The daily morning journal and courier., 1894-08-21
AUTHORITY IN RELIGION
THOUGHTFUL DISCOURSE BY REV.
 HOWARD M0UEARY OF ERIE.

Rev. Howard MeQueary, of Erie. Pa, was the preacher at the Church of the Messiah Sunday morning and evening. There were large congregations pres- ent at both services and much interest was manifested in his sermons. The topic of his morning sermon was. ''The Religion of Reason" His text was: Prove all things: hold fast that which is good" I. Thess. v:2i. He spoke in part as follows:
 What Is true authority in religion? What shall guide us in faith and con- duct? There are three recognized sources of authority in religion, viz. the church. the Bible and reason. Speaking generally. Roman Catholics accept the church as the supreme au- thority in religious matters; orthodox Protestants accept the Bible. and Libe- ral Christians recognize reason as the true authority. But you know that Professor Briggs got himself Into trou- ble by asserting that all these sources of authority ought to be recognized. and this opinion Is spreading among Protestants of all kinds.
 In this sermon I propose to examine these views and to distinguish their truth from their errors. And first we will consider the claims that the church should be given the place of su- premacy and authority and practice. have no time nor Is 1t necessary to re- flute the Roman Catholics interpreta- tion of Christ's remarks to St. Peter that he was the rock upon which he would found his church. and the gates of hell should not prevail against 1t. This statement Is susceptible of several explanations. and Is actually interpre- ted very differently by different schools of theologians. But even If the Roman Catholics interpretation were true we should have to ask what the latest his tory of Christ had to say on this sub ject. The great and fundamental ques- tion is: Has the church ever actually erred in religious matters. Has 1t ever put forth decisions which 1t has subse- quently retracted. If so, then mani festly its authority Is questionable and more or less unreliable. This is even admitted by Cardinal Gibbons in his well-known book on the faith of our fathers. He says: "If only an instance could be given in which the church ceased to teach a doctrine of faith, which had been previously held, that single instance would be the death blow of her claim to infallibility."
 We'll, We claim to be able to give such an instance, viz: the churchs S condemnation of the Copernican theory of astronomy and it's subsequent accep- tance. Before the time of Copernicts. the sixteenth century, it was univer- sally believed on scriptural authority that the earth was fiat and stationary, and that the sun moved around the earth. But that great astronomer, to- gether with Keple, Calico and Bruno, demonstrated that this doctrine was false, and that the earth was round and moved about the sun. The contro- versy that this raised ragged for two centuries. In the year 1916 Pope Paul V., with the congregation of the On- dex, condemned as false and totally opposed to the divine scriptures the work of Copernicus on the revolution of the world. In 1918 Pope Plus VII. re- pealed this condemnat tion. In the inter- val the holy office prosecuted and sen- fenced Calico in 1633 for suspected adherence to the Copernican heresy. In 1741 the Catholic edition of Sir Isaac Newton's "Principia" apologized for that work in these words: New ton in this book assumes the hypothe- sis of the motion of the earth and the authors system could not be expound- ed except on the same hypothesis. Hence we have been obliged to assume a character other than our own, but we declare our obedience to the decree of the supreme pontiff against the motion of the earth"
 Of course Roman Catholics when confronted by this well-known error of their church try to explain it away. But Dr. Andrew D. White, in recent series of articles in the Popular Sci- ence Monthly, has conclusively refuted these sophistries by quoting the origi- nal documents, and from these show ing that the Pope himself did authori- tatively and explicitly condemn the Copernician theory and sub sequently the decision was re pealed. Hence we can show a single instance of error on the part of the church, and therefore, ac- cording to Cardinal Gibbons himself, a death blow has been dealt to her claim of infallibility. ....
 But not only has this church erred in faith; it has also erred in, practice. As she claims to be an infallible guide in morals as we'll as in belief, we have right to cite her criminal conduct as proof of her fallibility. Think, then, for a moment of the horrors of the Inquisi- tion, when hundreds and thousands of Gods truest saints were tortured and burned to death for heresy. Think also of the thousands of good people who hove been destroyed as witches. And above all think of the conduct of such popes as Alexander VI., one of the meanest men God ever made, who nur- dered Savanarola and was the father of number of illegitimate children, and even accused of incest with his own daughter!
 Of course intelligent Roman Catho- lies will give plausible explanation of these crimes and prosecutions. They have a 'fatal@facility in explaining away difficulties. But facts are stubborn things and common sense is hard to re- flute. Cardinal Gibbons admits the cru city of the Inquisition, but tries to throw the blame on the people who were the instruments of the church. Before you can convict the church of ;rtoloran moe (he savs> vot, ,,,,,et Ars+