Constitutional Prohibition Against Protestantism
By C. M. S.
But Protestantism was not ready. Medievalism triumphed! The constitution when finally adopted had as Article IV the following: "The nation professes the Catholic religion, apostolic and Roman, and the state protects it, and does not permit the public exercise of any other." During seventy years from the adoption of the constitution the prohibition contained in the last ten words of Article IV met with but little opposition. But in 1890 the event occurred which proved it to be the beginning of its end. In that year the Rev. Francisco Penzotti, a Methodist preacher in the service of the American Bible Society, came to Callao, the chief port of Peru, to distribute the Bible. As homes were opened to him, he preached to the few who cared to come, as Nicodemus came to our Lord, believing that this was not in contravention of the law. At the instigation of the clericals, he was arrested, and lay in the common jail of Callao eight months, while his case dragged through all the courts of the country. In each court he was acquitted, and was finally released from his filthy cell, and allowed to go on with his work. To the extent to which religious liberty has been enjoyed in Peru since 1890 it has been upon the judicial decision in the now-famous Penzotti case. That decision, in brief, was to the effect that worship conducted in a building devoid of the public appearance of a church, and with no sign or mark to show that it was used as a place of public worship, was not a "public exercise" of religion, and, therefore, was not an infraction of Article IV of the constitution. But this gave a negative and limited kind of liberty, which hindered and hampered all that has been attempted in the way of direct gospel work in these more than twenty years. Twenty Years' Fight Against Ten Words
About twenty years ago the bishop administering South America sent Dr. Thomas B. Wood here to do all that lay in his power to secure the repeal of those obnoxious ten words. Dr. Wood8had a record for success in similar fights elsewhere on this continent. He was even then a veteran fighter against "the dominant priestcraft" of South America. He was one of the chief human agents in securing religious liberty in Paraguay, Uruguay, the Argentine, Bolivia, and Ecuador. He faced great odds. But he has written and interviewed senators, deputies, editors, educators, and other national leaders, until the leaven of his teaching is at work throughout the whole nation. Several times he has had a bill all drafted and introduced, but each time it has been mysteriously shelved, to his deep disappointment. When Dr. Wood went to the United States last year on his first furlough at the expense of the Board of Foreign Missions in the entire forty-three years of his South American service, it was with regret that he left that part of his task apparently where he had found it. But to the surprise of the world, the first battle was gained on Oct. 4, 1913. How did it come about? What spark set off the magazine? This is what I have been eager to ascertain since I first heard of the victory during my visit to London in October. Intolerance Which Overreached Itself
Since coming to Peru I have the whole story. It is only another chapter in the long history of an intolerance which overreaches itself. The factor which has had the greatest direct influence in bringing about the present reform has been the policy of Bishop Ampuero, of Puno, who is accused of scores of abuses in the exercise of his powers. The most notorious incident occurred two years ago, when, for a minor offense, the bishop, with all the medieval rites which characterize the act, proceeded to excommunicate a well-known Indian lawyer, Francisco M. Chuquihuanca Ayulo, of Cuzco. Ayulo is one of the most brilliant lawyers in Peru. His great passion is to fight the battles of his people, and consequently he has won their loyalty. When the bishop of Puno accused Ayulo of being an atheist and brought him to trial, on a charge from which he was later triumphantly cleared, he was sowing the seed that has in due time come to fruit. In March of last year the bishop descended in wrath upon La Platania, where a medical missionary has been accomplishing remarkable work for several years past, and carried off a number of the converts, including one woman, and brought them to Puno. They were held prisoners for eight days at the tender mercies of the bishop, until the hue and cry raised as a result of the occurrence forced their release. A man of ordinary intelligence should have recognized that public opinion, even in Peru, would not forgive him, though thrice a bishop, for binding men and women with a common rope, and personally forcing them to walk over miserable roads to jail for the crime(?) of being helped in times of sickness by a Protestant physician! The hue and cry which compelled their release was local. But when the papers in the case reached the civil authorities in Lima, public indignation burned to white heat. Senator Bezada, from the district of Puno, immediately introduced a bill in the upper house calling for the suppression of the much-debated last clause of Article IV, and the battle was on. Our Peruvian pastor in Lima, the Rev. Ruperto Algorta, and John Ritchie, of the Evangelical Union, both saw the brief mention which the Commercial, the chief Peru daily paper, made of this bill, and they at once sought Senator Bezada. To their amazement, they found that he appeared to have no interest in the success of his bill, being a Catholic, and having been pushed into presenting the bill by his Puno constituents, who were up in arms over the two cases mentioned and other equally exasperating experiences at the hands of their intolerant bishop. When these Protestants offered to help him he was frightened, and begged them not to say a word—"not one word." But they had learned the name of the chairman of the committee to which the bill had gone in regular course of congressional business, Senator Mariano Cornejo, one of the most eminent members of the Peruvian bar, and a sociologist of international repute. Within a few minutes after quitting the timorous, trimming author of the bill, they were being heartily welcomed by Senator Cornejo, and assured that he had every confidence that the bill could be put through. His plan was to avoid debate and get action before opposition could do its worst. Within a day or so, he had secured the signatures of all the members of his committee, as he passed the report to each member in the senate chamber. The signed report was thus placed upon the speaker's table for consideration before the opposition knew that it had been reported. By prompt action and good parliamentary tactics, Senator Cornejo not only secured an early order of the day for his report, but what is called "preferential consideration." Though he is one of the most eloquent members of the senate, he piloted the bill through to the voting stage with the least possible debate. The bill passed with but three dissentient votes, two of these having been cast by the only two priests present and voting! So sudden and so complete a victory astonished the nation. Catholic leaders bestirred themselves to secure the defeat of the measure in the lower house—the chamber of deputies—and Liberals united with the missionary forces of the country to carry the fight to victory. During the two weeks which elapsed before securing the vote in the chamber of deputies, the Inca Press (evangelical) was not long idle, and mails were heavy with blank petitions going out and signed petitions coming to deputies urging that Peru fall into line with the modern world in granting freedom of worship to all her citizens. The students in the universities and colleges, together with the independent papers of Lima and Callao, used all their influence in favor of the reform. Roman Catholic opposition took many forms. . . At last it became evident that the bill would have enough votes in the lower house to insure its passage, and every device of Jesuitism was exhausted to prevent a quorum. The speaker of deputies was in favor of the bill, and when he saw that he had a quorum with a margin of two members, he had the measure brought up. There was no debate, and the bill passed—66 to 4. And two of the four dissentients were priests! The dailies of Lima have the names of the four dissentients only in their report. But the end is not yet. Constitutional changes cannot go into effect without affirmative action on the same measure in two successive years. This measure must come up again for ratification in 1914. Rome will fight to the bitter end, and she will face a united Peru. The present congress is elected for two years. But the air is full of rumors that Catholic influence will bring about the prorogation of congress by executive order, and new elections will be held so that pro-Catholic senators and deputies may be chosen to undo what has been done. The struggle will be watched with intense interest by every lover of religious liberty. When the reform bill has been confirmed, in October of 1914, our church should at once provide the funds for a worthy church in Lima, and increase her force in all Peru. All doors will then be open. Bishop Stuntz believes that the "spark" which "set off the magazine" was the Catholic bishop's treatment of the Indian lawyer; but there is unquestionable evidence that the real "spark" was the Catholic bishop's persecution of the Seventh-day Adventist mission at La Platania and the imprisonment of the members of our church there. Such acts as the excommunication of the Indian lawyer had been going on from the days when Pizarro and the Spanish priests ruled the land. We give full credit to the importance of the work done by Francisco Penzotti, Dr. Thomas B. Wood, and the others mentioned by Bishop Stuntz. There is no doubt that the work done by these men with the legislators was preparing them for the crisis when it should come. The bishop admits, however, that when Dr. Wood left for the United States, "it was with regret that he left that part of his task apparently where he had found it." It was when the Catholic bishop of Puno began to lay his heavy hand upon the Indians of our Lake Titicaca Mission that the door of liberty began to open. The imprisonment of these Protestant Indians by the Catholic bishop was followed by a trial in which fifty persons had been hired to testify against them; and yet the judge, listening to their simple story, set them free in spite of the hired testimony. They were honorably discharged, "to the great chagrin of the bishop and his friends." The bishop and his friends, smarting under this defeat, renewed their persecution of the Lake Titicaca Adventist Indians. They mistreated the members of the little company there and forcibly closed the school. The Indian brethren then made up a purse and sent Brother Camacho to Lima to lay the case before the president of Peru. As a result of Brother Camacho's9appeal, President Billinghurst sent a high official to Puno to investigate the matter. Then came the introduction of the bill for the amendment of the constitution. Brother Stahl says: "The Lord blessed Brother Camacho and our brethren at Lima, and as a result of the work done there at that time, our brethren, by the blessing of the Lord, secured religious liberty for Peru." But within the past few weeks President Billinghurst was made the victim of a plot and was sent into exile. Familiarity with the history of the Roman hierarchy causes us to feel that Rome's hatred of President Billinghurst for his attitude toward these developments is the real reason for his overthrow and exile. Rome will not yield that stronghold of oppression and intolerance without a mighty struggle, and we may expect her to concentrate all the powers at her command to forestall the amendment of Peru's constitution. In the meantime, let the friends of religious liberty pray that God will burst the bars and fling wide the doors of Peru for the entrance of the gospel.
C. M. S.