"5FH, P. MALM
NO. 17, WABABHAW HTBEET, BT. PAUL.
r*rin* of Subscription to the Daily Globe.
By Ca rler, per moDtb~8ScJ By Mail, per month.. .7Se
^months.. tt!
finUMithK.. 5.00
12! month*. .Kl."01
3 months..$2,:
6 months.. 4/XJ
12mnths.. 8.00
H'J'. PAUL, MONDAY, MAltCH 4, 1878.
THE IHHUE.
The uestion for members of the Legislature
to consider, is whether they should collect a
private claim which properly belongs in the
courts, or secure a nccond Pacific railroad for
Minnesota. It ought not to take a great while
to decide this point.
A O HUUHEHDElt.
The whole plan of State text books for
school* in pernicious, and one whi ch should
never have been inaugurated. Instead of
strengthening what as been done, it oug ht to
be wiped out altogether. An a general rule,
however, it is pretty, safe to leave a doubtful
measure to the people. 'J his is particularly
so where the proposed measure is one direct
ly affecting the pockets of the people. I
this view it is perhaps as well for the Merrill
Appleton law of last winter to stand and be
tested, provided the people can have an p
portunity to decide upon it. Mr. Donnelly
depicts the having to the people by this bill
as aggregating hundreds of thousands of
dollars annually, but with a strange
pertinacity Mr. steadily fights
off any movement to submit the
matter to the people. Js he afraid to trust
the people with a matter whi ch is to save
them hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is
Mr. Donnelly mora interested in the welfare
of the people than the people a re themselves?
It will be singular if the House allows it
self to be bamboozled into rejecting the
Feller amendment, and accepting Mr. Don
nelly's. The Feller amendment is especially
exacting in that it requires three-fourths
of the people to reject the Merrill
Apph-ton books, but it has the advantage
of allowing a vole at any general election
instead ol /listening the boo ks on the people
by foice for live years before they can be
heaid.
The House should remember in consider
ing this matter that the peop le are as com
petent to protect their interests as is a legis
lative body. The people do not delegate
moie than they can perform themselves. As
the representatives of the people the House
should icsent the cavalier course
"f the Senate. The attempt to
cram the .Senate amendments down the
throats ol the House is on a par with the
original plan to ciam the whole job down the
throats of the people. Duty as well as self
H-speet demands that the House should
stand by ith amendment.
I Hi: If Ulh.tltLE 11 It M1K.
County Clerk Kiefer a nd Sheriff Hecht
both Inrnihh statements showing that they
are poorly paid officers, a nd that instead of
having the emoluments of their respective
offices reduced they ought to bo increased.
This is icallv a remarkable stale of affairs.
Those offices were held by Democrats for a
great many years, a nd during that period
wo learned, Iroin Republicans, that they
were very lucrative positions. They
were held up as the great source of taxation,
a nd one might have supposed that if the
throats of the Democratic clerk and the
Democratic sheriff could bo cut, our taxes
would bo ieduced almost to nothing. The
most fabulous storios prevailed, a nd the
amount Haiti to bo expended to retain those
places was placed at a royal figure.
It happens that those positio ns are now
held by Republicans, and, pimto, we learn
from them a nd Republicans generally that
they used to bo very fat offices, but are now
so attenuated that it is difficult to make a
living. We do ot know what freak of na
ture has been develop ed to produce this sud
den transformation, but evidently something
has happened. W cannot account for it on
flie theory hat it makes some difference
whoso ox is gored," for we
are time our Republican friends
would lake as much delight in reducing Re
publican salaries as Democratic. There have
been so many instances of sell'-sacriiico by
the Republicans that we are certain of this.
In fact, we are approaching a frame of mind
which preparers us to see the present incum
bents turn over those offices to Armstro ng
and King as a noble rovengo.
W are really very sorry for those gentle
me n. W are sorry they were elected and
they ought to be sorry also, for if they had
been defeated, ^Democrats would have been
elected a nd the Hinall pay would have ruined
the Democratic party. Their loyalty to then
party ought to make Messrs. Kiefer and
Hecht greatly regret their election, especially
when they are losing so much money by
holding the offices.
IJW.Ih ovIION ~ON~ SCHOOL JtOOUS.
The advocates of the Merrill-Appleton
text book bill seem to be ready to go to any
length to cheat and defraud the people of
the State.
They first oppose all plans looking to the
submission to the people of tho quos lion of
whether thoy will take tho books or not.
They propose to run their machine inde
pendently of the people, except they are to
be graciously allowed to VAY for the books.
When Donnelly and his followers find that
the honest members of the House are deter
mined to allow the people to have some
thing to say in tho matter, thoy begin
to cudgel their brains to devise
some trick to defeat tho people's choice at
last. Senator Donnelly gels a vote in tho
Senate, striking out the Feller amendment,
and substituting one of his own which pro
vides for a submission of the question in
188}}, or live years after tho people have been
forced to take the books.
This is neither fair nor honest. If Mr.
Donnelly fears to allow tho people any
choice, ho should say so, and vote accord
ingly. But if ho is willing that the people
should have a voico in choosing theso books,
lie should not oppose, and cannot honestly
oppose tho r.ubruiBsion of tho quostion to a
popular vote, in each and every county this
fall, and before expensive changes are in
augurated all over the State.
This course will secure county uniformity
which is better than State uniformity, even
if that were attainable under tho Merrill
law.
Mr. Donnelly said in the Senate that tho
trionds of tho moasuro wero willing to lot
the people vote upon the question. If this
is to be done, the sooner it is done the bet
ter, and no Hcheme to fasten the law upou
the people und then allow them to vote after
wards should be for a moment tolerated.
Lutt Houao iias taken a now stand in the
,?5. ?T' ^dKMiW stwad firm, and
not allow the Senate to "bull-doze" them into
the placing of the school fund at the moroy
of Hie Morrill-Apjuetoiv Donnelly crowd.
^^SL^J^Mt mWffi.,.-iiinii rmhmtt
CATHOLIC VS. EPISCOPAL.
lilfillOF IRELAND REPLIES TO REV.
E. S. TUOXAM.
tie Boldly lutlmates That Mr. Tho ma*
PlagrJarir.esAnd Controverts Dr. Pusey'*
ArgumentA Vigorous Defence of Ca
tholicism.
Last nigh t, as hitherto on occasions of
Bishop Ireland's controversed discourses,
the cathedral was crowded beyond standing
room. Immediately after vespers the bishop
ascended the pulpit. looked somewhat
pale from the indisposition, amounting al
most to serious illness, from which he was
suffering the first two or three da ys of last
week. Every head was turned in breathless
attention toward the pulpit, and the
bishop looked down upon the vast sea of
upturned facets with calm dignity, and
after several moments of silence which the
full of a feather might have broken, he gave
out his text in a low but distinct voice. His
sentences throughout the lengthy discourse
were slowly uttered, and even when warmed
to his subject he was not hurried. Sentence
after sentence, and argument after argument
were delivered with such a calm dispassion
ate earnestness a nd deliberate positiveness,
that needs must carry conviction to the im
mense audience, if not of the incontroverti
ble truth of his deductions, at least of the
speaker's own faith in wliat he preached.
Many times during the lecture, the congie
gation audibly showed how keenly the
salient points were appreciated. The subject
was "The Protestant Episcopal Church and
Jteligious Communism/' In reply to lit v.
K. S. Thomas, the Bishop said:
Going ye, therefore, teach all natioiib.Matth.
28th chap., l'J-20 vs.
The opponent thin evening i* Rev. K. H,
Thomas, of the Piotestanf Episcopal church in
thin city.
am grateful to hnn that lie has seen fit to
comment on my lectin en against Protestantism.
Ie represents a peculiar phase of Protestant
ismthe Piotestant Episcopal church-a very
Proteiih among modern sects, well known for
its skill in changing its position according to
the direction of the attack. When brought to
face other branches of Protestantism, which
it contemptuously spurns from its side, as
sects, schisms, dissenting conventicles, it leaps
upon lofty Catholic ground, and v.ould fain
spiead dismay amidst their ranks by the echoes
of the old-time trumpets of church authoiity.
An English poet, thy den lias depicted the
Episcopal chinch in this attitude
"Her front erect with majesty she bore,
The crosier wielded, and the mitre woie.
Her upper part of decent discipline
Bhow'd affectation of an ancient line
And fathers, councils, church and chuich's head,
Were on her lcvciend phylactciies read."
Hhould the Catholic church, however, appear
in the fi out, the Kpiscopal tactics change at
once, with a rapidity and self-possession that
ama/.e. The Kpiscopal church becomes most
Protestant among Piotestants. Tradition and
council are tiied by scripture, and scripture by
reason. Authority in chuieli is laughed at, as
a spectre of daik ages, liom the vain terrors of
which, it is declaied, the valiant Henry, and
the virgin queen Elizabeth, some three centuiies
ago, wrested toiever England and her fortunate
dependencies. The same poet has the old
church say to her Anglican udveisarywhen
the combat is engaged between the two:
"But you tradition by the scripture tiy:
Pursued by sect, fiom this to that you fly
Nor dare on one foundation to rely.
The Word is then deposed, and in this view,
You rule the scripture, not the scripturo you.
Thus (said the dame, and, smiling, thus pursued
I see, tradition then is disallowed,
When not evinced by scripture to he true
And scripture, un interpreted by you."
Aware of the special characteristics of the
Protestant Episcopal church, had always
within ine, while delivering my lectures against
Protestantism, tho feeling that my Episcopal
friends, occupying for the nonce in their own
fancy a corner of tho Catholic ground, might
deem that my arguments wero not in
tended for them, or, at least, wcie such as
to do litem no sensible harm. I had come to tho
conclusion that a separate lecture was neces
sary, to establish tho complete Protestantism of
their sect. The occasion was wanting, and
Rev. E. S. Thomas lias kindly afforded it.
This reply has been tho more gratifying, that
his mere giving it goes far to prove my thesis.
1 was simply announced as being at war with
Protestantism no mention whatever was made
of tho Episcopal church. Mr. Thomas, never
theless, at the call of Protestantism, appears
among its trusted defenders in the arena he
instinctively took to his true colors.
Mr. Thomas dreads controversy. "The grow
ing spirit of toleration in this l'Jlh century,"
ho says, "ought to discourage Christian polem-
ics," and then, he tells us, tho (Piotestant)
clergy have something better to do, as "they
have resting ujion them tho care of souls." 1
am, certainly, pleased that ray clerical friends
in Protestantism esteem so highly tho care of
souls. Rut I beg leave to remind them that the
first duty of a Christian pastor is to feed his
flock with truth. Tho commission of the chief
pastor to his delegates was, "Going yo, there
fore, teach all nationsteaching them to ob
serve all things whatsoever 1 have commanded
unto you." Holiness of character, even,
BO much valued by Christ, is made by himself
to bo tho result of truth. His prayer to the
father for his disciples is, "Hanctify them in
truth thy word is truth." To teach Christ's
truth men must be sont. "How," asks St.
Paul, "shall they preach, unless they be sent"!'
Christian pastors owe to their
flocks to provo that they
have commission to preach, and this done, they
owe to them the full teaching of Christ, not
leaving out, to use the words of the Master,
"one jot or tittle." Tho graces of sanctilica
tion, to he relied upon in the care of souls, will
not surely be looked for among tho theories of
philosophers, or tho mere lesources of human
nature: theyaio Christ's gifts. Pastors must
tell their flocks where tho gifts aro treasured
up and through what channels they can ho se
cured. This work the world will call contro
versy yet Christ and his apostles enjoin it, and
men professing to ho Christ's ministers should
not heed tho world. "The growing spirit of
toleration in this l'Jth century" is hut indiffer
ence to truth: it is the sleep of death passing
over souls. Mr. Thomas should ask himself if
thero is no danger that by rocking souls into
this sleep, ho is not rushing them to perdition.
The principles he advocates wero not those of
the Bavior, who said: "Preach to oveiy crea
ture: ho that belioveth not shall be con
demned"~nor those of Ht. Paul, who wrote to
Timothy: "Preach the woid in season and out
of season rebuke with all patience
and doctrine."
Once entered upon this task, Mr. Thomas, 1
am pleased to hoar him testimony in this re
gard, fulfills itnot, indeed, with all doctrine
but with all patience. There is in his dis
course no bitterness, nor acrimony, as there
never should bo in religious controversy.
A vein of humor, even, occasionally
runs through his deliverances. Ho
speaks in one place of the vaunting
Goliath striding up and down tho valley of strife.
Tho allusion, you understand, is to the lata on
slaught made by a David of St. Paul. 1 will
only blame Mr. Thomas for having by his own
act impaired the similo: Thero should be but one
David for a Goliath.
1 will state briefly tho whole question at is
sue in tho present controversy. 1 would Btylc
it "Authority vs. Communism." ltov. Mr.
Breed, in a sermon proached in tho House of
Hope, doiinod most correctly religious oom
muniHin-the exact counterpart in religion of
civil communism in tho domain of politics
and hold it up with righteous indignation to
tho opprobrium of his audience. I adopted
Mr. Brood's promises and proved that Protest
antism, in its very principles and all its logical
deductions, is religious communism. That
Christ should have been tho author of this
religious communism, I addod, we cannot for a
moment suppose, und I asked the quostioa
what, in fact, Christ did establish. I gavo tho
answer from Christian historyexactly what
common sense tells us he must have establish
ed, sinco is Godan authority in religion.
Ho appointed a body of men to bo the toaehors
of his revelationa high court for the preserva-
I *$i4SV 3W K^fi- m.i
tion a nd interpretation of his doctrine. To
these teachers he commanded that all men
shouhi render obedience: for the
poper fulfillment of their office
be promised to them is own
protectioninfallibilityand then, in the
name of Omnipotence, bade this courtthe
body of teachersto be perpetuatal. "Preach
the gospel to every creaturehe that believeth
not shall be condemned." "As the Father sent
me. so also I send you." "All power is given
to me Heaven and on earth. Go ye, there
fore, teach all nations, teachingthem toobserve
all things whatsoever I have said unto you
and beholda I altmaffectsj with all davs, even unto
the consummation of the v.oiId," The conclu-
81i'j?-
a
r6
the present generation
of Christians. I f.tetcd as follows: Christ's ap
pointment of a body of living, infallible teach
ers, onco admitted a* his rule of faith for His
church, such a body of men, we must grant
exists in the world to-day, and a one body of
men only, the heirarchy of tbe Catholic church
in obedtence to the Pontiff of Homeputs for
ward even a claim to infallible teaching, these
teachers are necessarily Christ's teachers, the
Catholic church in communion w^h Home is
Christ church. The historical connectio i,
I continued .between the Catholic church
of txMlay and the church of the apostles is easi
ly shown by a peruwl of the documents of his
tory but the examinatiol of documents is no
at al necessary forc the completeness of the
conclusion I haveh,if drawn.
entirely overlookedt
re
i
*v,Mu- the historic ground of my argument, which h
after all my stronghold. I mean Christ's posi
tive institution of a body of infallible teachers.
His discourse was cnfme to a consideration
of the two systems, as they appear before us
to-day.
The same defect is visible in Mi. Thomas'
reply. He aims to prove that Protestantism hi
not as bad I make it to be, and he heaps up
difficulties against the claims of the modern
Catholic church to infallibility and to unity.
hy not also battle against my position that
Christ instituted an infallible Church? If this
latter position be allowed, Piote^tantism, ob
jectionable or unobjectionable BK it may seem
to us on its intrinsic merits, fall* to the ground
and when, if ever, Mr. Thomas would have
logicaly shifted from the scene the modern
Catholic church, he should still have to show
us, what on Id then be assuredly for him a
most difficult task, where is to-day the infal
lible Chuich that Christ instituted.
I will now take up the positions followed out
in Mr. Ihomus' discourse.
He displays some skill in the partition of his
subject. A defense of Protestantism was de
manded, and a defense of Protestantism, he
had said he would give. The task, however,
no doubt, alarmed him, and he fell
back on the old planan attack on
Komanism. The attack is the beginning,
the middle and the end of his diM-onrsehere
and tace only, by small slices at a timedoes
he wedge the defense. The attack was not
the point in question, but it was deemed easier
and the hearers, he thought, if possibly cajoled
into the idea that the old church was" made to
totter, would thoughtlessly deem Protestant
ism sate, and call the whole discourse a de
fense.
Infallibility i the hrht targ'-t Mi. Thomas
sets up for his thunderbolts. "There is in the
theory of infallibibility," he sa\s. "a simplic
ity very attractive to a certain oider of mind.
1 he weak mind, unwilling to investigate for it
self the impatient mind, which desires to ar
rive at ultimate truth very quickly.and the tired
mind, which, having essayed in vain to solve
ali the problems which grow out of man's rela
tion to a personal God, has given up the effort
in despair,foi all these classes of mind
it may be well the Komaii church exists." Jt
cannot be well for them, Mr. Thomas, that the
Homan church exists, if she is not the truth
an imposture is an evil and such words in the
mouth of one who rejects the claims of the
ltoman church are a depreciation ot God's
truth. The question of infallibility is by no
means one of attractiveness for certain
minds, but one of strict obligation upon
all human minds, if God has established
it, and you have not said one word in reply to
my argument that God did establish upon earth
an infallible authority. And are not your
words bitter irony against all Protestantism,
when you speak of "the tiled mind, which hav
ing essayed in vain to solve all the problems
which grow out of man's relation to a personal
God, has given up the effort in despair." Who
in i rotestantismrebellious Protestantism
which three centuries ago cut itself off from in
fallible authorityhas ever assayed to solve
religious problems, those most vital for one's
own soul, without having been obliged to give
up the effort in despair? "But," Mr. Thomas
continues, "there must ciecp into the heart at
times the doubt that perhaps after all the
pioofs of this claim be not sufficient, and oh, if
not, what a sense of mental cowardice must
attach to such a servitude." You may, indeed,
call it servitude, if you can establish such
doubt within our mindsbut 1 indignantly ask
on what giounds do you attribute to ua at
times such doubts? Wo have stated again and
again tho solid reasons of our convictions
Christ's own words to his apostles, and with
those reasons before our minds, in regard to
which jou have observed an omnious silence, it
is legitimate for us to ask. do not at least
doubts by times cross your mind that
Christ's institution must have a place on earth,
and oh the sense of mental pain that follows
for you are in rebellion against that au
thority.
1 had said, if the church were found fallible,
she would have proved herself human. "You
acknowledge too much," says Mr. Thomas to
me. "We don't think jour church is human
wo don't believe that your ministry, your faith
or your baptism came only from men, and yet
tho formal rulings of your infallible popes have
been most sadly contradictory." Yes, Mr.
Thomas, once found fallible, God has departed
from her, she is human. You do not know the
value before God of divine truth. He institut
ed His chinch to continue His own mission:
"As the Father sent mo, so also I send you."
And that mission was to teach: "Teach all na
tions." Was error to be found in Christ's
teaching? neither can it be in His church,
which is "the pillar and the ground of truth."
He will condemn those who listen not to His
church: "Ho that believeth not, shall be con
demned," And could Christ command be
lief in enor? Therefore He promises to re
main with His church "all days," A ministry,
forsooth, from Christ, and deceiving men A
faith from Christ, that is but a congeries
of contiadictory statement! of course, you do
not, with good reason, claim infallibility for
tho Protestant Episcopal church.
Therefore, say I, the Protestant Episcopal
church has not inherited the promise: "Teach
all nations and behold I am with
you all days, even unto the consummation of
the world."
"But the itilings of your infallible Popes
have been sadly contiadictory." Mr. Thomas
gives instances. 1 cannot refrain from ex
pressing my astonishment at the nature of the
objections raised by Mr. Thomas against the
Catholic position. Thoy ate simply irrelevant,
and have to be^at once ruled out of court as in
no way affecting tho ease in point. Why did not
Mr. Thomas, for his own reputation as a public
speaker, Btudy- at least the Catholic position,
before attacking it, BO that his objections
should not, by totally escaping the question at
stake, bo mere battling in the air? Oue fact
slightly excuses him: ho was in a hurry, and
too innocently trusted his judgment to Dr.
Pusey's Eirenicon, a book which Catholic con
troversalists have refuted a few hundred times
within the last decade of years. The objections
which, perhaps, the good people of St. Paul's
church, on last Sunday evening, deemed the
fresh and vigorous product of a week's cogita
tions, are, for the most part, a literal transcript
of a few pages of tho Eirenicon.
1 vill state the Catholic position on infalli
bility, giving the language of the Vatican
Council: "Tho ltoman Pontiff, when he speaks
ix-t'athcclra, that is, when in discharge
of his ollico of pastor and doctor of all
Christians, ho defines, in virtue of his supreme
apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or
morals to be held by the universal church, is
endowed by tho divino assistance, with that
infallibility with which our divino Lord willed
that tho church should be furnished in defining
doctrines of faith or morals." Tho subject
matter of infallibility is limited to doctrines
of faith and morals. Tho exercise of infalli
bility is confined to the one act of tho pope's
official teaching of tho universal church.
Mr. Thomas tells us, one pope, Gregory, pro
hibits certain marriages on ground of divine
luw another Pope, Innocent III. decides that
in tho divine law a dispensation cannot be giv
en still a third one, Alexander, grants a dis
pensation in some of the cases mentioned by
Gregory. Aro not the popes in contradition
with themselves?
There is in the case no question of divino
faith or morals. The objection is irrelevant,
because outside the subjeotmatter of infalli
bility. Tho marriages contracted under papal
dispensations were those prohibited by ecclesi
astical law which the church makes or unmakes
oa she sees fit. The lcvitioal laws on marriage
have no binding force in tho new dispensation
except inasmuch as some of them may be at
the same time natural laws. The reference by
Gregory to the levitical law, when speaking
of cortain prohibited marriages, was
merely an
ty a precedent,
*&!?"-/**-
THE ST. PAUL DAILY GLOBE, MONDAY MORNING, MARCH 4, 1878.
rustified the action of the Christian church.
The divine law, from which Innocent said he
could not dispense was the natural law. Nor
was there contradiction of *ny kind between
these Popes. Each one in his own time was
the supreme moderator of charch law, and had
the same authority as his predecessors, whose
laws he was free to change, or continue, in all
and several cases. Dr. Pusey's profuse refer
ences to acts and decretals of Gregory, Innocent
and Alexander, led Mr. Thomas to believe that
he was this time in possession of a powerful
objection, I would advise him to take for the
future no second-hand reference: he should see
the originals for himself.
A second objection. "Was St. Gregory the
Great infallible," when he said, "the mediator
of God and man is the rock from which Peter
received his name and upon which He said
would build His Church*?'' An infallible Pope
declaring that Peter is not the rock upon which
the Church is built," Mr. Thomas thinks fin
ishes Romanism. Most certSinly, in this in
stance, Pope Gregory was not infallible.
was merely, when he said these words, preach
ing a sermon in one of the churches of Itome
speaking, Catholics would say, an a private
doctor, not teaching the universal church- Be
it right or wrong, what he said, an objection
derived from it against the infallibility, is
totally irrelevant.
Though shaking, however, only as a private
doctor Gregory was most correct in what he
said. Christ, of course, is the great, chief
corner-stone on which the Church is built all
Catholics confess this doctrine. Peter is the
foundation of the Church only inasmuch as he
is united with the chief corner-stone, from
which alone he draws his own solidity. Veter
is but the secondary, the visible corner-stone:
this is all that Catholics claim and Gregory has
in his sermons and writings again and again
applied the words recorded in Matt. 16th chap,
to Peter. Mr. Thomas nicely exerciseB in his
reading of the Fathers his right of private in
terpretation: he takes a passage, which by it
self has a meaning favoring his views but the
hundred passages of the same writer, which
clearly overthrow Protestantism, Mr. Thomas
quietly ignores.
Again"Is it possible that Gregory was in
fallible, when he refused the title of universal
bishop?" Alas, no Gregory was not in this in
stance infallible: he was refusing a title, not
defining a doctrine. But neither from his
words as a private doctor, shall Mr. Thomas
take an argument against Papal supremacy.
Gregory explains why he refuses this title, be
canse the word might convey to some that ho
included in his own person tho entire episco
pate, thereby detracting from the dignity of
his fellow bishops. Mr. Thomas knows that"the
supremacy nearer had in past ages on the Roman
chair a more stern, uncompromising advocate
of its claims than this same Gregory, is ho
who as supreme pastor sent Augustine to con
vert the Anglo-Saxons, and who constituted
Augustine the metropolitan of the old British
bishopsa measure which Anglicans most
heartily abhor.
But here is one, which Mr. Thomas did not
take from Dr. Pusey. The church has-ap
proved the vulgate and in the vulgate there is
an interpolation!.he passage marked 4th verse
."ith chapter of St. John. The passage, Mr.
Thomas says, is not found in the four great
uncial manuscripts of Europe. I wonld ask
Mr. Thomas, if he is sure that the absence of
a text from the uncial manuscripts proves it an
interpolation? Are there not other, yet more
weighty, documents, through which its genu
iness may be established? The uncials aie not
all the Greek manuscripts. Far more authori
tative than any class of Gieck manuscripts are
the versons into other ancient languages, made
long before the date of the uncials, which at
most can be brought back only to the fourth
century. The text in question is not only in
the old Latin, but in the Syriac, the EtheopkC the
Georgian, the Memphitie, the Arabic, the Per
sian. The vulgate iaself is about as old as Mr.
Thomas' uncials. Then he should not hug too
closely the Sinaitic, which includes with the
inspired books the writings of Barnabas and
Hermas. But does Mr. Thomas forget that the
passage, which he terms an interpolation is
printed as genuine in all Protestant bibles,
those books which with all ministerial zeal Mr.
Thomas has been for years holding up to his
several congregations as the pure word of God?
An interpolation in tho Protestant biblethe
sole rule of faith for Protestants Why, there
may be other interpolations in it, his Protes
tant friends can well say, and what, then, of
the entire system of the Christian religion,
which we have always rested on this sole book?
The vital question for St. Paul Protestants
must now be, what texts are in the uncials?
I must desjate briefly Mr. Thomas' objec
tions against unity of faith among Catholics.
They are all no less irrelevant than his objec
tions against infallibility. unity of faith
among Catholics, you all understand, we mean
equal submission of all Catholics to the decis
ions of the church in doctrines of faith and
morals. The subjects of tho court are of one
mind when the court has spoken. Now, Mr.
Thomas' objections and questions under this
head of unity of faith either* refer to cases
where nodecision had been given by the church,
or to cases in no way pertaining to faith or
morals. Imagine Mr. Thomas asking me
whether 1 belong to the liberal, or to the agres
sive, or to tho "in statu quo" party in the re
cent struggle in the Vatican? Parties in the
Vatican, we all know, were the lucubrations of
certain European telegraphists whom Mr.
Thomas takes an faithful exponents of the
mindR of the cardinals, and what connexion
such parties, if proved to have existed, could
have with doctrines of faith
and morals, for my life, 1 cannot see.
Mr. Thomas lays, of course, great stress on the
"Gallicau articles," so called, as a clear proof
against unity of faith in the church. Mr.
Thomas should have stated the whole case. A
certain number of French bishops did indeed,
under the pressure of royal influence, in the
seventh century, sign the articles he quoted.
These bishops simply made an egregious mis
take: tho church surely does not claim infalli
bility for a local gathering of bishops. But no
sooner were the articles made public than they
were condemned by the Sovereign Pontiff of
Rome, to whose sentence the Episcopate of
other countries at once assented. The bishops
themselves, who devised the "articles," re
voked them, sued for pardon, and sent a letter
of recantation to Pope Innocent XI. When the
chief had spoken, there was obedienceunity.
For a while yet after this event, a factious
theological school, small in the numbers of its
followers, maintained that church doctrine
could be so interpreted as to require the tacit
assent of the episcopate, to give full force to
papal decrees. This assent being always practi
cally given, without delay, the church did not
for a time pronounce formal condemnation
against the opinions of the Gallican school, and
no formal pronouncement being made, its ex
istence was no proof against unity. The school
died out of itself it was buried before
the Vatican Council assembled. I do not hope
to convince Mr. Thomas of tho fact. He has
ways of his own of knowing what takes place
in the Vatican, and he is sure that the bishops
who discountenanced the late definition were
not inopportunists, hut genuine Galileans. I
would not disturb his placid confidence in his
informants, whoever they may beDr. Pusey,
or European telegraphists. He is, too, in this
instance, the true Episcopalian in disproving
the ecumenicity of church councils. If there
were no. Galileans in the council, he says. "I
feel that the council was not ecumenical, even
in the Roman sense of the word Well, thero
were in the council no Gallicans even an in
fallible pope could not convoke to the Vatican,
A. D. 1865), bishops no longer in the land
of the living, and so Mr. Thomas'
Protestantism needs not to bo disturbed by the
Vatican Council it was not ecumenical.
Mr. Thomas' informants have told him that
papal infallibility was developed from tradi
tion and Holy Writ, by a majority of three.
Those who were at the council have always
fanciednot having the same source of infor
mation as the rector of St. Paul'sthat the ma
jority was over six hundredthe minority being
two.
'Outside of a few dogmas like that of transub
stantiation, the immaculate conception, and
infallibility, thero is no more unity in the
Roman Church than in the so-called orthodox
denominations of Protestantism." I dislike
to be dealing from this pulpit with objections
which, if I were to put to the children of our
catechism classes, they would think I was
trifling with them. Hid Mr. Thomas ever
peruse the single volume containing
the decrees of the council of Trent.
But whatever be our unity of faith, he shud
ders at the idea of it. "It is the unity of
military discipline which allows no freedom of
thought after the general has spoken. The
disobedient is shot in the ranks," and he drops
a tear over the name of the honored Dollinger,
whom Home excommunicated. Why, assuredly,
Mr. Thomas, shoot tho disobedient in the
ranks. Tho determination of the American
officer at Valley Forge, alone saved the repub
lic in the dark dayB of the revolution.
Authority must maintain its right, else it is no
authority, or it fails to guard its sacred trusts.
"Who touches that flag, tho symbol of the
nation's life, shall be Bhot," are words which in
civil Btrife save the country, and thrill every
patriotic heart. The church has her spiritual
armB, excommunication her life, God's trust to
her, is truth. No one physically needs to
known truth, would she be for a second
God's church, were he ot struck with her
anathema is a traitor among her children
even with a spai#of native honor in him b*
should himself leave her. She, if her authoiity
is not a vain word, must force him to go.
And it matters not to God's spouse what honor
ed name he bears. God's truth is all her treas
ure, and him who violates truth, be he an em
peror on his throne, or a genius among her
scholars, she strikes with her anathema. It
was the lessonof her master, "He that believeth
not shall be condemned." It was the lesson
of St. Paul. "If an angel from heaven preach
another gospellet him be anathema." The
Protestant Episcopal church would not excom
municate the honored Dollinger she has no
authority, and the rebel would laugh at her
pretensions. She does not value truth and why
should she war in its defense? She would fear
the human loss of a potent churchman, because
sh does not draw her life from Christ. She
has not the spirit of the Blaster and consequent
ly does not obey His injunctions. Her usual
language is a sarcasm on the gospelbelieve
what you like, but stay with me. I am "the
omy church."
"I had rather," says Mr. Thomas, "see in
the rival bodies of Christendom the note of
holiness than the note of unity." What he
cannot have he disparages even if it be God's
appointment. Christ made holiness to depend
on truth. "Sanctify them in trnth." And
His prayer at the last supper for the church
was, "and not for them only do I pray, butforall
those who through their own word shall believe
in me. That they all may be one that the
world may believe that Thou hast sent me."
I pass oyer some points in Mr. Thomas' dis
course which have no bearing upon the present
controversy, authority versub communism, and
will now take up his defense of the Protestant
Episcopal church.
Mr. Thomas is as opposed to communism as
Mr. Breed. "True Liberty," he says, "whether
in thought or action, I think all ill concede,
is regulated liberty, or liberty restrained by
authority." Furthermore, Sir. Thomas is clear
ly with me, while I am attacking Mr. Breed,
to prove that the Protestantism of the House
of Hope is religious communism In his ser
mon of February 10th, these words occur: "The
answer which makes the bible the sole author
ity in matterb of faith, but at the same time
concedes the unlimited right of private inter
pretation, has given us every variety of creed
and sect which the human mind can conceive.
It has proved most utterly destructive of or
ganic unity in the church o*f (rod." My thesis is
that Mr. Thomas' Protestantism is not only as
bad as Mr. Breed's, but a good deal worse.
Mr. Breed's limitation on the individual
reason is the bible. The whole difficulty, I
said, is in the interpretatiou of the bible, and
as the single individual is supreme in this mat
ter of interpretation, the limitation is not in
point, and communism reigns. Mr. Thomas
gives us the Protestant Episcopal limitation.
"The branch of God's church to which we be
long, believes in the co-ordinate authority of
the bible and the church and right reason."
The three, he adds, must harmonize. He de
fines for us the position of the church,"to
formulate creeds and symbols, which, if not
contrary to reason and .scripture, shall restrain
the license of private* opinion." His appeals
are not to the fathers as judges, but as wit
nesses not to single declaration, but to united
testimony "not to the church as an infallible
judge, but as an indefectible witness not to
the church at one time or in one place, but in
her universality in both regards." What have
we after all? The individual reason in a worse
plight than ever before in Protestantism! With
Mr. Breed wo have but the bible to quarrel
oyer. There is matter enough, of course, for
differences and combats, between the first
chapter of Genesis and the last of revalations,
and no wonder that ten thousand conflicting
voices fill the air, and that the mind grows
dizzy before the task of reaching ultimate re
ligious truth and gives up in despair. But
what will it be, when to the bible you add three
hundred folios of Fathers, and ponderous vol
umes of liturgies and decrees of councils!
Yet this is the position in which Mr. Thomas
places you. The church must be consulted
"Notthe church in one time or in one place, but
in her universality in both regards." Then the
testimony of the church must be proved not to
be contrary to reason and Scripture, and the
whole work devolves, finally, upon each indi
vidual Christian, be he poor or rich, ignorant
or learned. Now if men disagree in inter
preting, according to what each one deems
light reason, church and Scripture, who will
decide? Where will there be a limitation to
individual license? Have we not absolute
communismcommunism all the more inten
sified that there is a more extended field of in
quiry subjected to debate.
The Episcopal church has no power, no prin
ciple, to restrain license of thought among its
adherents. It professes its liability to err as a
judge, and tells the individual that it is his
duty to examine its testimony and its decisions,
and to judge for himself. In his sermon of
Feb. 10th, where he terms Protestantism, out
side of his wn church, the destruction of
unity, Mr. Thomas finds safety for the Episco
pal in the cieed. But if the individual church
an discovers that the creed is contrary to
reason and Scripture, on what principle can'the
church rebuke him? The VII. Art. in the
English Book of Common Prayer, enumerates
three creeds, the Apostles' creed, the Nicene
creed, and the Athanasian creed, and adds that
"the three ought to be believed, as they may be
proved by most certain warrants of Holy
Scripture." The American Episcopalians who
met A. D.. 1789, to organize the Protestant
Episcopal church of America, did not believe
that the Athanasian creed could be proved by
Scripture, and refused to allow it into their
Book of Common Prayer. A fierce battle is
now waging iu England to exclude it from the
English Book on the same principle. The Ni
cene and the Apostles' can, and perhaps yctjwill,
be dropped, or at least altered, and what then
will be left? What logically, there should be
mothing. The conference of the Reformed
Episcopal-church did, a few year's ago, at least
propose to alter the Apostles' creed. On what
principle could the mother churchthe Prot
estant Episcopalc6ndemn their action
Indeed, as a fact, there is no other Protest
ant church within whose pale there exists so
much religious communism. The Episcopal
church is a very bedlam of conflicting opinions.
Mr. Thomas tells us it has been properly called
"the roomy church," so multiplied the opin
ions it has to hold within its embrace. We all
know the names of a few of its sections, divi
ded one from the other on most vital points of
religionRitualism, High Church, Middle
Church, Low Church, Broad Church. Some
ministers hear confessions, build up altars,
upon which they affect to say mass, and adore
their consecrated elements, professing to be
lieve Christ to be really present. Others de
nounce such practices as idolatrous abomina
tions. In one church baptismal 'regeneration is
taught in another the people are told that
baptism is a mere outward ceremony. These
venerate the Scripture as GIXI'B pure word
thosehigh in dignitytell of the fables and
mistakes of the bible. Some adhere strictly to
the XXXIX Articles others declare tkem
damnable heresies, or worthless speculations.
There churchmen arc most exclusive
in their religious associations
there, the Swedenborgians aie allowed
the benefit of temple and church choir, and
Congregationalists and Presbyterians are in
vited to the communion table 'and the strang
est thing yet, authorities of the Episcopal
church recognize this communism as the nor
mal condition of the church. The Bishop of
Ely, in England, said in convocation, A. D.,
1868: "I agree with the words of the Bishop of
Oxford, that it is most undesirable to limit the
comprehensive character of the church of Eng
landthat in all times since the reformation
people have been allowed to hold extreme doc
trines on the one side and on the other, and I
hope most earnestly that the time will never
come when members of the church of England
will not be allowed to hold extreme doctrines
on one side and on tho other. If clergymen in
my diocese were to write to me and say, 'There
is a layman in my parish who holds transub
stantiation, the immaculate conception,and has
a tendency to worship the Virgin can I admit
him to communion?' My answer would be,
'You certainly can.'" However, the bishop
gave his own opinion of the doctrine of the im
maculate conception: "It is a distinct heresy
against the incarnation and mediation of our
Lord." This is indeed "comprehensiveness"
run mad. The Episcopal church is, indeed, the
"roomy church." It is rank communism.
In England, however, there is yet one bond of
unity leftthe civil power. The Queen's privy
councilhow Englishmen are punished for
having rejected the infallibility of God's
church!learnedly decides for Episcopalians on
baptismal regeneration and the inspiration of
the bible, and the court of Lord Penzance sum
marily locks up in jail self-confident ministers,
who, as the late Rev. Mr. Tooth, rebel against
its decisions on ritualism. In America we have
no Queen's council, no Lord Penzance, and
Episcopalianism is left civilly and logically to
its fatecommunism.
I had said that owing to its communistic
principles Protestantism had no means of prov
i ng that the bible is God's wordconsequently i f10
has no foundation imaginable as a system of I
f^!tS f.rjJ&*
if he could. How does Mr. Thomas an
swer in the name of the Episcopal church?
His lecture sustains most signally my asser
tion that Protestantism cannot answer the
questions.
Mr. Thomas wants it understood that he is
not responsible for the defense of Protestant
ism outside of his own sectMr. Breed's, for
instance. Speaking of three of questions,
he says that the Protestant denying a historic
church must give answer for himself. Let us
hear him for his own:
First question"Can Protestants prove in
any way that the bible is God's inspired word,
all God's word and nothing bnt God's word?
Mr. Thomas tries on me what 1 would call a
witty Irish trick. He asks me another ques
tionwas Peter ever in Rome? And he ap
pearis most determined to put toe off the track.
I make the assertion," hesavsthat Peter was
never Rome" 1 make it broadly, 1 make it
roundly." No use, Mr. Thomas i" understand
the trick. We will discuss St. Peter another
day at your own choice. Keep now to the
bible.
He attempts a proof. We believe the bible
to be the word of God, because of the testi
mony which the bible bears to itself: because
it is easier to believe its supernatural claims
than to account in a natural way for their ex
istence." Such an argument ii of no alue.
The question is not about the supernatural
character of the Christian religion, nor of the
divine features of the life of Christ, but of the
inspiration of those who record the word's and
acts of oui Lord. The Evangelists would have
given us no lesser idea of Christ'b grandeur of
character and of the sublimity of his teachings,
if they had been but faithful historians. The
letters of Clement and Barnabas contain Chris
tian doctrine, and breathe celestial piety as
well as those of John and Jnde.
We believe the bible* to be the word of God.
because of our confidence in the integrity of
the church as the witness and keeper of revela-
tion." The appeal is just, if the church is in
fallible, as Catholics belie\e her to be. It falls
to the ground, on Mr. Thomas' j.remises, ac
cording to which the testimony of the church
must oe examined by individual reason. Tra
dition once declared fallible, it cannot be re
lied upon as a witness to inspiration, which is
of itself a supernatural, invisible act, and can
be knoan only by revelation. Human tradi
tion can prove an outwaid, visible fact, a-i the
existence of the church, or can bring down to
ut words spoken by Christ, as his commission
to hi-, chuich, but cannot establish inspiration.
Then Mr. Thomas will lemember that for a
long while Christian tradition, as it wan. did
not agree regarding the inspiration of several
books of the bible.
Second question"Can Protestant-* show
that Christ instituted the" bible us the Christian
rule of faith The Irish tiick again. "Can
Romanics show." he asks, "that Christ insti
tuted the lloman Church as the rule of faith
And he not e\en attempts an auswJr to my
question.
Third question"Will Protestants proicthat
the Church did not exist befoie the bible
Mr. Thomas grants my assertion that the
Church did exist before the Bible. I take as a
consequence of his words that he must, then,
grant that the bible is not Christ's rule of
faithwhich is the entire abandoning of the
whole Protestant theory.
He here adds, "If, however, the bishop means
to say that the Roman Church alone existed be
sre the bible, I would make the assertion that
the Sees of Jerusalem, and Antioch anil
Ephesun are other than the Western See." I
conless 1 am puzzled to know Mr. Thomas'
meaning. 1 am not talking of the local church
of Rome, of that of Ephesns, or of that of
Athens. The question is of that one Chuich of
Christ which was represented in the apostolate,
when he said, "Going ye, teach." A local
church, whether of Rome or of Jerusalem, is
nothing to me, except inasmuch as it is part
and parcel of Christ church. Verily, it seems,
ss if Mr. Thomas fancied that Catholics believe
the local church of Rome to be Chiiot's whole
churchinstead of the church Catholic, whose
inheritance is the earth. The Church of Rome
is simply for us, what Antioch once was, the
residence of our chief pabtor. Elsewhere,
under the same misapprehension of our faith,
he asked, if I could prove that Christ instituted
the Roman Church the rule of faith* I have
proved that he instituted, as the rule of faith,
the Church Catholic, whose supreme head, Leo
XIII., resides to-day in Rome.
Fouith and fifth questions"What, under
Protestant principles, of the Christians living
before the bible was written, and before the
bible could possibly be read by the millions
before the middle of the loth century." Mi.
Thomas does not answer. The questions, he
says, have no pertinence for his Church let
him prove that they have no such pertinence.
My questions aie yet to be answered by
Protestantism.
Mr. Thomas, I think, has principles of his
own regarding the bible, which are neither
Catholic nor Protestant. I already told you
that he admits a passage of his bible to be an
interpolation and he speaks of the ccitain ad
vance of biblical scholarship, before which
Rome will be obliged to give to her children a
new and more perfect collation of the ancient
MSS. Of course, in his view, the same advance
of scholarshship will show the Protestant bible
to be at fault, since so far as manuscript au
thority is concerned, the Protestant bible fol
lows the vulgate. Mr. Thomas is not at all
sure that he has at present a true bible. For
the sake of his hearers, at least, whom he
teaches to rely on the bible, for their faith, I
hope he will hurry up his studies of the ancient
MBS.
You have cbsmed that Thomas speaks of the
Protestant Episcopal church ss a historic church, in
contradistinction to other Protestant churches. He
calls it "the briucii of God's church to winch wo be-
long." I w.ll explam his meaning to my Catholic
and non-Episcopal Protestant hearers. According
to hlui. Christ would, indeed, have luctituteti, SOUK
eighteen centuries ago, a church upon earth. This ig
the historic church, bite lived on -with the orgaiuc
unity received from her builder, for eijh hundred
years, when she split up into two pieces, the Greek
and the Latin. Thenceforward, there were two
branches of 3 historic church. In the sixteenth
century, the Latin branch received another volcanic
shock, and divided into the lloman and the Anglican,
and we have now three branches of God's holy
church. The Aug)'cans or Episcopate, on this sys
tem, do "Komanism," as Mr. Thomas terms it, the
honor of acknowledging it as a branch of the church.
Their usual address to Home is, "with all thy iaults,
I love thee still." Indeed, when we come to analj/.e
with them the faults of Kome, we find her to be
guilty, in their eyes, of only one mortal smshe does
not return the compliment of calling Anglicanism a
branch of the hfhtoric church. But Episcopate have
no such honor in store for other Protestant churches
PreKbjterians, Baptists, Methodists. These are
not branches of the church they are dissenters.
On what ground do Episcopate deem their church
a branch of the historic church On ground most
arbitrary. They have bishops, valid orders. I will
not discuss, this evening, the validity ot their orders
but I beg not to he understood as admitting it. This
ground once taken, the branches of God'M church
rapidly increase in number. We have the Jausemsts
of Utrecht, the Old Catholics of Germany and
Switzeiland, the Nestorians of Chaldea, the Coptics
and Abyssiuians of lower Egyptall of whom are a
hundred times more certain of the validity of then
orders than the Anglicans. We have the* American
lleformed Episcopal church and the Lutheran church
of Sweden, whose orders are on a par with those of
Anghcaidsra. Then, among ttie branches of the his
toric church hi the past, we must, all logic, set
down churches that Anglicanism lias always repu
diated, as manifest sects aud schismsthe Uonatists,
the Arians, the Nestorians, &c. All these had most
undoubtedly valid orders, and bishops, in numbers,
were not only among the fo"owers, but among the
founders. And on what prmciple do Anglicans mark
down, as a link that keeps them in God's church,
whatever else they may do or believe, the possession
of bishops iu their ranks? On the principle of their
right to their own private interpretation of scripture
and church tradition. But have not Presbj terians
and Methodists as much right to their \ersion of
scripture and tradition, which tells them that bibhops
are ol no necessity at all in the church? And if
PresbyteriaiiB and Methodists style themselves
branches of the historic church, what objection, of
anj weight, can Angbc&ns raise against their preten
sions? Ouce infallible authority the church set
aside, what constitutes church unity each one's taste
must decide, and one taste has as much right to rule
as another.
Let me invite you to glance for a moment at the
church which the Anglican theory gives us. I eau
understand the Protestant idea, that Christ left no
church on earth. The Episcopal idea, that He hiHti
tuted a church, and that Ills church is what Mr.
Thomas maps out for us, I certainly do not under
stand.
Christ's church is a social unit. The word itself,
church, indicates this, as well as other words whicli
apply to it in scripture, a kingdom, a fold.
St. Paul terms her Christ's body. He
prayed for unity hi Hfs churchfor
visible unity, and His prayer was surely heard.
"Father, that they may be one, as Thou in mo, and I
in Thee that the world may know that
Th.u hast sent me." ScMsm, the Betting up of one
party against the Church Catholic, the apostles and
the Fathers, always deemed a heinous crime, as it
seemed to them an effort to tear into shreds Christ'*
seandess robe, to divide fnto fragments Mis own
body. As Christ instituted her, as Christ prayed
that she should be, so must she ever remain. Else,
man could have undone God's work. Yet He affirmed
that not oven the gates of hell should prevail against
His church. Now, in spite of Christ, Anglicanism
tells us tho church is divided aud her fragments
scattered, shapeless and begrimed, through space and
time! Christ's message to men was onebeing
truth itselfand this message as he gave it, the
church was commissioned to repeat until the end of
time, and consequently in virtue of the same eternal
principle that there is but one Lord, St. Pan! declares
that there Is bu one faith. Now, we area presented
1
a
0
Christian religion. I put under the head of 3hiL
this proposition five questions, to which I in-
so-calledtchurch, that speak from thousand
8
a J1
a8a 5
contradictions. Heresy, the at
ehmc J
de
eacrllege, againsBt
th
8uct
poHre
thd
apo9Uef
theory, sects and schisms are constitutive parts of
the body of Christprovided, simply, that there b*
in these sects and schisms, biihops-
ChriBt instituted His church aa a teacher of truth,
casting over her, for the sake of her office, His own
^anne of authority. "Going ye. teach all nations."
what of this office, in the Anglican theory? The
-cahed branches anathematize one another's doc
trines, and with one exception each branch is a bed
ontra dictory opinionsthe Episcopal branch
especially. This church the witness to truth! She
is at least equally the witness to error, for her
branches aremead contradiction. Where is her tes
timony to truth? How is the individual soul, hun
gering for truth and beHevwg that it must obtain
possession of it under penalty of damnation, to find
it? Is truth something that changes from one coun
try to another? I 8 it htwful to adore the Eucharist
in Italy and to scoff at it in England Is conf esaion
obligatory in France and a crime America? Th
church a teacher of troth! Wh on thi* theorv,
confessedly so, she has been dumb for 1,200 years,
and must dumb for all future ages, so long as any
httle sect having bishops wffl chooee to set up certain
ideas of iu own. We hear much of the authority,
long, long ago, of the undivided church. According
to Mr. Thomas* lecture, even the decrees of this un
divided church had to pans through the crucible of
private interpretation before having nnal authrity
This, then, the church of Ihiiig God He built her
to teach men, to teach all generations until the end of
time, and He pledged his own power to her for the
fulfillment of her office Yet, whatever way ih
taught the world for a few centuries, by the malice of
men for oue thousand or more years she is reduced
to silence God is defeated by his creatures. The
gates of hell have prevailed. God's promises have
proved inglorious failures. The Savior has declared
belief in His doctrines obligatory upon all men, upon
us, consequently, who live in the 19th century and
yet, for centuries and centuries, there has been no
teacher of these doctrines hi the world, and uo in
genuity can divine when there will be one. It to rae
is but bitter irony to hear you talk of the undivided
church. I need a hwmg teacher, to teach me my
duty to-day. How can I even kuow what the undi
vided church, an you term it, did teach? Men do not
agree as to what it taught -its decrees and creeds, as
you give them to me, are dead letters. No use to
blame human malice for having interrupted unity,
whether you place this malice in Greek or Roman,
or Anghcan branch. God owed me truth, if faith
a necessary condition of Mdvation, and He should
have overruled, as he promised to do, the niahce of
men and demons.
Look no longer, my friends, on a theory which in
presence of Christ's promises is a blaHphemy against
the Lord. Christ's work endures: This church lives
and teachesone and infallible as He constituted her.
"Teach all nations," He said to her. "He that be
lieveth not fliall be condemned." Anl she went
forth to her task in the fullness of her splendor as
His bride, with His own mantle of authority waving
from her ,meeuly shoulders, she gathered unto her
spouse the nations of the earth, and fed them with
His truth aud graces-. Kebels aroxe agamst her,
heretics and sclusniatics. She wept for their souls,
but in justice to her spouse t-he hurled agamst them
her auathemax and continued, one and hoh, her
march through time. They were called Gnostic*,
Novatious, Arums, Ncstoram-. Once lopped off, thev
were brancheswithout sap or life, and they withered
ofl the face of the earth. Other rebete appeared
the same doom awaited them. Thej were Icon jelasts,
Photians or Greeks MamcheaiiM. The Pith dawned
upon tier with storms ahead. Lutheraux, l'al\inito.
Anglicans aro^e her anathema fell upon them, and
they are dead branches. The church pursued her
onward career, held hei councils, sent her aiotle to
America and Asia, taught the uatiouc, *a\ed souls.
Her name never changed it i Catho'iK the church
of nations.
A voice arises to protest. Anglicans are not in
schism. There was no Miiheieiit cause to neparat*
them from the church. A samt, Finmhan, protested
agamst unjust separations. No caut-c for the separ
ation! Who is the judge? The party that has been
excommumcated. Did e\ er heretic or gchismatie ac
knowledge his anathema a just oue? Luufer, ex
pelled from lieav en, protested agamst the sentence
of the Almighty. The judge lr. God's church, who
speaks through her retogm/ed representatives and
whose sentence upon earth h_ spouse- ratines iu
heaven. A I'irmilian quoted agamst the church'*
sentence! Firmihan bc-tame a saint in his latter
days, but when he wrote Ins letter to lope Stephen,
the sword of excommunication w-s hanging over his
own head, and iu the true spirit of schism lie de
clared liimself and Iu- friends to he right and him
whom the same letter he acknowledges to his
superior, to be wrong.
God is not as man His work is stable. Ii^the be
ginning of time He poised the* heavens space, and
what hand has interrupted their revolutions or mi
paired their harmony. Eighteen centuiieK ago HR
placed the moral world His chuich to teach truth
and distribute grace, and she remains as He consti
tuted her. O, Savior of men direct towards hPr tho
eye* of those hungering for truth and jet despair
because they kuow not where to find it. They will
easily discern the divine features of Thy bride, so
vastly removed her unity and her unchangeable
ness from all human institutions, and once her divine
authority acknowledged, they will thank Thee,
Lord, for having given light to their minds and peace
to their hearts.
A Jivimtrhuhli' bttirii of' rime.
A remarkable muuler tiial JJUH been de
veloped at Sidney, Neb. A letter from that
place written on the L',"th saya
About twenty da ys ago a youn", man nam
ed Charles Phillips, engugeel at H. J. Wat
roth's ranche, between here and Big Springs,
suddenly disappeared, and till inquiries failed
to elicit tidings of him. La.st night two
Htock men, intimate friendH of Watroth,
Btopped at tho ranche. Watroth was absent.
Mrs. Watioth was puitially proHtrated by a
nervous attack. While talki ng about tho
myateiioun dibappe-araucc of Phillips Mrs.
Watroth broke down in a fit of Instcrical
weeping, a nd said she knew where
Philli ps was that ho had been
murdered, and his 1 ody thrown into the Platte
river. When further questioned, HIIC avowed
positive knowledge of the deed, which, alio
said, ad been committed bv Henry Duboi.se.
another young man engaged on the rancho
I great excitement .she told the circumstan
ces of the murder. There had been a quai
rel between Duboise and Phillips, on account
of certain favors extended to them by her
self. Phillips threatened to tell Watroth of
her improper intimacy with Duboise. Sho
asked Duboise to wLip Phillips, who, at
tempting it. got badly thrashed. ()n the
night of Feb. Duboise told Philli ps ho
was a member of the gang who robbed
the express train at Big Springs,
a nd that sjjs:i0.00o of tl,e gold was
buried on the banks Platte river, three
hundr ed yards from the house, und offered
him half the moucy if he would go with him
and ig it up. Phillips consented, and they
started at midnight. When a few yaids
from the- river, Duboise dropp ed behind
Phillips, and fired with a revolver, striking
him in the back of the head, the ball coining
ut at the forehead. Philli ps turned round
as he fell, aud Duboise fired again, hitting
him under the right e\e. Both balls pene
trated the hiuiu. Duboise filled the pockets
of the murdered man with sand, threw tho
body into the rivor. anil returned to the
house a nd told ilis. Watroth what
he had done. The stock men
telegraphed the facts to Deputy Sheriff
Brown, at Sidney, who went to the Watroth
place this morning, on a hand car and arrest
ed Duboise and brought him a nd Mrs. Wa
troth to Sidney, and lodged them iu jail.
It. J. Watroth is a brother of ono of tho
coun ty commissioners, a wealthy stock man.
His wife is a pretty little woman of 22, a nd
was married to Watroth a second time, hav
ing been divorced for improper intimacy
with some young men. Duboise is 21, lino
looking, well educated, a nd the son of
wealthy parents who reside in Iowa. Tho
examination takes place to-morrow, a nd
some remarkable disclosures of illit lovo
a nd crime will be made. Tho body of
young Phillips has not been found. The
Platte never gives up its ele-ad.
That lirihrrif Cam'.
IGIencoe ltegistcr Liberty Hall, Editor.]
give elsewhere the evidence taken by
the legislative committee relative to the
allegetl school book bribery matter. As the
testimony of the editor of this paper is in
cluded therein, but little remains to be
add ed here. Bribery in legislative or any
other affairs is not to be countenanced in
any degree, aud the fact that it is (or 1B sup
posed to be) of common occurrence does
ot palliate the offense. W have e-nly to
add that we neither purchased nor attempt
to purchase Mr. Brandt's vote. As
stated in the evidence, we have never met
him until he Bought our acquaintance. If we
had been in the bribery business a nd had de
sired to purchase Mr. Brandt's vote, we leave
the public to judge whether we would have
been likely to have waited until ho sought
an introduction a few moments liefore the
bill in question was to be acted upon. It
will be noticed that Mr. Brandt does not pre
tend that we in any way endeavored to meet
him or ever ask his support of the bill until
he came unsolicited aud introduced the topic
voluntarily. W make no attempt to en
gage in a personal defense or to commend our
discretion, but, entering our solemn denial
of being actuated by corrupt motives, we
submit the testimony and leave tho public to
judge between us.
Three Bright Stars.
[Kansas City Journal of Commerce.]
The three bright new stars in daily jour
nalism are the St. Louis Point, the Washing
ton J'otl and the St. Paul GLOBK,