The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-01-03
NOT UNDER SUSPICION, SAYS FATHER YORKE.

institution; another sect holds that episco.
pacy is not OF divine institution.
Catholics hold that when our Lord said of
the bread, This is my body. he meant what
he said. MethoGlsts hold that when our Lord
said, This is my body, he meant this is not
my body. Now, might ask how, in the name
of common-sense, can churches protesting
these contradictory doctrines belong 10 the
one church? If one is right the other is wrong,
and what fellowship has error IN the Kingdom
OF truth? Are We to believe that Jesus Christ
is the head OF an institution which puts false
hood on the same level the gospel? What
IN the name of common-sense was the use of
ms giving us revelation and teaching US
truth II we can hold the very contradictory of
what he taught and still be branches OF his
church?
g. Mr. Bovard saws: "The Protestant state
ments OF theological doctrines, so-called
creeds, differ from the Catholic creeds in that
they do not attempt TO bind the conscience.
only the Bible binds Protestant conscience"
do not know what the reverend gentleman
means by binding the conscience. l am under
the impression that Protestant creed has pre-
clSely the same objects as g Catholic creed. A
creed is statement that q man believes GER
tain doctrines. If he believes them they bind
his conscience 1tmakes q o difference whether
they are Catholic doctrines or Protestant doc
trines, belief is the same in both cases, and one
creed lies as heavy on the conscience as an
other. The statement that only the Bible
binds a Protestant conscience is unintelligible.
The Bible as the Bible cannot bind anything.
1t IS the Interpretation of the Bible which
binds the conscience. 1t is the doctrine which
each believers private judgment picks out of
the text which is OF Obligation. and my con-
tention is that the Protestant churches sacri-
flee their theory OF private judgment by adopt
ing ereedS; These creeds are interpretations
of the Bible. They interfere with that free
and unbiased consideration OF the text which
the theory of private judgment requires.
They are in TACT the private judgments OF
few men SET forth in fo1m OF words. Now by
what right do these men force their private
judgment on other people? What right have
the Methodists TO force candidates 10 accept
tnelr articles as a condition to membership?
Is not this a practical surrender of the theory
OF private judgment? The Methodist church
says: Here is my Interpretation OF the Bible.
II you wish 10 join me you must sacrifice your
private judgment and accept my interpreta-
ton. What other name can we call this than
interpretation through the church, which is
the Catholic, not the Protestant, theory.
DR.. Bovard says when Protestant desires
to withdraw from one of the denominations
he is at liberty 10 DO so and bears with him
both before and after" Now would like to
know how he can think as he pleases if he is
bound 10 think according to certain creed?
II he accepts the creed he gives as sent TO its
articles: If he does not give assent his accept
ance is piece OF hypocrisy. The signing of
articles OF religion means that man re-
nounces so much of his right of Judging for
himself. But the Protestant theory is that this
right cannot be renowned; that the sole rule
of faith is private judgment, therefore 1 hold
that the Protestant practice contradicts the
Protestant theory and that the Methodists do
themselves the very things they blame Catho-
lies for doing.
There are few more points in the introduce
tory portion of Mr.. Boyard's letter. l know
yonr space is crowded just now and 1 reserve
my remarks fol another communication to-
morrow. Yours truly, ?. C. YoRKE.
PoSTSCRIPTUM.
1t would be waste of time, Mr.. Editor, to at
tempt to classify and characterize the various
obscenities OF the last communication to which
q. A. Hubbeu lent his worthless name. He
evidently believes that il enough dirt is thrown
some OF it will stick. Stick it may, but il can
not stain. "SOme dirt sticks longer than other
dirt, says Newman, but no dirt is immortal"
The old axiom still holds: Truth win prevail. r"
The people of this City and of this State are
competent judges OF truJhfulness. They know
that old charges are not proved by preferring
new charges, and that the sworn statements of
three reputable witnesses are not 10 be swept
away by torrent of filth.
This is the main question which must be met
and decided before any other questions can be
even considered. Two documents have been
produced and represented as oaths taken by
priests and Jesuits. Three Catholic clergvmen
OF this City have made affidavit that these two
documents are forgeries These affidavits are
not answered by throwing N I'D al priests. The
only way TO meet them is TO prove that the
three clergymen committed perjury. If G. A.
Hubbe4 will say plainly and squarely that
Father Prendergast swore to what was not true
true, or that Father Wyman swore to what was
not true, we can put the matter to a satisfac-
tory test. Until that is done the atfidayits
stand. The public may be nauseated W 18th
obscenity, but the dirt will neither stick nor
stain. P c. Y