[This article is No. 20 in the series entitled "A Review of Sunday Legislation in Century Nineteen," but it will be of equal interest to those who have not read preceding numbers. ED. S. of T.]
I HAVE reviewed at length the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, as handed down by Justice Brewer, in the case of Trinity Church Corporation vs. the United States. I have done this in order to dissipate the idea advanced in that decision, that "this is a Christian nation." Because, as I have shown, such a statement is not only wholly ungrounded, but pregnant with dangerous menaces to the free institutions of our republic. In all of this extended review, however, I have confined myself to only one of the learned judge's "historical citations" intended by him to establish his deduction that "this is a Christian nation." I refer to the citation of the commission to Columbus to discover America, granted by Ferdinand and Isabella, THE CATHOLICS. The digressions from the main subject of this paper, in this connection, have been somewhat numerous. All of these have been necessary in order to treat upon the subject ingenuously and fairly, for a general disquisition on such an immense theme could hardly help being either vague or false. Where so much is involved, in order to be truthful, one must be specific, and capable of viewing the subject from all sides in order to see it aright in its entirety.
The subject of this number of the serial is to discuss the court's citation intended to prove that "this is a Christian nation" by virtue of the first colonial grant made by Elizabeth, the famous Protestant queen of England, to Sir Walter Raleigh. Here is the citation as given by Judge Brewer:—
The first colonial grant made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584 was from Elizabeth, by the grace of God; of England, France, and Ireland, queen, Defender of the Faith, etc.; and the grant authorized him 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. . . . Language of a similar import may be found in the subsequent charters, . . . and the same is true of the various charters granted to other colonies. In language more or less emphatic, is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant.408
This citation involves the Church of England, and the "Christian faith now [then 1584] professed in the Church of England." Hence, the questions are pertinent, Whence came the Church of England? Is the Church of England a Protestant organization? Has the Church of England proved itself a persecuting power? If the United States is a Christian nation by virtue of the Church of England, is not the United States doomed to a future of church domination, ecclesiastical tyranny, as truly as she is under the citation making this a Catholic Christian nation?
ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
The Church of England came about on this wise: Henry VIII., of the House of Tudor, and of matrimonial fame, ascended the throne of England in April, 1509, and reigned till January, 1547. He was noted for his magnificence, was brave and accomplished, very ambitious and desirous of glory. In his later years his cruelty knew no bounds. It is stated on the most credible authority that "seventy-two thousand persons suffered death by the hands of the executioner during the reign of Henry the Eighth."
There is one thing, however, that clouded his happiness. The sovereigns of France and Spain had been honored with pious titles by the supreme pontiff. The youthful Francis I. of France was "most Christian," whilst Charles V. of Spain was "Catholic." But the lord of the British Isles had no such sacred appellation. He determined that this state of things should not long exist.
Luther had written a book on the "Babylonish Captivity" of the church. Henry saw an avenue to the coveted title in this event. He decided to enter the polemical arena against the monk of Saxony. "I will combat with the pen this Cerberus, sprung from the depths of hell," said he, "and if he refuses to retract, the fire shall consume the heretic and his heretics together."
Accordingly he wrote a treatise in defense of the church on the "Seven Sacraments." This he sent to Rome. It met the mind of Pope Leo X.; Henry was dubbed "DEFENDER OF THE FAITH," and the title is held to this day by the sovereigns of the realm of England.
Pope Leo died in 1522; he was followed by Adrian VI., who in turn was succeeded by Clement VII. in 1523, and here the interesting part of the narrative commences.
Henry was wedded to Catherine of Aragon. This lady was aunt to Charles V., king of Spain and emperor of Germany. Henry desired a divorce. He wished to become united to Anne Boleyn. Henry appealed to Clement. This placed the spiritual head of Christendom in an uncomfortable dilemma. He had no conscientious scruples against granting a divorce. In fact, we are inclined to think that the claims of conscience pressed all too lightly upon the soul of this Medici.
Clement dreaded the enraged nephew of the ill-used queen. And Clement had need to be afraid of Charles about this time, for the troops of the latter had entered Rome, despoiled the papal palaces and churches, and Clement was a prisoner at the mercy of the emperor. It was at this time, when the pope was a prisoner, under guard, that the people of Rome were wont to exclaim, "The pope cannot err." It was therefore on account of his dread of Charles that Clement refused to grant the divorce.
There was just one course open for Henry to pursue. He took it. He declared the kingdom of England free from papal jurisdiction; announced "that he was head of the [Catholic] Church" in his own dominions, and with the aid of Bishop Cranmer proceeded to untie the matrimonial knot, I might almost say to cut the Gordian knot, for it had become well nigh Gordian in the mind of Henry.
Thus opened the career of the Church of England, the first daughter of "Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots." And truly this child was born in the lap of adultery. Well has Lord Macaulay written:—
Sprung from brutal passion, nurtured by selfish policy, the Reformation in England displayed little of what had in other countries distinguished it, unflinching and unsparing devotion, boldness of speech, and singleness of eye.
All of this is preëminently true of the Church of England. There was a real spiritual reformation going on in England at this time; but the Church of England, founded by Henry VIII., was not a part of it. On the contrary, the Church of England tormented and persecuted it.
On the continent of Europe, in Germany, in Switzerland, and in France, the struggle against the papal power was uncontrovertibly a religious contest. Luther, Zwingle, and the gentle Philip Melanchon were men of God. The Elector of Saxony was a virtuous prince, and we do not think we would be putting the case too strongly if we say that he was also an earnest Christian. But England has no such names to show.
Not that she [England] wanted men of sincere piety, of deep learning, of steady and adventurous courage. But these were thrown into the background. [They were persecuted by the Church of England.] Elsewhere men of this character were the principals. Here they acted a secondary part. Elsewhere worldliness was the tool of zeal. Here zeal was the tool of worldliness. A king whose character may be best described by saying that he was despotism itself personified, unprincipled ministers, a rapacious aristocracy, a servile Parliament, such were the instruments by which England was delivered from the yoke of Rome. The work which had been begun by Henry, the murderer of his wives, was continued by Somerset, the murderer of his brother, and completed by Elizabeth, the murderer of her guest. . . . Of those who have had any important share in bringing the Reformation about, Ridley was perhaps the only person who did not consider it as a mere political job. Even Ridley did not play a very prominent part. Among the statesmen and prelates who principally gave the tone to the religious change, there is one, and one only, whose conduct partiality itself can attribute to any other than interested motives. . . . We need not say that we speak of Cranmer.
This paragraph speaks for itself. And now we are brought face to face with the question, Was the Church of England, at the time of its rise, Christian and Protestant, or devil and papal?