The American Sentinel 9
March 8, 1894
“Editorial” American Sentinel 9, 10, pp. 73, 74.
THE AMERICAN SENTINEL is Christian. AMS March 8, 1894, page 73.1
THE AMERICAN SENTINEL is AMS March 8, 1894, page 73.2
THE AMERICAN SENTINEL is Christian. AMS March 8, 1894, page 73.3
THE AMERICAN SENTINEL is AMS March 8, 1894, page 73.4
THE AMERICAN SENTINEL is AMS March 8, 1894, page 73.5
THE AMERICAN SENTINEL is AMS March 8, 1894, page 73.6
THE AMERICAN SENTINEL is Protestant. AMS March 8, 1894, page 73.7
AND the AMERICAN SENTINEL is American. AMS March 8, 1894, page 73.8
THE AMERICAN SENTINEL is therefore everlastingly and uncompromisingly opposed to every element and every principle of the papacy wherever, and in whatever guise, it may appear. AMS March 8, 1894, page 73.9
AND being Christian, Protestant, and American, the opposition of the AMERICAN SENTINEL to the papacy, whether in the guise of a professed Protestantism or in her own proper dress, always has been, and always will be, conducted upon strictly Christian, Protestant and American principles. AMS March 8, 1894, page 73.10
THIS subject of opposition to the papacy in the United States needs to be very carefully studied, lest it be done in such a way as to really help her instead of hindering her. The papacy needs to be opposed and must be opposed in her designs upon the United States and the world as well as in every other thing. But this opposition, to avail anything, must be made upon right principles and must be conducted in the right way. AMS March 8, 1894, page 73.11
IF opposition to the papacy be conducted upon unchristian principles, it will only increase her antichristian power and influence. If this opposition be conducted upon unprotestant principles the only effect will be to make more widespread the influence of Catholicism. The papacy is un-American, it is true, but if opposition to her is conducted on un-American principles her un-American power and influence is only increased, and her upon the country is more confirmed, and her taking possession of the country is only hastened. AMS March 8, 1894, page 73.12
THEREFORE it is that this question of opposing the papacy requires the most careful thought upon the part of all who would engaged in it, lest they be found really aiding her while professedly opposing her, and while really intending to oppose her. This is true in the cease at any time, because of the exceeding subtlety of her workings; but now it is doubly true, because, in addition to the subtlety of her workings, she has, as we showed last week, such a clear field and such an immense advantage in every way, for the carrying forward of her avowed purpose to possess America for herself. AMS March 8, 1894, page 73.13
IT has been seriously proposed to disfranchise Catholics in the United States who will not renounce allegiance to the pope. But this could never be done on any American principle. The Catholic’s allegiance to the pope is a religious matter—it is a spiritual thing. And to deny or curtail political right on account of religious profession is clearly and entirely un-American. It is a fundamental principle, as well as a constitutional provision, of the Government of the United States, that religious profession shall never have any bearing upon civil rights or political qualifications. To the Catholic the pope is in the place of God, and is the representative of God: he believes that allegiance to the pope is allegiance to God. And it is in this sense that the Catholic professes and holds allegiance to the pope. This cannot fairly be denied. His allegiance to the pope is therefore a religious thing, it is a religious profession, and is to him an essential part of his worship as to God. And to propose to abridge his political rights on account of his allegiance to the pope, is therefore plainly to deny civil or political right on account of religious profession, and is therefore just as clearly unconstitutional and un-American. AMS March 8, 1894, page 73.14
IT will not do to say in answer to this, although it be perfectly true, that the pope’s claims to be the representative of God, or to be God, are a fraud and an imposture, and therefore the Catholic’s belief in the pope and his allegiance to him are a fallacy and are indeed really nothing religiously. This is all true, but that does not touch the point here. The Catholic believes and religiously believes that the pope’s claims are genuine, and that his prerogatives are divine: that is the Catholic’s religious profession. And the point is that he has the inalienable right to believe thus and to hold this religious profession, without question or molestation from any source or for any cause. It is a fundamental American principle and sound American doctrine, that for “each one to believe for himself and to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience is an inalienable right.” And that “our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow-citizens, he has a natural right.” This, we say, is sound and fundamental American principle and doctrine. And therefore it is clear that any proposition to make the Catholic’s allegiance to the pope a test or impediment against any civil or political right is decidedly un-American. Consequently, any such method as that of opposing the papacy in the United States not only will not succeed but will actually aid her, in that it subverts fundamental principles and breaks down constitutional safeguards. And when these are subverted and broken down for any cause whatever, they are subverted and broken down for every cause—they are indeed no more, and the nation becomes but the prey of the violent and the most violent take it by force. Such procedure can only hasten the success and supremacy of the papacy. And therefore the AMERICAN SENTINEL, being American, and opposed to the papacy, can never indorse, nor engage in, any such method of “opposition.” AMS March 8, 1894, page 73.15
BISHOPE COXE proposed another method of “opposition” to the papacy, which is worth notice, not only because it is an example of how not to do it, but because it has been quite widely indorsed. We have given in these columns the bishop’s clear statement of the situation as regards the papacy in the United States, and have given him credit for it. And we also give him credit for good intentions regarding opposition to the papacy. But as his raising the alarm is robbed of its force by the fact of his having helped to create the alarming situation, so his proposed opposition is robbed of all its force by the method which he proposes. Here is his proposition as made in his second open letter to Satolli:— AMS March 8, 1894, page 73.16
When Buddhists shall have 500,000 votes from this country, we shall find out how to prohibit the Grand Llama from sending his “ablegate” here to contol them. You may force us to make a general law applicable to the pope and the Grand Llama alike. AMS March 8, 1894, page 74.1
But how such a law could be made in accordance with any American principle the bishop does not attempt to say, even if he ever took time to think on that phase of the subject. Such a law as Bishop Coxe suggests could not possibly be anything else than a law respecting an establishment of religion and prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Such a law therefore would be in direct violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” And that the bishop means just such a law, as indeed there could be no other, is made certain by his own words in the sentences immediately following the one above quoted. Here are his words to Satolli:— AMS March 8, 1894, page 74.2
Now, look at the French law, established by the First Consul and accepted by the pope himself. Here it is textually translated:— AMS March 8, 1894, page 74.3
No individual calling himself nuncio, legate, vicar or commissary apostolic, or availing himself of any other denomination, shall, without the authorization of the Government, exercise any function relative to the affairs of the Gallican Church upon the soil or any where else. AMS March 8, 1894, page 74.4
Any such law as that would be at once to make the Government the head of all religion, which would be but the papacy under another form and under another head. The enactment of any such law, either in word or in principle, would be, at that one stroke, to sweep away every principle of the Government as established by those who made the Government. It would be, at that one stroke, to destroy the Government as it was founded upon American, Protestant and Christian principles, and to set up in its place a government committed to and actuated by papal principles only. That it would be done by professed Protestants would alter neither the principle nor the prospect. Professed Protestants have done such things before. And in all such instances the only thing that ever kept them from being, in all respects, like the papacy itself, was only the limitations upon their power. The only thing that ever kept John Calvin from being to the fullest extent like Innocent the Third, was the he did not have the power of Innocent the Third. The only thing that ever kept either the Puritans of England or of New England, or the Episopalians of England or Maryland, from being, in all respects, like the papacy, as they were in so many respects, was that they did not have the power of the papacy. And if the principles here announced by Bishop Coxe should prevail in the United States, we have no assurance that the people would be any better off under the superintendence of Bishop Coxe than they would be under Archbishop O’Flannagan or Cardinal O’Mulligan. And we positively know that with the principles of the Government, maintained as they were originally established, the people would be far better off with ten thousand “ablegates” here, than they could be without one, under the procedure proposed by Bishop Coxe; for this procedure would open wide the door for every bigot—political, religious, or other kind—in the land, to make himself an “ablegate” over everybody else. And the event would prove that they would all make themselves such too. Bishop Coxe’s proposed remedy is far worse than is the real disease, which we dread equally with him. AMS March 8, 1894, page 74.5
NO! Upon American, Protestant, and Christian principles, the Grand Llama has as much right to send an “ablegate” here to control 500,000 Buddhists as he has to send a priest to control five, or as any individual has to be a Buddhist at all: that is, a full, complete and untrammeled right. And under these principles the pope has just as much right to send an ablegate here to control 7,000,000 Catholics, as he has to create a cardinal here, or to appoint a priest here, or as any individual here has to be a Catholic at all: and that is, a perfect right. And no restriction can be put upon that right without, at the same time and in the same act, sweeping away the safeguards of all the rights of all the people. And, surely, every person who will take the time to think must readily decide that it is far better to maintain the principles and the safeguards of all the rights of himself and all the people, and bear the presence of an “ablegate,” than to sweep away all the safeguards of all the rights of himself and all the people in an attempt to get rid of the “ablegate.” AMS March 8, 1894, page 74.6
BUT it may be said, and truly, that the papacy with its ablegate, and in its whole system, is not only religious but political, and interferes in politics and manipulates votes, and thus herself violates the principles of the Government and the Constitution. Yes, that is true. The papacy is nothing if not political as well as religious. “The help of the law and State authority” is an essential element in the work of the papacy. She does interfere in politics and does manipulate votes, and does, thus and otherwise, violate the principles of the Government and the provisions of the Constitution. And there are many professed Protestant church-managers, who have set for her the pernicious example by repeatedly doing the same things. And this is where they are just like the papacy. But even though this were not so, and there were no such example set, it is manifestly vain to attempt or expect to defeat the wrong-doing of the papacy, by doing the same things, and the same way that she does. No person nor anything can be right by being like the papacy. We can be right only by being entirely unlike the papacy in all things. When the papacy violates the principles, or the Constitution, of the Government, it will not help the matter for us also to violate these principles or the Constitution. Violation of American principles by Catholics cannot be stopped by the violation of these principles by people who are not Catholics. One breach of American principles is not cured, but is increased by a good deal more than double, by the committal of another. Such is not the way to oppose the papacy in the United States. And as the AMERICAN SENTINEL is American indeed, we can never join in or indorse any such “opposition” to the papacy. AMS March 8, 1894, page 74.7
THE reader may be ready to ask, “Do you propose to surrender to Rome altogether”?—Oh, no, never! We propose to have the victory over Rome altogether. It may be inquired then, “How do you propose to do it?” Well, we shall tell that later. But in the meantime we beg leave to remark that the present position and work of the papacy in the United States presents a much greater question than the American people realize, and a question which requires much more careful and critical thought than many people have ever yet given to it. AMS March 8, 1894, page 74.8
A. T. J.
“Christianity and the Roman Empire” American Sentinel 9, 10, p. 76.
THE controversy between Christianity and Rome was not a dispute between individuals, or a contention between sects or parties; it was a contest between antagonistic principles. On the part of Christianity it was the assertion of the principle of the rights of conscience and of the individual; on the part of Rome it was the assertion of the principle of the absolute absorption of the individual, and his total enslavement to the State in all things; divine as well as human, religious as well as civil. AMS March 8, 1894, page 76.1
Jesus Christ came into the world to set men free, and to plant in their souls the genuine principle of liberty,—liberty actuated by love,—liberty too honorable to allow itself to be used as an occasion to the flesh, or for a cloak of maliciousness,—liberty led by a conscience enlightened by the Spirit of God,—liberty in which man may be free from all men, yet made so gentle by love that he would willingly become the servant of all, in order to bring them to the enjoyment of this same liberty. This is freedom indeed. This is the freedom which Christ gave to man; for whom the Son makes free, is free indeed. In giving to men this freedom, such an infinite gift could have no other result than that which Christ intended; namely, to bind them in everlasting, unquestioning, unswerving allegiance to him as the royal benefactor of the race. He thus reveals himself to men as the highest good, and brings them to himself as the manifestation of that highest good, and to obedience to his will as the perfection of conduct. Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh. Thus God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, that they might know him, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he sent. He gathered to himself disciples, instructed them in his heavenly doctrine, endued them with power from on high, sent them forth into all the world to preach this gospel of freedom to every creature, and to teach them to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them. AMS March 8, 1894, page 76.2
The Roman Empire then filled the world,—“the sublimest incarnation of power, and a monument the mightiest of greatness built by human hands, which has upon this planet been suffered to appear.” That empire, proud of its conquests, and exceedingly jealous of its claims, asserted its right to rule in all things, human and divine. In the Roman view, the State took precedence of everything. It was entirely out of respect to the State, that either the emperors of the laws ever forbade the exercise of the Christian religion. According to Roman principles, the State was the highest idea of good. Neander says: “The idea of the State was the highest idea of ethics; and within that was included all actual realization of the highest good; hence the development of all other goods pertaining to humanity, was made dependent on this.” AMS March 8, 1894, page 76.3
It will be seen at once that for any man to profess the principles and the name of Christ, was virtually to set himself against the Roman Empire; for him to recognize God as revealed in Jesus Christ as the highest good, was but treason against the Roman State. It would not be looked upon by Rome as anything else than high treason, because the Roman State representing to the Roman the highest idea of good, for any man to assert that there was a higher good, and thus make Rome itself subordinate. Consequently the Christians were not only called “atheists,” because they denied the gods, but the accusation against them before the tribunals was for the crime of “high treason,” because they denied the right of the State to interfere with men’s relations to God. The accusation was that they were “irreverent to the Cesars, and enemies of the Cesars and of the Roman people.” AMS March 8, 1894, page 76.4
To the Christian, the Word of God asserted with absolute authority: “Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.” Ecclesiastes 12:13. To him, obedience to this word through faith in Christ, was eternal life. This to him was the conduct which showed his allegiance to God as the highest good,—a good as much higher than that of the Roman State as the government of God is greater than was the government of Rome. AMS March 8, 1894, page 76.5
This idea of the State, was not merely the State as a civil institution, but as a divine institution, and the highest conception of divinity itself. The genius of Rome was the supreme deity. Thus the idea of the State as the highest good was the religious idea, and consequently, religion was inseparable from the State. Hence the maxim, Vox populi, vox dei,—the voice of the people is the voice of God. As this voice gave expression to the will of the supreme deity, and consequently of the highest good; and as this will was expressed in the form of laws, hence again the Roman maxim, “What the law says is right.” AMS March 8, 1894, page 76.6
It is very evident that in such a system there was no place for individuality. The State was everything, and the majority was in fact the State. What the majority said should be, that was the voice of the State, that was the voice of God, that was the expression of the highest good, that was the expression of the highest conception of right;—and everybody must assent to that or be considered a traitor to the State. The individual was but a part of the State. There was therefore no such thing as the rights of the people; the right of the State only was to be considered, and that was to be considered absolute. “The first principle of their law was the paramount right of the State over the citizen.” AMS March 8, 1894, page 76.7
It is also evident that in such a system there was no such thing as the rights of conscience; because, as the State was supreme also in the realm of religion, all things religious were to be subordinated to the will of the State, which was but the will of the majority. And where the majority presumes to decide in matters of religion, there is no such thing as rights of religion or conscience. AMS March 8, 1894, page 76.8
Christianity was directly opposed to this, as shown by the words of Christ, who, when asked by the Pharisees and the Herodians whether it was lawful to give tribute to Cesar or not, answered: “Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” In this, Christ established a clear distinction between Cesar and God, and between religion and the State. He separated that which pertains to God from that which pertains to the State. Only that which was Cesar’s was to be rendered to Cesar, while that which is God’s was to be rendered to God, and with no reference whatever to Cesar. AMS March 8, 1894, page 76.9
The State being divine, and the Cesar reflecting this divinity, whatever was God’s was Cesar’s. Therefore when Christ made this distinction between God and Cesar, separated that which pertains to God from that which pertains to Cesar, and commanded men to render to God that which is God’s, and to Cesar only that which is Cesar’s, He at once stripped Cesar—the State—of every attribute of divinity. And in doing this he declared the supremacy of the individual conscience; because it rests with the individual to decide what things they are which pertain to God. AMS March 8, 1894, page 76.10
Thus Christianity proclaimed the right of the individual to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience; Rome asserted the duty of every man to worship according to the dictates of the State. Christianity asserted the supremacy of God; Rome asserted the supremacy of the State. Christianity set forth God as manifested in Jesus Christ as the chief good; Rome held the State to be the highest good. Christianity set forth the law of God as the expression of the highest conception of right; Rome held the law of the State to be the expression of the highest idea of right. Christianity taught that the fear of God and the keeping of His commandments is the whole duty of man; Rome taught that to be the obedient servant of the State is the whole duty of man. Christianity preached Christ as the sole possessor of power in heaven and in earth; Rome declared the State to be the highest power. Christianity separated that which is God’s from that which is Cesar’s; Rome maintained that that which is God’s is Cesar’s. AMS March 8, 1894, page 76.11
This was the contest, and these were the reasons of it, between Christianity and the Roman Empire. AMS March 8, 1894, page 76.12