3. When, in the a.s.sertion of popular right, Pythagoras was driven away by Cylon, the then imperfect effort of self-government fell through. But little understood, its then dim light faded.

4. The society of the _Kabbalistae_, part of whom {108} were afterward known as the _Pythagorean league_, as the _Collegio fabrorum_ of Numa Pompilius, as the _Liberi Architectonici_ of the middle ages, and as the _Free-Masons_ of the present day; this society, I repeat, never interfered in politics.

5. The Christian church was tempted to forget, that Christ's kingdom was not of this world. And its two great branches, that of Rome and England, were seduced into the error of seeking to obtain power through public policy.

Rome exerted her influences through her praetorian cohorts, the confraternities of mendicants and of Jesus--the Jesuits. Unknown, and in silence, they were domiciliated in courts and in families, throughout all nations; and some roamed as itinerants. The will of their general, on their unconditional subserviency to his behest, seemed to create an almost omnipresent power to be controlled by Rome alone. Has not the exercise of it been exemplified in the inquisition? Was it not felt in the ma.s.sacre of St. Bartholomew? I will not stop to ask the power and control of a Madame Maintenon, or Du Barry: nor whose influences controlled them. Does not all history portray their one effort?

But has not the Church of England endeavored to obtain temporal power, also, by interference in the affairs of this world, politically?

Shame! shame!! If the priesthood are honest in giving an undivided allegiance to HIM, whom they {109} have taken an oath _only_ to serve; and yet, whose "kingdom is not of this world;" how dare they violate that obligation? "_Ne sutor ultra crepidam,_" &c.

But we in the United States are not better than our neighbors. Man is the same everywhere, but for education.

And this brings us to the great, practical lesson, to which end all that has thus far been detailed has been directed.

Americans! no matter of what nation you came, consider this lesson.

We have ignored and thrown aside the priestly fable of an anointment by a man conferring an hereditary right to rule his brother man, by any family.

This _jus divinum regum_ is an absurdity, practically discarded by those who a.s.sert it. What divine right has been granted either to Napoleon the Great, or to Napoleon the little? Whence came it? By whose hands? How is it preserved? Is not the same religious power ready to crown a Bourbon one day, and, in spite of the hereditary _jus divinum_ already granted, crown a Corsican (who has waded through blood to his throne) the next day; over the very rights of the Bourbon, who relies on that _jus divinum_ as his t.i.tle?

A divine right (if any) is here granted to both--to the Bourbon, and to the Corsican. Can truth contradict itself? If there be a contradiction must there not be error somewhere? {110}

This _jus divinum_ that began with the deification of Nimrod, is still perpetuated though in other hands.

But we must look into this a little further.

II. Although the Theocracy in the days of Moses was of temporary duration, and human power afterward a.s.serted a kingly right, was that divine right ever preserved? If divine, it is immutable. Does history show this? When t.i.tus conquered Jerusalem, does not Jewish history tell us the voice was heard saying, "LET US GO HENCE?"

III. History shows, among men, two cla.s.ses who have governed others:--

1. Kings, emperors, and rulers.

2. Priests and clergy, controlling the superst.i.tious feelings of mankind; yes, even these kings, emperors, and rulers, by mysticism.

IV. There have been throughout history two cla.s.ses of secret societies.

One always endeavoring to govern and control the ma.s.ses politically, by religious mysteries, &c. The other endeavoring to persuade to the study of science and philosophy, and trying to wean men from the mere struggle of this world's power, to a preparation for another world, into which we must be born spiritually, by human death, and as to which this earth is only the school-house. And this cla.s.s has not interfered in any manner with politics in any country. {111}

This bring us to the present condition of our own beloved country at this time.

A secret society, also political, was formed here, known as THE KNOW-NOTHINGS. And its secrecy was about to destroy it, when that secrecy, under the power of the press, vanished into mist.

But what was the origin thereof? And when, after gentlemen and statesmen controlled it, and expelled its rubbish, it a.s.sumed a powerful influence, and a new form, as an "American Party," what were the deep moving causes which led to its prominent position?

From the days of Nimrod to the present day, all history shows an effort on the part of a few to control temporal power, at the expense of the many.

They have always acted on the superst.i.tions of man to accomplish this end.

But the American theory (_esto perpetua_) is, that all men are free and equal in their political rights, when their intellect is that of control, not of servitude; and that the people are the source and fountain of political power. It cometh not from a priest. It is the voice of freemen speaking and acting through their agents, whom they select.

This antagonism is now to be severely tested in coming history.

What is the source of temporal power?

Rome, England, France, and other countries, say it is from "the church,"

meaning their own particular {112} designation of a religion. That it is a divine right communicated by priestly anointment, attended by public ceremonies, imposing in appearance, and "_ad captandum,_" for the public eye.

The American theory, going far beyond the bare and imperfect teaching of Pythagoras, boldly a.s.serts what is believed to be the true and only origin of temporal power, the free will of a people exercised through agents of its own selection.

For about eighty years past this first great experiment has been successful. But that success has induced the most insidious attacks of those who advocate the opposite policy. We must be watchful, or our liberties will be gone. The game they now play is new in history; but, it is one easily comprehended. It has been well said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

But two centuries since this land was the home of the savage. The Caucasian intellect, however, has a.s.sumed its supremacy here; and the Indian, incapable of mental culture, is gradually, but surely pa.s.sing, like other forms of animal existence, from the world.

One of the highest efforts of the human mind, is the Const.i.tution of the United States of America. The great principles of freemen governing themselves, as there enunciated, must and will necessarily be attacked by the a.s.serters of divine right in temporal government. If our experiment succeeds the powers of Europe must fall, or undergo an entire change. {113} England's n.o.bility must acknowledge, sooner or later, the equality of the commonalty and gentry with themselves. Distinctions in France have already gone, except as to the a.s.sertion of the power of an emperor by virtue of a priestly coronation.

The popular ma.s.ses of Europe have only displayed their first, but, as yet, imperfect efforts to a.s.sert their political rights. It is the reflex action of the great principle we have successfully, thus far, practised. And will not the powers who have conquered the ma.s.ses then thus far, use every effort to destroy this experiment of ours and perpetuate thereby their own existence? If we continue to succeed, our lesson to the world is the death-knell of monarchy and imperial power. Foreign powers and priestly powers are making this effort. And if we are doomed to fail, it will be by the DISUNION their emissaries here endeavor to produce. With us, again, is religious influence exerted. Servitude is recognised and practised in the south. But the clergy of the north have commenced a fanatical crusade against it. We should guard well against these influences, foreign and domestic, now operating against us.

As a part of the history of the times, it may be proper to give the rise and progress of the so-called order of "Know-Nothings." The plan of the organization was conceived by a gentleman of the city of New York, who, in 1849, prepared and embodied into a system, a plan for uniting the American {114} sentiment of the American people throughout the United States. It was meant as a combined resistance, on the part of the native American population, to foreign and papal influence in this country. The progress of the plan was so slow in its development, that at the end of two years, the number of members uniting in the organization did not exceed thirty. In 1852 the plan was examined by a few gentlemen connected with the Order of United Americans, another secret and American organization, but not directly political or partisan in its aims and objects. A society was formed, and forty-three members signed their names to it, and from that small beginning was formed a body of native Americans which, in a year or two after, exceeded, in the state of New York alone, two hundred thousand members. This state organization soon extended its ramifications all over the country, and is now known as the American party. It has held three national conventions, one in Philadelphia, one at New York, and one in Louisville, and is now no more of a secret party than either of the two great parties opposed to it: the national conventions having abolished all secret meetings, and the state conventions or councils having generally concurred in this abolition of all oaths and all forms of obligation but those of personal honor and mutual good faith.

The ban of secrecy had made it, doubtless, an object of suspicion. Its adversaries hurl at it these {115} unfortunate antecedents. But now all secrecy has been abolished, and the party claims to a.s.sert only, the great principle of an INTELLIGENT SELF-GOVERNMENT. They recognise the secret and insidious influences of the Jesuit, and deprecate it. They call attention to it, and to its increasing importance in this valley; but still, in the spirit of liberty, leave the Jesuit free to act as he pleases. They perceive that it is irreconcilable with freedom of thought and conscience to surrender, unconditionally, one's own views and thoughts to the will of any one man, whether he be at Rome or elsewhere. Still he is not interfered with. Let him act with all freedom. You can vote for him for office or not, as you please; and, here, we have reason to fear the secret influence controlled alone at Rome. But, with all this freedom, it is called "persecution" to say "I will not vote for such a man."

Let Europe send over all her emissaries, and our country tells them you shall have the protection of our flag. You shall think, and speak what you will, if it be not to the injury of your neighbor. But is there not a spirit of self-preservation which demands that eternal vigilance which is the price of freedom? Is it "proscription" in saying to another man, "I will not vote for you?" If you can not exercise your own will, where is your freedom? If a whig refuses to vote for a democrat is that "proscription?"

Then, if I believe another man has surrendered his {116} own will to the unconditional control of another, in a foreign country, can I trust him--regarding the antecedents hereinbefore referred to?

It has been said, perhaps unjustly (at least I hope so), that the teaching of this important society, the Jesuit, so deeply-rooted here, is, that "the end justifies the means." If this be so, and if they can exercise over the immigrant population from Europe the power imputed to them--all this also controlled at Rome by the general of the order and his monitor--where can freedom be preserved to us, if they can control a majority of votes here?

In such case our liberties are gone. In such case, they have simply adopted and ingeniously carried out the ancient powers of the priestly Magi.

Has not an Englishman, a member of parliament, come to this country, and lectured in New England on the abolition of slavery, expressly to aid in creating disunion of our states?

Has not the leaven of Puritanism been excited to new action to accomplish the same result?

Have not three thousand clergymen been induced to interfere in our temporal and political affairs; just as in past history we find the Magi and the priests did?

Has not the word of G.o.d been set at naught? Where the command is, "Thou shalt not kill," are not Sharpe's rifles purchased by their command?

A clever book of fiction, written by a fanatical old {117} woman, although untrue even as a picture of southern society, has obtained for her the cordial entree of British aristocracy.

Then, again, regard the immense immigration from Europe. No sooner is it possible, but we find politicians busy to influence them, and obtain their votes. And they chiefly are opposed to slavery.

As patriots, Americans should say, you may vote. We throw around you no restraint. Your home is our home. You are in every sense a brother, and you shall be deprived of no privilege. But while in no manner the privileges of a freeman should be denied to any, we must not shut our eyes to the influences that surround us.

The Magi controlled the then known world.

The Roman church has done the same. In England a church has a.s.sumed secular power.

In each instance it was the fabulous _jus divinum_ by which it was accomplished.

Shall they be allowed by such influences to control and so break down our great experiment of self-government?