CHAPTER XXVII - NATIONAL APOSTASY

BUT alas, this splendid triumph of Christian principle displayed in this new nation, for all the world of mankind, was not allowed to continue. It was allowed to reign barely a hundred years, when it was utterly perverted. Like the triumph of Christianity against the Roman Empire, hardly was it allowed more than to have been barely accomplished and clearly recognized, than it was all swept away; and the nation which God had blessed with this great light and mighty truth, turned to a course of sheer apostasy.ECE 834.1

2. The first national step in this apostasy was taken February 29, 1892, in a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of “The Rector, Church Wardens, and Vestrymen of the Church of the Holy Trinity, plaintiffs in Error, vs. The United States,” the Supreme Court of the United States, upon an extended argument, quoted extensively from Ferdinand and Isabella in their sending out Christopher Columbus, and their hope “that by God’s assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered,” etc.; from “Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce, and Ireland, Queene, Defender of the Faith, etc.” her grant of authority to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584 “to enact statutes for the government of the proposed colony, provided that ‘they be not against the true Christian faith now professed in the Church of England;’” from the New England Puritans and their expressed purpose of establishing and combining themselves together into “a civil body politick” for the furtherance of “the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith;” and from the Constitutions of States which had established religions and religious test oaths. With all these the Court mixed the declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, as of the same tenor, and then declared:—ECE 834.2

“There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons; they are organic utterances: they speak the voice of the entire people.” ^{1[Page 835] For the decision in full, and a detailed discussion of it, see “The Rights of the People.”}ECE 834.3

3. According to this interpretation, then, when the Constitution of the United States declares that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” it means that “no religious test ought ever to be required ... other than a belief in the existence of God,“ and of “a future state of rewards and punishments,” and a profession of “faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ his only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.” For this is what the Constitutions of Maryland, Mississippi, and Delaware plainly mean, which are in these words quoted by the court as evidence; and these and the Constitution of the United States are pervaded by a “universal language,” “having one meaning.”(!)ECE 835.1

4. And when the Constitution of the United States declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” it means that the Congress “shall, from time to time, authorize and require the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provisions, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provisions shall not be made voluntarily.” (!) For plainly that is what the Constitution of Massachusetts means, which is thus quoted by the Court as evidence; and behold that and the Constitution of the United States are pervaded by a “universal language” “having one meaning.”(!)ECE 835.2

5. How the court could present such a string of quotations, every one of which distinctly contemplated an establishment of religion and the prohibition of the free exercise thereof, and then quote this clause of the national Constitution, which in every feature and every intent absolutely prohibits any establishment of religion, and any interference with the free exercise thereof—how the court could do all this and then declare that “there is no dissonance” in the declarations, that they all have the same language and “one meaning,” is a most astonishing thing.ECE 835.3

6. But yet more astonishing is the fact that in the whole argument and decision of the Court, not a word of the history that is cited in the preceding chapter, which is the only history on the subject, is quoted nor even referred to. Of all this array of facts as to the total exclusion of religion, and specifically the Christian religion, which are the only facts pertinent to the question, not an item is referred to, any more than if there were no such history or facts in existence.ECE 836.1

7. The language in which Abraham Lincoln characterized the position of Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott decision, and of Stephen A. Douglas in the defense of it, is the language that is most fitting to the position of the Supreme Court in this “Christian nation” decision; for here the two decisions are perfectly parallel. Lincoln said:—ECE 836.2

“I ask, How extraordinary a thing it is that a man who has occupied a seat on the floor of the Senate [or on the bench of the Supreme Court—A. T. J.] of the United States ...pretending to give a truthful and accurate history of the slavery question [or of the question of religion and the nation—A. T. J.] in this country, should so entirely ignore the whole of that portion of our history—the most important of all! Is it not a most extraordinary spectacle that a man should stand up and ask for any confidence in his statements who sets out as he does with portions of history, calling upon the people to believe that it is a true and fair representation, when the leading part, the controlling feature, of the whole history is carefully suppressed?ECE 836.3

“And now he asks the community to believe that the men of the Revolution were in favor of his ‘great principle,’ when we have the naked history that they themselves dealt with this very subject-matter of his principle, and utterly repudiated his principle—acting upon a precisely contrary ground. It is as impudent and absurd as if a prosecuting attorney should stand up before a jury, and ask them to convict A as the murderer of B while B was standing alive before them.”ECE 836.4

8. But the court did not stop even here. Having established “the Christian religion” for “the entire people,” and settled all the appurtenances thereto as within the meaning of the Constitution, the court cited and sanctioned the declaration of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that “Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been, part of the common law,” and then proceeded to sanction also the doctrine that it is blasphemy to speak or act in contempt “of the religion professed by almost the whole community.” This is done by citing the pagan decision of “Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the Supreme Court of New York,” which “assumes that we are a Christian people.”ECE 836.5

9. There remains but one thing more to cover the whole ground of the old order of things, but one thing more to complete the perfect likeness of the whole papal system, and that is the direct and positive sanction of Sunday laws. Nor is this one thing lacking. The court actually makes Sunday laws one of the proofs that “this is a Christian nation.” The words are as follows:—ECE 837.1

“If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: The form of oath usually prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies, and most conventions, with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, ‘In the name of God, Amen;’ the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, Legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day.... These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION.”ECE 837.2

10. Here we may properly present in summary form the whole discussion as presented by the Court. From the very words of the Court, the sum of the argument stands thus:—ECE 837.3

(a) “The establishment of the Christian religion,” “Christianity, general Christianity,” “is one of the purposes of all these” documents.ECE 837.4

(b) “Even the Constitution of the United States ...contains in the first amendment a declaration common to” all these; for “there is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation.... They are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people.”ECE 837.5

(c) Conclusion: “This is a Christian nation.”ECE 837.6

11. “In accordance with this opinion” then, what has been done? “The Christian religion,” that is, “Christianity, general Christianity,” is legally recognized and declared to be the established religion of this nation, and that consequently “this is a Christian nation.” With this also, “in language more or less emphatic,” there is justified as the “meaning” of the Constitution of the United States, (1) the maintenance of the discipline of the Churches by the civil power; (2) the requirement of the religious oath; (3) the requirement of the religious test oath as a qualification for office; (4) public taxation for the support of religion and religious teachers; (5) the requirement of a belief in the Trinity and the inspiration of “the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments;” (6) the guilt of blasphemy upon everyone who speaks or acts in contempt of the established religion; and (7) laws for the observance of Sunday, with the general cessation of all “secular business.”ECE 837.7

12. Now what more was ever required by the papacy, and all phases of the old order of things, than is thus brought within the meaning of the national Constitution by this decision? What more was ever required by the papacy itself than that “the Christian religion” should be the national religion; that the discipline of the Church should be maintained by the civil power; that the religious test oath should be applied to all; that the public should be taxed for the support of religion and religious worship; that there should be required a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, and the inspiration of the “Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament;” that the guilt of “blasphemy” should be visited upon everyone who should speak or act “in contempt of the religion professed by almost the whole community;” and that everybody should be required by law to observe Sunday? Indeed, what more than this could be required or even desired by the most absolute religious despotism that could be imagined?ECE 838.1

13. Therefore, it is pertinent here to inquire, Does this decision maintain the “new order of things” to which this nation stands pledged by the great seal of the United States?—No, no, twenty times no. On the contrary, it sanctions, and restores, and fastens upon this nation, the old order of things which our revolutionary fathers hoped that we should forever escape, through their sublime efforts, which culminated in the creation of this nation and the formation of the national Constitution—as it reads, and as they meant it.ECE 838.2

14. What more could be done to create the very image of the papacy in this nation, in the principle of the thing, than is done in this decision? In principle we say; not in its positive workings, of course, because the decision in itself on this point does not bear the force of a statute, that can be made at once obligatory upon all by the executive power of the nation. But it does sanction and justify beforehand any and every encroachment that the religious power may make upon the civil, and every piece of legislation that Congress might enact on the subject of religion or religious observances; so that by it the national door is opened wide for the religious element to enter and take possession in whatever way it chooses or can make effective. And there stands at the door, ready and determined to enter and take possession, the strongest religio-political combination that could be formed in the land.ECE 838.3

15. Therefore we say that, although life is not by this given to this image that it should of itself speak and act (Revelation 13:15), yet so far as the making of the evil thing, and the establishment of the principle of it are concerned, it is certainly done. The tree does not yet stand with its branches widespread, bearing its pernicious fruit, but the tree is planted. And as certainly as the branches and the fruit are all in the natural stock that is planted, and it is only a question of time when they will appear, so certainly the widespreading branches and the pernicious fruit of the full-grown tree of religious despotism are in the evil stock of Church and State, of “the establishment of the Christian religion,” that has been planted by the Supreme Court in and for this nation; and it is only a question of time when these fruits will inevitably appear.ECE 839.1

16. We stated above that by this decision the national door was opened wide for the religious element to enter and take possession in whatever way it chooses or can make effective. And, there was at that moment, already prepared, and waiting for just such an opening of the national door, the greatest religious combination for political purposes that could be formed in the United States. For twenty-nine years there had been an organization working in the United States, with the one set and single purpose to secure a governmental recognition of religion. This was what is known as the National Reform Association, or “The National Association to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.” Article II of the constitution of that Association at its organization reads as follows;—ECE 839.2

“The object of this society shall be to maintain existing Christian features in the American government; to promote needed reforms in the action of the government touching the Sabbath, the institution of the family, the religious element in education, the oath, and public morality as affected by the liquor traffic and other kindred evils; and to secure such an amendment to the Constitution of the United States as will declare the nation’s allegiance to Jesus Christ, and its acceptance of the moral laws of the Christian religion, and so indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.” ^{2[Page 840] For a full history of the National Reform movement, see “The Two Republics,: pp. 699-752.}ECE 840.1

17. Consistently enough, like those who made the papacy, they theorize learnedly about the two distinct “spheres” of the State and the Church. According to the theory, the State is in itself a moral person distinct from the people, having an individuality and a responsibility to God, of its own. And in its sphere it must be religious and serve God, and cause all the people to do likewise in its own way, and apply the moral law to itself and everybody else. On the other hand, the Church in her sphere must be religious and serve God, and cause all the people to do likewise in her own way, and interpret the Scriptures for herself and the State, and everybody else. “The evangelist is a minister of God to preach, and the magistrate is a minister of God to rule;” yet both are ministers in the same field—the field of morals—with this important difference, however, the State is to “apply” the standard of morals—the Scriptures—as interpreted by the Church: the very doctrine of Gregory VII and Innocent III.ECE 840.2

18. As defined by themselves, it is expressed in the following passage from a speech by D. McAllister, D. D., in the Washington, D. C., National Reform Convention, April 1-3, 1890. He said:—ECE 840.3

“Now what does the National Reform Association say? It says, ‘Let the Church do its duty in her own line. Let the line of demarcation be drawn here; let the functions of the State go with the State—with civil government, God’s own ordinance. Let the Church hold the moral principles of God’s law,—the law of Jesus Christ, the only perfect law,—and let the State apply those moral principles that pertain to its own sphere of justice and right, in her schools and everywhere else, and do her own work as she shall answer to God himself, as she is the creature of his ordaining.’” [Applause.]ECE 840.4

19. It is yet more fully expressed in a speech by “Rev.” T. H. Tatlow in a convention at Sedalia, Mo., May 23, 24, 1889, as follows:—ECE 841.1

“To these crafty and carnal assumptions, the spiritual man, firm in Christian principle and the integrity of his convictions, replies: God’s jurisdiction over man is before and above all others: and is wisely adapted to man’s entire existence in all its diversified relationships, both as spiritual and secular. That this jurisdiction is not only universal but also special, including all the lesser agencies as parts of the greater; just as all its parts are included in the whole. That God has given to man in the present world, a twofold life, one part spiritual, and the other part secular; and has so blended them together that the secular life, embracing man’s civil, social, and earthly good, is subordinate to his spiritual life and spiritual good. Therefore, since God’s law, and his administration of it, apply to man’s spiritual life, it must also necessarily apply to man’s civil, social, and business life, as subordinate parts of his higher spiritual life. This spiritual life, therefore, is the fundamental, or constitutional, life of man; and God’s law, as expressive of His will regarding this dual life of man, and as found in the Ten Commandments, is the constitutional law of God’s jurisdiction over man, and is therefore irrepealable.ECE 841.2

“In administering this one constitutional law to the good of this twofold life of man, God has ordained two administrative agencies, one of them the Church, as the spiritual agency in the realm of man’s spiritual life, and the other the State as his secular agency in the realm of man’s secular life. And although these agents are two and not one, and are diverse in their nature, and occupy separate and diverse realms of authority, yet they are both of them subject to the same law, and are ordained for the purpose of ministering to man’s good through this one and same law. And therefore it is, that civil government, of whatever abstract form it be, as ‘an ordinance of God,’ and the civil ruler as ‘a minister of God,’ are both alike subject to the Ten Commandments. And not only are they subject, but are ministers of God to man for good. They are also his agents for applying these commandments to man’s good within the realm of man’s secular life, as far as the commandments have secular application. This is admitted to be so as far as these commandments apply to murder, adultery, theft, and slander; and they also in like manner apply to the worship of God, and the worship of the Sabbath, as far as these come within the province of the civil power. These things being so, neither the civil power ‘as God’s ordinance,’ nor the civil ruler, ‘as God’s minister.’ within their special province, have any authority as such to make void any of the Ten Commandments, whether by neglect in enforcing them, or by indifference to their authority and claims.ECE 841.3

“At this point, the party of civil policy protests, and cries out that this is uniting Church and State. The Christian replies: It is indeed a union, but only so far as two separate jurisdictions, the one spiritual and primary, and the other secular and secondary, exercise each one its own appropriate authority within its own individual province, to secure a twofold good to the twofold life of man. This union, therefore, is like the union of the spiritual in man, acting conjointly with the body in man, the body being brought under and kept in subjection to the spiritual. It is like the union of the spiritual life in man acting conjointly with man’s domestic life; all the members of the family being loved less than Christ; and all made subject to His claims.”ECE 841.4

20. Let us analyze this: (a) Man is composed of two parts, spiritual and secular; (b) The Ten Commandments, as expressive of the whole duty of man to God, are likewise composed of two parts—the spiritual and the secular; (c) There are two agencies employed for applying the twofold nature of this law to the twofold nature of man; these two agencies are the Church and the State; (d) Throughout, the secular is subordinate, and must be held in subjection to the spiritual; (e) Therefore, The State as the secular and subordinate agency must be “brought under,” held “in subjection” to, the Church, just as the body, the secular part of man, must be brought under and kept in subjection to the mind, the spiritual part of man.ECE 842.1

21. In perfect accord, therefore, with this logical deduction from the two preceding extracts, one of the oldest district secretaries of the National Reform Association, “Rev.” J. M. Foster, in the Christian Cynosure, of Oct. 17, 1889, said:—ECE 842.2

“According to the Scriptures, the State and its sphere exist for the sake of, and to serve the interests of the Church.” “The true State will have a wise reference to the Church’s interests in all its legislative, executive, and judicial proceedings.... The expenses of the Church, in carrying on her public, aggressive work, it meets in whole or in part out of the public treasury. Thus the Church is protected and exalted by the State.”ECE 842.3

22. From these evidences it is clear that the National Reform view of the relationship between the Church and the State, is identical with the view of Gregory VII and Innocent III. And the whole history and literature of the movement show that the spirit, as well as the principles, of the National Reform Association are identical with those of Gregory VII, and Innocent III. This of itself is of sufficient evidence that if this National Reform movement were ever to succeed in its aims upon the United States government, such success would be the establishment in the United States of the very living image of the papacy.ECE 842.4

23. Such was, and is, the National Reform Association and movement, in itself considered. That movement went steadily forward, gathering to itself in succession the firm alliance of the National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, of the National Prohibition Party, of the American Sabbath Union, which was formed under the auspices of the General Conference (1888) of the Methodist Episcopal Church, by which was also secured the indorsement of the Presbyterian General Assemblies (1888) both North and South; the Baptist Home Missionary Convention; the Synod of the Reformed Church; and the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church. And, with all this prestige, the National Reform Association completed its course of alliances by securing, in that same year (1888) the alliance of the papacy herself. As early as 1884 the official organ of the National Reform Association had said:—ECE 843.1

“Whenever they [the Roman Catholics] are willing to co-operate in resisting the progress of political atheism, we will gladly join hands with them.”ECE 843.2

And almost as though it were in response to this, in his Encyclical of 1885, Pope Leo XIII addressed to Catholics everywhere the following words:—ECE 843.3

“We exhort all Catholics who would devote careful attention to public matters, to take an active part in all municipal affairs and elections, and to further the principles of the Church in all public services, meetings, and gatherings. All Catholics must make themselves felt as active elements in daily political life in the countries where they live. They must penetrate wherever possible in the administration of civil affairs; must constantly use their utmost vigilance and energy to prevent the usages of liberty from going beyond the limits fixed by God’s law. All Catholics should do all in their power to cause the constitutions of States, and legislation, to be modeled in the principles of the true Church. All Catholic writers and journalists should never lose for an instant from view, the above prescriptions. All Catholics should redouble their submission to authority, and unite their whole heart, soul, and body, and mind, in the defense of the Church.”ECE 843.4

24. In May, 1888, United States Senator Henry W. Blair introduced in Congress a joint resolution to amend the National Constitution so as to recognize “the Christian religion,” and require the teaching of the principles of that religion in all the public schools of the country; and also introduced a bill to enforce the observance of Sunday as “the Sabbath,” “the Lord’s day,” “a day of religious worship,” and “to secure to the whole people rest from toil during the first day of the week, their mental and moral culture, and the religious observance of the Sabbath day.” As all this was in complete harmony with the instruction of the pope to all Catholics; and was done upon the direct solicitation of the National Reform combination, it served to bring the National Reformers and the papacy so much the nearer to a positive and declared union.ECE 843.5

25. In November, 1888, the American Sabbath Union became the predominating power in the National Reform alliance, and December 1, the field secretary of that organization personally addressed to the head of the papacy in this country—Cardinal Gibbons—a letter asking him to join hands with them in petitioning Congress to pass the bill for the enactment of a national law to “promote” the observance of Sunday “as a day of religious worship.” The Cardinal promptly announced himself as “most happy” to do so, in the following letter:—“CARDINAL’S RESIDENCE, 408 N. CHARLES STREET, BALTIMORE, Dec. 4, 1888.ECE 844.1

“REV. DEAR SIR: I have to acknowledge your esteemed favor of the 1st instant in reference to the proposed passage of a law by Congress ‘against Sunday work in the government’s mail and military service,’ etc.ECE 844.2

“I am most happy to add my name to those of the millions of others who are laudably contending against the violation of the Christian Sabbath by unnecessary labor, and who are endeavoring to promote its decent and proper observance by legitimate legislation. As the late Plenary Council of Baltimore has declared, the due observance of the Lord’s day contributes immeasurably to the restriction of vice and immorality, and to the promotion of peace, religion, and social order, and can not fail to draw upon the nation the blessing and protection of an overruling Providence. If benevolence to the beasts of burden directed one day’s rest in every week under the old law, surely humanity to man ought to dictate the same measure of rest under the new law. “Your obedient servant in Christ, JAMES CARDINAL GIBBONS, Archbishop of Baltimore.” ^{3[Page 844] Senate Hearing on “Sunday Bill,” p. 18.}ECE 844.3

26. Thus matters stood until Nov. 12, 1889, when the “Congress of Catholic Laymen of the United States” was held in Baltimore “to celebrate the one hundredth anniversary of the establishment of the American hierarchy.” In that congress there was a paper read by Mr. Manly B. Tello, editor of the Catholic Universe, of Cleveland, Ohio, in which it was said:—ECE 845.1

“What we should seek is an en rapport with the Protestant Christians who desire to keep Sunday holy.... We can bring the Protestant masses over to the reverent moderation of the Catholic Sunday.”ECE 845.2

27. And the platform which was adopted as the result of the discussions in the congress, declared upon this point as follows:—ECE 845.3

“There are many Christian issues to which Catholics could come together with non-Catholics, and shape civil legislation for the public weal. In spite of rebuff and injustice and overlooking zealotry, we should seek alliance with non-Catholics for proper Sunday observance. Without going over to the Judaic Sabbath, we can bring the masses over to the moderation of the Christian Sunday.”ECE 845.4

28. This was one of the “planks” of the platform which was “received with the greatest demonstrations; and the whole platform was adopted without discussion and “without a dissenting voice.” As all the papers that were read in the Congress, as well as the platform, had to pass the inspection of the hierarchy before they were presented in public, these statements are simply the expression of the papacy in official response to the overtures which the so-called Protestant theocrats had been so long making to the papacy. As was only to be expected, it was received by them with much satisfaction. The American Sabbath Union joyously exclaimed:—ECE 845.5

“The National Lay Congress of Roman Catholics, after correspondence and conference with the American Sabbath Union, passed its famous resolution in favor of co-operation with Protestants in Sabbath reform.... This does not mean that the millennium is to be built in a day. This is only a proposal of courtship; and the parties thus far have approached each other shyly.”ECE 845.6

29. And in a temperance (?) speech in a temperance convention in New York City, reported in the National Temperance Advocate, for May, 1889, Archbishop Ireland thanked God that “Protestants and Catholics” “stand together in demanding the faithful observance of Sunday.” When a union so long desired as this had been, had reached the stage of courtship, actual marriage could not be very far off. And like every other feature of the papacy, it is contrary to nature—one woman (Church) marrying another in order that both might more readily form an adulterous connection with the State. And the fruit of the confused relationship will be just that which is pictured in the Scripture (Revelation 13:11-17)—a hideous nondescript monster, breathing out persecution and death.ECE 845.7

30. Thus were the leaders of professed Protestantism in the United States joined heart and hand with the papacy, with the sole purpose of creating in the United States government an order of things identical with that which created the papacy at the first. It is most appropriate, therefore, that the bond of union which united them in the evil work, should be the very thing—the day of the sun—by means of which the papacy at first secured control of the civil power to compel those who did not belong to the Church to submit to the dictates of the Church, and to act as though they did belong to it. It was by means of Sunday laws that the Church secured control of the civil power for the furtherance of her ends when the papacy was made. ^{4[Page 846] “Great Empires of Prophecy,” chap 32.} It is appropriate that the same identical means should be employed by an apostate Protestantism to secure control of the civil power for the furtherance of her ends, and to compel those who do not belong to the Church to submit to the dictates of the Church, and to act as those do who do belong to the Church. And as that evil intrigue back there made the papacy, so will this same thing here make the living image of the papacy. Two things that are so alike in the making will surely be as much alike when they are made.ECE 846.1

31. What Rome means by the transaction is shown by a letter from Cardinal Gibbons upon the subject of the authority for Sunday observance, written but a little while before the “Congress of Catholic Laymen” was held. The letter was written to Mr. E. E. Franke, then of Pittsburg, now of New York City, and is as follows:—“CARDINAL’S RESIDENCE, 408 NORTH CHARLES STREET, BALTIMORE, MD., Oct. 3, 1889.ECE 846.2

“DEAR MR. FRANKE: At the request of His Eminence, the Cardinal, I write to assure you that you are correct in your assertion that Protestants in observing Sunday are following not the Bible, which they take as their only rule of action, but the tradition of the Church. I defy them to point out to me the word ‘Sunday’ in the Bible; if it is not to be found there, and it can not be, then it is not the Bible which they follow in this particular instance, but tradition, and in this they flatly contradict themselves.ECE 846.3

“The Catholic Church changed the day of rest from the last to the first day of the week, because the most memorable of Christ’s works was accomplished on Sunday. It is needless for me to enter into any elaborate proof of the matter. They can not prove their point from Scripture; therefore, if sincere, they must acknowledge that they draw their observance of the Sunday from tradition, and are therefore weekly contradicting themselves. Yours very sincerely, M. A. REARDON.”ECE 847.1

32. This shows that it is a Roman Catholic, securing honor to an institution of the papacy, and thus to the papacy itself, that Cardinal Gibbons indorses the national Sunday-law movement; and that it is as Roman Catholics doing the same thing, that the laity and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in the United States have accepted the proffer of the professed Protestant combination for political purposes, and have joined hands with this combination in its aims upon the institutions of the country. The Cardinal understands what he is doing a great deal better than the associations for religious legislation understand what they are doing. And further, the Cardinal understands what they are doing a great deal better than they themselves do. His letter also shows that those who signed the petition for a Sunday law, as the Cardinal did, were honoring the papacy, as the Cardinal does.ECE 847.2

33. This is the religio-political combination that was waiting and watching for any kind of an opening of the door to governmental favor of religion, when the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously declared it to be the meaning of the Constitution of the United States that already this was a Christian nation. And, the very first use that was ever made of that decision, outside of the strictly legal formula, was when, in the month of April, 1892, the President of the American Sabbath Union, the then head of the whole National Reform combination, took that decision in his hand and went before committees of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, recited its “argument,” and demanded the closing of the then-coming Columbian Exposition or World’s Fair, on Sunday, by National authority “because this is a Christian nation.” And Congress surrendered to the demand.ECE 847.3

34. The official proceedings on the question in the Senate, opened as follows:—ECE 848.1

“Mr. Quay.—On page 122, line 13, after the word ‘act,’ I move to insert, ‘and that provision has been made by the proper authority for the closing of the Exposition on the Sabbath day.’ECE 848.2

“The reasons for the amendment I will send to the desk to be read. The secretary will have the kindness to read from the Book of Law I send to the desk, the part inclosed in brackets.ECE 848.3

“The Vice President.—The part indicated will be read.ECE 848.4

“The secretary read as follows:—ECE 848.5

“‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy; six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.’” ^{5[Page 848] Congressional Record, July 10, 1892, p. 6614.}ECE 848.6

35. The foregoing is all that was said or done in relation to the question that day. The next legislative day, however, the question was taken up and discussed. The debate was opened by Senator Manderson, of Nebraska, who used the following language:—ECE 848.7

“The language of this amendment is, that the Exposition shall be closed on ‘the Sabbath day.’ I submit that if the senator from Pennsylvania desires that the Exposition shall be closed upon Sunday, this language will not necessarily meet that idea....ECE 848.8

“The word ‘Sabbath day’ simply means that it is a rest day, and it may be Saturday or Sunday, and it would be subject to the discretion of those who will manage this Exposition, whether they should close the Exposition on the last day of the week, in conformity with that observance which is made by the Israelites and the Seventh-day Baptists, or should close it on the first day of the week, generally known as the Christian Sabbath. It certainly seems to me that this amendment should be adopted by the senator from Pennsylvania, and, if he proposes to close this Exposition, that it should be closed on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday....ECE 848.9

“Therefore I offer an amendment to the amendment, which I hope may be accepted by the senator from Pennsylvania, to strike out the words ‘Exposition on the Sabbath day,’ and insert ‘mechanical portion of the Exposition on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.’...ECE 848.10

“Mr. Quay.—I will accept the modification so far as it changes the phraseology of the amendment proposed by me in regard to designating the day of the week on which the Exposition shall be closed.ECE 849.1

“The Vice-President.—The senator from Pennsylvania accepts the modification in part, but not in whole....ECE 849.2

“Mr. Harris.—Let the amendment of the senator from Pennsylvania, as modified, be reported.ECE 849.3

“The Vice-President.—It will be again reported.ECE 849.4

“The Chief Clerk.—On page 122, line 13, after the word ‘act,’ it is proposed to amend the amendment of the committee by inserting—ECE 849.5

“‘And that provision has been made by the proper authority for the closing of the Exposition on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.’” ^{6[Page 849] Id., July 12, 1892, pp. 6694, 6695, 6701.}ECE 849.6

36. This amendment was afterward further amended by the insertion of the proviso that the managers of the Exposition should sign an agreement to close the Fair on Sunday before they could receive any of the appropriation; but this which we have given is the material point.ECE 849.7

37. All of this the House confirmed in its vote, accepting the Senate amendments. Besides this, the House had already, on its own part, by a vote of 131 to 36, decided that Sunday is the “Christian Sabbath;” and by a vote of 149 to 11 that the seventh day is not the Sabbath. And thus did the Congress of the United States, at the dictate of the Churches, not only take sides in a religious controversy, and discuss and decide a religious question, but put itself in the place, and assumed to itself the prerogative of authoritative interpreter of the divine law.ECE 849.8

38. For, from the official record of the proceedings, there appear these plain facts:—ECE 849.9

a. The divine law was officially and in its very words adopted as containing the “reasons” and forming the basis of the legislation. In other words, the legislation proposed only to enforce the divine law as quoted from the Book.ECE 849.10

b. Yet those to whom the legislation was directed, and who were expected to execute its provisions, were not allowed to read and construe the divine law for themselves, for the very reason that there was a possibility that they might take the divine Word as it reads, and as it was actually quoted in the official proceedings, and shut the Exposition on the day plainly specified in the divine Word, which was cited as the basis and authority for the action taken.ECE 849.11

c. Therefore, to preclude any such possibility, Congress assumed the prerogative of official and authoritative interpreter of the divine law, and declared that “the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday,” is the Sabbath of the fourth commandment of the divine law—that “the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday,” is the meaning of the word of the Lord which says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.”ECE 850.1

39. The makers of the Constitution said that “it is impossible for the magistrate to adjudge the right of preference among the various sects professing the Christian faith without erecting a claim to infallibility which would lead us back to the Church of Rome.” In this record it is to be particularly noticed that Congress did precisely this thing: it did adjudge the right of preference among sects that profess the Christian faith. The Seventh-day Baptists and their observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the commandment quoted, were definitely named in contrast with those who observe “the first day of the week, generally known as the Christian Sabbath,” with reference to the commandment quoted. And the preference was adjudged in favor of the latter.ECE 850.2

40. Now the Seventh-day Baptists are a sect professing the Christian faith. The original Sabbath commandment was quoted word for word from the Scriptures. The words of that commandment, as they stand in the proceedings of Congress, say “the seventh day is the Sabbath.” The Seventh-day Baptists, a sect professing the Christian faith, observe the very day—the seventh day—named in the Scripture quoted in the Record. There are other sects professing the Christian faith who profess to observe the Sabbath of this same commandment by keeping “the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday,” and hence it is that that day is “generally known as the Christian Sabbath.”ECE 850.3

41. These facts were known to Congress, and were made a part of the record. Then upon this statement of facts as to the difference among sects professing the Christian faith, touching the very religious observance taken up by Congress, the Congress did deliberately and in set terms adjudge the right of preference between these sects professing the Christian faith. Congress did adjudge the right of preference in favor of those sects which observe “the first day of the week, generally known as the Christian Sabbath,” as against a plainly named sect which observes the day named in the commandment which Congress quoted from the Bible. Thus the Congress of the United States did the very thing which the fathers of the nation declared it “impossible” to do “without erecting a claim to infallibility, which would lead us back to the Church of Rome.”ECE 850.4

42. Let us follow this proceeding a step or two further, and see how certainly it does lead to Rome. From the official record it is as plain as anything can be that the Congress of the United States, in its official capacity, did take it upon itself to interpret the Scripture. It did in legislative action put an interpretation upon the commandment of God. Congress quoted the commandment bodily, which from God commands the observance of the Sabbath day, and which definitely names the day—the seventh day—to be observed. Congress then declared that the word “sabbath day” “means” so and so, and that it “may be” one day or another, “Saturday or Sunday,” and upon this did decide which day it should be, namely, “the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.” The Word of God plainly says that the Sabbath day according to the commandment is past before the first day of the week comes at all. ^{7[Page 851] Luke 23:56; 24:1; Mark 16:1, 2.} And yet Congress declares that the first day of the week is itself the sabbath! This is as clearly an interpretation of the Bible as was ever made on earth.ECE 851.1

43. Whatever men may believe, or whatever men may say, as to the right or the wrong of this question, there is no denying the fact that Congress did take it upon itself to interpret the Scripture for the people of the United States. This is a fact. It has been done. Then where is the difference between this assumption and that of the papacy? The papacy claims infallibility. This claim springs directly, and logically, too, from her claim of the prerogative of interpreter of the Scriptures. The Congress of the United States has also assumed and exercises this prerogative. With Congress, as certainly as with the papacy, the assumption of this prerogative carries with it the assertion of infallibility. This action, of itself, therefore, placed Congress directly upon papal ground.ECE 851.2

44. This action of Congress, however, was merely the legislative formula giving authority to the interpretation already determined upon by combined “Protestantism.” This, therefore, was nothing else than the recognition, and the setting up, by “Protestantism” in the United States, of a human tribunal charged with the interpretation of Scripture, with the authoritative enforcement of that interpretation by governmental power. This proceeding, therefore, placed the combined “Protestantism” of the country altogether and thoroughly upon papal ground.ECE 852.1

45. If this thing had been done by the papacy; if she had thus forced upon Congress herself and her interpretation of Scripture, and so had got her religious notions fixed in the law to be forced upon the people, there could be no surprise at it. In so doing the papacy would have been only acting according to her own native character, and carrying out her avowed principles. But for professed Protestantism to do it, is in positive contradiction of every principle that the term Protestantism justly implies.ECE 852.2

46. Nor is this all. This papal prerogative of interpreting the Scripture was exercised by the professed Protestantism and the Congress of the United States in the change of the Sabbath, in the substitution of Sunday for the Sabbath of the Lord, as it stands written in the Commandment of God. And this is precisely the thing—the very pivot—upon which, as against Protestants, turns the argument for the validity of the claim of infallibility on the part of the papacy.ECE 852.3

47. The supreme point that marks the difference between Protestantism and the papacy is, whether the Bible, and the Bible alone, or the Bible and tradition, is the true standard of faith and morals. “The Bible, and the Bible alone,” is the claim of Protestantism. “The Bible and tradition.” is the claim of Catholicism. And this term “tradition” in the Catholic system does not mean merely antiquity, “but continuing inspiration.” And this “continuing inspiration” is but another form of expression for “infallibility.”ECE 852.4

48. This question as to “the Bible and tradition” was not finally settled even for Catholicism until the Council of Trent. It was one of the leading questions of that council as between Protestantism and Catholicism; and it was in the settlement of the question as between these, that it was finally settled for the Catholic Church itself. The very first question concerning the faith that was considered in the council was the one involved in this issue. There was a strong party, even of the Catholics, in the council, who were in favor of abandoning tradition and adopting the Scripture only as the standard of authority in faith and morals. This was so largely and so decidedly held in the council that the pope’s legates wrote to him that there was “a strong tendency to set aside tradition altogether, and to make Scripture the sole standard of appeal.” ^{8[Page 853] “Encyclopedia Britannica,” Trent, Council of.}ECE 852.5

49. To do this, however, would certainly be to go a long way toward admitting the claims of the Protestants, and this would never do. This crisis, however, forced the ultra-Catholic portion of the council to find some way of convincing the others that “Scripture and tradition” was the only sure ground to stand upon. Although two decrees were passed April 8, 1546, favoring the view of “Scripture and tradition,“ yet this was not satisfactory. The question kept constantly recurring in the council; many of those who had sustained the decrees were very uneasy about it.ECE 853.1

50. Accordingly, of the council the record is:—ECE 853.2

“The council was unanimously of the opinion of Ambrosius Pelargus that at no price should any triumph be prepared for the Protestants to be able to say that the council had condemned the teachings of the old Church. But this practice caused endless trouble, without ever giving good security. Indeed, it required for this crisis that ‘almost divine sagacity’ which the Spanish legate ceded to the synod on March 15, 1562....ECE 853.3

“Finally, at the opening of the last session, January 18, 1562, all scruples were cast aside; the archbishop of Rheggio made a speech, in which he openly declared that tradition stood higher than the Bible. For this reason alone the authority of the Church could not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures: because the former had changed the Sabbath into Sunday—not by the commandment of Christ, but solely by her own authority. This destroyed the last illusion, and it was hereby declared that tradition signified not so much antiquity, but rather continuing inspiration.” ^{9[Page 853] Holtzmann’s “Kanon and Tradition,” p. 263.}ECE 853.4

51. This particular part of the archbishop’s speech was as follows:—ECE 854.1

“The condition of the heretics nowadays is such that they do not appeal to anything more than this [the Bible, and the Bible alone; the Scriptures, as in the written Word, the sole standard in faith and morals], to overthrow the Church under the pretext of following the Word of God. Just as though the Church—the body—were in conflict with the word of Christ; or as if the head could be against the body. Indeed, this very authority of the Church is most of all glorified by the Holy Scriptures; for while on the one hand the Church recommends the Word of God, declaring it to be divine, and presenting it to us to read, explaining doubtful points and faithfully condemning all that runs counter thereto, on the other hand, by the same authority, the Church, the legal precepts of the Lord, contained in the Holy Scriptures, have ceased. The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been merged into the Lord’s day. ...This day and similar institutions have not ceased in consequence of the preaching of Christ (for He says that He did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it); but yet they have been changed, and that solely by the authority of the Church. Now, if this authority should be done away with (which would please the heretics very much), who would there be to testify for the truth and to confound the obstinacy of the heretics?” ^{10[Page 854] Id.}ECE 854.2

52. There was no getting around this; for the Protestants’ own confession of faith,—the Augsburg Confession, 1530,—had clearly admitted that “the observation of the Lord’s day” had been appointed by “the Church” only. As Dr. Holtzmann says, this argument “destroyed the last illusion,” because as it was clear that in observing Sunday upon the appointment of the Church, instead of the Sabbath which stands in the written commandment of the Lord himself, the Protestants themselves held not to “the Bible and the Bible alone,” but to the Bible and tradition, with tradition above the Bible. By this fact and this argument, the uneasy minds in the council were set completely at rest, and the question as between “the Bible and the Bible alone,” or “the Bible and tradition,” was finally settled in the Catholic Church.ECE 854.3

53. Therefore the papal position is constructed thus: (a) The Scripture and tradition is the faith of the papacy; (b) tradition means “continuing inspiration;” (c) continuing inspiration means infallibility in matters of faith and morals; (d) and this infallibility is demonstrated in the fact of her having substituted Sunday for the Sabbath of the Lord in the written commandment, which change Protestants themselves indorse.ECE 854.4

54. Thus it is that the substitution of Sunday for the Sabbath is the pivot upon which turns the validity of the argument as against Protestants, for the infallibility of the papacy. This shows how fully the Protestantism and the Congress of the United States put themselves upon papal ground, in their first essay in the exercise of the prerogative of authoritative interpreter of the Scripture. They did it precisely in the likeness of the papacy by substituting Sunday for the Sabbath of the Lord as in the written commandment of God.ECE 855.1

55. In submitting to the dictates of the Churches, and making itself the official and authoritative mouthpiece for the theological definitions and interpretations of the divine law, as Congress confessedly did, the Congress and of the United States has given over the government of the United States into the hands of the combined Churches. A forcible American writer long ago stated the principle that, “To permit a Church—any Church—...to dictate, beforehand, what laws should or should not be passed, would be to deprive the people of all the authority they have retained in their own hands, and to make such Church the governing power, instead of them.” ^{11[Page 855] Hon. Richard W. Thompson, “The Papacy and the Civil Power,” p. 45.}ECE 855.2

56. This is precisely what was done in the Sunday legislation of the Fifty-second Congress. The combined “evangelical” Churches, joined with the Catholic Church, as a united body on this question, did dictate under threats that this law should be passed. Congress did permit it, and did yield to the dictation, and in so doing, it did in principle deprive the people of the governmental authority which they had retained in their own hands by the Declaration and the Constitution, and did make the Churches the governing power in the government instead of the people. “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” was abandoned, and there was sanctioned in its stead, the subjection of the people by the Churches and for the Churches. And ever since that day the Churches have steadily acted upon the principle.ECE 855.3

57. And under the mistaken notion that he was pledged to maintain the government of the United States, rather than the Constitution of the United States, the then president of the United States approved this unconstitutional procedure on the part of Congress. ^{12[Page 856] This is a fact. In a personal interview with the author of this book, the reason and the only reason which he gave for approving this legislation, was that it was “part of the general appropriation bill for the running expenses of the government; that to disapprove this he would have to disapprove the whole bill; and if that were done, all the machinery of the government would have to stop, and the whole government itself be brought to a standstill.” This, too, while admitting that if this Sunday legislation had come before him separated from other legislation, so that it might be considered upon its merits alone, the result might be different. This was nothing else than to argue that he was responsible for the maintenance of the government. But this was altogether a mistake. The maintenance of the government devolves altogether upon Congress. And if the president were to veto a general appropriation bill because of an unconstitutional piece of legislation which had been tacked to it; and if the whole government should in consequence be brought indeed to a standstill, he would be no more responsible for it than would any private citizen. President Harrison’s assumption, therefore, was altogether a mistaken one, and his plea wholly irrelevant.}ECE 855.4

58. This, the professed Protestantism of the country has done upon the basis, and in the use, of the “Christian nation” decision. In their whole course in this matter, when any doubt or opposition was shown, they never failed to sound the merits of the Supreme Court decision—this was final and settled all questions. The leading Methodist paper of the country, the New York Christian Advocate, in referring to the discussion of the question in Congress, said:—ECE 856.1

“Every utterance upon this subject was in harmony with a late decision of the United States Supreme Court whereby it is to be forever regarded as a settled principle that this is a Christian nation.”ECE 856.2

59. Thus in the year A. D. 1892, the government of the United States, by specific official acts of the three departments—the Judiciary, the Legislative, and the Executive—of which that government is composed, was turned from the “New Order of Things” to which it was committed by the Revolutionary Fathers, and to which it stands pledged by the Great Seal of the government itself, and was thrown back into the evil tide of the old order of things. Thus every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant government was repudiated. And thus this enlightened nation, the example and glory of the world, was caused to assume the place and the prerogatives of the governments of the Middle Ages in embodying in the law the dogmas and definitions of the theologians, and executing the arbitrary and despotic will of the Church.ECE 856.3

60. There is another result, or rather, another phase of the same result, which has appeared promptly upon this action of the professed Protestantism of the United States; that is, the bold and rapid strides of the papacy to take advantage of that which has been done, and through this to take possession of the country itself. Nor indeed should any one be surprised at this; it was only to be expected. For when the professed Protestantism of the country, to accomplish its lawless purpose to gain control of the national power, gladly joined hands with the Mystery of Lawlessness; what else could be expected than that she should at once lay claim to all the “benefits” to be derived from the transaction in itself, and press the principles of the transaction to the utmost limit of their logic in her own behalf?ECE 856.4

61. The aim and purpose of the National Reform combination is identical with the aim and purpose of the papacy. It was therefore with great gladness that Rome heard the declaration of the Supreme Court of the United States that “this is a Christian nation.” with the citation of Catholic documents to prove it, and also saw Congress set up the sign of her authority—the Sunday—as the holy day of the nation in express exclusion of the Sabbath of the Lord. It was with supreme satisfaction that she saw her own sign of her own salvation, set up in the United States by a national act as a symbol of the salvation of the nation. ^{13[Page 857] That it was for the salvation of the nation was definitely expressed in the Senate. Senator Hawley said: “This very day and this hour, I would not for the wealth of ten expositions, have upon my shoulders the responsibility of having decided this question wrongly upon what may be a turning point in the history of the United States. Open the Exposition on Sunday, and the flood gates are opened.... I ask you to regard that which is of immeasurable importance in the salvation of a nation, the great, profound sense of religious obligation.”—Congressional Record, July 12, 1892, pp. 6699-6700.
Senator Colquitt said: “Without legislation relating to the great contests that are going on in this country, without the interference of bayonets, without calling upon the militia, without the marshaling of armed forces, if there is one palliative, if there is one preventive, if there is one check, if there is one remedy that is going to cure all of these discordant elements of strife and bloodshed, it is the observance of the Sabbath day and the observance of the restraints of our home in addition.”—Id., July 13, 1892, p. 6755.
Senator Frye said: “I believe that the salvation of this country depends upon the nearness to which it approaches the Sabbath of the early days. We have been wandering from it from time to time, getting away from it. The sooner we get back to it, the better it will be for this republic.”—Id., July 12, 1892, p. 6703.
It is a forcible comment on Senator Colquitt’s speech, that whereas Sunday was thus set up to save the nation from “the interference of bayonets,” etc., one of the very first things done by the church leaders after the passage of this act, was to call upon the president to enforce it at the point of the bayonet; and in the year 1894 the principal part of the country from ocean to ocean was marked with “the interference of bayonets,” with “calling upon the militia,” and with “the marshaling of armed forces.” The Pharisees of old rejected the Lord of the Sabbath, and chose a robber instead to save that nation; but their action destroyed the nation. The Pharisees of our day rejected the Sabbath of the Lord and chose a robber—Sunday—in its stead, to save this nation. But like the efforts of the Pharisees before, instead of saving the nation, it will destroy the nation.} In opposition to the National Reform movement there had been told to the National Reformers and all the people, over and over, that in all their efforts and arguments they were but playing into the hands of Rome; and that their success would be the assured success of Rome in this country.ECE 857.1

62. It was perfectly fitting therefore that there should be promptly published in the United States the plan of Leo XIII, with respect to the United States and, through this, Europe and “all humanity,” as follows:—ECE 858.1

“In his [Pope Leo’s] view, the United States has reached the period when it becomes necessary to bring about the fusion of all the heterogeneous elements in one homogeneous and indissoluble nation.... It is for this reason that the pope wants the Catholics to prove themselves the most enlightened and most devoted workers for national unity and political assimilation.... America feels the need of this work of internal fusion.... What the Church has done in the past for others, she will do for the United States. ...That is the reason the holy see encourages the American clergy to guard jealously the solidarity, and to labor for the fusion of all the foreign and heterogeneous elements into one vast national family....ECE 858.2

“Finally, Leo XIII desires to see strength in that unity. Like all intuitive souls, he hails in the united American States and in their young and flourishing Church, the source of new life for Europeans. He wants America to be powerful, in order that Europe may regain strength from borrowing a rejuvenated type. Europe is closely watching the United States.... Henceforth we [Europeans] will need authors who will place themselves on this ground; ‘What can we borrow, and what ought we to borrow from the United States for our social, political, and ecclesiastical reorganization?’ The answer depends in great measure upon the development of American destinies. If the United States succeed in solving the many problems that puzzle us, Europe will follow her example, and this outpouring of light will mark a date in the history not only of the United States, BUT OF ALL HUMANITY.ECE 858.3

“That is why the holy father, anxious for peace and strength, collaborates with passion in the work of consolidation and development in American affairs. According to him, the Church ought to be the chosen crucible for the molding and absorption of races into one united family. And that, especially, is the reason why he labors at the codification of ecclesiastical affairs, in order that this distant member of Christianity may infuse new blood into the old organism.” ^{14[Page 858] Letter from the Vatican to the New York Sun, July 11, 1892.}ECE 858.4

63. This was swiftly followed by the establishment of a permanent apostolic delegation at Washington to carry out this plan. And Satolli, the first apostolic delegate to America, openly declared at the Catholic Congress in Chicago, Sept. 5, 1893, not only that this was his place and work here, but commanded the Catholics of the United States to carry out this scheme. His words are as follows:—ECE 859.1

“In the name of Leo XIII, I salute the great American republic, and I call upon the Catholics of America to go forward, in one hand bearing the book of Christian truth, and in the other the Constitution of the United States....ECE 859.2

“To-day this is the duty of the Catholics: To bring into the world the fullness of supernatural truth and supernatural life. This especially is the duty of a Catholic Congress. There are the nations who have never separated from the Church, but who have neglected often to apply in full degree the lessons of the gospel. There are the nations who have gone out from the Church, bringing with them many of her treasures, and because of what they have brought, shedding partial light. But cut off from the source, unless that source is again brought into close contact with them, there is danger for the future.ECE 859.3

“Bring them in contact with their past by your action and teaching. Bring your fellow-countrymen, bring your country into immediate contact with that great secret of blessedness—Christ and His Church. And in this manner shall it come to pass the word of the psalmist shall be fulfilled: ‘Mercy and justice have met one another, justice and peace have kissed.’...ECE 859.4

“Now all these great principles have been marked out in most illuminous lines in the encyclicals of the great pontiff, Leo XIII. He has studied them. Hold fast to them as the safest anchorage, and all will be well. These several questions are studied the world over. It is well they be studied in America, for here in America do we have more than elsewhere the key to the future. [Applause.]ECE 859.5

“Here in America you have a country blessed specially by Providence in the fertility of field and the liberty of its Constitution. [Loud applause.] Here you have a country which will repay all efforts [loud and prolonged applause] not merely tenfold, but aye a hundredfold. And this no one understands better than the immortal Leo. And he charges me, his delegate, to speak out to America words of hope and blessings, words of joy. Go forward! in one hand bearing the book of Christian truth—the Bible—and in the other the Constitution of the United States.” [Tremendous applause, the people rising to their feet.]ECE 859.6

64. The Constitution, as the fathers made it and intended it, no Catholic was ever commanded by any pope to take in one hand, with the Catholic Bible in the other, for any purpose whatever. On the contrary, in the Catholic World, September, 1871, there was published by America’s chief Catholic controversialist an article in which the Constitution of the United States was referred to in the following words:—ECE 859.7

“As it is interpreted by the liberal and sectarian journals that are doing their best to revolutionize it, and is beginning to be interpreted by no small portion of the American people, or is interpreted by the Protestant principle, so widely diffused among us, ... we do not accept it, or hold it to be any government at all, or as capable of performing any of the proper functions of government; and if it continues to be interpreted by the revolutionary principles of Protestantism, it is sure to fail...Hence it is, we so often say that if the American republic is to be sustained and preserved at all, it must be by the rejection of the principle of the Reformation, and the acceptance of the Catholic principle by the American people.” ^{15[Page 860] Page 736}ECE 860.1

65. But when that Constitution was interpreted to mean that “this is a Christian nation;” when that Constitution was interpreted according to Rome’s principles, and the sign of her authority, with Catholic documents, was cited to support this interpretation, then it was, and not till then, that all Catholics were commanded to take this Catholic Constitution in one hand, and the Catholic Bible in the other, and, with Satolli at their head, go forward to their “hundredfold” reward in the United States, and through this bring again “all Europe” and “all humanity”back into immediate contact with the “the Church.”ECE 860.2

66. Then it was that, with the Catholic Bible in one hand, and the Catholic Constitution of the United States in the other, the Catholic Church stepped forth and declared that this is a Catholic Christian nation. And September, 1894, issued a rescript “elevating the United States to the first rank as a Catholic nation.” We know what the papacy has done for other nations; and it is not at all to be doubted that that is what, so far as lies in her power with the efficient aid of apostate Protestantism, she will now do for the United States, and, through this, for all humanity.ECE 860.3

67. Another special feature of National Reform apostasy adopted by the nation of the United States is the repudiation of that other principle of the Declaration of Independence that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In a joint convention of the whole National Reform combination, held at Sedalia, Mo., May 23, 24, 1889, the “Rev.” W. D. Gray, who was secretary of the convention, and was elected corresponding secretary of the American Sabbath Union for the Omaha District, made a speech as follows:—ECE 860.4

“I, for one, have made this question very much of a study, especially this topic of it. To appeal to divine authority in our legislation would be to fundamentally change the law of our land, or the principle adopted by our fathers when they said that all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. I for one do not believe that as a political maxim. I do not believe that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. And I believe as Brother Gault on this, I think. And so the object of this movement is an effort to change that feature in our fundamental law. Jefferson was under the influence of French ideas when the Constitution was framed, and that had something to do with leaving God out of the Constitution. ^{16[Page 861] The gentleman can not have made this so very much of a study after al, or he would have known that Jefferson was not in this country at that time, and had nothing to do with the framing of the Constitution. Yet even though he had. It would only have been to his everlasting honor, and would have been no reflection on that document.} And I think that the provincial history of this country will compel us to come back to that, and recognize God in our Constitution. And I see in this reform a providence teaching us the necessity of recognizing something else besides the will of the people as the basis of government.”ECE 861.1

68. And at the Chautauqua (N. Y.) Assembly in August following, Col. Elliott F. Shepard, speaking as president of the American Sabbath Union, said:—ECE 861.2

“Governments do not derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. God is the only lawgiver. His laws are made clear and plain in His Word, so that all nations may know what are the laws which God ordained to be kept.”ECE 861.3

69. In 1898 there was war between the United States and Spain. As a consequence of her victories, there fell to the United States the islands of Porto Rico and the Philippines. Immediately there began to be disregarded by the national administration of the United States, the principle of her own Declaration of Independence, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. This awoke discussion all over the land. The Church leaders and the younger generation of public men generally arrayed themselves in denial of the principle of the Declaration, while the old men, generally, maintained the principle. This soon became so marked that in the discussion of the question in national circles, it was distinctly recognized that it is the younger generation of public men who are leading in the path of world-glory at the expense of the fundamental principles of the nation; while the old men are the conservatives, and call for allegiance still to these principles wherever the jurisdiction of the nation may be extended.ECE 861.4

70. There is a reason for this. For thirty-five years up to 1898, the National Reform combination had had its agents traveling throughout the length and breadth of the land, diligently teaching these principles, which are antagonistic to the principles of the nation. These agents had unquestioned entry into the academies and colleges of the whole country; they had been prominent on the programs of Chautauqua assemblies; they had the sympathy and support of the churches, and of religious and temperance organizations, everywhere. And all these opportunities they employed to the uttermost.ECE 862.1

71. And now, those who are the younger generation of public men of to-day were the boys in the academics and colleges of the country twenty to thirty years ago—in the time when the National Reformers were sowing that evil seed in the colleges and academies everywhere. These were the boys who in those academies and colleges were inoculated in those years with this virus of the National Reformers—that governments do not derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. And now when those boys, as the men of the younger generation in public affairs to-day, meet a crisis in which it must be decided whether the fundamental principles of the nation shall be adhered to or repudiated, they are prepared, and have long been prepared, to repudiate these principles in the interests of a will-o-the-wisp of “the empire of the Son of God,” and in order to the execution of “His will”!ECE 862.2

72. This is the secret and the true philosophy of this national repudiation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the nation to-day,—the repudiation of the principles of republicanism. Thus this national repudiation of the principles of republicanism in 1898 and onward, is just as certainly an element in the National Reform movement, is just as certainly a part of that movement, as was the national repudiation of the principles of Protestantism in 1892.ECE 862.3

73. A remarkably expressive observation on this apostasy was published in the Independent of Oct. 19, 1899, by Countess Von Krockow, of Dresden, Germany, quoting from an article by Professor Niemand in a German journal, the following:—ECE 863.1

“If the American Republic ever meant anything historically, it meant a protest against Europe. Its Declaration of Independence was a looking backward over European conditions, and a summing up of all the experience thus won. It corresponded politically to Luther’s theses; just as the one was a renunciation of Catholicism, so was the other a renunciation and defiance of imperialism. Over one hundred years it has endured.ECE 863.2

“Europe has not changed essentially meanwhile. It has forms of liberty; but the substantial reality is still militarism, or government by authority and the might of the strongest. So if Europe be unchanged, why should America relinquish her avocation of Protestation by turning round and becoming like her? ...Oh, madness! I say, madness! They are doing they know not what.—giving up their birthright for a mess of pottage; surrendering their grand attitude of protest, wherein they commanded the respect of the powerful and the adoration of the idealists of the world, to scramble with the effete old nations for land! for land, although they already possess so much. They repudiate their Declaration in spirit and in word for a strip of rich land. The fact seems incredible.”ECE 863.3

74. Along with this repudiation of the principles of the Declaration, of course there went steadily the abandonment of the Constitution, and the adoption in the government of the new island possessions, of the principle of governing “without the Constitution,” under the plea that the Constitution does not extend to those possessions: in other words that the jurisdiction of the United States extends beyond the supreme law of the United States! And when the whole twofold scheme of repudiation of the fundamental principles of the nation was indorsed by the distinct voice of the whole nation in the overwhelming victory of the same administration in the national election of 1900, this was swiftly followed by the actual, official, national repudiation of the Constitution and the principles of the Declaration. In the United States Senate, Wednesday, Feb. 27, 1901, and in the House of Representatives, Friday, March 1, 1901, there was enacted as law, for the governing of the Philippine Islands, the following:—ECE 863.4

“All military, civil, and judicial powers necessary to govern the Philippine Islands acquired from Spain by the treaties concluded at Paris on the 10th day of December, 1898, and at Washington on the 7th day of November, 1900, shall, until otherwise provided by Congress, be vested in such person and persons, and shall be exercised in such manner, as the president of the United States shall direct for the establishment of civil government and for maintaining and protecting the inhabitants of such islands in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion: Provided. That all franchises granted under the authority hereof shall contain a reservation of the right to alter, amend, or repeal the same.”ECE 864.1

75. First of all it is to be noticed that this is a distinct abandonment of the Constitution, and a distinct abdication of its powers by the Congress of the United States. For Section 1 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States says: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” And Section 1 of Article III of the Constitution says: “The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”ECE 864.2

76. Now, when the Constitution definitely confines to Congress all legislative powers granted, and to a supreme court, and such inferior courts as may from time to time be provided, all judicial powers; and then Congress passes over to, and vests in, “such person and persons ...as the president of the United States shall direct,” all civil and judicial powers necessary to govern territory of the United States, that is nothing less than for Congress so far to abdicate its own powers; and, so far, to take away from the courts their powers. It is also a clear abandonment of the Constitution of the United States, so far as the Philippine Islands are concerned, and, in principle, so far as any place is concerned.ECE 864.3

77. Nor is this abandonment of the Constitution merely tacit, by the wording of the law relating of the government of the Philippine Islands. It is explicit, and was repeatedly confirmed.ECE 864.4

78. For an amendment was proposed to the Philippine section of the bill, as follows:—ECE 865.1

“SEC.—. That the Constitution of the United States is hereby extended over and declared to be in force in the Philippine Islands so far as the same or any provision thereof may be applicable.”ECE 865.2

This was rejected, by a vote of thirty-nine to twenty-three; not voting, twenty-six.ECE 865.3

79. Afterward there was offered the following amendment:—ECE 865.4

“And Provided further, That no judgment, order nor act by any of said officials so appointed shall conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”ECE 865.5

That amendment was rejected by a vote of forty-five to twenty-five; not voting, eighteen.ECE 865.6

80. After this an amendment was offered requiring that:—ECE 865.7

“Every person in whom authority is vested under this grant of power shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.”ECE 865.8

This was also rejected, by a vote of forty-one to twenty-five; not voting, twenty-two.ECE 865.9

81. After this there was offered the following amendment:—ECE 865.10

“All person shall be bailable unless for capital offenses where the proof shall be evident or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate, and no cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted. No man shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property but by the judgment of his peers and the law of the land. If the public exigencies make it necessary for the common preservation to take the property of any person, or to demand his particular services, full compensation shall be made for the same. No ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be made. No law shall be made which shall lay any person under restraint, burden, or disability on account of his religious opinions, professions, or mode of worship, in all of which he shall be free to maintain his own, and not burdened for those of another.”ECE 865.11

This, too, was rejected, by a vote of forty-one to twenty-three; not voting, twenty-four.ECE 865.12

82. When, thus, it had been voted, over and over again, to bestow unlimited power upon such persons as the president shall name to govern the Philippine Islands, then attempt was made to limit the time of the exercise of this power. Accordingly, an amendment was offered, limiting this time to March 4, 1903. But this was rejected by a vote of forty-three to twenty-six; not voting, nineteen.ECE 865.13

83. When it had been so positively decided that unlimited power should be given to these men,—and for unlimited time,—an attempt was made to give the Filipinos a part in the government of themselves. Accordingly, an amendment was offered as follows:—ECE 866.1

“And secure to them such participation in the affairs of the civil government so to be established as shall be consistent with the safety of the government.”ECE 866.2

But this was rejected by a vote of thirty-nine to twenty-three; not voting, twenty-six.ECE 866.3

84. When it had thus been explicitly and confirmedly settled that the powers of such men as the president shall appoint to govern the Philippines. shall be unlimited, shall be unlimited for all time, and shall be absolute over the people of the islands, attempt was made to save at least a vestige of Constitutional liberty, as follows:—ECE 866.4

“Mr. Hoar.—Mr. President, there is one principle of Constitutional liberty not yet slain, and I desire to give it a little chance for its life. I move the amendment which I send to the desk, to be inserted at the end of the bill.ECE 866.5

“The Presiding Officer.—The senator from Massachusetts submits an amendment which will be stated.ECE 866.6

“The Secretary.—It is proposed to add as a new section the following:—ECE 866.7

’”In the government of the Philippine Islands no person vested with legislative powers shall ever exercise the executive or judicial powers, or either of them; no person vested with executive powers shall ever exercise the legislative or judicial powers, or either of them; no person vested with judicial powers shall ever exercise the legislative or executive powers, or either of them; to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men.’ECE 866.8

“The Presiding Officer. The question is on the amendment of the senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] to the amendment of the committee.ECE 866.9

“Mr. Jones, of Arkansas, and Mr. Pettus called for the yeas and nays.ECE 866.10

“The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Secretary proceeded to call the roll.”ECE 866.11

And even this last principle of Constitutional liberty was slain. It was rejected, by a vote of forty-three to twenty-six; not voting, nineteen. ^{17[Page 867] See the whole account in Congressional Record dated Wednesday Feb. 27, 1901. And for the real principles of the procedure, see chap. vii pars. 61-69; and par. 2, page 821, of this book.}ECE 867.1

85. As already stated, the House of Representatives passed this legislation, as it came from the Senate, without any change whatever. And since it was all done at the demand of the president, of course it was all approved by him when it came before him to be signed. And thus the government of the United States has, in principle,—and for the Philippines in practice,—deliberately and expressly repudiated every principle of its Constitution as a republican government. Not a single item, nor even an iota, of the principle of republican or Constitutional government remains. National apostasy from Christian principle is complete.ECE 867.2