« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Louis and in the words of Bossuet : “ Let us maintain those sturdy maxims of our forefathers, which the Gallican church has received from the traditions of the church universal.”
Thousands of Roman Catholics in America, as I happen to know, are chafing under the vassalage in which the court of Rome holds them, as compared with what she concedes to other Latin churches. Their bishops themselves are mere papal vicars, and wear a yoke of intolerable servility ; they are not enfranchised with any autonomous powers, but are treated as children, if not as literal vassals. Their laity hold no rights in the property they create, have no voice in the election of their prelates, or in the choice of their clergy. That they submit, as they do, to such servitude can only be explained by what Dr. Brownson has told us; all this is only possible because, as he says, they are essentially aliens; they are not yet identified with the civil and social principles of Americans.
But if I were a Roman Catholic bishop in America, I would tolerate this state of things no longer. I would emancipate myself and my people. I would lift them out of their position as a “ foreign colony" and place them on a level with all their countrymen, by making them indisputably “ attached to the principles of the American Constitution," and by bringing their local institutions into harmony with it. From what the Roman court has conceded in times past to Englishmen under the Plantagenets, and to Frenchmen under Louis XIV. and the Consulate, I would frame a Bill of Rights and say: “ These are our claims as Americans, and we will not be deprived of anything which infallible pontiffs have conceded to our forefathers.” What would be the result ? I answer by pointing to what Rome has conceded to such petty people as the “Uniats" of Russia, the “Maronites," or the “United Greeks and Armenians.” Rome will not deny what her spiritual subjects are manly enough to demand, as requisite to their citizenship in this great republic. We, on our part, claim for them only what they will be sure to demand spontaneously as soon as they wake up to their rights as Americans, and to the precedents which entitle them, as Roman Catholics, to liberties too long withheld: “So speaks St. Bernard,” according to Bossuet, “ with all the saints of his age, and all who have been the most exemplary among the French." And he adds, with eloquence: “ Thus it was, also, that the most saintly personage who ever wore the crown of France, the most loyal to the Holy See, and the most ardent defender of the Roman
faith (you recognize my reference to St. Louis) felt obliged to persist in the Gallican maxims and to publish a Pragmatic for the maintenance in his kingdom of the common rights and prerogatives of bishops, according to General Councils and the institutions of the Fathers." In all I have said, I have been pleading for those rights and for those institutions, in behalf of my Roman Catholic countrymen.
REV. JAMES M. KING, D. D., OF NEW YORK.
CHRISTIAN FRIENDS :- I am grateful for the privilege of having enjoyed, with you, this address, so accurate in historical statement, and so discriminating in drawing the lines between Roman Catholicism, as such, and Jesuitical Romanism. And yet I sometimes think, from our experience in this land, that the distinction, while it ought to be made, is not duly appreciated. I heard of the officiary of a given church, some years ago, summoning a pastor before it, and the richest and most influential man among the officials finally pronounced the verdict that required the pastor to leave, and the objection that he had to him was that he was “too personal.” When, over and over again, requested to tell what the personalities of the pastor consisted in, he said he was persistently and continuously attacking " Satan and all his followers.” (Laughter.]
The fact has been referred to that I was called to follow Bishop Coxe for a few moments in this discussion, because of my position for some years as chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Evangelical Alliance. The work of that committee is to watch legislation. Well, you say, “ Why watch legislation?” Because it will bear watching. [Laughter.] It needs watching in many of our states and especially in our great Empire State of New York. It has needed watching for a number of years, to keep the Solons that we have elected to make our laws from putting on the statute books the beginnings of laws that shall bind us to a foreign prince. That is all. Those would-be laws that would begin the wedding between church and state, which forever ought to be divorced in this free republic. [Great applause.]
I want to say one thing in this connection. Some very tenderhearted people, who have corns on the upper part of their toes [Laughter.] have felt that perhaps the work of the Evangelical Alliance was simply “Anti-Romanism.” It is nothing of that kind at all. We have only taken part in the controversy with Jesuitical Romanism where it was necessary to defend ourselves, and have never made an assault. [Applause.] Religiously, I have nothing to say in reference to Roman Catholicism. I believe that multitudes of the adherents of that faith are as genuinely Christian as any of the men or women I address to-night. There may be memories and traditions of men with burning tapers, and of interposing priests, but there are hundreds of thousands of honest hearts among them that are feeling for the Christ within. I claim for ourselves simply the same right of charitable judgment concerning religious conviction. But, when religious conviction takes a political turn, it comes to be dangerous. [Applause.]
The President of this meeting uttered a sentiment that I am glad to hear from a United States Senator, namely, that he believes in taking his religion into his politics. So do I. [Applause.] But it is because I feel that my religion would not hurt the politics. Jesuitical Romanism believes the same thing, and I pay it the tribute of fidelity to its belief. It not only tries, but it succeeds, in taking its religion into its politics.
You ask how? Well, I never was elected a member of any State Legislature. I have been a self-constituted member of the Third House for a number of years. If you want to find out the virtues of a politician you want to be in the “lobby.” [Laughter.] The patriotic speeches that are made for home-consumption do not accord at all with the quiet little miscellaneous remarks that are made in the lobby. I have been in the midst of the members of the Third House, who are not always particularly gratified at my companionship, but then a man cannot always choose, and that is what they think of me sometimes—I have stood in the midst of the members of the Third House, at the capital of one of our sovereign states, and listened to words that were backed up with oathsthreats of political death to men that dare oppose the putting on the statute-books of laws that opened every sectarian institution in the city of New York to the setting up of confessionals, and the introduction of a given form of sectarian preaching.
It is as a political power that I am afraid of this Ultramontanism ; and it is not only “over the mountains” this time, but it has crossed the seas. But somebody says, “You are an alarmist."
Oh, no! I have just common sense. Why, the greatest states, man, so far as genius is concerned, that has ever shaped the destiny of any land—a man that you would suppose would not yield to ecclesiastical power, has gone to Canossa. We have hundreds of “ Bismarcks” in this country. [Laughter.] It is not because of the influence that Jesuitical Romanism may have on the great men that we are concerned, but it is the influence exercised by it on the petty pot-house politician. I know what I am talking about, because I have seen the bargains made and the goods delivered. [Laughter.]
I simply want to add one or two points. The peril which Bishop Coxe has so well put, with historical backing, is in the teaching that makes loyalty first to a foreign prince, and second to the republic. That is the unhealthy and the dangerous teaching. Why is it that the order has gone forth that, wherever possible, parochial schools shall be erected and measures taken for the instruction of childhood ? For the simple reason that the second and third generations, brought up under American instruction, filled with the American spirit, chafe under the restraints of a required loyalty to a foreign power, and they break loose. [Applause.]
The only hope of keeping youth under this foreign power to-day, is to keep them under the instruction of the book from which Bishop Coxe has quoted, or books of that character.
So far as I am concerned I say “Welcome,” even to believers in political Jesuitism. Welcome, all forms of faith to this land. I would not want to close the doors against them. But, welcome to equal rights; that is all. [Applause.] That is all anybody ought to ask. Welcome to equal rights; and the sentiment of American citizenship, backed up by Christian faith, ought to see to it that there is no interference with the rights of that citizenship in this land by a foreign power. Eternal separation of church and state ! No sectarian appropriations ! No dividing of the public school fund ! [Great applause.]
THE SALOON. BY REV. R. S. MACARTHUR, D. D., OF NEW YORK.
Going down Sixth Avenue, New York, a little time ago, I saw a. door, over which were these words, “ Saloon: A. Blessing." This struck me as being somewhat inaccurate. A man named Blessing ought surely to be in some other business. Had the inscription read, “Saloon: A. Curse," it would have been nearer the truth; had it read, “ Saloon: the Greatest Curse on this Earth," the words. would have been literally true. In another part of the same city there is a saloon which is properly named. Over its main entrance are the words, “ Hell Gate." In connection with this title there might well be given a part of the inscription which Dante places. over the gate of his hell:
“ Through me ye enter the abode of woe;
All hope abandon-ye who enter here."
It is impossible to find language which will truly state how great a curse the saloon is. Of some of its evils we shall, in the first place, speak.
We begin with its merely negative features. It certainly is need. less; it serves no good purpose to any human being. What is the good of the saloon, anyway? What legitimate want does it supply? What necessity of civilization does it meet? We do not ask such questions regarding the grocery, the bakery, the market, and many other kinds and places of business. They justify their right to be. But we must advance a step; the saloon is not only useless, it is hurtful. It is evil in itself, and that uniformly and continually, universally and necessarily. Not only does it not