A REVIEW OF SUNDAY LEGISLATION IN CENTURY NINETEEN. NO. 5.
THE UNITED STATES SOLD TO THE PAPACY.
FEBRUARY 29, 1892, was passed by unnoticed by almost all the people of the great American republic. Nor has it since become to them a day of historic note. Those, however, who knew what was decreed in the highest department of our national governmental fabric upon that day, can only weep over God's favored people, saying: "If thou hast known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes." "Your house is left unto you desolate." Luke 19: 42; 13: 35. These were the words of Jesus as he wept over the city of Jerusalem, at a time when the inhabitants thereof were plotting an alliance with Rome, in order to crucify their Lord. And these are the words that those in whom Christ is dwelling, "the hope of glory," may rightfully apply to a people which has been sold by its rulers, and, worse than that, by its pastors, the shepherds of the flocks of Christ, into the hands of Rome—the Papacy—thus forming that Church and State system which will crucify afresh the Lord of glory, and put him to an open shame.
I affirm that this was done, unwittingly perhaps, upon February 29, 1892, by the highest judicial authority in the land, and that on that day the doom of the United States was sealed, and that even now High Heaven has given over the nation to destruction, and no earthly power can save her.
Upon that day the Supreme Court of the United States rendered a decision upon a case, in itself of minor importance to the commonwealth, but through the decision of most supreme importance to all the world.
The case in brief was this: The officers of the Church of the Holy Trinity in New York City, made an agreement with a clergyman in England, named Warren, that for a stipulated salary he should come over and preach for them. This contract was made while he, Warren, was yet upon the other side of the Atlantic. He was a subject of the British realm, consequently an alien to the commonwealth of the United States.
Prior to this, in 1887, Congress had enacted the following, known as the "Alien Contract Labor Law":—
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever, to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, into the United States, its Territories, or the District of Columbia, under contract or agreement, parol or special, expressed or implied, made previous to the importation or migration of such alien or aliens, foreigner or foreigners, to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States, its Territories, or the District of Columbia.
It was held by the U. S. District Attorney that the contract with Warren was a violation of this act, and accordingly he entered suit against Trinity Church Corporation for violating the law. The United States Circuit Court decided that the church was guilty, and rendered judgment accordingly, whereupon the church appealed to the United States Supreme Court, upon writ of error. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, and in support of this reversal gave two separate and distinct lines of argument.
With the first of these lines I have no fault to find. The court proved that, although102the contract in question came within the letter of the statute, it did not come within the spirit or intent of the statute, and therefore was not a violation of the law.
The second line of argument in the decision is the one which gives the nation, body and soul, into the hands of Rome. The real relation of this line of argument to the case in question and the decision of the same I fail to see. And, moreover, I am inclined to doubt whether the learned judge himself who made the decision clearly understood its relation to the case he was deciding. In fact, the more one thinks of it the more certain he becomes that he could not possibly have understood its relation to the case or decision. I have too much respect for his common sense to suppose such a thing.
The only part of the decision furnishing any clue whatever to the idea in his mind is the words introducing this second line of supposed evidence:—
> But beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, State or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.
The words in Italics form the clue referred to above, namely, that, since this is a “religious people,” it could not be supposed that it would pass any law having a “purpose of action against [its own] religion.” And on this ground, therefore, according to the finding in the case, it would only be right to reverse the decision of the lower court.
Following the last quotation from the decision Justice Brewer cites “historical” evidence by which he establishes the Christian religion as the national religion; “justifies the use of the civil power to maintain the discipline of the churches; a religious test oath as a qualification for office; general taxation for the support of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality; the governmental requirement of a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity and the inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; and then without a break quotes the Constitution of the United States, in which religious legislation and religious establishments are positively prohibited, and flatly declares”:—
> 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.
All of this is astounding, as my analysis will clearly show.
In proof of the above sweeping declaration the court gives historical citations to prove that we are a “religious people,” a “Christian nation.” Here is the first:—
The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from “Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, king and queen of Castile,” etc., and recites that “it is hoped by God’s assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered,” etc.
Ferdinand and Isabella, king and queen of Spain, are known to history as the “THE CATHOLICS.” This Ferdinand was the second of that name on the throne of Aragon, a large and influential Spanish province. In 1469 he married Isabella, ruler of Castile, another influential Spanish province. These two rulers gradually gathered beneath the sway of their scepter nearly the whole of Catholic Spain, uniting all the smaller territories with the larger, thus making one united Catholic monarchy. This scheme was completed by 1479.
Before the succession of Isabella to the throne, “in her early days,” she employed as her “confessor” a character who deserves notice here. This was—
A Dominican monk, Thomas de Torquemada, a native of Old Castile, subsequently raised to the rank of prior of Santa Cruz in Segovia, and condemned to infamous immortality by the signal part which he performed in reference to the Inquisition. This man, who concealed more pride under his monastic weeds than might have furnished forth a convent of his order, was one of that class with whom zeal passes for religion, and who testify their zeal by a fiery persecution of those whose creed differs from their own, who compensate for their abstinence from sensual indulgence by giving scope to those deadlier vices of the heart, pride, bigotry, and intolerance, which are no less opposed to virtue, and are far more extensively mischievous to society. This personage had earnestly labored to infuse into Isabella’s young mind, to which his situation as her confessor gave him such ready access, the same spirit of fanaticism that glowed in his own.
Indeed, it is stated on good authority that he extorted a promise from her that—
> Should she ever come to the throne, she would devote herself to the extirpation of heresy, for the glory of God, and the exaltation of the Catholic faith.
Such was the character of Torquemada; such was the character of the religion and religious vow of Isabella. Such was the religion under which Columbus, “by the grace of God,” was commissioned to discover “some of the continents and islands in the ocean;” and such was the religion he was to plant upon them when found. It therefore logically follows that if we are “a religious people,” and a “Christian nation,” the religion of the Inquisition is our religion. I would like to inquire how many Americans would be willing to admit it. Although not one American citizen in a thousand might admit it, nevertheless, the nation is in the hands of the church, which glories in the holy office, because, since the Supreme Court has decided that we are a “Christian nation,” it must be so, and according to the proof given by the court, it must be the Catholic religion and the Inquisition.
It is true that the judge, in the other “historical citations” which he gives to prove that we are a “Christian nation, refers to the Church of England and to the Puritans. It may be urged that a similar line of reasoning to that given on the citation in favor of Rome would establish equally well the religion of the Church of England, or that of the Puritans. This is technically true; but it is my intention to prove in future numbers of this paper that both of these religions were papal in their conception, have ever been papal in their principles and actions on Church and State questions, and in the matter of intolerance. Therefore, although technically you may give the country to any one of these three creeds, or to all of them, you cannot escape, according to the decision, from giving her into the bondage of Roman Catholic principles.
Again, the Catholic Church is the oldest organized body advocating intolerance toward those who do not agree with her. She is the oldest religious body propagating the union of Church and State theory. When the Episcopal Church split off from her she continued to advocate these two above mentioned doctrines of her mother. When the Puritan body separated from the Church of England it also continued to advocate these two doctrines of its grandmother. Some churches which have come out from these three have proclaimed against these doctrines; but now they are all advocating or beginning to advocate them, thus professing the principles which are distinctly Roman, only under their own names.
Further, the papal church possesses more political power in the United States than any other church. She holds the balance of power between the two great political parties. She gets greater annual appropriations from the United States Treasury for the schools among the Indians, than do all the other denominations put together. It is therefore only natural to infer that she will come out ahead in any contest among the churches for favors, or recognitions from or by the United States Government.
Now Rome too has noticed this decision, and she was glad to see it and to see how closely the ideas of the Supreme Court coincided with her own. And so Archbishop Corrigan, speaking in Chicago this summer of 1893, informed the world that the Inquisition was “historically” the religion of this country. A part of his speech follows.