Chapter M: DELAHAYE: “M. Briand’s law is older than himself. We find traces of

it in all the Masonic convents.... Gentlemen, why are we going to vote this additional law, as we did the first Separation Law, without changing an iota?... Because the lodges have so decided.

“The Convent, the public should be told, is the general assembly of the lodges.... The Convent, called during the Revolution _La Convention_, is the source of all our evils. On 12 November, 1904, brother Lafferre (a senator), thirty-third degree, read the following _ordre du jour_: ‘The general assembly of the Grand Orient addresses to M. Combes warm assurances of sympathy and confidence, and begs him to persevere courageously in the struggle to defend the Republic against clericalism, and accomplish social, military, and fiscal reforms. The Assembly demands that at the session of January, 1905, Separation and the _retraites ouvrières_ be discussed simultaneously.’”

M. Lafferre and the reporter of the new Separation Law here applauded ironically.

M. Delahaye continued: “Let us pass to the Convent of 1905, séance 23 September, 1905.

“Le Frère Roret, reporter (of the Masonic Commission): ... A wish more important, and which will be adopted without discussion, emanates from the Congress of the region of Paris. It regards the Separation and has been slightly modified by the (Masonic) Commission (of political and social studies). The Congress demands that the Separation Law voted in the Chambers be amended by the Senate. Your Commission judges that it is most important that this law be voted immediately and promulgated before the legislative elections (May, 1906), so that the country may see that it is a liberal law and not at all vexatious.... Your Commission proposes the following vote: ‘The Convent emits the wish that the law, imperfect but perfectible, be adopted by the Senate as rapidly as possible and promulgated before the elections, but that it be amended later by the Republican Parliament and rendered more distinctly _laïque_.’”

M. Delahaye continued: “It is well to notice that laic has two meanings. For us it means not ecclesiastic; for Freemasons it means atheistic, anti-Catholic.... I have proved, incontestably, that M. Briand is here as the mouthpiece of Freemasonry, to which he says he does not belong.... There is a privileged Congregation in France which holds property as a _société immobilière_ of the Grand Orient by ‘interposed persons.’ This Congregation is about to sell its real estate of the Rue Cadet (Paris). It received an offer of 1,250,000 francs. The State offers to buy it for 1,300,000 francs, to be used as a telephone office.... I wish to know why the State does not simply expropriate this Congregation, seeing that it is illegal, because this _société immobilière_ is simply a _personne interposée_?... Gentlemen, the book just published by one of your former friends, M. Flourens (ex-minister), _La France Conquise Edward VII and Clemenceau_, is going to enlighten rulers deaf to the voice of the Pope (who had condemned Masonry since 1728). The Bourbons and the French nobility, whom Freemasonry had doomed to death, were dancing on the first floor of the lodges, while overhead sentence was being passed on them.... In spite of many changes of government since a century, we are descending steadily, because your principles, destructive of family, country, and private property, have entered into our legislation.... We have a fine army, but at your touch it becomes no more than a national guard. We have many vessels, but no navy.... Ere long kings and emperors, who now utilize Freemasonry, will end by saying, ‘This instrument is very dangerous.’”

There were cries of “_Clôture, clôture_.” The discussion was closed. No one replied to M. Delahaye.

PAGES 113-125

Commenting on the annual Convent of the Grand Orient, September, 1906, the _Journal de Génève_, the leading Swiss Protestant daily, made the following statements:--

“LE RÔLE DE LA MAÇONNERIE

“_Septembre, 1906._

“Il ne faut pas se dissimuler que la franc-maçonnerie tient entre
ses mains les destinées du pays (la France). Quoiqu’elle ne compte
que vingt-six mille adhérents, elle dirige à sa guise la politique
française. Toutes les lois dont le catholicisme se plaint si
amèrement ont été d’abord élaborées dans ses convents. Elle les a
imposées au gouvernement et aux Chambres. Elle dictera toutes les
mesures qui seront destinées à en assurer l’application. Nul n’en
doute, et personne, non pas même les plus indépendants, n’oserait
heurter de front sa volonté souveraine. Il serait aussitôt brisé,
celui qui se permettrait seulement de la méconnaître.

“Jamais, depuis l’époque où Rome commandait aux rois et aux
princes, on ne vit pareille puissance. Et cette puissance est
d’autant plus forte, à cette heure, qu’elle vient de subir
victorieusement une crise redoutable. Après l’affaire des fiches,
on croyait la maçonnerie morte, tout au moins bien malade; mais, à
force d’audace, elle a triomphé de ses ennemis, qui déjà sonnaient
joyeusement l’hallali. Les deux tiers des membres de la Chambre
actuelle sont francs-maçons.

“La volonté de la franc maçonnerie, nul ne l’ignore plus, c’est de
détruire le catholicisme en France. Elle se dresse comme une Eglise
contre l’Eglise de Rome. Elle n’aura ni cesse ni répit, qu’elle ne
l’ait jetée bas, qu’elle n’en ait semé les poussières au vent. Tous
ses ressorts sont uniquement tendus vers ce but. Les autres
religions, si même elle ne les ignore momentanément, elle paraît
les ménager. Elle se dit sans doute que, le catholicisme ayant
rendu l‘âme sous son étreinte, l’anéantissement des autres
confessions ne serait pour elle que jeu d’enfant.

“Mais l’adversaire n’est pas encore terrassé, auquel elle s’était
attaquée. Il est comme Antée, qui, toutes les fois qu’il touchait
le sol, retrouvait de nouvelles forces. Elle s’en rend bien compte.
C’est pourquoi, crainte que d’un tour de reins désespéré il ne se
dresse dans toute sa vigueur, elle n’a point poussé jusqu’ici la
lutte à fond. Parfois même elle semble accorder une trêve; elle
rentre dans ses quartiers. Mais, dès que la vigilance des
catholiques lui paraît suffisamment endormie, elle se jette de
nouveau sur sa proie. Elle continuera cette tactique jusqu’au
triomphe définitif.

“Ce triomphe est-il prochain ou lointain? Pour le moment, la
défiance de Rome est bien éveillée, et Pie X n’est peut-être pas de
ces hommes qui se laissent prendre aux feints désarmements.

“Quelques-uns se demanderont comment il peut se faire qu’une
minorité si faible gouverne ainsi tout un pays. C’est pourtant très
simple. D’abord les maçons sont étroitement unis; et l’union fit
toujours la force. Ensuite, appartenant tous aux classes moyennes,
ils exercent par leur situation personnelle, par leurs
fonctions--tous les gros bonnets de l’administration sont affiliés
à la franc-maçonnerie--une influence très grande. L’on peut dire
qu’ils disposent de toutes les faveurs gouvernementales; et ces
faveurs, ils ne les distribuent qu’à bon escient. Non seulement
donc ils tiennent à leur discrétion tous ceux qui occupent un poste
quelconque de l’Etat, mais encore tous ceux qui aspirent à en
occuper un, et ils sont légion. Ça leur fait une armée formidable,
disciplinée par l’intérêt.

“On comprend que, dans ces conditions, la franc-maçonnerie n’ait
qu’à faire un signe aux pouvoirs publics pour qu’elle soit
immédiatement obéie. Quoi qu’elle décide, ce sera exécuté sur
l’heure.

“La franc-maçonnerie, dit-il, sait mieux que le gouvernement
lui-même, quelle somme de résistance, en ce moment, le catholicisme
peut opposer à un assault décisif. Elle n’ignore pas que, quoiqu’il
soit très ébranlé, il serait très hasardeux de le vouloir abattre
d’un dernier coup. Elle craint surtout que, si elle ne parvenait
pas à lui faire exhaler le soupir suprême, il ne retrouvât une
nouvelle vie, la volonté et l’énergie de vaincre à son tour.

“La franc-maçonnerie se gardera de compromettre, dans une lutte
chanceuse, les fruits de longs efforts. Elle a emprunté sa devise à
Rome: ‘Patiens quia æterna,’ et elle attendra qu’elle puisse
frapper à coup sûr. Les probabilités sont donc pour que, tout en
s’opposant à ce que des relations soient renouées avec le
Saint-Siège, elle ne chassera pas les catholiques de leurs derniers
retranchements, c’est-à-dire de leurs églises; elle les y laissera
tranquilles, jusqu’au jour où, par un nouveau coup d’audace, elle
s’en emparera.

“Un de ses orateurs a prophétisè qu’avant peu on entendrait des
‘batteries d’allégresse’ sous les voûtes de Notre-Dame; et les
prophéties maçonniques ne se sontelles pas souvent réalisées?”

PAGE 204

On November 9th, 1906, M. Briand described the Status of the Church
in France as follows (_Officiel_, 2459): “The churches are affected
to public worship and must remain so indefinitely.... It is our
duty to leave them open.... Reunions are possible, you may have
them. The priest may live in direct communication with the people,
he may receive manual gifts. Perhaps the Catholic hierarchy about
which you are so much concerned will suffer. Perhaps this faculty
left to the faithful to live with their priest haphazard (_au
hasard de la rencontre_) will soon dry up the revenues of the
priests; it will certainly dry up those of the bishops.”

It is well also to recall here the words pronounced by M. Briand,
October 17th, 1905 (_Journal Officiel_, 1223), regarding the
_Associations cultuelles_: “They will be hardly born on the 11th
December, 1906. They will not have had time to obtain funds. If we
deprive them of the patrimony of the _fabriques_ and _menses
episcopales_ it will be impossible for them to maintain public
worship, and the faithful will be unable to practise their
religion.”

Yet the Government impudently declares to-day that the Catholics
are hard to please!

On December 1st, 1906, M. Briand sent forth an ukase commanding
every priest to consider public worship assimilated to public
meetings, and to make a declaration to the mayor according to the
law of 1881.

Now the law of 1905 says that public worship cannot be regulated by
the law of 1881. Moreover, this law requires the constitution of a
bureau, and that a declaration be made before each meeting
twenty-four hours in advance. M. Briand took upon himself to modify
the law (_l’assouplir_) and to say no bureau was necessary, and
that one declaration would do for a year! The clergy made no
declarations. A few were made by Anarchists and Freemasons.

From the 12th to the 20th December the police were kept busy making
thousands of _procès verbaux_ all over France. This idea of making
65,000 prosecutions every day was soon found to be grotesque and
impracticable. Moreover, under the law of 1881 it is the owner of
the public hall or the café or cabaret who is prosecuted for not
making the required declaration. The State and the communes being
now the alleged owners of the churches since December 11th, 1906,
_they_ should have been prosecuted and not the priests. This same
M. Briand, who thus modified the law of 1881, had declared in the
Chambers: “Common right no longer exists if you interpret it
otherwise than the law” (November 9th, _Journal Officiel_, p.
2438).

Since December 11th, 1906, the Church in France is very much in the
condition of the man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho.

On December 29th, 1906, a new Law of Separation was passed. It
confers on 36,000 mayors the right to invest 36,000 priests with a
precarious use of Church edifices, _sauf désaffection_. The
time-limit is to be decided, _à l’amiable_, between the mayors and
their nominees. Truly this is the _reductio ad absurdum_ of
separation.

M. Briand assures us “that the mayor will accord the church to the
_curé_ most capable of keeping it in good condition” (_Journal
Officiel_, p. 3398, December 21st, 1906). This is lay orthodoxy.
“As to the period of enjoyment, it is impossible to fix it by law,”
says M. Briand, “to one, two, or three years” (_Officiel_, p.
3407), “‘ce sont des questions d’espèce qui seront tranchées selon
les communes’; it will vary in each commune.”

To this M. Ribot replied: “‘C’est l’anarchie dans 36,000 communes.’
At every election this question will be raised, Shall we leave the
church to the _curé_ or not? You are making of this question,
eminently a governmental one, a municipal question, given over to
dissensions, competitions, and coteries” (_Officiel_, p. 3407).

The new Law of Separation (December 29th) abolishes the
sequestration ordered on December 11th of all Church revenues,
etc., till December, 1907. It turns over immediately to the
communes and to lay institutions all the property of the Church.
Yet on November 9th (_Journal Officiel_, p. 2461) M. Briand stoutly
resisted the Left, clamouring for this very thing. “We must not
raise illusory hopes,” he said.

“No,” cried a deputy, “it will be like the milliard of the
Congregations.”

“There are fourteen millions of revenue,” continued M. Briand,”
...but are they ‘liquid,’ free of charges? The communes are
stretching out their hands to receive. You will give them what?
Nests of lawsuits. Yes, nests of vipers that will poison the
communes with their venom.”

To explain this change of policy M. Briand said: “We have acquired
the certitude that the situation is without issue. It was
impossible to expect that during the next year regular associations
(of 1905) will be constituted to claim this property of the
_fabriques_. We cannot remain another whole year in this
uncertainty” (_Journal Officiel_, p. 3396, December 21st). A French
proverb says: “Souvent femme varie bien fou qui s’y fie.”

And in the same session M. Briand, to explain why it was not
possible to lend the churches to _curés_ under the new law for any
definite time, said: “In fixing no term the Government is logical.
Having a law to execute (that of 1905), and having the conviction
that the Church will end by accepting it, we could not give to
uncontrolled associations under the law of 1901, which are a
concession to the Church, the same advantages as to _Associations
cultuelles_” (1905) (_Journal Officiel_, p. 3407, December 21st,
1906).

The new law of December 28th, 1906, says the use of the churches
can be obtained by the declaration of the _curé_ individually, or
of an association formed according to the law of 1901, or rather
according to _certain_ articles of this law _only_. The Church may
not avail herself of the articles which permit the formation of
associations called “of public utility”--like the S.P.A., for
instance.

This is what these Jacobins understand by combating the Church. A
_coup de liberté_ by dint of liberty! They speak of giving _droit
commun_, common right. But they never do so. The Church is excluded
from the right of forming _Associations d’utilité publique_
conferred by the law of 1901, though placed under this law since
December 28th, 1906. The new law is only a makeshift. M. Briand
said (21st December, p. 3398, _Journal Officiel_): “Evidently this
legislation is not definitive. Turn the pages of history up to the
Revolution; you will see that the Convention had the same
difficulties as we to-day. See the number of laws voted in the year
1795 alone” (there were eleven Laws of Separation). Just so. France
stands where she did in 1795.

PAGE 228

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN CATHOLIC MARYLAND

Confirmed by the Lord Proprietary by an instrument under his hand & seale.

PHILLIP CALVERT. 26th August 1650.

Enacted & made at a Geñall Session held 1 & 20 day of Aprill Anno Dm͠ 1649 as followeth viz.

An act concerning Religion.

fforasmuch as in a well

governed & Xpian Com͠on Wealth matters concerning Religion and
the honor of God ought in the first place to bee taken into serious
consideracon & endeavoured to bee settled. Be it therefore ordered
and enacted by the Right Hoble Cecilius Lord Baron of Baltemore
absolute Lord Proprietary of this Province with the advice &
consent of this Generall Assembly. That whatsoever ‘pson or ‘psons
within this province & the Islands thereunto belonging shall from
henceforth blaspheme God that is curse him or deny our Saviour
Jesus Christ to be the sonne of God, or shall deny the holy Trinity
or the unity of the Godhead, or shall use or utter any reproachfull
speeches concerning the said Holy Trinity shal be punished with
death & confiscation to the lord Proprietary and his heirs....

And bee it also further enacted by the same authority advise and
assent that whatsoever ‘pson or ‘psons shall from henceforth uppon
any occasion of offense or otherwise in a reproachful manner or way
declare call or denominate any ‘pson or ‘psons whatsoever,
inhabiting residing or traffiqueing or commerceing within this
Province or within any of the Ports Harbors Creeks or Havens to the
same belonging, an heritik, Scismatick Idolater, puritan,
Independent, Calvenist, Anabaptist Brownist Antimmoniam, Barrowist
Roundhead, Sepatist Presbiterian, popish prest, Jesuite, Jesuited
papist or any other name or terme in a reproachful manner relating
to matter of Religion shall for every such offense, forfeit and
loose the some of tenne shillings one half thereof to be paid unto
the person of whom such reproachfull words are or shall be spoken
and the other half thereof to the Lord Proprietary.... And whereas
the inforceing of the Conscience in matters of religion hath
frequently fallen out to be of dangerous Consequence in these
Commonwealths where it hath been practised. And for the more quiet
and peacable govt of this Province & the better to pserve
mutuall Love & Amity amongst the inhabitants thereof. Be it
therefore also by the L[-o] Proprietary with the advice and consent
of this Assembly Ordeynd & enacted that noe persons whatsoever
within this province or the Islands Ports Harbors Creeks thereunto
belonging professing to believe in Jesus Christ shall from
henceforth bee any waies troubled Molested or discountenanced for
or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise
thereof within this province ... nor any way compelled to the
beliefe or exercise of any other Religion against his or her
consent soe as they be not unfaithfull to the Lord Proprietary or
molest or conspire against the Civill Govt established.... And
that all & every person that shall presume contrary to this act
directly or indirectly either in person or Estate wilfully to wrong
disturb or molest any person ... in respect to his or her Religion
shall be compelled to pay trebble damages to the party soe wronged
or molested & for every such offence shall also forfeit 20s
sterling ... or if the ptie soe offending as aforesaid shall refuse
or be unable to recompense the party soe wronged ... then such
offender shall be severely punished by publick whipping &
imprisonmt without baile or maineprise....

The ffreemen have assented.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR

_SLAV AND MOSLEM_

SOME OPINIONS

“_Slav and Moslem_ does you the greatest honour, for I quite understand how difficult it is for foreigners to comprehend so correctly as you do the origin, the value, and the destinies of our institutions.

PRINCE CANTACUZENE.

“_Russian Imperial Legation, Washington._”

“The perusal of your valuable and interesting book on the historical relations of Slav and Moslem has afforded the keenest pleasure.

A. ISWOLZY.

“_Légation Impériale de Russe près le Saint Siège._”

“We are separated from the Western world by difference of race, culture, and history, and the Western mind is very hard in understanding us. Therefore the testimony of a just and unprejudiced mind is always gratefully appreciated in Russia.