Date: 2026-08-15T00:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Church History

Religion in America

Professor Alexander Lopukhin

Royal Archives

2026

Copyright

The modern English translation and the cover design are © 2026 Royal Archives. All rights reserved.

The underlying source text is in the public domain.

Published by Royal Archives

First published 2026

Translated by Royal Archives

Source: Религия в Америке

Cover: New England Scenery (c. 1839) by Thomas Cole (American, 1801–1848), Art Institute of Chicago, which is in the public domain.

Edition identifier: urn:royalarchives:religion_in_america:en:1

Introduction

The Author

Alexander Pavlovich Lopukhin was born on the tenth of October 1852 in the village of Mityakino, in the Saratov province, the son of a parish priest. He was schooled first at the Saratov theological seminary and then, from 1874, at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, from which he graduated in 1878. Even as a student he had drawn near to the world of learned journals, doing correctional and literary work in their editorial offices and publishing, while still at the Academy, a substantial study of the Old Testament prophets. Languages came easily to him, and by the time he left the Academy he had already marked himself out as a gifted and disciplined young biblicist with an unusual command of English. That command shaped the course of his life.

In July of 1879 he was appointed psalmist—a reader and chanter—at the Russian embassy church in New York, and there he served for the next several years, into the early 1880s. It is on this American sojourn that the present volume rests. A man of learning set down in a young and restless country, Lopukhin watched its religious life with the double attention of a churchman and a scholar, and what he saw impressed him so deeply that it colored the whole of his later work. He came home neither a partisan of America nor its detractor, but its first serious Russian interpreter, convinced that a nation so unlike his own had a great deal to teach and a great deal to warn against.

On his return he made America the subject of his early scholarship. In 1881 he defended and published his master’s dissertation, Roman Catholicism in America, and over the decade that followed he issued a series of studies, sketches, and lectures on the religious and social life of the United States. Meanwhile his academic career advanced steadily: he was named professor of comparative theology at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in 1883, and from 1885 held the chair of ancient civil history until his death. As an editor he became one of the most industrious figures in Russian church publishing, guiding the journal Strannik (The Wanderer) and launching, as a free supplement to it, the great enterprise for which he is best remembered—the Explanatory Bible (Tolkovaya Bibliya), a running commentary on every book of Scripture. He lived to complete only its first volume, his own commentary on the Pentateuch; he died on the twenty-second of August 1904, at the height of his powers, and the work was carried to completion by others across a dozen volumes between 1904 and 1913. He was buried at the Nikolskoye cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. The five American writings gathered here belong to the earliest and freshest season of that career—the reports of an observant young reader before he became the editor of the Russian Orthodox Bible.

The Work: Occasion & Purpose

The five pieces in this volume were written across roughly a decade and a half, but they form a single sustained inquiry: what does the religious life of the United States actually look like, and what can an Orthodox Russia learn from it? Lopukhin approached America at a moment when almost no serious Russian account of the country existed. “We often call Americans our friends,” he wrote in one of these prefaces, “but only rarely do we admit that we scarcely know them at all.” His purpose, first and last, was to close that gap—to replace rumor and caricature with patient, first-hand observation.

Religion in America (composed at the turn of the 1880s) is his broad survey of the American religious landscape: the extraordinary energy of a people who, cut off from the old centers of belief by an ocean, had not lost their religious instinct but intensified it, together with the ceaseless “ferment” of denominations that instinct produced.

Roman Catholicism in America, subtitled A Study of the Present Condition and the Causes of the Rapid Growth of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States of North America, was his master’s dissertation of 1881. It sets itself a precise historical question—how a body that began in “insignificance” had risen within a single century toward the first rank among American churches, and that in the very country that had first written the separation of church and state into its law.

Life Across the Ocean, subtitled Sketches of the Religious, Social-Economic, and Domestic Life in North America, is the largest and most personal of the five—a book-length travelogue that carries the reader from St. Petersburg through Vienna, Zurich, Geneva, Paris, and London, across ten days of ocean, and into the streets, churches, holidays, and households of New York. Its later chapters turn homeward to the small Russian community and its embassy church in the American city.

The Transoceanic West in Its Religious and Moral Aspect began as a set of public lectures delivered in St. Petersburg during Great Lent, later gathered into a book. Here the occasion is explicitly Russian: Lopukhin frames America as a case study offered to an educated Russian society that he saw drifting toward “religious individualization”—the ordering of belief by private reason rather than by the Church.

The Centenary of the Orthodox Mission in North America (1894) marks the hundredth anniversary of the arrival of the first Russian monastic missionaries at Kodiak Island in 1794. It is the most narrowly historical of the five, recounting the mission’s origins in the fur-trading voyages of the North Pacific and the labors of its first monks.

Taken together, the occasion of these works is one man’s determination to render America intelligible to his countrymen—its Protestant multiplicity, its Roman Catholic ascendancy, its constitutional experiment in religious liberty, and, closest to his heart, the young Orthodox mission planted on the same continent.

Argument & Structure

For all their variety of form, the five writings can be read as movements of a single argument, and it helps to see how each is built.

Religion in America opens from a single observation: the American people are intensely, restlessly religious, and their many confessions are less settled institutions than currents in a continuous search for religious truth. From this Lopukhin traces what he calls the process of “ferment”—the collision and reconciliation of diverse religious elements—through the Episcopal Church’s turn toward “catholicity” and its overtures to the Orthodox East, and on to the specifically American problems of religious liberty of conscience and religion in the public school. Its structure moves from a general diagnosis of the national temperament to particular test cases in law and education.

Roman Catholicism in America is the most rigorously organized of the five, built in three large parts: the first steps of Roman Catholicism on the continent (including the early Jesuit missions among the native peoples); its struggle for the freedom to exist amid Puritan and colonial hostility; and its external and internal growth into a major American body. Lopukhin’s governing question is causal—why growth so rapid, in soil so seemingly unfavorable—and he answers it historically, tracing the interplay of immigration, organization, and the discipline of a centralized church against the fragmentation around it.

Life Across the Ocean is structured as a journey and then a residence. Its first movement, “On the Way to America,” is pure travel writing—the European capitals, the Atlantic crossing. The second, “Beyond the Ocean,” settles into American life through its holidays and habits: Christmas and carnival, Easter in America, the Bible in America, the “kingdom of the dollar,” revival meetings, and the fraternal lodges he calls “the knights of mystery.” A third movement, “Native Echoes,” turns to the Russians abroad—their festivals and sorrows, the Russian church in New York, and the Americans who found their way into it—before closing with social and economic notes on emigration and the promise of the new land. The reader who wants Lopukhin the man, rather than Lopukhin the analyst, will find him here.

The Transoceanic West follows the shape of the lectures that produced it. A first reading argues for the importance of studying American religious-moral life at all, and surveys the American public conscience—its Sunday schools, temperance and civic societies, and the moral seriousness Lopukhin admired in American democracy. A second reading turns to what he saw as the doctrinal and practical difficulties of a purely Protestant order—the multiplication of sects and the “unlimited arbitrary will” of independent preachers—and then to the countervailing American striving toward church unity, the revivals, and the Episcopal reach toward firmer catholic ground. The movement is from what America does well to the deeper question its divisions raise, and back to the yearning for unity those divisions provoke.

The Centenary of the Orthodox Mission proceeds chronologically from the North Pacific voyages of Russian traders and the expeditions that fixed the relation of the Asian and American coasts, through the merchant Shelikhov’s decision to consolidate the scattered “sowing of Christian seeds” into a properly organized mission, to the arrival and first labors of the monks at Kodiak. It is narrative history, told with evident reverence for the “simple monks” who, expecting no such destiny, carried the Gospel to the ends of the earth.

Theological & Spiritual Significance

What gives these American reports their lasting interest is that Lopukhin never wrote as a mere correspondent. He read American religion theologically, and he read it as a mirror held up to his own society.

His deepest concern was the relation between religious truth and religious form. America struck him as living proof that “religious need lies in the very nature of the human spirit and is as eternal as the human spirit itself”—a standing rebuke to the “cold and soulless skepticism” he saw corroding an older Europe. He admired without reserve the vitality of American faith: a people among whom science and religion lived, as he put it, “in harmonious unity,” where educated men occupied themselves with religious questions and the skeptical literature of the old world “found almost no sale.” Against the materialism that had swept mid-century Europe, America seemed to him evidence that the human spirit turns back, inevitably, toward the mysterious and the holy.

Yet he saw the American situation as unfinished, even unstable—a vast “ferment” in search of a truth it could not quite reach. The multiplication of confessions and the authority he saw vested in the individual preacher and the individual conscience seemed to him to answer the hunger for religious truth with endless motion rather than rest. He was struck, accordingly, by every American movement toward unity and toward firmer, more ancient ground: the Episcopal turn to “catholicity,” the overtures toward the Orthodox East, the recurring protest of religious feeling against fragmentation. In these he read a genuine and hopeful longing.

His account of the rapid growth of Roman Catholicism belongs to the same analysis. He treated it not as a threat to be denounced but as a historical phenomenon to be explained—the success of a disciplined, centralized, and organized body in a landscape of division—and precisely as evidence of the same American hunger for authoritative, catholic form. His observations on Protestant and Roman Catholic America alike are reported as a historian reports, describing what each communion held and how each fared, without setting one against another as the arbiter of the whole.

For his Russian readers the moral was pointed but irenic. In The Transoceanic West he addressed an educated society he feared was drifting toward “religious individualization”—belief arranged by private reason—and he offered America as the classic instance of what follows when that tendency runs its course without settled ecclesial anchoring. America was, for him, at once an inspiration and a warning: inspiration in its undimmed religious energy and its civic moral seriousness, warning in the restlessness of a faith seeking form.

Running beneath all of this is a conviction that binds the five works into one: that the health of a people’s religious life depends not only on the sincerity of its belief but on the soundness of the form that carries it. Lopukhin credited America with an abundance of the first and worried about the second, and he was too honest an observer to pretend the two always went together. That tension—fervent faith seeking a stable and catholic shape—is the theological thread he followed across constitution, school, revival tent, and mission field alike.

The Centenary strikes a different and warmer note. There the significance is missionary and devotional: the wonder that the light of the Gospel reached Kodiak in the same years that the coasts of America were still being charted, carried not by a trained propaganda but by “simple monks” ready to endure every hardship for the truth. It is Lopukhin’s tribute to the zeal of the young Orthodox mission on American soil—the mission whose religious environment his other four studies had labored to describe.

Reception & Influence

These writings made Lopukhin, in effect, Russia’s first informed guide to American religious life, filling a gap he himself had named. Their afterlife is twofold. In their own moment they gave an educated Russian public a rare and detailed window onto a country it knew mostly by rumor, and Roman Catholicism in America, as an academic dissertation, earned him his master’s degree and the professorial career that followed. More broadly, they belong to the formation of the scholar who would go on to edit the Explanatory Bible and the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia — great works of accessible, popularizing scholarship whose animating conviction, that serious religious learning should be put within reach of ordinary readers, is already fully present in these early American reports. For the modern reader they carry a further, unlooked-for value: they are a thoughtful outside observer’s snapshot of Gilded-Age American religion—its revivals and lodges, its schools and Sunday schools, its constitutional settlement of church and state—seen through Orthodox eyes at the very moment the Orthodox mission on the continent was taking root.

The Text & This Edition

This edition presents a fresh modern English translation of five of Lopukhin’s Russian works on American religious life, prepared from the public-domain Russian texts as preserved in the digital library of azbyka.ru. The originals — Религия в Америке, Римский католицизм в Америке, Жизнь за океаном, Заокеанский Запад в религиозно-нравственном отношении, and Столетие православной миссии в Северной Америке — were written in the 1880s and 1890s; several first appeared as periodical essays or public lectures before being gathered into books. They are rendered here into clear, contemporary English while preserving the author’s inline emphasis, his paragraph structure, his own notes, and his scriptural references. Chapter and section numbers and scripture citations follow the house convention of Arabic numerals and a modern reference style. The translation aims throughout at faithful, readable prose that keeps the register of Lopukhin’s own nineteenth-century essayistic Russian without archaizing it.

A word on names and attribution. The author is given here as Alexander Lopukhin, a lay scholar and theologian; where his contemporaries styled him “Professor,” that title reflects his chairs at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. He is best known to posterity as the editor of the Explanatory Bible, and it is worth remembering, as one reads these youthful American studies, that they are the work of the same mind that would later undertake to comment on the whole of Scripture for a general Russian readership.

Because these are the observations of a nineteenth-century Russian Orthodox visitor, the reader will meet frank judgments about the Protestant and Roman Catholic America of the 1880s—its divisions, its enthusiasms, its rapid growth. They are presented here as historical testimony, in the author’s own voice, and are best read as one perceptive contemporary’s account rather than as a settled verdict on any communion. Where his information reflects the state of knowledge of his day, that too is part of the document’s interest.

Suggestions for Reading

A reader new to Lopukhin need not take the five works in order. Life Across the Ocean is the natural doorway: its travel narrative and its scenes of American holidays, streets, and worship introduce both the country and the observer, and its later chapters on the Russian church in New York place the author himself before us. From there, Religion in America and The Transoceanic West supply the analytic frame—the diagnosis of American religious “ferment” and the questions it raised for Russia—while Roman Catholicism in America rewards those who want Lopukhin at his most rigorous and historical. The Centenary of the Orthodox Mission is best kept for last, or read on its own as a self-contained history: it turns from the wide American panorama to the single thread that mattered most to the author—the Orthodox mission carried across the Pacific by a handful of monks, whose hundred-year story gives these studies of a distant land their quiet center of gravity.

Preface

Contents Preface

We often call Americans our friends, but only rarely do we admit that we scarcely know them at all. Russian literature has not yet produced even a single serious work bearing the mark of genuine study of American life. Yet such study could be instructive for us in many respects. The young American people have practically resolved many of those questions that fruitlessly agitate the aging nations of Europe. This applies equally to the social and political spheres as to the religious one. But while the social and political life of the American people has found some reflection in Russian and translated foreign literature, their religious life has reached us almost not at all, even through foreign literature. Meanwhile the religious life of the American people at this moment presents perhaps even more instructive interest than its social and political life. The study of this life can have important direct significance. In it the mind of a religious person will find encouragement and confirmation of the faith that the disbelief and coldness toward religion spreading in the Old World are not the result of high culture, but rather the fruit of moral decay—since on the contrary religion has never greater energy and significance than among the most educated people in the world, in America. This book is the result of study and personal observation of American religious life during our stay in New York and aims to lift even one corner of the dark veil that conceals from us the religious life of the American people. It is a collection of separate articles written by us at various times and later incorporated into our specialized investigation on Roman Catholicism in America, where they appear in their organic connection. Since they have independent interest, we deemed it not superfluous to publish them separately. Of the questions examined in it, the first concerns the general religious state of the American people, and in the first article the reader will find an exposition of the deeply interesting process of centralization of American religious consciousness, expressed in the weakening of sectarian ferment and in the search for the one true Church. The second article depicts the tragic epic of the missionary labors of the Jesuits among the Native Americans, ending in the complete ruin of the fruits of their terrible efforts. The third examines the important question of religious liberty of conscience in America, about whose nature so little is known among us, despite the fact that references to it as a model are so often heard from advocates of all manner of freedom. Finally the fourth article presents an outline of the religious question in the American school, the clarification of which is all the more necessary since the so-called secularization of the American school constitutes the secret dream of a significant portion of Russian journalism, which so often dislikes what is its own because it lacks proper understanding of what is foreign.

The Religious State of the American People and Their Search for the True Church

“Ex Oriente lux.”

1. Now and Two Centuries Ago. The First Civilizers of North America. The Native Americans. Features of Their Social and Domestic Life. Their Intellectual, Moral, and Religious State

In religious respects the American people present a deeply interesting subject for investigation—incontrovertible proof of that truth that religious need lies in the very nature of the human spirit and is as eternal as the human spirit itself. Cut off from the ancient historical centers of religious belief by an immense ocean, this people have not only failed to suppress religious instincts within themselves, but on the contrary these have achieved among them such development as the majority of European peoples do not presently possess. While the latter, wearied by the prose of centuries-long ordinary life, have succumbed to cold and soulless skepticism gnawing away at the national organism, the American people, full of life and youthful fervor, are devoted wholeheartedly to their inner development—in all their forces and faculties, both in the political-social and in the religious-moral respects.

From the very beginning of its history, as it settled into the unknown wild country, this people had to shed the centuries-long traditions of the Old World, wrought by a complex historical process and often constraining the free exercise of national forces or directing them toward barren activity. It stood face to face with nature and with it alone had to struggle to secure their existence.

This mighty struggle developed in them energy and self-reliance, equalized the balance of their forces, harmonized their physical nature with their spiritual, and from this emerged that remarkable type of balanced person which the American represents. The balance of spiritual and physical forces constitutes the most characteristic trait of the American people. Thanks to it they are free from extremes in thought and life, and in this respect stand closer than any other people to the type of the perfect human being. This feature sharply distinguishes them from European peoples. By virtue of this very balance in their physical and spiritual nature, they of necessity represent a type of general balanced national development. In the Old World national development proceeds by way of limited centralization, so that national genius concentrates chiefly in a small group of higher classes and there reaches its highest manifestation and development, while the common people remain in the torpor of dark ignorance. In the United States, on the contrary, national genius is distributed more or less equally across the entire populace; but because it spreads widely, it does not reach the heights it achieves in Europe. The American people have numerous artists and poets who individually manifest undeniable signs of great national genius, but for all that this genius in them lacks the mighty force that distinguishes the genius of first-rate European poets and artists. They abound in philosophizing thinkers, and the best of them achieve remarkable power of transcendental thought; but at the same time in them is absent that mighty and free scope of philosophical thought which distinguishes the great philosophers of Europe. In respect to refined thought and the free flight of human genius the American people undoubtedly stand behind the chief European peoples and have not yet produced such geniuses as could have universal significance in the realm of pure thought or poetic creation. But on the other hand they have no rival in the Old World regarding that healthy practical thought which often more quickly and better approaches the true essence of the subject than the most refined and abstract thought. Abstract questions of human existence, which occupy European thought, little concern them, but they follow with deep interest their practical manifestation in history and find in them a clear answer to the demands of their thinking. Hence while in Europe thought is in constant fluctuation and undergoes periodic crises of extreme enthusiasms, American thought proceeds steadily along the path of continuous progressive development. And moreover, while European thought in its highest representatives in its powerful flight completely separates itself from life, losing itself in the cloud-high expanse of vague speculation, American thought always advances only ahead of life, and the latter, having it as its accessible guide, easily and freely directs its course according to its indications. This relation of thought to life manifests itself in all aspects of American life. They are the freest nation in political respects, but they are at the same time the most conservative people. They are alien to the utopian ideas of extreme European thinkers, and they regard them with disdainful coolness as a sickly chimera hindering healthy development of practical life. Hence socialism, which makes European states shudder, has no soil among the American people at all and drags out a wretched existence in the dirty corners of German emigration[1]. They are the most educated people in the world, but their education should be measured rather in breadth than in height, and the course of study in their highest colleges cannot equal the curricula of European universities. In social respects they know no class divisions based on ancestry and to a person is open a wide field for activity in all spheres of life which they can attain by means of their own inner abilities and talents; but at the same time once a position is attained by a person it is surrounded by the same social honor and privileges which in the Old World are connected with historically-established positions. Finally in religious respects they are the freest-thinking people, but their free thought at the same time finds limitation in the general conservatism of their character and therefore does not know such extremes as are inseparably bound up with religious free thought in Europe. Their religious free thought is Christian free thought and does not go beyond the bounds of positive Christian truths. European rationalism is as alien to the American people as is European socialism[2].

As a result of harmonious development of physical and moral forces in the American people there thus emerges a mental cast which constitutes a kind of mediocrity. But this mediocrity must not be understood in the European sense. It does not constitute weakness of productive forces, but is precisely the result of their healthy self-limiting action. Americans are a thoroughly young people. Their productive forces are distinguished by all the freshness and vigor of youth. Thought in them works with astonishing energy and practice with passion absorbs the results of mental work. Therefore if we use the term mediocrity to designate their character, it must be understood in the sense of that healthy state of an organism which with all the vigor of vital forces within it constitutes the surest pledge of moderation in its functions. A sickly or disordered organism is always more inclined to excesses and enthusiasms than a healthy organism, which by virtue of its normal development is more subject to the legitimate demands of everywhere-temperate nature. As a consequence of this, beneath external limitation the American nature is internally seething with activity. Its forces, not going beyond the bounds of temperance, display boiling energy within those bounds, and therefore the general level of vital activity in it is far higher than the average level that can be found in Europe. Alien to political utopias the American people at the same time regard with passionate devotion their existing political system. The same applies in religious respects. Alien to Europe’s destructive rationalism and deadening skepticism, the American people with youthful energy are devoted to positive Christian truths. The level of their religious character is as high as the level of their political self-consciousness. Their religious faith and political independence constitute the two chief elements of their life, and they live, move, and exist chiefly in them. Religious faith for them is the supreme ideal, their political system is their actual life. But as in every young organism the ideal has greater vitality and attractiveness than reality, so too in the American people their religious faith has even greater vitality than their political life[3].

To religious zeal the American people owe their very origin. The “Pilgrim Fathers,” as the people respectfully call the first settlers of America, when migrating to the newly discovered continent were impelled to do so by their religious zeal. They were prepared to endure all the dangers of ocean voyage and subject themselves to all unforeseen hardships on the new land only in order to preserve their faith. And upon arrival on the American continent their first thought was the establishment of “the Kingdom of God” on earth, such an order of society which would be a full expression of their religious beliefs. They were so imbued with the religious spirit that the theocratic principle lay at the foundation of their society, almost in its Old Testament strictness[4]. This was an extremity and it is explained by the exceptional position of the Puritans. As such it could not endure during the subsequent historical development. With the passage of time various nationalities began to arrive in the country bringing with them diversity of customs and religious beliefs. Settling among the Puritans, colonists of different faiths made impossible the continuation of the theocratic regime in all its original strictness, and therefore it naturally had to yield to other influences. The original American population consisted of English Puritans and Dutch. If the former were representatives of stern, fanatical religious regime, the latter brought with them religious free thought which, reinforced by subsequent German elements, became an important counterweight to theocratic extremity. From the interaction of these elements is formed the present character of religiosity of the American people. The tension of the Puritan religious system was so great that in collision with the opposite element it could lose only so much as to limit its extreme manifestations. On the other hand the free thought of the Dutch-German element was not so great as to endure in collision with Puritan enthusiasm, and therefore it submitted in considerable degree to Puritanism. Hence the middle level of religiosity could be only such a level at which religiosity, displaying the traits of moderate free thought, has the predominant character of Puritanism. By such character is distinguished the contemporary religiosity of the American people. In particulars it inclines toward religious free thought, but at the same time Puritanism appears as the dominant element even in such localities where one might expect the predominance of the opposite element[5]. Evidently Puritanism, as having formed the foundation of the entire worldview of the first American settlers, so successfully rooted itself on American soil and even embodied itself in political institutions that for subsequent settlers it became the fundamental spirit of American life and therefore they, as newcomers, by necessity had to submit to it as the dominant sentiment, notwithstanding that Puritanism as a church-religious community had long lost its preeminent position in the country[6].

[1] The leader of the Socialist Party in New York, Justus Schwab, is a German emigrant, and his “revolutionary club” is a miserable and sordid beer tavern in a sordid quarter of the city.

[2] On the particular features of American religiosity see in our book: Life Across the Ocean 1881.

[3] It is remarkable that during the past century, church-religious life developed more rapidly than the general population of the country. By careful investigation at the end of the last century, the country had fewer than 1,950 churches. Since the entire population then was 3.5 million, one church fell to 1,700 souls. By the latest census of 1870, the total number of churches was shown to be over 72,000, which, with a population of 38,000,000, gives one church for every 529 souls. In other words, while the population increased eleven-fold, the number of churches increased almost thirty-seven-fold. North American Review, Jan. 1876, p. 23. A measure of the religious condition of the American people can be furnished by another fact, namely the number of seats in churches. According to statistical determination, from the population, excluding infants, the sick and elderly, persons occupied with domestic work and care of the sick, workers on railroads, steamships, omnibuses, and other places requiring constant presence on duty, only 58 percent can attend worship. And the number of church seats is entirely sufficient for this number. By the census of 1870, the population of the country was listed as 38,558,371 persons, while the number of seats in churches was 21,665,062, that is, slightly more than 55 percent. Thus only for 3 percent were no places provided in churches. In 1860, when the population was smaller, the number of church seats nearly reached the necessary figure. The population was 31,443,321, and the number of seats was 19,128,751, that is, for 57 percent of the population. Ten years earlier, namely in 1850, the number of seats was even above the need. The population consisted of 23,191,876 souls, and the number of church seats was 14,234,825, so that the latter was for 61 percent of the entire population. See Dale, Impressions of America, 190–191 New York, 1879. “The apparent decrease in the proportion of church seats in recent decades is explained by the fact that during this time external emigration arrived in such enormous masses that church-building activity could in no way keep pace with it and therefore fell behind the course of population growth.”

[4] Bancroft, History of the United States of America, Vol. I ch. IX, p. 293 and others. Centenary edition, Boston 1876.

[5] New York, for example, was founded by the Dutch, and since its founding has been the chief port to which diverse and varied emigration arrived. Its population now has in every sense a cosmopolitan character, and yet the stamp of Puritanism still lies upon the character of its people’s religiosity. See our book Life Across the Ocean 1881.

[6] A century ago the major religious societies stood in the following order by their numbers: Congregationalist (Puritan), Baptist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, German Reformed, Dutch Reformed, and Roman Catholic. By the census of 1870 they already stood in the following order: Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Christian, Lutheran, Congregationalist, and Protestant Episcopal (Anglican). This order is based on the comparative number of churches belonging to each community. If we judge by the number of seats in churches, then for the first four the order will remain the same, but the Congregationalists and Episcopalians will exceed the Lutherans and Christians. If we judge by the value of church property, then the Roman Catholic Church will take second place, and the Episcopal fifth. If finally we judge by the number of members belonging to the communities, then Methodism and Roman Catholicism will stand first. This order has been maintained to the present time, except regarding property value, in which the Roman Catholic Church by common expectation in the 1880 census should take first place. Diman, Religion in America 1776–1876. North American Review, vol. CXXII, pp. 22–23. American Almanac for 1881, p. 46.

1. Now and Two Centuries Ago. The First Civilizers of North America. The Native Americans. Features of Their Social and Domestic Life. Their Intellectual, Moral, and Religious State (Cont.)

Subsequent emigration down to the present time has not produced essential changes in this general sentiment. Waves of European emigration, despite their external heterogeneity, rapidly dissolve in the sea of American native population, and over it the spirit of Puritanism continues to hover. The heterogeneity of emigrant elements, submitting to the dominant sentiment, nevertheless exerted its own influence on the state of this sentiment. Left to itself, Puritanism had a strong tendency and could degenerate into a dry, severe, and lifeless system of theological knowledge without vivifying, humane feeling. European emigration, however, through its varied pressure upon it, constantly smoothed its too rigid and angular features and infused into its dry forms vivifying streams of individual religious feeling. From the organic combination and self-limitation of diverse elements is formed the general religious state of the American people. As the mass of the present American population consists of elements of all possible nationalities, settled upon the original foundation of the Anglo-Saxon race, so too the general religious sentiment of this mass presents diverse features merged under a single general cover of Puritanism. Since the chief constituent parts of emigration in recent decades have been German and Irish settlers, these nationalities exert the strongest influence on the cultural and religious character of the country. Hence beneath the general Puritan spirit in the religiosity of the American people especially stand out sharply the features of German religious individualism and Irish religious romanticism. Thanks to the collision of such diverse elements American religiosity could acquire such balanced character as distinguishes the American people in other respects. In it no single one of the three elements constituting it could receive extreme development—neither stern Puritanism, nor extreme German individualism, nor diffuse Celtic romanticism. All three of these elements balance each other. Such equilibrium explains all the essential features in the religious life of the American people. Thanks to the general high level of vital forces in the young American people, their religious feeling also is distinguished by boiling activity and youthful freshness. In it is absent that weariness and dulling of feeling which is observed in the aging nations of Europe and manifests itself as indifference or skepticism. Their religious needs are strong and insistent, and they satisfy them openly and with enthusiasm. German individualism brings personal critical self-consciousness into this feeling and gives faith logical meaningfulness, raising it thereby to the degree of distinct religious self-consciousness. Celtic romanticism gives religious faith a strong aesthetic coloring, raising it thereby above ordinary logically recognized feeling. Finally Puritanism through its strict form limits the extreme development both of German individualism and of Celtic romanticism and thus keeps them within proper bounds, not allowing one-sidedness in development. Hence is explained that remarkable fact that the theological thought of the American people constantly works in the realm of religious truths yet never goes beyond the bounds of faith into the dark region of skepticism and negation; religious feeling is distinguished by extraordinary energy yet rarely passes the bounds of logical meaningfulness; aesthetic feeling plays an important role in religious worship yet never passes into excess of external forms. The seal of moderation lies upon all aspects of their religious life[1].

If the general result of the collision of diverse religious elements was the creation of equilibrium in the general religious sentiment of the American people, on the other hand the organic interaction of such different elements of necessity had to produce constant fluctuation and movement of the religious forces constituting this sentiment. Hence arises that religious ferment which constitutes the most well-known and characteristic feature of American religiosity. Religious forces of the people, finding reconciliation in general sentiment, cannot merge into indifferent unity and therefore the process of ferment and assimilation is the natural and necessary result of the given state. The character of the process of ferment itself is determined by the general state of religiosity. The religious feeling of the American people, as was stated above, is distinguished by strong energy. The people are extraordinarily sensitive to interests of religious truth. They cannot regard with indifference the diverse manifestations of religious truth. They thirst for it in its certain, indisputable, categorical form. Therefore religious ferment in the American people is precisely the search for religious truth. To what extent do the given conditions of their religious life correspond to the national striving to find religious truth?

Americans both by their very origin and by the presently dominant character are a Protestant people. Northern America owes its very settlement to Protestantism, which, fleeing persecution in the Old World, sought freedom of development in the New. Roman Catholicism is still an exotic plant on American soil and is only now beginning to become acclimated to it. Therefore when examining the religious character of the American people in the proper sense we must have in mind Protestantism as their general confessional form, as the basic principle of their very religiosity. Hence the answer to the posed question can be found in the determination of the principles of Protestantism and their relation to the basic character of the American people.

Protestantism, as a religious system, is founded on two chief principles from which all its content is logically developed. As a negation of a system that had brought external church organization to the point of suppressing all personal initiative, it began to teach that the Church is only an invisible society and members can be joined with it only in the most general principle, namely only in faith, so that every believer who believes that he is redeemed by Christ is thereby a member of the Church, whatever his private opinions may be in all other respects. Second, in opposition to the Roman Catholic system which denied to the individual his own participation in determining true doctrine, it rejected the authority of the Church and determined that every person by means of his own reason, on the basis of sacred Scripture alone can and should determine what his religious doctrine and moral code ought to be. The logical and necessary consequence of these principles was that every person was made fully responsible for himself in the matter of religious and moral doctrine. With the rejection of the Church as a visible society and doctrinal authority appeared extreme individualism, in which the entire weight of responsibility fell upon the individual, who by his own forces alone had to build his salvation. Such a system, considered psychologically, corresponds to a national character distinguished by critical independence of thought, preferring his own independent judgment to any public authority. It best corresponds to the intellectual cast of the German people and hence the extreme development in them of Protestant ideas, which at the same time take only weak root among the Romance peoples having the opposite intellectual cast. If salvation indeed depended only on faith alone, human consciousness could readily be reconciled with this basic principle of Protestantism. But faith itself, if it is to have vitality, must of necessity express itself in a certain form, on which in turn depends a more or less true observance of it. By virtue of unlimited individualism, faith had to assume many forms, expressing its content in one way or another. With such diversity there naturally arises the question of which of these forms represents the most adequate expression of one common truth of faith. With weak sensitivity to religious truth this question is not of great importance and people are satisfied with the general content of the form. But with strong energy of religious feeling it becomes of enormous significance. The people seek a form which would more fully and truly express the faith they hold and cannot be satisfied with a form which in their opinion is not adequate to the content. Such energy of feeling distinguishes the American people, and hence in them arises that religious ferment which is the characteristic feature of their religious life. In this search for truth, by virtue of the basic principle of Protestantism, every person is left exclusively to himself. He has no such more general and stable authority to which he could turn for help and on whose resolution he could rely. Hence religious thought passes through many forms and is in constant fluctuation and doubt regarding the result of its logical work. The result of this ferment is that fragmentation of religious forms in which American religiosity manifests itself. This fragmentation in itself, together with the instability of forms, is obvious proof of the inadequacy of individualism in seeking that form which would fully express truth. Such a form can only be one. Consciousness of this truth can find counterbalance in intellectual individualism, but as soon as the force of intellectual individualism proves not sufficiently developed to bear the weight of responsibility, then the principle of Protestantism can be only a burden for the religious consciousness of the people, and sooner or later it will attempt to cast off this burden and find a principle more corresponding to its character.

If we compare these basic principles of Protestantism with the basic features of the character of the American people, there will appear to be an essential difference despite their seeming correspondence. The basic feature of American character, as shown above, is that healthy mediocrity which is conditioned by the state of self-limiting elements and forces. By virtue of this healthy mediocrity, as an expression of the equilibrium of forces, the American character is alien to extremity. It is distinguished by independence, but at the same time it loves moderation. It will not tolerate any external limitation, but at the same time it imposes on itself such limitations which in some respects seem constraining to a less freedom-loving character, and to them it submits with astonishing exactness. Discipline reaches nowhere the wide development it achieves in America. In schools it reaches the degree of military drill and is applied with equal strictness both to male and female institutions. Public opinion nowhere has such power over individuals as in this country of freedom, and violation of established public rules is punished with merciless severity. As in public affairs, and especially in religious respects, the character of the American people displays traits of strict Puritanism which gives all a strict disciplinary stamp. Clearly such a character does not correspond to the unbounded individualism presented by Protestantism, and this lack of correspondence clearly appears in the history of the development of religious consciousness of the American people. The first stage of this development was the recognition of one exclusive, unchanging form of doctrine outside which everything was condemned as impious and harmful, and the system itself was raised to the degree of infallible church authority, though this obviously stood in open contradiction with the basic principles of Protestantism lying at the foundation of this system. Such was the epoch of the dominance of the original, pure, stern, and exclusive Puritanism. With the passage of time by necessity this exclusive system had to yield partly to new arriving elements bringing with them features of German free thought and Romance sentimentalism. This collision of opposite elements had as its result such a fluctuation of forces that beneath the apparent general cover of Puritanism the real center of religious consciousness was lost and religious ferment began. Religious consciousness became fragmented, the people had no single common guiding principle of faith and, relying solely on their own forces, gave themselves to the search for religious truth. With the intensity of religious feeling the ferment was strong; sects arose and disappeared, religious consciousness grew tense then weakened. By force of inertia the process of centrifugal development reached its highest point; sects not only fragmented into the minutest units but also became extremely intolerant of one another. Subtle confessional polemic became the dominant sentiment of preaching and theological literature. This process reached its extreme development before the Civil War when it at the same time found correspondence in the process of political decentralization. At that time the country presented a chaotic mixture of both religious and political opinions. When the process of political decentralization reached extreme development after which came a crisis giving opposite direction to political consciousness of the people, this crisis was at the same time a turning point in the religious consciousness of the people. The terrible blow of war shook the national organism to its inner foundations and before the national consciousness opened a terrible abyss to which it had come through the process of decentralization. As if terrified by this abyss the national consciousness sharply turned in the opposite direction, a swift process of centralization began. In this reverse process of political consciousness religious consciousness also could not continue in its former direction. The crisis and the turn it produced cut so deeply into the inner life of the people that it exerted irresistible influence on all national forces and gave them all new direction. In the people began to strengthen the idea of their national unity and increasingly began to fall the political party representing the principles of decentralization. In religious respects the new process made itself known in that religious ferment began to weaken, religious consciousness, exhausted by fruitless search for truth according to the principles of individualism, began to seek more stable and reliable support for itself, and therefore small sects began to group themselves around larger communities.

[1] The interaction of forces that gradually established the present type of American religiosity corresponds fully to the process of historical development of theological thought in the country. In the development of the latter, three phases stand out sharply. The first phase, coinciding with the exclusive dominance of the Puritans, represents a period of speculative thought, when theology was exclusively occupied with great questions about the relation of humanity to God. “Every thinking mind strove to penetrate mysteries at the sight of which even angels tremble.” Metaphysical questions permeated all life, and in the highest schools logic was considered the chief science. The typical thinker of this epoch was Samuel Hopkins. When European emigration—German and Irish—intensified, the new religious element they brought had an influence on the theological thought of the country, and it entered into the second phase—the moral-practical. Instead of the former speculative-metaphysical questions, thought occupied itself with moral-didactic questions, and in the realization in the relations of people of the Gospel truths of love and brotherhood it saw its ideal. The representative of this second phase was Channing, who was a true apostle of Christian humanism, whose influence found expression in the great fact of the liberation of slaves. The third phase, which, however, has not yet crystallized into a final type, began after the Civil War and makes itself known in the tendency toward the development of the aesthetic or Romantic side in religion. This is an aesthetic basis, and its influence is reflected everywhere, even on such sects as had hitherto fanatically denied any aesthetic element in worship. This tendency expresses itself in the development of church architecture, the elaboration of definite ritual, and in various ornaments of places of worship. Cf. North American Review vol. CXXII, pp. 42–46.

1. Now and Two Centuries Ago. The First Civilizers of North America. The Native Americans. Features of Their Social and Domestic Life. Their Intellectual, Moral, and Religious State (Cont.) (2)

Such a process continues to the present time. Signs of it are on the one hand less confessional irritability, so that preachers only rarely touch on confessional differences and occupy themselves chiefly with the common truths of Christianity[1], and on the other the plainly developing idea of religious unity[2]. Religious consciousness obviously grows more and more exhausted by fruitless ferment and begins to thirst for unity which could give rest and reliable support to personal consciousness. This thirst manifests itself in the fact that increasingly before the religious consciousness of the American people appears the ideal of the “one Church of the future” which is to be created from the motley mixture of present sects. In religious journals this idea has played an important role in recent decades and presents the best confirmation and manifestation of the process of religious centralization we have described. The ideal of the “Church of the future” naturally presents itself differently, and each of the confessional communities presently dominant supposes that it is precisely destined to gather around itself the divided and scattered Christianity and will realize in itself the idea of the one Church. Such claims are made both by the chief Protestant communities and especially by the Roman Catholic Church. Among the former Methodism and the Protestant Episcopal Church especially stand out. Methodism represents one of the strongest religious communities on the American continent and thanks to a certain coincidence of its religious principles with the intensity of religious feeling in the American people is by many considered the specifically American confessional form[3]. The more understandable therefore is the claim to leadership among American religious communities made by the Methodists themselves. In the chief Methodist organ on this matter a detailed article was published in which the author says that in the past successes of Methodism and its present basic principles lie the foreshadowing of its final superiority over all other Christian communities and therefore it is precisely destined to be the “Church of the future” for the whole country[4]. The chief organ of the Episcopal Church on the other hand says that Methodism lost its pure vitality when it separated from its “mother Church” and therefore can never correspond to the needs of coming generations; and if any Church is destined to be the Church of the future of the country it is only the Episcopal Church[5]. On its part Roman Catholicism confidently proclaims that the future of the country lies in its hands and only it will bring the American people to unity in religion and make it in religious respects as unified as it is unified in the political sense[6].

Thus in the consciousness of the American people the idea of religious unity confusedly ferments, and they seek such a Church which, free from one-sidedness, could through its catholic all-inclusiveness satisfy their many-sided needs. The American people are many-sided—by their very composition. They have been formed and continue to be formed from a multitude of all manner of nationalities which annually flow into their organism through the stream of emigration. Into it enter not only all manner of European peoples but also the native primitive American tribes, African Negroes, and Asiatic Mongols. This entire diverse mass gradually is reworked into one people, forming one physical body and one spirit. From the fusion of such diverse elements obviously there cannot be one-sidedness in American character. Such a nature can only be all-sided, with equilibrium of forces both in physical and spiritual nature. Hence in religious respects it can be satisfied only by such a Church which is as all-sided in its catholicity as the people themselves are all-sided. Does any one of the three named Churches show signs of such a catholic all-sidedness?

If we turn to Methodism and examine its basic principles, there immediately appears its inadequacy in the sense of a catholic Church capable of satisfying the religious consciousness of the American people. Methodism by its very origin is a new phenomenon in the realm of religious life and therefore has no historical authority behind it. It constitutes a protest against the dead formalism of the Anglican Church and as such is an artificial or temporary phenomenon and therefore has no promise of future development. As a product of Protestantism it is of necessity one-sided and has no signs of catholicity. As a Protestant phenomenon it is at the same time a child of that individualism from which American religious consciousness suffers and persistently seeks salvation in more stable principles. The peculiarity of Methodism among other Protestant communities lies in the fact that it is a religion of feeling in its extreme tension[7]. While in other Protestant confessions individualism of reason reigns, constructing its salvation on the basis of interpretation of Scripture, in Methodism the individualism of feeling prevails, seeking salvation in the achievement of religious ecstasy. It took quick root among American popular masses, and this is explained by the abundance of religious feeling in the American people. But by this very fundamental principle it cannot have a future in the country. Now it constitutes the confession of the lowest classes and among others of the Negro population. With the development of these popular masses to the degree of balance of reason and feeling it will lose all ground. Clearly Methodism cannot be that “Church of the future” whose idea ferments in the consciousness of the American people.

The Episcopal Church has more claims to the great religious mission of uniting the American people into one religious body. This Church presents itself as a community which in its foundation is significantly free from the common defect of Protestantism, namely the extreme development of individualism. It occupies a middle position between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism as two opposite systems. From this side it apparently presents itself as free both from the extremes of Protestant individualism and from the opposite extreme of Roman papalism, and therefore more corresponds to the balanced character of the American people. But upon closer examination of its inner character its essential weakness is revealed. The Episcopal Church in the United States is an offshoot of Anglicanism and therefore has at its foundation the same principles on which Anglicanism arose and exists. The latter by its essence is a moderate protest against Roman papalism. Having severed itself from its historical foundation Anglicanism found itself without connection with its historical past and without a definite basis in the present. As a result it began to seek support in nationalism and became the state Church of England. However unstable such a position may be, it could nevertheless by means of the state which took it under its care organize itself into an independent community and have sufficient basis for its existence. As a state Church it also passed to the soil of the New World. But with the proclamation of the independence of the United States it lost its sole support—in the English state and found itself in a difficult situation. The only way out for it remained either to develop its Protestant principles to their extreme logical consequences and thus plunge into the general sea of Protestant ferment, or on the other hand return to its historical past and reunite with Roman Catholicism. However its organism, though artificially created, had succeeded in becoming balanced enough between the two extremes so that it could not entirely incline to one side or the other. Parts of it fell away and were absorbed both by Protestantism and by Roman Catholicism but the whole organism continued to maintain its existence. Feeling its internal weakness Anglicanism on American soil also attempted to lean on the state. But since here by virtue of the principle of separation of Church and state it could not become a state Church in the English sense it nevertheless sought to be in close relations with the state by adopting the form of state institutions of the United States into its church organization. With this purpose the Episcopal Church in America developed a “Constitution” which makes its organic system almost identical with the political system of the country with the difference that it does not have an executive power corresponding to the President of the United States[8]. In this correspondence of its church organization to the political organization of the country it undoubtedly finds significant support since the American people, highly valuing their political system, more readily and sympathetically regard a Church which has a similar organization. This explains the fact that it could preserve its independent existence on American soil and did not perish after the loss of its support in the English state[9]. But apart from this external feature in the Episcopal Church there are also internal features which give it advantage before many other religious communities of the country. By its essence it is a compromise between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Having rejected the extremes of the system of papalism it at the same time did not go to the opposite extreme—Protestant individualism. Thanks to the positive nature of the Anglo-Saxon race it assumed the form of moderate Protestantism and remained there. In England this form found support in the state and therefore it easily became the established religion. If on the one hand in this union it found external support then on the internal side such a union was for it equivalent to slavery with its inevitable consequences of moral weakening. In America on the other hand it, having no state support, for its self-preservation of necessity had to rely only on its inner principles and seek in them the source of its vitality. Hence is explained that undoubted fact that the Episcopal Church in the United States is distinguished by far greater vitality compared with Anglicanism. But this in turn leads to a new consequence. Differing in greater self-consciousness than Anglicanism the Episcopal Church in America of necessity more boldly tests its inner foundations on which its organism is based. In such bold critical self-testing its inner organic weakness is plainly revealed. It has no positive principles in its foundation and the secret of its existence is explained precisely only by compromise. In dogmatic respects it wavers between Protestantism and Catholicism, in ecclesiastical matters it seeks questionable support in nationalism. Such compromise apparently gives it equilibrium between two extremes but this equilibrium is unstable and is maintained only by the temporary coincidence with similar equilibrium in the external conditions of its existence. The American people is formed from diverse elements which entering into organic combination create a race free from extremes and on the contrary balanced in its forces and functions. But this balance is not external but organic and therefore positive. Meanwhile equilibrium in the Episcopal Church as founded on compromise is only so to speak mechanical, external, and as such does not correspond to the positive organic equilibrium of the American people. On the contrary at the first attempt to compare the principles lying at the foundation of the organism of the Episcopal Church there is revealed their complete non-correspondence. In 1853 such an attempt was made and it revealed the entire inadequacy of the Episcopal Church as a religious system capable of satisfying the needs of the American people. In view of the intensified process of decomposition and fragmentation of Protestantism the appearance of various forms of disbelief and the strengthening of Roman Catholicism representatives of the Episcopal Church raised the serious question of where to seek salvation from this state of affairs. Naturally they turned to the Episcopal Church itself; but delving into its internal state they came to the sad conclusion that it could not in its present state satisfy the religious needs of the American people and was not capable of “doing the Lord’s work in this land and in this age”[10]. The result of this self-consciousness was that having lost faith in its adequacy and stability on the foundations on which it now rests it began to seek more stable support for itself somewhere outside itself and hence its constant hesitations and search for catholicity which characterize its most recent history. Thus the Episcopal Church even by its own consciousness cannot satisfy the religious needs of the American people and consequently cannot become the “Church of the future” in the United States. It does not have that positive character of principles which would correspond to the positive nature of the American people. In such a case there remains only the third claimant to the future in the country namely Roman Catholicism.

[1] In an article reviewing recently published sermons of the famous American preacher Rudder, a critic remarks: “In the numerous volumes of sermons issuing from the press at present, the most remarkable tendency is to avoid controversial points between sects and parties and to focus on principles equally held by all.” N. Y. Times, April 11, 1881. Cf. North American Review, Jan. 1871, art. “Religion in America 1776–1876.”

[2] A learned author of a philosophical treatise on religion in America over the past century states: “The prevailing impulse of American religion, according to common opinion, is its fragmentation into an infinite diversity of sects. But nothing can be more certain from a review of our religious history than the gradual strengthening of a tendency in the exactly opposite direction. True, the existence of a multitude of sects is a present fact, and in a country where the expression of opinion on all subjects is unrestrained, such a result is unsurprising; but the majority of small communities are only waves on the surface of a stream, which appear in moments and then forever disappear. In their most repellent forms they are only social excrescences, which arise mainly from foreign sources. The most characteristic fact of our religious history, as the census clearly shows (1870), is not the tendency of American Christianity to fragment into a multitude of sects, but its inclination to concentrate under a few large denominational types. This conservative preference on the part of the vast majority for a stable church order is the main and undoubted distinction of our religious life. Whatever the tendency was in the earlier period, at the present time it is not subject to doubt in this direction.” Diman, “Religion in America 1776–1876”, in North American Review vol. CXXII, p. 31.

[3] Cf. N. Y. Herald of Sept. 12, 1860. MacDonald, British representative of the Episcopal Conference in Cincinnati, in his report states that “Methodism is by its nature a national church in America.” Art. “American Methodism as seen by an Englishman.” A remarkable feature of it is that it arose from nothing and in one century managed to take a leading place in the country among religious confessions, growing and increasing at the expense of other confessions. When the first Methodist conference was held in Baltimore in 1784, they had only 60 preachers conducting worship in barns and under the open sky, but by the census of 1870 Methodism had already 25,000 parish organizations with church property valued at 70,000,000 dollars. North American Review, Jan. 1876, p. 25

[4] Galaxy for 1868. Catholic World, vol. VIII p. 145.

[5] “Our own church is destined to be the church of the future in our country,” says the Episcopal Churchman. It is a church of apostolic institution and origin, with a pure, uncorrupted faith, with a duly authorized hierarchy, with the word and sacraments of the Gospel, and through them with the right to communicate divine grace, without which all would be ineffective words and forms. What may be said of others, but it cannot be denied that all this is true with respect to our church. We do not find that all this, in all its details, is applicable to any other church in this country except our own. Churchman, July 25, 1868.

[6] Hecker, Catholic Church in the U. S. p. 22.

[7] “The enormous popular influence of Methodism, according to an American writer, lies in its bold turn from the theology of reason to the theology of feeling.” North American Review, Jan. 1876, p. 26.

[8] See “Constitution adopted in General Convention in Philadelphia, October 1789.” It is usually placed in the appendix to the journals of the General Conventions. See, for example, in Journals of General Convention for 1868, 1871, 1874, and 1877.

[9] “The Revolution struck this church a heavy blow. It was reduced almost to nothing, and many despaired of the possibility of the continuation of this community except in connection with the state.” North American Review Vol. CXXII, p. 18.

[10] Many memorials of this kind were submitted to the General Convention of 1853 by the most prominent representatives of the Episcopal Church. Later they were collected and published as a separate book by Bishop Potter in 1857 under the title: Memorial Papers, but afterwards this book was found to be harmful to the church and all copies were destroyed, so we use only extracts from it, made in Catholic World, Vol. VII, in the article “The Church of the Future”.

1. Now and Two Centuries Ago. The First Civilizers of North America. The Native Americans. Features of Their Social and Domestic Life. Their Intellectual, Moral, and Religious State (Cont.) (3)

Roman Catholicism cherishes the brightest hopes for its future in the United States. By the expression of Roman Catholic publicists the future of the North American Republic belongs precisely only to Roman Catholicism which alone can bring the people to religious unity and make it as unified in religious respects as it is unified in political respects[1]. The extraordinary successes of Roman Catholicism in the country which it has achieved in the course of one century apparently justify such hopes. If in one century it has succeeded in rising from insignificance to almost the first position in the country and in working out an organization before which weakened Protestantism torn by internal discord trembles then it is natural to expect that relying now on this powerful organization it can without difficulty extend its dominion to the small Protestant communities and absorb them into its powerful organism. But such a conclusion would be hasty and would not correspond to the real significance of the premises. The chief source of rapid spread of Roman Catholicism in the United States was emigration that is its increase is owed not to its internal organic growth but rather to a purely external process—increase or collection of already existing Catholic masses. Such a process of increase took place not at the expense of the American people but apart from it. Consequently from this side despite all its extraordinary character the past successes of Roman Catholicism have no relation to the religious problem occupying us concerning which Church can in the future become the one Church of the united American people and therefore give no grounds for conclusions concerning future successes. But Roman Catholicism has another side to its development. Not only did it arrive from Europe to American soil but also it attempted to become acclimated on it to take root in the organic environment of the American people itself. In this respect it already directly approaches our problem and presents important data for investigation. Both the success of these attempts and the general receptivity of American soil with respect to Roman Catholicism constitute direct data for our question. This success considered from its external side also does not have important significance and numerically far from constitutes a firm foundation for the entire mass of Roman Catholic population that has arrived. But it has another—internal side and in this respect it deserves serious attention. This is the moral side of success and it can serve as an indicator of the general predisposition of the American people toward Roman Catholicism. In what then does this predisposition express itself and what degree of tension does it have in this direction? We have seen that the American people both by their origin and by their present state are a Protestant people. The principles of Protestantism received wide development in them and expressed themselves in wandering sectarianism. They have in considerable degree even been embodied in the political institutions of the country and penetrated into the cast of public life. From this side Roman Catholicism as the opposite religious system can encounter only opposition from the American people which indeed has gone through the whole century-long history of its independent life and manifested itself both in indirect legislative measures against Roman Catholicism and in open anti-Catholic movements of the popular masses. But at the same time in the very religious-Protestant character of the American people in the various turns of its historical development there appeared increasingly the features of the inadequacy of Protestantism in the sense of a religious system corresponding to the basic character of the people. Its extreme individualism proved in contradiction with the healthy mediocrity of American character and when it reached the greatest development necessarily had to be followed by a reaction in favor of the process of centralization. The people began to be oppressed by the fragmentation of their religious state and in view of the non-correspondence of individualism with their character began to seek the one Church which could give authoritative rest to its religious feeling exhausted by fruitless work and removing from it the unbearable weight of personal responsibility would appear as a powerful and infallible guide on the path of salvation. With the birth of the idea of the one Church religious consciousness sought that real foundation around which ferment could settle and which would be capable of accepting the heterogeneous elements of ferment into its organism and thus create the one Church. If in this process many stopped at Methodism and the Episcopal Church then an even greater number began to turn toward Roman Catholicism. The latter presented in this respect important advantages before the two first. It had such historical antiquity behind it as neither Methodism nor the Episcopal Church could equal; and for religious consciousness exhausted by the variability of sectarian forms this historical antiquity presented the chief pledge of stability and immutability of principle. It presented such a powerful organization which no Protestant community could develop. Finally its confessional and disciplinary system had all the external signs of the “one” Church which religious consciousness vainly sought in the systems of Protestant communities. In view of such undoubted advantages of Roman Catholicism before Protestant communities it is inevitable to suppose that the inclination of religious consciousness of the American people in the search for the one Church must surely and irrevocably have occurred in favor of Roman Catholicism. In reality this did not occur and cannot occur. Roman Catholicism presenting immeasurable advantages compared with Protestant communities in the sense of a whole unchanging historical Church at the same time has in itself many aspects which contradict the religious intellectual and social-state meaning of the American people. If the American people are exhausted by the weight placed upon them by Protestantism of personal responsibility in the matter of salvation they nevertheless possess such developed sense of personal independence that in no case will they tolerate its restriction to the extent which is inevitable in Roman Catholicism. They thirst only for such a Church to which they could freely relate as to the supreme tribunal of their personal conscience. If the American people present a mediocre intellectual character this mediocrity is not of such kind as to tolerate stubborn denial of progressive development of thought with which is inseparably bound in their conception the idea of the Roman Catholic Church[2]. Finally they feel complete non-correspondence of the principles of Roman Catholicism with their political and social cast. And indeed in this respect the Roman Catholic tendency of extreme centralization with its newest apotheosis in the person of the infallible Pope stands in complete contradiction with the historically developed and consolidated sense of the American people[3]. It will forever serve as an insurmountable barrier on the path to Roman Catholicism. Individual persons especially deeply feeling the inadequacy of Protestantism will convert to the Roman Catholic Church notwithstanding its non-correspondence with the principles of the social-state life of the people. But the sense of the whole people will never be able to reconcile this contradiction and therefore Roman Catholicism cannot become that “one Church” of the American people whose idea confusedly ferments in their religious consciousness.

Thus notwithstanding the developing in the American people the need to have one strong Church which in religious respects would become parallel with their state system among the presently existing confessional forms they do not have one which could factually realize their idea. Methodism is too new and unstable in its form and is one of the extreme manifestations of Protestant individualism which burdens the people. The Episcopal Church itself has no firm foundation beneath it and all the more cannot take upon itself all the weight of the American people. Finally Roman Catholicism with its historical stability on its side in turn suffers from the extreme development of the principle of centralization and as such stands in irresolvable contradiction with the entire cast of American worldview.

Where then is the desired way out?

[1] This dream runs through all the publicistic and historical literature of Roman Catholicism in the United States like a red thread.

[2] “The idea of the incompatibility of Roman Catholicism with intellectual progress and the course of modern civilization has nowhere such currency as in America. The well-known book of Draper is an expression of the common American view of Roman Catholicism. Cf. Pamphlet—Roman Catholicism in the U.S. New York 1879. Barnum, Romanism. Catholic World, Vol. VIII art. “Hypnotics”. Vol. V art. Rome or Reason. The latter articles constitute a refutation of common views.”

[3] This idea is developed with particular fullness in Thompson’s work: The Papacy and the Civil Power New York 1879. See also Roman Catholicism in the U.S. especially ch. VI; Fortnightly Review, Jan. 1876, art. “The Catholic peril in America” etc.

2. The Episcopal Church and Its Position in the Process of Religious Centralization. The Inadequacy of Its Inner Principles and Search for Outer Support. Ritualism and Its Inner Significance. “The Bankruptcy of Protestantism.” The Search for Catholicity and the Location of True Uncorrupted Catholicity. The Inclination of the Episcopal Church Toward the Orthodox East

Of the three principal denominational forms, the one most conformable to the American character is undoubtedly the middle one—namely, the Episcopal Church. It is free from both the extremes of individualism and the opposite extremes of Roman Catholicism, and therefore, if any church among those mentioned is destined to become the one church of a unified American people, it is precisely the Episcopal Church. In its history there was already a period when the golden dream drew near to realization. Even before the outbreak of the Civil War, which served as the ultimate turning point in the consciousness of the American people, signs of weariness with sectarian fruitless ferment began to be noticed in the people, and many of the most perceptive minds sought solace in large religious communities. The Episcopal Church, as free from the extremes of Roman Catholicism, was then most suited to the awakening sentiment and began a bountiful harvest. “From 1850 to 1856, the numerical growth of its members far exceeded that of previous periods. Its clergy ranks were strengthened both in numbers and influence. A spirit of unprecedented activity apparently rose within it, and besides all this there was evident in it a disposition to gather around itself other Protestant denominations and unite them with itself into one ecclesiastical body. This disposition found approval even beyond its flock. Many of those who had never before called themselves by any distinctive Christian name, attracted by its dignity and order, began to regard it as the most desirable of all Protestant communities. Notable dissenters turned their eyes toward it, seeking refuge from that schismatic abyss in which their various boats had already been nearly capsized. Great mutual reciprocity on both sides and complete sympathy with the movement on its part—that is all that seemingly was necessary for creating that unity which fractured Christendom has so long desired. This was the most favorable moment for it. The iron was hot for forging. The wheat was ripe for harvest. Deep peace presented favorable conditions for discussion and investigation. The spirit of organic life was kindling in the people and men showed an inclination toward the closest union with one another. All that was necessary was a strong will and a skillful hand to remove some remaining obstacles, and the triumph of Episcopalism in the country could have been assured.”[1] This important moment in the history of Episcopalism, however, did not lead to the results that might have been expected. The Episcopal Church, thanks to this lifting of spirit within itself and the general demand of the time, of necessity, before coming forward with the great mission of uniting Christian communities, had to carefully examine its own internal capacity for such a mission. This necessity was recognized by its best representatives, and from them it was that at the convention of 1853 there came a series of memoranda, of which it was said above. From these memoranda it is evident that if great was the demand of religious consciousness for a church that could satisfy the “great moral and social needs of the time,”[2] then all the more clearly did the inadequacy of the Episcopal Church in satisfying them come to light. The demand of the time forced a deeper investigation into the essence of Episcopalism, and in this internal analysis there was revealed all the instability of its foundations. Resting as it did on a compromise between two extremes, it could still maintain equilibrium between them in ordinary peaceful conditions. But faced with the strong movement that began around it in the 1850s, it found itself in a difficult position. The foundations represented by compromise were far too unreliable and unstable to withstand the strong pressure of the popular spirit. It demanded firm, positive foundations, but these did not exist in the Episcopal Church. And so it, conscious of the greatness of the demand addressed to it and at the same time feeling its own weakness and inadequacy in satisfying that demand, wavered at its very foundation. The more it needed positive foundations, the more clearly was revealed before it the unreliability of its own foundations. Such an indefinite and abnormal condition could not be permanent. It had to find a way out of it. If its own foundations were weak, then it was necessary to seek them outside itself. Before it stood Protestantism on one side and Roman Catholicism on the other. The former could not serve as a support for Episcopalism because it itself suffered from instability. Thus there remained only Roman Catholicism. But to seek support in Roman Catholicism for Episcopalism meant to renounce itself and erase its own past history. It arose as a protest against the abnormal development of Roman Catholicism, and therefore accepting what had been rejected would be an absolute denial of its right to exist. Yet it had a right to exist even as an external equilibrium to the extremes. If it was now unstable in its foundations, this meant only that it had not established equilibrium between the extremes with sufficient precision, and denying extreme Protestantism and extreme papacy not with sufficient consistency, it had not carried through the principle of equilibrium, and therefore did not maintain the essential elements that constitute the necessary condition for stable existence. This inevitable process of thought led the more consistent representatives of the Episcopal Church to a careful analysis of its middle position, and they discovered that the whole cause of Episcopalism’s instability lay in this: that in rejecting Roman Catholicism, it also failed to refrain from rejecting certain truths that constitute essential elements of church life, and thus did not remain at the true middle point but inclined toward Protestantism. As soon as the true cause of Episcopalism’s unstable position was found, there naturally arose the desire to remove it. If the cause lay in excessive inclination toward Protestantism, then obviously the only means for establishing equilibrium remained—to shift the center of gravity in the direction of Roman Catholicism. And indeed, a process of such shifting did begin, and it was expressed in the well-known movement that received the name of Ritualism.

Ritualism, viewed in its general characteristics, is precisely a reaction against the excessive intrusion of Protestant principles into the system of Episcopalism. In it two directions are observed, which nevertheless have one and the same general goal. One of them wishes to restore in Episcopalism only those principles and forms by which it was distinguished in the age of the Reformation and from which it has, over time, deviated in the direction of Protestantism. The other does not limit itself to this and aims at restoring in the Church those forms that existed in it even before the appearance of Anglicanism.[3] Both directions agree in the recognition that the present Episcopalism is not a true expression of that ecclesiastical movement, which was only a limitation of the abuses of Roman Catholicism, but lapsed into an undesirable extreme of Protestantism, and thus deviated from the essential principles of truly ecclesiastical life. The so-called “XXXIX Articles,” which constitute the symbolic expression of the essence of the Episcopalian faith, are in the opinion of Ritualists purely “Protestant articles tacked onto a Catholic liturgy”[4] and as such should be rejected or radically revised. So far as law is concerned, these views have not been expressed in any formal determinations, but in practice they have already received wide application. Ritualistic churches in New York, the main center of American Ritualism, have substantially transformed their worship, and it strikes one with the splendor and magnificence of its forms, by which it is thus essentially distinguished from the Protestantized simplicity of ordinary Episcopal churches. In transforming their worship, Ritualistic churches naturally had in view ancient Anglicanism or even Roman Catholic forms, and therefore the liturgical and ceremonial aspect in them presents very great resemblance to Roman Catholic worship, and differs in essence only in that it is performed not in Latin but in English. Splendid vestments, icons, crosses, incensing—all of this bears the imprint of Roman Catholicism.[5] But Ritualism does not limit itself merely to the restoration of external forms lost in the Protestant movement, but also strives to bring the teaching of the Church into accord with those true principles from which Episcopalism deviated. Thus, Ritualism, contrary to the symbolic book of Episcopalism, recognizes all seven sacraments, allows confession, acknowledges the doctrine of transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Eucharist, the invocation of saints, prayers for the dead, and the foundations of celibate monastic life.[6] What then is Ritualism in its inner essence? It is evidently a movement in the direction of those forms and principles of truly ecclesiastical life, the deviation from which has come to seem to the consciousness of a certain part of the Episcopalians as a sectarian error, extreme Protestantism, and consequently a denial of the essential elements of life in the true Christian Church. But such a movement, in order to realize its fundamental idea, must have in view not only the general ideal of true ecclesiastical life but also its more or less concrete realization, with which it could accord in its direction. Otherwise the movement either will be in a constant process of vacillation or will lapse into an undesirable extreme. This question has deep vital significance for Ritualism and seriously occupies the leading minds of its best representatives. Upon its resolution or the other depends the whole fate of Ritualism, and Ritualism has more than once attempted to resolve this question for its own consciousness.

In the 1860s, when the spirit of the time with special urgency pressed questions about the direction of religious consciousness of the American people, Ritualism displayed extraordinary vitality among its members. If pure Episcopalism proved inadequate to the demands of the time, then in its place Ritualism sought to step forward, and as a “Catholic” church opened its arms to the weary and exhausted Protestantism. Its preachers, with remarkable discernment, noted the temper of the age and openly began to denounce Protestantism as a completely failed and even false movement, proclaiming that the only salvation could be only a return to “Catholicity,” as the true expression of true ecclesiastical-religious life. Particularly prominent in such preaching was the well-known Episcopal preacher of New York with a Ritualistic tone, Dr. Ewer. In the autumn of 1868, he came forward with a series of sermons in which with remarkable force and boldness he proclaimed the complete failure of Protestantism in satisfying the demands of the religious spirit of humanity, and in vivid colors depicted the sad state of church life in the realm of Protestantism. These sermons of his, under the general title “The Failure of Protestantism” (bankruptcy of Protestantism), produced a profound impression on American society,[7] and the newspapers gave precise stenographic accounts of them. They represent a very characteristic expression both of the general religious state of the American people and especially of that movement which had grown out of dissatisfaction with that state. In them is expressed with extraordinary force the thirst of the American religious spirit for that true Catholicity which it vainly seeks among the denominational forms existing in America. In this sense it has direct relevance to our subject, and therefore we consider it necessary to briefly set forth their main thoughts.[8]

[1] Catholic World, Vol. VIII, p. 149, 150.

[2] Extracts from Memorial Papers in Catholic Church of the Future. World Vol. VII, art. The Church of the Future.

[3] Catholic World, Vol. V, p. 64, art. Ritualism.

[4] Ibidem, p. 64.

[5] We personally attended worship in ritualistic churches and observed its peculiarities. A description of one of the ritualistic churches, namely St. Alban’s, is placed in Catholic World Vol. V, art. Ritualism.

[6] Catholic World, Vol. VIII, p. 830, V, p. 57. In the state of New York there are several ritualistic “brotherhoods” having a monastic character.

[7] New York Times of Nov. 16, 1868, editorial note

[8] In this exposition we use the stenographic report printed in the best and most serious newspaper New York Times for 1868. In nos. of Sept. 28, Oct. 6, 9, and 30, and Nov. 16.

2. The Episcopal Church and Its Position in the Process of Religious Centralization. The Inadequacy of Its Inner Principles and Search for Outer Support. Ritualism and Its Inner Significance. “The Bankruptcy of Protestantism.” The Search for Catholicity and the Location of True Uncorrupted Catholicity. The Inclination of the Episcopal Church Toward the Orthodox East (Cont.)

The present religious state of the American people, in the opinion of the preacher, is experiencing one of those crises that from time to time occur in the religious-ecclesiastical life of humanity as a consequence of deviation from the true principles of Christianity. Even in the first centuries of Christianity one such crisis came—namely the appearance of Arianism, and the result of this crisis was that “unimpaired Christianity rose up in its strength against the error and true, pure, apostolic faith was thus restored and confirmed.” In the Middle Ages another crisis came. “Roman errors grew and developed slowly until finally in the eleventh century serious Catholics in the eastern part of the Church, no longer bearing the spreading evils, rose up in their majesty to condemn them; and the Orthodox eastern (or Greek) Church determined to break off communion with Rome, which separation continues even to this day.”[1] Meanwhile in the Roman part of Christendom those same errors continued to grow and new ones were added to them, until finally in the fifteenth century serious people throughout the west rose up in their majesty against them and produced the “so-called Reformation.” Protestantism came to dominion, but with it the crises did not cease. On the contrary, they took a worse form. Protestantism, in rejecting firm ecclesiastical principles, stepped onto the slippery path of rationalism, and from this in it, besides continuous minor crises, there is being prepared a general and most terrible crisis for all religious-Christian consciousness. Within it there grows and develops unbelief, practical life is freed from the influence of religious-Christian principles, and “the communion of saints” is destroyed. It is too one-sided in its narrow individualism and too cold for religious enthusiasm, so that in it there is no outlet for those by nature enthusiastic persons who could find their happiness only in complete renunciation of gray practical life in order to devote themselves to serving a higher divine ideal (monasticism). Due to the one-sided abstractness of its principles, it proved inaccessible to the popular masses and therefore degenerated into aristocraticism with brilliant preaching and high rents for church seats.[2] But even among the most intelligent classes its wandering instability develops indifferentism, as a result of which very many, tired of the changeability of forms, reject all forms of ecclesiastical life and live by Christian principle alone, becoming lost in its misty vagueness.[3] Thus Protestantism itself shows its wretched inadequacy—to satisfy the religious demands of humanity. It constitutes a completely failed and harmful movement and prepares a terrible crisis. One must seek salvation from it. But this does not mean that one should seek salvation from it in Romanism. “This would mean returning from an evil consequence to the cause of all evils.”[4] No, salvation must be sought “in the restoration of the ancient, Catholic, and apostolic foundations, free from the admixture of Roman errors.” The signs of the times show the beginning of movement in this direction, movement toward the restoration of “the Catholic Church in its continuous life as a divine institution endowed with supreme authority and adapted to the needs of all ages.”[5] But what is the “Catholic Church”? Does it exist on earth, and if it does, where? “The Catholic Church is a living organism, universal in space and universal in time even to Christ himself.” It is a living body having one organic head; a visible body with invisible life, and this life, this soul of the Church, is Christ.[6] As a visible, living organism, it obviously must exist in space and time. Protestant communities cannot be this organism because their historical life does not go back to the very source of the Church’s origin as a continuously living and developing organism. “But suppose I turn to our (Episcopal) Church. I find that it as an organism, with its hierarchy and ecclesiastical life, goes back to medieval England, and through the early period of Britain—even to the times of the apostles. Here apparently there is something Catholic. But do not be hasty. The life of the Roman Church I can trace equally continuously to the apostles. The same characteristic of continuous existence back to the apostles is found also in the Greek Church.”[7] If one looks carefully at these three churches, there turn out to be important differences between them. “Rome has a pope and the cult of the Holy Mother of God Ever-Virgin, which does not exist in the Greek and Anglican organisms.”[8] But if one looks even more carefully, one can notice that though these three churches—Anglican, Greek, and Roman—differ in some respects, they are wonderfully alike in all else. “All three have a hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons. All have a sacred altar with the awesome sacrifice as the central purpose in their churches. All have vested clergy. All have the days of saints and solemn church seasons. All have a ceremonial aspect in their worship. All trace their life from the first century. All have magnificent ceremonies and processions; the Greeks have the most brilliant, the Romans less, and the Anglicans even less. All recognize the authority of ecumenical councils. All have the same apostolic succession and the same sacraments. Here thus I begin to find the Catholic Church. Those few characteristics by which the Greek, Anglican, and Roman churches differ from one another are simply local; but all those many characteristics in which they agree form for me plainly, firmly, and distinctly the great Catholic Church; one in space as in an organism, and one in time; existing equally in Russia and in Italy and in England and in America, in Mexico, in Germany, and in Brazil—everywhere, existing also in the nineteenth century and also in the Middle Ages and in the early periods—unchanging and unchangeable. All that in the Anglican, Greek, and Roman communities is held in common by all three and held by them everywhere, always, and by all—that is Catholic. All else, every characteristic that we have but Rome and the Eastern Christians do not have, or that Rome has but we and the Greeks do not have, or that the Greeks have but we and Rome do not have—that is simply local and particular, not Catholic.” Striving to give a clear explanation of his theory, Ewer turns to the well-known comparison of the Church with a tree. “For simplicity,” he says, “let us take a tree. For eight feet above the ground the trunk stands single and undivided. Somewhere at the ninth foot it divides into two main branches. The eastern one we shall call the Greek branch, and the western one we shall call the Latin branch. Six feet higher up on the Latin branch, that is at fifteen feet above the ground, this western branch divides into two large branches. The outer one we shall call the Anglican branch, and the other we shall call the Roman. These two branches and the Greek branch go upward to 19½ feet from the ground. And thus there exist three great branches, each with its own foliage, the Anglican in the west, the Roman in the center, and the Greek in the east. If now you look only at the top of the tree, before you will be three separate groups of vegetation, though the foliage and color are the same. But look at the whole tree and—you will see a symbol of the Catholic Church—one organism from root to crown.”[7] The branching did not violate unity. But why have these three churches broken off all relations and communication with each other? “In reality the unity of the organism was not violated; communication between its three parts is only interrupted for a time, until there occurs in the one Church of God that differentiation which, as Spencer wonderfully shows, is the law of all growth; differentiation which in its last phase appears not as complete separation but as ultimate unity in multiplicity, harmony of subordinate parts. Thus we have found what the Catholic Church is.”[9]

The reasonings presented by the venerable Dr. Ewer[10] expressively depict the state of the religious spirit of the American people—especially the Episcopal community. It is a complete consciousness of the inadequacy of those religious principles by which it now lives, and a thirst for higher principles of “Catholicity.” Wearied by the fragmentation and variability of Protestant forms, it seeks firm unity, a great ecclesiastical organism, one Catholic Church.[11] But in the search for this Catholicity, one is struck at the same time by the vagueness of consciousness as to where precisely pure Catholicity can be found and by what path to arrive at it. Conscious of the abnormality of the present state, the religious spirit of the American people instinctively divines what can provide its salvation, and seeks it in “Catholicity,” but this Catholicity is only instinctively sensed by it, and it does not yet have that clear and distinct consciousness which could directly point it toward the desired goal. Ewer, through his analytical process of thought, arrives at a recognition of Catholicity in three principal ecclesiastical communities—namely, the Anglican, Greek, and Roman. In a certain respect he is right, but the Catholicity found in this way presents something so indefinite, impersonal, and organically separated that for concrete consciousness it presents no tangible guarantee of the adequacy of such Catholicity as the organic, living body of the Church. Meanwhile in the very process of his reasoning there lie data for a more satisfactory solution of the problem. The process of religious-ecclesiastical development was accomplished through a series of crises arising from the deviation of that development from original pure Catholicity. When deviation threatened dangerous consequences for the Church, the parts most sensitive to truth rose up against such deviation and separated themselves from those in error. This separation, to judge by its origin, obviously had as its goal the better preservation of unimpaired Catholicity. The first phase of this separation was expressed in the separation of the Eastern Church, which first became conscious of the deviation of the Roman Church from the path of true development. The deviation meanwhile in the erring part, namely the Roman Church, continued to increase until finally others, apparently less sensitive to truth than the first separated part, also became conscious of this deviation and separated from the erring Church. Thus Anglicanism came about. Thus we have one Church developing steadily along a false path, and two other churches which rose up against such error and separated from it to preserve pure Catholicity. But they separated at different times. The first separated as soon as deviation from truth began to be noticed in the Roman Church, but the second lived for whole centuries in communion with a knowingly erring Church and separated from it only when the error had become unbearably evident. Both the one Church and the other separated with the goal of preserving pure, unimpaired, Catholic faith. But from this it naturally follows that Catholic faith can be found in greater integrity and purity in that Church which showed itself most concerned with the preservation of true and unimpaired faith and hastened to separate at the first signs of deviation from truth in the Roman Church. The second, meanwhile, having lived for whole centuries in organic connection with the erring Church, by necessity became itself permeated with error, and when it finally became conscious of the abnormal development of the Roman Church, in order to preserve Catholicity it was not sufficient to separate alone; it had to not only separate but also purify itself from the acquired errors, and from this Anglicanism appeared not only as a separated Church but as a Protestant one. Due to the reaction against the intensified evil, it had to not only separate from Roman Catholicism but also recoil from it, and from this it did not remain in pure Catholicity but lapsed into Protestantism. But Protestantism is an opposite and most dangerous error. It does not satisfy the religious spirit of humanity thirsting for Catholicity. Thus the only way out that remains is—to turn to that Church which first became conscious of deviation from truth and separated for the sake of its preservation. By separating it protected itself from participation in the further development of false direction and did not experience the crisis that led to Protestantism. If thus somewhere there still exists pure, unimpaired Catholicity, it must exist in that very Church which first became conscious of the error and separated from it. By the acknowledgment of Ewer and others, this Catholicity exists. If so, then the direct and natural consequence from Ewer’s own analytical process of thought can only be that Catholicity, in its pure truth, exists only in the Eastern Church. Anglicanism, as nourished by the sap of an infected organism, in its effort to free itself from it, deviated into Protestantism. Roman Catholicism, as the cause of all these crises, is itself an infected organism. There remains only that organic part which separated at the time when deviation from truth was only arising, and in it is contained pure Catholicity. This part is the Holy Eastern Catholic Church. As having preserved within itself pure and unimpaired Catholicity, it is the organic center of true Catholic faith, and from this center other ecclesiastical communities can receive pure Catholicity—by bringing their religious principles into accord with its Catholic principles. Such Catholicity, represented by the Eastern Church, is not an abstract concept to the acceptance of which Ewer came, but a living, concrete truth embodied in a living, historical, and integral organism of the Church.

Thus Ewer needed only to carry his analysis further to its final natural conclusions, and instead of indefinite Catholicity he would have arrived at the concrete ecclesiastical organism preserving this Catholicity from those very times when, as a result of developing error, it was necessary to separate and preserve it from the process of false development. But if Ewer did not arrive at such a natural and logical conclusion, then to it the general consciousness of the entire Episcopal Church in America is inevitably drawn.

[1] N. Y. Times of Sept. 28, 1868.

[2] This position obviously relates especially to American Episcopalism, which in consequence has acquired the name of an aristocratic religion.

[3] In America one can encounter many persons who are very devout and religious, but who do not belong to any confession, considering themselves simply Christians. We personally know several such persons, among whom are some respectable and more than elderly people. This religious impersonality has even expressed itself in a special community of the so-called “Christians” which recognizes no denominational form for itself.

[4] New York Times, of Sept. 28, 1868.

[5] The closing words of the first lecture on Sunday, Sept. 27. N. Y. Times of Sept. 28, 1868.

[6] N. York Times, of Oct. 6 and 30, 1868.

[7] N. Y. Times, of Oct. 30, 1868.

[8] Regarding this position a Roman Catholic critic says: “We are surprised by Dr. Hewer’s statement that the Greek Church does not have a cult of the Ever-Virgin Mary, as a result of which many Anglicans, like Pusey, opposed to the Roman Church because of this cult, seek communion with the schismatic Greeks; but among them this cult is taken to such an extreme, the like of which exists in no way in the Latin Church.” Catholic World, Vol. VIII, p. 520. It should be borne in mind that this tirade was written in 1869 and consequently after the Roman Church’s proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

[9] N.Y. Times, of Oct. 30, 1868. Applying his theory to Protestantism, Hewer among other things says: Suppose that individual branches of this tree are cut off from time to time and placed around a larger tree in vases of water. Being without roots, the longest ago cut-off ones are all dead; while the more recently cut are still showing deceptive life, and soon such will wither and die. These cut-off branches, standing without trunk and root around the living tree, would be fitting symbols for the Protestant sects.

[10] At the present time he is the rector of the Episcopal Church of St. Ignatius in New York and from time to time continues his preaching on “the seeking of the Catholic Church.” N. Y. No. 50 West 40th Street.

[11] Another equally powerful exponent of this seeking for “Catholicity” is Dr. Knox. See his brilliant article “The Organic Unity of the Church” in the Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review for October 1876.

2. The Episcopal Church and Its Position in the Process of Religious Centralization. The Inadequacy of Its Inner Principles and Search for Outer Support. Ritualism and Its Inner Significance. “The Bankruptcy of Protestantism.” The Search for Catholicity and the Location of True Uncorrupted Catholicity. The Inclination of the Episcopal Church Toward the Orthodox East (Cont.) (2)

Episcopalism, as we have said above and as it is defined by Ewer, is “a Catholic Church worked out on Protestant principles.”[1] As founded on a compromise of two opposite principles—Roman Catholicism and Protestantism—it contains within itself an inner contradiction which manifests itself whenever there is any more or less profound ecclesiastical-religious movement. In ordinary times it still appears to show a coherent and organic vitality, but as soon as some period arrives with a new strong demand from the side of ecclesiastical-religious life, its inner inadequacy is at once revealed. The opposite elements composing it show their irreconcilable discord and the whole ecclesiastical organism is exposed to the danger of falling apart. Its heterogeneous parts cease their organic activity and at this plainly show an inclination toward assimilation with whole organisms standing outside Episcopalism. Thus many Episcopal priests go over to Roman Catholicism, and many laypeople turn to extreme Protestantism. In the general direction of the community the same discord is evident, and while one party gravitates toward Roman Catholicism, the other shows no less inclination toward Protestantism. Ritualism serves as the expression of the former, while the latter finds its expression in the so-called “Reformed Episcopal Church,” which according to its principles is nothing other than Protestantism carried further than ordinary Episcopalism.[2] In view of such a state of Episcopalism, some justification is given to the words of a Roman Catholic publicist, who says: “The Episcopal Church must work either for us or for Protestantism. It has no field of its own for harvest, and no middle ground for an honest spirit. It has already sent forth many gifted and pure souls into the house of truth and purity, and we Catholics daily receive those whom it has led to our gates.”[3] But an organism, though suffering from discord in its essential elements and principles of life, still possesses within itself an instinct of self-preservation, and therefore Episcopalism, feeling its own inner inadequacy, seeks support from without. If individual members of it, unable to bear the contradiction of the principles constituting the Episcopal Church, seek internal reconciliation and peace in receiving these principles in their separate existence and complete expression, and therefore adopt either Protestantism or Roman Catholicism, then for the whole organism such an outcome is of course impossible and would be equivalent to self-denial or suicide, against which there rises that faint spark of organic life that still glows within it. Not having beneath it sufficiently firm ground, Episcopalism seeks it outside, and in doing so it could naturally turn only to where it could find positive principles without the extremes of Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. And it turned to the Orthodox East. While in Protestantism the flickering deceptive lights of religious animation gradually yield place to the darkness of rationalism, and in Roman Catholicism the progressive development of extreme papacy increasingly Latinizes Catholic Christianity, in the east there continues to shine unchangingly the bright sun of pure, Catholic Christianity, and its rays invitingly beckon and caress all those seeking light. Only for this reason did Episcopalism turn its eyes to the east, so it immediately understood that if light of Catholicity can come to fractured Christendom, it can come only from the east. Ex Oriente lax. In this life-giving light the Episcopal Church saw hope both for its own existence, and in it was born a passionate desire to draw closer to the source of this light. Hence the series of attempts on the part of Episcopalism to enter into closer communion with the Orthodox Church of the East.

[1] New York Times of Sept. 28, 1868.

[2] See “Principles” of the reformed Episcopal Church in its organ Episcopal Recorder of April 16, 1861. The Principles were drawn up in 1873.

[3] Catholic World, Vol. VIII, p. 470.

3. Attempts of the Episcopal Church to Draw Near the Orthodox East. The Memorandum of the “Association of the Eastern Church” and the Attitude of the General Conventions of 1868–1874 Toward the Question of Church Unity. The “Greek-Russian Committee” and its Activities. The External and Internal Aspects of These Attempts. The Attitude of Roman Catholic Literature Toward Them and Alarm in the Roman Catholic Camp. The Possible Significance of the Fact of Church Unity for the Mission of Orthodoxy in America. Foundations for Unity. Conclusion

The striving of Episcopalism toward unity with the Orthodox East manifested itself with special force precisely in that period when consciousness of the American people became sharply aware of a tendency toward religious and political unity, when the idea of one strong church began to demand actual realization, and when at the same time most clearly was revealed the inadequacy of the existing churches and sects to embody this idea. In that very year when there resounded the bold speeches of Dr. Ewer about the bankruptcy of Protestantism and the necessity to seek salvation in Catholicity, in the autumn of that same year there assembled the usual triennial general convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of America. The venerable gathering of prelates and laypeople of the Episcopal Church had already been disposed by the demands of the time toward the East, and therefore the question of its attitude toward the Orthodox East had been set for it by the very spirit of the times; but the acceleration of its resolution was further aided by the fact that members of the Anglican Church, in which the need for unity with the East was also felt, in order to give their striving a more real foundation, resolved to urge American Episcopal Church to take the initiative in actual relations on this matter, as more independent in its activities. At the general convention of 1868, the English society—the “Association of the Eastern Church”—submitted a long memorandum on this subject. “Seeing,” it is said in the memorandum, “that to the great Head of the Church in the course of recent years it pleased to implant in the hearts of people in various parts of Christendom, belonging to various religious communities long in disagreement, a deep conviction that this division is contrary to the will of Him who is the Lord of the world and the Friend of unity, and that it has arisen in many cases not so much from essential difference in the foundations of faith as from mutual ignorance and misunderstanding, and most of all from the lack of mutual love, and recognizing that such division among Christians at the present time serves as one of the chief causes of the spread of unbelief and irreligion and the chief obstacle to the salvation of souls; and thinking also that on all who sorrow over the division of Christendom there lies a solemn duty to try, insofar as depends on them, to reunite them and restore the unity of spirit in the bond of peace, your memorialists respectfully wish to draw the attention of the venerable assembly to: 1) what has already been done through the aid of God for the attainment of this holy goal, and 2) the foundations which appear to indicate that the Church of America is especially adapted by Divine Providence to take the initiative at a critical moment in undertaking the most desirable measures for the restoration of communion between the Anglican community and the great Orthodox churches of Russia, Constantinople, and Greece.”[1] Restoration of communion is presented as desirable with all Christian denominations, but the attention of the Episcopal assembly is directed first of all to the East, and this for the following reason. “Meanwhile,” continue the memorialists, “while the disagreements between us and the Church of Rome are so great that there is no hope that efforts at reunion with it would be anything more than useless, no such insurmountable obstacle exists as regards union with the East, and therefore with the aid of God it would be possible to restore church unity in this direction. In any case this endeavor is worthy of an attempt. Obviously the first step in this unknown field of work should consist in smoothing the ground for future investigations, removing obstacles placed in the way by various prejudices, misunderstandings, and ignorance, in becoming acquainted with the feelings of our Eastern brothers toward us, and in making clear to them our desires.”[2] With precisely such a goal the said society was formed, and it has already labored considerably in this respect, but it at the same time, based on the indication of experience, came to the conviction that the American Episcopal Church is the most suited for accomplishing the great work of restoring church unity. The memorialists “respectfully declare that the American Church is more capable of undertaking the initiative in this delicate matter than the Church of England. Freed from state control, independent in its ecclesiastical and civil organization, it appears to be predestined by Providence itself to pave the way not only for union of states but also of churches in a sacred federal union. Continuous friendly relations between Russia and the United States and close commercial relations between the two countries give confidence that these proposals from the American Church concerning reunion would be received favorably by the Russian government both ecclesiastical and civil, and this at the same time would undoubtedly be also pleasing to the majority of members of the American Church, who in their diocesan conventions have already expressed a lively interest in the matter. Another important motive for beginning action lies in the factual proximity of the two churches in the area of the Pacific coast, recently ceded by Russia to the American government. This territory contains many Orthodox inhabitants and there has long existed a Russian mission on the Aleutian Islands. Is it not pressing upon the American Church to be concerned about these sheep without a shepherd, without violating the rights of their recognized spiritual authorities?”[3]

The venerable gathering of representatives of the Episcopal Church, as we have said above, had already been prepared by the very demands of the time for the question which was urged upon it with such insistence by the memorandum of the “Association of the Eastern Church,” and therefore naturally it could not be left without some resolution. But its resolution could not take place under the given state of affairs. Despite all the urgency of the need for its resolution, this question was at the same time extremely difficult. History had not developed any preparatory premises for it except consciousness of the necessity for its resolution. It was necessary first to investigate the logical and historical data upon which the question itself rests, in order to be able to proceed to the actual realization of the striving for unity with the Orthodox East. Without such investigation it could only be pious wishes, without any guarantee of achieving practical results. But for such work there was necessary a special organ which would specially devote itself to working out the preparatory data as necessary material for resolving the main question. No such organ existed in the Episcopal Church, and therefore it had to be created. The idea of such an organ first of all was the result of the memorandum of the said association. When the memorandum was submitted for discussion to the convention, it met with energetic approval. A resolution on the question of church unity was submitted to the assembly and it was accepted by both houses of the convention in the following form:

· Whereas the restoration of the unity of the Church is a matter of great importance, for without the restoration of unity for it it is impossible to perfectly fulfill its mission in the world, and

· Whereas in the opinion of many the signs of the times clearly indicate a strong and continuous growth of desire among the churches to see the restoration of such unity, therefore

· Be it Resolved: in agreement with the House of Bishops, that a joint committee of the two houses comprising the general convention, composed of an equal number of bishops, presbyters, and laypeople, should be appointed as an organ of relations with other branches of the Church and with various Christian communities who desire information or communication on this subject. Said committee should be called: the Committee of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America for the Unity of the Churches.[4]

Having taken the first substantial and necessary step toward resolving the question—namely establishing a special organ for this—the general convention at the same time attempted to outline the first point in developing the subject itself. It took into account the indication of the memorandum of the “Association of the Eastern Church” on the proximity of the Orthodox Church to the Episcopal Church, factually touching one another on the American continent, and therefore adopted the following resolution:

· Whereas mutual friendship happily exists and constantly grows between the Russian and American peoples, and cordial approaching of the whole Anglican community and the Orthodox Eastern Church to better mutual understanding and recognition as equal integral branches of the Catholic Church of Christ requires careful attention on both sides to avoid misunderstandings so far as possible, and in view of the request of the lower house in England to the upper: to take measures for opening relations with Eastern patriarchs and metropolitans with the goal of establishing such a relationship between the two communities as to make it possible for the laypeople and clergy of both to partake of the sacraments and services of each other without breaking the link with their own Church, therefore

· Be it Resolved: in the House of Bishops and Laypeople assembled in the general convention, to petition the House of Bishops to take those measures which in its wisdom it may find to be best, not only for promoting more intimate relations and better mutual acquaintance between our and the Eastern communities, but especially for ensuring the spiritual needs of our people who shall settle in the territory of Alaska, with due respect for the rights and dignity of the Russian Church.[5]

The practical results of the resolutions and measures adopted by the convention were to appear at the next regular convention. In the intermediate three-year period the newly formed organ on the question of church unity began energetic relations with the churches of the East. The special committee on church unity, which received the name “Greco-Russian Committee,” not only conducted written relations but also sent a delegation to the East for closer acquaintance with the state of the Orthodox East and the attitude of the Orthodox Church toward Episcopalism. The committee had great consolation in the fact that the East on its part answered with lively sympathy to the seeking from this direction for ecclesiastical truth: patriarchs and metropolitans of the Eastern churches ardently expressed their desire to see church unity restored and on their part offered various means, measures, and conditions for this. When in 1871 the new regular general convention assembled, the Greco-Russian Committee already possessed a store of material which shed some light on the attitude of the Orthodox East to the Episcopal Church seeking unity with it. The data collected by the committee produced an encouraging impression on the convention, and the House of Bishops submitted the following resolution:

· Be it Resolved: in agreement with the House of Bishops and Laypeople, that in view of the cordial responses of brotherly respect so frequently received over the past three years from the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Metropolitan of Athens, and the Most Holy Governing Synod of the Orthodox Russian Church by the prelates of the Church of England and representatives of this (American) Church, both spiritual and lay, it gratefully receives the friendly action whereby the authorities of the Holy Orthodox Church have deigned to permit the holy rite of burial for the deceased of our community, and that it seriously desires the continuation and growth of such brotherly relation and mutual good fulfillment of love;

· Be it Resolved, that the committee should continue its existence for relations with the Holy Orthodox Church of the East, and

· Be it Resolved, that on the said committee is also laid the duty to take further measures for the acquisition and communication of such information as may be mutually important and interesting for this Church and the Holy Orthodox Church of the East, and to publish it when this shall be found to be necessary and prudent.[6]

Relations actively continued during the course of the following three years. Messages from representatives of the Orthodox East even more eagerly declared sympathy with the holy striving of the Episcopal Church, and the Greco-Russian Committee considered the work of preparatory labor on the question of church unity to be so far advanced that its further continuation exceeded its original authority and it wished to hand it over to a more competent organ—the bishops. At the general convention of 1874 the Greco-Russian Committee submitted such a resolution:

· Be it Resolved, that the general convention had great satisfaction in learning of the love and brotherly tone of the messages received from Anthimus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Sophronius of Alexandria, Hierotheus of Antioch, Theophilus, Metropolitan of Athens, and Chairman of the Holy Synod of Greece, in response to the communication of the actions of the general convention sent through the joint committee;

· Be it Resolved, that we believe that the establishment of full and free communion and mutual relations of Christian brotherhood between the great Eastern Churches and our own is daily increasing in importance and hope, and we earnestly pray to the Supreme Head of the Church that His Spirit may direct our counsels so that there may be removed on both sides all obstacles which pride, prejudice, or the delusions of human weakness may present for preventing its accomplishment;

· Be it Resolved, that we desire the continuation and growth of friendly relations with our brothers of the Holy Eastern Churches in the full assurance that on both sides there will be complete recognition of all feelings and rights which may present dangers from undue or unconscious intrusion;

· Be it Resolved, that since the prospective future business in the event of relations will consist for the most part in relations and communication with the hierarchy of various branches of the Holy Eastern Church, which can be more conveniently done by the bishops of the Church as occasions arise, the joint committee is asked to be relieved from further conduct of this matter.[7]

[1] See Journal of Proceedings of the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopalian Church in 1868. Appendix IV, p. 427.

[2] Journal of Proceedings, 1868, p. 428.

[3] Journal of Proceedings, 1868, p. 43.

[4] Journal of Proceedings, 1868, p. 430.

[5] Journal of Proceedings, 1868, p. 160.

[6] Journal of Proceedings, 1868, p. 196.

[7] See Journal of Proceedings of the General Convention 1874. Appendix, p. 556.

3. Attempts of the Episcopal Church to Draw Near the Orthodox East. The Memorandum of the “Association of the Eastern Church” and the Attitude of the General Conventions of 1868–1874 Toward the Question of Church Unity. The “Greek-Russian Committee” and its Activities. The External and Internal Aspects of These Attempts. The Attitude of Roman Catholic Literature Toward Them and Alarm in the Roman Catholic Camp. The Possible Significance of the Fact of Church Unity for the Mission of Orthodoxy in America. Foundations for Unity. Conclusion. (Cont.)

With the cessation of the activity of the Greco-Russian Committee there ended one period of the actual attempt of the American Episcopal Church to reunite with the Orthodox East. Since the further phase of development of this striving has not yet expressed itself in any more or less definite and tangible facts, in clarifying the character of this striving one can and should for now limit oneself only to this first period. If one looks at the matter from an external point of view, the results of the attempts present nothing that one could consider to have more or less important significance for the great question. All the more significant is therefore its internal aspect. Both the very fact of the formation of a special organ for relations with the Orthodox East and its activity show how strongly in the Episcopal Church is the consciousness of the necessity to seek support from the East. Its significance becomes clearest from the comments with which Roman Catholic press of the country accompanied these attempts. Roman Catholicism itself claims a premier role in the North American Republic and cherishes the dream that it will become the one future church of the country. Therefore it is extremely jealous toward all other denominations and communities that claim the same pretensions. The Episcopal Church is one of its first rivals in this respect, and therefore it follows its movements with greater vigilance than all others. But at the same time it fully understands that it by its own forces is far from adequate to its pretensions to a premier ecclesiastical-religious role in the country. Moreover, Roman Catholicism even finds that it, by its present forces and present state, has only enough significance in the country to serve as an intermediary link for the unification of the American people under the banner of Roman Catholicism. According to the opinion of an authoritative Roman Catholic publicist, the Episcopal Church has positively providential significance for the Roman Catholic Church and is predestined by Providence itself to serve as a transitional point to Roman Catholicism for all those seeking ecclesiastical truth. The prejudice against Roman Catholicism itself is so great and ingrained, that many seekers of truth would never have entered into the bosom of this Church unless there had been a transitional step in the form of Episcopalism. Not finding satisfaction in Protestantism and at the same time hating Roman Catholicism, they choose the Episcopal Church, apparently free from both extremes. But having learned of the shakiness of its principles, they then with much greater ease and consistency pass over to Roman Catholicism.[1] In view of such significance of the Episcopal Church for the goals of Roman Catholicism, it is very important for the latter that it continue its existence in its present unstable form, and therefore it tries in every way to keep it in an isolated state and place all possible obstacles to its strivings toward reunification with other stronger and more positive ecclesiastical organisms in which it could find reliable support for its own independent existence. Therefore, when the Episcopal Church turned to the Orthodox East, there occurred a strong commotion in Roman Catholicism; the Roman Catholic press raised an alarm and came forward fully armed to combat the dangerous tendency of Episcopalism. The journals became filled with articles having direct bearing on the burning question and all directed to one goal—to prove the impossibility of union of the Episcopal Church with the Orthodox and to present the historical and dogmatic inadequacy of the latter, which supposedly is itself outliving its history and can find salvation only in the bosom of Roman Catholicism.[2] Not considering their own forces sufficient, the American press brought up reserves of French Jesuits, and among other things for the humiliation of the Orthodox Church circulated the well-known vicious pamphlet of the Orthodox apostate Jesuit Prince Gagarin against the Russian clergy,[3] and released an entire book on the contemporary state in the Russian Church, in which someone concealing himself under an indefinite name of “former inhabitant of Russia” with Jesuit subtlety and cunning makes a selection of facts skillfully directed again to proving the impossibility of union of the Episcopal Church with the Orthodox.[4] In all this literature, along with the proof of the impossibility for Episcopalism to find recognition in the East, with special vividness runs through the idea that the East itself is in a process of ecclesiastical decomposition, should itself seek support from outside and that healthy sense of the “best sons” of it long already indicated where to seek support and salvation. As if as factual confirmation of this idea came an extensive biographical literature. In it are brought forth a series of “valiant sons of the East” who, having learned of the “errors of the schismatic Church,” turned to the unchanging mother of truth, that is into the bosom of Roman Catholicism, and thereby factually proved not only the inadequacy of Orthodoxy to satisfy the religious demands of the best people but also marked out and paved the way for the whole East to the feet of the Vicar of Christ on earth.[5] Apostates from Orthodoxy were put forward as great heroes of truth and presented as valiant pioneers of ecclesiastical truth, and all this in instruction and edification of the Episcopalians who had displayed the dangerous tendency in their striving toward reunification with the “schismatic” East.

However tendentious the literature presented may be and however apparent its hidden motives and aims, it at least preserves the mask of propriety and decorum, with certain exceptions. But the question was evidently too important for Roman Catholicism to remain calm about it behind a mask of scholarly or literary composure. Therefore it came forward directly with polemic against the aspirations of the Episcopalians, and here openly revealed its anxieties about the fulfillment of the dangerous tendencies of Episcopalism. The Roman Catholic press began with polemical and sarcastic fervor to pursue the Episcopalians in their General Conventions, and even the ordinarily dignified and restrained journal Catholic World descended into feuilleton theatrics in its articles on the resolutions of these conventions regarding relations with the East. From the moment Episcopalism’s inclination toward the East became apparent, no convention passed without the said journal attacking it with ridicule in specially devoted articles. Regarding the resolutions of the General Convention of 1868, it stated among other things: “In its relations with other Christian confessions, the Episcopal Church is particularly unfortunate. It has communion with no community in the entire world. It distinguishes itself from other Protestant sects on the grounds that they are irregular, and calls itself a branch of the Catholic Church—that is, those who speak for it call it by this name. The other branches are the Eastern Church and the Roman Catholic Church; at least so say those who speak of this theory of branches. With these other branches the Episcopal Church has no communion and, most likely, never will have. There is no need to speak of the Roman Catholic Church, for its language and actions have always been decisive and clear. But the Eastern branches have also condemned Anglican doctrine and orders more explicitly than the Episcopalians condemned their Protestant brothers. There was never a case where a Greek bishop agreed to give communion to a member of the Anglican branch without his renouncing his errors; and the rejection of the ordination of Anglican priests is as certain in the East as in the West. More than that—teachings specifically condemned by the Thirty-nine Articles are held as firmly by the Eastern branches as by the Western. Why then do our High Church friends beg patronage from the Greek Church? This will not help them. They may crawl before the Metropolitan of Moscow and make compromises; but though he will be courteous to them like a gentleman, he will have a low opinion of them and will say in his heart: gentlemen, if you do not have your own feet to stand on, it seems to me it would be better for you to sit down”[6]. “All the attention of the Episcopalians,” says the same Roman Catholic organ, “is devoted to the East, and if they found there even a fleeting smile as a sign of recognition, it would gladden their hearts. Perhaps now they will receive it, because they have already gone so far as even to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Greek Church in Alaska”[7]. By the General Convention of 1871, the Greco-Russian Committee had already presented some factual material about the East’s sympathy for the aspirations of the Episcopal Church, and the Roman Catholic journal continued its spiteful ridicule: “Another matter occupying us is the magnitude of the work, again heaped upon the committee that must seek unity with the Eastern heretical churches. In this regard, aside from an exchange of courtesies, so little has been done that we fear the means are inadequate to the goal. The Anglicans have already declared their willingness to drop the Filioque from the Creed and thus renounce the doctrine of the Trinity, but this apparently does not bring these two or four communities closer to one another. The Eastern churches still call the Anglicans heretical and say they have no ordination, while the latter grovel in all humility before the bishops of Constantinople and St. Petersburg, and beg for the slightest smile of recognition. We do not think the committee has done its job, and like the prophet who urged the priests of Baal, we urge them not to lag behind. These venerable patriarchs perhaps sleep or are absent on their way”[8]. “We are simply pained to see in the Episcopalians a lack of self-respect in their attempts to conduct business with the ‘holy Orthodox Eastern Church.’ This community, though it has genuine ordination, holds doctrine condemned by the Thirty-nine Articles and has openly and publicly anathematized Protestantism. Why then do the Episcopalians agree to be struck and whipped directly in the face for a unity that is utterly impossible? If this pleases them, we have nothing to pity them for, but for the sake of humanity alone we protest against this”[9]. “The Eastern churches,” declares the publicist categorically, “will never recognize the Episcopalians as anything other than a sect of Protestants”[10].

But enough. We shall not cite other unworthy outbursts that distinguished the Roman Catholic press during this time. In themselves they have no significance for us, but they are important for characterizing the relation of Roman Catholicism to the question under consideration and for evaluating the movement of Episcopalism toward unity with the East. If by the law of historical criticism, the diminishment of the significance of a known fact by the hostile side is a sure sign of its true importance to that side, then from the presented attitude of the Roman Catholic press toward the inclination of the Episcopal Church toward the Orthodox East, the real significance of this fact is determined. It truly has enormous significance for the fate of Roman Catholicism in the United States: the Episcopal Church in its present unstable position serves, as the Roman Catholic organs themselves acknowledge, only as an intermediary link for the acquisition of Roman Catholicism on American soil. About half of those who convert to Roman Catholicism come either from Episcopalism or through its agency. If the Episcopal Church truly finds support in communion with the Orthodox East, it will thereby cease to be a serving instrument for Roman Catholicism and—either will itself acquire stability in its existence, or, what is more probable, will direct those seeking the truth of the Church toward the East. In either case Roman Catholicism will suffer a heavy loss, and in the latter case almost a fatal one. This explains its anxiety about the inclination of the Episcopal Church toward the Orthodox East, and this anxiety becomes even clearer to the critical eye in the seemingly light, mocking form of its relation to the fact. As for the positive significance of the fact under consideration, it is difficult to overstate it. The actual achievement of either form of unity between the Episcopal Church and the Orthodox East would give the church principles of the latter the first and most reliable basis for penetrating into the organism of the American people, in which, as we have seen, there is no lack of receptivity to true church-religious principles, and on the contrary there is a strong seeking of these principles. But church unity of both churches is possible only with preliminary agreement in faith. “The Orthodox Church,” says His Eminence Metropolitan Isidore in his epistle to the Episcopal Church[11], “considers preliminary agreement in faith absolutely necessary for practical mutual participation in the sacraments, since the former is the only possible foundation or basis for the latter. And to attain this greatly desired goal, it would be necessary to undertake careful study and investigation of the differences in the teaching of both churches; and to further this, the great principle of cooperation will undoubtedly be found in the spirit of peace and love that animates both churches, both Orthodox and Anglican, and in those prayers for the peace of the whole world and the unity of the holy churches of God which are offered to God of truth and mercy by the Eastern churches, and which surely are also shared by the Anglican churches”[12].

In these few words, with categorical precision, is expressed both the foundation on which, from the Orthodox perspective, the achievement of church unity is possible, and the means that can lead to this unity. A detailed investigation of these means is not within our task and would far distract us from the direct aim of the treatise, and therefore, to conclude our sketch of the religious condition of the American people, we shall only summarize the material presented by it.

[1] Catholic World Vol. VIII, concluding remarks of the article “Church of the Future.” The unknown author of the article himself (most likely the editor of the journal Hecker) includes himself in the category of such seekers of truth, who have finally found it in the bosom of Roman Catholicism.

[2] Such a character especially distinguishes a series of articles by the Barnabite Toldini, placed in volumes XX and XXI of Catholic World under the title: “The Future of Russian Church.” Among other numerous articles of this kind we point to the articles: Anglican and Greek Church (Vol. II); Anglicanism and Greek schism (ibidem); the Patriarchate of Constantinople (Vol. III); Greek schism (Vol. X); Anglicanism of the present (Vol. XX) etc.

[3] The Russian Clergy. By Prince Gagarine. To popularize this book, the Roman Catholic journals moreover published several articles explaining and confirming the author’s inventions. See for example Catholic World Vol. XV, art. Russian Clergy.

[4] The true title of the book is The Russo-Greek Church, by a former resident in Russia. Catholic World in a biographical note (Vol. I) frankly states that it was written with the aim of showing the absurdity of the inclinations of Episcopalians toward the East.

[5] Biographical literature of this kind is extensive and represents, besides separate monographs, a whole series of journal sketches. From separate books we point to the very widespread biography of Prince Golitsyn Brownson, Life of Prince Demetrius Gallitzine, New York 1872. In Catholic World articles of this same kind were placed: Madame Swetchine.

[6] Catholic World, Vol. VIII, art. General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, p. 467.

[7] Catholic World, ibidem, p. 467.

[8] Catholic World, Vol. XV, p. 510.

[9] Catholic World, Vol. XX, p. 468.

[10] Catholic World, Vol. XX, p. 471.

[11] We use the English text of this epistle in Journals of Proceedings of the General Convention 1874, Appendix X.

[12] Journals of Proceedings 1874, Appendix X, p. 545–546.

3. Attempts of the Episcopal Church to Draw Near the Orthodox East. The Memorandum of the “Association of the Eastern Church” and the Attitude of the General Conventions of 1868–1874 Toward the Question of Church Unity. The “Greek-Russian Committee” and its Activities. The External and Internal Aspects of These Attempts. The Attitude of Roman Catholic Literature Toward Them and Alarm in the Roman Catholic Camp. The Possible Significance of the Fact of Church Unity for the Mission of Orthodoxy in America. Foundations for Unity. Conclusion. (Cont.) (2)

In the religious life of the American people, three forces are now at work, having different significance. The chief of them is a potential force, which, expressing itself in the seeking of the American religious spirit for the immutable truth of the Church, makes itself known in dissatisfaction with the present forms of church-religious life and in an unclear, but nonetheless strong striving toward “canonicity,” as the general expression of the church-religious ideal. This force acts throughout the American religious world, without distinction of churches, sects, and confessions. Another force is the force of Episcopalism, as a church more or less closely approaching the ideal of Catholicity. This force struggles for its own distinctiveness as an independent church, and even asserts claims to realize in itself the church truth that the American spirit seeks, and thus to give real being to the potential striving of this spirit. But at the first attempt, the inner inadequacy of this force to fulfill the great task becomes apparent; therefore it itself seeks external support and, as a church that has more than others preserved the wholeness of Catholic tradition, this church more clearly than others knows where to seek the stable Catholic principles in their immutable historical wholeness, and hence its inclination toward the Orthodox East and its seeking of unity with it. In this respect the Episcopal Church serves as a guide to the wandering American spirit toward the Catholic Church that it dimly seeks and in which it can find final rest. From such a position of Episcopalism, it is fully clear what enormous significance the actual realization of its striving for unity with the Orthodox Eastern Church could have for directing the religious consciousness of the American people. Finally, the third force is Roman Catholicism, which presents itself as an independent and steadily active claimant to the title of the sole Catholic Church, which alone can satisfy the demands of the American religious spirit. Relying on its profound historical antiquity and with the help of its mighty church organization, it not only serves as a brake on the striving of the American religious spirit toward the Orthodox East, but also makes great conquests for itself, directing this spirit into the bosom of its church as the sole representative of true Catholicity. In the past century it has achieved extraordinary success in this regard and has made not only vast factual acquisitions, but has also acquired great public significance, representing a pledge of future success.

* * *

Pioneers of the Cross

(A sketch of the missionary activity of the Jesuits among the Indians in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries)

Ad majorem Dei gloriam.

The broad current of the Hudson River, bathing one side of New York, cuts its path toward the ocean amid picturesque mountains. Along the very shore, conforming to all its capricious windings, runs a railroad, along which trains constantly rush with American speed. While traveling once over this wonderful line into the interior of the country, I admired both the beauties of nature and the dizzying bustle of life and movement—on land and on water. Along the shore trains are constantly rushing to meet and parallel each other, on the river stretches an endless caravan of vessels and steamships, and on the charming riverside hills nestle pretty cottages and farms, and with trim spires the Gothic towers of churches rise to the sky. At the sight of this bustling vitality all around, my thoughts involuntarily turned back several centuries. Just two centuries ago, here was a wilderness: instead of three-deck steamships, occasionally glided wretched birch-bark canoes of savages; instead of a riverside railroad, through the forest thickness wound barely visible paths, and instead of the noise of present industrial bustle, silence reigned, broken only occasionally by the war cry of Indians. What immeasurable contrast! Such a change has occurred with the other great streams of the North American continent—the St. Lawrence and Mississippi Rivers. Who first brought Christian civilization here? This is a very interesting question, and investigation of it opens one of the astonishing pages of American history.

The exploration and colonization of the country proceeded slowly. At the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth centuries, European colonies began timidly to settle the coasts of North America. From the south colonization was conducted by the Spanish, from the north by the French, and from the east by the Dutch and English. On the site of present-day New York, in the seventeenth century stood a miserable Dutch colony, New Amsterdam, and farther north on the St. Lawrence River a insignificant French fort, Quebec. Beyond the coastal strip lay an unknown country, inhabited by unknown people. Behind the colony walls stretched impenetrable forests, into the depths of which settlers did not dare venture, however great their greed for profit from the expensive furs which they saw among the Indians. The first pioneers who carried Christian civilization into the interior of the country were Christian missionaries, Jesuits or “black robes,” as the Indians called them for their long black garments, and to them belongs exclusively the honor of exploring the depths of the North American continent. The most valiant of them were French Jesuits. Their deeds constitute an almost legendary epic in the history of the country, all the more remarkable in that all its features are composed of real historical facts[1]. If this missionary activity is not unparalleled in the power of Christian self-denial, it is nonetheless unique in the environment in which the Jesuits had to act. Here Christianity encountered the lowest degree to which humanity could have fallen in religious and moral terms, and the highest Christian culture, embodied in highly educated Jesuits, collided with its opposite—in the form of the savage Indians.

[1] The history of this remarkable period, by some strange chance, has been very little worked on in American literature. Until now, only one specialized study has been devoted to it, namely Parkman’s work—The Jesuits in North America in XVII century (Boston 1867), which forms the second part of his larger work titled: France and England in North America. Then several chance studies in various large courses of American history, for example in Bancroft’s History of United States (12th edition 1850 vol. III), Shea’s Catholic missions, a few articles and monographs in Catholic journals—and nothing more. Meanwhile, this period presents a mass of raw material waiting for its working up. These are reports, notes, and letters left by the very actors in the missionary field. Almost every missionary kept records of his life and activity, and all of them annually present precious material for becoming acquainted with the life, manners, and beliefs of the Native peoples. Some of them have been published in English translation, for example in the book Kip’s The early Jesuit missions in North America 1846 (the whole book consists of a simple translation of Jesuit letters) and Shea’s Discovery and Exploration of the Mississippi Valley; but most remain to this day in the French original, and moreover in editions not widely distributed. We had at hand both translated and original editions, which we were able to use in the best libraries of New York—the Astor Library and the Mercantile Library. The original under the general title: Relations des Jesuites. Quebec 1858. In three volumes.

1. Then and Two Centuries Ago. The First Civilizers of North America. The Indians. Features of Their Communal and Everyday Life. Their Intellectual, Moral, and Religious Condition

The Indians who inhabited North America consisted of numerous small tribes that were scattered throughout the continent. The chief among them were the tribes living in the vicinity of the Great Lakes, in the basins of the St. Lawrence, Hudson, and Mississippi Rivers, namely the tribes of: the Hurons, who lived in the southern borders of Canada, the Iroquois, who occupied the territory of present-day New York State, and the Illinois, who lived along the Mississippi River. All of them were at the lowest degree of development, in a state of primitive savagery and barbarism. Some of them led a nomadic life across immense forests and plains, moving from place to place and carrying all their possessions on their backs. Among others, the beginnings of settlement were already evident. The Hurons and Iroquois lived in villages consisting of a considerable number of huts, of the most primitive construction, though sometimes quite large in size, like barns, only with an opening at the top for the exit of smoke from a fire kindled in the middle of the hut. The men engaged exclusively in hunting, fishing, and war, while the women conducted all domestic labor, which consisted of sowing corn and tobacco, feeding children, sewing leather clothes by means of root threads, and preparing various articles necessary for the meager economy of savage life. With particular skill they made canoes of birch bark, so light that Indians usually carried them on their shoulders from one river to another. Clothes were prepared not without adornment with fringe, for which porcupine quills served them instead. The men, however, in summer time cared little for clothing and are ordinarily described by Jesuits as “so naked as your hand”[1]. Children resorted to clothing only in extreme necessity during winter cold, but the women were always dressed, and always as modestly as “the most devout ladies in France.” War was considered the most honorable occupation. Indian weapons consisted of bows and arrows, spears, clubs, and tomahawks. Since Indians until the seventeenth century were not acquainted with the use of iron, the arrowheads and spear points had tips of sharpened stone, and the tomahawks themselves represented something like stone axes. This primitive weapon they used with astonishing skill. The Indians, however, did not know pitched battles. Their warfare consisted in parties of warriors unexpectedly attacking enemies or hostile villages, burning and killing, taking scalps, and capturing prisoners. All the glory and valor of warriors was based on the number of scalps taken from the heads of slain enemies[2]. Prisoners were subjected to savage torture[3]. They were tormented in every conceivable way, limbs were cut off gradually, they were burned with slow fire, and in conclusion—hacked to pieces, boiled in pots, and eaten. The cries and wails of the sufferers delighted the torturers, while stubborn silence drove them to fury. Sometimes, however, no torture could draw even a sound of pain from the breast of the unfortunate victim. Until their last breath amidst the flames, the sufferers continued to revile their torturers and sing their war songs. This drove the torturers to despair, as it was considered an ill omen for the people. When attacking a village—everything was subjected to fire and destruction, women and children were killed indiscriminately, and sometimes the latter were eaten before the eyes of their mothers. After a successful raid, only heaps of ashes and dead bodies remained of the village. Particularly destructive became the wars in the middle of the seventeenth century, when coastal tribes received firearms from Europeans, giving them an advantage over other tribes who were not acquainted with their use. Some of the latter were literally wiped from the face of the earth by their opponents.

In moral terms, the Indians were complete savages, and unwritten, natural moral law barely made itself known under the rule of animal passions. They knew no law, and this independence, according to the expression of one Jesuit, “enslaved them to the basest passions.”[4] “They are lazy, faithless, fickle and inconstant, liars and natural thieves, so that theft is considered a glory among them; cruel, dishonorable, ready to promise everything to those who are generous to them, and at the same time ungrateful. Generosity and benevolence toward them only intensifies their natural audacity. He fears me, they say, because he takes care of me. Gluttony and love of pleasure are stronger than all vices prevailing among the Indians. They give themselves over to the most shameful way of life, even before reaching an age sufficient to understand the shame of what they do”[5]. Polygamy was the prevailing custom, though not among all tribes. Marriage consisted of a simple gift to the bride or her parents. Divorce was accomplished at the whim of one party. Among the Hurons there existed a form of temporary marriage, or trial marriage, lasting two or three days or a week. Some beauties changed up to twenty husbands before making a final choice[6]. The position of women was most wretched. Before marriage her life was mired in animal passions, and afterward it turned into a life of unceasing heavy labor. “Their women were their mules,” says a contemporary observer[7]. Despite the poverty of Indian life, they had, however, cheerful feasts, consisting of singing, dancing, contests of various kinds, and the serving of meat of killed buffalo, bear, or dog. Smoking tobacco was the highest pleasure. Feasts often had a religious character. Then the guests were each given a certain portion, which each was obliged to eat, no matter how large it was[8]. Otherwise disaster threatened the host. Gluttony was considered a virtue and often eating contests were held for a pack of tobacco. Indians did not store provisions; they ate what hunting provided; therefore sometimes they wallowed in abundance, and sometimes, especially in winter, they died from hunger, living on bark and roots[9]. In the moral character of the Indians, however, there were some bright features, which accentuated human nature. They had their own code of courtesy, the rules of which could not be violated without fear of public censure. An unprotected and unarmed traveler could in most cases count on warm hospitality, and prisoners who distinguished themselves by special bravery in defense were sometimes given the privilege of being free from burning, if not from torture. In need they readily helped each other. When a family found itself without shelter, the inhabitants of the village together would build a hut for it. When a young woman got married, the other women of the village would supply her with wood for an entire year, thus freeing her from one of the heaviest labors of Indian women—gathering wood in the forest for the fire. They had a division into noble and common, rich and poor; but the poorest and most destitute Indian, in case of lack of his own food, could consider himself assured against hunger. He had only to enter the nearest prosperous hut, sit by the fire, and the women without a word would give him food[10]. But these features of humanity were sparks amidst a sea of savage life.

Their religious worldview stood at one level with their moral condition and represented crude fetishism. To the childlike worldview of an Indian, the entire world was a living being; all objects were spirits (okis or manitous), which by their disposition could bring him harm or show mercy. River, mountain, lake, forest, beast, bird, snake—all was filled with spirits, all could listen to the requests of an Indian and fulfill them. Often a hunter, wounding a beast, humbly asked it for forgiveness. A fisherman, before casting his net into the water, would address an eloquent speech both to the net itself, that it might catch fish, and to the fish, that it should not fear entering the net, assuring that their bones would receive the greatest respect. Each Indian had his own personal spirit-guardian, in the form of some animate or inanimate object, which was acquired through a dream, and to which he would address prayers, making sacrifices in the form of tobacco or game. “It would be difficult to say,” writes the Jesuit Mareth, “what the religion of our Indians consists of. It consists entirely of superstitions on which their faith is nourished. Since all their knowledge is limited to familiarity with animals and the necessary needs of life, their idol-worship is also limited to these”[11]. But in them were also observed traces of abstract religious thought. Spirits were not considered inseparable from objects, but on the contrary constituted a separate realm and only manifested themselves in the form of different objects. They are embodied predominantly in the forms of animals, sometimes also take human form, and sometimes live in stones; but they assume all their forms freely, by their own choice, and therefore often change them. The thought of the savage clearly attempted to rise even higher along the path of abstraction; but there it lost itself in indefiniteness and dissolved in mist. The idea of monotheism dimly slumbered in the consciousness of the Indian, and despite all the successes of his thinking ability could not rise higher than a crude form of the chief of all beasts or the so-called Great Hare (Manabozho), to whom the world owes its origin[12]. The understanding of the essence of this Great Hare varied among different tribes; now he appears as an actual hare of enormous size, now as some extraordinary human being. According to one tradition, after the creation of the world, he flew to the sky, from where he influences the fates of people[13]. Here already the theistic idea emerges with considerable clarity, though for the Jesuits it seemed so obscure that they denied the Indians had any concept of God[14]. In any case, the remarkable fact is that among the Indians the missionaries found no word by which they could express the idea of God, and therefore they resorted to a descriptive form: “Great Chief of people,” “He who lives in the sky,” etc. But at the same time, the structure of Indian worldview, according to which each group of beings had its chief or leader, gave the missionaries the opportunity to lead the consciousness of savages to the concept of God as the Great Chief of all things[15], so that they could easily develop the concept of that Great Spirit, under which they understand the idea of God even to this day. In the sphere of other religious questions the thought of the Indian also as it were groped in the darkness. The creation of the world, though attributed to the Great Hare, was not creation in an absolute sense, but rather a transformation of a disordered or even world destroyed by a flood. The Indians did not derive their own existence from a common Creator of the world, but from animals, of different kinds of which various tribes considered themselves the descendants. Thus, some derived themselves from a bear, others from the fish carp or tench, etc.[16], and found in themselves the virtues and qualities that characterized these animal ancestors. They believed in the immortality of the soul, in a future life—with reward and punishment, the former being destined for the best hunter and warrior who had killed the greatest number of animals and hostile people, and the latter awaited the lazy; and between people and spirits there was a direct relationship. Each worshipped his own spirit-patron and made sacrifice to him. An organized class of intermediaries or priests did not yet exist; but the beginnings of this class were already evident in the form of shamans who presented themselves as people most closely connected with spirits, and thanks to this close connection with the higher world possessed special means for delivering people from various evils and diseases. These shamans often turned out to be the worst enemies of the missionaries, especially since the latter in their preaching sought first of all to undermine trust in these self-appointed intermediaries between them and the spirits[17].

Such was the soil on which the Jesuits had to sow the seeds of Christianity. It was stony soil that, to bring it into a condition to receive and nurture the seeds sown upon it, required not only long and stubborn labor but also skilled and tireless workers. “Nothing can be more difficult than the conversion of these Indians. They must first be transformed into human beings, and then made into Christians,” wrote one of the workers upon whom this task fell[18]. “Reason in this people is completely stifled, and they are almost incapable of submitting to the yoke of the Gospel. But the farther they are from the Kingdom of God, the stronger our zeal must be to bring them closer to it and to give them the opportunity to enter it,” says the same zealous missionary[19]. And indeed, the missionaries took up the work with the zeal that only the power of Christian genius could inspire, and accomplished deeds before which pale even the legendary deeds of heroes of ordinary culture[20]. At the same time, these deeds show that the famous order can serve its motto Ad majorem Dei gloriam—even apart from the political intrigue by which it has chiefly acquired historical fame.

[1] Lalement Relation des Hurons, 1639, 82.

[2] Marest’s letter in Kip’s edition, p. 218.

[3] Letter of the Jesuit Reed to his brother from 1723, in Kip’s edition p. 40 and 41.

[4] Letter of the Jesuit Marest to his friend from 1712. Translated in Kip’s work p. 194.

[5] Marest’s letter, ibidem.

[6] Champlain, 1627, 90. Parkman, introd. XXXV.

[7] Parkman, Jesuits in N. A. introd, XXXV.

[8] Ralle’s letter. 37.

[9] Le Jeune, Relation, 1634, 74.

[10] Brebeuf, Relation des Hurons, 1636, 118; Ragueneau, Relation, 1650, 28. Marquette Narrative in Shea’s Discovery and Exploration of Mississippi Valley, p. 22, 23 and ff.

[11] Letter of the Jesuit Marest to the Jesuit Germain, from November 9, 1712, in Kip’s translation, p. 199, 200.

[12] Native tradition transmits the creation of the world as follows: “In the beginning of all things, Nanabozho in the form of the Great Hare was on a raft, surrounded by animals, who acknowledged him as their leader. No land could be seen. Desiring to create the world, the Great Hare persuaded the beaver to dive for mud, but the beaver soon surfaced dead. Then the otter attempted and also without success. Then the muskrat volunteered to accomplish this task. It dove and remained under water for a day and night, and finally appeared on the surface of the water, overturned on its back, and seemed dead, with paws tightly clenched. When other animals opened its paws, a grain of sand was found in one of them. From it the Great Hare created the world.” Parrot, Memoire sur les Moeurs, coustumes et Religion de l’Amerique Septentrionale, Chap.1

[13] Letter of the Jesuit Ralle to his brother from October 12, 1723, in Kip’s translation, p. 32.

[14] “The people of these lands received no knowledge of God from their ancestors,” says the Jesuit Ragueneau. – Ragueneau, Relation des Hurons, 1648, 77.

[15] Marest’s letter in Kip’s edition, p. 202, presents an interesting example of this.

[16] Ralle’s letter from 1723 in Kip’s translation gives an interesting account of this Native Darwinism.

[17] “The influence of these charlatans,” says the Jesuit Marest, “serves as a great obstacle to the conversion of the Native peoples. I cannot tell you how many times I would have perished under their blows, if only special protection from God had not shielded me from their fury. On one occasion, among others, one of them would have split my head with his ax, if I had not dodged at the very moment his hand was raised to strike.” Letter from 1712 in Kip’s translation, p. 201.

[18] Marest’s letter from 1712 in Kip’s translation, p. 194.

[19] Marest’s letter, p. 195.

[20] We are familiar with the well-known tales of Mayne Reid and Fenimore Cooper, in which the exploits of various pioneers in America are depicted in romantic terms. The exploits of Christian missionaries did not enter into the scope of these tales, but they, with their historical lack of embellishment, are undoubtedly more interesting and grander than the exploits of legendary heroes.

2. The Black Robes Among the Indians. Study of the Indian Language and the First Attempt at Missionary Work. Savage Life. Hunger, Subduing Savage Nature. Stony Soil. Jesuits in the Principal Stronghold of Satan. Bloodthirsty Orgy. Success of the Mission and Alarm in Satan’s Kingdom

The starting point of the Jesuit missionary activity was the fort of Quebec. Around it lived Indians, more or less accustomed to the French[1]. They began their preaching with these. First of all, it was necessary to learn the Indian language, and this was no easy task. In the absence of any literary aids, and given the originality and fragmentation of the Indian language, it was difficult to begin its study, difficult to make oneself understood by the Indians. But the Jesuits were accustomed to overcoming all difficulties and began studying the language by means of Indian children. They lured these man-like creatures, naked and red-skinned, to themselves, treated them kindly, and by means of them gathered the necessary supply of words[2]. By a fortunate chance, in the fort there was one Indian who had previously been captured by the French and taken to Paris, where he had managed to become acquainted with the French language. The Jesuits turned to him as an instrument of special Divine Providence, sent to them to acquaint them with the Indian language; but the Frenchified savage was extremely lazy and frivolous, so that his attention could be maintained only by packets of tobacco[3]. Having barely managed to gather a meager supply of words, the Jesuits immediately began translating into the Indian language the most necessary prayers and set out on preaching[4].

The first missionary venture among the Native Americans was undertaken by Jesuit missionary Léjune, the head of the mission. In late October 1633, a party of twenty Native Americans set out on their customary winter migration to sustain themselves through hunting. The Jesuit accompanied them. Birchbark canoes swiftly glided down the Saint Lawrence River, and after three weeks arrived at its source, where the party concealed the canoes in the brush and began their wandering life through the surrounding lands. By now it was mid-November; deep snow had fallen and quite severe frosts had set in. All around was wilderness, covered with impenetrable forests and hills. Through this landscape pressed the Native Americans—men, women, and children—carrying all their possessions or dragging them on long sleds. Accustomed to such a wandering life, the Native Americans bore its hardships quite easily; they moved deftly across the snow on their skis, scrambled up hills, pushed through dense forests, and clambered over heaps of fallen trees. But for the Jesuit, such a life was torment. Like the others, burdened with his pack, he constantly fell from lack of habit on his skis or sank into deep snow; his skis grew heavy with clinging snow, and he dragged his legs forward only with pain and suffering[5]. After traveling a certain distance, the party would stop; the men would clear an area of snow, and the women would hastily build a hut covered with bark and hides. Inside, a fire was lit, and the party would warm their frozen limbs. They remained there until game could be found within about ten versts around. The entire hut occupied roughly thirteen square feet, and in it the whole party of twenty people would eat and sleep as one solid mass around the fire, together with their dogs. Through the cracks in the hut, cold wind blew, while from the other side the flames of the fire burned unbearably hot, spreading suffocating smoke at the same time. During snowstorms, which prevented the smoke from escaping through the opening at the top, it would fill the hut so completely that the Native Americans could barely breathe; tears streamed from their red eyes, and the very letters of the prayer book seemed to the Jesuit written in blood. “Unhappy heathens,” exclaimed the Jesuit, “they spend their lives in smoke and their eternity in flame!”[6]. Unable to endure such conditions, the Jesuit would leave the hut to read his prayer book, but there a furious storm raged in the forest and trees cracked from the cold. The missionary had to leave the hut not only from the smoke, but from the company of the Native Americans themselves. When there was no smoke in the hut, the Native Americans, having just eaten a freshly killed deer or dog, would sprawl around the tent and engage in lively conversation. Such occasions could have been convenient for the Jesuit to instill the beginnings of Christianity, but he did not dare even begin a sermon to this conversing party. They frequently engaged in such base talk, and all of them, without exception—women and children included—used such indecent words that the missionary could not bear to hear them, and so he would withdraw again into the forest[7]. But worst of all for the Jesuit was the medicine man accompanying the party. He was a cunning Native American who found it more convenient to live at others’ expense than to earn his own subsistence through hunting. He presented himself as a man in close relations with various spirits and claimed that through his charms he could heal diseases and bring success in hunting. The Native Americans believed him, and before setting out to hunt, they would seek his assistance, which he readily provided, beseeching the spirits with songs, dances, and various exclamations. The Jesuit saw in him his chief obstacle to converting the Native Americans, and so at every opportune moment he tried to demonstrate the absurdity of the medicine man’s incantations and the ineffectiveness of his mediation, all the while proving the power of the cross and helping the sick with medical remedies. The medicine man, for his part, saw in the Black Robe his greatest enemy and did not miss any chance to cause him trouble, turning the Native Americans against him, mocking him openly, and even threatening him with death. Once, as though seized by madness, he cried out to have all weapons taken from him, saying that a spirit was urging him to kill someone. His eyes looked so maliciously and wildly at the Jesuit that the latter had to withdraw into the forest[8]. Another time he pretended to be the Jesuit’s friend and offered to teach him the language. The missionary rejoiced at this change in his enemy and, under his guidance, set about translating the principal Christian prayers. But when he began to teach these prayers to the Native Americans, the entire party burst into wild laughter at every word, and the Jesuit understood the medicine man’s trick, who had taught him the basest words of the Native American language under the guise of words of piety. Sometimes the medicine man simply began to ridicule the Jesuit, and the entire party joined him, making the Black Robe the target of their witticisms and mockery. “Look at him!” said the medicine man, “his face is like a dog’s!” The Native Americans seized upon this witticism and picked the Jesuit apart bit by bit. “Why, his head is like a pumpkin!” “His beard is like a hare’s!” The Jesuit could only withdraw in sadness from this clever company and find solace alone in his prayer book[9].

Thus the days passed one after another. Hunters would go out daily to hunt, and their catch would be immediately boiled in kettles and eaten. But as winter advanced, the catch became scarcer and scarcer. The Native Americans began to move from place to place more frequently, but this only wearied and exhausted them further. Often for several days the hunters would return empty-handed, and then the entire party would suffer extreme hunger. The women would gather acorns and tree bark and prepare food from them. But then Christmas approached, and the Native Americans were starving worse than before. It was in vain that the medicine man intensified his incantations, raved and wailed, calling upon the spirits for help; the hunters constantly returned with empty hands. At last hunger reached such a degree that all the Native Americans, including the medicine man himself, turned to the Black Robe, asking him to petition his Great Spirit on their behalf. Hope illuminated the Jesuit, and he hastened to seize the opportunity to teach them the truths of Christianity. He set up a cross before the hut, made all the Native Americans kneel before it with raised and folded arms, and read a prayer he had translated, making the Native Americans repeat it after him, with the promise to abandon their superstitions and obey Christ, whose image they saw before them, if only He would give them food and deliver them from death by starvation. Then, blessing the hunters, the Jesuit sent them out to hunt. One can imagine his joy when they returned with a good catch. Everything suddenly came to life; the kettles boiled, and the Native Americans cheerfully and contentedly smoked their pipes, having forgotten the terrible hardship they had just endured. The missionary exulted and began to prove the efficacy of Christian prayer and the cross; but the satisfied Native Americans proved worse than the hungry ones—they would not listen to the Jesuit, and the medicine man even threatened him, saying: “Hold your tongue! You have no sense!” The entire party took up the medicine man’s words and attacked the missionary with their usual mockery and witticisms, while he, with heavy sorrow in his heart, gazed silently at his prayer book[10].

Throughout the winter, there were several more instances of terrible starvation, and the Jesuit again attempted to bring the Native Americans under the yoke of the Gospel, but all was in vain, so he lost all hope of success for the mission. Moreover, worn down by the hardships of this life, the journey, and hunger, he himself became exhausted and fell ill, and he took the first opportunity to return to Quebec.

From the experience of the mission head, the Jesuits saw that the wandering tribes presented too stony a soil for sowing the seeds of Christianity, and that missionary activity among them, with all its attendant hardships and dangers, promised no substantial fruit. Then they decided to direct their efforts toward the sedentary tribes, particularly the Hurons, who lived in large villages at the headwaters of the Saint Lawrence River, in the vicinity of the Great Lakes. Labor here seemed no less demanding, and the dangers were considerably greater, but the missionary advantages were greater, since the missionaries could settle in the villages and, having the Native Americans constantly under their observation, could gradually instill and impart Christianity to them both by word and by example. The Hurons came annually in their birchbark canoes to the trading post to sell their furs. The Jesuits took advantage of one such occasion and, three strong, set out on their holy work into the land of savages[11].

After a long and exhausting journey in canoes, the Jesuits arrived at their destination, in the land of the Hurons, where they settled in one of the principal settlements of the tribe. The Native Americans received them warmly and together built huts for them, similar to the other Native American huts. But the Jesuits themselves made innovations in them that astonished the Native Americans. They divided the huts into three sections, connected by wooden doors: one was an entryway, another a hall, and the third a chapel, where an altar was set up, icons were hung, and sacred vessels were placed. Native Americans from neighboring villages came to see this wondrous and unprecedented innovation. But they were even more amazed by the various objects the Jesuits had brought and arranged in the hut. Particularly wondrous to them appeared a clock. They considered it a spirit that lived, heard, and spoke[12]. A hand mill was another marvel, and the Native Americans never tired of turning it. The Jesuits also had other things, such as a microscope, a prism, and a magnet, and all of this astonished the Native Americans greatly, inspiring in them the thought that the black robes were the greatest wise men and more powerful than any medicine men. The Jesuits of course took advantage of such an opinion and extracted from it all the benefit they could for their direct purpose. The Hurons were in constant conflict with the Iroquois, who frequently made raids on their villages and devastated them. The Jesuits advised them to build walls around the villages; the Native Americans readily undertook this task, and under the direction of the Jesuits built something in the manner of a fortification according to the rules of the military science of that time.

[1] The Native peoples of this part of the continent had no conception of white people until the seventeenth century, and when they first saw them before them, they thought they had fallen from the clouds. Parkman’s Pioneers of France, p. 348.

[2] In studying languages, the Jesuits wrote down the words they collected on paper, which greatly amazed the Native peoples. They looked with superstitious fear at the “white thing” into which the Jesuits looked when checking words, and at the questions of the Native peoples called things by their Native words. “When we ask the Black Robe, he does not answer us, but looks at the white thing and tells us his thoughts. This white thing must be a spirit that tells him everything,” the Native peoples reasoned among themselves. J. G. Shea’s, Discovery and Exploration of the Mississippi Valley, notes of the Jesuit Hennepin, p. 128.

[3] Interesting information on the study of Native languages is found in the report of the head of the mission, the Jesuit LeJeune. “How grateful I am to those,” writes the Jesuit, “who provided me with tobacco last year. At every difficulty, I give a pouch to my teacher to make him more attentive. The Providence of God is marvelous and His mercy is boundless.” Le Jeune, Relation 1633, 7.

[4] The Jesuits were the first to become acquainted with Native languages, appreciated their linguistic peculiarities, and reduced them to grammatical forms. “One cannot deny,” writes the Jesuit Ralle, “that the Native language has its genuine beauties and is distinguished by extraordinary power in expression and mode. I present an example. If I asked you: why did God create you? you would answer: so that I might know Him, love Him, and serve Him, and thereby attain eternal glory. But if I put this same question to a Native person, he, according to their manner of expression, would answer thus: so thought the Great Spirit concerning us: let them know Me, let them love Me, let them revere Me and obey Me, so that I might then allow them to enter into My wonderful blessedness.” Letter of the Jesuit Ralle to his brother, in Kip’s translated edition, p. 28.

[5] “My God, what torture!” he exclaims. “The snow sank under our feet and we were drowning up to our waists. Skis and feet became so weighted down with snow that when pulling them out of the drifts, it seemed as if someone were tearing off your limbs. Or imagine a man burdened like a mule, and then judge how pleasant the life of savages is. Relation, 1634, 67.”

[6] Relation 1633, 71.

[7] “If pigs and dogs could speak, they would use more proper language. The girls and young women are covered rather decently on the outside, but their conversations between themselves are as filthy as sewers,” notes the Jesuit. Relation 1634. p. 32.

[8] Relation, 1634, p. 201–207.

[9] “They constantly annoyed me with thousands of mockeries and unpleasantness,” says the Jesuit, “and I, so as not to irritate them further, spent entire days without opening my mouth.” Relation 1634, 207. Remarkably, however, all these mockeries had no malicious character and passed without trace, as happens with spoiled or naughty children, so that the Jesuit could soon return to his work. The Native peoples constantly teased each other with similar mockeries and nicknames, and they were never accompanied by serious hostility.

[10] Relation, 1634, 74 and ff.

[11] The Jesuits were introduced to the Native peoples by the commander of the Fort, Champlain, who among other things said: “These are our fathers. We love them more than we love ourselves. All the French people honor them. They come to you not for your furs. They have left their friends and their country to show you the path to heaven. If you love the French, as you say you do, then love and honor these fathers of ours.” The Native peoples listened attentively to this speech, looking at the Black Robes, and then answered with grand speeches, exhausting all the resources of their flowery rhetoric, and one after another invited the Jesuits into their canoes. Le Jeune, Relation 1633, 274.

[12] They thought that watches understood, especially when one of us would strike them with a hammer at their final chime, jokingly saying it was enough to ring. And the ringing would stop. They called them the chief of the day. When they chime, the Native peoples think they are speaking, and ask how many times the chief has already spoken. They also ask us what he eats. They patiently wait for hours to hear the chief speak. Report of Brebeuf 1635, 33.

2. The Black Robes Among the Indians. Study of the Indian Language and the First Attempt at Missionary Work. Savage Life. Hunger, Subduing Savage Nature. Stony Soil. Jesuits in the Principal Stronghold of Satan. Bloodthirsty Orgy. Success of the Mission and Alarm in Satan’s Kingdom. (Cont.)

Having secured their position and become familiar with the language, the Jesuits began their missionary work. They started with the children, as the most accessible and free. They would gather them around their dwelling, show them various interesting things, and at the same time not miss any convenient opportunity to teach them prayers and the sign of the cross. Having translated into a language intelligible to them the prayers Pater Noster, Ave, Credo, and the Ten Commandments, the Jesuits would make the children repeat them after them, and at the end of certain hours would let them go play, rewarding the best of them with pears, peas, or apples. The Jesuits knew how to set up this teaching so that it pleased the children. They took pleasure in watching the children make crosses on the ground during their games and sing the prayers they had learned. Grown Native Americans often came to these gatherings and also listened attentively and repeated the prayers after the Jesuits. The missionaries took advantage of this to explain to them the beginnings of Christian doctrine and show them pictures of paradise and hell. The Native Americans approved of the missionaries’ words with gestures, but to their exhortations to be baptized they usually replied that all this was good only for the French, but Native Americans were a completely different people. The Jesuits, however, did not insist and continued patiently to prepare the soil for the acceptance of Christianity. But they did not miss the opportunity to baptize the dying, especially children, and they overflowed with joy when they managed in this way to “convert little savages into little angels”[1]. The Jesuits made special efforts to act upon the imagination of the Native Americans, and for this purpose gave their gatherings as solemn a character as possible. When teaching the truths of religion, pictures were of extraordinary importance. With a picture in hand, the Jesuits would solemnly appear at the gatherings of the Native Americans, showing the astonished savages the torments of sinners and the bliss of the righteous, and offering them the choice[2].

The particular strength of the Jesuits as missionaries lay in their ability to adapt to any circumstances and use them to win over the Native Americans. They lived just like the Native Americans and tried to attend to all their needs, rejoiced at their joys, and shared in their sorrows. Besides missionary work, they were also engaged in charitable works and deeds of mercy on a large scale. After dividing the huts among themselves, they constantly visited them and cared for the sick. Their medical knowledge, which often enabled them to cure the sick successfully, inspired a special regard for them in the Native Americans. And when once a Jesuit predicted a solar eclipse to them and his prediction came true, the Native Americans looked upon him as an embodied spirit[3]. Amid their continuous labors, they nevertheless found time for scholarly pursuits. In the evenings, by the light of a fire, they kept their records, sometimes, lacking paper, simply on birchbark.

New Jesuits gradually arrived to the first three, settled in neighboring villages, and together they combated “the stronghold of the devil”[4]. Neither the discomfort of smoky and cold dwellings, nor hunger, which they often had to endure, nor the rudeness and savagery of the surrounding society disturbed the Jesuits or weakened their zeal. They shrank from nothing to rescue even a single soul from the power of the devil, and sometimes rescued one amid the most terrible revelry of the devil’s slaves. Bands of Hurons constantly set out toward the land of their enemies, the Iroquois, attacked their villages, burned them, and took captives. Once a captive was brought to the village where the Jesuits were. He was in terrible suffering; his hands were broken and mangled. Upon arrival in the village, he was shown remarkable kindness, offered the best food, and was given, according to Native American custom, to a warrior who had lost a nephew, so he could take his place. But the captive’s true fate was beyond doubt. The Huron received him with apparent affection and spoke to him kindly: “My nephew, when I heard you were coming to me, I was very glad, thinking you would stay with me and take the place of the one I lost. But now I see that your hands are broken and mangled so badly that you will never be able to use them, and I change my mind. Therefore, be brave and prepare yourself for death tonight as a brave man.” The captive asked coldly what kind of death it would be. “By fire,” replied the warrior. “That is good,” said the captive. The Jesuits watched in horror at the captive’s impending fate, but had no power to save him. Then they tried to save him from eternal fire. With genuine compassion and tenderness they spoke with him, and when he proved attentive to their instruction, they baptized him. Having secured his eternal salvation, they awaited with relative calm the carrying out of his execution. Meanwhile night fell, and huge crowds of Native Americans gathered from all sides. A row of fires blazed, surrounded by rows of warriors with burning brands in their hands. The captive was to be led across these fires, driven on by burning brands. The smoke, heat, the furious cries of the torturers, and the wild shrieks of the tortured captive—all of this presented a vivid picture of hell, which the Jesuits beheld with horror. But when day broke and the last spark of life was extinguished in the martyr, they breathed more freely and comforted themselves with the thought that the martyr had at last found rest in the bliss of paradise. The disfigured remains of the captive were afterward eaten by the torturers[5].

The Jesuits witnessed such and similar scenes more than once in this dark realm of wild barbarism. All their efforts and attempts to bring a ray of light into this dark environment appeared to be in vain. They still had no converts, and so far they had only succeeded in baptizing those who were passing from their deathbeds into eternity. But then suddenly an unexpected event occurred. A prominent and respected Huron adult, influential in his tribe, yielded to the Jesuits’ persuasion and agreed to be baptized. This was an event of extraordinary importance, and the Jesuits hastened to make use of it to the greatest advantage of their mission, deciding to perform the baptism with all the pomp and ceremony their means allowed. And so indeed the wild wasteland witnessed an unprecedented spectacle. Native Americans gathered in crowds around the Jesuits’ hut: young and old warriors with uncombed hair on their heads and painted faces; bedecked maidens and wrinkled old women wrapped in dirty deerskins; all watched with superstitious curiosity as the baptismal rite was performed, and at the black robes themselves, who now wore brilliant ecclesiastical vestments. Their genuflections, the mysterious ringing of a small bell, the movement of the censer spreading pleasant smoke unlike the smoke from the fires in the Native American huts, the agitated state of the one being baptized—all of this made an overwhelming impression on the savages[6]. The missionaries exulted and anticipated a great harvest. A breach had finally been made in the fortress of the devil; the darkness of paganism was finally yielding to the light of Christianity. This baptism was followed by several others, and the triumph of faith seemed certain. But the prince of darkness did not wish to yield his domain without struggle, and to keep it for himself he brought into play all the machinations of his Satanic cunning, only to avenge himself upon the black robes who had invaded his kingdom[7].

[1] LeJeune’s report, 1636, 89.

[2] The pictures were chosen by the Jesuits to suit Native tastes. Interesting in this regard is a letter from the Jesuit Garnier to his friend in France. “Send me,” he writes, “an image of Christ without a beard.” The dislike of Native peoples for beards is well known. Then he asks for several other pictures, depictions of the torments of hell in various forms and the blessedness of paradise in some one form. The faces in the pictures should be full, not in profile, with open heads directed at the viewer. All pictures should be of bright colors, but without any plants or animals, since they distract the Native peoples’ attention from the main subject.—All these peculiarities of Native taste are observed in the Native peoples down to the present time. One painter once caused a bloody quarrel between a Sioux faction, when he depicted one of them in profile, which caused his companions to tease him as a half-man. Garnier’s letter in Parkman’s work, p. 133.

[3] Parkman, Jesuits in. N, A. p. 118.

[4] The Jesuits regarded the Huron country as one of the strongest strongholds of the kingdom of the devil. “It was,” by the expression of Jesuit Lallemant, “one of the principal fortresses and, so to speak, the castle of demons.” Relation des Hurons 1639, 100.

[5] Report of Jesuit Le Mercier, 1637, 114. Another time, at a similar cannibal celebration, the Native peoples threw the hand of a roasted captive into the Jesuits’ lodge, inviting them thereby to participate in the feast. Lallemant’s report, 1639, 70.

[6] Parkman, France and England in N. A., II 112.

[7] “The devil felt constrained,” says Jesuit Le Mercier; he could not endure the solemn baptism of several of the most distinguished savages. Report 1638, 33. Jesuit Garnier, in a letter to his brother, hints at the alarm produced in the kingdom of darkness by the successes of the mission, and adds: “You cannot imagine what comfort it is for us to see the devil arm himself against us and use his servants to attack us and try to destroy us out of hatred toward Jesus Christ.” Parkman, Jesuits in. N. А. p. 113.

3. Suspicion Regarding the Black Robes. Calling Down the Thunderbirds, an Epidemic and the Terrors it Spread. Paradise and Hell. Jesuit Methods of Salvation for the Perishing. Danger to the Jesuits. A Sentence of Death and a Farewell Feast. Missionaries Amid Man-like Beasts. “The Narrow Gate of Paradise.” The Lives of Two Martyrs. Tortures and Deliverance

A life consisting of continuous wars with neighboring tribes and filled with real and imagined dangers had developed among the Native Americans a strict suspicion of anything that went beyond the limits of their everyday understanding. For a time, it could be suppressed by actions in which the Native Americans saw direct benefit to themselves, but then at any other occasion it could manifest itself with even greater force. The Jesuits in any case seemed to them strange men. Where did they come from and what did they want, the Native Americans asked themselves involuntarily. This was a mystery to them. From their actions the Native Americans could only guess that the black robes were great medicine men and could cause people harm or benefit. They were convinced that each people had its own medicine men, and the medicine men of enemy tribes brought all sorts of misfortunes upon them. Could not the black robes also have been sent to cause them harm?—This vague suspicion quickly found support among their own medicine men, who disliked the Jesuits most of all for their exposure of their incantations. Circumstances soon gave them the opportunity to practically prove their suspicion regarding the black robes. On account of a terrible drought, the corn planted by the Native Americans perished entirely. The medicine men constantly climbed onto roofs and wailed their incantations, summoning the “thunderbirds”; but the sky remained cloudless. Seeing all their efforts in vain, the medicine men then accused the Jesuits of this. A red cross stood before their hut, and the medicine men declared that it was this that frightened the “thunderbirds.” The Native Americans became agitated, and decided to cut down the cross. All the Jesuits’ exhortations were in vain, terrified of the desecration threatening the cross; the wild crowd stood firm. Then the Jesuits’ usual cleverness saved them. “You say,” said one of them, “that the red color of the cross frightens the thunderbirds. Then paint it white and see if the thunder will come.” The Native Americans complied and the cross was painted white; but still no thunderbirds appeared. The Jesuits took advantage of this opportunity. “Your spirits cannot help you,” they said; “and your medicine men deceive you with their lies. Now ask help from Him who created the world, and perhaps He will hear you.” To this the Jesuits added that if the Native Americans would abandon their sins and obey the true Great Spirit, they themselves would pray to Him for them. The Native Americans obeyed and did all that the black robes wished. Then the Jesuits organized several processions, celebrated nine masses to their principal patron, Saint Joseph, and, to their great joy, soon a heavy rain fell, which convinced the Native Americans of the power of the “medicine” of the black robes[1]. But fate was already preparing even greater troubles for them in the future.

Epidemics raged among the Native Americans quite frequently. The lack of cleanliness in their lives, irregular eating habits, the alternation of gluttony with terrible starvation—all gave conditions for the development of disease, and these sometimes devastated entire villages and even tribes. One such epidemic broke out among the Native Americans at the end of 1637. Death passed from one village to another and everywhere wrought devastation. The huts of the Native Americans became places of weeping and dying cries. All were seized by horror; only the black robes were not afraid of death.

They fearlessly visited the huts and everywhere comforted and calmed the despairing savages, giving them Christian last rites and baptizing the dying. By the dim fires in the huts sat gloomy figures of Native Americans wrapped in dirty hides. Some wailed over the dead, others gave forth dying cries. The Jesuits had some medicines and, as far as possible, relieved the suffering of the sick, but their chief concern was the salvation of their souls. “This life is short and miserable,” they said to the hopeless sick. “It is of no great importance whether we live or die.” And then they explained the future life, showing pictures of paradise and hell. The Native Americans readily understood the torments of hell, but did not value the bliss of paradise very highly. When the Jesuits asked them where they wished better to go, the Native Americans often answered in ways that confused the missionaries. “I wish to go where all my ancestors and relatives went,” they usually answered. “This paradise is good for the French,” said one; “but I wish to be among the Native Americans, because the French will give me nothing to eat when I come there.” “Which do you wish better to go to—paradise or hell?” asked a Jesuit of a dying Native American woman. “To hell, if, as you say, my children are there,” answered the unhappy mother. “And do they hunt in the sky, go to war and have feasts?” asked a dying warrior. “Oh no!” “Then I do not wish to go there; it is not good to be lazy,” answered the savage[2]. Those who answered satisfactorily to such questions were immediately baptized by the Jesuits, with the touching of a wet cloth or the dropping of a drop of water accompanied by sacred words.

Meanwhile the epidemic continued its devastating work. The Native Americans in despair resorted to all sorts of means to appease the spirit of the plague, offering it sacrifices of tobacco and roasted dogs. One medicine man, after fasting seven days, received a revelation that the plague would be driven away if straw scarecrows were placed on all the huts, and indeed all the huts were soon decorated with effigies. The Native Americans offered the Jesuits to place a scarecrow on their huts, but they declared that their cross protected them better than any scarecrow. The medicine men performed incantations, climbed on the huts, and cried out to the invisible spirit of plague: “If you want meat, go to our enemies; go to the Iroquois!” But all was in vain. Seeing the fruitlessness of all their means against the plague, the Native Americans then turned to the Jesuits. “What should we do so that your God might take pity on us?” they said to them. This occasion was favorable for the missionary work, and one of the missionaries, Fr. Brébeuf, immediately replied: “Believe in Him: keep His commandments; abandon your faith in dreams; take only one wife and be faithful to her; give up your superstitious celebrations; cease your riotous gatherings; do not eat human flesh; never sacrifice to demons, and make a vow that if God delivers you from this plague, you will build a chapel to offer Him thanksgiving and praise”[3]. The savages listened attentively to these conditions, but they seemed burdensome to them. After consultation among themselves, they decided to ask the Jesuits if they could not be satisfied with only building a chapel. But Brébeuf firmly rejected this proposal, and the matter came to nothing. In one village, however, the Native Americans accepted all the conditions. Stricken with horror, they were willing to make any promises if only to be delivered from the plague. Even the chief medicine man inclined toward the Jesuits: going through the streets, he loudly proclaimed that the God of the black robes was their chief and that therefore they should live according to His will[4].

The Jesuits triumphed and rejoiced at the success of the mission, but soon their joy turned to horror. There appeared among the Native Americans a medicine man who enjoyed unlimited influence among the savages and seemed to the Jesuits the very embodiment of Satan, which he himself considered himself to be. After several failed incantations, he began to accuse the black robes of causing the plague, and everything suddenly changed toward them. With the speed of lightning, a fatal idea spread through the Huron villages. The baptism which the Jesuits performed on the dying, which the Native Americans considered a healing medicine, they now began to consider a killing potion. Everything about the Jesuits now became an object of terror to the Native Americans. They had at their hut door a picture of the Last Judgment; to the Native Americans it now seemed like a potion: dragons and serpents appeared to them as demons of the plague, devouring Native Americans. On the top of a neighboring tree the Jesuits had a weathervane to determine the direction of the wind; the Native Americans looked upon it with horror and thought that it spread disease and death in all directions of the world. The very clocks, which had previously been objects of curiosity, became objects of terror, and the Jesuits had to stop them, as the Native Americans suspected that their striking announced death. The usual singing of the Jesuits at the performance of mass was considered hostile incantations spreading the plague[5]. If such suspicions had been directed at the Native American medicine men, the Native Americans would have quickly dealt with them; but the Jesuits seemed to them such sorcerers whom they feared. Therefore, they first began to oppose them passively and held nighttime councils. Boys began to throw sticks and stones at them when they approached the huts. The sick shut themselves in and did not let them in. But nothing could stop the Jesuits from their charity to the sick and instruction of the dying, especially children. Hearing through the cracks a sick child’s crying, they boldly pushed in and entered the hut; they asked to buy something, talked about hunting, war, anything but the plague and the sick child. Then, having quieted the suspicion somewhat, they asked to see the sick child and, feeling his pulse, as if by accident touched him with the corner of a cloth previously moistened with water, whispered the words of baptism—and the child’s salvation was accomplished. The Jesuits performed many such secret baptisms without arousing the suspicion of the adults, who forbade them to perform it. Once a young Huron woman was walking through the village carrying a sick child on her back. Two Jesuits approached her and while one of them occupied the woman with his prayer beads, the other secretly baptized the child[6]. But “the devil came into a rage that we had brought so many of these innocent infants to heaven,” said Lemercier[7]. The Native Americans’ suspicion of the Jesuits kept increasing; they held nighttime councils more frequently and spoke more boldly of the black robes destroying the people. Some said that the Jesuits had hidden a human body in their huts which had infected the land (a result of their perverted understanding of the Body of Christ offered in sacrifice during the performance of mass); others attributed the plague to a serpent; still others to a demon which the Jesuits supposedly carried in a gun they had; some said that the black robes had pierced a child with an awl in the forest to kill Huron children through sorcery; some suspected that the Jesuits had bewitched clothing which was the cause of the people’s misfortunes[8]. In August 1638, a general popular council was convened to discuss the situation. Councils were usually held at night by the light of fires. Native Americans gathered at this council from all the Huron tribes. “I never saw anything darker,” writes Jesuit Lemercier. They looked at each other like corpses, or like men who already felt the horror of death. When they spoke, they spoke only with sighs, recounting the sick and dead in their families. All this was to stir up the poison of rage against us[9]. The Jesuits were invited to the council, and there one after another the Native Americans began to accuse them of the ruin of the people. The Jesuits defended themselves and tried to explain the cause of the plague; but the more they defended themselves, the stronger the rage of the Native Americans burned against them, until finally they ceased to listen to their answers and with cries and threats demanded that they give up the bewitched clothing that was destroying their land. In vain the Jesuit said they had no such clothing. The noise and rage increased. “If you do not believe me,” said one of the most fearless and courageous missionaries, Jesuit Brébeuf, “then come into our house, search everything, and if you do not know which clothing is bewitched, take all our clothes and throw them in the lake.” Such determination by the Black Robe somewhat confused the savages, and this time the Jesuits avoided the threatening danger. The Native Americans ended the council and left the Jesuits in peace, although an old warrior, passing by Brébeuf, remarked to him: “If anyone of our boys were to crack your head open, we would say nothing against it.” And the missionary continued fearlessly to preach to the remaining gathering about the necessity of obeying the Great Spirit and the danger of offending Him[10].

[1] Report of Brebeuf, 1635, 41.

[2] Reports of Le Mercier and Brebeuf, 1637.

[3] Le Mercier’s report, 1636, 114, 116, 150 and others.

[4] “What comfort,” exclaims Jesuit Le Mercier, “to see God being glorified by the lips of the offspring of Satan.” Report 1637, 127 and 128.

[5] Parkman, Jesuits in N. А. р. 115.

[6] The Jesuits used all possible means to baptize children so that the parents would not notice, as they in no way agreed to voluntarily allow their baptism. Their reports are full of such cases. Two cases described by the Jesuit Le Mercier are of interest: “On the third day of May,” he recounts, Father Pierre Picard baptized a small child of two months in Anonataia, in apparent danger of death, without the notice of the parents, who would not have consented. He used the following method. Sugar does wonders for us. He said he wanted to give the child a little water sweetened with sugar to drink, and at the same time dipped his finger in it. When the child’s father began to suspect something and cried out to him not to baptize, he handed the spoon to the woman standing beside him and said to her: ‘give it to him yourself.’ She went to the child and found it asleep, and at that very moment Father Picard, under the pretext of looking to see if he was really sleeping, touched his face with his moistened finger and baptized him. Forty-eight hours later, the child departed to heaven. A few days before, this missionary used the same method to baptize a boy of six or seven years. His father, who was very ill, refused baptism several times; and when asked if he wished his son to be baptized, answered: no. ‘At least,’ said Father Picard, ‘you will not object to my giving him a little sugar.’ ‘No, but you must not baptize him.’ The missionary gave the child sugar once, then again; and at the third spoonful, before putting the sugar in water, he sprinkled drops on the child, pronouncing at the same time the words of the sacrament. A small girl watching him cried out: ‘Father, he is baptizing him.’ The child’s father was greatly alarmed, but the missionary said to him: ‘did you not see that I was only giving him sugar?’ The boy soon died afterward; but God showed His mercy toward his father, who is now in perfect health.’

[7] Le Mercier’s report, 1637, 165.

[8] Parkman, p. 114.

[9] Report 1638, 38 and ff.

[10] Le Mercier’s report, 1638, Ch. II.

3. Suspicion Regarding the Black Robes. Calling Down the Thunderbirds, an Epidemic and the Terrors it Spread. Paradise and Hell. Jesuit Methods of Salvation for the Perishing. Danger to the Jesuits. A Sentence of Death and a Farewell Feast. Missionaries Amid Man-like Beasts. “The Narrow Gate of Paradise.” The Lives of Two Martyrs. Tortures and Deliverance. (Cont.)

The danger to the Jesuits, however, did not pass. The decision of the general assembly regarding them remained undetermined only because there were those among the Native Americans who sided with the Jesuits and moderated the rage of the hostile party. The latter, however, did not abandon their view of the Jesuits as the chief culprits of the people’s calamity, and began to hold separate secret councils. After one such council, some converts secretly informed the Jesuits that their death had been decided upon. A foreboding of this was the increasing boldness of the savages toward them, so that with every exit from the hut they had to expect a tomahawk or stone. Jesuit Ragéneau wore a cross with a crucifix and the image of a skull on his chest. A Native American, thinking it was sorcery, tore the cross from him. The missionary tried to take it back, but the Native American seized a hatchet and raised it over the Jesuit. Ragéneau stood motionless, expecting the blow. This firmness so affected the savage that, muttering, he lowered the hatchet and withdrew. A Native American attacked Jesuit Lemercier with a burning firebrand and, thrusting it at his face, said he should be burned alive; and one young warrior openly said: “I have eaten enough colored meat of our enemies; now I want to taste white meat, and I will eat yours.” In view of such a state of affairs, the Jesuits plainly saw their danger. They, a handful of brave men cast away into a wild wilderness, could expect help from nowhere but above, and preparing themselves for death, they prayed only that their blood would serve as the seed of Christianity. Brébeuf had a vision—of a cross that slowly moved toward them across the sky from the land of the Iroquois. “How great is this cross?” asked the other Jesuits. “Oh, great enough to crucify all of us on it,” he answered[1]. Foreseeing certain destruction, Fr. Brébeuf wrote a farewell letter to Quebec to the head of the mission, Lejeune, entrusting its delivery, in case of his death, to some of the converts. The letter breathes unconquerable Christian zeal and entire self-sacrifice, which distinguished these missionaries[2]. In view of the threatening danger, the Jesuits nevertheless did not lose their composure and attempted one measure to soothe the rage of the Native Americans. Among the Hurons was a custom by which those condemned to death gave a farewell feast. The Jesuits organized such a feast, inviting the savages to it, who came gloomily and with sidelong glances, ate their share, and left the feast in silence. The effect of this measure seemed at first uncertain, but in fact proved beneficial to the Jesuits. The Native Americans were pleased with the feast, which gave new strength and courage to the supporters of the missionaries. After the feast a whole week passed peacefully for the Jesuits[3], and the expressions of the Native Americans brightened, which was also aided by a decrease in deaths. Gradually the threatening danger passed entirely; the Jesuits were delivered from death, although they took this as an ill omen for the mission, since only the blood of martyrs serves as the seed of Christians[4].

The mission among the Hurons was an outpost of civilization and Christianity, cast away in the wilderness, separated from the European coastal colonies by an impassable distance of thousands of versts. The only path of communication between them was the Saint Lawrence River with its various tributaries; but even this path was convenient only for the Native Americans, who with their birchbark canoes sometimes sailed along the river and sometimes made their way through dense forests, avoiding rapids or hiding from hostile bands roaming the woods seeking men as much as game. The missionaries ventured on this path only in extreme necessity, when all the means necessary to continue the mission were exhausted. Since the opening of the mission among the Hurons, the Jesuits had made considerable progress, had many converts and even more catechumens; with the growth of the work, the need for means to conduct it increased, but meanwhile they became exhausted to the utmost. Clothes and pictures wore out, paper was used up, bread for mass was scarcely obtained through sparse wheat planting, and wine was so scarce that the Jesuits used it only a drop at mass[5]. By 1642 the mission had come into such a deplorable state that the Jesuits decided to send one of their members to Quebec to acquire the necessary means and articles for the mission. The task fell to Isaac Jogues, who set out with a party of Hurons who were carrying their furs for barter with the French. The journey was extremely tiring; up to thirty times they had to carry the canoes and all their contents over dry land on their backs; but the travelers were nonetheless very glad and considered themselves fortunate when they arrived in Quebec, having avoided the main danger of this route, an encounter with the war parties of the fierce Iroquois, who were the mortal enemies of the Hurons and lay in wait for them on the river.

Having finished his business, Fr. Isaac set out with his party on the return journey. The journey against the current was even more difficult, but the party worked the oars bravely and cheerfully, pleased with the successful completion of their task. All was quiet around and only the sound of water cut by the oars of twelve canoes was heard. Suddenly the shore forest shuddered at a wild war cry, a hail of bullets and arrows fell upon the travelers, and a flotilla of Iroquois war canoes came out from the brush to meet them. The Hurons, seized with horror and surprise, ran ashore and, throwing everything, fled, leaving the missionary with two young Frenchmen who had voluntarily agreed to serve the Jesuits, and several baptized Native Americans. Soon the entire party was either killed or taken captive; among the latter were the Frenchmen and the missionary. Considering them the leaders of the party, the Iroquois attacked them with particular fury, stabbed them with knives, beat them with clubs, and gnawed at their fingers with their teeth. Then the victors, with wild exultation, loaded their canoes with booty and captives and set out for home, deep into what is now New York State. After thirteen days they arrived at the first Iroquois village. The victors’ cries announced their arrival, and from the village rushed crowds of old and young Native Americans with clubs in their hands. Before the entrance to the village all lined up in two rows, forming a narrow passage, and through this “narrow gate of paradise,” as Jogues expressed it, the captives one by one had to pass under the cries of exulting Iroquois, who struck them with clubs. One blow knocked Fr. Isaac from his feet, but other blows immediately forced him to rise, and he staggered through the entire row. Then began a series of tortures and torments too revolting even to describe. They gnawed his hands, cut off his fingers, pulled out the hair on his head and beard. At last, when he had lost so much blood that he was brought to unconsciousness, they bound him to stakes driven into the ground at night, stretching his limbs so that lying on his back he could not move in the slightest. Having satisfied their brutality, the Native Americans set their children to “soften up” the Frenchmen, and these little demons took hot coals from the fires and laid them on the naked bodies of the captives, threw hot ash on them, amusing themselves with its hissing on the bloodied bodies of the sufferers[6].

The cruelty of the Iroquois was not only bestial, but refined. They tortured and tyrannized the captives so as not to deprive them of life but to prolong it for further torments. After the first fit of brutality, they allowed the captives to recover somewhat and then led them to neighboring villages, and in each place the sufferers had to endure another series of the same torments. Meanwhile war parties of Iroquois brought new captive Hurons, among whom were even those converted to Christianity by the Jesuits. The martyr missionary did not miss any opportunity, amid his very suffering, to convert them to the faith. Once he succeeded in converting two captive Hurons to Christianity, but there was no water for baptism. A corn cob was thrown to them for food, and a few drops of dew were found on it. With these drops Fr. Isaac baptized them. Three of the captive Hurons were burned alive, and the missionary and the Frenchmen awaited the same fate. But the assembled council of Native Americans decided to keep them alive, although one of the Frenchmen soon paid with his life for teaching an Iroquois boy to make the sign of the cross, which seemed to the boy’s father to be sorcery. Constant attempts on his life threatened Isaac, and he lived in hourly expectation of the tomahawk, a blow of which he would have considered deliverance from suffering. But death seemed to shun him. In time, the Native Americans, seeing his meekness, gave him considerable freedom. Late in autumn, a party of Iroquois set out on their customary winter hunt and took the Jesuit with them. Hungry and scarcely clothed, he struggled after the Native Americans through impenetrable forests, bearing heavy burdens loaded upon him. At camp Fr. Isaac gathered wood, lit fires, and cooked the game. But since the Native Americans had beforehand dedicated all their game to the god of the hunt (Aresku), Fr. Isaac did not dare to touch the demonic offering, and thus hungered amid plenty, subsisting on bark and roots. He slept in a smoky hut with the dogs, but sometimes in the middle of the night he would go into the forest to pray and recite from memory passages of sacred Scripture that he had retained. In a lonely place he would carve the form of a cross on bark and, kneeling amid snow and ancient pines, half-clad in dirty hide, he would pray with tears, and in this he found his only comfort. The Native Americans soon grew weary of him and sent him back to the village, where he was given to a Native American family in place of a relative killed in war. There he was a constant witness to the brutality of the Iroquois. War parties constantly brought captives, tortured them, and burned them. Life became unbearable to him, and he longed for death. His only comfort amid this nest of barbarism and inhumanity was that he secretly conversed with children, instructed them in the truths of Christianity, and baptized many, while awaiting death from the tomahawk or fire. But he was not destined to die there. A party of Iroquois, setting out with furs to the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam (present-day New York), took him with them, hoping to get a good ransom for him. The Dutch offered them a ransom, but the Native Americans asked so much that the matter seemed hopeless; the sufferer had again to return to the land of his tormentors. Then one Dutchman took pity on him and offered a means to escape the Native Americans. Isaac long hesitated to accept this method of salvation, but finally resolved to flee. The Dutchman hid him in his house and concealed him until the Native Americans left the colony. Then the Jesuit boarded a ship and sailed to France, where he was received as a ghost, as he was thought to have perished. Word of him reached the royal court, and Queen Anne of Austria, calling him to herself, kissed his hands mangled by the Iroquois. The self-sacrificing missionary, however, was not captivated by this fame and honor; he threw himself at the feet of his superior and asked permission to return again to missionary work. But then a difficulty arose. His hands were so mangled that according to canon he could not perform the Eucharist. The matter was submitted for the consideration of the pope[7]. Having heard the exposition of the matter, the pope exclaimed in rapture: “It is unworthy that a martyr of Christ should not drink the blood of Christ,” and the missionary set out on his missionary work the very next spring, only to never return. Setting out as an envoy to negotiate peace with the Iroquois, who had expressed a willingness to make peace with the French, he perished from the treacherous tomahawk of his former tormentors[8].

[1] Parkman, p. 109, 118–121, 144, 145, and others.

[2] In this letter, among other things, it is said: We shall perhaps have to give our blood and our life for the cause of our Teacher, Jesus Christ. It seems that His goodness will accept this sacrifice; as for me, as expiation for my great and countless sins, and that He will thus crown the service and ardent wishes of all our fathers here…. Blessed be His name forever, that He chose us, among many who are better than us, to help Him carry His cross in this land. In all things, may His holy will be done. If you hear that God has crowned our labors, then bless Him; for by Him we live and die…. After all, we ask you and all our fathers not to forget us in your prayers and in the bloodless sacrifice.’ Signed Jean de Brebeuf, Francis Le Mercier, Pierre Châtel, Charles Garnier, and Paul Ragueneau. The letter is dated October 28, 1637, in Ossosane, or the Residence of the Annunciation. See Parkman, p. 122 and 123, French original of the letter.

[3] Le Mercier attributes this change to the intercession of Saint Joseph, to whom, from November 6, they began to celebrate a series of masses. 1638, 44.

[4] Lallemant’s report, 1639, 56 and 57.

[5] The Jesuits, however, soon learned to prepare wine from wild grapes, which grew in abundance in the forests. As actual proof of the scarcity of the state of the mission, some letters of the Jesuits written on birch bark serve. Letters of Peron and Chaumonot in the Caravayon edition. Parkman, 130.

[6] In the Catholic journal The Catholic World, in the October issue for 1872, a detailed biography of Isaac Jogues was published: “Father Isaac Jogues, S.J.” There the cruelties of the Iroquois are described in detail, which, however, were common to all Native peoples toward captives. See also the Protestant writer Parkman in the indicated book, ch. XVI pp. 211–240.

[7] The Catholic W. 1872 October – Historian Shea supposes that the decision of this matter belongs to Pope Urban VII. Shea p. 310

[8] Details of the life of Isaac Jogues can be found in Relation des Hurons 1647; the indicated monograph in The Catholic World 1872, October; Parkman l. c. Ch. XVI; Bancroft’s History of the U.S. III, Ch. X, X.

3. Suspicion Regarding the Black Robes. Calling Down the Thunderbirds, an Epidemic and the Terrors it Spread. Paradise and Hell. Jesuit Methods of Salvation for the Perishing. Danger to the Jesuits. A Sentence of Death and a Farewell Feast. Missionaries Amid Man-like Beasts. “The Narrow Gate of Paradise.” The Lives of Two Martyrs. Tortures and Deliverance. (Cont.) (2)

Meanwhile the mission remained in its usual deplorable and forsaken state. When the superior in Quebec heard the news of Isaac Jogues’ unfortunate fate in the embassy, he sent another expedition and dispatched Jesuit Bressani to deliver letters and necessary articles to the missionaries. He was given six recently converted Hurons and French boys for service. It was early spring, when the journey was less dangerous from Iroquois attacks; and the travelers hoped to pass safely. Before departure, however, they confessed and prepared themselves for death. The spring journey by river was difficult, and on the very first day of travel one canoe capsized and Bressani nearly drowned. On the third day a snowstorm arose and slowed their progress, and the next day they encountered what they feared most—a war party of Iroquois, who like demons burst from the brush and captured the entire party along with Bressani, killing one Huron. This was in late April, and in mid-July Bressani wrote a letter to the general of the Jesuits in Rome, in which, among other things, he wrote: “I do not know whether your Paternity will recognize the handwriting of one whom you once knew very well. This letter is soiled and poorly written; for the one writing it has but one finger left whole on his right hand, and he cannot help staining the paper with blood which flows from his still-open wounds. His ink is gunpowder mixed with water, and his desk is the earth[1]. Then he describes all his tortures. After the successful capture of the captives, the Iroquois thanked the sun for their victory and plundered the captured canoes; then, taking the slain Huron, cut him into pieces, roasted him, and ate him before the eyes of the captives. The next day they set out for home, and there the captives, especially Bressani, had to endure all the torments and agonies that the bestial instinct of the Iroquois could devise. His hands were slashed to pieces, he was beaten with clubs until he was covered with blood, and then displayed on a platform, like a scaffold, for the derision of the crowd. There he was stripped naked, and while he shivered from cold, he was forced to sing. Having satisfied their bestial instincts themselves, the Iroquois, as usual, turned the captives over to their children for torture, and these little demons, imitating the adults, made the Jesuit dance and sing, driving him with sharp sticks and pulling out the hair on his head and beard. “Sing,” cried one. “No, be silent,” objected another, and when the unhappy Jesuit obeyed one, the other burned him with hot iron, and all incessantly cried to him: “We will burn you; we will eat you; I will eat your leg, and I your arm”[2]. These scenes were repeated every evening for a week. Each evening the chief went about the camp and cried: “Come, come, children, soften our captives,” and the little demons began their torment anew, applying hot coals and heated stones to the bodies of the captives, biting off their fingernails with their teeth, and so on. The poor boy, who accompanied the Jesuit, only 13 or 14 years old, was subjected to the same tortures as the adults. Over the Jesuit himself the Iroquois exhausted all their bestial ingenuity: they hung him by his feet from a tree, placed food on his naked body for dogs to eat along with him, and finally brought him to such a state of exhaustion that they themselves were horrified. “I could not have thought,” writes the unhappy sufferer, “that it would be so difficult to kill a man”[3]. At last a council convened to decide the final fate of the Jesuit. He longed for death, but the council, to his surprise, decided to keep him alive and gave him to an old Huron woman to take the place of a relative killed in war. The old woman, however, found him useless in her household and with the first party going to New Amsterdam sent him for sale to the Dutch. To the credit of the latter, they did not grudge the ransom of the sufferer from the hands of his torturers, clothed him, and sent him to the French fort. Having recovered somewhat from his tortures at the fort, the mutilated Jesuit again ventured on the journey to the Hurons in the spring of the next year, 1645, and this time arrived safely in early autumn of that same year[4].

In their missionary labors, the Jesuits had to fear not only the brutal bands of Iroquois, but the harshness of nature itself. During their journeys from one village to another, they faced the danger of getting lost in the forest and perishing from hunger, or even freezing to death in winter. The latter fate fell to the elderly Jesuit Noël in 1646. Once, having set out to a fort recently built by the French to perform mass there, he became lost in the forest. He had no warm clothing, and meanwhile a severe snowstorm arose. Exhausted, he fell to his knees and sought refuge only in prayer. This prayer of his was his last. He was found later standing on his knees, with open eyes and arms folded on his breast, a frozen corpse”[5]. Such were the dangers and hardships with which the Jesuits had to contend. But these individual cases were only the beginning of calamities, the harbingers of the terrible fate of the entire mission among the Hurons and of this tribe of Native Americans themselves.

[1] Relation abregee, chap. II, Parkman, ch. XVII, p. 252, and others.

[2] Relation abregee, p. 122.

[3] Ibidem.

[4] Rageneau Report, 1646, p. 73. The life and sufferings of the Jesuit Bressani are described in Vimont’s account of 1644, in his own account titled Relation abregee, and in various Jesuit letters. See also Parkman, I. p. XVII, Bancroft, I. p. XX, and others.

[5] The fate of the Jesuit Noël is described in the accounts of Lallemant (1646, p. 9) and Bressani.

4. The Successes of the Mission. “The Scourge of the Infant Church.” Raids of the Iroquois. The Fearless Missionary. Death and Destruction. The Destruction of the Converted Tribe and the Downfall of the Mission

The epidemic wrought terrible devastation in the Huron villages. “Where eight years ago,” writes Jesuit Vimont, there were a hundred huts, now scarcely five or six are to be seen. The leader who once had eight hundred warriors now has only thirty or forty; and instead of fleets of three or four hundred canoes, we see less than a tenth of that number[1]. Such a calamity had an overwhelming effect on the moral state of the Hurons. They became weak and cowardly. They suffered constant failures both in hunting and in clashes with hostile tribes. But the weaker they became, the bolder and more daring became their bitterest enemies, the Iroquois. They began to make raids on neighboring Huron villages more frequently and attacked their parties on the Saint Lawrence River more boldly, constantly capturing and taking away captives, sometimes by the hundreds[2]. A particular advantage over the Hurons was given to them by weapons which they obtained from the Dutch in exchange for furs and which they mastered with remarkable speed. They were, in the words of Vimont, “the scourge of the infant church” of the Hurons[3]. Winter was still a relatively safer time; but as soon as the ice broke on the rivers, Iroquois appeared everywhere on their swift canoes and spread death and destruction. Soon they penetrated into the interior of Huron territory, and the story of their deeds there is a story of horror and terrible atrocities.

By 1645, the Jesuits had spread their mission network throughout the entire Huron country. There was not a village without one or two missionaries. Oppressed by misfortunes, the Hurons proved more receptive, willingly yielded to the persuasion of the Jesuits, and were baptized. In the principal villages, the population was already half Christian, and in all of them chapels were established and proper divine worship was conducted, marked by the ringing of bells. The most important center of the mission was the village of Ossosane, or, as the Jesuits called it, the Mission of the Annunciation, near Lake Huron. Other missions were located in the villages of Saint Joseph, Saint Ignatius, Saint Michael, and Saint John the Baptist—names given by the Jesuits in honor of the saints for whom the missions were named[4]. Christianity was not merely nominal but touched the moral life of the Native peoples. Thus, the converts rarely participated in the burning of captives, and sometimes even protested against it[5]. The pagan faction was still strong and at times produced outbursts of fury against the Jesuits, accusing them of the people’s misfortunes. “Your prayer[6] is killing us,” the pagans said. Your books and your prayer-cord rosaries have bewitched our country. Before you arrived, we were happy and prosperous. You are sorcerers. Your magic is killing our corn and bringing diseases and the Iroquois. Sometimes they resorted to fabrications to stir up animosity against the Jesuits and spread monstrous rumors that found credence among the credulous savages[7]. In 1648, the fury of the pagan faction grew to such a point that a Frenchman, a novice of the Jesuits, fell victim to it and was killed by Native peoples[8]. But this was the last outbreak of paganism, and the Native peoples themselves afterward solemnly repented before the Jesuits, asking their forgiveness and help in their sufferings[9]. The Jesuits were then able to continue their missionary work peacefully. Dividing the Huron settlements among themselves, they performed masses in all of them, taught the savages the truths of faith, and rejoiced in a rich harvest. But their joy was short-lived. The “scourge of the new church” soon dealt it a mortal blow.

In the southern reaches of the Huron country lay a fairly large settlement named by the Jesuits the city of Saint Joseph. It consisted of four hundred families and was one of the strongest bulwarks against attacks from the Iroquois. In the summer of 1648, all the warriors of the settlement set out on a raid and war against the Iroquois. In the village remained only women and children, and among them was the Jesuit Daniel. On the morning of July 4th, he was celebrating mass in a birch-bark chapel. The mass had just ended and the Native peoples, kneeling, were listening to the final blessing, when suddenly a terrible cry rang out: “Iroquois! Iroquois!” Everything immediately fell into confusion. Daniel ran out of the church, saw the Iroquois climbing over the palisade, gathered several warriors for defense, and himself rushed back to the church where trembling and weeping crowds of women and children had gathered. Some of them had not yet been baptized, and the missionary hastened to secure their eternal salvation in view of inevitable earthly ruin. He moistened his cloth and, sprinkling the crowd with it, pronounced the words of baptism. “Brothers,” he said, “today we will be in heaven.” But the Iroquois, breaking through the weak defense, had already burst into the village. The air resounded with wild cries of triumph. “Flee,” the missionary cried to his wretched flock, “I will stay here and we shall meet again in heaven.” The flock fled and many were able to slip away into the forest by hidden paths. The wild band of beast-like creatures approached the chapel. Daniel walked toward them with courage and calm. When they saw him in his brilliant church vestments, with fearless gaze fixed upon them, they stopped in astonishment; but then recovered, drew their bows, and a shower of arrows pierced him through and through, and as he fell he whispered the name of Jesus. With a cry the savages rushed at him, tore off his garment, cut his body, and gathering handfuls of his blood, washed their savage faces with it to acquire his fearless courage. The entire settlement was then enveloped in flames, and by the next day nothing remained but a heap of ash and a mass of charred bodies, while the Iroquois returned home triumphantly with seven hundred captives for their bloody orgies[10].

[1] Report of 1644, p. 3.

[2] When Jesuit Isaac Jogues was held captive by the Iroquois, they brought in a party of one hundred prisoners, and burned most of them. Parkman, I. p. 223.

[3] Parkman, p. 251.

[4] Rageneau Report, 1646, p. 56.

[5] A baptized Indian named Stephen Totiri, witnessing the tortures by which his countrymen were tormenting a captured Iroquois, boldly rebuked them and threatened them with eternal fire and demons. He baptized the wretched captive in the midst of the torturers’ indignation, while they shoved him during the baptism and cried out: “Do not baptize him! Let the devils burn him, after we have burned him!” Rageneau Report, 1646, p. 56; 1648, p. 53.

[6] The Indians ordinarily called Christianity “prayer.”

[7] Shamans spread a rumor that a girl baptized by Jesuits and who died shortly afterward had risen and told how she had been received in a “French” heaven. As soon as she appeared there, they seized her, bound her with chains, and subjected her to all manner of torments. This is how they treat all the converted. The French, and especially the Jesuits, spend their time in this way. So the Jesuits, in baptizing Indians, have no other purpose than to prepare for themselves people to torture in heaven—Rageneau Report, 1646, p. 65.

[8] Ibid. 1648, p. 77.

[9] In recounting this matter, Rageneau presents a remarkable specimen of Indian eloquence. At a council assembled for this purpose, an old Indian chief addressed the Jesuit Rageneau with the following speech: “My brother,” began the eloquent speaker, “see here, all our tribes have gathered. (He named them in turn). We are only a handful; you are the support and strength of this people. Thunder has fallen from heaven and the earth has cracked. We shall fall into the crevasses if you do not support us. Have mercy upon us. We are here not so much to speak as to weep over our losses and yours. Our country is only a skeleton, without flesh and sinews, and its bones hang by threads. The demon of hell has placed a tomahawk in the hand of a murderer. Is it you, sun, whose rays shine upon us, who brought him to do this deed? Why did you not darken your light so that he would be struck with horror at his wickedness? Were you his accomplice? No, because he walked in darkness and did not see where he was striking. This wretched murderer thought he was aiming at a Frenchman’s head, but the blow fell on his country and dealt it a mortal wound. The earth opens to receive the blood of an innocent victim, and its crevasse will swallow us. We are all guilty. The Iroquois rejoice at his death and exult; they see that our weapons have turned against us, and they know well that our people are near their end. Brother, have mercy on this people. You alone can restore it to life. You can gather its scattered bones and close the crevasse that has opened to swallow us. Have mercy on your country. I call it yours because you are its master; and we have come here, like criminals, to receive your judgment, if you do not have mercy on us. Have mercy on those who condemn themselves and come begging forgiveness. You gave strength to the people by settling among them; and if you abandon us, we shall be like a scrap of straw torn from the earth and scattered by the wind. This country is like an island, flooded by waves before the first storm, which will altogether sweep it away. Strengthen it in its foundation and posterity will never cease to praise you. When we first heard of this murder, we could do nothing but weep; and now we are ready to accept your orders and fulfill your demands. Speak then, and ask for whatever satisfaction you desire; our life and our possessions are all yours. And even if we must rob our own children to satisfy you, we shall tell them they must not blame you, but rather the one whose crime has made us all guilty. Our anger is against him; but toward you we feel only love. He destroyed our life, and you will restore it, if only you will speak and tell us what we must do for you.” After quoting this speech, Rageneau says it is a faithful translation. If so, his remark that eloquence is more a gift of nature than an art is beyond question.

[10] Report of 1648, pp. 8–17. Rageneau Report, 1649, pp. 3–5. Bressani, p. 247.

4. The Successes of the Mission. “The Scourge of the Infant Church.” Raids of the Iroquois. The Fearless Missionary. Death and Destruction. The Destruction of the Converted Tribe and the Downfall of the Mission. (Cont.)

The settlement of Saint Joseph was, so to speak, the protective fortress for the entire Huron country. With its destruction, the Iroquois had an open path into the interior of the country, and the following spring they renewed their raids. Within the country, not far from one another, were the settlements of Saint Ignatius, Saint Louis, and Saint Mary. The first of these, after the destruction of Saint Joseph, was most exposed to attacks, and so the Jesuits surrounded it with strong, high palisades according to the rules of military engineering, so that with greater or lesser valor, the warriors could easily withstand an Iroquois attack. But the Iroquois were as cunning as warriors as they were savage. They waited for the most favorable moments to attack. The inhabitants of Saint Ignatius, frightened by the fate of Saint Joseph, were on guard throughout the entire winter, and warriors did not go out on raids. When their meager stores were exhausted and they did not expect an Iroquois invasion, in the spring they set out on a hunt, leaving only women, children, and old men in the village. This was precisely what the Iroquois were waiting for. On March 16th, before dawn, a war cry suddenly rang out beyond the walls, and hardly had the sleeping population time to awaken before knives and tomahawks began their bloody work. Of the entire population of four hundred, only three managed to escape, who, half-naked, fled into the forest and managed to bring terrible news to the neighboring settlement of Saint Louis. Most of the warriors there were also out hunting, but about one hundred fifty men remained for defense, and they resolved to die fighting the Iroquois. Two missionaries were there—Brébeuf and Lallemant. The converts begged them to flee while there was still time. But the valiant warriors of the cross wished to live and die with their spiritual children, and comforted them with instruction and conversation. Meanwhile, hardly had the sun risen before the well-known cry of the Iroquois rang out beyond the walls, and these demons, maddened by bloodlust, made a terrible attack on the settlement’s walls. The Hurons bravely met them and held their ground. Twice they attacked and twice were forced to retreat. Then they crowded at the foot of the wooden wall and began desperately to hack at it until they made several breaches. In these a desperate struggle ensued. Life, death—everything depended on its outcome. Behind the fighting Hurons stood the Jesuits; they encouraged them by their presence and blessing, baptized those receiving instruction, and gave absolution to the dying. Finally the Hurons could not hold out, the Iroquois broke through, and all the people, together with the Jesuits, were taken captive. The entire settlement was immediately set on fire, and the remaining captives were taken to the ashes of Saint Ignatius, where the usual tortures began. The fury of the Iroquois fell with particular force on the Jesuits, and especially on Brébeuf, whose valiant appearance inflamed their savagery. They tied him to a post and began to cut off his limbs, and he comforted his spiritual children with a firm voice and threatened his torturers with eternal fire. To make him silent, the Iroquois cut off his lips and stopped his mouth with red-hot iron; and not once did he utter a sound of pain. They brought Lallemant to him, bound with tarred birch bark. When the latter saw the condition of his superior, he cried out in a broken voice: “we are a spectacle to the world, to the angels and to men,” and then threw himself at Brébeuf’s feet. But the Iroquois tore him away and set fire to the bark. For Brébeuf, his own sufferings were heavy, heavy also were the sufferings of his first assistant and colleague, but even heavier was it to hear some of the converted and baptized Hurons, to save their own lives, renounce Christianity and their teachers and join with the Iroquois in devising torments for the Jesuits. One such apostate declared that the black robes had poured much cold water on the heads of others (baptized) and so it would be fitting to reward them with hot water. And so they actually heated water and began to pour it on Brébeuf’s head. “We baptize you so that you will be happy in heaven!” they cried. After many such tortures, they scalped him, cut open his chest, and came to drink his blood to drink in his courage. Finally, the chief tore out his heart and devoured it. Thus perished one of the bravest missionaries, the heroic Brébeuf. He came from a noble Norman family and had before him a brilliant career, but abandoned it for the cause of Christ, and died the death of a martyr, a death that was a source of amazement to his savage torturers[1]. When the settlements of Saint Ignatius and Saint Louis were burning and falling to the Iroquois, smoke was visible in the settlement of Saint Mary, where stood the principal mission station under the direction of Ragueneau, Bressani, and their colleagues. In mortal dread they awaited the same fate; but the Iroquois, satiated with savagery, withdrew to their own country. Nevertheless, a mortal blow had been dealt to the missions. The settlement of Saint Mary was now completely exposed, and at any moment the Iroquois could destroy it. Terror from their invasion spread through all the small Huron villages, and the inhabitants themselves burned them and fled to inaccessible forests. Then the Jesuits, holding a council, decided to move the mission station to one of the islands of Lake Huron, considering it less accessible to the Iroquois. But there they had to contend with another enemy—hunger. With the Jesuits, many Hurons fled to the island to escape the Iroquois, but there was nothing to eat. After enduring a winter and living on roots and acorns, the Jesuits saw no further possibility of remaining there and decided to abandon the mission altogether. “Not without tears did we leave the country of our hopes and our hearts, where our brothers had gloriously shed their blood,” a missionary remarks on this occasion[2]. The scourge of the Iroquois swept over the wretched country once more and finished off the entire Huron people. “When I,” writes the Jesuit Ragueneau, “only thirteen years ago came to the headwaters of this great river (the Ottawa, a tributary of the Saint Lawrence River), I found its banks populated by Huron[3] peoples, who did not know God and, in their unbelief, thought themselves gods on earth; for they had everything they could desire: abundance of fish and game, and profitable trade with neighboring peoples. Moreover, they were feared by their enemies. But from the time they accepted the faith and began to worship the cross of Christ, He gave them the heavy part of this cross and made them prey to poverty, torment, and cruel death. In short, they, as a people, have been wiped off the face of the earth. Our only comfort is that they died as Christians, have a share in the inheritance of the true sons of God, whom He punishes because He loves them”[4].

Thus ended this terrible conclusion to the heroic attempt of a handful of missionaries to introduce the light of Christianity and civilization into the depths of a land of wild barbarism.

[1] Rageneau Report, 1649, p. 13. The remains of both missionaries were later found in a mutilated and half-burned state.

[2] Bressani, Abbreviated Account, p. 288.

[3] Literally—Algonkian, the general name for the tribes to which the Hurons also belonged.

[4] Rageneau, Report of 1650, p. 27.

5. A Happy Surprise. In the Land of Cannibals. Taming the Wild Nature. Native Piety. Withdrawal of the Jesuits From New York Territory

In view of the terrible and bloody end of the first missionary attempt, was the zeal of the missionaries not weakened for the holy work? It was even strengthened. “The Jesuits never retreated a step; but as in a brave army new troops come forward in place of the fallen, so among them there was never a lack of heroism and enterprise for the cause of the cross and French dominion”[1]. Having failed in the Huron country, they decided to transfer their mission to the midst of the most terrible and bloodthirsty savages, the Iroquois, and attempt to bring this untamed scourge of the entire mission under the gentle yoke of the gospel.

After the final devastation of the Huron country, the Iroquois roamed for several more years, finishing off the scattered remnants of the wretched people and taking them captive. Their audacity now knew no bounds, and they seriously threatened the French colonies themselves. Colonists did not dare venture outside the fort walls, for the Iroquois like wild beasts lay in wait in the forests for human prey. Finally, however, continuous years of war had considerably exhausted their bloodthirsty instincts, and when they once suffered a slight defeat in a skirmish with the French, they decided to enter into peace negotiations with them. The French were delighted and hastened to seize the opportunity to free themselves from such dangerous enemies. They accepted the peaceful proposal and sent ambassadors to conclude peace. The ambassadors were, of course, fearless Jesuits. In 1654, the Jesuit Lemoyne set out for the country of the Iroquois, the tribe of the Onondaga[2]. His path lay along the bloody trails of the Jesuits Jogues, Bressani, and thousands of Huron captives and martyrs, but no fears could stop the Jesuit from the exploit of missionary work. He boldly appeared in the village of the tribe and was rewarded for his courage. There he met entire thousands of Huron captives, most of whom were Christians, knew him personally, and therefore greeted him with joy. He immediately celebrated mass for them, gave communion to many, and baptized children and adults who had not yet been baptized. The Jesuit saw a remarkable sight. These Christian captives, whom the Jesuits had mourned as lost, proved to be a fruitful seed of Christianity amid the fierce Iroquois. Thanks to them, Christianity succeeded in opening a path in the savage consciousness of the fierce conquerors, and to the Jesuit’s amazement, they were inclined to accept baptism. With joyful news, Lemoyne returned to Quebec and laid out prospects for the conversion of the Iroquois. In the following year, the Jesuits Dablon and Chaumonot set out to the Iroquois and established a permanent missionary station. The Native peoples received them warmly, and the Huron captives enabled them to quickly build a chapel, in which divine worship began. “Instead of marble and precious metals,” writes Dablon in his diary, we used only bark; but the path to heaven is as open through a roof of bark as through vaults of gold and silver[3]. Gradually other tribes began to accept Christianity, and Jesuits continually arrived from Quebec, establishing new stations in various settlements of the savages. The pagan darkness seemed to fear the light and was dispelled by it everywhere. But paganism was still strong among the Iroquois, and at any opportunity it could take revenge on the bearers of Christianity. When many baptisms had already been performed among the Iroquois, their shamans began to preach to the people that this baptism was sorcery that killed children. “What these French black robes call baptism,” they said, is evil sorcery committed to consume our children. Our salvation consists in their immediate death. The dark night is the most suitable time for this. This thought spread like lightning among the Iroquois, and in a secret night meeting they resolved to kill all the black robes. The infernal plot would certainly have been carried out, had the Jesuits not learned of the danger threatening them in time. Their resourcefulness saved them from inevitable death. They, as had happened once before, prepared a feast for their would-be executioners. The gluttonous savages, naturally, did not refuse to come to the feast offered by their destined victims, and while they were thus occupied with eating, the Jesuits quietly got into prepared canoes and fled, heading for Quebec, which was their only protection. This was March 20, 1658, three years after the missionaries had penetrated into the Iroquois country[4].

This event was the occasion for war between the Iroquois and the French, and it continued for two years with savage ferocity. The Iroquois took French and their Native allies captive and burned them according to custom, which the French for their part answered with cruelty toward Iroquois captives. But for all that, the war did not have the makings of lasting long. Among the Iroquois, a strong Christian faction already existed, which sympathized with the French and desired peace with them. An important leader was a Christian and at every opportunity protested against the burning of captives, did not allow the missionary chapel to be destroyed, and enabled the Huron captives to pray fearlessly in it and sing sacred hymns. As a result, one of the most peaceful tribes (the Onondaga) inclined toward peace with the French; other tribes followed them, except the fierce Mohawks, who continued the war for several more years, until finally, abandoned by all, they too were forced to conclude peace, signed in Quebec on August 31, 1666. The Jesuits waited impatiently for this moment and again took up the holy work. A year after the peace was concluded, three Jesuits set out for the country of the most untamed and terrible enemies of Christianity—the Mohawks, who more than other Iroquois tribes were hostile to Christianity and the French, and who more than others burned and tortured Christian captives, among whom were the Jesuits Jogues and Bressani. But the blood of martyrs does not shed in vain; it was a fruitful seed of Christianity. The Mohawks, despite all the wildness of their savage nature, proved receptive to the persuasion of the missionaries, and conversions among them became so frequent that the Jesuits requested assistants from Quebec. Gradually, the network of missionary work was spread throughout the entire Iroquois country, and in the heart of present-day New York, in a land of the most terrible barbarism and cannibalism, the proper celebration of the Roman Catholic mass began. In 1670, sixteen years after the opening of missionary work among the Iroquois, the cross was already raised high over the entire country of these savages, and especially among the Mohawks, who seemed to be the most hopeless and hardened barbarians. Among them a remarkable process of spiritual rebirth was particularly evident. The former wild nature struggled strongly with the new beginning and yielded. From among the converted Iroquois, some came forth who were ready to endure all torments from their pagan brothers for their faith and patiently bore them. Even examples of virtue appeared, a source of wonder to the missionaries themselves. In this respect, the Iroquois maiden Catherine Tekakwitha was particularly famous, whom the Jesuits called the New Genevieve[5].

The Jesuits, however, did not long enjoy the fruits of their labor. In 1664, the territory of present-day New York came under English rule, which brought with it new policies regarding the Native peoples and Jesuits. English rulers began to jealously regard the influence that France, through the Jesuits, had over the Native peoples, and their first act was to undermine this influence. Particularly zealous in this regard was the governor Dongan. From the moment he took office (1683), he resolved to expel the French Jesuits from his territory, and for this purpose began to stir up the Native peoples against the Jesuits, promising them to give them “better fathers” of English Jesuits and build them churches. His efforts were not fruitless; the French Jesuits began to suffer insults and violence and finally had to withdraw from the field of their many years of labor[6].

Thus ended the missionary work among the New York State of the French missionaries. The honor of enlightening this dark land of wild barbarism belongs first to them. They were the first to open a path here for Europeans. It was a bloody and dangerous path, but through their self-denial they succeeded in transforming ferocious cannibals, whose enjoyment and occupation consisted in hunting humans and burning them, into obedient Christians. The fruits of their labor are visible to this day. The remnants of the ancient Native peoples, still living in New York State, preserve the faith of their first teachers and remain unmoved by any persuasion from Protestant missionaries[7].

[1] Bancroft, History of the U.S. Vol. III, p. 141.

[2] The Iroquois were divided into five nations: the Mohawks, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca. The name of the first nation is still preserved in the name of a river, and the names of the last four are given to four counties of New York State.

[3] Journal of Dablon, 1655, November 18.

[4] Shea, History of the Catholic Church in the U.S. p. 315.

[5] The Jesuit Cholonec describes her virtues and holiness at length in a letter of August 27, 1715, to Augustin Leblanc, the procurator of the Canadian missions. Her father was pagan, and her mother a Christian who baptized her when she was four years old. At twenty she contracted smallpox, which so disfigured her face that she nearly lost her sight. From that time forward she shut herself in a hut and became a recluse, occupied solely with the mortification of the flesh. It is remarkable that among the Indians the practice of mortification of the flesh gained wide acceptance, especially among women. “They even went to such extremes,” wrote Cholonec, that when we learned of it, we felt compelled to moderate their zeal. Besides the ordinary instruments of mortification they employed, they invented a thousand new means of inflicting suffering upon themselves. Some would lie in the snow in the harshest cold; others would strip naked in remote places and remain so exposed for a long time, subjecting themselves to the severity of the season, on the banks of frozen rivers and in places where the wind blew with particular force. There were even those who, cutting holes in frozen lakes, would submerge themselves up to the neck, remaining there as long as was necessary to recite the rosary ten times. One of them did this three nights in a row, and it caused such a severe fever that we thought she would die. Another struck me with her simplicity when I learned that, dissatisfied with employing this means of mortification only for herself, she had submerged her three-year-old daughter together with herself in a frozen river, and had barely pulled her out half-alive. When I sharply rebuked her foolishness, she answered with a simplicity that astonished me, saying that she did not think she was doing anything wrong, but knowing that her daughter would surely sin before the Lord someday, she wished to impose upon her in advance the punishment that her sin would deserve. The letter is rich in characteristic traits from the lives of the newly converted Indians. It appears in translation in Shea’s edition, pp. 81–116.

[6] Shea, History, pp. 321–325.

[7] In New York State at the present time there are reckoned to be up to 2,500 Iroquois, and they are all Catholics.

6. Missionaries in the Far West. The Discovery of the Mississippi River. A Feast Among the Native Peoples. Christianity in the Valley of the “Father of Waters.” The Life of Converted Native Peoples. – Conclusion

Meanwhile, while the wild nature of the Iroquois had not yet been subdued and they were the scourge of all neighboring tribes, the Jesuits penetrated into distant lands with their preaching of Christianity and civilization. Distant tribes, constantly threatened by the savage Iroquois, proved inclined to form an alliance with the French, in whom they hoped to find support in their struggle against the Iroquois. These lands were still quite unknown. But if the Iroquois penetrated there to satisfy their bloodthirst, why should not the peaceful messengers of the cross do likewise? Among the Jesuits of Quebec, several zealous missionaries were found who declared their readiness to go and preach to these peoples. The bishop of Quebec, Laval, himself proposed to undertake this missionary field, but the lot fell to the Jesuit René Ménard. In 1660, he set out on his journey, with almost no great preparation, relying, by his own words, “on Providence, which feeds the little birds of the desert and clothes the wild flowers of the forests”[1]. After a long and exhausting journey, he arrived at the devastated ashes of the Huron missions and then set out to the far west, never to return. It is supposed that he lost his way in impassable forests and perished from hunger. Some of his belongings were later found among the Sioux savages[2]. Thus ended the first attempt at missionary work in the far west. But its fate did not frighten the valiant heralds of the cross. In 1665, a new missionary, Allouez, set out on the same path, and he achieved his goal more successfully. Passing through the great lakes, he arrived in the country of the Chippewas, who had never seen a white man and gathered from all nearby villages to look at him. The Jesuit assembled a popular council, proposed trade with the French and help against the Iroquois. Over the course of a year, he lived among them, built a chapel, and taught the savages to sing the Pater and Ave. Moving from one tribe to another, he encountered the Illinois, who aroused his curiosity with stories of a great river on whose banks they lived. “They have no forests,” he says, “but instead vast prairies where herds of deer and buffalo and other animals graze on tall grass. Their country,” he notes, “is the best field for the gospel”[3]. Penetrating farther west, he reached the country of the Sioux, and from them also heard of the great river, and was the first of the Europeans to learn its name, recording it in his report in somewhat abbreviated form: Messippi[4]. It was not he, however, to whom belongs the final discovery and exploration of this river. This belongs to another Jesuit, Marquette, who was the first to travel nearly its entire length in a frail canoe and first determined its direction and its mouth.

The Jesuit Marquette arrived in Quebec in 1666, labored for several years in the missionary field among tribes scattered in the vicinity of the great lakes, and there too first heard of the great river, the “father of waters.” He resolved to penetrate to its banks and earnestly prayed that he would be the first to have the honor of discovering and spreading the gospel among the peoples dwelling on its banks. To his great fortune, he found support in the governor of Canada, who warmly embraced his idea, gave him as an assistant the learned Frenchman Joliet, with whom Marquette began preparations for the expedition, sketched out a rough map of the river based on inquiries from the Native peoples, and on May 17, 1673, two canoes with Marquette, Joliet, and five companions set out from Lake Michigan into unknown waters. The Native peoples recounted all manner of horrors about this distant land and said: “these peoples never spare foreigners; their mutual wars fill the banks of the river with bands of warriors; the Great River abounds in monsters that devour both people and canoes; excessive heat brings death.” But the valiant Jesuits answered all these warnings: “I gladly lay down my life for the salvation of souls”[5]. A month later, the travelers finally entered the long-desired Mississippi River, “with such joy,” notes Marquette, “as I cannot express.” The learned Jesuit was a very observant man and in his letter recorded all the peculiarities of the river and its banks, and this record is of the greatest natural-historical interest. Their canoes rapidly descended the current of the great river, passing through a wilderness “terrible in its complete absence of human beings.” Finally, on June 25th, they saw the trace of human feet on the bank and a path leading to a beautiful prairie. There they landed and set out to find a village. These were the first white men ever to set foot on the soil of present-day Illinois. In the distance, they saw a Native village. Committing themselves to God’s care, they decided to announce themselves with shouts. The Native peoples heard and an old man came out to meet them, greeting them by signs. But the language of this tribe proved incomprehensible to Marquette. The man invited the travelers to his lodge, and they went under the devouring gaze of crowds of savages. Marquette announced that he was a messenger of the Great Spirit, who had instructed him to teach them to know Him, and his companion (Joliet) represented the great chief of the French people in Canada, who had defeated the Iroquois and bestows peace on all peoples. The Native chief listened attentively and himself addressed them with a grand speech, which was recorded by Marquette and presents an interesting example of Native natural eloquence[6]. After this reception, the Native peoples prepared a great feast for the guests. “It consisted of four courses,” writes the Jesuit, “and we were obliged to participate in it according to all their rules. The first dish was a large bowl with sagamité—a Native dish, boiled in water and seasoned with fat. The master of ceremonies, taking a spoon of sagamité, held it three or four times to my mouth, as we do with children. He did the same with Joliet. For the second course, he brought a dish containing three fish; he took pains to remove the bones, and, blowing on them to cool them, put a piece in my mouth, like the way we feed birds. For the third course, they brought a large dog that had just been killed; but learning that we did not eat it, they removed it. Finally, the fourth course consisted of a piece of wild ox, and the fattest parts of it were placed in my mouth”[7]. The Native peoples liked the white men so much that six hundred of them accompanied them to the canoes.

The travelers continued on and after many adventures and perils reached the mouth of the Arkansas River. There they met Native peoples who already knew Europeans and traded with the Spanish, and could finally determine where the mouth of the Mississippi was located. At first they had supposed that this river emptied into the California Gulf, but now they became convinced “that the Mississippi certainly has its mouth in the Gulf of Mexico. This was all they were seeking, and so they decided to return, especially since continuing farther they could fall into the hands of the Spanish, who were then at war with the French. On July 17, they turned their canoes around and began the difficult journey against the current of the river. This entire journey, attended with many hardships and dangers, is remarkable even for its length alone. In frail canoes, these travelers covered more than 2,700 miles. “If all this journey,” says Marquette, “had led only to the salvation of a single soul, I would have considered all its hardships rewarded; and I have reason to think so, for when I was returning and passing the Illinois peoples, they brought to me a dying child, whom I baptized shortly before he died”[8].

The fame of the discovery made by Marquette spread throughout the world, aroused the ambitions of the French, who hastened to extract commercial and political advantages from it. But for the missionary himself, the salvation of the soul was most precious. He soon returned to the newly discovered country, preached the gospel to the Native peoples, who proved to be a peaceful and simple-hearted tribe, and there died in 1675. “The good missionary,” says the historian, “died on the bank of the stream bearing his name. Near its mouth, the paddlers dug a grave for him in the sand. But later, forest wanderers in danger would invoke his name. The peoples of the west would raise him a monument”[9].

After Marquette, a succession of other missionaries came forward who, using the path already opened, could boldly carry the preaching of the cross. Among them, Gravier was particularly notable, who was the first to establish an organized mission, studied the language of the Illinois, and reduced it to grammatical rules[10]. Thanks to the efforts of a succession of missionaries, the Illinois were already by the beginning of the eighteenth century Christians for the most part, zealously fulfilling the rites of the Roman Catholic Church. In a letter from 1712, the Jesuit Marest wrote the following about them, which at the same time generally characterizes the missionary methods of the Jesuits:

“Christianity has softened the wild manners of the Illinois, and their behavior is now distinguished by pleasantness and propriety, so that some Frenchmen have even married their daughters. We find in them besides obedience and zeal for the performance of Christian virtues. In our mission, we observe the following order every day. Early in the morning, we gather the catechumens in the church, where they pray, receive instruction, and sing certain hymns. When they depart, mass begins, attended by all Christians, men on one side and women on the other; then they pray, are given instruction, after which each goes to their work. We then spend our time visiting the sick, give them necessary medicines, instruct and comfort those who are in sorrow. In the afternoon, there is catechetical instruction, attended by all, Christians and catechumens, men and children, young and old, and each one, regardless of age and rank, answers the questions posed by the missionary. As these people have no books and are by nature careless, they would soon forget the principles of religion if they were not continually reminded of them through these almost uninterrupted lessons. Our visits to the huts occupy the rest of the day. In the evening, all gather again in the church, listen to the instruction given them, pray, and sing certain hymns. On Sundays and holidays, besides the usual pious exercises, there is an instruction given after evening prayers. The zeal with which these good neophytes go to church at all hours is remarkable. They interrupt their work and run from distant places just to arrive at the proper time. They ordinarily end the day with private gatherings in their own dwellings, men separate from women, and there they repeat prayers with singing, sing hymns until deep in the night. These hymns are the best instruction for them, which they most easily retain, as the words are set to melodies with which they are familiar and which they like. They often approach the sacraments, and among them it is customary to confess and take communion once every two weeks. We have been forced to appoint special days on which they must confess, otherwise they would not allow us time to perform our own duties. These are Friday and Sunday of every week, when we hear them, and on those days we are besieged by a crowd of penitents. The care we take of the sick inspires them with trust in us, and it is at such moments that we especially reap the fruits of our labor. Their obedience is complete, and we generally have the comfort of seeing them die in peace and with firm hope soon to be united with God in heaven”[11].

Thus Christianity succeeded in transforming the savages, those very savages about whom the same Jesuit says that “they first had to be made into men, and then one could labor to make them Christians”[12]. By the beginning of the eighteenth century, Roman Catholicism, through the extraordinary energy and enterprise of the sons of Loyola, had thus succeeded in spreading among the majority of the tribes inhabiting the North American continent. It seemed that this vast continent had been forever brought under the dominion of the Roman curia, which sought compensation for the lost lands in Europe, and it hoped to lean on it when the volcanic movements that shook its historical throne in the Old World occurred. But this hope was not destined to be fulfilled. Soon a vigorous resettlement of Europeans on the new continent began, a fierce struggle broke out between the newcomers and the natives, and for the latter it was fatal. Relying on their military superiority, the colonists mercilessly exterminated the Native peoples, so that entire tribes either perished from bullets or retreated into the wilderness[13]. With the Native peoples perished the fruits of the missionary labors of the Jesuits. Finally, a difficult time also came for the Jesuits themselves. With the increase of the Protestant population, which made up the majority of the settlers, and with the establishment of English dominion in the country, severe laws began to be enacted against Roman Catholicism in general and against the Jesuits in particular, which ultimately deprived them of the possibility of activity, so that not only was it impossible to develop missionary work, but it was even impossible to preserve the fruits gained by previous labors.

* * *

[1] Letter of Ménard, in Bancroft History, Vol. III, p. 146.

[2] Bancroft’s History, Vol. III, p. 148.

[3] Report of Allouez, 1666, pp. 105–110. Bancroft, Vol. III, p. 151.

[4] Ibid. Report, p. 111.

[5] Marquette in the letters of Thevenot and Hennepin, English edition, 1696. Bancroft, Vol. III, p. 156.

[6] He said, among other things: “I thank you, black robes, for taking the trouble to visit us. Never has the earth been so beautiful, the sun so bright for us, as today. Never has our land been so peaceful, or so free from the rocks dislodged by your canoes. Never has our tobacco smelled so pleasant, our corn tasted so good. Here is my son, whom I give to you so you may know my heart (at this the Indian led up to Marquette a young slave whom he was giving to him). I beg you, have mercy on me and my people. You know the Great Spirit who created us all. You speak with Him and hear His word. Ask Him to give me life and health, to come and live with us, so that we may know Him.” Letter of Marquette, Part VI. The French original and English translation are found in Shea’s Discovery and Exploration of the Mississippi Valley, 1852, N.Y.

[7] Marquette’s narrative in the aforementioned work by Shea, p. 24. This narrative is full of very interesting details concerning the life and customs of these sons of the American prairies.

[8] Marquette in the narrative, p. 30.

[9] Bancroft’s History, Vol. III, p. 162.

[10] Letter of the Jesuit Marest in Shea’s edition, p. 205 et seq.

[11] Letter of Marest, November 9, 1712, pp. 204–205, Shea edition.

[12] Ibid. p. 194.

[13] The extermination of Indians by the white population continues to this day in the United States. The inhumanity of American treatment of natives has been starkly outlined in a recently published book in New York: A Century of Dishonor. The book made a strong impression on society.

Religious Freedom of Conscience in America

(A sketch of the relations between church and state in their historical development and present condition in the United States of America).

“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification of any office or public trust under the United States government” (Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Section 3).

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States).

“The free exercise of religious profession and worship, without distinction or preference, shall forever be allowed to all persons in this state; but the freedom of conscience hereby assured shall not be understood to excuse actions of dissoluteness or justify conduct incompatible with the peace and safety of the state” (Constitution of the State of New York, Article I, Section 3).

The question of religious freedom of conscience undoubtedly constitutes one of the most important social questions. It can even be said to be the most important of these questions, as it encompasses such a domain of human life as serves as the primary source of moral strength for the people’s social organism and the guiding principle in achieving the people’s ideal. In view of this, it is entirely natural that whenever there is a social movement along the path of renewal, such as that occurring in our country at present, the question of religious freedom of conscience inevitably arises before public consciousness. But despite its importance, it is at the same time difficult to resolve, and this difficulty is conditioned not only by the philosophical principles that lie at its foundation, but also by the very importance of those practical consequences which might result from one or another of its resolutions.

Public consciousness on this question among us is divided into two parties, which according to generally accepted, though imprecise, terminology can be called conservative and liberal. The latter insists on resolving this question in the sense of granting full religious freedom of conscience or proclaiming the separation of church and state. America is often cited as an example of the practical realization of such a resolution of the question. But we doubt that this party has ever seriously investigated the actual state of the question of religious freedom of conscience in the country which it presents as a worthy model, despite the first-rate importance and even necessity of such an investigation. In the present article we offer to the attention of both sides some material which can serve to clarify the actual state of the question concerning us in the United States of North America, both in its present state and in its historical development.

1. The Settlers of North America—Martyrs for the Rights of Religious Conscience. Religious Exclusivity and Intolerance of the Puritans. Their Relation to Quakers and Catholics. The State Character of Religion. Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. The Disabilities of the Latter. Anti-Catholic Legislation. The Proclamation of Freedom in Maryland and its Consequences. The Religious Intolerance of Congress

North America within the bounds of the present territory of the United States owes its settlement chiefly to the Reformation. When a succession of bold religious reformers proclaimed new principles in the sphere of religion, the rights of religious conscience, and personal responsibility, their voice thundered through the European peoples, languishing under the despotic oppression of the papacy. The popular masses were stirred; the new principles collided with the old; and this collision produced that era of political and religious upheaval which followed the Reformation. Struck with horror, Catholicism sought salvation from the flood of reform ideas in an even greater adherence to the old principles; Protestantism, for its part, irresistibly moved in the opposite direction and in its extreme sects fanatically rejected everything that could remind one of Catholicism. The difference between old and new penetrated so deeply into the social and religious life of humanity that there could be no middle ground reconciling them. If by the law of equilibrium such a middle ground was necessarily to form, it appeared not as a reconciling force but as hostile to both extremes. This fact manifested itself with particular force in England, to which North America owes its settlement in the first place.

The Reformation in England found expression in a compromise between Catholicism and Protestantism, and was more a state than a religious act. Henry VIII, rejecting papal supremacy, remained at the same time a zealous Catholic, and saw the significance of the Reformation solely in more fully subjecting the church to the state and making it the support of the throne. This view received full development in the subsequent reigns. The Anglican Church became thoroughly a state religion. But it could not find general acceptance among the population, which included both pure Catholics, who continued to regard the Pope as head of the church, and pure Protestants, who rejected all connection with Catholicism. Both of these parties equally rejected the new church, and the latter, in its capacity as a state religion, came to regard them as equally harmful to the state. From this arose those persecutions which characterize the relation of the Anglican episcopal church and the state to Catholics and Puritans as two extreme expressions of opinions at variance with the state religion. These persecutions served as a direct cause for the emigration of the persecuted to the soil of the New World. Catholics, Puritans, and Quakers—the three main religious parties which were to have special importance in the historical destiny of North America—in moving to the New World, sought before all else a land of religious freedom, and only then a land of earthly prosperity[1]. Catholics settled in Maryland, Quakers in Pennsylvania, and Puritans in New England. Other parts of the continent were settled: the present state of New York by Dutch Protestants, Virginia by adherents of the Anglican Church, North Carolina by various nonconformists, and South Carolina by Huguenots[2].

Thus the first settlers of the United States were martyrs for their religious convictions, and in emigrating to America, they sought a land where they could freely profess their faith. It is therefore natural to suppose that they brought with them to the soil of the New World the principles of religious freedom of conscience and made them the foundation of their mutual relations. Reality shows something quite different. Having themselves fled persecution for their religious convictions, the settlers, at the first opportunity, displayed the same spirit of intolerance from which they had suffered and against which they had fought at home. The entire history of the colonial era of the United States presents such instances of religious intolerance as are scarcely matched even in the history of religious persecution in England. Particularly remarkable in this regard is the fact that those most intolerant toward freedom of religious conscience were precisely those who had suffered most and fought hardest for the rights of conscience—namely the Puritans—while Catholics found themselves among the persecuted. Religious freedom of conscience as it now exists in the United States did not come suddenly, but gradually developed through a slow process of historical development, and is rather a necessary result of historical and political circumstances than a voluntary act of consciousness of the justice of the principle of religious freedom of conscience.

The principal role in forming the moral-religious, social, and political life of the United States undoubtedly belongs to the Puritans, who settled in that part of the country which became known as New England. They were exiles for the rights of conscience. But having found freedom for themselves, they did not consider it a right equally belonging to others. By its inner nature, Puritanism proved far removed from that breadth of outlook with which freedom of thought could be reconciled. Having rejected external forms, Puritanism enclosed itself in a narrow, rigid circle of ideas, beyond which everything was condemned as false and harmful. A dark, exclusive fanaticism became the foundation of the entire political and social system. The Puritan colonies were far more religious communities than political ones. At a commission appointed to draw up and frame laws for the community, one of the chief Puritan leaders, Cotton, declared that “the people of God must be governed by no other laws than those which God gave to Moses,” and insisted on establishing a theocracy, “God’s rule for God’s people”[3]. This law was not adopted in such exclusive form, but nevertheless the adopted code differed little in its exclusive severity from the system of Mosaic theocracy, and it excluded all that departed from the strict form of Puritanism. “The rock upon which this community was built,” says the historian, “was religion; a common faith had gathered these people together and held them united. They were exclusive because they had come to the edge of the earth to gain the privilege of living alone. And why should they open their refuge to their oppressors? Religious unity became a bulwark of the exiles against expected attacks from the Anglican hierarchy. The vast continent of America beckoned toward colonization; their own territory they held only for the brothers. Their religion was their life; they admitted only its followers; they could not tolerate a blasphemer, unbelief, or heresy; and all the people gathered at their own congregations. Such was the system, cultivated as a bastion of their freedom and their happiness. The order of churches and communities, wrote Cotton to his friends, has now with the general consent been established in New England in such a way that it resembles a new heaven and a new earth”[4]. As a result of such an organic connection between religion and society, the recognition of religion as a state institution became inevitable. The Puritan form of religion became part of the civil order; deviation from it came to be punished as a civil crime. “The state became a model of Christ’s kingdom on earth; crime against civil government was crime against Christ; and conversely, since the Gospel had equal standing, blasphemy, or what the court might call blasphemy, was the greatest crime in the list of offenses. Denial that any book of the Old or New Testament was the written and infallible word of God was punished by fine or whipping, and in case of obstinacy by banishment or death. Absence from “the preaching of the word” or church service was punished by fine”[5]. Extreme intolerance became the atmosphere of the community. “May God preserve us from such a cooling of our love of truth that we should tolerate error!” exclaimed old Puritan leader Dudley. “Better to tolerate hypocrites and tares than thorns and thistles,” confirmed Cotton. “Heresy,” echoed Ward, “is the greatest wickedness in the world. To say that people should have freedom of conscience is a wicked delusion”[6]. The principles were not slow in passing to action, and one of the first acts of the colonists was the expulsion from the community of two persons because they could not agree with the too-strict form of Puritanism[7]. But in expelling from their midst those who disagreed with their principles, the Puritan community came to treat other external religious communities with even greater severity, and considered the appearance of any member of the latter as worse than a harmful plague. To prevent the introduction of heretical infection into the Puritan community, in 1657 special legislation was enacted against Quakers. By it “every male Quaker, for a first offense (of breaking the law forbidding them to appear in the Puritan community), shall have one ear cut off and be kept at work in the house of correction until he can be sent out at his own cost; and for a second offense, he shall have his other ear cut off and be kept in the house of correction as aforesaid. And every female Quaker who comes under this law shall be severely whipped and kept in the house of correction until she can be sent out at her own cost. And any Quaker (male or female) who violates the law a third time shall have their tongue pierced with a red-hot iron and be kept in the house of correction until they can be sent out at their own cost”[8].

But if the Puritans regarded the Quakers with such fanatical intolerance—these who together with them had suffered persecution in England for the rights of personal religious conscience—they were even more intolerant toward Roman Catholics. Puritanism more than any other Protestant sect had grown out of radical rejection of Catholicism and lived by hatred toward it. The rank and authority of bishops, the sign of the cross, the observance of days in memory of the saints, the use of musical instruments in church, and the ecclesiastical vestments worn by the clergy—all of this was hateful to the Puritans because it was all connected with Catholic worship, and the chief crime of the Anglican Church in their eyes was that it retained certain doctrines and rites of the Roman Church. Religion and liberty, though understood in their own way, were the dominant principles of the Puritans, and since the Catholic Church in their eyes was the deadly enemy of both religion and liberty, their fanaticism, no less than their love of independence, filled them with the deepest hatred toward Catholics. They had the virtues and vices of the lower, uneducated classes of the English people, from which they had mostly come. If they were temperate and frugal, content with little, ready to endure hardship and suffer privation, stubborn in struggle with circumstances, at the same time they were narrow-minded, superstitious, awkward, and harsh; and these qualities hardened further from the cold, dark, and severe system of religious outlook. They were so superstitious as to hunt down and hang women on the charge of witchcraft[9], which led them to believe in the diabolism of Catholic priests. Although they did not entirely reject external expressions of their religiosity, fasting, appointing special annual days of public prayer, and in consequence of misdirected asceticism renaming and changing Sunday into an Old Testament Sabbath, nevertheless Catholic fasts and festivals were in their eyes superstition and idolatry, and although they claimed for themselves the right to declare what true Christian doctrine was and to compel acceptance of it, at the same time they indignantly rejected the authority of the church[10]. As a result of all this, the Puritans approached Roman Catholics with special intolerance and took all measures to keep them out of their midst. In 1631, eleven years after the arrival of the pilgrims on American soil, they seized and expelled from their colony one person on mere suspicion that he was a papist. In the same year, a priest was accused for expressing the opinion that the Roman Church is the true church. Three years later, the Puritan leader Roger Williams, who became famous for his struggle for freedom of conscience and was subsequently expelled from the community for this[11], together with the Puritans declared that the cross is “a relic of Antichrist, a papal symbol, smacking of superstition, and therefore should not be recognized by Christian people.” In proof of the sincerity of their views, the Puritans removed the cross from the English flag[12]. This hatred of Catholicism found expression in direct legislation aimed at protecting Puritan communities from the invasion of Catholics. The legislative assembly in Massachusetts decreed in 1647 that any Jesuits who appeared in the colony should be immediately expelled, and in case of a second return should be put to death[13]. The settlers of Connecticut adopted laws by which “no Catholic priest should reside in this territory; he should be expelled, and upon return suffer death. Priests may be arrested by anyone without any judicial authority”[14].

[1] See Inquiry into the Moral and Religious Character of the American Government. N.Y. 1838 pp. 39–72. Ramsay, History of U.S. Vol. I p. 79. “They emigrated not for the advantages of commerce, but for religion and to enjoy freedom of conscience.”

[2] Inquiry, Section II. Settlement of country.

[3] Bancroft, History of United States of America, Vol. I ch. IX, p. 292. Centenary edition, Boston, 1876.

[4] Bancroft, History p. 293.

[5] Bancroft, History p. 363 of U.S. Vol. I. p. 81. 2nd edition, Philadelphia 1818.

[6] Bancroft, History p. 362.

[7] Bancroft, History IX, 273.

[8] Colonial “Blue Laws,” cited in Murray, History of the Catholic Church in the U.S. p. 159–160

[9] Bancroft, History Vol. II ch. XXX, 259–266.

[10] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, article “Catholic Church in the U. States 1766–1876”.

[11] Bancroft, History Vol. I ch. XXX, 286–299.

[12] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 438.

[13] Murray, History of Catholic Church, 159.

[14] Murray, p. 159 in note.

1. The Settlers of North America—Martyrs for the Rights of Religious Conscience. Religious Exclusivity and Intolerance of the Puritans. Their Relation to Quakers and Catholics. The State Character of Religion. Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. The Disabilities of the Latter. Anti-Catholic Legislation. The Proclamation of Freedom in Maryland and its Consequences. The Religious Intolerance of Congress. (Cont.)

The spirit of religious intolerance prevailed throughout the entire colonial era not only in the Puritan population, marked by its severe outlook, but also in all other colonies, with few exceptions. This spirit was given juridical expression in the fact that the majority of the colonies before the beginning of the struggle for independence had an established state religion. The Anglican Church held the primary position in this regard, being recognized by law in many colonies. “The clergy in America,” says an English author of the last century, “do not receive tithes, but in most colonies before the civil war (excepting New England, where Independents predominated) it was enacted that the colony should be divided into parishes and religious profession established there according to the rites and ceremonies of the Anglican Church, and that an annual salary should be collected for the maintenance of each parish clergyman”[1]. This law had particular force in Virginia, where the Anglican episcopal church was by statute of 1662 recognized as thoroughly state religion. “Although,” says the historian, “there was not clergy in more than one-fifth of the parishes, nevertheless the laws required strict conformity, and everyone was obligated to make contributions for its support. To collect parish taxes, twelve men were chosen in each parish with authority to fill all vacancies in the society. Control of church affairs passed from the parish to a special corporation, which the parish could thereafter not change and had no power over. No nonconformist could teach, even privately, under penalty of banishment; no reader could present the catechism or Holy Scripture. The weakened severity of Queen Elizabeth’s laws was renewed against the Quakers; for absence from church they were punished by a fine of twenty pounds sterling”[2]. In like manner, the Anglican Church was “established” in the states of Georgia and North and South Carolina, as may be judged from the fact that in their constitutions, drawn up after the proclamation of independence, they abolished the “establishment” of the church. The North Carolina Constitution of 1776, for example, prohibits the levying of a tax “for the purchase of land, or for the building of a house of worship, or for the support of any priest or clergy”[3]. In Georgia, the Anglican Church was directly established by colonial statute of 1758[4]. These colonies were mostly populated by English settlers of episcopal faith, and therefore the establishment of the Anglican Church in them is not surprising, since it was these colonies where the law of the establishment of this church, which operated in England itself, would most likely find application. Much more remarkable is the fact that similar establishments existed also in other colonies, populated by various nonconformists, although here the establishment was not limited to the Anglican Church but extended to all Protestant denominations. Thus the charter of New Hampshire decreed that “freedom of conscience must be granted to all Protestants, but especially should be approved and protected that religion which will be more in accord with the rites of the Anglican Church,” and such a decree remained in force in this colony until the very revolution[3]. The Puritans in their colonies hastened to establish their own confession as the state church. “In Connecticut, all persons were obligated to pay both for the support of the church and the community. Congregationalist churches were adopted and established by law”[5]. In Massachusetts, a colonial statute of 1716 enacted compulsory religious establishment, by which the assembly took care to supply every settlement with “a priest, legally qualified,” namely, “able, learned, of sound faith, of good behavior,” and made taxes for his support. Of all the original thirteen colonies that constituted the United States, only in four was there no more or less established church by law[6]. In all the others, religion was strictly a state matter; the clergy was appointed by the government, as was directly enacted by the Massachusetts statute; obligatory taxes were levied for the support of churches, and in general the law favored one confession and oppressed others.

At first, when diverse colonists lived in separate settlements, the civil establishment of the church was limited to one strictly defined confession, with the exclusion of all others, even if they were in principle kindred to each other. But later, as emigration increased, changes and relaxations in the principle of establishment became necessary. Diverse colonists became so intermingled that the dominance of any one confession over all the others became inconvenient and impossible. The consequence was that particular sectarian differences began to smooth out, civil legislation broadened its scope, and in the “establishment” of the church it had in view not the particular sectarian but the general confessional principle, so that several sects which in their particular differences were akin in their basic principle could fall under it. Gradually this principle expanded to the point where legislation came to divide all confessions into two categories—Protestantism and Catholicism, as two opposite and incompatible principles. This was already a considerable step toward religious freedom of conscience; but it could be beneficial only to one side or the other—the Protestant or Catholic. The resolution of the question of which side should prove to be in the position of dominance depended entirely on their relative numerical strength; and since the predominant majority of the population was Protestant, Protestantism naturally became the established religion. Catholicism thereby found itself outside the “establishment” and did not receive rights of religious conscience. And indeed, the charters which determined the confessional relations of the colonists limited laws on freedom of conscience to Protestants alone, with Catholics either passed over in silence or directly excluded. The New Hampshire charter provided “freedom of conscience for all Protestants.” The Massachusetts charter states: “For the greater convenience and encouragement of our living subjects, inhabiting the provinces of the Massachusetts Bay, and those who shall settle there hereafter, we ordain that forever hereafter freedom of conscience be allowed in the worship of God to all Christians, excepting papists, inhabiting or to inhabit the said province or territory.” The Georgia charter, which was in effect until 1752, commands “that freedom of conscience be allowed in the worship of God to all persons inhabiting or to inhabit the said province, and that all such persons, excepting papists, shall have free profession of religion”[7]. Most remarkable in the sense of the relation of Protestantism to Catholicism is the Rhode Island charter. It was granted to the colony as a result of a special petition in which the petitioners “freely declared that they heartily desired, if permitted, to make a living experiment that civil society can exist and flourish in its greatest perfection with full liberty in religious concerns.” The charter indeed provided “that all and each shall be free and fully possessed of his own judgment and conscience in matters of religious concern throughout the lands named, conducting themselves peaceably and quietly, and not using this freedom for licentiousness and impiety, nor for civil injury or disturbance of others.” The meaning of this law grants full freedom of conscience without any restriction by confessional differences, but the colonial government, guided by the prevailing view, interpreted it in the sense of granting freedom of conscience to Protestants alone, with the exclusion of Roman Catholics[8]. A historian of the last century says: “Since the time of this charter, the form of government underwent very little change. In 1663 it was enacted that all men of sufficient means and good behavior who profess Christianity, with the exception of Roman Catholics, should be recognized as free”[9].

Thus the population gradually came to be divided juridically into two categories, encompassing two opposite religious principles—Protestantism and Catholicism. As mutually exclusive, they could not meet at any point, struggle between them was inevitable, and it now began with all the greater fierceness because Protestantism, without weakening itself through the divisions of particular sects, concentrated all its energy on suppressing Catholicism, which was already weak in numbers. And so in almost all the colonies there came a time of strict laws subjecting Catholics to merciless criminal prosecution. In New York, which was notable for comparative religious tolerance and which by the census of 1696 had only seven papists, or by the largest reckoning seven Catholic families, in the year 1700 an ordinance was issued which in its very opening characteristically expresses the spirit of Protestant relation toward Catholics. It begins with the words: “Whereas diverse Jesuits, priests, and papal missionaries have of late come and had residence in remote parts of this province and other neighboring his majesty’s colonies, and by their wicked and subtle insinuations have endeavored to disturb, seduce, and draw off the Indians from their due obedience to his most sacred majesty, excite and bring them to seditious rebellion and open hostility against the government,” it is therefore ordained “that any pastor coming into this province after November 1, 1700, or remaining therein after this date, shall be deemed a disturber and violator of public peace and safety, an enemy of true Christian religion, and shall be sentenced to perpetual imprisonment; if he escapes from prison and is again taken, he shall be punished with death; any one who has harbored a pastor shall be fined two hundred pounds sterling and stand three days at the pillory”[10]. In 1701 a law was enacted by which Catholics were excluded from holding public office and deprived of voting rights[11]. In the following year, Queen Anne granted freedom of conscience to all inhabitants of New York, “excepting papists”[12]. These laws were not a dead letter; they found their counterpart in the relation of the Protestant population toward Catholics, which was extraordinarily hostile to them, as proven by facts of barbarous violence. In 1741 the people of New York were seized with panic on account of frequent fires. A rumor swept the city that Negroes had formed a conspiracy to burn the city and exterminate the population. The people fell into a fury, several Negroes were seized and hanged, but no conspiracy was discovered on their part. Then suspicion turned toward Catholics. “At first,” declared the governor of the province, “we thought only Negroes were involved, but now it is clear that the hand of Popery is here”[13]. And then a furious outcry arose against papists, the people sought someone to satisfy their bloodthirsty instincts, and finally fixed upon a certain John Ury as the chief culprit of all the troubles and disturbances. Suspecting him to be a Catholic priest, they seized him, brought him to trial, condemned him to death, and executed him in a barbarous manner[14]. Yet to this day his guilt has not been proved, and it has not even been proved that he was a Catholic priest or a Catholic at all, although he was accused and tried chiefly as a Catholic priest[15].

[1] Stokes, A View of the Constitution of the British colonies in North America, published in London 1783 – Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 722.

[2] Bancroft, History Vol. I, p. 533.

[3] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 722.

[4] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 723.

[5] Ramsay, History of U.S. Vol. I, p. 178.

[6] “In Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey there was never an established religion,” says Ramsay, a historian contemporary with the Revolution. Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 723. But this must be understood in a limited sense.

[7] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII p. 728.

[8] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 728

[9] Ramsay History of U.S. Vol. I p. 181.

[10] Shea, History of Catholic Church in U.S. p. 330, 331, Murray, History, p. 152.

[11] Shea, History p. 131; Murray, p. 153.

[12] Shea, p. 131; Murray, p. 153.

[13] U.S. Catholic Magazine. Vol. V, p. 678

[14] Shea, History, pp. 332–335.

[15] The Catholic historian Murray directly denies that Ury was Catholic. “From the facts at hand,” he says, “I have no doubt that Ury was not a Catholic priest or even a Catholic at all. Murray, p. 154”

1. The Settlers of North America—Martyrs for the Rights of Religious Conscience. Religious Exclusivity and Intolerance of the Puritans. Their Relation to Quakers and Catholics. The State Character of Religion. Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. The Disabilities of the Latter. Anti-Catholic Legislation. The Proclamation of Freedom in Maryland and its Consequences. The Religious Intolerance of Congress. (Cont.) (2)

Protestantism related to Catholicism in a similar manner in the other colonies. According to the legislation of Massachusetts, as has been said above, Jesuits were expelled from the colony, and in case of return were subject to execution. In Virginia, “papists” were rendered incapable of being witnesses in any cases whatsoever, could not bear arms, and could not keep horses valued at more than five pounds sterling[1]. But their fate was particularly remarkable in Maryland. This colony was settled almost exclusively by Catholics, under the protection of the Catholic Lord Baltimore, to whom a royal charter had given possession of the land. Lord Baltimore, himself converted to Catholicism as a result of the horrors of persecution against him in England, considered it his first duty in his colony to proclaim religious freedom of conscience, and with his own hand wrote a charter which granted freedom of conscience to all Christians and secured voting rights in the making of laws to all free men[2]. “Roman Catholics,” says a Protestant historian, “oppressed by the laws of England, could with confidence find a peaceful refuge in the quiet harbor of the Chesapeake, and Protestants were also sheltered from Protestant intolerance”[3]. “A Puritan, expelled from Anglican Virginia, and the peaceful Quaker, whose ears were cut off in Puritan New England, found shelter among the liberal and warm-hearted Catholics of Maryland,” adds a Catholic historian[4]. But such religious toleration by Catholics amid the general dominance of the spirit of intolerance caused them many troubles. Soon the Protestant population gained predominance in the colony, and with it the hostility of Protestants toward Catholics began to manifest itself. In 1644 the Protestant population, led by an ambitious adventurer, raised an uprising against the Catholics, so that the Catholic missionaries and the proprietor of the colony himself were forced to flee, and only after two years was order restored by the use of military force[5]. Realizing the impossibility of sustaining the struggle against Protestants by force, the Catholics sought to secure themselves juridically against Protestant violence, and at their insistence, chiefly the general assembly in 1649 enacted the “Act of Toleration,” which granted complete freedom of conscience to all “professing faith in Jesus Christ”[6]. But this act only briefly reconciled the warring parties. The execution of King Charles in England led to the rise of Cromwell, and in his person Puritanism felt power in its hands. This event echoed instantly in America, and the Puritans of Maryland again raised an uprising against the Catholics. In 1654 they formed an assembly from which Catholics were excluded; they abolished the “Act of Toleration” and enacted their own act, which affirmed freedom of conscience on the condition that freedom should not extend to “Popery, prelacy, or licentiousness of opinion,” under which Catholicism was understood[7]. Thanks to the efforts of Lord Baltimore, Catholics for a time defended their rights, but then one after another enactment finally deprived them of freedom of conscience. In 1692 the assembly proclaimed the Anglican Church the established state church in the colony of Maryland and laid upon the citizens of all denominations, including Catholics, taxes for the support of Protestant clergy. In 1704 a new law, titled “An Act to Prevent the Growth of Popery in the Province,” forbade bishops and pastors to say Mass, perform sacraments, or convert unbelievers; forbade Catholics to teach, and gave Catholic children who converted to Protestantism the right to demand their share of property from their Catholic parents, as if the parents were dead. Catholics were allowed to perform Mass only in private homes. In 1706 an act gave freedom to Quakers to conduct their worship, so that “in the colony founded by Catholics, Catholics were the only victims of the intolerance of the ruling party”[8]. “In the following years by a series of successive laws they were deprived of voting rights unless they solemnly renounced their faith. The executive power often arbitrarily issued ordinances “to take children from the pernicious influence of Catholic parents,” and the assembly voted to require papists to pay double taxes collected from Protestants. The hostility toward Catholics grew to such a point that they were even forbidden from appearing in certain parts of the cities”[9].

Such was the legal position of Catholics until the very revolution in all colonies, excepting only Pennsylvania, where the peaceful Quakers easily coexisted with Catholics. To what extent Protestantism was intolerant toward Catholics can be seen from the fact that Protestants could not remain indifferent to Catholic freedom even beyond their own colonies. After France ceded Canada to the English government, the parliamentary act of 1774, after several years of military rule, restored to the Catholics inhabiting this province the rights which they had enjoyed under French rule: empowered them to sit in the provincial council, restored the application of French law in civil matters, guaranteed to Catholic clergy the possession of their property and complete freedom in religious matters. Protestants rose up in indignation at the granting of such wide rights to Catholics, and the Massachusetts colony presented a protest to Congress in 1774, in which it was stated: “that the late act of Parliament establishing the Roman Catholic religion and French law in that extensive country (Canada) is fraught with danger to the Protestant religion and to the civil rights and liberties of all America; and therefore we, as men and Protestant Christians, are necessarily bound to adopt all proper measures for our security”[10]. Congress, having considered “the rights and grievances of these colonies,” came to the conclusion: “that the following acts of Parliament are infractions and violations of the rights of the colonists, namely: the act establishing the Roman Catholic religion in the Province of Quebec (Canada), repealing the just system of English laws, and establishing tyranny there to the great danger (from such complete dissimilitude in religion, law, and government) of the neighboring British colonies, with the aid of blood and treasure which through their assistance the said country was conquered from France… Such heavy acts and measures Americans cannot submit to”[11]. In an address to the British people Congress of the same year says: “We cannot suppress our wonder that the British Parliament could ever consent to establish in that country (Canada) a religion which has drenched your island in blood and spread impiety, bigotry, persecution, and murder throughout all parts of the globe”[12].

Such speech of religious intolerance toward Catholics was heard from the lips of the representatives of the colonies on the eve of a great event—the proclamation of independence, which was to result in a law of complete freedom of conscience in religious matters, for all denominations without distinction. The elucidation of the question of how such a sharp reversal could take place becomes of primary importance for the clear understanding of the character of the paragraph of the Constitution concerning religion and the reasons for its appearance.

[1] Murray, History, p. 160.

[2] Murray, History, p. 134.

[3] Bancroft, History, Vol. I ch. VII, p. 187.

[4] Murray, History, p. 138.

[5] Murray, History, p. 139.

[6] This important act in the history of the development of freedom of conscience reads as follows: “Since enforcing conscience in matters of religion has often produced harmful consequences in those communities where it was practiced, and for more peaceful and tranquil government of this province, and to better preserve mutual love and friendship among the inhabitants, no person in this province professing belief in Jesus Christ should be in any way molested or despised for his or her faith, or disturbed in the free exercise thereof.” Bancroft, History of U.S. Vol. I, ch. VII, p. 194. There is still dispute among Protestant and Catholic historians as to whom this act owes its origin more—to Protestants or Catholics? Catholic historians assert that the act belongs to Catholics, since the “general assembly” that enacted it consisted of a Catholic majority, of eleven Catholics and three Protestants (Murray, p. 140; Shea, p. 32). But the leader of Protestant historians Bancroft says that the assembly consisted of six members, of whom three were Protestants and three Catholics, and of representatives of the Maryland population, of whom five were Catholics, with the chief instigator of this matter being the Protestant governor of the province Stone (Bancroft, Vol. I ch. VII, p. 193). But the facts incline the conclusion rather toward Catholics.

[7] Shea, History, p. 32–33

[8] Bancroft, History Vol. I ch. XXX, p. 199

[9] Shea, History, 33 Bancroft describes this Protestant intolerance in less harsh terms. History, ch. XXI, vol. II

[10] Journals of the American Congress from 1774 to 1788. 4 Vols Washington 1823. Vol. I p. 11, § 10.

[11] Journals of the American Congress, Vol. I, pp. 20–22.

[12] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 730; Shea, History, p. 43, The Address to the people of Great Britain see in “Journals of American Congress”, Vol. I, pp. 26–31.

2. The Political Crisis and Its Significance for the Proclamation of Religious Freedom of Conscience. The First Sounds of Freedom. The Revolution in the Views of Congress and Its Causes. New Constitutions and the Paragraph on Religious Freedom of Conscience. The Limitation of Civil Rights of Catholics. The Federal Constitution and the Abolition of the Religious Test. Discussions on This at Conventions. The Significance of the Paragraph in the Federal Constitution. The Separation of Church and State

The population of the thirteen colonies, which would subsequently form the confederation of the United States, before the beginning of the war for independence was overwhelmingly Protestant. The Catholic population comprised but a trifling fraction, numbering only 25,000, and lived predominantly in Maryland. Thanks to its weakness, it, as has been said above, constantly fell victim to persecution and harassment by Protestants, who at the same time did not cease to wage war among themselves over differences in religious doctrine. The enmity arising from religious differences was so entrenched and intense that it could not be terminated simply by the consciousness of the inalienability of human rights to freedom of religious conscience, since on the contrary the consciousness of the ruling majority denied these rights. It could only be terminated through a general convulsive movement which would transform the entire social and political structure of the country that nourished the spirit of intolerance. Such a movement came to the country with the beginning of the struggle for independence. When the colonies, in their relations with the metropolis, saw the inevitable onset of a crisis which demanded extraordinary exertion of all their moral and physical strength, the very order of things forcibly summoned them to unity and cohesion so as to more successfully withstand the struggle with a common enemy. The religious enmity between Protestantism and Catholicism was particularly fierce in Maryland, the principal colony of Catholics, and it was in this very colony that the rights of religious conscience were destined to first receive legal recognition.

Already in the beginning of 1774 the relations of the colonies to England had reached such a tension that the crisis seemed inevitable. The discontent of the colonists was developing and growing into implacable hatred for the metropolis, and was waiting only for a cause to open hostile action. The crisis was dangerous, and for its preservation unity and cooperation of all members was necessary. The people gathered in conventions where, with united effort, they discussed their situation, and at a convention in Maryland the following appeal to the people was made: “Since our opposition to the settled plan of the British government to bring America into slavish subjection can be strengthened by the union of all classes of people in this province, we most earnestly recommend that all former differences in religion or politics, and all private disputes and enmities of every kind be now and forever buried in oblivion, and we ask, we entreat every man by his duty to God, country, and posterity to unite heartily in defense of our common rights and freedom”[1]. This was the first sound heralding the general freedom of religious conscience, which subsequently became the fundamental law of the country, but the origin of it shows clearly enough where the principal cause was that produced this law. It lay in the political circumstances which required the common union of people of diverse faiths to struggle against England. The subsequent history provides striking proof of this.

The Congress of 1774, in its address to the British people, expressed, as we have seen, terrible indignation against the act of parliament that granted Catholics in Canada freedom of religious conscience. Circumstances soon changed dramatically; a rupture with the mother country followed. On May 10, 1775, another Congress convened. Blood had already been shed and it was clear that the sword would settle the matter. Congress sought means and allies for the struggle. All colonies united for it. Canada remained aloof. It was now critically important for Congress to win Canada over to its side as an ally, and so it abruptly reversed its position. It began to court Canada and through repeated appeals to the Canadian people asked them to unite with the other colonies, declaring that “the fate of the Protestant and Catholic colonies must be firmly united with each other” in this cause, and assuring them of the complete inviolability and security of their religious rights. In instructions given by Congress to its ambassadors for negotiations with Canadians on November 8, 1775, it was stated, among other things: “And you may and are hereby authorized to declare that we consider the rights of conscience sacred and will never restrict them in the free exercise of their religion”[2]. Such appeals were made twice in 1775, but without success. In the following year Congress attempted a third time to approach Canada with the same request, and in instructions to its ambassadors dated May 20, 1776, it again instructed: “You must declare that we consider the rights of conscience sacred, and you may promise to all the people, solemnly in our name, the free and inviolable exercise of their religion; and to the clergy the complete, perfect, and peaceful possession and enjoyment of all their properties; that all matters relating to religion and the clergy should be left entirely in the hands of the good people of that province and of such legislation as they themselves shall establish; provided, however, that all other confessions of Christians be equally empowered to hold public offices and enjoy civil privileges and the free exercise of their religion, and be wholly exempt from the payment of tithes or taxes for the maintenance of any religion”[3]. Considering these assurances insufficiently persuasive, the Protestant-majority Congress even invited the Jesuit John Carroll as ambassador, hoping that he could better influence the Catholic clergy of Canada[4]. But this embassy also failed. Canada looked suspiciously upon these assurances, considering them forced by political circumstances, and remembered too vividly the Congress’s own indignant protests against the law by which Parliament had granted Canadian Catholics freedom of religious conscience. In this distrust of the Catholic Canada toward the Protestant colonies lay the main reason why it remained apart from the general movement toward independence and thus did not become part of the United States. A historian contemporary with the struggle for independence affirms that the Canadian masses were inclined in favor of union with the other colonies, but “the legal privileges which the Roman Catholic clergy possessed forced it to resist change, as it feared for them from a closer connection with its Protestant neighbors”[5]. The unsuccessful outcome of negotiations with Canada soon made clear to the colonial representatives what a mistake they had made in allowing their Protestant prejudice against Catholics to be expressed so sharply in their protest against the parliamentary act. It was an important lesson, showing that religious differences could be the strongest obstacle to union for struggle against a common enemy. And it proved not fruitless. When in 1776 the “Declaration of Independence” was proclaimed and colonies gathered in private conventions to draft new constitutions, the people’s representatives sought in every way to consolidate the organism of the newly born state by removing from it elements of discord, namely differences in religion, and as a result placed religious questions outside the state, leaving religion to individual freedom. The constitutions of the different colonies express this principle of freedom of religious conscience differently. The Virginia Constitution of July 5, 1776, declares that “religion, or the duties which we owe our Creator, and the manner of performing them, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or compulsion; and therefore all people equally have the right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that mutual obligation of all to exercise Christian patience, love, and charity toward one another”[6]. The New Jersey Constitution of July 2, 1776, defines not only freedom of religious conscience, but the separation of religion from the state. It declares that “in this province there shall be established no religious sect in preference to another”; “no person shall be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other dues for the purpose of building or repairing a church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the support of a priest or clergy, contrary to what he considers right, or which he shall not freely and voluntarily perform himself”[7]. The Delaware Constitution of September 20, 1776, provides: “No person shall be compelled to attend any religious worship, to pay for the building or maintenance of any place of worship, or for the maintenance of the clergy, against his free will and consent… And no preference shall be given by law to any religious society, profession, or form of worship”[8]. The North Carolina Constitution of December 18, 1776, provides: “that there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or confession in this state in preference to others; and no person shall be, under any pretext whatever, compelled to attend any place of worship against his own faith or judgment, or be obliged to pay for the purchase of land or the building of a house of prayer, or for the support of a priest or clergy, against what he considers right or has freely and personally consented to perform”[9]. The Georgia Constitution of February 5, 1777, says: “All persons shall have the free exercise of their religion, provided it is not repugnant to the peace and safety of the state; and should not, except by consent, support a teacher or teachers, except of his own profession”[10]. The New York Constitution of April 20, 1777, abolishes “all such parts of the public and state law and acts of assembly which establish any Christian confession or its priests”[11]. Similar principles were laid at the foundation of the constitutions of other states, though some of them do not entirely sever the connection between religion and government. The Maryland Constitution of August 14, 1776, says: “As the duty of every person is to worship God in such manner as he thinks most beneficial to Him, all persons professing the Christian religion equally have the right to the protection of their religious conscience; therefore no person shall be injured by law in his person or status because of his religious profession or belief, or because of his religious activity, unless under the guise of religion some person violates the good order, peace or safety of the state, or violates the laws of morality, or harms others in their natural, civil, or religious rights. And no person shall be compelled to attend, support, or pay, except by consent, for any particular place of worship or any particular clergy; but the legislative assembly may at its discretion impose a general and equal tax for the support of the Christian religion, allowing each person the right to designate the application of money collected from him for the support of a particular place of worship or priest, or for the poor of his own profession, or for the poor generally of some separate district”[12]. The South Carolina Constitution of March 19, 1778, says: “No person shall be required by law to pay for the support and maintenance of religious worship to which he does not freely attach himself or voluntarily consent to support”; but the same article provides that “the Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby determined and declared to be, the established religion of this state”, extending this determination to “all confessions of Christian Protestants in the state”[13]. The Massachusetts Constitution of March 2, 1780, says: “No subordination of one sect or profession to another shall be established by law,” but it is permitted to make taxes for the support of public, Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality in all cases where this is not done voluntarily, with this condition, however, that “all money paid by subjects for the support of public worship and said public teachers shall be, if they require it, uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or profession, if there is such one at whose instruction he attends; otherwise the payment may be made for the support of a teacher or teachers of the parish or district in which said money is collected”[14].

[1] Shea, History of Cath. Church p. 36

[2] Journals of American Congress, Vol. I, p. 110. Wash 1823.

[3] Journals of A.C. vol. I, p. 290.

[4] Shea, History, p. 42.

[5] Ramsay, History; Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 733

[6] 16 article of the constitution of Virginia. See The Constitutions of the Thirteen states, Philadelphia, 1783.

[7] 18 and 19 articles of the constitution of New Jersey. Ibidem pp. 101–102.

[8] 1 article of the constitution of Delaware, 1 section, 1 article. The Constitutions of the Thirteen states, p. 121. Philadelphia 1783.

[9] 34 article of the constitution of S. Carolina, p. 178.

[10] 56 article of the constitution of Georgia; ibidem, p. 724. The Constitution of the same state, from May 30, 1798, more fully defines the same principle: No person in this state shall on any pretext be deprived of the invaluable privilege of worshiping God in a manner most agreeable to his own conscience, or be compelled to attend a place of worship contrary to his faith or judgment, and never shall be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other dues for the building or repair of any place of worship contrary to what he considers right or has voluntarily agreed to do. And no religious society shall be established in this state in preference to another; and no person shall be deprived of the enjoyment of his civil rights merely on account of his religious principles. See Constitutions of the Thirteen states. Constitution of Georgia, IV art., 10 section, p. 207. This edition of the constitution of the first thirteen states in the Mercantile Library catalog is dated 1783. But it is obviously later. The title page is missing.

[11] 35 art., Const, of New-York. See Constitutions of the Thirteen states, p. 94.

[12] Constitution of Maryland, Art. XXXIII. The Constitutions, p. 145.

[13] 38 article of the constitution of S. Carolina. Cath. World, Vol. XXIII. 724

[14] Noteworthy is the very text of this article: Since the happiness of the people, good order, and the preservation of civil government essentially depend on piety, religion, and morality; and since these can be spread in a community only through the institution of public worship of God and public instruction in piety, religion and morality: therefore, for the promotion of its well-being (happiness) and to ensure good order and the preservation of its government, the people of this republic have the right to vow to their legislative assembly the authority to empower and require, and the legislative assembly from time to time should empower and require, that the various cities, parishes, counties, and other political communities or religious societies take appropriate measures, at their own expense, for the institution of public worship and for the maintenance and support of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality in all cases where such shall not be adopted voluntarily. Constitution of Massachusetts from March 2, 1780. I part, 3. The Constitutions of the Thirteen states, p. 34–35.

2. The Political Crisis and Its Significance for the Proclamation of Religious Freedom of Conscience. The First Sounds of Freedom. The Revolution in the Views of Congress and Its Causes. New Constitutions and the Paragraph on Religious Freedom of Conscience. The Limitation of Civil Rights of Catholics. The Federal Constitution and the Abolition of the Religious Test. Discussions on This at Conventions. The Significance of the Paragraph in the Federal Constitution. The Separation of Church and State. (Cont.)

The general principle of freedom of religious conscience thus found more or less complete recognition in the private constitutions of the colonies, which had hitherto been intolerant. The country was experiencing such an important and dangerous political crisis that achieving unity required the harmonious contribution of all moral and physical forces, and therefore the people unanimously resolved to forget mutual disagreements over religious differences and placed them outside the nascent state organism, thereby dividing church and state. But however strong the political need for a complete equalization of the rights of religious conscience of the various confessions within the state, even stronger were the historically entrenched prejudices of confessions toward one another[1]. They could not suddenly give way to the new principle, and if they could not give way in the general principle, they continued to dominate in particulars, limiting the general principle of complete equality of religious rights. Prejudices made themselves known in the relations between the most extreme confessions – Protestantism and Catholicism, and since the former had actual predominance, it could not fail to reinforce it with legal predominance and various advantages. Those very same constitutions which, as shown above, seemed to incline so decisively toward the equalization of the rights of religious conscience, toward the exclusion of religious questions from the sphere of state authority, could not entirely free themselves from the spirit of religious intolerance, and in many of them it declared itself in the tendency to retain certain privileges exclusively for Protestants. This was especially evident in the definition of the eligibility of persons to hold public and state offices. Many constitutions determined this eligibility by the religious profession of individuals, with full advantage given to Protestants. Thus, the New Jersey Constitution quoted above, dated July 2, 1776, together with the declaration of complete freedom in matters of religion, contains a provision strongly colored by the Protestant spirit. It provides: “that no Protestant inhabitant of this colony shall have the enjoyment of civil rights denied to him solely because of his religious principles; but all persons professing the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall conduct themselves peaceably under the government here established, shall have the right to election to any profitable office or position of trust, or to be a member of any branch of the legislative assembly, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and advantage enjoyed by their other fellow subjects”[2]. The constitution makes no mention of Catholics, but its meaning, granting civil rights and advantages “to all professing the Protestant faith,” clearly excludes Catholics from the sphere of these rights. Other constitutions state this even more clearly. The North Carolina Constitution of December 18, 1776, says: “that no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truths of Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testament, or shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the state, shall be eligible to hold any office or place, of trust or profit, in the civil department of this state”[3]. The Georgia Constitution of February 5, 1777, says that members of the legislative assembly “must be of the Protestant religion”[4]. The South Carolina Constitution of March 19, 1778, provides that “the Governor and Commander-in-Chief, Lieutenant Governor, and Privy Council – all must be of the Protestant religion”; that “no person shall be elected to sit in the House of Representatives unless he be of the Protestant religion”; and “that all confessions of Christian Protestants in this state, conducting themselves peaceably and loyally, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges.” In this same state the Governor took an oath “to the utmost of his power to uphold and defend the laws of God, the Protestant religion, and the liberty of America”[5]. The New Hampshire Constitution of January 5, 1776, while not directly determining civil eligibility by religious profession, implies the same by a provision maintaining the force of the former colonial law, by which all members of the legislative assembly were required to be of the Protestant religion[6]. This spirit of Protestant exclusivity toward Catholics declared itself with special force at the convention assembled to draft the Constitution of New York on April 20, 1777. The assembly proposed for discussion an article on freedom of religious profession and worship, which read: “the free toleration of religious profession and worship shall from now on be forever allowed to all mankind”[7]. This article met protest from a considerable number of convention members, and one of them, namely John Jay, who was later to be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, proposed the following amendment to the article: “excepting those professing the religion of the Roman church, who should not hold land or be admitted to participation in the civil rights granted to members of this state, unless the said professing persons shall appear in the supreme court of the state and there take the most solemn oath that they truly believe in their conscience that no pope, priest, or foreign power on earth has power to absolve the subjects of this state from their obedience to it; and further that they reject and hold false and evil the dangerous and accursed doctrine that the pope or any other earthly power has power to absolve men from sins indicated and forbidden by the Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, and in particular that no pope, priest, or foreign power on earth has power to absolve them from this oath.” This proposal provoked prolonged debate, and when put to a vote, 10 members voted in its favor, and it was rejected by the majority of 9 (19 against 10)[8]. Such was still the strength of the spirit of Protestant intolerance toward Catholics in the people. Of the thirteen colonies five made Protestantism the established religion. Of the remaining eight, five proclaimed complete freedom of religious profession, and three, namely Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, made the Christian religion generally established and conditioned the eligibility of persons to hold public offices upon it[9].

In 1787 a federal convention assembled, composed of representatives from all colonies, to draft a common constitution for the United States. The religious question was also presented for its resolution – the question of the relationship between religion and the state. This question was not new to the members of the federal convention, some of whom had been members of the congresses convened previously. On the contrary, they understood its full importance, and they saw the bitter lesson from its incorrect resolution in the loss to the common cause of the colonies of the great province of Canada. Therefore, the federal convention, by its very position and task having in view more general aims and a broader outlook, naturally had to take the religious question in its more general significance than it had been taken in the private conventions. The local conventions were composed of members from one colony, united with each other by their very existence together; meanwhile the federal convention was composed of representatives of colonies that had hitherto lived completely separate lives and had nothing in common with each other, so that the bond between them was still very weak and could break at the slightest disagreement. Therefore, it was an urgent necessity to remove every occasion for such disagreement. Meanwhile, an occasion existed. Catholics participated in the convention, and meanwhile in many states their civil rights were denied. As a result, the federal convention hastened to eliminate this inequality, and so it developed and unanimously adopted a provision which in its final form reads as follows: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for holding any office or public trust in the United States”[10]. This article completely placed civil rights outside all dependence on religious profession and thus came into contradiction not only with those private constitutions which conditioned eligibility to hold public offices on Protestant profession, but also with those which made it dependent generally on the Christian religion. The private constitutions therefore had to undergo changes in accordance with the principle of the federal constitution. The debates which took place in the private conventions on the adoption of this article present important material for characterizing the views of the American people on the relationship of religion to the state and chiefly of Protestantism to Catholicism.

[1] The degree to which strong and entrenched was Protestant hostility to Catholicism is demonstrated by the remarkable fact that even during the very struggle for independence, the custom of publicly burning the pope’s effigy was observed. On November 5, 1775, Washington issued this order to the troops: “Learning of the intention to observe the ridiculous and childish custom of burning the pope’s effigy, the commander-in-chief cannot but express his astonishment that officers and soldiers in this army could be found so lacking in good sense as to not see the impropriety of such an action. It is so monstrous that it cannot be tolerated or excused. Instead of causing even the slightest offense, it is our duty to publicly thank our Catholic brothers, as it is to them we owe our final success over our common enemy in Canada.” Murray, History, p. 196.

[2] 19 article of the constitution of New Jersey. The Constitutions, p. 102.

[3] 32 article of the constitution of S. Carolina. The Constitutions, p. 178

[4] 6 article of the constitution of Georgia, C.W. p. 733. Inquiry into the Moral and Religious character of the American Government, p. 83.

[5] 3, 13 and 38 articles of the constitution of S. Carolina. C.W. p. 733. Inquiry, p. 80. The Constitution of South Carolina further made an interesting provision concerning what society can be considered religious and have a right to the benefits accorded religion. By this provision all religious societies, to have a right to the benefits accorded religion, had to adopt and sign in the book the following five articles: 1) that there exists one eternal God and there is a future state of reward and punishment; 2) that God should be publicly worshipped; 3) that the Christian religion is the true religion; 4) that the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments is of Divine inspiration and is the rule of faith and life and 5) that the lawful duty and obligation of each person, called thereto by those who govern, is to bear witness to the truth. Inquiry into the Moral and Religious character of American Government, p. 81.

[6] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, 734.

[7] Murray, History of Catholic church, p. 180 in note

[8] Catholic World, Vol XXIII p. 734; Murray, History of Catholic church, p. 180–181. The Catholic historian remarks on this matter: “Jay was a narrow-minded man whose vivid imagination constantly conjured up terrible shadows of priests and popes.” Murray, ibidem, p. 181. Nevertheless, an article remained in the constitution, by which every foreigner had to renounce and give up all connection and allegiance to every foreign king, prince, sovereign or state, in all affairs of church and of the state, so that Catholics, owing to their allegiance to the pope, were in any case excluded from the rights of citizenship in the state. Shea, History p. 337.

[9] The Constitution of Maryland from August 14, 1776 decrees that “a declaration of faith in the Christian religion” shall be a qualification for office; and that every person appointed to any office, profitable or of trust, before entering upon the discharge of the same, must sign a declaration of faith in the Christian religion (35 article Declaration of Rights and 55 article const.). The Constitution of Delaware from September 11, 1776 establishes the following oath, which had to be taken by all members of the legislative assembly: “I, A.B., profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His Only-Begotten Son, and in the Holy Ghost, One God forever blessed; and I acknowledge that the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament is given by Divine inspiration” (22 article of constitution). The Constitution of Pennsylvania from September 28, 1776 required from members of the general assembly and civil officials the signature to “a declaration of faith in one God, Creator and Ruler of the world, Rewarder of the good and Punisher of the wicked,” as well as to make “acknowledgment that the writings of the Old and New Testament are given by Divine inspiration.” The Catholic World, vol. XXIII, p. 734. See The Constitutions of the Thirteen states, p. 141, 162; 114. Inquiry p. 80–83.

[10] In the original this article reads thus: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution of the United States. The brevity of the formula complicates the precision of rendering this article in Russian. See The Constitutions of the several states of the Union and United States. New York, 1806, p. 19.

2. The Political Crisis and Its Significance for the Proclamation of Religious Freedom of Conscience. The First Sounds of Freedom. The Revolution in the Views of Congress and Its Causes. New Constitutions and the Paragraph on Religious Freedom of Conscience. The Limitation of Civil Rights of Catholics. The Federal Constitution and the Abolition of the Religious Test. Discussions on This at Conventions. The Significance of the Paragraph in the Federal Constitution. The Separation of Church and State. (Cont.) (2)

When the federal constitution was proposed to the private conventions for ratification, the article abolishing the restriction on the right to hold public offices due to differences of religious profession met with considerable opposition, especially in those states where such restriction existed. Many objected that by virtue of such an article even the Roman Pope could become President of the United States, and even a pamphlet appeared supporting this objection[1]. Especially heated debates took place in the convention in North Carolina. Convention member Abbott said: “The exclusion of religious tests (tests) is considered dangerous and impolitic by many. It is supposed that if religious tests are not required, pagans, deists, and Mohammedans might obtain offices among us, and that senators and representatives might all be pagans”[2]. Iredell responded to him, pointing to the disastrous results of religious tests throughout the ages, he said: “America has given humanity an example to think more humbly and carefully, that a man may differ from us in religious feelings without being a bad member of society… But it is objected that the people of America might elect representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mohammedans might be admitted to offices. But how is it possible to exclude any class of people without taking away the principle of religious freedom for which we ourselves fought so ardently… This morning I happened to meet a pamphlet in which the author points out the great danger that the Roman Pope might be elected President. I confess this never occurred to me before; but had the author read all the rules conditioning the election of President, his fears might perhaps be calmed. President can only be elected a native or one who lived in America fourteen years. I do not know all the rules for the election of a pope, but I think he must be taken from the college of cardinals; and probably there are many preliminary steps necessary to reach that dignity. An American native must have an extraordinarily fortunate chance who, after living fourteen years in his country, should go to Europe, enter the Roman order, receive elevation to cardinal, then to pope, and finally be so long in the confidence of his country that he would be elected President. It would be even more extraordinary if he renounced the papacy for our presidency. Sir, it is impossible to discuss such fears with any degree of seriousness… This country has already had the honor to present an example of civil liberty, and I hope it will equally have the honor to show the rest of the world the way to religious freedom as well. May God grant that both continue to the end of time”[3]. Governor Johnson said: “when I heard the fears expressed that the Roman Pope might become President of the United States, I was greatly surprised. In that case one could likewise say that the King of England or France, or the Sultan of Turkey, could be elected to this office. This would be exactly the same argument… There is also fear that Jews, Mohammedans, pagans, etc., might be elected to the highest offices in the government of the United States. Those who are Mohammedans or otherwise do not profess the Christian religion can never be elected to the office of President or any other high office, except in one of two cases: first, this might happen if the people of America completely abandon the Christian religion. If this unfortunately happens, the people will elect such men as they themselves are. The other case, if persons of this kind, despite their religion, acquire the trust and respect of the American people through their good conduct and works of virtue, then they might be elected”[4]. Member Caldwell said: “Here is an invitation given to Jews and pagans of every kind to come and settle among us. In the future this may threaten danger to the character of the United States. I think that in political views, the gentlemen who drew up this constitution should not have given such an invitation to Jews and pagans.” Spencer said: “Religious tests have always been a cause of persecution in all countries. Persons with a strict conscience will not take the oath required by religious tests and will therefore be excluded from offices, though they might be as capable of performing them as any member of society.”[5] Spaight, who was a representative at the federal convention, said: “No test is required. All people of equal capacity and honesty may be equally elected to offices. Civil violence may make people evil, but never religious. A test would enable the dominant sect to persecute the rest.” But Wilson expressed the wish that “the constitution exclude papal priests from office”[6]. Lancaster said: “As regards religious test, if the article which excludes it had only ordained what had hitherto been in the states, I would not have objected to it… For myself, reviewing the rules conditioning the election of President, I do not suppose the Pope could occupy the presidential chair. But we must remember that we are framing a government for millions who do not yet exist. I have no gift of prophecy. I do not know how it will work in the course of four or five hundred years. But it is entirely true that papists might occupy this chair, and Mohammedans might take it. I see nothing against this. In every state of the union there are, I think, limitations; so there should be in this system too”[7].

Similar debates occurred in other states. At the Massachusetts convention, member Singletary declared that the constitution overturned all privileges “since it had no provision that government officials must have any religion”; he hoped to see Christians in office, “while by the constitution both a papist and an infidel are equally eligible for them”[8]. Many convention members said that such a provision “was a departure from the principles of our forefathers, who came here to preserve their religion; since it admits deists, atheists, etc., into the general government.” To such objections, the reverend Daniel Shute responded with an extensive speech, which is remarkable coming from a clergyman of the most intolerant colony hitherto, and shows a great step in the people’s consciousness toward the recognition of the rights of religious conscience. He said: “The establishment of a religious test as a condition of eligibility to offices in the proposed federal convention seems to me would have brought harmful consequences to some persons, without any benefit to all… In this great and extensive country, there is and will be great diversity of feeling in religion among its inhabitants. To the proposal of a religious test, I think one should ask: who should be excluded from national trust (trusts)? Whatever answer fanaticism might suggest, inspired by openness and equality, I think will be – no one. Far from limiting my goodwill and trust toward men of my own religious profession, I suppose and think, sir, that worthy men exist among the adherents of all confessions, among Quakers, Baptists, the English church, papists, and further among those who have no other guide on the path to virtue and heaven but natural religion. I am obliged therefore to think that the proposed plan of government is in this particularly wisely constructed; that as all have an equal right to the blessings of the government under which they live and which they support, so no one should be excluded from office because they are of a particular religion. It is probable supposition that the eyes of the people will be on the capable of the earth; and in view of his own safety, he will elect as his rulers people of known ability, known honesty and good moral character. The Apostle Peter tells us that God is not a respecter of persons, but in every people accepts those who fear Him and do righteousness. And I do not know the reason why men of this character, to whatever confession of religion they belong, other things being equal, by their natural qualities, should not be accepted by the people, and why the people could not employ them with safety and advantage in important offices of government. The exclusion of religious test in the proposed constitution therefore clearly seems to me worthy of recognition,” concluded the speaker[9]. General-Major Lincoln spoke in the same spirit. But Colonel Jones “thought that rulers should believe in God or Christ”, and that, whatever abuse religious tests might suffer in England, he nevertheless thought that if our public officials were of those who had a good standing in the church, this would be a blessing for the United States[10]. Major Lux concluded his argument on the abolition of religious test with the words that he “shudders at the very thought that Roman Catholics, papists, and pagans might hold office, and that popery and the Inquisition might be established in America”[11]. The Reverend Backus said: “I now ask permission to propose some thoughts on certain points in the constitution proposed to us, and will begin with the exclusion of religious test. Many apparently are very anxious about it; but there is nothing more evident, in reason as well as in Scripture, than that religion is always a matter between God and individuals; and therefore no one can establish a religious test without violating the essential prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ. Priests first seized this power under the Christian name, and then Constantine approved this practice when he made the profession of Christianity a spring of state policy. And examine the history of all peoples from that day to this, and it will be clear that the establishment of religious tests was the greatest spring of tyranny in the world. And I rejoice to see how so many gentlemen now surrender their rights of conscience in this great and important matter. Some serious-minded people see danger in that, if all religious tests are excluded, Congress might afterwards establish the papacy or some other tyrannical form of worship; but one can be fully assured that no such form of worship can be established and without any religious test”[12] – The same article was discussed, though more briefly, in the conventions of Virginia and Connecticut and in the legislative assembly of South Carolina, and after the final ratification of the constitution, the principle of this article appeared to find universal recognition[13].

In discussing the federal constitution at private conventions, the remarkable fact became apparent that the common constitution took a different point of view on the religious question compared to the private constitutions of the individual states. The latter, as we have seen above, decisively proclaimed freedom of religious conscience, the separation of religion from the state, but retained religious tests for holding public offices. Meanwhile, the federal constitution abolished religious tests and passed over in silence the general question of the relationship of the state to religion. More than that, Congress not only passed this question in silence but directly rejected its positive solution. In discussing the relationship of religion to the state, member Pinckney proposed inserting into the Constitution of the United States a provision by which “the legislative assembly of the United States shall make no law concerning religion.” This proposal fully corresponded to the spirit of the provisions of private constitutions regarding religion and aimed at a complete separation of religion from the jurisdiction of the Union. But Congress rejected it and adopted the same member’s proposal for the abolition of religious tests[14].

Thus Congress in essence removed only the external signs of inequality of various confessions before the state, but refrained from giving complete renunciation of interference in matters of religion, that is, in other words did not dare to fully separate the state from religion. Given the state of the constitution, Congress did not lose the power to make legislative provisions in the area of religion, it could establish a state religion, and in view of the supposed possibility for the Roman Pope to become President, such a state religion could even be the Roman Catholic Church hated by the population. This gap in the federal constitution was noticed by many private conventions, which were even troubled to recognize it in such a form, and accompanied their ratification with the expression of a desire for an appropriate supplement to the constitution. The conventions of New York, New Hampshire, and Virginia, recognizing the constitution, insisted on the necessity of an amendment to it concerning the complete separation of religion from the state. The convention of North Carolina in its first session refused altogether to recognize the constitution, and later accompanied its ratification with the expression of a desire for appropriate correction. The convention of Rhode Island did the same[15]. The convention of New York recommended such an amendment: “no religious sect or body shall be preferred or established by law in preference to others[16]. Virginia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island also proposed that “no separate religious sect or body be preferred by law in preference to others”[17]. The convention of Maryland expressed as desirable such a provision “that no national religion be established by law”[18]. New Hampshire recommended such an amendment: “Congress should make no laws” concerning religion, or violate the rights of conscience”[19]. As both these declarations of private conventions and many internal public and political reasons led to Congress deciding to insert an amendment to the constitution concerning complete separation of religion from the state, and this amendment, ratified in 1791, appeared in the following form: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”[20].

[1] Elliot, The Debates in the several state conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution. 2nd edition. Vol. IV, p. 195.

[2] Elliot. Debates, p. 192

[3] Elliot, Debates, p. 193.

[4] Elliot, Debates, p. 198.

[5] Elliot, Debates, p. 199.

[6] Elliot, Debates, p. 208.

[7] Elliot, Debates, p. 213

[8] Elliot, Debates, Vol. II, p. 44.

[9] Elliot,Debates, Vol. II, p. 118.

[10] Elliot,Debates, Vol. II, p. 119

[11] Elliot, Debates, Vol. II, p. 148.

[12] Elliot, Debates, Vol. II, p. 149.

[13] Elliot, Debates, Vol. I, p. 312; vol. II, p. 202; vol. III, p. 204.

[14] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 726.

[15] Elliot,Debates, Vol. I, p. 334

[16] Journals of Congress 1782–8, Appendix, Vol. IV, p. 55.

[17] Ibidem, pp. 52, 53, 60.

[18] Elliot,Debates, Vol. II, p. 553

[19] Journals of Congress, Appendix, Vol. IV, p. 52. 1782–8

[20] The original text reads: Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment, of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Constitutions of the several states of the Union and of United States N.Y., 1866, p. 20.

2. The Political Crisis and Its Significance for the Proclamation of Religious Freedom of Conscience. The First Sounds of Freedom. The Revolution in the Views of Congress and Its Causes. New Constitutions and the Paragraph on Religious Freedom of Conscience. The Limitation of Civil Rights of Catholics. The Federal Constitution and the Abolition of the Religious Test. Discussions on This at Conventions. The Significance of the Paragraph in the Federal Constitution. The Separation of Church and State. (Cont.) (3)

So the federal government of the United States completely separated religion from the sphere of its jurisdiction, and the separation of church and state became the fundamental law of the country. By virtue of it all religious confessions, as it were, ceased to exist for the state and thereby became equal before it. The state refused to have any dealings with them, and thus refused both to favor any of them and to persecute others. Protestantism and Catholicism, which had warred against each other hitherto, with Protestantism as the stronger opponent oppressing Catholics by state laws, were now left to their own internal forces, and in struggling against each other could rely only on their own internal power and turn for means only to their own resources. Although the forces of opponents remained unequal as before and Protestantism vastly surpassed Catholicism, nevertheless it is clear on whose side the advantage lay from such an enactment. By it Protestantism lost the possibility of relying on state force in its struggle against Catholicism and thus lost one of its strongest means of struggle; Catholicism, on the other hand, was freed from the possibility of external oppression from its opponent and thereby gained as much as its opponent lost. The advantage, and indeed an immeasurable advantage, was on the side of Catholicism; this amendment to the constitution brought it out of an oppressed state, placed it on a level with all other confessions, removed its chains of slavery, and provided full freedom to grow and develop. Catholics appreciate highly and fully understand the significance to themselves of this amendment, and Catholic historians endeavor to prove that this amendment was adopted by Congress chiefly as a result of a memoir submitted by Catholics to Congress with the assistance of Washington, who was supposedly on friendly terms with the Jesuit Carroll[1]. “The importance of this enactment,” says a Catholic historian, “which owes its origin chiefly to the far-sighted wisdom and enlightened patriotism of some of the most distinguished Catholics of that time, can scarcely be exaggerated. It was the strongest barrier that could be raised against the revival of the spirit of persecution, which has disgraced almost all colonies and which would surely have raised its hydra head again if the States at a solemn convention had not rejected it as incompatible with the essential character of American government. Only an open field and honest struggle with error – that is all that Catholicism requires for the development of its strength and its march to victory”[2].

American historians like to point to the articles of the constitution by which religion is separated from the state as an example of the magnanimity of Protestantism, which renounced its state advantage and thereby granted Catholicism equal rights with itself. Catholic historians, on the other hand, deny this magnanimity and ascribe the origin of the law to fortunate circumstances[3]. And they are in large measure right. In the direction of legal recognition of freedom of conscience, especially with regard to Catholics, various political, social, and intellectual causes were at work. We have already seen what significance the position of Canada had in this regard at the beginning of the struggle for independence, how, from the desire to win it over to its side, the colonial Congress abruptly turned from its intolerance toward Catholics to the promise of them complete religious freedom. Its loss to the union was a harsh lesson. When after the end of the war Canada nevertheless refused to join the new republic and Americans had to withdraw their troops from it, “this withdrawal they made with great reluctance,” says a historian contemporary with the events. “Americans were not only disappointed by the failure of their favorite plan to attach it as a fourteenth member to their confederation, but also feared the most serious consequences from the restoration of British rule in that region”[4]. Congress was very clearly aware that its excessive expressions regarding the Roman Catholic religion in 1774 had led to such a loss, and by granting actual freedom to Catholics hastened to correct its grave error. Another cause acting in the same direction was the desire on the part of the statesmen of the United States to attract and secure foreign emigration. Already in 1774 Congress noticed that the population of Canada “was daily increased by Catholic emigrants from Europe”; and when by the condition of the Treaty of Peace of 1783 Canada was to remain under British rule, it was evident that to maintain an anti-Catholic character for the government of the United States would be to encourage growth in this province at the expense of the United States, and that only by granting complete freedom, both civil and religious, to all could the country hope for a turning of the emigrant stream to its shores[5]. Finally, the substantial help which the Catholic powers of France and Spain rendered to the colonies in their struggle for independence imposed an obligation to grant freedom to the religion professed by them[6]. The stubborn struggle for independence, requiring the utmost exertion of all forces, naturally united the colonists, made them forget their religious disagreements, and thereby developed a spirit of tolerance. The complete proclamation and achievement of political independence, purchased at a dear price and by the heavy efforts of all without distinction of confession, disposed toward granting to all of them complete freedom and equal rights as a reward for these efforts. Under the influence of the benefits of political independence, Americans developed the view of their country as a refuge for all those oppressed under European despotism, and this in turn contributed to a favorable resolution of the question of religious freedom. The rapid growth in the number of sects also had important significance as a cause of the separation of the state from the church, since the diversity of them made any religious legislation difficult, and moreover many of them directly rejected the interference of civil authority in matters of religion. Finally, the theory of the civil character of the state that prevailed in the eighteenth century was not without influence, the most prominent representative of which in America was Jefferson, the famous author of the “Declaration of Independence,” who received his political views from the French philosophers of the past century. The state, according to this theory, is a purely political organism and is not connected with religion in any way. This theory, as we shall see below, in a moderate form was laid at the foundation of the American constitution[7].

The greater part of the causes listed above, which led to the granting of freedom of religious conscience to Catholics, were understood by the latter even in the past century, and one of them, the Jesuit Carroll, who was later to be the first bishop of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, upon his elevation to the episcopate, gave in 1790 an important historical account of these causes. Carroll first reviews the position of the Catholic Church in the colonies before the struggle for independence. “The laws in the colonies were,” he says, “the most severe against its exercise. A priest was subject to death for merely entering their territory. Catholics were subjected to the most cruel punishments for adherence to a religion approved by their conscience; and not only were excluded from any office in government, but it would scarcely have been permitted for them even to reside in any of these provinces if it were known that they professed the Roman faith. In such circumstances, few Catholics settled in other states; and if they did settle, they concealed their religion, either attaching themselves to another or entering into marriage with Protestants and were forced to raise their children in error. Even in Maryland and Pennsylvania the position of Catholics was a state of oppression. The few Jesuits who could be obtained from the English mission were insufficient even to meet the needs of the two provinces in which they first settled; and from the other clergy no one yet dared undertake the dangerous task – to bring the true faith to the other provinces. Such was the state of affairs when a general uprising against England occurred.” Then he proceeds to the exposition of the causes themselves: “In rejecting submission to England, the American states found it necessary to form new constitutions for their future government and, fortunately, the free toleration of religions was made a fundamental point in all these new constitutions; and in many of them not only toleration but equality of civil rights was admitted for persons of every Christian profession. In some, however, the ineradicable spirit of prejudice and intolerance excluded Catholics from this equality. Many causes came together to produce this happy and just clause in the new constitutions. First. Some of the leading persons in directing American councils were, on principle, against all religious oppression, and, being well acquainted with the customs and teachings of Roman Catholics, strongly set forth the injustice of excluding them from any civil right. Second. Catholics equally and with equal zeal united in the rejection of the oppression that first produced hostility with Great Britain; and it would have been impolitic as well as unjust to deprive them of a share in the benefits purchased by common danger and united efforts. Third. The help or at least the neutrality of Canada was considered necessary for the success of the United States, and the granting of equal rights to Roman Catholics could dispose Canadians favorably to the American cause. Finally, France began to show a friendly disposition toward the United States, and therefore it was considered very impolitic to offend this mighty state by unjust severity against the religion professed by it”[8].

The enormous significance of the article of the federal constitution and the amendment to it, which separate the state from the church and equalize the civil rights of all confessions, is thus without doubt for the fate and growth of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States and is recognized by Catholics themselves. But a correct understanding of this significance can be established only by clarifying those theoretical principles which lay at the foundation of the legislation and continually exercise influence on its practical application, as well as by determining the relationship of the federal constitution to the private conventions of individual states. We now turn to the consideration of these questions.

[1] White, Sketch of the origin and progress of the Catholic Church in the United states of America. Appendix to Dorras, History of Catholic Church, Vol. I, p. 611.

[2] White, Sketch; p. 611.

[3] Shea, History p. 41, 5.

[4] Ramsay, History; Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 738.

[5] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 738, 739.

[6] Shea, History, p. 40, 41; Catholic World Vol. XXIII, p. 739–741.

[7] This theory gained particular prominence in the Democratic party, recognized leader of which was Jefferson. This partly, according to the opinion of a Catholic author, explains the fact that the large mass of Catholics in the United States so firmly adheres to this party and always casts their vote for it. Catholic World, July 1876 p. 440–441.

[8] Copy of a manuscript report by Bishop Carroll concerning the origin and condition of Catholicism in the United States. White. Sketch, p. 605.

3. General Principles of the Relations of Church and State. The Parallel of Soul and Body. The Foundation of the American State and its Relationship to the Religious Principle. The Origin of Every Right According to the “Declaration of Independence.” The Connection of the State and Religion. The Relationship of the State to Religious Differences

The relationship of church and state in the federal constitution of the United States was expressed through the legal separation of one from the other. The state renounced legislative power in the area of religion, granting this power exclusively to religion itself. But legal separation does not condition actual separation, since in reality the foundations of the church and the state are so closely connected that they constitute one organic whole, incapable of division without harm to the very purpose of the state. Therefore, a question naturally arises: what meaning does this legal separation of church from state have? In other words, into what relationship has the state entered with the church by virtue of this legal separation? For a clear answer to this question it is necessary first to determine the principles of the relationship of church and state in general.

The existence of the church and the state is conditioned by two distinct aspects of human life, the spiritual and the material. In Christian society, the church is the representative of the spiritual aspect, and the state is the representative of the material. These two orders exist even at the lower stages of human society’s development, but they are not understood clearly as two distinct orders or as having their own distinct and unique representation. Only in Christian society do these two orders receive the proper distinction, and each in its own representative enters into a normal relationship with the other. The prototype and the very foundation of this distinction of the two orders in society lies in the dual nature of man or in the fact that man exists only as soul and body and needs care for both. The church, representing the spiritual order, cares for souls, has concern for the internal life of human society, and attends to the satisfaction of internal spiritual needs and requirements; the state, representing the material order, naturally attends to the satisfaction of the material needs and requirements of individuals and society. But man does not live by soul alone or by body alone, but by the unity of both in their mutual relationship. Soul and body are distinct but not separate. They have their distinctive properties and functions, and one cannot replace the other; but their division is death, death to the body only, and not to the soul, which is immortal. The body is material and, separated from the soul, is dust and ashes, plain earth from which it was formed. The same applies in a moral sense to society, which is not only the state or only the church, but a unity of both in their mutual relationship. They are distinct, each has its own distinctive nature, its own laws and functions, and one cannot perform the functions of the other or replace it. But although distinct, in the normal state of society they cannot be separated from each other. The separation of the state from the church in the moral order would be the same as the separation of the body from the soul in the physical order. This is death, death to the state of course, but not to the church, which like the soul is immortal. Complete separation of the state from the church destroys its moral life and leaves society to moral corruption and decay.

The soul, moreover, is the formative or vital principle of the body. The church in the moral order is the formative, vital principle of the state, or civil society, which does not have moral life within itself, since all moral life, by its very nature, proceeds from the spiritual order. In the physical order life is possible only from God, through the creative act; so also in civil society; moral life can issue only from the spiritual order, which is established by the Supreme Lawgiver and is represented by the church, the keeper and judge of both the natural and the revealed law. The soul is the noblest and highest part of man, and it is not appointed to eliminate the body or seize its functions, but to guide and control it according to the highest law; the body, on the other hand, is not suited to gain predominance over the soul so as to bring the law of the spirit into subjection to the law of the members. So also the church, as representing the spiritual order and having concern for souls, is the noblest and highest part of society, and to it belongs the ruling power over all human society. In the moral order it is appointed to direct and control civil society by proclaiming and applying the laws of God, of which it serves as keeper and interpreter and which it is obliged by the Supreme Lawgiver to submit all its activity and life to.

Such is the ideal of the relationship of church and state. By virtue of it, it is equally abnormal and condemned both the absorption of the state by the church and the absorption of the church by the state; each should remain distinct from the other, each with its own organization, with its own members, capacities, rights, and sphere of activity. It equally condemns both the clericalism of the papal system, striving to seize functions not proper to the church of the state, and secularism, by which the state seeks to seize supremacy over the church, as was the case in all states of the pagan world and was expressed in the persecution of Christians by pagan emperors. But the church, in its ruling position, does not itself make laws; it only proclaims, announces, and applies them, and it itself is bound by them as well as the state. The very law is prescribed to the government of all men and peoples by God as the Supreme Lawgiver or the end and final cause of creation, and is binding equally on individuals and peoples, on sovereigns and subjects, on the church and the state. Such should be the relationship of these two orders, the spiritual and the material, the church and the state; but in reality it has never achieved full and perfect realization, and history, on the contrary, presents facts of constant deviation in this relationship from the ideal state. The chronic condition of these two orders in society, instead of unity and cooperation or mutual relationship, has been a state of mutual distrust or even undisguised hostility. During the first three centuries of Christianity the relationship between them was one of open antagonism, and the state persecuted the church. The pagan emperor of the Roman Empire had the claim to unite both of these orders in himself and was at one and the same time imperator, pontifex maximus, and divus or god. For its part the church, having received one-sided development on the ruins of this very civilization, assumed in Roman Catholicism the tendency to infringe on an area not proper to it of purely civil life, to completely subject the state to its authority, to seize exclusively its functions. The Roman Catholic pontifex maximus, appropriating to himself the title of Vicar of Christ, strove to be an imperator. The Middle Ages present a sharp and factual realization of this tendency, and signs of it declare themselves in the relationship of Roman Catholicism to the states of Europe to the present time. Protestantism, on the other hand, having originated from the influence of the principles of Greco-Roman pagan civilization on the intellectual character of European society, brought with it into the relationships of church and state a pagan view, appeared as a reaction against the intensified clericalism, and in its turn gave improper predominance of the state over the church, which was expressed most sharply in England, where the church became a simple instrument of the state.

In what relationship to the ideal theory of the correlation of church and state does the American system stand? Its essence is determined by the historical facts from which it grew, and by the philosophical principles which found legal expression both in the “Declaration of Independence” and in the federal constitution. The first settlers of the American colonies were people, for the most part, deeply religious, and in organizing society on new land aimed not simply to avoid the oppression of conscience of which they were victims in their former homeland, but to establish a truly Christian, according to their understanding, republic. And they did indeed establish such a republic, with such perfection as was only possible with their imperfect Christian views. The colonies of New England were undoubtedly inclined toward the establishment of a theocracy, toward a modified but even more intensive form of clericalism, of which Roman Catholicism was the representative in Europe, and thus tended to absorb the state into the church. In the southern colonies, on the other hand, like in England, there was a tendency to establish the supremacy of the civil order and to make the church thus a function of the state. These two opposite tendencies in the formation of American society met each other and, balancing each other, produced the result that unity and distinction of the two orders were established under the supremacy of the Christian idea. In principle, each order in American society exists and stands in its normal relationship to the other, and moreover in its entirety, with its own distinctive nature, its own laws and functions; and thereby the material order stands in the proper subordination to the spiritual.

The developed theory of the American system of church-and-state relations does not accord with the widespread view of it as a system wherein the state is supposedly completely independent of religion, separated from it in the fullest sense of the word. But it constitutes strictly logical conclusions from the philosophical principles laid at the foundation of American civic life. In view of the prevalence of this mistaken view, particularly in our Russia, we consider it necessary to dwell at greater length on the exposition of these principles[1].

The foundation of the American state is what is called the natural and inalienable rights of man. These rights, among which stand life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness[2], constitute the highest, sovereign law for civil society, which the state is bound to recognize and obey. They deny the absolutism of the state, define its sphere, limit its power, and prescribe its duty. But where do these rights come from, and how can they bind the state and prescribe its duty? According to one view, these rights spring from the very essence of man as a person, and constitute his essential part. But the rights of one person in such a case should bind the rights of another person, and yet both are equal, as all persons are equal. How then can one person bind or morally obligate another? In the equality of things there cannot be the supremacy of one over another. According to another view, these rights are contained in our human nature, given to us by nature, and therefore they constitute the natural and inalienable rights of man. Nature is understood in a twofold sense: as the physical order or physical laws entering into the physical world, and as the moral law to which all beings endowed with reason and free will are subject by the Creator, and which is known by natural reason or the common sense of all people. In the first sense, these rights are not contained in our human nature, nor can they be, for they are not physical. Physical rights are an internal contradiction. They can be contained in human nature only in the second sense, and can only be in our moral nature, and consequently must be contained under that law which establishes and sustains the moral nature, or the moral order as distinct from the physical order. But the moral law, establishing and sustaining the moral order, the order of right and justice, is not a law founded or prescribed by nature, but the law of the moral governance of nature, to which the Creator of nature as the Supreme Lawgiver has subjected all moral beings. Thus the moral law of nature is the law of God, and all rights, which it establishes or which spring from it, are the rights of God, and ours only because they are His. My rights toward you constitute your duty, what God prescribes as the law or rule of our behavior or relation to me; and your rights toward me constitute my duty, or what God prescribes as the rule of my behavior toward you. And what God prescribes, He has the right to prescribe, and therefore can equally command me not to respect those rights in you, and you not to have those rights in me, which are not His rights; and civil society, being His society, is bound by these rights, and cannot alienate or deny them without violating His law and depriving Him of His rights. Hence he who wrongs another does injustice not only against him, but does injustice against his Creator, his Sovereign, and his Judge. From the rights enumerated above, let us take the right of life. This right all people and civil society itself are bound to hold sacred and inviolable. But all people are created equal and before the law of nature have equal rights. How then can equals bind one another? By mutual covenant, according to Rousseau’s theory. But from where flows the binding force of a covenant? Why am I obligated to keep my word? Surely not by the force of the word itself, but because I would deprive him to whom I gave my word of a right that belongs to him. But I gave my word to help commit murder. Am I obligated to keep it? Not at all. Why? Because I pledged myself to commit a crime, to do wrong or a wrongful act. It is evident, therefore, that covenants or pledged words do not create or produce justice; they presuppose it. The very covenants are binding only by force of a higher law of justice, and no covenants, inconsistent with this law, can bind anyone. Why, then, am I obligated to respect your life? You cannot oblige me to do so, for you and I are equal, and no one can by his own authority oblige another. To take your life would be to commit a wrongful act, that is, to deprive justice of its right to your life. The right of life is in such a case the right of justice. But justice is not merely an abstraction; it is not a mental idea only, but a reality, and therefore—God. Hence my or your right to life is the right of Him who created us and to whom we wholly belong. Further, the right of life is inalienable even for me myself; I myself cannot even take it from myself, and therefore suicide is a crime, and not merely a crime against society, but a sin before God, because all right of life belongs to God. Therefore He has the right to command all people to hold the right of life in each person sacred and inalienable, and it can never be taken away by other people or even by civil society, save by His command. The same applies to all other rights of man[3].

These principles found their legal and clear expression in the “Declaration of Independence,” that document by which the independence of the American people as a separate state was proclaimed and through which there were determined both the foundations of that very independence and the principles of the subsequent development of the new state. In the first position of the “Declaration of Independence” Congress asserts that the people of the United States “judged it necessary to assume among the powers of the earth a separate and equal station, to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them.” Proceeding then to the exposition of the basis of the act itself, the representatives of the people declare: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men.” The document further states that those governments which depart from this end and pursue another end, infringing upon and violating these rights, thereby lose their power. Applying this principle to the particular relation of the American people to England, Congress makes it the casus belli and deems it sufficient ground for proclaiming independence[4].

[1] The theory presented is dominant in American literature and is recognized even by Roman Catholic literature, although in its own particular coloration. See, for example, articles in the principal Catholic journal Catholic World; “Independence of Church” (Vol. IV); “Church and State” (Vol. V); “Church and state” (Vol. XI); “Religion and State in the U.S.” (Vol. XX) and so on. The same theory with respect to the United States is recognized by the famous German historian Leo in the introduction to his Universalgeschichte.

[2] Preamble to “The declaration of Independence”, signed July 4, 1776. See The Constitutions of the several states of Union and United States, New-York. 1866, p. 5.

[3] The full development of this theory was done by the Italian author Cantu, in his work Chiesa e state. In Volume XI of the Catholic World a critical exposition of this work is placed. But both the work and the critical exposition fully betray an extreme Roman Catholic bias, and therefore deviate from the strict logical development of this theory, which in itself is sound.

[4] The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. See in The Constitutions of United States, p. 7.

3. General Principles of the Relations of Church and State. The Parallel of Soul and Body. The Foundation of the American State and its Relationship to the Religious Principle. The Origin of Every Right According to the “Declaration of Independence.” The Connection of the State and Religion. The Relationship of the State to Religious Differences. (Cont.)

Thus, at the most critical moment, amid the very pangs of birth of a new state, the people of the United States solemnly declared that the origin of every right, every law, every political organization, every government, and in particular that which makes the United States a separate political people, must be sought in the eternal law, in the law of God. If the rights of man emanate from God and are His rights over man as His creature, as they undeniably are, then they belong to the realm of the spiritual order, not the material; they are spiritual, not material. The American state, thus recognizing the independence, the supremacy, and the inviolability of the rights of man, recognizes in principle the independence, the supremacy, and the inviolability of the spiritual order, its own subordination to it, and its duty to conform to it. It thus recognizes the church as a divine institution, provided by God with the authority to represent the law of God and apply it to the government of the people as a state no less than to the people as individual persons. This is a necessary consequence. If God made a supernatural revelation, then we are bound by natural law to believe in it; and if He founded the church to represent the spiritual order, or embodied the spiritual order in a visible organism, with authority to proclaim His word to all people and all nations, to declare and apply this law in the governance of human affairs, then we are bound to receive it and obey it. This shows that the true church, if one exists, is sacred and inviolable, and what it declares as God’s law is His law, which is binding on every conscience. Whoever refuses to obey it refuses to obey God, and whoever deprives it of any of its rights deprives God. Inevitable and terrible punishment necessarily follows upon deviation from this obedience, and with respect to the state and society it appears in the form of moral weakness, corruption, decay, and death.

Thus the state finds itself in subordination to the church, and by such a relation to it is bound in its life and activity to conform to its law. But what precisely is that church which can be the true and infallible interpreter of the principles of the spiritual order? If the church is only one, and in the historical life of the people it has been the morally-building principle, the foundation of moral and intellectual development, and has answered the moral needs of the people, then it is indeed the true, in a relative sense, interpreter for the people of the principles of the spiritual order; it is indeed the soul of the national organism, and the state must conform to its law as the voice of the people’s conscience. In such a case the church becomes necessarily a state church, and, as the soul serves the body, it serves the state as the morally-moving, vital principle. Every movement in it receives a corresponding reflex in the state organism, as every mental movement is reflected in the bodily organism. This is soul and body, and their organic unity is the natural and normal relation. But the United States encounters a completely different fact. It has no historical church with which it is bound by organic growth. It has no single, authoritative, integral religious consciousness which, proceeding from one central principle, could serve the state as the whole and unchanging voice of conscience in interpreting the principles of the spiritual order. Here the state encounters the motley diversity of churches which do not agree with one another not only in the particular application of the principles of the spiritual order, but even in the interpretation of the principles themselves. Popular religious consciousness has been fragmented into particular independent centers which do not recognize one another and strive to be independent interpreters of the spiritual order. It is clear that the state, as an external organism, cannot obey the voice of all these separate consciousnesses and submit to them all together, for when these voices contradict and disagree, the very action of the state organism would be paralyzed. From this difficulty the state could escape in two ways: either recognize as the true interpreter of the spiritual order only one of the many churches and conform exclusively to its voice, or conform only to that general voice which inevitably emerges from the diversity as the resultant of all of them. In the first case the difficulty would not be overcome and would entail innumerable new difficulties. Each of the numerous churches and sects considers exclusively only itself as true, rejecting all others as erring, and therefore the state’s recognition of one of them as true would be equivalent to recognizing as the guiding voice of the people’s conscience a voice which by the majority of private consciences is deemed false and rejected as such. Moreover, the state has no right to judge which church is true and which false, just as the body has no right and cannot judge what is true in the soul and what is false. Thus there remains another way out, and it is suggested to the state by the very nature of things. By adopting it is determined the very essence of the relation between the state and the church in the United States.

When several forces acting in different directions collide, by a necessary physical law a single resultant force is developed which prevails over all other forces and gives one common direction to all their actions. In mental life the same process is observed. Different ideas, colliding with one another, produce one common concept which regulates the action of the organism. Such a resultant is also produced in the collision of many moral or religious forces, and in this respect it serves the same general principle which constitutes the moving principle and final aim of all of them. The state, as an organism upon which the action of all these particular forces is directed, naturally had to submit only to this resultant, and it alone could have guiding significance in directing its actions. And so indeed it turns out in reality. The resultant of various moral and religious forces can only be the common moral or religious principle, and it serves as the guiding principle of civic life in the United States. The state recognizes a certain common moral code to which it itself submits in its activity and to bring those disagreeing with it into submission it uses coercive force. All churches, sects, or societies which contain this common moral code or this common state religion enjoy complete equality and complete freedom before the civil law. But if any of them, under the pretext of its teaching, its church law, freedom of conscience, or even divine revelation, openly violates the moral code of obligation adopted by the state, it will come into collision with the state, and the latter will resort to external force to compel submission to this code. The resultant always assumes more or less the direction which belongs to the predominating majority of the particular ones. In the United States, if not all, then the overwhelming majority of churches and sects, despite their particular differences, agree on one common principle and have one common foundation in the Christian religion; therefore the resultant of their forces could only be the common Christian principle, and it indeed serves as the moral code adopted by the state. Insofar as it concerns this common Christian moral principle adopted by the state as the foundation of its activity, all churches and sects recognizing it are in vital union with the state, are state churches and sects. Even the Jews, recognizing with Christians the Decalogue as the common moral code, and societies founded on purely natural religion recognizing the natural law of conscience, are in this relation in the same vital union with the state. But were there to arise such a religious sect which held it a duty of conscience to offer human sacrifice, or were a community of Hindus to settle in the state who regarded it as a sacred duty for every wife to bury herself alive with her dead husband and began actually to carry out their religious teaching in practice, then the state would not only refuse to recognize for these sects a right of conscience equal to all others, but would hasten to forbid them the fulfillment in this respect of the dictates of conscience, for they contradict the religiously-moral code adopted by the state. By force of this same code the state cannot tolerate, for example, such a sect as practices polygamy, as violating the moral Christian principle of family life and defiling the purity of marriage. Proof of this is the long and stubborn struggle of the United States government against polygamy recognized and practiced by the sect of Mormons[1]. The connection between the state and the church in the sphere of the common Christian principle is not limited on the part of the former to prohibitive measures to suppress actions contradicting that principle, but is expressed also in positive facts through which the state renders positive assistance to the church for the realization of its moral teaching. Recognizing religion as the soul of public and civic life, the source of moral strength of the national organism, the state, to give it the best possible facilities for carrying out its mission, grants it privileges and advantages which are not extended to other organs of intellectual and literary life. For this purpose the state exempts from all taxation all places of worship and prayer meetings, a privilege not granted to any other places of assembly[2]. Religion preaches love and mercy to all the suffering and carries on extensive charitable activity. The state not only does not forbid this activity, does not merely ignore it, but facilitates it in every way and assists it, making enormous appropriations from the state treasury to support various church charitable institutions. Religion further preaches the sanctity of the Lord’s Day, and the state comes to its aid and legally forbids all actions which in any way tend toward the desecration of the sanctity of the Lord’s Day. For this purpose all commercial, drinking, and amusement establishments are closed under penalty of liability before the court for violation of the ordinance[3]. The state recognizes religion as the highest moral principle of national life when it requires of its officials and of witnesses in court an oath in the name of Almighty God as the Supreme Judge, whereby judicial testimony and the exercise of public office receives religious sanction. Finally, the state recognizes its inner connection with religion in solemn facts, as when it establishes by law solemn national celebrations, such as the so-called “Thanksgiving Day”[4].

[1] To suppress polygamy a series of laws has been enacted, which, however, so far have been successfully circumvented by the “saints of the last days.” In his last official message to Congress of December 6, 1880, President Hayes expresses the necessity of new measures to enforce these laws. “The recognized duty and purpose of the people of the United States,” says he, “is the suppression of polygamy, where it exists, in our territories, and the prevention of its spread. The authorities of the United States in Utah have made zealous and laudable efforts to enforce the laws against it. Experience has shown that legislation on this subject, to be effective, requires considerable modification and correction. The longer enforcement is delayed, the more difficult will be the achievement of the desired goal. Swift and decisive measures are necessary. The Mormon sectarian organization, which upholds polygamy, holds in its hands all the executive and legislative authority of the local assembly in the territory. By its control of the great and small jury courts, it exercises an enormous influence on the administration of justice. Having in their hands the local political power of the territory, the leaders of this sect have the ability to assert their hostility to Congress’s law on polygamy and indeed prevent its application. Polygamy will not be destroyed if enforcement of the law against it depends on those who practice and support this crime. It can be destroyed only by taking away political power from the sect that promotes and upholds it. Congress’s power to enforce laws to protect the territory is evident. There is no place for half-measures. The political power of the Mormon sect is growing; it now controls one of our richest and most populous territories. It constantly spreads to other territories. Wherever it appears, it everywhere establishes polygamy and sectarian political power. The sanctity of marriage and family relations constitute the cornerstone of our American society and civilization. Religious freedom and the separation of church and state are elementary ideas of free institutions. To restore the interests and principles violated by polygamy and Mormonism, and to fully open to intelligent and virtuous immigrants of all faiths that part of our possessions which was largely closed to public settlement by intolerant and immoral institutions, a reorganization of the government of Utah Territory is recommended.” Hayes’ Message, published in N.Y. Times of December 7, 1880.

[2] For these purposes the constitution of New York exempts ministers of religion from civil or military service, “so as not to distract them from their great duties of service.” Constitution of New York Art. XXXIX. See Constitutions of the Thirteen states, p. 95. The constitution of Pennsylvania does not have a direct provision in this respect, but the Supreme Court, in the occasion of one case in which a Methodist preacher declined from public office, decided the matter in the same sense and declared that “those persons who devote their lives to the service of God and religious instruction of their brothers should be free from the burden of worldly (temporal) duties.” See Inquiry into the moral and religious character of the American Government, p. 108. New-York, 1838.

[3] According to the clarification of the Supreme Court in New York State, Sunday is recognized as a purely civil institution, and violation of it is therefore punished as a civil crime. See Christian statesman of April 7, 1881. In Cincinnati by an ordinance of 1881, a fine of 50 dollars is charged for opening saloons on Sunday, and for opening theaters, circuses, and similar establishments – 100 dollars. The Advance, April 18, 1881.

[4] “Thanksgiving Day” is a national, religious-political holiday in America, celebrated annually on the last Thursday of November. The day of its celebration is annually designated by the President of the United States by a special proclamation, officially issued with the appending of the state seal. The character of these proclamations can be judged from the following proclamation of President Hayes, issued in 1880: In no period of its history, since independence, has the people of the United States had so many and such general grounds for joy and thanksgiving for the mercy of Almighty God, or been so deeply obligated to thank Him for His loving kindness, and humbly to pray for the continuance of His care and protection. Health, wealth and prosperity throughout our territory; peace, honor and friendship with all the world; the strong and faithful attachment of your people to the great principles of liberty and justice which created our national greatness, to the wise institutions and strong organization of government and society which perpetuate it – for all this let the thanksgiving of a happy and united people, as with one voice, rise in reverent flight to the Giver of all blessings. Therefore I recommend that on Thursday the 25th day of this month of November the people assemble at their respective places of worship for the expression of their gratitude to Almighty God for His bounties and benefactions and for the offering to Him of petition for the continuance of them. In witness thereof I have hereunto set my hand and ordered the affixing of the seal of the United States. “Given in the city of Washington, the first of this November, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and eighty and of the independence of the United States the one hundred and fifth.” (Seal) “President R.B. Hayes” “Secretary of State William M. Evarts.” From The New-York Times, of November 1, 1880, transmitted by telegraph. Such proclamations are also issued by the governors of individual states. In the latter, and besides “Thanksgiving Day,” there are occasions when governors issue solemn appeals to the people to perform unusual religious acts. In Vermont, for example, Governor Farnham issued a proclamation this spring, designating Friday, April 8 as a day of universal fasting and prayer – to seek Divine mercy for the growth of the seeds sown. See Christian statesman, of April 14, 1881. Congress, as the supreme representation of the people, also issued proclamations calling the people to prayer regarding particular historical circumstances. A similar proclamation, issued during the War of 1812, see in Inquiry into Moral and Religious Character of American Government p. 116.

3. General Principles of the Relations of Church and State. The Parallel of Soul and Body. The Foundation of the American State and its Relationship to the Religious Principle. The Origin of Every Right According to the “Declaration of Independence.” The Connection of the State and Religion. The Relationship of the State to Religious Differences. (Cont.) (2)

If the church were one, then the state would necessarily have to carry out its subordination to it down to more particular details; but since there are many churches and religious communities differing from one another in the details of their doctrine, the state limits its connection with religion and its assistance to it only to that principle which is common to all of them, though in this common principle it acts more by the prompting of the dominant religion than others; assists Christianity more, for example, than Judaism, and legally protects the sanctity of the Lord’s Day rather than the Sabbath. But how does the state relate to the particular churches and communities as diverse expressions of one common religio-moral principle? It relates to them precisely as only to diverse expressions of this common principle recognized by it. Each church or community considers itself true, and the state has no spiritual competence and cannot judge either for itself or for its citizens which church or community is truly the expresser of the spiritual order. It therefore leaves and must leave to the citizens themselves the responsibility of making this judgment, they must decide for themselves and answer before God for the correctness of their judgment. Their decision is law for the state, and it must respect and obey it, whether this decision be made by a majority or a minority, for the state recognizes equal rights for all its citizens and cannot make distinctions among them. The church that represents the spiritual order for the state is the church that has been adopted by its citizens; but since they embrace different churches, it can recognize and give effect to the canons and ordinances of each of them only in relation to its own members, and then only insofar as they do not violate the equal rights of others. In a perfectly Christian society such a relation of the state to the church would be insufficient; but this is all it can do where different churches exist and exist with equal rights before it. Since the state recognizes them all as diverse expressions of one common moral-Christian principle recognized by it itself, but has no competence to judge which of them is the most complete and truest expresser and interpreter of this principle, it recognizes equal rights to all of them, equally protects each of them, and gives force to its laws and ordinances, but only in respect to those citizens who recognize its authority. It protects, for example, order and unobstructed performance of worship in all churches of whatsoever confession, and any disturber of worship is subject to arrest. This does not signify indifference of the state to religion; it signifies only that the state has no claim to the right to judge which is the true church, and considers it its duty to respect and patronize every church recognized as such by its citizens. The doctrine that man is completely free before God to choose whatever religion he wishes or to remain in complete unbelief, in principle finds no recognition from the American state and is contrary to its fundamental constitution. Therefore atheistic or false sects in essence in themselves have no rights before the state, such as they do not serve as expressers and interpreters of the spiritual order and are contrary to the true interests of society. But in a society where they exist alongside more true churches, the state must respect in them too the rights of the spiritual order, not because they consider themselves true, of course, but because they are considered such by a certain part of its citizens, and all its citizens have equal rights in the civic order, and consequently an equal right to the protection of their conscience. By equally protecting all churches and communities, equally guarding the rights of all of them to complete freedom of action and complete development of their powers, the state reserves for itself only the hope that truth will triumph of itself, and that error by this very freedom will only serve to reveal more fully its inner weakness and impotence.

Such are the general principles of the American system of the relation of religion and the state. By the meaning of it the Roman Catholic Church receives equal rights with all other churches and confessions, and enjoys the same protection and respect from the state. But for it these rights did not immediately find practical significance after their proclamation in principle. Thanks to the hostile prejudice against it prevalent during the colonial period, the general rights of religious conscience in their application to it met with opposition from the prejudice still living, and they were extended to it only slowly, as the prejudice weakened and the idea of freedom of religious conscience gained greater currency. The slow action of the common principle of religious freedom of conscience for Catholics is explained by the relation of the federal constitution of the Union to the constitutions of individual states.

4. The Relation of the States to the Government of the Union. The Federal Constitution and its Relation to the Constitutions of Individual States. The Subjection of Religious Questions to the Particular Governments of Individual States. The Significance of This Fact for the Development of Religious Equality. The Slow Development in the States of the Principle of Freedom of Religious Conscience. The Present State of the Question. The Position of Catholics. The Inevitable Privilege of the Strongest Confessional Forms. Public Charity. Concluding Conclusions

The colonies, which entered into the composition of the United States, before the proclamation of independence lived completely separate lives from one another, had nothing in common except external submission to English rule. They were populated by emigrants of different nationalities, different confessions, customs and manners, and different political views. When the struggle with England began, the common interest required them to unite their forces for self-defense, and they formed a united Union, which found legal expression in the federal constitution. But in entering this Union, they did not wish thereby to lose their local self-government, and therefore sought to limit the jurisdiction of the federal government only to those common subjects and relations which equally concerned all of them, and to exclude from it everything that constituted the internal life of each colony. In a word, they entered the Union as completely separate and independent states, as is shown by the very name United States, which means United States. Each state is a completely separate and independent state, having its own peculiar governor, its own senate, its own legislative assembly, its own constitution. The federal constitution limits its jurisdiction only to the common interests of the united states, just as the federal government conducts only the general relations of the Union, without any right to interfere in the internal affairs of individual states. The states were very jealous in preserving their own self-government and excluded from the jurisdiction of the federal constitution everything that went beyond the bounds of the common interests of the Union. They took the same position in the legal determination of the question of freedom of religious conscience.

Before the proclamation of independence, the colonies, as we saw above, were so saturated with religious intolerance, particularly toward Catholics, that even their common political interest in the matter of liberation from English rule could not suppress this spirit of mutual intolerance, and it clearly expressed itself in the new constitutions through the exclusion of Catholics from certain civil rights and privileges, for example, upon election to public office. The federal constitution overcame this injustice, and the 3rd clause of Article VI abolished all religious determination of eligibility to hold public office. “No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust in the government of the United States,” states this article. This article apparently equalizes the rights of all religious confessions, and consequently of Catholics, but its true significance is determined only by the relation of the federal constitution to the particular constitutions. By force of the system of relations of individual states to the Union set forth above, the federal constitution deals only with the federal government, and its jurisdiction therefore extends only to the sphere of activity of the latter. Hence the article on the abolition of religious tests has force only within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and has no significance outside these bounds, that is, does not extend to individual states as independent units. Therefore, by force of this article Catholics were equalized in their civil rights and privileges only before the federal government and could be elected to offices only within the jurisdiction of that government. It thus did not repeal the provisions of the particular constitutions which excluded Catholics from public office, but only created a new provision giving Catholics civil rights equal to all other confessions in an entirely different sphere, outside the individual states. So the states understood this article, which is particularly clear from the history of the origin of the famous amendment to it, by which “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This law, as we saw above, had been proposed to Congress for consideration even before the article on the abolition of religious tests, but it rejected it and adopted the latter article. When this article was proposed to the local conventions of the individual states for ratification, the insufficient precision in the determination of its jurisdiction seemed dangerous to many conventions for local self-government, as by a certain interpretation its effect could extend to the states as separate, independent units. They wished to retain the jurisdiction of religious matters for themselves, and therefore many of them made their ratification of the federal constitution conditional on the proposal to make the aforesaid amendment to the article on the religious question. These proposals were so insistent that Congress was forced to accept the provision it had previously rejected, and adopted the amendment by which it “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This amendment has a twofold meaning. First, it proclaims the complete separation of the federal government from religion, and second, it limits its right in relation to the government of individual states, repeals its right of jurisdiction in the sphere of religion, the conduct of which is thus wholly left to the jurisdiction of individual states. The amendment was only a formal renunciation by the federal government of the right to interfere in the religious affairs of individual states, while its actual exclusion from this right was already implied by the states earlier. Upon ratifying the federal constitution, they ratified it as binding only within the limits of the federal government, not of the governments of individual states. Therefore, its article denying all religious test for election to public office, while having full significance for the federal government, was completely not binding in the legal sense for the government of individual states. So it turned out in reality. The particular conventions of the states, recognizing the article on the abolition of religious tests in the federal constitution, at the same time did not consider it binding for their particular constitutions, and the articles in them excluding Catholics from the right to be elected to public office continued to exist as before.

Thus in the legal sense the federal constitution established freedom of religious conscience only in a limited form, equalized the civil rights of religious confessions only before the federal government, which, owing to the complete dependence of the federal government itself on the electoral will of individual states, made freedom of religious conscience almost fictional. Thus, a Catholic, under such circumstances, could never attain the presidency, for his election to it is conditioned not by the federal government but by the electoral will of individual states. But while having no legal significance, the federal constitution had enormous moral significance for the legislation of individual states. It was, so to speak, the highest expression of the collective sense of the entire people, and in this respect it involuntarily exerted influence on individual legislations, morally impelling them to conform their provisions to the fundamental spirit of this supreme national law. And indeed some states, shortly after the ratification of the federal constitution, hastened to conform their particular constitutions to it and, like it, abolished religious tests upon election to public office. Thus, the constitution of the state of Georgia, dated May 6, 1789, the first new local constitution adopted after the ratification of the federal constitution, excluded the article according to which members of the general assembly must be of the Protestant religion. The constitution of South Carolina, dated June 3, 1790, the second new constitution, excluded such a provision, as well as all other provisions making Protestantism the state religion, and stipulated that “the free enjoyment and exercise of religious profession and worship, without distinction or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed in this state to all mankind”[1]. But other constitutions long retained articles excluding Catholics from the right of election to public office, and only gradually, over time, yielded to the moral influence of the federal constitution. Thus, in New York State, only in 1806 was the article abolished according to which Catholic immigrants, upon election to public office, were obligated to solemnly renounce all obedience to a foreign church authority, that is, to the Pope[2]. Such an article was contained in the constitution of Massachusetts, and it was abolished only in 1821, thus providing Catholics with the possibility to hold public office[3]. In Virginia complete freedom of conscience was granted only in 1830, when religious tests were abolished[4]. According to the constitution of North Carolina, upon election to office an oath was required acknowledging the truth of the Protestant religion. Any person denying the existence of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old and New Testaments, should not hold any office in the state. In 1835 this article underwent modification, and instead of Protestant was substituted Christian religion[5], whereby Catholics were equalized with Protestants. In the constitution of New Jersey the Protestant article, according to which “no Protestant resident shall be deprived of his civil and political rights,” was abolished only in 1844[6]. Finally, in New Hampshire, the article excluding Catholics from the right to hold public office outlived even the centennial celebration of American independence, celebrated in 1876, and this solemn festival of national freedom witnessed in the constitution of this state such articles: “each member of the house of representatives must be of the Protestant religion”; “no person shall be eligible for election to the senate who is not of the Protestant religion”; “no person shall be elected to the office of governor unless he is of the Protestant religion”[7].

[1] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 738. Constitutions of the thirteen states South Carolina.

[2] Murray, History of Catholic church, p. 183 Cp. 1 note on p. 141

[3] Shea, History of the Catholic Church p. 45; Murray, p. 183.

[4] Murray, History, p. 183.

[5] The Constitutions of the several states. Constitution of North Carolina. Cp. p. 259 and 265.

[6] Shea, History p. 45.

[7] Murray, History, p. 184. These articles, if we are not mistaken, still exist. At least we have not found notice of their repeal in such a careful interpreter and strict protector of the interests of the Roman Catholic Church in America as the Catholic World journal. True, they exist more as “dead letters” than as living, effective legislation, but even such existence represents a characteristic fact. Proposals for their repeal have been made several times in the state legislature and found unanimous approval, but were constantly lost in the proceedings. See The Constitutions of several states. Constitution of New Hampshire, pp. 54, 57, 59.

4. The Relation of the States to the Government of the Union. The Federal Constitution and its Relation to the Constitutions of Individual States. The Subjection of Religious Questions to the Particular Governments of Individual States. The Significance of This Fact for the Development of Religious Equality. The Slow Development in the States of the Principle of Freedom of Religious Conscience. The Present State of the Question. The Position of Catholics. The Inevitable Privilege of the Strongest Confessional Forms. Public Charity. Concluding Conclusions. (Cont.)

Thus, only through a slow and gradual process did the idea of freedom of religious conscience and religious equality before civil law make its conquests in individual states, despite the fact that the federal constitution had accepted and proclaimed it at the very dawn of American political independence. Only over time, and by force of the constant moral pressure of the federal constitution, did sectarian intolerance of Protestantism toward Catholicism gradually weaken and retreat, and at the present time the idea of freedom of religious conscience has factually gained full currency. But this freedom is not equivalent to complete license. It still finds legal, and indeed strict, limitation in many states, which even conditions the enjoyment of civil rights. Thus, by the constitution of Maryland for election to office a declaration is required recognizing the Christian religion, and for a Jew a declaration of his faith in a future state of reward and punishment[1]. By the constitution of Vermont no religious test is required, but nonetheless “every sect or profession of Christians must keep the Sabbath or the Lord’s Day and have some form of worship which shall seem to them most agreeable to the revealed will of God”[2]. By the constitution of Pennsylvania, “no man who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of public trust in this republic”[3]. By the constitution of Tennessee, “no man who denies the being of a God or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of this state”[4]. Finally, by the constitution of North Carolina, “no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Christian religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testament, or shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom or safety of the state, shall be capable of holding any office or place of public trust in the civil department of this state”[5]. Other states make no legal determinations concerning religion. But this does not mean that the state in them completely ignores religion and severs all connection with it. If this connection has not been expressed in written law, as in the states named above, it nevertheless exists, is recognized by the state, and is expressed in unwritten common law. This connection constantly makes itself known in judicial proceedings concerning religion. Both the courts and individual jurists are always guided by this common law and confirm by their decisions the connection of the state not only with religion in general, but even particularly with Christianity. Thus, the supreme court of Pennsylvania, whose constitution only indirectly concerns religion, positively recognizes the inseparable connection of the state with Christianity, when it declared in one judicial proceeding: “Christianity is part of the common law of this state… Its foundations are broad, firm, and deep; they lie at the foundation of the power, interests, and feelings of the people. Apart from all the particular questions involved, it is the purest system of morality, the firmest aid and the only stable support of all human laws. It is impossible to administer laws without accepting the Holy Scripture as their foundation… An oath, in its usual form, before a discredited book, would be the idlest ceremony”[6]. But even more remarkable in this respect are the declarations of the supreme court in New York, whose constitution does not at all legally determine the connection of the state with religion. “Christianity,” he said in the person of its chancellor Kent, “in its broad sense, as the religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is not unknown to our legislation. The statute for the prevention and punishment of immorality consecrates the first day of the week as a sacred time, and its violation is deemed immoral… The act concerning oaths recognizes the customary way of administering an oath through the laying on of hands and kissing the Gospel.” “What undermines Christianity plainly tends toward the destruction of civil government,” he declares quite clearly about the inseparability of the state from Christianity as the universal church. And further he says: “Blasphemy, according to the most precise definition, consists in wicked ridicule of God or religion… in the ridiculing of Christianity through its Founder… Such crimes have always been regarded as independent of religious establishment or church rights. They are considered as acts concerning the essential interests of civil society.” “Blasphemy against God,” he says in another place, “and reviling and profane mockery of Christ or the Holy Scripture, which are deemed equivalent to blasphemy, are crimes punishable by common law, whether expressed in words or in writing.” “But we are not at all bound to punish similar attacks on the religion of Mohammed or the great Lama, and this on the simple ground that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply rooted in Christianity, not in the teachings or worship of these impostors”[7]. It is clear that the state in New York not only recognizes its inner connection with Christianity as a church, but therewith denies its connection with all other religions. The action of this general, unwritten law makes itself known in all states. – The general meaning of these constitutions is obviously that freedom of religious conscience is granted only insofar as it remains truly freedom of religious or even Christian conscience, and ceases where it passes into the denial of all religious or Christian conscience. This must be firmly remembered by all advocates of freedom of conscience, and particularly by those who love to appeal to America.

And so, only toward the end of the century of American political independence did the Roman Catholic Church legally and in fact become equal in its rights with all other confessions in America. At the present time, it, together with all other confessions and communities, has been recognized as possessing those inalienable rights which were proclaimed a hundred years ago in the historic declaration of the freedom of the American people, in the “Declaration of Independence,” namely the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and also the provision of that same declaration has gained full significance for it, that government is established for the purpose of securing the enjoyment of these rights and protecting the free exercise of them. “The right of liberty,” explains a Catholic author the Declaration of Independence in its application to the Roman Catholic Church[8], “includes the freedom to keep the commandments of God, observe the law of His Church, employ all the means granted to us for obtaining grace, acquiring virtue, and fulfilling the purpose of our being. The right to happiness includes the unobstructed enjoyment of all the advantages of our religion, which alone can make us truly happy in this world and give us the means to attain eternal bliss. The right of liberty and happiness gives every opportunity to all who wish to consecrate themselves to the sacred duties of the altar and monastery. It gives freedom to perform all the rites and ceremonies of religious worship, to dedicate our wealth to the service of God and our neighbors, to establish and govern our churches according to our canonical law, to found and maintain in our possession colleges, seminaries, monasteries, and charitable institutions, to educate our children, to profess and practice the Catholic religion fully and wholly. The purpose of government is to secure these rights, so that if it does not provide actual protection for their free and peaceful enjoyment, it is negligent in the performance of its duty; and if it invades these rights or violates them through any tyrannical legislation, it commits a positive act of injustice and usurpation. Government, the supreme power in the state from which government receives its authority, is equally accountable before the eternal law as individual citizens, and it can violate it through neglect of the securing and protection of, or through direct violation of the rights of conscience granted by the Creator. Therefore, it is necessary to strictly guard these rights, proclaim and defend them loudly when they are in danger of violation, and by all lawful means prevent any attempt to interfere with the exercise of them through unjust legislation or tyrannical exercise of power by the government and its official agents. The supreme power in the state has a general and constant tendency to seize unjust power and violate the rights of subjects. The freedom of individual persons or classes which are under government is always in danger, and therefore eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. This is equally true both where supreme power is entrusted to a monarch or an aristocracy, and where the people retain it for itself. It would be a great error to suppose that popular forms of government and republican institutions constitute a perfect and complete guarantee of freedom in general or of freedom of conscience in particular. The political majority or the ruling party can tyrannize over the minority or the weaker party and over private citizens. Magistrates elected by popular vote can abuse their power and oppress those whom they should protect. Legislative assemblies elected by the people can enact the most unjust and despotic laws. Athenian democracy exiled Aristides the Just and poisoned Socrates, the wisest man of pagan antiquity, the father and founder of philosophy. In our own time we have witnessed the most treacherous violation of guaranteed rights and the most tyrannical oppression of religious freedom of Catholics, perpetrated by the Swiss republic. Catholics are always subject to oppression wherever they constitute the weakest party, and never have sufficient guarantee for acquiring and maintaining their religious freedom except in their own number and strength, gaining significance through energetic activity in behalf of their cause”[8]. “According to the principles and spirit of our laws and political institutions,” continues the same author, “the Catholic Church possesses in the United States a greater degree of freedom belonging to it by divine right than in most other countries. And in practice this freedom has been secured to it in considerable measure, thanks to the justice of the people generally and the faithfulness of those entrusted with the administration of the law. Nevertheless, we cannot and should not be content with anything less than full and perfect freedom and equality, which are justly ours and in no way violate the same rights of those who profess a different religion. There are things in respect to which we are bound both by our duty and by right to demand a greater degree of justice than has hitherto been shown us, and to strive to prevent any further diminishment of our rights as Catholic citizens”[9].

From the presented tirade of the best, by general and official recognition, expresser of Roman Catholicism in America, it is evident that Catholics recognize their equality before civil law with all other confessions and communities as legally and in fact established, but that in the state there is nonetheless a tendency toward the curtailment of these rights, the defense of which Catholics are called upon to undertake. This tendency finds justification in actual facts and flows from the very conditions of the position of Roman Catholicism in the state. The United States, by its history and composition of population, is in essence a Protestant state. The Catholic population in it constitutes a weak minority, one-seventh of the whole population. In republican states, where the composition and character of government is determined by popular vote, governmental power necessarily resides in the hands of the majority. Since this majority in the United States is on the side of the Protestant population, naturally the composition of the government appears predominantly Protestant. A “Protestant government” is in essence a logical and internal contradiction in a state where government and church, state and religion are legally separated from each other. But it is such the organic nature of man that he cannot extract and remove from his being his soul, even when the question concerns only his body. So too, the Protestant representatives of the people, to whom the government of the country is entrusted, involuntarily and of necessity bring with them into the administration their Protestant views. This is an inevitable fact and it is confirmed by reality.

[1] The Constitutions of the several states. Constitution of Maryland, Declaration of Rights, art. 34, p. 324.

[2] The Constitutions, p. 70. – The meaning of this article is apparently that only a genuinely religious society can enjoy certain benefits not extended to purely civil societies such as, for example, the exemption of temples or places of worship from taxes.

[3] The Constitutions, p. 194.

[4] The Constitutions, constitution of Tennessee, art. IX, sec. 2, pp. 270–271.

[5] The Constitutions of the several states, New-York 1866. Constitution of North Carolina, Amendments to the Constitution art. IV, p. 265.

[6] North American Review, March 1881, pp. 217–218. Cp. Inquiry into the moral and religious Character of the American Government pp. 99–102. Several cases of blasphemy in the same state led to the state legislature enacting an affirmative law against blasphemy as a civil crime, which in the statute of 1860 reads thus: “If any person shall freely, willfully, and maliciously profane or vilely and wickedly speak of Almighty God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost or the Holy Scripture, such person upon conviction thereof shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding 100 dollars and to suffer imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both at the discretion of the court.” Christian statesman of May 12, 1881, p. 424.

[7] Ibidem, pp. 216–230. Cp. Inquiry, p. 97–98.

[8] Catholic World. Vol. XVI, p. 728

[9] Catholic World. Vol. XVI, p. 729

4. The Relation of the States to the Government of the Union. The Federal Constitution and its Relation to the Constitutions of Individual States. The Subjection of Religious Questions to the Particular Governments of Individual States. The Significance of This Fact for the Development of Religious Equality. The Slow Development in the States of the Principle of Freedom of Religious Conscience. The Present State of the Question. The Position of Catholics. The Inevitable Privilege of the Strongest Confessional Forms. Public Charity. Concluding Conclusions. (Cont.) (2)

The United States undoubtedly bears predominantly a Protestant character, and this is above all noticeable in the very manner of its relation to religion or the church. The essence of the principle of the relation of state and church in the country, as we saw above, consists in the strict delimitation of the spheres of their respective activity, so that to the church belongs entirely the conduct of the spiritual order of phenomena in human life, while to the state belongs the conduct of the material order. In determining the scope of these orders, Catholicism and Protestantism appear as two opposite and irreconcilable principles. According to the view of the former, the sphere of the spiritual order essentially extends to the whole spiritual life of man—the religious, moral, and intellectual—and therefore to the church exclusively belongs the authority to direct not only religious conscience, but also the facts of married and family life, the education of children, and even literature[1]. Conversely, according to the view of Protestantism, the authority of the church extends only to the religious conscience, while all the remaining phenomena of human life, as not having essential significance for the main purpose of the church—the salvation of souls through faith alone—naturally fall under the authority of the state. By its fundamental principle, the United States could not legally become exclusively on the side of one of these opposite views, and therefore of necessity chose a middle position between them, which nevertheless is recognized by Catholics themselves as the most normal compared with the relation of most European states to the Catholic Church. This relation, however, from the Catholic perspective appears already as Protestant because it does not realize the Catholic ideal of the relation of church and state, according to which the state should be merely a simple instrument of the church. But apart from the state’s deviation from the extremes of the Catholic view, it manifests Protestant tendency in more essential respects, so that it not only stands midway between two opposite views but clearly inclines toward Protestantism. This is particularly noticeable in its relation to the question of marriage and public education. According to the Catholic view the authority over matrimonial relations and public education belongs to the church[2], while according to the Protestant view these are social facts and therefore fall within the sphere of the state. What position did the state take on these questions? It completely inclined toward the Protestant view and made both matrimonial relations and public education purely state functions, independent of the church. It recognized marriage as a social act, admitting what is called civil marriage and broad freedom for divorce, and made public education one of its functions. Since Catholicism considers these functions to be essential functions of the church, the state, by seizing them into its authority, thereby deprived the Roman Catholic Church of its belonging rights and thus came down on the side of the opposite view—the Protestant. This naturally led to a collision between the state and Roman Catholicism, and on the question of public education the collision turned into open struggle, which is still being waged obstinately now. Catholicism denies to the state any right to the education of children, as it considers it the matter of parents and the church[3]; but the fierceness of the struggle has been intensified further by the fact that the United States, to avoid the possibility of narrow-confessional education in the spirit of the teaching and beliefs of any one church or community, has secularized the public school, which again coincides with the Protestant view and contradicts the Catholic. Here the state perpetrates a positive injustice against Catholics. Having taken public education under its authority, it to support it collects a tax from the whole population without distinction of confessions, and consequently also from Catholics. Meanwhile, Catholics cannot use this state school, for use of it is forbidden them by their conscience and church, and therefore they are compelled by the state to pay for an object which for them is at the very least useless, and from the strictly Catholic perspective is directly harmful, for the secularized school from this perspective is the negation of a true school, is the product of Protestantism and therefore hostile to Catholicism. Not recognizing the state school, Catholics are forced to establish and maintain their own parish schools, and thus bear a double tax compared to Protestants, which is already a direct state injustice.

Besides the realm of public education, the state either willingly or unwillingly aligns itself with Protestantism in many other respects. It has under its jurisdiction numerous diverse institutions, the existence of which is caused and conditioned by social needs, but the achievement of whose goals is unthinkable without religion according to the state’s own understanding. Such are institutions as prisons, houses of correction, facilities for juvenile delinquents, asylums for homeless children, and similar establishments. They contain persons of different faiths, both Protestants and Catholics. The state, not only not denying them the right to freely practice their religious obligations, but even considering religion an essential element for achieving the very goal of these institutions, has taken care to supply them with religious attributes and priests, whom it supports on public salary. To avoid favoring any single confession at the expense of others, the state everywhere adheres to the so-called non-sectarian system, by which religion is recognized and practiced only in its general Christian features, without denominational distinctions. The state maintains the same system in introducing religion into its institutions, and therefore supports priests who essentially belong to no denomination but are preachers of “general Christianity.” Catholic priests, as representatives of a strict, concrete denominational system requiring full and undeviating observance of all its parts and details, naturally do not fit the state’s outlook, and therefore it is Protestant priests who enter these institutions to preach in prisons and teach “general Christianity” in houses of correction. For Catholicism, it is already disadvantageous that Protestant priests enter these institutions, and further, the very “general Christianity” preached by them is to Catholicism nothing other than pure Protestantism. Catholicism recognizes no other Christianity except that embodied in a concrete historical form, and considers any deviation from it as Protestantism, and all the more so such an abstraction from any concrete ecclesiastical form, as “general Christianity,” which a Catholic publicist directly calls a humbug[4], that is, a deception that diverts the eyes from the true nature of the matter. To compel Catholic inhabitants of state institutions to be present at the practice of this “general Christianity,” according to the Catholic view, means to do violence to their conscience. Yet this is exactly what happens in most institutions. In New York State, for example, there are three state prisons “and not in one of them is there a state arrangement for satisfying the spiritual needs of Catholic prisoners”[5]. The state has seven penitentiary prisons, and in only three of them is the Catholic mass celebrated; it also boasts of four reform schools, and in only one are mass celebrated and sacraments administered[6]. In the rest, all prisoners without exception are compelled to attend religious services according to the “general Christianity” system, which, “in the view of a Catholic publicist, is for Catholic prisoners the most brutal violence to conscience imaginable, because the worst Catholic in the world would never voluntarily wish to participate in any religious service other than their own”[7]. Recently a Catholic priest was permitted to visit one of the state prisons in the state, to hear confessions and preach on Sunday afternoons, but Catholic prisoners were also required to attend Protestant services[8]. Throughout the country, according to the assertion of a Catholic publicist, only in Minnesota “freedom of conscience and equal rights in religious matters for those held in state institutions” are fully assured, and only by the most recent act, of March 5, 1874[9]. Thus the state acts not only with respect to criminals, who, though they need religious consolation more than all others, have by their own actions brought themselves to deprivation and restriction of their freedom, but also with respect to those unfortunate ones who are taken under state care because no one cares for them, such as the homeless, abandoned, street children. For them the state appears not as a punisher for evil deeds, but as a guardian and occupies, in a manner of speaking, the place of parents. It takes care to supply these establishments with religious attributes, but here too it again introduces its cherished “general Christianity,” which, as we have seen, is completely rejected by Catholicism. One of the most ancient and well-known such institutions in New York State is the “Society for the Reform of Juvenile Offenders,” which has an educational and charitable character. According to the 1875 report, during the past fifty years it had received 15,791 persons, of which at least half were children of Catholic parents. Yet the priest serving there was always a Protestant chaplain, who preached “general Christianity,” and there was never a Catholic one. According to statistics, the average age of these children was thirteen years and eight months. “Consequently,” explains the Catholic publicist, “the children were at just that age when they could already distinguish one faith from another, and six years older than the average age appointed by the Catholic Church for receiving the sacraments of confession and communion, for preparation for confirmation and attending mass on Sundays and feast days, under pain of mortal sin”[10]. The natural consequence of such exclusion of Catholic children from the rites and beliefs of their church could only be the complete weakening, if not eradication, of the Catholic spirit in them, and thus these establishments take on a directly proselytizing character in favor of Protestantism. In view of this, the following tirade of a Catholic publicist does not seem exaggerated: “In our public institutions, with respect to Catholics, there is constant violation of the state constitution concerning freedom of religious confession and worship[11]. In these institutions there is a stereotyped system of religious confession and worship, which all persons held in them are compelled to accept and observe, whatever their confession. They have no freedom of choice in this regard. They cannot have relations with the pastors of their church except in impossible instances according to that stereotyped plan. Practically they cannot have such relations at all. Once they become members of these institutions, the freedom of religious confession and worship which they enjoyed or could have enjoyed before entering them is completely annihilated, and a new form of religious confession and practice is substituted, which they are compelled to accept and observe as their religion until they leave the institution, whether they like it or not, whether they believe in it or not. Whatever name is given to this form of worship and instruction, whether it is called “non-sectarian” or not, it is a monstrous violence against human conscience, not to mention the letter and spirit of this state’s constitution. Its true name would be: a church established in public institutions. From the day a Catholic child crosses the threshold of such an institution until their departure, in most cases they are not even allowed to see a Catholic priest; they are completely forbidden from practicing their religion; they are not permitted to attend mass or receive sacraments. Their religion is entirely taken away and blocked from them, and their soul is left dry and barren. Injustice does not end even there, because all the while they are subjected to non-Catholic influences, and a direct system of anti-Catholic instruction and worship. They are forced to kneel and believe in the established church of the institution”[12].

Thus, even with the legal equality of Catholicism and Protestantism, the latter has many advantages over the former, solely thanks to its numerical superiority, which necessarily influences the direction and spirit of government and the state, inclining them toward Protestantism. The Protestant tendency of the state is so strong that Catholicism must be in constant struggle for its legal rights and constantly defend them from the encroachment of Protestant authorities. But this situation of Catholicism within a Protestant state, on the other hand, has taught it to be wise as a serpent, and it has used this wisdom to advantage in those respects where the state, by force of social necessity, had to recognize equal rights to it alongside Protestantism. Particularly important results Catholicism achieved in the realm of monetary relations with the state.

One of the spheres of public life in which the state cannot in practice separate itself from the church, despite the most complete legal separation, is charitable activity. Conditioned by the inner state of public life, it concerns both the church and the state equally. The church is called to charitable work by the very essence of Christianity, one of whose principal teachings is the alleviation of the suffering and misery of the destitute and unfortunate human race. The state is called to the same by the very essence of the state idea, according to which the state is founded as a collective defense against private evils, the struggle against which would be beyond the power of individuals. But if neglect of charitable activity for the church would be only a violation of Christian principle, for the state it would result in incalculable public disasters, since the inevitable social evil not counteracted by charitable activity, in the form of homeless children, fallen women, persons destitute by nature, and similar beings, would be a dreadful scourge for society itself and would undermine the very foundations of the state. Therefore, both the church and the state are equally interested in charitable activity, and moreover in such proportion as generally determine the relations of church and state, as principle and fact, soul and body. The church in this regard acts as the moving principle, and the state as the one implementing this principle in practice. Such relations developed between church and state in the realm of charitable activity in the United States. Charitable activity owes its beginning to the church or to various private religious societies, which, from purely religious and Christian motives of benevolence, founded charitable institutions to aid suffering humanity. The state soon recognized their beneficial activity for society and to support and develop their work began giving them subsidies from public funds collected through the ordinary state taxes[13]. At present, these relations of church and state to charitable activity have reached such a state of full development that the state has assumed the budget of charitable institutions in the majority of cases, while the church or private religious societies retained only the administrative authority over their management. Charitable establishments are divided into Catholic, Protestant, and municipal. The latter are maintained exclusively on public funds, while the former receive only subsidies. For equal distribution of public funds among them, a rule was adopted by which the amount of subsidies is determined by the number of persons maintained in the charitable establishments. This rule was used to excellent advantage by the Roman Catholic Church.

[1] Catholic World. Vol. XI art. The Church and State, p. 146

[2] Catholic World. Vol. XI, cited article.

[3] Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 437 etc.

[4] Catholic World, Vol. XXI, p. 11.

[5] Catholic World. Vol. XXI, p. 4.

[6] Ibidem p. 4.

[7] Catholic World. Vol. XXI, p. 3, In surveying the question of religion in prison confinement in European states, the American Catholic publicist also points to Russia, where priests of different faiths are also admitted to prisons, “even of the Jewish and Mohammedan.” Ibidem, p. 5 and 6.

[8] Catholic World, Vol. XXI, p. 6.

[9] Ibidem, p. 6.

[10] Catholic World, Vol. XXI, p. 17.

[11] Section 3 of Article I of the constitution of New York State reads: Free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all mankind; but the freedom of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or to justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state. The Constitutions of the several states, p. 143.

[12] Catholic World, Vol. XXI, p. 8.

[13] As to the scale of charitable activity, one can judge from the fact that in New York State alone, as seen from the official report of the state Governor Cornell of January 5, 1881, the sum of expenditures for maintenance of charitable establishments in the past year reached eight million (8,000,000) dollars, and the total value of property serving charitable purposes in the state is estimated at thirty-five million (35,000,000) dollars. Gov. Cornell’s Message, The New-York Times, of January 5, 1881.

4. The Relation of the States to the Government of the Union. The Federal Constitution and its Relation to the Constitutions of Individual States. The Subjection of Religious Questions to the Particular Governments of Individual States. The Significance of This Fact for the Development of Religious Equality. The Slow Development in the States of the Principle of Freedom of Religious Conscience. The Present State of the Question. The Position of Catholics. The Inevitable Privilege of the Strongest Confessional Forms. Public Charity. Concluding Conclusions. (Cont.) (3)

For the Roman Catholic Church, charitable activity is one of the manifestations of its general ecclesiastical principle, according to which the governance of the church extends over the entire realm of human life. Therefore, charity is considered in it one of the essential functions of church life, is placed under the direct supervision of church organization, and is carried out by the immediate servants of the church—brothers and sisters of various monastic orders. At present in the United States, a whole army of Catholic brothers and sisters, numbering 18,000 persons[1], labors in the field of charitable (and at the same time educational) activity. Such a mass of unpaid or mostly cheap laborers enabled the Roman Catholic Church to develop its charitable activity to extraordinarily broad dimensions. If not in number, then in the coherence of organization and breadth of activity, Catholic charitable establishments surpass similar establishments of all other denominations combined. In New York the most extensive charitable establishments belong to Catholics. Their public activity is so evident and important that the government of New York State could not fail to recognize their general state significance, and they began to receive government subsidies earlier than any other Protestant charitable establishments. The subsidy consists partly of state and public lands set aside by the government for charitable establishments, partly of direct monetary sums. The Roman Catholic Church made better use than all other denominations of both types of subsidies. At present it holds under its charitable establishments in New York more land plots than all other Protestant denominations taken together[2], and moreover in the best and most expensive parts of the city. The lands occupied by it are valued at the present cost at an enormous sum—three and a half million (3,500,000) dollars, and all these plots were granted to it either in perpetuity or for ninety-nine years with an annual rent of one dollar[3]. But the Roman Catholic Church achieved even greater results in monetary terms. Thanks to unpaid or cheap labor of brothers and sisters, it was able to place its charitable establishments on a broader footing than all Protestant ones, which, lacking free laborers, in no way could compete with it in this regard. From this, its charitable establishments acquired more extensive dimensions and could maintain a greater number of recipients of charity than all Protestant denominations. Having the ability to maintain a greater number of recipients of charity on more economical principles, it at the same time received from the government larger subsidies compared to Protestant denominations. As to the scale of this proportion in the division of government subsidy between Roman Catholic and Protestant charitable establishments, one can judge from the fact that already in 1866, when the Roman Catholic Church did not yet have the political weight it now possesses in New York, from the sum appropriated by the government for specifically religious charitable establishments amounting to 129,025 dollars, the Roman Catholic Church received 124,174 dollars for its own establishments. In the following year this subsidy reached 200,000 dollars[4]. In 1869 the New York government appropriated 528,742 dollars and 47 cents for “sectarian institutions.” Of this sum the Roman Catholic Church received 412,062 dollars and 26 cents for its institutions. The remainder was distributed among the other denominations as follows: the Episcopal Church received 29,335 dollars and 9 cents; Jewish establishments received 14,404 dollars and 49 cents; Reformed—12,630 dollars and 86 cents; Presbyterians—8,863 dollars and 44 cents; Baptists—2,760 dollars and 34 cents; Methodists—3,073 dollars and 63 cents; Evangelical establishments—2,027 dollars and 24 cents; mixed—44,085 dollars and 12 cents[5]. Such were the proportions of public subsidies to the Roman Catholic Church in the following years, and the sum for some establishments is now determined in the millions of dollars. Thus one Roman Catholic “House of the Good Shepherd” received during its existence (20 years) government subsidies amounting to 406,552 dollars. The Catholic Foundling Asylum during eight years of its existence received an enormous sum of 1,252,713 dollars. The Catholic Protectory from 1863 to 1877 received public subsidies amounting to 2,030,454 dollars and so on[6]. According to the 1880 report, the Catholic Protectory received in the past year 110 dollars per person, which altogether constitutes a sum of 294,253 dollars; the Catholic Foundling Asylum in the same year received from the city government a sum of 236,014 dollars[7]. The magnitude of this subsidy will be even clearer when one considers that all expenses for maintaining these charitable establishments shown in their reports are for the first 6,000 dollars and for the second 8,000 dollars above the subsidies[8], so that in essence they are completely maintained at public-state expense, while at the same time constituting an organic part of the Roman Catholic Church and being under the direct supervision of its hierarchy.

Thus, the Roman Catholic Church, while being in some degree of oppression from Protestantism in the realm of religious profession, has richly compensated itself at the state’s expense in material terms. In comparison with Protestant denominations, it appears as though quite “established,” a state church, maintained on state funds collected through taxes equally from all inhabitants without regard to their faith[9]. The principal cause of its success in this regard is the system by which public and governmental offices are seized by Catholics. At present this system has reached its development in New York, as on November 2, 1880, Catholics seized, despite fierce protest from the Protestant population, the supreme office in city government and a devoted Catholic was elected city mayor, which the Roman Catholic Church will of course not fail to exploit for its purposes—ad majorem Dei gloriam[10].

Such are the characteristics of church-state relations in a country which is commonly cited as having realized the principle of perfect separation of these two orders and as an example of unlimited freedom of conscience. Leaving the appropriate conclusions to the readers themselves, we will on our part summarize the materials presented in the article in the following propositions:

I. The early period of the history of the United States, before the declaration of independence, is a period of extreme religious intolerance among the different Protestant sects toward one another, and especially of all Protestantism toward Catholicism.

II. The principle of religious freedom of conscience then proclaimed is rather the result of political necessity than of recognition of the justice of the principle itself.

III. The principle of religious freedom of conscience expressed itself in the legal separation of church and state; but legal separation does not mean actual separation, and it determines not a rupture, but only a certain modus vivendi.

IV. The principle of freedom of conscience does not mean unlimited freedom, and on the contrary is recognized only within those limits where freedom remains truly only the freedom of religious or even Christian conscience, and is punished as a crime when it goes beyond these limits. Finally,

The exercise of the rights of conscience granted is conditioned not by dead law, but by the prevailing principles of life, so that even with absolute legal equality in the rights of conscience for all denominations, the weaker among them in practice suffer restrictions and violations of their rights by the stronger religious communities, and are forced to defend them through their own inner energy and enterprise.

* * *

[1] Murray, History of Catholic church in U.S. p. 578 “Eighteen thousand persons, many of them of the highest education, labor gratuitously for the benefit and progress of the United States,” exclaims the Catholic publicist-historian. “Calculate their worth, oh you political economists, who are chiefly concerned with achieving great results with minimal expense!” Ibidem.

[2] Catholic establishments occupy eighty-six plots in the city, while all other Protestant denominations hold only about seventy plots. See the Catholic pamphlet Private Charities, Public lands and Public Money. 1880. New-York.

[3] Putnam’s Magazine, for July 1869. Atlantic Monthly, 1880.

[4] Putnam’s Magazine, July 1869 p. 43.

[5] Putnam’s Magazine, March 1870 p. 359.

[6] Catholic pamphlet Private Charities, Public lands and Public Money, pp. 26–30. New-York, 1880.

[7] The Times, of February 6, 1881.

[8] On March 11 the “Protectory” submitted to the state legislature a petition for an increase in subsidies of 60,000 dollars. This will more than satisfy the deficit. N. Y. Herald, of March 12, 1881.

[9] In Putnam’s Magazine for July 1869 an article “Our established Church” was published, in which the Roman Catholic Church is presented as a state church. The article made a strong impression on society and provoked heated polemics between Protestant and Catholic publicists.

[10] The newly elected mayor Mr. Grace was educated in the Catholic college Manhattan, maintained by the Catholic order of “Christian Brothers,” and is under the strong influence of Cardinal McCloskey. The controller of public funds in recent years was John Kelly, not only a devoted Catholic but also a relative by marriage of the same Cardinal McCloskey.

The Religious Question in the American School

1. The System of Public Education in the United States. Its Origin and Internal Character. Application of the Principle of Separation of Church and State in the Field of Public Education. Internal Contradiction and Inevitable Outcome. Elimination of Denominational Differences and Adoption of “General Christianity” in School. The Attitude Toward the Adopted System on the Part of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism

The system and organization of public education in the United States is essentially different from the system practiced in the states of the Old World. The difference consists not only in the setting of the matter, but in the very principle underlying it, and in the goals which it aims to achieve. In most European states, the basis of public education is placed religious instruction in its confessional or dogmatic coloration. In the United States, by contrast, the school has as its main goal the achievement of a certain degree of mental development necessary for the conscious discharge of the duties of a citizen in the spheres of political, social and family life. Religion, in its confessional sense, American schools do not recognize. Such a distinctive feature of American education is conditioned by the peculiarities of the structure of the state, social and religious life of the country and can be clarified from a brief survey of the history of the origin and development of the present system of school education.

The origin of the present system of public education, in its general form, goes back to the early period of settlement of the American continent by European settlers. The English settlers, the so-called “Pilgrim Fathers,” having settled on the new continent and freely breathed free from persecution, considered it their first duty to establish schools, where their children could learn to honor God in such purity and strictness as would fully correspond to their Puritan worldview. At first school education had a private character, but in 1647 it received in Massachusetts State, the birthplace of the entire present system of public education, an official definition which has since become the model for all other states. On November 11 of that year, the legislative assembly of Massachusetts State adopted and approved an ordinance which made public education a public matter, and defined its system in detail. By this ordinance, every town, whose population “the Lord had multiplied to fifty households,” was required to establish a school and appoint a teacher for it; and a town with a population of one hundred families or households was required to have, in addition, a “grammar school,” in which children could prepare for admission to a higher school or university[1]. The operation of this ordinance was binding on all colonies of Massachusetts under penalty of monetary fine[2]. In it are contained in embryo all the characteristics of the present system: local responsibility to the state for schools, free instruction, and the recognition of three degrees of schools, as they exist today. The school established in this way was in essence a parish school, since what in the ordinance is called a town (township) coincided with the parish. The parish, in its annual meeting, determined the amount of money needed to maintain the school for the following year, and it was collected through certain taxes and distributed under the supervision of an elected committee.

The internal character of the school founded in this way was entirely dependent on the environment in which the school itself arose. The Puritans, or more precisely the Congregationalists, were a deeply religious people. They knew no law other than the law of their religious conscience. When in 1620 the Pilgrims first drew near to the American continent, before stepping ashore they agreed among themselves to govern themselves by the laws of God, as inscribed in the Bible, until such time as circumstances would allow them to develop more specific laws adapted to their new situation[3]. But time itself had little influence on changing their original “social contract.” Subsequently, of course, more detailed and precise rules for communal life were developed, but at their foundation biblical law has always remained and continues to remain. To this day, public life in New England bears a rigorously religious character, which has been especially preserved in villages. The latter represent a remarkable example of religious communities, almost with theocratic government. Religiosity is the chief driving motive of their public life[4]. In such an environment, the school necessarily had to be religious. And indeed it was. The goal of the school was to provide religious and secular education in their organic unity, with the latter subordinated to the former, just as everything in the public life of the Puritans was subordinated to religious law. In school, the Bible was read first, the catechism was studied, the parish pastor visited school whenever he deemed it necessary, and taught the law of God. He was, one might say, the chief administrator of the school, and his voice, whether or not he was a member of the school committee, always had important weight in school management, in the appointment and dismissal of teachers[5]. Such an arrangement was not only called for by the internal peculiarities of the environment, but was also facilitated by the simplicity of public and state life. In New England lived only one people, having one religion, which was their common inheritance and was recognized as the established religion. There was no difference in denominations, and therefore no objections to religious instruction in the strictly confessional character of Congregationalism. Gradually, the school system adopted in Massachusetts spread to other states, and at first it could easily be adapted to the particular characteristics of their constitution and life. But soon the state underwent a transformation that gave new direction to its entire life and had a tremendous impact on the school system. This was the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of a new constitution.

One of the fundamental principles of the federal constitution of the United States is the separation of church and state. According to this principle, the church and state are recognized as completely separate spheres in human life, developing according to their own particular internal laws and pursuing their own particular objectives, in satisfaction of the special needs of human life. Before the Declaration of Independence, the colonies knew no such principle. In almost all of them, church and state were united; the state recognized or supported one particular denomination and persecuted others. In schools too, preference was given to the established denomination. Thus, the new constitution introduced a principle that was foreign to them. It proclaimed the principle of separation of church from state, and thereby refused to support any denomination at the expense of others. Having separated from the church, the state had to avoid relations with it in all spheres of its activity; but in some spheres the aims of church and state converge so closely that such separation proves difficult to implement. Public education the state considers to be its obligation, since it constitutes a necessary condition for its prosperity and successful development. But in recognizing it as its own responsibility, it here necessarily encounters religion, since religion enters essentially into upbringing and, in the view of the majority, the latter is unthinkable and undesirable without religion and cannot achieve its objectives. Thus, at the first attempt at practical application of the theory of separation of church from state, one encounters a difficult contradiction. According to principle the state should ignore religions in school; but in fact it cannot do so, unless it wishes to deprive the school of an essential part of that educational value which is in the interest of the state itself. The natural result was that the state of the United States made a concession from its principle and recognized religion as an element in the system of school education. But even this did not eliminate all difficulty. Religion is not merely a general abstract idea. It is at the same time a practical force, deeply penetrating into the internal and external life of people and society and taking various forms in the shape of different denominations and sects, some of which do not recognize, and often even exclude, others. According to the fundamental principle of the constitution, the state cannot give predominance to one of them at the expense of others; but according to the general principle of upbringing, it cannot completely eliminate them all from school. Thus, the state had only one way out—to develop such a common ground on which all diverse denominations could agree. The United States is a Christian state, and by the term religion in it is understood Christianity. But besides Christianity, there exist in it other religions that are difficult to reconcile with Christianity, for instance, Judaism, Mormonism, and others. If there existed only one Christian religion, although in diverse forms, then finding a common ground for them would be a simple matter: they all have the same general beliefs on which Christianity is founded, and restriction of religious instruction in school to these common beliefs would be a solution to the problem. In view of the difference not only of denominations but even of religions themselves, which exclude one another, the state faced a new dilemma, from which one can escape not by resolving it but, as one might say, by cutting through this Gordian knot of the dilemma. And it indeed cut through it, adopting as the common ground of religious instruction in school the general foundations of Christian religion in the form of Bible reading, study of common Christian prayers, and singing of common Christian sacred hymns.

The program of religious instruction in school thus developed gave it the character of what is called an “unsectarian school.” In it no preference is given to any one denomination at the expense of others; all are essentially excluded from the school, and from them is retained only what is their common possession, what is equally recognized by all denominations and sects, with the exception of course of anti-Christian religions. In practice, the religious element in school manifests itself in that before the beginning of each lesson a chapter from the Bible is read, common Christian prayers are sung, such as the “Lord’s Prayer,” and then during hours designated for study, sacred hymns used in church services are sung[6]. Different denominations and sects often do not agree in their interpretation of Holy Scripture. To avoid this difficulty, teachers are forbidden to make any explanations whatever of the text read, lest in their interpretation they fall into some confessional understanding of the text and thereby offend the conscience of children of other denominations. In the selection of sacred hymns for singing, strict tact must be observed, and for common singing only such hymns should be chosen as contain no denominational flavor but rather express common Christian truths. This rule extends to books as well, so that in school libraries may be accepted only such books as are completely free from any religious sympathies or antipathies[7].

Unstable as this system is in itself, it represents the only way out of the difficulty in which the state was placed in introducing its theory into the school—the separation of church from state. And it has proved satisfactory to a considerable degree. All Protestant denominations, which constitute the majority of the American population, have agreed on its general principle, since all recognize to a greater or lesser extent the religious elements introduced into the school. True, they consider these elements far insufficient for the completeness of religious education, but they regard the latter more as the responsibility of churches than of schools, and it is indeed supplemented by churches through Sunday schools, which have a specifically religious character. Objections have been raised against such an arrangement of religious instruction in schools, other objections having a confessional character, for example, in view of the possibility that teachers belonging to one denomination or another might easily fall into one-sidedness in the selection of even texts of Holy Scripture for reading in school and thereby might violate the nonsectarian character of the school, favoring their own sect or denomination; but these objections do not carry sufficient force and power, and the school faces no danger from them. Protestant denominations in general, and small sects in particular, in the absence of firmly established traditional beliefs and amid constant ferment and mutability, in essence attach very little importance to particular denominational differences, and therefore are concerned only that instruction not be entirely non-religious, heathen, or Roman Catholic. “So long,” says a Protestant author, “as the inhabitants of a city or state were exclusively Protestant, there could be not or was little objection to the use in school of the authorized translation of the Bible (the English translation, the so-called King James version), the singing of hymns, the reading of the Lord’s Prayer or other similar religious exercises, at the teacher’s discretion. Weak objections, sometimes raised against such a system, never took the form of organized opposition or passed into political agitation. In those communities and school districts where the Protestant element still predominates, rarely, if ever, are objections raised against these simple Christian influences. They are entirely free from ecclesiastical authority, ordinarily alien to narrow confessionalism, and free from proselytizing tendencies. As the school system spread throughout the country, the brief and simple religious exercises in question continued to be performed. But when Catholic emigration began arriving in myriads to our shores and gained weight in political affairs, the public school was attacked as a Protestant agency, in spirit hostile to the Catholic church”[8].

Thus, the public school, built on the shaky compromise between state and religion and various denominations, had to encounter in time such an opponent as one that, appearing with firmly established traditional foundations, conducted a strong agitation against the very principle on which the shakily built school rested. The history of this agitation on the part of Roman Catholicism against the American school represents an interesting page in the history of the Roman Catholic church in America and its relations with the American republic.

[1] This important document is cited in an article on the state of public education in America during the past century since the Declaration of Independence in the journal North American Review, January 1876, Art. “Education in America 1776–1876”, p. 197.

[2] Ibidem.

[3] Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol. I, p. 292. Centenary edition, Boston.

[4] See Contemporary Review, December 1880, article “Village life in New England”.

[5] Catholic World, Vol. XI, p. 93.

[6] The Report of the Superintendent of Schools for 1857 describes in detail the condition of the religious element in public schools. See Randall, History of the Common School System in the state of New-York, p. 412. N. Y 1871.

[7] These rules are as follows: 1) “In school libraries, no works are to be tolerated that have been written expressly to support or refute any sect or denomination in our country that regard themselves as religious (but Superintendent Randall’s explanation in his report for 1843 on this rule applies to works by Bolingbroke, Godwin, Shelley, Paine, Lessing, Voltaire and others of that kind); 2) exemplary works on secular subjects are not to be excluded merely because they happen incidentally or indirectly to reveal the religious views of their authors, and 3) works (avowedly on secular topics) which abound in direct or unrestrained refutations or defenses of any religious sect, or those which provoke contempt for any religious community through the selection or display of only dark facts in its history or character, are to be excluded from school libraries. – Books avowedly written to refute or defend political parties are to be excluded; but histories or biographies that happen to betray the political views of their authors may be admitted.” Randall, History, рр. 173–175.

[8] North American Review, Jan. 1876, р. 206.

2. Opposition of Roman Catholicism to the Adopted System and its Foundations. The Fundamental Distinction Between the Systems of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Education According to the Catholic View. The Roman Catholic Church’s Efforts to Isolate the Catholic Population From the Influence of Protestantism. Conflict With the State and Struggle Against It

The opposition of Roman Catholicism to the adopted system of public education is a natural and logical consequence of the general system of the Roman Catholic church, which it has pursued in all spheres of life. In its relations with the diverse peoples within its composition, there has long been observed a tendency to subject them to its authority not only in the realm of religion but also in political life. To this end it has constantly striven to seize public education into its own hands, so as to impress upon peoples from childhood the sanctity of its authority and to educate them in the spirit of its principles. This tendency has become evident with particular clarity in recent times in Germany and in France, where it has acquired such practical significance that the state proved helpless against it in matters of principle and had recourse to crude violent measures to suppress further influence of Roman Catholic education. The German culture struggle and French persecution of the Jesuits are two variations on one theme—the state’s recognition of its powerlessness to resist the Roman Catholic principles being introduced into the people’s consciousness through public education seized by the Roman Catholic church. In the New World, the Roman Catholic church naturally preserves the same tendency.

In contrast to Protestantism, which by virtue of its fundamental principle—justification by faith alone—naturally and logically comes to the secularization of the school, the separation of church from state, practical life from religious principles, Roman Catholicism has an internal tendency to subject all practical life to its ecclesiastical principles. It not only does not permit secularization, but rather strives to introduce its ecclesiastical principles wherever secular or extra-ecclesiastical influences still prevail; its ideal is the theocratic principle, rigorously applied in all spheres of life—political, social, and domestic. Therefore, the secularized school, that institution through which Roman Catholicism considers itself most able to carry its principles into practice, is an impossible thing for it, and its acceptance would be equivalent to self-denial. If according to Christian worldview education must necessarily have religion as its foundation, then Roman Catholicism conducts this theory with unwavering consistency. “We esteem education and learning,” says a Catholic organ, but we do not recognize education separated from religion and religious culture. Religion is the supreme law, and everything in personal or social life, civil or political, must be subordinated to it and regarded only as a means to achieve the eternal goal for which man was created and exists. Religious education is of supreme importance, and we desire that our children, from the first awakening of reason, grow accustomed to regard all things as having direct bearing on their religious life or obligation before God. We are convinced that education of both reason and heart, or of both together, separated from faith and religious discipline, is dangerous both for the individual and for society. All education must be religious and aimed at developing in the child consciousness of eternal objectives[1].

In carrying out its theory, Roman Catholicism goes further and not only intends to base upbringing in its strict sense on religious principles, but to make learning itself religious, to subject reason to faith, to place science not as an end in itself, not as the achievement of independent scientific truths, but as a means for introducing those same religious principles into consciousness. “It is said,” the organ remarks, “that simple secular education, such as the study of geology, geometry, history, natural philosophy, botany, astronomy, and the like, taught in our schools, provides no occasion for moral or religious instruction. Nothing could be more false. A properly directed anatomy, even of the smallest insect, equal to the contemplation of the boundless firmament with its countless planets and stars, can become a silent and involuntary prayer to the Creator of all things. There is no physical or artificial force revealed to the attention of the young mind that could not contain some indication of the invisible Power ruling the universe, and the teacher who neglects the opportunity to draw moral instruction from these symbols of the Almighty’s omnipotence does only half his work, and the less elevated half at that”[2]. “The elementary principles of reading and writing, arithmetic and elements of pure mathematics can still be taught independently of religion; but when instruction reaches higher domains of knowledge, the religious question emerges again. Take, for example, geology, that most interesting science, the abuse of which has led to worse atheism than all the sophistries of Voltaire. As it is taught in our schools, without proper explanation or direction, it cannot but be destructive to faith, and consequently to morals, in the minds of curious and not yet firmly established young intellects”[3].

Roman Catholicism, therefore, is dissatisfied with the public school due to the secularization of instruction in it, because of the separation of scientific knowledge from religious influence. In this regard it is certainly right, insofar as by religious influence it understands not the extreme ultramontane principle that excludes freedom of scientific inquiry, but only the higher ideal of human destiny, toward the achievement of which every science ought to serve. The best Protestant thinkers also consider it abnormal and even harmful to completely separate instruction from religious influence[4], but they are reconciled to the “common Christianity” introduced into the school. Catholicism, however, cannot in any way reconcile itself to such an arrangement of religious instruction. It represents a strict system in which a long history has developed a complex organization, stable in all its parts and details, so that each part or detail has an organic connection with the entire system, and the removal of any one feature disturbs the equilibrium of the whole organism. Therefore, “common Christianity,” representing an impersonal and, as it were, detached from life doctrine, is unthinkable for Roman Catholicism, constitutes its negation, and cannot in any way be accepted by it without essential harm to the entire system. “The distinction between Protestantism and Catholicism,” says a Catholic organ, “is not merely a difference in details or particulars, but a difference in principle. Catholicism must be taught in its entirety, in its unity or wholeness, or otherwise it will not be taught at all. It must be everywhere whole, or it is nothing. It is not simply a theory of truth or a collection of doctrines; it is an organism, a living body, living and acting by virtue of its own central life, and therefore necessarily one and indivisible, and can have nothing in common with any other body. To exclude from schools all that is distinctive or peculiar to Catholicism is simply to exclude Catholicism itself and make the schools either purely Protestant or purely secular and therefore hostile to our religion, one which it is forbidden us by conscience to support”[5]. Because of this, Roman Catholicism can naturally be satisfied only with schools in which unrestricted religious-Catholic influence would predominate, namely, parish schools, under the direct supervision of the clergy. And indeed, from the very beginning of the history of Roman Catholicism in the United States, we see constant efforts by church leadership to establish parish schools. Even before the Declaration of Independence, Catholics had several of their own schools, and the first American Catholic bishop, John Carroll, in a pastoral letter to his flock, devotes a considerable section to the question of specifically Catholic education[6], and subsequently Catholic bishops at local and general councils consistently express concern for the organization of parish schools. The first provincial council in Baltimore, held in 1829, expressed the wish that schools be established everywhere in which children could be instructed in the principles of faith and morality along with the acquisition of human learning[7]. The prelates of the second full Baltimore Council in 1866 made remarkable decrees on this matter, which clearly characterize the views of representatives of the Catholic church on the importance of the school question for its success in the United States. The ninth section of these decrees is devoted to the question of “the education of youth and the planting of piety.” It states among other things: “Since it has become evident that schools for public education in most of these provinces are so constituted as to serve heresies, and the souls of Catholic children in them are constantly and imperceptibly saturated with the false teachings of sects, we exhort pastors to strive with all their strength to give Catholic children Christian and Catholic education, and to observe carefully that they neither use the Protestant translation of the Bible nor sing the prayers and hymns of these sects. They must see to it that books or exercises of this kind are not introduced into public schools with danger to faith and piety. We urge bishops and, in view of the gravest evils which commonly issue from youth improperly disposed and educated, we implore them by the bowels of the divine mercy to take care that schools be founded at each church in their dioceses; and, if necessary and circumstances permit, to hire at the expense of the church with which the school is connected suitable teachers for it. But inasmuch as, owing to poverty, exclusively Catholic schools cannot yet be maintained in all parishes and there is no place for daily and necessary instruction except in public schools, great precautions must be taken so that Catholic youth suffer from them as little harm as possible. For this purpose let schools of catechesis and Christian instruction be established. Let pastors gather boys and girls in their own churches on Sundays and other holy days, and sometimes even more frequently, for careful and diligent instruction of them in the elements of Christian knowledge. Let the pastor in every possible way impress upon parents their participation in this work. Let him spur them on with approval, threaten them with warnings, move them with entreaties to send their children to church at the time appointed for catechesis. And the latter let him attract with small gifts and rewards—for more willing attendance at school and instruction. For if this is done daily by teachers of heresy to draw Catholic children to their own schools, saturate them with the poison of error, and bring them to sacrifice to eternal misery; should not the minister of God and His most holy religion with care and diligence do the same thing to save those who belong to him, and not lose even one of those whom the Father has given to His Christ? Let pastors of souls carefully endeavor that parents under their spiritual guidance bring their children, when they reach the proper age, prepared to receive the sacraments of holy Eucharist and confirmation; and for achieving this purpose let them frequently during the course of the year, especially when Easter approaches, publicly in the churches exhort the people to this most important obligation, the failure to fulfill which subjects parents to the greatest danger—the loss of salvation, and therefore they should be deprived of the sacraments until they repent and make satisfaction for this obligation”[8].

The decrees of the second full Baltimore Council, juridically binding for Catholics of the country, were at the same time, according to the expression of a Catholic historian, “only an expression of the universal feeling of Catholics throughout the world, that religious education is the very life and essence of the church, a necessary condition for the preservation of true faith and its development in the order of providence, for the welfare of society and the salvation of souls. Perhaps,” the historian continues, “there is no country in which these considerations have had greater importance than in the United States of America. The general intermingling of Catholics in the public and political life with those erring in every way, marital ties with sectarians, the gigantic efforts made by the state to support schools in which religion is ignored and which by the fullness of their external organization present an enticement for the poorest classes of the people, are serious obstacles with which Catholicism must contend. As a result, nothing so occupied the attention of the first bishop of Baltimore as the establishment of a Catholic institution for the religious education of youth, and his successors, with their colleagues in the episcopal office, have always shown the same solicitude”[9]. Motives for the establishment of Catholic parish schools came from the head of the Catholic world itself—the pope—and during, for instance, Archbishop Marechal’s tenure, the curia with particular insistence impressed upon him the obligation to establish such schools to counteract the efforts and influence of non-Catholic churches. Cardinal Somaglia, in his circular of August 5, 1820, pointing out the efforts of sects to lead the people into error, says: “You see therefore how earnest and active the pastors of the church must be to guard their flocks from the attacks of wolves coming to them in sheep’s clothing. If the shepherds sleep, the enemy will come, and soon tares will grow up among the wheat. Therefore it is necessary in every way to strive to remove children from these sectarian schools and to impress upon their parents their duty in this regard. The most effective means for this purpose would be the establishment of schools in which the poorest class could obtain proper instruction. Would there not be sufficient means for this? A useful lesson in this respect can be drawn from the heretics themselves; they, as we know, support their schools by a small collection from all members. Why should not Catholics do the same? We therefore exhort you and by the mercies of our Lord Jesus Christ beseech you to adopt the most effective measures possible for protecting your flock from the attacks of those who would lead it astray, and remembering the words of the apostle: ‘And there shall be false teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition,’ apply all efforts to prevent false seduction of Catholic youth”[10]. “The only means of counteracting the evil influences noted above and others leading to the same result,” according to the historian’s observation, “can be the more general establishment of parish schools, in which Catholic youth will be educated in the knowledge and observance of their religion, and more serious attention to sacred learning in our higher educational institutions, through which faith will acquire a firmer and more influential character”[11].

[1] The Catholic World, Vol. XI, р. 95.

[2] The Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 436.

[3] Ibidem, p. 443.

[4] The Christian World, February 1870; American Educational Monthly Vol. 1869 and others. See also the official reports of various school superintendents in Randall, History of the Common School System, pp. 194, 195, 308, 309 and others.

[5] Catholic World, Vol. XI, p. 94.

[6] Appendix to Darras, History of Catholic Church, Vol. IV, p. 620, 621.

[7] Murray, History of Catholic Church in U. S. p. 429.

[8] Acta et Decreta, Titulus IX, §§ 429, 435, 437, 440.

[9] Appendix to Darras, History of C. Ch, Vol. IV, p. 661.

[10] Appendix to Darras, History of Catholic Church, Vol. IV, p. 661–662.

[11] Appendix to Darras, History of C. Ch, Vol. IV, p. 662.

2. Opposition of Roman Catholicism to the Adopted System and its Foundations. The Fundamental Distinction Between the Systems of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Education According to the Catholic View. The Roman Catholic Church’s Efforts to Isolate the Catholic Population From the Influence of Protestantism. Conflict With the State and Struggle Against it. (Cont.)

Thus, both the general principle of Roman Catholicism and the council decrees and public opinion expressing it clearly define the Roman Catholic church’s view of school and education. It considers them the chief instruments through which its members can be kept within its fold and protected from the harmful influences of other faiths. As a result, it strives above all to isolate its school from any contact with Protestantism, to make it exclusively Catholic, under the direct supervision of Catholic clergy. But in achieving this goal, it inevitably encounters serious obstacles posed by the country’s constitution and general governmental provisions concerning public education. The constitution, by making religion free, thereby abstains from any support for any denomination, and governmental provisions concerning the exclusion of all sectarian differences from school thereby do not permit the possibility for Catholicism to introduce into the school its entire system, the slightest curtailment or depersonalization of which is equivalent to denial of Catholicism itself. In view of this, it has only one way out—to completely abandon the general public school maintained by the state and organize an independent system of Catholic parish schools. To this it strives; but in achieving this goal it encounters a new difficulty. The public school is in essence a compulsory institution for citizens. Having become fully a state institution, it is maintained by state funds, collected from the entire population without distinction through the levying of certain fees and direct taxes. Catholics are not exempt from these, and therefore they are involuntarily obliged to use this school. Otherwise, to maintain their own schools, they must bear a double tax—on a school which they do not use, and on a school which they alone consider beneficial. Here it is evident that the Catholic church comes into collision with the state, and this collision is provoked not only by moral but also by financial motives. The state, having undertaken the matter of public education, to maintain it levies taxes from the entire population; Catholics also bear this tax, but moral motives forbid them from using the state school. The inevitable consequence of such an order of things was the struggle of Catholicism with the state on the question of public education, and it continuously makes itself felt at all significant events in school life.

The struggle of Roman Catholicism against the adopted system of public education began almost from its very inception; but it began to assert itself with particular force from the time when the state’s tendency to make the school a state institution became fully clear. The chief goal which Catholics always set for themselves in this was to secure from the funds collected by general taxes for the public school a proportional part corresponding to the number of pupils in their own parish schools. This tendency asserted itself with particular persistence in 1840. In that year, trustees of several Roman Catholic schools in the city of New York, in connection with certain influential members of the Catholic church, submitted a petition that they be given equal participation in the distribution of public money collected by the state for educational purposes with the “Society of Public Schools,”[1] which at that time served as the chief organ of the state in matters of public education. The petitioners expressed dissatisfaction with the organization and management of that society, which “monopolizes public education and conducts it entirely independently of the wishes and views of taxpayers and without regard to the demands of conscience and religious convictions of a large part of the citizens; that although the society does not belong specially to any denomination and does not attempt openly and directly to teach the distinctive creed of any particular sect, nevertheless its schools are in practice sectarian; the books and general tone of instruction are so strongly redolent of Protestantism that nearly eight thousand children who are under the care of the petitioners and with whose secular instruction the latter wish to unite daily instruction in the principles of their own faith, cannot, by dictate of conscience, participate in the benefits offered by the society, although the petitioners and all their fellow believers bear heavy taxes for its support”[2]. The society for its part replied that it was far from monopolizing public education, gave free instruction to all comers, avoided any partisan sectarianism, and that on the contrary, by virtue of the constitution of the religious community to which the petitioners belong and whose special views they represent, the distinctive doctrine of Roman Catholicism will inevitably enter their system of instruction, coming into contradiction with the general educational system of the state[3]. A bitter dispute ensued, which passed into the press and to the church pulpit. On the side of the Catholics, a strong fighter emerged—Bishop Hughes, later archbishop of New York. The matter was brought before the Common Council, which rejected the petitioners’ claims and referred to the resolutions of 1824 and 1832, by which “the state’s school fund has a purely civil character, is intended for civil purposes, and therefore to entrust it to religious or ecclesiastical societies would be a violation of an elementary principle”[4].

Catholics naturally were not satisfied with such a decision and transferred their cause to the state legislature, repeating the same request. There, at first, fortune seemed to incline in their favor, and State Secretary Spencer in his annual report as superintendent of public schools found it possible to state the following: “At each of seven Roman Catholic churches there are free schools in which more than five thousand children are taught six hours each day. Although founded by a separate denomination, they are open to all children without distinction, and are in fact attended by children of various denominations. They are maintained at the expense of voluntary contributions from pious and charitable founders. They do not participate in the distribution of the school fund.” Meanwhile, “it would be fair that all those who directly or indirectly make contributions to this fund, and especially those who pay their share of taxes, should benefit from it.” In accordance with such reasoning, he proposed a bill whereby local authorities would have the right to distribute the fund among schools in proportion to the number of pupils attending them[5]. In the 1841 session, the question was brought before the senate. Both the petition and the responsive statements were submitted for consideration to the same Secretary Spencer, who this time presented a detailed report on the state of affairs, examining it from a general governmental perspective. This report is so important in characterizing the state’s relation to school and the religious question in it that we consider it necessary to set forth here its substantial features, concerning principally the subject under discussion.

Having defined the general state of public education, its needs and significance for the state, the author of the report says: “Some of the petitioners complain that the tendency of instruction in state schools is unfavorable, if not hostile, to those principles of faith which they hold dearer than life itself; and they declare that, by virtue of their views on religious obligation toward children, they cannot send their children to these schools. On the other hand, those who oppose any change in the present system express their concern that with the admission of free and equal participation in public funds for all schools, public funds will be indirectly, if not directly, used for the inculcation of religious teachings of every kind, and some particularly fear the possibility of spreading such teachings which they consider false and harmful. Thus the question of sectarian influences is raised from two opposite sides, with its usual complications. According to the principles of our institutions, no one has the power to determine whether the religious teachings or feelings of any class of our citizens are true or false. The Constitution and public opinion stand beyond the religious faith and confessions of all our citizens. The sole purpose which our fellow citizens can have is the education of all the republic’s children in literature, morality, and virtue. It is true that the state has undertaken only the mental education of children, and has entrusted their moral and religious education to the home hearth, places of public prayer, and those institutions which the piety of private individuals may establish for this purpose. But it is believed that in a country where the vast majority of citizens recognize the fundamental truths of Christianity, public opinion would be shocked by an attempt to exclude all religious instruction from public schools, and that any plan or system of instruction in which there was no reference to the moral principles founded on these truths would be abandoned by all. Furthermore, it is believed that such an attempt would be quite impractical. It is impossible to find books or select lessons for reading which would not contain, in greater or lesser degree, some principles of religious faith, either directly preached or indirectly admitted. Religion and literature are inseparably intertwined, and the purification of religious feeling from the works of orators, essayists, and poets would make them extremely empty of substance. Viewing the subject thus practically, in all systems of education designed for the youth of this country, it can be considered a positive axiom that it must necessarily contain a considerable share of religious instruction. The trustees of the schools of the “Society of Public Education” allow it in their schools perhaps not more than is unavoidable. Meanwhile, while they declare, and undoubtedly sincerely, their readiness to omit all that can be considered controversial, they at the same time assert, and quite correctly, that education cannot be perfect without the inculcation of moral and religious principles; and therefore they permit the reading of Holy Scripture or parts of it, and inculcate the fundamental principles of Christianity. But it cannot be understood how it is possible to teach these principles usefully without at the same time inculcating what is recognized by some denominations and denied by others. Even the reading of the text of our accepted translation of Holy Scripture is rejected by many on the basis of its presumed inaccuracy and imperfection; others meanwhile consider its use by children without explanation positively harmful. Even the moderate degree of religious instruction permitted by the “society” is inevitably sectarian, i.e., it favors one class of opinions and opposes another; and this will always be so, whatever method of instruction human wisdom could suggest. If these views are true, then such a dilemma arises: while a certain degree of religious instruction is necessary and will at all events inevitably enter into the system of education, it at the same time cannot be introduced without adopting, to a certain extent, a sectarian character and giving offense to those whose opinions will stand in contradiction to this character. But fortunately there is one way to escape this difficulty. This way will be found in a return to the fundamental principles set forth in our Constitution, by which no law can be introduced “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and by which “the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship shall forever hereafter be allowed to all mankind,” those in whose hands our government has hitherto been have found that practical effect could be given to these principles only by careful abstention from all legislation regarding those matters which are comprehended or have any bearing on religious faith, profession, or religious instruction; and in this course of action they have found such a safeguard against oppression, such a guarantee against discord and hostile intolerance and fanaticism, and such a pledge of peace and agreement, that it has constantly and under all circumstances found unanimous approval. On the basis of this principle, which may be called absolute non-interference, all apparent difficulties surrounding the subject under consideration can be removed”[6]

But in what sense is this “absolute non-interference” to be understood? In the sense of complete removal of religious instruction from school as a state institution, or in providing all sects and denominations equal participation in religious instruction? The first part of the alternative, in the secretary’s opinion, would not eliminate the difficulty. “To suppose,” he says, “that the absence of all religious instruction, even if it were achievable, could serve as a means to avoid sectarianism, is entirely mistaken. On the contrary, it would be itself sectarian, since it would accord with the views of one particular class and contradict the opinions of other classes. Such a system would favor those who reject religious beliefs and oppose all efforts to impress them upon young minds before they reach the maturity of judgment that would give them the ability to form their own opinions. But there are people who hold completely opposite views and insist on protecting youth against the influence of their own passions and contamination by vice through the planting in their souls and hearts of those elements of faith which in this class’s opinion serve as necessary foundations of moral principles. This class of people considers neutrality and indifference the most dangerous form of hostility[7]. Thus it is wrong to suppose, in the state secretary’s view, that sectarianism in school can be avoided by eliminating all religious instruction. There remains, consequently, only one way out of the difficulty—the second part of the alternative—complete and free provision to all sects and denominations of the right to teach their doctrines in schools. To accomplish this, in his opinion, is possible by providing complete self-government to individual school districts, so that the population could easily group itself according to its denominational distinctions and therefore could easily in its separate schools teach its own doctrine[8].

So the state secretary, proceeding from the Constitution’s fundamental principles in his reasoning, came in principle, if not in form, to the very conclusion that the Catholics were seeking, namely, the establishment of such an order of school affairs by which all denominations would have full opportunity to teach their doctrines in their separate schools. For Catholics, such a solution meant a complete concession to their demands, and according to its terms they could classify all their parish schools as district schools and thus make them by form public schools having a right to a proportional share of the school fund. But the “Society of Public Schools” noted the disadvantage of this conclusion and, on the basis of the Constitution itself, gave the following answer:

“In adopting a system of public education at public expense, the state intended to provide young people with such education as would make them capable of performing civil duties in this life, leaving it to their natural and ecclesiastical guides to prepare them, through paternal and spiritual instruction, for giving an account in the other world. It was necessary, and is, to have some common ground on which all children, destined to act as citizens of one and the same republic, could receive a common education. All children have a right to this common education; but the determination of its details and conditions belongs to society, not to parents. The fact that the fund was collected by taxation of all for universal education does not give the sectarian taxpayer the right to demand that a part of it be set apart for the purpose of spreading his separate sect. The tax was imposed on him as a citizen, not as a member of a church. Its purpose was exclusively civil, not to open a path to a particular place of worship. The establishment of a church (parish) school shows a sectarian purpose. It has an exclusive system and special rules in governance, is under the supervision of trustees and teachers of a particular faith, and religious agreement is a necessary condition for participation in its governance, which cannot be achieved through the civil qualification acquired by the citizen. It essentially constitutes a part of a church institution, and a member of another faith may justly feel that his privileges are equally violated, whether a tax is taken from him for the support of teachers of a strange religion on the school platform, or for the support of them on the church platform. This the state has never claimed the power to levy taxes on its people for church purposes; and if its sovereignty includes such power, then the rights of conscience require that religion of the taxpayer be entered on the tax roll and his money used to support his own church”[9].

[1] Public School Society, founded in 1805 and serving as the governmental body for public education in the State of New York until 1853, when a special Department of Public Education – Board of Education – was created. See Randall, History of the Common School in the state of New-York, 1871.

[2] Randall, History of the Common School in the state of New-York, 1871. p. 119 and 120.

[3] Randall, History, p. 121.

[4] Ibidem.

[5] Randall, р. 123 and 124.

[6] Randall, History of Common School system, p. 124, 127–130.

[7] Randall, History of Common School system, p. 131.

[8] Ibidem, р. 130.

[9] Randall, History of Common School system, p. 134.

2. Opposition of Roman Catholicism to the Adopted System and its Foundations. The Fundamental Distinction Between the Systems of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Education According to the Catholic View. The Roman Catholic Church’s Efforts to Isolate the Catholic Population From the Influence of Protestantism. Conflict With the State and Struggle Against it. (Cont.) (2)

The dispute was finally decided by law of April 11, 1842, in which the paragraph concerning the religious question itself was formulated thus: “No school shall have a right to receive a portion of the school fund if there are taught, inculcated, or professed in it religious doctrines or teachings of any separate Christian or other religious sect, or if there are used books containing writings favorable or hostile to the separate doctrines or teachings of any Christian or other religious sect. But nothing contained in this provision shall empower the ‘Department of Education’ to exclude Holy Scripture, without notes or interpretations, or selections from it, from any of the schools coming under this provision”[1].

The effect of this law preserves its full force to the present time. But it evidently did not resolve the disputed question, but only, so to speak, skirted it, and naturally did not satisfy the chief disputing party—the Roman Catholics. The dispute has not ceased from that time until the present, only weakening occasionally only to flare up again with new force. Catholics constantly sought occasions to begin agitation against the system of school education. Thus in 1853, a Roman Catholic pastor, Keigley, brought a complaint to the school superintendent in which he says that in many public schools the religion and faith of Catholic children are offended by forcing them to participate in prayers and to read and memorize parts of the Bible translation which the Catholic church does not recognize; that once a female teacher ordered one of her students, a twelve-year-old boy, to read and study the “Protestant Testament,” and when he declined to obey such an order, based on his reluctance to violate the commands of his parents and the rules of his religion, she severely punished him and shamefully expelled him from school[2]. This complaint naturally led to new debates and new discussions of the question concerning a way out of the difficulty, but again without success.

To show the state of the disputed question at present, it suffices to cite several excerpts from Catholic journals that tirelessly agitate against the school system they abhor. “All education,” in the opinion of Catholics, “should be religious and intended to educate the child for an eternal purpose”[3]; therefore “secular education, in order to achieve its purpose, must be inseparable from and, so to speak, intermixed with religious instruction, so that the student, as his mental capacities develop with years, could be gradually but firmly led to knowledge of those divine truths which the church teaches its children, and so that his character would thus be internally formed on a true Christian foundation”[4]. Granting that “religion is an essential element in education, we come to the question: to whom belongs the right to teach it? Certainly not to the state, because according to our theory of government, the state knows no religion, and in no way can have claims to apostolic power to preach and teach the Gospel to peoples. This power is far higher than all existing governments. That the state is or should be religious in the character and conduct of its actions cannot be denied; but it must borrow this character from the teaching of the church and its individual members, and this does not give it the right to prescribe to the church what it should teach or allow to be taught, because the power of the church to teach comes from God, and the power of the state from man”[5]. “We consider education to be a function of the church, not of the state, and therefore we do not accept and will not accept the state as an educator”[6]. Meanwhile, according to the existing system, education is taken by the state as its own function, and moreover the state already intrudes completely into a domain not belonging to it, prescribing a certain system of religious instruction in the form of Bible reading, sacred hymns, and religious exercises. If the very idea of an educating state contradicts Catholic views, then the religion prescribed to them in school is, in their view, direct blasphemy and violation of their rights of conscience. “In the Declaration of Independence it is clearly designated among the inalienable rights of man—his life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A child is my highest happiness and I must have the freedom to educate him as my conception of happiness requires. What value has freedom for me when I am forced to send my child to a public school where he will hear the reading of the Bible, which I, in the best sense, consider to be a corrupted and mistaken copy of Holy Scripture, and will be obliged to repeat prayers and hymns which—alas—are often nothing but blasphemy against the Name of Him Who died on the cross for the redemption of mankind”?[7]. But even the exclusion of the Bible translation not recognized by Catholics would not at all have satisfied them. “The exclusion of the Bible would not help the matter. It would only make the schools purely secular, which would be worse than making them Protestant, because in regard to the state, society, morality, all interests of this world, we consider Protestantism better than the absence of all religion. The question lies deeper than the reading or not reading of the Bible in schools, in this translation or another. Of course, our church does not approve the Protestant translation of the Bible as an incorrect translation of a corrupted text; but its exclusion from public schools in no way would eliminate our objection to them”[8]. Although in principle we decidedly oppose the reading of the Bible in our public schools, our main objection is directed against the schools themselves[9]. Summing up their objections against the existing system of public schools, the leading Roman Catholic journal formulates them in the following propositions: “1) all education should be founded and conducted on true religious principles; 2) the state has no right to teach religion in its schools; 3) state or public schools without religion would be godless; 4) as such, they are incapable of developing the character of our children or teaching them morality in accordance with the Christian principle; 5) striving to avoid what is called sectarianism, they undermine even the aims of merely secular education”[10].

It is thus clear that Catholics rise up not only against the system or program of public education as it is now established, but rise up against the very principle of state education, considering the latter to be a matter of the church rather than the state. State education they consider not only as not achieving the goals of education, but as directly hostile to that goal—as far as Catholics are concerned. It naturally follows now to ask: does this opposition of Catholics to the public school in its present form have a real foundation, or is it only a manifestation of the usual policy of Roman Catholicism by which it always and everywhere struggles with the state for predominance and power in different spheres of public and political life? In the subject we are discussing, these two motives do not exclude each other; rather they so closely converge that the difference between them is determined more by time than by essence. They serve one for the other; the first provides more or less justificatory material for agitation, while the second, using this material, acts in favor of the fundamental Roman Catholic principle—predominance in the state.

[1] Randall, History of Common School system, p. 138.

[2] Randall, p. 307.

[3] Catholic World, Vol. XI, 95.

[4] Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 435 and 436.

[5] Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 437; Vol. XVI, p. 732 et seq.

[6] The New York Tablet, Dec. 25, 1869.

[7] Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 438

[8] Catholic World, Vol. XI, 94.

[9] Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 442

[10] Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 443 and 444.

3. Difficulty of Applying in School Practice the Principle of Religious Equality. The Protestant Character of the State School. The Inevitability of Such a Fact. The Disadvantageous Position of Catholics and Their Efforts to Escape From It

The system of public education now adopted by the state is doubtless unfavorable, or even harmful, to Roman Catholicism. In establishing it, the state aimed at implementing the basic principle of the federal constitution in the realm of public education—the non-interference of the state in matters of religion, the separation of church and state. Recognizing the school as a public or state institution, it intended to make it an instrument of purely state purposes, without any relation to religion. Yet this goal proved unattainable in practice. First, by the very nature of education and instruction, it proved impossible to completely isolate it from religion, since the latter, as the theoretical foundation of all morality, necessarily constitutes one of the most important elements of education, which aims at implanting and developing moral principles in a person. But even granting religion as a necessary element in the system of education, the state encountered another difficulty, which appeared in the form of the diversity of churches, confessions, and sects. The preference for any one of them would have been a violation of the rights of the others and would have contradicted the Constitution. Therefore the state resolved to find a way out of this difficulty—by recognizing, even for the schools, an impersonal, common religion composed by abstracting from all confessions and churches their particular characteristics, while retaining the essence common to all of Christianity, what is called “Common Christianity.” This religion, in a confessional sense, does not constitute any single confession; it belongs to none of the existing churches and sects; it is an invention of the state itself and therefore can rightfully be called a state religion. As such, it is naturally designed to satisfy equally all the churches, confessions, and sects into which the population is divided. In introducing it, the state did not intend to give any advantage to a single denomination at the expense of others; on the contrary, by so doing it sought to place all of them on an equal level of rights and privileges, to avoid any appearance of privilege of one confession over another, to realize the basic principle of the Constitution requiring equal and free worship for all churches and sects. However, the goal proved unattainable; the state religion could not satisfy everyone, did not guarantee full freedom of worship for all citizens equally, and instead proved favorable to some and harmful to others. This depended on the internal structure of the state itself. If the state consisted of diverse churches, sects, and confessions differing from one another only in particulars of religious doctrine, then a state religion in the form of “Common Christianity” could not have provoked serious objections. But this division runs deeper, and with respect to Catholicism and Protestantism it touches the very internal principle of their life, to the point of mutual exclusion. Therefore they could not meet on any common ground, however abstract and free from particular differences. Because of this, it was impossible to satisfy both by accepting a single common basis for them, and the state necessarily, in adopting its religion, if it did not contradict both, had to favor one or the other, thus coming into contradiction with the rights of the other. So which side did the state take? It took, and could not help but take, the side of Protestantism. A republican state, as the product and expression of the people’s will, necessarily reflects, in all spheres of its life and activity, the principle of the majority that dominates it and is inevitably permeated by it. In this case the majority proves to be Protestantism in its various forms, since the Protestant population constitutes at least six sevenths of the country’s population. And indeed, the Protestant character makes itself felt throughout the entire system of public education, from its general principle to minor details.

Protestantism declares itself in the general principle already in the fact that the school adopted by the state is a secularized school—that is, a school in which education is divorced from an organic connection with religion. This approach to public education does not contradict Protestantism; on the contrary it is the logical consequence of its essential nature as a religion of “faith” separated from “works.” Meanwhile, Roman Catholicism holds to the opposite principle, by which there must be an organic connection between religion and life, between church and school, between faith and works, and therefore a secularized school is an impossibility for Catholicism, standing in contradiction to its primary principle. By adopting a system consonant with the principles of Protestantism and contradicting the views of Catholicism, the state thereby took the side of the former, to the disadvantage of the latter. The school, in this way, proves to be Protestant in principle and consequently hostile to Roman Catholicism. It is Protestant also in the measure of the religious element introduced into the secularized school. That “Common Christianity” which the state adopted as its state religion is doubtless possible only from a Protestant point of view and is in essence a Protestant religion, although abstracted from its various forms. For Roman Catholicism such “Common Christianity” is unthinkable; it recognizes only that Christianity which is embodied in an unchanging, strict, historically developed and strengthened form, outside of which every form, for it, is a deviation from the one true form, is Protestantism and thereby a denial of Catholicism. The particular forms in which this “Common Christianity” is introduced into the school inevitably bear a Protestant character. According to the Massachusetts statute of 1826, adopted in most states, the religious element enters the school in the form of “the Bible, prayers, hymns, and piety”[1]. This is obviously a very vague definition, and in this connection the Roman Catholic press could rightly pose such questions: “What does this mean? Will your children be instructed in religion according to the parliamentary doctrine of the Anglican church, or taught in the complete absurdity of Calvin’s followers? Will they be obliged to deny the divinity of Christ with the Unitarians, and the eternity of punishment with the Universalists? Surely children are not given to us so that we subject them every day to instruction in the wanderings of Methodism, Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, Muggletonianisim, Mormonism, or any of thousands of ‘-isms’ born from that fertile mother of discord, the so-celebrated and notorious reformation? Or must we teach them one part from each of them in turn, depending on which teachers the political upheaval brings to the fore? The idea itself is obviously absurd”[2]. Yet in public schools precisely such an order can exist. The Bible accepted in them is only such a one as Catholics consider corrupted and spurious[3], and the hymns sung are such as, in Catholics’ view, constitute only “blasphemy” against the divine persons[2]. In school it is permitted for Catholic children to use the translation of the Bible recognized by them, the Douay; but the choice of one translation or another is determined primarily by the composition of the teachers, and these, being appointed by the votes of trustees and superintendents elected by the people, are naturally mostly Protestant, and therefore most likely use the commonly accepted Protestant translation. Besides, the use of the Catholic translation of the Bible, given the predominant number of Protestant children, would be an injustice to the latter. Moreover, in schools for reasons of economy there is adopted a Bible which in the view of Catholics is even worse than the rejected King James version, namely a “translation (as a Catholic author says) concocted by a Bible society. The Lord’s Prayer itself in this so-called Bible, in the opinion of all scholars, is false; and if false, as all American translators recognize, then it is blasphemous, and yet in a sectarian spirit of proselytism they forcibly introduce it into schools”[4]. The proselytism of such an arrangement of school affairs is not merely a product of Catholic imagination; it is acknowledged by the Protestants themselves. “We cannot expect the conversion of parents,” says a Protestant pastor; “but between two millstones—the Bible and public laws—we will grind Catholicism out of their children”[5]. Protestantism makes itself felt not only in the Bible adopted and in the arrangement of religious instruction in schools, but also in the secular textbooks themselves. “Veiled mockery of Catholicism,” writes a historian-publicist, “appears in some of them even now. A Catholic child would search in vain even in the best of them for so much as one praiseworthy word about the great ancient church of his fathers, or his glorious faith. We know one cultured young Catholic, educated in public schools, who was long convinced that Catholics had never written anything worth entering into school anthologies. And one could not expect him to have a better opinion”[6]. All these facts do not go beyond the realm of possibility and constitute an inevitable result of the numerical superiority of Protestants both among pupils and among teachers. The collision between Protestantism and Catholicism, as between two opposite principles, is inevitable even in the purely scholarly sphere, and in this collision any reconciliation necessarily works to the advantage of Protestantism, if it is only impossible to eliminate the subject of dispute itself. And its elimination is often completely impossible without harm to science itself. Doubtless, the collision between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism can be strongest in the field of history as a science, whose recent facts consist for the most part of the struggle between these two faiths. “As regards history,” the Roman Catholic press justly declares, “even with the greatest care it is impossible to reproduce it without constantly touching on disputed events and personages, regarding whom Protestants and Catholics can never agree with one another. Can one imagine a history of modern Europe from which were omitted the great facts of the civilizing mission of the Church in the Old World, the establishment of the secular power of the popes, the ‘Peace of God’ and the crusades of the Middle Ages, the great uprising against spiritual power, erroneously called the reformation, the criminal persecution of Irish Catholics, and the French Revolution? At best such a book would be a miserable compilation of numbers and distorted facts, and yet any exposition of these great epochs in European history, for all possible accuracy, would inevitably be an affront to the opinions or prejudices of Protestants or Catholics. If history is ‘philosophy teaching by example,’ then we must seek it somewhere else, not in our public schools”[7]. It was impossible, of course, to avoid these facts in history textbooks, and they are included in them, and their exposition could not appear in any form other than that acknowledged by Catholics, and consequently they inevitably appear with a Protestant tint, or at least in the view of Catholics, for whom all non-Catholic is thereby Protestant. Finally, there were cases when Catholic children found themselves in collision even with school discipline, owing to its Protestant character. Among Catholics there are holidays which Protestants do not recognize and which therefore were not taken into account by the school program, and in such cases Catholic children are placed in a difficult position between two opposite demands—those of the church and the school. “A case that occurred in Vermont,” says a Catholic author, “proves that in some places Catholic children cannot attend public schools and at the same time fulfill the requirements of their religion. For daring to attend Mass on the feast of Corpus Christi in 1875, they were expelled from public schools in Brattleboro. The case was taken to court. But the law(?) upheld the side of the fanatical education department. From this it is clear that a child must cease to be a practicing Catholic, otherwise it will be expelled from public schools”[8]. In general the entire system of public education is hostile to the spirit of Roman Catholicism. “On the basis of the oldest and best Catholic testimony one can say with confidence that with few honorable exceptions, Catholics educated in mixed schools may be respectable and honest people according to the Protestant sense of this word; but as practical, religious, scrupulous observers of the rules of their church they are not. They are Catholics in name, Protestants or half-pagans in reality”[9].

Thus the opposition of Catholics to the present system of public education has real foundations. The school system, contrary to the Constitution of the country, which assures all confessions equal, identical rights of religious conscience, proved, by the operation of the inevitable laws of the rule of the stronger, to be Protestant in all its parts, and as such is doubtless harmful to Roman Catholicism. And yet it exists, and the state, in levying taxes for its support, does not exclude Catholics, thereby laying upon them an indirect obligation to make use of a school which they do not recognize.

“The system of public schools in the United States,” says a Catholic author, “in its present form excludes religion from the school; or if it admits any at all, its influence is in any case hostile to the Catholic faith. In consequence of this Catholics must, with great sacrifices, build and maintain their own schools. But they are also forced to support public schools. They are placed between two evils: 1) if they send their children to public schools, it means exposing their faith to danger; that the atmosphere of the public school paralyzes the love of a Catholic child for the religion of his fathers has never been refuted; 2) if, on the other hand, they build their own Catholic schools, it means subjecting themselves to a double tax. In this respect the Catholic element suffers a glaring injustice. It bears a tax for the support of institutions whose use is forbidden by conscience”[10].

It is understandable that Catholics strive to escape this difficult situation, and the prolonged agitation of the Catholic press against the existing system is an expression of these efforts. The goal of their agitation is to achieve such an arrangement by which Catholics could make use of public schools without violating the requirements of their conscience. They seek to ensure that “the fund of public schools would be distributed between Catholics and Protestants on such a fair basis that each religious organization could have its own school and conduct religious instruction according to its own method”[11]. “Allocate,” says a Catholic newspaper, “from public funds for the support of Catholic schools a sum proportionate to the number of children studying in them, and entrust the selection of teachers, instruction, discipline, and all internal management to the Catholic educational authorities, and then you can, in all other respects, in all reasonable matters, leave them as they are, under public control and management, under the supervision of public committees, trustees, superintendents, if you wish”[12].

[1] “The Bible, prayers, hymns and piety.” Catholic World, Vol. XIV, pp. 434 and 438.

[2] Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 438.

[3] Murray, History of Catholic Church in U.S. p. 434. Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 442.

[4] Murray, History of Catholic Church in U. S. 6 Ed. 1879, p. 439. Shea, in “American Catholic Q. Review” 1876, January.

[5] Murray, History, p. 434.

[6] Murray, History, p. 433.

[7] Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 443.

[8] Murray, History, р. 434.

[9] Ibidem, р. 433.

[10] Murray, History, р. 433. To bring out the injustice of the state toward Catholics more vividly, the author offers the following calculation: “Suppose that in a given city one-fifth of the taxes collected goes to maintain the school fund. Let N be a Catholic householder. His children are educated at a parish school. But on the nearest corner stands a public school. N bears a tax of 30 dollars. Of these, six dollars go to the support of the public school, from which neither N nor his family derive any benefit. Suppose that in this city there are 25,000 Catholic householders who send their children to Catholic schools, and on average each bears a tax of only 30 dollars. In one year they thus contribute 150,000 dollars to the maintenance of a school system that is completely useless to them. In other words, they are legally robbed of 150,000 dollars. If these monies went to the support of Catholic schools, there would be no cause for complaint.” Ibidem рр. 433 and 434.

[11] North American Review, Jan. 1876; article “Education in America 1776–1876” p. 208 and others.

[12] New-York Tablet, 1869, Nov. 27.

3. Difficulty of Applying in School Practice the Principle of Religious Equality. The Protestant Character of the State School. The Inevitability of Such a Fact. The Disadvantageous Position of Catholics and Their Efforts to Escape From it. (Cont.)

However persistent such demands were, however much the Catholic press agitated for them, not overlooking a single opportunity to use as a pretext for agitation, Catholics have not achieved their goal even now, and as fifty years ago it remains for them merely a pious desire. All their attempts to achieve their wish on legal grounds invariably failed. Their cries about the oppression of Catholic conscience were in vain, their bitter reproaches to the free state, which contrary to the Constitution supported one confession—Protestant—and oppressed the other—Catholic. All was in vain. The state was either deaf to all demands from Catholics or directly refused to satisfy them. Then Catholics began to seek another way out of the difficulty. Having no hope of achieving their goal by legal means, at least in the near future, they found roundabout ways to the same goal, and these proved more accessible to them. The history of these roundabout attempts presents already a different aspect of the policy of Roman Catholicism—its aggressive movement against Protestantism and the Protestant state.

Besides the realm of public education there necessarily exists in the state another related realm—that of charitable activity. But if education already stands in close relation to religion and their separation is caused only by the necessary conditions of public organization, then charitable activity is by its very nature completely inseparable from the church. And indeed, in this respect the state has renounced all claims and has entrusted charitable activity to private societies, chiefly religious ones. Considering, however, this activity to be of great public importance, the state could not refuse to help them and therefore makes annual monetary subsidies to charitable societies. Catholics hastened to take advantage of this arrangement of affairs for their main goal. Among the various charitable institutions they established orphan asylums in which homeless orphans are gathered for residence and care. By their very character these institutions are not merely charitable but also educational—they represent something in the nature of charitable schools. Taking advantage of their charitable character, Catholics presented a demand to the state for a subsidy for the maintenance of these orphan asylums, and indeed succeeded in achieving, by an ordinance of 1825, the recognition of orphan asylums as having the right to a certain portion of the public school fund[1]. Since instruction in these asylums was conducted exclusively by Catholics and all these institutions were generally under the direction of the Roman Catholic Church and under the guidance of Roman Catholic Sisters of Mercy, it is clear that the Catholics’ maneuver was entirely successful—they achieved their goal, obtaining the right to a share of public funds for their special, exclusively Roman Catholic schools. This success encouraged Catholics so much that in 1840 they submitted a petition demanding the allocation to them from the public fund of sums for all their Catholic schools, even those having no charitable character. Although the petition, as we have seen above, was rejected, this did not discourage the Catholics. In 1853 they repeated the petition with such persistence that they succeeded in expanding their claims on the public fund, especially in the city of New York itself. From 1860 onwards regular subsidies began to be issued for the maintenance of Roman Catholic orphan asylums, the name of which Catholics managed to extend to some simple schools as well, and the amount of these subsidies grew in rapid progression. In 1861 Catholics received $18,791; in 1863 $78,000; in 1868 $124,424[2]; from 1869 to 1871 about $2,000,000, and from 1872 to 1876 $300,000 per year[3]. In a tax bill for the city presented to the legislative assembly of 1869 there was included such a paragraph: “Annually a sum equal to 20 percent of the entire income received in the city by an officer specially appointed by the Department of Public Education in said city shall be allocated for the maintenance of schools which provide free instruction to children in said city.” Under the meaning of this paragraph, the city treasury was to allocate annually $250,000 for the support of parish schools; and since 4/5 of them belonged to Catholics, it is clear that this paragraph, in its somewhat ambiguous form, legalized exactly what Catholics were seeking. The paragraph passed in that session of the legislative assembly, and Catholics exulted. But as soon as the true meaning of the paragraph became apparent, a terrible storm was raised against it; in the next session a petition was presented for the annulment of the paragraph bearing the signatures of 100,000 voters, and indeed on April 24, 1870 the Catholic paragraph was annulled[4].

In some states, owing to the balance of forces between Protestants and Catholics, the question of religious instruction did not receive a categorical solution. Catholics did not fail to use this for their own purpose. According to the statute of Connecticut neither reading of the Bible and prayers in schools nor other religious exercises are required or forbidden. All this is left to be determined by the visitors of the school or the population of various towns and school districts. Such an arrangement proved favorable to Catholics and they quickly managed to extract all possible advantages from it, taking under their control several schools even in the state capital of New Haven. The capture was carried out in a perfectly legal manner outwardly—through elections which gave them a majority in the “Board of Education.” With their members on this board, Catholics could naturally freely dispose of public funds for their schools, and now some schools maintained at public expense have a purely Catholic character. Thus the public school called “Hamilton,” is entirely in the hands of Catholics: all the teachers in it are Roman Catholic Sisters of Mercy and are, together with all the pupils, under the spiritual direction and control of the Roman Catholic bishop, who acts through the pastor of the church within whose boundaries the school is located, and, taking advantage of the opportunity to introduce religious instruction into the school outside the usual class hours, directs it in an exclusively Catholic spirit[5]. In a similar manner public funds have been applied to Roman Catholic schools in many other places. In the city of New Britain in the same state, a Roman Catholic school was accepted by the entire city in 1862 and has since been known as the “City School.” It is maintained at city expense, to which it receives more than $3,000 annually, and yet remains an exclusively Catholic school. It has one teacher and six teachers—all Roman Catholics, selected by Roman Catholic authorities[6]. Thus, gradually, Catholics not only managed to evade in many places the private law forbidding the use of public funds for the support of denominational schools, but also the general provision of the Constitution by which religion and its institutions are placed outside the jurisdiction of the state. They not only appropriated for themselves the right to public funds for maintaining their schools, but also managed to make their exclusively Catholic schools public schools, thereby making their confession, in a sense, the dominant and state religion, replacing the “Common Christianity” by means of which the state supposed to avoid religious difficulty.

The means by which Catholics achieve their goals have every appearance of being perfectly legal. They consist, as is already evident from the examples given, in Catholics striving first and foremost to fill public offices supervising schools with their own members, and through these officials they easily gain control of the schools. This was revealed with particular clarity in recent times in New York. The Roman Catholic element in this city is very strong. Politically the city belongs to the Democratic party, which consists predominantly of Irish, loyal Catholics. The leader of the most powerful “faction” of the Democratic party in the city (Tammany Hall), John Kelly, a devout Catholic (a relation by marriage to Cardinal McClokey), and in administrative respects until recently he was the real dictator, controlling the entire administration of the city. Already through his influence Roman Catholicism was able to make its strength felt in the city, but this strength could only manifest itself through unofficial channels, was a public, not a governmental force. And society, long viewing with horror the developing omnipotence of Roman Catholicism, could console and reassure itself only by the fact that the official head of the city—the mayor—was not a Catholic, and zealously watched to ensure that Catholicism did not seize this supreme office in the national metropolis. At the slightest movement of Catholics toward occupying the office of mayor, the press usually raised terrible alarm, threatening the city with all sorts of horrors being prepared by Catholics.

In November 1880 there were elections for a new city mayor, and the Democratic leader nominated as a candidate for this office Grace, an avowed and devoted Catholic. As soon as the news of such a nomination spread, the press raised desperate alarm, and from Protestant church pulpits preachers thundered with one voice against Catholicism, which allegedly sought the “head of the republic” for beheading, in order to surrender the country to the power of the pope. In vain did Grace assure that he would never bring religion into politics and would faithfully fulfill republican laws; his assurances were futile, and at massive rallies orators one after another predicted the ruin of republican institutions as soon as the mayoralty would be in the hands of Catholics. The main concerns were expressed about the existing system of public education, which politicians consider the best guarantee for the preservation and prosperity of the republic and against which Catholics agitate most of all. To calm public opinion, the candidate addressed the public with a special letter regarding his future policy concerning schools, in which among other things it was stated: “If elected, my goal will be to preserve the system of public schools in its complete integrity, a system so long established and which the American people regard with such pride. In all appointments which I will have to make in connection with school administration, I will not fail to give full and proper recognition to the prevailing American feeling in this matter. I believe that public schools, founded by the people and held by them as their richest heritage, should be preserved without any violation, and I will work for generous appropriations for their support”[7]. This letter was designed to calm the aroused public opinion, but given the inflamed passions it could not achieve its purpose. At a large anti-Catholic rally one of the speakers responded to this letter as follows: “Grace says in his letter that he will maintain the system of public education in New York in its integrity. But examine the letter carefully; how artfully it is written. Does it not show the work worthy of Talleyrand or a Jesuit? Is there anything in it that can be understood as opposing the use of public funds for sectarian purposes? Not at all. In that case the matter is decided by a general principle: Grace is a Roman Catholic. He either is a good Catholic or not. If he is a good Roman Catholic, then he is subject to the commands of his spiritual and church superior—the Pope, whose commands are expressed through cardinals, bishops, priests, and down to the confessor. This supreme high priest is the sworn enemy of all governments and systems of education not under the control of the Roman Church. He said that any system of education outside church control is godless—I quote his own words from his encyclical letter. Thus, if Grace is a good Catholic, he must, insofar as depends on him, bring the city’s school system into conformity with the Pope’s commands. If he is a good Catholic, he will be obliged to act in this manner, because the Catholic Church demands of a person obedience first to the Church and then to his state. And if he is not a good Catholic, then he is unworthy to be mayor of New York”[8].

Despite all its vehemence, the anti-Catholic party did not hold out, and Grace was elected mayor of New York. How justified the fears concerning the bad consequences of this election for the existing school system are, one cannot say positively even now. One can only say with confidence that Catholics will not fail to extract all possible advantages in favor of the realization of their views on education from their temporary position as the dominant party in the state’s metropolis[9].

[1] Randall, History of the Common School System in the state of New-York, p. 75–77.

[2] Barnum, Romanism as it is, p. 595.

[3] N. Y. Herald, 29 November, 1880.

[4] Barnum, Romanism p. 596.

[5] Barnum, Romanism as it is, pp. 601–603.

[6] Barnum, р. 603–640.

[7] Both the letter and the entire history of the agitation are taken from newspapers of the second half of October 1880, chiefly from Herald, Times, World and others.

[8] The N. Y. Herald, Oct. 20, 1880.

[9] Signs of this have already begun to appear. In January of the current year elections took place in New York for various positions in the Department of Public Education, and at them the political dominance of Roman Catholics was clearly evident. See letter in N. Y. Times, Jan. 11, 1881.

4. The System of Specifically Catholic Schools. Elementary Schools and Colleges. The Activity of Male and Female Monastic Orders. The Catholic School as an Anti-Protestant Agency. Female Academies and the Protestant Element in Them. General Dissatisfaction With Secularized Schools and the Preference for Private Schools. Peculiarities of the Latter. Female Education

While fighting against the dominant system of public schools, Catholics at the same time zealously support their specifically Catholic schools, and these latter present a coherent system of Catholic education, from parish elementary schools to higher colleges. This system, standing in opposition to the adopted system of state education, represents the complete realization of those principles for which Catholics contend, and therefore its exposition can best show what kind of school Catholics desire.

As we have said above, concern about the establishment of parish Catholic schools was shown even by the first bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. But lacking both means and teachers, this work could not quickly take root in new soil. Only when a great emigration to America of various monastic orders began could school education hope for successful conduct. Female orders appeared first in the field of elementary education—the Ursulines, Sisters of Charity, and Visitationists. They were followed by new laborers—the Sisters of Mercy, Brothers of Christian Schools and other orders, and all devoted themselves earnestly to school work. At present, besides secular teachers, school instruction in Catholic schools is carried on by seven male monastic orders and thirty-six female ones. Under their direction and guidance are 2,389 schools with 423,383 pupils[1].

By their internal character Catholic parish schools naturally fully correspond to the strict Catholic view of education. All of them are under the direct direction of some monastic order, and the teachers themselves are for the most part members of various orders. Instruction consists of the usual course of elementary sciences, with the essential difference from ordinary public schools that in them religious instruction—in the form of catechism or Religious Education—is an obligatory daily element. Before the beginning of lessons the teacher reads a prayer, and all pupils listen to it on bended knees. Prayer also concludes the instruction. The walls of the school are usually decorated with icons, crucifixes, and various moral sayings such as: “We must write without wasting time”; “we must not come late or stay away without permission”; “we must listen carefully to catechism”; “we must pray to God with reverence in church and school,” and so on. Whenever the hour strikes, a short prayer is read, with pupils calmly remaining at their places. Every half hour one of the pupils, appointed beforehand, speaks aloud: “Let us remember that we are in the sacred presence of God.” Instruction stops for a moment and then begins again[2]. Thus the religious element is interwoven throughout the course of instruction and constitutes its most essential part. “Children,” says a Catholic author, “learn to keep God in their souls all the days of their lives. This is what the Catholic Church calls true education. Religion and science live together in heavenly harmony, and the young mind sees no conflict between them, because there cannot be one. The child respects the one, loves the other. He knows that both come from God”[3].

Parish schools provide only primary instruction; in them children only enter the realm of knowledge, and if they were limited to this alone, the Catholic system of schools could not achieve its goal. If, upon entering higher education in other non-Catholic schools, children would necessarily submit their initial Catholic impressions to higher non-Catholic principles. Therefore, for the full realization of the principles of Catholic education, higher schools of a purely Catholic character were also necessary, where initial Catholic education would be completed and reinforced by higher Catholic education as well. And indeed, Catholics have long been concerned with establishing higher Catholic colleges which could equal non-Catholic colleges. At present there exist in the United States seventy-nine (79) Catholic colleges and 28 seminaries with the right to confer academic degrees[4]. In these lies the main strength of Catholicism. From them emerge the most devoted Catholics, champions of their church’s dominion. A description of the external and internal organization of these higher schools gives an idea of higher Catholic education.

Like parish schools, colleges are under the direction of various monastic orders. But if the former, in its organizational simplicity, could be entrusted chiefly to female orders, the latter, by the very importance of its task, required for its direction more powerful and experienced hands. Male orders took them up, and especially the Jesuits, to whom the majority of the present-day Catholic colleges owe their existence. The Order of Loyola, both in Europe and in America, devoted itself to the work of higher Catholic education, and its members everywhere founded Catholic colleges. Upon their arrival in Quebec, they established the first college on the soil of the New World in 1635, two years before the founding of the oldest Protestant college in the country, the so-called Harvard College[5]. This was in French possessions. In the English colonies there were at first strict ordinances against Jesuits, and therefore they had no possibility of founding colleges among English colonists. But at the first opportunity they did not fail to realize their plan. In 1685 three Jesuits appeared in New York and established a college. However, the Catholic element in the city was too weak to maintain a college, and it soon closed. Nevertheless, even during its brief existence, signs of the possibility of future success appeared. The college was the best educational institution in the city, and representatives of the administration sent their children to it[6]. The oldest of the existing colleges, in Georgetown, was established in 1789 by the first Catholic bishop in the United States, the Jesuit John Carroll[7]. In 1809 the Jesuits attempted to reopen a college in New York, and this time with great success. This college soon acquired such fame even among Protestants that Governor Tompkins, later Vice-President of the United States, considered it the best for educating his own children, and afterward always entertained the greatest respect for its rector[8]. Then followed a series of other colleges and seminaries—up to the present time. Now the Jesuits have fourteen colleges under their direction[9].

By their internal organization Catholic colleges present secular educational institutions; something between secondary schools and universities. They are divided into faculties in which specialized groups of sciences are studied. Thus, the college in Georgetown has departments of literature, medicine, and law. It has various scientific facilities for this: an astronomical observatory, a botanical conservatory, rich mineralogical and geological cabinets, and a library of 30,000 volumes. Students have a monthly journal, the “College Journal.” Professors and rector are all members of the Jesuit order[10]. Other Catholic colleges have a similar character, such as the New York College of St. John. The education in them, up to the highest level, is permeated with a strict Catholic spirit, with an almost monastic discipline[11]. Despite the preponderance of secular sciences, education is directed in a strictly religious spirit and many graduates of these colleges subsequently take holy orders[12]. Colleges enjoy great popularity among Protestants and often the most prominent representatives of the highest governmental spheres send their children to them.

In educating the male generation in its spirit, Roman Catholicism achieves only half its goal. Male colleges give it devoted fighters and defenders, literary and religious figures. But it also needs a conservative force, a more general and enduring element, from which these figures could naturally emerge. Such an element can be served by the female generation. Upon the direction given to women as mothers depends the entire character of the intellectual, moral, and religious worldview of future generations. Therefore Catholicism applies the most serious efforts to the education of the female youth in its spirit, and in this respect it achieves very important results.

Catholics began to show concern for establishing female educational institutions already in the last century, and the most zealous workers in this field were female monastic orders. At the end of the last century the Poor Clares, during their brief stay in America, opened a female school in Georgetown, which, after passing into the hands of the Visitationists, soon flourished and came to be called an academy (1799). Even earlier the Ursulines had founded a female academy in New Orleans, Louisiana, then still belonging to France. When this territory was purchased by the United States in 1803, the Ursuline academy had 170 pupils under its care. But the true epoch of female Catholic education begins with the present century, when female teaching orders began one after another to arrive at the shores of the New World and, upon first settling, established female schools. In 1809 a female academy was opened in Emmitsburg by “Mother Seton,” who had converted to Catholicism; three years later the Lorettos appeared in the field of female education; in 1818 the Ursulines penetrated into the very heart of Puritanism and founded a convent with a school in Boston; in the same year the “Ladies of the Sacred Heart” began their work in educating the female youth of the South, chiefly in the states of Missouri and Louisiana. In 1836 the “Sisters of Saint Joseph” arrived at the shores of the New World, and under their direction female academies flourished in various places. In 1840 the “Sisters of Our Lady” established a female educational institution in Ohio. In the following year the “Sisters of the Holy Cross” and the “Sisters of Providence” began their work in Catholic education in the state of Indiana; in 1847 the “Teaching Sisters of Our Lady” established their first academy in Milwaukee. Between 1840 and 1850 the “Ladies of the Sacred Heart” and the “Sisters of Charity” opened several institutions in New York and other cities, and soon after them came the “Sisters of Mercy”[13]. At present there are counted in the United States five hundred and eleven (511) Catholic female academies, or schools having a secondary school curriculum[1]. “We can point with pride and full confidence to our academies for higher female education, abounding in all parts of the United States,” complacently exclaims Bishop Becker[14].

By their internal character all these so-called “academies” are ordinary convent schools, representing something in the nature of boarding schools maintained by Catholic sisters. The education given in them might be called secondary, although in many of them there are also preparatory classes for beginning girls. The course of education encompasses both classical and real sciences, with special attention to applied sciences in the area of everyday women’s housekeeping. Many of the academies have natural history museums and astronomical equipment[15]. The entire course of instruction naturally has a strictly religious character, and all discipline bears the spirit of a monastic regime. In announcements about accepting pupils into academies it is invariably stated that the instruction is Christian in character. “Parents and guardians,” declares the Mother Superior of Mount Agnes Academy, “can be assured that the sisters, under whose direction this institution is placed, consider themselves obliged to justify the confidence shown them in entrusting pupils to their care, by providing Christian and virtuous education, paying careful attention to their intellectual development, the development of the refined manners necessary for society, and surrounding them with such care in physical matters as they could have only under a parental roof”[16]. “The discipline of the school,” declares the Mother Superior of St. Peter’s Academy in Rome (New York State), “is gentle but firm, founded on those Christian principles of divine benevolence which are the sources of all true refinement and which alone guarantee happiness for pupils in the future. Pupils of all confessions are admitted, care being taken to avoid any interference with their religious convictions”[17]. “Parents may be assured,” announces the Mother Superior of the Academy of the Immaculate Conception, “that their charges will be surrounded with every attention compatible with a gentle but firm government, and that all possible effort will be made to implant in their souls those principles of virtue and religion which alone can make education beneficial. Young women of any religious confession are equally admitted; however, to maintain good order, all will be required to observe the external discipline of the institution”[18]. Pupils are admitted as boarders with payment from $200 to $300 per year[19].

[1] Sadlier, Catholic Directory for 1881, p. 25.

[2] Murray, History, р. 430.

[3] Ibidem, р. 431.

[4] Sadlier, Directory for 1881, table on p. 25.

[5] Murray, History, р. 454.

[6] Shea, History of the Catholic Church in the U. S. p. 329

[7] Murray, History, р. 456.

[8] Shea, History, p. 360.

[9] Murray, History, p. 363.

[10] Murray, History, p. 457.

[11] We had occasion to visit the College of St. John in person and to examine into its academic and disciplinary structure.

[12] Murray, History, р. 461, 463, 464.

[13] Murray, History of Cath. Church in U. S. p. 442 and others.

[14] Murray, History, p. 443.

[15] Murray, History, pp. 444–446.

[16] Sadlier, Catholic Directory for 1881, p. 10 in the advertisements section.

[17] Sadlier, Directory, р. 14.

[18] Sadlier, Directory, р. 17.

[19] Ibidem, рр. 8, 16, 24 and others.

4. The System of Specifically Catholic Schools. Elementary Schools and Colleges. The Activity of Male and Female Monastic Orders. The Catholic School as an Anti-Protestant Agency. Female Academies and the Protestant Element in Them. General Dissatisfaction With Secularized Schools and the Preference for Private Schools. Peculiarities of the Latter. Female Education. (Cont.)

All these convent schools are undoubtedly a solid stronghold of Roman Catholicism in America, serve as the main source of its strength and give promise of success in the future. In them all the Catholic female youth of more or less wealthy class—those capable of bearing the expenses for monastic education mentioned above—are educated. Beyond that, they enjoy great popularity even among the Protestant population, and this constitutes another aspect of their significance for Roman Catholicism. “Who can calculate the sum of good done by these institutions, the greatness of the labor accomplished by them?” exclaims a Catholic author. Prudent Protestants know their value and send their daughters to receive education from these virtuous and educated ladies who have devoted themselves to God. In many of our convent boarding schools one third, and in some even half of the pupils are Protestant girls. Parents who care about the purity and honor of their daughters know that they are completely safe with the brides of ChristMurray, History of Catholic church in U. S. p. 443.. The fact of Protestants sending their daughters for education in Catholic convent schools is beyond question; it is acknowledged by the Protestant leaders themselves and constitutes for them a matter of concern and indignation. Many pamphlets of various kinds have been published by different Protestant writers on this subject, depicting in vivid colors the harm done by these schools to Protestantism, and stories often appear intended to show the proselytizing significance of monastic education[1]. The sharply hostile and indignant tone of these pamphlets only shows more clearly the significance of Catholic convent schools. “It has been much talked about,” writes a Protestant author, “that Romanism uses its educational institutions chiefly to influence the Protestant population. This is especially true with regard to their female schools. While asserting that they do not teach Romanism, Catholics nonetheless calculate that seven out of every ten Protestant girls entering these institutions become Roman Catholics. While thousands of their own children grow up unable to read or write, they will not fail to take for education at almost no cost a young girl from a prominent Protestant family, merely to convert her to the Roman faith. Their various female academies serve as the best agency for this work in our country; and all Protestant parents who do not wish the ruin of their children should guard them from Roman Catholic schools as they would guard them from the gates of death”[2]. One lady, educated in a convent school in Montreal, declares that of forty girls from Protestant families in the United States educated with her, thirty-eight became Catholics[3]. Another lady, also educated in a convent school, at the conclusion of her public lecture on Romanism, said: “Warn the people everywhere against the danger of sending their children to Roman Catholic schools. For a real education they are the worst schools in the country, but they serve as the chief agency of Romanism for converting the children of respectable families to the Roman Church. I have been through a terrible trial, and I know what it is”[4]. “And yet, with regret and indignation exclaims a Protestant author, some Protestants, and further Methodists, send their children to Papist schools to save a few dollars or under the false pretense that these schools are better than Protestant ones. We have often heard of wealthy Methodist families who, living next to their own denominational seminaries, sent their children to distant Catholic schools! In some cases this is done to secure trade with Catholics, and more often from political motives, thus sacrificing their sons and daughters to Moloch for the sake of securing Catholic votes”[5]. In some parts of the country, and especially in the Far West, where Protestantism has not yet developed a more or less stable organization, Roman Catholicism declares itself with a force that fills Protestants with horror. “The Papists,” says one of the latter, “are rapidly subjugating the Great West. Their agency is the school. The property of the Roman Church in the new Kansas city of Leavenworth amounts, according to published estimates, to $475,000, while the property of all other Christian denominations in the same city is less than $100,000. Supported by all this wealth, the great agency of the Roman Church in the work of proselytism is the school, and especially the school for girls. Such schools are established in all large settlements and they are filled with pupils chiefly through the courtesy of Protestants”[6]. Pointing to the special effort of Catholics to attract Protestant female youth to their schools, the author says: “A Papist will go farther to secure one girl, a future mother of a family, and perhaps an obedient and submissive ‘sister’ or nun, than to secure a half-dozen boys. If now the girls are secured, the families of the next generation will be under the power of the Catholic Church. O you who have daughters to educate, remember this!” exclaims the Protestant pamphlet author.

Despite such warnings, Protestants fill Catholic convent schools with their daughters, and the latter enjoy great popularity among them. The reason for this should be sought first of all in the genuine scientific and educational merits of these schools. They provide a complete education for young women and most of them have the right to issue collegiate diplomas, which confer considerable rights and privileges. Then the strict discipline of these schools, usually situated at a distance from large population centers, in the eyes of Americans, who mostly view girls’ education from a strict Puritan perspective, has great advantages over public schools surrounded by the distracting bustle of noisy city life. Finally, what attracts Protestants to these schools is also the strictly religious character of the education given in them. Very many Protestants are dissatisfied with the existing system of public education, in which too limited a place is allotted to the religious element, and therefore prefer Catholic schools, in which the religious element is given paramount importance. The usual indifference of Protestants to external denominational form enables them to disregard the warnings of the most zealous Protestants concerning Catholic proselytism in convent schools, and the earnest assurances of the “sisters” that they carefully avoid any intrusion into the sphere of denominational religious convictions, any proselytism in religious instruction, calm and dispel the fears even of suspicious Protestant parents. To what extent Americans, without distinction of faith, prefer religious monastic education to secular public education can be judged from the remarkable fact that Protestants themselves have their own convent schools modeled after Catholic ones, in which they are also taught by “sisters” who fully imitate the Catholic form, even wearing Catholic monastic dress[7].

Americans generally use the state’s secularized school only out of necessity and need. They apparently do not satisfy themselves with it and at the first opportunity send their children to private institutions, which cover the country with a dense network, representing an independent system of education—from elementary schools to higher colleges. And in these free colleges there prevails a strong religious spirit—almost with a Puritan tint. This is especially noticeable in female colleges. The best college for higher female education is the so-called Vassar College, seventy-five miles from New York. It provides solid classical and real education and stands outside any religious sect or church; “but at the same time,” remarks an American author of an essay on higher female education in America, “its direction is positively Christian in character. Daily prayers are held in the college chapel; on Sunday mornings religious worship is performed, and the afternoon is devoted to Bible study. Besides, religious meetings are held twice a week[8], although attendance is not obligatory.” Such is the character of American free schools. This would be instructive indeed for our spiritual educational institutions. At Boston University there are medical courses open to young women, with three professors and one anatomical demonstrator being ladies. “The University stands outside religious sects, but every morning regular devotional exercises (similar to religious meetings) are performed under the direction of board members, and all students are required to attend.” We can limit ourselves to these facts and simply say: a word to the wise is sufficient.

In conclusion let us note one interesting aspect of the practical nature of Americans. While we engage in fruitless disputes between extreme adherents of classicism and realism, Americans without any dispute combined the two together, recognizing that both equally have educational and instructive significance, and by this doubtless achieve better results compared to us. From an external perspective, there is also a remarkable fact that higher female education in America does not at all result in shorter women’s hair, and shorn ladies are unknown in America. But this may depend more on differences in climatic conditions which, as is known from Buckle, have paramount importance in all things.

* * *

[1] One such narrative appeared at the beginning of the current year under the title: “Amy’s Probation” – “Amy’s Trial, or answer to the question: should Protestants entrust their daughters to Catholic convent schools?” New-York, 1881.

[2] Mattison, Romanism, р. 46.

[3] Ibidem, р. 47.

[4] Ibidem.

[5] Mattison, Romanism, its general decline, and its present condition and prospects in the United States. New-York, 1870, p. 46.

[6] Excerpt from the newspaper “Advocates,” cited in Mattison, Romanism p. 61

[7] One of such Protestant convent schools, namely in Peekskill, New York, we had the opportunity to visit in person. The entire outward appearance of this “Protestant monastery” bears a Catholic character. It owes its founding to the Episcopalians, but it includes Protestants of various denominations.

[8] By religious meetings in America are understood assemblies at which sacred hymns are sung, a chapter from the Bible is read, a short sermon is given, and those present recount various incidents from their moral and spiritual lives.

Colophon

Religion in America
by Professor Alexander Lopukhin.

This edition was produced by
Royal Archives.

The cover features
New England Scenery (c. 1839)
by Thomas Cole (American, 1801–1848), Art Institute of Chicago, which is in the public domain.

The text is set in Palatino and Georgia.

The first edition of this ebook was released on
August 16, 2026.

Table of Contents

Title Page
Copyright
Introduction
Preface

The Religious State of the American People and Their Search for the True Church

1. Now and Two Centuries Ago. The First Civilizers of North America. The Native Americans. Features of Their Social and Domestic Life. Their Intellectual, Moral, and Religious State

1. Now and Two Centuries Ago. The First Civilizers of North America. The Native Americans. Features of Their Social and Domestic Life. Their Intellectual, Moral, and Religious State (Cont.)

1. Now and Two Centuries Ago. The First Civilizers of North America. The Native Americans. Features of Their Social and Domestic Life. Their Intellectual, Moral, and Religious State (Cont.) (2)

1. Now and Two Centuries Ago. The First Civilizers of North America. The Native Americans. Features of Their Social and Domestic Life. Their Intellectual, Moral, and Religious State (Cont.) (3)

2. The Episcopal Church and Its Position in the Process of Religious Centralization. The Inadequacy of Its Inner Principles and Search for Outer Support. Ritualism and Its Inner Significance. "The Bankruptcy of Protestantism." The Search for Catholicity and the Location of True Uncorrupted Catholicity. The Inclination of the Episcopal Church Toward the Orthodox East

2. The Episcopal Church and Its Position in the Process of Religious Centralization. The Inadequacy of Its Inner Principles and Search for Outer Support. Ritualism and Its Inner Significance. "The Bankruptcy of Protestantism." The Search for Catholicity and the Location of True Uncorrupted Catholicity. The Inclination of the Episcopal Church Toward the Orthodox East (Cont.)

2. The Episcopal Church and Its Position in the Process of Religious Centralization. The Inadequacy of Its Inner Principles and Search for Outer Support. Ritualism and Its Inner Significance. "The Bankruptcy of Protestantism." The Search for Catholicity and the Location of True Uncorrupted Catholicity. The Inclination of the Episcopal Church Toward the Orthodox East (Cont.) (2)

3. Attempts of the Episcopal Church to Draw Near the Orthodox East. The Memorandum of the "Association of the Eastern Church" and the Attitude of the General Conventions of 1868–1874 Toward the Question of Church Unity. The "Greek-Russian Committee" and its Activities. The External and Internal Aspects of These Attempts. The Attitude of Roman Catholic Literature Toward Them and Alarm in the Roman Catholic Camp. The Possible Significance of the Fact of Church Unity for the Mission of Orthodoxy in America. Foundations for Unity. Conclusion

3. Attempts of the Episcopal Church to Draw Near the Orthodox East. The Memorandum of the "Association of the Eastern Church" and the Attitude of the General Conventions of 1868–1874 Toward the Question of Church Unity. The "Greek-Russian Committee" and its Activities. The External and Internal Aspects of These Attempts. The Attitude of Roman Catholic Literature Toward Them and Alarm in the Roman Catholic Camp. The Possible Significance of the Fact of Church Unity for the Mission of Orthodoxy in America. Foundations for Unity. Conclusion. (Cont.)

3. Attempts of the Episcopal Church to Draw Near the Orthodox East. The Memorandum of the "Association of the Eastern Church" and the Attitude of the General Conventions of 1868–1874 Toward the Question of Church Unity. The "Greek-Russian Committee" and its Activities. The External and Internal Aspects of These Attempts. The Attitude of Roman Catholic Literature Toward Them and Alarm in the Roman Catholic Camp. The Possible Significance of the Fact of Church Unity for the Mission of Orthodoxy in America. Foundations for Unity. Conclusion. (Cont.) (2)

Pioneers of the Cross

1. Then and Two Centuries Ago. The First Civilizers of North America. The Indians. Features of Their Communal and Everyday Life. Their Intellectual, Moral, and Religious Condition

2. The Black Robes Among the Indians. Study of the Indian Language and the First Attempt at Missionary Work. Savage Life. Hunger, Subduing Savage Nature. Stony Soil. Jesuits in the Principal Stronghold of Satan. Bloodthirsty Orgy. Success of the Mission and Alarm in Satan's Kingdom

2. The Black Robes Among the Indians. Study of the Indian Language and the First Attempt at Missionary Work. Savage Life. Hunger, Subduing Savage Nature. Stony Soil. Jesuits in the Principal Stronghold of Satan. Bloodthirsty Orgy. Success of the Mission and Alarm in Satan's Kingdom. (Cont.)

3. Suspicion Regarding the Black Robes. Calling Down the Thunderbirds, an Epidemic and the Terrors it Spread. Paradise and Hell. Jesuit Methods of Salvation for the Perishing. Danger to the Jesuits. A Sentence of Death and a Farewell Feast. Missionaries Amid Man-like Beasts. "The Narrow Gate of Paradise." The Lives of Two Martyrs. Tortures and Deliverance

3. Suspicion Regarding the Black Robes. Calling Down the Thunderbirds, an Epidemic and the Terrors it Spread. Paradise and Hell. Jesuit Methods of Salvation for the Perishing. Danger to the Jesuits. A Sentence of Death and a Farewell Feast. Missionaries Amid Man-like Beasts. "The Narrow Gate of Paradise." The Lives of Two Martyrs. Tortures and Deliverance. (Cont.)

3. Suspicion Regarding the Black Robes. Calling Down the Thunderbirds, an Epidemic and the Terrors it Spread. Paradise and Hell. Jesuit Methods of Salvation for the Perishing. Danger to the Jesuits. A Sentence of Death and a Farewell Feast. Missionaries Amid Man-like Beasts. "The Narrow Gate of Paradise." The Lives of Two Martyrs. Tortures and Deliverance. (Cont.) (2)

4. The Successes of the Mission. "The Scourge of the Infant Church." Raids of the Iroquois. The Fearless Missionary. Death and Destruction. The Destruction of the Converted Tribe and the Downfall of the Mission

4. The Successes of the Mission. "The Scourge of the Infant Church." Raids of the Iroquois. The Fearless Missionary. Death and Destruction. The Destruction of the Converted Tribe and the Downfall of the Mission. (Cont.)

5. A Happy Surprise. In the Land of Cannibals. Taming the Wild Nature. Native Piety. Withdrawal of the Jesuits From New York Territory

6. Missionaries in the Far West. The Discovery of the Mississippi River. A Feast Among the Native Peoples. Christianity in the Valley of the "Father of Waters." The Life of Converted Native Peoples. – Conclusion

Religious Freedom of Conscience in America

1. The Settlers of North America—Martyrs for the Rights of Religious Conscience. Religious Exclusivity and Intolerance of the Puritans. Their Relation to Quakers and Catholics. The State Character of Religion. Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. The Disabilities of the Latter. Anti-Catholic Legislation. The Proclamation of Freedom in Maryland and its Consequences. The Religious Intolerance of Congress

1. The Settlers of North America—Martyrs for the Rights of Religious Conscience. Religious Exclusivity and Intolerance of the Puritans. Their Relation to Quakers and Catholics. The State Character of Religion. Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. The Disabilities of the Latter. Anti-Catholic Legislation. The Proclamation of Freedom in Maryland and its Consequences. The Religious Intolerance of Congress. (Cont.)

1. The Settlers of North America—Martyrs for the Rights of Religious Conscience. Religious Exclusivity and Intolerance of the Puritans. Their Relation to Quakers and Catholics. The State Character of Religion. Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. The Disabilities of the Latter. Anti-Catholic Legislation. The Proclamation of Freedom in Maryland and its Consequences. The Religious Intolerance of Congress. (Cont.) (2)

2. The Political Crisis and Its Significance for the Proclamation of Religious Freedom of Conscience. The First Sounds of Freedom. The Revolution in the Views of Congress and Its Causes. New Constitutions and the Paragraph on Religious Freedom of Conscience. The Limitation of Civil Rights of Catholics. The Federal Constitution and the Abolition of the Religious Test. Discussions on This at Conventions. The Significance of the Paragraph in the Federal Constitution. The Separation of Church and State

2. The Political Crisis and Its Significance for the Proclamation of Religious Freedom of Conscience. The First Sounds of Freedom. The Revolution in the Views of Congress and Its Causes. New Constitutions and the Paragraph on Religious Freedom of Conscience. The Limitation of Civil Rights of Catholics. The Federal Constitution and the Abolition of the Religious Test. Discussions on This at Conventions. The Significance of the Paragraph in the Federal Constitution. The Separation of Church and State. (Cont.)

2. The Political Crisis and Its Significance for the Proclamation of Religious Freedom of Conscience. The First Sounds of Freedom. The Revolution in the Views of Congress and Its Causes. New Constitutions and the Paragraph on Religious Freedom of Conscience. The Limitation of Civil Rights of Catholics. The Federal Constitution and the Abolition of the Religious Test. Discussions on This at Conventions. The Significance of the Paragraph in the Federal Constitution. The Separation of Church and State. (Cont.) (2)

2. The Political Crisis and Its Significance for the Proclamation of Religious Freedom of Conscience. The First Sounds of Freedom. The Revolution in the Views of Congress and Its Causes. New Constitutions and the Paragraph on Religious Freedom of Conscience. The Limitation of Civil Rights of Catholics. The Federal Constitution and the Abolition of the Religious Test. Discussions on This at Conventions. The Significance of the Paragraph in the Federal Constitution. The Separation of Church and State. (Cont.) (3)

3. General Principles of the Relations of Church and State. The Parallel of Soul and Body. The Foundation of the American State and its Relationship to the Religious Principle. The Origin of Every Right According to the "Declaration of Independence." The Connection of the State and Religion. The Relationship of the State to Religious Differences

3. General Principles of the Relations of Church and State. The Parallel of Soul and Body. The Foundation of the American State and its Relationship to the Religious Principle. The Origin of Every Right According to the "Declaration of Independence." The Connection of the State and Religion. The Relationship of the State to Religious Differences. (Cont.)

3. General Principles of the Relations of Church and State. The Parallel of Soul and Body. The Foundation of the American State and its Relationship to the Religious Principle. The Origin of Every Right According to the "Declaration of Independence." The Connection of the State and Religion. The Relationship of the State to Religious Differences. (Cont.) (2)

4. The Relation of the States to the Government of the Union. The Federal Constitution and its Relation to the Constitutions of Individual States. The Subjection of Religious Questions to the Particular Governments of Individual States. The Significance of This Fact for the Development of Religious Equality. The Slow Development in the States of the Principle of Freedom of Religious Conscience. The Present State of the Question. The Position of Catholics. The Inevitable Privilege of the Strongest Confessional Forms. Public Charity. Concluding Conclusions

4. The Relation of the States to the Government of the Union. The Federal Constitution and its Relation to the Constitutions of Individual States. The Subjection of Religious Questions to the Particular Governments of Individual States. The Significance of This Fact for the Development of Religious Equality. The Slow Development in the States of the Principle of Freedom of Religious Conscience. The Present State of the Question. The Position of Catholics. The Inevitable Privilege of the Strongest Confessional Forms. Public Charity. Concluding Conclusions. (Cont.)

4. The Relation of the States to the Government of the Union. The Federal Constitution and its Relation to the Constitutions of Individual States. The Subjection of Religious Questions to the Particular Governments of Individual States. The Significance of This Fact for the Development of Religious Equality. The Slow Development in the States of the Principle of Freedom of Religious Conscience. The Present State of the Question. The Position of Catholics. The Inevitable Privilege of the Strongest Confessional Forms. Public Charity. Concluding Conclusions. (Cont.) (2)

4. The Relation of the States to the Government of the Union. The Federal Constitution and its Relation to the Constitutions of Individual States. The Subjection of Religious Questions to the Particular Governments of Individual States. The Significance of This Fact for the Development of Religious Equality. The Slow Development in the States of the Principle of Freedom of Religious Conscience. The Present State of the Question. The Position of Catholics. The Inevitable Privilege of the Strongest Confessional Forms. Public Charity. Concluding Conclusions. (Cont.) (3)

The Religious Question in the American School

- 1. The System of Public Education in the United States. Its Origin and Internal Character. Application of the Principle of Separation of Church and State in the Field of Public Education. Internal Contradiction and Inevitable Outcome. Elimination of Denominational Differences and Adoption of "General Christianity" in School. The Attitude Toward the Adopted System on the Part of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism

- 2. Opposition of Roman Catholicism to the Adopted System and its Foundations. The Fundamental Distinction Between the Systems of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Education According to the Catholic View. The Roman Catholic Church's Efforts to Isolate the Catholic Population From the Influence of Protestantism. Conflict With the State and Struggle Against It

- 2. Opposition of Roman Catholicism to the Adopted System and its Foundations. The Fundamental Distinction Between the Systems of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Education According to the Catholic View. The Roman Catholic Church's Efforts to Isolate the Catholic Population From the Influence of Protestantism. Conflict With the State and Struggle Against it. (Cont.)

- 2. Opposition of Roman Catholicism to the Adopted System and its Foundations. The Fundamental Distinction Between the Systems of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Education According to the Catholic View. The Roman Catholic Church's Efforts to Isolate the Catholic Population From the Influence of Protestantism. Conflict With the State and Struggle Against it. (Cont.) (2)

- 3. Difficulty of Applying in School Practice the Principle of Religious Equality. The Protestant Character of the State School. The Inevitability of Such a Fact. The Disadvantageous Position of Catholics and Their Efforts to Escape From It

- 3. Difficulty of Applying in School Practice the Principle of Religious Equality. The Protestant Character of the State School. The Inevitability of Such a Fact. The Disadvantageous Position of Catholics and Their Efforts to Escape From it. (Cont.)

- 4. The System of Specifically Catholic Schools. Elementary Schools and Colleges. The Activity of Male and Female Monastic Orders. The Catholic School as an Anti-Protestant Agency. Female Academies and the Protestant Element in Them. General Dissatisfaction With Secularized Schools and the Preference for Private Schools. Peculiarities of the Latter. Female Education

- 4. The System of Specifically Catholic Schools. Elementary Schools and Colleges. The Activity of Male and Female Monastic Orders. The Catholic School as an Anti-Protestant Agency. Female Academies and the Protestant Element in Them. General Dissatisfaction With Secularized Schools and the Preference for Private Schools. Peculiarities of the Latter. Female Education. (Cont.)

Colophon