ONE of the most significant signs of the times is the reception accorded in all lands,—not excepting even our own,—to representatives of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Universe of Dec. 7, 1894, has this editorial note illustrative of the foregoing remark:—AMS January 17, 1895, page 17.1

Detailed reports of Monsignor Satolli’s visit to Albany make it clear that the apostolic delegate was received by ecclesiastics and the highest officials of New York State, with every mark of distinguished consideration, rarely accorded even to eminent functionaries of Church or State. The fact may appear alarming to those narrow minded fanatics who believe Monsignor Satolli to be a leader of the Jesuits, but level headed folk, Catholic as well as Protestant, understand that the respect shown to the illustrious visitor, is nothing more than the due of the accredited representative of the acknowledged spiritual ruler of Christendom.AMS January 17, 1895, page 17.2

Such “distinguished consideration” is never shown to representatives of other churches; why, then, do the officials of New York show such consideration to Monsignor Satolli? It can be for no other reason than because Satolli represents not merely an ecclesiastical, but a political power. The papacy insinuates itself into the politics of every country; and it is for this reason that the officials of an American State deem it “wise statesmanship” to accord him such a rare reception.AMS January 17, 1895, page 17.3

“The Papacy in Europe” American Sentinel 10, 3, pp. 18, 19.

ATJ

THE prestige and power of the papacy is rapidly growing in other countries as well as in the United States, and in those very countries too that have always been supposed to be particularly Protestant. Germany and Switzerland are the two countries in which the Reformation worked with the greatest power and took the strongest hold, and yet in a single number of the Catholic Standard, Dec. 23, 1894, we find three items which show that practically both of these countries are to-day Roman Catholic control once more. We reprint all three of them, for the situation which they present is worthy the sober consideration of all. Here is the first one:—AMS January 17, 1895, page 18.1

Once more the Center or Catholic party holds the balance of power in the German parliament, and most properly announces that in the coming struggle over the anti-Socialist bill they will use that power to a two-fold purpose. Unless the Falk laws are wholly repealed so as to allow the Jesuits to come back in full standing, they will defeat the measure in any form; and even if this just concession be granted to them, they will not support the bill in its present drag-net form, but will insist on its being amended so as to make it bear at least the semblance of fair play and regard for constitutional rights. Thus once more do Catholics stand out prominently as the champions of true liberty and equal rights for all.AMS January 17, 1895, page 18.2

Another one, the complement of this, is as follows:—AMS January 17, 1895, page 18.3

It would certainly be noteworthy were Prince Hohenlohe to be instrument in wiping out the last trace of the Bismarck Falk anti-Catholic laws in Germany. When they were enacted, and thus called into existence the powerful Center Party, he, though a practical Catholic, held aloof and failed to identify himself with the Catholic movement that has won such glorious fame. But now that he is chancellor, in succession to the real author of those laws, he finds himself in need of the Catholic vote in order to be able to enact the anti-Socialist bill into a law. Without it the measure is doomed to defeat, and accordingly there would be good reason for supposing the report to be well founded that the new chancellor has offered valuable inducements to the Catholics in return for their support. Time brings its revenges.AMS January 17, 1895, page 18.4

With a Catholic party in the German parliament, that is able to dictate legislation and force the acceptance of its will; and with a Catholic Chancellor of the empire who is one with it in spirit and ready to play into its hands politically, it is evident enough that the papacy once more has control of Germany.AMS January 17, 1895, page 18.5

As to Switzerland, the pointer if as follows:—AMS January 17, 1895, page 18.6

The country that, over twenty years ago, most closely followed the example of, and even sometimes surpassed, Germany in waging the famous “Culturkampf” war against the Catholic Church, was Switzerland; and the imitation seems to be kept up. Last month a Catholic, even though he be but a “Liberal” one, became chancellor of what Bismarck wanted to make the Protestant empire of the world; and last week a Catholic, and a staunch one, Dr. Zemp, of Lucerne, was elected president of the Swiss republic. This is truly a wondrous world. We may yet hear of Signor Crispi restoring the temporal power of the pope!AMS January 17, 1895, page 18.7

Yes, this is a wondrous world indeed. And in view of the situation as thus revealed, it is pertinent to ask whether the Reformation was indeed a mistake.AMS January 17, 1895, page 18.8

The papacy once had control of these countries. Was that control such a blessing that it is above all things to be desired again? If so, then assuredly her claim is justified—that the Reformation was so entirely an uncalled-for thing as not to deserve in any sense the title of “Reformation,” but, on the contrary, should be condemned as an unwarranted and mischievous innovation. But if, as is the fact, the control of these countries by the papacy before, was, as it always is in any country, a constant blight and a withering curse, it cannot possibly be anything else now; and therefore the Reformation was called for, and was in every sense a proper and righteous thing.AMS January 17, 1895, page 18.9

And the Reformation being a proper and a righteous thing when it delivered these countries from the domination of the papacy; and now these countries being once ore dominated by the papacy; it follows that the people of these countries are more imbued with the principles of the papacy than with the principles of the Reformation. And in that case it is only the logical consequence that the papacy should dominate these countries; for whenever a people become imbued with the principles of the papacy, whatever their profession may be, it is then a mere question of time as to that people and their country being dominated by the papacy in fact. And of this truth the United States is no less a striking illustration, than are Germany and Switzerland.AMS January 17, 1895, page 18.10

“What National Reform Really Is” American Sentinel 10, 3, p. 19.

ATJ

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA is the habitat of National Reform in the United States, hence it is there seen in its best, or rather, worst aspects.AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.1

It was in western Pennsylvania that Alexander Campbell battled against the “Moral Societies,” the National Reform Association of three-quarters of a century ago; and it is in western Pennsylvania that the most radical National Reform utterances are heard to-day.AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.2

In the recent National Reform convention in New Castle, Dr. R. J. George, a leading light in National Reform circles, spoke on the “Duties of the State to the Church.” He said:—AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.3

The State is subservient to the Church. The nations and kingdoms which do not serve God shall perish.AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.4

It is the highest dignity and honor of the State that it has been placed under the authority of the Church’s hand.AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.5

The State should perform the true Christian religion. The Church is to teach the State God’s message. The Sabbath mail service is an assault upon the Church, because it is trampling upon the sacred day appointed by God for his service.AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.6

The State must have its moral system maintained in its legislation. It is the duty of the nations of the world to protect the Church in its work among missions. The State should bestow national gifts upon the Church and thus testify the sincerity of her attachment fo the gospel.AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.7

The State erects jails and gallows, but gives nothing to the Church.AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.8

The very first proposition in the quoted paragraphs shows the true nature of National Reform, and is a confusion of all that has ever been charged against the system. Webster defines subservient as, “Fitted or disposed to subserve; useful in an inferior capacity; serving to promote some end; subordinate.” It follows that, according to Dr. George, and according to National Reform, the State exists only to serve the Church; and as service means obedience, it follows that the real governing power is the Church, and that the State exists only to enforce the laws and decrees of the Church. And this is simply the papacy over again, a veritable image of the papacy.AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.9

Again, National Reform asserts that the State should profess the “true Christian religion;” but before the State can profess the true Christian religion, it must decide what the true Christian religion is; and this must be an authoritative decision, binding upon the several units which compose the State, for the State is simply the people in their aggregate capacity. But the action of the people in their aggregate capacity is only the action of the majority, or more frequently, of an organized minority having control of legislation; and under the National Reform scheme this majority or a united minority having control of legislation, must decide for the whole people what is the true Christian religion. But to decide for another what is the true Christian religion is to assume the prerogative of infallibility, and thus again National Reform leads us back to the papacy,—to the church of Rome; for this usurpation of authority to decide what is the true Christian religion, is the very groundwork of the papacy.AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.10

This Government was at the first framed upon the principle of equal civil and religious rights to all. It was not opposed to religion, nor to its free exercise, but only to any profession of religion by the Government, because in the very nature of the case any profession of religion by the civil government must of necessity trench upon the freedom of the individual. It very properly held by the framers of the Constitution that the “greatest service any government can render religion is to let it alone.” This is Protestantism, and it was after this principle that our Government was fashioned. But now comes National Reform and demands that the fashion of our institutions shall be changed; that instead of remaining as our fathers made it, this Government shall be imaged after the papacy; that it shall assume the prerogative of infallibility and define and profess “the true Christian religion.” Is not this a fulfillment of the prophecy of Revelation 11:14, “Saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast [the papacy], which had the wound by the sword and did live”?AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.11

And is not this virtually what has been done by the action of the various departments of the Government? First, in February, 1892, the Supreme Court decided that “this is a Christian nation;” then followed the World’s Fair legislation, in which Congress assumed to define at least one dogma of the “true Christian” faith, by declaring that Sunday, the first day of the week, is the Sabbath according to the fourth commandment; and this at the demand of the churches, thus giving “the church” the place claimed for her by National Reform, namely, that of lawgiver to the State.AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.12

The principle contended for by National Reformers has certainly been admitted by the Government. Over and over again it had been plainly stated by Dr. H. H. George, as it was in the New Castle convention, that the church can have anything she demands from Congress. “The Christian people have learned their power; they can mould legislation as they will.” Such is the boast of National Reform to-day; and this being true, the State being, by its own acknowledgement, subservient to the Church, have we not in this country a perfect image to the papacy, a church dominating the civil power and using it to further her own interests and to enforce her dogmas? We certainly have.AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.13

Certainly, if Dr. George’s theory were correct, if the State should have a religion, it should support it. And this is National Reform as one finds it in western Pennsylvania, and as it in fact obtaining in every part of our land once the house of liberty of conscience, but now the seat of the image to the papal beast, the home of that iniquitous system whereby the Government ... itself to the combined churches to enforce upon the consciences of all men the unscriptural dogma of Sunday sacredness.AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.14

“Rome Condemns Free Inquiry” American Sentinel 10, 3, p. 19.

ATJ

THAT Rome is opposed to the right of private judgment, is evident from this editorial note from the Catholic Times of Dec. 15:—AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.1

Not Protestantism, but indifferentism, is the chief obstacle to the conversion of Americans to the Catholic Church. The whole spirit of the country is in favor of looking upon religion as a personal opinion. You are at perfect liberty to change your religious opinions as you do your coat and hat.... The only church with a shadow of a claim to unity and universality is the Roman Catholic. We should impress upon our countrymen the logical position which the church holds, and show them that it is not based on bigotry or intolerance, but upon the essential nature of truth, which must be exclusive. If there is only one true religion, any creed or opinion contradictory of that must be false; and if we can find out the one true religion, we need not prolong our investigations into anything that calls itself a church.AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.2

Yet all signs point to a wider diffusion of the false idea of religion as a private and personal opinion, which it is every man’s birthright to choose, hold and reject at pleasure. This is the outcome of the spirit of free inquiry and private interpretation which was created and fostered by the Reformation. It is the glory of Protestantism, of which it has also been the bane.AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.3

There is no mistaking the spirit of this utterance. It is opposed to the right of private judgment is not to be exercised, it must be repressed, and that by force; there is no other way. And yet Rome poses as the champion of civil and religious liberty! But let it never be forgotten that in the terminology of the papacy, religious liberty is the right to “worship God according to the dictates of a right conscience;” and a “right conscience” is a conscience controlled by the Catholic Church.AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.4

“Dr. Mullally Opposes the Endorsement of Dr. Parkhurst’s Methods” American Sentinel 10, 3, pp. 19, 20.

ATJ

AMS is well known, there was quite a thorough political revolution in this city at the election last November. As is also well known, Dr. Parkhurst, by political and immoral methods, had a considerable share in bringing this about. Tributes of honor have been paid to Dr. Parkhurst by different secular organizations. Dr. Parkhurst is a Presbyterian in religious connection, and a member of the “Presbytery of New York.” Some, at least, of this Presbytery think that Dr. Parkhurst’s political work is so much of a Presbyterian affair that the Presbytery, as such, should honor him for it. To this end a resolution was introduced at the regular monthly meeting of the Presbytery in December,—the first after the election. But Dr. Mullally (all honor to him), braved the opprobrium that he could not help but know must come upon him for such a thing, and openly challenged the proposition. The report says:—AMS January 17, 1895, page 19.5

Dr. Mullally (he was careful to tell the reporters to spell his name with four l’s) does not believe that a minister is called to preach civic righteousness; he would draw a sharp line between duties to the State and duties to God, and he would exclude from “the court of Jesus Christ” all civil and social methods. If the members of the Presbytery want to give recognition to Dr. Parkhurst’s work they ought, he contends, to adjourn as a Presbytery and meet as citizens. Of course they did not want to do this, and so put the resolution over for a month.AMS January 17, 1895, page 20.1

This is perfectly sound and Christian doctrine. And yet the Independent cannot pour contempt enough upon Dr. Mullally for having done this. And the Independent makes great pretensions to being in favor of separation of Church and State! Now if Dr. Parkhurst’s political and immoral work was done as a Presbyterian; and if this work was in the regular line of the work of the Presbytery of New York, then of course it is proper enough that the Presbytery as such, in regular course of its Presbyterial business, should pass a resolution in commendation of him and his work; and then, too, it follows that the Presbytery of New York counts its interests and work as identical with the interests and work of the city of New York, and that, therefore, there is a union of the Presbytery of New York with the city of New York; in other words, a union of Church and State.AMS January 17, 1895, page 20.2

Dr. Mullally consistently advocates the separation of Church and State in the Presbytery of New York. The Independent professedly believes in the separation of Church and State, and at the same time scathingly condemns Dr. Mullally. Therefore from this, one of two things as certainly follows as that two and two make four; namely, either the Independent does not really believe in the separation of Church and State, or else it does not know what the separation of Church and State is. And in the United States there are entirely too many people who are just like the Independent.AMS January 17, 1895, page 20.3

“Wrangling” American Sentinel 10, 3, p. 20.

ATJ

“PHYSICIAN, heal thyself,” is most applicable to the Sunday-enforcement champions. While posing as reformers and attempting to cure the Sunday-breaking malady, it is ever and anon apparent that they themselves are in dire need of a cure for selfishness, private ambition, and carnality in their chronic stages.AMS January 17, 1895, page 20.1

The last meeting of the Pennsylvania Sabbath (Sunday) Association, held at Williamsport, Nov. 29, 1894, was marked with a disgraceful contention between leaders over the distribution of territory, the term “wrangling” being applied by each party to the other’s conduct.AMS January 17, 1895, page 20.2

However, the latest wrangle among these self-appointed custodians of other people’s morals is between “Rev.” Edward Thompson, “general manager of the Sunday League of America,” and “Rev.” J. H. Knowles, secretary of the American Sabbath (Sunday) Union. Mr. Thompson, who has been operating in the West, recently came East, as it would appear to look for a job, and in order to aid in securing one, commenced distributing Sunday League literature and availing himself of every opportunity to speak and “lift a collection.” Soon after, Mr. Knowles met Mr. Thompson on the streets of New York and challenged his right to invade his territory. Mr. Thompson replied as follows,—if Mr. Knowles’ public statement before the New York Methodist Ministers’ Monday morning meeting (Jan. 7), in the presence of Mr. Thompson, can be believed:—AMS January 17, 1895, page 20.3

Oh, this is only a temporary affair. You see I am seeking a pastorate East, and this is one of the ways I have of getting known.AMS January 17, 1895, page 20.4

Mr. Thompson was very angry at his brother for thus publicly betraying his confidence, and said:—AMS January 17, 1895, page 20.5

I did not know that what I said to him in confidence he would blabber all over the city and injure me in preventing me from getting a hearing before the more important churches.AMS January 17, 1895, page 20.6

After much bitter contention Dr. J. M. King, president of the Law and Order League of America,—the inquisitorial annex of the Sabbath Association,—raised applause by declaring, with much warmth, “Dr. Knowles needs no certificate of character from this conference, and any son of a bishop or of Gabriel who comes here to offer attacks on Dr. Knowles has come to the wrong market with his wares.”AMS January 17, 1895, page 20.7

All this is very fitting; these builders of the American image of the papacy act their part well. How all this reads like the rows of the Roman Catholic bishops when in the councils of the early centuries they legislated on what men should believe and thereby built the papacy.AMS January 17, 1895, page 20.8

“Rum and Romanism” American Sentinel 10, 3, p. 21.

ATJ

“FATHER” ELLIOTT, the Catholic priest who is fishing for Protestants in Ohio, has gotten into trouble with his financial backing. It takes money to conduct his propaganda, and consequently, the managers of the enterprises called upon the Roman Catholic beer brewers, distillers, and saloon-keepers to donate for the conversion of heretical Protestants to the true Catholic faith. The drunkard makers contributed liberally and then seated themselves comfortably in “Father” Elliott’s congregation to watch the priest convert Protestants. But the priest is fishing for Protestants, not papists; and consequently he baits for fresh water fish with a temperance bait. Seeing how popular Protestantism palavered over what they foolishly thought was a temperance victory in the Satolli-Watterson decision, Priest Elliott hastened to add a “temperance night” to his programme. The result is told as follows in the Wine and Spirit News, under the “scare head,” “The Liquor Men Bled and then Roasted:”—AMS January 17, 1895, page 21.1

One of the most outrageous, and to say the least, most ungrateful acts ever perpetrated upon the liquor traffic of the State of Ohio, and purely a money-making scheme, is that which is now being engineered under the supervision of one styling himself Father Elliott. So bold have become his operations that the Wine and Spirit News, the official organ of the Ohio State Liquor League, deems it necessary that every person engaged in the liquor traffic in the State should be made fully acquainted with the facts, and be in a position to protect himself against this skin game when approached by one or more of its advocates. Prompted, perhaps, by the successful operation in the robbery line, by the Rev. Howard Russell, superintendent and general chief schemer of the so-called Anti-saloon League, Father Elliott has concluded to take the road. Although his mode of operation is, to a large extent, similar to that employed by the Rev. Russell, Father Elliott has introduced a new scheme to fatten his purse. One of the first cities to be called upon by Father Elliott and his followers was Toledo. The programme for the sic evenings’ entertainment was published, but good care was taken not to include anything derogatory to the liquor interests. The church committees were soon in the field with their subscription books, and the very first persons called upon were those engaged in the liquor traffic. The liquor men, as all other business men ever ready to assist any project looking to public interest, subscribed liberally, most of the donations ranging from five to ten dollars each. The brewers, wholesale and retailers, were called upon alike, and seldom was the committee sent away empty-handed, and when totally summed up it was found that the liquor traffic defrayed the entire week’s expenses. A large number of the liquor men who had so liberally donated to the affair, attended the lecture at St. Francis de Sales Church, on Cherry Street last Thursday evening, and their reward was the most damnable tirade against their business.AMS January 17, 1895, page 21.2

These Roman Catholic dealers in “fire water” are evidently not trained Jesuits, or they would have stoically swallowed the bitter pill while comforting themselves with the papal maxim, “the end justifies the means.” However, they seem to feel justified in making an “end” of contributing “means” to support Priest Elliott’s propaganda.AMS January 17, 1895, page 21.3

January 10, 1895

January 24, 1895