Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-01-06
CREEDS DISCUSSED.
BISHOP EAIs ANSWERS DR.. POLLARD
AND DR. MCDONALD THE BISHOP.
zhe w.itsrs in the triangular Discussion
on Catholic Teachings Warming Up
When Win II Bndi
20 The rditor Of the bl,naleh:


srs. nv incautiousiy rushing IA the defence
al bis reverend c0nierree, DIR. Mcdonald, be
committed himself 20 false position, out OF
which he ysinly struggles TO extrlcate biul-
self, consnmiag g0odly portion Of bis lsst
communication in this irutless effort. The
Quibblc running through AL that brst part OF
his letter Is patent 20 every reader. lie hrst
hazards the assertion that had done myself
esn Injustice Ia MOI correcting tue statement
.fiyen OF my sermon Ia the Dispatch OF the
ifth ullimO, and few sentences siier lac -
forced 10 admit that did make that ccrrec'
tion. | have never seen copy oil ihe Dlss
patch Of December ilth, aud never saw the
rrpor; OF my sermon therein contained until
i read II reproduced IN pr. Polisfd,s urst
card. 7heR, - YOUR readers know,
and a. Dr. Pollard has confessed,
did correct that ststement. abe cues
tion Al issue was not raised by me,
although Dr. Pollard would leave your
readers under the false impression tnat
originated this discussion 10y my remarks ~
the dedication az the Sacred Heart church,
whereas the public are fully aware that nY
remarks on tDat occasion were IN reply 10
the charge OF Rev. Or. Mcdonald that "the
records show that Plus ". declared II
heresy 10 separate Church aud state Inc
question. therefore, IN debate from the 0eN
cinning iS: "DO the records show, %c.,
&c. ?" have proyed-Fifst from my oppo'
nepts' Owe admissions, that neither Oi these
ceotlruen has ever read those recordS, anu
second, thst even the syllabus docs not brand
A. Lersficqi the hlty.t!th proposition. There.
fore. DT. McDonaid's charge was lalsei ana
that has been my contention from the begin
NM our letters are before your readers;
let them judge.
demanded proof that the syllabus was IS
sue1 h, Plus TX. and. lol am referred to
encyciormdias and the Protestant historian,
Or. SchsG. Did pr. Pollard DOT intend THIS
ssatokcp ] accept the teachings OF tho en-
cvc.icsl Oaqufa citrG as the dogmstie utter
spces O. he Pope, but what connection %
there between the enCyclicai and The syllH-
bu. It's Emintncc Cardinal Newman, VINO
NAV be presumed 10 know more about these
matters than Br. schaT and the authors oi
tbese eucyciOrrlils, says: "The syllabus
docs not exist, g. FAR S. the language OF lbe
s,,creitca1 =. concerned. The value
of The syllabus lies IN its references" DIM
cuili8s OF Anglicans, pages 2s2-3) NOW,
when | INSIST on Or. Pollard con-
sulting the references open before him
in his copy Of The sylisbus he cries
out th3t ! want 20 relegate him to Ne"
Cranada. That u not the truth, though the
Rev. Doctor msy think II "a bit Of wit. Your
readers, Mr.. Editor. Will find Cardinal New
mans Illustration far more pertinent than
DR.. PollgrPs. "(Ounsels' opinion beng
asked on point Of law, he goes to his law
hooks. writes down his answer, and as
authority refers his client 10 % George Ill,
chapter .. section II; ii. Victoria, chapter
II. section ~, and 10 Thomas VS.. smith,
hftorne, General vs.. Roberts, and James VS..
owen. Who would say that that sheet OF
foolseap mas force OF law. when IL was moth
ing more lhan list Of references n the
statutes Of the realm OF Judges decisions 10
which the laws voice really was toundE"
shall give another apt illustration. An
1ndIel taioeues his obi tctons TO Chris
tianity aud its Founder. No. 81 on bis list
81 quoted IN proof Of ChrsPs inhumanity,
md reads thus: "ii any man come TO me
Rnd hate not his father and mother and
" lie and children and brethren and sisters,
yea, aud his own life also, he cannot be my
disciple" duke xiv, 23) WIN DR. Poi-
lard admit that these words OF the saviour
must be understood as they here sound, dis-
connected from their cOpteXtY WIZ ne not
insist on the references being consulledI But
A. they were the words OF proposition found
sanctioned in the syllabus, he would insist
on their being accepted Just as they stand,
regardless Of the references given In expis-
nation. There u something IN Holy Writ
sbou, the use OF divers weights, which the
Doctor may prodtably recall.
But. Mr.. Editor, what is the real contention
al these Baptist minislersf Is 1t not that
Catholics In our country would II they
could force union OF Church and State
Aud what proof DO they allege Ter this
ltterlv false charger know not what
branches Professor Pollard may be engaged
I'm teaehing, but surely these branches cam
not include logic. lie and his friend DR..
Mcdonald contend that Catholics want TO
bring about union OF Church aud STATE IN
this country, and IN proof OF THAR a 'suon
they quote a proposition oil the sy'lt'us
W hich, in rs very brOsdest acceplatlon,
teaches that where such union already oX'
lists It should not be severed. When these
gentlemen thence infer" Therefore where
II does not exist II should De es-
fahlisbed cannot the student Of logic
in the Baptist college see that tins M
ference Il mauifestly a non Sequit0rl The
proDosltion AZ found in the s'llabus reads:
:, Ecctesla a Sigu StQhisQUc 90 EccleN6 Sc
,ur1,ndus est" the contradictory OF which
sGlrms that .'the Church should not be sep
sra;cd from the Stale nor the State nom the
Church." But does Or. Pollard pretend
that this proposition Is the equivalent OF tue
one which his tbess needs for H. c0uiOrma'
lion. and which should evidently run thus
"gcclesio cum SiGtt, StqfRSQae cum Ecc9e-
st0 janGeadus est 2"- that is, 1.-the Church
should be united with the state and the State
with the Church"
The Church says TO husband aud wife
8 Your cOnjugal union must not be sew
ered"; but any sane man can readily per
ceive that tins IA not equivalent 10 the de-
clara;ion: .'rhis or that man and this or
that woman must be Joined in coniugal
union."
1 should DO pleased 10 have Rev. Or. Poll
lard give the public his definition OF union
OF Church and state. | am certain that |
but voice the unanimous sentiment OF Anne
rican Catholics, lay and clerical, when as
sert that were we in numerical ascendancY
we could not wish to DO more than perpet-
uate the existing order o! things, aud for
this very good Teassn that, as Or. BrOwnsou
wrote years ago, "the Church has here nearly
al! the rights guaranteed TO her, and IN some
respects more freedom than she secures by
her most advantageous cORc0rdufs with The
Catholic Powers OF Europe or America.
She Is ireer aud more independent here, ana
T. more ehectually projected by the COnsil-
tu,lcu Of toe American republic than she
has ever been ~ France since Philip the
Fair; IN Germany since The extinction OF tue
Csrlovingian Empcrors; in England since
tie Norman conquest; on IN spain siuce the
death of Isabella the Catholic; although she
g. not once recognized by name In the Con-
stitution, aud The fathers OF the republic
vary likely had no intention OF recognizing
or.proteeling her al all, for they regarded
her As dead ADD no lOVgor n danger to
their proieliutism or infdeliw. There
s. here real Union q Church and
.S{aie an our sense OF me term; and though
paf perfect. yet aiiaoSi as perfect as has ever
existed oRg,chere" (No. New Series,
prownson's Review | fancy DR.. Pollard
cou,lders the support OF the Church and
her ministers as The very essence OF union
between the two ovdcfs-sp spiritual aud tem-
pOrai Were thls true, there is Just "a much
union az the Protestant churches with the
Stale IN France, Austria, and other CATHOLIC
countries as there IS with the Catholic
Church, since Protestant ministers receive
even isrgrr salaries in those countries from
the Government. than do Catholic priests.
requested the Doctor 70 designate other
b jeetionablc propositions IA the syllabus.
H. has done 80 He Giles No. 2i.
Where, pray, do he and his friend
Or. Mcdonald set their translation
OF this proposition? Or, Pollard has
the Latin before him, and must know that