When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The American Declaration of Independence, which is so admirable and dignified an expression of the American mind, is at the same time an accurate expression of the Catholic mind, medieval and modern.
The general historical background, which projected the American Declaration of Independence, is well known. There has been much discussion, however, concerning the parentage, direct and indirect, of the political principles that make the American Declaration what it is, “that most wonderful work ever struck off at a given moment by the hand and purpose of man.”
Two facts concerning this question, this paper hopes to restate and summarize rather than prove. They are:
First, the certainty and fact, beyond reasonable denial, that for many centuries prior to the American Declaration, the principles enunciated in it are identically the political thought and theory predominant and traditional among representative Catholic churchmen, and not the political thought and inspiration of the politico-religious revolt of the sixteenth century, nor of the later social-contract or compact theories.
In the second place, this paper would re-assert the existence of sufficient reasons to believe that the framers of the Declaration of Independence drew inspiration, encouragement, and political ideals from Catholic sources, particularly from the political principles of the Blessed Cardinal Bellarmine.
The knowledge and spread of these two outstanding facts deserve promotion, partly, in order to give credit where credit in justice belongs; principally, however, in order to dispel that erroneous notion, which haunts many American minds, that approximately one-fifth of the American population, if loyal to its religious affiliation, cannot be loyally and thoroughly American. So long as this erroneous idea prevails, the highest ideals of Americanism, of national unity and solidarity in thought, feeling and action, can never be attained, and the proud claim, that this is the “land of the noble free,” is, at least in part, but an empty boast. It is in the spirit and interest of a larger and more idealistic Americanism, that this paper is offered.
“If the American Declaration is ‘an expression of the American mind,’ it is to say the least, something remarkable,” says Allred O’Rahilly, “that it should be such an accurate transcript of the Catholic mind.” Elsewhere he states that a laborious investigation on his part revealed that from the thirteenth to the nineteenth century some 139 Catholic philosophers and theologians uphold the democratic principle that government is based on the consent of the governed. (Only seven of doubtful orthodoxy reject the principle.)
Striking parallels
It will suffice for our purpose to consult, in detail, but two Catholic churchmen who stand out as leading lights for all time. The one is representative of medieval learning and thought, the other stood on the threshold of the medieval and modern world. They are St. Thomas Aquinas of the thirteenth century and the Blessed Cardinal Robert Bellarmine of the sixteenth century (1542-1621). The following comparisons, clause for clause, of the American Declaration of Independence and of excerpts from the political principles of these noted ecclesiastics, evidence striking similarity and identity of political principle.
Equality of man
Declaration of Independence: “All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”
Bellarmine: “All men are equal, not in wisdom or grace, but in the essence and nature of mankind” (“De Laicis,” c.7) “There is no reason why among equals one should rule rather than another” (ibid.). “Let rulers remember that they preside over men who are of the same nature as they themselves.” (“De Officus Princ.” c. 22). “Political right is immediately from God and necessarily inherent in the nature of man” (“De Laicis,” c. 6, note 1).
St. Thomas: “Nature made all men equal in liberty, though not in their natural perfections” (II Sent., d. xliv, q. 1, a. 3. ad 1).
The function of government
Declaration of Independence: “To secure these rights governments are instituted among men.”
Bellarmine: “It is impossible for men to live together without someone to care for the common good. Men must be governed by someone lest they be willing to perish” (“De Laicis,” c. 6).
St. Thomas: “To ordain anything for the common good belongs either to the whole people, or to someone who is the viceregent of the whole people” (Summa, la llae, q. 90, a. 3).
The source of power
Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Bellarmine: “It depends upon the consent of the multitude to constitute over itself a king, consul, or other magistrate. This power is, indeed, from God, but vested in a particular ruler by the counsel and election of men” (“De Laicis, c. 6, notes 4 and 5). “The people themselves immediately and directly hold the political power” (“De Clericis,” c. 7).
St. Thomas: “Therefore the making of a law belongs either to the whole people or to a public personage who has care of the whole people” (Summa, la llae, q. 90, a. 3). “The ruler has power and eminence from the subjects, and, in the event of his despising them, he sometimes loses both his power and position” (“De Erudit. Princ.” Bk. I, c. 6).
The right to change the government
Declaration of Independence: “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government…Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient reasons.”
Bellarmine: “For legitimate reasons the people can change the government to an aristocracy or a democracy or vice versa” (“De Laicis,” c. 6). “The people never transfers its powers to a king so completely but that it reserves to itself the right of receiving back this power” (Recognitio de Laicis, c. 6).
St Thomas: “If any society of people have a right of choosing a king, then the king so established can be deposed by them without injustice, or his power can be curbed, when by tyranny he abuses his regal power” (“De Rege et Regno,” Bk. I, c. 6).
Democracy then is not a discovery of modern political thought. Its sources are to be sought in ancient and medieval theories of government. Christianity injected something into the governments of nations that worked for democracy, that emphasized the natural equality and liberty of men. We can think of real Christianity only as democratic, never as aristocratic or autocratic. The Middle Ages were democratic and the Middle Ages were Catholic. Western civilized Europe was Catholic for a round thousand years. The doctrine of St. Thomas, as just quoted, gives eloquent testimony of the democratic political thought representative of that age.
Reputable historians freely attest the democracy of political theory and practice in the Middle Ages. Otto Goerke states: “An ancient and generally entertained opinion regarded the will of the people as the source of temporal power; political authority by Divine grant and absolute power was wholly foreign to the Middle Ages.” (Political Theories of the Middle Ages, pp. 38-39). “Medieval doctrine gave to the monarch a representative character” (ibid. p. 61). Dr. A. J. Carlyle asserts, “The emperor derived his authority, ultimately, no doubt, from God, but immediately from the nation, and this fact [he adds], requires no serious demonstration” (Hist. Med. Pol. Theory in the West, Vol. I, p. 292, and Vol III, p. 153). Carlton J. H. Hayes writes “Constitutional limitation was a medieval tradition” (Pol. And Scc. Hist. Of Med. Europe, Vol. I, p. 264). Lord Acton says, “Looking back over the space of a thousand years, which we call the Middle Ages, we find that representative government was almost universal. Absolute power was deemed more intolerable and more criminal than slavery.”
The divine right of kings
The question might be asked: Why was it at all necessary for men in the eighteenth century to make such emphatic declarations of democratic rights? The answer is: Because the two preceding centuries had fairly destroyed the ancient rights of the people and the medieval democratic principle of government by popular consent. In its place there was elaborated at that time the new theory of the “Divine Right of Kings” which enthroned royal autocracy and absolute monarchy. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries witnessed the era of political revolution and the great struggle between democratic representative government and monarchic absolutism. At the close of the sixteenth century the existence and preponderance of monarchy was well recognized, but the question to be solved was: Should royal monarchical power, as the “Divine Right” theorists expounded it, become absolute; should it so decisively prevail that the other two elements of recognized government, viz., aristocracy and democracy, be completely discarded from the political world; or, should a combination of the three, which had hitherto existed, continue? Unbiased historical research reveals that Catholic political thinkers — men like Suarez (1548-1617), Mariana (1536-1624), Mollsa (1535-1600), Robert Persons (1546-1610), Toletus (1535-1600), Banez (1528-1604), Gregory of Valencia (1540-1603), (who lived between the years of 1528-1624), stood prominently on the side of democratic principle and the rights of the people. The ancient Church which is often depicted as retarding modern enlightenment, liberty, and democracy, was the very agency which produced the great protagonists of democracy in the period of its greatest danger and saved out of the democracy of the Middle Ages what might be termed the seed-thought for the resowing and growth of democratic principle and practice among the nations of modern times.
The most prominent and powerful defender in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, of the traditional and medieval democratic principle of popular sovereignty and right, was the illustrious and learned Jesuit Cardinal, the Blessed Robert Bellarmine. “Monarchy will be defended for its own sake,” says Figgis, “when Bellarmine and Suarez have elaborated their theory of popular sovereignty” (Divine Right of Kings, p. 92).
Democracy not a “child of the Reformation”
Modern democracy is often asserted to be the child of the Reformation. Nothing is farther from the truth. Robert Filmer, private theologian of James I of England, in his theory of Divine right, proclaimed, “The king can do no wrong. The most sacred order of kings is of Divine right.” John Neville Figgis, who seems little inclined to give Catholicism undue credit, makes the following assertions. “Luther based royal authority upon Divine right with practically no reservation” (“Gerson to Grotius,” p. 61). “That to the Reformation was in some sort due the prevalence of the notion of the Divine Right of Kings is generally admitted.” (“Divine Right of Kings,” p. 15). “The Reformation had left upon the statute book an emphatic assertion of unfettered sovereignty vested in the king” (ibid. p. 91). “Luther denied any limitation of political power either by Pope or people, nor can it be said that he showed any sympathy for representative institutions; he upheld the inalienable and Divine authority of kings in order to hew down the Upas tree of Rome.” “There had been elaborated at this time a theory of unlimited jurisdiction of the crown and of non-resistance upon any pretense” (Cambridge Modern History, Vol III, p. 739). “Wycliffe would not allow that the king be subject to positive law” (Divine Right of Kings, p. 69). Lord Acton wrote: “Lutheran writers constantly condemn the democratic literature that arose in the second age of the Reformation.”…”Calvin judged that the people were unfit to govern themselves, and declared the popular assembly an abuse” (History of Freedom, p. 42).
A closer study of the Declaration of Independence discloses its dissimilarity with the social-contract or compact theories as explained with slight variations, by Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, Puffendorf, Althusius, Grotius, Hooker, Kant, or Fichte. The American Declaration, like the political doctrine of Cardinal Bellarmine, declared political power as coming, in the first instance, from God, but as vested in a particular ruler by consent of the multitude or the people as a political body. The social-contract or compact theories sought the source of political power in an assumed social contract or compact by which individual rights contributed or yielded their individual rights to create a public right. Contracts of individuals can create individual rights only, not public or political rights. According to the American Declaration and Cardinal Bellarmine, government implies powers which never belonged to the individual and which, consequently, he could never have conferred upon society. The individual surrenders no authority. Sovereignty receives nothing from him. Government maintains its full dignity, it is of Divine origin, but vested in one or several individuals by popular consent.
The names of Montesquieu, Rousseau, and James Berg are often mentioned as possibly having influenced the spirit and contents of our American Declaration. The “Spirit of Laws” by Montesquieu, though read in America, did not present that theory of government which was sought by the Fathers of our Country. Rousseau’s writings were less widely known than Montesquieu’s. George Mason, not knowing French, in all probability never read the “Contract social” nor had Rousseau’s writings obtained currency in Virginia in 1776. The book of James Berg appeared in 1775, rather too late to have rendered service in May of 1776, even if it had discussed such general principles as are laid down in these two American Declarations.
Blessed Cardinal Bellarmine
Didi Jefferson know of Bellarmine?
The second part of this paper would reassert the existence of sufficient reasons to believe that the framers of the Declaration of Independence drew inspiration and political ideals of democracy from the political doctrines of Cardinal Bellarmine, whose writings were well known and discussed on both sides of the Atlantic.
Prof. David S. Schaff, now lecturer of American church history in Union Theological Seminary, New York, does not only question the probability that the framers of our American Declaration might have derived some of their ideas and fundamentals of popular sovereignty from Catholic sources, and from the political writings of Cardinal Bellarmine in particular, but he even goes so far as to misstate completely the Cardinal’s political utterances. The New York Times in its issue of December 28, 1926, summarizing the contents of Professor Schaff’s address at the twentieth annual conference of the American Society of Church History, quotes him as “assailing the theory which associates the work of the Jesuit Cardinal Bellarmine with Jefferson and through him with the Declaration of Independence.” “The refutation of this legend,” Professor Schaff is quoted as saying, “lay first in the fact that, as far as we know, Jefferson never had access to any book of Bellarmine.” The writer of this paper sent to the Editor of the New York Times the following letter which received no publication, however, as far as could be learned. The letter in substance was the following:
With the hope of contributing a bit of information on this subject, permit the undersigned to state that the Congressional Library still possesses a copy of Patriarcha a book which once stood on the library shelf of Thomas Jefferson. Patriarcha, was written by Robert Filmer, the private theologian of James I of England in defense of the Divine Right of Kings and principally in refutation of the Jesuit Cardinal Bellarmine’s political principles of popular sovereignty. If Jefferson ever opened this book, which he possessed, he read the following on the title page: “Partiacha, or the natural power of kings by the learned Sir Robert Filmer London, 1680
The Contents
Chapter I
The tenet of the Natural liberty of the people. New, plausible and dangerous.
The question stated out of Bellarmine and some contradictions of his noted.
Bellarmine’s argument answered out of Bellarmine himself.
Chapter II
It is unnatural for the people to govern or choose governors
Aristotle examined abut the freedom of the people.
Suarez disputes against the regality of Adam.
Suarez contradicting Bellarmine.
Chapter III
Positive laws do not infringe the fatherly power of kings, etc….
Four times Bellarmine’s name is mentioned in bold print on this contents page of Patriarcha. The first chapter of Patriarcha is again prefaced with its table of contents and Bellarmine’s name appears on it three times. Then, if Jefferson read the first lines of the chapter he read this:
“Since the time that school divinity began to flourish there hath been a common opinion maintained, as well by divines, as by diverse other learned men which affirms `Mankind is naturally endowed and born with Freedom, and at liberty to choose what form of Government it please: And that the Power which any one Man hath over others, was at first bestowed according to the discretion of the Multitude.’
“This tenet was first hatched in the schools and hath been fostered by all succeeding papists for good divinity.”
If Jefferson ever read as many as four pages of this book, he read on the fourth page, the following:
To make evident the Grounds of this Question, about the Natural Liberty of Mankind, I will lay down some passages of Cardinal Bellarmine, that may best unfold the State of this controversie. Secular or Civil Power (saith he) is instituted by man; It is in the people, unless they bestow it on a Prince. This Power is immediately in the whole Multitude, as in the subject of it; for this Power is in Divine Law, but the Divine Law hath given this Power to no particular man. If the Positive Law be taken away, there is left no Reason why amongst a Multitude (who are Equal) one rather than another should bear Rule over the Rest. It depends upon the Consent of the Multitude to ordain over themselves a King, Counsel or other Magistrates; and if there be a lawful cause the multitude may change the Kingdom into an Aristocracy or Democracy. Thus far Bellarmine; in which passages are comprised the strength of all that I have read or heard produced for the Natural Liberty of the Subject.
Would not Jefferson, who was seeking a formulation of “the natural liberties of the subject,” be attracted to read and re-read this quotation from Bellarmine which “comprised the strength of all that had ever been produced for the natural liberty of the subject”? And does not the American Declaration reflect strikingly this very passage of Bellarmine quoted by Filmer and lying open before the eyes of Jefferson?
Referred to by Sidney
Jefferson also had in his library a handsome folio of 497 pages of the discourses of Algernon Sidney. Sidney was very popular and much read in the Immediate years preceding 1776. If Jefferson read the opening sentence of Sidney, he read again about Filmer’s denunciation of the democratic theories of Bellarmine and the Schoolmen. The opening sentence of Sidney’s discourse ran:
Having lately seen a book entitled Patriarcha, written by Sir Robert Filmer, concerning the universal and undistinguished right of all kings, I thought a time of leisure might well be employed in examining his doctrine and the questions arising from it; which seems so far to concern all mankind.
Commenting on the quotation in Patriarcha from Cardinal Bellarmine, Sidney remarked of Filmer:
He absurdly imputes to the School Divines that which was taken up by them as a common notion, written in the heart of every man, denied by none, but such as were degenerated into beasts. The school men could not lay more approved foundations than that man is naturally free; that he cannot justly be deprived of that liberty without cause; that only those governments can be called Just which are established by the consent of nations.
Another treatise on government as widely read but not so popular was John Locke’s “Two Treatises on Government.” Like Sidney, Locke wrote in reply to Filmer. Locke himself states on the title page that in his two treatises “the false principles and foundation of Sir Robert Filmer and his followers are detected and overthrown.” Giving his own views Locke wrote, “Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent.” Lord Acton in his “History of Freedom” (p. 82), remarks, “The greater part of the political ideas of Milton, Locke, and Rousseau, may be found in the ponderous Latin of Jesuits.”
Jefferson read works quoting Bellarmine
Whether Jefferson ever read any of the original works of Cardinal Bellarmine would be difficult to assert or to deny. In the Library of Princeton University there was, however, a copy of Cardinal Bellarmine’s works in the days of Jefferson. James Madison, a member of the committee which drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights was a graduate of Princeton in 1771, and certainly had access to Bellarmine’s works. This copy, David Schaff states, was destroyed by fire in 1802. It is not so certain, then, that Jefferson and Madison had no possible access to the original writings of Bellarmine, and it is quite possible that in their studies of philosophy, law, and government, they may have investigated the original writings of Bellarmine, of whom they read in Filmer’s Patriarcha, in Sidney’s Noble Book, and Locke’s Two Treatises on Government. Bellarmine’s “disputations,” in words of William A. Dunning (“Hist. Of Pol. Theories,” p. 128), “covered systematically all the prominent issues of the time, theological, ecclesiastical, political, and constituted a formidable arsenal of arguments.” Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, the framers and builders of our American Constitution, could not have been ignorant of Sidney, Locke, Filmer, and Bellarmine. “Locke and Sidney,” says Dr. Figgis (trans. Royal Hist. Soc., XI, 1897, 94), “if they did not take their political faith bodily from Suarez or Bellarmine, managed in a remarkable degree to conceal the difference between the two.”
Did professor Schaff read Bellarmine?
Dr. Schaff is further quoted as stating that “the Churchmen’s [Bellarmine’s] idea of government was quite unlike Jefferson’s because the former believed in one chiefly of monarchy” and that “the theory of popular authority and its origin was entirely apart from Cardinal Bellarmine and his writings, it being developed in Geneva and spreading through the Huguenots,” etc.
In his De Romani Pontificis Ecclesiastica Monarchia, Bk. I, c. 1, the Cardinal writes, “Monarchy theoretically and in the abstract, monarchy in the hands of God who combines in Himself all the qualifications of an ideal ruler, is indeed a perfect system of government; in the hands of imperfect man, however, it is exposed to many defects and abuses. A government tempered, therefore, by all three basic forms (i.e., monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy), a mixed government, is, on account of the corruption of human nature more useful than simple monarchy.” Bellarmine in his De Officio Principis, c. 22, points out the dangers and defects of absolute monarchy, and after describing how God refused to grant the Israelites a king (I Kings, viii, 7-19), concludes, “All these incidents clearly indicate that God did not desire his people to have absolute kings as the Gentiles had them, because He foresaw that they would abuse such power.” That Bellarmine was not on the side of monarchy should need no proof. John Neville Figgis (Divine Right of Kings, p. 92) incidentally states, “Monarchy will be defended for its own sake when Bellarmine and Suarez have elaborated their theory of popular sovereignty.”
The theory of popular authority and its origin was entirely apart from Cardinal Bellarmine and his writings,” is a statement that could be made only by one who had never read a line of Cardinal Bellarmine’s political writings. If there is anything for which the Cardinal is noted in the field of political philosophy, it is for his theory and defense of popular sovereignty.
In view of the arbitrary and despotic rule established by Calvin in Geneva over the consciences and natural liberties of men, it is difficult to associate the origins of civil and religious liberty and of popular sovereignty with Geneva and to regard it as a cradle of democracy. Lord Acton (“History of Freedom,” p. 42) wrote, “Calvin judged that the people are unfit to govern themselves and declared the popular assembly an abuse.” The principles of democracy antedate by many centuries the Geneva of the sixteenth century. John Neville Figgis in hisPolitical Thought of the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge Modern History, Vol. III, p. 761), wrote, “The Huguenot movement (which proceeded from Geneva) was not democratic.”
Not a mere legend
In the opening paragraph of the full reprint of Professor Schaff’s paper entitled “The Bellarmine-Jefferson Legend and the Declaration of Independence,” he assumes that the whole claim, which identifies American principles of government with prior political thought and theory of Catholic political thinkers, had its origin in the article of Gaillard Hunt, printed in the Catholic Historical Review of October, 1917, and he gratuitously calls it a legend. Mr. Hunt’s argument does not purport to be a conclusive and only argument; it is rather an additional than a first argument, a strong bit of circumstantial evidence corroborative of the fact and contention that Catholic and medieval principles of democratic government have played themselves very strikingly into the American democracy and are actually there embodied.
In this paper Professor Schaff further states, “If we compare the positions laid down by the Cardinal and the American principles of government, it will be found that they are in essential matters disparate.” The above comparisons, clause for clause, and the many quotations from Cardinal Bellarmine, sufficiently demonstrate the complete erroneousness of such a statement.
President Thomas Jefferson
The power of the people
Professor Schaff again makes the statement, “The Cardinal took the position that the power which rests originally in the people remains in the people only until the people have chosen or accepted a ruler. Once the ruler is established, the power of the people stops. The ruler is absolute, and is not amenable to the people.” The very opposite is again true. In several places the Cardinal insists that “a people never so completely transfers its power to a king but that it reserves to itself the right to withdraw it.” Populis nunquam itu transferi potestatem suam in regem quin dom sibi in habitu retineal. (Apologia,” c. 13). In his Recognitio De Laicis he adds,Ut in certis casibus etiam sciu recipere possit. “So that in certain cases the people can actually receive back this power.” In several other passages the Cardinal, as quoted, defends the right of a people, for legitimate reasons, to depose a ruler or to change the entire form of government.
Professor Schaff states that the “general position taken by Bellarmine, that it is for the people to choose their form of government, was not original with the Cardinal.” I know of no one who has ever claimed that the theory of popular sovereignty was original with the Cardinal, or even with St. Thomas Aquinas 300 years earlier. The claim made is that he was an ardent advocate and defender of the principle of popular government against the Divine-Right theorists of his time, and that he analyzed, defined, and elucidated most clearly and strikingly that ancient and medieval principle of sovereignty by consent of the people, when it was in its greatest danger.
Another statement of Professor Schaff is, “In passing it is to be noted that Bellarmine says nothing whatever abut Parliaments.” In “De Conciliis et Ecclesia,” c. 3, Bellarmine says, “When a controversy arises in a republic the princes and magistrates of the realm come together and determine what action should be taken. Again in De Romani Pontificis Ecclesiastica Monarchia, c. 3, we read: “Since one man cannot attend to all matters of state, he must distribute these powers. While it is evident that monarchy contains necessary features of government, yet all love that form of government best in which they can participate. Of the utility of such a government, we need scarcely speak.” In the tenth chapter of De Laicis he states: “Laws are generally the combined judgment and experience of several wise men; the king’s command is the judgment of one man and it may be rash. Legislators are less exposed to favoritism or bias. A ruler may be influenced by friends, relatives, bribes, or fear.” Bellarmine could not have been ignorant of parliamentary law. Stubbs in his “Constitutional History of England,” Vol. III, p. 388, states: “The rules and forms or parliamentary procedure had before the close of the Middle Ages begun to acquire that permanency and fixedness of character which in the eyes of later generations had risen to the sanctity of law.” (Cardinal Bellarmine was born in 1542 and died in 1621.)
Again he quotes the Cardinal as terming democracy the worst form of government. The Cardinal did make such a statement concerning simple and absolute democracy, which, he says, would lead to mob violence and the worst form of tyranny. Concerning it he quotes Plato as saying, “Who can be happy living under the arbitrary will of the crowd?” The democracy of today is far from being pure and absolute democracy. It embodies much of the monarchic and aristocratic forms of government. The type of government which the Cardinal does advocate is really a mixed government which he calls “the more useful form of government” — an adoption and combination of what is best in each of the three basic forms and a discarding of what is worst. From the monarchic element he would adopt and embody into this mixed form of government enough to insure order, peace, strength, endurance, and efficiency. From the aristocratic type of government he would borrow such features as would supply for many of the natural limitations of a one-man rule. “With the assistance of the best men of the land,” he says, “the ruler may procure wise counsel.” From the element of democracy he insists stringently upon the fundamental political principle, underlying all governments which can in any way be called democratic, the principle of sovereignty by the consent and election of the people. So much of democracy does he fuse into this “more useful” form of government that his political philosophy resents all the fundamental features of modern democratic government.
Summary
In final summary, then, the American Declaration, which was so admirable and dignified an expression of the American mind is at the same time an accurate expression of the Catholic mind, medieval and modern. This statement does not wish to infer that the American Declaration is not an expression as well of the non-Catholic American mind.
In the second place the formulator of the American Declaration of Independence, did actually possess such books on theories of government as were universally known and read, especially by political students, which book prominently mentioned the name of a Catholic, Cardinal Bellarmine, and discussed and quoted his and the Catholic Schoolmen’s political theories. “Patriarcha” concerns itself principally with the refutation of Cardinal’s political doctrines. If Jefferson never read a line of the Cardinal’s original writings, there is every reason to believe that ample opportunity forced itself upon him to read quotations at least, from this very noted Cardinal’s political utterances, quotations that were direct, succinct, summarizing, and comprising,” as Filmer wrote, “the strength of all that was ever produced for the natural liberty of the subject.”
With this identity of American and Catholic political principle established, and with plausible evidence of most probable contact of the formulator of our American Declaration with prominent Catholic sources of democratic theory, why should it be taken from the Catholic American citizen proudly to claim identity and uniformity of political thought with that of his fellow-citizen, and why should he not rejoice in the belief that his co-religionist forebears have taken actual part in the laying of that political foundation upon which rests, today, the greatest, happiest and most prosperous nation in the world?
1634 – On the day of the Annunciation of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, in the year 1634,” continues Father White, ” we celebrated on this island the first Mass which had been ever offered up in this part of the world.
IN 1640 FATHER WHITE WAS CAPTURED IN HIS NEW HOME TO SOON TO BE CALLED THE UNITED STATES AND SENT BACK TO LONDON IN CHAINS. TO THINK MARYLAND WAS NAMED AFTER UNITED KINGDOM’S Queen Henrietta Maria, WOULD BE TO CONCEDE ENGLAND WAS PROUD OF FATHER WHITE – WHICH THEY WERE NOT. HE WAS IMPRISONED FOR TREASON BECAUSE HE WAS A CATHOLIC, THIS TRUMPED UP CHARGE WAS DUE TO HENRY THE EIGHTH NOT BEING ALLOWED TO REMARRY SO HE SHAGGED, MURDERED, AND DIVORCED AT WILL ANY FEMALE HE WISHED AND STARTED HIS OWN CHURCH CALLED THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF ENGLAND. THIS WAS ALL CONTRARY TO THE LOVE OF JESUS THE CHRIST AND HIS BRIDE, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
From Full text of “Old Catholic Maryland and its early Jesuit missionaries” – Related web pages
Piscataway Prayers
Like some of their Protestant counterparts in the colonies, the Jesuits in Maryland assumed the responsibility of converting the native population to Christianity. They were quite successful, owing to men like Father White, a skilled linguist, who translated spiritual exercises into the Piscataway language.
Severe Catholic Persecution Began Under Henry VIII (1509-47)
King Henry Murdered 7 Catholic CanonizedMartyrs and 33 Catholic Blessed Martyrs From the execution of two cardinals, two archbishops, 18 bishops, 13 abbots of large monasteries, 500 priors and monks, 38 University Doctors , 12 Dukes or Counts, 164 noblemen, 124 private citizens and 110 women. These were all without the excuse of any particular reasons of State. Total 983.
Henry VIII
All because he wanted a divorce, ole Henry had 6 wives, some were beheaded, & poisoned.
Generally speaking the persecution of Catholics in England and Wales in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries came in waves, caused by particular incidents or circumstances, with intervals of comparative respite in between. The first wave was in the time of King Henry VIII, from 1534 onwards, when by act of Parliament the king became “supreme head of the Church in England”, up to the end of the reign in 1547. From these years there are seven canonized and thirty-three blessed martyrs; the best known are Sts John Fisher and Thomas More, mentioned above, both put to death in 1535. None of the present martyrs, however, suffered in this reign. ewtn
Lizzy 1 murdered 48 Catholic Priests (including one Dominican and two Jesuits) and murdered 20 Catholic Laymen, all except two were condemned under the new Elizabethan laws.
The murderous Queen Elizabeth I was responsible for the killing fields of Ireland, which ran red with the blood of innocent victims. It is estimated that 1.5 million Irish Catholic peasants were starved or “put to the sword” and their lands seized by English predators, while she reigned.
Ireland starved because its food, from 40 to 70 shiploads per day, was removed at gunpoint by 12,000 British constables reinforced by the British militia, battleships, excise vessels, Coast Guard and by 200,000 British soldiers (100,000 at any given moment)
Does this sound familiar in depopulating one’s enemy?
Puritan Lizzy 1 even imprisoned & murdered her own first cousin Mary, Queen of Scots who was Catholic.
Henry VIIIwas succeeded by his son Edward VI (1547-53) and during his reign Protestantism became established as the religion of England, but there was no active repression of Catholics. Edward was followed by Mary I (1553-58), daughter of Henry VIII; she was a Catholic and under her Catholicism was restored but only temporarily. Elizabeth I, another daughter of Henry VIII and a Protestant, succeeded Mary in 1558 and Protestantism became the State religion of England once again, now to remain so permanently. By an Act of Parliament of 1559 Elizabeth was made “supreme governor” of the realm “in all spiritual and ecclesiastical things”, in other words, head of the Church as well as of the State. During the early years of her reign no great pressure was put on Catholics to conform to the “Established Church” of the new regime, but the situation changed rapidly from about 1570 onwards, mainly as a result of various events in England.
First there was the Northern Rising of 1569, an unsuccessful rebellion by Catholics in the north of England seeking the restoration of Catholicism and the release of the imprisoned Mary Queen of Scots, the Catholic cousin of Elizabeth and in Catholic eyes the rightful heir to the English throne.
Then in 1570 Pope St Pius V excommunicated Elizabeth and released her subjects from their allegiance to her, which naturally increased the English government’s hostility towards Catholics.
The incorrupt remains of Pope St. Pius V (d. 1572), enshrined in the Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome.
This Pope was distinguished for being an excellent leader of the Catholic Church during the moral and spiritual corruption that was rampant in England during his time. His personal integrity and sanctity were reknowned even before his election to the Papacy, and there is also ample evidence that the Lord favored him with mystical gifts, which he exercised for the benefit of the Church.
Puritan Elizabeth Sister Of Henry
Shortly after, from 1574 onwards, priests from the newly founded seminaries overseas—at Douai and Rome and in Spain—began to arrive in England, and the first Jesuit missionaries came in 1580. The activities of this new generation of priests alarmed the government and the result was that severe laws against Catholics, the “penal laws”, were soon enacted. An Act of Puritan Parliament of 1581 made reconciliation to the Catholic Church treason, and another Act in 1585 “against Jesuits and seminary priests”, the most infamous of all these laws, proscribed as treason the very presence of a Catholic priest in England and made it felony for anyone to shelter or assist him.
1581
Treason and felony were capital crimes and thus many Catholics were to suffer death under these laws.
Finally, in 1588 there was the Spanish Armada, which carried an army intended for the invasion of England and the overthrow of the Protestant Queen and her regime. The expedition failed, but for English Protestants it was the ultimate proof that the Pope and Spain were in league with English Catholics against them and that the returning priests and those to whom they ministered were the agents of foreign powers organizing, a fifth column in their country.
The repressive anti-Catholic laws were now enforced rigorously, and thus during the last thirty years or so of the sixteenth century English Catholics underwent the longest period of sustained persecution in their history. Of the present eighty-five martyrs, sixty-eight suffered in these years, between 1584 and 1601, i.e. forty-eight priests (including one Dominican and two Jesuits) and twenty laymen, all except two condemned under the new Elizabethan laws.
The Twelve Days Of Christmas Began Here With The Hate Filled Elizabeth!
"The Twelve Days of Christmas" was written in England as one of
the "catechism songs" to help young Catholics learn the tenets of
their faith - a memory aid, when to be caught with anything in
*writing* indicating adherence to the Catholic faith could not
only get you imprisoned, it could get you hanged, or shortened by
a head - or hanged, drawn and quartered, a rather peculiar and
ghastly punishment I'm not aware was ever practiced anywhere else.
Hanging, drawing and quartering involved hanging a person by the
neck until they had almost, but not quite, suffocated to death;
then the party was taken down from the gallows, and disembowelled
while still alive; and while the entrails were still lying on the
street, where the executioners stomped all over them, the victim
was tied to four large farm horses, and literally torn into five
parts - one to each limb and the remaining torso.
Partridge in a pear tree = Jesus Christ, The Son of God.
Turtle Doves = The Old and New Testaments
French Hens = Faith, Hope and Charity, the Theological Virtues
Calling Birds = the Four Gospels and/or the Four Evangelists
Golden Rings = The first Five Books of the Old Testament, the “Pentateuch”, which gives the history of man’s fall from grace.
Geese A-laying = the six days of creation
Swans A-swimming = the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, the seven sacraments
Maids A-milking = the eight beatitudes
Ladies Dancing = the nine Fruits of the Holy Spirit
Lords A-leaping = the ten commandments
Pipers Piping = the eleven faithful apostles
Drummers Drumming = the twelve points of doctrine in the Apostle’s Creed
The historicity is among primary documents in Latin from Irish priests, mostly Jesuits, writing back to the motherhouse at Douai-Rheims, in France. These documents mentioning this was purely as an aside, and not at all as part of the main content of the letters. In those days, even though there are those who will deny this, too, it was a sufficient crime between 1538 and nearly 1700 just to BE a Jesuit in England to find oneself hanged, drawn and quartered, if he fell into the hands of the authorities. Edmund Campion was not the sole Jesuit in England during the period. And there are places in England itself which, if you visit them, will attest to the antiquity and veracity of the article. Some have tried to cover over the meaning like Snopes.com, but they use only innuendoes and no circumstantial evidence. Barbara and David Mikkelson are the owners of Snopes and are puritan extremists who reside at the Democratic Underground.org in California. One their articles at the Democrat Underground was titled, Holy Mother-Fucker The Church it was posted by Nance Greggs on Friday March 06th 2009, 11:14 PM. So one can easily see the correlation of hate and partiality in Snopes veneer of objectivity. Some have also referenced the Catechism in books as a childhood game ~ yet the inception of the poem, had far more meaning in a time of death when published Catholicism was not allowed in english let alone in Latin.
As William Wallace (Brave Heart) ~ Guy Fawkes Fights Back Against Severe Persecution, Tyranny, And High Taxation Of Catholics For Not Attending The Protestant Church Of England:
“This is the truth I tell you: of all things freedom’s most fine. Never submit to live, my son, in the bonds of slavery entwined.”
— William Wallace
Roman Catholic William Wallace ~ Through Robert de Bruce (later to become King Robert I Of Scotland) Scotland Once Again Was Blessed By The Pope And One Was Free To Be A Roman Catholic. The Blue Crosses Below Are Saint Andrew’s Crosses. These Crosses Later Became The Confederate Flag Of The South Against The North’s High Taxation. The South Was Populated Mostly By Scottish Americans.
Remember, remember, the 5th of November; The Gunpowder Treason and plot; I know of no reason why Gunpowder Treason;
Should ever be forgot.
King James 1 (1603-25)
King James 1 murdered 7 Catholic Priests And 2 Catholic Laymen
1605
King James 1, Another Supporter Of King Henry VIII & Persecutor Of Roman Catholics In England.
Elizabeth I was succeeded by James VI of Scotland, the son of Mary Queen of Scots, who now became James I of England. Though James was a convinced Protestant, at the beginning of his reign the Catholics had great hopes of toleration, but these soon proved to be illusory. In 1605 came the Gunpowder Plot, a conspiracy by a number of Catholics (the best known being Guy Fawkes) to blow up the corrupt Houses of Parliament when the puritan King and the members of Parliament were present.
The plot was discovered before it could be carried out and the conspirators were subsequently executed, but strong anti-Catholic feeling was aroused and the penal laws were strengthened and again enforced strictly. Nine of the present group of martyrs suffered in this reign, between 1604 and 1618, i.e. seven priests and two laymen. All of them were condemned under the act of 1585, merely for being priests or assisting priests.
The struggle to liberate the human mind from England’s imposed restraints in religion escalated in seventeenth-century England.
Guy Fawkes
Freedom From England’s Puritan Tyranny
1606
Roman Catholic Guy Fawkes (1570 – 1606)
Roman Catholic Guy Fawkes (1570 – 1606). Guy Fawkes was only 9 years older than Catholic Father Andrew White ( First in America to proclaim and to practice civil and religious liberty ~ Settled Maryland 1634) and 10 years older than George Calvert (First in America to proclaim and to practice civil and religious libertyChartered By King Charles 1)
Five men plotted to kill James I and his advisers by blowing up the Houses of Parliament at the official opening of Parliament. They were led by Robert Catesby. The other plotters were Thomas Percy, Thomas Wintour, John Wright – and Guy Fawkes
The plotters rented a house next door to the Houses of Parliament. They planned to dig a tunnel so they could get the gunpowder from the cellar of the house to the House of Lords – but this didn’t work out because it took too long. So they came up with another plan.
Thomas Percy managed to get hold of a cellar that was directly underneath the House of Lords. Guy Fawkes became caretaker of the cellar and pretended he was Thomas Percy’s servant. He called himself John Johnson.
The plotters managed to hide 36 barrels of gunpowder under firewood in the cellar after taking them one by one across the River Thames in the night.
Everything was ready for the opening of Parliament on 5th November 1605!
They had to figure out what they wanted to happen after the King had been killed.
The whole plot came about because Catholics were being persecuted, so it was very important that the next ruler would be good to Catholics. They decided that Princess Elizabeth, one of King James’ daughters, should become Queen after the explosion. They arranged for arms and ammunition to be stored around the country for the Catholic people to use in case they had to fight to get Princess Elizabeth on the throne.
Unfortunately, these big plans meant that they needed money to buy the weapons and then they had to find good hiding places. So more people became involved in the plot.
The plotters were very careful about who they told and made sure they only shared their secret with their relatives or people they knew very well. One of these people was Francis Tresham.
Now, Tresham’s brother-in-law was Lord Monteagle. As the House of Lords was likely to be a pretty dangerous place on 5th November, it is believed that Tresham wrote to Lord Monteagle, warning him to stay away from the opening of Parliament – and that’s when people started to get a bit suspicious …
Lord Monteagle took the letter to Robert Cecil, who was Secretary of State for the King, and a search of the cellar was arranged.
On 4th November 1605, Guy Fawkes was in the cellar, preparing a special, slow-burning fuse for the big day. It was his job to light the fuse before making his escape to the continent.
Suddenly, there was a knock at the door! Some men had been sent to search the cellar.
Luckily for Guy Fawkes, the gunpowder was very well hidden and all that could be seen was firewood. When the searchers left, he breathed a big sigh of relief and continued with his preparations, but …
… they hadn’t been fooled at all!
The searchers had noticed that there was an awful lot of firewood in that cellar and a further search was arranged. Guy Fawkes’ found himself face to face with a magistrate, who was accompanied by soldiers!He was quickly overpowered. The soldiers made a more thorough search and quickly found the barrels of gunpowder. Guy Fawkes was arrested and taken away to be questioned by King James himself.
Guy Fawkes still insisted that his name was John Johnson – even when he was tortured – and he refused to reveal the names of the other plotters. He didn’t know that spies had been watching him and they already had a good idea who was in the gang.
Meanwhile, the other plotters heard about what was happening in London and hid in Holbeche House in Staffordshire with their followers. Soon, they found themselves surrounded by an army led by the Sheriff of Worcestershire.
Of the original plotters, Robert Catesby, Thomas Percy and John Wright were killed in the fighting that quickly followed. The surviving plotters, including Thomas Wintour, were taken prisoner. Wintour and Guy Fawkes were both hanged, drawn and quartered after their trial at the end of January 1606.
Now, do you remember that letter to Lord Monteagle? We know for sure that the letter existed because it’s kept in the Public Records Office today. It is very likely that it was written by Francis Tresham, because he was the only one of the plotters to escape execution. He was taken to the Tower of London instead. Some people say he died of poisoning, but others reckon he might have been allowed to escape as a reward for giving the warning.
The Gunpowder Plot was really bad news for the ordinary Catholics. King James now began persecuting them more than ever!
Tho the corrupt Puritan Parliament may have got Fawkes in 1606, this same corrupt Puritan Parliament, would be executed by King Charles II in 1660 for usurping the laws of England.
In a short 28 years later after the execution of Guy Fawkes, in what was to Become The United States Of America, Father Andrew White in 1634 stepped upon Maryland named after Henrietta Maria (King Charles 1~ Catholic Wife From France).
On the day of the Annunciation of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, in the year 1634,” continues Father White, ” we celebrated on this island the first Mass which had been ever offered up in this part of the world.
Joan Of Arc ~ The Maid of Orléans led France To Freedom From England’s Severe Persecution. Joan was Burnt At The Stake By England On May 30, 1431.
The Severe Persecution Of Roman Catholics In England, Allowed Them Dispensation From King Charles 1st., To Leave England And Settle In What Was To Become Maryland In 1634. This Was 98 Years Before The Birth Of George Washington And 142 Years before The Declaration Of Independence In 1776.
King Charles 1st Reigned In England From 1625 to 1649.
King Charles 1st In 1649 Would Follow Guy Fawkes in Being Decapitated, For Allowing The Roman Catholics To Flee Religious Persecution From The Corrupt Puritan’s Parliament. Puritans Were Loyal Protestants Of Anti-Catholic King Henry VIII & Queen Elizabeth 1st.
King Charles II Son Of King Charles 1st.
The Corrupt Puritan Parliament Was Dealt A Swift Blow For Treason & Regicide By King Charles II.
When Charles II returned to become king of England in 1660, those men who had signed his father’s death warrant (and were still alive) were tried as regicides (the murderer of a king) and executed. Anyone associated with the execution of Charles was put on trial. The only people to escape were the executioners as no-one knew who they were as they wore masks during the execution. Maryland, USA was named after King Charles’s wife (Henrietta Maria), when King Charles was decapitated she entered a Convent in France. She returned several times to England in 1660, to see her eldest son crowned King Charles II and her younger son crowned King James II who ruled from 1685 to 1688.
Executioner’s Mask The Symbol Of Tyranny.
The Executioner Of King Charles 1st Could Not Be Identified, As For The First Time A Mask Was Allowed! Many Others Would Not Act As An Executioner Of A King As They Did Not Want To Be Associated With Such A Grievous Wrong! The Masked Real Executioner Was Bribed With £100 To Do The Dirty Deed. The Piece Of Shit Leader Who Usurped The Country’s Laws To Kill A King Was Oliver Cromwell!
The English Puritans under Cromwell engaged in pure and simple genocide Of Roman Catholics in Ireland – 40,000 victims killed or sold as slaves in 1649 in the Oradours of Drogheda and Wexford alone.
Symbol Of Freedom From Tyranny ~ The Mask Of Guy Fawkes
It Would Not Be Until 1606, When Guy Fawkes a Roman Catholic, Fought Back Against The Corrupt Puritan British Parliament, That The Universal Symbol Of Resistance To Tyranny Would Be Born.
It Was Roman Catholic George Calvert who was the first person to dream of a colony in America where Catholics and Protestants could prosper together. George Calvert Received This Charter From King Charles 1st In 1633 To Establish And Settle Maryland For The Purpose Of Religious Freedom.
1632
Roman Catholic George Calvert, First Lord Baltimore (c. 1580-1632)
George Calvert
The Severe Persecution Of Roman Catholics In England, Allowed Them Dispensation From King Charles 1st., To Leave England And Settle In What Was To Become Maryland In 1634. This Was 98 Years Before The Birth Of George Washington And 142 Years before The Declaration Of Independence In 1776.
Charles I signed the Charter of Maryland in 1635, making George Calvert and his heirs Proprietors of Maryland. But George Calvert died before the Charter was ready to be signed.
George’s son, Cecil Calvert, Second Lord Baltimore, recieved the province of Maryland from King Charles I. During his reign, Charles I made certain that Cecil Calvert could maintain control of his colony. However, the English Civil Wars between Parliament and Charles I, left the possession of the Maryland Province in question. You see the question arose when the evil Puritan Parliament committed regicide by decapitating King Charles 1. King Charles Was posthumusley vindicated when those involved in the decapitation, were themselves executed by King Charles II.
Catholic Maryland: The First Tolerant American Colony
A. Patrick O’Hare
“Catholics . . . were the first in America to proclaim and to practice civil and religious liberty . . . The colony established by Lord Baltimore (Who Was George Calvert’s Son ~ Cecil Calvert) in Maryland granted civil and religious liberty to all who professed different beliefs . . . At that very time the Puritans of New England and the Episcopalians of Virginia were busily engaged in persecuting their brother Protestants for consciences’ sakes and the former were . . . hanging `witches’.” (50:300-01)
B. Martin Marty (P)
“Baltimore . . . welcomed, among other English people, even the Catholic-hating Puritans (8) . . . In January of 1691 . . . the new regime brought hard times for Catholics as the Protestants closed their church, forbade them to teach in public . . . but . . . the little outpost of practical Catholic tolerance had left its mark of promise on the land.” (9)
C. John Tracy Ellis
“For the first time in history . . . all churches would be tolerated, and . . . none would be the agent of the government . . . Catholics and Protestants side by side on terms of equality and toleration unknown in the mother country . . . The effort proved vain; for . . . the Puritan element . . . October, 1654, repealed the Act of Toleration and outlawed the Catholics . . . condemning ten of them to death, four of whom were executed . . . From . . . 1718 down to the outbreak of the Revolution, the Catholics of Maryland were cut off from all participation in public life, to say nothing of the enactments against their religious services and . . . schools for Catholic instruction . . . During the half-century the Catholics had governed Maryland they had not been guilty of a single act of religious oppression.” (10)
D. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (P)
“In the 17th century the most notable instances of practical toleration were the colonies of Maryland, founded by Lord Baltimore in 1632 for persecuted Catholics, which offered asylum also to Protestants, and of Rhode Island, founded by Roger Williams.” (78:1383)
Stories of Protestant intolerance in America prior to 1789 could be multiplied indefinitely. Jefferson and Madison, in pushing for complete religious freedom, were reacting primarily to these inter-Protestant wars for dominance, not the squabbles of post-Reformation Europe. Here we are concerned with the immediate era of the Protestant Revolution – roughly 1517 to 1600, so the above anecdotes will have to suffice as altogether typical examples.
1634
Father Andrew White (1579-1656), on March 25, 1634, celebrated the first Catholic mass in Maryland to thank God for their safe landing in fleeing from British persecution. They made a treaty with the Yaocomico Indians for land at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. There they stayed, and built the new town called St. Mary’s City. 1634 – They reached their destination on the banks of the Potomac, in 1634. “This colony of British Catholics was the first to establish on American soil the blessings of civil and religious liberty.
1656
Great-Grandfather Of President George Washington ~ John Washington (Essex, England 1631 – Virginia 1677) , arrives in America on 1657.
Grave of John Washington in the Washington family burial plot in Westmoreland County, Virginia.
1659
Grandfather Of President George Washington Is born Lawrence Washington ( Westmoreland County Virginia 1659 – 1697)
1694
Father Of President George Washington Is Born Augustine Washington (Virginia 1694 – April 12, 1743)
Grave of Augustine Washington – George Washington’s father – at Washington cemetery plot
1704
Further penal laws are passed in Ireland. More restrictions are placed on Catholics. They are not allowed to buy land, inherit from Protestants or lease it for more than 31 years. They not allowed to leave land to a single heir but land must be divided among all their sons (or daughters if they don’t have any). A ‘sacramental test’ means Catholics are not allowed to hold public office. The test also applies to Protestant dissenters (those who do not belong to the State Church of Ireland) Finally in 1740-1741 the severe famine affects Ireland, due to England confiscating Land From The Catholics, About 400,000 Catholics die.
1732
President George Washington Is Born (Virginia February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799)
George Washington Age 45
George Washington Completes William Wallace’s Fight For Freedom, In The Establishment Of The Unites States Of America!
As the Commander in Chief has been apprized of a design form’d for the observance of that ridiculous and childish custom of burning the Effigy of the Pope–He cannot help expressing his surprise that there should be Officers and Soldiers in this army so void of common sense, as not to see the impropriety of such a step at this Juncture; at a Time when we are solliciting, and have really obtain’d, the friendship and alliance of the people of Canada, whom we ought to consider as Brethren embarked in the same Cause. The defence of the general Liberty of America: At such a juncture, and in such Circumstances, to be insulting their Religion, is so monstrous, as not to be suffered or excused; indeed instead of offering the most remote insult, it is our duty to address public thanks to these our Brethren, as to them we are so much indebted for every late happy Success over the common Enemy in Canada.
Washington was the strongest denouncers of insult to Catholicism after the war broke out, and later stopped his soldiers from burning the Pope on Guy Fawkes’ Day ~ which was a British puritan ritual based upon King Henry VIII’s stance against The Pope after The Church denied him a divorce. So Henry started his own church called Anglican. The Roman Catholics landed in America for Religious Freedom on 1634 In Maryland/Washington D.C. ~ The Anti Catholic Puritans landed in Massachusetts in 1620 but not for religious freedom.
“O eternal and everlasting God, I presume to present myself this morning before thy Divine majesty, beseeching thee to accept of my humble and hearty thanks, that it hath pleased thy great goodness to keep and preserve me the night past from all the dangers poor mortals are subject to, and has given me sweet and pleasant sleep, whereby I find my body refreshed and comforted for performing the duties of this day, in which I beseech thee to defend me from all perils of body and soul.
Direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb, and purge my heart by thy Holy Spirit, from the dross of my natural corruption, that I may with more freedom of mind and liberty of will serve thee, the ever lasting God, in righteousness and holiness this day, and all the days of my life.
Increase my faith in the sweet promises of the Gospel. Give me repentance from dead works. Pardon my wanderings, & direct my thoughts unto thyself, the God of my salvation. Teach me how to live in thy fear, labor in thy service, and ever to run in the ways of thy commandments. Make me always watchful over my heart, that neither the terrors of conscience, the loathing of holy duties, the love of sin, nor an unwillingness to depart this life, may cast me into a spiritual slumber. But daily frame me more and more into the likeness of thy son Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time attain the resurrection of the just unto eternal life. Bless my family, friends & kindred unite us all in praising & glorifying thee in all our works begun, continued, and ended, when we shall come to make our last account before thee blessed Savior, who hath taught us thus to pray, our Father.”
Political Vel Craft 