The American Sentinel 9
August 16, 1894
“Editorial” American Sentinel 9, 33, pp. 257, 258.
THE President of the United States has appointed a board of commission of “arbitration,” in consequence of the Chicago strike. AMS August 16, 1894, page 257.1
IN the way that this has been brought about, however, there could not be a more complete misnomer than to call it a board or commission, or anything else, of arbitration. AMS August 16, 1894, page 257.2
THERE is not a single element of arbitration in it. For arbitration is “the hearing and determining of a controversy by a person or persons mutually agreed upon by the parties to the dispute.” AMS August 16, 1894, page 257.3
NOW these persons have not been “mutually agreed upon by the parties to the dispute.” There has been no sort of an agreement in the matter by the parties to the dispute. Indeed, only one of the parties to the dispute called for it or had anything to do with it in any way. This board or commission, or whatever it is called in that respect, therefore, is entirely lacking in the very first elements that attach to a board or commission of arbitration. AMS August 16, 1894, page 257.4
INDEED, the idea of any mutual agreement or action on the part of the parties to the dispute seems not to be contemplated in the act of Congress under which this commission is appointed. For the act provides that “the services of the commission to be ordered at the time of the President, and constituted as herein provided, may be tendered by the President for the purpose of settling a controversy such as contemplated, either on his own motion or upon the application of one of the parties to the controversy, or upon the application of an executive of a State.” Thus is it clear that there is no such thing as a mutual agreement of the parties to the dispute respecting who shall be the arbitrator, nor even that there shall be an arbitration of the controversy at all. The appointment of the commission and the tendering of its offices may come altogether from the outside, and the nearest that it gets to the parties is that it may be appointed and tendered upon the application of one of the parties to the dispute. Thus in any and every phase the procedure lacks every element of arbitration. Yet for all this lack, the commission has been appointed; it is called a commission of arbitration, and is expected to have, indeed, “shall have,” “all the powers and authority given in section 2 to a board of arbitration”! AMS August 16, 1894, page 257.5
NOW, if the action of this board is to have any force whatever—whether its decision is to be enforced by the power of the Government upon the party adjudged by it to be in the wrong, or whether it is to be only by the “moral influence” of the weight of the Government in favor of the other party, putting the party adjudged to be in the wrong to the disadvantage of publicly disagreeing with the national Government; in either case the result can be only dictation instead of arbitration. If the decision of the committee is not intended to have any real force either governmental or moral, then the procedure amounts simply to a piece of meddling which in itself is suggestive of dictatorship. But it may be asked, Shall the Government do nothing? Answer: The Government, State or national, as the case may be, shall see to it that all parties shall keep the peace in all respects, whatever their differences or disputes may be. This the governmental power may do and keep itself and all others in place. AMS August 16, 1894, page 257.6
YET there is no doubt that the decision of this commission is intended to have force of some sort, and that, apparently, in no small measure. And as the commission, with the procedure altogether, it totally lacking in the elements of arbitration, whatever force it may exert will be nothing else than the assertion of the principle of dictation. This is true also in another way; because it is intended by those who are engineering this that if this does not bring the desired result then the next step is to be legislation establishing “compulsory arbitration” in so many words. But compulsory arbitration is a contradiction in terms. The very suggestion of compulsion destroys all idea of arbitration. The only word that will properly express the idea of “compulsory arbitration” is the plain and simple word dictation. This plain and simple word, however, is rather too strong to start with, and so it must be covered up with the self-contradictory expression, “compulsory arbitration;” and even to this the way must be smoothed by the practice of a pretended arbitration that is not arbitration at all in any true sense of the word. AMS August 16, 1894, page 257.7
WITH the action of the committee, however, we have nothing to do. It matters not which way it decides nor what it does. It is the establishment of the principle and the fixing of the precedent, with which we are concerned; it is this and this only that we are discussing. It is the logical tendency of this sort of “arbitration” that we desire to trace. We are simply inquiring what is wrapped up in this thing, and what therefore must inevitably come out of it. AMS August 16, 1894, page 257.8
IT is worth remarking that this idea and practice of “arbitration” is not intended nor expected to put an end to strikes. In fact, it is the doctrine of one of the chiefest of the leaders of organized labor that without contention there can be no arbitration, and without a strike there can be no contention. In remarking upon the appointment of this committee by President Cleveland, Mr. Gompers, the president of the American Federation of Labor, said:— AMS August 16, 1894, page 257.9
If President Cleveland has made any stipulation that the strike should be called off as a preliminary, he has made arbitration impossible; for that means the attainment of a settlement between contending forces, and after the strike ceases the contention has ceased. AMS August 16, 1894, page 257.10
According to this doctrine, and according to all the probabilities in the case, there is no room for doubt that strikes will continue, and continue to increase in extent and violence, as they have done ever since labor-unions were first organized in this country. AMS August 16, 1894, page 257.11
CONSIDER, then, that strikes will continue, and that this kind of “arbitration” will also continue. It is hardly to be expected that the decisions will always be in favor of the strikers. If this is expected, then this only adds to the procedure another element of dictation. If there is any probability that the decision of the “arbitrators” will at some time be against the strikers and in favor of the operator, then this carries with it also the probability that there will come a time when the decision of the “arbitrators” will not be at all satisfactory to the strikers. Then they will denounce the board as being allied with capital against labor, and will refuse to accept it as a settlement. In other words, they will strike against the decision of the “arbitrators.” Suppose this commission had been appointed in time to reach Chicago at the height of the contest last month, and by any possibility had found and decided that the Pullman Company was justified in the stand that they had taken, is there a man in the United States who supposes that Debs and his committee would have accepted such a decision and ordered off the strike? In view of their open denunciation of the President of the United States for merely ordering troops to Chicago to maintain the laws of the United States, is it at all supposable that they would have accepted a decision actually in favor of the Pullman Company or the board of railway managers? AMS August 16, 1894, page 257.12
AMS certainly as there is a probability that a decision will fall sometime against the strikers, so certainly also there is a probability that the strikers will sometime strike against the decision. But a strike against the decision of the “arbitrators” will be nothing less than a strike against the Government itself. 1 Then as certainly as such a thing as that ever happens, there will be a dispute between labor and the Government, which dispute will have to be arbitrated. Then who shall be the “arbitrators” to settle this dispute? Neither the Government nor capital nor labor can do it, because these are all parties to the dispute. There cannot be one chosen from each of the three parties in dispute, because as the Government will have already decided in favor of capital, and the strike is now against both, this would give a board of two to one against labor to start with. Plainly, then, the Government and capital and labor will all be excluded from conducting any arbitration between the Government and labor. There is one element remaining, and but one, that could do it, and that is the Church. This is the only element remaining sufficiently separated from all parties to such a dispute, to be qualified to come between them in the character of arbitrator. And she will occupy the place as surely as it shall ever be made. And the place will be made as surely as this sort of “arbitration” that has been started shall continue. And it is just as likely to continue as that the contest between “capital and labor” shall continue. AMS August 16, 1894, page 258.1
THUS there can be, and almost certainly will be, created the much-coveted opportunity for the Church further to insinuate herself into the place of control and guidance in governmental affairs. And as to what church it will be, in the last resort at least, there can be no shadow of doubt. It will be the Catholic Church. For some considerable time Cardinal Gibbons has been advocating a national board of arbitration, such as is now begun. Besides this, as so vast a majority of the discontented, agitating, striking, violent, element, are members in good and regular standing in the Catholic Church, it will be urged, and urged successfully, that she is entitled to a representative on the board. More than this probability, she has a representative on this board that has been lately appointed by the President, namely, Francis Kernan, who finished his education at that Jesuit seat of learning Seton Hall College, Orange, N.J. And if Mr. Magone, who was first named, is not also a Catholic, the fact is contradictory to the suggestion of his name. AMS August 16, 1894, page 258.2
THIS is the logical outcome and the sure result of this scheme of “arbitration” that has been begun in the United States. And when the Catholic Church shall have made firm her footing here in this thing, made shall have thus put herself in the place of chief “arbitrator” in national affairs for, and to, this great American nation, then in this also Europe will be drawn to follow the example, and thus in another way will the papacy be lifted to the headship and control of the world. And thus will the great ambition of Leo XIII. be accomplished in having the pope recognized and referred to as the great “arbiter” of all national differences. AMS August 16, 1894, page 258.3
IN times of such difficulties as those that have covered this country the present year, and which will be continued along the line that we are here discussing, both in this country and in Europe—in times such as these, it is with peculiar force that the papacy suggests itself to the minds of rulers and statesmen as the source of the greatest help. In times of violence, strife, anarchy, and revolution, when the very foundations of States and even of society itself seem to be moved, it is almost instinctively that the European statesman especially grasps the hand of the papacy. The papacy has passed through revolution after revolution, and complete anarchy itself is no terror to it. AMS August 16, 1894, page 258.4
THE papal church not only saw, but caused, the fall of the Roman Empire. And as that empire was the “mightiest fabric of human greatness” ever set up, so its fall was the most terrible ever seen in history. Yet the papacy not only passed through it, but she gathered new strength from it all. The Catholic Church thrives on revolutions; the perplexities of States are her fortune; to her, anarchy is better than order, unless she can rule. She is so completely the mistress of every kind of deviltry that it matters not what phase of it presents itself, she can manipulate it to her own advantage. Therefore when revolution is imminent and anarchy threatens, it is almost instinctively that rulers and statesmen grasp the ever-proffered hand of her who has survived the anarchy of the Middle Ages and the revolutions of fifteen centuries. AMS August 16, 1894, page 258.5
IT is with perfect satisfaction that the papal church sees the Government of the United States taking the step that involves “arbitration” between itself and its own violent and lawless citizens. For she knows that as the vast majority of these violent lawless ones are her own subjects, so the outcome must certainly redound to her profit and her exaltation. As she has already announced that “the solution of the present social difficulties is to be found in the Catholic Church;” and that “if society is to be saved from a condition worse in some respects than pagan times, it is from the Vatican the savior must come;” so she is most gratified to see the steps taken that inevitably involves herself and her power as this savior. And she has also announced that, as “the United States succeed in solving these problems, Europe will follow their example,” and these, too, will turn to her as their savior. This is the publicly announced plan of the Roman Catholic Church, and everything is drawing her way, and she is glad of it. This is the means by which she ascended to her height of power and dominion before; this means will surely raise her to that place again. From her experience before, she knows how to take advantage of the like means now to raise herself to the place of power and dominion such as she had before, only greater as the world is larger now than it was then. Mgr. Satolli made no mistake when he declared, in behalf of the papacy, that in America more than anywhere else lies the key of the future. Mgr. Satolli is here to turn that key. It can be turned many ways to favor the aims of the papacy. And in no one way can it be turned more to favor the papacy than in the manipulation of this idea of “compulsory arbitration.” This is simply dictation, and it will end in the dictation of the papacy to the nation and to the world. AMS August 16, 1894, page 258.6
“Too Late to Deny It” American Sentinel 9, 33, pp. 258, 259.
IN the Catholic World for August, “Rev.” Walter Elliott, a Roman Catholic missionary, tells of his experience among the Seventh-day Adventists in Michigan. “Father” Elliott says:— AMS August 16, 1894, page 258.1
The sect is the most venomous enemy of Catholicity in these parts.... And yet some of our Catholic journals have favored it on the question of the observance of the Sunday as against Protestantism generally. I am persuaded that this is bad policy, to say the least of it. If Protestants, as a body, are mistaken as to the office of scripture, they are right as to the day of the Lord. Do not be too eager to make men give up the truth by showing them that they are “illogical.” ... Our policy is to favor the right side among our jarring brethren, rather than to compel consistency. Say to them, First be right, and then be consistent and get wholly right. To play off error against inconsistency is not fraternal. Furthermore, the Seventh-day Adventists incline to be Old Testament Christians, Puritans of the worst sort, and are making a propaganda of much energy, and not without results. If what the Catechism of the Council of Trent calls the Christian Sabbath shall lose its place in our national customs, and if its legal observance shall drop out of the competency of our legislators, the end will be the abolition of a general observance of any day of rest and prayer at all—a calamity of the first order. I have been almost everywhere assailed with quotations from one of our oldest and most respectable Catholic journals against the scripture basis of the observance of the first day of the week—claiming that it has not any scripture authority whatever, is wholly without a scripture basis, etc. Such, however, is not the sense of the Catholic Church. AMS August 16, 1894, page 258.2
The “reverend” “father” seems to be hard hit by the quotation from “one of our oldest and most respectable Catholic journals,” but his denial is vain. He quotes Catholic authorities in support of his position, but that is also vain. It is not the Catholic Mirror alone (the old and respectable journal referred to) which asserts the fact that there is no scriptural authority for Sunday observance. “The Faith of Our Fathers,” by Cardinal Gibbons, has on page 111, this paragraph:— AMS August 16, 1894, page 258.3
You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify. AMS August 16, 1894, page 258.4
In “Catholic Belief,” a standard Catholic work, published in this city by Benziger Brothers, and indorsed by Cardinal McCloskey, June 5, 1884, we find this on page 251, from the Creed of Pius IV.:— AMS August 16, 1894, page 259.1
I most steadfastly admit and embrace the apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the same church. AMS August 16, 1894, page 259.2
The dagger refers to a foot-note as follows:— AMS August 16, 1894, page 259.3
That is, I admit as points of revealed truth what the church declares the apostles taught as such, whether clearly or not clearly expressed or not even mentioned in the written word of God; as, for instance, that baptism is to be conferred on infants, that Sunday instead of Saturday (called the Sabbath) is to be kept holy; and moreover, I admit those points of discipline which the church holds as established by the apostles, or by their successors as lawful rulers of the church in the early centuries of Christianity, such as points of liturgy or of church government. AMS August 16, 1894, page 259.4
We have italicized the salient part of this note to call attention to the fatal confession which it contains in reference to two cherished dogmas of so-called orthodoxy. Priest Elliott will have to add this and the cardinal’s book to his Index Expurgatorius. But it will be hard for him to conceal the naked truth. The fact is as it is, and it would be none the less a fact if every papist in the world denied it. There is no scriptural authority for Sunday, and this politic priest knows it. It may have been “bad policy” for the Catholics to tell the truth on this point; but they have told it as their published works abundantly prove. AMS August 16, 1894, page 259.5
“True Protestantism” American Sentinel 9, 33, p. 259.
A CORRESPONDENT calls attention to the too prevalent idea that the term “Protestant” applies to “all who are not Roman Catholic,” and asks that the SENTINEL aid in correcting that idea. This the SENTINEL is doing and will continue to do. It is true, non-Catholics are not necessarily Protestants, but it is also true that many professed Protestants are not Protestants at all. AMS August 16, 1894, page 259.1
The word “Protestant” as applied to those who oppose the papacy, is derived from the word “protest,” which appeared in the famous document presented by the dissenting princes at the Diet of Spires, April 19, 1629. AMS August 16, 1894, page 259.2
The Diet of Spires, in 1526, decreed religious liberty, but in 1629 the Roman Catholic princes proposed to annul the decree of 1526 and declare instead that “the ministers shall preach the gospel, exclaiming it according to the writings accepted by the holy Christian [Roman Catholic] Church.” AMS August 16, 1894, page 259.3
Against this proposed decree the princes who espoused the Reformation protested in the following noble words:— AMS August 16, 1894, page 259.4
Moreover, the new edict declaring the ministers shall preach the gospel, explaining it according to the writings accepted by the holy Christian Church; we think that, for this regulation to have any value, we should first agree on what is meant by the true and holy Church. Now, seeing that there is great diversity of opinion in this respect; that there is no sure doctrine but such as is conformable to the Word of God; that the Lord forbids the teaching of any other doctrine; that each text of the Holy Scriptures ought to be explained by other and clearer texts; that this Holy Book is in all things necessary for the Christian, easy of understanding, and calculated to scatter the darkness; we are resolved, with the grace of God, to maintain the pure and exclusive preaching of his only Word, such as it is contained in the biblical books of the Old and New Testaments, without adding anything thereto that may be contrary to it. This Word is the only truth; it is the sure rule of all doctrine and of all life, and can never fail or deceive us. He who builds on this foundation shall stand against all the powers of hell, whilst all the human vanities that are set up against it shall fall before the face of God. AMS August 16, 1894, page 259.5
For these reasons, most dear lords, uncles, cousins, and friends, we earnestly entreat you to weigh carefully our grievances and our motives. If you do not yield to our request, we PROTEST by these presents, before God, our only Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, and Saviour, and who will one day be our Judge, as well as before all men and all creatures, that we, for us and for our people neither consent nor adhere in any manner whatever to the proposed decree, in anything that is contrary to God, to his holy Word, to our right conscience, to the salvation of our souls, and to the last decree of Spires. AMS August 16, 1894, page 259.6
This was Protestantism in the 16th century, and it is true Protestantism in the closing years of the 19th century. True Protestantism says: “There is no sure doctrine but such as is conformable to the Word of God.” He who teaches or practices contrary to this is not a Protestant. True Protestantism says: “The Lord forbids the teaching of any other doctrine.” He who teaches any other doctrine is not a Protestant. True Protestantism pledges itself “to maintain the pure and exclusive preaching of his only Word, such as it is contained in the biblical books of the Old and New Testaments, without adding anything thereto that may be contrary to it.” Where true Protestantism is found to-day this pledge is maintained. AMS August 16, 1894, page 259.7
When the civil power attempts to prohibit the exercise of this great privilege and duty, either in precept or practice, true Protestantism arises in its Christian manhood and refuses either to “consent” or “adhere in any manner whatever,” and makes its protest in the face of kings, and princes, “lords, uncles, cousins and friends,” and “before all men and all creatures.” This is true Protestantism; but it is more, it is true Christianity, and none but a true Christian can be a true Protestant though he may be opposed to the Roman Catholic Church and belong to an anti-Roman Catholic society. AMS August 16, 1894, page 259.8
We recommend to our correspondent and to all others who wish to examine this matter further and do missionary work among their neighbors to secure copies of a little thirty-two page tract, entitled, “Protestantism, True and False,” published by the International Religious Liberty Association, and for sale at the SENTINEL office. A second edition of this tract has just been issued, which contains three appendixes of valuable new matter. Those who read the tract on its first publication ought to get a copy of the second edition, price 4 cents, $2.00 per hundred. AMS August 16, 1894, page 259.9
“Saint Worship” American Sentinel 9, 33, p. 261.
AT Saint Anne de Beaupré, a small town on the St. Lawrence River, about twenty-three miles below Quebec, is located a Roman Catholic shrine. To this shrine more than one hundred and fifty thousand “pilgrims” will resort during the year 1894. Some will come from the United States, but a majority are French Catholics from the Catholic Province of Quebec. Excursionists or “pilgrims” flock to the shrine of “St. Anne,” by boat and by rail, led by their parish priest, and on landing march to the church, chanting the litany with pious ardor. They bring with them the maimed, the sick, the halt, and the blind, believing that “St. Anne” will cure them. On the arrival of a pilgrimage they immediately arrival of a pilgrimage they immediately repair to the church of “St. Anne,” where mass is celebrated for their benefit, and then begins the worship of “St. Anne.” AMS August 16, 1894, page 261.1
But who is “St. Anne”? Let a book entitled, “Manual of Devotion to Good St. Anne,” containing the official indorsement of “Cardinal Taschereau, Archbishop of Quebec,” answer: “St. Anne is the mother of the mother of God” (p. 73), “the mother of Mary and the grandmother of Jesus” (p. 71), “who from all eternity was more agreeable to God than all other mothers, the Blessed Virgin excepted.” p. 132. Where does the cardinal get this astonishing information? Let the book again reply:— AMS August 16, 1894, page 261.2
The sacred Scriptures speak very little of many holy personages whose destiny was bound up with the work of our redemption. A single page would contain all that is directly related therein of the Blessed Virgin, and scarcely is St. Joseph mentioned at all, while the life, the virtues, and even the name of St. Anne has been left in complete oblivion. The ever blessed and beloved name of St. Anne has been transmitted to us only by tradition and by the gratitude of Christian nations (p. 70). AMS August 16, 1894, page 261.3
But why make pilgrimages to St. Anne de Beaupré? Why ask “St. Anne” to heal the sick? Is “St. Anne” at Beaupré? Oh, no; only “a notable fragment of a finger bone of St. Anne” (p. 73). Where was it obtained? AMS August 16, 1894, page 261.4
St. Anne, after her holy death, was buried near Jerusalem; but later on her sacred remains were deposited in the church of the “sepulchre of our lady” in the valley of Jehoshaphat. During the reign of the Roman Emperor Trajan, in the first century of Christendom, the venerable body of St. Anne, or rather the greater portion of it, was brought over to the town of Apt, in the diocese of Avignon (France) where it is still held in deep veneration. 1 AMS August 16, 1894, page 261.5
Concerning the removal of these precious remains, it is reported that one day a mysterious bark was seen to approach the shores of France. It had neither sail nor rudder, but God was its pilot. Never had the ocean borne a greater treasure. For in the bark were St. Lazarus, with his pious sisters, St. Mary Magdalene and St. Martha, together with several other saintly women. They were fleeing from Palestine, their country, carrying away with them [a] number of priceless relics, the most precious among which was the hallowed body of St. Anne.... However, on account of the reigning persecutions, St. Anne’s body had to be buried in the ground to protect it against sacrilegious hands, and at length the place where it had been secreted was wholly forgotten. Pp. 1-4. AMS August 16, 1894, page 261.6
Not to weary the reader longer with details, this Cardinal-indorsed story goes on to say that “a miracle caused the discovery of the hiding place” in 792, seven hundred years after its loss. When found, it is asserted that the case bore the words: “Here lies the body of St. Anne, mother of the Glorious Virgin Mary.” From the discovered body the “notable fragment of a finger bone of St. Anne” was secured and exhibited at Beaupré in 1670. “Finally in 1891, after long and constant entreaties, the chapter of Carcassone has graciously condescended to divide into two equal parts its valuable relics of St. Anne, namely, the hand bones, and to share this priceless object with our church.” So according to this childish story there is at Beaupré, Quebec, “a fragment of a finger bone of St. Anne” and the half of her “hand bones.” This is the reason a hundred and fifty thousand “pilgrims” will visit the place this year, and prostrate themselves on the floor before a glass case containing a part of the relic, and crowd, as the writer has seen, like sheep at a salt lick, around this decaying fragment of mortality, hoping to kiss the glass that covers it. The blind, the halt, and the maimed, aided by friends and relatives, struggle to touch, not the hem of the garment of Jesus, “who ever liveth to make intercession for us,” but the decaying “fragment of the finger bone” of the “grandmother of Jesus.” More anon. AMS August 16, 1894, page 261.7