A REVIEW OF SUNDAY LEGISLATION IN CENTURY NINETEEN. NO. 5.
BY PROF. P. T. MAGAN.
[Last week the writer of this series of papers examined the decision of the Supreme Court of February 29, 1892, by which, in principle, the government was committed to the principles of Roman Catholicism. The character of Ferdinand and Isabella, of Spain, whose commission to Columbus was cited by the court, was considered, especially in connection with the Inquisition. He also referred to Rome's present power in this government. He then proceeds to quote from Archbishop Corrigan, speaking in Chicago in 1893, that the Inquisition was, historically, the religion of this country. The quotation follows.—EDITOR.]
MOTIVES OF THE SPANISH MONARCHS.
Now the second page would be where Columbus appears before Ferdinand and Isabella. Ferdinand understood perfectly well what gain and renown would accrue to himself from the discovery of new lands, and also what riches would be poured into Spain. Yet, with these temporal motives working so powerfully upon his mind, he continued to count the cost, and he hesitated and dallied. Then Columbus went to Isabella. Her instincts of piety at once jumped to the conclusions that if there were souls there to be enlightened with the light of the faith, she would do all in her power, even to parting with the most precious things in her possession, that those souls should be brought to the kingdom of Christ.
Now turn to the third page—to the sailing of Columbus from Palos. It is a fact not without significance that after Columbus sailed to this country under the sovereignty of Ferdinand and Isabella, he immediately flew to the winds the flag of the Inquisition. And America was discovered under protection of the holy office. Is there not something in this fact? How often have we been told, not only that the church is opposed to the onward progress of science, but that had Columbus dared to maintain the spherity of the globe before the Inquisition, he would have been put into a dark dungeon, there to consume the remaining years of his life. But, instead of that, we find this severest tribunal of the church not only not putting him in prison, but sending him off on his voyage of discovery.117That institution had for its main object the protection and defense of the holy faith. Therefore, I believe, because they also wish to say so, they sent forth Columbus on his voyage of difficulty and of peril under their own white banner, the white flag of the holy Inquisition.
I do not give the words of the archbishop to strengthen any argument, but merely to show that the sentiments in the decision were what Rome has been watching for, and that they suit her.
Well, since this is the religion of the American people, they ought to know something about it, that they may not be established in the faith; for Rome intends that all heretics in America shall be established in the papal faith, and that too, if by no gentler means, by the Inquisition. If not, why does she make so much of the fact that Isabella “jumped to the conclusions” that “there were souls there [in America] to be enlightened with the light of the [Catholic] faith”? If not why is it “a fact, NOT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE, that Columbus from the Santa Maria flew to the winds the flag of the Inquisition”? If not why is it a “fact not without significance” that “America was discovered under protection of the holy office”? Again Archbishop Corrigan says:—
That institution [the Inquisition] had for its main object the protection and defense of the holy faith.
Now everyone knows that in the past America has been to a great degree a land of heretics, in the eyes of Rome. Everyone knows that the principles of liberty, religious and civil, imbedded in the governmental structure of the United States, are diametrically opposed to the intolerant principles which form the foundation of the Romish fabric. The truth of these statements is clearly evinced by the charge given to the Roman Catholic dignitaries, at the close of the Baltimore congress, held four years ago,—to bring America to the Catholic Church. This shows that in the past Rome has looked at this country as the lost sheep—and so does this, uttered last summer in Chicago:—
There is the Catholic world and the non-Catholic world. Between them has rolled the ocean of prejudice—a dark ocean. Hearts that ought to have come nearer to each other, hearts that God made like each other, eyes that if they only looked into each other and through them down into the hearts, would have brought them together. It is the mission of the Catholic congress to bring these two worlds nearer—to make men understand each other more fully; and this mission you have to act out, first of all by appreciating the great truth that the non-Catholic world is not opposed to the Catholic world at all, but to something which it thinks is the Catholic world. [Loud applause.] The very doctrines on which this animosity is formed are doctrines that we reject as emphatically, as constantly, as indignantly, as the non-Catholic world could reject them.
Exactly; it was the mission of the Catholic congress to bring the non-Catholic people of America nearer to the Catholic; and if craft, intrigue, and persuasion will not accomplish this end, then what?—The Inquisition, of course. I mean it—that when Rome sees her chance she will use the holy office again to bring all heretics in America to her fold. She herself avows that it is her right to be intolerant, and that ghastliest den of human iniquity, that impious encroachment upon the prerogatives of God, that human tribunal before which were arraigned the consciences of men,—the Inquisition,—is naught but systematic tolerance armed with despotic power. Here is her claim to intolerance as her right, from her own lips:—
The church proclaims and maintains truths as certain as the mathematical ones. She teaches and defends truths with as much intolerance as the science of mathematics defends hers. And what more logical? The Catholic Church alone, in the midst of so many sects, avers a possession of absolute truth, out of which there cannot be true Christianity; she alone has a right to be, SHE ALONE MUST BE INTOLERANT. She alone WILL [future tense] and must say, as she has said through all ages, in her councils, “If any one saith or believeth contrary to what I teach, which is truth, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.”
At the same time our Lord, intrusting her with the deposit of truth, has also left in her his spirit of charity and patience. Intolerant as regards the doctrine, the church has mercy for the people, and never has she had recourse to lawful measures of rigor, but after all manner of kindness and persuasion have failed.
But was not the commission of Satolli, the papal ablegate, to the Catholic congress in Chicago this summer, “Go forward, in one hand bearing the book of Christian truth, and in the other the Constitution of the United States”? True, but how much does that mean? Let us see.
Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” 1 Thess. 2:13. The Holy Scriptures are powerful to work in men, when taken into the heart as the infallible word of God. The Scriptures possess divine authority, because they are the expression of the infallible mind of God. But the papal doctrine is entirely different from this. According to Rome, the Scriptures derive “ALL their divine authority from the infallible teaching of the church.” Here is the statement in her own words:—
But I merely assert that the Scriptures themselves, deriving all their divine authority from the infallible teaching of the church, etc.
From this it is clear that the Bible in Satolli’s mind is the Bible as interpreted by the Catholic Church. Those acquainted with her history know what that means, and this paper shall show what it means when we give the sketch of the Holy Inquisition, which is a papal interpretation of Scripture put into practice.
Again, by a parity of reasoning it might be shown that the “Constitution of the United States in the other hand” is the Constitution as interpreted by the papal power, in the light of recent legislative action and judicial decision.
I have now shown that the United States Supreme Court has committed the American nation to Roman Catholic principles. Rome knows it, and she intends to enforce her dogmas upon the American people by means of the Inquisition if necessary.
Further, the keeping of Sunday as a day of religious rest is a papal dogma. Here is her word for it:—
Q.—Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?
A.—Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her,—she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority.
Moreover, it is a papal dogma necessary to salvation, and here is her word for that:—
The keeping holy the Sunday is a thing ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO SALVATION; and yet this is nowhere put down in the Bible; on the contrary, the Bible says, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy [Ex. 20:8], which is Saturday, and not Sunday; THEREFORE THE BIBLE DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THINGS NECESSARY TO SALVATION, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, CANNOT BE A SUFFICIENT RULE OF FAITH.
Yet once more, Rome intends to do all in her power to make the American people keep Sunday after her notion of how it should be kept. And here is her word for that:—
We have no sympathy with any effort to secularize the Sunday. We urge upon our fellow-citizens to join in every effort to preserve that day as sacred, in accordance with the precepts and traditions of the church. [Cheers.]
Here are a few of the ways in which Sunday is to be kept sacred, “in accordance with the precepts and traditions of the Church”:—
1. At a council held at Illiberis (now Elne) in Gaul, in 305 (1 Labbe 973), it was decreed that anyone remaining in a city (“Civitas,” see Du Cange, Gloss. Med. et Inf. Lat. s. v.) three Sundays without attending church should be arrested.
2. In 469, under Leo and Anthemius, it was enacted . . . that the Lord’s day be had in honor, and there be no executions of criminals, nor summons, nor holding to bail; that the constable should be still, the lawyer silent, trials be suspended, the crier’s voice not heard, litigants should cease from their controversies, and have an interval of agreement, and that enemies should not fear to meet each other, but feelings of regret and sacrifice should pervade their spirits, so that they should talk over their differences and arrange them; and that no one should abuse the leisure of the day and waste his time in obscene delights, nor attend the theater, or the circus, or the wild beast shows; . . . and that anyone . . . attending a show, or any constable violating this law under pretext of public or private business, should lose his office and property.—Code Justinian, III, 12, 11.
3. In 585, at the Council of Matisco (now Macon), in Gaul, “because Christians were rashly scorning the day, and pursuing their business as on others,” the priests were instructed to admonish them of this matter; and the laity were warned to “watch the day;” the day was declared to be perpetually one of rest; if a pleader should violate this canon, he was to lose his case; if a peasant or a slave, he was to be well lashed; if a priest or a monk, to be excluded six months from intercourse with his fellows; and it is enjoined that the preceding night is to be spent, not in sleep but prayer.—5 Labbe, 981, 1.
4. In 1050, at the council of Couaco, in Spain, it was decreed that Christians should go to church Saturday evening and Sunday morning, and should do no servile labor, nor travel, except to church or a funeral, or to visit the sick, or on public business, or in case of an assault by the Saracens.—9 Labbe, 1065, 6.
5. In 1473, “following in the footsteps of our predecessors,” it was decreed by the council of Toletum (now Toledo) that there should be abstinence from servile labor, and farm and trade work, and cultivation of the fields, unless there was urgent necessity, or an evidently pious purpose, AND THEN ONLY WITH THE PRIEST’S LICENSE. This applied to the faithful. Unbelievers were prohibited only from publicly attending to their business, punishment to be by the proper officers, and, if violation occurred through negligence, to be severe; if through deliberation, to be no less than excommunication.—11 Labbe, 1452.
The above needs no comment. So much for this “historical” citation of the Supreme Court. I have shown what it has accomplished, and what it means to the American nation,—Roman Catholicism, enforced by the Inquisition. In the next issue of the SIGNS I will give a sketch of the principles and workings of the Inquisition, so that the American people, upon whom it is surely to be visited, may know it when it does appear, and be prepared to resist it with their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.