Missouri Test-Oath

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

In January, 1865, there assembled in St. Louis,Missouri, a "Constitutional Convention" composed ofindividuals, most of whom were unknown outside of the localities in which they claimed to reside. They had been chosen by a fraction of the voters, as people of voting age were generally in either the Confederate or Federal Army, or in the guerilla companies then abounding, or were fugitives from their homes, in order to save their lives. The "Constitution" made by this convention was put in force on July, 1865, no one being allowed to vote on it unless he first took the testoath it provided. A reign of terror, accompanied by arson,robbery, andmurder, in many parts of the state followed. Certain classes ofpersons, includingbishops,priests, or otherclergymen "of any religious persuasion, sect or denomination", and teachers in anyeducational institution, were by the provisions of this Constitution allowed sixty days, after 4 July, 1865, in which "to take, subscribe, and file", theoath prescribed by it. Those who failed to file it, and continued to preach, solemnize marriage, or teach, were subject to fine andimprisonment. The terms of theoath, according the Justice Field of the Supreme Court of theUnited States, required amongst other things, the affiant to deny, not only that he had ever been in armed hostility to theUnited States, or to the lawful authorities thereof, but that he had ever "by act or word", manifested his adherence to the cause of the enemies of theUnited States, foreign or domestic, or his desire for their triumph, over the arms of theUnited States; or his sympathy with those engaged in rebellion, or had ever harboured, or aided, anyperson engaged in guerillawarfare against the loyal inhabitants of theUnited States. About the last of July, 1865, a pastoral letter, in Latin, of which the following is a translation, was sent by theMost Rev. Peter Richard Kenrick,Archbishop of St. Louis, to everypriest in hisdiocese, which was then coextensive with the state.

St. Louis, July 28th, 1865.

Reverend Sir: Since under the new Constitution, a certainoath is to be exacted of Priests, that they may have leave to announceGod's word, and officiate at marriage, whichoath, they can in no wise take, without a sacrifice ofecclesiastical liberty, I have judged it expedient, to indicate to you my opinion in the matter, that you may have before your eyes, a rule to be followed, in this extraordinary matter. I hope, that thecivil power will abstain from exacting such anoath. But, should it happen otherwise, I wish you to inform me of the particular circumstances of your position, that I may be able to give you counsel and assistance. I am, Revered Sir,

Your servant in the Lord,

Peter Richard,
Archbishop of St. Louis.

The state officials ignored the letter, but their party newspaper organ in St. Louis referred to it, "as important in view of the large number ofperson whom theArchbishop of St. Louis in one sense, may be said to represent; and further because of the fact that at least three-fourths of suchpersons, have, throughout thewar, been disloyal men". The opposition press was largely silent.

At that time, Rev. John A. Cummings, a youngpriest, was in charge of St. Joseph's Church atLouisiana, Pike County, Missouri. He had not taken theoath, and he saidMass and preached as usual, on Sunday, 3 September, 1865. The court havingjurisdiction of crimes committed in this county was held at Bowling Green some twelve miles distant, and convened with its accompanying grand jury on Monday, 4 September. Father Cummings was indicted by a grand jury composed of men who had taken theinfamousoath, promptly, on the first day of the court, and the charge was, that he acted as apriest and minister of theCatholic religious persuasion without having first taken, subscribed, and filed theoath of loyalty. He was arrested a few days afterwards, and brought into court in the custody of the sheriff on the 8th. When asked to say whether he was guilty or not guilty, he declined to answer, but recited theApostles' Creed. Hon R.A. Campbell, subsequently lieutenant-governor of the state, then took charge of his defence at the instance of some of Father Cummings' parishioners, and made the same defense which was afterwards successful in the Supreme Court of theUnited States. He was tried on the 9th, found guilty, and in default of payment of a fine of $500, committed to jail, and placed in confinement with threepersons of the most degraded type, charged with felonies. On 15 September he gave bond, being directed to do so byArchbishop Kenrick, who caused an appeal to be taken to the Supreme Court of Missouri. That court had been, a few months before, reorganized by military force, and its bench filled with men committed to upholding theoath. Father Cummings' appeal was promptly denied in the following month of October, and then his case was appealed to the Supreme Court of theUnited States. Pending his appeal, manypriests and religious were indicted and arrested; amongst others, the saintly Bishop Hogan, of thediocese ofKansas City,Missouri, yet living at the age of 82 years, then apriest at Chilicothe in Livingston County. He made theoath as odious as possible by accompanying the arresting officer to the court-house, dressed in soutane,surplice, stole, andbiretta, carrying in his right hand a crucifix, and in his left a large Bible. He took a change of venue, gave bond, and was finally discharged by the effect of the decision in the Cummings case. In an address to some of his parishioners, referring to his arrest and theoath, he said: "Thecivil authority has been, ever from the days ofHerod, the enemy of Christ. The question, now pending, is not merely of loyalty or disloyalty, past, present, or prospective. The issue is, whether theChurch shall be free or not to exercise her natural and inherent right of calling into, or rejecting from, her ministry whom she pleases; or whether, yielding to the dictation of official power, she shall admit those only, who, according to its judgment, are fit for the office."

In Cape Girardeau County, the fanatics did not stop withpriests, but indicted eight Sisters of Loretto for teaching. Sisters Augusta and Margaret were arrested by the sheriff, but the others could not be found, and probably fled from theirpersecutors.

When the case of Father Cummings was heard in the Supreme Court of theUnited States in March, 1866, there appeared for him, David Dudley Field, Reverdy Johnson, and Montgomery Blair, all three lawyers of national reputation. Notwithstanding thesanctity of the principles involved, the Supreme Court, on 14 January, 1867, by only one majority declared theoath void, and thus relieved thepriests andnuns of Missouri from furtherpersecution. The effect of the decision in Father Cummings' case is best summarized by Justice Miller in his dissenting opinion in ex parte A.H. Garland (4 Wall 333) where he says of it: "in this case, the Constitution of theState of Missouri, the fundamental law of the people of that state, adopted by their popular vote, declares that nopriest of any church shall exercise his ministerial functions, unless he will show, by his ownoath, that he has borne atrue allegiance to his government. This court now holds this constitutional provision void on the ground that the Federal Constitution forbids it". Father Cummings' health was seriously injured by his brutal treatment, and a few years afterwards he lost his mind, and died amartyr to the cause of civil and religious liberty.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT