Larger font
Smaller font
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font

    February 7, 1895

    “The Pope’s Encyclical” American Sentinel 10, 6, pp. 41, 42.


    He asks for the Church the “Favor of the Laws and the Patronage of the Public Authority.”

    THE Papal Encyclical promised some weeks since, and referred to in these columns in our issue of January 3, has been made public by Mgr. Satolli.AMS February 7, 1895, page 41.1

    This encyclical is addressed “To our venerable brethren, the Archbishops and Bishops of the United States of North America;” but as we previously indicated, it is designed really for the people of the United States.AMS February 7, 1895, page 41.2

    That our estimate of the scope and design of the encyclical was not a mistaken one is evident from the language employed in many places. Referring to the World’s Fair, the pope says:—AMS February 7, 1895, page 41.3

    Nor were we on that occasion content with offering prayers at a distance for your welfare and greatness. It was our wish to be in some manner present with you in your festivities. Hence we cheerfully sent one who should represent our person.AMS February 7, 1895, page 41.4

    To the people and not to the archbishops and bishops of the United States belonged the World’s Fair; hence to the people, and not alone to the archbishops and bishops of the United States, does the pope “play” in this the latest of his numerous encyclicals.AMS February 7, 1895, page 41.5

    At an early stage in his letter Leo reasserts the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to this country for the reason that its discoverer was a Catholic, and because “when America was as yet but a newborn babe, uttering in its cradle its first feeble cries, the church took it to her bosom and motherly embrace.”AMS February 7, 1895, page 41.6

    And thus nursed at the breast and dandled upon the knee of Rome did the United States become a Catholic country; “for,” in the words of Leo XIII., pope of Rome, “as the ark of Noah, surmounting the overflowing waters, bore the seed of Israel, together with the remnants of the human race, even thus did the barks launched by Columbus upon the ocean carry into regions beyond the seas as well the germs of mighty States as the principles of the Catholic religion.”AMS February 7, 1895, page 41.7

    But be it remembered that it was not until, as the fruit of years of patient efforts of well-meaning but misguided “Protestants” to “Christinianize” our Government, the Supreme Court declared this to be a Christian nation, basing its decision upon the fact that the country was discovered and settled by Christians; that Rome going only a step further proved(?) by the same token that it is a Catholic Christian nation. And from that hour until the present moment Rome has not ceased to assert her spiritual proprietorship of the people of this country, and by every means in her power emphasize the declaration that this is a Roman Catholic “Christian nation.”AMS February 7, 1895, page 41.8

    It was in September, 1894, that the pope elevated this country “to the first rank as a Catholic nation,” and just prior to this action, Sept. 22, 1894, Bishop Keane, returning from Rome, announced that “the policy of the pope ... is the union of the church with the great democratic powers of the future—that is, America and France.” And this purpose is clearly seen in the present encyclical. Of the relations of Church and State, and the prosperity of the church in America, the pope says:—AMS February 7, 1895, page 41.9

    The church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and Government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the church; or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed his church; in virtue of which, unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth much more abundant fruits it, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.AMS February 7, 1895, page 41.10

    The people of the United States not drunken with the wine of the wrath of Babylon’s fornication, not stupefied by the poison that distills from the deadly upas tree of Church and State, not already doing homage to the papal beast in his own proper person or to his image (referred to on page 42 of this paper), will thank the pope for this candid utterance, this bold avowal of the wish and purpose of the papacy concerning the Government of the United States. It is clearly the purpose of the Roman hierarchy to make this a Catholic country, not in the sense that it is not longer regarded merely as a mission field, but in the sense that the Roman Catholic Church shall enjoy “the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority;” in the sense that the Government and people humbly bow to the papal church accepting her as the spouse of Christ and her visible head, the pope of Rome, as the vicar of Christ.AMS February 7, 1895, page 41.11

    American Romanists have steadfastly denied this. In “The Faith of Our Fathers,” chapter XVII., Cardinal Gibbons labors to convey the impression that the Catholic Church asks no special favors in the United States, and he has at least once publicly made the statement that he did not want to see the Church and the State in the United States more closely united than at present. But whatever may be the private opinion of the cardinal, according to her own confession, yea, according to this bold avowal of the pope, Rome asks not equal but exclusive rights. Her priests and prelates in America have been telling us that Catholics demanded only equality before the law; that the Roman Catholic Church desired only the free right to make disciples where and when she could; that she neither with the State than now existed; yea more, that she was the true friend and defender of rights of conscience; that she it was who planted upon our shores the first colony which guaranteed religious liberty to every man. But now the pope, the infallible head of the Roman Catholic Church, gives the lie to all this fair profession as well as to his own past professions of love for American institutions, by saying plainly that “it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the church; or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for Church and State to be dissevered and divorced.”AMS February 7, 1895, page 41.12

    Verily “Rome never changes;” and what she has done in the past for other nations she stands ready to do, yea, is doing for the United States. And every so-called Protestant who adopts papal principles for the advancement of “Protestantism,” is aiding her in her nefarious work.AMS February 7, 1895, page 42.1

    “Which Pope Shall It Be?” American Sentinel 10, 6, pp. 42, 43.


    THE Christian Statesman, the representative par excellence of the American papacy—the image to the Roman papacy—is still turning “white with fear and wrath”—or more properly speaking, with envy—at the aggressions of the “man of sin,” the “mystery of iniquity,” the self-styled vicar of Christ, who from the banks of the Tiber appeals to his followers throughout the world to demand with united voice the restoration of his temporal power.AMS February 7, 1895, page 42.1

    In its issue of Jan. 19, the Statesman has a long editorial upon the “Campaign for the Pope’s Temporal Sovereignty,” in which are discussed the papal claim to independence of, and to sovereignty over, the nations of the earth. In conclusion, the question is asked, “Is it not time for loyal Americans to understand just what these claims mean?” It is indeed time that Americans of every description understand not only the meaning of these claims of the Roman papacy, but that they likewise understand the significance of like claims made by the American papacy, the image to the papacy of the pope.AMS February 7, 1895, page 42.2

    In the recent National Reform convention at New Castle, Pa., Rev. R. J. George, D.D., laid down as sound National Reform doctrine (and the editor of the Statesman who was present uttered no word of protest) these propositions:—AMS February 7, 1895, page 42.3

    The State is subservient to the Church.AMS February 7, 1895, page 42.4

    It is the highest dignity and honor of the State that it has been placed under the authority of the Church’s head.AMS February 7, 1895, page 42.5

    Now it is evident that the only question between papist and National Reformer is. Who is the Church’s head? They both agree that the head of the Church is the ruler of nations; hence, the only question between them is one of fact. The National Reformer says Christ is head of the Church and ruler of nations. The papist says, Christ is head of the spiritual, the invisible church, but the pope is head of the visible church, the church to which the commission was given to disciple all nations; hence the pope is the head of the church under whose authority the State has been placed. Therefore the pope is superior to all nations and answerable to no human law.AMS February 7, 1895, page 42.6

    The question is, therefore, one of fact; in other words, in such a case, one of opinion; which is only saying that in governmental affairs, it is one to be decided by the majority, or by those having the power in their hands, whether a majority or an organized and aggressive minority. If therefore the Roman Catholic Church can gain enough adherents in this country to so shape legislation, and so mould the Government, as to give practical recognition to the faith of that church upon this question, the Christian Statesman will have no right to find fault. It is certainly right that the majority should rule in the settlement of all governmental questions; and if this question of the head-ship of the Church is one that concerns the State, one which the State must answer by according certain recognition to the head of the Church, then certainly the majority, or at least those having control of the Government, must decide it according to the best light they have; and all others must abide by the decision; for in all things coming properly under civil jurisdiction it is the duty of all men to obey the powers that be, for they “are ordained of God.”AMS February 7, 1895, page 42.7

    But suppose that the decision were favorable to the view entertained by the Christian Statesman; suppose that it were decided by the Government that Christ himself is the head of the Church and ruler of nations, and that the pope’s claim to be is representative is not valid; who then is to represent Christ? He is not personally present. There is no general, much less any universal agreement, as to his will. Who then is his proper representative upon earth, if not the pope of Rome?AMS February 7, 1895, page 42.8

    The question raised is already answered by National Reform: “The Church is to teach the State God’s message.” This too was stated in the New Castle convention as a fundamental National Reform truth; and the editor of the Christian Statesman, himself a leading spirit in that convention, was evidently in accord with the declaration. What then is the difference between National Reform and the papacy?AMS February 7, 1895, page 42.9

    The papacy teaches that the pope, the visible head of the visible Church, is the vicar of Christ, authorized by him “to teach the State God’s message,” to announce is will to the governments of the earth.AMS February 7, 1895, page 42.10

    National Reform teaches that “the Church is to teach the State God’s message,” to announce to the government God’s will; and that the State must obey under penalty of the divine displeasure and divine judgments.AMS February 7, 1895, page 42.11

    What, if any, difference is there then between these views? In either case it is the Church that teaches “the State God’s (?) message.” The Roman Catholic Church does this through its visible head, the pope; the so-called Protestant Church does it through its several representatives, its authorized teachers, and by resolutions and official utterances of its representative bodies—the church courts—synods, assemblies, conferences, etc. But according to the National Reform theory, the State is under obligation to hear and heed this message; for the Church speaking in this way is, according to the National Reform view, speaking with authority, not only to the State but to the individuals which compose the State; hence the mere manner of speaking, or the medium through which the speaking is done, does not change the principle. In any event the right of private judgment is denied. It is only a question of one pope or a number of popes, a composite pope as it were. Under the papal scheme a single man interposes himself between God and the invididual, and speaks for Him, thus sitting “in the temple of God showing himself that he is God;” while under the National Reform scheme, a number of men acting together do exactly the same thing. The principle is the same; the one is the papacy, the other is the image of the papacy.AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.1

    And this is not mere theory of what may some day be. Already the churches of the United States have assumed to teach God’s message to the State, and the State, the Government, has heard and obeyed. By petition, by resolutions, by threats of political boycott and by all the arts known to the American papacy, the composite “Protestant” pope declared to the Government of the United States that Sunday is the Sabbath, that it is enforced by the fourth commandment, and that it is the duty of the State to recognize this fact and to require all men to recognize it. The State heard and obeyed by enacting the World’s Fair Sunday legislation; and now this “Protestant” pope boasts that the churches have the Government so well in hand, so entirely under their control, that they can get anything they ask for. That this is true in a measure must be admitted, but the power of the American pope, the man of sin on the Tiber; for the image to the beast now doing its work in this country is dependent in large measure upon the beast itself, and can go only so far as the beast permits. True, the image aspires to supreme authority, but the beast not only refuses to abdicate but greedily snatches from his double the fruit of every victory gained; thus strengthening his own power while the makers of the image “turn white with fear and wrath” at the aggressions of Romanism, but continue nevertheless in the same evil course, casting up a highway over which the beast rides in triumph, and will continue to ride until destroyed, with its image, by the coming of the true head of the true Church, the Lord Jesus Christ.AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.2

    “Drifting Romeward” American Sentinel 10, 6, p. 43.


    NOT long since the Presbyterian Union Theological Seminary of New York, invited a Roman Catholic priest, “Father” Doyle, to address its candidates for the ministry on the subject, “Methods of Preaching.”AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.1

    Our readings will remember that the Churchman, a Protestant Episcopal paper, questioned the propriety of inviting Roman Catholic priests to teach Protestant candidates for the ministry, and for this faint echo of the Reformation, the Churchman was severely rebuked by its superior, Bishop Potter, and the Outlook, a Congregational paper, heartily indorsed and printed the rebuke.AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.2

    So well pleased was the Outlook with the papal priest’s preaching prescriptions, that it requested the priest to contribute an article for its columns on the subject, “The Making of a Missionary.”AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.3

    And now we want our readers to see what a professedly Protestant paper publishes from the pen of a Romanist, for the edification and instruction of its readers. We quote one paragraph from the priest’s article in the Outlook of January 12:—AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.4

    To fit a young man to campaign it in this spiritual warfare, a discipline is resorted to far more severe than a West Point cadetship involves. It continues through six years after he has taken his degrees at college. It means daily rising at five o’clock, with two half-hours of meditation or silent prayer to make the truths of religion more vivid, constant examination of conscience that the mirror of the soul may be kept bright, weekly confessions that the soul may be purified from all sin, a yearly “retreat” of eight days in solitude without any conversation with another, the constant recourse to the literature of ascetic theology and hagiology to stimulate in the service of God by precept and example, three years of metaphysics as a basis of knowledge, three years of dogmatic theology with Holy Scripture and concurrent studies, and along with dogma three years of moral theology to cultivate one’s practical judgment of sin and its remedies—with this training, and a repertory of thirty well-prepared sermons that grasp the very marrow of the subject discussed, a young missionary is equipped for the battle-field.AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.5

    It will be noticed that the “Holy Scripture” hardly escaped being left out altogether from this papal preacher’s curriculum. It comes in as a side-dish in one of the courses. “Dogmatic theology with Holy Scripture;” roast turkey with cranberry sauce; and even then this “Holy Scripture”-side-dish sauce is pumped through the Roman Catholic sewer of “infallible” interpretation.AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.6

    And now that apostate Protestants are inviting papists to feel their people through pulpit and press, with papal pap, let the gospel preacher feed the people with the “sincere milk of the word.” “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.” 2 Timothy 4:1, 2.AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.7

    “Fawning Upon Rome” American Sentinel 10, 6, p. 43.


    THE Idaho Daily Statesman, published at Boisé City, gives a glowing account of a recent reception tendered to Archbishop Gross of Portland, Oregon.AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.1

    “On the stage,” says the Statesman, “were seated a number of prominent men, among whom being Senator Shoup, whose appearance was greeted with generous applause, Gov. McConnell, Mayor Sonna, T. J. Jones and others.”AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.2

    “The distinguished guest of honor was escorted to his chair by Bishop Glorioux, and gracefully acknowledged the applause that followed.”AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.3

    “T. J. Jones welcomed the archbishop, whom he characterized as one of the distinguished men of our country, and whom the State of Idaho felt proud to honor as her guest.”AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.4

    “The applause that greeted the bishop as he came forward to respond lasted for some moments.”AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.5

    “At the close of the archbishop’s address Governor McConnell welcomed the visitor in behalf of the State, and Mayor Sonna extended a welcome in behalf of the city.”AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.6

    Such receptions are significant, for they are tendered not to an individual, but to that which the individual represents. Had Archbishop Gross been a Methodist, no such reception would have been thought of. Had he been a representative of any other church or system of religion other than Rome, neither the governor of the State, nor yet the mayor of the city, would have felt called upon to extend him an official welcome. It is as the representatives of a religio-political system that priests and prelates of Rome are thus welcomed by American officials supposed to act for the people only in civil, secular things. If governors and mayors as individuals see fit to toady to Rome, they have a perfect right to do so, but in such things they have no authority to speak for the whole people. That they usurp the function is ominously significant.AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.7

    “Roman Catholic Ideas of Religious Liberty” American Sentinel 10, 6, pp. 43, 44.


    HON. CHAMS. BONAPART of Baltimore, a Roman Catholic, recently delivered an address before the Catholic Union of Boston, which was published in the Boston Herald of January 10. We quote two sentences from the address because they illustrate so briefly and clearly the Roman Catholic idea of religious liberty:—AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.1

    We are in fact essentially a religious people, but we do not deem the civil government competent to determine the comparative merits of different faiths. That function is reserved to the individual citizen, and wherever public opinion ceases to be practically unanimous as to questions of belief or morals, the State’s province ends.AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.2

    The Roman Catholic idea of religious liberty is that it is the function of the individual to determine the comparative merits of different faiths except where public opinion is practically unanimous, as was the case in most countries of the world previous to the Reformation, and as is now the case in Spain and South American countries. Then the province of the State begins, and woe to the dissenter. The speaker did not define what he meant by “practically unanimous,” and we will have to decide the meaning of the term by the practical usages of the Roman Catholic Church, as exemplified in the murder of Waldenses, Albigenses and Huguenots. Nothing is more evident than that Rome is calmly waiting and patiently working for the time when in her opinion public opinion shall be practically unanimous in the United States, and then she will proceed to put into effect the statement of the Catholic Review of June, 1865, which reads as follows:—AMS February 7, 1895, page 43.3

    Protestantism has not, and never can have, any right when Catholicity has triumphed.AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.1

    It is this viper that popular Protestants have warmed and caressed; it is from this harlot that during a thousand years of murderous midnight revelry, drank herself drunk with the blood of the saints; it is from this harlot that apostate Protestantism, the National Reform Association, the American Sabbath Union and the popular churches, asked help to stab to the heart the goddess of American liberty.AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.2

    “‘That’s True’” American Sentinel 10, 6, pp. 44, 45.


    THE managers of the American theocracy are becoming more arrogant. They recently closed a number of rival Sunday night entertainments in Boston, called “sacred concerts.” One of the theocrats, Dr. Bradley, pastor of the People’s Temple, in his sermon, Dec. 30, explained why he favored this action. We quote from his sermon, as published in the Boston Globe, of Dec. 31:—AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.1

    One reason why these concerts should be abolished is that they employ a great deal of talent that should be used for better purposes. The men and women who exhaust themselves at these so-called sacred concerts should be using their powers of song and eloquence in the service of the Lord.AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.2

    It is quite true that all men should use their power of son and eloquence in the service of the Lord, but it by no means follows that it is the right and the duty of the State to prohibit under the pains and penalties of civil law, all song and eloquence, not so used. “God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth,” “for the Father seeketh such to worship him.” Civil law cannot create such worshipers. The Inquisition tried it and failed.AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.3

    But the doctor has another reason why the State should prohibit the so-called “sacred concert.” Here it is:—AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.4

    The great reason why the concerts should be stopped is because they are deceptive.AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.5

    The title “sacred” has no application to their songs.AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.6

    But who is to decide whether these concerts are deceptive, and whether the songs sung are “sacred” or “secular”? Surely not the civil authorities. They are representatives of a secular government, and are no more qualified to decide whether these concerts are “sacred,” or whether they are “deceptive,” than they have to decide whether Dr. Bradley’s preaching is “sacred” or “deceptive.” Each individual must decide that question for himself, and it is the business of civil government to protect him in so deciding and acting upon his decision, so long as his actions do not invade the rights of others. There are millions of professed Christians, besides the millions more of those not professed Christians, who believe that Dr. Bradley’s preaching is not only not sacred but deceptive; but this is no reason why Dr. Bradley’s “sacred” concerts and discourses should be suppressed; but it is just as good a reason as the doctor gives for suppressing the “sacred” concerts of his rivals—the theaters.AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.7

    Dr. Bradley further explains why the “sacred” concerts are not sacred:—AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.8

    Perhaps you do not know that “Sally in our Alley” is a favorite offering of the artists who sing it at these so-called sacred concerts.AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.9

    No doubt Sally was a dear girl, and was charmingly situated in her alley, but that is no reason why she should be dragged out every Sabbath night to be doted upon by young men and old men, who would better be engaged in the service of the Lord.AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.10

    Then there is “Annie on the Dot.” We can easily imagine Annie as buxom and rosy-checked, and as lovely a creature as one would care to see, but that is hardly sufficient reason for her being memorialized on Sunday evenings.AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.11

    This last quotation is introduced, not so much to present the doctor’s objection, as to furnish an idea of the character of the “sacred” services furnished by him. It will be noticed that the doctor tried to be funny, and that, too, on Sunday night, after he had succeeded in closing up all his rival fun-makers—the theaters. But right here is where the trouble lies. The popular ministry is not proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ in its purity and power, but are attempting to tickle the ears of their hearers with “sanctified” secular jokes, and when the people prefer the original jokers and patronize them, the “sacred” jokers get made and invoke the secular arm to close a rival business. On this point Dr. Bradley said:—AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.12

    Some people may think I object because I run an opposition business and want to get the crowds that go to the concerts to come here.AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.13

    That’s true. My trade is going up the hill to heaven, though, and the theater managers’ customers are going down the road of degradation to hell.AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.14

    As arrogant and tyrannical as are these statements from the doctor, we can but admire his frankness. This whole Sunday-closing crusade is for the purpose of closing up an “opposition business,” but the crusaders are not usually so willing to confess it. But it is an open question whether the doctor is going up the hill to heaven or not. He may think he is, as did the old Pharisees in the days of our Saviour’s earthly ministry, and he has a right to think so, but he has not right to call to his aid the strong arm of the law to close all other trades and roads, but his “trade” and “road.” Dr. Bradley next announced that “at seven o’clock a concert is offered for your delectation—warranted to be sacred;” after which the following resolutions were presented by the doctor and adopted by the “customers” of his “trade“:—AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.15

    WHEREAS, Our most sacred national institution, the Sabbath, has been flagrantly profaned in the theaters of our city by the so-called grand sacred concerts, andAMS February 7, 1895, page 44.16

    WHEREAS, Certain worthy and honorable members of the police committee and aldermanic board have issued a decree in the city of Boston that such outrageous desecrations of the divine day in certain theaters must cease; therefore,AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.17

    Resolved, That we, the congregation and members of People’s Temple in said city, on this Sunday night, 30th of December, 1894, do return our sincere appreciative thanks to the members of this committee and board who have done so noble and salutary a deed, and furthermore, be itAMS February 7, 1895, page 44.18

    Resolved, That we will indorse, encourage and support these official gentlemen in still further efforts for the suppression of every other attempt to turn the holy day of God into a secular holiday.AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.19

    Resolved, That in doing this we are persuaded we are following not only the command of the Almighty Father of all, but also our deepest and most sacred promptings of conscience for the good of not only ourselves and children, but also for the highest benefit of the whole body of our fellow-citizens.AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.20

    Resolved, That a copy of this preamble and resolutions be sent to the police committee and board of aldermen.AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.21

    We leave our readers to comment on these resolutions, and close by asking if the great Teacher found it necessary to petition the mayor and alderman of Jerusalem to close up all places of amusement that he might get the attention of the crowds! On the other hand the Pharisees appealed to the civil authorities to prohibit the Saviour’s teachings that they might once more get a hearing from the people. Oh, that the follower of the great Teacher would cease appealing to governors and mayors, aldermen and legislators for the sword of civil power with which to reach the masses, and instead grasp the “sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God,” and wield it in the strength of the Master. But they never will, that the prophecy might be fulfilled which saith, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” 2 Timothy 4:3, 4.AMS February 7, 1895, page 44.22

    “Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 6, p. 48.


    IT is positively stated that the pope has determined to make an appeal to the Anglican Church, and will summon the Catholic bishops of Nottingham, Salford and Southwick to Rome to consult with him in regard to a plan of reunion between the English and Roman churches.AMS February 7, 1895, page 48.1

    REFERENCE was made in these columns last week to a very remarkable and significant movement recently inaugurated in Bay City, Mich. The Detroit Free Press of January 21 gives some additional particulars, as follows:—AMS February 7, 1895, page 48.2

    A second informal meeting of the clergymen of Bay City and West Bay City was held in the parlors of the First Presbyterian Church this morning at 10 o’clock. There were nine ministers and six priests present. Since the meeting last Monday an effort has been made to get more of the Protestant ministers out, but the success in that respect was not encouraging. It is expected, however, before the next meeting more of them will wheel into line and work with those who are already in the movement. It is a matter of surprise that certain prominent clergymen have not attended the meetings. Everything was harmonious this morning. An earnest desire was expressed that all clergymen in both cities attend the next meeting to be held in the vestry of Trinity Church Saturday morning at 10 o’clock. At this meeting some definite arrangements looking to a realization of the objects which gave rise to the Christian unity movement will be settled upon.AMS February 7, 1895, page 48.3

    The “object” is stated to be not “church union,” but “Christian unity.” That is not organic union but union of influence; not a union upon truth but a union of error. But the word of the Lord is, “Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary.”AMS February 7, 1895, page 48.4

    The priests and the popular preachers are alarmed because their influence is waning. They have lost the power of the gospel, and instead of seeking by humble repentance to recover this, they confederate themselves together that they may by united action secure for themselves the power of the State; thus not the Lord but the State is their sanctuary. Truly, “Babylon is fallen”!AMS February 7, 1895, page 48.5

    NOW that the House Committee on Indian Affairs has recommended that the Government discontinue the policy of appropriating money for sectarian schools, we will be able to test the power of the papacy in American politics.AMS February 7, 1895, page 48.6

    THE Roman Catholic Church bitterly opposes the present attempt to cut off Government appropriations for the Indian schools. Even the pope is watching the struggle with intense interest. Bishop Keane relates that the pope received the news of the last failure to dislodge the Catholics from the United States treasury with great satisfaction.AMS February 7, 1895, page 48.7

    WE are informed that warrants will soon be issued upon the twenty indictments found against Seventh-day Adventists at Graysville, Tenn., for Sunday work, and that probably the cases will be called for trial at the March term of the Circuit Court of Rhea County. It has been suggested however that these cases can be compromised by the Adventists paying a part of the costs. But as Adventists, like Baptists of old, choose to suffer imprisonment rather than compromise the principle at stake, we may expect to see the State authorities surrender, or enter upon the work of imprisoning a whole church of peaceable, industrious Christians.AMS February 7, 1895, page 48.8

    THE papal encyclical of January 6th, briefly commented upon on the first page of this paper, is the most remarkable production of the kind in modern times. It shows more clearly than anything else could, the real purpose of Rome concerning the United States and the world. It is specially significant in view of previous utterances. In 1885, in an encyclical addressed especially to the Roman Catholics of the United States, Leo XIII. said:—AMS February 7, 1895, page 48.9

    All Catholics must make themselves felt as active elements in daily political life in the countries where they live. They must penetrate, wherever possible, in the administration of civil affairs; must constantly exert the utmost vigilance and energy to prevent the usages of liberty from going beyond the limits of God’s fixed laws. [The laws of the Roman Catholic Church.] All Catholics should do all in their power to cause the constitutions of States and legislation to be modeled in the principles of the true church.AMS February 7, 1895, page 48.10

    In his latest encyclical the pope tells plainly what “the principles of the true church” are as concerns the relations of Church and State. The two encyclicals in effect command American Catholics to do all in their power to bring about in the United States such a union of Church and State as will give the Roman Catholic Church “the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.” But after all the gravest danger that threatens our free institutions is from Protestants who have proved recreant to their principles, and who, by invoking in behalf of the Church the influence and power of the State, have mightily strengthened the hands of the papacy in its assaults upon American principles.AMS February 7, 1895, page 48.11

    THE Evangelist (Presbyterian), in commenting on the pope’s encyclical, says that “it needs but a superficial comparison of the Roman Catholic Church in America with that in European States to show that the spirit of that church in this country is essentially different from the traditional spirit as exemplified in France, or Austria, or Italy, or Ireland.” The Evangelist is quite right; only a superficial, a very superficial, comparison, would show this difference. The Roman Catholic Church is a unit the world over; what she is in France, Austria, Italy, Ireland, or ever in Spain, she is in spirit and purpose in America.AMS February 7, 1895, page 48.12

    Larger font
    Smaller font