those seeking the better world to come! There
can be no sin, no error, in that pathway.
Keeping the commandments of God must bring
the approval of God, and must put the soul in
touch with the power and the wisdom of God.
“The law of the Lord is perfect, converting
the soul.” “The commandment of the Lord
is pure, enlightening the eyes.” Nothing can
overthrow the law of God so long as God him-
self remains supreme. Nothing can prevail
against that law, or against the keepers of it.
So long as one keeps in that pathway, he can-
not be led into worldliness, nor drawn into any
of the delusions that so abound in the pres-
ent age. Study of the law of God and medi-
tation upon its precepts are most highly con-
ducive to soundness of the mental and moral
faculties. :
But the law of God is not all of Christianity;
there remains “the faith of Jesus.” The com-
mandments of God mean perfection of char-
acter, and the faith of Jesus is the avenue
through which perfection is reached. “The
commandments of God” upon our banner
means that we combat all that teaching which
would sweep away in men’s minds the founda-
tior. of God’s government and the ground-work
of their allegiance to him; and “the faith of
Jesus” means that with our uplifting of the
law we uplift Christ as the one and only means
of our keeping it, the sinner’s only hope for
future life, and proclaim the doctrine of sal-
vation by faith in him. It means also that we
proclaim not mere “faith,” as the term is now
often used to designate confidence in some-
thing that rests on human reasoning or specu-
lation, but “the faith of Jesus” — that which
carried Jesus through the darkness and trials
of his earthly life, and gave him victory over
the world and the powers of evil. Let us raise
aloft this banner. Let us be glad for a def-
inite message, a firm platform, a light that il-
lumines past, present, and future, and a clear
trumpet call to Christian duty. L. A. S.
EE
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN TWO COUNTRIES
F one were to judge from the profes-
sions of regard for religious freedom
that are made in this country by both
Protestants and Catholics, he would
conclude that religious liberty must be very
firmly established in the United States. It
would seem, indeed, that the teaching and
practice of its principles could call forth no
.dissent from any quarter under the American
flag. But there has been found to be a very
serious disagreement between profession and
practice on the part of American citizens touch-
ing this very important subject.
Such a disagreement has been found on the
part of Roman Catholics. Every one who
reads the papers knows that Roman Catholics
in this country profess just as loudly as others
to love religious freedom and to support it in
practice. They claim that their church always
stood for religious freedom. Their spokes-
men speak and write much of their apprecia-
tion of the freedom the Catholic Church en-
joys under this government, and from their
words one would be perfectly justified in con-
.cluding that American Catholics at least hold
THE WATCHMAN
religious freedom to be a grand and glorious
thing.
Now it happened a few years ago that Meth-
odists in the United States were quite strongly
stirred over the contemplation of the disabili-
ties suffered by their brethren in the Catholic
republics of Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia.
Protestants in those countries could not be
legally married; and if they did marry, their
children were counted as illegitimate. Neither
could they maintain any place of meeting for
public worship. It was contrary to the law.
The story of the wrongs inflicted upon their
fellow religionists in South America moved
Methodists in this country to undertake some
action for their relief. ‘They decided to ap-
peal to some source for aid in bringing an in-
fluence to bear upon the South American re-
publics which would lead to the modification
or repeal of the oppressive laws. And since
American Catholics were staunch advocates of
religious freedom, since they lauded so highly
the liberty they enjoyed in the United States,
surely they would be willing to join in an ap-
peal to the governments of Peru, Bolivia, and
Fcuador in behalf of this same liberty. So
reasoned the Methodists, and at a meeting of
Methodist ministers held in Chicago in April,
1894, this plan of action was adopted by the
passing of the following resolution: —
* “ IV hereas, It has been made evident to us
that our Protestant brethren in the republics
of Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia labor under op-
pressive disabilities that affect not only the
profession of their faith and the public wor-
ship of God according to the dictates of their
conscience, but also their civil and inalienable
right to be legally married without being com-
pelled to forswear their religious convictions;
and —
“ Whereas, Our Roman Catholic fellow-citi-
zens have repeatedly and emphatically professed
that their church as a church, is heartily in
sympathy with the kind of religious freedom
and liberty of conscience that obtains in the
United States; and —
“Whereas, We have every reason to believe
that the influence of the pontiff of the Ro-
man Catholic Church would be immediately
decisive, if heartily exercised through the
clergy of the countries above named, in favor
of legislation establishing such religious free-
dom as is so warmly approved by their col-
leagues in this republic; and —
“Whereas, It is well known that Pope Leo
XIII. is not adverse to so interposing his good
offices to secure legislation in any direction
that meets his approval; therefore —
“ Resolved, That as representatives of the
Methodist Episcopal Church in Chicago, we
forward the following request to Archbishop
Ireland, asking him that he pass it on to Mon-
signor Satolli, in order that he may, in the
most effective manner, bring it to the notice of
the head of the Roman Catholic Church. In
view of the repeated and warm approval, by
the clergy and laymen of the Roman Catholic
Church in this country, of religious freedom
as existing by law in the United States, we
respectfully and earnestly request that the
proper authorities of that church use their
*«Religious Liberty in South America,” pp. 36, 37.
777
good offices, under the direction of Pope Leo
XIII, to secure for the Protestants of Peru,
Ecuador, and Bolivia the same liberty of con-
science that is enjoyed by Roman Catholic
citizens of this country.”
Surely Archbishop Ireland, that “true Amer-
ican,” who has so often professed in fervent
oratory his loyalty to American principles and
ideals, lost no time in forwarding this respect-
ful and reasonable request to Mgr. Satolli, with
his indorsement, that it might as speedily as
possible reach its intended destination? And
of course Mgr. Satolli approved it, and for-
warded it to the Vatican; and of course Leo
XIII. hastened to advise the Catholic hierarchy
in the republics named to exert their influence
in favor of the same religious freedom for
Protestants in those countries that Roman
Catholics enjoy in North America? In answer
to these queries we have the following state-
ment of facts: —
*xk «A copy of these resolutions was for-
warded to Archbishop Ireland, with a request
for the aid of his influence and good offices.
The communication was not acknowledged,
nor was a second one of similar import sent
later. As there appeared to be no hope of
response from Archbishop Ireland, resort was
had to Mgr. Satolli, communicating to him the
action of the Methodist ministers’ meeting, and
setting forth the failure to secure a response
from Archbishop Ireland. In this letter Mgr.
Satolli was asked to reply to the following: —
“¢1, Has Archbishop Ireland invited your
attention to the action of the Chicago Metho-
dist ministers’ meeting of April 2, 1804?
“¢2 Will you, in the most effective manner,
bring this request, a copy of which I en-
close, to the notice of Pope Leo XIII?
“¢3 If so, when?’
“To this no answer was received. On July
12, 18094, a second letter was sent to Mgr.
Satolli of the same general character as the
first, and requesting an answer to the three
questions there specified. This time, to secure
against possible miscarriage of the mails, the
letter was registered. To this letter the papal
delegate thus replied :—
“Washington, July 31, 1804.
“‘Mr. Joun Leg, M. A, B. D.:—
“‘Dpar SIR: Your letter of June 22, and
document dated July 12, came duly to hand.
The enclosed copy of the Encyclical Letter of
our Holy Father is, I think, the most fitting
reply I can make. Yours very sincerely in
Christ.
“FRANCIS, ARCHBISHOP SATOLLI,
“‘ Delegate Apostolic.’
“As there was nothing in the Encyclical
Letter which had any immediate bearing upon
the subject, it was decided to appeal directly
to the pope. On Aug. 24, 1894, a letter, in
which the complaint in detail was given, was
mailed and registered. The failure to receive
any assistance from Archbishop Ireland or
from Mgr. Satolli was also noted. On Dec.
25, 1804, a second letter was forwarded to the
pope, with similar precautions of registration.
To neither was there any answer whatever.”
L. A. S.
(To be concluded.)
**1d., pp. 37-39.