live in an age when religious beliefs are multitudinous, and when only through patience and tolerance can peace exist. How different this condition is from that which obtained when Central and Western Europe were united Christendom. This is but one of the differences which separated the age we would criticize from our

own.

Still we do not believe that any age would, or could, tolerate some of the sects of the time, especially the Cathari. These heretics strove against Church and State; they were anti-social as well as anti-religious. Their doctrines, and their activity in propagating them, made them so detested that frequently when the authorities temporized with them the people took the matter in their own hands and hurried the hated sectaries to the stake. Yet, it is maintained that more of them died by suicide, in which they believed, than by the fury of the populace and the fagots of the inquisition.

Another principle of jurisprudence is that an enemy's testimony should be received with caution, and that under no circumstances should he be allowed to sit in judgment. It would seem

that the critics of the inquisition have not observed this rule. Many of them have shown marked hostility to the Catholic Church, and have seized on the real or alleged horrors of the inquisition as a means of discrediting her. They have both exaggerated and misrepresented. Mole hills have been magnified into mountains. Recently, however, they have been showing less interest in the matter. The inquisition is to-day not so much paraded as held in reserve.

But, if Protestants have exceeded all reasonable limits in attack, Catholics have been needlessly zealous in defense. We are too easily aroused when allegations are made against the Church, and, like our enemies, we frequently consider the institution involved when only individuals are concerned.

We should remember that neither the personal action nor the policy of a pontiff enters the field which we have to defend. The pope is infallible in doctrine, but the method of proclaiming and preserving it comes from his own resources. Good Catholics, in our day, have found fault with the policy of Leo XIII, Pius X and the present reigning pontiff. So with the

inquisition. We are obliged to believe that certain doctrines have been committed to the Church; and we are also obliged to believe that it is the Church's duty to preserve them. But we are entirely free to question the wisdom of the methods adopted in preserving them.

And, if we are not committed to the policy of the sovereign pontiff, surely we must not consider ourselves involved in what priest, or monk or an individual Catholic does: least of all in what king or emperor may deem necessary for the preservation of his power. We can take our stand with the bitter enemies of the inquisition without sacrificing our faith. Historic truth may suffer, but not orthodoxy.

So we bid the critics of the inquisition bring forth the facts, honestly and truthfully, and whatever is found to violate the laws of justice, or of charity, will receive our condemnation. With the early Fathers of the Church, we hold that it is better to die for the faith than to kill for it.

WHY DOES NOT THE CHURCH

COMPROMISE?

The question is often asked, chiefly because of the attitude of the Protestant Episcopal Church of America. This body has been taking the lead in an effort towards a reunion of Christendom, a work on which no one should frown. The Episcopal Church of America, far more than the Anglican, has felt the need of doing away with the disgraceful divisions which dissipate energy at home, and paralyze Christian efforts among the heathen. It feels, too, that no union that does not include the Catholic Church could win the esteem of thinking men.

Why does not the Church encourage these approaches? Why does it not smile on the overtures made? Surely the Episcopal Church is not an organization to be despised. While not so large a body as the Methodists or the Baptists, it has vast prestige, wealth and social position, besides considerable culture in its pulpit. It has such views of the Church as a divine institution, that apparently at least, it is much nearer

to us than is any other religious body on this side of the Atlantic. There is then every reason why we should make friends with it, and, if possible, be one with it. Why do we not enter into pourparlers with it? Compromise should be the order of the day.

As a matter of fact, the Catholic Church is the most compromising organization in existence, whenever compromise is not betrayal. See how it compromised with Judaism, whose prejudices it respected to the utmost limit. Whatever was tolerable it tolerated. It did not hurry the dead institution away, but, as has been said, "buried the synagogue with honor." On the other hand, when the converts from Judaism tried to impose their special rites upon those who came from Paganism the apostles interfered. "It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things." (Acts 15:28.)

The young Church adopted the language and laws of the Roman Empire. There is no reason for holding that it would not have paid this tribute to Greece were Greece in a position to receive it. It did take up Greek philosophy,