The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, February 13, 1896, Page 10

10 THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1896." DR, WENDTE T0 FATHER YORKE, The Minister Indites His Final Letter to the Priest. A PLEA FOR TUNITY. Drift of Modern Thought Toward a Great and Co-opera- tive Church. FATHER YORKE WRITES AGAIN. He Explains the Position of the Head of the Church in Temporal Affairs. The Rev. Dr. Charles W. Wendte, pastor of the Unitarian church, Oakland, writing in reply to a late communication from tne pen of the Rev. her Yorke, says: OAXLAND. Feb. 12, 1896, To the Editor of The Call : 1 most respectfully decline to continue the discussion with Father Yorke or have anything further to do with so unscrupulous an antagonist; one who is not fair minded or courteous in debate, and who evidently cares nothing about the truth in any disputed question, but-is simply concerned, by fair means or foul, 10 Wil the partisan ap- plause of his followers. 1 shall therefore ignore anything he has said or may say hereafter. But there are many infercsting questions in- volved in the discussion which has lately been carried on in your columns by yarious writers. One of these—the topic of Christian unity ventureto treat of to-day, anticipating that many, both Protestants and Catholics, will differ with me in my coneclusions, but trust- | ing that the spirit in which I offer my cont bution may be appreciated even if my reason- ing be not always approved by the réader. To be able, through your courtesy, 10 place my opinions before so large a circle of intelligent minds is an opportunity too tempting and profitable to be refused. 1 would speak to-day of 3 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 2 Is it possible, and, if so, on what basis? 2 To unite all the followers of Jesus into one great universal church has been the ideal aim of the Christian world in all ages. The Roman Catholic_church places this idea at the fore- front of its pretensions, as is indicated by the | very term Eatholic—which means the one, universal, all-including church. Throughout the Christian ages the church of Rome has persistently advocated this c'aim to unity and universeiity, notwithstanding the | facts of history abundantly disprove it. Only recently a Catholic clergyman in these co umns, in commenting on the mwany differences of opinion apd sectarian divisions among | Protestants, complacently called attention to | the unity of sentiment ing in hisown re- | ligious household. This. he maintained, oved the latter to_be the one, only, all- abracing and all-sufficient church of Christ arth ut 15 this elaim of the Catholic church a true and justone ?_Is there now, or % as there | ever a time when the Roman Catholic doctrine d administration were aecepted by all Chris- rywhere, sented to unqualifiedly v herown adherents? An examination into the facts of history shows us that this vaunted unity of Christendom never actually existed; that it was never more than a splendid dream, sublime Utopis, which never was realized, nd never will be realized on any of the lines ich have been laid down for it. > THE FIRST DISCIPLES. 1f there was ever a gemeration of Christians in which we shonld expect to find this uni- form f belief and practice, it was among the first and immediate disciplesof Jesus. Yet the most casual reading of the New Testament shows us what differences ot opinfon there were among them concerning the personal- ity of Jesus and the mature of his mission on earth. Some thought him ancient prophet restored to life arain. Others held him to be simply & man who through his righteousness and holiness had been exalted by the heavenly Father, aiter his death to sit at his right hand and share in his glory. Others, again, concelved him to have been & pre-existent,.heavenly being whom God had sent down 1o earth to awell in a fleshly tabernacle and: execute his divine mission and then to return again to the Father and resume his exalted and heavenly rank which he haa before the beginning of the world. How differently, too, they thought on_ the subject of the Christian life. Things which seemed allowable to some were an offense and horror to others. Paul’s epistles are largely occupied with attempts 10 settle these differ- ences. The infant church was divided into 1wo opposite and hostile parties—the party of Peter, whose center was in Jerusalem, and which desired to confine the gospel as much as possible to theJews; and the followersof Paul, who proclaimed the glad tidings to the Gentilé world and sought to establish a Christianity independent of the iaw of Moses. The contest was waged with great ardor and often bitterness. Paul writes that his life was several times in danger from certain “false brethren”—that is, Judaizing Christians. He calls them *‘deceitful workers.” *Satan him- self transformed into an angel of light, whose end shall be according totheir works.” It is evident that there was no such unity of ‘senti- mengand practice in the early church as is usually clmmed for it. Itdisplayed as great differences of opinion and. practites as exists emong Christians to-day. . THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. This early apostolic church consisted+of a number of independent congregations, with a eimple and democratic form of government, copled from that of the synagogue. These churches were hospitable and helpful to each other, while disagreeing on many points of faith and practice. They held the apostles in especial honor, but meintained their congre- ational independence. In the churghes ounded by the Apostle Paul among the G en- tile Christians there was soon developed a very active intellectual life, which gave rise to great differences of opinion., In Corinth, for instance, there were in the time of the apostles not only followers of Peter and Paul, but of Apollos and Eephas and others, wko also claimed to build on the word of Christ. There were in the same congrega- tion members who denied the resurrection and the life to come; others who held marriage and the useof animal food to be sinful acts, In the church at Colosse speculations arose concerning the angelic world and.the nature ©of Christ’s glory with the Father. Everywhere in thechurch innumerable heretical sects made their appearance. They were called Gnostics by the more orthodox {:eflevers. We should térm them to-day rationalists or radicals, These maintained the most antagonistic doc- trines: some profound and otliers puerile, just &s it s among radical thinkers to-day. The next generation of Christians inherited aud continued these divisions and strifes and gave them a literary expression. The writings | among the priestnood this is apparen: ©of Philo, of Jusiin Martyr, of Iranwus, Tertui- Lian, Origen and others of the early fathers contain widely divergent opinions on the sub- ject of Christian doctrines, But with the grad- ual introduction of the gospel of Christ into the Roman empire there arose the dream of & great universal Christian church which was to onvert and possess the earth. This splendid on dazzled out of sight for the time all dis- sgreements and rivairies. For mutual help and to aid in the spread of the new faith a closer union of the apostolic churches 0ok place. Toward the ciose of the third century there seems to have been also some agreement on the points of belief essential to Christian discipleship, of which an echo,has come down 10 us in the so-called apostles’ creed, which, as Professor Harnack and others have amply shown. is not itseli of apostolic origin. We know the story of the triumph of the Christian over the pagan faith. The Roman Emperors made it their state religion. At the first general church council at Nicea, in the yéar 325, the articles of Christian faith wers sharply defined in what is known as the Nicene Creed, and the latter was enforced by the im- }wrill power as the only and orthodox beli fere, at length, there seemed to be a realiz tion 'of the unity of Christians. The holy Roman Catholic ~ church—universal, alone- saving, and all-sufficient began its eventiul career on earth. CHURCH CONTROVERSIFES. But its authority did not remain undisputed, The distinctness with which the Council of Nicea had defined the true doctrines led to a great dissension in_the church, which con- vulsed the empire for long veats, and whose central w‘ric was the deity of Christ. Arian and Athapasian controversy eusued. Arius and his followers afirmed the divinity of Christ, but denied bis equality with God. The orthodox party under Athsnasis main tained that he was God from all eternity and equal with the Father. This controvers waged furiously, divided the Christian wérld, and for & long time was vndecided. Now the Arians were victors in church and state and anon the Nicean party (rlum‘)hed- Christen- dom was divided into two hostile camps. There were in reality in that day two rival churches, each denouncing the other, and both invoking the arm of the worldly power tosup- Dpress their opponents. No sooner was this controversy disposed of by the final triumph of the orihodox party than new dissensions arose, which lasted for centuries and convulsed the Christian world. The relation. between the divine and the human nature in Jesus was now the chief topic of controversy. The different parties in the church combatted each other, not only with the weapons of the spirit but with banish- ments, executions and fanatical wars. So vio- lent and brutal did these controversies often become that whereas, in the first century of our era a contemporary was moved to exclaim, “See how these Christians love one another!” in the fourth century another witness could say with equal truthfulness “There are no wild beasts 50 lerocious as Christians who differ concerning their faith.” Yet this was the period in which the Roman congregation gradually rose to supreme control and the Papacy was developed. So it remained more or less throughout’the Middle Ages. In the eleventh century these differences were accentuated and led to the permanent estrangement and division of Christendom into the Greek and Roman churches, Each party hurled its anathemas at the other in_parting, and each declared it- self to be the true and only representative of Christ on earth. Henceforth there were in reality two Catholic churches, one at Rome and the other at Constantinople. The Roman wing of the original church was now, as it seemed, left undisturbed to carry out its doe- trine of church unity. But not for long. The war of ideas, the clash of rival parties, went on as before. Atone time the Papacy itsell was divided. There were rival Popes at Rome and Avignon, each declaring the other to be schismatics and emissaries of satan. Mean- while the monastic orders and the scholastic theologians were engaged in just as violent controversies with each otheras any sects of our own days. : Not only in the ponderous treatises of the schoolmen, but by the sword, the faggot, the rack and edict of excommunication did these disputants seek to controvert each other. Countless sects of heretics and reformers now arose in the church. Such were the Cathari, the Lollards, Albigenses, Vandois and Wal- denses, the followers of Huss, Wickliffe, Sava- narols and Erasmus. The intense religious agitation of those ages culminated at last in the Protestant Reforma- tion under Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and others. By it the Roman church again lost a large por- tion of her following and forfeited the spirit- ual control ot the most powerful, enlightened and dominant nations of the modern world. BECENT DISSENSIONS, With the withdrawal oi so large and earnest an element the church of Rome might have hoped {o enjoy & season of repose in which to cultivate the sentiment of unity and obedience among her adherents. But again divisions arose within her borders. The example of the Protestants and the in- fiuence of modern civilization through its science, literature, laws, government and so- ciety, have for the past 300 years been steadily at work disintegrating and sapping her power over the remaining Catholic nations of the world. We behold to-day the chief supporters of her temporal and spiritual sway disaffected, restiess and alienated. Italy, France and Bel- gium are great battlefields on which the Papal power wages & continual conflict with its own spiritual subjects, and constantly loses ground. The temporal power is lost forever. The con- trol of the schoois is gone also. The step now imminent in France is the abrogation of the concordat, or compact with Rome, and the consequent withdrawal of state support from the clergy. Austria, Spain, Brazil, Mexico and the South American republics are following in the same direction. Day by day the control of Rome over the minds and hearts of these nations is lessening. The pebple of all ranks and classes are becom- ing skeptical of her divine right, indifferent to her appeals, contemptuous of her authority. Nowhere in the modern world is unbelief 50 widespread and profound as among Catholic nations. The way is preparing for a great transiormation of the Koman church and doc- trine, or else another separation from it of many of her most intelligent members. li.;\'ell Ever since the Reformation of Luther the Catnolic clergy has been divided into two gTeat parties, the liberal Catholics and the Ultramontane. The former has thoyght to reform and remodel the church according to the altered needs of modern soviety. It has opposed the adoption of extreme doctrines and measures, and en- deavored to curb the undue power of the Papacy. The Ultramontane party, on the other hand, has, under Jesuit leadership, strenuously denied that the church needed re- forming or improving. It bas opposed ailat- tempts to reconcile the old doctrines with the new times, and has especially magnified the prestige and power of the Papacy. These two parties have striven with each other for the mastery, with varying success. Thus, under Pope Clement X1V, in 1773, the Liberals secured the abrogation of the Order of Jesuits. “So long rder of Jesus exists,” aeclared the Papal bull, ‘it is quite impossible that the chureh shall ever arri a true and lasting peace.” In 1814 the montanes again rose to power and Pi “at the unanimous request of the Christian world,” restored the Jesuits. The ambitious designs of the Society of Jesus led, in 1870, to the promulgation of the dogma of Papal in-. fallibility by the Vatican Council. The oppo- on to this dogma on the part of many liberal and prominent members of the priesi- hood was pronounced and bitter. This.opposition, as it was uttersd in private circles, from the pulpit and in the session of the solemn conclave itself, has lately been published to the world.” It there appears that the liberal Bishops denounced the dogma of Papal infallibility as irrational acd impious. The Pope they ridiculed as a narrow-minaed old man, completely controlled by the Jesuits. The Ultramontanes returned this oggos\hon with equel scorn, denouncing the Liberals as tebels and traitors. .The promulgation of the dogma, however, compelleda the obedient assent or.separation: of those who had opposed it. Under the whip and spur of the church power the most humiliating retractions were made by most of the dissenting Bishops. But others like the eminent Doellinger, the most learned of Catholic church historians, refused to up- hold what they had denounced as unhistorical and untrue. . Doellinger’s famous book against Papal usur- tions, entitied “The Pope and the Council,” y Jenus, created an_immense sensation in Catholic circles, As it had appeared anony- mously the Ultramontaine party pretended that it was not the production of the eminent scholar. All doubts as to its authorship were set at rest, however, when & new edition: ap- peared which bore the name of Doellinger as its sole author, and in its preface gave an ac- count of the circumstances under which it had been prepared. This later edition is entitled “Das Papstthum’—*“The Papacy” and is fur- nished with full citations and references to substantiate the assertions and arguments of anus. Under the leadership of Doellinger, Hyber, Reinkers and other ecclesiastics another “sep- aration from Rome took place, known as the old Catholic movement, which, although not Jarge in numbers, is of importance as showing the drift of things in Catholie circles. AMERICAN CATHOLICS. Here fu America’ there does, indeed, exist greater uniformity of belief among Koman Catholics and dissent is comparatively rare. The reason for thjs is obvious. The great bulk of Roman Catholics among us belong to the less educated class of foreign immigrants who are agcustomed to pbedience, and who do not think for themselves on religious matters. With increased education and the gradua! in- fluence of our republican instituti mmm’x personal independence we must be- ijeve that American Catholics will yet prove as difficult to keep in their old ways as their French, italian or German brethren. The in- cidentsor Drs. McGlynn and Ducey and other similar rebellions on the part of clergy versus laity are illustrations In point. There are twenty or more Catholics in congrega- tions. This very week I have regelfved a letter of cordial indorsement of my recent utterances written in the name of five Irish-Americans, Catnolics by their training. ¥ This review of Christian history shows us that the claim of the Roman or any other sect 10 be the exclusive and universal church of Christ is unfounded in fact or reason. There has always been “the greatest diversity of opinion and practice among Christians, and is diversity increases rather than -lessens with the growth of human. culture. ‘It was, therefore a very proper saying of the learned Catholic scholar Zneas Sylvino, afterwards a Poge who tells us: “The Catholic church is called the universal church not because all men have it, but because sll men ought to have it"—a very wise distinction. 1 Let me not be misunderstood as not appreci. ating the many excellencies and virtues of the Roman Cathotic church and clergy. There is much to profoundly admire in the piety of her foilowers and the consecration of her ml’ninen. 1am simply reading her history by tne light of modern researches, which utterly disprove the claim of her exceptional and divine right and place her on a par with .the other sects and churches of Christendom. > PROTESTANT UNITY. Has Protestantism ever attained the ideal of Christian unity? Most assuredly not. The de- velopment uf Protestant Christianity has been attended with intensified differences. Pro- testant history is sadly disfigured with divisions and strifes, hatred and persecutions. declared that his fellow reformer, t, was ‘‘riding to hell,” and he rejoiced at the news of Zw: ng!l‘e's death. The Calvinists de- nounced the Lutherans as no better than papists, and the Lutherans held the Calvinists to be worse than the infidel Turks. The estabe hished chureh of England pursued the follow. ers of John Knox with fi‘:: and sword, and Knox not only hurled in return fiery anathe- mas of episcopacy, but himself & fugitive, ons in pro- | clamored for the expulsion of the Roman Cath- olics from England. Since their day the increase of true religion and the growth of enlightened opinion and a secular state have greatly modiffed if not alto- ether abolished such intolerant displays. The ixowlllu!. world is, however, still divided into innumerable sects and parties, all more or less in conflict with each other and often eunaving the principle of individualism to an absurd ex- treme. But there is this fundamental distine- tion between the holic and the Prctestant idea of Christian unity—the former seeks to ob- tain it by establishing here on earth a great external visible church, whose creed and ritual shall be the same for all and be accepted by all. The Protestant principle, on the other hand, seeks to found the invisible and spiritnal chureh of Christ on earth—a church which shall preserve unity of spirit amidst great dif- ferences and operaiions. ¢ From the Protestant point of view, therefore, the existing division into denominations, the great variety of rights and forms, symbols and ceremonies and modes of church government are not only allowable, but a 1eal help to the inteliectual and religious life, so long as they do not violate the essential spirit oi Chris- tianity, the spirit of truth,love and charity. As James Freeman Clarke well said: “The strength of Protestantism lies in its sects; its weakness in its sectarianism.” And in a similat vein Dr. Channing tells us: “The dissensious of Protestantism go far to @onsti- tute its strength. By thex the spirit of liberty, the only spirit Rome cannot conquer, is kept alive.” " It is because the Protestant churches bave so often violated the great central prin- ciple of true Chrlslinnll¥ that they have failed to realize their idea of unity l\mon? Chris- tians. They have sought to identify their especial créed, or form, or fellowship with the church universal, instead o: ignoring dznomi- national differences and seeking for a religion of the spirit and a fellowship based on charac- ter, piety and faith. A few years since I attended a church con- gress in one of our Egstern cities whose special purpose was to discuss the true way of Arriy- ing at religious and church unity. 'It was an admirable aud representative gathering. There were present leading Baptists, Method- ists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Swed- envorgians, Episcopalians, Unitarians and others. Each in turn gave his solution of the uestion. The Presbyterian thought the Westminster confession offered the true basis of union; the New Churchman found it in the revelations of Swedenborg; the Episco- palian thought his prayer-book the broadest foundation that could be offered. Thus each, although in the most beautiful spirit, identi- fied his particular church or creed with the church universal. As 1 came awgy it was with the feeling that these excellent men were as vet far from that simple pond of union | which Jesus declared over and over again to | be all-sufficient and all-essext “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, that ye love one another.” “He who doeth the will of my Father in heaven is my sister, my brother, my father and my mother. Or, | again, as he prays in the Gospel of John, “That they all may be one as thou, Father, art inme &nd I in thee, that they also may be one in us.” Love, righteousness and faith—the beautiful iruits'of the spirit—this is the true, the only way to Christian unity. CREEDS INADEQUATE. This review of church history has been un- dertaken to little purpose if it has not shown that unity is not possible by the way of intel- leotual agreement. ‘‘Dogmas may chain to- gether Christians; they cannot unite them.” The growth of the human mind, the progress of truth forbid it. Human minds are as differ- ent as human faces. The statement of truth which attracts one repels another. John Ward, preacher, can find & solemn joy in the thought | of & sinner bronght to judgment, a ‘thought which to Helen, his wife, is exquisite anguish. The view that satisfied the intellect of a former generation no longer contents the minklng\ mind of to-day. ‘The statement that expresse: the knowledge or trust of a previous age feils to utter the larger information or meet the | altered needs of the present time. Restless- ness, doubt, disaffection, unbeiief, dissensfon and strife are the consequences of all such anem'fvu to cramp and fetter the mind of man with dogmas and creeds. Furthermore, the great topies of religious faith are in themselves too vast, t0o exalted to be compressed into & single statement or series of statements. It is easy to say *I1 believe in God,” but who shall dare to analyze and define his majesty and power and goodness? “Such wisdom is too great for me,” declares the an- cient seer. “Itis toojhigh, I cannot attain to it.” What prtsumplmn on the part of fallen man 10 peet into the mystery of the divine exist- ence, to express the atiributes of Deity in a phrase, and declare that he must needs desire this or do that. ' He—the life and source, the beginning and end of all—is not only greate: than our heart, he is infinitely greater than our thought. He is above our comprehension, and to set up a binding dogma concerning him is worse than folly—it is implety. And so it is with every one of the dogmas by which theolo- gians have thought to solve in their way the mysteries of life and death, of good and’ evil, of love and law, of time and eternity. As tem- | porary statements of our conceptions of truth they have their value and use, but the sub- jects they deal with are too far above our com.- | {urellenslon to authorize us to claim any infal- | ibility for our opinions or to lay them down as a basis of Christian union. LIKE FORMS INSUFFICIENT. Christian unity is not possible on the basis of dogmas, I said. Neither i iton the ground of & similar church administration and like forms of worskip. The temperaments, tasks and antecedents of men ‘are too various to permit of such uniformity. The inhabitants of the tropical soith demand a different form of worship from the men of the somber north. Some races of men, like the Greeks, Italians, | Spuniards and French possess a native and in. born love of color, display and sensuous im- pression, and desire it in their worship. They would not be content or-feel inspired with the simple, bare, introspective worship which sat- isfies most Protestants. The Roman Catholic demands many ceremonies and forms; the Quaker disdains them all. Are they not both children of God, disciples of Christ, fellow- Christians? And shall we deny them the title unless they will all alike adopt some one par- | ticular form of worship? To the Episcopalian his beautiful order of prayer is the central attraction of the Sunday service—a complete church in itself. To others it may be formal and uninspiring—a weariness to the flesh. Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind. The Catholic Christian finds his favorite symbol in the erncifix. To the Puri- tan’s religlous consciousness the cross was an object of holy horror. He destroyed it in the English cathadrals, and even cut the Cross of St. George out of the British flag, and kept it out for many years. To mark his contempt for the symbolism of the papist altar-service, the Puritan dragged the communion table—after the Lord’s Supper had been partaken from it down into the body of the church and con- verted it into a seat for the lowliest of the andi- ence. Some of the noblest and most devout spirits that have ever lived have cared the least for relizions observances and customs. St. Paul, Caivin and Luther thought the Sabbath of little account. Paul warns the Galatians that they are in danger of sinking back into paganism by esteeming one day holler than an- other. Luther and Calyin even proposed to change the Sabbath to Monday or Friday to nxllrk their unbelief in 1t as a ‘divine .institu- tion. «It may matter to us, but does it matter to the Infinite One whether we pray with set form of words, or on our knees, or standing, or looking into our hat, or telling our beads, or making the sign of the cross? The only question with lim % whether the heart prays, whether our thoughts are with him, thrilling with the sense of his majesty and mercy, and attentive to his holy will and service. i SPIRITUAL UNION 2 Now, if all this be true, we shall understand why the Christian world has heretotore failed in its attempts to attain to & union of all fol- lowers of Christ. Not by way of dogma, or rite, or church administration,is this union to be obtained—but “by one spiritare we all baptized 10 one body.” The Christian virtues, the love of truth and purity, the love of man, trust in God, the prac- tice ot righteousness and the simple piety or the heart—these are tne only tests, the only possible terms of fellowship. you tell me there is nothing specially ristian about these? Ianswer, it is-in these tiiings that the very essence of Christianity consists. It is these moral and devout elements 1n the re- ligion of Jesus which have made it the power itis in the world in spite of the distortions it has received at the hands of doctrinaires and ecclesiastics. If ever there is to be & union of nristians all the world over it must be on the basis of Christ’s life and not mere opinions about him. Religious character displayed in likeness to Christ—this is the onl y way of union, and if you teil- me thet this isa plat- form broad enough to hold the Buddhist, the Jow, the Mahometan and the agnostic I repiy, “God be thanked all the more.” Christianity was intended to be a world reli- gion and it never can become such while it sets up petty barriers to shut out the world and forgets” that while there may be diversity of giits and operations—varieties of thought and Worship—there is one and the self-same spirit in all.” All alike, pagan and Christian, Jew and Gentile, Catholic and Protestant, ortho- dox and liberal, are God’s ehildren, the recipi- ents of his bounty, the objects of his love and i;)illl;'l heirs with Christ in the promises of eter- It was in this spirit that the Unitarian Na- tional Conference at Saratoga adopted the foi- lowing and offered it to the Christian world as an allsufficient basis of Christian union: “These churches accept the religion of Jesus, holding, in accordance with his teaching, that practical religion is summed up in love to God and love to m¢ ‘‘And we invite 10 our working fellowship sny who, while differing from us in belief, are in general sympathy with our spiritand our ‘pracuical aims.” May other Christian bodies adopt similar platforms until we all come into ‘‘the unity of ihe spirit and the bonds of peace.” CHARLES \V. WENDTE, Minister Unitarian Church. FATHER YORKE’S LETTER. The Chancellor Writes In Regard to the Temporal Fower of the Pope. In answer to a recent communication from the Rev. Dr. Wendte of Oakland the Rev. Father Yorke writes as follow: To the Editor of the San Francisco Call—DEAR SIR: Inmy review of the controversy on the second subject proposed by Dr, Wendto I divided the matter into relevant and irrele- vant. The relevant matter dealt with the re- lations of church and state; the irrelevant was made up of a mass of subjects piled higgledy- piggledy into a troversial rubbish heap. T guments on the relations between church and state fell naturally under two heads: A. Catholic teaching as set forth by Dr. Wendte; or, What Catholics Do Not Believe. B. Catbolic teaching as set forth by Catho- lics; or, Wkat Catholics Do Believe, In mylast letter I reviewed the arguments brought forward under subdivision A. 1 will now review the arguments brought forward under subdivision B. WHAT CATHOLICS DO BELIEVE. The Catholic teaching about ebureh and state is & development of the words of our Lord, ‘‘Render unto Casar the things that are Cwsar's, and unto God the thi God’s.” To show the truth of thi quoted from various authorities. (@) LEO XIIL, From Pope Leo XIII I copied a clear and unequivocal passage declaring: (1) That God had portioned the care of the human race petween two powsers—the church and the state. (2) That each powerjhad.a different sphere of action and that each was supreme within its own sphere. (3) That the salvation of souls andjthe wor- "“j’ of 6od belonged to the church. (4) That the civil and political order be- longed to the state. In reply to this declaration Dr. Wendte said that I had only cited the present Pope to show that there was no power but from God. He added that there was nothing in the pass- age to which a Protestant could object, but he interjected: “We deny the further dictum of the Roman Catholic church that all buman governments must submit themselves to the Pope’s will.” In reEl , I asked him where he found that re- markable dictum that all human governments | must submit themselves to the will of the | Pope? N | Dr. Wendte made answer: “Father Yorke | tried in vain to n entrance into the Sutro Liorary.” (%) SUAREZ. 1 then quoted the great Jesuist publicist Suarez to show that the Pope claimed no direct | temporal power over the world. Dr. Wendte replied that Suarez simply stated afact and laid down no law. Iasked Dr. Wendte if it was necessary to use up all the auxiliary verbs n the language, to express an idea which was intelligible only as alaw. Dr. Wendte answered.that Suarez believed in killing off heretic kings. The which belongs to the rubbish heap. (c) MANTTOBA. In explaining Catholic - teaching, I had described tie ndirect temporal power as that influence which is claimed by every Protestant preacher in_Americe, when he tries to sway public opinion on tetporal things, Dr. Wendte replied tuat the mischief lay in this, and he said that an ambitious and woridly minded clergy were arresting the de- velopment of Iree institutions, us for instance in Manitoba. . I asked him if on this continent the ambi- tious and worldly minded clergymen were con- | fined to the Roman Catholic communion. I reminded him that his own city of Oakland | was plagued with & swarm of political parsons before whom the three historic scourges of war, famine and pestilence sink into ins gnifi- cance. I informed him that the Catholics of Manitoba were fighting for the rights guaran- teed them by solemn treaty, and that the reacher-ridden majority was steeped to the ips in forgery, fanaticism and fraud. Dr. Wendte only sighed, “With thizI con- clude my long but not ineffective reply.” (d) CARDINAL TARQUINIL From Tarquini’s “Institutions of Ecclesiasti- ¢al Law” I quoted the principle that civil so- ciety is in temporal things plainly independent of the church, 5 Dr. Wendte retorted that there was a snake hidden in the definition of temporal things, and he‘provcd the existence of the reptjle iy producing a notice denouncing the taxation of churches which he found in the old Mission of Monterey. - I quoted & Methodist Bishop’s denunciation of said texation and augieuled that Dr. Wendte shouid include the brethren in his patriotic strictures. Dr. Wendte responded that I displayed a deep-rooted aversion toward members of non- Catholic communions. (€) TEMPORAL POWER. Suarez had stated that- the Pope claimed gmpoml power over asmall territory round ome. - Dr. Wendte evidences this claim as a flagrant proof that the church would antag- ounize the American Government if she could. Relegated to the rubbish hesp. 3 (f) BISHOP DOYLE. uoted Bishop Doyle’s evidence before the Bfl'flnh House of Commons in_ which the obedience due by Catholics to the civil gov- ernment is defined. - Dr. Wendte asked in wonder, “Who is Bishop Doyle?” The question was such a “Mereator’s Pm C- tion” of Dr. Wendte’s jgnorance that I left it unanswered and as & mlimon{. But, he persisted, -this only proves that churchmen can lie when it suits them. I1fso why does Dr. Wendte enter on & con- troversy with a churchman? If we are ready l Herman & Swain’s Design for the New Municipal Building on Kearny Strect. | or in his political views, or even in his govern- to lie on occasion why does he pretend to be- lieye my word? Surely Dr. Wendte’s ignor- ance and presumption have led bim into & tight place where he can escape only by saying that a great and holy Bishap perjured himselt before the English Senate, Such an answer, Dr. Wendte, might come from the preacher- lings of the A.P.A., but I expected better things from a man’ who has aspirations to be considered a gentleman. That answer stamps you, sir, as devoid of the first elements of good"| breeding and it exhibits you before the public as belng as ignorant of the canons of culture as you are of the canons of the church. (9) BISHOP GILMOUR. Dr. Wendte proclaimed that he preferred Bishop Gilmour to Bishop Doyle; though why he should J)reier one liar to another I do not understand. - However, let usgive him the benefit of his likes and dislikes. Instead of quoting the odds and ends of a ‘)lsmrul which was written about entirely different subjects let us see what the Bishop bas to say about the question of allegiance. 1In & lecture delivered in.Cleve- land on Sunday, April 4,1880, Bishop Gilmour explained the Catholic teaching in tEe follow- ing manner: “We owe spiritual allegiance to the head of the church as being the representative of God upon earth. We owe spiritual allegiance to him because he is the mouthpiece of God to the world. We believe that asa _partof our doctrine, but we owe no temporal allegiance than Rome if the supreme pontiff took up his residence elsewhere. , The people of Italy and the people of Rome know this. The vast majority are in favor of the restoration of the temporal power. Were Italian political institutions like ours—truly popular—one election would settle the Roman %uen!on forever. That settlement must come. 'he claim of the Pope will yet be granted. The stars in their courses fight for the successor of ‘¥e fisherman. Again and again the ery of «riumph hes gone up that the Papacy is no more, but again and again has gone up that cry of des?alr which was wrung from the apostate’s lips on the desert sands, “O Gali- lean, thou hast conquered!” 2. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. Dr. Wendte wishes to throw on me the blame for dragging into this discussion the question of religious persecution. I beg now to state that this subject was introduced by Dr. Wendte in his letter on church and state, which was ublished on January 17. For the first time 1 the controversy we were treated to the sight of the “gutters of Smithfieid running with blood.” I was compelled in answer to nofice the subject, but Dr. Wendte need not try now 0 put on me the onus of its introduction. As the most of Dr. Wendte’s tangential per- formances occurred-at or about this point I subdivide the matter under seven titles: (a) Aquenas on heretics. (b) Bellarmine on heretica. 1I on the excommunieate. to any person, no matter in what country we are nor under what form of government we are, except to him who is our legitimate ruler in the country in which we live and move and of which we ‘are a part. In this country we know no temporal ruler except him who is placed by the free votes and suffrage of a free peo};'le 10 rule and to govern. “‘We know no temporal ruler that can come in and teli us that there is & power to direct us in our temporal affairs beyond that which is created by just law and the constitution of the United States. Whether foreign, whether native, whether we have taken an h of al- legiance or whether we have grown up and in- herited our citizenship, as citizens of this country we know no temporal prince or ruler beyoud him who has been elected for the im- mediate government of the people. “Therefore that fear and that constant charge that we have a divided allegiance is founded -upon & mere misconception of onr doctrines. We owe spiritual allegiance to the Pope; but we owe temporal allegiance to no man or country but the country of which we are citizens,” (k) INFALLIBILITY. One of the misconceptions to which Bishop Gilmour alluaes has taken full possession of Dr. Wendte. He declares that an infallible church can make no niistakes and has thereiore 10 need to alter its opinion. The Lord knows there is little excuse for Dr. Wendte’s ignorance of the nature of the chureh’s claim to infallibility. I have -ex- plained it at least half a dozen times within the past three months, but even a cathode ray could not penetrate the skull of those who are determined not to see. The infallibility of the church isa divine assistance which pre- serves her from error in declaring that such or such a doctrine has been revealed by Jesus Christ. It has nothing whatever to do with her pronouncements on human philosophy or political science. Ste is not gumnm‘l from error in her acts or in her law. She is guaran- teed from error solely when testifying to a truth of revelation. Says Fessler: “The Pope is not infallible as a man or a theologian, or a priest, or a bishop, or a temporal prince, or & judge or a legislator, ment of the church.” The Swiss Bishops wrote in a pastoral which has received the Pope's approbation: “It in no way depends upon the eaprice of the Pope, or upon_ his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dog- matic definition. He is tied up and limited to the divine revelation and to the truths which that revelation conteins. He is tied up and limited by the creeds already in existence and by the preceding definitions of the church. He is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the constitution of the church. Lastly, beis tied up and limited by that doctrine, dl‘vinfle’ revealed, which affirms that alongside reli- gious society there is civil society; that along- side the ecclesiastical hierarchy there is the power of temporal magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe obedience in conscience, and respect in all things morally permitted’ and Belonging'to the domain of civil society.” I am gradually coming to the conclusion that & severe course of study in the penny cate- chism would be of wondrous benefit in fur- Dishing Oakland scholarship. Such are Dr. Wendte's objections to my ex- position of the Catholic teaching on church and state. I have takeu the trouble to go over them one by one, to arrange them and classify them in order not to leaye him the poor excuse that I have been afraid to meet any of them. If I have overlooked any it is & pure oversight, due not to & consciousnéss that his arguments are not unanswerable, but due simply to'the (‘? Urbs ) The Jesuits on regicide. e)edCatbouc and Protestant persecution com- pared. Maryland. ) Ecuador. 1 the beginning, let me say that I have not the faintest idea of denying that Catholic nations persecuted for conscience sake, but what I do deny is that such ‘ persecution .is or has been & tenet of the Cathelic rehigion. I held that in matters of liberality we had nothing to fear from a comparison with any denomination. (a) THOMAS AQUINAS. To prove that the Catholic church was intol- erant Dr. Wendte asserted: ‘‘Aquinas said that all heretics onght to be put to death.” Of course Aquinas never said any such thing, Then Dr. Wendte produces a quotation in which Aquinas says that the cnurch might de- liver him over to the secular authorities to be put to death. Ishowed that St. Thomas’ teaching was that the church’s punishment for heresy was ex- communication. I<howed that not until the thirteenth cen- tury was there a civil Iaw making heresy a capital crime, and that this law was made by an Emperor notoriously hostile to the Popes. Ishowed that St. Thomas was considering the question whether heretics might be left to the civil magistrate to suffer the death penaity, which is a very different thing irom saying that heretics ought to be put to death or that the church should deliver them over to civil wer, 1 showed, finally, that this -teaching of Aquinas was not & dogma of the church, but that it was his opinion as to how a certain state of the civil laws should be met. Noword can be produced from Aquinas urging that such_civil laws should be made or should be enforced. He merely took things as he found them. He had mo responsibility for making them, and thorefore shonld not be blamed for their cruelty. Dr. Wendte replied how much nicer it would be to say that this intolerance of Aquinas was once the universal doctrine of the cnurch, but we have outgrown it. It might be much nicer tosay it, but it would not be true. : There is nodoctrine of the church, and never was, which teaches that heretics should be put to death. 3 That Aquinas was intolerant I do not be- lieve. The fact that he expiains the civil law on the punishment of heretics makes him no more intolerant than the fact thata modern lawyer who explains the civil law on electrocu- tion makes him bloodshirsty. (b) BELLARMINE ON HERETICS. The history of the Haryard notes has already been set forth at length. Dr. Wendte, how- ever, produced another quotation showing that Bellarmine was a ferocious heretic-hunter. By means of the deadly parallel I demon.- strated that Dr. Wendte had gerrymandered Bellarmine and that Bellarmine’s doctrine was precisely that of Aquinas’, namely, that the civil power, not the church, punished them with death. br. Wendte replied that I had not put the right passages in the parallel column and that Ishonld not sneer at his Latinity, 1 assert again thatl did produce the exact | passage and I assert, too, that Dr. Wendte | Dneyer saw & volume of Bellarmine and that I believe he couid not read it if hedid. There is | 10 oceasion to sneer at his Latin. He does not | know enough to write a preseription for a sick | cow. Aschoolboy who couid write *‘semper | idem’” of the church would deserveto be | scourged within an inch of his life for scan- dalous disregard of the rules of gender. (¢) URBAN II AND THE EXCOMMUNICAT fact that in the most careful examination something is bound to escape notice. The gentle reader will readily observe that Dr. Wendte has not produced & relevant authentic quotation, a relevant argument or & relevant fact to enfect my exposition. We Catholicsstand on precisely ihe same ground as the American constitution. When we swear allegiauce to it our oath is as broad and as deep end ss high as the oath ofany other man. Cardinal Manning's assertion is-incontro- vertible: “The civil allegiance of Catholics is as undi- vided as that of all Christians and of all men who recognize & divine or natural moral law.” L. THE RUBBISH HEAP. 5 During the progressof the controversy the Rev. Dr. Wendte developed an uncontrollable tendency to go off at tangents without the slightest notice. I have l’elefned all his lit- erary, historical, theological and scientific aberrations to a place apart, and now I will consider them in as orderly a fashion as I can. 1think the many extraneous subjects may be roughly grouped under seven heads: 1. The temporal power. Religious liberty. Freedom of speech and of the press. The Jesuits. . Catholics and republican institutions. . Catholic learning and Protestant converts. . Personalities and things in general, Some of these sections will admit of further subdivisions, but I will explain each in its proper place. 1. THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE. By the temporal power of the Pope is meant nota claim to rule over all states and peoples, but a claim to civil jurisdiction over the city of Rome and a small territory surrounding it. This civil jurisdiction belonged to the Pope for centuries, and was guaranteed by the common consent of Christendom. It was lost when, after the downfall of France, the Italian Gov- ernment entered the eternal city and made it the capital of the kingdom. Against this invasion the Pope still protests, and demands that his eivil independence be re- stored. Dr. Wendte looks upon this as a pre- posterous ciaim, and as one which proves that we would antagonize American institutions if it suited us. In the first place we may remark that the .claim of the Pope has nothing whatever to do with any partof the world except Rome. In the second place, let Dr. Wendte remember 2 4 as to do with any other partof the world except Rome, because he is Bishop of Rome and the primacy is connected with that see. In the third place the claim of the Pope is neither preposterous nor un-American. - If the Catholic rations consider that the spiritual ruler of the church should not be the subject of any of them, why should they not set apart a distriet in which he might rule ? The United States has set apart a distriet for the Federal Government in order that the Government might be independent of all the States. It has degrh-efl the inhabitants of that district of the right of self-government for the sake of the Union. What is there un-American in the idea that Christian Europe should es- tablish an Ecclesiastical District of Columbia in Rome? : ‘What is there un-American in the idea that ‘we Catholics should like to see the Pope made independent of all national or racealties? He is the father of the Catholic church, and he belongs equally to all his children, just as the Federal Government is over all the States and belongs equally to all. Dr. Wendte does fiot seem to realize that the establishment of the temporal power depends entirely on the agreement of the Catholic na- tions, just as the establishment of the Federal district depends eutirely on the agreement of the §tates. Maryland might be willing enouih to give the few-square miles required, but the 5iv(ng would not make the district a Federal istrict unless all the States took it under their protection. So in the same way Italy is willing enollfih to grant the Pope a federal district, but the Pope wants an international guarantee. He has no temporal force, and cannot have any temporal force to protect his states from an enemy, therefore he requires that these states be made truly international, or as we should say federal. The Pope’s claim is from {op to bottom just and American. Moreover, the claim is not preposterous. I Maryland objected to giving u% the territory necessary for the formation of the Federal dis. trict, would any one say that the claim of the United States to that particular piece of land is preposterous? If the peosleo Washington objected to the Government depriving them of their rights as citizens the objection would be answered by the plea of the general good. So, if Italy objects or the people of Rome object. a valid plea against them is the general good. But some one may remark the cases are not ;;ltulel. The District of Columbia is what 't is, simply because the Federal Govern- mert is located there and the inhabitants are ‘willing to put up with certain restrictions on their rights because of the benefits they reap. It is added that'if the Government should re- move from Washington it would rapidly sink back to its pristine condition of a worthless morass. ¥ It is precisely the same with Rome. The Pope makes Rome. If he $hould ieave it to-morrow twenty vears would see it the decayed capital of a fourth-rate kingdom. It has no enm.mg&e no manufactures, no- natural advantages. Washington would not decay more rapialy that the claim of the Pope could have nothing |- Dr. Wendte asserted that the Jesuits in justi- fying the killing of heretic kings appealed to # decree of Urban II allowing the slaughter of those that have been excommunicated. Ichallenged Dr. Wendte to produce tte pas- sage in which the Jesuits made this appeal: r. Wendte replied: “I am glad to say that Iam notan adept in casuist Catholic litera- ture. It is & most useless knowledge. " It would have been particularly useful to Dr. Wendte just thenin order to prove that he aid not say the thing that was not. | I showed that Dr. Wendte knew nothing | sbout this passage of Dr. Wendte; that it re- | ferred to the disturbers of the public peace, | and, that instead of being a Papal bull, it was only a Unitarian calf. Dr. Wendie ‘vells: “My scholarship is evi- denily causing Father Yorke much tre. pidation.”” (d) THE JESUITS ON REGICIDE. Dr. Wendte declared that the Jesuits taught that heretical kings might be killed at sight. 1 showed that Dr. Wendte falsified Suarez, confounded extracts from two_different books into one alleged quotation, and that the teach. ing of the Jesuits, surrounded as it was by con- ditions, was nothing more or less than the teaching set forth in the Declaratior of Inde. pendence. Dr. Wendte answered that I wandered off. into discursive explanations which explain noth- ng. (€) CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT PERSECUTIONS COMPARED. I stated that in the matter of toleration the Catholic chur¢h might challenge comparison with any denomination. Dr. Wendte replies that Protestant persecu- tions were never so sanguinary as Cathoiie §uo‘es_ the In- artholomew, persecutions, and in proof he quisition, the Albigenses, St. ete. Let us see what his proofs are worth. 1. The Inquisition—-Dr. Wendte says that tribunal’ 81,000 persons were burned snd 290,000 punished less severely. on whx%h assertion I wish' to remark that Llorente’s statistics have been shown by mary Protestant authors, among others by Presgott and Ranke, to_be most improbable. He pro- fessed 1o have had access to the Spanish state papers, which he -says he burned after using them. Does this look as 1f he were honest? But supposing he was honest, we must remem- ber that these 82,000 executions were the fruitof 380 years. We must remember, too, that_the Inquisition had - jurisdiction over murder, adultery and such kinds of crime be- gides heresy. How many of the 32,000 were burned, how many were executed for heresy, we cannot teil. Llorente destroyed the rec- ords. Butgrant the very worst that mey be said about it, and it would be hard to say anything top bad, let us see what ether countries have to show. We aretold by unquestioned histo- rians that Henry VIII put to death 72.000 per- sons during his reign of twenty-eight years. Hamilton’s “History of Quarter Sessions from Elizabeth to Anne” gives for the year 1598 800 executions in the forty English counties. Mackay’s ““Curious Superstitions” is authority for the statemen: that under a law passed through the influence of John Knox 17,000 witches were burned in Seotland up to the ac- cession of James I. Between 1600 and 1680 40, 000 supposed witches perished in_ England, During the Long Parliament 3000 of these un- fortunates were done away with. The crime of witchcrait was only one of trose which_came before the Inquisition, Let us compare Llorente’s 32,000 executions in 330 years for heresy, murder, witcherait, adultery, etc., with the 40,000 English witches i S0 years, and we may well say that bad as the in- THE DOCTOR’S EXAMINATION! You suffer from headaches? Yes, doctor. i t ones? Wioleanine Yes, doctor. Do you have the pain all the time? 1t seems so, doctor. Are these pains dull or sharp? Sharp, piercing, doctor. Are your bowels constipated and irregu- lar? Yes, doctor. Are you subject to bilious attacks? Yes, doctor. Do your kidneys act regularly ? No, doctor. Is your appetite always good ? No, doctor. Do you feel tired and worn out? Yes, doctor. Your general system must be put in working order. The stomach, liver, kid- neys, and bowels are at fault. Your appe- tite is gone. Your food remains in the stomach undigested. In fact all ‘the or- gans of the system need to be stimulated. The remedy I will give you is mild. Take it regularly. R. © JOY'S VEGETABLE SARSAPARILLA - (one hottle) ~ : Two teaspoonfuls three (3) times - a day. When bowels are regular . take one teaspoonful. “WAY FOR THE KING 1 The California Shirt—the STAND-~ ARD—is King, If excellence of ma- terial and workmanship count for Llorente is authority for the fact that by that anything. Ar ou patriotic? 2 " When one is sick it be benefits of wealth, for without go the same as one could enjoy is made especially useful, for Electricity, which is the foundation of all health, and when this com it ¢ life is infused into the body naturally. Dr Ef it when feeling well. Nature’s best remedy is SANDEN'S eeXric Be Where Wealth. es impossible to enjoy the usual od health no pleasure is enjoyed Then wealth an buy health. - Nature gives us every day it restores health X Made with the one purpose of restoring life and - vigor to all organs of the body, it builds u P & new manhood and womanhood in all who are weak and debilitated. It has & new reguiator, ree C! by which ti Get the pamphlet “Th lly"- of HE:,""‘::::? tis controlled while the Belt 1s on the body. SANDEN ELECTRIC C0., m MARKET ST., OPPOSITE PALACE HOTE Hours—8 to 8:30; Office L, SAN FRANCISCO. Sundays, 10 to 1. . Fortland, Oregon, Office, 255 Washington Stroet.