulpitless preacher or a bachelor priest I would choose the former, as thers wouid be some show of obtaining a pulpit, but none of having a lawful wife. But he shot wide of the mark in this case, as none of his opponents chance to be pulpitless. As for no- toriety, Priest Yorke would never have been known outside of his narrow circle only for the A.P.A. Yours for Americanism, H. W. BowMAN. NEW special feature. hats, toques. 24 Kearny Keith, S08 Market street. Mourning veils, bon- street. Alma NEW TO-DAY. == A Skower of Gold would not be more wonderiul than the cures made by Seventy-Seven. Mgs. H. B. Dowxzy, 42 W. 08th St York: “I took the New Specific ¢ Grippe and it cured me; one small vial.” BARTRAM B. NEWHALL, publisher of the Lynn (Mass.) “Transcript,” says of the “77" for Grip and Colds: *‘Aequaintances have had ex- perience in the use and are loud in praise of the efficacy of its work. In all my experience with Humphreys’ Specifics there never has been a case where they have failed to do what you claim for them.” Mps. HuGH MaAYER, Princeton, Ky., says: “Several weeks ago I got a trial bottle of your “77” for Grip and Colds; am so much pleased with the success of it that I want some more.” “77 will break up a Cold. Sold by drugxists, or sent prepaid upon recelpt of price, 25¢, or five for $1.00. Humphreys' Medicine Co., 111 and 113 William St., New York. New for More WAVEERLEYS sold in past three yoars than any high grade bicycle in the world. One WAVERLEY in a community is invariably the fore- Tunner of many more. What does itmean? Could we for three years S0 successfully deceive so many people? Or is it proof positive that the WAVERLEY is built on honest value lines? MEN’S, $85. LADIES', $75 and $85, &ndiana %iefie Go., J.S. Conwell, Manager, 18 and 2o McAllister St, S. F. 1886 RAMBLERS HAVE ARRIVED. CATALOGUE FREE. 1895 Models Will be Sold for ES85.00. COME WHILE THEY LAST. 1856 Ramblers........ $100.09 1895 Ramblers... : 85.09 TEHOS. H:. B: VARNEY, 1325 Markot st., S. F. 427 8. Spring st., ¥.os Angoles. STORRS’ ASTHHA REHEDY, CURES ASTIIMA. Stops the severes: paroxysms in ONE MINUTE. 10c, 25c and 50c s nes. - All druggis's have it, or a: v s s | ny size will be mailed on KiBBLER'S PHARMACY SW. Cor. Larkin and Turk Sts., S, F.