The San Francisco call., 1896-01-25
REV. E. B. PAYNE'S VIEWS.
He Avoids All Semblance of Either
Prejudice or Pas

In the course of the sermon preached by
Rev. Edward 3. Payne of the Berkeley
Unitarian church on the Yorke- Ross con-
troyersy he said:
The controversy to which I direct attention
has been in progress for nearly two months
1t is far from my purpose to enter into the
contention itself. ] shall content myself with
an attempt to draw therefrom certain general
lessons.
The first of these lessons emphasizes the
utter uselessness of such disputations as re-
CARDS the conversion of the disputants them
selves. The probability is that there has not
been in this case and will not be single con-
vert from the ranks OF one party to the ranks
OF the other party. Neither will there be any
radical modification of the mental attitudes
previously assumed.
In the present case we may remind ourselves
that the early disputants were so sure of their
assumed positions that they were willing to
risk money upon them, reminding one of
Byron's lines:
For most men (tiil by losing rendered sager),
VIII back their own opinions by wager.
Those who followed risk, perhaps, only their
regulations as thinkers on the correctness of
their positions, but they entered the forum
with declared tenets and manifest determi n
alton TO defend them TO the utmost. In the
end neither side viii acknowledge itself de-
feated, and probably both sides will enjoy the
CONSCIOUSNESS of victory.
1t may be added, however, that in the light
OF these probable results there is a certain use
party value. 1t strengthens the contestants
1t does not convert them, it does not modify
radically their attitudes, but it confirms each
slde In Its own position. 1t points our their
unsuspected Weaknesses for correction and
teaches them expertness and agility in attack
and defense. oubtedly the present con-
testanis oil regard themselves as now the
most redoubtable warriors, better prepared for
future onsaughts in the endless war of ideas
The second lesson concerns the entire lack
OF mutual confidence between the parties to
this dispute. There is evidently determined
ana uncompromising distrust between Catho-
lie and Protestant. 1t is q diStrust which
easily passes into contempt. An interesting
feature of the present case is the fact that
most OF the controversalists have come into
the arena with protestations of regard for their
antagonists, but after few thrusts given and
received this is forgotten and there appears O.
tendency to epithet, insinuation and sugges-
tion, or direct accusation of evasion, subter-
tuge, intellectual dishonesty, or even,
perhaps, of misrepresen entation and Justification.
Ihe newspaper columns have had little daubs
OF mud all over them. The arguments have
been literally sandwiched with invective.
There has been very spiteful talk. 1t would
seem that these men do not preserve the con-
sclousness of brotherhood in the great uni
yersal church, but rather feel themselves to be
deadly foes meeting on the battlements. All
this Is due, doubtless, to the influence of some
centuries of ecclesiastical and religious story.
For many generations that story has been
marked by uncompromising prejudice and
bitter enmity between the two great church
parties. The Catholic accommodating from his
hilltop, the Protestant surveying the field from