The American Sentinel 9
March 15, 1894
“Editorial” American Sentinel 9, 11, pp. 81, 82.
IT is perhaps expected by the readers of the AMERICAN SENTINEL that, in discussing opposition to the papacy in the United States, we should say something in regard to the A. P. A. AMS March 15, 1894, page 81.1
THIS we are not unwilling to do, both on our own part, and because the A. P. A. has attracted a good deal of attention for some time, and is now being condemned and denounced without measure by prominent politicians, by prominent newspapers, and by the Catholic Church. AMS March 15, 1894, page 81.2
TO be condemned by the papacy is in itself an evidence of merit. And as the A. P. A. is unqualifiedly condemned and denounced by the papacy and her “Protestant” apologists in the United States, this in itself it a strong suggestion that there is at the very least something about the A. P. A. that is commendable. AMS March 15, 1894, page 81.3
WHAT, then, is the A. P. A.? and what is it for? Let it be understood, however, that we are not qualified to speak officially, nor in any other way, as a representative of the A. P. A., nor as in any way connected with it, but only as an observer. As an observer though, as one who has studied this subject for a longer time than the A. P. A. has been in existence, if we mistake not, and as one who has studied every phase of the subject that has yet appeared, and some phases which have not yet appeared—as such an observer we may be allowed to express ourselves. AMS March 15, 1894, page 81.4
THE initials “A. P. A.” signify “American Protective Association.” As we understand it, the object of this association is chiefly, and in brief, to protect the American Government and people from the domination of the papacy, by opposing every kind of union of Church and State. It is therefore necessarily opposed to the encroachments of the papacy upon the Government through any of her political scheming or aggression. That there is abundant room and great need of something of this kind being done is evident to every person who has watched, in any sort of fair-minded way, the course of public or governmental affairs for the past twenty years or any part thereof, or who will so watch affairs now. This the regular readers of the AMERICAN SENTINEL know full well; because all that the SENTINEL has ever existed for is to point out these very evils and dangers. And now there are so many of them and they multiply so fast we can hardly describe them all as they pass. AMS March 15, 1894, page 81.5
THAT such work is proper according to every principle of the Government and Constitution of the United States, is plain to every person who knows the A B C of these principles or of the history of the making of the Constitution and Government of the United States. The Government of the United States was established upon the principles of the total separation of the Government from any church or religion and specifically the Christian religion: and this for the express purpose of escaping any establishment of the Catholic Church or religion. Jefferson and Madison, and their fellow-workers for civil and religious liberty, declared that “To judge for ourselves and to engage in the exercise of religion agreeably to the dictates of our own conscience, is an inalienable right, which, upon the principles on which the gospel was first propagated, and the Reformation from popery carried on, can never be transferred to another.” They said that “it is impossible for the magistrate to adjudge the right of preference among the various sects that profess the Christian faith, without erecting a claim to infallibility, which would lead us back to the Church of Rome.” They opposed all governmental favors to “the Christian religion,” because, as they said, “Distant as it may be in its present form, from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other is the last, in the career of intolerance.” Thus spoke the heroes and patriots who established on this continent the separation of religion and the State as a governmental principle, and who made the Government of the United States with the principle declared in its Constitution. And they did it, as they repeatedly declared, that the people of the United States might not be led back to Rome, to popery, and to the Inquisition. AMS March 15, 1894, page 81.6
AND the maintenance of these principles to-day for the same purpose for which they were established is as proper and as honorable as was the establishment of those principles in the beginning. It is as proper and as honorable for men to-day to maintain these principles as it was for Jefferson and Madison to advocate them, and secure their establishment as the principles of the Government, when the Government was made. So far, therefore, as the object of the A. P. A. is concerned, it is precisely the object which the makers of the Government had in view when they prohibited any connection of the Government with any religion. In the object announced the A. P. A. are in the company of Jefferson, Madison, and their fellow-workers in “the times of ‘76.” This, as to their object, we say. Some of their methods may be wrong. But even though some of their methods be wrong; or even though all their methods be wrong, that cannot prove the object wrong. Whatever the methods, the object is as certainly right as that the principles of the United States Government, as founded by our fathers, are right. AMS March 15, 1894, page 81.7
OF the political methods of the A. P. A. we know nothing personally. We have seen statements by Catholic papers and their partisans of what these methods are. But if we understand rightly, the methods of the A. P. A. are really known to only the members. And so, not knowing for ourselves these methods, and not being willing to take our information from the avowed enemies of the order, we are prepared to examine, with perfect impartiality, whatever those methods may be supposed to be. By the report of the case in the Toledo Court, it appears that the A. P. A.’s of that city, at least, are arming. We gave our view of this matter last week, that it is clearly wrong. It is only following the methods of the papacy, and it cannot win in opposition to the papacy. If this be true of the A. P. A.’s throughout the country, then they are all wrong in this particular, and should change their course at once in this matter. AMS March 15, 1894, page 81.8
IF it be true that the A. P. A. proposes to accomplish its object by disfranchising or curtailing the political or civil rights of Catholics, that method is certainly wrong. If, however, the A. P. A. proposes to accomplish its object by recognizing the political and civil rights of Catholics equally with all others, while at the same time insisting that every citizen and every candidate for office shall faithfully maintain the fundamental principles of the Government, and the plain provisions and intent of the Constitution, then this is certainly right. If the A. P. A. proposes to accomplish its right object by the application of a religious test in any case, that method is wrong. If the A. P. A. proposes to accomplish its proper object by the test of the fundamental principles of the Government and the provisions of the Constitution in every case, then that method is certainly right. If the A. P. A. should apply even the test of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of the Government only to Catholics, this method would be wrong. If the A. P. A. applies this proper test to professed Protestants and all others like, then this is certainly right. If the A. P. A. opposes only Catholic aggression and encroachments upon the Government, this is not enough. To be right it must oppose “Protestant” aggression and encroachment as well, and also every other that infringes to a hairbreadth the fundamental principles, or the Constitution, of the Government. If the A. P. A. opposes only Catholic interference with the public school, this is not enough. It must equally oppose “Protestant” interference with the public school. If the A. P. A. opposes only religious interference with the public school, this is not enough. To be right and to further its avowed objects the A. P. A. must oppose every shadow and every vestige of Sunday legislation, whether by Congress or State legislatures; it must oppose all Government chaplaincies whether national or State; it must oppose all assumption on the part of the President of the United States or the governor of any State of the prerogative of proclaiming religious exercises on any day; it must oppose all appropriations of public money to any churches or religious orders for any purpose whatever; it must oppose this join resolution, which is now before Congress, to add a religious amendment to the national Constitution; it must oppose the assumption, on the part of the judiciary, whether State or national, of insinuating religious matters into their decisions and imposing them upon the people as the law—all this must the A. P. A. do if it will make good its avowed object of protecting the American Government and people from the domination of the papacy, and prevent the union of Church and State. It may be that the A. P. A. is doing all this: We sincerely hope so. It may be also that the A. P. A. is doing all this in the right way and accomplishing the good and proper object of its organization by right methods in all things. This also we sincerely hope it is doing; for, as the object of the A. P. A. is certainly right, we sincerely desire to see all its methods right also, so that it can win. And, indeed, we want it to be right, whether it wins or not. AMS March 15, 1894, page 82.1
HON. W. F. VILAMS, United States Senator from Wisconsin, in a letter to the Catholic Citizen of Milwaukee, condemning and denouncing the A. P. A., says:— AMS March 15, 1894, page 82.2
Its enemies accuse the Catholic Church of aggression. When they point out an act which crosses the line of separation [of Church and State] they may call for its repulsion. But the false charge as the basis of a crusade ought to deceive no man.—Copied in Catholic Mirror, January 20, 1894. AMS March 15, 1894, page 82.3
It is perfectly easy to point out an act of aggression of the Catholic Church which crosses the line. In 1885, the first year of Mr. Cleveland’s first administration, while Mr. Vilas himself was a member of Mr. Cleveland’s cabinet, the Catholic Church established “The Catholic Bureau of Missions” in Washington, D. C., as stated by Senator Dawes in the Senate July 24, 1890, “for the express purpose of pushing [Catholic] Indian schools on the Government” for support. She succeeded and has been drawing public money ever since for her church work among the Indians, and in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1893, she received $365,935 of public money for this purpose. And ever since Harrison’s first year there have been calls “for its repulsion.” President Harrison tried to repel it, but was forced to confess to the nation that he “found it impossible to do that.” Did Senator Vilas vote for this appropriation for 1894, and will he vote for its renewal for 1895? or is he doing his duty, under his senatorial oath, to repel it? AMS March 15, 1894, page 82.4
BUT it is said, the A. P. A. is a secret organization. This is a queer cry to raise by anybody who knows anything of the papacy. The papacy is the most secret organization that was ever on the earth. And for people who apologize for the papacy to make against other organizations the charge of “secrecy” is entirely characteristic of the spirit of that craft institution. Senator Vilas remarks on this point, against the A. P. A., thus:— AMS March 15, 1894, page 82.5
When a secret organization can make dangerous headway in political affairs among us, it will be time, not for your [Catholics] special alarm, but for terror to us all. AMS March 15, 1894, page 82.6
This, in view of Jesuit Thomas Sherman’s late piece of manuscript that slipped out, and in view of the general dangerous headway in political affairs of that mistress of secrecy, the papacy, is worthy of a medal for innocence. We are not apologizing for the secrecy of the A. P. A., that is an affair of its own—we are only calling attention to the precious innocence displayed in this sentence of Senator Vilas’. We may be allowed to remark, however, that neither the A. P. A. nor any other organization nor person, can cope with the papacy by secret methods. The papacy being perfect mistress of every method and element of secrecy, there can be no plan of secrecy devised in opposition to her, that can win. She can undermine them all. The Scripture declares that “craft shall prosper” in her hand, and every one is at a disadvantage who attempts to oppose her by crafty or secret methods. AMS March 15, 1894, page 82.7
A. T. J.
“The Limits of Civil Jurisdiction” American Sentinel 9, 11, pp. 82, 83.
IN an article in these columns last week is was shown that the conflict between Christianity and the Roman Empire was one involving the rights of conscience. Christianity taught that the fear of God and the keeping of his commandments was the whole duty of man; Rome taught that to be the obedient servant of the State was the whole duty of man. This was the irrepressible conflict. Yet in all this Christianity did not deny to Cesar a place; it did not propose to undo the State. It only taught the State its proper place; and proposed to have the State take that place and keep it. Christianity did not dispute the right of the Roman State to be; it only denied the right of that State to be in the place of God. In the very words in which He separated between that which is Cesar’s and that which is God’s, Christ recognized the rightfulness of Cesar’s existence; and that there were things that rightfully belong to Cesar, and which were to be rendered to him by Christians. He said, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Cesar’s.” In these words He certainly recognized that Cesar had jurisdiction in certain things, and that within that jurisdiction he was to be respected. As Caesar represented the State, in this scripture the phrase represents the State, whether it be the State of Rome or any other State on earth. This is simply the statement of the right of civil government to be; that there are certain things over which civil government has jurisdiction; and that in these things the authority of civil government is to be respected. AMS March 15, 1894, page 82.1
This jurisdiction is more clearly defined in Paul’s letter to the Romans, chap. 13:1-10. There it is commanded, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.” In this is asserted the right of the higher powers—that is, the right of the State—to exercise authority, and that Christians must be subject to that authority. Further it is given as a reason for this, that “there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” This not only asserts the right of the State to be and to exercise authority, but it also asserts the truth that the State is an ordinance of God, and that the power which it exercises is ordained of God. Yet in this very assertion Christianity was held to be antagonistic to Rome, because it put the God of the Christians above the Roman State, and made the State to be only an ordinance of the God of the Christians. For the Roman empire, or for any of the Roman emperors, to have recognized the truth of this statement, would have been at once to revolutionize the whole system of civil and religious economy of the Romans, and to deny at once the value of the accumulated wisdom of all the generations of the Roman ages. Yet that was the only proper alternative of the Roman State, and that is what ought to have been done. AMS March 15, 1894, page 82.2
Civil government being thus declared to be of God, and its authority ordained of God, the instruction proceeds: “Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation .... Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.” Governments being of God, and their authority being ordained of God, Christians in respecting God will necessarily respect, in its place, the exercise of the authority ordained by him; but this authority, according to the words of Christ, is to be exercised only in those things which are Cesar’s, and not in things which pertain to God. Accordingly, the letter to the Romans proceeds: “For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.” This connects Paul’s argument directly with that of Christ above referred to, and shows that this is but a comment on that statement, and an extension of the argument therein contained. AMS March 15, 1894, page 82.3
The scripture proceeds: “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Owe no man anything, but to love one another; for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” AMS March 15, 1894, page 83.1
Let it be borne in mind that the apostle is here writing to Christians concerning the respect and duty which they are to render to the powers that be, that is, to the State in fact. He knew full well, and so did those to whom he wrote, that there are other commandments in the very law of which a part is here quoted. But he and they likewise knew that these other commandments do not in any way relate to any man’s duty or respect to the powers that be. Those other commandments of the law which is here partly quoted, relate to God and to man’s duty to Him. One of them is, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me;” another, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,” etc.; another, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain;” and another, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy; six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” etc.; and these are briefly comprehended in that saying, namely, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” According to the words of the Christ, all these obligations, pertaining solely to God, are to be rendered to Him only, and with man in this realm, Cesar can never of right have anything to do in any way whatever. AMS March 15, 1894, page 83.2
As, therefore, the instruction in Romans 13:1-10 is given to Christians concerning their duty and respect to the powers that be, and as this instruction is confined absolutely to man’s relationship to his fellow men, it is evident that when Christians have paid their taxes, and have shown proper respect to their fellow men, then their obligation, their duty, and their respect, to the powers that be, have been fully discharged, and those powers never can rightly have any further jurisdiction over their conduct. This is not to say that the State has jurisdiction of the last six commandments as such. It is only to say that the jurisdiction of the State is confined solely to man’s conduct toward man, and never can touch his relationship to God, even under the second table of the law. AMS March 15, 1894, page 83.3
This doctrine asserts the right of every man to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience, as he pleases, and when he pleases. Just this, however, was the subject of the whole controversy between Christianity and the Roman empire. There was never any honest charge made that the Christians did violence to any man, or refused to pay tribute. Therefore, as a matter of fact the whole controversy between Christianity and the Roman empire was upon the simple question of the rights of conscience,—the question whether it is the right of every man to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience, or whether it is his duty to worship according to the dictates of the State. AMS March 15, 1894, page 83.4
“Hearing Before the House Judiciary Committee” American Sentinel 9, 11, p. 84.
TUESDAY, March 6, 1894, there was held by the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives in Congress, a hearing of the promoters of the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States establishing “the Christian religion.” The resolution to amend the Constitution runs as follows:— AMS March 15, 1894, page 84.1
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the preamble of the Constitution of the United States, “acknowledging the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and nations. AMS March 15, 1894, page 84.2
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein). That the following amended form of the preamble of the Constitution of the United States be proposed for ratification by conventions in the several States, which, when ratified by conventions in three-fourths of the States, shall be valid as a part of the said Constitution, namely: AMS March 15, 1894, page 84.3
PREAMBLE
We, the people of the United States (devoutly acknowledging the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and nations, grateful to him for our civil and religious liberty; and encouraged by the assurances of his Word to invoke his guidance, as a Christian nation, according to his appointed way, through Jesus Christ), in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America. AMS March 15, 1894, page 84.4
This hearing on March 6, was only of those who favor this thing. It was in fact a Reformed Presbyterian hearing, something like a car-load of them having come down from Pittsburg and Allegheny. With the exception of Representative Morse, who introduced the resolution into the House, every one who spoke was a Reform Presbyterian preacher. There were eight speakers—H. H. George, T. P. Stevenson, R. J. George, W. J. Robinson, J. M. Foster, R. C. Wylie, D. B. Wilson, and D. McAllister. AMS March 15, 1894, page 84.5
The names are all familiar to the old readers of the SENTINEL. And with the announcement of the names the views set forth will be readily recalled as these are all familiar too. It was the design in the arrangement of the speakers to have each speaker present a distinct line of argument, but it was a hard task to carry out the programme. For except in the heading, each speech covered about the same ground as all the others in about the same way. AMS March 15, 1894, page 84.6
H. H. George opened the discussion, and called out the speakers in succession. He said that both philosophy and revelation demand this recognition of God and Christ by the Government. And to prove the obligation of the Government to do so he cited the fact of “prayers in Congress.” He declared that the adoption of this amendment is the only thing that will separate Church and States: that thus the “Church will have its own sphere, and the State its own sphere.” This has been the theory of the papacy ever since its original establishment by Constantine. See “Two Republics,” p. 496-498 and 717-720. AMS March 15, 1894, page 84.7
T. P. Stevenson followed by first presenting “petitions,” as he said, from twenty-two out of twenty-four senators of the present Iowa legislature. He said that the petition had been presented for signatures to only twenty-four of the senators of Iowa, and that all these had signed it but two. He presented a petition also from the preachers of Newcastle, Pa., and read letters from “Rev.” A. A. Miner, of Boston, Bishop Michalson, “Rev.” Clarke, “President of the United Young People’s Society of Christian Endeavor,” and Joseph Cook; all calling for the immediate adoption of the resolution by Congress. Joseph Cook supported his call with the citation of the Supreme Court decision of Feb. 29, 1892, that “this is a Christian nation,” and a bundle of “precedents.” Mr. Stevenson then spoke on his own part and began by citing this same Supreme Court decision, and declaring “the nation’s faith in God.” He declared that the liberals in demanding the abolition of chaplaincies and all other religious exercises and religious legislation, “are seeking to conform the Government to their own opinions;” that they cite the Constitution as it reads to sustain these views; and that “in seeking to sustain our Christian institutions, we [the National Reformers] ought not to be obliged to meet the effect of the silence of the Constitution as it is employed by those who oppose us.” He said that it was not the intention of the makers of the Constitution that such use should be made of it, and mentioned “Story’s Comments on the Constitution.” But that such was precisely the intention of the makers of the Constitution, Story to the contrary notwithstanding, the history and documents of that time plainly show. See “Two Republics,” pp. 681-698. AMS March 15, 1894, page 84.8
R. J. George followed, arguing the kingship of Christ—The claims of Christ as Ruler of Nations. He declared that this is “exclusively a question of revelation,” “God has commanded all to acknowledge the Son,” Psalm 2; “God requires this honor to the Son as to the God—man;” and “this claim rests on the fact that Christ is Redeemer.” “He won the crown of thrones, and it is right he should wear the crown of glory.” AMS March 15, 1894, page 84.9
W. J. Robinson argued the “Divine claim in civil government—Civil government is supreme among men.” “It is a Christian nation. Ninety-nine one-hundredths of the people believe in the Christian religion. The Supreme Court declares this a Christian nation.” And “in a conflict between atheism and God’s Word, atheism appealing to the Constitution, eventually the Supreme Court might decide that though it is a Christian nation, it is not a Christian Government. And, therefore, this amendment is essential to assure success as a Christian Government as well as a Christian nation. AMS March 15, 1894, page 84.10
J. M. Foster argued “The Nation a Moral Person.” He went over the same ground as the others, citing the Supreme Court decision in considerable detail with precedents also, and declared that “lynch law prevails largely in the South, and although this is all forbidden by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments nothing but Christianity can stop it, and therefore there must be this Christian amendment to make the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth effective—that we may have Christianity.” AMS March 15, 1894, page 84.11
R. C. Wylie proposed to argue “The Practical Effects” of the proposed amendment. But the nearest that he got to it was to go over the ground covered by the others before him and then to declare that “As the educating power of the Constitution is great, this amendment would have a good moral effect upon the people who thing that religion and politics do not go together.” AMS March 15, 1894, page 84.12
D. B. Wilson said that “the country was settled by Christians,” “the laws are Christian and our civilization is Christian.” He asked that the amendment, as introduced, should be made to recognize in words “Christ as ruler and his revealed will as the supreme law.” AMS March 15, 1894, page 84.13
D. McAllister dwelt upon “an historical scene in the United States Senate in 1863,” when a resolution almost in the same words as this proposed amendment, and deploring “our national sins” was passed asking the President to appoint a day of humiliation and prayer. It is plain on the fact of it that the resolution cited was written, or originated at least, by a Reformed Presbyterian, probably by Mr. McAllister himself, so that it could well be cited as a precedent for the adoption of this resolution now before the committee. He said that there were no prayers offered in the sessions of the convention that framed the Constitution, and that Franklin’s motion to have prayers was defeated by adjournment, “no doubt because of a fear of the entanglements of a union of Church and State.” And that it might be “the prerogative of the committee now to go back to the Pilgrim fathers.” AMS March 15, 1894, page 84.14
Representative Morse closed the discussion by “re-affirming the statements of these learned and eloquent divines who have spoken.” He said that “petitions and telegrams by the hundreds” were being received by members in behalf of the proposed amendment. He cited the Supreme Court decision that “this is a Christian nation,” “the example of forty States” the inscription on the coins “In God We Trust,” etc., but said the Constitution makes no such recognitions. “Why should we not correct the deficiency by recognizing the name that is above very name—God Almighty and Christ as our Saviour?” AMS March 15, 1894, page 84.15
The chairman of the committee said he had received hundreds of telegrams and letters without number, calling for the adoption of the resolution; other members of the committee said they were receiving many letters and telegrams also in behalf of it. AMS March 15, 1894, page 84.16
No speeches were heard in opposition to the measure. The committee adjourned stating that as there was not a quorum present they would not declare as to hearing the opposition until their regular meeting on Friday, the 9th inst. Several persons were present to speak in opposition, and it is hoped they may be heard soon. A. T. J. AMS March 15, 1894, page 84.17