YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE PAPACY

AND

THE CIVIL POWEE.

BY
K. W. THOMPSON.

" Popery is a double thing to deal with, and claims a twofold power, ecclesiastical
and political, both usurped, and the one supporting the other."— John Milton.
" There was no usurpation so great as that of the Romans, who usurped the Em
pire ; neither do I exempt from this rule the priesthood, whose violence is double,
inasmuch as it is doubled in holding men under corporeal and under spiritual
authority." — Francis Guicoiakdlni.

NEW YORK:
NELSON <fe PHILLIPS,
805 BROADWAY. 18 76.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1876, by
Haepbk & Brotheks,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
37

PREFACE.

It has seemed to me, for a long time, that it was the
duty of the people of the United States to make themselves
familiar with the history of the papacy, its relations to
the civil power, and its attempted encroachments upon the
rights of existing governments. This conviction caused me
to enter upon the investigations which have resulted in the
preparation of this volume — mainly for self-edification ; and
if the conclusions I have reached are not satisfactory to oth
ers, I shall be content if they are stimulated to make like in
vestigations for themselves.
Having begun and prosecuted my labors from the Prot
estant stand-point, I am aware that the partisan defenders
of the papacy and its enormous pretensions will assign ev
ery thing I have stated, whether of fact or opinion, to the
force of habit and prejudice of education. This prejudice
is undoubtedly strong in all minds ; and, struggle against
them as we may, we are all apt to be influenced, more or
less, by the current opinions prevailing among those with
whom we habitually associate. But as I have not under
taken to discuss mere points of religious doctrine, or to treat
of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, except in so
far as they have been employed to influence the civil policy
and action of governments, I am unwilling to concede my
self less able to discover and declare the truth in reference
to them than is a Roman Catholic to understand and de
scribe the true character and tendencies of Protestantism.
In the claim of impartiality and fairness in all such mat
ters, the advantage is on the side of the Protestant. Ro
man Catholic writers are led, almost universally, by the
very nature of their church organization, into intolerance
and dogmatism. They are always ready to assume, with-

4 PREFACE.
out investigation or inquiry, that whatsoever the papacy
has done or taught from the beginning is unerringly right
and true. They do not employ their individual reason or
judgment to examine for themselves, but are content to
accept whatsoever is announced by ecclesiastical authority.
Since the recent decree of the pope's infallibility, this au
thority is all centred in him. He is made incapable of er
ror in all that he has declared, or shall hereafter declare, in
the domain of faith and morals ; and every member of the
Church wins equal infallibility for himself only by the ac
ceptance and promulgation of this doctrine.
Not so with the Protestant. He appeals to reason ; ex
amines history for himself; weighs both evidence and argu
ment; and exercises his own intelligent judgment in sepa
rating right from wrong, truth from falsehood. While the
papacy demands implicit and passive obedience — the entire
submission ofthe whole man, by the sacrifice of all his sense
of personality — Protestantism encourages and develops this
sense by treating every individual as endowed with the fac
ulty of reason, and as possessing the right to employ it for
himself. Manifestly, he who does not do it is mere " clay
in the hands of the potter."
I have endeavored to obtain the information upon which
my conclusions are based, without concerning myself about
matters of religious faith, any further than as I have found
religion and politics mixed up together; and then only to
the extent of ascertaining how far the world has been influ
enced by the union of Church and State, and what the prob
able effect upon mankind would be if that union should
again become general and universal. My toleration toward
even the most violent and vindictive assailants of Protest
antism is such as forbids that I should challenge the integ
rity of their motives, or the sincerity of their convictions.
I will not quarrel with them about their religious opinions!
These are to be judged of by an Authority far higher than
any earthly tribunal — at the final bar, where we shall all
meet— and by a Judge to whose sentence, whether of ap
proval or condemnation, every one of us must submit. It
is far more agreeable to me to concede, as I readilv and
cheerfully do, that there is much in the antiquity and his-

PREFACE. 5
tory of the Roman Catholic Church to enlist our admiration
— much that has benefited the world by the dissemination
of good and benignant influences. But if I have found in
Protestantism, as it exists in the United States under the
shelter of our popular institutions, that which has dissemi
nated these same influences in a far greater degree; that
which has done more to improve, advance, and elevate the
world ; and that which, on these accounts, is to be preferred,
it will be found to be because papal imperialism, origina
ting in worldly motives and founded upon temporal ambi
tion, has led this grand old church, by means of an external
ecclesiastical organization, far away from its original apos
tolic simplicity and purity.
Such are my habits of thought — possibly from professional
training — that I have taken but little for granted ; but, in
order to exercise an intelligent judgment as far as possible,
have examined and weighed all the evidence within my
reach, as I would that bearing upon any controverted point
about which I can have no personal information. It is no
easy matter to separate the true from the false in history,
either secular or ecclesiastical. It requires the most careful
and searching examination of authorities, often in conflict
with each other, and sometimes with themselves. It is not
safe to accept all that is recorded as true, or to reject it
as false. Nor should that degree of moral evidence which
amounts to positive demonstration be required. We should
be satisfied with such proof as establishes the reasonable
probability of any given statement of facts. The degree of
evidence necessary to establish a fact, is, in a great measure,
influenced by the nature of the fact itself— always involving
the preliminary inquiry whether it is appropriate or inap
propriate to it. Evidence is of but little value unless it
satisfies the mind and conscience. A reasonable man will
require nothing more, and should be satisfied with nothing
less. The difficulties in relation to the rules of evidence are
greater or less, according to the nature of our experience
and observation of human affairs, and our comprehension of
the motives of men and societies. Our common sense is the
best and safest guide, because it is not likely to lead us into
\hose obscure and difficult paths where men are so often

6 PREFACE.
and so unprofitably carried by mere scholastic learning, and
from which they can not extricate themselves without the
assistance of those who designedly conduct them there.
There are many things entitled to be recognized without
proof. Every thing which partakes of the nature of a pub
lic act ; general laws and customs ; matters which concern
a whole people, or the government of a country ; and such
things as would naturally happen in the ordinary course of
events — are all of this character. To reject these would be
to remove all the foundations and landmarks of history.
It should not be forgotten that, in the investigation of
events far removed from our own time, we are compelled to
acquire information of them only through the perception of
others, and not bur own. In reference to such events, cred
ulous minds are too apt to give implicit credit to whatso
ever is recorded ; incredulous minds, too apt to reject it. To
avoid these extremes, we should keep our minds in an even
ly balanced condition — without inclining either to the side
of belief or disbelief— so that when all the evidence access
ible to us shall be applied, we may allow the scale to pre
ponderate on that side where the most reasonable proba
bility lies ; that is, where the result is consistent with the
knowledge of facts already known to us.
These are recognized and well-established rules of evi
dence. They govern us in our ordinary intercourse with
the world. And as they have guided me throughout my
investigations, I have deemed it proper to state them, that
others may understand the process of my reasoning, and be
able to test the accuracy of my conclusions. These' investi
gations having been prosecuted when all the circumstances
connected with the present demands ofthe papacy are cal
culated to impress my mind with their magnitude and im
portance, I have endeavored to divest myself of all undue
and improper prejudice, and to conduct them in the spirit /
of toleration and with all reasonable impartiality. I hope I
have succeeded in this, because I have no wish to convey to
the minds of others any belief or impressions except such
as may meet the approval of their own reason and judg
ment. That I may have erred in admitting or rejecting evi
dence, in giving too great or too little weight to it w> /

PREFACE. i
received, or may have reached improper and unwarrant
able conclusions, is altogether probable ; for, unlike the sup
porters of the papacy, I lay no claim to infallibility, or even
to exemption from ordinary frailty. This is all I claim:
that I have endeavored to be candid, and to state the con
victions of my mind as inoffensively as possible ; being con
tent that others shall decide for themselves how far they
are right and how far wrong.
During the celebrated controversy between Dr. Brecken
ridge and Archbishop Hughes, some years ago, the former
had occasion to make a quotation from the catechism of the
Council of Trent ; and not having the original before him,
took it from the works of Archbishop Usher, one of the
most learned and extensively known ofthe English divines.
Making no immediate question about the correctness ofthe
quotation, Archbishop Hughes thus, in a seemingly supercili-.
ous air, evaded the matter : " Who this Usher is," said he,
" I am at a loss to conjecture. There is an author of that
name ; but he does not possess much authority with Catho
lics, for the reason that he happens to be a Protestant arch
bishop."* Illiberality of this kind is calculated rather to
mislead and deceive than to discover the truth ; and I have.
not suffered myself to be betrayed into it. I should be.
slow to conclude that a Roman Catholic, writer is to be dis-.
credited merely on account of his religious belief, or that
what a Protestant says is to be accepted as unconditionally
true merely because he is a Protestant.
At the risk of swelling this volume to an undesirable size,
I have made extended quotations from different authors,
and from the bulls, encyclicals, etc., of the popes. This is
deemed preferable to briefer extracts and condensed state
ments, because it furnishes the means of testing the fairness
and accuracy both of criticisms and arguments. When I
have found an author manifestly a mere partisan on either
side, I have endeavored not to be biased by his influence.
Cormenin, although not a Protestant, seems to me to be too
sweeping in his denunciations of many of the popes, and,
* "Hughes and Breckenridge Controversy:" Preliminary correspondence,
pp. xiv., xv., xvi.

8 PREFACE.
therefore, has excited in my mind such suspicion of his im
partiality that I have adopted his personal opinions in but
few instances. Some of his pictures of the general corrup
tion and depravity prevailing at Rome must be too highly
colored. I know of no reason, however, why he should be
any more discredited than other historians upon general
questions of fact.
As my inquiries have been prosecuted in the midst of act
ive business occupations, with the assistance of only a very
limited and self- acquired knowledge of classical learning,
and with no access to a single authority or volume beyond
my own private library, this book is not designed for the in
struction of the educated classes, who have the means of
making like inquiries for themselves. It is intended for the
people, who, in the main, are without these means, and who
are the final arbiters upon all public questions. If their at
tention shall be arrested by it, and they shall be excited
to additional diligence in guarding the civil and religious
rights guaranteed to them by the Government of the United
States, it will concern me very little to know that it has in
vited criticism, or that I, on account of it, have incurred the
animosity and anathemas of such as pay for the protection
our institutions give them by Jesuitical plottings to estab
lish a " Holy Empire " upon their ruins.
R. W. T.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.

Roman Catholics in the United States. — Their Schools under Foreign Priests
and Jesuits. — They Accept the Pope's Infallibility.— The Hierarchy and
Laymen. — The Government ofthe United States. — It is Opposed as Usur
pation, because not Founded on Religion. — The Roman Catholic Church
must Rule in both Spirituals and Temporals. — The People Need a Master.
—Their Whole Duty is Obedience. — Infallibility : the Old and New Doc-
, trine. — The Encyclical and Syllabus of Pius IX  Page 19
CHAPTER II.
The Pope and Civil Affairs. — Preparations to Make him Infallible. — The
Bishop's Oath. — National Council of Baltimore. — Their Theory of Gov
ernment. — Defense of the Ancient Rights of the Papacy. — Arraignment
of Protestantism as Infidelity, and a Failure. — Popular and Monarch
ical Government. — Protestant Toleration necessary to Popular Govern
ment  4:0
CHAPTER III.
War against Protestantism. — Roman Catholic Literature and Intolerance. —
The Bible to be Closed. — The Spanish Inquisition Justified. — Freedom of
Thought Denounced as Sin. — Tracts in Favor of the Pope's Infallibility,
and Universal Supremacy in Faith and Morals. — Morals Involve Politics.
— " The Index Expurgatorius. " — Condemnation and Punishment of Gali
leo. — Spanish Inquisition. — The Middle Ages preferred to the Present
Times  70
CHAPTER IV.
Papal Hopes of Success in the United States. — The Jesuits.. — Their Charac
ter. — Their Expulsion by Roman Catholic Governments. — Their Suppres
sion by Clement XIV. — Causes of it. — His Bull. — Expelled from Russia.
— Causes of it. — Their Restoration by Pius VII. — Their Support of Mon
archy. — The Order not Religious. — Its Constitution. — Its Authors. — They
Denounce Protestantism as Infidelity. — They Threaten the Inquisition. — ¦
Movements during the Rebellion. — Napoleon III. and Pius IX. — Intoler
ance of the Latter. — Precedents of Kings humiliated by the Popes  98

10 CONTENTS.

CHAPTER V.
The Pope's Infallibility makes him a Domestic Prince in all Nations. — The
Popes never Exceeded the Limits of their Authority. — The Temporal Pow
er Divinely conferred as Part of the Spiritual. — The Pope to be King ev
erywhere. — No Right of Complaint against Him. — First Dogmatic Consti
tution of the Late Council. — Decree of the Pope's Infallibility. — Archbish
op Manning's Definition of It. — It gives the Pope -whatever Authority he
Claims. — It is a Personal Privilege. — It confers Coercive Power upon the
Pope. — The Present Governments are Dissolving. — The Syllabus alone
will save them  Page 130
CHAPTER VI.
Claim of Divine Power over Temporals by Pius IX. — Its Extent. — He alone
Defines its Limits. — Effect of this in the United States.— Principles of the
Constitution within the Jurisdiction of the Papacy. — Germany, Italy, etc.
— The Pope stirs up Insurrection there. — The Jesuits Expelled. — Papists
in the United States Justify Resistance to the Law of Germany. — Same
Laws in the United States. — Effect upon Allegiance. — Bavarian Protest.
— Abuse of the Confessional. — Power of Absolution. — The Immoral Bear-
¦ ings ofthe Confessional  '.  161
CHAPTER VII.
The Encyclical and Syllabus of Pius IX. — The Doctrines ofthe Encyclical.'
— It includes Bulls of other Popes. — The Doctrines of the Syllabus. — Op
posed to Modem Progress. — Doctrines of Boniface VIII. — Council of
Trent on Crimes of Clergy. — The Bull " Unam Sanctam'' uniting the
Spiritual and Temporal Swords  195
CHAPTER VIII.
Infallibility before the late Decree. — The Pope's Temporal Power not Di
vine. — The Italian People. — The Government ofthe Papal States. — Jes-"
uitism. — Mutilation of Books at Rome. — Union of Church and State by
Constantine.. — His Grant Supposititious. — He did not unite with the
Church of Rome. — Rome was governed by Imperial Officers. — The Apos
tles had no Temporal Power  226
CHAPTER IX.
Same Power conferred on all the Apostles.. — Roman Church not the First
Established. — Ancient Churches Equal. — Leo I. Great and Ambitious. —
His Interviews with Attila and Genseric. — Persecution of Priscillian. —
Rival Popes. — Belisarius seized Rome, and made Vigilius Pope. — Pope
Silverius put to Death. — Vigilius and Justinian. — The " Three .Chapters. "
— Popes elected with Emperor's Consent. — Gregory I  .'  257
CHAPTER X.
Churches Independent before Constantine. —Victor I. endeavored to establish
the Supremacy of Rome. — Ambition of the Popes. — Aided Constantine to

CONTENTS. 11
overthrow Maxentius. — Consequences. — Constantine a Usurper. — Maxen
tius the Lawful Emperor. — Constantine baptized just before his Death. —
His Motives. — Influence upon Roman Clergy. — Arianism. — The Council
of Nice. — The Pope had Nothing to do with It. — Called by the Emperor.
— The Pope did not preside by his Legates. — He did not approve the De
crees as Necessary to their Validity. — Constantine was the Master Spirit. —
He dictated the Creed. — He fixed Infallibility in the Council. — The Coun
cil did not decree the Primacy ofthe Bishop of Rome. — It enacted only
Twenty Canons. — All other pretended Ones are Forgeries  Page 280
CHAPTER XI.
Temporal Power. — None possessed by Peter. — Alliance between Pepin and
Zachary. — Double Conspiracy. — The Pope released the Allegiance of the
French People. — Made Pepin King.. — The Lombards in Italy. — The Pope
bargained with Pepin, and was guilty of Revolt against the Empire. — Pep
in seized Territory from the Lombards, and gave it to the Pope. — Both
were Revolutionists and Traitors. — The Pope usurped what belonged to
the Empire. — Pepin did not conquer Rome. — The Divine Right of Kings.
— Pepin's Second Visit. — Pope sent Letters to him from the Virgin Mary,
Peter, etc. — He re-affirmed his Gift to the Pope. — Charlemagne. — Adrian
I. — He absolves the Franks from all Crimes in Bavaria. — Makes Charle
magne Emperor. — -He completes the Papal Rebellion against the Empire.
— Charlemagne confirmed Pepin's Gift. — He did not grant any Temporal
Dominion in Rome. — He dictated the Filioque in the Creed  320
CHAPTER XII.
The Popes Subjects of the Eastern Empire. — The Ninth Century. — The
Emperor Leo V. and Pope Pascal I. — Image-worship. — Church of St.
Cecilia in Rome. — Louis le De'bonnaire. — Factions at Rome. — Constitu
tion of Lothaire. — Eugenius II. and Valentine. — Gregory IV. — Sergius.
— Death of Pope Leo IV. — The Alleged Popess Joan. — Peter-pence. —
East separates from West. — Nicholas I. claims Universal Power. — His
Manner of exercising it.— Boniface VI. poisoned by Stephen VII. — Trial
of Dead Pope. — The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. — Victor I. and the Cel
ebration of Easter. — Polycarp and Anacetus. — Irenaeus. — The Character
of the Decretals. — The Papal System based upon them. — All False and
Forged  356
CHAPTER XIII.
The False Decretals. — Nicholas I. governed by Them. — His Character. —
Adrian II. — John VIII.— John XII. —Benedict IX— Three Popes at
Same Time. — German Emperors create Popes. — Leo IX. — Hildebrand.
— He becomes Pope as Gregory VII. — Principles established by Him. —
His Quarrel with Philip of Fiance. — His Bull against Henry IV. — He
adopts the False Decretals. — Pius IX. does the Same. — Gregory VII.
stirs up Revolt in Germany. — The Emperor Henry IV. in Rome. — Death
of Gregory VII. — His Successors maintain his Policy. — Urban II. — Ca-
lixtus II. — Adrian IV. grants Ireland to England. — The Gratian Deere-

12 CONTENTS.
tals. — They authorize Physical Compulsion and Torture. — Arnold of Bres
cia burned by Adrian IV. — Alexander III. and Victor IV. — Alexander
III. releases the Subjects of Frederick Barbarossa from their Allegiance. —
His Character. — Submission of Frederick. — The Third Lateran Council.
— Decree authorizing Waldenses and Albigenses to be put to Death. —
The Thirteenth Century. — Innocent III. — His Ambition and Usurpation.
¦ — His Claim of Divine Power. — He releases the Subjects of Otho from
their Allegiance. — His Bull to put the Vaudois to Death. — The Inquisi
tion. — Boniface VIII. — His Bull Unam Sanctam. — He caused a New
Body of False Decretals to be composed. — Opposition of the Gallican
Church  Page 387
CHAPTER XIV.
The Native Britons. — Their Religion before Augustine. — Gildas and Bede.
— Augustine holds Synod with British Bishops. — His Threats against
Them. — Conversion of Ethelfred. — Battle of Carlegeon, and Murder of
Monks of Bangor. — Roman Religion introduced. — The Effects of It. — ¦
Offa murders Ethelbert, and the Pope pardons Him. — He establishes Pe
ter-pence. — He accepts a Code of Canon Laws from Adrian I. — The Na
tive Britons and the Saxons. — Their Customs and Religion are imparted
to each Other. — Saxon Kings willingly accept the Doctrine ofthe "Di
vine Right" to govern from Rome. — The Norman Conquest. — Plarold. —
William of Normandy. — The Decision of Alexander II. upon his Claim.
— Consecrated Banner and a Hair of St. Peter.. — Battle of Hastings. — In
fluence on England. — Celibacy introduced. — Example ofthe Legate of
Honorius II. — Innocent III. and King John. — He releases the Subjects
of John from their Allegiance. — Holds all Disobedient Kings to be Traitors
to God. — His Claim of Power and that of Pius IX. the Same. — Church
and State united. — Cardinal Antonelli to Papal Nuncio at Paris. — He
approves the Bull Unigenitus of Clement XI. — His Theory of the Indi
rect Power. — Its Effect. — A Heretical King forfeits his Kingdom. — The
Pope chooses a King for a Heretical Nation  423
CHAPTER XV.
The Pope turns England over to France. — Resistance ofthe Barons.  John
resigns the Crown to the Pope. — Langton.. — Charter of Henrv I.  Barons
form a League. — Langton supports the Barons. — Magna Charta. — John
swears to obey it. — The Pope releases Him, and annuls the Charter. 
He claims England as a Fief. — Foreign Mercenaries. — Henry III.  Ital
ian and Foreign Priests. — King promises to observe the Charter.  The
Pope again releases Him. — Appeals to Rome. — Peter-pence. — Immuni
ties of Clergy. — They murder with Impunity. — House of Commons estab
lished. — Pope again releases the King from his Oath. — Civil War.  The
Barons defeated. — Their Treatment by the King and Pope.  Edward I
confirms the Charter. — The Pope releases Him. — Edward II.  The
Statutes of Provisors and of Praemunire. — The Lollards. — Law for burning
Heretics. — William Sawtre and Thomas Badby burned. — Lollards attack
ed. — Clergy exempt from Punishment in Secular Courts. — Their Corrup-

CONTENTS. 13
tion and that of the Popes. — Urban V. and Gregory XI. — Popes and Anti-
popes. — Scandalous and Disgraceful Conduct. — Gregory XII. Pope at
Rome, and Benedict XIII. at Avignon. — Both declared Infamous by the
Council of Pisa. — Alexander V. — John XXIII. deposed for Enormous
Crimes by Council of Constance. — Martin V. — Influence upon the
Church. — Corruption almost Universal. — The Fruits of the False De
cretals  Page 455
CHAPTER XVI.
Religious Persecution antedates Protestantism. — Lucius III. and Innocent
III. persecute theWaldenses and Albigenses. — The Fourth Lateran Coun
cil. — The Third Canon provides for extirpating Heretics, and taking away
their Country. — Law of the Church. — Acted upon in the Fifteenth Centu
ry by Innocent VIII. — The Practice of Innocent III. under it. — Persecu
tion made a Religious Duty. — Reformation in Germany. — Luther and the
Pope. — Henry VIII. and the Pope quarrel about Supremacy, not Faith. —
Protestants do not assist Him. — The Pope releases his Subjects from their
Allegiance. — Their Adherents persecute each Other. — More and Fisher.
— Henry VIII. always a Roman Catholic in Faith. — He persecutes Re
formers and Papists.. — Edward VI. the first Protestant King. — He does
not persecute Papists. — Gives the Crown to Lady Jane Grey. — Mary, the
Rightful Heir, proclaimed Queen. — Her Promise to the Reformers that
they should not be disturbed in their Religion. — She refuses to be bound
by her Promise. — The Teachings of Rome. — Mary's Measures all Papal. —
Her Persecution of Protestants. — Her Marriage to Philip of Spain. — The
Result of the League between Pope Paul III. and Charles V. — Cardinal
Pole. — Dictates Policy of the English Government. — Persecutions con
tinue. — Hooper, Latimer, and Ridley. — Elizabeth. — She persecutes both
Papists and Protestants. — Is educated in the School of Rome. — Only
seeks to substitute Imperial Protestantism for Imperial Romanism.... 483
CHAPTER XVII.
Coercive Power of the Church. — Parties and Factions. — Quarrel between
Rome and Avignon. — Philip of France and Boniface VIII. — Power
claimed by his Bull Unam Sanctam. — Promise of Clement V. to Con
demn Boniface VIII. — John XXII. and Nicholas V. — Benedict XII. —
Corruption of the Fourteenth Century. — The Beginning of the Fifteenth
Century. — Three Councils called by Gregory XII. , Benedict XIII., and
the Cardinals. — Council of Pisa. — It condemns both Popes, and deposes
Them. — Alexander V. elected. — He confirms all the Decrees of the
Council. — Three Popes. — Balthasar Costa becomes Pope, as John XXIII.
— Council of Constance.. — Tries and Condemns Gregory XII., Benedict
XIII., and John XXIII. — The Latter found Guilty of Enormous and
Scandalous Crimes. — He is deposed, and the Doctrine of the Pope's In
fallibility condemned. — Difficulty in maintaining the Succession of the
Popes. — May be two Infallible Popes at same Time. — Corruption in the
Council. — John Huss and Jerome. — Their Trial and Death. — Effect in
Bohemia. —Martin V. — His Policy. — Violation of his Promise to Alphon-

14 CONTENTS.
so. — His Bull against the King of Arragon. — His Letter to his Legate. —
Becomes sole Pope. — His Letter to the King of Poland for exterminating
the Hussites. — His Death. — Effects of his Reign  Page 523
CHAPTER XVIII.
Adrian IV., and the Grant of Ireland to England. — Ireland brought within
Jurisdiction of Rome in the Twelfth Century. — Enlargement of the Papal
Power. — Secular Power administered by Commission from the Pope. —
Gregory VII. and Innocent III. — The Fourth Lateran Council establish
es the Faith that Institutions prejudicial to the Church should not be ob
served. — Papal Doctrine in Regard to Oaths. — Urban VI., Eugenius IV.,
and Innocent III. — Nature of the Oath exacted by Innocent III. from
King John. — Subjects all Governments to the Pope.— -Effect in the United
States. — Constitutional Oath of Allegiance. — Its Obligation. — The Papal
Theory on that Subject. — Oaths opposed to the Welfare ofthe Church not
binding. — Unlawful Oaths not binding. — What are Lawful, and what are
Unlawful. — The Papal Principle applied to the Government ofthe United
States. — The Papal Argument by Balmes. — Resistance to Civil Power
usurped.— When it is usurped. — When Legal, and when Illegal. — Govern
ments de jure and de facto. — Obedience to the Last not Obligatory. — May
be recognized from Prudential Motives. — Government of the United States
is de facto. — The Monarchies of Europe, when Obedient to the Pope, are
de jure. — The Doctrine of Consummated Facts denied. — Illegitimate Au
thority can not become Legitimate, by Time. — Rendering to Caesar the
Things that are Caesar's only requires Obedience to Legitimate Govern
ments. — Legitimate Governments are only such as are based on the Law
of God.— That of the United States is not Legitimate  556
CHAPTER XIX.
The Rights of the Papacy not lost by Revolution. — No Legitimate Right
acquired by it. — Revolutions always Iniquitous. — Christopher Columbus.
— He takes Possession of the New World in the Name of the Church of
Rome. — He thereby expands its Domain. — The Popes claim Jurisdic
tion in Consequence. — Illegitimate Power obtained by Revolution can not
destroy this Right of Jurisdiction. — Exercise of the Power in England by
Alexander II., and in Germany by Gregory VII. — Defense of Gregory
VII. — Direct and Indirect Power. — Doctrine asserted by Peter Dens.  ¦
Bellarmine the Author ofthe Theory of Indirect Power. — Doctrine of St.
Thomas. — That of Cardinal D'Ostia. — Infidels can have no Just Title to
Governments. — The Pope may dispose of Them. — Gregory III., Stephen
II., and Leo III. all justified. — Also Gregory VII., Innocent III., Adrian
IV., and Boniface VIII. — The Late Lateran Council makes them all In
fallible. — They claim the Direct Power. — The Doctrine of Indirect
Power an After-thought in Answer to the Objection of Protestants.  The
Papal Jurisdiction in America the Same under Either. — Alexander VI.
divides America between Spain and Portugal. — Resumption of this Au
thority defended by Jesuits. — Obedience to Governments de facto not en
joined by the Church of Rome. — Effect of this Doctrine upon the Oath

> CONTENTS. 15
of Allegiance.— Doctrine of "Mental Restrictions," and "Ambiguity and
Equivocation" in Oaths. — Jesuit Teachings on this Subject. — The Object
of the Second Council of Baltimore to introduce the Canon Law. — What
it is. — Its Effect if introduced in the United States. — Punishment of Her
etics. — Extirpation of Infidelity. — Heretics rightfully punished with Death.
— All Baptized Protestants are Subjects of the Pope. — May all be right
fully punished for Disobedience  Page 589
CHAPTER XX.
Infallibility fonnerly in General Councils and the Popes conjointly. — Efforts
made to prove this in England and the United States. — Books published
on the Subject in both Countries. — Extracts from Several of Them. —
Doctrine of French Christians on that Subject. — They deny the Infallibili
ty ofthe Pope. — Proceedings in England to obtain Catholic Emancipa
tion. — The Doctrine denied both in England and Ireland. — The Pope's
Infallibility a New Doctrine. — Denied in the Catechism. — Distinction be
tween the Church and the Papacy. — Infallibility in the Church during the
Early Times. — The Greeks never admitted the Infallibility of the Pope. —
The First Seven Councils mainly Greek. — They concede Primacy of Hon
or, not Jurisdiction, to the Pope. — The Council of Nice. — The First Coun
cil of Constantinople. — The Council of Ephesus.— The Council of Chalce
don. — The Second Council of Constantinople. — The Third Council of
Constantinople. — The Second Council of Nice. — The Fourth Council of
Constantinople. — Subsequent Councils held by the Latins. — The First
Lateran Council. — The Second Lateran Council. — The Third Lateran
Council. — The Introduction of Papal Constitutions. — Adding them to De
crees of Councils. — More Effort to make Law for the Church by the Force
of Precedent. — The Fourth Lateran Council. — Blindly obedient to Inno
cent III. — The Primacy of the Church, not of the Pope, established. — ¦
Constitutions of Heretical Princes not Binding. — Part of the Canon Law.
— The First Council of Lyons. — The Second Council of Lyons. — The
Council of Vienne. — None of these Councils declare the Pope Infalli
ble  615
CHAPTER XXI.
The Condition of the Church at the Time of the Councils of Basel and Flor
ence. — Council at Pavia fixed by that of Florence. — Approved by Martin
V. — Transferred to Basel. — Meets there, and is presided over by Legate of
Eugenius IV. — It is Ecumenical. — Agrees with that of Constance about
its Power over the Pope. — Eugenius IV. endeavors to defeat It. — His
Proceedings against It. — Organizes a Factious Assembly at Ferrara. —
Proceedings of the Council against Him. — He pretends to yield, and ap
proves its Decrees. — He violates his Pledge. — He draws the Greeks to
Florence, and calls the Meeting there a Council. — It is not Ecumen
ical ; the Council at Basel is at first, when its Decree against the Pope's
Infallibility is passed. — It represents a Majority of Christians. — The
Council at Florence is mainly Italian. — The Pope's Agreement with the
Greeks about his Primacy. — Limited by Decrees of Councils and Canons

16 CONTENTS. <
of the Church. — The Greeks reject the Agreement, and it falls. — This is
called a Decree. — Its Terms. — Misrepresentation of Them. — Do not make
the Pope Infallible. — Give him the Primacy conferred by Decrees and
Canons. — Primacy of Honor, not Jurisdiction. — The Fifteenth Century, aft
er the Council of Florence. — The French Church. — Charles VII. — Coun
cil at Bourges. — Pragmatic Sanction. — Opposition of the Popes to it. —
Revoked by Louis XI. — Parliament resisted. — Council of Pisa. — The
Fifth Lateran Council in Opposition to it. — The Former renews the De
crees of Constance and Basel. — The Latter factious at Beginning. — Aft
erward assents to. — Concordat of Bologna agreed to by Francis I. and
Pope Julius II. — Rejected by France. — French Bishops do not attend the
Council. — It is not Ecumenical. — No Deliberation in it. — Submissive to
Leo X. — Council of Trent. — Does not assert the Pope's Infallibility. —
Does not deny the Validity of the Decree of Council of Constance. —
Concedes merely Power of Pope to interpret the Canons, not to set them
aside. — Pius IV. does this only in his Profession of Faith  Page 645
CHAPTER XXII.
The Laity and the Church. —They once aid in Election of Popes. — Greg
ory VII. takes away this Power, and vests it in the College of Cardinals.
— His Object is Universal Dominion. — The Papacy necessarily Intoler
ant. — Never satisfied with Freedom of Conscience. — Condemned in Sylla
bus of Pius IX. — Denounced when introduced in Austria. — He excom
municates all Heretics. — Magna Charta. — Religious Toleration in Mary
land. — The Colony Part of Virginia. — English Supremacy established by
Law in Virginia. — The Law extended over Maryland. — Lord Baltimore
in Virginia. — He can not take the Oath as a Roman Catholic. — Obtains
Grant from Charles I. — It provides for Religious Toleration in the New
Colony. — This is a Necessity to Lord Baltimore. — He can not settle a
Roman Catholic Colony without it. — Charles I. favors the Papists. — Ro
man Catholic Emigrants to Maryland. — Make War on Virginians found
there. — They suppress the Protestants. — Efforts to establish the Royal
Authority of Lord Baltimore. — Oath of Allegiance to him. — Offices filled
by Roman Catholics. — All Writs run in his Name. — Those who refuse
Fidelity to him forfeit their Property. — Their Lands to be seized.  Col
onists under Control of Jesuit Priests. — Their Claim of Church Immuni
ties. — Opposition to English Law. — Jesuits never in Favor of Religious Tol
eration. — The Condition of the Papacy at that Time. — Completely allied
with the Jesuits. — Gregory XV. — His Persecutions. — His Influence over
Louis XIII. of France. — Urban VIII. — Terrible Persecutions under his
Reign. — Cardinal Richelieu and Olivarez. — Persecution of Galileo.  Bank
Debt collected by Bull of the Pope. — All the Teachings of the Church op
posed to Religious Toleration. — The Legislation in Maryland is only in
Obedience to the Charter. — May have had the Assent of Laymen but
not of the Priests or the Church. — Could not have the Assent of Pope
Pius IX. now  ggg

CONTENTS. 17
CHAPTER XXIII.
The Papal Theory of Government. — The Kind of Christian State it requires.
—The Laws of Theodosius and Justinianj— The Ordinances in France
in the Times of her Kings most in Favorfat Rome. — No Other Religion
than the Roman Catholic allowed. — Heresy made a Crime against the State.
— Modes of punishing Heretics. — These Laws required by the Church. —
The State Heretical without Them. — The Protestant System. — Separates
the Church and the State. — Is in Obedience to the Example of Christ and
the Apostles. — The Harmony they established between the Spiritual and
Temporal Powers disturbed by the Popes. — The Consequences of disturb
ing this Harmony. — Papal Doctrines in the United States. — They subject
the State to the Government ofthe Pope. — How far they do this. — In All
Temporals which concern the Faith or Morality. — The Government can
not stand if this Doctrine prevail. — The Extent to which it is carried. —
It is based upon the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII. — " Temporal
Monarchy" claimed as Necessary for the World. — Harmonious Condition
of the First Christians. — Churches planted in Asia before those in Eu
rope. — The Work well done by the Apostles. — Jerusalem the "Mother
Church." — No Necessity for another at Rome. — The Consequences of
Opposition to the Apostolic Plan. — They lead to the Reformation. — Effect
of the Reformation. — Present Efforts of the Papacy to turn the World
back. — The Contest in the United States. — Conclusion  Page 695

APPENDIX.
A. Bishop's Oath  717
B. The Thikd Article of the Pastoral Letter of the Second
National Council of Baltimore  718
C. The Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius IX  721
D. The Syllabus of Pope Pius IX  728
2

THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.

CHAPTER L
INTEODTJCTOBY.
Roman Catholics in the United States. — Their Schools under Foreign Priests
and Jesuits. — They Accept the Pope's Infallibility. — The Hierarchy and
Laymen. — The Government ofthe United States. — It is Opposed as Usur
pation, because not Founded on Religion. — The Roman Catholic Church
must Rule in hoth Spirituals and Temporals. — The People Need a Master.
— Their Whole Duty is Obedience. — Infallibility : the Old and New Doc
trine. — The Encyclical and Syllabus of Pius IX.
Many persons now living will remember when there were
very few Roman Catholics in- the United States, compared
with the bulk of the population ; and none at all in some of
the oldest and most densely populated parts of the country.
With the exception of the descendants of the Maryland col
onists, and of those who had settled in Louisiana before its
purchase, they were to be found only upon the frontier, in
the large cities, and with here and there a church in the in
terior. They were not sufficiently numerous to have at
tracted any especial attention, and were generally and gen
erously accepted by Protestants as co-workers in the cause
of Christianity. They were not disposed to invite any an
tagonism with the prevailing Protestant faith, and when such
antagonism was known to exist, were prompt and emphatic
in rebuking it. Their priests appeared to be humble and
unpretending men, professing only the single object of serv
ing their Divine Master, and seemingly ready, when stricken
upon one cheek, to turn the other. Humility was one of their
most prominent characteristics.
It is otherwise now. There are seven archbishops, fifty-
three bishops, six vicars apostolic, priests whose numbers it

20 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
is impossible to compute, and a membership variously esti
mated by the official organs of the Church at from six to
eight millions — about one-sixth of our whole population.
It is asserted that there are over four hundred educational
institutions in the different States and Territories, besides
many private schools, under the immediate and exclusive
government of the papal hierarchy. In these schools, with
out any exception, it is made absolutely and indispensably
necessary that the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church
shall be taught to all the pupils, as the beginning and end
of all necessary education ; that it shall be fixed in their
minds, as a sentiment of religious faith, that, since the de
cree of papal infallibility, they owe, within the domain of
faith and morals, a higher allegiance to the Pope of Rome
than to the Government of the United States, or that of any
State ; and that any violation of this allegiance will bring
upon them the severest censures of the Church, and inevita
bly lead to their eternal punishment in the world to come.
There were recently eleven hundred and thirteen teachers in
charge of these institutions. They have been selected for
this particular duty, on account of their submissive obedi
ence to the pope and his American hierarchs. And besides
these, it is said that there are two thousand three hundred
and eighty-three sisters of various orders, who have in their
hands the training and education of the aggregate number
of thirty-three thousand eight hundred and fifty-three fe
male pupils. Q
In a late work the following reference is made to the rapid
growth of Romanism in the United States :
(') " Catholic Family Almanac," 1872, p. 79.
"For the year 1875 the following estimate is made in Sadlier's 'Catholic
Directory.' Archbishops and bishops the same as in 1872; priests 4873-
churches, chapels, and stations, 6920, of which 4800 are churches • theolog
ical seminaries, 18; studying for the priesthood, 1375; colleges, 68; acad
emies, 511 ; parish, schools, 1444 ; asylums, homes, and refuges, 215 ; hos
pitals, 87; and the Roman Catholic population, exclusive of Baltimore,
Charleston, Erie, and Brooklyn — for which no estimates are given — is
placed at 5,761,242. By this same statement it appears that in 1814 there
were only 85 priests ,in the United States ; in 1834 the number had increased
to 308 ; and in 1837 there were 1 archbishop, 14 bishops, 390 priests, 300
churches, and 143 stations." — New York Tablet, January 2d, 1875.

PROTESTANT AND CATHOLIC STATISTICS. 21
"But it is in our own country, above every other, that the
recent gains of Romanism upon Protestantism are the most
remarkable. At the close of the two centuries and a half
that elapsed from the first settlement of Virginia to the
year 1859, the number of Catholics in the United States had
run up to two millions and a half only ; but at the end of
the nine years that succeeded (namely, in 1868) that num
ber had doubled. Twelve years ago they were but a twelfth
part of our population; to-day they constitute, probably,
more than a seventh."
In the same work a compilation is made from a source
considered entirely reliable, as follows:
"Number of Protestants in the United States in 1859  21 000 000
Number of Catholics in the United States in 1859  2,50o'o00
Number of Protestants in the United States in 1868  27'oOo'oOO
Number of Cathohcs in the United States in 1868  5,000^000
— Showing that the Catholics had increased, in the nine
years from 1859 to 1868, one hundred per cent., while the
Protestants had increased in the same time less than twenty-
nine per cent."
Then, commenting upon these important and startling
facts, the author continues :
" Those who will verify the calculation of future increase,
supposing it to continue at the same relative ratio for four
terms of nine years each, commencing with. the year 1868,
will find that in 1904, that is, in thirty-three years from to
day, there would be eighty millions of Catholics to less than
seventy- five millions of Protestants in the American Un-
ion."(8) While it is not by any means certain that the relative
ratio of increase here assumed will be borne out by future
developments, and exceedingly probable that it will not be,
yet the facts stated show so great and rapid an increase of
the Roman Catholic part of our population as to render it
an important and necessary inquiry, whether or not there is
any thing in the demands and teachings ofthe papacy which
requires that so large a body of the citizens of this country
O "Debatable Land between this World and the Next," by Robert Dale
Owen, pp. 32, 33, and note.

22 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
shall put themselves, either now or hereafter, in opposition
to the principles we are endeavoring, as a nation, to perpet
uate by our civil institutions. No matter if there are thou
sands of them who would refuse to do so, if required even
by the pope : this does not diminish the importance and ne
cessity of the inquiry. Institutions of the popular form re
quire, more than those of other forms, to be guarded by
ceaseless and untiring vigilance.
There is no way of ascertaining with precision what pro
portion of the Roman Catholic educational institutions in
this country are under Jesuit direction and management.
That the number is large may be inferred from a boast
made, not long ago, by the editor of a newspaper zealously
devoted to the interests of that order. With extraordinary
vehemence, and with some talent for the dogmatic and de
clamatory style of writing, he has industriously employed
his columns to advance the cause of the papacy in tbe
United States; to bring about the destruction and over
throw of Protestantism; and to elevate the pope to an
equality with God, in the government of all human affairs !
With an air of self-satisfied pride and arrogance, he an
nounced that these followers of Loyola, who have, in the
course of their history, been driven out of every Roman
Catholic country on account ofthe enormity of their offenses
against society, have now twelve colleges under their charge ;
and that "it is clear that the Catholic intellectuality of the
land depends almost entirely on these institutions. Had
they never been opened here, there had been a dense state
of darkness over us all; were they closed to-morrow an
eclipse would set in which it would be impossible to dissi
pate ; and if decay should attack them, the brightness of the
Catholic name in the United States would be soon a dis
solved glory. "(3)
In a subsequent number of this same paper, it is stated
that " there are about three hundred Jesuit priests in the
United States" — that, in addition to the above colleges
there is " one immense scholasticate, or house of studies for

(3) Saint Peter: a Catholic Paper ofthe First Class, New York, August
5th, 1871.

THE SOCIETY OF JESUS IN THE UNITED STATES. 23
all North America," located in Maryland, with " about one
hundred and fifty young Jesuits within its walls ;" and where
"at length the Jesuits of this country have commenced to edu
cate their scholastics according to the time-honored rules of
the society. Hitherto," it is said, " the demand for profes
sors and priests has been so urgent that this could not have
been easily done; but the long-wished-for beginning is now
at last made, and nothing will be suffered to interfere with
the scholastic in going to his studies at the proper time, and
in completing them in all their extent, variety, and rigor 
The result in a few years will be seen all over the land."(*)
We may reasonably expect that the numbers of this cele
brated society in the United States will now be rapidly in
creased by emigration. Their suppression by the Prussian
Government, their like fate in Italy, their difficulties in
Bavaria and Switzerland growing out of their resistance to
the public authorities, their expulsion from Guatemala,
and their probable expulsion from all the countries where
they have been longest and best known, and where the ob
noxious principles of their order, and its insidious workings,
are understood, will probably cause them to seek refuge in
this country; where, under the license of our Protestant and
tolerant institutions, they may hope to give new life to their
organization and perpetuate its existence. The field is an
inviting one — rich in every thing that attracts — and we
must not suppose that they will be slow to occupy it; for
even the Jesuit, when driven away from the Roman Catho
lic nations and covered by them with obloquy and reproach,
can find shelter under our Constitution and laws. The only
price he is expected to pay is fidelity to the fundamental
principles upon which our Government has been founded.
With less than this we have no right to be content; and
must not be.
There are very few thoughtful minds that have not been
impressed by the fact that these educational influences are,
with only occasional and rare exceptions, under the imme
diate direction of foreigners — of men educated and trained
C4) -Saint Peter ': a Catholic Paper of the First Class, New York, August
26th, 1871.

24 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
by the papacy for tbe express purpose. Why is this ? Why
is it that only those who are thus prepared for the work —
with all the peculiar opinions, prejudices, and habits of
thought which grow out of and belong to the papal system,
as understood at the Vatican in Rome — are specially and
almost exclusively chosen to teach Roman Catholicism in
the United States ? Unquestionably, there is some reason
for it. And it would seem to be the only satisfactory ex
planation of such a fact, that, in the opinion of the ecclesi
astical authorities of Rome, there is so direct an antagonism
between the papacy and a popular form of government like
ours, that they do not suppose it possible for both systems
to exist permanently together ; and, therefore, have selected
these foreigners as the most suitable and competent agents
to carry on the work of substituting other institutions for
ours — institutions more congenial to them, and more in har
mony with the papal views of government.
This precautionary measure of ecclesiastical policy, care
fully designed for the achievement of future results, has
borne some fruits already. We see this in the fact that the
members of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States
appear to-day to be more formidably and compactly united
in supporting and defending all the pretensions of the papa
cy than are the Roman Catholic populations of any of the
nations of Europe. Among the most intelligent of the lat
ter — those who have become familiar, from long observation
and direct intercourse, with the papal system — the founda
tions of that system have been destroyed, papal concordats
have been indignantly and contemptuously revoked, papal
bulls of anathema and excommunication have been defied
and the ecclesiastical right to proclaim and enforce the de
cree of papal infallibility has been courageously and success
fully resisted. And yet, in this country, we are furnished
almost daily with renewed evidences of the enormous in
crease of hierarchical power, aud of a blind and humiliatino-
submission to the mediaeval doctrines of the Encyclical and
Syllabus of Pope Pius IX.; and the extreme demands ofthe
Jesuit and Ultramontane royalists of Europe. Many thou
sands of the Roman Catholics of Europe, although living
under monarchical institutions, have the intrepidity to disa-

A SEVERE BLOW TO POLITICAL FREEDOM. 25
vow the tame utterance of Augustine : " When Home has
spoken, that is the end of the matter,-" and to assert their
right to break loose from papal oppression and cling to the
old Church of " the Fathers." But the bulk of those in the
United States, while shielded and protected by free institu
tions, seem so trained in this passive and slavish school of
Augustine, that they do not yet realize how surely and in
evitably its tendency is to make them the mere tools of an
imperious and exacting hierarchy, whose professions of mod
eration are both delusive and insincere. They seem either
incompetent or unwilling to understand how completely
their manhood is forfeited by a compliance with the require
ments of this ecclesiastical system ; while, in other respects,
they exhibit commendable intelligence and some ofthe best
qualities of citizenship. The decree of papal infallibility was
a severe blow at the cause of personal as well as political
freedom; and by now consenting to make it the chief cor
ner-stone of their ecclesiastical polity, they avow their readi
ness beforehand to acquiesce in whatsoever shall be demand
ed of them, no matter how enormous it may be and to what
degree of humiliation it may reduce them. There is no king
now upon any throne who sets forth his pretensions in more
imperious tones than Pope Pius IX.'; yet they crouch at his
feet as submissively as the slave at the feet of his task-mas
ter. When he insists — as other popes have done before him
— that God has given him " full power over the whole world,
both in ecclesiastical and civil affairs," and that to maintain
the contrary is impious and heretical, they give their open
assent, or tame acquiescence to this odious doctrine, though
it may do violence to their most cherished and preconceived
opinions. It is wonderful that such men do not profit more
by that experience which comes from intercourse with the
world ; that they do not realize that multitudes of their
brethren, who once supported the cause ofthe papacy, have
abandoned it, on account of the very things to which they
submit; and that the governments hitherto most obedient
to the pope have passed out of his hands and from under his
control. How is it possible for them to shut their eyes so
completely as they seem to dp to the movements ofthe mod
ern nations? Spain, formerly the most devoted of all of

26 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
them to papal supremacy, has, within a few years, made her
queen a fugitive, because she was the mere creature of an
insolent priesthood ; has weakened the power of that same
priesthood, because it had been trained in the school of the
infamous and despised Inquisition ; and has advanced so far
toward a higher national development as to excite the hope
in all liberal minds that she may be ultimately able to throw
off entirely the leaden weight of ultramontanism. France
withdrew her military support from the papal throne, in or
der to humiliate a rival Protestant power, and she and the
papacy both went down into a common wreck ; and if she
rises again under the papal flag, it will be only to dig still
deeper the grave into which all her aspirations of national
glory will be buried. Austria has set aside her concordat
with the pope, and proclaimed entire freedom of religions be
lief; and has made herself the ally of the bitterest enemies
of Pius IX. Bavaria has refused to permit the dogma of in
fallibility to be proclaimed in her dominions, because it is
opposed to the fundamental articles of her constitution,
" and would place in jeopardy the rights ofthe non-Catholics
of the country." The open collision between Teutonic and
Latin ideas has consolidated the Germanic states by the
triumph of the former; and left no hope for the papacy
throughout all Germany, unless reaction could be won by
the impossible ascendency of the odious principles of Jesu
itism. Even Italy, at the very door of the Vatican has
snatched the sceptre of temporal dominion from the hands
of the pope, invited Protestant churches and schools to be
opened in Rome, confiscated the property ofthe rich monas
tic orders, and appropriated the Quirinal and other papal
palaces to the uses of the state. There is not left in all the
earth a single government with either the inclination or the
power to defend the papacy, nor a single square mile of ter
ritory over which its temporal sceptre can be wielded. And
while all these things are consummated facts in history and
others of kindred import are rapidly transpiring ; while these
Roman Catholic populations of Europe are beo-innino- to
breathe more like free men, and are preparing for higher de
grees of progress than they have yet attained — the followers
of the papacy in the United States, with creditable excep..

PAPAL OPPOSITION TO POPULAR GOVERNMENT. 27
tions, are concentrating their exertions with wonderful una
nimity, in order to reforge the discarded fetters of papal
tyranny, and to manacle with them the limbs of the freest
and happiest population upon earth ! Do not these events
teach a philosophy which it becomes the American people
to understand ? Manifestly, they will fail in duty to them
selves, their country, and the age, if they do not endeavor to
understand it.
We should not fail to keep in mind the distinction, which
undoubtedly exists, between the hierarchy and the laity.
Among the latter there are, beyond all question, a large
number of pious and sincere Christians, who follow the
teachings of their Church with honest and pure intentions,
and who are equally honest and sincere in their support of
our republican and popular institutions, because they think
they see nothing in either incompatible with the other.
During the late rebellion many of these went into the na
tional armies, willingly and promptly, and were as brave
and zealous as any others in defending the nation's life and
the integrity of the Union. But it can not be honestly de
nied that the direct tendency, during that same crisis, of all
that came from Rome was to give "aid and comfort" to
those who were endeavoring to overthrow the Government.
And it is equally true that the open avowals of the pope, in
so far as they were designed to have political significance,
had also the same effect. In no other way can the fact be
accounted for, that so large a number of Roman Catholic
priests in this country sympathized with all the measures
which were designed to break up the Union and destroy our
institutions. All their ecclesiastical training is so conducted
as to prepare them for opposition to a popular form of gov
ernment, and for giving preference to monarchical princi
ples. They exhibit abundant proof of this at all times when
collisions occur between the people and their monarchs who
profess to govern by " divine right," always opposing the
former and taking sides with the latter. They could not
pay obedience to the desires and commands of the pope in
any other way. Nor would he consider their obedience to
him complete, such as their ecclesiastical obligations impose
upon them, unless they were always and everywhere ready

28 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
to go to this extent. He measures their fidelity to him by
the readiness with which they adopt and promulgate these
sentiments. Pius IX., since he threw himself into the arms
of the Jesuits, has so frequently avowed his hatred of a gov
ernment of the people, and his fondness for monarchy, as to
leave no doubt upon any properly informed mind about the
condition in which he would place the nations, if he pos
sessed the power to regulate their affairs and construct their
forms of government. He would " pluck up " and destroy
every constitution or law which gives the people the right
to frame their own institutions so as to reflect their own
will, and would require the whole world to recognize and
adopt the doctrine of the " divine right of kings " to govern
all the nations in obedience to the pontifical mandates. He
demands of his hierarchy and all the officers of the Roman
Catholic Church, in every country and under all circum
stances and conditions, not merely that they shall maintain
these sentiments themselves, but shall carefully instruct all
the faithful to do the same ; conceding to them only such a
degree of discretion as allows them to regulate their utter
ances by expediency. From both these classes — both priests
and laymen — the pope exacts implicit obedience, without in
quiry or any appeal to their own reason. If it shall be
yielded by the Roman Catholic population of the United
States, and if it is really the design that the papal exactions
shall be carried to the extent of interfering with their obli
gations as citizens, there is no difficulty in seeing that they
may be ultimately led into an attitude of antagonism to our
form of government. At this point lies the danger most
seriously to be apprehended by the people of the United
States — a danger which underlies many, if not all of the
questions by which the nation is periodically excited.
While we may not now be able to anticipate the precise
time or form of its appearing, we should not be unprepared
to meet it, if, by any possibility, it shall be hereafter precip
itated upon us.
By our form of government all the laws have their
source, both theoretically and practically, in the will of the
people ; and are, therefore, of human origin. The Constitu
tion of the United States was ordained and established by

ENDEAVOR TO SUBVERT OUR INSTITUTIONS. 29
the people, " in order to form a more perfect union, establish
justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common
defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the bless
ings of liberty to ourselves, and our posterity. "(6) Consider
ed collectively, these objects include every thing necessary
to the happiness, prosperity, and elevation of a nation; and,
with the supreme and sovereign authority of the American
people to preserve them for nearly a century, they have,
thus far, proved to be much more conducive to these ends
than any ofthe forms of government where kings, or popes,
or potentates of any name or rank, have been regarded as
the only "fountains of justice," This belief can not be de
lusion, in view of the present condition of the world and of
the practical results before us. If it is, it is a delusion which
the people of the United States have cherished, and will, it
is hoped, continue to cherish, with all the fervor ofthe in-
tensest patriotism. It would be unjust to say that among
the number of those who do cherish it there are not many
Roman Catholic laymen, and now and then a priest, who
have found shelter under our institutions from European
misgovernment and monarchical oppression. There are, un
doubtedly, many of this class who do not believe, when told;
that the papacy is now endeavoring, by the most active and
persistent efforts, to substitute an ecclesiastical government
for this government ofthe people — a grand "Holy Empire"
for this free and popular republic which it has cost so inuch
blood and treasure to establish and maintain. Restrained
by the sincerity of their own intentions from suspecting oth
ers, they never stop a moment to inquire to what probable
or possible point they may be led by the uninquiring obedi
ence to their hierarchy which is demanded of them. And
the hierarchy, taking advantage of their silence, and con
struing it into acquiescence, let no opportunity escape to
build up an ecclesiastical power, comprehensive enough to
absorb all those powers of the Government and the people
which the pope shall consider to be in opposition to the law
of God!
These foreign -born ecclesiastics have moved forward in
(B) Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.

30 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
their work with great caution and circumspection. When
ever they have been enabled to employ the pen of a native
citizen, they have done so, in order that, while secure in
their own reticence for the time being, they could observe
the effect produced. As early as 1849, Dr. O. A. Brownson
— who had abandoned Protestantism under the pretense that
it was necessary to human happiness that the whole world
should be subjected to ecclesiastical government — did not '
hesitate to utter, in behalf of the papacy, such doctrines as
would, if established in this country, upheave the govern
ment of the United States, and that of every State in the
Union, from their foundations. In an article on "Authority
and Liberty," he pointed out the absolute and plenary au
thority of God over all things spiritual and temporal ; and
denied that any body or community of men, as men, "has
any rightful authority either in spirituals or temporals."
As a consequence, he insisted that " all merely human au
thorities are usurpations, and their acts are without obliga
tion, null and void from the beginning:" in other and more
practical words, that the authority of the people of the
United States over the Government is usurpation, and that
all the constitutions and laws they have ordained and enact
ed by this authority "are without obligation, null and void
from the beginning !" All " right to command," whether
of parent, pastor, prince, individuals, or communities, he cen
tres in the pope, as " the vicar of God " on earth, and in him
alone. He insists that, through the pope and by virtue of
his authority, " religion must found the state ;" and that the
only " absolute and unlimited freedom " consists in " abso
lute and unconditional subjection to God;" that is to his
vicar the pope, who alone is authorized to declare his will.
Every thing contrary to this — notwithstanding the Consti
tution of the United States and that of every State in the
Union are contrary to it — he pronounces to be " nonsense or
blaspheiny."(") This author is so much dissatisfied with the structure of
the government under which he was born, and by which he
is allowed the liberty of speech and of the press even to

(6) "Brownson's Essays,'' pp. 278, 279.

DR. BROWNSON'S INTOLERANCE. 31
the extent of assailing its most cherished provisions, as to
insist that the papacy alone possesses the only Divine au
thority, ever conferred upon an earthly tribunal, to make
laws for the government of mankind ; and that in submit
ting to it we submit to God, " and are freed from all human
authority;" because whatsoever it teaches and commands,
in reference to all spiritual and temporal things, must be
and is infallibly true. Therefore, " in the temporal order,"
according to him, the authority of the papacy " is nothing
but the assertion over the state of the Divine sovereignty,"
which it represents. And, hence, all the authority derived
from the people which does not bring the state into this
condition of obedience and subserviency to the papacy " is
despotic, because it is authority without right, will unreg
ulated by reason, power disjoined from justice." And, fur
ther pursuing the same idea in opposition to the fundament
al principle of all popular and representative government,
he continues thus :
" . . . . Withdraw the supremacy of the Church from the
temporal order, and you deprive the state of that sanction ;
by asserting that it does not hold from God, and is not
amenable to his law, you give the state simply a human
basis, and have in it only a human authority, which has no
right to govern, and which it is intolerable tyranny to compel
me to obey."
He then pursues another method of reasoning which,
under color of a single concession, brings him to the same
conclusions ; the main object, that is, the absolute and uni
versal power of the papacy, never being lost sight of.
Agreeing that the state has some authority within the lim
its of the law of nature, he concedes to it the right to act
" without ecclesiastical restraint or interference," when and
only so long as it confines itself within the scope of that
law. But he puts such limitations upon even this restrict
ed right as to render it of no avail for any of the purposes of
an independent government, by insisting that as the papacy
holds its authority directly from God, and exercises it under
his revealed law, which includes the law of nature, it is,
therefore, the only competent judge of infractions upon both
the revealed and the natural law. Speaking of the Church

32 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
-'-and since the decree of papal infallibility he, of course*,
means the pope, who represents and absorbs all the author
ity of the Church — he says:
"She is, under God, the supreme judge of both laws, which
for her are but one law ; and hence she takes cognizance,
in her tribunals, of the breaches of the natural law as well
as of the revealed, and has the right to take cognizance by
nations as well as of its breaches by individuals, by the
prince as well as the subject, for it is the supreme law for
both. The state is, therefore, only an inferior court, bound
to receive the law from the Supreme Court, and liable to have
its decrees reversed on appeal."^)
These sentiments were not uttered from mere impulse, or
in the heat of animated discussion ; they were carefully
formed and elaborated in the closet, and sent forth, with full
deliberation and hierarchical sanction, to prepare the minds
of the Roman Catholic part of our population for events
which have since transpired, and which were then, doubt
less, anticipated. They had, undoubtedly, the full approv
al of the highest authorities of the Church in the United
States ; for so wonderfully perfect is the plan of papal organ
ization, that their author would not have acquired the dis
tinguished position he has since reached in the Church, if he
had ventured to commit the papacy wrongfully upon ques
tions of so much delicacy and importance. Dr. Brownson
had prepared himself for the adoption of these views by
previous study of the papal system, and was, therefore, as a
native citizen, the most fit person to give them public utter
ance ; it being very naturally supposed, no doubt, that the
people of this country would silently submit to harsh criti
cism upon the principles of their government when made by
a native, when the same criticism made by a foreigner would
arouse their just indignation. An intelligent and educated
mind like his could not fail to see that the principles he
enunciated were diametrically opposed to the whole theory
of American government, and that the logical consequence
of their supremacy in the United States would be the end
of popular government, by the substitution for it of one in

(*) "Brownson's Essays," pp. 282-284.

RELIGION WHICH IS "TO COMMAND." 33
the ecclesiastical form. He had, but a few 'years' ago, an
nounced that " the Roman Catholic religion assumes, as its
point of departure, that it is instituted, not to be taken care
of by the people, but to take care of the people ; not to be
governed by them, but to govern them;" and from this
stand -point of deadly hostility, to the institutions under
which he was born, and which allowed him the liberty he
was so unpatriotically abusing, it was but a single step to
such bold and audacious avowals as the following :
" The people need governing, and must be governed. 
They must have a master.  The religion which is to an
swer our purpose must be above the people, arid able to com
mand them  The first lesson to the child is, obey; the
first and last lesson to the people, individually and collective
ly, is, obey ; and there is no obedience where there is no au
thority to enjoin it  The Roman Catholic religion, then,
is necessary to sustain popular liberty, because popular lib
erty can be sustained only by a religion free from popular con
trol, above the people, speaking from above and able to com
mand them ; and such a religion is the Roman Catholic 
In this sense, we wish this country to come under the
Pope of Rome. As the visible head ofthe Church, the spir
itual authority which Almighty God has instituted to teach
and govern the nations, we assert his supremacy, and tell our
countrymen that we would have them submit to him. '. They
may flare up at this as much as they please, and Write as
many alarming and abusive editorials as they choose, or can
find time and space to do — they wilL not move us, or relieve
themselves from the obligation Almighty God has placed
them under of obeying the authority of the Catholic Church,
pope and all."(s)
When Pope Gregory XVI., some years ago, uttered the
saying, " Out of the Roman States, there is no country where
I am pope, except the United States" he undoubtedly cher
ished the idea which filled the mind of Dr. Brownson when
he penned these extraordinary sentiments ; that is, that pop;
ular liberty, in its true sense, can only exist where the peo
ple are reduced to a condition of political vassalagej and
(8) "Brownson's Essays," pp. 380-383.
3

34 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
where there is a power superior to them, with authority
sufficient to command and govern them! With both of
them, as well as with many Roman Catholic writers who
have similarly expressed themselves, such sentiments grew
out of the existing condition of the nations, and the decay
ing fortunes ofthe papacy. In all the countries professedly
Roman Catholic, the Church was restricted and hampered
in what were asserted to be its rights, on account of its close
alliance with despotism ; while in this country, owing to the
liberality of our institutions, it is " legally free," and is left,
without the interference of the law, to the uninterrupted
pursuit of its ecclesiastical policy. (') Manifestly, it is be
cause the nations of Europe, hitherto Roman Catholic, have
taken away from " the vicar of God " the power to subordi
nate the laws of the State to the canon laws of the Church,
which have been constructed with sole reference to papal
supremacy, that the hope of rebuilding this power in the
United States has been excited. Paralyzed by the defensive
policy of the nations where the oppressive cbaracter of the
papal system has been long observed and understood, and
where its opposition to the rights of the people has been
most keenly felt, all these representatives of the papacy cul
tivate the idea in their own minds, and are endeavoring to
instill it into the minds of their followers, that they may
avail themselves of the tolerance of our institutions to re
construct their repudiated system of ecclesiastical absolutism
in this country. The present pope, Pius IX., pressed much
nearer to the wall than was Gregory XVI., and, doubtless,
flattered at the thought that the bold utterances of Dr.
Brownson and others have yet received no popular rebuke
has allowed the same hope to obtain possession of his mind.
When, at his command, the defenders of the papacy speak
of the Church as being " legally free " in the United States
he and they understand it to mean that it is free under our
form of government, to concentrate and vitalize all its efforts
and the best faculties of its priesthood, to consummate all
the ends and objects they aim at. They do not mean that
the people here are to be converted to the Roman Catholic

(9) " Protestantism and Infidelity," by Dr. Weninger, a Jesuit, p. 262

INSIDIOUSNESS OF A FOREIGN-BORN PRIESTHOOD. 35
faith by free discussion and appeals to reason — these are
methods of procedure forbidden to them. But they do
mean just what Dr. Brownson has averred ; that the pope,
without any human authority to challenge or arraign him,
shall be at liberty to build up a hierarchy, irresponsible to
the laws enacted by the people, with authority and powers
above those of the National and State governments, and suf
ficient to compel passive obedience to all papal decrees and to
the canon laws of the Roman Catholic Church, in such form
as he, with the crown of the Csesars upon his brow, shall
promulgate them from his papal and imperial city of Rome !
These matters are of sufficient import to arrest public at
tention ; and it is time that the people of the United States
understood the manner in which a foreign-born priesthood^
educated for the purpose, are employing the freedom grant
ed them by our institutions — what they mean when they
write and talk about the freedom of their church — and what
the end may be if they shall quietly and unresistingly sub
mit to have replanted here the papal imperialism which has
been expelled from every enlightened nation in Europe.
When a Protestant talks of freedom, he means the self-gov
ernment of the people in all their civil affairs ; when the
papal hierarchy talk of it, they mean the freedom of the pa
pacy to govern the world, through the pope and themselves,
as his agents and auxiliaries. And when, in this country,
we speak of the " liberty of conscience," we mean that every
man shall be permitted to worship God as his own personal
convictions of duty shall dictate. But the papal hierarchy
have no such meaning, and intend nothing of this sort.
With them " liberty of conscience " consists merely of " the
right to embrace, profess, and practice the Catholic religion"
in a Protestant country ; not the right to embrace, profess,
and practice the Protestant religion in a Roman Catholic
country ! And why do they not concede this latter right,
while demanding the former with such steady persistence?
The answer with them is always at hand, when it is expe
dient to make it: because "infidelity" is "the last logical
consequence of Protestantism ;"(10) and, therefore, Protest-
(10) '.'Protestantism and Infidelity,"by Dr. Weninger, a Jesuit, p. 278.

36 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
antism, being thus opposed to'the^law of God, can not be
tolerated or compromised with witnout sin, and must be ex
terminated! '
These ideas are so plainly and emphatically expressed by
The Catholic World oi New York, that the article in which
they are found — entitled "A Plea for Liberty of Con
science'' — is well worthy a careful examination and serious
reflection. (") While it apologizes to those of its " Catholic
readers "who may take offense at its defensive tone — as if
it were an act of indiscretion to defend the Roman Catholic
Church otherwise than by the dogmatic assumption of its
exclusiveness and supremacy — it exhausts its ingenuity in
the discussion of the question, " What constitutes a violation
of just and rightful liberty of conscience ?" To such of its
readers as presuppose "the Catholic religion to be the true
one," it addresses this expressive and violent language :
" Of course, in the last analysis, we must come back upon
the fundamental principle that the law of God is supreme,
and must be obeyed at all hazards, let come what will. No
matter what human law, what private interests, what dread
ful penalties may stand in the way, God must be obeyed,
conscience must be followed, duty must be done. The au*
thority of the state must be braved, human affections must be
disregarded, life must be sacrificed, when loyalty to truth and
to the will of God requires it."
These sentiments, when uttered, might have seemed com
paratively harmless to the casual reader; and they were
probably thus considered by many of the uninitiated lay
men of the Roman Catholic Church. They are seemingly
full of loyalty to the Christian faith, and yet that they were
designed to have a covert and latent significance — well un
derstood by the priesthood, there can be no reasonable
doubt, in view of what was then transpiring at Rome.
Preparations were making for the decree of papal infalli
bility ; and it was, doubtless, considered necessary, by such
utterances as these, to put the minds of the faithful in a fit
condition to accept, without murmur, this radical change in
the doctrines of the Church. At that time, infallibility was
(") The Catholic World, July, 1868, vol. vii., No. 40, p. 433.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY NOT A NEW DOGMA. 37
no less a dogma ofthe Church than it is now; but it was
differently deposited. It was. the infallibility ofthe Church,
when acting through and by means of the representative
authorities it has recognized for centuries; that is, councils
and popes conjointly. Whatever opinions contrary to this
may have been expressed elsewhere, and have generally
prevailed among the hierarchy, this was, undoubtedly, the
belief of a very large majority of the lay members of the
Church in the United States. They both felt and expressed
for the pope a feeling bordering upon reverence, but had
never yet been brought to the point of accepting him as
possessed alone of all the infallibility they had been accus
tomed to assign to the Church ; in other words, they had
never consented to accept a church organization entirely de
prived of all ordinary representative features. With them,
the old faith was sanctified by centuries of time ; and they
associated all ideas of invasion upon it with heretical teach
ings. Feeling assured that a deposit thus sacred would be
preserved with fidelity by its custodians, and having no
dread of any antagonism to it from within, they exhibited
their confidence by the most deferential obedience. What
soever came to them with the stamp of authority was will
ingly accepted ; but they had not yet learned to regard this
authority, in so far as it affected the fundamentals of their
faith, as lodged elsewhere than in the collective body of
their bishops, acting conjointly with the pope, in the gener
al councils of the whole Church. Any accusation that they
did so usually excited their resentment ; at all events, their
unqualified denial. And when this is taken into account,
when it is considered how few there were who pretended
to believe the doctrine of papal infallibility, it may well be
supposed that these avowals of the Catholic World passed
unobserved by the ordinary reader, at the time. Although
the article may have been read by many Roman Catholic
laymen, it is not probable that they perceived its ultimate
bearing or design ; or, if they did, they did not suppose it
possible that any harm could be done by it to the theory
of popular government, so long as the faith and doctrines
of. their Church were subject to interpretation only by the
whole body of the episcopate, gathered together in general

38 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
council from all parts of the world, and representing the en
tire Church. This view of it would have naturally arisen in
the minds of the honest and unsuspecting members of the
Church — of that large class who are made credulous by the
excess of their fidelity, and who are no more inclined to sus
pect others of duplicity than they are to practice it them
selves. Yet it can not now be seriously denied that the
hierarchy of the Church, or those among them who occupied
the most commanding and influential positions, fully under
stood the import and meaning of the principles of church
polity so boldly proclaimed by the Catholic World. The
prelates and priests knew that they were expressed in re
sponse to the pope's Encyclical and Syllabus of 1864, in or
der to prepare the whole membership ofthe Church, gradu
ally but cautiously, for the decree of papal infallibility ; for
the ultimate concentration of all the authority of the church
in the hands of the pope alone, at the expense of the repre
sentative feature in the church economy; and for the sub
stitution of his orders, decrees, and commands, for such as
heretofore for over eighteen hundred years — except when
papal usurpation made it otherwise — have been considered
the law of the Church when proceeding from the whole
body ofthe Church. In no other sense can these principles
be now interpreted. Indeed, Tlie Catholic World did not,
at the time of their utterance, intend to leave much doubt
about its meaning in the minds ofthe initiated. It intend
ed to place itself in advance of others who were slower to
move in the direction indicated by the pope. Therefore,
with the Encyclical and Syllabus to dictate the sentiment,
it was announced, in the next number, that the pope, " as the
head and mouthpiece of the Catholic Church, administers
its discipline and issues orders to which every Catholic un
der pain of sin, must yield obedience."(12)
These are not loose and idle sayings; nor are they ex
pressed by ignorant and irresponsible men. The Catholic
World is edited with great ability, and possesses very hio-h
literary merit. It is issued from " The Catholic Publication
House," in New York, manifestly with episcopal sanction.

(") The Catholic World, August, 1868, vol. vii., No. 41, p. 577.

THE CHURCH OF ROME TO INTERPRET OUR LAWS. 39
And when such a publication, with such high indorsement,
solemnly and under all its responsibilities announces it as
the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, that disobedi
ence to the " orders " of the pope is " sin " against God, what
should interest the American people more than to inquire
whether it is contemplated, or is even possible, that any of
these "orders" should be directed against, or shall threaten
the existence of, any of the principles which enter into the
structure of their government ? As the prosecution of this
inquiry progresses, much will appear well calculated to star
tle those whose avocations lead them into other fields of
thought and investigation.
In the light of the teachings thus far announced, and of
the further fact that the pope's infallibility is now almost
universally recognized in the United States, either by open
approval or silent acquiescence, there is no other logical con
clusion than that the papal hierarchy in this country en
tertain the desire to make our government and laws con
form to the laws of God, as they shall be interpreted and an
nounced by the pope. They profess to have been appointed
to this mission by Almighty God, and, stimulated by the zeal
* engendered by this conviction (the honesty of which there
is no occasion to impeach), are undoubtedly arming them
selves for the work with all the weapons which can be drawn
from the pontifical armory. And The Catholic World, in
order to incite the courage ofthe assailants, and bring about
this result" with all possible expedition, declares in advance
that all " human laws " must be resisted when they stand
in the way of the grand achievement ; that all " private in
terests " must be sacrificed ; that the most dreadful " penal
ties " must be incurred ; and that " the authority of the state
must be braved, human affections must be disregarded, life
must be sacrificed, when loyalty to truth and to the will of
God requires it " — as the truth shall be declared, and the
will of God shall be announced, by the infallible and unerr
ing pope !

4Q THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.

CHAPTER II.
The Pope and Civil Affairs. — Preparations to Make him Infallible. — The
Bishop's Oath. — National Council of Baltimore. — Their Theory of Gov
ernment.— Defense of the Ancient Rights of the Papacy. — Arraignment
of Protestantism as Infidelity, and a Failure. — Popular and Monarchical
Government.— Protestant Toleration Necessary to Popular Government.
It has' come to be' an axiom among all the advocates of
free government, that "error ceases to be dangerous when
reason is left free to combat it." But those who support
the cause of imperialism maintain the opposite of this — that
the public mind ar>d conscience are enlightened only in pro
portion as they are submissive to some superior governing
power, sufficiently strong to hold them in obedience.
The contest between these opposing theories is one be
tween intelligence and ignorance. In the one case, society
ia recognized as being entitled to govern itself by laws of
its own enacting — founded upon its own will. In the other,
this right is entirely denied, and it is regarded as beinc fit
ted only for that condition of inferiority which shall reduce it
to an unconsciousness of its degradation. The civil institu
tions of the United States are constructed upon the former
of these theories. Wheresoever civil institutions have ex
isted in obedience to the dictation of the papacy, they have
been constructed upon the latter. Protestantism, with all its
elevating tendencies, is the legitimate offspring of the one.
Decrepitude, decay, and disruption have been the natural
fruits of the other. These considerations must be kept in
mind, in examining the claims now set up in behalf of the
papacy, in order that we may have a clear view of what
we are required to surrender, and understand the, character
of the millennial feast to which we are invited.
When Pope Pius IX., in 1867, convened all "the prelates
of the Catholic world" in Rome, to witness the ceremony
of canonizing saints — to which their presence was not at

EFFORT AT PAPAL OMN1POTENCY. ' 41.
all necessary — and assigned as one of the reasons for the
convocation " the extreme peril which threatens civil, and,
above all, sacred things,'^1) thoughtful men — as well Ro
man Catholic laymen as Protestants — wondered why so
much expense should be incurred, and so much labor per
formed, for an object which could, of itself, confer no good
upon Christianity or the Church. And when these same
Roman Catholic laymen had their attention then called —
many of them for the first time — to the now celebrated
Encyclical and Syllabus of the pope, and saw their tendency
to arrest the progress of the nations, and turn them back
toward the Middle Ages, many of the most intelligent of
them did not hesitate to express their surprise. Some of
them put one construction, and some another, upon the lan
guage of the pope ; while yet others, better informed of the
motives of papal action, attempted, by imperfect transla
tions and false construction, to give it a meaning wholly at
variance with what is now conceded, on all hands, to have
been his design. But when the late Vatican Council en
acted the decree which made papal infallibility, for the first
time, a dogma of religious faith, and threatened with anath
ema all who should refuse to recognize the pope as incapa
ble of all error in matters of faith and morals, all further
disguise was thrown aside, and the world was awakened to
the fact that these measures were but the inauguration of a
deliberately concerted effort to make the papacy a power
so absorbing and omnipotent that all nations and peoples
should be held by it in abject, passive, and humiliating sub
jugation. It would be an unjust reflection upon the acknowledged
intelligence and sagacity of the papal hierarchy in the
United States to suppose that they did not understand,
from the beginning, the end the pope had in view, and the
object he desired to accomplish. Their relations to him,
and their dependence upon him for their official positions
and dignity, require that there shall be no concealment be
tween them. The kind of obedience they pay him renders
it necessary that they shall furnish him with the most un-
QAppIetons' "Annual Cyclopaedia," 1866, p. 676.

42 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
doubted assurance that they are always ready to execute
whatsoever he shall command, in the domain of faith and
morals, without stopping to inquire what human laws or in
stitutions are in the way, except so far as it may be neces
sary to contrive some method to evade or overleap them.
All this is required by the official oath taken by each of
them. By it they create an allegiance to the pope consid
ered higher and more binding than any earthly obligation.
It obliges them to be " faithful and obedient " to him ; to
"defend and keep the Roman papacy and the royalties of
St. Peter ;" to do whatsoever they can to " increase " the
papal " privileges and authority," and to " persecute and
oppose " all " heretics, schismatics, and rebels " who shall
stand in the way of making " the rules of the holy fathers,
the apostolic decrees, ordinances, or disposals, reservations,
provisions, and mandates," the foundation upon which all
human institutions shall rest.(2)
These American prelates took the earliest occasion, after
the appearance of the Syllabus, to show, not only that they
fully comprehended its meaning, but that the pope's reliance
upon their fidelity to him was not misplaced. In this extraor
dinary document it is asserted, witb dogmatic brevity and
terseness, that it does not appertain " to the civil power to de
fine what are the rights and limits within which the Church
may exercise authority ;" that its authority must be decided
upon by itself, that is, by the pope, and exercised " without
the pennission and assent ofthe civil government ;" and that,
" in the case of conflicting laws between the two powers,"
the laws of the Church must prevail over those of the State.(a)
Here, every thing is plain— nothing equivocal. The subor
dination of the State to the Church, and the substitution of
the papal hierarchy for the people in enacting and enforcing
such laws as the pope may think necessary for the Church,
are distinctly and emphatically asserted. There is no room
for misconstruction of the language. And it must be ob
served that the pope is speaking alone of civil " rights and
limits," and the authority which " the Church may exercise "

(f) For the "Bishop's Oath," see Appendix A.
O " The Pope's Syllabus," Articles 19, 20, and 42. See Appendix D.

THE SECOND NATIONAL COUNCIL. 43
in reference to them ; that is, over that class of temporalities ;
holding the Church to be, in these respects, above the state,
and having the right, as its superior, to command and enforce
obedience. It requires but a moderate share of intelligence
to see that the principle here asserted is in direct antagonism
to the theory of American government, and that, if estab
lished, it would violate one ofthe cherished provisions of the
Constitution of the United States and of the Constitution of
every State in the Union. The American hierarchy under
stand this perfectly well Whosoever else may shelter them
selves behind the plea of ignorance, they can not. And yet
this knowledge imposed no restraint whatever upon them,
in the expression of their submissiveness and obedience to
the pope. They considered themselves as owing their first
and highest allegiance to him, as the representative of " the
royalties of St. Peter," and did not hesitate to avow it : of all
this, they have themselves furnished the most satisfactory
evidence. The second National Council of the Roman Catholic Hie
rarchy of the United States met at Baltimore in October,
1866 — nearly two years after the Encyclical and Syllabus
were issued. It was composed of seven archbishops and
forty bishops, besides a number of the superiors of religious
orders, and was presided over by Archbishop Spalding, of
Baltimore, as " apostolic delegate " representing the pope,
and thus giving to the assembly as much weight and influ
ence within its jurisdiction as if the pope had been person
ally present. In theory it represented the great body of the
Roman Catholic laity in the United States ; practically, it
took no note of them or of their opinions. It was assembled
for a special work — to respond to the Encyclical and Sylla
bus; and it did it, to the "great comfort and consolation"
of the pope. It would have been unnatural for him to have
felt Otherwise at thus seeing the ranks of the papal army
closing up, and at knowing how well he had succeeded in
inaugurating a conflict between the imperial dogmas of the
papacy and the fundamental principles of American govern
ment. In the pastoral letter issued by this Council, the relation
of the Roman Catholic Church to the government and laws

44 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
of this country is discussed. There is a tone of ecclesias
tical authority and command employed by its authors which
tends to show an impression existing in their minds that
they were addressing an auditory not accustomed to ques
tion their authority or controvert their propositions. Hence,
they proceed, without indirection, to lay it down as an ax
iom in the science of all government, not to be disputed, that
the civil power is never absolute or independent. Inasmuch
as " all power is of God," there must exist some delegated
authority upon earth, which, representing God, must consti
tute the tribunal of last resort. Upon this tribunal alone
all absolute power is conferred, no matter what the form of
government. If it be a monarchy, the king must be held in
subjection to it; and if a democracy, the people must be
taught that it is above them. With this as the beginning-
point of their theory, substantially expressed, though not in
these words, they declare that obedience to the civil power
of government "is not a submission to force which may not
be resisted, nor merely the compliance with a condition for
peace and security ; but a religious duty founded on obedi
ence to God, by whose authority the civil magistrate exer
cises his power." This power of the civil magistrate, being
subordinate and delegated power, they insist, " must always
be exercised according to God's law." And, therefore, "in
prescribing any thing contrary to that law, the civil power
transcends its authority, and has no claim on the obedience
of the citizen," because it " never can be lawful to disobey
God ;" or, as a necessary and logical result, those to whom,
as custodians of his power on earth, he has delegated the
divine right to govern. Founding their theory of govern
ment upon this idea, they proceed to show how differently
the principle operates in "the Catholic system" and in the
Protestant system. In the latter, according to them " the
individual is the ultimate judge of what the law of God
commands or forbids ;" while in the former, " the Catholic
has a guide in the Church, as a divine institution which en
ables him to discriminate between what the law of God for
bids or allows;" so that when the Church shall instruct him
that any particular law of the state is contrary to God's
law, he is thereby forbidden to pay obedience to it. Ac*

CONFLICT WITH CIVIL INSTITUTIONS. 45
cording* to the Protestant system, in their opinion, the state
is exposed to disorder and anarchy, because the authority
by which it is governed has no warrant for its character as
divine. The reverse they insist to be the case in the " Cath
olic system ;" and, therefore, because it has this divine au
thority in the Church and not in itself, " the state is bound to
recognize" the Roman Catholic Church as the sole deposi
tory of the delegated power to decide what laws shall be
obeyed and what disobeyed; for the obvious reason that
the world, in order to obey God, must recognize that Church
— that is, the pope and his hierarchy — "as supreme in its
sphere of morals, no less than dogmatic teaching."
It requires no pause for reflection to see how directly a
" Catholic system " of government, thus constructed, would
conflict with the existing civil institutions of the United
States. Nor do we need a prophet to tell us that the estab
lishment of such a system here would be followed by their
immediate destruction. To permit a church — any church —
to decide upon the validity or invalidity of our laws after
their enactment, or to dictate, beforehand, what laws should
or should not be passed, would be to deprive the people of
all the authority they have retained in their own hands, and
to make such church the governing power, instead of them.
Yet, understanding this perfectly well, and, evidently, con
templating the time when they might possibly be able to
bring about this condition of affairs, these papal representa
tives directly assail a principle which has been universal in
all our State governments, from their foundation ; that which
regulates by law the holding of real estate by churches and
other corporations, and requires them to conform, in this
temporal matter, to the statute-laws of the States. To this
there could be no reasonable or just objection, had they in
voked the rightful power to change, alter, amend, or even to
abrogate the obnoxious laws, for this would have been only
the exercise of the admitted right of free discussion, secured
as well to them as others. But they, manifestly, had no
such idea in view, inasmuch as, according to them, that
method of procedure belongs to the Protestant and not the
"Catholic system" of government. To exclude the impres
sion that they design to look to any other authority than

46 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
that of the papacy for the relief they seek, they take espe
cial pains to say that they " are not as yet permitted legally
to make those arrangements for the security of church prop
erty which are in accordance with the canons and discipline
ofthe Catholic Church/" that is, that the canons and disci
pline of their Church, issued from the Vatican at Rome, by
the pope and Roman curia, are not permitted to override
and nullify the laws of the States ! The plain import of this
is, that all the laws of the States concerning the rights of
the Roman Catholic Church, and regulating the manner in
which it shall hold and enjoy property, have " no claim on
the obedience " of the Roman Catholic citizen, because they
are not "in accordance with the canons and discipline of
the Catholic Church " and the papal decrees. Such a sys
tem of government, put into practical operation, would
amount to this, that conformity to the " canons and disci
pline " of that Church would be the test of all laws, and
none would be binding except those pronounced obligatory
by the pope. The " divine right " of the pope to govern the
people, through his hierarchy, would be fully recognized,
and the right of self-government would be at an end.
The right of holding real estate and accumulating large
wealth, after the manner of the Roman Catholic Church
and monastic orders of Europe, the American hierarchy re
gard as of so much importance to the success of their eccle
siastical organization, that this Baltimore Council declared
that to withhold it is to deprive their Church " of a necessa
ry means of promoting the end for which she has been es
tablished." They declare that "she can not accept" the
principles upon which the American laws are based "with
out departing from her practice from the beginninc," be
cause " they are the expression of a distrust of ecclesias
tical power." And, to leave no doubt whatever about their
meaning, they insist that the States have no more right to
impose on their Church " a system of holding her 'tempo
ralities, which is alien to her principles," than they have to
"prescribe to her the doctrines she is to teach;" and they
solemnly enter their " formal protest " against all such legis
lation, notwithstanding the laws they protest against exist
in all the States, and embody a principle deliberately con-

PAPAL AUTHORITY PREFERRED. 47
sidered and approved by the American people. C) It is in
compatible, they say, "with the full measure of ecclesiastical
or reUgious liberty" to deprive them ofthe right of holding
whatsoever amount of real or other property they may ac
quire in the United States, by purchase, devise, or gift, and
of governing it by laws of the pope's or their own enacting,
independently of the laws of the States, to which all Prot
estant churches and people pay cheerful obedience; thus
showing that they would have each archbishop within his
episcopate, and each bishop within his diocese, and each
priest within his parish, a temporal prince, with the scep
tre of royalty in his hands, although he might not wear its
crown upon his head.
One would expect to see, in a document of this kind, a
statement of some serious grievance against which relief
was sought, something that would at least excuse, if not
justify, the attempt to introduce into our government a, for
eign element of authority above the people. But the only
" practical results " complained of are, first, the taxation of
their church property; and, second, an attempt made by
the State of Missouri, after the end of the rebellion, " to
make the exercise of the ecclesiastical ministry depend on
a condition laid down by the civil power ;" that is, by re
quiring them to conform to thfi laws of the State, in furnish
ing evidence of their loyalty to the Government. From the
nature of these complaints, it would seem that they were
only employed as a pretext, merely affording them an op
portunity of making known to the pope how cheerfully they
responded to the doctrines of his Encyclical and Syllabus,
and with what confidence he might rely upon them in doing
their share ofthe work necessary to arrest the progress and
advancement upon which this country had entered. (6)
(4) Mr. Jefferson, in his opinion upon the constitutionality of the first
bank of the United States, considered the principle of the English statutes
of "mortmain" as among "the most ancient and fundamental laws of the
several States." But these statutes have not been adopted generally, in
all their rigor, in this country. The States are content to limit ecclesias
tical and other corporations in the amount of their estates, and to subject
them, in the ownership and enjoyment of property, to their general laws.
(6) The pastoral letter of this Baltimore Council is, so far as I have been

48 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
The intentions of men are frequently made known far
more satisfactorily by their surroundings, the contempora
neous events with which they are identified, the parties to
which they are attached, and their connection with other
individuals, than by the language they use. By reference
to these we are furnished with a rule of interpretation which'
does not often mislead, although it is not altogether infal
lible. Therefore, when it is considered that these prelates
who assembled at Baltimore recognize, to the fullest possi
ble extent, their obligation of obedience to the pope ; and
when it is remembered that the pope had, but a little while
before, announced his views of the relations which should
exist between the Roman Catholic Church and civil govern
ments, the conclusion is unavoidable that they desire the
adoption, in this country, of their theory of government,'
based upon their ideas of the " Catholic system." To assign
to them any other motive, after the distinct and emphatic
avowals they have made, would be an impeachment of their
integrity aud sincerity; which is not designed. It is sup
posed that they occupy ground cautiously and deliberately
selected by them, and are fully prepared to take all the con
sequences which attach to their position. There is, at all
events, no misunderstanding what they desire to accom
plish. Nor should there be any misconception of the im
mense power they wield over multitudes of men in this
country, in moving them backward or forward, to the right
or left, as the pope shall direct.
We are not left in any doubt about the nature of the ter
rible struggle now going on between the modern nations
and the papacy. These hierarchs at Baltimore comprehend
ed it fully, when they entered upon an explanation of the
difference between the Protestant system of government,
with the people as the source of civil power, and the "Cath
olic system," with the pope as its only source. Havino- vol-

able to ascertain, the first document of the kind ever issued in the United
States. I have deemed it proper, therefore, to give the text of it in the Ap
pendix, together with the letter of the pope expressing his gratification at
the promise of the council to maintain the ancient rights of the papacy so
that the reader can judge for himself whether or not I have misconceived its
true meaning. See Appendix B.

DOCTRINE OF SUBMISSION. 49
untarily yielded to the papal pressure by the frank avowal
of their preference for the latter; and having no excuse, on
the plea of ignorance, for not understanding what it has
hitherto done for the world, they must be considered as de
siring to see the Christian nations, including the United
States, carried back to the condition they were in when the
papacy was at the zenith of its power ; when kings were ig
noble enough to lay their crowns at the feet of the pope ;
when popes disposed of kingdoms at their pleasure, by im
posing or releasing the obligation of allegiance, as the re
ward of fidelity to themselves, in the one case, or of dis
obedience, in the other; and when ignorant fanaticism and
superstition were so universal that the Christian world
dreaded nothing so much as the terrible thunders of ex
communication. Why should any body wonder that
Pius IX. was gratified to see things going in that direction ;
and, especially, to see such flattering signs that the most
liberal and advanced nations might become the first to turn
back, and thus enable him to gain in them what he had lost
where the "Catholic system" had been on trial for cent
uries?' He would have possessed less sagacity than is as
signed to him, had not the promise of these faithful subor
dinates to vindicate all his asserted prerogatives excited in
his mind ardent hopes and flattering expectations of the
future of the papacy. He could easily see that they were
ready and willing to defend the theory which he considers
the chiefest among all the fundamentals of government ;
for no matter what the form of government, whether mo
narchical or republican, it makes him its absolute and inde
pendent ruler in all things belonging to the domain of faith
and morals. The avowal is plainly made, in support of this
theory, that submission to civil authority is founded alone
upon obedience to God, and is not to be obeyed when other
wise ! Therefore, it is proposed that the Roman Catholic
citizen of the United States shall be carried along, step by
step, in the following process of training for the duties of
citizenship : he shall be brought to recognize his Church as
the only custodian of God's law ; that the pope is infalli
ble, and therefore, as the vicegerent of God, has plenary
and sole power to interpret that law, and can not err in its
4

50 . THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
interpretation; that he shall find his only "guide in the
Church" in deciding whether he shall obey or disobey the
civil laws of the state ; that the pope is the infallible repre
sentative of all truth in the world, and infallibly employs all
the power and. authority of the Church ; that, as he can not
err in any thing concerning faith and morals, he must, in
their domain, be implicitly obeyed; that, as the pope is in
fallible, as the chief instructor in doctrine and duty, his prelr
ates are also infallible as his subordinate workers; that the
pope, as he shall speak through the mouths of these prelates,
must be obeyed absolutely and uninquiringly — all his ut
terances being taken as the voice of God, coming directly
from his throne in the heavens; and that infamy in this life
and eternal damnation in that to come will be the inevitable
doom of all who shall impiously reject these teachings. A
citizen thus trained, disciplined, and humiliated would be
come, necessarily, a mere machine in the hands of superiors,
who would allow him to obey those laws only which the
Church — that is, the pope — should decide to be consistent
with the commands of God ; and would require him to re
sist and oppose those which should be decided to be other
wise. If the laws requiring the Roman Catholic Church to
hold property in subordination to them, and in the same
way that Protestant churches do, are forbidden by God's
law, as interpreted by the pope and placed in the canons
and discipline of that Church — as the Baltimore Council de
clares — they must be swept out of the way or violated with
impunity, so that the Church itself, and all its monastic
orders, and all its societies, may hold property to an unlim
ited amount, and make all the laws which shall govern its
acquisition and enjoyment, without any regard whatever to
the legislation of the States or to their rights and dignity !
With this achieved, the hierarchy would be far along upon
the road that would lead them to their final triumph  the
mastery over the people. The pope, as the source of all
authority in the Church, would put forth his royal edicts
and decrees in regard to their church property in this coun
try, prescribing how they should acquire, hold, and enjoy it,
and these edicts and decrees would take the place of all our
State statutes upon that subject! This would build up at

THE POPE'S MEANING. 5I
Rome an imperialism that would reach out further over the
world than did that of the Caesars, and might become far
greater and more injurious to mankind.
When the pope was informed of the assembling of this
council, aud the obedient spirit it exhibited, he caused his
cardinal secretary to dispatch an answer expressive of his
apostolic joy and satisfaction. He directed the facts to be
published in the official journal of his court, " for the edifica
tion of his Roman people and the faithful at large ;" so that
they, who had been striving after a government founded
upon their own consent, could realize how ready the people
of the United States were to give up such a government, in
exchange for one constructed upon the paternal plan which
prevailed at Rome, under his pontifical auspices. And,
seemingly aroused to the highest point of rejoicing at the
work the Encyclical and Syllabus had thus far accomplished,
he declared that his mind was excited by the hope that, by
means and through the influence of what the council at Bal
timore had done, " a neio impulse and continued increase to
religion in the United States will result."(") What the pope
meant by this may be derived from the fact that the cable
dispatch sent to bim by the archbishops and bishops who
composed the council, expressed only their wishes for his
" long life, with the preservation of all the ancient and sacred
rights ofthe Holy See."(7) There was no reference to any of
the ordinary dogmas of religious faith, as there could be no
doubt about their fidelity to them. There was no agitation
in the Church rendering such reference necessary. The issue
made by the Encyclical and Syllabus between the papacy
and the progressive modern nations was the only one which
immediately concerned the pope and the Church. This in
volved the existence of his temporal power, which the
Italian people were only then prevented by the presence of
Freneh :troops from taking away from him. Consequently,
when they declared their desire to see " all the ancient and
sacred rights of the Holy See" preserved, the pope was at
no loss to know what they meant. He understood them as
(6) See the pope's dispatch, Appendix B.
(') Appletons' "Annual Cyclopaedia," 1866, p. 678. See Appendix B.

52 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
indorsing all the claims he had set up in the Encyclical and
Syllabus, including that of temporal and ecclesiastical sov
ereignty, and his right to require that the civil governments
of the world should conform to "the canon laws and disci
pline " ofthe Church. Therefore, the idea he intended to con
vey was this : that the religion which had received a "new
impulse " in the United States was that which taught tbe
subordination of all civil governments to the Church and the
papacy ! It was not the true religion which was exempli
fied in the life and example of Christ, and which has its
foundation in universal charity and love ; but that which
places the pope above all kingdoms and peoples, and re
quires every human being to pay him homage and fidelity.
The facts before him tended naturally to draw from him the
rapturous expression of his hope. To see his followers in
the United States stepping so hastily into the front rank of
those who were ready to battle for the "ancient" rights of
the Holy See — when kings, under the idea of " divine right,"
received their crowns from the popes — must have excited in
his mind the most profound gratification. One can readily
suppose that, in his pontifical enthusiasm, he looked forward,
exultingly, to the time when governments and constitu
tions and laws would be reconstructed so as to conform to
the papal model, and when there would be snatched from
the hands of the people, wherever they possess it, the power
to make their own laws, or to enforce any which he or his
successors shall declare to be contrary to faith' and good
morals. To an old man of kind heart and generous sympa
thies, it must be terribly crushing to see such bright hopes
and flattering anticipations suddenly dashed to the ground,
as were those of Pius IX. after they had been thus excited,'
when Rome, by the act of the Italian people, became their
capital. Shall the tide of retrogression, thus arrested in It
aly, by a Roman Catholic population, be permitted to set in
again in the very heart of the Protestant nations ?
The reason assigned for the preference of the " Catholic
system " over the Protestant is the incapacity of the people
to govern themselves, and to take care of their own civil af
fairs—an argument as old as tyranny. The Baltimore Coun
cil tell us that by recognizing, as we do in this country, "an

ANTAGONISM OF THE TWO SYSTEMS. 53
authority" to govern, " which has no warrant for its charac
ter as divine, and no limits in its application," the nation is
exposed to "disorder and anarchy;" and the concession to
the Roman Catholic hierarchy of the right to separate their
property from the mass of that belonging to other churches
and people, aud to govern it by their own laws, or by the
canon laws of Rome, is demanded upon that express o-round.
With these prelates, Protestantism thus tends to the dis
ruption of the whole social fabric, because it confers upon
each individual the right to decide what shall be the form of
his religious belief, or whether he shall have any; and con
ducts all civil affairs without referring it to the pope, or his
ecclesiastics, or to any church authorities whatever, to de
cide what laws shall be obeyed and what resisted. The is
sue is a plain one — easily perceptible to the most ordinary
comprehension. The two systems stand in direct antago
nism with each other. The Protestant has separated the
State from the Church; the papal proposes to unite them
again. The Protestant has founded its civil institutions
upon the will of the people; the papal proposes to recon
struct and found them upon the will of the pope. The Prot
estant secures religious freedom ; the papal requires that
every man shall give up his conscience to the keeping of
ecclesiastical superiors. The Protestant develops the facul
ties of the mind by inciting the spirit of personal independ
ence and manhood ; the papal crushes out all this spirit by
its debasing doctrine of passive obedience and submission.
The Protestant has put the world upon a career of progress
and prosperity ; the papal desires to arrest this career, and
turn it back into those old grooves which have led so many
nations to wreck and desolation. The issue is made between
these systems in so bold and manly a manner, that its au
thors are entitled to that consideration which the possession
of high moral courage always excites in generous minds.
They can, therefore, have no just cause to complain of either
intolerance or persecution, if, finding ourselves in the posses
sion of free and popular institutions, which we have solemn
ly declared to be inalienable, we shall employ like courage
in their defense ; or even if, in maintaining their integrity,
it shall become necessary to point out the contrast between

54 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
these opposing systems to the extent of showing that the
Protestant and popular system was necessary to lift the
world out ofthe corruption and degradation into which the
papacy had plunged it. If it is a species of hallucination to
suppose that such institutions as we possess are better suit
ed to our condition than any that the pope, as "King of
Rome," or any of his ecclesiastical subordinates, or any ec
clesiastical tribunal whatever, would be likely to substitute
for them, we are not yet quite prepared to see it dispelled.
If we abhor kingly or papal imperialism, or imperialism in
any of its variety of forms, and cling to institutions estab-
lisbed in the face, and in defiance of it, we should be unfaith
ful to our convictions, and unworthy our position among the
nations, if we did not rebuke, in fit and indignant terms, any
attempt, by whomsoever made, to fetter us with its chains,
or to plant its iron heel upon our necks.
He must be stone-blind who does not see, in the light of
these and other facts occurring almost daily, that Protest
antism has been formally arraigned by its vindictive and
unrelenting enemy ; that it has been put upon its trial be
fore the civilized world ; that judgment of condemnation
has already been pronounced against it; and that the arm
ofthe executioner is only stayed until the limbs of the vic
tim can be so tightly bound as to make its resistance una
vailing. Its open adversary and accuser is the papacy,
which, unwilling to submit to the necessity that has wrought
out its own defeat among those who are most familiar with
its enormities and oppressions, now assails it courageously,
but impudently, in the citadel of its greatest strength. The
loss of his imperial crown in Rome has dispelled the joy of
Pius IX., and driven him into a frenzy of excitement and
passion ; and, availing himself of the license afforded by the
tolerant spirit of American laws and institutions, he is rap
idly transferring his best drilled and disciplined militia(") to
the United States; and, claiming to be clothed in the robes
and with the authority of divinity, he demands, in the name
of Deity, that we shall bow down before him in passive sub-
(8) When Pope Pius VII. re-established the Jesuits, after their suppression
by Clement XIV., he called them the " Sacred Militia " of the Church.

VIGILANCE NEEDFUL. 55
mission, and accept his commands as if uttered by a voice
from heaven. We, who believe that Protestantism is shel
tered by Divine care, must not remain unresisting under an
attack so immediate and formidable, nor sit still while a
judgment may be taken, by default, against us. A com
manding sense of duty requires that we should look this
haughty and imperious adversary full in the face, under
stand his machinations, strip him of his disguises, unravel
his plots, and meet him at every point of attack. If we
shall remain insensible to any of the obligations of this duty,
now that the battle-cry is sounding in our ears, it may be
too late after the storming-party has mounted the walls of
our fortress, pulled down our flag, and planted that of papal
and ecclesiastical absolutism upon the grave of popular in
stitutions. What does Protestantism mean ? What necessity gave it
birth ? What has it done for mankind ? What would be
the condition of the world if it were destroyed ? These are
questions we should not fear to discuss, and which we are
bound to, discuss, now that it is denounced, in our very faces,
as heresy and infidelity, and we are insolently told that duty
to both God and man requires its total extermination, and
the erection of a " Holy Empire " wheresoever its principles
prevail and its institutions exist. We must not sink into
indifference, nor permit the fear of consequences to slacken
our exertions in a cause of such transcendent importance to
ourselves and our children. If our fathers had been easily
intimidated, we should have had no such government as we
now possess. If we shall prove less courageous than they,
the heritage they have left us may not pass to many gen
erations of our descendants. Some of the proudest govern
ments of the earth have already fallen ; there are none that
may not fall.
This is not called a Protestant country because religion, in
the Protestant sense, is established by law, or has any pro
tection given to it which is not equally extended to all other
forms of religion — Roman Catholic, Jewish, Mohammedan,
Brahminicalj Greek, or Chinese. No such preference could
be conferred by law under our system of government ; for
it would so essentially and flagrantly violate its fundamental

56 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
principles that it would be instantaneously destroyed. By
these principles, upon which the whole superstructure has
been reared, every citizen — no matter whether native-born
or naturalized — is fully and equally protected in the per
sonal and individual right to maintain, in private or public,
whatsoever religious faith, and to practice whatsoever form
of religious worship, his own conscience shall approve, no
matter what degree of absurdity it may involve. No rea
sonable man should desire a higher degree of religious lib
erty than this. It gives to our form of government a dis
tinguishing characteristic, found nowhere else in so eminent
a degree, until the people of the United States entered upon
the experiment of self-government. It stamps our institu
tions with their Protestant character, and distinguishes them,
in a conspicuous degree, from such as have existed in those
countries known as Roman Catholic, where no such tolera
tion and liberality have ever existed, and no such experi
ment has been tried.
No intelligent reader needs to be told that the religious
controversies of Europe gave rise to the term " Protestant."
In its original application to those controversies it had a
distinct religious meaning — as at the Diet of Spires, in 1529.
But as they were of long continuance — through and subse
quent to tbe great Reformation of the sixteenth century —
and Protestants were compelled to concert some measures
of escape from the oppression and persecutions which arose
out of the union of Church and State, and the consequent
claim of the " divine right " of kings to govern the world, it
acquired, in the course of time, a different and more compre
hensive signification. Protestant Christianity was under
stood to involve the right to protest against the corruptions
and exactions of the Roman Catholic Church, to withdraw
from communion with it, and to worship God in other forms
than those prescribed by its discipline. It encountered
therefore, from that Church and its ecclesiastical authorities
— then almost supreme over the Christian world  such op
position as it found itself without power to resist unless it
could find shelter, somewhere, under the protection of law.
This was obtained, to some extent, after severe and protract
ed struggles, under the laws of Great Britain, Germany, and

OUR INSTITUTIONS PROTESTANT IN FORM. 57
Holland; and yet, even in those comparatively free coun
tries, thought had many difficulties and impediments to
overcome before it could acquire perfect freedom. Its only
formidable adversary, during all its struggles, was the pa
pacy, which was ever ready to plunge the pontifical sword
to the heart of its victims.
The original emigrants to the United States brought with
them from Europe the principles of Protestantism, mingled
somewhat with the less liberalizing principles of Romanism ;
and, although for a while the effects ofthe habits of thought
they had thus acquired were exhibited in the practice of re
ligious intolerance, they united, in the end, in the creation
of a government entirely freed from this taint. They gave
up their intolerance in order to secure the perfect triumph
of Protestantism, in its most comprehensive sense ; and when
our National and State governments were organized with
the principle of toleration at their foundation, our civil in
stitutions, became also, necessarily, Protestant in form ; be
cause they contain the amplest guarantees for both religious
and civil freedom.
The idea conveyed by the common expression " the Prot
estant religion " is generally misunderstood. Religion signi
fies a " system of faith and worship ;" true or false according
to the stand-point from which it is considered. To us the
Christian religion is true, while those ofthe Hindoos, Chinese,
and Turks are false. Nevertheless, the systems of faith and
worship which prevail among the Hindoos, Chinese, and
Turks are only so many forms of religion. Protestantism
is not a religion in this sense, for it recognizes no system of
faith and worship to the exclusion of others. It is only an
other form of Christianity, distinct from those which existed
in the world before its origin. It is altogether proper, when
speaking of the Church of England, to say the " Protestant
Episcopal Church," because, at its organization, after the Ref
ormation, it assumed "an attitude of open antagonism to the
Church of Rome by protesting against its errors. But nei
ther that nor any of the other churches which have origi
nated since the Reformation can justly demand to be known
as " the Protestant Church." There are a number of Prot
estant churches, each representing its own form of Protest-

58 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
antism. Taken as a whole, they " may be regarded as different
developments of one and the same Protestant principle. "(')
Therefore Protestantism, in so far as it has a religious aspect^
represents all these churches ; that is, Protestant Christian
ity is liberal and comprehensive enough to embrace them all.
It goes even further than this, and recognizes the Roman
Catholic Church as a Christian Church, and its religion as
only a different form of Christianity from itself.
But Protestantism does not alone include Christianity and
religion in these senses ; it has other aspects. In its proper
signification it embraces "the whole offspring ofthe Refor
mation;"^"') that is, all the principles, civil as well as relig
ious, to which the Reformation gave birth. These principles
have been at work, upon both individuals and governments,
ever since the Reformation, and such has been their influence,
that " the countries ofthe Reformation are the theatre ofthe
greatest work of God which has taken place since the days
of the apostles."(") The leading cause of the Reformation
was "a sudden effort made by the human mind to achieve
its liberty, a great insurrection of human intelligence."(13)
It had to contend, therefore, against every thing which put
restraint upon liberty, whether found in Church or State ;
so that Protestantism, in taking its distinctive form, became
the principle out of which all the existing guarantees of 're
ligious and civil freedom sprung. It saved religion by sepa
rating it from the corruptions of the papacy, and thus pro
viding for the world a purer and better form of Christianity ;
it saved society by breaking the sceptres of kings and popes,
and elevating the people to the point of asserting and main
taining their natural right to liberty. Consequently, Prot
estantism, by diffusing new thoughts, ideas, and principles,
has so influenced individuals, societies, and governments
that now, in the nineteenth century, its results are seen in
all the civil and religious institutions existing amono- Chris
tian peoples. Wherever there are freedom of thouo-ht free
dom of speech, and freedom of the press, they are exclusively

(") Dr. Dorner, "History of Protestant Theology," Introduction, p. 11.
(10) Ibid., p. 2. (») Ibid., p. 5.
(12) Guizot, -" History of Civilization," vol. i., p. 257.

FREEDOM THE OUTGROWTH OF PROTESTANTISM. 59
of Protestant origin and growth. These involve no religious
sentiments, but are mere civil rights. Yet they are lights
which are included in Protestantism ; because if it were de
stroyed, they would be also. And thus the term " Protest
antism" has a twofold signification, embracing whatsoever
has grown out of the Reformation, in both Church and State.
So it is regarded by the most distinguished authors who
have endeavored to point out the philosophy of the Refor
mation. Even the Roman Catholic Archbishop Spalding,
who presided over the Baltimore Council, has entitled his
greatest work " The History of the Protestant Reformation,"
and has devoted it to the discussion ofthe influence of Prot
estantism on society, on civil liberty, on literature, and on
civilization, as well as on doctrinal belief, morals, and relig
ious worship. He who does not comprehend Protestantism
in all these aspects fails to comprehend its real meaning,
and will have poor conceptions of the differences between it
and Romanism. If there were but a single difference — con
sisting merely in matters of religious faith — the field of con
troversy between them would be greatly narrowed, and
would be occupied alone by the theologians. But they are,
in fact, two opposing systems, as stated by the Baltimore
Council ; and tbis opposition is no less in government than
religion. In the formation of their National and State constitutions
the American people designed to embody the means of pre
serving to themselves and their posterity all those fruits
of the Reformation which are represented by Protestantism.
They intended to give fuller development to its principles,
and surer guarantees for their preservation, than they had
before received. Hence, when we speak of this as a Prot
estant country, of our institutions as Protestant, and of our
selves as a Protestant people, we should be understood as
conveying the idea that, in tbe affairs of both Church and
State, we have chosen to abandon the old papal system, and
to establish one more in harmony with the genius of our
people, because it gives the best guarantee ever yet afforded
to the world for perpetuating those great principles of the
Reformation, by means of which the minds of men became
free, and the shackles of civil tyranny were stricken from

60 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
their limbs. Whether mankind have lost or gained, or
whether the world has moved backward or forward, under
the influence of the institutions we have thus formed, are
questions which, with us, need no discussion. We, at all
events, cherish the belief, and teach it to our children, that
under no other form of civil institutions found in the world
are mankind so well protected in every just and proper
right, or made so capable of advancing their own happiness
and prosperity, as they are under ours. We confidently,
and somewhat proudly, assert for our Protestant principles
of government a superiority over those of the monarchical
form ; and congratulate ourselves that mankind are gradual
ly coming to the realization of the idea that only by means
of them can civil and religious liberty be fully secured and
preserved. Are we right or wrong in cherishing these opinions? in
supposing that freedom is preferable to bondage? in main
taining that a government of the people is better than that
of an emperor, or a king, or a pope, or an ecclesiastical hie
rarchy? and that no privileged classes are born into the
world ready " booted and spilrred " to govern and debase
mankind by "divine right?"
Other governments, besides ours, have been founded on
the popular will — on the right of the people, as the source
of civil power, to prescribe their own form of institutions.
Before the Christian era, the Romans and the Spartans rec
ognized the efficacy of the doctrine that " the safety of the
people is the supreme law ;" but they were unable to secure
its establishment, as a distinctive and permanent feature
of their governments, because they failed to cultivate that
sense of personality out of which- grow the virtue and in
telligence necessary for the support of popular institutions.
Unfortunate, however, as their failure was for the world,
the avowal of the principle gave rise to influences which
were never entirely destroyed. The idea of government
upon which they unsuccessfully experimented struo-o-led
along through succeeding centuries — even through the Mid
dle Ages — awaiting a favorable opportunity for ultimate
and complete development. It has always had many able
and zealous defenders in the countries considered the most

PIONEERS OF LIBERTY. 61
enlightened ; but they have been kept down by the govern
ing classes, who employed the combined authority' of State
and Church to intimidate and subdue them. This com
bined influence was, for a long time, sufficient to hush al
most every murmur of complaint against misgovernment,
except among the few who dared to defy it, at the hazard
of their lives. Now and then one of these intrepid spirits
appeared, and flung his censures into the very teeth of roy
alty ; and if he paid for his boldness by the forfeit of his
life, others of like courage arose to take his place ; and thus
the line of patriotic succession was kept unbroken. They
were few in number, but enough of them to keep the fires
of liberty aflame, so that they might flash in the eyes of
royalty. The world would, centuries ago, have been turned
over entirely to cruel and exacting task-masters, and sunk
into utter political darkness, but for the bravery of these
defenders of popular freedom. Comprehending the true
philosophy of government, they maintained that every man
in a free state ought to be concerned in his own govern
ment, and that the legislative power should reside in the
whole body of the people, (ia) to be exercised by representa
tives responsible to them ; and that, in order to support and
preserve this theory of government, each individual should
be allowed to speak his own thoughts, employ his own rea
son, and consult his own conscience in reference to all mat
ters concerning his duty to God. The great difficulty which
so long lay in the way of impressing these sentiments and
principles upon the governments of Europe, grew out ofthe
compact and unbroken union of State and Church — a union
which found its only means of preservation in the denial
and in the violent and forcible suppression of every kind of
popular and political freedom. The antagonism between
these opposing principles was too irreconcilable for compro
mise, and the stronger party prevailed over the weaker, the
kings and popes over the people. But the framers of our
institutions escaped this antagonism only by the occupancy
of. a, new and remote continent, and, therefore, were per
fectly free, without any immediate fear of it, to make the
(") Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws," vol. i., p. 154.

62 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
principle so happily expressed by Montesquieu the basis of
their political action and organization. In the Declaration
of Independence they asserted it, by declaring that, in order
to secure " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," it was
necessary that governments should derive "their just pow
ers 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 insti
tute a new government, laying its foundation on such: princi
ples, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
This act of independence is esteemed to be one of the
great events in history, and has commanded the admiration
of a very large portion of the civilized world. It did not
create a government, but asserted the right oi the people, as
distinct from that of kings and princes — whether of State
or Church, or of high or low degree — to establish and main
tain one of such form and structure as, in their opinion, was
most conducive to their own " safety and happiness." Those
who assail this great principle — whether they be native-
born or adopted citizens — deny the wisdom and impeach
the integrity of the founders of the Republic. They aim
their blows at the central column upon which our national
edifice has rested for nearly a century, in the face of opposi
tion from all the allies of monarchy. Has the time come
when this edifice shall be permitted to fall, or these blows
be continued with impunity? They know but little ofthe
temper of our people who suppose that they may not be
pressed too far upon a question of such vital importance.
Within its proper sphere they have assigned to each depart
ment of their government its own appropriate functions in
making, interpreting, and executing the laws. Above and
beyond, and higher than all these, they have retained the
sovereign power in their own hands. They will allow their
reason to be appealed to in favor of new laws, and the
change or abrogation of old ones, without any exhibition of
intolerance on account of differences of opinion. They live,
and their intelligence and patriotism are increased, in the
atmosphere of free discussion. But when the effort is seri
ously made to snatch this sovereign power from them ; to

SUPERIORITY OF REPUBLICAN INSTITUTIONS. 63
dwarf them into inferiority before a foreign potentate; to
exact from them obedience to laws enacted without their
consent; to erect an ecclesiastical tribunal in the midst of
them, answerable only to laws of the Roman curia; and to
surrender up the inestimable privilege of self-government;
then toleration ceases to be a virtue and becomes a crime.
If the people of the United States, in the progress of their
history, have demonstrated any thing, it is that such insti
tutions as require the least degree of force and coercion are
best adapted to improve and elevate mankind. And they
who pretend that the proper supremacy of law is inconsist
ent with such institutions are either ignorant or insincere,
and unworthy, in either case, of being intrusted with their
management. No political institutions can be safely given
over to the care of those whose principles and sentiments
are in antagonism to them. Monarchism can not mingle
with the principles of a free republic. Liberty and slavery
can not exist together. The people can not govern in their
own right, where ecclesiasticism governs in the name of
"divine right."
The science of government involves, necessarily, the prop
er administration of law, as well as the making of law ; for
so long as mankind remain under the dominion of selfishness
and egotism, law, in some form of restraint, must continue
to exist. Christianity and civilization, with all they have
done for the world, and all their discoveries, improvements,
and elevating influences, have not yet raised man so high,
or made him so near the angels, that he can be safely left
to the full dominion of his passions. Consequently, govern
ments have no more important problem to solve than that
involved in deciding how far to apply the restraints of law,
and in what manner to apply them, consistently with a
proper degree of individual and political liberty. The sup
porters of those governments where the sovereignty of the
people is denied, and where nothing but force is relied on to
secure the administration of law, make a great and radical
mistake. They seem incapable of realizing the fact that
law can only constitute a just and proper rule pf action
when it is made responsive to a pre-existing public senti
ment; in other words, when it is adapted to the condition

64 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
of the society to be governed by it. In the absence of this,
all laws must remain inoperative and ineffectual, unless force
is invoked to compel their execution. When the fundament
al laws of a country — that is, those embodied in its civil
and political institutions — are thus framed, there must, nec
essarily, be an entire absence of popular liberty. Thus, in
a monarchy where the principle of popular representation
does not exist, and the, people are not consulted about the
laws, obedience to them is enforced by some superior power,
and fear alone restrains resistance. But in a republic like
ours, where virtue and intelligence are stimulated by the
structure of both government and society, the fundamental
laws are not only executed, but preserved, without force, be
cause they have their foundation in the consent of the peo
ple. Therefore, under monarchical absolutism, the citizen
feels but little sense of personality ; while in the freedom of
a republic he feels it in so high a degree as to develop his
manhood, and cause him to realize the individual interest he
has in continuing the institutions which secure to him both
defense and protection.
All mankind derive from nature the right to be free and
whatever restraints are put upon this right by law are only
such as the interest and necessities of society require.
Those who share in society consent, in return for its protec
tion, to be governed by such laws. Hence, popular liberty
does not proceed from law, is not the result of it. Wherev
er it is found in written statutes, it is there because the peo
ple have risen up to the point of asserting it against the an
tagonism of monarchy ; of snatching it from the hands of
those who deny it to them, aud would retain the means of
withholding it, by defeating all its civil guarantees. It is
the expression of their political faith, the avowal of their
determination to exist as a society or a nation freed from all
the restraints of arbitrary power. Hence, it is truthfully
said that "liberty does not dwell in the palaces of kino-s."
It is equally true that it exists in the heart and conscience of
every free man. In this sense, it is a personal and inalienable
right whioh each man must assert for himself. In a broader
sense, it belongs to a whole community ; and each individual
of a community is under the same obligation to assert and

IMPERFECTIONS OF MONARCHICAL LAW. 65
maintain it for those who share it with him, as for himself.
It thus becomes a political right, requiring combined action
to continue its existence. When, as the result of this com
bined action, political institutions are formed, to provide for
its preservation, as in the United States, they, necessarily, ex
clude all idea of force, and rest upon the "consent of the gov
erned." Sometimes — as in the granting of Magna Charta
and other charters by the English crown — governments pro
fess to have conferred liberty. But, viewed properly, this is
an absurdity; for to assert that a government has the right
to confer or withhold it as it pleases, is to deny its existence
under the law of nature. All these are familiar truisms ; but
it is because they are true, and their truth is recognized in
every heart, that they give birth to the "firm and resolute
Spirit with which the liberal mind is always prepared to re
sist indignities, and to refer its safety to itself"
Where the form of government is an absolute monarchy,
laws proceed from the sole and independent will of the ruler,
whether he be called emperor, king, or pope, and rely wholly
upon force for their execution. But where the form is re
publican, or democratic, as with us, no such force is required,
because the obedience of the citizen springs from his own
consent. Between these two opposing systems of govern
ment, our Revolutionary fathers were obliged to make a
selection. That, in choosing the latter, they acted wisely
and well, every man who is worthy of free citizenship will
maintain. Their example has already shorn monarchy of
much of its strength, and it is not the time now, when abso
lutism is trembling in the presence of popular representation,
to abate our veneration for their memory, or our affection
for their work.
Some of the leading nations exist in an intermediate state
between these two forms. They have united the represent
ative with the monarchical principle, but only so far as to
make some unavoidable concessions to the popular sentiment
of liberty, and not far enough to recognize its just and prop
er measure of influence upon society, or entirely to dispense
with the presence of force. These governments have ad
vanced somewhat from a condition of absolutism ; some of
them less readily and rapidly than others, accordingly as
5

66 . THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
fear ofthe people has been weaker or stronger in the minds
of their despotic rulers.
To trace out and observe the influences produced upon
the world by these opposing systems of government, and to
understand the nature and extent of their results, furnishes
to the thoughtful mind a true conception of the philosophy
of history. In the pursuit of such an inquiry, however, the
friends of free popular government must not concede to the
advocates of absolutism that the times in which we live are
suited for additional experiments in the art of governing, in
order to decide which form of political institutions is most
conducive to human happiness. These experiments have
been already and sufficiently made, and all of them combine
to prove — what this philosophy of history teaches — that
the freer and more popular the government, the happier and
more prosperous are the people. In such governments,^
where civil institutions are established for themselves by an
intelligent and virtuous people, force is never required to
secure the execution of the fundamental laws. Where there
is a power superior to the people to prescribe the law, so
much force is always necessary that liberty can not exist in
its presence.
The people of the United States have nothing to fear or
to lose by the closest scrutiny of their institutions, especial
ly in the light ofthe lessons of history and past experiments
in government. The unbiased judgment of the civilized
world, in the absence of the fear of coercive authority, will
agree with them in the opinion, that the form of government
which gives the greatest elevation to society is that in
which all the fundamental laws reflect an intelligent pop
ular will. Therefore, we may well regard such a form as
central among the governments of the earth, as the sun is
the centre of the planetary system. We may extend the
figure one step further, without the exhibition of an undue
degree of national vanity ; for if the light which it sends
out over the nations were obscured, it would inevitably lead
to the complete triumph of imperialism, as all nature would
be darkened if the light ofthe sun were extino-uished.
Accordingly as we are the advocates of absolutism or of
popular government, we will condemn or approve the theory

PASSIVE OBEDIENCE AND MONARCHISM. 67
of American government. The absolutist insists that each
step in the departure of nations from the monarchical form
is receding that far from the true point of national eleva
tion; that it is an abandonment of legitimate authority;
that it is passion, vertigo, delirium, madness, the excess of
unlicensed and destructive revolution — a blind exercise of
the mere physical power to do wrong, in violation of the
divine law. With him, the fewer who direct the destiny of
a nation and control its government, the better, because, by
keeping the multitude in subjection, they hold them to the
steady line of duty. Unlimited dominion on the part ofthe
ruler, and passive obedience on the part of the people, are,
with all the supporters of absolutism, the ne plus ultra of
government. Of those who reason thus, there are two class
es — the masters and the slaves. The latter are so disci
plined into subjugation by the former, that they seem inca
pable of comprehending tbe nature and extent of their deg
radation, and suppose themselves to be relieved from the
galling of their chains, or to be compensated for its endur
ance, by the belief that their servitude is the highest and
noblest exhibition of fidelity and duty. The former main
tain their superiority with an entire disregard of the humili
ation they create, and cling to their ideas of human and na
tional advancement, in the face of the present condition of
the world, as if they regarded ambition the highest motive
of the mind, and its gratification the greatest of all human
achievements. Socrates, probably, had both these classes in
his mind when he said, " That every master should pray he
may not meet with such a slave; and every such person,
being unfit for liberty, should implore that he may meet
with a merciful master." If all the world were divided into
these two classes, monarchy, secure of its place upon the
papal and other thrones, would have an easy time of it, for
there then would be only the oppressor and the oppressed —
" the oppressor who demands, and the oppressed who dare
not resist."
Fortunately for us and the world, the framers of our in
stitutions belonged to neither of these classes. By their
training in the school of Protestantism they were endowed
with the courage to defy both the authority and machina*-

68 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
tions of those who claimed the "divine right" to govern.
Their careful study of the history of nations enabled them
to comprehend fully the necessities of their condition. They
had realized how abject mankind had become in those coun
tries where Church and State were united, and, with this
experience to guide them, signalized their efforts to frame a
new government by dissolving this union, as an unnatural
and corrupting one. Ecclesiastical tyranny and intolerance
were finally expelled, and Protestantism reached a degree
of development for which it had been struggling for more
than two hundred years.
Thomas Jefferson took an early opportunity to congratu
late the people of the United States upon their "having
banished from our land that religious intolerance under
which mankind so long bled and suffered," and, under the
sanction of his official position, declared that among the
great principles which " guided our steps through an age of
revolution and reformation" were those which inculcated
"the diffusion of information, and arraignment of all abuses
at the bar of public reason, freedom of religion, freedom of
the press." And he addressed to us this admonition :
"The wisdom of our sages, and the blood of our heroes,
have been devoted to their attainment: they should be the
creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the
touch-stone by which to try the services of those we trust; and
should we wander from them in moments of error and
alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps, and to regain the
road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."
James Madison, when officially declaring the purposes
for which our government was formed, enumerated among
them the duty " to avoid the slightest interference with the
rights of conscience, or the functions of religion, so wisely
exempted from civil jurisdiction ; to preserve, in their full
energy, the other salutary provisions in behalf of private
and personal rights, and of the freedom of the press."
These sentiments were not alone expressed by these great
statesmen. Words of like import were uttered by many of
their compatriots. They were but the echo of those exist
ing in the minds of the people, and were embodied in our
national Constitution, in these words :

PRINCIPLES THAT MUST BE PRESERVED. 69
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
tbe Government for a redress of grievances."
Upon such foundations as this, the superstructure of our
government now rests. So long as these principles shall be
preserved, the Government will stand : whenever they shall
be abandoned, it will fall. They must, therefore, be guarded
with the same ceaseless care as that with which we guard
our lives. For we have no more right to lose by neglect,
than we have to strike down with the sword of rebellion,
the civil and religious institutions of a free people.

70 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.

CHAPTER IH
War against Protestantism. — Roman Catholic Literature and Intolerance. —
The Bible to be Closed. — The Spanish Inquisition Justified. — Freedom of
Thought Denounced as Sin. — Tracts in Favor ofthe Pope's Infallibility,
and Universal Supremacy in Faith and Morals. — Morals Involve Politics.
— "The Index Expurgatorius." — Condemnation and Punishment of Gali
leo. — Spanish Inquisition. — The Middle Ages Preferred to the Present
Times. There is nothing better understood than that the Roman
Catholic Church requires all its members to believe that the
Church was established at Rome by the apostle Peter, in
obedience to the express command of Christ, who gave him
primacy over the other apostles for that purpose; that it
has possessed, from the beginning, an external organization
composed of the pope and his army of official dependents,
who derive, directly from God, the authority of its exclusive
government, and tbat all who desire eternal salvation must
become subject to this authority, because there is not, and
can not be, any other true Church. From the very nature
of things, a church asserting such exclusiveness must be ag
gressive. This all-absorbing organization can not be main
tained in any other way. And that it is aggressive and un
compromising is shown by its whole history, and by repeat
ed and emphatic avowals of its supporters; especially of
those who share its authority and are tireless in their exer
tions to maintain it.
Having found Protestantism the most formidable oppo
nent it ever encountered to its system of exclusiveness, it
has contrived to keep alive in the minds of multitudes of
its members a stubborn hostility to every advance among
the nations, and every improvement in their condition, cal
culated to drive it from the field, of which, before Protest
antism became its rival, it had the undisputed possession.
Having regarded the world for many centuries as entirely
subject to its dominion, and deriving therefrom a conviction

THE MOST SECURE SHIELD OF CATHOLICISM. 71
of its supremacy over mankind, it has been unwilling to rec
ognize Protestantism as an equal, entitled to be conciliated,
but has habitually considered it as an enemy, to be extermi
nated and destroyed. No matter what concessions it has
obtained, or to what extent it has enjoyed the advantages
of Protestant protection and toleration, there has never been
any abatement of its imperious demands, or any softening
of its aggressive character. In the United States, where it
has enjoyed every possible degree of security which the
laws and public sentiment can confer, its hostility to Prot
estantism has never been so open, active, and violent as it
is to-day. The tolerance of our institutions has had the ef
fect of awakening energies which seem to have been only
slumbering. It has been, manifestly, awaiting a more ef
fective concentration of its strength, so that whensoever it
shall strike its blows they may be more powerful and dan
gerous. A scrutinizing observer can not avoid the convic
tion that the moderation it has hitherto exhibited has been
suggested by expediency and policy — not principle — and
practiced, in order to gain, by degrees and unobserved, such
a position that it may resume its accustomed attitude of
defiance and intolerance, and assert for itself the " divine
right" of sitting in judgment over our Constitution and laws.
It is worthy of frequent repetition, that there is no coun
try in the world where the Roman Catholic Church and its
hierarchy are better or more securely shielded, in all the
just rights of religion, property, and person, than they are
in the United States. They are nowhere deprived of any
single religious or civil privilege which other churches and
people enjoy. The Protestant communities in all the States
have universally recognized them as entitled to the same
protection they have secured to themselves. In this they
have been consistent with the Protestantism they profess,
which is not aggressive, but tolerant and charitable ; not
malignant, but conciliatory. And this liberality has been
shown them, notwithstanding Roman Catholicism has, at
the same time, in countries where it has had the power, not
only denied to Protestantism any equality of privileges or
protection with itself, but has subjected it to continual per
secution and indignities. Yet, in the face of all this, these

72 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
same hierarchs who have enjoyed these advantages are now
actively organizing themselves, and their followers, as far
as they can influence them, into an ecclesiastical army, for
the vigorous prosecution of a war which they avow their
purpose to carry on unceasingly until Protestantism shall be
driven from the field, entirely subdued and overthrown, and
all that it has done shall be obliterated from history, so that
the world shall be made to bow before the papal sceptre.
We should not deceive ourselves or be deceived by oth
ers. It is frequently and properly said that we must, by all
means, avoid a religious war; and all our best impulses ad
monish us to guard against so terrible a calamity. It should
be the fervent prayer of every good man, that Providence
may so direct the events before us that such a misfortune
may never again befall the world, especially that it may
never befall a country like ours, where so much pains has
been taken to construct a government with the idea that
Christians ought to dwell together in harmony and broth
erly love, as one of its cardinal principles. Protestantism
can make no such war, and can take no part in it, except
when driven to that extremity by the absolute necessity of
self-defense. It has, thus far, proved the only power suffi
ciently imbued with the spirit of toleration and the brother
hood of man, to discard entirely the engines of torture and
persecution, and to substitute for them the mild and con
ciliatory precepts and doctrines of the Gospel. All such
wars have hitherto been the work of those who claim to be
the exclusive custodians of the true faith, and who, under
the influence of this sentiment, are made exacting, aggress
ive, and uncompromising ; and not the work of those whose
liberalizing Christianity gives play to all the charities of
life and all the best affections of the heart, and whose relig
ion is founded on love.
But can we confidently promise ourselves that we shall
escape a religious war? The danger lying before us, and
possibly not far off, is, that such a war may be precipitated
upon us in spite of ourselves — not necessarily a war of
bloody battle-fields, but of aroused, excited, and angry pas
sions, which, intensified by sectarian hatred and partisan vio
lence, may, by possibility, lead to the same deplorable results

ATTACK ON PROTESTANTISM. 73
which have followed similar conflicts elsewhere. The papa
cy, if history speaks truly, has, in its wonderful progress,
made many such wars ; and as it claims never to have had
any change or " shadow of turning " in the pursuit of its ob
jects, its power to inaugurate still another may not be alto
gether lost. Are there no evidences of a deeply seated and
secretly cherished purpose to invite, in the United States, a
fierce and fiery contest between the hierarchy ofthe Roman
Catholic Church, acting for the papacy, and those who pro
fess the principles of Protestant Christianity ? The answer
to such a question as this can not be expected in any open
and public avowals: the purposes of cunning and experienced
adversaries are not usually revealed. But some light is
thrown upon it by the literature which those who compose
this hierarchy are now scattering broadcast over the land,
contained in books, magazines, pamphlets, newspapers, and
tracts; silent messengers, which convey words of authority and
command to the faithful, which they are required not to diso
bey, under the penalty of committing an offense against God !
There appeared in France, only a few years ago, a small
work, which has been translated into English, republished
in this country, aud is now sold by leading Roman Catholic
book-sellers in our principal cities. Extraordinary pains
has been taken to secure for it a large circulation, so that
it may reach all the members of that Church, and be read
by them. It has a suggestive title — " Plain Talk about the
Protestantism of To-day" — and professes to be a talk "with
Catholics rather than with Protestants," in order that they
may be instructed as to their duty. It is written in a spirit
peculiarly offensive and aggressive, and treats Protestant
ism as having " melted away in rationalism and infidelity,"
and as exhibiting nothing of a religious nature "but the
ruins," which are only " a source of annoyance," because,
" however dismal they appear, they still afford a refuge to
the wicked who dare not sbow themselves on the highways,"
that is, that these Protestant ruins are only a shelter for
such as dare not confront the indignation of those who serve
the papacy !(') It is an artful and cunningly contrived at-
(*) "Plain Talk about the Protestantism of To-day," by Mgr. Se'gur,
part i., prop, xv., p. 45. " God detests and curses " it. — Ibid., p. 12.

74 THE.TAPACY AND THE CTVIL POWER.
tack upon Protestantism throughout the world, and although
designed especially to stimulate the Roman Catholics of
France into antagonism against the, Protestants of that
country, yet its republication and circulation in the Uni
ted States, under the immediate patronage of the hierarchy,
furnishes undoubted evidence of their approval of its con
tents, and of their design to transfer the attack from Europe
to this country. It is a bold and direct challenge to the
contest it invites, and conclusively proves that the war will
go on, whether Protestants take part in it or not.
Assuming, with the dogmatic air of superiority so com
mon with all this class of writers, that the Protestant forms
of religion are no religion at all, because they reject the
authority and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the
author makes this announcement :
"After having rejected the Church, Protestantism rejects
Jesus Christ; after having rejected Jesus Christ, it must reject
God himself, and thus it will have accomplished its work."(?)
At another place, in further continuation of the same idea>
he says,
" The Protestant, whether he believes it or not, is an infi
del in germ, and the infidel is a Protestant in full bloom.
"Infidelity exists in Protestantism as the oak exists in the
acorn, as the consequence is in the premise."(3)
The unmistakable design in this formal arraignment of all
Protestants as infidels — to say nothing of its want of truth
and Christian charity — is to keep the papal followers in re
membrance of what their Church dogmatically and imperi
ously teaches; that all other religion besides their own is
false and heretical, and that it is their duty, both to God and
the Church, to oppose and resist Protestantism to the ex
tremity of total extermination. With this thought continu
ally present in their minds, it is doubtless supposed that they
can be kept in readiness at all times for any future emer
gency. And the difficulties in the way of bringing about
this unity are much less than many suppose; althouch in
this country they are gradually diminishing under the lib-
(2) "Plain Talk about the Protestantism of To-day," by Mgr. Se'u-ur part
i., prop, xvi., p. 53.
(3) Ibid., part iii., prop, xviii., p. 243.

PAPAL EXCLUSIVENESS.

75

eralizing influence of our institutions. They are sufficiently
great, however, even here, to demand thoughtful attention;
The " profession of faith," promulgated by Pope Pius IV.
after the Council of Trent, and reproclaimed by Pope Pius
IX., declares that " no one can be saved " who believes oth
erwise than according to the faith of the Roman Catholic
Church ; and requires all thus believing to " promise true
obedience to the Bishop of Rome,"(4) as an absolutely nec
essary and indispensable part of the true faith. What are
the nature and extent of this " true obedience " will sufficient-'
ly appear elsewhere. For the present, it is only necessary to
observe with what unerring certainty each step in the pa
pal system leads to this obedience, it being recognized ev
erywhere as a necessary part of the true faith.
Inasmuch as the duty of obedience requires that there
should exist somewhere a governing authority having the
right to demand and exact it in case of refusal, this author
proceeds to show what it is, and in whose hands it is lodged.
He says, "The teaching of the Church is the true rule of
faith ;" a declaration with which liberal-minded Protestants
would not be disposed to find any fault, if there had not
been in its government so radical a departure from the prac
tices of the apostolic times. But, in order to exclude the
idea that the Church, as a whole, has any right to participate
in the declaration of the faith, or can have any authority
through its representative bodies, he says that Christ ap
pointed " twelve among his disciples, and sent them forth to
the world to teach in his name, and with his authority, the
Christian religion," and that " the pastors of the Catholic
Church, ascending through a legitimate and uninterrupted
procession to St. Peter and the other apostles, have exer
cised, and do exercise, this ministry ;" there being, of course,
no teaching authority in the world besides what they pos
sess. And for fear that some inquisitive mind might con-
(4) The following pledge is required as a condition of membership : "I ac
knowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the mother and
mistress of all churches, and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome,
successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ." —
The Grounds of the Catholic Doctrine, Contained in the Profession of Faith
published by Pope Pius IX., 1855, p. 6.

76 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
elude that this teaching authority was not infallible, on ac
count of the heretical tendencies of some and the personal
unworthiness of others of these pastors, he proceeds still fur
ther to exclude all idea of church representation by concen
trating the whole of it in the hands ofthe pope. With him,
this official functionary of the Church is the Church itself.
Whatsoever authority Christ gave to the Church, he gave
to him alone. As the authority conferred by Christ was di
vine, therefore his authority is divine also. As whatsoever
was spoken by Christ were the utterances of God himself,
therefore when the pope commands in all the domain of faith
and morals, it is God who commands. Thus he defines it :
"And in what does this ministry consist? That power
which is derived from Jesus Christ himself, and by which
fallible men teach us infallibly, and infallibly lead us in the
path of salvation ? It is the authority of the Church, to wit,
the authority of the sovereign pontiff, successor of St. Peter,
head of the Church, and the authority of the bishops, coadju
tors to the pope in the grand work of the salvation of men.
This divine authority, intrusted as it is to the hands of
men, is the true, the only rule of faith. It has been thus
believed in all Christian ages; it has been thus taught by
all doctors and fathers of the Church. We have to believe
only what the pope and the bishops teach. We have to reject
only that which the pope and the bishops condemn and reject.
Should a point of doctrine appear doubtful, we have only to
address ourselves to the pope and to the bishops in order to
know what to believe. Only from that tribunal, forever liv
ing and forever assisted by God, emanates the judgment on
religious belief, and particularly on the true sense of the
Scriptures." (")
Thus the personality of the believer is merged in the su
perior personality of the pope. All right of personal in
quiry is taken away from him. Whatsoever the pope,
through the bishop, shall command the believer to accept'
that he shall accept ; whatsoever to reject, that he shall re
ject ; and whatsoever to do, that he shall do. If he obey,
he shall be saved ; if he refuse, he shall be damned. There is

C) Mgr. Se'gur, part iii., prop, ix., p. 105.

ATTACK ON THE BIBLE. 77
no middle ground, no room for hesitation or doubt. The
authority is omnipotent, and the obedience must be thor
ough and complete.
Succeeding thus, as he supposes, in eradicating from the
mind all sentiments of individuality, and any advantages to
be derived from an intelligent private judgment, he directs
his readers that they shall not look to the Bible as furnish
ing a proper and sufficient rule of Christian faith. He says :
" The Bible contains naught but what is the teaching of
God. And yet the Bible is not, the Bible can not be, the
rule of our faith, in the Protestant sense.
"Why?
"First. The Bible can not be the rule of our faith, because .
Jesus Christ has not said to his disciples, ' Go and carry the
Bible,' but he said, ' Go and teach all nations. He that hear-
eth you heareth me.' "(6)
The nature of our present inquiries does not require such
a discussion here as is invited from the theologian by this
extract; yet the passing remark may be indulged, that
when Christ said, " Search the Scriptures, for in them ye
have eternal life : and they are they which testify of me,"(')
he fixed no limitation upon the number who should do so,
and was addressing the Jews who were persecuting him for
healing the impotent man on the Sabbath-day, and was not
reproaching the Pharisees merely because they read the
Scriptures, as is incorrectly asserted by the Roman Catholic
Church, in furtherance of the doctrine that every thing must
be taken from the pope and his coadjutors witbout any per
sonal investigation ofthe Bible. (B) By shutting up tbe Bi-
(6) Mgr. Se'gur, part ii., prop, x., p. 107.
(7) John's Gospel, v., 39.
(s) The following note is inserted in the Douay, or Roman Catholic, Bible,
as explanatory of John v. , 39 ; and is required to be taken as a part of the
context, and as if uttered by Christ himself:
" It is not a command for all to read the Scriptures, but a reproach to the
Pharisees, that, reading the Scriptures as they did, and thinking to find ever
lasting life in them, they would not receive Him to whom all those Scriptures
gave testimony, and through whom alone they could have that true life."
The Pharisees were a sect of the Jews, distinguished from the Sadducees
because of their strictness in interpreting the law. When referred to in the
Gospels, they are specially named. But when mention is made of the Jews,

78 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ble, or allowing it only to be read with accompanying ex
planations of certain passages — which explanations are to
be taken as infallibly true — it is designed to stifle all per
sonal investigation of its contents. Such has always been
the invariable policy ofthe Church; the right to. read it at
all, on the part of the laity, having been conceded only in
obedience to the popular demand occasioned by the Refor
mation. And this policy is now persisted in without varia
tion, except in so far as it is modified by circumstances. In
Roman Catholic countries the laity know but little, and mul
titudes of them nothing, of the contents of the Bible. But
when Roman Catholicism comes in direct contact with Prot
estantism, it allows the Bible to be read only upon the con
dition that he who reads it shall not employ his own reason
in deciding what it teaches, but shall take the explanatory
notes attached as of equal validity with the body of the
book itself; that is, that " what the pope and the bishops
teach " is as much the work of divine inspiration as what
the apostles and the prophets taught. (") Manifestly, the

as such, all the Jews are included — both Pharisees and Sadducees. In the
chapter from which the above text is taken John did not mention the Phari
sees at all, but spoke of the " feast of the Jews " at Jerusalem. Therefore,
he addressed himself to all the Jews, and not alone to the Pharisees.
(") Pope Pius VII. published a bull, June 29th, 1816, against Bible socie
ties, declaring that they were a " most crafty device, by which the very foun
dations of religion are undermined, " and prescribing a ' ' remedy " by which
to ' ' abolish this pestilence as far as possible." He thus made known his rem
edy : "It is, therefore, necessary to adhere to the salutary decree of the Con
gregation of the Index (June 13th, 1757), that no versions of the Bible in
the vulgar tongue be permitted, except such as are approved by the Apos
tolic See or published with annotations extracted from the writings of holy
fathers of the Church." — Niles's Weekly Register, 1817, vol. xii., p. 206,
where this bull is published as a part of the current history of those times.
Pope Gregory XVI. published another bull, May 8th, 1844, confirming
and renewing the foregoing bull of Pius VII., also similar bulls issued by
Leo XII. and Pius VIII., and especially one by Benedict XTV Referring
to the latter, he says: "It became necessaiy for Benedict XIV. to superadd
the injunction that no versions whatever should be suffered to be read but
those which should be approved of by the Holy See, accompanied by notes
derived from the writings of the holy fathers, or other learned and Catholic
authors." — Dowling's History of Romanism, p. 622.
There is attached to the American edition of the Douay Bible, published

THE PROTESTANT BIBLE DENOUNCED. 79
fear exists, that, in the present condition of the world, when
the human mind is stimulated to extraordinary efforts to
search out the truth in every department of thought, if the
laity are permitted to accept such impressions as the Bible
itself will leave upon their minds, the papacy will, in the
end, be driven from the field, routed and discomfited. For
fear, therefore, that this mode of thoughtful investigation
should prevail, to weaken the authority of the pope and his
bishops, Mgr. Segur lays down this rule for the government
of the faithful :
" The first rule is, that we should receive both the text and
the interpretation of the Scriptures from the legitimate pas
tors ofthe Church, and from them alone."(10)
But he does not leave the object which prompts the sup
pression of the free circulation and perusal of the Scriptures
to go unexplained ; for, at another place, he says :
" The Protestant Bible is only a false skin, in which infi
delity and revolution wrap themselves."(u)
By these gradual approaches he, like a skillful command
er, reaches his ultimate object, never absent from his mind,
which is to show to those Roman Catholics to whom his
book is specially addressed what the papacy expects of
them in tbeir conduct toward Protestantism. They are re
quired to resist and oppose it, because it teaches " infideli
ty and revolution," which are wrapped up in the Protestant
Bible. Thus fixing his premise, and preparing his readers
for the avowal, he ventures upon these bold and reckless as
sertions, which are made the more important by their repe
tition in the United States :
" Wherever Protestantism has a sway, it is intolerant and

in 1837, under the auspices of the Provincial Council of Baltimore, the fol
lowing "admonition:"
"To prevent and remedy this abuse, and to guard against error, it was
judged necessary to forbid the reading of the Scriptures in the vulgar lan
guage without the advice and permission of the pastors and spiritual guides
whom God has appointed to govern his Church. " Both by the letter and spirit
of this "admonition" the Roman Catholic in the United States is not per
mitted to read the Bible "without the advice and pennission" of his priest!
('") Mgr. Segur, part ii., prop, xiv., p. 120.
(") Ibid., part ii., prop, xv., p. 125.

80 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
persecuting. Of course, not everywhere in the same degree ;
but why not ? Because it does not possess everywhere the
same degree of power. To persecute, one must have both
will and power. Fortunately, Protestantism can not always
act as it has a mind to. But let it be said boldly, in fact,
of intolerance, Protestantism will always go as far as it will
dare."{"). Artfully and Jesuitically injecting this poison of malig
nant falsehood into the minds of the passive subjects of the
papacy, he would, of course, leave his work but half accom
plished if he failed to suggest to them in what spirit and
with what temper this hideous and deformed monster of
Protestantism, as he paints it, is to be dealt with whereso
ever it dares to set up its illegitimate authority against
that of the • " Holy See of Rome." He is entitled to the
credit of doing it without disguise, as follows:
"The Church is certainly intolerant in matters of doctrine.
True ; and we glory in it ! Truth is of itself intolerant.
In religion, as in mathematics, what is true is true, and
what is false is false. No compromise between truth and
error ; truth can not compromise. Such concessions, how
ever small, would prove an immediate destruction of truth.
Two and two make four : it is a truth. Hence, whoever as
serts the contrary, utters a falsehood. Let it be an error
of a thousandth or of a millionth part, it will ever be false to
assert that two and two do not make four.
"The Church proclaims and maintains truths as certain
as the mathematical ones. She teaches and defends truths
with as much intolerance as the science of mathematics de
fends hers. And what more logical? The Catholic Church
alone, in the midst of so many different sects, avers the pos
session of absolute truth, out of which there can not be true
Christianity. She alone has the right to be, she alone must
be, intolerant. She alone will and must say, as she has said
through all ages in her councils, 'If any one saith or be
lieveth contrary to what I teach, which is truth, let him be
ANATHEMA.' "(")

C) Mgr. Se'gur, part iii., prop, v., p. 160.
(") Ibid., part iii., prop, vi., p. 183.

THE SPANISH INQUISITION. 81
What more distinct and emphatic avowal could be made
of the intolerance and aggressiveness of the papacy, of its
settled purpose to remove from its path every thing that
blocks its progress toward universal dominion ? It fixes its
curse upon every adversary, and hounds on the slaves who
do the bidding of its hierarchy, resolved upon no compro
mise, but only upon such a triumph as shall make its vic
tory, if won, both final and complete. Therefore, this rev
erend libeler of Protestantism, as one of the generals of its
great army, seemingly in anticipation of such a triumph,
passes on one step further, that he may develop more mi
nutely the contemplated plan of operations, and show some
of the effective instrumentalities which are to be employed
in the more practical exhibition of intolerance, so that the
avowal may excite in the minds of the timid and cowardly
a wholesome dread of papal authority. After stating that
the Spanish Inquisition was established by Roman Catho
lic governments, as an " ecclesiastical institution," and thus
agreeing that it had the sanction and approbation of the
Church, he proceeds :
"That institution you may value as you choose; you are
at liberty to condemn the abuses and tbe cruelties of which
it has been guilty through the violence of political passions
and the character of the Spaniard ; yet one can not but ac
knowledge, in the terrible part taken by the clergy in its tri
als, THE MOST LEGITIMATE AND MOST NATURAL EXERCISE OF
ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY.''^4)
This language is so plain and explicit that there is no
room for doubt about its import. Its meaning is sufficiently
seen without any straining of the most ordinary rules of in
terpretation. It was not designed for Protestant readers,
but was avowedly and expressly addressed to those who
were supposed to be ready and willing listeners to the words
of authority, to such as tamely and submissively put their
manhood into the keeping of ecclesiastical superiors. The
Spanish Inquisition ! Is there any reader so ignorant that
he needs to be told what it was ? Of all the institutions
ever known to the world, or ever invented by human inge-
(") Mgr. Segur, part iii., prop, vii., p. 186.
6

82 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
nuity, it was the most cruel, oppressive, and blood-thirsty.
Its thousands of victims, whose bones were crushed with its
accursed instruments of torture, and whose groans made its
priestly officials laugh with a joy akin to that of the fiends
of hell, still cry out from their tombs against it.('6) Yet, in
the nineteenth century, while humanity has not ceased to
shudder at the thought of its possible revival, the press of
an American publishing house(16) sends forth among the ad
herents of Roman Catholicism in the United States, with the
sanction and approval of the Roman Catholic bishop of Bos
ton, (") the startling avowal that this horrible instrument of
(I6) Jean Antoine Llorente was secretary of the Inquisition of Spain, and
when the institution was suppressed in 1809, '10, '11, all the archives were
placed at his disposal. These consisted of "unpublished manuscripts and
papers, mentioned in the inventories of deceased inquisitors." They were
carefully examined, and furnished him much of the valuable information
communicated in his published " History of the Inquisition." He savs that
the "horrid conduct of this holy office weakened the power and diminished
the population of Spain by arresting the progress of arts, sciences, industry,
and commerce, and by compelling multitudes of families to abandon the
kingdom. ; by instigating the expulsion of the Jews and the Moors, and by
immolating on its flaming shambles more than three hundred thousand vic
tims I!" He traces its history with great minuteness of detail, showing its:
introduction into Aragon, during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella; the
punishment of the Albigenses and the Jews by its cruelties, its approval by
Popes Sextus IV., Innocent VIII., andothers, as the means of augmenting
their power ; and gives the harsh and unprecedented rules of procedure by.
which it was governed. One of those rules shows how necessary it was con-'
sidered to the papacy, and that it was employed by the reverend (.') Inquisitors
both as a rehgious and political institution. It required all witnesses to be
asked, in general terms, " if they had ever seen or heard any thing which was
or appeared, contrary to the CathoUc faith, or the rights of the Inquisition "—
Llorente's History of the Inquisition, preface, pp. xiii., xvi. : chap, v., p.
30; chap, vi., p. 39; chap, ix., p. 60.
(16) Patrick Donahoe, Boston.
(") This book is indorsed with the sign of the cross, thus, "Imprimatur,
Joannes Josephus, Episcopus, Boston."
The reader, however, should not be misled into the belief that this was the
first attempt to recommend the Spanish Inquisition to the Roman Catholics
of the United States. In 1815 the French Comte Le Maistre wrote half a
dozen letters in defense of this institution. He said of it • "The Inquisition
ism its very nature, good, mild, and preservative. It is the universal, in
delible character of every ecclesiastical institution; you see it in Rome and
you can see it wherever the true church has power "—La Maistre's

THE INQUISITION JUSTIFIED. 83
persecution is " the most legitimate and most natural exercise
of ecclesiastical authority /" And more than one of the
Roman Catholic journals in the United States have taken
extraordinary pains to commend the book, in which this
avowal is made, to their readers. The Boston Pilot, a paper
of large circulation, thus advertises it, in its issue of Feb
ruary 20th, 1870: "Plain Talk about the Protestantism of
To-day. Every body is buying it. Prices : neatly bound, 60
cents ; in paper covers, 25 cents ; by the hundred, for dis
tribution, $15. Send for copies to distribute among your
neighbors."
Letters on the Spanish Inquisition, p. 22. Though he professed to treat
it as "purely royal," he admitted that it existed in Spain " by virtue of the
bull of the sovereign pontiff." He says that the grand inquisitor "is. al
ways either an archbishop or bishop." — Ibid., p. 39. He justifies the inflic
tion of " capital punishment " npon those who attempt to subvert the "estab
lished rehgion" of a nation; which means that the pope, as "the vicege
rent of Christ," would require a resort to this remedy, as the only means of
obeying the divine law, wherever the Roman Catholic religion is the religion
of the state, as he is now striving to make it in the United States. — Ibid.,
pp. 52, 53. He says: "A sense of duty obliges me to say that an here-
siarch, an obstinate heretic, and a propagator of heresy, should indisputa
bly be ranked among the greatest criminals." — Ibid., p. 59. Again: "I
by no means doubt that a tribunal of this description, adapted to the times,
places, and characters of nations, would be highly useful in every coun
try." — Ibid., p. 84. He speaks of the ''demoniac spirit of Puritanism"
(p. 127) and of Protestantism, as ' ' nicknamed piety, zeal, faith, reforma
tion, and orthodoxy " (p. 130), and reaches a result which he thus expresses :
" Theory and experience satisfactorily prove that there is not, that there can
not be, a steady faith, or positive religion, properly so called, in a nation
whose envoys take so much pains to abolish what they and others, through
malice, call the detestable Inquisition" (p. 156), because it is "one of the
mildest and wisest civil tribunals within the range of civilization " (p. 172).
Now, these letters of Le Maistre, with all their impious and un-American
teachings, were translated into English by a Roman Catholic priest of Salem,
Massachusetts, and published also by Patrick Donahoe, "Catholic book
seller," of Boston, in 1843. In the preface of this translator, he says a great
many silly and mendacious things about the "piratical, pharisaical reforma
tion," about the "base apostate Luther," and the "libertinism" of Protest
antism (pp. 9, 10) ; but, like all other writers of his class, he, too, reaches
the only logical result which can follow such opinions as he expresses. For
example, he says, in a "Catholic country, a man may entertain whatever
religious or irreligious opinions he likes," "but he. must keep them to him
self," for if he speaks out what he thinks, "he is brought before the tribu
nal" ofthe Inquisition! — Ibid., preface, p. xvi.

84 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Here the design in republishing this book in the United
States is made evident; that it shall, incendiary -like, make
its way over the land, by being brought within the reach
and means of all the papal followers who can read it, so that
they may be inoculated, insensibly, with the views and opin
ions of their ecclesiastical superiors, and be thereby fitted for
whatsoever work they shall be called upon to do. There
are very few Protestants who observe these cautious and
stealthy approaches of their vigilant and sleepless adversa
ry. Many of them, engaged in pursuits which invite them
into other fields of inquiry, and always tolerant and unsus
pecting, are unwilling to rest long enough from their active
occupations to pay any attention whatever to these things;
and very few, if they think of them at all, ever think of
looking into Roman Catholic books or newspapers to see
what they contain. And the papal hierarchy, fully inform
ed of all this, and well knowing the advantage they derive
from it, employ all their intellectual energies, and the most
active and untiring industry, in prosecuting their attack
upon the religion professed by Protestants, and upon all the
liberalizing tendencies of the civil institutions which have
grown out of Protestantism. In their numerous publica
tions they display great learning and ingenuity; but there
are very few of these publications characterized by that
charity which the apostle Paul has placed among the high
est virtues, and which Christ, by his life and teachings, in
culcated as one of the chief and most necessary duties of
man. Hence Mgr. Segur goes on to say, in the imagined su
premacy and superiority of the hierarchy to which he be
longs, and by whose inordinate ambition he is stimulated:
" It would be an insult to the Catholic clergy to compare
with them the pastors of Protestant sects. As Protestant
ism is no religion, whatever they may say to the contrary,
so its ministers have not the authority of the priesthood, no
matter how hard they may try to have its appearance."(18)
This denial of the priestly character to the Protestant
clergy amounts, of itself, to but little, constitutino- as it

(18) Mgr. Se'gur, part ii., prop, xvii., p. 134.

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT CONDEMNED. 85
does, one of the most ordinary features of polemic contro
versy. But included within it is the denial of any religion
to Protestants ; and this accusation of heresy is designed,
by its frequent repetition in the United States, as the foun
dation upon which to build the papal superstructure, to
bring about the downfall of the Protestant system, and the
erection of the " Catholic system " in its place, in all its ex
clusiveness and power. Yet those engaged in this under
taking do not fail to see that Protestantism, in this country,
has a signal advantage over them in its advocacy of the
freedom of thought, for which the most of mankind, in de
spite of tyranny, have a natural yearning. And seeing this,
tbey are employing this little book of Mgr. Segur as the
agent by which they hope to remove this difficulty out of
the way, so as to secure a clear field for the future triumph
and operations of the papacy. It is not proposed to do this
by argument, or by any appeal to intelligent reason, for in
such a field they would meet inevitable failure ; but by em
ploying that dogmatism which allows of no denial, and which
bas hitherto served them so well in other times and coun
tries. Mgr. Se*gur cuts the thread with a single swoop of
his ecclesiastical sabre ; thus :
" The freedom of thinking is simply nonsense. We are no
more free to think without rule than we are to act without one.
Unless we prefer to be disorderly and incur damnation, we are
bound to have thoughts of truth and of truth alone, just as
we are bound to do what is right, and only what is right."(le)
And at another place :
"Freedom of thought is the soul of Protestantism ; it is
likewise the soul of modern rationalistic philosophy. It is
one of those impossibilities which only the levity of a super
ficial reason can regard as admissible. But a sound mind,
that does not feed on empty words, looks upon this freedom
of thought only as simply absurd, and, what is worse, as
SINFUL."^") Every reader accustomed to construe the simplest lan
guage can see from these extracts, at a single glance, their
(,s) Mgr. Segur, part ii., prop, vii., p. 98.
(m) Ibid. , part ii. , prop. vii. , p. 100.

86 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
full import. Therefore, without stopping here to comment
upon them, it is sufficient only to say that, besides assailing
Protestant Christianity, they are an open and undisguised
attack upon the chief corner-stone of our political institu
tions. These not merely secure to every citizen the right of
free thought, but recognize it as inalienable. If this great
principle had not been maintained, our institutions could not
have existed, and the theory of self-government would have
been a disastrous failure. But, by these papal teachings,
and in direct opposition to this principle, tne Roman Cath
olic citizens of tbe United States are commanded to regard
it as "absurd" and "sinful" and, therefore, in violation of
God's law! — as an odious and intolerable form of heresy,
which is offensive to the papacy ! They are thus instructed
that they may be prepared to perform the religious duty of
uprooting and eradicating all the Constitutional guarantees
designed for the protection of this principle, because " free
dom of thought is the soul of Protestantism," and Protest
antism has an open Bible " in which infidelity and revolution
wrap themselves !" There should, after this, be no further
denial of the fact that the papacy does assert for itself, and
that its devotees maintain for it, the divine power to teach
political as well as religious truth. We shall see hereafter
many evidences of this, of the most convincing character;
but this author does not leave us any room for doubt upon
the subject, understanding perfectly well, as he does, that
its ultimate ends can be reached in no other way. After as
serting that " such freedom " as Protestantism confers will
lead " to perdition" unless " controlled by the divine teach
ings of Christ, and of his Church" — that is, of the pope,
through his bishops and clergy — he continues thus :
"The authority of the Church is a guard over human un
derstanding in whatever directly or indirectly affects religion,
which means hi every kind of doctrines — religious, philosoph
ical, scientific, political, etc."(21)
No apology is offered for these numerous extracts from
this book of Mgr. Segur, since it is supposed that the opin
ions of the author can be better made known by means of

(21) Mgr. Segur, part ii., prop, vii., p. 100.

PAPAL TRACTS. 87
them than by briefer quotations, and because, in order to
convey a proper idea of what constitutes Roman Catholic
literature in the United States, equally liberal quotations
must be. made from other papal authors. This book is intro
duced here on account ofthe great exertions made to secure
it a large circulation, and of the most significant fact that it
is considered worthy ofthe special indorsement ofthe Bish
op of Boston, which gives to it the sanction of official author
ity. But it is by no means sent out alone. A crusade re
quires a large army, composed of many and disciplined sol
diers, and supplied with the necessary weapons of warfare.
The press is an ever-active engine of power ; and being free,
in this country, without regard to what it teaches, that part
of it which moves or halts at the bidding of ecclesiastical au
thority continues its ceaseless efforts, by day and night, to
erect upon the ruins of Protestantism the imperial throne of
papal power and absolutism, by keeping up the supply of
these necessary weapons. There is in the city of New York
a publication society which sends out thousands, and per
haps millions, of little tracts, of only a few pages, all devoted
to the same object — the defense of the papacy — and stamped
with this badge of authority: "Printed for The Cathdlic
Publication Society — office, 9 Warren Street, New York.
Price, 50 cents per hundred ; and sold at all Catholic book
sellers' at the same price."
A package of these tracts, easily procured, was found to
contain one numbered forty- six, on the subject of " Tlie
Pope's Temporal Povier ;" defining what it is, and what the
faithful are required to believe in reference to it. It goes
out in this modest and unobtrusive way that it may perform
its allotted task silently and unseen, unless accidentally, by
a single Protestant eye. Explaining what this power has
hitherto been at Rome, it says that all the members of the
Church are " bound to believe that the Holy Father should
enjoy that political independence which is necessary for the
free exercise of his spiritual authority throughout the entire
world;" conveying thereby the idea that, as "political in
dependence" is necessary to "the free exercise" of the
pope's authority at Rome, it is, therefore equally necessa
ry, wherever, " throughout the entire world," that authority

88 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
shall be recognized ; in other words, that the degree of this
independence must be the same everywhere ; and as the pope
can not maintain his full authority at Rome without it, so he
' can not in the United States. It then proceeds, in the form
of questions and answers, to present the matter practically,
as follows:
"How can this independence be secured?
" Only in one way. The pope must be a sovereign himself.
No temporal prince, whether emperor, or king, or president, or
any legislative bodt, can have any lawful jurisdiction over
the pope.
" What right has the pope to be independent of every civil
ruler ?
" He has it in virtue of his dignity as the vicar of Christ.
Christ himself is " King of kings." But the pope governs
the Church in the name of Christ, and as his representative.
His divine office, therefore, makes him superior to every
POLITICAL, TEMPORAL, AND HUMAN GOVERNMENT.
" But could not the pope exercise his spiritual supremacy,
and yet be the subject of some temporal prince ; for instance,
the King of Italy ?
" Most certainly not. For, as the representative of God,
the pope is compelled to denounce whatever injustice and in
iquity he finds in the world, including the acts of grasping
and unjust civil governments."
Let the reader observe how carefully this language is ar
ranged so as to convey this obvious meaning— nothing more,
nothing less— that, as the pope's " spiritual authority " can
not be exercised in the papal states without "political in
dependence," and as he must be " superior to every political,
temporal, and human government^ so that he may " denounce
whatever injustice and iniquity he finds in the world," ac
cordingly as he shall consider it unjust and iniquitous, there
fore he must have the same degree of "political independ
ence" in the United States that he has at Rome, so that his
commands shall be as much the law here as there ; and that,
as he has already denounced Protestantism as heresy, in
fidelity, and no religion— as "injustice and iniquity," he
should have full authority to command that its institutions,
both civil and religious, when not approved by him, shall be

NO APPEAL FROM THE POPE. 89
plucked up by the roots^ and all the power necessary to en
force obedience to such a decree !
If any doubt should be entertained on this subject, it will
be removed by the perusal of another of the tracts contained
in this same package, and numbered forty-three, upon " the
duty of obeying the pope." Here " the duty of all Catholics
to obey the pope" is laid down as the starting-point. All
his "laws" are represented as "confirmed by a divine sanc
tion, and are obligatory upon the conscience in the same man
ner as the laws of Moses were binding on the Jews." He is
called the " sovereign judge and lawgiver, from whose decis
ions and judgments there is no appeal." Being " the head
of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Chris
tians," he requires, therefore, obedience to his doctrinal decis
ions and to his laws; in certain cases, under the penalty of
excommunication. All this having been announced, this little
tract proceeds to define this extraordinary authority, thus :
"The authority of the pope to teach and command the
faithful in regard to all things relating to the doctrines
which they are to hold or reject, and in regard to all things
relating to religious and moral acts ichich they are to do or
avoid, has been given him by Jesus Christ."
Thereupon, the faithful are instructed that the popes, ex
ercising the divine "power of the keys," have "forbidden
certain opinions to be maintained, and certain acts to be
done ;" and that these commands are " ratified in heaven,
and are therefore to be respected and obeyed as really ema
nating from Jesus Christ himself!" Then, passing from this
blasphemous comparison of the pope with Christ, it con
demns Freemasonry as already under the curse of several
popes before the present one ; denies the right of " a private
person to judge the rulers of the Church," tbus asserting full
official impunity for every member ofthe hierarchy; endeav
ors, with an exceedingly thin veil of sophistry, to evade the
charge of ecclesiastical interference with political opinions ;
and defines, with the utmost precision, the comprehensive
ness ofthe papal authority. It would be hard to find more
explicit language. It says :
" The authority of the Church extends over all things re
lating to morality, over all questions of right and wrong,

90 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWHR.
duty and transgression of duty, justice and injustice, lawful
ness and unlawfulness. As well might one talk of our Lord
Jesus Christ interfering with human rights as his vicar or
his Church. Man is responsible to God in all his relations,
as a child or parent, a subject, citizen, artisan, merchant, law
yer, legislator, or governor. The moral law, the rule of right
and wrong, runs through the state, society, the family, and
every relation or institution in which man is a free agent,
having rights and duties. The Church is supreme in decid
ing all moral questions, and the pope is the sovereign minis
ter of God, with power to punish by his spiritual censures
all infractions of the divine law"
When it shall become necessary, further along, to examine
the doctrines of the Encyclical and Syllabus of Pope Pius
IX., and other instructions to his subjects, this extract will
furnish a key to his meaning. In the mean time, it should
be observed how distinctly and emphatically it is an
nounced, in this American tract, that the authority and
jurisdiction of the Church, and of the pope as its supreme
head, and of the clergy, as the instruments he employs in
the execution of his power, is so full, comprehensive, and
all-absorbing, as to embrace the entire man, in all his re
lations of life, in all the duties he owes to himself, to his
family, to society, to the state of which he is a citizen, and
to the government to which he owes allegiance. Every
thought, word, and act ; every impulse and passion of the
mind ; all the affections and hatreds of the heart — must be
subordinated to the will of the pope, who, as sovereign lord
of the universe — as " God on earth " — must acquire a do
minion so complete that every society, community, and gov
ernment in the world shall be constructed, regulated, and
managed according to the law of God as he shall declare
and announce it ! If Protestantism is infidelity and here
sy, it must be exterminated ! If free thought is " sinful,"
it must be suppressed ! If a free press opens the door to
revolution or licentiousness, it must be destroyed ! If free
speech is offensive to pontifical or hierarchical ears, there
must be no more of it ! If a republican and popular govern
ment secures all these privileges and provides for their con
tinuance, it must be overthrown ! If the Constitution of the

PROHIBITION OF BOOKS. 91
Upited States prohibits " an establishment of religion," or
any impairment of the right of its " free exercise," it must
be put out of the way, and papal imperialism take the place
of the will of the people wbich it expresses ! If any man,
supposing himself to be free, shall dare to consult his own
conscience in matters of religious belief or moral duty, or to
interpret the Bible for himself, he must be stricken down by
the sword of pontifical wrath, and the papal anathema rest
upon his name forever ! And then, when all this is accom
plished ; when mankind shall be compelled to recognize
true religion as consisting only in passive obedience to the
"laws" ofthe "King of Home" the pope, and his bishops,
and his priests all stand ready to plunge the world once
more into mediaeval bondage ! When Rome was " mistress
of the world," none of her despots wore a diadem so imperi
al as this.
This is not the place for a philosophical disquisition upon
the varied qualities of the mind, or its tendency to be im
pressed by surrounding circumstances. We all know that
it may be educated to adopt almost any class of opinions,
especially when its higher capacities are left unimproved.
The papacy, well understanding this, has been always ac
customed to determine and regulate the kind of instruction
to be given to the members of the Roman Catholic Church,
prescribing the particular books they shall read, and prohib
iting the reading of others, under penalty of the pontifical
curse. There is at Rome, as an essential department of
the papal court, what is called the " Congregation of the In
dex." To this tribunal are submitted all publications that
are, in any degree, under the suspicion of heresy ; and if,
upon examination, they are found to teach what the pope
does not desire to be taught, they are condemned aud placed
upon the "Index expurgatorius ;" so that thereafter it shall
be regarded as an offense against the Church and against
God for any person to read them. Examples of this are
abundant ; that in reference to the books of Galileo being a
prominent one. Galileo taught the Copernican theory of
the revolution ofthe earth upon its axis ; and as the Roman
Catholic Church taught the contrary — that is, that the earth
was stationary, and the sun revolved around it — Pope Paul

92 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
V. caused his writings to be condemned, and prohibited the
reading of them ; and Pope Urban VIII. not only repeated
this prohibition, but caused the great astronomer to be tried,
convicted, and imprisoned during life for having dared to
teach such heresy !(") There are very few popes who have
not added to the number of books upon the " Index." The
present pope has adopted a more comprehensive method —
while still adhering to that of his predecessors — by fre
quent and general denunciation of all of that class of books
which advocate liberalism, Protestantism, republicanism, free
thought, free speech, and a free press. Therefore, while
such works as are called forth by the progressive and ad
vancing spirit of the present age are condemned as impious
and heretical, because their tendency is to weaken and de
stroy the " divine right" of kings to govern mankind, and are
kept out of the hands of the faithful, wherever it can, by
possibility, be done, the hierarchy actively employ their
learning and ingenuity in preparing and circulating such
books, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, and tracts as
those from which the foregoing extracts are taken, and in
the inculcation of the sentiments they contain. They calcu
late largely upon the indifference of the great body of the
people of the United States to such subjects ; well under
standing, at the same time, that whatever they shall thus
circulate in support of papal omnipotence will be impressed

(") Much ingenuity has been recently displayed by papal writers in the at
tempt to show that Galileo was not condemned by the Church for teaching
the doctrine of Copernicus, that the sun is the centre of the universe, and
does not move, but that the earth moves with a diurnal motion. To do this
it has been found necessary to pervert many important facts of history, and
to deny others which have been accepted as true by the most learned Prot
estant and Roman Catholic historians for nearly two hundred and fifty years.
Those who have the curiosity to examine this question will find it fully dis
cussed in a late work, entitled "The Private Life of Galileo ; compiled prin
cipally from his correspondence and that of his eldest daughter, Sister Maria
Celeste, nun in the Franciscan convent of St. Matthew, in Arcetri ;" publish
ed by Nichols & Noyes, Boston. All "the pontifical decrees against the mo
tion of the earth" have also been published in London. From these it is
shown to be true, that the Copernican theory was condemned both by the
pope and the sacred Congregation of the Index, " as absurd and false in
philosophy, " and as " erroneous in faith."

DEFENSE OF THE INQUISITION. 93
upon the minds of their superstitious followers — especially
tbe ignorant portion of them — by the numerous foreign and
Jesuit priests who are scattered over the country. • These
priests are specially prepared for this purpose by previous
training at Rome and elsewhere, and are quite ready, at all
times, to lay these doctrines before their congregations, and
to instruct them that unless they believe and practice them
they will assuredly fall under the anathemas of the Church.
As between the institutions of the United States and the
papal institutions that existed at Rome before the tempo
ral power of the pope was taken away by the Italian people,
these priests prefer the latter ; insisting that they are found
ed upon the law of God, while the former are heretical.
Therefore, they work hard to bring about the time when the
pope shall " command " the people of the United States —
they acting as his captains and lieutenants !
It has already been shown how readily Dr. Brownson en
tered into this seheme to enslave his native country, by de
voting his talents to the service of this foreign priesthood.
Ever on the alert to employ his fertile brain in this inglori
ous work, he has lately published another book, which was
considered of so much importance by the hierarchy, that it
appeared simultaneously in New York, Boston, and Montreal.
In this book, entitled " Conversations on Liberalism and the
Church," he falsely represents himself as an American Prot
estant who carries on a conversation with a Roman Catholic
priest, and allows himself to be converted by him to Roman
ism! He calls it "purely imaginary," but this scarcely re
lieves him from the charge of disingenuously impersonating
a Protestant, and putting only such arguments into his
mouth as he supposes necessary to secure an unfair advan
tage to his own Church and to the papacy.
He defends and justifies the Spanish Inquisition as an in
stitution necessary " to ferret out and bring to trial " those
who engage in " secret conspiracies " against " the Church
and the State."(") He advocates a union between Church
and State. (") He calls liberty a " spiritual right," not a nat-
(M) Brownson's "Liberalism and the Church," chap, viii., p. 105.
C) Ibid., p. 110.

94 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ural right, or a "civil grant;" and insists, therefore, that it
can have no proper foundation except "on the supremacy
of the spiritual order, which the Church has always asserted
and defended."(") Then, after expressing his regret that,
in this country, tbe " sovereignty of the people " has been re
solved into the " sovereignty of popular opinion," he makes
his priest address the American Protestant thus:
"You are losing the sense of the great principles on
which your fathers built, and no longer see or understand
the deep significance ofthe providential Constitution of your
republic. You are perverting the Christian to the pagan re
public. Hence your great need of the Church to recall your
minds to the first principles of your institutions, and to en
able you to inherit the glory of being the first nation thai
ever fully asserted spiritual freedom."(se)
This sounds well enough, in so far as it pretends to speak
favorably of our institutions ; but the language of compli
ment is employed merely to disguise the real object. The
whole context of the book shows that it was written un
der the influence of a single controlling idea; that is, that
the Roman Catholic Church, as represented by the papacy,
should obtain supremacy over the people of the United
States, in order that they may be held to the line of duty to
God and the world, as the pope shall understand and declare
it. This idea is not altogether concealed in the above ex
tract, but it is more distinctly expressed elsewhere. It is
not a little surprising that, with his mind thus impressed, it
did not occur to him to inquire, how it has happened that
the papacy did not establish the freedom of which he writes,
when it had the world at its feet ?— and why civil freedom
was not fully established, until it grew up, without the aid
and against the protestations of the papacy, as one of the
legitimate and necessary fruits of the Protestant Reforma
tion? But it must be conceded to him that his ideas of
" spiritual freedom" are very different from those which pre
vail among the Protestants of the United States. What he
means by it— as we shall presently see — is the freedom of
the Church — that is, of the pope — to govern the world to

(*) Brownson's "Liberalism and the Church, 'pp. 115, H6. (™) Hid.

DESIRE TO RETURN TO THE MIDDLE AGES. 95
dictate the law of God to all nations and peoples, and to
punish disobedience to her edicts. For example : he says
that the " dogmas of the Church are, if any thing, above rea
son"^) and, being " matters within the spiritual order," in
dividuals have " nothing to do " with them.(") He gives the
reason elsewhere, by insisting that the word of the Church
" is as high authority for what God has revealed as is the
Bible itself '/"(") and, therefore, that "human laws derive all
their vigor as laws from the law of God," as proclaimed by
the Church, or by the pope as its lawful and divine head.
Under the dominion of such sentiments as these, he under
takes to show wherein consists the necessity of subverting
our Protestant institutions, and substituting for them such
as the Church, or the pope, shall consider consistent with the
law of God. As they do not tend to elevate and advance
mankind, and are, in these respects, greatly behind the Ro
man Catholic nations, the latter are, in his opinion, entitled
to a decided preference ! He says :
"Christian nations alone are living and progressive na
tions. And never have Christian nations advanced in all
that makes the true glory of civilization so rapidly as they
did from the downfall of Rome to the rise of what you call
the Reformation." (3°)
Pursuing this train of thought, he insists that, with the
exception of the " discovery by Catholics of this Western
hemisphere," and the practical adoption of some papal prin
ciples, there has been "no real progress of civilization since
the epoch of the Reformation."^1) Such sentiments would,
of course, lead him to give the preference to Roman Catholic
governments over those arising out of Protestant liberali
ty and toleration, and to see, in the Roman Catholic popula
tions, a higher degree of elevation and advancement than is
to be found among those of Protestant nations. And to in
dicate this preference, he applauds the " moral elevation and
personal dignity of the Catholic peasantry," which he con
siders due to the fact that their religion " attaches merit to

(") Brownson's "Liberalism and the Church," p. 128.
H Ibid., p. 131. H Ibid. , p. 163.
(so) Ibid., p. 170. (31) Ibid., p. 176.

96 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
voluntary poverty," and " regards the poor as blessed and a
blessing !" With this estimate of the. sweets and blessings
of poverty, he denounced the poor-houses which Protestant
ism has caused to be erected, wherever it prevails, as " mod
ern Bastiles" insisting that the poor had better be left in
their happy condition of poverty than be " shut up as crim
inals." He then sums up his conclusions thus :
" You will look in vain among your non- Catholic contem
poraries for that clearness and vigor of intellect, and that
moral elevation, force, and independence of individual char
acter, which you meet everywhere in mediceval society. If
there were great crimes in those ages, they were followed,
as the historian of the monks of the West justly remarks, by
great expiations. If there was great pride, there was deeper
humility, and always will the period from the sixth to the end
of the fifteenth century stand out as the most glorious in the
annals ofthe race."( )
How wonderfully perverted must be the best faculties of
an American mind, when it is brought to see in the condi
tion ofthe world during the Middle Ages, from the sixth to
the sixteenth century, that which is preferable to the present
state of affairs among the Protestant nations, especially in
the United States ! Such an effect could only be produced
by the unexampled influence which the papacy has been able
to exercise over some ofthe brightest intellects ofthe world —
a strange and mysterious influence, which has brought them
in subjection to its ambition, and appropriated all their best
energies to itself. But we are concerned now only with the
existence of such a fact, rather than with an inquiry into the
causes of it. Dr. Brownson is a distinguished instance of
this perverted intellect. His service of the papacy, and his
quick defense of all its extravagant claims, have acquired for
him a reputation among the papal hierarchy, which may flat
ter but can not console him. When he recurs to the princi
ples and influences under which his mind was developed into
its brilliant maturity, and by means of which it acquired its
freedom, the remembrance must be to him like the yearning
after a lost treasure. But whether he derives regret or re-

C0) Brownson's "Liberalism and the Church," pp. 181, 182.

SUBMISSION TO THE PRIESTHOOD. 97
joicing from his present position, he must be regarded as ex
pressing, not merely his own, but the sentiments and opin
ions of the hierarcby of the United States, when he gives
the preference to the condition of Europe during the Middle
Ages — when ignorance, superstition, and degradation were
almost universal among the populations — over that in which
the people of this country now are. Blind and passive sub
mission to the priesthood then prevailed throughout all the
ranks of society ; therefore, the people were abundantly hap
py ! They were so ignorant as not to know that they were
in bondage ; therefore, they were models of contentment !
The masses were in the lowest poverty, while the nobility
reveled in wealth and luxury; therefore, they were in a
state of blissful humility ! They left the popes and their
myriads of priestly dependents to do as they pleased, and to
bid defiance to all human laws ; therefore, they had reached
the point ofthe highest "moral elevation !" Wbo can account
for such strange hallucination of thought as this? How is
it possible for a man to persuade himself, or be persuaded
by others, to believe that this country would be improved,
and the people carried to higher moral and political eleva
tion, if the existing condition of our affairs were destroyed,
and that which existed in the Middle Ages substituted?
Certainly, no such thought can dwell long in the' minds of
any but those whose blind devotion shuts out the light from
their reason. And yet, to bring about precisely that result,
all the energies ofthe Roman Catholic Church, in so far as
the papacy can direct them, are now assiduously and untir
ingly directed. Possibly, those who are aiding in this work
in the United States are merely laboring under honest de
lusion, in the conviction that it may be done by peaceful
means, or that the people can be persuaded to give up to
foreign dictation those national blessings which have always
constituted their highest pride. But this they must and do
know — that what they labor for with so mucb diligence can
only be accomplished by overthrowing our Protestant insti
tutions, destroying our Protestant Christianity, and upheav
ing, from its foundation, our Protestant form of government.
7

98 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.

CHAPTER IV.
Papal Hopes of Success in the United States.— The Jesuits. — Their Charac
ter. — Their Expulsion by Roman Catholic Governments. — Their Suppres
sion by Clement XIV. — Causes of it. — His Bull. — Expelled from Russia.
— Causes of it. — Their Restoration by Pius VII. — Their Support of Mon
archy. — The Order not Religious. — Its Constitution. — Its Authors. — They
Denounce Protestantism as Infidelity. — They Threaten the Inquisition. —
Movements during the Rebellion. — Napoleon III. and Pius IX. — Intoler
ance of the Latter. — Precedents of Kings Humiliated by the Popes.
Gregory XVI., whose pontificate commenced in 1831, was
the first pope who seemed encouraged by the idea that the
papacy would ultimately establish itself in the United States.
His cbief reliance, as the means of realizing this hope, was
upon the Jesuits, upon whose entire devotion to the princi
ples of absolutism he could confidently rely. Prepared at
all times to labor for the suppression of freedom, and trained
in a faith which allows to the individual no personal right
of thought or action, they were both ready and willing
agents in the work of assailing our popular institutions.
With them no form of government has the divine approval
unless founded upon the principles of monarchy. They es
pecially abhor that form which confers equality of civil and
political rights, which denies the authority of privileged
classes, and forbids the establishment of ecclesiasticism.
This wonderful society — the most wonderful the world
has ever known — had been suppressed in 1773 by Pope
Clement XIV., after a tedious and thorough personal inves
tigation of all the accusations against it. By this act of con
demnation, which was made at the instance of the leadino-
Roman Catholic powers, such a degree of odium was stamp
ed upon its character that the people everywhere held it in
execration. Its despotic principles and immoral teachings
were alike condemned, except by those who, like Gregory
XVI., saw that, in the compactness of its organization and
the unity of its purpose, it possessed important elements of

INSTRUCTIVE EVENTS IN HISTORY. 99
strength, which it was always willing to employ in building
up the papal structure. There is no more instructive chap
ter in history than that which records the events connected
with its suppression by the pope. The expulsion of the or
der from France, Spain, Portugal, and Sicily — all Roman
Catholic governments — the hesitation of Clement, his careful
and deliberate investigation of the charges made against it,
and the overwhelming proofs which forced him to conclu
sions he had manifestly endeavored to avoid, all go to show
an amount of turpitude which is without parallel elsewhere.
The pope was reluctant to fix the pontifical censure upon it,
because it had received the sanction of a number of his pred
ecessors ; but as an honest and sincere Christian — which is
not denied, except by the Jesuits — he felt himself constrain
ed, by a sense of duty to the Church and the world, to de
clare its unworthiness. And, in doing so, he satisfied the
Roman Catholic governments against which treason had
been plotted by its members, and restored quiet, for a time,
to the Church.
In his pontifical brief, Clement XIV. averred that the Jes
uit "maxims" were "scandalous, and manifestly contrary to
good morals ;" that the society had bred " revolts and intes
tine troubles in some of the Catholic states ;" that, by means
of its practices, " complaints and quarrels were multiplied
on every side ; in some places dangerous seditions arose, tu
mults, discords, dissensions, scandals, which, weakening or
entirely breaking the bonds of Christian charity, excited the
faithful to all the rage of party hatreds and animosities ;"
that the kings most devoted to the Church — to wit, those of
France, Spain, Portugal, and Sicily — had " found themselves
reduced to the necessity of expelling and driving from their
states, kingdoms, and provinces these very Companions of
Jesus," which they were compelled to do as a step " necessa
ry in order to prevent the Christians from rising one against
another, and from massacring each other in the very bosom
of our common mother, the Holy Church ;" and that, as the
Church could never "recover a firm and durable peace so
long as the said society subsisted," be, therefore, was con
strained to annul and extinguish it "forever" to " abrogate
all the prerogatives which had been granted to them by their

100 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
general and other superiors in virtue of the privileges ob
tained from the sovereign pontiffs," and to announce to the
Christian world that his pontifical act of suppression " should
forever and to all eternity be valid, permanent, and effica
cious," and be "inviolably observed" by all the faithful ev
ery where. (')
The Jesuits, by the immoral tendency of their doctrines
and the many enormities perpetrated by them against gov
ernments, society, and individuals, had become so unpopular
throughout Europe that their suppression gave great and
almost universal satisfaction. It was especially approved
by all sincere Christians, because they saw that it removed
from tbe Church a load which was surely dragging it down.
And those who, without belonging to the order, had been
educated by it, were constrained to approve the act, because
it was done by an infallible pope, who could not err ! This
sentiment of approval became stronger in proportion as the
practices and policy of the order became better known. The
public were then enabled to see how entirely at variance its
practices were with its professions. Although one of the
articles of their constitution forbade the members of the or-
(') " History of the Jesuits," by Nicolini, pp. 387 to 406, where the brief
of the pope is published at length ; " History of the Jesuits," by Steinmetz,
p. 612; "History ofthe Popes," by Cormenin, vol. ii., p. 397.
This celebrated bull of the pope is called "Dominus ac Redemptor," and
that Clement was exceedingly reluctant to issue it is beyond all question. In
a letter written by him in 1768, before he became pope, and while he was
Cardinal Ganganelli, he expressed the opinion that if the Jesuits had not
been so "obstinate" as to refuse any reformation, the differences with them
"might have been brought to a happy issue."— Letters of Pope Clement
XIV. {Ganganelli). To which are affixed anecdotes of his life, translated
from the French of Lottin Le Jeune, vol. ii., p. 201. After he became
pope, and when it became his duty to investigate the complaints against the
society, he wrote to a Portuguese lord, saying: "I shall do nothing until I
have examined, weighed, and judged according to the laws of justice and
truth. May God forbid that any human consideration should influence my
decision ! I have already a sufficiently severe account to render to God,
without charging my conscience with the addition of a new crime ; and it
would be an enormous one to proscribe a religious order upon rumors and
prejudices, or even upon suspicions. I shall not forget that, in rendering to
Cassar the things that are Cassar's, I ought to render to God the things that
are God's."— Ibid., pp. 224, 225.

DOINGS OF THE JESUITS. 101
der from the acceptance of any dignity, and another recom
mended holy poverty as the bulwark of religion, yet there
were among them 24 cardinals, 6 electors of the empire,
19 princes, 21 archbishops, and 121 titular bishops ; and their
aggregate wealth amounted to 40,000,000 pounds sterling —
the enormous sum of $200,000,000 ! Their general, Lorenzo
Ricci, was arrested, and thrown into prison in the castle of
St. Angelo at Rome, charged with au attempt to stir up a
revolt against the papal authority — with plotting treason
against the Church and the pope within the consecrated
walls of the Vatican. Besides his confession that he had
been in secret correspondence with the Prussian monarch,
the other evidences of his guilt were so convincing that his
imprisonment lasted until 1775, when he was relieved from
it only by death. The passions ofthe order were, of course,
aroused to exceeding violence — even to such an excess that
the pope himself, although the infallible " vicar of Christ,"
did not escape their vengeance. They published malicious
libels against him, charging that he had been guilty of sim
ony in procuring his election, and calling him by the oppro
brious name of Antichrist! They became so impassioned
in their attacks upon him, that, when his death occurred,
during the next year, under very suspicious circumstances,
they were charged with having procured it by poison !(2)
(2) The question whether or not Pope Clement XIV. was poisoned by the
Jesuits has given rise to much acrimonious discussion. On one side it is
confidently asserted that he was ; while, on the other, it is stoutly denied. It
is said that, after his death, ' ' his body turned instantly black, and appeared
in a state of putrefaction, which induced the people present to impute his
death to the effect of poison ; and it was very generally reported that he had
fallen a sacrifice to the resentment ofthe Jesuits." — Letters of Pope Clem
ent XIV., etc., by Le Jeune, vol. i., p. 45. St. Priest says that "the
scientific men who were called in to embalm his body found the features
livid, the lips black, the abdomen inflated, the limbs emaciated, and covered
with violet spots ; the size of the heart was much diminished, and all the
muscles detached and decomposed in the spine, They filled the body with
perfumes and aromatic substances ; but nothing would dispel the mephitic
exhalations. The entrails burst the vessels in which they were deposited ;
and when his pontifical robes were taken from his body, a great portion of
the skin adhered to them. The hair of his head remained entire upon the
velvet pillows upon which he rested, and with the slightest friction his nails
fell oS."—Apud Nicolini, pp. 417, 418. Cardinal De Bernis, who had been

102 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
The consequence was, that, on account of the extreme con
tempt, in which they were held in all the Roman Catholic
states, they were compelled to seek refuge elsewhere. Their
iniquities were so great, and were so well understood, that
there was not a single Roman Catholic government in Eu
rope that would tolerate them. They found shelter only
within the dominions of Frederick the Great of Prussia, and
Catharine of Russia — the former a Protestant prince, and
the latter the ecclesiastical head of the Greek Church.
There is some difficulty in discovering the reasons which in
fluenced these monarchs in consenting to receive the fugi
tives, but they were, probably, twofold : to cultivate the
principles of monarchy, upon which the Jesuit constitution
was based; and to reconcile the Roman Catholic citizens of
Poland to the partition of that unfortunate country. What
ever the motive was, however, they were subsequently ex-
minister of Louis XV. of France, was convinced that his death was not from
natural causes, and, soon after the occurrence, wrote thus: "When others
shall come to know as much as I do, from certain documents which the late
pope communicated to me, the suppression [of the Jesuits] will be deemed
very just and very necessaiy. The circumstances which have preceded, ac
companied, and followed the death of the late pope excite equal horror and
compassion. " And speaking of Pope Pius VI. , who was the immediate suc
cessor of Clement XIV., he said: "The pope has certain moments of frank
ness, in which his true sentiments show themselves. I shall never forget
three or four effusions of his heart which he betrayed when with me, by
which I can judge that he was well aware of the unhappy end of his prede
cessor, and that he was anxious not to run the same risks." — Apud Nicolini,
pp. 419, 420. Gioberti produced the statement of a Dr. Bonelli, "famous
for learning and probity, almost an ocular witness of the facts," to the effect
that the pope was poisoned. — Ibid., p. 418.
The Jesuits, in defense of their order, rely upon a statement made some
months after the death of the pope by the apostolic physician and the pope's
"ordinary doctor." They declared the charge that the pope had been poi
soned to be false, but offered no proofs to sustain the opinion. And the rea
sons they gave were said to be so "strange and suspicious as rather to
strengthen than diminish the opinion of those who thought differently " —
Ibid. Cormenin has no doubt upon the subject, after having examined all the
evidence. He says, " The dispatch of the embassador of Spain relates, in its
fullest details, the examination of the dead body, which was made the day
succeeding his death, and adds to the irrefutable proofs of the poisoning of
the pontiff, and the guilt of the Jesuits." — Cokmenin, vol. ii., p. 398.

ALEXANDER'S DECREE CONCERNING THEM. 103
pelled also from Russia by an imperial decree of Alexander,
wherein he declared :
" It has been, however, proved that they have not realized
the duties imposed on them by gratitude, and that humility
commanded by the Christian religion. Instead of remain
ing peaceable inhabitants of a foreign land, they have en
deavored to disturb the Greek religion, which, from time im
memorial, has been the predominant religion in this country.
They began by abusing the confidence they had obtained,
and have turned away from our religion young men who had
been intrusted to them, and some weak and ignorant women
whom they have converted to their own Church. To induce
a man to abjure his faith, the faith of his ancestors, to ex
tinguish in him the love of those who profess the same be
lief, to render him a stranger to his country, to sow tares
and animosity among families, to tear the son from the fa
ther, the daughter from the mother, to stir up division among
the children of the same Church — is that the voice and the
will of God, and of his holy son Jesus Christ ? . . . . After
such actions, we are no more surprised that these monks are
expelled from all countries, and nowhere tolerated. Where,
in fact, is the state that would tolerate in its bosom those
who sow in it hatred and discord ?"(")
The marvelous influence of the Jesuits was not entire
ly destroyed, even in the Roman Catholic states, although
greatly weakened, by the suppression of the order, notwith
standing the bull by which they were suppressed was issued
ex cathedra, and was, therefore, the official act of an infallible
pope ! Since their pontifical incorporation by the bull Regi-
mini Militantis Ecclesiae, issued by Pope Paul III. in 1540,
it had so thoroughly permeated all orders of society that it
was still visible, more or less, in every direction. By sub
verting the morality of the Gospel, and substituting their
immoral maxims for religion, and by endeavoring to destroy
all the " fundamental laws which form the basis of all states
and governments," they " brought the Encyclopedists into
existence; the most conspicuous of whom, in fact, as Voltaire,
Diderot, Helvetius, Marmontel, St. Lambert, Lametrie, and
(3) Nicolini, p. 434.

104 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
many. others, had issued from Jesuitical colleges, or had had
Jesuits as their tutors."(4) And when, after the French Rev
olution, it had been demonstrated to the sovereigns of Eu
rope that it was not impossible for the people to attempt the
destruction of monarchy and the establishment of republican
institutions, and it became necessary for them to counteract,
and, if possible, to destroy, the influence of this sentiment,
the re-establishment of the Jesuits was considered, by many
of them, as the most certain and effective means of accom
plishing that object. On the part of these sovereigns, the
motive was entirely political ; but they had no difficulty in
enlisting the assistance of the pope, who had as ardent at
tachment as any of them to the principles of monarchy, es
pecially to that part ofthe Jesuit constitution which teaches
implicit and unquestioning obedience to superiors. Pius VH.
was then pope. The complications in which he had become
involved with Napoleon I., who had re-annexed the states of
the Church to the empire of France, declared himself King
of Italy, and forbidden the pope to hold communication with
any church in France, made it necessary for him to resort to
some measure of relief against the threatened destruction of
papal authority. The Jesuits seemed to him to be the most
fit auxiliaries in the work of regaining power, inasmuch as
the superiority of a single individual as the governing au
thority over the inferior masses of the people constituted
the central idea of their system ; and he, accordingly, re-es*
¦tablished the order in 1814, after they had been under the
pontifical ban for thirty-seven years. Besides the political
motive which influenced the sovereigns who favored the res
toration, he had, also, a religious one, which was to coun
teract the influence of Protestantism, then rapidly gaining
ground in all the states of Christendom. By his memorable
bull for the purpose — Solicitudo Omnium — he referred to
the " abundant fruits " which had been produced in Russia
and Sicily by the workings of the order, and declared that,
in the then dangerous condition ofthe Christian republic,"
it would be " a great crime " if he did not re-establish it— if,
said he, "placed in the bark of Peter, tossed and assailed by

(") Gioberti, apud Nicolini, p. 437.

FAVORED BY GREGORY XVI. 105
continual storms, we refused to employ the vigorous and ex
perienced rowers, who volunteer their services, in order to
break the waves of a sea which threatens every moment
shipwreck and death."(') Therefore, with an utter disregard
of the character and authority of Clement XIV., he abro
gated his "apostolic letters" of suppression ; restored the so
ciety to all its powers ; declared that it should be consoli
dated "more and more, to render it stronger;" counseled its
members to "exactly observe the rule prescribed by their
founder;" and announced that, notwithstanding all that Clem
ent, an infallible pope, had said and done, it would hence
forth be considered an act of " audacious temerity " for any
one to " oppose " his infallible decree ; " and that, should any
one take upon him to attempt it, let him know," said he,
" that he will thereby incur the indignation of Almighty
God, and ofthe holy apostles, Peter and Paul" (e) — that is,
that the curse of God would rest upon whomsoever should
believe what his predecessor, Clement XIV., had said about
the immoral maxims and dangerous teachings ofthe Jesuits,
or should dare to obey his pontifical brief! In such a con
test of authority, the last pope always has the advantage.
He can make his pontifical power, as one of the chief ele
ments of his infallibility, more immediately and sensibly felt.
This act of restoration was done with cool audacity, and
with the especial object of arresting the progress of the mod
ern and advancing nations. It should excite no surprise,
therefore, that the Jesuits, when, seventeen years afterward,
Gregory XVI. became pope, availed themselves of their re
newed strength and partially revived popularity in the Ro
man Catholic states to convert the papacy into a machine
for the advancement of their ambitious projects. Under
such favorable auspices, they were soon enabled to get con
trol of and shape the whole policy of the papal court. Greg
ory XVL, yielding to their influence as well as his own in
clination, became a despot, and the supporter of despotism in
its most odious and oppressive forms. The severity of his
pontifical government soon excited the people of Italy to as
sert their independence, and to inaugurate an effort to de-
(s) Nicolini, p. 442; Cormenin, vol. ii., p. 423. (") Nicolini, p. 447.

106 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
prive him of his temporal crown ; and, to defend himself
against them, he threw himself completely into the arms of
the ultramoutane or Jesuit party. As the chief object of
this party was to check the popular progress toward free
dom in tbe papal states, as well as elsewhere, the pope soon
identified himself with such measures and principles as ren
dered him extremely odious to a large part of his Roman
Catholic subjects, who were tired of papal bondage. And
this feeling against him was, doubtless, increased on account
of his supposed want of private virtue. Whatever was the
cause of his unpopularity, however, he not only realized it,
but had sagacity enougb to know that the corruption pre
vailing at Rome, before the eyes of the people, would, if he
lost his temporal power, cause him to be driven away from
that city, and lead, in all probability, to excesses similar to
those which had attended the French Revolution^ for at
Rome, as well as in France, the people had witnessed so
much impiety that they were driven almost to the convic
tion that religion was a mere disguise, worn for selfish and
iniquitous purposes. And he also knew that the habitual
intolerance of the papacy, and its despotic management of
civil affairs, would incite the enraged population to deal
harshly with him and his ecclesiastical advisers ; and that he
would not be likely to find a safe or desirable asylum among
the similarly enraged populations of any of the Roman Cath
olic states. And it was on this account that his attention
was directed toward the United States, and the hope was
excited in his mind that the tolerance of our institutions
would enable him, through the agency of his Jesuit allies,
to build up a papal party here, sufficiently strong and pow
erful to regain the authority which the papacy was destined
to lose among the Roman Catholic populations of Europe.
The thought was creditable enough to him as a politician,
but it is one against which the people of this country should
not be slow to protest whenever they are informed of its
existence in the papal mind, and of any attempt to effectu
ate such an object.
Apart from the kind of service which Pope Gregory XVI.
expected of the Jesuits, it is exceedingly difficult to tell why
they have been suffered to acquire such unbounded influence

ORGANIZATION OF THE JESUITS UNNECESSARY. 107
as they possess over all the affairs of the papacy, and why
they are considered so necessary to the prosperity of the
Roman Catholic Church. They call their society a religious
association, but it is scarcely entitled to that designation.
The Church existed until near the middle of the sixteenth
century without it. Eighteen of its ecumenical councils
had been held before its formation. By these — commencinc
with that of Nice, in 325, and ending with that ofthe Fifth
Lateran, in 1512 — the religious faith ofthe Church was well
established. The bishops who composed these councils
needed no aid from Ignatius Loyola and his followers to
take care of the affairs of the Church, either to declare its
doctrines or to regulate its discipline. The " Society of Je
sus," therefore, when it was established by Pope Paul III.,
not only did not do any thing to add to or improve the doc
trines of the Church, but, like all others who belonged to
the Church, its members professed no other religion than
that already established by the ecumenical councils. Its
organization was entirely outside the Church. Wherefore,
then, the necessity of establishing this, the most secret so
ciety in the world, when the popes at all times have de
clared that God's curse is resting upon all secret societies ?
Manifestly, the object was to build up an association capa
ble of exercising external power, not necessary to religion,
but as the means of training and educating those who were
brought under its influence, by means of schools and the con
fessional, to that submissive obedience upon which the Papa
cy is founded. Paul HI. avows as much in his bull estab
lishing the order. He says that it is designed "expressly
for the instruction of boys and other ignorant people in
Christianity, and, above all, for the spiritual consolation of
the faithful in Christ by hearing confessions." C) And, as
if the Church did not already possess the means of giving
instruction and hearing confessions, he empowers "some
among them," meaning Loyola, to " draw up such constitu
tions as they shall judge" necessary. They have no power
to add to or take from any of the articles of faith. Their
religion is prescribed by the Church; their constitution is
(7) Nicolini, p. 28. "

108 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
their own, and to it alone must we look for the nature and
character of their organization.
Now, let any reader take the pains to examine the provis
ions ofthe constitution of the "Society of Jesus" and he
will not find one word in it essential to religious faith, noth
ing to show what Christ, or the apostles, or the fathers,
taught in reference to any of the fundamental doctrines of
Christianity. On the other hand, he will find provisions for
the initiation of novices, for scholars, coadjutors, the pro
fessed, provincials, rectors, superiors, and administrators ;
the duties of each being minutely defined. Much pertains
to the working ofthe machinery; but there are certain prin
ciples running through the whole organization which suffi
ciently show bow little claim it has to be known as a relig
ious society. Each member is required to take a vow that
he will understand "all things according to tbe constitution
ofthe society ;" that he will regard the general ofthe socie
ty as " holding the place of God ;" that he will go wherever
" the pope pro tempore chooses to send him ;" that he will
consider the general as "absolute master of persons and
things ;" that " there should be no will, no opinion but the
general's," and no opposing, no contradicting, nor showing
an opinion, in any case, opposed to his ; that he " must re
gard the superior as Christ the Lord, and must strive to
acquire perfect resignation and denial of his own will and
judgment, in all things conforming his will and judgment
to tbat which the superior wills and judges ;" that this virtue
of obedience " must be perfect in every point— in execution,
in will, in intellect ; doing what is enjoined with all celerity,
spiritual joy, and perseverance ; persuading ourself that ev
ery thing is just ; suppressing every repugnant thought and
judgment of one's own, in a certain obedience  and let
every one persuade himself that he who lives under obe
dience should be moved and directed, under Divine Provi
dence, by his superior, just as if he were a corpse, which al
lows itself to be moved and led in any direction ;" that no
earthly authority " can involve an obligation to commit sin
mortal or venial, unless the superior command it in the name
of our lord Jesus Christ; or in virtue of holy obedience •"
and that each member must " concentrate all his desires and

DOCTRINE OF SUBMISSION. 109
affections upon the society," even to the extent of putting
away " all strong affection for his parents."(8)
It is stated by Maclaine, in a note to"Mosheim's Ecclesias
tical History," that when Loyola first laid before Pope Paul
IH the plan for the organization of his society, and desired
his approval of it, there was a provision which restricted
somewhat tbe promised obedience to the pope. This hav
ing given rise to objection, it was so changed as to bind the
order " by a solemn vow of implicit, blind, and unlimited
submission and obedience to the Roman pontiff;"(9) which
removed every obstacle. Herein lies the true secret of the
papal attachment for this mysterious organization. It ac
counts for its re-establishment during the present century
by Pope Pius VII., and the readiness with wbich Pope Greg
ory XVI. subsequently permitted the Jesuits to direct his
pontificate. They were " vigorous and experienced rowers ;"
and in consideration for the privilege of shaping the policy
of the papacy, they were always ready to obey the papal
commands, although, in doing so, they should be required to
put themselves in secret and insidious conflict with all exist
ing governments. Undoubtedly, Pope Gregory XVI. under
stood this, when, finding the people of Italy and other Eu
ropean states struggling hard for republican forms of gov
ernment, and seeing the temporal sceptre slipping from his
hands, he declared that he was not pope anywhere else in
the world except in the United States !
It should excite no surprise that the present pope, Pius
IX., in the midst of still greater embarrassments, should suf
fer similar thoughts to obtain possession of his mind; in
asmuch as, by the same attachment to the Jesuits, he has
equally secured their services and devotion. When, at the

(8) Nicolini, pp. 30-56; Steinmetz, vol. i., p. 251, and note 1; "History
of the Society of Jesus," by Daurignac, vol. i., p. 14 ; "History of the Popes,"
by Ranke, p. 78 ; " Encyclopaedia Britannica," 4th Edinburgh ed., vol. xi., p.
132 ; Maclaine's " Mosheim's Church History," vol. ii., p. 45, and note ; Cor-
menin, vol. ii., pp. 208, 209 ; "Encyclopaedia Americana," vol. vii., p. 198.
In the last work there is an article in defense of the order, written by a
Jesuit, wherein it is said that " a chief object of the Jesuits was the defense
ofthe Church against Protestantism." — Ibid., p. 208.
(9) Maclaine's " Mosheim," vol. ii., p. 45, note.

110 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
beginning of his pontificate, he was supposed to be influ
enced by other motives, and gave assurances that many of
the abuses in the civil government of Rome should be re
formed, he felt himself secure in his position without their
aid. But after he has lived to realize, what Gregory XVI.
so much feared, the loss of his temporal power, he, like him,
trusts the papal bark to the same " vigorous and experi
enced rowers," hoping that it may find safe mooring in the
United States ; realizing, as he does, that it is only under
the shelter of Protestant toleration that the members of this
proscribed society can now find a resting-place. Therefore,
in June, 1871, on the 25th anniversary of his coronation as
pope, when he addressed a deputation of Roman Catholics
from the United States, he was led on by the earnestness of
his zeal to speak of this country as if he considered it the
last and only hope for the papacy. The number of this dep
utation was only twenty-six; but the imaginative pontiff be
came so enthused that he exclaimed, "Look at all America!"
evidently considering them as representing the whole nation.
After one of the priests — the Rev. Mr. Leray, of the Natchez
diocese — had delivered to him an address on behalf of the
bishops, clergy, and laity of that diocese, the " Holy Father "
made a response in which the following sentences occur :
"I have beard of what has been doing in America in favor
ofthe Vicar of Jesus Christ — ofthe meetings that have been
held there. I have continually received testimonials of at
tachment and proofs of devotion from the Catholics of the
United States — devotion not only ofthe mind and heart, but
of the hand too  The bearing of the Catholics of the
United States fills me with hope for the future ofthe Church.
You are a numerous people, and I know you have all kinds
of men among you. There is a party of opposition, who
teach every thing contrary to laio and order; men who have
gone among you to disseminate every kind of evil, who have
no reverence for God or his law ; but, still, the progress of
Catholicity is such as to fill us with well-grounded confidence
for the future  There was a cardinal once who was a
prefect of the congregation  He was wont to prophesy
about America. It was a prophecy in a broad sense 
He used to say so earnestly that the salvation of the Church

THE HOPE OF TRIUMPH IN THE UNITED STATES, m
would come from America, that it made a deep impression
on me, and I hold to it. I believe great blessings will come
to the faith from America, and I pray for you always that
God may spread his truths among you, and that they may
take deep root, flourish, and bear fruit."(10)
This language is not difficult of interpretation ; its import
can be easily perceived. Manifestly, the amiable old pon
tiff has suffered himself to be persuaded into the belief that
the Roman Catholics alone are the lawful possessors of the
United States, and that the Protestants, composing " a party
of opposition " of " all kinds of men," bave " gone among "
them, teaching "every thing contrary to law and order,"
and " every kind of evil," without any " reverence for God
or his law." He seems to think that this state of things can
not last always, because "the Catholics ofthe United States"
are devoting " the mind and heart," and " the hand, too," to
the removal of the evil of Protestantism out of the way.
He is not censurable, either for this belief, or the words in
which he expresses it, having no knowledge of the temper of
our people, or of the nature and spirit of our institutions, in
any other wise than as he esteems them to be in antagonism
to the papacy. His followers mislead him by their intemper
ate zeal and wild prophecies of success. (u) Nevertheless, he
(l0) Freeman's Journal and Catholic Register, New York, June 22d, 1871.
(") After Victor Emmanuel occupied Rome, numerous indignation meet
ings were held in the United States. At one, in Binghamton, New York,
after high mass, it was resolved, " that we will freely, if necessary, devote
our worldly goods and our lives in defense of its [the Church's] doctrines,
and in tlie restoration of the temporal power of the visible head of the
Church." At another, in Jackson, Mississippi, it was said : "As American
citizens, we feel that we are entitled to the protection of our Government in
our vested rights, which have been violated by the Piedmontese Govern
ment," etc. At another, at Los Angeles, California, the pope is spoken of
as " the pontiff-king of more than two hundred milhons of 'every tribe and
tongue and nation.' " And protests like these were gathered into a single
sheet, and sent to the pope. In reference to another great demonstration,
in Minnesota, where an immense multitude pledged "their lives, if need be,
to restore the sovereign pontiff to his rightful throne," and drive "from the
sacred city the hirelings of the tyrant robber," it was said, in the same paper,
"Those resolutions may seem to some to sound like bombast; and, in
deed, there is reason to think so now, when the rights of Catholic American
citizens can be outraged in Rome without incurring the displeasure of our

112 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
has information enough to know that his hope and expecta^
tions are chiefly based upon the fact that there is no other
place in the world, except under the protection of Protest
ant toleration, where the papal defenders possess the free
dom necessary to avow the principles of the papacy with
out molestation, and without incurring such opposition from
governments and peoples as has already dealt it a death
blow in every Roman Catholic country in Europe. Un
doubtedly, he relies upon this toleration, as opening a broad
field for papal operations ; and hence the exceeding activity
of his hierarchy in the United States in executing the task
he has assigned them. Pius IX. has none of the private
vices of Gregory XVI. and many other popes to answer for,
his purity of life being freely admitted on all hands ; but he
is none the less ambitious on that account, none the less un
der Jesuit control, and none the less resolved upon employ
ing all his pontifical power to strike down every thing, and
to abrogate every constitution and law, which stands in the
way of the complete triumph of papal absolutism over the
world. Evidences of this abound in all the history of his
pontificate since his first flight from Rome to escape the
vengeance of his Roman Catholic subjects.
While assigning these purposes to the pope and his hie
rarchs, however, we should not iail to keep in mind the dis
tinction between Roman Catholicism, as a system of relig
ion, and the papacy, as an all-absorbing religio- political
power, founded upon human ambition. Nor should we for
get that distinction which exists to a great extent, especial
ly in the United States, between intelligent Roman Catholic
laymen and the priesthood. There are thousands of these
laymen who do not and can not, in their consciences, ap
prove of all that is done and said in behalf of papal suprem
acy in this country, in any other sense than as they suppose
it to involve the mere triumph of their religious belief over
all opposing forms of faith. They believe Protestantism to

present rulers. But the day may not be far distant when we may have again,
as we had before, a President in Washington who will protect those riqhts.
And then we will show those people that we mean something more than simply
putting resolutions on paper."— New York Freeman's Journal February 4th,
1871.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIESTS AND LAYMEN. 113
be error, and all its forms of religion to be false ; and yet,
in return for its toleration to them, would be perfectly will
ing to extend like toleration to it, even where they had the
power to withhold it. But these men, good and faithful cit
izens in all respects, suffer themselves to occupy a false posi
tion, by allowing their acquiescence in that to which their
judgment does not assent, to be inferred from the silence
which the papacy imposes upon them. But the priesthood,
especially the Jesuit part of them, compose an entirely dis
tinct and different class. They are educated, instructed,
drilled, and set apart for the special work in which they are
engaged, with no other thoughts to occupy their minds and
no other earthly objects to accomplish. They are the serv
ants of the papacy, in the same sense in whicb a slave is the
servant of his master, and are indebted to the pope for all
the enormous power they employ. They swear obedience
and submission to him as the infallible " Vicar of Christ ;"
and perfectly well understand that if they failed to render
this obedience and submission to the full extent demanded
by him, their official robes would be instantaneously stripped
off. They are simply a band of ecclesiastical office-holders,
held together by the " cohesive power " of a common ambi
tion, as compactly as an army of soldiers ; and are governed
by a commander-in-chief whose brow they would adorn for
ever with a kingly crown, and who wields the papal lash
over them with imperial threatenings. All these, with ex
ceptions, if any, too few to be observed, are laboring, with
wonderful assiduity, to educate the whole membership of
their Church up to the point of accepting, without hesita
tion or inquiry, all the Jesuit teachings in reference to the
papacy, as a necessary and indispensable part of their relig
ious faith ; so that whensoever the papal order shall be is
sued, they may march their columns, unbroken, into the pa
pal army. These are they who write books, pamphlets, and
tracts, and fill the columns of their newspapers with fulsome
and blasphemous adulation of the pope, applying to him
terms which are due only to God, all devoted to the object
of exterminating Protestantism, civil and religious, and ex
tending the sceptre of the papacy over the world. They
manufacture, to order, the literature of Romanism, and tax

114 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
their ingenuity to the utmost to make it, in all its varia
tions, centre in these grand designs. Examples are innumer
able, and almost any one of them, selected from the multi
tude, is an index to the remainder.
In 1862, a Jesuit priest, the Rev. F. X. Weninger, made
what he chose to designate "an appeal to candid Ameri
cans," on the subject of "Protestantism and Infidelity," which
is the offensive title to his book. He represented himself as
having been engaged for thirteen years " as a Catholic mis
sionary througbout the United States," and, consequently,
as having had extraordinary opportunities of observing the
character and habits of our Protestant population, as well as
having become familiar with the working of our institutions.
These facts were stated, of course, to give weight and au
thority to his opinions ; for while he professed to be address
ing Protestants, but few of whom would see his book, he
was, with true Jesuit cunning, really addressing the mem
bers of his own Church, with the design of convincing them
that Protestantism is already a failure, so as to stimulate
them to renewed activity in their exertions to repress and
exterminate it.
He scarcely enters upon his subject before announcing
that "Protestantism is ending in the desolation of heathen
ism;" that is, that we, in this country, are fast becoming pa
ganized, as the result of our total want of religion or of any
religious convictions. Then, in contrast to this alarming
condition into which we have been plunged by our infidel
ity, he points us to Roman Catholicism as furnishing the
only means of making us acquainted, personally, with Christ.
He says: "The real presence of Jesus Christ makes a heaven
of every Catholic Church on the whole earth," for there he
can be conversed with " face to face," every day and every
hour.(12) He blasphemously insists that "in holy commun
ion Jesus enters our interior, really and substantially, body
and soul;"(13) and that Protestantism, having robbed us of
all this consolation, has left us "no better off than infidels
and Jews."(14) Hence he found no difficulty in concluding
(") "Protestantism and Infidelity," by Weninger, pp. 38, 39.
(13) Ibid., p. 47. («) Md., p. 49.

PROTESTANTISM DENOUNCED. 115
that " the only consolation Protestantism as such has to of
fer, is a wicked one — sin, but believe ;"(1B) his over-anxiety
to assail Protestantism rendering him oblivious to the fact
that his own Church, and the order to which he belongs,
both teach that popes and priests may sin, and yet remain
the infallible representatives of God ; and may be guilty of
all the impurities of life, and yet administer, infallibly, all
the sacraments ofthe Church !(16)
As if he were an oracle whose opinions were not to be
questioned, he says, "Protestantism leads to despair, be
cause it denies f ree-will."(") That it is " a religion of im
morality."^*) That it is " a religion of disorder and despot
ism."^') That it is "a religion of blasphemy." '(") That it
" came from licentious, apostate priests and monks, and from
despotic, licentious sovereigns."^1) That it "is dead."(")
That it cherishes "a reckless disposition to calumniate." (")
That "modern civilization does not spring from Protestant
ism."^') And that infidelity is the " last logical consequence
of Protestantism." (")
All the counts in this formidable indictment are so drawn
as to display the skill and ingenuity of a criminal prosecu
tor; of one who has had experience in all the formalities of
arraignment. They were designed, undoubtedly, to stimu
late the ardor of tbe papal followers, in their efforts to re
move all this irreligion out of the way ; and, possibly, to
cause all timid-minded Protestants to shudder at the thought
ofthe rapidity with which they were hastening to destruc
tion. He rolled these terrible accusations, like a sweet mor
sel, under his tongue, and, at every repetition of them, sharp
ened the point of his pen, that he might give them irresisti
ble and convincing force. He made his real . object, how
ever, more apparent as he proceeded; and, in. the, midst of
an enumeration of "Protestant prejudices," whicb he felt it

(M) "Protestantism and Infidelity," by Weninger, p. 11.
(16) " Catechism of the Council of Trent, "pp. 73, 74.
(") "Protestantism and Infidelity," by Weninger, p. 85.
(18) Ibid., p. 90. (») Ibid., p. 93. (") Ibid., p. 96.
H Ibid., p. 102. (") Ibid., p. 150. (M) Ibid., p. 213.
(a») Ibid. , p. 252. 06) Ibid. , p. 278.

116 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
his duty to overcome, he expressed his pent-up feelings in
these words :
" One of the most glorious enterprises for the Catholic
Church to engage in at this day is the conversion of the
United States to the Catholic faith." (?°)
Now, if the consummation of this object were sought for
in the field of fair discussion, without any dogmatic assump
tion of superiority on the part of either adversary, each re
maining the equal of the other, according to the spirit of
our institutions, all Protestant Christians would, in true char
ity, hail Roman Catholicism as a desirable auxiliary in the
work and duty of evangelizing, not merely the United States,
but the World. The Roman Catholic Church, stripped of
the influence of Jesuitism and brought back to its early pu
rity, would possess the capacity to perform a most glorious
part in such an achievement. But no such liberal idea as
this finds any place in the mind of this author, or of any
other Jesuit, or of any of those who submit to their dicta
tion. From such men liberalism finds no quarter. They
exhibit nothing higher or nobler than that supercilious air
of imagined superiority, which roots out every generous fac
ulty of the mind, and leaves its possessor an object of min
gled pity and contempt. Thus impressed, and fearing that
he would fail in rallying the militia of the Church to the sup
port of the papacy if he did not speak plainly in defense of
the temporal sovereignty of the pope over the whole world,
this infatuated Jesuit thus declares :
" Iu the ceremonies for the installation of a new pope, he
is addressed in these words : ' Noveris te urbis et orbis con-
stitutum esse rectorum. Remember that thou art placed on
the throne of Peter as the ruler of Rome and the world.'' "(")
In order, however, to make his Roman Catholic readers
familiar with the manner in which the pope would rule the
world, when the power to do so was secured to him, he had,
a little while before, addressed a threat of vengeance to the
Protestants of the United States, in order that they might
experience a wholesome dread of their approaching doom in

(*") "Protestantism and Infidelity," by Weninger p 270
(") Ibid., p. 259.

THREATS OF PERSECUTION. 117
time to avoid it by penitence and submission. After defend
ing the Roman Inquisition as a necessary part of ecclesias
tical organization, and coupling his reference to it with the
Protestant complaint of the unmerited persecution of Gali
leo, he says:
" Protestants would do better never to mention Galileo, in
order that we may not, in our turn, be forced to inquire into
their own excesses of religious hatred." '(28)
This is such an exhibition of cool audacity as we seldom
meet with. Here is a foreign priest, sheltered by our laws,
who clinches his fist, and shakes it in our faces, daring to tell
us that we will " do better " to let the car of the papacy,
with Jesuit conductors, roll unresistingly over us ; for if we
do not, we shall be punished, after the manner of Galileo, for
our " excesses of religious hatred !" He writes in admiring
contemplation of Roman ecclesiasticism, which recognizes
external power as necessary to a perfect plan of church or
ganization — the power to coerce obedience when other means
are unavailing, to resort to force whenever the pope shall
decree its necessity. Pope Pius IX. had already committed
himself to this system of policy, in submitting to the domi
nation of the Jesuits ; and they, in their turn, were prepar
ing the faithful for the bold avowals of the Syllabus, which,
only two years afterward, startled all the civilized nations.
And the time selected by this author to do his part of this
work in the United States displayed admirable sagacity and
tact. When his book made its appearance, our country was
laboring in the travail of a fearful civil war. Immense ar
mies were in the field, marshaled against each other in the
most deadly conflict. It seemed doubtful which of the con
tending parties would win the final victory — whether the
defenders of the Government would win or lose it. The
doubtful nature of the contest ; the apparent difference of
opinion in reference to its result, even in the States support
ing the Union; and other combinations of circumstances too
recent to have been forgotten — all conspired to excite in the
minds of European imperialists the hope, and, possibly, the
belief, that the days of our civil institutions were numbered,

(2e) "Protestantism and Infidelity," by Weninger, p. 249.

118 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
and could not be lengthened out much longer. Foremost
among these royalists was " the favorite son of the Church "
— the corrupt and false-hearted Emperor of the French —
who, with one hand, ruled his subjects with unmitigated
severity; while, with the other, he held the pope upon his.
temporal throne, from which, but for him, he would have
been hurled by the outraged Italians after the battle of Sol-
ferino. With this perfidious monarch, it was a fixed habit
to profess one thing, while doing, or trying to do, another.
At the moment he announced that " the empire is peace,"
he was engaged in corrupting schemes designed to give per
petuity to absolutism. With him and the pope the thought
was a common one that kings govern by divine right, and,
therefore, that the choice of their own mode of civil govern
ment by the people is in violation of God's law. Neither of
them stopped to inquire what popular right would be tram
pled down by the re-establishment of this principle among
those who had resisted and repudiated it ; nor how much it
would block up the way in which the car of progress was so
triumphantly moving. These were matters they considered
fit only for revolutionists and heretics, who, for daring to as
sert the right of mankind to self-government, were denounced
as Protestants and infidels, and cut off, by bulls of excommu
nication, from all the sacraments and protection ofthe Church.
This unity of purpose and principle on the part of Napoleon
and the pope led, without difficulty, to the adoption of a
common plan of operations, which required no formal con
cordat to define its terms, whereby it was intended to secure
the triumph of imperialism, and to plant the flag of the "Lat
in race" in every nation of the earth, especially in the United
States, where, under the tolerance of Protestantism, Jesuit
ism was growing bolder every day. The plans of operation
were, doubtless, well understood by the army of the hie
rarchy, which was first put in motion. They constituted the
skirmish-line, the advance-guard, of the strong columns held
in reserve. The special duty assigned them was akin to
that performed by this Jesuit author of " Protestantism and
Infidelity" — the arraignment of Protestantism as a fraud
and a cheat, as infidelity and heresy, and, therefore, with the
curse of God resting upon it — and thus to prepare the Ro-

EFFORTS TO SUBJUGATE THE UNITED STATES. 119
man Catholic mind throughout the world for that fatal blow
which the imperial conspirators expected to strike. To Na
poleon III. was assigned the more dangerous and exposed,
but not the more active, duty of augmenting the strength of
despotism when the fall of our institutions should clear the
chief obstruction out of the way. Accordingly, he intrigued
with England and Spain to unite their armies with tha^t of
France, and send the combined force to Mexico, under the
false pretense of protecting their mutual pecuniary interests,
but with the real design, as subsequent events abundantly
proved, of subjugating that country, already Roman Catho
lic, of placing its crown upon the head of an alien prince,
and thus to prepare, upon the fall of our Government, to
move up the papal armies from Mexico to the United States,
and turn over this country to the " Latin race," so that Rome
should again become " the mistress of the world," and its
pope-king the ruler over the whole earth 7(29) The enterprise
was of grand proportions ; but it so happens that God dis
poses of the schemes of men as is most suited to his own
providential government. Protestant England, discovering
how she had been deceived and duped by the intrigue, with
drew her army in disgust. Roman Catholic Spain, becoming
sensible ofthe inferiority into which the papacy had reduced
her, and beginning to feel newly invigorated by the princi-
(29) What Pius IX. expected to gain for the papacy will be seen by a let
ter, subsequently written by him to Maximilian, instructing him as to his
duty. He said :
" Your majesty is well aware that, in order effectually to repair the evils
occasioned by the revolution, and to bring back as soon as possible happy
days for the Church, the Catholic religion must, above all things, continue to
be the glory and the main-stay of the Mexican nation, to the exclusion of ev
ery other dissenting worship ; that the bishops must be perfectly free in the
exercise of their pastoral ministry ; that the religious orders should be re-es
tablished, or reorganized, conformably with the instructions and the powers
which we have given ; that the patrimony of the Church, and the rights
which attach to it, may be maintained and protected ; that no person may ob
tain the faculty of teaching and publishing false and subversive tenets; that
instruction, whether public or private, should be directed and watched over
by the ecclesiastical authority; and that, in short, the chains may be broken
which, up to the present time, have held down the Church in a state of de
pendence, and subject to the arbitrary rule of the civil government. "—App le-
tons' Annual Cyclopaedia, 1865, p. 749.

120 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
pies which prevail among the Protestant nations, followed
the example of England, expelled her profligate Roman Cath
olic queen, and advanced herself so far toward Protestant
ism as to establish freedom of religious thought, in the face
of papal remonstrances and protests. Napoleon, left alone,
floundered for a while like a drowning man. He suffered
poor Maximilian, his royal dupe, to be cut off in his young
manhood, and caused his beautiful wife to pine away in insan
ity ; and at last his army was driven out of Mexico, he him
self was compelled to flee from France, his sword was bro
ken, his diadem lost, and his name held in such universal ex
ecration by the French people that he dared not, for months
before his death, leave bis Protestant asylum to brave their
indignation. Even the proud and gallant nation over which
he ruled was betrayed into tbe burial of its national glory in
a grave dug by a Protestant rival. The Latin race, so late
ly entering, with high hopes, upon the conquest of the world,
was humbled and humiliated before its Teutonic enemy.
The kingly crown has been snatched from the brow of the
pope by Roman Catholic hands, and he is now sending forth
his piteous clamors for revenge, hoping to arrest the march
of the world's progress by rousing up some modern " Peter
the Hermit," who will lead another crusade and sacrifice
millions more of human lives to win his royalty again. And
the Protestant institutions of the United States yet exist.
The foundation-stones remain solidly planted. The flac of
the nation floats over all its territory. No star is missing
from its folds. Does it not seem that God is on our side ?
— that, if our Protestantism is infidelity and heresy, and
Roman Catholicism the only true religion, instead of Prot
estantism advancing and the papacy going down into the
grave, the very reverse order of things would have trans
pired? With these evidences of Providential guardianship,
we may confidently hope for protection from papal and im
perial aggression, unless we shall become indifferent to our
destiny, forget our manhood, and fail in our duty to the in
stitutions with which we have been blessed.
But although these enemies of our civil institutions have
been thus discomfited, the pope is not disposed to abandon
the contest. He struggles on like a brave man. Notwith-

DEADLY CONFLICT WITH PROTESTANTISM. 121
standing he is deprived of the support of such princely allies
as gave victory to so many of his predecessors, he carries on
the war with his ecclesiastical troops, upon whose devotion
and blind submission he knows he can always rely, because
they must become the sharers with him in whatsoever tem
poral power their combined exertions may win. At his
summons of them by the Encyclical and Syllabus, he an
nounced the extent to which he expected them to go in op
posing all liberalism and progress; and the sentiments and
opinions thus avowed by him have entered into all the lit
erature of the hierarchy, and compose one of its leading
and most important features. The war carried on by this
means is not the less dangerous because it is covert and in
sidious. The book from which the last quotations were made was
written before the Encyclical and Syllabus, and when the
French army was in Mexico, with the Roman Catholic priest
hood of that country in full concert with it. But the author
evidently considered that he had thereby but partly per
formed his task. Consequently, he has since made another
effort to instruct the Roman Catholic conscience in reference
to the duty of obedience to the pope, who is now expected
to achieve by ecclesiasticism what Napoleon could not win
by arms. His first work should be considered as merely a
preface to the last, the two being required to fully develop
the papal and imperial system. In 1869, after the Ency
clical and Syllabus, and in preparation for the Ecumenical
Council, he published his second book, with this imposing
title, " On the Apostolic and Infallible Authority ofthe Pope,
when teaching the Faithful, and on his Relation to a General
Council." As a Jesuit, he could not, of course, do otherwise
than assert the infallibility of the pope ; and hence there are
scattered about, at numerous places throughout his book,
and in the midst of flagrant perversions of history, such
avowals of his object as leave no doubt about it. In the in
troduction he characterizes Protestantism and Roman Ca
tholicism as " the armies of truth and error" and says that
these armies "are drawn up in the sight ofthe whole world,
and prepared to meet in a decisive combat, for the very life
of Christianity. It is time to define our position more accu-

122 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
rately, and to let our enemies feel our strength, and the utter
impossibility of engaging us in any compromise." (3°)
These are brave words, bravely delivered. They are like
the utterances of one who feels that his feet rest upon solid
ground, and who knows the power in reserve behind him.
Designed, primarily, to stimulate the courage of those to
whom they were specially addressed, it may have been
hoped, at the same time, that some timid Protestants might
be startled by them. But for fear of failure in the first of
these objects, he proceeds, soon after, to instruct the faithful
upon the duty of obedience. He says :
"The pope teaches and defines, without previously con
voking a council, or asking the formal consent of any body ;
and the clergy of every order, as well as laymen of every con
dition, are obliged to conform, and do conform, precisely
as Pius IX., in his capacity of head of the Church, so teaches
and defines."(31)
One, and far the most important, of his methods of estab
lishing this papal sovereignty, is by showing what the popes
themselves have said and done in reference to it. On the
assumed ground of their infallibility and incapacity to err,
he lays down the foregoing as the law of the Cburch, to
which every Roman Catholic is " obliged to conform," no
matter what shall be required of him, under the penalty of
excommunication and eternal punishment. He, looks no far
ther than Rome, and looks there for every thing. With him,
God has established no other mode of making his will known
to mankind than through the mouth of the pope. When he
speaks, God speaks. And when he comes to notice the deal
ings ofthe popes with emperors, kings, and princes — that is,
with governments foreign to the papal states — he gives
prominence only to such examples as tend to show their su
premacy over mankind ; cautiously passing by such as show
its frequent and spirited denial. All these examples he re
gards as having entered into, and as now constituting, an es
sential part of the law ofthe Church, which is to be observed,
in our day, with implicit obedience. They are so nearly
(30) "The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope," etc., by We
ninger, p. 11. (=') Ibid., p." 14.

ROYAL EXAMPLES OF SUBMISSION COMMENDED. 123
alike that a few of them will enable us to understand suffi
ciently the nature and foundation of this extraordinary claim
of authority, to which we are so kindly invited to become
subject. Pope Boniface IV. wrote to King Athelbert of England
as follows:
" If any king succeeding, or any bishop, clergyman, or
laic, shall essay to infringe the decrees of the popes, he
should incur the anathema of Peter and of all his succes
sors."^) Louis the Pious, son of Charlemagne, submitted the divis
ion of his empire to the confirmation of the pope ; and, says
this author, " from that time it became the usage and prac
tice that the Franco-Roman and German emperors became
such only with the consent of the Roman pontiff, and on be
ing crowned by him. Nor was this the case with the em
perors of the West alone, for the kings of England, Poland,
Hungary, Croatia, Sweden, and Denmark loved to receive
their crowns at his hands, and to place their dominions un
der the especial guarantee and protection of the Holy See."(*s)
Somebody has said that the doctrine of the common-law
lawyers, that precedent makes tbe law, is a very danger
ous one, because, by means of it, error may often obtain
sanction. This is undoubtedly the case with these papal
precedents ; for if they are to be recognized now as confer
ring rights which are not to be called in question, then all
dispute is at an end, for " Rome has spoken !" It is alone
by these precedents that this comprehensive authority of
tbe popes is maintained, and it is for this purpose alone that
these references are made by this author. True, he avoids
any direct discussion of "the question of political right,"
yet takes care to let the papal followers understand that
these examples prove it also to belong to the pope, because,
in the instances cited, all " the peoples and princes " regard
ed him " as the vicar of Christ and the supreme arbiter of all
on earth, according to the saying, ' He who is competent to
the greater is also competent to the less ;' "(S4) that is, he
(**) "The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope," etc. , by We
ninger, p. 226. (aa) Ibid., pp. 228, 229. C") Ibid., p. 229.

124 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
who derives his right to govern in spiritual things directly
from God, must govern also in temporal things, because the
spiritual are greater and higher than the temporal. He
sbows this to be his meaning by telling us what Count de
Maistre teaches on this subject in his " Essai sur les Mceurs,"
where he says that all the Christian princes considered the
pope "to be a judge between them and their people;" and also
by quoting, with approbation, what the same author says in
his " Essai sur l'Histoire Generale," as follows :
"The interests of mankind demand a bridle by which
princes may be restrained and the people saved. This bri
dle might by common consent be placed in the hands of the
Roman pontiff. Such a high-priest, mingling in worldly con
flicts only to silence them, admonishing alike the sovereign
and his people of their duties, condemning their crimes, and
visiting his excommunication on great wrongs, would be
looked upon as the living representative and likeness of God
upon the earth." (3i)
In support of this theory of the pope's temporal right to
exercise dominion over the world, so as to mingle " in world
ly conflicts," and keep mankind to the line " of their duties,"
accordingly as he shall decide what is right and what is
wrong, he also cites numerous instances to show that, for
many years, emperors and kings recognized it in relation to
themselves and their subjects, and gloried in their humilia
tion. He gives special prominence to the case of Henry II.
of England, who was " obliged " to prostrate himself before
the pontifical throne, and submit to the decrees of the pope.
And also to that of Frederick Barbarossa, who was forced
" by the heavy hand of God to bow his head and sue for
pardon."(38) And to enforce his views still more strongly,
as well as to give the utmost influence to the precedents by
which he endeavors to establish the temporal authority of
the pope, he quotes from an address to him by the " Queeu
motber of Richard the Lion-hearted," wherein she said :
" Did not the Lord confer plenitude of power on Peter, and
on you through him ? Blessed be the Lord who gave such

(%) "The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope," etc., by We
ninger, p. 230. (») 2bid., pp. 235, 236.

THE CROSS SUPERIOR TO THE SWORD. 125
power to men, that no king, no emperor, no duke can with
draw himself from its jurisdiction. The prince ofthe apostles
still governs in his see, and a judicial power is constituted
in our midst. Draw, then, the sword of Peter. The Cross of
Christ takes precedence ofthe Imperial Eagles, and the Sword
of Peter goes before that of Constantine."^)
He also considers it important to show that this doctrine,
so earnestly recommended for adoption in this country, and
by which all the world would be necessarily and unavoida
bly placed under the rule of the papacy, had the sanction of
other emperors and kings, including Philip and Frederick IL,
of Germany ; Philip II., St. Louis, Louis XL, Charles VIII.,
Henry IV., Louis Xin., and Louis XIV., of France; and Hen
ry VII., Henry VIII., and Mary, of England. (S8) How faith
fully he follows the course of a lawyer in a common- law
court, who lays down his premises and supports them by
showing that numerous judges have made decisions ofthe
like character. And yet it seems not to have occurred to
him that he is attempting a task of difficult achievement ;
that is, to make the people of the United States, including
numbers of Roman Catholics, believe that imperialism, even
in its mildest form, is preferable to the political liberty they
now enjoy. In every instance he has referred to, including
popes, emperors, kings, and princes, the parties were united
in their exertions to establish the " divine right " of kings to
rule the world, in opposition to the right of the people to
govern themselves, and solely with the selfish motive of con
tinuing their own power. None of them had the slightest
regard for the rights of the people, and all supposed, as the
defenders of the papacy now do, that the people were made
to be governed, not to govern, and that they required, as Dr.
Brownson says, a master! They were all personally inter
ested in doing exactly what they did, in order to keep their
crowns safely upon their heads ; and, considered unitedly,
they were conspirators against human freedom. If now we
are to recognize what they did and said, as establishing a law
for our government, we might, with like propriety and by
(37) "The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope," etc., by We
ninger, p. 236. (38) Ibid. , pp. 237-245.

126 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
the same process of reasoning, justify the most abominable
and demoralizing vices, by showing, what it would be easy
to show, that they were all, including some of the popes,
adepts in almost every form of corruption. At the times
when these examples were set, the bulk of the European peo
ple were in a state of profound ignorance, and it was essen
tial to the " divine rigbt" of absolutism that they should be
kept so ; for, in their ignorance, they were taught by ambi
tious, cunning, and corrupt priests to believe that the pope
was equal to God. While this delusion existed, they dared
not resist a king or prince, however tyrannical, who had the
pope's indorsement ; for that would have been considered a
violation of God's commands, and punished by excommuni
cation and anathema. Hence, these kings and princes were
careful to obtain this indorsement, and the popes were equal
ly careful to see that the light of intelligence was shut out
from the popular mind, so that, by a continuance of the delu
sion, they could share between themselves the government
ofthe whole civilized world. They must be bold and pre
sumptuous men who ask us, as these Jesuit missionaries do,
to exchange the present condition of our affairs for that they
so fondly picture — to undo what the people, acting for them
selves, have so nobly done in resistance to misgovernment
and tyranny, and plunge, in blind submission, and at a sin
gle bound, back again into mediaeval times.
When Luther, at the Diet of Worms, demanded to debate
his thesis with the emissaries of the pope, he struck a ter
rible blow at the doctrine of passive obedience ; which it is
now sought, with so much earnestness, to revive. Whatever
may have been his religious belief — and no Protestants of
this day are responsible for it — he then became the cham
pion of free thought, and, as such, courageously planted him
self on the side of the people, and between them and their
oppressors. On that simple basis, he laid the foundation
upon which a magnificent fabric has since been reared, and
he who now attempts to pull it down should be treated as a
public enemy by all free people. By his example, he taught
the people to think, and reason, and investigate for them
selves. The scales fell gradually from their eyes, and they
came to realize the character and nature of the popish and

PAPAL OPPOSITION TO POPULAR GOVERNMENT. 127
princely tricks by which they had been cheated out of their
liberty; and at last roused themselves up into a vigorous
and robust manhood. They snapped asunder the chains of
their servitude, and asserted, in the face of their rulers, those
great liberties which were never firmly established as legal
rights until the Government ofthe United States was formed,
and Protestantism was thereby enabled to achieve a full de
velopment. Protestantism has, therefore, become the spe
cial guardian of these liberties; while the papacy remains,
as ever, their deadly and malignant foe. The former clings
to them with undiminished affection ; the latter aims at them
its most deadly blows. The Roman Catholic hierarchy of
the United States join in with this insatiate hostility, and
are leaving no stone unturned in their efforts to persuade
their adherents to return to the old order of things. Their
greatest and strongest argument is that repeated by Dr.
Weninger — because these iniquitous compacts between popes
and kings, in past centuries, have made it the law of the Ro
man Catholic Church that every human being should be
governed by "the King of Rome," as God's representative;
therefore, the modern and progressive idea that the people
shall make their own governments and laws is infidelity and
heresy, and deserves the anathema of the Church and the
curse of God ! And presuming upon either the submissive
ness or ignorance, or both, of those who are called " the faith
ful," they assert their authority to command in the name of
the pope, with a supercilious air which can only arise from
an imagined superiority to the remainder of mankind. Dr.
Weninger is a distinguished and conspicuous member of this
class, and, with seeming assurance of obedience, he exclaims :
" Yes, the Catholic world at large, without any difference
of nationality, hemisphere, or zone, acknowledges also in our
times, by an interior conviction of faith, the apostolic see as
the highest tribunal on earth in matters of faith, and the
Roman pontiff to be the infallible teacher of the faithful
peoples on the globe."(S9)
It can not fail to arrest attention that, in whatsoever mode
(39) " The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope," etc., by We
ninger, p. 247.

128 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
the writers of this class speak of the pope, they all reach the
same result — the omnipotent power of the papacy, aud its
absolute incapacity to do any thing wrong. When they
speak of " matters of faith," as this author does, they intend
to include the temporalities of government, and such civil
and political rights as American Protestantism has guaran
teed. This has already partially appeared, but it will be
seen more undeniably hereafter. It has also been demon
strated that the papacy teaches that Protestantism is her
esy and infidelity, no religion at all, a mockery of God ; and,
therefore, this Jesuit author teaches that all Roman Cath
olics are bound, by duty to " the highest tribunal on earth,"
to exterminate it, and to plant Roman Catholicism in its
place ; so that the pope, as the only " infallible teacher,"
shall prescribe the laws and institutions we are to obey, and
appoint his ecclesiastical officers and agents to see that they
are executed, to reward the faithful and punish the refrac
tory and disobedient.
Why are books containing these and other kindred teach
ings published and circulated in the United States ? Why
is it necessary to fix such principles in the minds of the Ro
man Catholic part of our population ? What have they, as
citizens of the United States, to do with such royal exam
ples as these books set before them ? with the claims of au
thority asserted, centuries ago, by emperors, kings, princes,
and popes ? Protestantism tried hard to exist among these
tyrants, but could not, except in a modified and imperfect
form, because it could not reach its consummation where
political bondage existed ; and these imperial despots could,
none of them, live in the atmosphere of freedom. Each re
quired congenial nourishment suited to its nature ; Protest
antism demanding liberty, and imperialism bondage. And,
therefore, Protestantism sought a new world, and left the
absolutism of popes and kings in possession of the old, to
oppress, persecute, and tyrannize, under the plea of " divine
right." It occupied a field which Providence had preserved
for it, wherein it could work out its own results without
fear of a rival. But now, when in the full tide of success
ful progress, it finds itself confronted by its old enemy, who
has grown up here under its protection; and who, just as

THE SOCIETY OF JESUS IN THE UNITED STATES. 129
imperialism is threatened with destruction in all Southern
and Western Europe, is endeavoring, with unbounded impu
dence, to destroy it, at the risk of an angry and deadly con
flict between the principles of democracy and those of mon
archy. And with no less unbounded effrontery, it points us
to the combinations of despots, to their impious claims of
divine sanction for all the wrongs and outrages they have
inflicted on mankind, and to the approbation given them by
crowned popes, to prove that precedents thus furnished have
ripened into rights which the world must recognize as sanc
tioned of God, and which have thereby become the law for
the government of mankind. For such a work as this the
hierarchy of the United States seem well and peculiarly pre
pared by education and inclination. It remains to be seen,
hereafter, how many submissive followers they can enlist
under the papal banner, with mottoes like these upon it. In
the mean time, those who have the heritage of Protestant
ism to guard and defend should not be unmindful of the
triumphs it has already won, the brilliant future lying before
it, if preserved ; and the ignominious grave into which it
must sink, if lost.

130 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.

CHAPTER V.
The Pope's Infallibility makes him a Domestic Prince in all Nations.— The
Popes never Exceeded the Limits of their Authority. — The Temporal Pow
er Divinely Conferred as Part of the Spiritual.— The Pope to be King ev
erywhere.— No Right of Complaint against Him. — First Dogmatic Consti
tution of the Late Council.— Decree of the Pope's Infallibility.— Archbish
op Manning's Definition of It.— It gives the Pope whatever Authority he
Claims.— It is a Personal Privilege.— It confers Coercive Power upon the
Pope. — The Present Governments are Dissolving. — The Syllabus alone
will save them.
It is not probable that any candid man, whatever his at
tachment to particular creeds or church organizations, will
be disposed to deny that the Roman Catholic profession of
faith, even as settled by the anti-reform Council of Trent,
contains much that is satisfactory to the Christian mind.
In so far as it lays down the fundamentals of Christian faith,
it is unexceptionable, even to the most extreme and rigid
Protestants. But when it goes beyond these and gathers
up different dogmas of the post-Nicene period, which have
been put forward from time to time for the purpose of get
ting away from the teachings of the apostolic fathers, and
building up the papal system, its defenders can not reasona
bly expect that, in this age, it will escape the investigation of
Protestant communities, compelled, as they now are, to de
fend themselves against papal aggression. But even these
might have been left to the exclusive domain of theology,
had not the introduction of the new doctrine of the pope's
infallibility exposed conspicuously to the surface that polit
ical feature of the papal system which, although known to
have long existed, has been both concealed and denied in
all Protestant countries.
The last chapter pointed out the extent and comprehen
siveness of this infallibility, as it was claimed by the Jes
uits to exist, before the decree of the late Lateran Council.
Even if the investigation of it were to stop at this point, it

DUTY OF OBEDIENCE TO THE POPE. 131
would sufficiently appear to any thoughtful mind that it sets
up for the pope full authority to deal with the temporalities
of the world, to dictate the policy and regulate the affairs
of governments, and to step in between the citizen and the
civil institutions to which be owes allegiance. But the sub
ject is so fruitful of inquiry, that it would require many vol
umes to exhaust it, each step making the design more ap
parent. A work was, not long ago, republished and circulated in
the United States, which is stamped with " the approbation
ofthe Lord Bishop of Beverly," in England, by way of giving
it ecclesiastical authority. The American hierarchy mani
festly consider this book an important auxiliary in propaga
ting the true faith. It has this imposing and attractive ti
tle, "His Holiness Pope Pius IX. and the Temporal Rights of
the Holy See, as involving Religious, Social, and Political In
terests of the Whole World." The perusal of it will not only
show with what intense earnestness the cause ofthe papacy
is defended, but explain the grounds upon which that de
fense is rested. Its avowals are so clearly and frankly made
as to entitle the author to our respect on account of bis can
dor, however much we may disagree with and resist his the
ory. Not content with treating of the temporal power of
the pope, merely in its religious and social aspects, the au
thor asserts that it is " most intimately connected " also with
the political interests and affairs of mankind. (') With his
mind fully impressed by this idea, he declares that " our first
duty, however, is toward our most holy Pope Pius IX., who
at present so nobly fills the chair of St. Peter. "(*) Accept
ing this proposition as true, he leaves us to the logical infer
ence that we owe a secondary duty to government and so
ciety, in all those matters in whicb the pope has the right
to exact obedience of us. And to show that he so regards
it, he adopts the definition of papal supremacy given by
Pope Paul VII., in 1806, when, in answer to a summons by
Napoleon I. to surrender the. political government of Rome,
(') " His Holiness Pope Pius IX.," etc. By M. I. Rhodes, p. 11. This
book is published by D. and I. Sadlier & Co., New York, and is deemed of so
much importance that it has also been published in Boston and Montreal.
O Ibid.

132 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
he said : "It is not our will, it is the will of God, whose place
we occupy on earth!"(s) And thus the example of this pope,
who blasphemously claimed equality with God and put him
self in his place on earth, furnishes this author with apology
for maintaining " it to be the general duty of all Catholics,
whatever their country may be," and " of all men, if they did
but know it, to protect the rights of the Holy See;"(4) in
cluding, of course, his temporal and political rights ; that is,
his rights as a sovereign. Anticipating that, possibly, this
idea of allegiance to a foreign prince might excite in the
minds of some honest people the apprehension of treachery
and bad faith toward their governments, especially in Prot
estant countries, he endeavors to quiet all their scruples of
conscience by this artful and insidious argument :
" Suppose it be said, ' I acknowledge the spiritual authori
ty of the Holy Father ; but why am I, an Englishman [or
American, we may add], to come forward in apolitical way,
and use all my exertions to protect the temporal rights of a
foreign prince f My answer at once is plain. The pope
is not a foreign prince to any Christian, to any human be-
ing."(>) The reader should not pass this by too quickly ; it is wor
thy of much reflection. The last proposition is stated nega
tively, but it has an affirmative meaning ; which is, that the
pope is prince and governor over all Roman Catholics — over
every human being — no matter where or under what gov
ernment they live ! Although he resides in Rome, and is
crowned there as a "foreign prince," he is, nevertheless, a
domestic one in every country, especially where there are
Roman Catholics, because God's authority is universal, and
he is in the place of God on earth ! As the spiritual gov
ernor of the world, he is also its political governor, in so far
as political teachings are necessary to the Church, because
the greater includes the lesser ; therefore, when he finds the
faithful living under a government which denies this, and is
consequently infidel, he has the right to require that they
shall " come forward in a political way," and compel such

(3) " His Holiness Pope Pius IX.," etc., by M. I. Rhodes, p. 28
(') Ibid., pp. 47, 48. (») Ibid., p. 48.

THE POPE A DOMESTIC KING EVERYWHERE. 133
dissenting and heretical government to obey the law of God
by recognizing his supremacy, or that they shall disobey the
government when it refuses to do so ! For this purpose he
is not a foreign, but a domestic prince, having authority
from God to step in between the citizen and his govern
ment, and to require of him so to act and vote that the uni
versality of his power in all " religious, social, and political"
matters shall be established, according to the canons of the
Church! But it must not be supposed that this author is alone in
setting forth this extraordinary defense of papal sovereign
ty. It has the direct and positive sanction of Pope Pius
IX., whose voice is claimed to be as potent as that of God.
To put an end to a recent controversy between the Church
at Rome and the Armenian Christians of Cilicia, the pope
addressed to them an encyclical letter, on the 6th day of
January, 1873. These "Oriental dissidents," as he calls
them, had insisted that, in his attempt to control the ap
pointment of their bishops, and to prescribe the rules for the
management and sale of their church property, he had acted
"as a, foreign power interfering in the exterior affairs of
states and the governments of the peoples." This, he in
sists, is " calumnious," and thus defends his sovereignty :
" It is easy to understand how false and contrary to good
sense and to the divine economy of the Catholic Churcb are
all such suppositions. First, it is false that the Roman pon
tiffs have ever exceeded the limits of their power, and inter
fered in the civil administration of states, and that they
have usurped the rights of princes. If the Roman pontiffs
are exposed to this calumny because they make regulations
for the election of bishops and the sacred ministers of the
Church, and about the causes or other affairs which con
cern the ecclesiastical discipline called exterior, then, of two
things, one : either men ignore, or else they resist, the divine
and immutable organization ofthe Catholic Church. It has
ever been, and ever will remain, stable, and can not be sub
ject to change, especially in those countries where the prop
er liberty and security of the Catholic Church have been as
sured by tbe decrees of the head of the state. In fact, as it
is of faith that the Church is one, and that the Roman pon-

134 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
tiff is her head, and the father and teacher of all Christians,
he can not be called a foreigner to any Christians or to any
of the particular churches of Christians ; at least unless it
be asserted that the head is foreign to the limbs, the father
to the son, the master to the scholars, the shepherd to the
flock. "Moreover, those who hesitate not to call the Apostolic See
& foreign power rend the unity of the Church by that mode
of speech, or furnish a pretext for schism, since they thereby
deny to the successor of blessed Peter the rights of universal
pastor, and by consequence /<m7 in the faith due to the Cath
olic Church if they are of the number of her sons, or they
assail the liberty that is her due if they do not belong to her.
For our Lord Jesus Christ has manifestly made it a duty
for the sheep to know and hear the voice of the shepherd
and to follow it, and, on the contrary, to fly from ' the stran
ger, for they know not the voice of strangers.' If, then, the
sovereign pontiff be reputed extern, that is, a stranger, to
any particular churches, that church will also be a stran
ger to the Apostolic See, and, consequently, to the Catholic
Church, which is founded on the words of the Lord to Peter.
They that separate from that foundation do not retain the
divine and Catholic Church, but they are striving to make a
human church; which being held together only by the hu
man tie of nationality, as tbey say, is not any longer bound
together by means of its, priests firmly attached to the see of
Peter, and can not share in its solidity, nor be any longer in
the universally formed and indissoluble unity of the Catho
lic Church."(8)
(6) The Encyclical of Pius IX. from which the above extract is taken
will be found at length in The New York Freeman's Journal and Catholic
Register of April 19th, 1873, where it is published on account of its alleged
"permanent importance." In a previous number of the same paper, that of
April 5th, 1873, this same extract, with some verbal differences in transla
tion, was inserted, accompanied by the following editorial remarks :
" It seems hard to believe that men of sense will get frightened at the
charge that we Catholics, and our bishops, are bound to believe and to do
what the vicar of Christ commands, because this head of the Church on
earth resides not here, but in Rome ! The vicar of Christ has himself con
tinually, declared that he can not change the doctrines, nor the morals of
the Church. If what he commands is but the truth that has been from the

PIUS IX. JUSTIFIES ALL THE POPES. 135
It is deemed just to those who are now endeavoring to
convert the power of a "foreign prince" into a domestic
power in the United States, to give the precise language
of the pope, as furnished by a translation which, it is said,
has the approval of Archbishop Manning. The reader will
thereby be enabled to see the process by which this conver
sion is to take place, and the grounds of its justification.
What does Pius IX. mean when he says that no "Roman
pontiffs have ever exceeded the limits of their power, and
interfered in the civil administration of states ?" This, and
nothing less : that when they have dictated to governments,
denounced, excommunicated, and dethroned kings, resisted
constitutions and laws, and released peoples from their
oaths of allegiance, they have simply exercised their divine
authority ; because, in every instance, they were condemn
ing heresy. For this purpose, his power extends over the
whole world, and is not foreign to any government on earth.
Whatsoever, therefore, he may find it necessary to do, in
order to advance the welfare of the Church, extend its bor
ders, and provide for his own dominion as the " vicar of
Christ," he has the rightful power to do ; and, in doing it,
becomes a domestic governor in all the states. As such do
mestic governor, he has also the right to require of the faith
ful that they shall resist and put out of the way every thing,
every constitution and law, in conflict with his ideas of the
divine purpose. And in case of refusal the refractory dis
senter is to be visited with the curses of the Church, with
excommunication and anathema. All this, says the pope, is
necessary to the "proper liberty and security ofthe Catholic
Church;" and, therefore, those who do not yield to him these
extraordinary prerogatives "fail in the faith" and become
heretics and unbelievers. Hence we have the distinct an
nouncement, made ex cathedrd by the " vicar of Christ " him
self, that it is a part ofthe religious faith ofthe Church that
these prerogatives shall be conceded to him ; in other words,
beginning, what difference is it whether he resides in Rome or in Washing
ton 1 But, if another answer is wanted, the Bishop of Rome is not a for
eigner. He belongs to us, as we belong to him. Rome is not a foreign city !
It does not belong to Italy ; it belongs to all Christendom. And the pope,
residing in Rome, is not an alien from any of his Catholic flock !"

136 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
that he is a domestic governor throughout all the^ United
States, that all the faithful are bound to obey him in what
soever shall concern the Church, and that if there be any
thing in our constitutions or laws adverse to the Church, in
his opinion, he has the divine right to require them to resist
it by their votes or otherwise, they being bound to implicit
and uninquiring obedience ! We have already seen in how
many things the principles of our Protestant institutions are
in conflict with the teachings of the papacy, and shall here
after have occasion to see what the popes have done in other
governments in order to establish harmony between their
civil polity and the canon laws of the Church. We can
scarcely claim exemption from the charge of ignorance if
these lessons of history do not teach us wisdom.
It will be observed that the pope does not speak alone of
"the election of bishops and the sacred ministers of the
Church." If this were the only matter of controversy, all
fair-minded men would be disposed to leave it to Roman
Catholics themselves to settle the question whether this
power should belong alone to the pope, or be shared in by
them. But he goes further, and talks about "other affairs
which concern the ecclesiastical discipline called exterior;"
by which he, undoubtedly, means all those matters, of what
soever nature, whether " religious, social, or political," which
are involved in the papal policy of making every body
" firmly attached to the see of Peter." These " other af
fairs " will more distinctly appear when the nature and scope
of the doctrine of papal infallibility are understood.
Let there be no difficulty, however, at this point, about
the source of this tremendous power of the pope : a matter
which will be the subject of more minute inquiry hereafter.
The pope himself considers it as having divine sanction, not
as derived from any concessions made by human powers.
The author last quoted says the pope's temporal power " is
the natural consequence of his spiritual power,(7) which
means that wherever the pope has spiritual power he must
have political power also, because the latter is necessarily
consequent upon the former, and can not legitimately exist
(') " His Holiness Pope Pius IX.," etc., by M. I. Rhodes, p. 49.

THE POPE ABOVE ALL CIVIL POWER. 137
independent of it. And he supports this extraordinary
claim, which is also made by Pius IX. himself, by publishing
at length another papal bull issued by him in 1860 "against
the despoilers of the Church," wherein he insists that his
temporal power is derived alone from God, and is absolute
ly necessary to the Church, inasmuch as it is indispensable
to him that he shall " possess such an amount of freedom as
to be subject, in the discharge of its sacred ministry, to no
civil power /(") that is, that he must be above all govern
ments and independent of them all, and have that " amount
of freedom" and irresponsibility to constitutions and laws
which shall enable him to do as he pleases !
There is no difficulty whatever in deciding what all this
means. The author of this book and the pope mean the
same thing, and agree in tracing the temporal power to the
spiritual alone. The pope says, it is necessary for the uni
versal Church that he, as a prince, shall be subject to "no
civil power" on earth. Without this absolute independence
the Church can not, in his opinion, exist consistently with
God's decrees. The logical consequence, therefore, is this :
that wherever this Church is to be maintained, this same
political independence must exist ; for if in Rome this po
litical necessity is an essential part of religious faith, it is
equally so elsewhere. If the Church can not maintain itself
in Rome, as God requires, without having all its children
submit to this combined influence of the pope, it can not do
so in the United States without a like submission. What
ever is a necessary part of its faith at one place, is equally
so at all other places. And can it be doubted that if this
doctrine were let alone to work out its legitimate results in
this country, it would subject our institutions to perpetual
assaults on the part ofthe subjects of this "foreign prince,"
who owe their " first duty " to him ? They would do, or not
do, as he should command ; obey the laws, or not obey them,
as he should decide the welfare of the Church to require.
It would erect a papal government within that of the United
States, with rival and antagonistic powers to this extent :
that whatsoever the Government ofthe United States should
(") " His Holiness Pope Pius IX.," etc., by M. I. Rhodes, p. 139.

138 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
decide to do, not agreeable or acceptable to the pope, would
be opposed by his obedient subjects here ; who would put
their obedience to him upon the ground that he is in the
place of God, and, therefore, his word is God's law !
This author demonstrates the character ofthe papal theo
ry still further, by showing that the pope is a "king;" not
because he was ever made so by the people anywhere, even
in the papal states, but because he is pope, and, as the " head
ofthe Church," holds the papal states "for the good ofthe
Church." Therefore, he says again, " he is not a foreign
power in that sense ofthe word ;"(s) still holding fast to the
idea that the kingship of the pope is necessary wherever he
is the "head ofthe Church." The meaning is still the same
as before : that he can not be pope without being a king
also ; that although he is a " foreign prince " in so far as he
wears the crown of a foreign country, yet he is not so in any
country to his followers, who owe him the obedience of a
domestic king ; that as the Roman Catholic Church can not
exist without a pope, it can not exist without a king; and
that, wherever there are Roman Catholics, no matter under
what government, they must obey this pope-king, even at
the hazard of disobedience to the laws that protect their
persons and property, when he shall consider it necessary to
the welfare of the Church to remove these out of the way !
Hence, to illustrate the principle practically, if it were pos
sible for a Roman Catholic government to invade the Uni
ted States, in order to carry on a crusade for the destruction
of the infidelity and heresy of Protestantism, and the pope
should command all his followers here to take up arms
against the Government to aid the crusade, and thus to serve
God and tbe Church, as he would undoubtedly do if he acted
according to his professed convictions, it would be their " first
duty " to obey him, because, for such a purpose, he is not a
"foreign prince," but a domestic one, by virtue of his being
" in the place of God " on earth, and possessing the same uni
versality of authority !
It is scarcely necessary to say that, in this supposed case,
there are many thousands of Roman Catholic laymen in the
(") "His Holiness Pope Pius IX," etc., by M. I. Rhodes, p. 51.

TEMPORAL POWER CLAIMED AS DIVINE. 139
United States who would refuse to obey such a command,
were it ever issued by the pope ; for then they would real
ize how insensibly and unsuspectingly they had been drawn
along after the papal car, toward the edge of a precipice over
which they could not plunge without destruction. They
would then, as the Roman Catholic people of Italy have
done, begin to see that wherever absolutism has had its own
way, under the claim of "divine right," it has been oppress
ive and tyrannical. They would also realize that their " first
duty " was to the Government that had protected them in all
their religious, social, and political rights, which the papacy
has never done. But while there are thousands such as these,
both native and foreign-born, it can not be disguised that
the bulk, if not all, of the hierarchy, and every single Jesuit,
would obey the papal command ; or, if there should be one
refusing, he would be denounced, anathematized, and excom
municated by the pope.
See how this author clings to his favorite idea when, else
where, he thus expresses himself:
" If we take a glance at the history of the popes, we shall
see plainly how God has made temporal sovereignty a neces
sary accompaniment (I use the word " necessary " not in its
absolute, but its ordinary, sense) of their spiritual sovereign
ty, so that it grows out of it, and belongs to it, as its natural
right. In the early ages of the Church, God was pleased to
give a manifest testimony of her divine origin, by miracu
lously supporting her, and extending her limits without any
human power, and in spite of superhuman obstacles. Her
very existence, and, much more, her growth under such cir
cumstances, was a miracle ; it ceased with her infancy. When
she reached maturity, God supplied her with temporal sovereign
ty, which, though no part of her essence, is nevertheless her
natural and proper mode of action, and, as such, her right."(ltl)
What an admirable specimen of consistent and method
ical reasoning is this ! The idea that, when the Church was
weak and feeble, compelled to struggle against the powerful
pagan governments which had obtained the mastery over
the world, God left it to make its way " without any human
(10) "His Holiness Pope Pius IX.," etc., by M. I. Rhodes, pp. 52, 53.

140 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
power ;" but that, after it " reached maturity " and became
strong, it could not exist without having " temporal sover
eignty " conferred upon its popes, is, to say the least of it, a
wonderful exhibition of sagacity and originality. The truth
is, and history abundantly proves it, apart from this confes
sion, that, throughout the early ages of Christianity, when
Christians at Rome and elsewhere were known by the puri
ty of their lives, and not by mere professions, there was no
such thing as the temporal sovereignty of the popes. Each
bishop had jurisdiction over his own church, at Rome, as
well as at Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Corinth, and oth
er places. But when Constantine set the example of uniting
Church and State by supporting the Church at Rome upon
the condition that it would sustain his claim to dominion
over the Italian people, then the bishops of Rome began to
arrogate to themselves this temporal sovereignty now as
serted so earnestly. They acquired it in the end, without
regard to the number of people who were crushed to the
earth, and succeeded in placing both the spiritual and tem-
' poral sword in their hands. For hundreds of years these
swords rested but little in their scabbards, until mankind
were awakened to a sense of duty and manhood by the
great Protestant Reformation. From that time to the pres
ent, the nations have gradually thrown off the thralldom of
the papacy, and bounded into new life. Yet, with all this
experience before us, the American hierarchy are now striv
ing to bind the limbs of the American people with the rusty
chains which have been so nobly broken.
This author finds himself supported by other high author
ity — the Roman Catholic Bishop of Orleans, in France. He
represents this prelate, when speaking of the pope, and as a
monarchist, of course, to have said:
" In fact, it is necessary that his action, his will, his de
crees, his word, and his sacred person, should enjoy the full
and free exercise of authority, rising above all influences, all
interests, all human passions ; so that neither discontented
interests nor irritated passions should have even the shadow
of a right to raise complaints against him."t")

(u) "His Holiness Pope Pius IX.," etc., by M. I. Rhodes, p.

THE POPE GOD'S ONLY REPRESENTATIVE. 141
The Bishop of Orleans might as well have added that the
pope should rise above all governments too ; for this is in
volved in what he says. This author so understands him, or
he would not have spoken of the papacy as he does, when he
says: " The papacy is the soul of tbe world. It is the papacy
which preserves it from moral decay and death." " The pa
pacy is the very key-stone of Christian society ; it is the salt
of the earth ; the city on a hill ; the candle upon a candle
stick, shining before the whole world."(12)
Nor would he have republished the following from the
London Tablet, a leading papal organ in England, to show
that the destruction of the temporal power of the pope is
a " crime which merits the sentence of excommunication."
The Tablet, speaking of the loss of his kingship by the pope,
says: " It is, in other words, to dethrone the only authority upon
earth to which the Catholic can look for guidance in doubt ;
to oust of his jurisdiction the only judge whose decisions are
framed in the presence of God; to place the world above the
Church, which God has placed above the world; and to re
new under a pseudo- Christianity the desolation of pagan-
ism."(13) '
In all this we have it plainly and distinctly avowed that
the authority which the pope acquires by virtue of his pos
session of temporal power is absolutely necessary to his gov
ernment ofthe Church; and that this is the foundation of
his claim to obedience. The temporal power arising out of
the spiritual is, no less than the spiritual, of divine origin ;
and as it is this which makes the pope a king, therefore the
obedience of the faithful to him is the obedience of the sub
ject to a monarch. It must follow, consequently, that where
soever the pope does not possess this temporal power he is
not free to govern the Church as he pleases, and the Church
is not free to obey his commands. When, therefore, the pa
pal advocates in this country talk about the freedom of the
pope, the freedom of the Church, and all that sort of thing,
(1!) His Holiness Pope Pius IX.," etc., by M. I. Rhodes, pp. 128, 129.
(13) Ibid., p. 132.

142 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
they mean that the pope should have the unquestioned right
to command as a temporal prince, and that they should have
the unquestioned right to obey him, no matter what stood
in the way. His temporal power, says the London Tablet,
makes him " the only judge whose decisions are framed in
the presence of God ;" otherwise the abolition of it would be
merely a political offense, and not a crime against God, wor
thy of excommunication. If, then, it requires this temporal
power to raise the Church above the world, so that the pa
pacy may preserve it from " decay and death," the pope
must judge of temporals as well as spirituals all over the
world. Such was the doctrine of the Jesuits before the Lat
eran decree of papal infallibility was passed ; and the papa
cy is now struggling, with wonderful energy, to make it the
doctrine of the whole Roman Catholic world.
Nobody will deny that to concede the pope's infallibility
is equivalent to recognizing the obligation to do, within the
entire circle of faith and morals, whatsoever he shall com
mand to be done. All the important acts of individuals and
of society are necessarily within this circle ; so that the
whole man, in all that he does and thinks, as a social being
and a citizen, becomes, by this doctrine, subject to this obe
dience. Whatever position he may fill in any of the rela
tions of life, if he be a Christian, he acknowledges his re
sponsibility to God, and his obligation to obey his law.
That law, therefore, must regulate all his intercourse with
the world, and encompass the whole field of his duty. Hence,
as the devotee of infallibility looks to the pope alone for the
interpretation ofthe law of God, he consents to obey him in
whatsoever he shall declare it to be. He looks no farther.
He debates nothing. The pope, with him, possesses the con
centration in his own hands of all the power of heaven and
earth, and sits upon so lofty a throne that no human being
dares to challenge the integrity of his motives or the propri
ety and expediency of his decrees. He considers him as oc
cupying a judgment-seat before which all mankind must pass
in review. He therefore accepts what the pope does and
says as infallibly right and true. He makes no inquiry about
it. But, closing his mind to all investigation and thought,
he passively submits to think and to do every thing the pope

COMPLETE SUBJUGATION OF THE WILL. 143
shall decree, and pronounces all to be heretics and disbe
lievers in Christianity who doubt or deny the virtue and
propriety of his submission. No matter what the doctrine
he is required to believe, or the thing he is required to do,
his obedience must be complete. The Catholic World thus
states it :
" Each individual must receive the faith and law from the
Church [that is, the pope] of which he is a member by bap
tism, with unquestioning submission and obedience of the in
tellect and the will.Q*) . . . . Authority and obligation are
correlative in nature and extent  We have no right to
ask reasons of the Church [the pope], any more than of Al
mighty God, as a preliminary to our submission. We are to
take with unquestioning docility whatever instruction the
Church [the pope] gives us."(lb)
God beneficently endowed man with the faculty of reason,
not merely to fit him for dominion over the animal creation,
but that he might be enabled to distinguish good from evil
— right from wrong. We do not discuss the question wheth
er, as it regards each individual, God foreknew which of
these he would prefer to follow — that belongs to the theolo
gians ; but he has sufficiently shown by the whole course of
his providences that each one of us will be dealt with at the
final judgment as we shall have personally acted in this life.
This sense of personal responsibility every man feels within
himself; and there should be no authority upon earth suffi
cient to deaden the consciousness of it" in his mind. If he
allows such authority to step in between him and God, so as
to close his mind to the investigation of truth, he necessarily
surrenders his conscience into its keeping, forfeits his right
to think, and suffers himself to be drifted along, like a log

('*) It would seem, from the recent letter of Pope Pius IX. to the Emperor
of Prussia, that all baptized Protestant Christians are, in some mysterious
way, also bound to this obedience ; a claim which may or may not be here
after set up, according to circumstances. He says : " I speak in order to ful
fill one of my duties, which consists in telling the truth to all, even to those
who are not Catholics, for every one who has been baptized belongs in some
way or other — which to define more precisely would be here out of place —
belongs, I say, to the pope." — Cincinnati Commercial, October 30th, 1873.
(,5) The Catholic World, August, 1871, vol. xiii., pp. 580-589.

144 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
floating insensibly upon the water, either by chance, blind
necessity, or by rules prescribed by those who know nothing
of his personal convictions or relations, and are influenced
by motives he can not understand. The most ignorant and
unlettered man knows, without the aid of instruction, that
the laws of God require of him personal obedience ; and
that he can not shield himself, for their violation, behind
what others have thought or commanded. He knows that it
is God who commands, and that his conscience has been giv
en him as a monitor to approve the right and condemn the
wrong ; a duty which, blunt it as he may, it never fails to dis
charge. If, then, he surrenders his "intellect and will" into
the keeping of another, no matter who, and yields " unques
tioning submission and obedience" to whatever that other
shall command, his conscience becomes of no use to him, and
he is reduced to the condition of a mere machine ; like the
locomotive which moves or stops as the engineer shall open
or close the valve of the engine, so he acts or ceases to act,
as he shall be directed. Paul "reasoned" with the Jews at
Thessalonica, Corinth, and Ephesus, and with Felix, " out of
the Scriptures," and "persuaded" them to hearken to the
divine command. But such a man does not expect to be
reasoned with or persuaded; he awaits only the order of
some superior, and then forthwith renders " unquestioning
submission and obedience !" He humbles and humiliates
himself into the low attitude of one who knows his master,
and realizes no necessity for further knowledge. And such
is the condition into which the papacy proposes to reduce
all the members of the Roman Catholic Church, whatever
degree of intelligence they may otherwise possess, by the
doctrine of papal infallibility.
And not only is this obedience to be rendered in what con
cerns faith and morals, but also in what concerns the govern
ment and discipline of the Church, in every thing necessary
to bring the individual into complete " hierarchical subordi
nation and true obedience." In the " first dogmatic consti
tution," passed by the late Lateran Council, it is said :
" Hence we teach and declare that, by the appointment of
our Lord, the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordi
nary power over all other churches, and that this power of

DECREE OF INFALLIBILITY. 145
jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, which is truly episcopal,
is immediate, to which all, of whatever right and dignity,
both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively,
are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and
true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong
to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to
the discipline and government of the Church throughout the
world, so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under
one supreme pastor, through the preservation of unity both
of communion and of profession of the same faith with the
Roman pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from
which no one can deviate without loss of faith and of salva
tion."^) In order to make this " hierarchical subordination " com
plete, it is further decreed in this same constitution that the
pope must have "free communication with the pastors of
the whole Church, and with their flocks, that they may be
taught and ruled by him in the way of salvation," and that
his right of communication for this purpose must not be
" subject to the secular power" because it is higher than all
governments, and can not be appealed from, which is pre
cisely equivalent to saying that no government has the right
to stand in the way between the pope and his followers to
prevent them from obeying what he shall command, or to
require of them to do what he shall forbid. This is called
" the prerogative which the only begotten Son of God vouch
safed to join with the supreme pontifical office;" wherefore
the pope " remains ever free from aU blemish of error." And
upon this broad and comprehensive foundation the decree of
infallibility is announced with as much solemnity as if it had
been really sent down, with the voice of ten thousand trump
ets, from the heavens, thus :
" We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely reveal
ed, that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedrd — that
is, when, in discharge ofthe office of pastor and doctor of all
Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he
defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by
(">) "The Vatican Council, and its Definitions," by Manning, pp. 234,
235. 10

146 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to
him in blessed Peter — is possessed of that infallibility with
which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should
be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals;
and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are
irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the
Church. "But if any one — which may God avert! — presume to
contradict this our definition, let him be anathema."^)
The full extent and scope of all this is not generally under
stood ; indeed, it is not accurately comprehended by many
intelligent Roman Catholics in this country, who, imitating
some of their bishops, have accepted it without inquiry.
Such intelligence as they employ in ordinary matters would
enable them to realize this, if they had the courage to enter
upon the investigation. But having yielded this acquies
cence — many of them from honest convictions of duty to the
Church — they are expected still further to submit, passively
and unresistingly, to all its consequences, whatever they may
be. Whether they shall continue to remain in this condition
or not, however, we, who choose to act otherwise, and look
into these things for ourselves, are not released from the ob
ligation of ascertaining, if possible, what these consequences
may be, so far, at least, as our civil institutions are likely to
be involved by them.
It can not be reasonably objected if, in making this inqui
ry, we shall take Archbisbop Manning, of England, who was
a member ofthe Lateran Council, and is one ofthe most dis
tinguished prelates of the Church, as furnishing the correct
papal interpretation ; for it will not be said by any one that
he is not tbe very highest authority. His "Pastoral to the
Clergy" of England has been republished in the United
States in book form, entitled "The Vatican Council, and its
Definitions," thus giving it hierarchical indorsement here.
This great and learned divine does not hesitate to come
boldly up to the question of pontifical power. He displays
the generalship of the old marshals of France, who dash
ed against the heaviest columns of the enemy, not doubting
(") "The Vatican Council, and its Definitions," by Manning, p. 240.

WHAT INFALLIBILITY MEANS. 147
that their courage would be rewarded by victory. Doubtless,
like them, he hopes that his intrepidity will intimidate all
adversaries. In the true spirit of imperial dogmatism, as if
no earthly power dare question what he says, he tells us that
the " plenitude of power " which belongs to the pope is so
great and overshadowing " that no power under God may
come between the chief pastor and the Church, and any, from
the highest to the humblest, member of the flock of Christ
on earth !"(18) Now, if it shall appear that, in the domain
oi faith and morals, every thing tbat a man may do in his
relations with society and government is included, there will
be no difficulty whatever in understanding what he means
by denying to any human power the right of intervention
between the pope and the individual members of the Roman
Catholic Church. If these terms are thus comprehensive,
then his language is equivalent to saying that if the pope
shall command disobedience to any law of any government,
touching faith or morals, and should declare that such law
is opposed to the welfare of the Church, the Roman Catho
lic is bound to obey the pope, and disobey the government,
which would have no right, in such a case, to interfere for
its own protection ! Upon a question of so much delicacy
he should be allowed to explain his own meaning.
He quotes from the councils and the fathers to show
what is signified by the phrase " faith and morals." The
Council of Trent defines it to embrace things " pertaining to
the edification of the Christian doctrine." Bellarmine ex
tends it to those things " which are in themselves good or
evil ;" and Gregory of Valentia to " any controverted matter
of religion :"(") as, for example, the controversy between
Protestantism and Roman Catholicism; which this last-
named father also includes in his definition, by embracing
those things proposed by the pope, " in deciding doctrinal
controversies and exterminating errors." (2°)
Archbishop Manning goes further than this, and gives his
own definition. He declares that the infallible guidance of
the Church— that is, of the pope — extends to " all matters
(I8) "The Vatican Council, and its Definitions," by Manning, p. 61.
(re) Ibid., pp. 66, 67. H Ibid., p. 70.

148 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
which are opposed to revelation ;" for, says he, "the Church
could not discharge its office as a teacher of all nations, un
less it were able with infallible certainty to proscribe doc
trines at variance with the word of God."(21) To make him
self better understood he assigns to infallibility two objects ;
one direct, the other indirect. The first is the revelation or
word of God ; the second whatever is necessary for its expo
sition or defense, or is contrary to faith and morals. As the
pope can condemn errors in all these things, both direct and
indirect, so, according to him, he is infallible " in proscribing
false philosophers and false science ;"(22) which enables him
to reach out far beyond the commonly recognized domain of
the Church. He extends his authority so as to make it em
brace also " positive truths which are not revealed, whenso
ever the doctrinal authority of the Church can not be duly
exercised in the promulgation, explanation, and defense of
revelation without judging and pronouncing on such matters
and truths y"(28) which means that the pope, as the exclusive
judge of the faith, has full jurisdiction to pronounce against
whatsoever is opposed to revelation, and that when his judg
ment is pronounced it is infallibly right, and must not only
be recognized as a necessary part of the faith, but obeyed as
such. He makes it extend also to "the universal practice of the
Church in commending the writings of orthodox, and of con
demning those of heterodox authors."(24) Also, to " condemn
ing heretical propositions ;"(26) and the "ethical character
of propositions ;"(2a) and propositions " less than heresy," or
"erroneous propositions," (") that is, such as are "scandal
ous, offensive, schismatical, injurious."(2B) And, more impor
tant and comprehensive than all, so that there may be no
further cavil or controversy about it, this great archbishop
declares that " it belongs to the Church alone to determine
the limits of its own infallibility ;"(M) which makes the whole
matter rest upon the sole discretion of the pope, so that upon
whatsoever occasion or subject he shall claim to be infalli
ble, then he is so ! That there may be no misunderstanding
(31) "The Vatican Council, and its Definitions," by Manning p 72
O Ibid., p. 73. H Ibid., p. 73. (") Ibid., p. 79. C)Ibid. "p. 79.
C6) Ibid., p. 80. (") Ibid., p. 81. C") Ibid., p. 83. (») Ibid., p. 84.

THE POPE THE SOLE JUDGE OF HIS POWER. 149
upon a matter of so much importance, he expresses the same
idea, elsewhere, in these words :
" The Church itself [and by the Church he means the
pope] is the divine witness, teacher, judge, of the revelation
intrusted to it. There exists no other. There is no tribunal
to which appeal from the Church can lie. There is no co
ordinate witness, teacher, or judge, who can revise, or criti
cise, or test, the teaching of the Church. It is sole and alone
in the world."(30)
By the decree of infallibility it is distinctly declared that
the pope, in making " definitions " in regard to " faith or
morals," derives nothing " from the consent of the Church,"
as an organized body of Christians. -He is the Church, be
cause all its power and authority are centred in him alone.
And so the late Lateran Council deliberately decided. Not
withstanding the third Council of Constantinople anathe
matized the infallible (!) pope Honorius for heresy, and the
Council of Constance deposed John XXIII. for the most in
famous crimes, and other councils have maintained the claim
of the French or Gallican Church, that infallibility did not
belong to the pope alone, but to an ecumenical council and
the pope combined, this submissive body of prelates surren
dered themselves into the hands of the Jesuits or ultramon-
tanes, and conceded to the pope alone full power to exercise
the entire authority of the Church in all things. Pius IX.
made this claim of universal sovereignty, on account of the
dangers besetting his temporal dominion ; and the obedient
cardinals and bishops shouted amen to the demand, with
only a few dissenting voices, which, at the time, were drown
ed in the general rejoicing, and afterward silenced into hu
miliating acquiescence.* In the Encyclical of 1864, he con
demned the "audacity of those persons" who ventured to
insist that they had tbe right to withhold their " assent and
obedience " to his decrees, when they did " not touch dog
mas of faith and morals;" and declared that all such were
" entirely opposed " to " the Catholic dogma of the full pow
er divinely given to the Roman pontiff," etc. ;(31) that is to
(") "The Vatican Council, and its Definitions," by Manning, pp. 128, 129.
(SI) Appendix C.

150 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
say, that, although the pope shall deem it his duty to issue
a decree relating to matters other than those touching faith
and morals, and command obedience to it, all the faithful
must implicitly obey it. This was then a mere claim of au
thority, unsupported by the decree of any one of the many
ecumenical councils which have been held, and was, there
fore, resisted by many thousands of honest Roman Catho
lics, who thought they saw in its establishment the triumph
of absolutism. Now it is the law of the Church ; and the
voices of these thousands are hushed into the silence of the
tomb. Whether their silence shall ever hereafter be broken
or not, all who believe in infallibility, or accept it, must be
held to recognize this claim of papal supremacy, in all its
scope, and to any extent to which tbe pope shall think prop
er to carry it. It is impossible to imagine how it can be
otherwise ; for if the pope can not err, and can decide for
himself what the extent of his infallibility is, then, whatso
ever he claims as belonging to his pontifical authority must
be granted to him, upon the ground that, being infallible, it
is impossible for him to assert any thing that is not true, or
to demand any thing that is not consistent with the law of
God. If infallibility does not go thus far, there is nothing in
it. If it stops short of full, complete, and entire power, it
is not infallibility. And so it is understood by tbose who
are the official and authorized interpreters of its meaning.
In The Catholic World for May, 1871, there is an ably writ
ten article, reviewing Archbishop Manning's pastoral let
ter, under the significant title, " The Church Accredits Her-
self."(32) The argument there is that the Word of God must
be true, because God declares it to be so ; that the Roman
Catholic Church is the only authority on earth commissioned
by God to declare what that word is ; that she is the wit
ness for herself, and is " competent and sufficient authority
for that fact ;" that " she can not err in declaring what God
has revealed and commanded;" and that, therefore, she is
" what she affirms herself to be;" or, in more apt language,
what the pope affirms her to be, in reference to both juris
diction and authority ! No Oriental monarch ever had more
absolute power than this.

C2) The Catholic World, May, 1871, vol. xiii., p. 145.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT POWER. 151
Many good and intelligent laymen of the Roman Catholic
Church have been deluded into the belief that the pope's in
fallibility is limited to questions oi faith alone, in the ordi
nary acceptance of that term. But this theory of Pius IX.,
of Archbishop Manning, and of The Catholic World, explodes
that idea entirely. It includes not only morals, but every
thing pertaining to the domain of morals — every thing, in
fact, which the pope himself shall declare to be embraced.by
it, within or without that domain. The Church speaks alone
through him, having surrendered up every other mode of
utterance. Consequently, if he shall declare that any par
ticular government or form of government, any constitution
or law, is inconsistent with the divine law, prejudicial to the
increase of faith or to the growth or liberty of the Church,
the believer in infallibility is bound to regard the declara
tion as infallibly made, as an essential part of the faith of
the Church, and that disbelief in it is heresy, and sinful in
tbe sight of God ! Archbishop Manning makes this avowal,
substantially, in these words :
" First, that the infallibility of the Church extends, as we
have seen, directly to the whole matter of revealed truth,
and indirectly to all truths which, though not revealed, are in
such contact with revelation that the deposit of faith and
morals can not be guarded, expounded, and defended with
out an infallible discernment of such unrevealed truths."(33)
Here it is asserted, without equivocation, that infallibility
extends, indirectly, to all matters and things which stand in
the way of the progress of the Church, no matter what their
nature or character. The Church must be "guarded," its
faith must be "expounded" and its supreme authority over
all opposing secular power must be "defended" and main1
tained, at every hazard ! Whatever government, or consti
tution, or law shall impede the consummation of these ends
must be resisted ! Whatsoever the pope shall direct to be
done to secure their triumph must be done, because "the
Church accredits herself," and he is her infallible head, stand1
ing " in the place of God!"
The Catholic World, in the article referred to, is somewhat
(™) " The Vatican Council, and its Definitions," by Manning, p. 84.

152 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
more specific than Archbishop Manning in defining the in
direct authority of the pope in matters concerning morals.
Seeming to foresee the ultimate point to which the doctrine
of infallibility logically and necessarily leads, and not dis
posed to be behind others in defending it, the author of this
article, with commendable frankness, says :
" The principles of ethics, and, therefore, of politics as a
branch of ethics, all lie in the theological order; and without
theology there is and can be no science of ethics or politics;
and hence we see that both, with those who reject theology,
are purely empirical, without any scientific basis."(84)
Here it is emphatically announced that ethics and politics
— the latter as a branch of the former — are both within the
domain embraced by the pope's infallibility, and are both
under the guidance and direction of the pope, because they
both " lie in the theological order," and because all govern
ments not based upon "theology" are "purely empirical!"
(M) The Catholic World, May, 1871, vol. xiii., p. 155. Several well-writ
ten articles have appeared in the New York Freeman's Journal, wherein the
author has treated of " the future of Europe." In one of them, when speak
ing of the establishment of theocracy in the nineteenth century, he says that
"theocracy, when properly understood, should be the end of every reasona
ble man." He then insists that the union of Church and State "does not
consist in the absorption of the Church by the State, or of the State by the
Church," but in leaving each to its separate sphere, with the Church as "the
directress of conscience " and " the mistress of truth," not by intervening in
the affairs of State, but by giving " the signals." To do this, he insists that
she must have liberty, and that the State must receive her warnings with re
spect: "in other words," says he, "the Church does not directly enter into
the governments of states, for such is not her mission, but indirectly, inas
much as political questions are connected with morals. Such is her duty,
for, mistress of truth, guardian of morals, she is bound to condemn evil."
In his view, all those who govern should be "the lieutenants of Jesus
Christ ;" and as society can be saved from ruin in no other way, he thinks
that "the future belongs to the principles ofthe Syllabus."
In commending these articles to the readers of the Freeman's Journal, the
editor says : " This is the kind of reading that men, in every condition of so
ciety, ought to accustom themselves to and to love. There is not a Catholic
man in America that is so fully instructed that he will not find a pleasure in
reading this exposition. Those less read ought to seek in such writings the
basis of right political appreciations. We heartily commend these papers in
our Journal to all our readers as sound and good reading."  New York
Freeman's Journal and Catholic Register, April 6th, 1872.

OBEDIENCE OR EXCOMMUNICATION. 153
Political affairs are reached indirectly, inasmuch as tbey are
not revealed; but being included in morals, which are re
vealed, a papal decree in reference to them is just as infalli
bly true and obligatory as if it were confined to revealed
faith alone. Hence if the pope shall declare that any polit
ical opinions are wrong, unjust, or immoral, in the sight of
God, the declaration must be held by all obedient children
of the Church to be unerringly and indisputably true ; and
to save themselves from excommunication for beresy, they
must make exterminating war upon all such opinions. Hence,
also, if he shall declare that any existing government is op
posed to the welfare of the Church, and, therefore, to the law
of God, the same result must follow. And hence, again, if
he shall declare that the Government of the United States is
unjust, oppressive, and an act of usurpation, because it gives
license to the heresy of Protestantism ; because it repudiates
the doctrine of the " divine right " of kings ; because it al
lows the people to make their own laws; because it requires
the Roman Catholic hierarchy to obey the laws thus made ;
because it does not recognize the Roman Catholic religion as
the only true religion ; because it recognizes the right of
each individual to interpret the Scriptures for himself, and
to entertain whatsoever religious belief his own conscience
and reason shall approve, or none at all, if he shall think fit ;
because it has separated Church and State, and denies the
right of the Church to subordinate the State to any of its
laws; because it not only tolerates, but fosters and protects,
free thought, free speech, and a free press ; and because it is,
on account of any or all of these things, in open violation of
the divine law, and therefore heretical — does not every man
of common sense see that the papal followers must select be
tween conformity to his opinions and excommunication ? be
tween obedience to him and the forfeiture of eternal salva
tion ? between resistance to the Government and his pontif
ical curse ? between treason and hierarchical denunciation ?
Archbishop Manning reasons thus : " The primacy is a per
sonal privilege in Peter and his successors ;"(36) and there
fore " the Roman pontiff needs the help and society of no
(36) "The Vatican Council, and its Definitions," by Manning, p. 101.

154 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
other ;"(86) and therefore, also, the "doctrinal authority" of
tbe pope is u personal." (") And the conclusion he reaches
is, that, in order to the " proper exercise " of infallibility, it is
the duty of the pope to bring the whole world into " unity
with the Catholic faith ;" employing, of course, iu the faith
ful discharge of this duty, whatsoever means he may deem
necessary to that end. Upon this question he is explicit.
He quotes, with approbation, from the doctrines maintained
by Bellerini, the following propositions laid down by that
author :
" Unity with the Roman faith is absolutely necessary, and
therefore the prerogative of absolute infallibility is to be as
cribed to it, and a coekctve power to consteain to unity
of faith, in like manner, absolute; as also the infallibility and
coercive power of the Catholic Church itself, which is bound
to adhere to the faith, are absolute."(38)
Bellerini, it will be observed, places this " coercive power,"
which is simply the power to employ force, in the Church,
as pertaining to its plan of organization. Pius IX. does the
same thing in the Syllabus. But as, according to the decree
of infallibility, the pope absorbs in himself alone all the au
thority of the Churcb, as a " personal privilege," Archbish
op Manning reconciles the apparent difficulty by declaring,
" This infallibility and coercive power are to be ascribed to
him [the pope], and are personal." (89) Hence we have this
logical and inevitable result, that, when the pope alone, with
out any aid from councils, cardinals, or bishops, shall decree
that a resort to force is necessary to secure " unity with the
Catholic faith," or to get rid of any thing, or any govern
ment, constitution, or law, which prevents or retards that
unity, he acts infallibly — in the place of God — and all the
faithful are bound to obedience; in the language of The
Catholic World, to " unquestioning submission and obedi
ence of the intellect and will !"
Aud it is only by rendering this obedience that the body
ofthe Church becomes as infallible as the head, for it seems
to be possessed of such diffusive qualities that it may be
(3B) "The Vatican Council, and its Definitions," by Manning, p. 102.
O Ibid., p. 103. (38) Ibid., p. 103. (38)76irf.,p. 104.

INFALLIBILITY UNIVERSAL IN THE CHURCH. 155
made to permeate the entire membership. "Both are infal
lible," that is, the head and body, says Archbishop Manning,
"the one actively, in teaching, the other personally in believ-
ing."(40) He gives the reasons, " Because its head can never
err, it, as a body, can never err."(41) And because the pope
can not exercise " an infallible office fallibly," therefore he
can not err "in the selection ofthe means of its exercise;"^)
no matter what those means may be, whether peaceful or
coercive. Hence the same result as before is reached, that
whenever he shall determine that the best " means " of bring
ing about " unity with the Catholic faith " throughout the
world or in any part of it is by employing " coercive power "
such a decision becomes absolute truth, about which no doubt
can or will be allowed. The act of deciding, on his part, is
infallible; and the body ofthe Church, by passive obedience,
becomes also infallible ! To deny his infallibility " after the
definition, is heresy;" to deny it before, is " proximate to her-
esy."(") Of course, such infallibility as this must be absolute. It
is declared to be so, " inasmuch as it can be circumscribed
by no human or ecclesiastical law."^1) Therefore it is above
all law or constitutions, so that when exercised by the pope
all these may be trampled underfoot, if he shall so decree.
It will not allow any appeal to history, in order that it may
be inquired whether it is or is not consistent with the teach
ings of Christ, or of his immediate disciples, or of the apos
tolic fathers of the early Church. History is a wilderness
into which it will allow none to wander without a guide of
its own appointment ; and it denies to every man the right
to exercise his own " reason or common sense " in separating
the true from the false. "If any one say," continues the
learned archbishop, " that there is no judge but right reason
or common sense, he is only reproducing in history what
Luther applied to the Bible."(") Again, " In Catholics such
a theory is simple heresy." Why? He answers thus: "The
only source of revealed truth is God, the only channel of his

(40) "The Vatican Council, and its Definitions," by Manning, p. 113.
(4I) Ibid. (") Ibid., p. 114. (43) Ibid., pp. 118, 119.
(") Ibid. (46) Ibid., p. 121.

156 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
revelation is the Church. No human history can declare
what is contained in that revelation. The Church [the pope]
alone can determine its limits, and therefore its contents."
And when the pope, acting for the Church, does determine
what are its limits and contents, " no difficulties of human
history can prevail against it." The Church is " the city
seated on a hill ;" it " is its own evidence, anterior to its his
tory, and independent of it. Its history is to be learned of
itself." (")
Thus the pope is made the last, final, and only judge in
every thing. He is the tribunal of last resort upon every
question he shall undertake to decide. He is infallible when
ever he shall decide, and whenever he declares himself to be
so. Whatsoever he commands, in the vast domain embraced
by his jurisdiction, has infallibility instantaneously attach
ed to it. Whatsoever he shall announce in reference to the
Church, its history, its faith, its discipline, its rules of ethics,
its requirements of its members, its demands upon the world,
its rights, its authority, his own power and that of his hie
rarchy in all the nations — -all this becomes absolute truth, and
must be accepted and obeyed as such ! There must be no
doubting, no hesitation, no inquiry, no resort to reason ; for
either to doubt, or to hesitate, or to inquire, or to appeal to
reason, is heresy ! The most accredited books of history
must be closed. The mind must be shut up so that not a
ray of light can penetrate it. The reason must be stifled by
closing every avenue of access to it. The whole man must
be subjugated. Every thing must be surrendered to the
pope, because it is impossible for him to err ; because " the
Church itself is the divine witness, teacher, and judge of
the revelation intrusted to it ;"(47) because no human power
"can revise, or criticise, or test" her teachings ;(48) because
" the pastors of the Church with their head are a witness
divinely sustained and guided to guard and to declare the
faith ;" because these obtain their testimony, " not in human
history, but in apostolical tradition, in Scripture, in creeds,
in the Liturgy, in the public worship and law of the Church,
(48) " The Vatican Council, and its Definitions," by Manning, p. 125.
(") Ibid., p. 128. («) Ibid., p. 129.

REVOLUTION IS ATHEISM. 157
in councils, and in the interpretation of all these things by the
supreme authority ofthe Church itself n(1') — that is, the pope
— and because the Church, through the pope, "can alone de
termine the extent of its own infallibility /"(60)
Archbishop Manning is, beyond all question, a man of em
inent ability ; far too sagacious not to see the results which
must logically follow these papal doctrines, this absorption
of all power, within the illimitable domain of faith and mor
als, by an infallible pope. And, therefore, observing the
present condition of tbe Christian world, and seeing the na
tions, hitherto Roman Catholic, gradually conceding to the
people more political rights than they ever enjoyed before,
and witnessing the fact that the Roman Catholic people of
Italy have solemnly decided, with wonderful unanimity, that
the pope shall be " King of Rome " no longer, but a mere
bishop of the Church, he breaks out in these doleful words :
"But what security has the Christian world? Without
helm, chart, or light, it has launched itself into the falls of
revolution. There is not a monarchy that is not threatened.
In Spain and France monarchy is already overthrown. The
hated Syllabus wiU have its justification. The Syllabus,
which condemned atheism and revolution, would have saved
society. But men would not. They are dissolving the tem
poral power of the vicar of Christ. And why do they dis
solve it? Because governments are no longer Christian."^1)
With Archbishop Manning and all who maintain, as he
does, the enormous powers and prerogatives of the pope, all
governments not monarchical are revolutionary, and "athe
ism and revolution " are twin sisters. The pope, as " King
of Rome," was a temporal monarch, and wore a crown like
any other king. The loss of it by him, and the like loss in
France and Spain, contributed at least to one practical re
sult : the advancement of the people toward that condition in
which they may have some voice in making the laws under
which they are to live, and the creation of a hope that the
time may come when they shall get along with their public
affairs without the assistance of monarchs. While this is

(49) "The Vatican Council, and its Definitions," by Manning, p. 129.
(5U) Ibid., p. 135. (")Ibid.,v. 165.

158 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
the cause of exultation and gladness to all the advocates of •
popular government, to the papist it is the cause of sadness
and grief, because he sees in the loss of monarchy the cer
tain death of the papacy — the sure downfall of the whole
superstructure of the papal temporal dominion. And he ex
claims, as Archbishop Manning does, that " governments are
no longer Christian," because they are no longer Roman
Catholic ! There is, with him, no other Christianity than that
professed by the Roman Catholic Church, under papal dic
tation ! Every man who does not believe as that Church
teaches, through the pope, is worse than a heathen — he is an
infidel ! Protestantism embodies no religion at all ; it is in
fidelity and the most odious form of heresy ! Under its per
nicious influence the world is rapidly drifting toward a fear
ful precipice, " without helm, chart, or light," and must soon,
if not arrested by the papal arm, plunge into the terrible
abyss below ! When it sball have done this, and darkness
and despair shall have settled over the fair places of the
earth, and the groans of suffering humanity shall have reach
ed the heavens, then " the hated Syllabus will have its justi
fication" because it pointed out the method of escape ! The
Syllabus " would have saved society /"
Having thus ascertained what the infallibility ofthe pope
means, according to the definition of its ablest advocates,
who are themselves infallible ; how it raises up the papacy
above all human governments and all the nations and peo
ples of earth ; how it likens the pope to God in all the es
sential attributes of sovereignty ; how it enables him to de
cide for himself, and without any human restraint, the ex
tent and nature of his own personal power and authority
over mankind; how completely it demands the closing of all
investigation, the shutting-up of all minds, and the passive
and humiliating obedience of both " intellect and will " to
all papal decrees ; and how it possesses coercive power to en
force this obedience when it is refused — our investigations
would be incomplete if we did not hereafter carry them to
the point of ascertaining how the ills with which society is
now afflicted are to be remedied ; how, when all mankind
shall come to obey the pope, they are to be governed, if
that millennial period shall ever arrive. We have the means

INFALLIBILITY EMBRACES THE FUTURE. 159
of discovering something about the past, and know what the
present is ; but what kind of future there is in store for us
when the papacy shall triumph, as its devotees pretend to
believe it will, can only be learned from its authoritative
teachings and from its past history. Whatever its history
has been, and whatever its present teachings are, the whole
is accepted as infallible truth, by those who submit to the
dogma of infallibility. Whatever they may be to-morrow,
or next day, or next year, or at any time in the immediate
or remote future, they will be accepted in like manner ; for
the papacy, under the guidance of the crafty followers of
Loyola, demands submission, not merely to all the past and
present decrees ofthe popes, but to all that any future pope,
or the present one, shall hereafter promulgate ! Thus The
Catholic World instructs us. In an article upon " Infallibili
ty," published in the number for August, 1871, this doctrine
is set forth in these words :
"A Catholic must not only believe what the Church now
proposes to his belief, but be ready to believe whatever she
may hereafter propose. And he must, therefore, be ready to
give up any or all of his probable opinions so soon as they
are condemned and proscribed by a competent authority."(6a)
And this he must do, as this same authority instructs us,
" with .unquestioning submission and obedience of the intel
lect and will," by the forfeiture of his manhood and the de
basement of his nature, and with no more " right to ask reaj
sons" of either pope or priest, than he has to ask them of Al
mighty God ! The servitude of negro slavery was not more
humiliating, the difference being only the substitution ofthe
lash of excommunication for that of the slave-driver.
Thus, by the wonderful perfectness of this ecclesiastical
organization, we find it in possession of authority over the
minds, consciences, thoughts, and actions of so large a por
tion of our population as to assure us, with reasonable cer
tainty, that many of them will attempt to do, directly or in
directly, whatsoever the pope shall require of them. That
he would reconstruct our Government so as to make it con
form to his own views in all those things which concern the
(M) The Catholic World, August, 1871, vol. xiii., p. 586.

1 60 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Church, its welfare, and its faith, by subordinating all our
constitutions and laws, in each of these particulars, to his
sovereign will, no fair-minded and sensible man will deny.
That he would take from the people the right to make any
laws except such as he shall consider consonant to the divine
law, there is not the least doubt. That he would subject
the State to tbe domination of the Church in the entire do
main of faith and morals, every body knows. That he would
give entire independence to his hierarchy in the United
States, so that tbey should not be answerable to the civil
law, even for crimes ofthe greatest magnitude, there is abun
dant and convincing proof. That he would abolish every
other form of religious belief but that of his own Church, and
secure to it the prerogative of exclusiveness by intolerant pe
nal laws, and abolish free speech and a free press, he has him
self avowed in almost every form of utterance. Therefore,
we have the greatest possible interest in knowing to what
extent be is likely to obtain obedience from his followers in
this country upon each and all of these great and vital ques
tions ; what kind of institutions he would erect in the place
of those we have ; and how he proposes, in his unbounded
pontifical benevolence, to better our condition. The field of
such an inquiry is exceedingly broad, and we may do but lit
tle more than enter within its borders, taking care to keep
in mind the fact that, in this country of Protestant freedom,
we have nothing to do with the religious convictions of any
man, or his want of them, except in so far as they may be
made a pretext for assaulting the Constitution and laws of
the country. To an attack upon these, by either a foreign
or domestic foe, we are not yet prepared for tame submis
sion.

DEVOTION TO LIBERTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 161

CHAPTER VL
Claim of Divine Power over Temporals by Pius IX. — Its Extent. — He alone
Defines its Limits. — Effect of this in the United States. — Principles of the
Constitution within the Jurisdiction of the Papacy. — Germany, Italy, etc.
— The Pope stirs up Insurrection there. — The Jesuits Expelled. — Papists
in the United States Justify Resistance to the Law of Germany. — Same
Laws in the United States. — Effect upon Allegiance. — Bavarian Protest.
— Abuse of the Confessional. — Power of Absolution. — The Immoral Bear
ings of the Confessional.
Since the formation of our Government, there has been,
among the people of the United States, much discussion —
and some of it angry and exciting — involving the extent and
distribution of civil power, and the relations between the Na
tional Government and the States ; yet no portion of them
have been disposed to assail the fundamental principles upon
which our institutions are founded. Their differences, al
though often radical and threatening, have hitherto failed to
eradicate from their minds the strong attachment they have
always borne to that form of popular freedom and sovereign
ty which constitutes one of the most distinctive features in
our plan of government. Even sectional jealousies and civil
war, with all their terrible and deplorable consequences, and
with the bad passions tbey invariably engender, have failed
to destroy or weaken this attachment; and to-day there is
no single State in the Union which, if it were remodeling its
domestic government, would not preserve with the most sed
ulous care the separation of the Church from the State, so
that the people should remain the primary source of all civil
power. If there is a single sentiment which has universality
among all the lovers of our free institutions, it is this. They
cling to it with affection like that with which the mother
hugs her offspring to her bosom. And it is something of a
tax upon their patience when they see this great principle
assailed at the bidding of a foreign power, no matter wheth-
11

162 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
er that power is clothed in the robes of ecclesiastical or tem
poral royalty, or both combined.
Pope Pius IX. has been, of late years, exceedingly fruitful
. of encyclical and apostolic letters, intended for the double
purpose of warning the nations and advising the faithful.
He deemed it necessary to issue one when he rejected the
guarantees for his spiritual freedom offered him by the Italian
Government, so as to notify the world of the reasons which
prompted his refusal. It was dated May 15th, 1871; and
while less comprehensive than that which accompanied the
Syllabus in 1864, it is equally explicit in the claim that the
" civil principality" ofthe pope was conferred upon him, not
by any human concessions, but by " divine Providence." He
declares that " all the prerogatives, and all the rights of au
thority, necessary to governing the Universal Church have
been received by us [the pope], in the person of the most
blessed Peter, directly from God himself." Hence he can
not consent to "be subjected to the rule of another prince y"
for such deference to human authority would be violative of
the divine decree. His reference here was directly to Victor
Emmanuel, who, by seizing upon his royal crown, had, in his
eyes, been guilty of an impious and sacrilegious act, punish
able by excommunication. But he looked further than this.
Realizing the necessity of stirring up the faithful all over
the world to a defense of his temporal sovereignty, and, pos
sibly, to a crusade for its restoration, he availed himself of
the occasion to notify them that the wrongs inflicted upon
him " have redounded on the whole Christian common
wealth;" that is, that as it is a part of God's irreversible law
that he should remain a temporal sovereign, the belief to that
effect has become an essential part of the religious faith of
the Church, which must be maintained by all who desire to
escape the papal malediction in this life, and secure heaven
in the next. He looked, also, to the consequences of this
doctrine, which, logically, give precisely the same universali
ty to both his spiritual and temporal power, so that where
one is, the other must also be. If God gave " civil principal
ity " to Peter in order that he might establish the Church,
then the conclusion is inevitable that the same civil power
which Peter possessed is necessary to govern the Church, not

UNIVERSALITY OF PAPAL POWER. 153
only at Rome, but elsewhere. And it must be possessed in
the same degree in all parts of the world ; for whatever is
necessary to preserve and advance Christianity at one place
is equally so, for the same purposes, at all other places. The
faitb and the Church, as papists insist, must both be un
changing. The whole " Christian commonwealth " must be
so wedded together as to /become a perfect unity. This
"commonwealth" must be presided over by the same prince
— the representative of Peter— governed by the same laws,
and held responsible to the same tribunal, in the entire do
main of faith and morals. There must be no discordance
anywhere, from centre to circumference. As Peter had a
universal primacy, and governed all Christians as the royal
head ofthe Church, he could not be a, foreign prince in any
part ofthe "Christian commonwealth," but, by virtue of his
divine appointment and God's unerring will, was a domestic
prince throughout its whole extent ! If, therefore, the pope
could not, without violating the Providential decree, consent
to be governed by " another prince " at Rome, he could not
consent to be governed by another prince, or government,
or any earthly power whatsoever, in any other part of the
world ; or, if he did, he would forfeit his claim to universal
ity of dominion, such as he alleges Peter to have possessed,
and destroy the unity of the Church, which would be offen
sive to God. With bis mind persuaded by this process of
reasoning, the pope announces his independence of all human
authority, and his supremacy over all governments and peo
ples, in this strong language :
"Thinking and meditating on all these matters, we are
bound anew to enforce and to profess, what we have often
times declared, with your unanimous consent, that the civil
sovereignty of the Holy See has been given to the Roman
pontiff by a singular counsel of Divine Providence ; and that
it is of necessity, in order that the Roman pontiff may exer
cise the supreme power and authority, divinely given to him
by the Lord Christ himself, of feeding and ruling the entire
flock ofthe Lord with fullest liberty, and may consult for the
greater good of the Church, and its interests and needs, that
he shall never be subject to any prince or civil power." (')
(') Appletons' "Annual Cyclopaedia," 1871, pp. 689, 690.

164 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
This not only asserts the " civil sovereignty " of the pope
as a matter of " necessity," but explains that necessity by
the assumed fact that it is conferred by Divine Providence,
with supremacy everywhere, so that by means of it he may
rule " the entire flock " of Christians with the " fullest liber
ty," that is, without the interference of any " civil power "
on earth ! To this point, every thing is settled without
room for cavil or controversy. Beyond it there lies this
great question, full of interest to the world, and especially
to the Protestant, portion of it, What degree of " civil pow
er" must the pope possess — how far shall he control the
management of civil affairs — in order that he may rule na
tions and peoples, and keep them in the line of duty to God
and the papacy ?
When it is said that the pope desires to absorb in his own
hands all the powers of civil government elsewhere than in
Rome, the accusation is probably too broad. In so far as
the laws and institutions of any of the nations regulate and
direct the ordinary practical working of government, he
could have no special motive for interference with them.
As it regards these, it could make but little difference to the
papacy whether they provided for one thing or another; or
whether the machinery was in the hands of many or few.
Or whether they are such as commonly belong to a mon
archy or a republic, would, perhaps, not concern him in the
least. Judicial, revenue, postal, land, and other systems
concerning local affairs alone, and the ministerial duties per
taining to them, are all matters which the pope might he
quite willing to leave undisturbed. It is to these, undoubt
edly, that he and his followers refer when they talk about
the affairs which legitimately belong to human governments.
It should be conceded to them, inasmuch as the declaration
is made so frequently and with such apparent sincerity, that
with these they do not desire the pope to interfere.
But the question assumes an entirely different aspect,
when the policy of a government, or its constitutions and
laws, touch upon, or in any way affect, religion, or the Church,
or the papacy, either directly or indirectly. All these in
volve inquiries which, by the papal theory, are exclusively
within the spiritual jurisdiction ofthe pope. They are with-

SUBORDINATION OF THE STATE. 165
in the domain of faith and morals ; and as God has forbid
den any human governments to enter upon this domain, ev
ery thing that concerns religion, or the Church, or the pa
pacy is subject to the sovereign authority of the pope, as
the successor of Peter ! He alone possesses legitimate pow
er to decide all questions of this nature ; and, therefore, hu
man governments can not take cognizance of them in any
form. Whenever they do, the State is placed above the
Church, because it undertakes to interfere with the faith.
And as God designed, in all such matters, that the Church
should be above the State, all papists insist that whatever
pertains to them shall be separated from human govern
ments and given in charge to the Church, or to the pope,
who is its infallible head. But inasmuch as the State must
necessarily take jurisdiction of many things within the do
main of morals, though not of faith, in order to keep society
together and provide for the protection of person and proper
ty, the papal theory goes to the extent of requiring that, in
so far as these are concerned, the spiritual authority of the
pope shall include temporal authority, to the extent of en
abling him to prevent any infringement upon religion, or
the rights of the Church, or of the papacy. To this end it
is necessary that the Church and the State should be united,
so that whenever the State invades the jurisdiction of the
Church, it may be brought back, peaceably, if possible, but
by coercion, if necessary, within its own legitimate sphere.
Hence, the point at which the pope's interference with the
temporal affairs of the State begins, is that at which, accord
ing to his theory, the spiritual and temporal jurisdictions
unite in him. So long as the State stops short of this point,
he does not seek to impair its functions ; but when it reach
es it and seeks to go beyond it, then it comes in contact
with the sovereignty which, by divine right, belongs to him,
and must yield submission to it at the peril of violating the
law of God ! This sovereignty is conferred upon him, as it
was upon Peter, that he may prevent either State or people
from violating this law.
When the papal authorities are pressed to the wall, they
concede that "the State is supreme in its own order, and
there is no power iu temporals above it." But for fear the

166 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
concession will weaken the cause of the papacy, they insist
that there is an order above the State, and to which it is sub
ordinate ; that is, " the spiritual order or kingdom of God
on earth, or the order represented by the Catholic Church."
With them, "the Church is the guardian on earth of the
rights of God," and belongs to a higher order than that of
the State. Therefore, the State lies in the "subordinate"
order, and the Church in the "supreme." She sets up, they
say, no claim of authority, in this lower order in which the
State lies, but " as the rights of God are, or should be, held
to be above the alleged rights of the empire," she can not
surrender any thing which belongs to her, as the custodian
of these rights, to the civil powers. " To deny this," says a
leading and able periodical, " is to assert political atheism.
We must obey God rather than man."(2)
This leaves us to discover the line of partition between
the two orders, that we may separate the higher from the
lower, and thereby leave each to its proper jurisdiction.
The Church represents the whole "kingdom of God on
earth," and, therefore, all " the rights of God " belong to her.
Whatever these rigbts are, they pertain to the order in
which the Church lies. The papist does not hesitate an in
stant in defining them ; the pope has so frequently done it
for him as to leave his mind in no doubt about them. They
necessarily embrace, in his view, whatever pertains to faith
and morals; in other words, all that concerns the Church,
its discipline, its government, its welfare, and its progress
toward the final conquest of the world. They include also
all questions of faith, every thing relating to morals, and the
w^hole multitude of duties which men owe to God, to the
Church, and to society. As all these are within the sphere
ofthe "spiritual order" and the guardianship of the pope,
as the " vicar of Christ," it belongs to him alone to define
what they are. In doing so, he exercises his infallibility,
and whatsoever he decides must be accepted as absolutely
true. As he has no other witness but himself, stands alone
in the world, and settles all questions concerning the extent
and nature of his own spiritual jurisdiction, so it depends
C) New York Tablet, November 23d, 1872, p. 8.

THE STATE MUST OBEY THE POPE. 167
upon him to declare what belongs to the superior or spirit
ual, and what to the inferior or temporal, order ; what to the
Church, and what to the State. The papist accepts him as
standing in the place of God on earth. Therefore, when he
makes an announcement of what is within the sphere of the
spiritual order, that must be accepted by him as belonging
to that order, and as being removed entirely from the juris
diction of the temporal order. When he announces, as he
has done, that the law of God does not allow freedom of
religious faith and worship; or that the Church can not tol
erate any opinions contrary to its teaching; or that free
speech, free thought, and a free press are leading the world
to perdition ; or that Church and State should be united ;
or that his hierarchy throughout the world should consti
tute a privileged class, not subject to the laws which gov
ern others; or any of those other innumerable things about
which he has written so frequently and so much; then all
these matters are removed from the temporal jurisdiction,
and the State must not dare to lay her unhallowed hands
upon them. They belong to the " supreme " order, in which
the Church stands alone! They pertain to the "rights of
God," of which the pope is the only earthly guardian!
Therefore, upon all questions of this nature, according to
the papal theory, the Church — that is, the pope — must be
superior to and above the State, so that the State may be
kept within its own inferior order, or if permitted to go be
yond it, then that whatsoever it does shall be done under
the supervision of the spiritual order, and in conformity
with its commands. And this is what the pope and the
defenders of his personal infallibility mean when they talk
about keeping the Church in its "supreme" and the State in
its " subordinate " order. Whenever the State infringes upon
the jurisdiction ofthe Church, it must be taught that it has
wandered out of its legitimate sphere. And when warned
of its transgression, if it continues to lay its impious hands
upon holy things, the papal lash is applied without mercy.
History is crowded with instances where interdicts, excom
munications, the releasing of citizens from their natural alle
giance, and pontifical anathemas, in every variety of form,
have been visited upon the heads of such offenders. We

168 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
shall become familiar with some of these at the proper time,
as they rise up before us iu that marvelous order of events
which mark tbe progress of the papacy.
Now, wben we come to make a practical application of
this papal theory to our own national and state policy, so as
to see what the pope meant in his Encyclical of 1871, when
he said that be must have the " fullest liberty " to rule " the
entire flock of the Lord," and that, in doing so, he must not
be subject to any " civil power," there is no difficulty in see
ing where, in his view, we have gone beyond the limits of
the temporal order, and offended against the Church and the
true faith. All our constitutions, national and state, have
forbidden a religious establishment; have separated the af
fairs of the State from those of the Church, by breaking the
old bond of union between them ; have left every man's con
science entirely free, so that he may entertain whatsoever
form of religious faith it shall dictate, or none, if that shall
seem to him consistent with duty; have provided for the ut
most freedom of speech and of the press ; have made all the
laws dependent upon the consent of the people, and every
citizen, no matter what his condition, obedient to them; and
have guarded against any possible encroachment other great
principles which we consider as belonging to the very funda
mentals of civil government. Is any man so ignorant as
not to know that all these have been denounced, not only by
Pope Pius IX., but by many of his predecessors? In his
view, they involve matters which do not legitimately belong
to civil government in the narrow and contracted sphere in
which he would confine it. They pertain to the spiritual or
der, and are, therefore, within the circle of the spiritual ju
risdiction ! They affect the true faith, infringe upon the
rights of the Church, limit the authority of the papacy, cur
tail the rightful powers of the hierarchy, give encourage
ment to heresy and infidelity, and for these and other rea
son are defiant to the laws of God ; therefore, God has im
posed upon him, as the successor of Peter, the obligation of
declaring that they are impious in his sight, and of employ
ing all the weapons in the pontifical armory for their exter
mination ! And thus, to the extent of being enabled to regu
late all these matters according to the command of God and

EXAMPLES OF PAPAL INTERFERENCE. 169
the requirements of the Church, by striking them from our
constitutions, and repealing all the statutes passed for then-
preservation, he considers that God has united both spirit
ual and temporal authority in his hands, and that the " civil
power" of this country has no just right to place the slight
est impediment in his way ! The nation must bow in humil
iation and disgrace before him, so that as the papal car rides
in triumph over it, the last remembrance of the work of our
fathers shall be crushed out !
Already the censures of the pope rest upon whatsoever
he finds in the civil policy of all the nations violative of the
rights of the Church, or of God's law, as he interprets it.
Tbe governments of Italy, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, and
Brazil have deemed it expedient for their own domestic peace
and protection to adopt certain measures, which are designed,
among other things, to require every citizen to obey the law
of the state, and thereby to prevent sedition. It can not
be denied that they had the right to pass these laws, by all
the principles which nations recognize. They have relation
to questions which concern their own domestic economy —
questions which each nation has the exclusive right to de
cide for itself. The laws have been enacted in proper form,
and with the usual solemnity, so that they should be consid
ered as expressing, in each case, the will of the nation. Yet,
because tbey affect the interest of the Church, have taken
from some of its favorite orders a portion of their temporal
wealth, have prohibited the prelates from teaching sedition,
and have required them to conform to the law, the pope has
fulminated against these states the most terrible anathemas.
They have invaded his spiritual jurisdiction, because the laws
they have enacted, although in reference to temporalities, af
fect the affairs of the papacy and weaken its power. There
fore, Pius IX., professedly speaking " in the name of Jesus
Christ " and " by the authority of the holy apostles, Peter
and Paul," admonishes the authors of these measures that
they should " take pity on their souls," and not continue " to
treasure up for themselves wrath against the day of wrath,
and of the revelation of the just judgment of God." And
not only does he thus assume jurisdiction to denounce and
condemn the authors of these measures of civil policy, and

170 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
the measures themselves, but he compliments and applauds
his adherents for their disobedience to the laws, although
subjects of and owing allegiance to the governments enact
ing them ! Speaking more particularly of the German em
pire, he says :
" Nay, adding calumny and insult to their wrong, they are
not ashamed to charge their raging persecution as the fault
of Catholics, because the prelates and clergy, together with
the faithful, refuse to prefer the laws and orders of the civil
empire to the most holy laws of their God, and of the Church;
and so will not leave off their religious duty."
And then he goes on to talk about these subjects who have
refused to obey the laws of their states as exhibiting " ad
mirable firmness," as having "their loins girt about with
truth," as wearing "the breastplate of justice," as " dismayed
by no dangers, discouraged by no hardships," as carrying on
a "combat for the Church," for the papacy, "and for its sa
cred rights valiantly and earnestly," and as presenting |' the
power of a compact unity."(8) Thus he gives his pontifical
sanction and approval to what every nation on earth considers
disloyalty; but what he considers right and justifiable, be
cause the obnoxious laws, although in reference to temporal
affairs, impair his pontifical rights, and, consequently, vio
late the law of God. He insists that his spiritual sceptre
extends over all these nations, and that he has a right to re
lease their citizens from their proper allegiance to their do
mestic laws, whenever, in his opinion, those laws shall en
croach upon his own personal rights, or the rights of the
Church, as he shall declare them ! And he thereby furnishes
a practical application of his theory of the spiritual power,
which is neither more nor less than a denial to the state of
any jurisdiction over even temporal matters, when, in his
judgment, they concern religion, the Church, the papacy, or
any thing within the unlimited domain of faith and morals!
These papal censures rest, of course, most heavily upon
such nations and peoples as have declared, by the forms of
(3) This "Allocution" of Pope Pius IX. is dated December 23d, 1872,
and will be found at length in the New York Freeman's Journal and Catho
lic Register for January 18th, 1873. Also in Appletons' "Annual Cyclo
paedia," 1872, p. 714.

THE UNITED STATES THE GREATEST OFFENDER. 171
their civil institutions, that the Church shall have no share
whatever in. matters pertaining to the civil jurisdiction, or
in the government of temporalities. All sucb nations have,
according to him, committed the sin of infidelity, which they
aggravate when they require his hierarchy to obey all the
laws, and refuse them permission, as in Germany, Italy,
Spain, Switzerland, and Brazil, to set up an ecclesiastic em
pire within the state, with a "foreign prince " to rule it.
Among these nations the United States occupies the most
prominent position. Our Government has always persevered
in maintaining measures which the popes have considered
prejudicial to the interests and welfare of the Church ; and
has always denied the authority which they claim to belong
to them by divine right. By means of these and kindred
matters, we have, in the eyes of the papacy, become egre
gious offenders. We have made our institutions infidel and
heretical. We have refused to accept the papal policy of
government in preference to our own. We have kept the
State above the Church in all matters concerning temporal
ities. We have failed to give any form of ecclesiasticism the
support of law, or to confer any exclusive privileges upon
the hierarchy. Hence, the followers of the pope are availing
themselves of our Protestant toleration, in order to assure
him, by assailing such principles of our government as he
has condemned, how completely they have submitted their
intellects and wills to his dictation. Not having been per
mitted, thus far, to restore the temporal power of the pope
at Rome, and maddened by bis downfall to an extreme de
gree of violence, they have converted a large portion of their
Church literature into denunciatory assaults upon our consti
tution and laws, possibly with the hope that when their work
of exterminating Protestantism has ended, a "holy empire"
with the pope as its sovereign, may rise upon the ruins of our
free institutions. While with one breath they tell us that it
is false to say they desire the pope to interfere with our civil
affairs, with the next they assail our Constitution, and inso
lently declare that we do not ourselves understand what its
fundamental principles are. They actively employ their un
tiring energies and acute intellects in the work of recon
structing our Government, so as to turn over to the eccle-

172 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
siastical jurisdiction the very matters which our fathers in
tentionally removed from it, notwithstanding that removal
has, thus far in our history, contributed, in an eminent de
gree, to our strength and progress as a nation. Examples
of this are far more numerous than is generally supposed.
The relations between the pope and his hierarcbical adher
ents are so intimate and direct, that he has but to give the
word of command, and they become immediately emulous of
each other in the exhibition of their obedience and submis
sion. His voice they consider to be the voice of God, and
wheresoever he requires them to strike, there they direct
their blows. They rest neither night nor day; for the vigi
lance of the Jesuit never sleeps, and nothing can extinguish
his hatred of religious liberty.
The Catholic World, in the number for September, 1871,
contains a leading article, entitled "The Reformation not
Conservative." It appeared so soon after the pope's Encyc
lical of that year that it must have been intended as a re
sponse to his fervid anticipations of ultimate sovereignty
over the world. The author professes to accept the Consti
tution of the United States " as originally understood and
intended ;" that is, as he interprets it, in a sense which de
nies the sovereignty of the people, or that the Government
holds from them, or is responsible to them ! He repudiates
entirely, and with indignation, " the Protestant principle?
from which this popular sovereignty is derived, because he
considers it to be Jacobinism! And from these premises
he reaches the following disloyal conclusions in reference to
the Constitution :
"  but as it is interpreted by the liberal and sectarian
journals that are doing their best to revolutionize it, and is
beginning to be interpreted by no small portion of the Amer
ican people, or is interpreted by the Protestant principle, so
widely diffused among us, and in the sense of European lib
eralism and Jacobinism, we do not accept it, or hold it to
be any government at all, or as capable of performing
any of the proper functions of government; and if it con
tinues to be interpreted by the revolutionary principle of
Protestantism, it is sure to fail— to lose itself either in the
supremacy of the mob or in military despotism ; and doom

THE CONSTITUTION CONDEMNED. 173
us, like unhappy France, to alternate between them, with the
mob uppermost to-day, and the despot to-morrow. Protest
antism, like the heatben barbarisms which Catholicity sub
dued, lacks the element of order, because it rejects authority
[the authority of the pope], and is necessarily incompetent
to maintain real liberty or civilized society. Hence it is we
so often say that if the American Republic is to be sus
tained and preserved at all, it must be by the rejection of the
principle of the Reformation, and the acceptance of the Cath
olic principle by the American people. Protestantism can
preserve neither liberty from running into license and law
lessness, nor authority from running into despotism." (4)
What is here meant by such expressions as the "Protest
ant principle" the " revolutionary principle of Protestant
ism," and the "principles of the Reformation ? " Manifestly,
they are used as equivalent terms to express the same idea —
that our Government derives its powers from the people, who,
in the revolutionary contests with monarchy which followed
the Reformation, successfully resisted the divine right of
kiugs, and entered upon the experiment of governing them
selves. Until this revolution began they had no voice in
the management of public affairs, and were not consulted
about the laws. Kings governed by divine right, and the
papacy, under the same claim of right, was one of the great,
if not the greatest, controlling powers in the world. But
new light was shed by the Reformation, and new forms of
government began to arise. Protestantism being its natu
ral fruit, had its influence in their formation ; and inasmuch
as all its teachings and tendencies inculcate the elevation of
individuals and the progress of society, this divine right of
government was denied, and the right of self-government es
tablished. The authority of kings was dispensed with, and
the authority of the people substituted for it. No institu
tions in tbe world guard and guarantee this great principle
better than ours. The constitution declares it in its pream
ble, and protects it in all its parts. The most efficient means
of protection afforded by it are found especially in those pro
visions which prohibit an establishment of religion, and the
(4) The Catholic World, September, 1871, vol. xiii., p. 736.

174 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
creation of privileged classes, and provide for equality of
citizenship and rights, the universality of law, the freedom
of conscience, of speech, and of the press. These are the
"Protestant" and "revolutionary" principles to which this
author refers. They are the former, because they are op
posed to the principles of the papacy; the latter, because
they place the authority of government in the hands of the
people, rather than in those of a monarch. By our fathers,
who established the Government ; by all those who have been
intrusted with its management from the beginning ; and by
the great body of the people of the United States, our con
stitution has been always and invariably interpreted in the
light of these principles and facts. We have differed among
ourselves about many things, but not about these great prin
ciples. And we now cherish them none the less because it
required revolution to establish them.
This papal writer is not so ignorant as to be uninformed
about our history. He tells us, however, that, as we under
stand and interpret our constitution, he, though professedly
an American citizen, will not "accept it," that it is no "gov
ernment at all " — a mere rope of sand, and not " capable of
performing any of the proper functions of government." If
he took the oath of allegiance to it in the Protestant sense,
he must have cherished treason in his heart against it at the
time. If he took it in any other sense, he committed perju
ry in the eye of the law. Be this as it may, he stands now
before the country as the confessed enemy of the great fun
damental principles which the Constitution was designed to
perpetuate. And what are the avowed grounds of his oppo
sition ? These, and nothing less : That the right of self-gov
ernment in the people is only the "supremacy of the mob;"
that a government founded upon that right "lacks the ele
ment of order" and can not maintain liberty or society " be
cause it rejects authority." What authority ? The author
ity of kings — of those who govern by divine right. The
people, said Dr. Brownson, were born to be governed, not to
govern; they need a master! And this writer instructs us
where we may find such a master; "by the rejection ofthe
principle ofthe Reformation, and the acceptance ofthe Cath
olic principle !" Then authority will triumph, the right of

THE PAPACY IN GERMANY. 175
self-government will be gone, the divine right be re-estab
lished, the fundamental principles of our Government will be
lost forever; we shall have an established Church and a priv
ileged hierarchy, and no more freedom of conscience, of
speech, and of the press ; the papacy will win its grand tri
umph, and the pope become our master !
But the questions we are discussing do not involve the
necessity of dwelling upon these consequences, which are not
likely to be visited upon us, unless some power shall arise
sufficiently overwhelming to arrest the career of national
progress. They have to do, rather, with the position of the
papal defenders in this country, the motives which influence
them, and the principles upon which they justify their com
bined assault upon institutions to which, in their present
form, the greater part of them have taken oaths of alle
giance. Wherein does the difference consist, in principle, between
them and those citizens of Germany who have been so high
ly extolled for their resistance to the laws of their Govern
ment ? The particular measures of civil policy which have
invited the resistance are not alike, but the principle is the
same in all the cases. It is neither more nor less than opposi
tion to law, because it affects the Church, by denying that the
pope has any right, either divine or human, to interfere with
the domestic and temporal policy of the government. The
pope claims that, by virtue of authority conferred upon him
by Divine Providence, he has the spiritual right to release
these disobedient citizens of Germany from their allegiance
to their own Government, and that any resistance to this by
that Government is a violation of God's law. He teaches
that their " first duty " is to him, because he represents God ;
and that if, in paying this duty, they violate the laws of
their state, they stand justified before God, because the spir
itual order is above the temporal. And thus he erects an ec
clesiastical government within the temporal, demanding obe
dience upon the ground that God did not design that the
pope should be subject to any " civil power" on earth ! He
holds out the same justification to his followers in the Uni
ted States, encouraging their opposition to principles of our
Government far more fundamental than any assailed in Eu-

176 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
rope, and rests it upon the same claim of divine power. As
" vicar of Christ " he dispenses the obligation of allegiance,
and turns loose his ecclesiastical army upon every govern
ment on earth which dares to establish any constitution, or
pass any law, or do any act that shall curtail his authority
or that of his hierarchy, or shall prevent the papacy from
becoming, what he claims for it, the universal governing
power. And writers like the author of the foregoing article
in The Catholic World, perfectly obedient and submissive to
him, enter with alacrity upon the task of assailing the very
fundamental principles of our Government, as if the Ameri
can people were either insensible to their perfidy, or ready
to become the impassive dupes of their intrigues.
That these papal followers in the United States occupy a
position substantially analogous to that of those in Germany,
who are justified by the pope for resistance to the civil pow
er, is easily demonstrable. Take, for example, the relations
between them and the Government of the empire. Before
the unification of Germany, Prussia was a Protestant nation.
Like all other Protestant nations, its laws gave equal protec
tion to every denomination of Christians. In so far as they
protected the rights of conscience, they recognized no differ
ence between the Lutheran and other Protestant churches,
and the Roman Catholic Church. Perfect freedom of faith
and worship was not only conferred, but guaranteed to all.
Education was compulsory, but each of the churches was
permitted, in addition to the education required by the state,
to impress the principles of its own faith upon the minds of
the young who were under its charge. In the Roman Cath
olic schools the religion of that Church was taught, without
any prohibition by the state. Papal infallibility had not
then been decreed, and, consequently, was not a necessary
part of that religion. It was, undoubtedly, maintained by
the Jesuit or Ultramontane party, but this constituted so
small a portion of the great body of the Church in Prussia,
that the Government was not disposed to hold it responsible,
as a whole, for the doctrines of this party. It was well un
derstood that it would elevate the pope to a condition of su
periority over the state, if the power to do so were given it ;
but it made so little progress in that direction, on account of.

THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR. 177
the natural tendency of the German mind toward freedom
of thought, as to excite no serious apprehensions on the part
of the Government. And, consequently, under the Prussian
kingdom there was no attempt to interfere with the Roman
Catholic schools, or with the Church, or with the ecclesias
tical jurisdiction of its hierarchy.
This harmony was disturbed by two of the most impor
tant events of the present period : the decree of infallibility,
and the war between Prussia and France. These two events
occurred so nearly together that there would seem to have
been some intimate relationship between them. The war
was designed on the part of Napoleon IIL to settle the su
periority of the Latin over the Teutonic race, and the decree
to make the papacy supreme over all the nations. So far
from the former of these objects having been accomplished,
the contest resulted in German unification ; in not only con
verting the kingdom of Prussia into the German empire, but
in making it one of the strongest and most compact military
powers in the world. Whether, during the struggle, there
was any effort on the part of the ultramontane prelates and
clergy to convert it into a religious war, by persuading the
Roman Catholics of Germany into tbe belief that the tri
umph of the true faith would inevitably follow the destruc
tion of the Protestant Government of Prussia, does not bear
especially upon our present inquiry. It is, however, the fact,
that, after the close of the war, when the civil authorities
entered upon the duty of consolidating the empire, they
found that the effect of the decree of infallibility was to
make the Roman Catholic religion in the empire a very dif
ferent thing from what it had previously been in the king
dom. A considerable number of the German prelates had
voted " non placet," that is, against the decree, in the Later
an Council, but they were unable to resist the power and
pressure of the papacy, and yielded their assent under ul
tramontane dictation and threats. The necessary effect was
that the Roman Catholic Church in Germany became subject
to this same dictation ; or, perhaps, it is more proper to say,
that the ultramontanes immediately inaugurated measures to
put it under the dominion of the papacy. One of the most
efficient of these was the assertion of the right to teach the
12

178 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
doctrine of papal infallibility in the public schools of the
state, and thereby impress tbe minds of the Roman Catho
lic youth with the idea that, instead of owing their " first
duty" to Germany, they owed it to the pope; from whom,
notwithstanding any law of the state, they were bound to
accept every thing concerning religion and the Church as
absolutely and infallibly true. They put themselves, ac
cordingly, in direct hostility to the civil authorities of the
empire, and, by doing so, forced large numbers of their
Church who desired to remain obedient to the laws, and
who were opposed to the doctrine of infallibility, to sepa
rate themselves from the papal organization under the name
of " Old Catholics." Among these were some of the most
distinguished and learned professors of the German uni
versities, who were followed by many of their pupils, and
by others, who were convinced by the force of their argu
ments that if they put themselves in the power of the
ultramontanes, and accepted the doctrine of the pope's in
fallibility, they would occupy, necessarily, a position of an
tagonism to the Government. All these were excommuni
cated by the pope, and one of the questions which the Gov
ernment had to meet was to decide upon the effect of this
act. The pope and the ultramontanes insisted that it cut
off all the excommunicated from Christian intercourse, and
from the right to perform any church functions whatever.
The public authorities thought and decided otherwise, and
gave them the full protection of the law in maintaining
their organization ; which they claimed to be precisely in
accordance with that which prevailed in the Church in the
ages before it was corrupted by the papacy. Other events
contributed to make the breach still wider. There is a
military church at Cologne, where a priest, who refused to
accept infallibility, and was under the ban of excommunica
tion, offered the sacrifice of the mass. For this the church
was placed under interdict by the ultramontane chaplain-
general of the army, who claimed that, by virtue of his
episcopal office, he had the right to prohibit the use of the
building for any other worship than that which had the ap
proval of the pope. For this he was tried by a military
court for a violation of the articles of war, and his episco-

MEASURES RESISTED IN GERMANY. 179
pal functions suspended. The Bishop of Ermeland excom
municated two professors of theology as apostates, and the
minister of worship denied to him the right to cut them off
from Christian communion without the consent of the state.
The bishop, still defying the authorities, was deprived of his
government salary. The Emperor William sent Cardinal
Hohenlohe as an embassador to the court of the pope, and
the pope refused to receive him. The excitement became
more and more intensified every day, until the Government,
convinced that the Jesuits were the prime movers in all the
acts of resistance to its authority, issued a proclamation,
July 4th, 1872, expelling all foreign Jesuits from the empire,
and providing that those who were natives should have
their places of residence prescribed to them. This was
done pursuant to a law passed by the German Reichstag,
which was ultimately interpreted to embrace other monastic
orders and congregations which had yielded to the press
ure of ultramontane influence, such as the Redemptorists,
the Lazarists, the Trappists, the Christian Brothers, etc.
All this was called persecution, of course, and yet these
acts of the Government were domestic remedies against
disloyalty. They were adopted in defense of the laws of
the state, and it is in that view alone that they are now
considered. Whether they were politic or not was exclu
sively for the German Government to decide. But the
pope and the ultramontanes did not so regard them. In
their view they were an invasion of the pope's jurisdic
tion. They demanded that, as the pope represented God,
and the Emperor William represented the state, the latter
should permit the former to enter his dominions as a do
mestic prince, and dictate what laws concerning the Church,
its faith, and its priesthood should be executed, and what
should be disobeyed! That was, and is to-day, the sole
question of controversy between the German empire and
the papacy, just as it is between the papacy and all other
governments, the United States included. Although the is
sue grows out of different measures of government policy,
it is substantially the same everywhere. And, therefore,
when the pope accompanied his claim of " secular prince
dom " with the sentiments already quoted from his Encyc-

180 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
lical of December 23d, 1872, he intended that the encour
agement he thereby gave the violations of the law in Ger
many should equally apply to all other governments where
the rights of the papacy, as he has announced them, are
either denied or violated. Governments have no more im
portant question to deal with than this: their existence
may depend upon it. Whatever, or however varied, their
domestic policy may be, they should decide it for them
selves. The moment they allow a foreign power to dictate
it, in any essential particular, that moment they lose their
independence and sink into imbecility.
While the American people have no just right to concern
themselves about the internal policy of the German empire
(it being fully competent to manage its own affairs), it is im
portant that they should know how far the Roman Catho
lic mind in this country is likely to be affected by the teach
ings of the pope in reference to those who have so offen
sively violated its laws. If his power over the sentiments
and opinions of his followers in the United States is as
great as it is there — and there is no reason to suppose it is
not — then, although there may be no immediate open re
sistance to the principles of our Government which he has
condemned, the fact exists that there is a cherished purpose
to make it whenever there is a reasonable promise of suc
cess. We may not fear resistance, but are always better
prepared to meet it when aware that it is contemplated.
The seeds of disease are more easily removed before they
have become diffused throughout the system. One of the
fathers of the Republic gave us this admonition :
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I con
jure you to believe me, fellow-citizens, the jealousy of a free
people ought to be constantly awake, since history and ex
perience prove that foreign influence is one of the most
baneful foes of republican government."(6)
And one of the great men of our own times, contem
plating the possible dangers which might result from even
the foreign ownership of stock in our moneyed institutions,
said: (5) Washington's Farewell Address.

GERMAN DISLOYALTY APPROVED. 181
"Of the course which would be pursued by a bank al
most wholly owned by the subjects of a foreign power, and
managed by those wbose interests, if not affections, would
run in the same direction, there can be no doubt. All its
operations within would be in aid of hostile fleets and ar
mies without. Controlling our currency, receiving our pub
lic moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in depend
ence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the
naval and military power of the enemy."(6)
The nation did not stand in the immediate presence of
any danger from foreign influence when these sentiments
were uttered. Their distinguished authors looked to pre
cautionary measures alone. And how much more " formida
ble and dangerous " than a few stockholders in a moneyed
corporation are a multitude of men, moved by a single im
pulse, compacted together by a common sentiment, and
ready, at the dictation of a " foreign prince," to aim their
blows, openly or secretly, at such principles of our Govern
ment as he may condemn, upon the plea that they belong
to the spiritual order, over which God has placed the pope
as the sole, sovereign, and infallible judge ?
On the 25th day of March, 1873, "a very large meeting"
of " the Catholic Germans of Philadelphia " was held in that
city. Its avowed object was " for the purpose of placing
upon record their sympathy with their oppressed and per
secuted fellow-Catholics of Germany, and to congratulate
them and their noble hierarchy upon the heroic stand they
have taken in the face of the persecuting Government ;"
that is, upon their resistance to laws regularly and legally
enacted. The Bishops of Philadelphia, Scranton, and Har-
risburg were all present at this meeting, accompanied by
" a large number of the reverend clergy." Clapping of
hands, hearty cheers, and strains of music enlivened the oc
casion. Eloquent addresses were delivered ; but one, by the
"pastor of St. Bonifacius," produced a "sweeping effect"
and great enthusiasm, because of its castigation of " Bis
marck, Garibaldi, and Co.," its praise of the Jesuits, and
its adulation of Pope Pius IX., whom he called "the fear-
(s) Jackson's Veto of the Bank of the United States.

182 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
less Hildebrand of the nineteenth century !" When the
proper degree of excitement had been produced, resolutions,
with an explanatory preamble, were adopted. They enumer
ate the terrible persecutions which had been visited upon
their " fellow-Catholics " in Germany, as follows : 1. The ex
pulsion of the Jesuits. 2. The encroachment on the con
stitutional rights of the "German Catholic hierarchy"
by retaining "in their positions and dignities" the "Old
Catholics," whom they denounce as " faithless sons of the
Church." 3. The encroachment upon the rights of con
science by keeping those who had abandoned tbe faith in
charge of the public schools. 4. The " unchristianizing the
schools." In view of these arbitrary and tyrannical meas
ures, they express their sympathy for their German breth
ren as " Germany's truest sons and most faithful citizens !"
because they obey the pope rather than the Government.
They "admire the bearing ofthe German episcopacy" for
their open hostility to their Government, and commend to
them " the sublime example " of the pope, whom they are
so nobly following. They declare their " inexpressible joy "
at the " constancy of endurance shown by the whole Ger
man clergy" in opposing the laws, and their consequent
" beautiful submission to the Church." And then they ex
press their conviction that the " Catholics of Germany will
continue to value their faith above all other blessings" —
that is, above the empire — and that they will be always
ready " to sacrifice life and all things for its dear sake."(')
Whether the great bulk of those who composed this large
meeting understood the import of all this is somewhat prob
lematical. But of one thing there can be no reasonable
doubt : that the three bishops and the " reverend clergy "
understood it fully. As tbe mere means of preserving
unity among their followers no body has any right, and
probably very few have any inclination, to object to it. It
is only of consequence in view of the principles enunciated,
and tbe attitude in which the papal training places those
who are entirely submissive to the hierarchy, and who, in
other respects, are good and peaceable citizens. These lat-
(') New York Tablet, April 12th, 1873, pp. 3-11.

AMERICAN DISLOYALTY ENCOURAGED. 183
ter are not responsible, for their Church does not allow
them to reason about ber affairs. The hierarchy command
— they obey.
What did the hierarchical manipulators of this meeting
mean ? This only : to teach their followers that the meas
ures of the German empire, which they called persecution,
belonged to the Church — were of the faith; were outside
the temporal jurisdiction of human governments ; pertained
only to the spiritual order ; and, therefore, could only be de
cided upon by the pope ! Now, with the single exception of
the expulsion of the Jesuits, all the enumerated grievances
of which they complain in Germany exist in the United
States. Our Government gives protection to every Church
and every religious order. It confides the public schools to
men of every faith, and of none. It maintains " unchris
tian," or, as they choose to call them, "godless schools."
And all these things, and others of like import, it considers
as belonging to temporal affairs, the regulation of which is
under the exclusive cognizance of laws passed by the state.
Hence, when they recognize the pope as having authority
over these temporal matters in Germany on account of his
spiritual supremacy, they must be understood as meaning
that he has like authority in the United States. As the fun
damentals of our Government, heretofore indicated, belong
to the same class of temporals, so, in their view, the pope
has the same power to release them from the obligation of
obedience to them, as he has to release their " fellow-Catho
lics " in Germany from their obligation of obedience to the
laws of their own country ! This logical conclusion can
not be escaped, in reference to all these fundamentals con
demned by the pope. But there is even more than this to
show that he would have them go one step farther, and
substitute the " divine right " of kings to govern for that
now possessed by the people.
If he considers that God has established this right, then
it must be a necessary part of the faith, for whatever he de
clares to be the law of God must be so, if he is infallible.
And if it is of the faith that kings govern by "divine
right," it must be maintained as well in the United States
as at Rome ; for otherwise the Church does not possess a

184 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
uniform faith, and forfeits her claim to universality. One
might suppose that the anxiety exhibited by Roman Cath
olics in the United States for the success of De Chambord
in France and Don Carlos in Spain would leave but little
doubt upon this subject. But this is not sufficient of itself
to settle the question. The pope interprets the law of God,
and establishes the faith. " When Rome has spoken, that
is the end of the matter."
Some time ago, Mgr. Segur — from whom we quoted in a
former chapter — prepared a pamphlet with the title "Vive
le Roi," wbich he presented to the Count De Chambord,
who claims that he is the legitimate heir, by divine right,
to the throne of France. The object of this pamphlet was
to demonstrate the nature and existence of this right. An
American review of it, from the pen of a Roman Catholic
— probably a Jesuit — thus states his proposition :
"Henry V. presents himself to France in the name of
Sim from whom emanates all right and all legitimate sov
ereignty. He is King of France, not in virtue of the capri
cious will of the people, but in virtue of the order established
by God; he is King of France by divine right."
The nature of this right is defined to be " the right of
God," and " a true right of property," which can not be
taken away without robbery. And it is said :
"  though it results from human facts, it is no less di
vine; and hence it may be said that by divine right he pos
sesses the crown. On these matters there exists a great con
fusion of ideas, owing to the vulgar notions put afloat by
revolutionists." But for fear of possible collision between claimants, and
differences of opinion as to the particular individual so fa
vored by Providence, and so as not to oust the pope from
his lofty position of supremacy over the world, he makes
him the infallible arbiter. His final decision, rendered from
whatever motive, is conclusive as to who shall be and who
shall not be king ! He alone knows what the will of God
is! And when he has decided, the nation must obey!
There is no appeal ! The people have no will in the mat
ter! They are slaves— he is their master! This writer,
pointing out the mode of knowing "with certitude upon

THE POPE'S DIVINE RIGHT. 185
whom rests the divine right," and insisting that when this is
ascertained " he is the depositary of the rights of God for the
good of his country," says :
" And if, moreover, the Church [that is, the pope] should
take in hands his rights, protecting him with her sympa
thies and with her divine authority, the certitude, at least for
Christians, becomes such that doubt would seem no longer
permitted." Now, if these were only the individual opinions of Mgr.
Segur, he should be left undisturbed, as an avowed support
er of monarchy, to enjoy them or to preach them, if he
deemed it his duty, to the French people. They would, un
doubtedly, be most acceptable to the ears of many hearers,
and especially to all the hierarchy of France, wbo are at
this time acting upon them as of the faith, with the hope
that they may persuade the Roman Catholic people of that
country to place Count De Chambord upon the throne, and
destroy the republic ; because, as we are told by this Ameri
can reviewer, " he has given the solemn promise that, once on
the throne of France, he will take up the cause of the pope"
and " then the sword of Charlemagne shall spring from the
scabbard, and convoke, as of old, the Catholic peoples to the
rescue of Rome from the miserable and despicable Italian
apostates." But high as the author of these sentiments is
in the estimation of the hierarchy, he has secured to them
a higher indorsement than his own, so that all who shall
unite for these objects may be assured that they are serving
God and the Church. He laid his pamphlet before Pope
Pius IX., who, in expressing his approval of it, thus address
ed him :
" Pius IX., Pope, to his Beloved Son, Greeting and Apos
tolic Benediction: We have received your new pamphlet,
and we wish, from the bottom of our hearts, that it may dis
pel from others the errors which you, enlightened by the mis
fortunes of your country, have had the happiness of reject
ing. In fact, it is not the impious sects alone that conspire
against the Church and against society; it is also those men
who, even should we suppose them of the most perfect good
faith, and the most straightforward intentions, caress the lib
eral doctrines which the Holy See has many times disap-

186 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
proved of; doctrines which favor principles whence all rev
olutions take their birth, and more pernicious, perhaps, as at
first sight they have a show of generosity. Principles evi
dently impious can only affect, in fact, minds already cor
rupted ; but principles that veil themselves with patriotism
and the zeal of religion, principles that put forward the as
pirations of honest men, easily seduce good people, and turn
them away, unconsciously, from true doctrine to errors,
which, speedily taking larger developments, and translating
into acts their ultimate consequences, shake all social order
and ruin peoples.
" Certainly, beloved son, if you shall have, by this pam
phlet the happiness of bringing round many up to this time
in error, it will be a great reward."
When does the pope speak ex cathedrd? When he de
clares the faith, say bis followers. What is the faith ? It
is the law of God, or whatsoever is founded upon it, or is
the necessary consequence of it. Therefore, when the pope
thus gives his approval to the doctrine that it is a part of
the law of God that kings govern by " divine right," it is
necessarily a part of the faitb, and must be believed as such
by all the faithful. To reject it would be heresy. Evident
ly, it is regarded in this light by some of the papists in the
United States ? If not, wherefore the necessity of repub
lishing in this country, and giving prominence, in a leading
journal, to these anti- American opinions of Mgr. Segur,
with the pope's brief of approval attached ?(8) And why
should the reviewer of his pamphlet venture to declare "the
identity of opinion between the Catholics of France and
America with regard to the form of government to be
adopted in the former country, and the good wishes of the
Americans for the success of the Count De Chambord," un
less this unity of opinion grows out of the teachings of the
pope ? The reviewer substantially admits this when, imme
diately after avowing this unity, he says that the success of
De Chambord " will consolidate the union of Catholics, aud
facilitate, at a later period, a more thorough co-operation,
(8) The New York Freeman's Journal and Catholic Register, March 9th,
1872.

THE POPE TO BE MADE KING AGAIN. 187
not only for the restoration, but also for the consolidation
and maintenance, of the sovereignty of the sovereign pontiff."
How " consolidate the union of Catholics " in Europe and
America? Manifestly upon the principles avowed by Mgr.
Segur and sent forth with the sanction of the pope. And
how consolidate and maintain " the sovereignty of the sov
ereign pontiff," if not by means of this " union of Catho
lics," based upon these expressed principles of " divine
right?" With what vivid imagination does he look for
ward to the time when this grand consummation shall be
achieved ! Then the pope " will be restored to the pleni
tude of his power ; and," says he, " with the elder son of
the Church as our leader, we shall all hasten to expel from
the Eternal City the miscreants that are now despoiling
it !" — which means this : that when the doctrine of " divine
right " shall become established as a part of the faith, and
the throne of France shall be held by virtue of it, then the
R.oman Catholics of the United States will unite with their
brethren in France under the royal banner of Henry V., and
make war upon Italy ! Trained in such a school, and imbib
ing such principles as a part of their religion, how can these
men help hating, with an intense hatred, all republican and
popular institutions? And how hard they struggle to im
press the laymen of their Church with kindred principles !
They are commanded in the name of a Church whicb as
serts that its unity never has been and never can be broken,
and which tolerates no disagreement among its members.
Each one of them is educated to believe, under the penalty
of excommunication, in an unchanging and unchangeable
pope — the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. "All that
be [the pope] knows now as revealed, and all that he shall
know, and all that there is to know, he embraces all in his
intention by one act of faith !"(") If faithful, he believes in
whatsoever all the popes have said and done regarding faith
and morals — whatsoever Pope Pius IX. is now saying and
doing, and whatsoever he and all his successors shall do and
say in the future !
(") "Grammar of Faith," by Rev. John Henry Newman, p. 146. This
author was a distinguished convert from the Church of England to Roman
Catholicism. He has replied to Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet.

188 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
We are not without advice from European Roman Cath
olics, who have repudiated the doctrine of infallibility and
the opposition to liberalism which grows out of it, which ad
monishes us that these things are worthy of our most seri
ous deliberation. After the decree of infallibility was an
nounced, over twelve thousand of the citizens of Munich, in
Bavaria, presented to the Government, through the minis
ter of public worship, an address, wherein they protested
against it on the ground of the danger it threatened to
their civil and social institutions. A brief extract from it
will show how Roman Catholics themselves look upon the
impious pretense that the pope stands in the place of God
on earth — a doctrine equally inculcated here as there ; how
they shrink, with honest apprehensions, from the usurpations
which must follow infallibility, if it shall become the uni
versally recognized doctrine of their Church, and to what
extent it has already given insolence and impunity to an am
bitious and dangerous priesthood. It concludes thus :
" The doctrine which the Government of your royal maj
esty has declared dangerous to the political and social foun
dations of the state, is sought to be inculcated, with more
and more urgency, publicly from the pulpit, and in pas
torals and clerical newspapers, as well as privately through
letters and the abuse of the confessional.
"In criminal defiance of the Government, the hearts of
women are poisoned against their husbands, the father is
cursed to the face of his child. And it is not only in the
confessional that the weaker minds of women are sought
to be gained. Importunate epistles and importunate visits
are brought into requisition. We see especial danger in
the abuse which many of the clergy have already begun to
introduce into the religious instruction of the schools. The
child is justly accustomed to look upon its religious precep
tor as an authority ; it believes him, and obeys him with
out suspicion or reflection. And these artless and unsus
pecting minds are now taught this dangerous new doctrine.
The child is told at school that his father who does not
believe is damned and accursed. The priests denounce in
famy and disgrace against those who refuse to submit — sol
emn anathematism, and, what is most hurtful, ignominious

SECRET AURICULAR CONFESSION. 189
interment. The refractoriness of the clergy has gone so far
— on the Rhine, for instance — that a soldier returned from
the war, who was about to lead his affianced bride to the al
tar, was not allowed to marry her because his name had ap
peared on the protest against this dangerous innovation."
Here are distinctly shown, not only the apprehensions ex
isting in the minds of Roman Catholics in reference to the
effect of this " dangerous new doctrine " upon the faith as
they have been taught it, and its threatening aspects toward
the political and social foundations of the state; but how
that extraordinary instrument of ecclesiastical despotism,
the confessional, is employed in fixing this doctrine of the
pope's infallibility in the minds of the young and unsuspect
ing, in the very faces of all the governments, and in defi
ance of parental authority. This same marvelous power is
at work in this country, to enforce, at the sacred altar, the
politico-religious opinions already pointed out as so dan
gerous to the state, so at war with the whole genius and
spirit of our institutions. Protestants have not duly con
sidered what a tremendous engine of power this is — how
far, as an element of absolutism, it transcends any other
ever invented by human ingenuity. They should under
stand it better.
The ecclesiastical historians, Sozomen and Socrates, both
inform us that, in the fourth century, when they wrote, con
fessions were made in public; thus showing in what light
they were regarded by the primitive Christians who lived
near the apostolic age. Sozomen says this was the custom
of "the Western churches, particularly at Rome, where there
is a place appropriated to the reception of penitents, where
they stand and mourn until the completion of the solemn
services from which they are excluded; then they cast
themselves, with groans and lamentations, prostrate on the
ground. The bishop conducts the ceremony, sheds tears,
and prostrates himself in like manner, and all the people
burst into tears, and groan aloud." Penance was then im
posed, and after the performance of it, the penitent was
" permitted to resume bis place in the assemblies of the
Church." He continues: "The Roman priests have care
fully observed this custom from the beginning to this

190 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
time;" while at Constantinople it had been the custom to
appoint a presbyter "to preside over the penitents."(10)
This early custom, simple and impressive in its form of pro
cedure, recognized the priest only as an intercessor for the
penitent, by his prayers ; but gave him no power to impose
"alms -giving," at his discretion, as a satisfaction for sin.
He had no right to excommunicate and cut off any Chris
tian from fellowship with the Church without trial by the
Church, and conviction upon competent evidence ; and this
practice, in so far as it involved the power of the priesthood,
prevailed universally in the Western, or Roman, Church
for many centuries after Christ. Within that period, how
ever, the practice of giving publicity to confessions was
changed. The ambitious Leo I., who became pope in 440,
inaugurated a new system, in order to increase the author
ity of the clergy, and, consequently, of the pope. He di
rected that "secret confession" should be substituted for
that which before had been public, and should be made " to
the priest only," and not to the church. (") But the power
of absolution was not extended, even by him, beyond the
petition and prayer of the priest that God would extend
his mercy to the penitent, and pardon and absolve him
from his sins. Thus Gregory I., who did not become pope
till 590, wrote as follows to the proconsul, Marcellus:
"And since you have asked that our absolution may be
given you, it is fitting that you should satisfy our Redeemer
with tears and the whole intention of your mind for these
things, as duty requires ; because, if he be not satisfied, what
can our indulgence or pardon confer?"^)
(10) " Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History," book vii., chap. 16 (Bohn's ed.),
pp. 334-336 ; " Socrates' Ecclesiastical History," book v., chap. 19 (Bohn's
ed.), pp. 281,.282. See the question discussed in Bingham's "Antiquities of
the Christian Church," book xviii., chap. 3, vol. ii., p. 1064; also "The
History of the Confessional," by Bishop Hopkins, published in 1850 by
Harper & Brothers.
(") " The History of the Confessional," by Bishop Hopkins, pp. 142, 143.
(n) "The History of the Confessional," by Bishop Hopkins, p. 147. Bish
op Hopkins says that the third Council of Carthage prohibited secret con
fession by "widows and virgins," even to "bishops or presbyters," unless
"the clergy" or "some serious Christians" were present (p. 166). I do
not think he is sustained in this, or, if he is, that it established the dissolute-

PRLESTLY ABSOLUTION. 191
As the clergy had not, by this early practice, the power
to pardon penitents, and thus to acquire the desired domin
ion over them, so as to regulate their thoughts aud actions,
the system of compounding sins was gradually introduced.
It at first, however, made slow progress, even in the Mid
dle Ages. In the ecclesiastical laws drawn up in England
by Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 967 — when that
kingdom was under papal rule — "alms-giving" was substi
tuted for the ancient custom of performing penance. The
rich were to " build churches," and, if able, to " add man
ors," build "roads and bridges," distribute their property,
abandon their lands, their country, and "all the desirable
things of this world." A fast of a day could be redeemed
" by one penny," and of a year by " thirty shillings," and so
on. (") From this principle of making atonement for sin by
the payment of money as " alms," it was easy to advance
another step, and give to the priests the same power over
sins that God possesses — that is, to absolve the penitent.
This step, however, was not finally taken until the thir
teenth century, when the doctrines of Thomas Aquinas ob
tained ascendency. He insisted that penitence is a sacra
ment, like baptism, and that, as the priest in the latter says,
" I baptize thee," therefore, in the former, he should say, "I
 e 
ness of the clergy at Rome. The third Council of Carthage was a provincial
council only. It was called by the Bishop of Carthage, and was attended
only by the African prelates. And, besides, it was held in the year 397,
when confession, in all the Western Church, was made in public. It was
about half a century before the practice of secret confession was introduced
by Pope Leo I. Nor do I think that the canons of this council make any
reference to confession. They rather, it seems to me, refer to the dissolute
habits of some of the African clergy. The seventeenth "forbids them to
cohabit with strange women, and permits them only to live with their moth
ers, their grandmothers, their aunts, their sisters, their nieces, and those of
their domestics who dwelt in the house with them before their ordination. "
And the twenty-fifth provides that " clergymen, and those who make profes
sion of chastity, shall not go to see widows or virgins without the pennission
of the bishop or some priests ; that they shall not be with them alone, but
with other ecclesiastics, or such persons as the bishops or the priests shall
appoint them ; that bishops and priests also shall not visit them alone, but in
company with other ecclesiastics or Christians of known probity." — Du Pin's
Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. , p. 278.
(13) " The History of the Confessional," by Bishop Hopkins, p. 171.

192 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVLL POWER.
absolve thee;"^) thus conferring upon the priest the pow
er of absolution. The argument was convincing to those
who desired to possess the power, and they soon began the
construction of that system of rules for the government of
the confessional which can not be read without bringing a
blush to the hardest cheek, and which are too immodest for
review or repetition. (16) The reader must examine for him
self to see how completely every thought, sentiment, intent,
(") "The History of the Confessional," by Bishop Hopkins, p. 187.
(M) Upon this subject Bishop Hopkins says : " It is, indeed, a point of no
small difficulty to ascertain how far it is consistent with propriety to proceed
with such documents ; for it is certain that they are an inseparable part of
the subject ; that they form the staple of the Roman confessional at the
present day, and are a true but very brief index to the sort of questions which
more than a hundred millions of our fellow-creatures, male and female, are
obliged to answer whenever it pleases the priests to interrogate them ; while
over the whole of what takes place in the confessional an impenetrable veil
of mystery is thrown. Moreover, these things are not only to be found in
the authentic and public councils of the Church of Rome herself — being, in
fact, the official acts of her highest dignataries — but the same, in substance,
are now published in our own language and country, for the use of the laity,
as an essential guide to those who come to the confessional. And yet, so
abhorrent are the feelings of our age toward the open discussion of such
topics, that no writer can transfer the mere records of Romanism to his
pages without incurring the reproach of indecency." — Hopkins, pp. 193,
194. »
"The Garden of the Soul: a Manual of Spiritual Exercises and Instruc
tions for Christians, who, living in the World, aspire to Devotion," is the
title of a work published under the auspices of the Roman Catholic hie
rarchy in the United States. It has the special approbation of the Arch
bishop of New York, and may be readily procured. It is extensively circu
lated among the laity, with the object, as declared in the preface, "to in
struct the members of the Roman Catholic Church on the nature of the
most solemn act of their religion." And yet, in the "instructions and de
votions for confession," in order that "a good confession" maybe made,
there is language employed which, if it were found in any public newspaper
in the United States, would cause the filthy sheet to be cast out from every
fireside. See p. 213.
The celebrated work of Peter Dens, "Theologia Moralis et Dogmatica,"
contains several numbers, in vol. iv., upon this subject, with which I am un
willing to soil these pages, even by the insertion of the Latin. Several years
ago, in the city where I reside, a gentleman read and translated these before
an audience where there were no ladies, and an honest young Roman Catho
lic layman present was so shocked that he caused him to be arrested and
carried before the mayor upon a charge of public indecency !

PRIESTS FORGIVE SINS. 193
and faculty of the mind is confided to the priest by tbe prac
tice of auricular confession ; and how every action of life,
even to the invasion of the domestic sanctuary, is mapped
out before him, in order that he may possess entire control
oyer the penitent. In this connection it is only necessary to
say further, that the Council of Trent, in 1551, established
the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas as a part of the faith, by
giving the power of absolution to the priests, and continu
ing the system of allowing them, at their discretion, to com
pound for sin by imposing pecuniary penalties. The doc
trine declared by this celebrated Ecumenical Council is, that
God never gave "to creatures" the power to grant remission
of sin until the coming of Christ, when " he became man, in
order to bestow on man this forgiveness of sins," when " he
communicated this power to bishops and priests in the
Church," having delegated to them his authority for that
purpose ;(16) thus showing that, by the act of the priest in
prescribing penance or receiving "alms" in satisfaction for
sin, the sinner is forgiven ! And this, although the priest
himself may be covered all over with the filth of his own
personal corruption !(")
When we consider what enormous power is thus acquired
by the Roman Catholic priesthood, and the requirements of
them by the doctrine of papal infallibility, it is not surpris
ing that they should have employed it in resistance to the
law in Germany, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland, or that the
Bavarian Roman Catbolics should have protested against it.
And when it is considered that this same power is now em
ployed in this country, every day and almost every hour, by
the same class of priests and for the same object, it is suffi
cient to excite both inquiry and reflection. The influence
of the confessional does not vary with degrees of latitude
and longitude. It is the same everywhere — putting the
penitent completely in the hands of his confessor, to be
(") "Catechism of the Council of Trent," p. 83. This is a work of stand
ard authority in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States.
(") Ibid., pp. 73, 74. Referring to such as are excluded from the pale of
the Church, it is here said, "Were even the lives of her ministers debased
by crime, they are still within her pale, and, therefore, lose none of the power
with which her ministry invests them." 13

194 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
molded, in his character and in all his thoughts and senti
ments, by him. While the bulk of the people of the United
States are actively engaged in their daily occupations, un
suspecting and tolerant, the whole papal priesthood are de
voting themselves, morning, noon, aud night, to the employ
ment of this enormous engine of power, in order to bring
our Roman Catholic citizens — themselves unsuspecting, also
— by persuasion, if possible, but by threats of excommuni
cation, if necessary — to the point of recognizing the infalli
bility of the pope, and the universal sovereignty which it
establishes, knowing, as they do, the conflict they are inau
gurating with some of the most cherished principles of our
civil institutions. Is there no danger from all this ? There
may not be, and will not, if we heed the admonitions com
ing to us from other nations with every flash of lightning
through the sea. Let us begin in time to guard our na
tional heritage, and, while we are not required to do any
thing in violation of the tolerant principles of our Govern
ment, we can so shield them from the assaults of foreign
imperialism, that the blows aimed at them by their assail
ants will rebound upon their own heads.

PIUS IX. WARS UPON LIBERALISM. 195

CHAPTER VII.
The Encyclical and Syllabus of Pius IX. — The Doctrines ofthe Encyclical.
— It includes Bulls of other Popes. — The Doctrines of the Syllabus. — Op
posed to Modem Progress. — Doctrines of Boniface VIII. — Council of
Trent on Crimes of Clergy. — The Bull " Unam Sanctam" uniting the
Spiritual and Temporal Swords.
The present pope has practiced no disguise in exhibiting
his opposition to the liberal and progressive spirit of these
times. Disavowing all purpose of compromise, he coura
geously confronts its advocates, and grapples with them.
He presses his followers forward into the battle, which he
and they carry on with exceeding fierceness — showing no
quarter and asking none. No victory has been won by
them thus far, but only discomfiture and defeat. Yet all
this — even the terrible blow that has been struck at the
papacy by the Roman Catholic people of Italy — has only
converted their ardor into passion, and their courage into
desperation. Every step they take makes it more and
more a death-struggle. If liberalism and progress shall
be overthrown, the papacy may rise up again out of the
wreck; if they survive the contest, no human power will
be able to breathe new life into it. Left to mingle with
the debris of fallen nationalities, it will be known only by
the history which shall record its wonderful triumphs in
the past, and point out the cruel bondage in which it held
mankind for centuries. The pope understands all this, and,
with all his pontifical energies aroused to the utmost, is
preparing for the grand and final contest. He throws into
it all the weight of his private virtues — which no adver
sary has assailed — and the pledge of his personal honor —
which none have impeached. As the space between the
combatants is narrowing, he claims the power of omnipo
tence, that he may mold all his followers into compact
and unbroken columns, with but a single impulse in every

196 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
heart, and but a single thought in every mind. He invokes
the aid of the Almighty arm, but the voice of his invoca
tion dies away amidst the desolation of imperial Rome. He
tries to shake the earth with the thunder of excommunica
tion, but its terrors have departed among thousands who
once shrunk from it as from the wrath of God. As a last
resort, he is endeavoring to break down the lines of separa
tion between all the nations, and to resolve the world into
one great "Christian commonwealth"— a grand "holy em
pire " — subject to his single will, and bowing before his sin
gle sceptre ! He claims authority, by virtue of the divine
appointment, to enter every nation, to defy every govern
ment, to break the allegiance of every people, and to pluck
up by the roots whatsoever he shall find that bars his prog
ress to universal dominion. He sends forth his summons
to all the faithful throughout the world, and commands'
them to rally under the papal flag, to turn their backs
upon all other banners, and to prepare for a grand crusade
that shall rescue Rome from the apostate spoiler. And if
the honor, the glory, or even the lives of their own nations
shall stand in the way, all these must not be of a feather's
weight compared with the mighty triumph which is to he
won in God's name, when the imperial crown shall once
more sit upon the papal brow.
We have seen enough already to satisfy observing minds
in reference to all these things, but they have too intimate
relation with the present condition of the world to be pass
ed by without more detail. Pope Pius IX., however much
we may resist his efforts to restore the papacy, is, on ac
count both of his official and private character, entitled to
our respect in such a degree that, if we have misjudged his
purposes and designs, a full and frank statement of them
should be made, so that whatever error shall exist may be
corrected. To this end, therefore, it is necessary that an
analysis of the Encyclical aud Syllabus of 1864 should be
made, as these celebrated official documents were issued ex
cathedrd, and undoubtedly contain the most authoritative
exposition ofthe papal policy. (')

(') The Encyclical and Syllabus of 1864 are both now accepted, without

PIUS IX. YIELDS TO THE JESUITS. 197
This examination may be premised, however, by the re
mark, that there is a wonderful discrepancy between the
doctrines set forth in these papers and those which the
pope was generally supposed to entertain at the beginning
of his pontificate. He did then, undoubtedly, express some
liberal sentiments, and indicate a purpose to make some im
portant concessions to the people of the papal states. But
then it was understood that he was not under the control
of the Jesuit or ultramontane clergy, and was disposed to
deal kindly, or, at least, in moderation, with the liberal sen
timents then prevailing among the Roman Catholics of Eu
rope, especially in Italy, and under the influence of which
they were gradually moving toward the establishment of
republican governments. Some of his enemies accused
him of insincerity in making these concessions, and insisted
that they were the result of his fears of personal violence.
However this may have been, he was soon turned from his
liberal course by events which seem to have thrown him
into the arms of the Jesuits, and to have placed him in
direct antagonism to the European liberals of his own
Church. This cunning and compact order has succeeded
in indoctrinating his mind so thoroughly with their ideas
of ecclesiastical and civil policy, that the remembrance of
what he was once disposed to do in behalf of popular rep
resentation seems, under their teaching, to have driven him
to the other extreme. His assumed infallibility, brought
about by them, has not exempted him from either ambi
tion or passion. He has taken especial pains, not only to
condemn and anathematize the Italian people, because they
have established their national unity and fixed their capi-

further disguise or question, as ex cathedra. A recent work, discussing this
subject, enumerates the various modes in which the pope addresses the faith
ful in such a way as to command their assent on the score of his infallibility.
The author says, "An example of this is furnished by the Syllabus of Er
rors put forth by Pius IX. in 1864." Then, after quoting from the Encyc
lical, he says: "Now, surely, an encyclical containing passages like these,
which are even stronger in their context than as extracts, has every mark
about it of an ex cathedra or infallible procurement." — When Does the
Church Speak Infallibly ? by Thomas Francis Knox, of the London Ora
tory. London ed., pp. 94-97.

198 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
tal at Rome, but, attributing these political changes to the
motive, on their part, of ultimately creating liberal and
popular institutions, he has so frequently and strongly ex
pressed himself on these subjects, that it is not at all diffi
cult to demonstrate his hostility to such a government as
ours. Nowhere, however, has he done this more strongly
than in the Encyclical and Syllabus of 1864, which renders
it necessary for us to examine their principles minutely, in
order to see what he requires of his followers in this coun
try, what particular principles of our Government have ex
cited his batred, and what other principles he and his ad
herents propose to substitute for them. The reader should
keep in mind, however, that, both in the condemnation of
one class of principles and in the avowal of the other, the
pope is acting within what he considers the spiritual or
der. Thereby he may see what temporals he includes in
that order, and over what and how many principles of our
Government he claims jurisdiction on account of his di
vine commission. And this will enable him to understand
what the papal writers mean when they talk about the
spiritual and the temporal orders; that is, that those mat
ters only which do not concern the Church are temporals,
that all matters which do concern it, either directly or in
directly, are involved in spirituals, and that the pope has
sole and exclusive jurisdiction over these.
The Encyclical sets out by denouncing " the nefarious at
tempts of unjust men," who promise "liberty while they
are the slaves of corruption," and who are endeavoring,
"by their false opinions and most pernicious writings, to
overthrow the foundations of the Catholic religion and of
civil society," assuming that the superstructure of _ good
government can rest upon no other foundation than the
Church of which he is the head. These defenders of polit
ical liberty have stirred up a "horrible tempest" by their
" erroneous opinions," which has compelled him to raise his
pontifical voice and condemn "the most prominent, most
grievous errors ofthe age," and to "exhort all the sons ofthe
Catholic Church," in whatsoever part of the world they may
reside, that " they should abhor and shun all the said errors
as they would the contagion of a fatal pestilence." Pro-

AMERICAN LIBERTY CONDEMNED. 199
ceeding to show what he understands to be the object of
these " unjust men," he declares that their chief desire is
"to hinder and banish that salutary influence which the
Catholic Church, by the institution and command of her
Divine Author, ought freely to exercise, even to the con
summation of the world, not only over individuals, but
nations, peoples, and sovereigns." After thus generalizing,
he advances to specific allegations. He considers it " im
pious and absurd" that "society should be constituted and
governed irrespective of religion" and that no real difference
should be recognized " between true and false religion ;"
that is, that the separation of Church and State, and the
protection of all forms of religion, as in this country, are
" impious," because they violate God's law, and " absurd,"
because they take away from the papacy the power to gov
ern the country and control the consciences of all the people.
He denounces those who insist that governments should
not inflict penalties upon those who violate "the Catholic
religion;" thus claiming that governments should be con
structed so as to inflict these penalties when the laws of
the Roman Catholic Church are violated. The withhold
ing this power of punishment, to protect " the Catholic re
ligion," but no other, he calls a totally false, notion of so
cial government, " because it leads to other erroneous opin
ions most pernicious to the Catholic Church, and to the sal
vation of souls." These he calls insanity (deliramentum),
following the example of his immediate predecessor, Greg
ory XVI., who issued a like encyclical letter in 1832. He
then enumerates these "erroneous opinions" which are so
" pernicious to the Catholic Church, and to the salvation
of souls," and which indicate insanity on the part of 'those
who maintain them — manifestly meaning that it is the duty
of the papacy to exterminate them wherever it can do so.
They are as follows : first, the assertion of the principle
" that liberty of conscience and of worship is the right of
every man!" second, that this liberty of conscience and of
worship should be "proclaimed and asserted by the law!"
third, that the citizens shall have the right "to publish and
put foricard openly all their ideas whatsoever, either by speak
ing, in print, or by any other method!"

200 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
All these principles are essentially fundamentals in our
form of government, and they could not be destroyed with
out the immediate overthrow of all our civil institutions.
Yet the pope declares that they are "pernicious to the Cath
olic Church;" that is, in conflict with its principles and the
plan of its organization ; that we are insane, because we
maintain them ; and, considering them worthy of special
denunciation and anathema, he declares that those who do
maintain them, as all do who are worthy of American citi
zenship, " preach the liberty of perdition /" What do the
followers of this imperious despot mean by telling us that
it is alone by a religion which has such principles and doc
trines as these graffed into its profession of faith that our
Government is to be saved from destruction ? We under
stand well enough what the pope means ; it is to declare
that in no Roman Catholic government could such " perni
cious" principles exist; that the anathemas ofthe Church
are resting heavily upon them; that they are, therefore,
sinful in the eye of God, and accursed in his sight; and
that it is the imperative duty of all Roman Catholics in
the United States and elsewhere to make immediate war
upon these principles, and to continue it until all of them
are destroyed. Will the priests obey? Undoubtedly they
will. Will the laymen also ? That is the question. Time
alone will decide it.
But Pius IX. shows his design still more fully by going
a step further, and striking more directly at the question
of popular sovereignty, without which no popular form of
government can stand. This he does by enumerating two
other errors, in which he mingles religion and politics to
gether, showing that he promulgates a politico -religious
faith: first, he denounces the idea that "the will ofthe
people, manifested by public opinion," can ever become the
law of a country, independent ofthe "divine and human
right "—that is, independent of the divine sanction which
God has conferred upon him the right to give or withhold
as he pleases !— second, he denounces also the doctrine that,
in political affairs, accomplished or consummated facts can
have the force of right by the fact of accomplishment;
meaning thereby that no government which he, as God's

THE STATE TO OBEY THE CHURCH. 201
vicegerent, considers unjust can become legitimated, by
the fact of its existence, for any length of time ; and, con
sequently, that the Government of the United States, be
ing founded upon principles " pernicious to the Catholic
Church and to the salvation of souls," has not yet become
legitimate, and would not become so, though it should ex
ist a thousand years ! We shall hereafter see how this
same doctrine is put forth, by the highest authorities of
the Church in this country, in a more argumentative, but
not less dogmatical, manner, when we shall come to con
sider the modes contrived by the papacy to release the Ro
man Catholic citizen of the United States from his oath of
allegiance to our National Constitution.
Considering his task yet unfinished, the pope continues.
Referring to the religious orders — to the right of the Church
to acquire and hold property without limitation — and to so
cialism and communism — with which he has invariably class
ed all struggles of the people for self-government — he hurls
his most fearful and terrible anathemas at the heads of all
who require the Church to obey the laws ofthe State! and
those who deny the authority of the Church and his own
authority over secular affairs ! These, he says — and let the
reader, keeping in mind the character of our civil institu
tions, mark well his words — these " presume, with extraor
dinary impudence, to subordinate the authority of the Church
and of this Apostolic See, conferred upon it by Christ our
Lord, to the judgment of the civil authority, and to deny all
the rights of the same Church and this see with regard to
those things which appertain to the secular order."
He re-affirms the constitutions, as they are called — be
cause tbey are considered as having all the solemnity of
law — 0f his predecessors, Clement XII, Benedict XIV,
Pius VII., and Leo XII., which, among other things, con
demn all secret societies, and especially freemasonry, and
brand, with their heaviest curses, their followers and parti
sans. He denounces those who deny to the Church the
right to " bind the consciences of the faithful in the tem
poral order of things ;" and also those who say " that the
right of the Church is not competent to restrain, with tem
poral penalties, the violators of her laws." He declares it

202 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
to be heresy to say " that the ecclesiastical power is not, by
the law of God, made distinct from, and independent of,
civil power," and insists that it is not usurpation, but con
sistent with the divine plan, to maintain that it is both dis
tinct and independent. He characterizes those as auda
cious who assert that his judgments and decrees, concern
ing the welfare of the Church, its rights, and discipline, "do
not claim acquiescence and obedience under pain of sin and
loss of the Catholic profession if they do not treat of the
dogmas of faith and morals ;" whereby he means that his
judgments and decrees, concerning the welfare, rights, and
discipline of the Church, are binding upon all the faithful,
whether confined to faith and morals or not ; in other
words, that his infallibility is absolute upon all subjects
which he may think proper to embrace within it ! The
Church, says Archbishop Manning, "is its own evidence!"
The Catholic World immediately repeats the idea — "the
Church accredits herself!" The pope, therefore, as the in
fallible head of the Church, is alone competent to declare
the limits and character of his own power! This, again,
says Manning, " is a, personal privilege" which all the com
bined authority of the Church can not take from him or
diminish ! There is not a Roman Catholic priest in the
United States who does not know that, if he dared to lit
ter publicly a sentiment contrary to this, his clerical robes
would be stripped off instantaneously, and he be denounced
as fit for the tortures of eternal punishment.
The numerous counts in this indictment, which the pope
has drawn up against all liberal ideas, all liberal-minded
people, and all liberal institutions, display no less the ma
lignity of the prosecutor than the skill of a professional
adept. He takes care that there shall be no misconcep
tion of either the principles or the persons arraigned by
it. Therefore, he sweepingly embraces all such as "dare"
to disagree with the Roman Catholic faith, by proclaiming
that all their teachings and principles are " contrary to the
Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely conferred on
the sovereign pontiff by our Lord Jesus Christ, to guide, to
supervise, and govern the universal Church." And then,
folded in his pontifical robes, with his ecclesiastical sword in

UNIVERSAL DOMINION OF THE POPE. 203
one hand and his temporal sword in the other, and with the
crown of a king yet resting upon his royal brow, he thus
hurls at all these impudent and audacious adversaries his
fearful curses, in one breath, and his stern command to the
faithful, in the next :
" Therefore do we, by our apostolic authority, reprobate,
denounce, and condemn, generally and particularly, all the
evil opinions and doctrines specially mentioned in this let
ter, and we wish that they may be held as reprobated, de
nounced, and condemned by all the children of the Catholic
Church." But the pope is not yet content — his work is not yet ac
complished. He next turns his attention to the free dis
cussion of tbe press, to the "pestilent books, pamphlets,
and journals, which, distributed over the earth, deceive
the people, and wickedly lie ;" and directs his clergy to
instruct "the faithful that all true happiness for mankind
proceeds from our august religion, from its doctrines, and
practice." He commands them to inculcate the doctrine
"that kingdoms rest upon the foundation of the Catholic
faith ;" and " not to omit to teach ' that the royal power
has been established not only to exercise the government
of the world, but, above all, for the protection of the
Church, and that there is nothing more profitable and
more glorious, for the sovereigns of states and kings, than
to leave the Catholic Church to exercise its laws,- and not
to permit any to curtail its liberty;'" herein adopting the
language of Pope St. Felix, in a letter written to the Em
peror Zeno. And he quotes approvingly from an encyclic
al letter of Pius VII., in 1800, tbis sentence: "It is certain
that it is advantageous for sovereigns to submit their royal
will, according to his ordinance, to the priests of Jesus Christ,
and not to prefer it before them."^)
And here our analysis of this extraordinary encyclical
letter of Pope Pius IX. might end, if it did not possess
additional significance, which is concealed from the ordi
nary reader, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant. The
hierarchy understand it perfectly well: if they were ad-

C) See Appendix C.

204 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
dressed by the pope in cabalistic words, they would be fur
nished with a key to their interpretation. It is far better
that an unreasonable space should be devoted to it, than
that what is hidden within should remain undisclosed, and .
its true meaning unknown.
It embodies, but without quoting, several of the previous
encyclical letters of Pius IX. — one in 1846, one in 1854,
and another in 1862. In that of 1846 he denounces pri
vate judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures, and
condemns those who " dare rashly to interpret, when God
himself has appointed a living authority to teach the true
and legitimate sense of his heavenly revelation " infallibly.
Besides secret societies, he especially condemns Bible socie
ties, which he calls " these insidious Bible societies," because
they translate the Bible " against the holiest rules of the
Church into various vulgar tongues," thereby enabling it
to be read in all the spoken languages, and giving to every
man the opportunity to " interpret the revelations of the
Almighty according to his own private judgment," which
God, in his opinion, never designed. He re -affirms the
apostolic letter of Pope Gregory XVI., condemning these
societies also, and proceeds to lament the " most foul plague
of books and pamphlets " with which the world is cursed.
From " the unbridled license of thinking, speaking, and writ
ing" he declares many bad consequences have ensued;
among others, the diminution of his own power, opposition
to the authority of the Church, and the melting-away of
the influence of all power; that is, of all royal power,
which is alone legitimate. He enjoins due obedience to
princes and powers, except in cases where " the thing com
manded be opposed to the laws of God and the Church ;" in
which event this obedience is not due! And he counsels
the Roman Catholic princes to remember that the "regal
power was given them, not only for the government of the
world, but especially for the defense ofthe Church ;" where
fore he beseeches them to " defend the liberty and prosperi
ty of the Church, in order that the right hand of the Church
may defend their empires ;" that is, that each may maintain
the power and authority of the other, and thus subject the
whole world to their united government; with the State,

USE OF THE BIBLE FORBIDDEN. 205
however, obedient to the Church, and the Church obedient
to the pope !
Thus we have one key to the Encyclical of December
8th, 1864. But still within this there is another; that is,
the apostolic letter of Pope Gregory XVI. He issued two
pontifical bulls — one in 1832, and another in 1844 — re-af
firming what had been said of Bible societies by Pius VII.,
in 1816; by Leo XII., in 1824; and by Pius VIII., in 1829.
This is what Gregory XVI. says in his bull of 1844:
" We confirm and renew the decrees recited above, deliv
ered in former times by apostolic authority, against the pub
lication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the
Holy Scriptures, translated into the vulgar tongue." (3)
This, it will be noticed, is not an inhibition against a false
translation of the Bible, but against any translation " into
the vulgar tongue" — that is, into the spoken language of
any people. To the papist his were the utterances of infal
libility, as binding upon him as if God himself had spoken
them. And, therefore, the Church itself, in attempting to
escape the censures of the present age, by translating the
Scriptures " into the vulgar tongue," has disobeyed this
prohibitory injunction of its own pope. But as this was
only to answer a demand made necessary by the increas
ing intelligence of the wrorld, and to resist the encroach
ments made upon the papacy by the open Bible of Protest
antism, obedience is so far paid to that part of the injunc
tion which prohibits "the publication, distribution, reading,
and possession of books of the Holy Scriptures," that there
are millions of Roman Catholics in Europe, in Mexico, and
in the South American states, who are not allowed to pos
sess a Bible, and thousands in the United States who know
of its contents only what their priests choose to commu
nicate. But the bull of Gregory XVI, of 1832— referred to and
indorsed by Pope Pius IX., and now to be enforced by the
faithful in the United States and elsewhere, so soon as the
power to enforce it shall be acquired — besides its special
condemnation of Bible societies, denounces and anathema-
(3) Dowling's "History of Romanism," p. 623.

206 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
tizes " liberty of conscience " as a " most pestiferous error,"
from which spring revolutions, corruption, contempt of sa
cred things, holy institutions, and laws, and, " in one word,
that pest, of all others most to be dreaded in a state, unbri'
died liberty of opinion!" That also, of 1844, is most ex
pressive and suggestive, especially in its condemnation of
"religious liberty," which it denounces, because it makes
" the people disobedient to their princes," and because, if it
should be conceded to the Italians of the papal states, they
" will naturally soon acquire political liberty !"(4) like the
people of the United States — a result which the papacy
will never tolerate, and to prevent which Pius IX. was al
ways ready to turn the bayonets of his "papal zouaves"
against his subjects, until they fled before the artillery of
Victor Emmanuel.
But this is not all that is secretly embodied in this En
cyclical. It has already been seen that it refers to, and ap
proves, the bulls of Clement XII., Benedict XIV., Pius VII,
and Leo XII. All these have to be understood, in order to
learn its full import.
Clement XII. was a most bitter and unrelenting enemy
of all republican and democratic ideas. Thus speaks a Ro
man Catholic historian : "As soon as he was seated on the
throne of the apostle, like his predecessor [Benedict XIII.],
he declared himself to be an enemy of the democratic
ideas which were filtering through all classes of society,
announced his pretensions to omnipotence, and set him
self up as a pontiff of the Middle Ages."(6) This same his
torian, alluding to the bull which he issued against the free
masons, now approved by Pope Pius IX., says :
" His holiness prohibited his subjects, under penalty of
death, from becoming affiliated with, or from assisting at,
an assembly of freemasons, or even from inducing any one
to enter the proscribed society, or only from rendering aid,
succor, counsel, or a retreat to one of its members. He also
enjoined on the faithful, under penalty of the most severe cor
poral punishment, to denounce those whom they suspected
(') Dowling's " History of Romanism," pp. 619, 620.
(s) "History ofthe Popes," by Cormenin, vol. Ii., p. 376.

FREEMASONRY PUNISHED BY DEATH. ' 207
of being connected with them, and to reveal all they could
learn touching this heretical and seditious association. "(')
Benedict XIV. was the immediate successor of Clement
XII. Although he professed opposition to the Jesuits, who
were, at that time, held in almost universal execration, he,
at first secretly, and afterward openly, aided them in arrest
ing the intellectual progress of the people, and in their op
position to the enlightenment advocated and excited by the
philosophers and encyclopedists of France, under the lead
of Roussean, Montesquieu, d'Alembert, and others. Among
other means of doing this, he renewed the bull of Clement
XII. against the freemasons and other secret societies.
Pius VII. was pope nearly as long as Pius IX. has been—
from 1800 to 1823. His pontificate was chiefly distinguish
ed by his excommunication of Napoleon Bonaparte, and
his subsequent recantation, under terror of threats, when he
called Napoleon his " most dear son," and by his restoration
of the Jesuits to pontifical favor — as " vigorous and experi
enced rowers " to guide the papacy and save it from " ship
wreck and death."(7) But his condemnation of Bible soci
eties, which Pius IX. has specially approved, is expressed
in his encyclical letter of 1816, addressed to the primate
of Poland, in these words :
" We have been truly shocked at this most crafty device
(Bible societies), by which the very foundations of religion
are undermined. We have deliberated upon the measures
proper to be adopted, by our pontifical authority, in order
to remedy and abolish this pestilence, as far as possible, this
defilement of the faith so imminently dangerous to souls. It
becomes episcopal duty that you first of all expose the wick
edness of this nefarious scheme. It is evident, from experi
ence, that the Holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar
(6) " History of the Popes," by Cormenin, p. 379. Pope Clement XII. was
so avaricious, and had so few scruples of conscience to restrain him, that he
did not hesitate to commit sacrilege to obtain money. Cormenin says : "At
the instigation of his nephews, he sold, to Philip V. of Spain, for his son,
Don Luis, who was scarcely eight years old, the briefs which raised a child
in his jacket to the dignity of Archbishop of Toledo and Seville,,and which
conferred on him the title of Cardinal." — Ibid., p. 380.
(7) " History of the Popes," by Cormenin, vol, ii., p. 423.

208 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more
harm than benefit Warn the people intrusted to your care,
that they fall not into the snares prepared for their everlast
ing rui?i."C)
Leo XII. succeeded Pius VII., and Cormenin says: "He
was not long in raising himself to the highest dignity, by
means of his intrigues with the Roman courtesans, and his
liaisons with the bastards of the incestuous Pius VT."(°) He
promulgated the bull " Quod hoc ineunte sceculo," which fix
ed a universal jubilee for the year 1825, in order to "revive
the trade in dispensations, indulgences, benefices, and abso-
lutions."(10) That which meets the special approbation of
Pius IX. in his Encyclical is the attack of Leo XII. upon
the philosophical and liberal schools, his charge that they
" rekindled from their ashes the dispersed phalanxes of er
rors," and his denunciation of them and their teachings, in
the following words :
"This sect, covered externally by the flattering appear
ance of piety and liberality, professes toleration, or rather
indifference, and interferes not only with civil affairs, but
even with those of religion ; teaching that God has given
entire freedom to every man, so that each one can, without
endangering his safety, embrace and adopt the sect or opin
ion which suits his private judgment  This doctrine,
though seducing and sensible in appearance, is profoundly
absurd; and I can not warn you too much against the im
piety of these maniacs."^1)
Passing then to the "deluge of pernicious books" which
had obtained circulation, Pope Leo XII. exhibits also his un
compromising animosity to Bible societies, which, he said,
were spreading " audaciously over the whole earth," and to
the publication of translations ofthe Bible in " the languages
of the world, which, he declared, was "in contempt of the
traditions of the holy fathers," and " in opposition to the
celebrated decree of the Council of Trent, which prohibits
(") This bull will be found at length in Niles's Weekly Register, vol. xii.,
pp. 206, 207 — 1817. The translation there is in a somewhat different ar
rangement of language, but it is substantially the same as the above.
(y) Cormenin, vol. ii., p. 426. (») Ibid.
Q') Ibid.,\o\. ii.,p. 427.

SCRIPTURES MUST NOT BECOME COMMON. 209
the holy Scriptures from being made common." Thus ex
pressing the fear, almost universal among the popes, that
the free circulation of the Bible would do the Church more
harm than all other causes combined, he continues:
"Several of our predecessors have made laws to turn aside
this scourge; and we also, in order to acquit ourselves of our
pastoral duty, urge the shepherds to remove their flocks
carefully from these mortal pasturages  Let God arise:
let him repress, confound, annihilate this unbridled license of
speaking, writing, and publishing." (12)
By this means alone, though the process is tedious and
circuitous, do we reach the real meaning of the encyclical
letter of Pius IX. The initiated see it at once ; but to those
who have neither the means nor time for investigation, this
explanation is necessary, that they may the more readily re
alize wherein the papal principles, thus enunciated, are in
conflict with the public sentiment of this country, and with
our social, religious, and political institutions. Nothing is
plainer than that, if these principles should prevail here, our
institutions would necessarily fall. The two can not exist
together. They are in open and direct antagonism with the
fundamental theory of our Government, and of all popular
government everywhere. The Constitution of the United
States repudiates the idea of an established religion: yet the
pope tells us that this is in violation of God's law, and that,
by that law, the Roman Catholic religion should be made
exclusive, and the Roman Catholic Church, acting alone
through him, should have sovereign authority " not only
over individuals, but nations, peoples, and sovereigns," so
that the whole world may be brought under its dominion,
and be made to obey all the laws that he and his hierarchy
shall choose to promulgate ! and that this same Church shall
have power also to inflict whatever penalties he shall pre-
(I2) Cormenin. Pope Leo XII. distinguished himself also by proposing to
put in operation the system of "taxes ofthe apostolic chancery for the re
demption of crimes;" and when remonstrated with by some of the cardinals,
on the ground that it would give just cause of complaint to the enemies of
the papacy, he replied, " Bah! fear nothing; we will bring all the writers to
reason. I act to-day with money for religion, in order to act to-morrow for
religion with money." — Ibid., vol. ii., p. 427.
14

210 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
scribe upon all those who dare to violate any of these laws !
The Constitution secures the right to every man of worship
ing God according to the convictions of his own conscience:
yet the pope calls this insanity, and declares it to be " most
pernicious to the Catholic Church." The Constitution guar
antees liberty of speech and of the press : yet the pope says
that this is " the liberty of perdition," and should not be tol
erated. The Constitution provides for its own perpetuity
by making its principles "the supreme law ofthe land:" yet
the pope says that if he shall find, as he has already done,
any of its provisions against the law of God, as he interprets
it, they do not acquire the " force of right " from the fact of
its existence, as the fundamental law of the nation. The
Constitution requires that all the people, and all the church
es, shall obey the laws of the United States : yet the pope
anathematizes this provision, because it requires the Roman
Catholic Church to pay the same measure of obedience to
law that is paid by the Protestant churches; and claims
that the government shall obey him in all religious affairs,
and in all "secular affairs" which pertain to religion and the
Church, so that his will, in all these matters, shall become
the law of the land. The Constitution subordinates all
churches to the civil power, except in matters of faith and
discipline : yet the pope declares this to be heresy, because
God has commanded that the Government of the United
States, and all other governments, shall be subordinate to
the Roman Catholic Church ! The Constitution is based
upon the principle that the people of the United States are
tbe primary source of all civil power : yet the pope insists
that this is heretical and unjust, because God has ordained
that all governments shall "rest upon the foundation ofthe
Catholic faith," with himself alone as the source and inter
preter of law. The Constitution repudiates all " royal pow
er:" yet the pope condemns this, and proclaims that the
world must be governed by " royal power," in order that it
may protect the Roman Catholic Church to the exclusion of
all other churches ! The Constitution allows the free circu
lation ofthe Bible, and the right of private judgment in in
terpreting it : yet the pope denounces this, and says that
the Roman Catholic Church is the only " living authority "

PIUS IX. CONDEMNS AMERICAN LIBERTY. 211
which has the right to interpret it, and that its interpreta
tion should be the only one allowed, and should be protect
ed by law, while all others should be condemned and disal
lowed. In all these respects, and upon each of these impor
tant and fundamental ideas of government, there is an irrec
oncilable difference between the Constitution of the United
States and the papal principles announced by this encyclical
letter. The two classes of principles can not both exist, any
where, at the same time. Where one is, there it is impossi
ble for the other to be.
By this analysis of the Encyclical, we are enabled to sum
up, in a few words, the meaning and purposes of the pope.
He would not only suppress all " liberty of conscience," but
would muzzle the press, suppress all Bible societies, prohibit
the "publication, distribution, reading, and possession of the
Holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue," forbid
the " unbridled liberty of opinion," and compel all the peo
ple to be obedient to princes, and all princes obedient to
him! He would exterminate freemasonry by making "cor
poral punishment " the penalty of any association or fellow
ship with its members, and death the penalty of uniting with
the order ! He would " repress, confound, annihilate the un
bridled license of speaking, writing, and publishing !" And
last, but by no means the least, he would protect, encourage,
and strengthen the corrupt society of Jesuits, with all their
impious and immoral practices and principles, as the " sacred
militia " of the Church, in order that, by their aid, as " vig
orous and experienced rowers," the world may be carried
back to the Middle Ages, with himself as the independent
and infallible sovereign of a grand " Holy Empire !"
With this explanation of the . Encyclical, we are better
prepared to comprehend the doctrines of the Syllabus — its
sequel and logical consequence. Before proceeding, how
ever, to analyze this most remarkable paper, it should be
observed that it was put forth by the pope exjsressly as a
judgment against all the progressive nations — against all
existing civil and religious institutions not in compati
bility with the papacy. This purpose, if denied, could not
be concealed ; but the Jesuits, whatever others may have
done, neither sought to deny nor conceal it. The pope, un-.

212 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
der their guidance, intended it as an arraignment of the
whole non-Catholic world. To say that he meant to con
demn Christian institutions would be, in this unqualified
form, unjust to him. But it is precisely true to say that
his immediate object was to condemn all institutions which
he does not consider to be Christian. With him Roman Ca
tholicism and Christianity mean the same thing. Institutions
not Roman Catholic are not Christian; and all people who
are not Roman Catholic are heretics. All these are aimed
at in this official paper — this papal manifesto. At the time
it was issued Pius IX. was " King of Rome ;" and if he had
confined it to the papal States — merely to the denunciation
of the means his own subjects were then employing to take
from him his crown and temporal royalty — it. would have
had far less significance than it now has. But witnessing,
as he was compelled to do, the encroachments of the people
upon the royal power all over Christendom, the gradual sub
stitution of constitutional and representative government in
place of the absolute monarchies which had so long held
Europe in bondage, the general diffusion of liberal senti
ments, such as favored the erection of popular govern
ments, the growing intelligence of the masses ; seeing all
this, and finding his throne in a tottering condition — grad
ually moving from under him — he issued this pronuncia-
mento, from mere desperation, as the only supposed means
of preserving his imperialism. Inasmuch, therefore, as the
Syllabus must be considered as attacking all progress and
liberalism, every thing which has tended to carry the na
tions away from the papacy, its censures were designed,
manifestly, to fall most heavily upon those who had con
tributed, in tbe greatest degree, to this result, upon the
United States especially, for nowhere else have the prin
ciples it anathematizes been carried so far. As a Protest
ant people, we built our civil institutions upon the popular
plan, because that is the most direct road to political and re
ligious freedom, and because Protestantism and freedom are
synonymous terms, especially in our national vocabulary.
As a Roman Catholic prince, the pope designed to strike
directly at this plan, wheresoever it existed, understanding
perfectly well that the " divine right of kings " to govern

WHY PROTESTANTISM IS CONDEMNED. 213
must be maintained, or the papacy would fall. We call
ourselves a Christian people, and, in doing so, include both
Protestants and Roman Catholics. We think we have
a Christian government also; that is, a government which,
although the name of God does not appear in the Constitu
tion's based upon the essential principles of true Christian
ity, and shelters, protects, and defends the worship of God,
in a manner acceptable to him, and according to the teach
ings ofthe Gospel. But the pope concedes nothing of this.
All the Christians we have in this country, according to
him, are the Roman Catholics ; all else are heretics and in
fidels, and, therefore, not Christians. We are classed, by
him and his hierarchy, along with the infidels, socialists,
and Communists of Europe. And because Protestantism,
under the lead of Luther and other reformers of the six
teenth century, divided the Roman Catholic Church, and
because the adversary influences then excited are still at
work, mostly from the effect of our example, and because
whenever they lead to the establishment of a new form of
government, the people become the source of all the civil
laws, the Syllabus was aimed, as an exterminating blow, at
the Protestantism and Government of the United States !
There is no escape for its advocates from this conclusion.
It arraigns, tries, and pronounces judgment upon our insti
tutions; and commands the defenders ofthe papacy every
where to unite in executing the judgment. It is, conse
quently, in plain but true words, an insolent attempt of a
foreign despot to excite, among the Roman Catholic part
of our population, sedition against the Government, in or
der that he, if success can thus be won, may become our
royal master! It urges them, by strong and irresistible
implication, to plot together for the destruction of the
great principles for which our fathers sacrificed so much,
and which we have prized more highly than our lives.
And it stimulates them to untiring activity in this work
of demolition, by announcing that all progress and liberal
ism such as we boast of, all " recent civilization," is accursed
of God; and that heaven can be reached only by resist
ance to such impiety ! It recognizes no form of Christian
ity but the Roman Catholic — no civilization but Roman

214 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Catholic civilization; whatever does not lean upon the pa
pacy for support is infidelity, atheism, or, at best, material
ism, which, in order to serve God truly, must be extermi
nated ! It points out no source of authority but the roy
al and papal power, and proposes to substitute this power
for that of the people in the enactment of public laws. It
denounces revolution, and is itself revolutionary, inciting
rebellion against the just authority of our National Consti
tution. It is a flagrant act of aggression, unparalleled, ex
cept in the conduct of former popes — such an act as can
not pass unnoticed and unrebuked by the people of the
United States, unless they are ready to give up their free
dom and to become slaves.
The Syllabus is put forth under an imposing title, which
must be taken as a key to its proper interpretation: like
the preamble to a law, it indicates the purpose of the law.
It is called " The Syllabus of the principal errors of our
time, which are stigmatized in the consistorial allocutions,
Encyclical, and other apostolic letters of our most holy fa
ther, Pope Pius IX." Each proposition which it contains,
therefore, is merely stated to be condemned — to show what
a large proportion of the principles now prevalent in the
world are considered to be errors, and the subjects of pa
pal censure. It contains eighty propositions, arranged in
ten sections, each section constituting a distinct class of er
rors. That the reader may see that what has just been
said is not undeservedly harsh, a few of its leading proposi
tions will be stated, with brief explanations of their mean
ing, to aid him in the examination of the document for him
self. (1S)
Under the head of " Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism,"
Proposition XV. condemns the principle that " every man
is free to embrace and profess the religion he shall believe
true, guided by the light of reason." He must know but
little who does not know that this is a direct condemna
tion of the principle upon which all our American constitu
tions are based. It makes all these constitutions heretical;
and as all the supporters of the papacy consider it their
(") Appendix D.

DOCTRINES OF THE SYLLABUS. 215
bounden duty, in the proper service of God, to oppose her
esy, it is a command to them that they shall oppose the
American idea that a man has the right to worship God
accordingly as his own conscience shall dictate. When this
idea is destroyed, the pope would have substituted for it the
opposite one, that, as we are not free to select our own re
ligion, or to consult our own consciences upon the subject,
we must be compelled to take his — that is, to become Ro
man Catholics ; for the absence of freedom implies, necessa
rily, that there is a power to command.
As belonging to the same class, Proposition XVIII. con
demns the principle that "Protestantism is nothing more
than another form of the same true Christian religion, in
which it is possible to be equally pleasing to God as in the
Catholic Church." This denies tbat Protestants have any
Christian faith. Hence it is the duty of all Roman Catho
lics to destroy it — which, in this country, can only be done
by destroying onr Protestant institutions.
Under the class entitled " Errors concerning the Church
and her Rights," Proposition XX. condemns the principle,
that " the ecclesiastical power must not exercise its authority
loithout the permission and assent of the civil government."
This denies the authority of the Government of the United
States, or of any State in the Union, to make laws govern
ing every body alike — both clergy and laymen. It asserts
that the "ecclesiastical power" — that is, the pope and his
clergy — has the right to do what and as it pleases, without
the "permission or assent" of the State; that it shall be
independent of the State, and above all the laws which the
State may enact for the government of its citizens. It fa-
voi-s the erection of a privileged class, superior to all other
classes, and, therefore, baving the right to govern them all.
Proposition XXIII., in the same class, denies that "the
Roman pontiff and ecumenical councils have exceeded the
limits of their power, have usurped the rights of princes, and
have even committed errors in defining matters of faith and
morals." This justifies and indorses all that any of the
popes have done in reference to dethroning kings, releas
ing their subjects from their allegiance, and bestowing he
retical governments upon Roman Catholic princes. It claims

216 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
also that all the popes, from the beginning, have been infal
lible in defining faith and morals.
Proposition XXIV., of the same class, condemns those
who assert that " the Church has not the power of availing
herself oi force, or any direct or indirect temporal power."
This necessarily affirms the opposite of the condemned er
ror, and means that the Roman Catholic Church, and him
self as its sovereign head, has the authority to employ force
and the temporal power to compel obedience to its decrees.
Proposition XXX., same class, condemns those who say
that " the immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical
persons derives its origin from civil law." Here it is dis
tinctly claimed that the Roman Catholic clergy, wherever
they may be, possess immunity above the law, which ele
vates them into a privileged and exclusive class, above all
other citizens ; makes them superior to all others ; and,
therefore, renders it a positive duty that all others shall
obey them.
Proposition XXXL, same class, condemns the principle
that "ecclesiastical courts, for the temporal causes of the
clergy, whether civil or criminal, ought by all means to be
abolished, even without the concurrence, and against the
protest, of the Holy See." This is equivalent to the direct
assertion that the clergy, for all civil and criminal acts, no
matter how flagrant, should be tried by ecclesiastical courts
alone, and not by the civil courts, where other people are
tried; in other words, that they should try themselves!
This principle, so diametrically opposed to our political in
stitutions, is well understood by the priesthood and all
their initiated followers in this country. The New York
Tablet, one of their most prominent-organs, says:
"We do not acknowledge that, in a State in which the
proper relations between Church and State exist, the cler
gy are amenable, for their conduct, to the civil courts, or
come under their jurisdiction. If guilty of offenses or
crimes punishable by the civil courts, they can be tried
and punished, not in the civil courts, but in the ecclesiastic
al courts." (u)

(M) New York Tablet, April 8th, 1871.

AUTHORITY OF THE STATE DENIED. 217
Following up the same idea, so as to show what extent of
authority these ecclesiastical or church courts would have,
and how completely they would be above the State and the
people, this same paper says :
" The State has not supreme legislative authority ; and
civil laws which contravene the law of God do not bind the
conscience; and whether they do or not contravene that
law, the Church, not the State or its courts, is the supreme
judge." O
Thus the State would become, in every sense, subordina
ted to the Roman Catholic Church, and every one of its laws
which the pope should, either by himself or through his hie
rarchy, decide to be contrary to the law of God, would fall,
because not binding on the conscience. And thus the law
(") New York Tablet, April 8th, 1871. The Tablet has recently become
more bold in announcing this doctrine of State dependence. The Rev. Henry
Asten, in a sermon preached in New York, spoke of a gradual tendency to
ward a union of Church and State in this country in consequence of the
papal teachings ; and the New York Herald, referring to what he said, made
this remark : " There are thousands of Catholics in this land who do not place
Rome above the United States, and whose patriotism can not be measured by
fealty to rehgious dogmas and creeds." — Herald, November 4th, 1872. To
this the Tablet replied :
" The Herald is behind the times, and appears not yet to have learned
that the ' thousands of Catholics ' it speaks of are simply no Catholics at all,
if it does not misrepresent them. Gallicanism is a heresy, and he who de
nies the papal supremacy in the government of the Universal Church is as
far from being a Catholic as he is who denies the Incarnation, or the Real (
Presence. The Church is more than country, and fealty to the creed God
teaches and enjoins through her is more than patriotism. We must obey
God rather than man. "
Referring then to the questions raised by Mr. Asten, it says :
"For ourselves, we answer no such questions, for our Church is God's
Church, and not accountable either to State or country." — New York Tab
let, November 16th, 1872, vol. xvi., No. 25.
The Tablet and the Herald have continued this controversy until the for
mer, unable otherwise to extricate itself, has been compelled to insist that
the basis of its whole argument is the fact that the power ofthe Church over
temporals is derived from the divine law. It says :
"But the power of the pope over temporal sovereigns never originated
in or depended on his temporal sovereignty of the States of the Church, but
was included in his spiritual authority as vicar of Christ, and was always a
purely spiritual, and in no sense a temporal authority. " — New York Tablet,
November 23d, 1872, vol. xvi., No. 26.

218 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
making all citizens equal, that giving freedom of religious
belief to all, that which authorizes every man to embrace
what religious belief his own conscience shall approve, that
which tolerates different churches, that which separates the
State from the Church, that which secures free thought, free
speech, and a free press — in fine, all the great principles
which lie at the very basis of our Government, would be de
stroyed, because not binding upon the Roman Catholic con
science ! The pope understands this. All the Roman Cath
olic hierarchy in the United States understand it. And it is
quite time that all our Protestant people were beginning to
realize the necessity of resisting such arrogant and audacious
pretensions. In the class entitled " Errors about Civil Society, consid
ered both in itself and in its relation to the Church," Propo
sition XXXIX. condemns the principle that " the Republic
is the origin and source of all rights which are not circum
scribed by any limits;" which means, simply, that we must
not look' to the State to ascertain what our rights are, but to
the Church and the pope !
Proposition XLII., in same class, condemns that theory
of government which provides that "in the case of conflict
ing laws between the two powers [Church and State] the
civil law ought to prevail ;" which means neither more nor
less than this: that the laws prescribed by the pope and his
hierarchy shall override the laws of the United States and
all the States, that whenever they are in conflict the latter
shall give way, and that the pope shall become the law
making power of this country, and govern it and all its cit
izens just as he pleases !
Proposition LV., same class, condemns that principle of
government which provides that "the Church ought to be
separated from the State, and the State from the Church."
This separation constitutes one of the leading features of
our Government — one of its most boasted characteristics.
To denounce it is to denounce the Government. The pope
does denounce it, not only here, by necessary implication,
but in many other places, directly and immediately. He re
quires his hierarchy to denounce it, and they obey him. He
and they would have the Church and the State united, the

UNION OF STATE AND CHURCH. 219
Church governing the State. And thus they would put an
end to our Government, which should be held to be the ob
ject of every man, priest or layman, who advocates the doc
trines of this extraordinary document.
In the class entitled "Errors concerning Natural and
Christian Ethics," Proposition LXIII. condemns the princi
ple that " it is allowable to refuse obedience to legitimate
princes, nay, more, to rise in insurrection against them." Our
Declaration of Independence asserts this right of resistance
to unjust princes, and, but for the maintenance of it, we
should have had a monarchical government in this country,
instead of a popular one. Here, then, the principle asserted
by our fathers is repudiated and condemned by the pope,
and it would follow, if his teachings should prevail, that, as
our Revolution was against God's law, therefore all the
rights we have acquired by it are void, and it will be his
duty, if he can, to remit us back again to our original state
of dependence, and compel us to admit the divine right of
kings to govern all mankind, and of the pope to govern the
kings !
In the class entitled "Errors regarding the Civil Power
of the Sovereign Pontiff," Proposition LXXVI. condemns
the principle which asserts that " the abolition ofthe tempo
ral power, of which the Apostolic See is [was] possessed, would
contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity
of the Church." The possession of the temporal power by
the pope made him a king. Therefore, this is the same as
to say that it is necessary for the Roman Catholic religion
that the Church should have a king ; and as all the world
should be governed by it in order to fulfill the divine com
mand, hence, all the world should be governed by a king.
This makes the Church a monarchy at Rome, and if it is
necessary that it should be a monarcby at Rome, it must, of
the same necessity, be so elsewhere, both in Europe and the
United States. All Roman Catholics insist that what the
Church is at one place it is at all other places — that it has
perfect unity.
The last and concluding class of condemned errors are
those "having reference to modern liberalism." Among
these, Proposition LXXVII. condemns the principle which

220 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
asserts that " in the present day it is no longer expedient that
the Catholic religion shall be beld as the only religion of the
State, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship." What
he means is this : that it is both proper and expedient that
the Roman Catholic religion shall be the only religion, and
that it shall be made by law the religion of the State, to the
exclusion of every other. Now, he who can not see that
this would require the destruction of Protestantism and the
overthrow of our Government is blind, and he who would
deny it is worse than blind.
Proposition LXXVIII., of the same class, condemns this
principle of toleration which follows the recognition of other
religions besides the Roman Catholic : " Whence it has been
wisely provided by law, in some countries called Catholic,
that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public
exercise of their own religion." Thus is all religious tolera
tion stigmatized as an error, as against the divine command,
and as inconsistent with the interests of the Roman Catho
lic Church. By this teaching the pope requires that those
Protestants who go to Roman Catholic countries shall not
be permitted to exercise their religion publicly. What a
fitting response this is to the constant cry against Protest
ant intolerance in this country, made by those who are
obliged to believe that religious toleration is offensive to
God! The last proposition, LXXX., is the summing-up of the
whole — the final conclusion of the papal mind. It is a
general and wholesale denunciation of all the progress
and liberalism of the age, and shows, conclusively, that
the pope would, if he had the power, turn the world back
into the Egyptian darkness of the mediaeval times. He
condemns the principle which asserts that "the Roman
pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself to, and agree
with, progress, liberalism, and civilization, as lately in
troduced." Thus the avowal is emphatic that the infallible
pope must not become reconciled to, or agree with, any of
these things ! Standing alone in the world, as God's repre
sentative, he plants his feet upon them all. As the sover
eign lord of the universe, he repudiates, denounces, and
scorns them. The world must not go forward, but back-

PROGRESS AND LIBERALISM CONDEMNED. 221
ward — backward, toward that "Holy Empire" which his
predecessors struggled so hard to erect, in which he would
make himself the source of all authority, and plunge all
mankind into the degradation of ignorance and superstition.
It must be observed that the pope is stating all these
condemned propositions as " the principal errors " which
he designs to stigmatize. All of them are heretical, and
must be so accepted by the faithful, at the peril of their
souls. Will they be so accepted? is the question which
comes up in all intelligent minds. Thousands of Roman
Catholics in Europe have rejected them already, and thou
sands more will do so. In this country the body of the
laymen have not learned their import and bearing, but
have drifted along, in passive submission, under the guid
ance of a priesthood who have tortured their ignorant ac
quiescence into intelligent assent, and have thus flattered
both the pope and themselves into the belief that their
final victory over Protestantism and popular institutions is
near at hand. Will this submission continue? If it does,
there is not a virtuous or patriotic heart in the land that
does not sigh at the contemplation of the consequences
which may follow.
The contents of the Encyclical and Syllabus are unknown
to the most of these laymen. They have appeared togeth
er in few, if any, of their papers or periodicals. A leading
Jesuit journal of New York(16) has published the Syllabus,
but without note or comment. It has taken care, however,
to accompany it, in the same paper, with documents of kin
dred import, so that such of the faithful as should peruse it
would be furnished with a key to its proper interpretation
— especially upon those points of it which refer to civil and
political affairs. One of these is " a great pastoral for East
er-Sunday," from Archbishop Manning, wherein he instructs
his flock in reference to the true principles upon which all
governments should be based — showing, what is conveyed
also by the Encyclical and Syllabus, that those founded
upon the will of the people are all wrong and heretical,
and that none are right but those founded upon the relig-
(ie) Saint Peter, June 24th, 1871.

222 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ion of the Roman Catholic Church. These are the words
in which he expresses this idea:
"The faith and knowledge which come from God are the
sole base of stable government and public peace. They
bind together all orders of a people by a unity of mind
and will ; and they transmit the traditions of law, of au
thority, and of obedience from generation to generation."
Another is "a great united pastoral," from a number of
German archbishops and bishops, in May, 1871, designed
primarily to enforce obedience to the dogma of infallibil
ity. In this document an attempt is made to defend
against the charge of Dr. Dollinger and others, that the
papacy designs to. interfere with the domestic politics of
the States, and re-establish the " mediaeval hierarchic sys
tem." But it is so made as to bear the appearance of sin
cerity to the public, while at the same time the real object
is sufficiently made known to the initiated. They say :
" Of all the bulls designated by the opponents of the doc
trine [infallibity] as dangerous to the State, only one is dog
matic, the bull Unam Sanctam of Pope Bonifacius VIII.,
and this has been accepted by a general council ; so that the
infallibility of the general councils and of the Church would
be quite as dangerous to the State as that of the pope."
Pope Boniface VIII. strained the authority of the papacy
"to a higher pitch than any of his predecessors. "(") He
was not only one of the most ambitious, but one of the most.
execrable and infamous of the popes, having been charged,
by the authority of the powerful sovereign, Philip the Fair
of France, with " denying the immortality of the soul," and
" the presence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist ;" and calling
"the host a piece of bread to which he paid no respect;"
and maintaining that " the pope, being infallible, could com
mit incest, robberies, and murders without being criminal,
and that it was heresy even to accuse him of having sin
ned ;" and " that he openly proclaimed fornication to be one
of the most beautiful laws of nature;" and that he " lived in
concubinage with his two nieces, aud had several children

tion.

(") Hallam's "Middle Ages," chap, vii., p. 304, Harper & Brother's edi-

THE VICES OF AN INFALLIBLE POPE. 223
by both of them."(18) John Villani copied and preserved,
from authentic documents, some of his axioms, among which
are the following: "Men have souls like those of beasts; the
one are as much immortal as the other." " The Gospel
teaches more falsehoods than truths ; the delivery of the
Virgin is absurd ; the incarnation of the Son of God is ridic
ulous; the dogma of transubstantiation is a folly." "The
sums of money which the fable of Christ has produced the
priests are incalculable." "Religions are created by the
ambitious to deceive men." " Ecclesiastics must speak like
the people, but they have not the same belief." " It is no
greater sin to abandon one's self to pleasure with a young
girl or boy than to rub one's hands together." " We must
sell in the Church all that the simple wish to buy."(")
This pope was, of course, infallible (!) by virtue of the de
cision ofthe Council of Trent, which teaches that, "however
wicked and flagitious, it is certain that they still belong to
the Church ; and of this the faithful are frequently to be re
minded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives
of our ministers debased by crime, they are still within her
pale, and, therefore, lose no part of their power, with which
ber ministry invests them."(20) And being incapable of com
mitting any error in matters concerning the powers of the
papacy and the welfare of the Church, being, in these re
spects, the "vicegerent of God," though as a man he was
utterly debased, his bull Unam Sanctam was an act of
infallibility, and, therefore, these German bishops solemnly
announce, in this pastoral, that it has been " accepted by a
general council;" that it has, consequently, become "dogmat
ic," and is now a part of the religious faith of the Roman
Catholic Church, which all its members are bound to enter
tain, and which only heretics deny. They do not publish
the bull, for it would contradict, in flat terms, what had just
preceded the reference to it in the pastoral, and thus startle
the public mind. Besides, in addressing the priesthood,
there was no necessity for this ; for they know already that
(18) Cormenin, vol. ii., pp. 35, 36. (19) Ibid., p. 37.
(2°) "Catechism of the Council of Trent," pp. 73, 74. Published under
the sanction of Pope Pius V. Translated by Rev. I. Donovan. F. Lucas,
Jun., Baltimore, 1829.

224 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER
of all the bulls issued by all the popes, from the beginning,
that called Unam Sanctam stands alone in impudence and
audacity. Inasmuch, then, as this bull is thus declared to
be binding upon the conscience of all the Roman Catholics
of the world, and is pointed out to the priesthood, in the
very paper which contains the Syllabus, as the key to its in
terpretation, its contents should be generally understood, so
that the public judgment may be correctly formed. This is
what it says :
"Either sword is in the power ofthe Church, that is to
say, the spiritual and the material. The former is to be used
by the Church, but the latter for the Church. The one in
the hand of the priest, the other in the hands of kings and
soldiers, but at the will and pleasure of the priest. It is
right that the temporal sword and authority be subject to
the spiritual power. Moreover, we declare, say, define, and
pronounce that every human being should be subject to the
Roman pontiff, to be an article of necessary faith." t?1)
With this distinct explanation of the politico -religious
faith promulgated by the infallible popes, and sanctioned by
a general council, before us, we can fully understand the
Encyclical and Syllabus of Pius IX., and should be at no
loss to tell what Archbishop Manning meant when he said,
" the hated Syllabus will have its justification," and " tooidd
have saved society /" Its justification will be found in the
complete wreck of all the Protestant and non -Catholic na
tions, whose people are to be saved from themselves by
being made tbe degraded and miserable subjects of the pa
pacy. And then, when the Jesuit shout of gratified revenge

C1) Hallam's "Middle Ages," chap, vii., p. 303 ; Dowling's " History of
Romanism," p. 353; Du Pin's "Ecclesiastical History," vol. xii., p. 7.
That the classical reader may translate this celebrated bull for himself, it
is given in the original, as follows :
"Uterque est in potestate ecclesia;, spiritalis scilicet gladius et materialis.
Sed is quidem pro ecclesia, ille vero ab ecclesia exercendus : ille sacerdotis,
is manu regum ac militum, sed ad nutum et patientium sacerdotis. Oportet
autem gladium esse sub gladio, et temporalem auctoritatem spiritali subjici
potestati. Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humana?, creatures declara-
mus, dicimus, definimus, et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate fidei." —
Extrav., lib. i., tit. viii., c. 1. Apud Hallam and Dowling, ut supra.

THE POPE'S DIVINE RIGHT. 225
shall go up from Rome, and the dbbris of shattered popular
governments shall be lying all around, the temporal sword
will be drawn " at the will and pleasure of the priest," and
he who shall dare to question that all this is the will of God,
will be racked in every limb by the tortures of the Inquisi
tion, or consumed by its re-enkindled flames.
15

226 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.

CHAPTER VTIL
Infallibility before the late Decree.— The Pope's Temporal Power not Di
vine.— The Italian People.— The Government of the Papal States.— Jes
uitism.— Mutilation of Books at Rome.— Union of Church and State by
Constantine. —His Grant Supposititious. — He did not unite with the
Church of Rome. — Rome was governed by Imperial Officers. — The Apos
tles had no Temporal Power.
It was asserted by Protestants generally, before the de
cree of papal infallibility was passed, that if that doctrine
could ever obtain the approval of a general council, it
would be employed to advance the favorite theory of the
Jesuits, that the spiritual power of the pope includes the
temporal as one of its necessary incidents, inasmuch as it
belonged to the primacy of Peter, and was divinely con
ferred upon him. The Jesuits themselves practiced no du
plicity upon this question, but openly asserted their doc
trine with a confidence which would now seem to have
been awakened by a perfect knowledge of their power
over all the authorities of the Church, including the pope.
Their boldness won them the victory, and they are now
complete masters of the situation. All the energies of the
Church, in so far as the pope is enabled to arouse them, are
placed under their guidance ; and even the venerable pon
tiff himself is spending the close of a long and honorable life
in endeavoring to establish the doctrine they have maintain
ed so earnestly as an essential and indispensable part of the
true faith. With his vanity flattered by their caresses, and
persuaded to believe that he stands in the place of God
on earth, he omits no opportunity of declaring that he has
been appointed by divine decree to direct and regulate all
such secular affairs as pertain in any way to the Church, its
faith, its discipline, and the universality of its sovereignty.
Of those within the Roman Catholic Church, who were
unwilling to accept this doctrine, there were two classes:
one denying the infallibility of the pope, and claiming it

THE POPE'S PATRIMONY NOT DIVINE. 227
only for the Universal Church ; and the other insisting that
if it were recognized it would confer no temporal power
upon the pope, because it was not necessarily included in
tbe spiritual, and had not been divinely established as an
incident to the primacy of Peter. To this latter class, it
may be fairly said, belonged a considerable portion, if not
a majority, of the Roman Catholics in the United States.
These had not yet felt the tremendous pressure of the Jes
uit power, and honestly endeavored, by this argument, to
remove what they considered to be Protestant prejudice
against their Church. It was not composed entirely of
laymen, but included some of the prelates aud clergy, who
were not yet prepared to turn over the Church to Jesuit
dominion. They could not see how it was possible, if God
had made the temporal an appendage to the spiritual pow
er, that so many centuries should have elapsed without its
announcement by the Church in some authoritative form.
And they were encouraged in this by the highest ecclesias
tical authority in the United States.
In 1848, Archbishop Kenrick, of Baltimore, prepared for
the press a treatise on the Primacy, in which great learn
ing and ability are displayed. It was published in that
year, and a sixth revised edition was also published in
1867. When he conies to speak ofthe relations between
the pope and secular affairs, he begins his first chapter on
the "Patrimony of St. Peter" with this emphatic sentence:
"The primacy is essentially a spiritual office, which has not,
of divine right, any temporal appendage." The "small prin
cipality in Italy " over which he is sovereign is, he says, des
ignated " the Patrimony of St. Peter," on account of its hav
ing been " attached to the pontifical office, through rever
ence for the Prince of the Apostles." He declares that this
"has no necessary connection with the primacy;" and because
"Catholics not living within the Roman States are not sub
ject to the civil autbority of the pope," he treated of it no
further than to trace its history ;(') and to this we shall have
occasion hereafter to refer.
(') "The Primacy ofthe Apostolic See," by Archbishop Kenrick, sixth
edition, p. 255.

228 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
He says again : " In making Peter the ruler of his king
dom, he [Christ] did not give him dominion, or wealth, or
any of the appendages of royalty."^) Then, going on to
show that " the Bishop of Rome was not yet a temporal sov-
ereign"(3) at the time of Leo the Great — the middle ofthe
fifth century — he says also, at another place, that the power
of interfering with, and regulating, the "political order" in
the nations was vested in the popes " by the force of circum
stances," and was not " a divine prerogative of their office."(4)
What Roman Catholic archbishop, or bishop, or priest, in
the United States would repeat these words to-day? See,
again, what the pope says: "The civil sovereignty of the
Holy See has been given to the Roman pontiff by a singu
lar counsel of Divine Providence ;" and as " regards the re
lations of the Church and civil society," " all the preroga
tives, and all the rights of authority necessary to govern
ing the Universal Church, have been received by us, in the
person of the most blessed Peter, directly from God him-
self."(b) Has the faith changed ? Did not Archbishop Ken
rick understand what it was ? Was he a heretic? But this
conflict of authority is in no other way important to us than
to show how the honest apprehensions of Roman Catholics
in the United States were allayed before. the pope's infalli
bility was announced, and to excite to such inquiry as will
show how, in reality, the temporal power was acquired —
whether it is of God or man, whether it was obtained le
gitimately or by usurpation. Thus we shall be better pre
pared to understand the import of the issues which the pa
pacy has precipitated upon us.
Archbishop Kenrick did not consider it necessary, in his
work on the Primacy, to treat of the pope's temporal power
in Rome, any further than to trace its history. Nor was it
necessary that he should do so, in view of his denial of its
divine origin. He did not consider it to be a part of the
faith of the Church that he, or any body else, should believe
that it was conferred by Christ upon Peter, and had come
down through an unbroken line of succession to the present
(!) "The Primacy of the Apostolic See," by Archbishop Kenrick, sixth
edition, p. .255.
O Ibid., p. 257. (4) Ibid., p. 276. (6) Ante, chap, vi., p. 162.

CIVIL GOVERNMENT IN ROME. 229
pope. The new order of things, however — tbe introduction
of the new faith — gives great importance to the question ;
because if it be true that the temporal power of the pope,
anywhere, is of divine origin, then the new faith is right and
the old faith wrong ; and the world may reasonably expect
that, either by its own consent or the providences of" God, it
may yet be compelled to admit its universality. If, on the
other hand, it had its origin in fraud, usurpation, and im
posture, those of us to whom the charge of infidelity is now
imputed may breathe more freely.
Can it be possible that the Italian people violated the law
of God by the act of terminating the pope's temporal power
in the Papal States ? and that they have thereby cut them
selves off from reasonable hopes of heaven, unless they shall
restore it? Or were they justified, after the example of the
United States, in throwing off the papal yoke and adopting
a form of government which, although monarchical, is rep
resentative ? If the former — if God did make Peter king of
Rome, and Pius IX. his successor in royal authority — then
no such justification can exist, revolution is offensive to
God, and every government which has grown out of it must
stand accursed at the bar of heaven. Arraigned, as we are,
upon such a charge, both as principals and accessories, we
must be allowed the privilege of the most abandoned crim
inal, the right to plead to the jurisdiction of his triers.
It is a common remark of the supporters of the papacy,
that the civil Government of Rome and the Papal States,
by the pope and his curia, was altogether paternal, that it
looked carefully after the interests of the people, was most
considerate of their happiness, and was, in fact, one of the
best governments in the world. If this were true, it is not
easy, according to any ordinary rules of reasoning, to ac
count for the fact that Pope Pius IX. has held the temporal
sceptre, during all the years of his long pontificate, by an ex
ceedingly frail and uncertain tenure. To him, as a king,
there could be 'no strong personal objections. He is repre
sented as kind-hearted and benevolent, and, no doubt, truth
fully so. Even Gavazzi concedes as much.(°) But these
(") Gavazzi's "Lectures and Life," p. 230.

230 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
very qualities may unfit him for the duties of government,
by subjecting him to the undue influence of men around
him, wbo play upon them. Such has, undoubtedly, been the
case. Antonelli, his Cardinal Secretary of State, is under
stood to be both ambitious and unscrupulous, just such a
man as would hold the curia and all the inferior officers of
government in strict subordination to his will.(') He would,
in all probability, have little difficulty in dictating the policy
and measures of the administration. If the pope has ambi
tion, he could excite it ; if he has none, he could create it.
Thus we may account for their joint efforts to check the cur
rent of adverse circumstances which have, during the pres
ent pontificate, pressed upon the papacy, and rendered it
necessary that the pope should be held upon his throne by
French bayonets. Thus, also, may we account for the En
cyclical and Syllabus, and other papal bulls and briefs,
wherein the attempt is made to weld religion and politics
together, and make it appear that the people, however op
pressed, have no more right to resist the divine right of
(') Mr. Edmund About, a modern writer, and Gallican Catholic, thus
speaks of Pius IX. :
"The character of this honest old man is made up of devotion, of good
nature, of vanity, of weakness, and of obstinacy ; with a spice of malice,
which peeps out from time to time. He blesses with unction, and pardons
with difficulty; a good priest, and an incompetent king." — TheRoman Ques
tion, by About, p. 135.
Of Cardinal Antonelli he says: "He was born in a den of thieves."— P.
140. " He seems a minister ingrafted on a savage." — P. 147. "All classes
of society hate him equally. " — Ibid.
F. Petruccelli de la Gattina, who has continued the discussion of the ques
tions begun by Mr. About, does not speak so favorably of the pope. He
says: "The mildness of Pius IX. resembles those coverings which are put
on old arm-chairs, to conceal stains and rents." — Rome and the Papacy:
its Men, Manners, and Government in the Nineteenth Century, by F. Pe
truccelli de la Gattina, p. 272. He continues : " He does not elevate" himself
to the stature of God, but shrinks God to the stature of a poor priest, and
drags him into all the follies, passions, and interests of a caste which is con
founded with humanity." — P. 277.
He also condemns Antonelli in the strongest terms, by speaking of "the
thefts, the villainies, the rudeness of this cardinal." — P. 275. Of the papacy,
under his guidance, he says, it " is like the subterranean sewers of large cities;
it carries all the filth ; and where it is stopped and filters, it spreads infection
and death."— P. 292.

PAPAL DESPOTISM IN ROME. 231
kings than they have to violate the ten commandments.
That the papal government was oppressive has been settled
by the Italian people, hitherto the most devout Roman Cath
olics in the world. By their act, that fact, as such, is enti
tled to a place in history; and that they were justified in it,
as we were justified in our Revolution, a brief recital of facts
will abundantly show.
The Papal States, during the pope's temporal dominion,
were held as religious property — as " an ecclesiastical bene
fice." The people were considered as so many tenants, who
occupied and enjoyed the estate on " the condition affixed
by the infallible head of the Church, for her welfare, and not
their own." They possessed no civil rights whatever, in the
sense in which the world holds them, but only such privi
leges as their sovereign, the pope, thought proper to confer
upon them; and these could be changed, modified, or wholly
withdrawn, at his personal discretion, or whenever the inter
ests of the Church should require it. If the Government
was a trust, held alone for the benefit of the Church, as pa
pists allege, then the people had no right to demand of it
any thing on their own account. The Government was con
ducted wholly without reference to them, and they were re
quired to submit to whatsoever it did, and to all the laws
proclaimed by the papacy. Popular liberty was, therefore,
unknown, and was impossible. The papacy alone was free
to do as it pleased ; and this was called the freedom of the
Church! The people, having thus no voice in public affairs,
were in a condition of vassalage. The Government was a
revival, with slight exceptions, of the old system of feudal
ism, without its redeeming features. There was no change,
or promise of change : every thing moved on in the old
grooves which had been worn by centuries of papal abso
lutism. A writer who personally observed this says :
"At every appeal to alienate any part of his sacred estate,
or to grant any privileges to his subjects, on the ground of
their inherent rights, the pope talks of Constantine, and Pe
pin, and the blessed Countess Matilda, and, shaking his in
fallible head, doggedly thunders, "Non possumus /"(")
(") "Inner Rome," by Rev. C. M. Butler, p. 15. This book deserves ex-

232 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
There was no written constitution, not even a collection
of precedents, from which the citizen could learn the extent
or nature of the privileges conceded to him. Whatever of
fundamental law there was could be found only in the de
crees, canons, and constitutions of councils, and the bulls
and briefs of popes, published in a language which none but
the educated nobility could understand. Ecclesiasticism ab
sorbed all secular as well as all spiritual power. Cardinals,
prelates, and priests were a privileged class, and did as they
pleased. On one occasion a priest " endeavored to induce a
hackman to take him at a lower than his usual fare," and,
upon his refusal to do so, he was imprisoned for several
weeks.(") As late as 1851, Bertolotti, "Inquisitor-general
of the Holy See," published a papal edict defining certain
crimes to which penalties were affixed, and the duties of in
formers. These included " all heretics ;" all guilty of any
" acts from which can be inferred a compact, express or tac
it, with the devil ;" all who should " hinder in any manner
whatever the proceedings of the office of the Holy Inquisi
tion;" all who published " writings against the high-priest,
the sacred colleges, superiors, ecclesiastics, or against the
regular orders;" all "who without license retain writings
and prints which contain heresies, or the books of heretics ;"
and all who " have eaten, or given to others to eat, meat,
eggs, latticini (the products of milk), on forbidden days, in
contempt of the precepts of the Church." And, as encour
agement to informers, it was provided that " whoever fails
to denounce the above criminals to the Holy Inquisitor and
special delegate against 'heretical pravity' shall be subject
to excommunication!" What trifling with sacred things!
Under this parental (!) government, if a poor Italian should
have written a word against a profligate priest, who might
tensive circulation. It presents an admirable portrait of the political, relig
ious, and social condition of Rome, as observed by the author during a resi
dence there of two years. I have known Dr. Butler many years, and for
myself rely implicitly upon what he says. He is corroborated in his views of
the civil government in the Papal States by M. About and La Gattina in their
works, from which quotations have been made. Both of these have been
translated from the French, and published in this country.
(9) "Inner Rome, " by Rev. C. M. Butler, pp. 15, 16.

THE INQUISITION IN ROME. 233
have tried to rob his home of its most precious treasure, or
should have been found with a Protestant Bible in his house,
or a history of the American Revolution, or the Life of Wash
ington, or the Constitution of the United States, or the Dec
laration of Independence, he would have been arraigned
before the " Holy Inquisitor," punished as a criminal, shut
out from the Church by excommunication, and visited with
the wrath of God, for violation of his divine commands!
And this several centuries after the close of the Middle
Ages— after the world has been lifted out of darkness into
light !
The precise punishment for these several degrees of crime
was not defined — almost every thing being left to the discre
tion of tbe Inquisition. Its general character, however, may
be inferred from a document published in 1850 by the car
dinal archbishop, cardinal bishop, and other archbishops and
bishops of the Marches and of the province of Umbria. Re
ferring to the crimes of " blasphemy, inobservance of the sa
cred days, profanation ofthe churches, and violation of fasts,
and immoralities," this edict fixes as penalties, according to
circumstances, "excommunication, or imprisonment, or fines,
or castigation, or exile, or even death." It provides that
" the names of the informer and the witnesses shall be kept
secret," so that the offender may never know who are his
accusers, or have an opportunity openly to confront them,
and that half the fines shall go to the informer and officers
executing the law, and the other half " to the benefit of holy
places."(10) It is impossible, in the very nature of things,
that such a system of government as this could have been
otherwise than harsh, severe, and oppressive — the very em
bodiment of tyranny. Can it be possible that God design
ed the human family to be subject to the perpetual curse
of such rule as this, and cut them off, by a divine decree,
from all possibility of its removal without sin? If he did,
how happens it that he has not long ago, as he did with the
pursuers of the Israelites, cast the revolutionary innovators,
"horse and rider, into the sea?"
In 1861, a large crowd assembled in the Corso and in
C'°) "Inner Rome," by Rev. C. M. Butler, pp. 17-19.

234 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Monte Citorio, and shouted " Viva Italia! Viva Vittorio
Immanuele!" They were immediately fired upon by the
papal gensdarmes — one of whom was stabbed in the mSlee.
For this a man by the name of Locatelli was arrested and
tried. Although there was no evidence identifying him
with the transaction, yet he was convicted and executed!
Even the President of the Sacra Consulta, when he present
ed the record of conviction to the pope, advised him, in view
of the insufficiency of the evidence, " to exercise clemency."
But "the pope, who can not sign a sentence of death, laid
over this document the fatal black ribbon, and Locatelli died,
shouting " Viva Italia!"^1)
The cases of punishment by imprisonment and exile for
" political crimes " are too numerous for detail, and too hor
rible to be recited with composure. Dr. Butler mentions
some of exceeding cruelty and hardship, where native Ro
mans were banished for the suspicion of being opposed to
the Papal Government. This class of criminals are special
ly sought after by the police who infest the country. And
so odious had this papal police become in consequence of
the manner in which they broke in upon the most sacred
privacy of the citizens, that " no Roman will enter into this
hated service. No Roman would probably be trusted in it.
It is made up oi foreigners of various nations. Many of
them are criminals and disbanded soldiers of Francis II.
So detested are they by the Roman people that it is not
considered safe for them to make arrests during the day.
They are made at night, or in the early dawn."(1!)
Religious toleration was unknown. English Protestants
were permitted to hold their services only within the Porto
del Popolo ; and no Protestants whatever were allowed to
do so within the walls of Rome ! " Gendarmes guard the
door of the English chapel to see that none of the faithful
stray into those poisoned pastures." In 1862, Protestant
services were performed at the house of an American lady,
about twenty miles back of Rome, on the Alban Hills ; and
upon being discovered by the gendarmes, it was broken

(") "Inner Rome," by Rev. C. M. Butler, pp. 21-23.
(12) Ibid., p. 38.

THE JESUITS IN ROME. 235
up!(13) The informer in this case was supposed to have
been a man of whom it is related that he was a poor and
humble citizen, without any title, but that the pope, being
once compelled to pass the night in his house, and it being
derogatory to his official and personal dignity to " sleep un
der the roof of an untitled citizen," he made the poor fellow
" a Roman noble before going to bed, and slept with a good
conscience !"(14)
There can be no reasonable doubt that many of these
measures of severity are to be traced to the influence of
the Jesuits at Rome. It is well understood that all the
machinery of the Papal Government has been directed by
them for a number of years ; and their whole history shows
that whenever they possess power, it is employed with a
single object only — to advance the interests and perpetuate
the debasing principles of their order. An ex-priest, a Ro
man by birth, who was once curate of the Magdalene parish
in Rome, professor of theology iu the Roman University, and
qualificator at the Inquisition, thus expresses himself:
" From the period of the Council of Trent, Roman Ca
tholicism has identified itself with Jesuitism. That unscru
pulous order has been known to clothe itself, when occasion
required, with new forms, and to give a convenient elasticity
to its favorite maxim, that the end is every thing, and all the
means to attain it are good. But by depending on the skill
ful tactics of the ' Society of Jesus,' the court of Rome has
been constrained to yield to its ascendency, confide her des
tiny to its hands, and permit it to direct her interests ; and
of this control Jesuitism has availed itself in the most ab
solute way. It has constituted the powerful mainspring,
more or less concealed, of the whole papal machinery."('6)

(I3) All this would, undoubtedly, be right and proper to the author of the
following sentiments, who contributes as much as almost any other man to
mold Roman Catholic sentiment in the United States :
" The Protestant is bound to be liberal to Catholics, but Catholics can not
be liberal toward any party that rejects the Church, and must hold them to
be the enemies of God, not on his own private judgment, but on the infallible
authority of the Church of Christ. "—New York Tablet, September 7th, 1872.
(") Butler, pp. 209-211.
(») "Rome, Christian and Papal," by L. D. Sanctis, D.D., p. 5.

236 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
It should excite no surprise, therefore, in the mind of any
man who does not believe that God designed mankind for
perpetual bondage, that the Italian people were anxious to
get rid of a government so opposed to the spirit of the age
and the progress of the nineteenth century, and that they
did get rid of it as soon as papal infallibility was decreed
and the French troops were withdrawn. It had not about
it a single element of popularity— nothing to make a Ro
man citizen feel that he was any thing but a serf, and noth
ing to stimulate him to a proper conception of his own char
acter or that of his country. It was the last surviving ves
tige of the Middle Ages, and seems to have been providen
tially spared only that the people of Italy might be ena
bled to observe the contrast between it and the advancing
modern nations, until they should be fully enabled to strike
down all the civil appendages of the papacy. It was such
a union of Church aud State, and so complete a subordina
tion of the State to the Church, as demonstrated by all its
workings how impossible it was to establish any form of
political freedom where it existed. It stood among the na
tions like the fabled upas-tree in the Javanese forests, emit
ting a poison which liberty could not inhale without dying.
And thus, while we are able to comprehend the motives of
the Italian people in desiring its overthrow, we can also un
derstand why the Encyclical and Syllabus were issued, and
why all the progressive nations were arraigned for refusing
to recognize all this wrong and injustice as rightfully done
in the name of religion.
And this leads us, in the regular order of our inquiries,
into an examination of the real origin of the temporal pow
er of the pope, that thereby we may be enabled to decide
whether it is a divine or human power — whether it was, as
Pius IX. alleges, conferred on Peter by Christ, or has been
the creation of fraud, intrigue, and usurpation. History on
this subject is much confused ; yet the truth may be discov
ered, by patient investigation, tbrough all the myths and fa
bles which have been woven into it.
There is nothing in which ecclesiastical and secular histo
rians better agree than that, during the times of primitive
Christianity, the spiritual and temporal jurisdictions remain-

THE EARLY COUNCILS AND THE EMPERORS. 237
ed distinct — each exercising authority only over those mat
ters which pertained to itself. It is difficult to account for a
denial of this, except upon the ground of ignorance or men
dacity. The distinction was preserved for a number of cent
uries, even in relation to jurisdiction over heretics, which
more immediately concerned the Church than any thing of
a mere secular nature. The most disturbing element in the
early Christian Church was Arianism. This was condemn
ed by the Council of Nice in 325, because heresy was within
the spiritual jurisdiction. But the Council did not under
take to prohibit the circulation of Arian books, because that
belonged to the temporal jurisdiction, and was left to Con
stantine, the emperor, who did it by imperial edict. The
Council of Ephesus, in 431, condemned the heresy of Nesto
rius, but left the circulation of his books to be prohibited by
the Emperor Theodosius. The Council of Chalcedon, in 451,
condemned the Eutychians for heresy, but the Emperor
Martian prohibited tbe circulation of their books. The sec
ond Council of Constantinople, in 553, declared Eunomius
to be a heretic, but the Emperor Arcadius suppressed his
books by an imperial law. All these councils are recognized
by tbe Roman Church as ecumenical, and as having possess
ed the highest jurisdiction and authority in the Church — a
fact never authoritatively impeached until the decree of pa
pal infallibility was passed by the late Lateran Council. It
will not do for a papist to say that these councils did not
properly understand and define the true relations between
the spiritual and the temporal power. And he presumes
greatly upon the popular ignorance who asserts that they
were changed until that result was produced by papal usur
pations. Many books have been written to prove the primacy of
Peter in both honor and authority, as a foundation for the
additional assumption that Christ, in establishing his Church,
gave it an external hierarchical organization ; that, of neces
sity, he conferred upon this organization plenary authority
over all matters of faith and morals ; that supremacy is in
volved in this authority ; that, as the necessary consequence
of this supremacy, all Christians must defer to and obey it ;
that the Church was established and organized by Peter at

238 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Rome ; that he was its first bishop ; and that all the subse
quent bishops and popes of Rome, in the regular and un
broken line of succession, have enjoyed the same supremacy
and held the same authority held by Peter. All tbe argu
ments to support these propositions are made within a cir
cle, varying only according to the learning and ingenuity
of those who make them. They all assume the same postu
lates and reach the same conclusions — to wit, that the Ro
man is the only true Church ; that she alone possesses the
organization instituted by Christ upon Peter, and, therefore,
also the supremacy and authority conferred on him ; that
she alone, through her infallible pope, has the power to de
cide and define the faith and the nature and extent of her
own authority over all nations and peoples; and, conse
quently, that whatever she shall decide and declare to be
the law of God, in the domain of faith and morals, must be
accepted and believed as such.
These propositions have theological aspects, not neces
sary to be discussed here ; but they are grouped together
because they constitute the basis of that jurisdiction over
spiritual and secular affairs by means of which the papacy
has exercised its- wonderful authority over the world. The
thoughtful investigator can not be expected, in the present
age, to acquiesce in the justness and legitimacy of this ju
risdiction, unless he shall find it conferred by the teach
ings and example of Christ and the apostles. And if, on
the other hand, it shall appear to have grown alone out of
leagues and compacts and concordats between popes and
kings, and the usurpations which invariably attend them,
then he will be justified in regarding it as unwarrantable
and illegitimate. And if it arose out of the consent of the
nations, at a time when they were threatened with annihila
tion, as some assert, then the nations, now existing in the
enjoyment of stability and progress, can not be denied the
right to withdraw their assent from such a measure of tem
porary expediency, if, indeed, they are under any obligation
to recognize it at all, and more especially so if it interferes
with their stability and impedes their advancement. The
papacy itself has often found authority in the divine law
for giving its assent, once withheld, and for withdrawing it

MUTILATION OF BOOKS AT ROME. 239
when once given, in matters both spiritual and temporal;
and if the nations of the nineteenth century, not desiring to
turn back to the mediaeval times, shall find in its example
justification for denying to those times tbe right to confer
upon it authority to block up their pathways of progress
and improvement, it ought to know that its acquiescence
would be far more consistent with primitive Christianity
than its present persistent and passionate resistance.
We must accept all papal testimony upon these questions
with many grains of allowance, for much tbe most impor
tant part of it has come from the manufactory at Rome, and
does not reach the dignity of proof. A distinguished Ro
man Catholic of Venice, and priest of one of the papal or
ders, has given us a timely and necessary caution on this
subject. The " most learned Father Paul," referring to the
extraordinary influence which the popes were enabled to ac
quire by means of the prohibition of books and the univers
al practice among them of not permitting the circulation
and reading of any that did not teach obedience on the part
of the people to the ecclesiastical power, says :
"But as there were already in God's Church those who
made use of religion for worldly ends, so the number of
them is now full. These, under a spiritual pretense, but
with an ambitious end and desire of worldly wealth, would
free themselves from the obedience due to the prince, and
take away the love and reverence due by the people, to
draw it to themselves. To bring these things to pass, they
have newly invented a doctrine, which talks of nothing
but ecclesiastical greatness, liberty, immunity, and of her ju
risdiction. The doctrine was unheard of until about the
year 1300, neither is there any book found concerning it be
fore that time : then did they begin to write of it scatter-
ingly in some books; but there were not above two books
which treated of nothing else but this, until the year 1400,
and three until the year 1500. After this time the number
increased a little, but it was tolerable. After the year 1560,
this doctrine began to increase in such manner that they
gave over writing, as they did before, of the mysteries of
the Holy Trinity, of the creation of the world, of the Incar
nation of Christ, and other mysteries of the belief; and there

240 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
is nothing printed in Italy but books in diminution of secu
lar authority and exaltation of the ecclesiastical, and such
books are not printed by small numbers, but by thousands.
Those people which have any learning can read nothing else;
the confessors likewise know none other doctrine, nor, to be
approved of, need they any other learning. Whence comes
in a perverse opinion universally, that princes and magis
trates are human inventions, yea, and tyrannical ; that they
ought only by compulsion to be obeyed ; that the disobey
ing of laws and defrauding the public revenues do not bind
one unto sin, but only to punishment ; and that he that doth
not pay, if he can fly from it, remains not guilty before the
Divine Majesty ; and contrariwise, that eacb beck of ecclesi
astical persons, without any other thought, ought to be taken
for a divine •precept, and binds the conscience. And this
doctrine, perchance, is the cause of all inconveniences which
are felt in this age. There wants not in Italy pious and
learned persons which hold the truth, but they are not suf
fered to write, nor to print. Something comes written from
another place, but presently it is prohibited. And little
thought is taken of heretical books, especially those that
treat of the Articles of Faith ; but if any one comes that
defends the prince his temporal authority, and saith that ec
clesiastical persons are also subject to public functions, and
punishable if they violate the public tranquillity, these are
condemned books, and persecuted more than others. They
have gelded the books of ancient authors by new printing
of them, and taken out all which might serve for temporal
authority."(16) This author wrote shortly after the death of Ignatius Loy
ola, the founder of the Jesuits, and when, as appears from his
statement, the papacy had been brought completely under
the influence of the doctrines of that order. He is better
known as Sarpi, and his "History ofthe Council of Trent"
has been long accepted by the learned as a work of stand
ard authority. He lived for some years at Rome, where he

(ie) "History of the Inquisition," by the Rev. Father Paul Servita (Sar
pi): London edition, 1676 ; bound with his "History of the Council of
Trent," pp. 874, 875.

FALSIFICATION OF HISTORY. 241
enjoyed the confidence of the pope ; as he did also that
of Cardinal Bellarmine, the great Roman Catholic annalist.
His evidence upon the subjects of which he treats is of such
importance as to justify the foregoing long extract. And
he is equally important authority upon another point. He
also exposes the fraudulent methods employed at Rome to
falsify history, as one of the means of extending and per
petuating the supremacy of the papacy over the legitimate
temporal authority ofthe nations. He informs us that Clem
ent VHI., who was pope from 1592 to 1605, prescribed a
rule making all writers of Roman Catholic books so subserv
ient to the papacy that their books "might be corrected
and amended, not only by taking away what is not conform
able to the doctrine of Rome, but also with adding to it."
This, he says, was " put in practice," and, by means of it,
books were fraudulently mutilated to make them support
ecclesiastical usurpation, when their authors designed no
such meaning. As late as the seventeenth century, the " In
dex Expurgatorius," printed, by authority of the pope, at
Rome, contained notes of the places where many " authors
ought to be canceled ;" and this dishonest practice of alter
ing the language and meaning of books was carried so far,
says Father Paul, that " at this present, in reading of a book,
a man can no more find what the author's meaning was, but
only what is the Court of Rome's, who hath altered every
thing."(") There are very few exceptions in history to the rule, that
those who possess themselves, wrongfully and unjustly, of
the power to govern others, are not apt to halt long at the
means of preserving it. Machiavelli has been severely cen
sured for baving taught the doctrine that "the end justifies
the means ;" but it should be remembered, in seeking for the
proper interpretation of his motives, that his " Prince " was
written, not so much for the purpose of originating new prin
ciples of action, as to exhibit the nature and operation of
those that almost universally prevailed in his time ; and that
when he came to illustrate the effect of the doctrine that " a
prudent prince can not and ought not to keep his word, ex-
(17) "History ofthe Inquisition," by Rev. Father Paul Servita, p. 875.
16

242 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
cept when he can do it without injury to himself," but should
play " the part of the fox," the example which served his
purpose best was that furnished by the pontificate of Alex
ander VL, whose whole life he characterized as " a game of
deception," and of whom he also said, " Oaths and protesta
tions cost him nothing; never did a prince so often break
his word or pay less regard to his engagements."(18) He
had before his mind the Jesuit influence upon the papacy
and the princes of Europe, whose combined authority was
directed to the accumulation of power in their own hauds,
no matter at what sacrifice by the people. It was this in
fluence which molded the ethics of tbe papacy; and whether
the odious principles of the Jesuits were deduced from the
examples of former popes, or fixed first in the minds of those
of the sixteenth century by Loyola and his disciples, is of no
consequence, in view of the fact that the temporal power of
the pope is shown by all impartial history to have grown
out of the most stupendous system of fraud and usurpation
ever known to the world. The steps which led to it were
gradual and progressive. So far from its having a divine
foundation, arising out of any authority conferred by Christ
upon Peter, it had its inception in the time of Constantine, to
whom, more than to all others, the papacy is indebted for the
origin of its most important immunities and privileges. He
was the first to lay a foundation for the union of Church and
State, to mingle religion and politics together; and he did
this not only to increase his own power, but the influence of
the Roman priesthood, in return for the assistance they ren
dered him when he overthrew Maxentius, the reigning Em
peror of Rome. At the proper time, we shall see that the
combination to effect these ends was political, not religious,
and that there was no thought of its serving any other pur
pose until the calling of the Council of Nice, by Constantine
bimself, without any agency whatever on the part of Pope
Sylvester, for the ostensible object of suppressing the heresy of
Arius, but for the real purpose of producing a closer and more
intimate union between the imperial and ecclesiastical powers.
(18) Machiavelli's "History of Florence," and other Works ("The
Prince"), Bohn's ed., pp. 459, 460.

THE POPE'S TEMPORAL POWER. 243
Some of the papal writers are disposed to go behind the
concessions made to the Church of Rome by Constantine,
and to search for the temporal power in the ownership of
ecclesiastical property before that time. A book has lately
been written in Germany — translated and published in the
United States — enforcing this view by a variety of argu
ments. (19) It is here called the "Patrimony of Peter," the
"supreme jurisdiction of the see of Rome;" and it is said
that Ignatius referred to it as "a presidency of charity,"
when, as this author alleges, he assigned to the Roman
Church supremacy over all the other churches. This argu
ment, if it proves any thing, proves too much for the advo
cates of the temporal power ; for, at the time Ignatius wrote,
all the churches in Asia and Africa were the owners of ec
clesiastical property, equally with that at Rome ; and some
of the Asiatic churches, as those at Jerusalem, Antioch, etc.,
had been such owners before there was any thing like an
organized Christian Church known or heard of at Rome.
Hence, if this ownership conferred any temporal power high
er than the mere right to use and enjoy church property,
the other churches possessed it in the same degree as the
Roman, and no superiority could arise out of that cause.
But it really proves nothing ; for the plain reason that in
no age of the world have civilized nations ever recognized
any temporal power, in the sense of that claimed for the
popes, as derived from the mere individual or corporate right
to hold and enjoy property. The right to hold real property
is attached, primarily, to the sovereignty, and is enjoyed by
individuals or corporations by grant from it, or when it is
taken by force strong enough to make resistance successful.
When conferred by grant or any form of concession, there is
no abatement of the sovereign power, which, for all the pur
poses of government over both the property and its possess
or, remains as before.
Nor is it true that Ignatius recognized any such suprema
cy in the Roman Church, as is asserted, with such apparent
confidence, by this author. Fortunately, the recent publica-
(") "Rome and the Popes," translated from the German of Dr. Karl
Brandes, by Rev. W. I. Wiseman, S. T. L., chap, xvi., p. 84.

244 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVLL POWER.
tion of the writings of the "Antenicene fathers" will en
able any diligent inquirer to investigate these matters for
himself; and thus to avoid being misled by second-hand au
thorities, which, as Sarpi tells us, are often culled and clipped
at Rome, to make them express, not what the authors meant,
but what the papacy desires. Ignatius addressed his "Epis
tle to the Romans " to the Church which "presides in the
place of the region of the Romans,"^0) thus showing that,
whatever was the nature of the presidency possessed by the
bishops of Rome at that time, it was limited to the region
round alidut. Rome, and did not extend into other regions.
And in the same sense he saluted all the other churches to
which his epistles were addressed — those at Ephesus, Mag
nesia, Tralles, Philadelphia, and Smyrna. He wrote his Epis
tle to the Romans wbile on his way to Rome from Antioch,
where he was sent by Trajan to be thrown to the wild beasts.
His chief object was to notify them that he was rejoiced at
the dispensation which was about to enable him " to fight
with beasts at Rome;" that is, to suffer martyrdom for the
cause of Christ. He said nothing from which the presiden
cy of Peter can, by possibility, be inferred — not even by the
most ingenious torture of his language. Wheii he spoke of
the authority to issue commands to the Roman Christians,
he referred to Peter and Paul unitedly, and not to Peter
alone ; and then only for the purpose of contrasting himself
with them, they being apostles and he a follower. (21) When,
elsewhere, he spoke of the obligation of obedience, he ad
monished each particular church addressed by him to show
it to its own bishop. To the Ephesians he said, "Ye should
run together in accordance with the will of the bishop who
by Gods appointment rules over you."(™) After counseling
the Magnesians to revere their " most admirable bishop," he
said -to them, " Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one an
other, as Christ to the Father, that there may be a unity ac
cording to God among you."(23) To the Trallians he said,
(20) "The Apostolic Fathers," published by T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, p.
280. See also "The Apocryphal New Testament," published by Dewitt &
Davenport, New York.
Cl) " The Apostolic Fathers," p. 212. (M) Ibid., p. 149.
O Ibid., p. 186.

THE AUTHORITY OF IGNATIUS. 245
" Be ye subject to the bishop as to the Lord."(34) He com
mended to the Philadelphians their bishop, with whom he
desired them to maintain union ; telling them, " where the
shepherd is, there do ye as sheep follow ;"(") and, further ex
horting them to unity, said, " Be ye followers of Paul, and
the rest of the apostles, even as they also were of Christ ;"(a°)
making no mention whatever of Peter, but directly exclud
ing, almost by express words, all idea of his primacy or su
periority. To the Smyrneans he said, " See that ye all fol
low the bishop," and " Let no man do any thing connected
with the church without the bishop," and wherever he was
there should they be, because " wherever Jesus Christ is, there
is the Catholic Church;"^1) that is, the universal body of
Christians, aud not merely the Church of Rome, of whose
power to govern the other churches he seems never to have
had a thought. And, in further and still more convincing
proof that he did not recognize tbe primacy of Peter, or of
the Roman Church, he begged the Romans, in his Epistle to
them, to remember the Church in Syria in their prayers, since,
instead of him, it then had no bishop, but only the Lord " for
its shepherd ;"(28) which could not bave been the case if the
Bishop of Rome was, as is now pretended, the shepherd of
the whole flock — the universal shepherd. And in his letter
to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, he begged him, and not the
Bishop of Rome, to assemble a council, to elect a bishop for
the Church at Antioch, in his place, and " to bestow on him
the honor of going into Syria ;"(29) which he, undoubtedly,
would not have done if Rome had been the seat of episco
pal primacy, and if the bishops there had possessed wbat is
now so dogmatically and imperiously claimed for them, " the
plenitude of power to feed, rule, and govern the Universal
Church."^') And thus we find the precise fact to be, that
Ignatius is authority against, rather than for, the existence
of what is now called "the patrimony of Peter;" at least, up
to the year 107, which is supposed to have been the year
of his martyrdom.
(") " The Apostolic Fathers," p. 190. (*) Ibid., p. 223.
C") Ibid., pp. 233, 234. (") Ibid., pp. 248, 249.
O Ibid., p. 218. 0B) Ibid., pp. 264, 265.
(M) "The Vatican Council," by Manning, p. 61.

246 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
This same German author, in further support of his views,
refers to the action of two of the pagan emperors to prove
that the patrimony of Peter, or temporal power ofthe pope,
was recognized by them as existing in the third century.
He says, "Alexander Severus decided a lawsuit respecting
a piece of property in favor ofthe Roman Church," treating
it as a " corporate body ;"(31) and that " the Emperor Aure
lian, though an enemy and persecutor of the Church, recog
nized the supremacy of the pope over all the Christians of
the empire."(32) If such assertions as these were not grave
ly set forth as argument in a standard work of the Church,
and designed, by its republication, to influence public opin
ion in the United States, they would scarcely be worthy of
notice. As it is, they only serve to show how utterly inde
fensible is the claim of temporal power at the time refer
red to.
Although Alexander Severus was not, yet his mother was
a Christian, as we learn from Origen, and his conduct to
ward the Christians may, in some measure, be attributed to
ber influence. As an exhibition of his liberality — probably
induced by her — he issued an edict of toleration, prohibit
ing any violence against his subjects on account of their relig
ion. (33) That the Church held property in Rome during his
reign, as a recognized corporation, must be true ; for Roman
corporations were provided for and protected by Numa
Pompilius, as early as about the fortieth year of Rome.(34)
When the laws of the Decemvirs — the " twelve tables," were
engraved on brass and fixed up in public view, full protec
tion was given to all these corporations ;(3B) including, of
course, such as the Church afterward became. Therefore,
the decision of so liberal a prince as Alexander Severus,
merely in support of the right of the Church to hold proper
ty as a corporation, proves only two things : first, that the
Christians were not persecuted during his reign ; and, second,
that he administered the laws with integrity and impartial
ity. He would, in like manner, have maintained the same
right in any other corporation, as he did, in fact, in all the
(31) Brandes, p. 85. (») Md., p. 86.
(3S) "History of the Popes," by Cormenin, vol. i., p. 35.
(M) Plutarch, vol. i., p. 178. (35_) Livy, bk. iii., ch. lvii.

EXAMPLE OF THE EMPEROR AURELIAN. 247
pagan corporations. Hence his decision amounts to noth
ing as an argument in favor of the temporal power of the
popes. It really proves the reverse, if any thing ; because it
serves to show that the Roman Church, instead of deciding
upon its own right to property in Rome by its own hie
rarchical authority — as it is now pretended it has always
done — was compelled, like all the other corporations of Rome,
to submit it to the emperor, and to abide his decision, be
cause he possessed the superior temporal jurisdiction of the
State. The Bishop of Rome was then a subject — not in any
sense a sovereign.
Nor does the papal theory derive any more or better sup
port from what was done by the Emperor Aurelian. He
was, for a while, disposed to favor the Christians, but at last,
according to Lactantius, issued " bloody edicts " against
tbem.(3fi) The case of Paul of Samosata came before him
to be judged — probably before he became a persecutor.
The fact that he finally decided such a case— involving her
esy in one of its aspects, which was an offense against the
laws of the Church, and not against those of the empire — is
perfectly conclusive against the claim of papal supremacy at
Rome at that time ; that is, up to the pontificate of Felix I.,
between the years 270 and 275, when the case was decided.
It proves, beyond any reasonable ground for controversy,
that — as during the previous reign of Alexander Severus —
the Roman Church and its bishop were entirely subordinate
to the emperor and the laws of the empire. And that this
subordination extended even to ecclesiastical matters, the
case adjudged by Aurelian abundantly shows, as the his
tory of the same case also shows, that the jurisdiction of the
Roman bishop was limited, as it was in the time of Ignatius,
to " the place of the region of the Romans."
Paul of Samosata was Bishop of Antioch, in Syria, and
denied the divinity of Christ. For this a council was as
sembled at Antioch to try him, without the agency of the
Church or Bishop of Rome — which would scarcely have
been the case if the supremacy now asserted had then
("*) " History of the Catholic Church," by Noethen, p. 132 ; "Eccl. Hist.,"
by Eusebius, bk. vii., ch. xxx.

248 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
existed. According to Eusebius, this council was composed
of bishops from Cesarea, Pontus, Tarsus, Iconium, and Jeru
salem, and many presbyters and deacons(3') — all from the
Asiatic churches, and none from Rome — with Firmilian,
Bishop of Cesarea, as its president.(38) Paul was convicted
of heresy, but not excommunicated, in consequence of a
promise that he would retract his error. Having failed,
however, to do this, a second council was assembled at the
same place in the year 270, which deposed Paul, and elected
another bishop to succeed him, and who took possession of
the see of Antioch. All these proceedings were conducted,
from first to last, by the Asiatic churches, and the Roman
Church had no connection whatever with them. A bishop
was tried for heresy, convicted, excommunicated, and re
moved from office, and another elected to fill his place, by
these early fathers, and yet Rome was not consulted ! But
Paul did not submit without some show of resistance. As
he was "unwilling to leave the building of the church" —
that is, claimed the right to occupy the house and prem
ises — " an appeal was taken to the Emperor Aurelian," says
Eusebius. (39) And why to the Emperor, and not to the
Church or Bishop of Rome? The answer is simple and con
clusive : because neither the Church as a corporation, nor
the pope as a bishop, had any jurisdiction over temporal
affairs, even to the extent of deciding upon the right of an
heretical bishop to occupy church property ; nor any juris
diction to review or decide upon the proceedings of the
bishops of Asia ! Both the Church of Rome and its bishop,
as well as the other churches and bishops throughout the
empire, were subject to the civil laws of the empire. And
because of this subordination, and because both Antioch
and Rome were within the empire, all the parties con
cerned were compelled to abide by the judgment of the
emperor. "And he decided," says Eusebius, " most equita
bly on the business, ordering the building to be given up
to those to whom the bishops of Italy and Rome should
write."(40) Cormenin records his decision in somewhat dif-
(37) "Eccl. Hist.," by Eusebius, bk. vii., ch. xxviii.
(38) "Eccl. Hist.," by Du Pin, vol. i., p. 172.
(39) Eusebius, bk. vii., ch. xxx. C°) Ibid.

EXAMPLE OF ALEXANDER SEVERUS. 249
ferent language, thus : " The prince decided that the pos
session of the episcopal palace pertained to those who en
tertained relations with the Bishop of Rome, and the other
prelates of Italy, and that Pope Felix, having refused to
hold communion with Paul of Samosata, he should conse
quently be driven from his see."(41) These two statements,
however, are substantially the same— that is, that the em
peror decided in favor of those Christians at Antioch who
were in fellowship, not merely with the Bishop of Rome,
but with the "other prelates of Italy," who unitedly rep
resented the Italian churches, including that of Rome with
the others. Nothing could have been more natural ; for,
although both Rome and Antioch were in the empire,
Aurelian, a pagan prince, could, of course, have no other
ideas of Christianity than such as he derived from direct
and immediate intercourse with his Roman and Italian sub
jects. Therefore, upon the question whether or not Paul
forfeited his rights as a bishop in Asia by a violation of
Christian faith, he referred to them because they were in
Rome and its vicinity, and decided according to their
definition of orthodoxy — they occupying merely a second
ary or advisory position. But to say of this, as this author
does, that it was a recognition by Aurelian of "the suprem
acy of the pope over all the Christians of the empire," is
an assumption wholly unwarranted by the facts. The case
of Paul of Samosata proves the very reverse. And the
most that can be fairly said, if not all that can be said, in
reference to the Church at Rome, up to the time of Aurelian,
is, that it was permitted by law to hold property, as also
were all other corporations and churches throughout the
empire. Whatsoever temporal power was necessary to en
able it to hold and enjoy this property, it possessed — no
more, no less. The Bishop of Rome, as its ecclesiastical
head, did not possess one single element of sovereignty.
This author, however, after attempting to prove that the
temporal power existed in the times of Alexander Severus
and Aurelian, seems himself persuaded that the right was a
mere shadowy one ; for immediately after he asserts that it
(41) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 46.

250 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
was " formally recognized " by " an edict of Constantine."(")
Constantine did not enter Rome till the year 312, during the
pontificate of Melchiades, which was about a quarter of a
century after the death of Aurelian, and about three-quar
ters of a century after that of Alexander Severus. If, there
fore, the popes possessed temporal power in the time of ei
ther of tbese last-named emperors, it must have been only
partial and limited, or no necessity for a formal recognition
of it by an imperial edict would have existed. But passing
by any attempt to convict him of inconsistency by a critical
review of his language, let us see whether this pretended
grant of Constantine will stand the test of investigation,
and whether there is any sufficient foundation for it to rest
upon. That Constantine recognized the Church at Rome as an
existing ecclesiastical corporation, as some of his predeces
sors had done, is unquestionably true. And it is also true
that he went farther than any of them in strengthening and
protecting it. He is called the " Christian Emperor," by
way of distinction ; but when we shall come, at another
place, to look into the history of his connection with the
Roman clergy, we shall find that his only claim to this title
consists in the fact that he was the friend and patron of the
ecclesiastical organization which gave him its support when
he inarched his army from Britain and Gaul into Italy to
supplant the reigning emperor and seize upon the empire.
The pretext that, on his way to Rome, as a pagan prince, he
saw a flaming cross in the heavens, bearing the inscription,
"Under this sign thou shalt conquer," answered its end in a
superstitious age, but is scarcely entitled to the place it has
received in history. The fact is, he cared very little for
Christianity beyond the use to which he put its professors,
which was to build up and secure his own power. Al
though he convened the first Council of Nice, dictated the
most material part of its creed, and made it the measure of
orthodoxy by his imperial decree, yet he deferred his own
baptism and union with the Church until just before bis
death, in 337, when he received baptism at the hands of an
(") Brandes, p. 86.

EXAMPLE OF CONSTANTINE. 251
Arian and heretical bishop. He was, therefore, never a Ro
man Catholic at all, but, according to the present teachings
of that Church, was always a heretic, and not a Christian,
unless a man can possess both characters at the same time !
His motives were in the main worldly ; and, hence, the in
ference is unavoidable that what he did for the Church at
Rome was done chiefly to advance his own ambition. He
had the sympathy of the Roman clergy, who were quite
willing to assist him in expelling Maxentius, not only be
cause the latter was a cruel and licentious prince, but in re
turn for the privileges he conferred upon them. And as
they were most efficient and valuable aids of each other,
these privileges were both important and extensive. But it
can in no sense be properly said that they were to the ex
tent of conferring upon the Bishop of Rome, as the head of
the Church, any share of the temporal power, which, as all
reliable history shows, he was careful to retain in his own
hands, both at Rome and elsewhere throughout the empire.
By a royal decree, he commanded all his subjects to honor
the Christian religion ; he revoked all acts of persecution
against the Christians that had been proclaimed by his pred
ecessors ; he released Christians who had been deprived of
their liberty; he placed them in important posts of govern
ment at Rome ; he commanded that part of the funds col
lected from tributary countries should be paid over to the
clergy; he built and ornamented churches-; and he permit
ted litigants to appeal to the bishops, instead ofthe secular
courts, if they preferred it.(43) Eusebius has preserved sev
eral of his edicts in reference to the Church. (44) Not one of
them, however, confers any temporal power, or recognizes
any previously existing. One of them distinctly ignores all
such power in the Bishop of Rome. The first commands
the restoration of certain church property ; the second is
of like character ; the third convenes a council of bishops
at Rome, to preserve the unity and peace ofthe Church;
and the fourth convenes another council for the same pur-

(43) " Eccl. Hist.," by Sozomen, bk. i.,ch. viii., ix.; " Eccl. Hist.," by Soc
rates, bk. i., ch. iii.
(") " Eccl. Hist.," by Eusebius, bk. x., ch. v.

252 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
pose. In these two last he provides by imperial edict for
matters exclusively belonging to the Church, when, if the
temporal power had belonged to the Bishop of Rome, they
would have been within his sole jurisdiction. Why should
he thus act independently of ecclesiastical authority upon
such a subject ? Undoubtedly it must have been only on
the ground of his own imperial supremacy in spiritual as
well as temporal affairs. He was willing to confer honor
upon the Church and emoluments upon the clergy, but de
termined that both the Church and the clergy should he
held in subordination to the State. Otherwise, what would
he, as emperor, have to do with church unity ? He was not
a member of the Church, according to the orthodox stand
ard of the Roman Church, not even a Christian ! Manifest
ly, he must have felt his superiority over all the Roman
hierarchy, even in the affairs of the Church, when, in one
of his edicts, he used such language as this in reference to
them: "Hence it has happened that those very persons who
ought to exhibit a brotherly and peaceful unanimity, rather
disgracefully and detestably are at variance with one an
other, and thus give this occasion of derision to those who
are without, and whose minds are averse to our most holy
religion. Hence it has appeared necessary to me to provide
that this matter, which ought to have ceased after the de
cision was issued by their own voluntary agreement, should
be fully terminated by the intervention of many."(")
The expression " our most holy religion " was used here
not in such a sense as signified his own personal faith, but to
indicate, what all the facts prove, that as the imperial head
of the State he considered himself also the imperial head of
the Church. And that this was his idea — if there were oth
erwise any doubt about it — is shown by another edict pre
served by Eusebius, wherein he expressly separates the cler
gy from all temporal affairs, by exempting them from all
further secular service. And tbis is the reason he assigns :

(46) Eusebius, bk. x.,ch. f. This extract is taken from an "epistle in
which the emperor commanded another council to be held, for the purpose
of removing all the dissension ofthe bishops," says Eusebius.

CONSTANTINE'S DONATION FORGED. 253
that they may not "be drawn away from the service due the
divinity, but rather may devote themselves to their proper law,
without any molestation."(4e)
In so far, therefore, as the general history of Constan-
tine's administration of public affairs is concerned, there is
no contemporaneous history to show that he recognized any
temporal power in the hands of the Bishop of Rome. On
the contrary, the assumption that he did seems so utterly
groundless as to leave no room for further discussion. The
further pretense, that by actual imperial donation he made
over Rome and Italy to the popes, had its origin in the fer
tile brain of Pope Adrian I., who, in order to obtain impor
tant concessions from Charlemagne, doubtless considered it
necessary to impress him with the belief that he would,
by granting them, be following the example of Constan
tine. (47)
Previous to this time, says Dr. Dollinger, " there is not a
trace to be found ofthe donation which has since become so
famous."(48) And he shows that while, from time to time,
many canonists and theologians have maintained its verity,
in order to found upon it " a universal dominion of the pope,"
yet that after Baronius, one ofthe most distinguished of the
Church annalists, pronounced it a forgery, " all these voices
which had shortly before been so numerous and so loud be
came dumb."(48) The fact is, that no writers who have prop
er regard for their veracity now maintain the truthfulness
of this donation of Constantine. The fraud served its pur
pose during the Middle Ages, among an ignorant and super
stitious population, but it no longer bears the test of intelli
gent scrutiny. Dean Milman calls it a " deliberate inven
tion," a "monstrous fable," and a "forgery as clumsy as
audacious."(M) Reichel characterizes it as "an ignorant
blunder and a falsehood — a falsehood, however, let it be
borne in mind, which faithfully reflects the thoughts and
(") Eusebius, bk. x., ch. vii.
I") "Fables Respecting the Popes of the Middle Ages," by Dr. John I.
Ign. Von Dollinger, London ed., p. 118. This book was written when the
author was in full fellowship with the Church of Rome.
(") Ibid., p. 108. (") Ibid., p. 177.
(50) Milman's "Latin Christianity," vol. i., p. 94.

254 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
feelings ofthe age which gave it birth. "(") To accumulate
proofs upon this subject, in this inquiring age, would seem
to be a work of supererogation.
Not only is there nothing in all the concessions of Con
stantine from which a grant of the most limited temporal
jurisdiction can be inferred, but in the edict preserved by
Eusebius he excludes all idea of the kind. The clergy are
set apart by it from those engaged in secular employments,
and admonished to " devote themselves to their proper
law" — that is, to the discharge of their ecclesiastical and
priestly functions. He had, according to Sozomen, intrust
ed them with the most important offices under the govern
ment after he won the Roman sceptre, in return for their as
sistance to him. But it is evident, from what he said of
them, in the epistle given by Eusebius, about their disgrace
ful and detestable variances with each other, that he found
it necessary to prohibit their further intermeddling with
temporal affairs, and to take upon himself, as emperor, the
assembling of a council to heal their dissensions. It must
be remembered that Constantine did not reside at Rome.
At the time he took possession ofthe empire he passed, says
Gibbon, " no more than two or three months in Rome, which
he visited twice during the remainder of his life, to celebrate
the solemn festivals of the tenth and of the twentieth years
of his reign. "C3) After relieving the city from the cruel
tyranny of Maxentius, he abolished the praetorian guards, to
prevent the recurrence of abuses. But " he made no inno
vation in the government, magistracy, and offices, and abro
gated no laws except such as were useless and unjust;" re
storing, as was shown by an inscription upon a public statue,
" the Senate and the people of Rome to their ancient splen-
dor."(B3) It is evident, therefore, that, in his absence from
(61) "The See of Rome in the Middle Ages," by Reichel, London ed.,p.
58. This author gives the letter of Pope Adrian I. to Charles Martel,
wherein he sets forth this pretended donation, in order to win his assistance
against his enemies. — Ibid., note 1.
(M) Milman's Gibbon's "Rome," vol. i., p. 485.
(M) "Modern History," by Dr. Fredet, p. 101. This is a work of great
research, by a professor of history in St. Mary's Roman Catholic College,
Baltimore.

CONSTANTINE RETAINED TEMPORAL POWER. 255
Rome, while engaged in prosecuting his wars, he left the
temporal government just as he found it, which entirely for
bids the idea of any temporal authority having been con
ferred upon the pope. He merely tried the experiment of
admitting the clergy into the magistracy, but soon repented
of this. What be did in that direction was far more calcu
lated to excite ambition than piety, and subsequent history
shows that it did lead to those corruptions which carried
the Church far away from its apostolic purity.
Why Providence permitted such consequences to follow7
is beyond all human comprehension. We can no more
fathom the mysteries in the plan of the Divine Government
than we can give sensibility to a grain of sand. Life abounds
in enigmas, with limitations and conditions which nothing
but omnipotent wisdom could have imposed ; and he who
attempts to measure them by standards of human knowledge
will find impediments at every step which his sagacity can
not overleap. The naturalist may watch the germ from its
first springing into life to the full maturity of the flower,
and trace out all the stages of its existence with truthful ac
curacy ; and the scientist may gather from the earth, the
ocean, and the rocks, evidences of time, marked out by lines
of growth, as age is marked by furrows upon the human
face ; but in the entire panorama of being there is every
thing to show — from the minutest to the grandest scenes in
nature, and in the origin, growth, and downfall of govern
ments — that God is the omnipresent sovereign, and that his
providences are "past finding out." He is everywhere pres
ent in history; yet he has given man his intelligent superi
ority over all other created beings, that he may work out re
sults within the compass of his powers, for the divine honor
and his own good. That he designed, from the beginning,
the ultimate triumph of virtue over vice, of truth over false
hood, and of Christian humility over ambition and selfish
ness, the infidel may deny with his lips, but can not doubt
in his heart. But it was no part of his infinite plan that this
victory should be won in a day, a year, or a century; or
his Son, when he mingled in the affairs of the world, robed
in our humanity, would have thrown down all the altars
of paganism and established his universal kingdom on the

256 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
earth. Instead of this, he lived and ministered long enough
to set an example of perfect purity to man, and left his Gos
pel in charge of his apostles, that its precepts might teach
mankind tbose principles of truth, justice, morality, and
charity, which nature, without revelation, does not teach.
The apostles began their work by establishing the Church,
first at Jerusalem, then at Antioch, and then at other places
throughout Asia, where the Jew, with or without circum
cision, entered into the fold ; leaving the Gentile world yet
without a knowledge of the Word. From these beginnings
Christianity was carried to Rome, where the foundation of
a new Church was laid under the preaching of Paul, over
which he watched for " two whole years " in "his own hired
house."(B1) Here it continued to exist, " without spot or
blemish," until worldly ambition crept into the flock, when
Constantine tempted it by gifts of office, and money, and
property, and power. Then the grand consummation of the
Christian triumph was postponed. Rome had already held
the pagan world in subjugation, and her bishops and clergy,
tempted by the remembrance of her former greatness, were
not content to rest in their career of ambition, until all the
primitive churches were brought down in humiliation at
their feet. When this was accomplished, stimulated aud
emboldened by their first success, they reached out to grasp
.the sceptre of the world. Who can tell how much the na
tions have been impeded in their march of progress by these
events ? But for them the world might have escaped the
blight and paralysis of the Middle Ages, and have pursued
an unbroken and unchecked course of advancement from the
beginning of Christianity. And, instead of now lamenting
the loss of all her temporal power, and mourning to see her
pope sitting among shattered and fallen columns, without a
crown upon his head, the Church of Rome might have held
to-day such a place in the affections of mankind as would
have made her word, in spiritual things, the universal guide
of human conduct.
(64) Acts xxviii., 30. Paul, though a prisoner, was not in actual confine
ment ; and his sphere of Christian labor in Rome would not have been lim
ited to a " hired house," if there had been a church already established there,
under the ministry of Peter.

ARGUMENT OF ARCHBISHOP KENRICK. 257

CHAPTER IX.
Same Power conferred on all the Apostles.— Roman Church not the First
Established. — Ancient Churches Equal. — Leo I. Great and Ambitious. —
His Interviews with Attila and Genseric. — Persecution of Priscillian. —
Rival Popes. — Belisarius seized Rome, and made Vigilius Pope. — Pope
Silverius put to Death. — Vigilius and Justinian. — The "Three Chapters."
— Popes elected with Emperor's Consent. — Gregory I.
It has been already seen that Archbishop Kenrick has
treated the question of the pope's temporal power with more
fairness than is common among its defenders. This was to
have been expected on account of his superior learning, and
was alike due to the intelligence of the age and to his own
Christian character. He does not grope about like a blind
man — as many of the papal writers do — amidst the fabulous
obscurity ofthe early centuries, to hunt for inferences which
have nothing but the imagination to support them, and so
torture them that they may appear like facts. Nor does
he pretend — as Pope Pius IX. and the Jesuits do — that
the temporal power was divinely conferred on Peter; that
it is " of necessity," and, therefore, has always existed since
Christ established his Church. Yet even he, with all his
acknowledged sagacity, has not entirely escaped the Jesuit
snare; for, after telling us that the disciples had "no dominion
over the least spot of earth," and that Peter had none " of the
appendages of royalty" given him, he proceeds immediately
to say that " he bad powers of a supernatural order, for the
government of men in order to salvation. "(')
The critic might justly say that the distinguished arch
bishop has here fallen into what the lawyers call a non
sequitur; for it is by no means a legitimate inference to say
that, because Christ left Peter without temporal dominion,
therefore he conferred supernatural powers of government

(') "The Primacy of the Apostolic See," by Kenrick. part ii., ch. i.,
p. 225. 17

258 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
upon him. Our present inquiries, however, are of a more
serious and important character. What idea he intended to
convey by " powers of a supernatural order " is not clear.
Such power must, necessarily, exceed all natural power, and
can only exist miraculously. Its possessor must be able to
alter the laws of nature. Was it, therefore, given to Peter
to be exercised in spirituals alone ? or in temporals also? or
in spirituals of so comprehensive a nature as to include tem
porals? In whatsoever degree it was conferred, it was the
power to work miracles ; and, as such, was possessed by all
the other apostles equally with Peter. When Christ or
dained the twelve, and sent them forth to preach, he gave
them all " power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils.'^1)
And as they went through the towns of Galilee, they per
plexed Herod the tetrarch by " healing every wbere."(3) And
" many wonders and signs were done by the apostles " on
the day of Pentecost. (4) Peter healed the impotent man in
the temple. (B) And Philip worked miracles in Samaria. (')
And wben Paul and Barnabas went into Iconium, Paul
caused the lame man of Lystra to leap up and walk.(')
"And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul"
at Ephesus. (8) And other evidences abundantly show that
miraculous gifts were conferred upon all the apostles. Then,
if, by the fact of imparting supernatural powers, Christ de
signed that they should be employed "for the government
of men in order to salvation," there was no special designa
tion of Peter for that purpose, any more than the other apos
tles. They were all equal in the possession of the power;
and, as whatever authority they had must have arisen out
of it, they were equal in authority also. To select Peter,
therefore, as the sole custodian of the supernatural power, in
illustration of the authority of the pope over temporals, is, to
say the least of it, an evasion of the question. That he had
such power is not denied by any except those who reject
revelation. But that it was given him for interference with
the temporal affairs of government is shown by no part of
(2) Mark iii., 15. The Douay and Protestant versions agree in this ren
dering. (3) Luke ix., 6. (4) Acts ii., 43. (6) Acts iii., 7.
(6) Acts viii., 6. (') Acts xiv., 10. (8) Acts xix., 11.

THE ASIATIC CHURCHES. 259
the divine record ; nor can it be inferred from what was done
by him or any other of tbe apostles in their ministry. If
Christ had designed such interference, he would have indi
cated it by some example of his own ; and if he had intend
ed to establish a Church at Rome, founded alone upon Pe
ter, and with a distinct organization, to be maintained by su
pernatural power, he would have conferred such power alone
upon Peter, and not upon the other apostles also. If the
possession of supernatural power gave authority to establish
the Church, and this power was possessed by all the apostles
alike, then the churches at Jerusalem, at Antioch, and other
places in Asia, which preceded that at Rome, antedated the
Roman Church in the possession of the power to govern men
in order to salvation. And then, also, the churches estab
lished by Paul at Corinth, and Ephesus, and other places,
stood upon a precise equality, as it regards authority and
jurisdiction, with that at Rome, even if it be conceded that
the latter was established by Peter. Christ gave to neither
of them precedeuce over the other, nor over any other of the
apostles. Whether either of them, in establishing a church,
intended to transfer to it the supernatural power which he
possessed, to be preserved throughout all time, their records
do not instruct us. But that either one transferred more of
such power than another, or that Peter was the only one who
transferred any at all, is a proposition which may be dogmat
ically asserted, as it is, but can not be maintained by argu
ment. Therefore, when Christ said, " Upon this rock I will
build my Church," he meant to declare himself to be the rock
upon which each and all the apostolic churches should be
founded, with the authority he conferred upon all the apos
tles as the origin of their unity. The unity designed by him
was in the beginning, and " the beginning proceeds from
unity " in him, says the eloquent Cyprian, one of the fore
most of " the fathers," and a martyr of the third century.
Therefore, he continues, "Assuredly the rest of the apostles
were also the same as Peter, endowed with a like partner
ship both of honor and power ;" and " the episcopate is one,
each part of which is held by each for the whole." '(*)
(9) " The Writings of Cyprian," vol. i., pp. 280, 281. " Antenicene Chris
tian Library," vol. viii.

260 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Archbishop Kenrick does not argue his proposition ; he
merely states it. But it is easy to see that its logical re
sult is this : that if the supernatural power includes author
ity over temporals, because they are embraced in spirituals,
then the temporal power was conferred in the act of confer
ring the spiritual, and existed alike, from necessity, in all
the apostolic churches. Inasmuch, therefore, as he had just
stated that the temporal power of the pope was not divine
ly conferred, and undoubtedly means that the supernatural
was, his consistency can be maintained in no other way
than by setting him down as emphatic authority against
the whole Jesuit theory of the temporal " patrimony of
Peter." It is of no consequence to inquire here how long the
supernatural power conferred upon the apostles continued
to be possessed by their successors, iu the work of spread
ing the Gospel — whether it ceased with those who came
directly in contact with them, or with John, the last sur
vivor. For if, at the beginning, the power was equally
possessed by all the apostles, and not by Peter alone to the
exclusion of the others, it would be absurd and illogical to
say that it survived to a single church alone, or to the
bishop of a single church. That would bring about a unity
not founded upon Christ, but upon the supernatural power
of one apostle — not a unity of affection, but of compulsion
— for none but those who argue falsely will insist that the
apostles changed their relations to each other after the
Crucifixion, or that they designed that the churches they
established upon principles of equality should have that
equality either destroyed or disturbed. It is sufficient to
know now that even the pope, with infallibility to aid him,
has no supernatural power; that he can not set aside a
single law of nature, or perform any other miraculous act.
Whatever supposed miracles are now attracting the no
tice and exciting the devotion of the faithful are attribu
ted to the " Mother of God," not to the pope. And there
fore, upon the hypothesis of Archbishop Kenrick, if all the
right which the papacy has to interfere with temporals
arose out of the supernatural power conferred on Peter,
and if the pope now possesses no supernatural power, Peter

APOSTLES HAD NO TEMPORAL POWER. 261
is left without a successor in the temporal order! And
that is the end of the controversy, until that power shall
be reconferred. That the world will be better off without
conceding it to the pope, is abundantly proven by the fact
that the freer the modern nations have been from the papal
influences, the more rapidly have they progressed ; and still
more clearly by the additional fact, that since the load of
papal oppression has been removed from the States of the
Church, Rome is beginning to assume a dignity and im
portance which she has not known for centuries.
The frank admissions of Archbishop Kenrick in relation
to the destitute condition of the Apostle Peter, and his en
tire want of dominion, leave those who defend the divine
foundation ofthe temporal power without any thing to rest
their theory on. They will not pretend that any thing
done by Christ was improperly done. The Church would
pronounce them heretics if they were not ready to concede
that the Christianity he established, and the Church he
founded by apostolic agency, were necessarily possessed of
the utmost perfection. If, then, Christ established a per
fect system of Christianity, and founded a perfect church,
and sent forth Peter and the other disciples " without scrip
or staff," with no " dominion " over any part of earth, and
without " wealth, or any of the appendages of royalty," to
extend the influence of religion and enlarge the borders
of the Church, is it not an impeachment of the Divine plan
to say, as they do, that temporal power, and large wealth,
and the appendages of royalty are necessary to the propa
gation of the Gospel ? The apostles, without any power or
dominion, did the work of the Master well and faithfully,
and sought after neither at the hands of governments or
individuals. But when those who ought to have followed
in their footsteps turned away after temporal dominion,
they set up their wisdom above that of God, they substi
tuted their pride for the apostolic humility, and checked the
progress of Christianity by blocking up the avenues to re
ligious truth, and the highways of the world's advancement.
Demonstration of this is found in a long array of facts con
nected with the origin and growth of the temporal power.
History abundantly proves that this power has been em-

262 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ployed by ambitious popes for their own personal advance
ment; and that it has been so unblushingly used in viola
tion of the teachings of Christ and his apostles, that many
of them have made it equally, if not more, heretical to deny
its existence as to deny the divinity of the Saviour ! Pe
ter lived all his life without dominion, and at his death, says
Archbishop Kenrick, " bequeathed to his successors no in
heritance but the labors and dangers of his office ;"(10) and
yet the present pope is convulsing the world with intense
excitement by continually asserting that Christ conferred
temporal dominion and royal authority on Peter ; that he,
as Peter's successor, is entitled to the same dominion by in
heritance; and that those who have taken it away, as well
as those who deny the legitimacy of his claim, have sinned
against heaven and are accursed of God ! Why should he
mourn so sadly, and his supporters grieve so much, at the
loss of that which, as Archbishop Kenrick shows, has been
added by others since the death of Peter? Has Christianity
so changed since then that it needs the aid of external force
and temporal power to sustain it ?
But, notwithstanding these admissions, so candidly and
frankly made by Archbishop Kenrick, he falls, at last, into
the same course of reasoning so common among the sup
porters of the papacy ; and finds, in the circumstances re
corded by him, enough to satisfy his own mind that when
the popes did come into possession of their temporal power
it was legitimately obtained, and without any usurpation.
Yet he has not, and could not, tell the time of this important
event. He readily concedes that the document so frequent
ly referred to by the Jesuits as the donation of Constantine
is " supposititious ;" yet concludes, with De Maistre, that,
notwithstanding this, Constantine did make a donation of
some kind, the nature and extent of which, however, he does
not attempt to explain ; for the manifest reason, that he
could not. The most that he can say of it is based upon
the authority of the infidel Voltaire, who said that the
Church of St. John, in Rome, was presented with a large
revenue and lands in Cambria, and that other emperors, sub-
(10) "The Primacy, "etc., by Kenrick, p. 525.

REASONING OF ARCHBISHOP KENRICK. 263
sequent to Constantine, increased this patrimony. But Vol
taire expressly says that this was not given to the pope, but
was a mere donation of property to the Church — to a par
ticular church in Rome ; and it could not, therefore, have
been any part of the papal patrimony out of which it was
possible for the temporal power to have arisen. It is, un
doubtedly, true that the pope, as the head of the Church in
Rome, did have a certain amount of authority necessary to
enable him to see that the property of the Church there,
and of those within that jurisdiction, was properly taken
care of and managed. In the aggregate this property was,
even then, very considerable, and yielded a large revenue.
Archbishop Kenrick says, upon the authority of Fleury, that
it included " some houses and farms, not only in Italy, but
likewise in Sicily, Africa, and Greece." But this authority
could not have been any thing more than what was neces
sary to protect the use and enjoyment of this estate — the
mere authority of ownership, under the civil law, just as is
now secured to all the churches in the United States. The
wealth yielded by it was attended with influence, but not
necessarily such as pertains to the temporal power claimed
by the popes. It was, doubtless, such as large possessions
have produced in every age ; for, in this respect, it is not
probable that society has ever undergone much change.
The power acquired by the possession of property is of a
very different kind from that involved in the control of gov
ernments and the management of public affairs. Archbish
op Kenrick thinks that, in the case of the popes, it was such
tbat, after Constantine removed the capital of the empire
from Rome to Constantinople, " the Bishop of Rome " was
left "in a position almost independent; the pontifical chair
being no longer overshadowed by the imperial throne."(")
In proof of this, he does not cite any grant or concession to
the pope, but merely a reply of Pope Leo the Great to the
Emperor Marcian, when he excused himself from attending
a general council, on the ground that his absence from Rome
would endanger the public peace, stating that " temporal ne
cessity does not allow me to leave Rome." But the learn-
(") "The Primacy," etc., by Kenrick, p. 256.

264 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ed archbishop strangely overlooked several important facts
which, fairly interpreted, do not support his conclusions. In
the first place, we have seen that Constantine never resided
at Rome, and therefore the removal of the capital to Con
stantinople could not have made the pontifical chair any the
less overshadowed than it bad been before. In the second
place, we have also seen that when Constantine conquered
Rome from Maxentius he made no change in the govern
ment. Nor did he make any when he removed the capital,
other than to divide the empire into four parts, leaving
Rome under the government of prefects, who represented
the imperial power. This temporal power was not shared
by the popes during his life. In the third place, we have
also seen, upon the authority of Eusebius, that he had he-
come dissatisfied with the bishops aud clergy on account
of disgraceful quarrels, and had, by imperial edict, confined
them " to their proper law," that is, to their ecclesiastical
functions ; a fact wbich forbids the idea that he conferred
temporal power upon the pope, when he knew that thereby
he would violate his own edict. In the fourth place, he be
came in the end so greatly dissatisfied with the orthodox
clergy, that he never united, by baptism, with the Roman
Church, but "banished many Catholic bishops."(n) And
still further, one hundred years had elapsed from the death
of Constantine to the beginning ofthe pontificate of Leo the
Great, during which time so many changes had occurred in
the empire, under the government of more than a dozen em
perors, that the condition of affairs created by Constantine
could not be properly inferred from any thing said by Leo
to Marcian. The intervening years were too numerous, and
the multitude of events too varied.
But a true understanding of the pontificate of Leo I. will
show that, although he made extraordinary and almost su
perhuman efforts to grasp power which did not properly be
long to the papacy, for the purpose of bringing all the other
churches into obedience to that at Rome, yet that what he
did in that direction was based exclusively upon his claim
of spiritual supremacy, and not upon his possession of tem-
(12) "Encyclopaedia Americana," art. Constantine.

THE POPE INFERIOR TO THE EMPEROR. 265
poral power, either as conferred by grant from the empire,
or as included in the spiritual. Any such claim as the lat
ter, then asserted by him, would have brought him in open
collision with the emperor — a result which, ambitious as
he was, he was extremely and studiously anxious to avoid.
Yet, at the same time, it is not to be disputed that Leo
went as far as he dared to attach temporal supremacy to the
spiritual " patrimony of Peter ;" and if he failed, it was ow
ing more to the firmness with which the Emperor Marcian
retained possession of the imperial power than to the want
of skill, tact, and ambition on the part of the pope ; for the
acknowledged possession of all which qualities he has been
placed upon the calendar of Roman saints, and has won the
title of Great. He complained that the Patriarch of Con
stantinople had asserted rights as belonging to that see,
which he insisted did not exist ; and in a letter to Marcian
begged him "to make use of his authority to keep the
patriarch in order, and hinder him from encroaching upon
the rights of other bishops ;"(13) which conclusively proves
that, even in reference to such spiritual jurisdiction as in
volved the obedience of other churches and bishops, he rec
ognized himself as dependent on the emperor. When he
wrote to the bishops he assumed an imperial air, and ex
pressed himself in words of imperial authority ; but when
he addressed the emperor he exhibited the deference of
inferiority. The first Council of Nice, in the year 325, had fixed the
time for the celebration of Easter, making it a matter of re
ligious faith ; yet Pope Leo I., more than a hundred years
after, finding a controversy upon the subject still going on
among Christians, wrote to tbe Emperor Marcian, beseech
ing him " to command " that steps be taken to bring about
uniformity. (") He also wrote to the empress, exhorting her
to use her authority to bring some monks to submit to the
Council of Chalcedon, which was held during his pontificate
and was one of the ecumenical councils. (16) He had no
power to restore Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, to his see,

(") " Eccl. Hist. ," by Du Pin, vol. iv., p. 96. ('*) Ibid., p. 99.
(">) Ibid.

266 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
after he had been expelled; and when it was done by the
emperor, thanked him for it.(16) When disturbances existed
in the Church of Alexandria, and both the contesting par
ties had addressed him on the subject, not having authority
to quiet them, he appealed to the Emperor Leo to do so, and
not to suffer heretics to thrust themselves into the govern
ment of the Church. (") He also solicited the same emperor
to send orthodox bishops to Alexandria, and to restore the
bishops of Egypt, who had been driven out by the here
tics. (,e) When the emperor, of his own accord, removed an
heretical bishop ofthe see of Alexandria, Pope Leo congrat
ulated him upon the act, and requested the appointment of
an orthodox bishop in his place.(") Can there be any room
to doubt, in the light of these facts, gathered from the work
of a distinguished Roman Catholic historian, about the rela
tions existing between the Emperors Marcian and Leo and
Pope Leo I. ? That his condition was one of dependence, is
left beyond controversy ; and dependence, too, to such an
extent as precludes all possibility of his having possessed
any temporal power over the affairs of Rome or any other
part ofthe empire, or any authority even in spiritual matters
beyond the local jurisdiction of the Churcb of Rome, and
that only in the same sense and to the same extent as was
possessed by other bishops in the local jurisdiction of their
several churches.
That Pope Leo I. was a great man and a great pope, no
body ought to question. He was so immeasurably above
other popes immediately before and after him, that he is en
titled to a prominent place in history. That he was also
ambitious, is an accepted fact. But we should keep in mind
the difference between the ambition to govern tbe world,
and the power to do it : the one is a sentiment, the other
a fact. He, undoubtedly, claimed that, as the successor of
Peter at Rome, he was endowed with divine authority to
govern all the churches ofthe world in spiritual things, be
cause the Roman Church was the only one founded on Peter,
and, therefore, was " the mother and mistress " of them all.
(">) " Eccl. Hist.," by Du Pin, vol. iv., p. 99. (") Rid., p. 102.
(") Ibid., p. 103. (18) Ibid., p. 104.

AMBITION OF POPE LEO I. 267
And that he would have stretched this authority so far as to
have included temporals, but for the decisive stand taken by
the emperors, is equally undoubted ; for he went so far as
to foreshadow the extraordinary pretensions which other
popes attempted to justify, several centuries afterward, by
the authority of the " False Decretals," which, as is well un
derstood, were forged for the express purpose of supporting
the temporal power. He brought the bisbops and clergy so
submissively at his feet, that, upon the reading of one of
his letters in the Council of Chalcedon, in the year 451, the
members exclaimed, "Accursed be he that admits not that
Peter has spoken by the mouth of Leo !" He was the first
pope whose eloquent preaching stirred the people of Rome;
and in the ecclesiastical world he reached a far higher de
gree of distinction than any of his predecessors. (2°) And if,
in investigating the question of his temporal power, we were
to confine ourselves to his claim and acts of spiritual su
premacy alone, we might readily fall into the error of sup
posing that he was really a temporal prince. Whereas, the
truth is, that he was not so in any proper sense; though
one can well imagine that, as by far the greatest man in
Rome, he must have been deferred to by the Roman people
in all matters concerning the peace and welfare ofthe city;
and more especially so, as he was a native of Rome and im
mediately and personally identified with its fortunes. Thus,
when Attila marched his army upon the city, and the whole
population was thrown into consternation for fear he would
ravage it, as he had done Pavia and Milan, the Senate was
assembled to consider what measures of defense should be
adopted. It was decided to send " an honorable embassy to
Attila" with the view of obtaining pacific terms; and, by
common consent, it was agreed that Pope Leo should be at
the head of it, not merely because he was pope, but on ac
count of his eminent ability. He occupied no such relation
to the temporal affairs ofthe city as made him their especial
guardian and protector, but, at the solicitation of the impe-
(OT) Milman's "Latin Christianity," vol. i., ch. iv. ; Reichel's "See of
Rome," pp. 33, 93, 145. These Protestant authorities speak of him in high
terms; but Cormenin, a Roman Catholic (vol. i., p. 83), censures both his
ambition and his intolerance.

268 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
rial authority and the Senate, accepted the position and went
out to meet the terrible prince who had acquired the repu
tation of being " the scourge of God," and " enemy of man
kind." He did not go as a temporal ruler, but at the so
licitation of the civil authorities, representing the empire, in
whose hands all the temporal power was lodged. He went
as an embassador, attended by Avieuus and Trigetius, " two
of the greatest men of the empire," and several senators.
At the point where the Mincio discharges itself into the Po
near Mantua, an audience was granted to the embassy by
Attila, which resulted in the withdrawal of his army beyond
the Danube, and the safety ofthe city^ It is represented by
the papal writers, upon the authority of Baronius, who bor
rowed it from " a writer of the eighth century," that this re
sult was brought about because "Attila saw two venerable
personages, supposed to be the apostles St. Peter and St.
Paul, standing on the side ofthe pope while he spoke ;(2') as
if it were produced by the special interposition of Provi
dence. But this story is scarcely worthy of credit, because
of the fact, if no otlier, that Attila was utterly insensible to
all such influences and appearances. It was, undoubtedly,
owing to the irresistible eloquence of Leo, to whom, on this
account, and beyond all question, belong all the honor and
glory of the achievement. History records no more mag
nificent triumph, none whioh exhibits higher personal quali
ties on the part of the chief actor. The speech of Leo, says
Maimbourg, was " so fine and judicious, so forcible and mov
ing," that Attila " was immediately softened," and from hav
ing been " a ravening wolf, as he was before, he became gen
tle as a lamb, and immediately granted him the peace he de-
sired."(32) There was nothing supernatural about this; no
indication of any direct Providential interference through
the agency of Peter's successor. And the additional story
of an old man with a drawn sword having been seen by At
tila in a vision, and his having been terrified by his threats,
is still more unworthy of belief. Leo's reputation needs

(al) "Lives ofthe Saints," by Butler, vol. iv., p. 69.
(m) "Historical and Critical Dictionary," by Bayle, art. Leo I., vol. iii.,
p. 758 (B) ; second edition.

PERSECUTION OF PRISCILLIAN. 269
no such fictitious aid, no such monkish inventions ; and is
rather impaired than benefited by this and the foolish tale
of his having cut off his hand, and its miraculous restoration,
in answer to his prayers !(23) Yet, great as his triumph over
Attila was, there is satisfactory proof that there was noth
ing supernatural about it, in the fact that he was unable to
achieve a like one over Genseric, when he afterward ad
vanced upon Rome. Although his influence was then suffi
cient to cause three ofthe principal churches, including that
of St. Peter, to be exempted from the general pillage,(") yet
the city was otherwise subjected to terrible devastation.
Every thing that he did, on both these occasions, was con
sistent with distinguished citizenship merely ; and was most
appropriately performed by him as, personally, the greatest
of living bishops — greater by far than any emperor who oc
cupied the throne during his pontificate.
But high and distinguishing as were the qualities which
rendered Pope Leo I. the most conspicuous man of his age,
there is another aspect in which his character is to be view
ed, which, while it exhibits his thorough devotion to the
papacy, leaves a blot upon his reputation whioh no adulation
can gloss over. And it proves also that the temporal power
in Rome was not lodged in his hands, but in those of the
emperor; behind whom, in this particular instance, it is
found very convenient to shelter him from that just measure
of indignation which is merited by his persecuting and vin
dictive spirit. An old law of the empire, enacted to please
former persecuting popes, provided for punishing heretics
with death /(") but it had remained for a long time unexe
cuted, as the other emperors, imitating the example of Con
stantine, had been content to banish them merely. Priscil-
lian, however, was put to death for heresy under this law,
during the pontificate of Leo I., and he specially approved
of and justified the bloody deed and all its accompanying
horrors. The venerable Gnostic was imprisoned, bound with
cords and chains, by the cruel and heartless monks, who were
(23) See Maimbourg, quoted by Bayle, vol. iii.
(M) "Historical and Critical Dictionary," by Bayle.
(M) It will appear at the proper place that a similar law was enacted in En
gland when the papal power was supreme in that country.

270 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
the mere tools and mercenaries of the pope. They " made
his limbs crack under the pressure of his chains, aud plunged
both of his feet into a heated brazier." They " tore from
him his hair and the skin of his skull, they burned with hot
iron all parts of his body, and poured upon bis wounds boil
ing oil and melted lead, and at last plunged into his entrails
a rod heated in the fire," from which, of course, after the
most intense and excruciating agony, he expired. (2e) Al
though it is pretended that no pope ever directly sanctioned
the shedding of blood on account of heresy, and the sup
porters ofthe papacy always throw the censure of such cru
elty upon the secular authorities, yet Leo I. did approve and
justify this horrid deed, and then endeavored to escape the
consequences by charging it to the laws ofthe empire, which,
if he had been a temporal prince in Rome, as is now assert
ed, he could have executed or suspended at his pleasure. (2T)
(ao) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 86.
(27) The letter of this great pope, approving the infliction ofthe death pen-
alty upon Priscillian, is referred to by three Roman Catholic historians. It
is here given, that the reader may see the sentiments of the papacy, expressed
by one of the greatest of the infallible (!) popes, in reference to the best
method of disposing of heretics !
According to Cormenin, it was thus : " My lord, the rigor and severity of
your justice against this heretic and his disciples have been of great aid to the
clemency of the Church. We have heretofore been content with the mildness
of the judgments which the bishops delivered in accordance with the canons,
and we did not desire bloody executions ; now, however, we have learned
that it is necessary to be aided and sustained by the severe constitutions of
the emperors ; for the fear of religious punishment frequently makes heretics
recur to a spiritual remedy, which can cure their souls from a mortal malady
by a true conversion." — Cormenin, vol. i., p. 86.
Maimbourg represents him as having praised the Emperor Maximus for
the deed, and as saying :
"That the rigor and severity of his justice against that heresiarch, and
his disciples, whom this prince put to death, were a great assistance to the
clemency ofthe Church. For though the Church contents herself with that
leniency of judgment, which the bishops exercise according to the canons,
against obstinate heretics, and admits of no bloody executions, it is, however,
much aided and supported by the severe constitutions of the emperors, since
the fear of so rigorous a punishment sometimes makes heretics have recourse
to the spiritual remedy, to cure the mortal disease of their heresy by a sin
cere conversion." — Bayle, vol. iii., p. 758 (A).
Du Pin says that Leo, referring to the Priscillianists, said :

EXAMPLE OF POPE FELIX II. 271
For this act of approval, he must stand at the bar of the
nineteenth century equally culpable as the civil authorities
of the empire, and more so for the detestable sentiments in
which it was expressed. But the fact that Priscillian was
executed by the civil authorities settles, beyond all contro
versy, that Leo I., great and all-powerful as he was in spir
itual affairs, did not possess any temporal power, even in
Rome. And Archbishop Kenrick honestly concedes this
when he says, "Although the Bishop of Rome was not yet
a temporal prince, yet his spiritual power was surrounded
with so great secular influence that be almost ranked as a
prince ;"(38) manifestly, because of his high personal quali
ties, his great eloquence, and the energy of his will.
Yet the archbishop, immediately after making this conces
sion, would have it to be implied that the popes did possess
some temporal power, by the statement of the fact that, in
the year 484, Pope Felix II. " complained to the Emperor
Zeno that the laws of nations had been violated by the in
jurious treatment of his legates." (3S) But this proves noth
ing to the purpose. It had long been the custom of the
Christian nations to receive the legates of the pope, and to
treat them with that degree of respect to which tbe Roman
Church was entitled, so long as their missions were confined
to spiritual matters. But none of thenj had yet been so re-
" That the magistrates themselves have had so great an hatred for that de
testable sect, that they have used the severity of the laws against them, pun
ishing the author and principal abettors with death. And that not without
reason, because they saw that all laws, divine and human, would be subvert
ed, and the civil society disturbed, if such persons, who divulged so detestable
errors, were suffered to live. That this severity had been used a long time
together with the leniency of the Church, because though the Church, being
contented with the judgment of her bishops, avoids all sanguinary punish
ments, yet it is helped by the edicts of princes, which cause them that fear
temporal penalties to have recourse sometimes to spiritual remedies." — Du
Pin's Eccl. Hist., vol. iv., p. 93.
The offense of Priscillian was that he adopted the doctrines of Manichaeus,
who, being a Persian, sought to coalesce the doctrines of the Persian magi
with the Christian system. His execution was abhorred by the bishops of
Gaul and Italy, who, unlike the pope, " had not yet learned that giving over
heretics to be punished by the magistrates was either an act of piety or jus
tice." — Maclaine's Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., vol. i., p. 129.
(™) Kenrick, part ii., ch. i., p. 257. (M) Ibid.

272 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
duced to obedience as to submit, without murmur, to the
direct interference of the pope, either by legates or other
wise, with their secular affairs. Even in Spain, which was
more under the influence of the pope than any other na
tion, his authority was restricted to matters concerning the
Church. The relations between the Emperor Zeno and Pope
Felix II. were those of sovereign and subject. During the
pontificate of Simplicius — immediately preceding that of
Felix — Zeno became emperor, upon the death of the Em
peror Leo. But a revolt was stirred up against him by
Basilicus, who succeeded in driving him from the throne
and taking possession of it. He expelled the orthodox and
put heterodox prelates into their places, in which he was re
sisted by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Pope Simplicius
approved the course of the patriarch at first ; but afterward,
with the hope of excluding Timotheus from the see of Alex
andria on account of the rivalry between them, he advised
him to resist Zeno, the legitimate emperor, and support the
cause of Basilicus, the heretical usurper, thus giving his
official support to heresy, and his sanction to an act of open
revolt against the throne ! The patriarch followed his ad
vice to the extent of making war upon the supporters of
Timotheus, and the empire was thrown into such commotion
that Zeno was enabled with his army to retake possession
of the throne by the expulsion of Basilicus. This embar
rassed the pope for a time; but, with true papal adroitness,
he endeavored to restore himself to the good opinion of
Zeno by taking his side. He had no conscientious scruples
about changing from one side to the other, provided he al
ways found himself in concert with the strongest party.
Zeno was not at all averse to the reconciliation, because, in
the confused and unsettled condition of affairs, he needed
the assistance of the pope to keep the empire in his hands.
And an incident soon transpired showing that the pope did
hot intend to forfeit the protection of the emperor by any
act invading the imperial jurisdiction. Each was playing
the part of a skillful politician ; power, and nothing else,
being the stake they played for. Upon the death of Timo
theus, the priests of Alexandria elected his successor, with
out consulting either the emperor or the pope ; the latter at

EXAMPLE OF POPE SIMPLICIUS. 273
that time, as Bishop of Rome, having no recognized juris
diction over the Church at Alexandria. Zeno, incensed at
this election, expelled the new bishop from his see, who in
revenge appealed to Pope Simplicius, hoping to obtain his
intervention in his favor. Probably the pope, in order to
increase his own importance and authority, might have de
cided the appeal, but he was given to understand by the
emperor that it was an affair beyond his jurisdiction, and he
submitted to the necessity of non-interference, and left the
emperor to have his own way, even upon this ecclesiastic
al matter, of so much importance as the appointment of a
bishop over the Alexandrian Christians. At the commence
ment of the pontificate of Felix II. this expelled bishop was
at Rome, and so played upon the prejudices of the pope
against Constantinople as to induce him to send legates to
the emperor to protest against the protection given to her
etics there. These legates, being engaged in what Zeno
considered an insolent mission, were arrested by bis orders,
thrown into prison, and threatened with death. But they
had an equal appreciation with the pope of the advantages
of being on the strong side, and obtained their freedom by
recognizing as the legitimate Bishop of Alexandria the her
etic against whom Pope Felix had protested. When they
returned to Rome, they were deposed and excommunicated.
Failing then to bring the Patriarch of Constantinople over
to his side, Pope Felix issued a bull of excommunication
against him, and addressed to the emperor the letter men
tioned by Archbishop Kenrick, complaining of the treat
ment of his legates. All this was done by virtue of his
spiritual authority alone. But even in that aspect of it,
nothing was accomplished by it, for all his pretensions were
treated with scorn by the emperor, with whom he had no
inclination to come into direct collision. Although he had
much to be proud of, and exercised plenary powers in all
the ecclesiastic affairs at Rome ; whenever be came in con
flict with the emperor, even in reference to the domestic af
fairs of that city, he was reduced to the condition of a sub
ject, and laid no claim to any temporal power whatever.
And thus it is certain that at the close of the pontificate of
Felix II. , in the year 492, the Pope of Rome neither had,
18

274 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
nor claimed to have, any temporal power, as a part of " the
patrimony of Peter," or derived in any other way. He was
a mere bishop, like the bishops of Alexandria, Corinth, and
other places, and his powers were limited to the adminis
tration of spiritual affairs. In temporal matters he was as
much subject to the emperor and the laws of the empire
as any of the inferior clergy or the people. The struggle,
however, for the acquisition of temporal power went on all
the time, with results varying according to circumstances.
The strong popes gained upon the weak emperors; but
when the latter were courageous enough to assert and
maintain the authority of the empire, the papacy was
dwarfed into the narrowest proportions. The Church, in
the mean time, was left to drift along into whatsoever cur
rents the interest and ambition of the contending factions
carried it, and the cause of genuine Christianity was made
subordinate to political rivalries, and would have expired if
God had not preserved, even in Rome, faithful guardians to
shelter and preserve it.
The century which elapsed between the pontificate of Fe
lix II. and that of Gregory I. — embracing the reigns of fif
teen popes — contributed but little toward conferring tem
poral power upon the Bishop of Rome. The emperors con
tinued to maintain their ascendency, although the angry con
troversies between the Eastern and Western Christians kept
up a perpetual strife between Rome and Constantinople, in
which some of the popes proved themselves the superiors of
the emperors in the management of public affairs. There
was no relaxation of their efforts to consummate the policy
of Pope Leo I. by bringing all the existing governments
into subjection to the papacy. On the contrary, this be
came a ruling and controlling passion, which never under
went abatement, except when policy and expediency dic
tated it, and then only to make the final triumph more sure.
In the year 498, two popes were elected — one at Constanti
nople, and the other at Rome. Neither being disposed to
give up his pretensions, it was submitted to the judgment
of King Theodoric, at Ravenna, to decide between them(30)
(30) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 97.

CORRUPTION OF THE POPES. 275
—a fact which proves that worldly policy, far more thanthe
influence of the Holy Ghost, was allowed to settle the im
portant question as to who should be the successor of Peter
and God's Vicar on earth ! Pope Symmachus, in whose fa
vor the king decided, while he made no claim of temporal
power as against the emperor, did assert a spiritual jurisdic
tion over the world ; which, if it had been conceded to him,
would have absorbed the temporal power. He told the Em
peror Anastasius that he was superior to all the princes of
earth, because they governed human affairs, while he dis
posed oi"the goods of heaven ;"(31) a pretense precisely like
that now set up by Pope Pius IX., that the ecclesiastical,
being above the temporal and civil authority, has the divine
right to dictate its policy and govern the world !
By the year 529, priestly ambition had become almost
universal, and, as a natural consequence, popes were elected
by intrigue and the most corrupt means. In that year Bon
iface H. was elected by one party, and a rival pope by an
other party, at Rome. But Boniface triumphed over his
rival, and bad the satisfaction of anathematizing him after
death had removed him out of the way. To prevent the
recurrence of such an event, he convened a council in the
Church of St. Peter at Rome, and had a decree passed allow
ing him to designate his successor! Having secured this
extraordinary power, in violation of the universal practice
of the Church, he appointed one whom he required the bish
ops to recognize " by oath and in writing !" This was, of
course, infallibly done — without the possibility of error !
But another council was soon after convened, and this de
cree was set aside, when Boniface cast his own infallible (!)
bull into the flames. (32) At his death, " the Holy See, being
set up at auction," was obtained by John II. , who "paid
enormous sums to his competitors, and obtained the pontifical
tiara."(33) The senators, who then had a voice in the elec
tion, sold their votes openly, and the general corruption was
shameless and disgusting. So little respect had one pope
for another, that Pope Agapetus, the successor of Felix IL,
burned in public the bull of anathema which Pope Boniface
(31) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 97. (3S) Ibid. (33) Ibid.

276 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
had published against his rival ; and thus one infallible pope
condemned another! Pope Agapetus was not much influ
enced by the prevailing ambition, and was disposed, both
by precept and example, to arrest the evils of the times.
He submitted, as a dutiful subject, to the Emperor Justinian
in temporal affairs, and to the councils of the Church in
spiritual, seemingly endowed with a commendable degree
of Christian humility. On account of this, he never reach
ed, on the records of church history, a higher eminence than
to be known as a man of sincerity and of more integrity
than most of the popes of that age. At his death the scenes
attending the election of his successor were disgracefully
corrupt. Says Cormenin : "Priests sold their suffrages; ca
bals struggled, raised upon their competitors, and carried
off the partisans of their adversaries ; and at length victory
remained with the richest, the most skillful, or the most
corrupt."(34) This same author also says that Silverius
bought the pontificate from King Theodatus;(36) but Du
Pin, while admitting that Anastasius affirmed this to be true,
is disposed to doubt it, and to follow Liberatus, " an author
more ancient and more credible than Anastasius," who sup
posed that the election of Silverius was regular and canon
ical.^") Be this as it may, it is unquestionably true that
Theodatus desired to secure a pope devoted to his interest,
that he might the more readily prevent Belisarius from
marching his army upon Rome ; and whether he sold the
pontificate to Silverius or he was canonically elected, it can
not be doubted that the king assented to it with the under
standing that he should have the assistance of the pope.
But Belisarius entered Rome with an army of one hundred
and fifty thousand Goths, and Silverius either did or " was
suspected to hold correspondence " with him ; thus betray
ing the king and turning over the city to these terrible ene
mies. (S7)
If Belisarius thus enjoyed the fruits of the pope's treason,
he was not disposed to leave the traitor unpunished. He
therefore deposed Silverius, and elevated Vigilius to the
(34) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 110. (35) Ibid.
O Du Pin, vol. v., p. 46. Q^ md.

POPE VIGILIUS NEVER ELECTED. 277
pontificate. This infallible pope caused the deposed but
equally infallible Silverius to be banished to a desert isl
and, under charge of executioners, who put him to death by
the slow process of starvation !(38) Yet, notwithstanding all
this, Vigilius was recognized by a General Council and " ac
knowledged for a lawful pope," says Du Pin, "without pro
ceeding to a new election, or even confirming that which had
been made.(3s) His name, as also that of Silverius, who has
been made a saint — is found in every published list of the
popes ; and, strange as it may now seem, one of the ecu
menical councils of the Church — the second of Constantino
ple — was held under his pontificate, and received all its au
thority and validity from his official approval, as the infalli
ble successor of Peter !(40) He was made pope November
20th, 537, and the death of Silverius did not occur until
June 20th, 538. Yet Butler says : " Vigilius was an ambi
tious intruder, and a schismatic, as long as St. Silverius
lived ; but after his death became lawful pope by the ratifi
cation or consent of the Roman Church, and from that time
renounced the errors and commerce of the heretics,"(41) a
method of covering up the heresy and tergiversations of a
pope neither ingenious nor plausible. His fierce contest with
the Emperor Justinian about the Three Chapters led to his
(38) Du Pin, vol. v., p. 47. (39) Ibid.
(4°) The history of this General Council and of the pontificate of Vigilius
is most instructive to the student of ecclesiastical history. The chief points
of controversy in the Church, at that time, arose out of what were called
" The Three Chapters," that is, the Nestorian heresy contained in the writings
of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus — a letter of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, and the
works of Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuesta. These were condemned by the
Emperor Justinian ; but Pope Vigilius rejected his edict and excommuni
cated Theodoras of Cesarea, its author. The council was convened to settle
the controversy. It condemned " The Three Chapters," but not their authors,
having decided "that the works of an author could be justly censured with
out condemning him personally!" Vigilius refused, at first, to approve this
condemnation, and was banished. "Nevertheless," says Du Pin, "not be
ing guided by zeal for the truth, but by his own caprice or interest, he quick
ly condemned them after an authentic manner, that he might return into
Italy." — History of the Catholic Church, by Noethen, p. 265; Lives ofthe
Saints, by Butler, vols, iv., v., vi., p. 608 ; Ecclesiastical History, by Du Pin,.
vol. v., p. 47. For history of this council, see Du Pin, vol. v., p. 135.
f") Butler's " Lives of the Saints," vols, iv., v., vi., p. 608.

278 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
being summoned to Constantinople by the emperor, when
he was arrested and held in custody. On his return to
Rome after his release, he died, as some have supposed, by
poison; when Pelagius I., by order of Justinian, and without
waiting for the formality of an election, clothed himself with
the pontifical mantle and declared himself pope ! When he
reached Rome, the clergy and people refused to recognize
him, and charged him with the murder of Vigilius. With
the assistance, howe'ver, of the temporal authority of the
emperor, he maintained himself on the chair of Peter for
nearly four years. This combination of facts gives but little
support to the pretense that popes are always elected by the
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and still less to the doctrine
of papal infallibility and temporal power.
In the year 566, two bishops of Burgundy were convict
ed, by a provincial synod, of adultery, rape, and murder, and
were expelled from their sees. They appealed to Pope
John III., as spiritual head of the Roman Church, and he
restored them.(42) Such examples could not do otherwise
than lead to many abuses and extortions, as well as to
great assumption of pontifical authority. The latter was
carried to such an extent, that some of the popes declared
themselves the dispensers of a fourth part of the property
of the Church, in order that thereby they might become
the distributors of large rewards to their dependents and
friends. By these means they were so rapidly becoming
the rivals of princes, that the latter resolved upon resisting,
with more firmness, their efforts to acquire absolute inde
pendence and superiority. The emperor, therefore, decreed
that his consent should be necessary to the valid elections
of the bishops of Rome, Ravenna, and Milan. This decree
was in force at the election of Pope Gregory I., in the year
590. Gregory— from humility, it is said — wrote to the em
peror to induce him not to confirm his election ; a circum
stance which excludes all possibility of there having been
any temporal power possessed by the popes up to the close
of the sixth century. The popes, unquestionably, struggled
hard to acquire it, but without success. Their ambition was
(4!) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 120.

PAPAL DEGENERACY. 279
unbounded ; and such was the character of the most of
them that they would have adopted any means to ob
tain their end; yet they were held in inferiority by the
strength of the imperial power, and compelled to remain
subjects. By their machinations, and the perpetual schisms
they engendered, they succeeded, in the end, in sundering
all the bonds of affection and alliance between the Eastern
and the Western Christians. They had to await the rise
of more powerful allies in the West — of Pepin and Charle
magne — before they could break the ties of their allegiance
to the empire. But they succeeded in this also, by the in
fliction of terrible blows upon the true prosperity of the
Church. If the peaceful diffusion of the Gospel had been
their sole object, and the Christian spirit of charity and tol
eration had occupied their minds, their personal struggles
with each other, and their numerous controversies about
heresy, would have been attended with far less disastrous
results, and would not have given rise to so much cruelty
and persecution. But other and more unworthy motives '
prevailed, temporal ambition took the place of the higher
Christian virtues, and whatever they did was centred in the
groveling object of acquiring earthly power. The govern
ment of the world became the great prize for which the
combatants contended, on both sides, and the cause of
Christianity was only saved from final and complete over
throw by the sheltering protection of Providence, and the
courage of the few pious and devoted men, who, in spite of
all the prevailing corruption, preserved their own Christian
integrity and the teachings of the apostolic fathers.

280 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.

CHAPTER X.
Churches Independent before Constantine. — Victor I. endeavored to establish
the Supremacy of Rome. — Ambition ofthe Popes. — Aided Constantine to
overthrow Maxentius. — Consequences. — Constantine a Usurper. — Maxen
tius the Lawful Emperor. — Constantine baptized just before his Death. —
His Motives. — Influence upon Roman Clergy. — Arianism. — The Council
of Nice. — The Pope had Nothing to do with It.-— Called by the Emperor. —
The Pope did not preside by his Legates. — He did not approve the De
crees as Necessary to their Validity. — Constantine was the Master Spirit. —
He dictated the Creed. — He fixed Infallibility in the Council. — The Coun
cil did not decree the Primacy ofthe Bishop of Rome. — It enacted only
Twenty Canons. — All other pretended Ones are Forgeries.
The many schisms which have occurred in the Roman
'Catholic Church, and the frequent elections of rival and hos
tile popes, lead to the conclusion that there is something in
herent in the papal system which renders entire unity im
possible. As all minds of any intelligence naturally repel
any attack upon their independence, the harshness and sever
ity employed by the popes to keep this class of minds in sub
jection have necessarily induced antagonisms. The igno
rant alone, outside the governing class, have proved submis
sive ; and they only because they are unconscious of their
inferiority. These, for many centuries, constituted the mer
cenary armies of the papacy.
There is no difficulty in tracing this want of unity to its
real source, or in showing that, but for the disturbance of
Christian harmony in the Church by such popes as sub
ordinated the interests of Christianity to the accomplish
ment of their own personal ends, Roman Catholicism might
have been, to-day, a very different thing from what it is. °It
might have been one of the most powerful and effective in
struments in carrying on the work of improving and eleva
ting the world. And the present pope, instead of sending
forth mingled curses and groans from a pretended prison,
might have united in the general rejoicing at the advanced

INDEPENDENCE OF THE EARLY CHURCHES. 281
condition into which modern Christianity and civilization
have brought the nations.
The Church of Christ was undoubtedly established upon
a rock, because the faith upon which it rested was designed
to be more immovable than the mountains. Love, charity,
harmony, and all the heavenly virtues clustered together at
its foundation, and there can be nothing rightfully about it
to destroy its symmetry or mar its beauty. But the papal
system is constructed out of uncongenial and inharmonious
materials. It was the work of man — not God. Erected out
of beautiful materials gathered from the partial wreck of
apostolic Christianity, by mingling them with the rude
fragments of pagan Rome, it lacks the symmetry of a per
fect plan, and displays the conflicting designs of its various
architects. Its external organization has grown out of illib
eral and unchristian divisions, fomented by designing popes
and prelates, with no higher object than to gain authority
and distinction for themselves, even at the sacrifice of the
simple faith and worship of the early Christians. Its own
factions have never ceased to prey upon its vitals from the
hour of its birth, and have been to each other what the
plagues sent down from the gods were to those who first
stole fire from heaven. It has made fierce and cruel war
upon every thing that stood in its path or endeavored to
check its ambition ; and if, at any time, it has been met by
intolerance, tbe weapons used against it have been supplied
from its own armory, and belong to tbe brood of monsters
which itself has hatched.
Before the time of Constantine, each of the several church
es planted by the apostles and the early fathers exercised its
•own jurisdiction over its own members, and thus preserved
harmony in faith and worship. The right of visitorial guard
ianship, exercised by the apostles while planting and water
ing them in infancy, existed no longer, because there was no
longer any necessity for it. But while each church govern
ed its own affairs, they all realized the necessity of preserv
ing a spirit of unity, and such brotherhood and fellowship
among the whole as would enable them to sympathize with
and assist each other in the adjustment of their local dis
agreements, if any should arise. »A harmonious and beauti-

282 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ful Christian system was thus created, worthy of the di
vine approval, and under it the Catholic Apostolic Church
was able to stand up and ward off the staggering blows of
the pagan emperors.
The first efforts to disturb this harmony were made by the
bishops of Rome. About the beginning of the third century,
Victor I., with a view to establish the primacy of the Church
of Rome, endeavored to compel the Asiatic churches, by
threats of excommunication, to conform to its custom in
keeping the festival of Easter. About half a century after
ward, Stephen I. attempted to assume jurisdiction over the
Church of Spain ; and, still later, Dionysius made a like at
tempt over the Church of Alexandria. These attempts at
ecclesiastical absolutism at Rome were so sternly rebuked
by the great fathers, Irenaeus and Cyprian, as to demon
strate that the leading churches could not be subjugated,
unless by some power they were unable to resist. The bish
ops of Rome soon saw that this power was political impe
rialism; and they availed themselves of the first opportunity
of uniting Church and State at Rome, in order to obtain pos
session of it. This opportunity was the arrival of Constan
tine, at a time when the corrupt materials necessary for such
a union were abundant at Rome. Eusebius, who was a prel
ate of eminence at that time, gives this account of the clergy:
" But when, by reason of excessive liberty, we sunk into
negligence and sloth, one envying and reviling another in
different ways, and we were almost, as it were, on the point
of taking up arms against each other, and we were assailing
each other with words as with darts and spears, prelates in
veighing against prelates, and people rising up against peo
ple, and hypocrisy and dissimulation had arisen to the great
est height of malignity, then the divine judgment. . . .began
to afflict its episcopacy  But some that appeared to be
our pastors, deserting the law of piety, were inflamed against
each other with mutual strifes, only accumulating quarrels
and threats, rivalship, hostility and hatred to each other,
only anxious to assert the government as a kind oi sovereign
ty for themselves."^) (') "Eccl. Hist.," by Eusebius, bk. viii., ch. i.

FIRST UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 283
It has even been charged that Marcellinus, who was Bish
op of Rome in 304, shortly before the arrival of Constantine,
"solemnly abjured the Christian religion" and "offered in
cense to idols in the temples of Isis aud Vesta. "(2) However
this may be, it is not at all wonderful, in view of the condi
tion of things pictured by Eusebius, that when Milchiades, a
few years after, became Bishop of Rome, he was willing that
the reigning emperor should be removed and the empire
seized by Constantine, in order thereby to unite his fortunes
with the State, and those of the State with the Roman
Church. Constantine was not a member of the Church —
then the only visible sign of Christianity ; but the bishop
aud clergy of Rome assisted him to expel Maxentius, the
reigning emperor, expecting to receive — if not upon the
express condition that they should receive — the direct favor
and protection of the empire. With the emperor on their
side, they could readily see how easy it would be to draw
all the religious controversies throughout the empire to
Rome, and thus lay the foundation for the supremacy ofthe
Church there. But, even without this, their rebellion against
Maxentius(3) was followed with results both direct and con
sequential. The direct were : the union of Church and State,
the introduction of secular affairs into the Church, the in
crease of ambition and corruption among the clergy, and the
planting of the foundations upon which the monstrous usur
pations of the papacy have since rested. The consequential
were : the introduction of measures which overthrew the
primitive Church, the spreading of discord, jealousy, and di
visions throughout all the churches, and, finally, the great
schism which separated the Eastern and Western Christians.
It is worthy to be repeated that, before the time of Con
stantine, each of the churches of Asia, Africa, and Europe
had enjoyed its own independence, with no asserted or rec
ognized principality in either over the others. Rome had
no more power than Alexandria, or Alexandria than Anti
och, or Antioch than Jerusalem. As the most ancient and
(2) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 48.
(3) Maxentius persecuted the Christians, but was the legitimate emperor ;
and, therefore, if Constantine had failed, all who assisted him would have
been rebels against the law of the empire.

284 The papacy and the civil power.
first -established churches, those of Jerusalem and Antioch
had a sort of precedence of honor, derived from the associa
tion of the names of the apostles James (the Lord's brother)
and Peter and Paul, with their history. But in neither of
them had there been any pretense of authority or primacy
set up. They were content to adhere, in what they did and
taugbt, to the practice of that forbearance, charity, aud tol
eration exhibited iu the apostolic assembly at Jerusalem, by
which they hoped to lead the world into that condition of
meekness and humility which is experienced at the genuine
impress of true Christianity upon the heart, whether it be
that of prince or peasant. Eusebius gives also an account
of the rapid progress of Christianity under these influences.
He speaks of " those vast collections of men that flocked to
the religion of Christ, and those multitudes crowding in
from every city, and the illustrious concourse in the houses
of worship."(4) Such results could have been produced only
by the example of pious and holy lives on the part of the
ministers of religion — of such lives as would arrest the at
tention ofthe multitude, and prove to them how far prefera
ble, and how much more ennobling and elevating, was prac
tical Christianity than any of the old philosophies. The re
verse of this flattering picture, which he likewise painted,
could only have been produced by other examples of the
very opposite character, such as had their birth in the pre
vailing pride and ambition of Rome.
When Constantine reached Rome — not yet being a Chris
tian, even by profession — he manifestly desired to secure the
co-operation of both pagans and Christians, in order to main
tain possession of the empire, which was his chief desire.
He had no legal claim to rule in Rome. At the division of
the empire by Diocletian, he selected three colleagues to
govern it jointly with himself — Maximian, Galerius, and
Constantius, the father of Constantine. None of these had
any other claim to the title of Caesar than this. The dis
tribution of the empire was as follows : to Constantius were
given Gaul, Spain, and Britain ; to Galerius, the valley of
the Danube; to Maximian, Italy and Africa; and Diocle-
(4) Eusebius, bk. viii., ch. i.

CONSTANTINE A USURPER. 285
tian retained Thrace, Egypt, and Asia.(6) Maximian, there
fore, was emperor at Rome. At his death, in 306, Maxen
tius, his son, became his successor, by the act of " the ap
plauding senate and people,"(") which placed him lawfully
in possession of that part of the empire. About that time,
Constantius died in Britain, while administering his part of
the empire. (') Constantine was present, and upon him his
father " committed the administration of the empire ;" upon
the principle that, being his eldest son, he was entitled to it
by the law of inheritance. (8)
In no possible view of this act can it be said to have con
ferred upon Constantine any right to that part of the em
pire in which Rome was situated. Giving to his right by
inheritance, or gift from his father, the utmost extent, his
jurisdiction as emperor was confined to the countries over
which Constantius ruled ; that is, Gaul, Spain, and Britain.
He, however, was not content with this ; the field was not
large enough for the gratification of inordinate ambition like
his. Eusebius, his only biographer, tells us that he "drove
from his dominions, like untamed and savage beasts," those
who seemed incapable of civilization ; " reduced to submis
sion " parts of Britain ; and " then proceeded to consider the
state of the remaining portions of the empire." No part of
it attracted his attention so much as Rome, " the imperial
city," and he therefore "prepared himself for the effectual
suppression of the tyranny " which prevailed there under
Maxentius; that is, for snatching the imperial crown from the
brow of Maxentius and putting it upon his own.(') The
pretense that he desired to go to Rome to relieve the Chris
tians there from the oppression of Maxentius is idle, for he
was not yet a Christian. He desired the empire, and for
that purpose alone he marched his army to Rome. Upon
reaching there, he had two things to do in order to secure
the desired success : first, to drive out Maxentius, and, sec
ond, to conciliate the inhabitants. The first accomplished,
he undertook the second by granting equal freedom of re-
(5) "Decline and Fall, "etc., by Gibbon (Milman's), vol. i., pp. 406, 407.
(s) Ibid., p. 461. 0) Ibid., p. 457.
(°) "Life of Constantine," by Eusebius, bk. i., ch. xxi., p. 21.
(") Ibid., chh. xxv., xxvi., pp. 23,24.

286 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ligious worship to both Christians and pagans, thereby sig
nifying his condemnation of religious persecution. This was
altogether conformable to the wishes of the Christians, for,
up to that period, the example of toleration set by the apos
tles and early Christians had been universally practiced by
them, except in the instances where the bishops of Rome
had endeavored to establish their primacy over those of the
other churches.
Thus established in Rome, Constantine entered immediate
ly upon a system of measures by means of which the clergy
were greatly advanced, as a reward for their support of his
cause. He conferred great favors upon them, such as they
had never before enjoyed. (10) Those already corrupted by
the prevailing disorders of which Eusebius speaks were,
beyond all doubt, quite ready to accept this arrangement,
without any inquiry beyond the mere ' question of personal
benefit to themselves; and as these had control of the
Church at Rome, it soon resulted in uniting the Church and
the State together in such a way as to make one dependent
on the other. Even then he had not become a Christian by
uniting with the Church ; nor did he do so for a number
of years after the Council of Nice. Yet he convened that
council, was present during its sessions, participated in its
deliberations, and dictated its decisions. It is a gross per
version of history to call him a " Christian emperor " in the
sense that the papists continually do, for none of the fathers
from whom we derive information of those times give any
account of his baptism into the Church until he was about to
die, long after his capture of Rome. Socrates says that, in
the sixty-fifth year of his age, he received " Christian bap
tism," in Nicomedia, and died in a few days.(") Sozomen
says the same thing, adding that it was in the thirty-fifth
year of his reign. (12) And so does Theodoret. (1S) And also
Eusebius. (14) Eusebius talks about God having frequently
manifested himself to him, and every body is familiar with
(10) Ante, ch. viii.
(") "Eccl. Hist.," by Socrates, bk. i., ch. xxxix.
(12) "Eccl. Hist.," by Sozomen, bk. ii., ch. xxxiv.
(13) "Eccl. Hist.," by Theodoret, bk. i., ch. xxxii.
(") " Life of Constantine," by Eusebius, bk. iv., ch. Ixi.

CONSTANTINE NEVER A ROMAN CATHOLIC. 287
his story about the sign of the cross in the heavens ; and it is
undoubtedly true that he had great respect for Christianity.
But all this does not go to show, against other acknowl
edged facts, that he had become so connected with the
Church at Rome as to be moved by motives of piety alone
to bestow so many royal favors upon it. The fact is, he
never united with the Church of Rome at all. When bap
tized in Nicomedia, the ceremony was performed by Arian
bishops and in an Arian church ; so that he never was, ac
cording to the teachings of the Roman Church, an orthodox
Christian, but died, as he had lived, a heretic. When he al
lied himself, therefore, with the clergy at Rome, that act
must, of necessity, be referred to some other motive than the
service of God, or the special advancement of Christianity.
There could have been no other than a temporal motive,
that of securing and retaining possession of the imperial
crown. And it is equally conclusive also, that the clergy of
Rome had no other than a temporal motive in forming so
close and intimate alliance with a prince who had not dem
onstrated his devotion to Christianity by uniting with their
Church ; which, we are now told by those who profess to be
their successors, is the only sure passport to heaven. Thus,
the union formed under these circumstances, and by these
contracting parties, between the Church and the State was,
on the part of both, a mere scheme of ambition, designed for
no other purpose than to acquire power. If Christianity had
any thing to do with it, it was of secondary consideration.
Understanding perfectly well the wishes of such of the
clergy as had brought the Church into the condition de
scribed by Eusebius, and how they were to be kept faithful
to him, one of the first steps of Constantine was to issue an
edict commanding large sums of money to be paid to " cer
tain ministers."(16) He exempted the clergy from public
service. (16) He placed the Christians "in almost all the
principal posts of the Roman Government."(") He decreed
that part of the funds levied from tributary countries should
be sent " to the bishops and clergy."(1?) He enacted a law
(,5) "Eccl. Hist.," by Eusebius, bk.x., ch. vi. (™) Ibid., bk. x., ch. vii.
(") "Eccl. Hist.," by Sozomen, bk. i., ch. viii. (18) Ibid.

288 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
giving immunity to the clergy in reference to taxation. (")
Also another permitting appeals from the secular courts to
the bishops. (20) He provided, for the first time, that persons
should be allowed to leave their property to the Church by
will.(") Who could doubt the result of such unbounded fa
voritism as this ? It soon raised the Church at Rome to an
unparalleled condition of grandeur. The clergy became a
privileged class, sheltered and protected as they thus were
by the emperor. When the emperor was gone — for he re
mained there but a little while — they did as they pleased,
for every body understood the terrible vengeance in store
for those who resisted. The compact was faithfully executed
by both parties, to the temporal profit of both.
The men of that day are not supposed to have been ma
terially different from those of the present times. Hence
the splendor and magnificence introduced into the Roman
Church led to such departures from the simple modes of
apostolic worship as were supposed to be necessary to arrest
the attention of the pagan part of the population, and to at
tract them to that Church. Much of this splendor was, in
fact, borrowed from the pagan worship — while much of it
originated in the pride and vanity of the clergy. It should
not surprise us now to know that, in the midst of such a
state of things as this, the bishops struggled with each
other for the ascendency, as Eusebius tells us, while, at the
same time, they were thoroughly united in the wish and
purpose to make the Roman Church the "mistress" and
ruler of all the other churches. Certainly there is no ex
ample of such struggles and contentions found in the lives
of the apostles ; no question about personal or official su
premacy. Paul rebuked Peter at Antioch for his course
toward the Jews ; but no controversy about authority grew
out of it. And Cyprian, one of the great fathers of the
third century, strongly condemned any thing of the kind,
in these expressive words: "For none of us ought to make
himself a bishop of bishops, or pretend to awe his brethren

(,9) "Eccl. Hist.," by Du Pin, vol. ii., p. xvi.
(20; "Eccl. Hist.," by Sozomen, bk. i., ch. ix.
H " Eccl. Hist.," by Du Pin, vol. ii., p. xvi.

THE ARIAN HERESY. 289
by a tyrannical fear, because every bishop is at liberty to
do as he pleases, and can no more be judged by another than
he can judge others himself '." '(22)
It is more than probable that the controversy about Ari
anism, which did so much to retard the progress of Chris
tianity, grew out of the pride and vanity of the original con
testants — Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, and Arius, one of1
his presbyters. Such was the opinion of Constantine. He
"wrote to rebuke them" for having originated a disturb
ance " of a truly insignificant character, and quite unworthy
of such fierce contention." He cared nothing about the point
of doctrine involved — whether the Son was of the same or
of like substance with the Father, or whether the three per
sons in the Trinity were equal or not. The probability is
that he had no well-defined views about it. At all events,
his chief complaint was that they had made " a controversy
public which it was in their power to have concealed ;" also
that it was " the disputatious caviling of ill-employed lei
sure," and was " rather consistent with puerile thoughtless
ness than suitable to the intelligence of priests and prudent
men."(2S) But this useless controversy, on account of the virulence
and malignity with which it was carried on by the bishops
and clergy on both sides, led to the Council of Nice, in
325 — the first ecumenical council. The Christian world
had got along well enough for nearly three hundred years
without any such assemblage. Innumerable heresies had
sprung up between the planting of the Church at Jerusalem
and that time ; and the influence of the greater part of them,
if not nearly all, had been dispelled by the love and charity
which the apostolic fathers and their immediate descend
ants reflected in their lives and example. To none of them
had occurred the idea of an external church organization
with powers of compulsion. And yet the Council of Nice,
in one respect, was one of the most important assemblages
ever held, in this : that it placed the Christian sentiment of

C2) "Eccl. Hist.," by Du Pin, vols, i., ii., p. 132.
(a3) "Life of Constantine," by Eusebius, bk. ii., ch. Ixviii. ; Sozomen, bk.
i., chh. xvi., xvii. 19

290 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
the apostolic age in the formula of a creed which, if it had
never been disturbed, would at all times have furnished —
as it would yet furnish — the common ground of Christian
union throughout the world. This, however, is to be at
tributed mainly to the fact that the purity of Christian life
and Church government had been preserved in the ancient
churches, whose influence dictated all the fundamentals of
the Nicene Creed ; so that the result was in no sense ag-
gressive, but simply responsive to the existing Christian
sentiment of the age. In another respect, the cause of true
Christianity would have fared better if it never had been
held, or, if held, it had grown out of other causes, and had
been controlled, in some of its aspects, by other influences.
We find demonstration of this in the fact that the papal
writers yet refer to it in proof of the supremacy and infal
libility of the pope and Church of Rome ; whereas, apart
from the causes whioh led to it and the external influences
brought to bear upon it — that is, in so far as it concerns the
Christian faith — it proves neither, but the reverse. Bolder
than those who haye higher reputations to maintain, a re
cent writer, to whom reference has heretofore been made,
has carried this claim to its extremest limit by alleging that
all the ecumenical councils, including that at Nice, as well
as the whole Church from the beginning, have recognized
papal infallibility as the only true Christian faith. It
scarcely need be said that he is a Jesuit. He says :
"The first Council of Nice, intended to give greater pub
licity to the condemnation of Arius, was convoked by Pope
Silvester, under the reign of Constantine the Great, who used
his imperial authority to facilitate the meeting of the fa
thers. The sovereign pontiff presided by his three legates,
one of whom was Osius, Bishop of Cordova. The other two
were priests. Osius, whom Athanasius styles the leader of
the council, occupied the first place, attended by his two
companions. How great the deference here shown to the
papal authority, since the mere reflection of it gave even
simple priests the precedence over bishops, who, on the pres
ent occasion, were either Orientals or Greeks, and yet never
objected to this conduct of the legates, as implying an undue
assumption of power ! This fact alone suffices to show that

MISSTATEMENTS ABOUT THE COUNCIL OF NICE. 291
the prerogatives ofthe Holy See were then recognized all over
the Christian world. No one, therefore, will be at all star
tled by the fact that, even previous to any measures taken
by the councils, the legates, acting under instructions, con
demned the blasphemous doctrines of Arius. The fathers
were guided in their deliberations by these instructions, as
well as by the symbol of faith prescribed by Silvester and
brought from Rome, together with a number of disciplinary
regulations. At the close of the council, all the acts were
sent to Rome for confirmation."^)
When Sir Walter Scott wrote about the "tangled web"
woven by those who " practice to deceive," he must have
had in his mind some such monstrous perversion of facts as
is contained in this brief extract. It would be difficult to
find elsewhere so much misrepresentation upon important
points of history in so brief a compass. And yet it is delib
erately put forth, and largely circulated in this country, as
veritable history — as one of the chief foundation - stones
upon which the superstructure of the papal edifice has been
erected. We occasionally meet with individuals who so fre
quently repeat romantic and improbable stories, that they
come at last to believe them true. And such would seem
to be the only apology for those who give utterance to these
unfounded and unsupported assertions. They might be left
to indulge in their delusion, but for the uses they now make of
them. Since, however, they base upon them tbe right ofthe
papacy to confront the world and command all human prog
ress to cease, they themselves create the necessity for the
discovery of the precise truth. Having, by their vindictive
assaults upon Protestantism, invited the investigation, they
will have no right to complain if, when the truth is discov
ered, their whole system of papal supremacy should topple
and fall before it.
This author supports his statements by references to no
other of the " Greek fathers " but Sozomen. He, however,
cites Athanasius to prove that Osius, or Hosius, was "the
leader ofthe Council of Nice," and the eighteenth and twen-

(M) "Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope," etc., by Wenin
ger, pp. 104, 105.

292 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ty-ninth canons of the council to show that the supremacy
and primacy of the pope was formally acknowledged by it.
Why should we not apply to the investigation of such mat
ters as these the same rules of evidence by which we test
the truth or falsehood of any other statements we find in his
tory ? Undoubtedly he did not expect them to be subject
ed to so severe a test, but that does not release from the
responsibility of doing so those who desire to ascertain the
truth. Sozomen is supposed to have written his "Ecclesiastical
History" about 440-'45 — more than a hundred years after
the Council of Nice. That of Socrates was written about
the same itime, probably a little later. Eusebius, who was a
member of the Council of Nice, preceded both of them with
his "Ecclesiastical History," and, of course, wrote about
many things of which he had personal knowledge. In his
" History," however, he does not speak of the proceedings of
the council, but of matters preceding it. All we learn from
him about the council is found in his " Life of Constantine."
Theodoret's " Ecclesiastical History " was designed as a con
tinuation of those of Sozomen and Socrates, and must have
been written a few years only before his death, which occur
red about 458. These are the " Greek fathers," from whom
must be learned-all that can now be known of the history
of the Council of Nice, whenever we turn aside from mere
guess-work and speculation and enter into the region of fact,
Not one of these authors connects the Bishop of Rome in
any direct form with the Arian controversy before the Coun
cil of Nice. Eusebius, who took part in it, does not, either
in his " History " or " Life of Constantine." Yet this mere
omission on his part might not be held conclusive, if the
others had done so upon the strength of tradition only. He
tells us that he "thought proper to pass by" many things,
"particularly the circumstances ofthe different heads ofthe
churches, who from being shepherds of the reasonable flocks
of Christ that did not govern in a legal or becoming manner,
were condemned by divine justice as unworthy of such a
charge ;" and also, " the ambitious aspirings of many to of
fice, and the injudicious and unlawful ordinations that took
place, the divisions among the confessors themselves, the

DIVISIONS OF THE CLERGY AT ROME. 293
great schisms and difficulties industriously fomented by the
new members against the relics of the Church, devising one
innovation after another, and unmercifully thrusting them
into the midst of all these calamities, heaping up affliction
upon affliction."(2B) He speaks here of the "heads of
churches," in the plural, wbich excludes the idea of there
having been any such thing known in his day as the Church
of Rome being the head and "mistress" of all the churches:
but as we must conclude, from what he elsewhere said, that
he intended to picture the melancholy condition of things
existing at Rome, in consequence of the alliance between
Constantine and the Roman clergy, it is easy to see that he
also included Rome when he spoke of " the ambitious aspir
ings of many to office," and the consequent " divisions " and
" innovations." Prudential reasons, therefore, may have re
strained him from any special reference to the connection of
the Bishop of Rome with the Arian controversy. However
this may be, he is silent on that subject, and we have now
no means of supplying the omission, if it is merely an omis
sion, unless it can be gathered from what he may have left
to be inferred, or from the other authors named, or be spe
cially manufactured in support of some preconceived theory.
So far from his having said any thing justifying such an in
ference, he excludes any such idea entirely in his "Life of
Constantine," where, speaking of " the people being thus in
every place divided," and the prevalence of " the bitterest
disunion," he says that " Constantine appeared to be the
only one on earth capable of being His [God's] minister," to
provide " the healing of these differences," without referring
to the Bishop of Rome as having any agency or authority in
the matter. (26) Sozomen gives an account ofthe origin of
the controversy between Arius and the Bishop of Alexandria,
and states the fact that the latter convened a council of Af
rican bishops within his own ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and
" cast him [Arius] out of the Church," together with certain
African presbyters and deacons who agreed with him. Ari
us, in defense, sought " the favor of the bishops of other
(™) Eusebius's "Book of Martyrs," ch. xii.
(M) "Life of Constantine," by Eusebius, bk. iii., ch. v..

294 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
churches," and addressed letters to them. The Bishop of
Alexandria also " wrote to the bishops of every church " —
not to Rome specially, where alone it would have been nec
essary to write if that had been the seat of headship and
primacy in the Church Universal. Numerous synods were
held, "Arius sent messengers to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre ;
to Eusebius Pamphilus,(27) who presided over the Church of
Cesarea in Palestine, and to Patrophilus, Bishop of Scythop-
olis." Intelligence of these dissensions having reached Con
stantine, the emperor, who had been a long time absent from
Rome, he was " greatly troubled," probably because he sin
cerely desired, by this time, that tbe cause of Christianity
should not be injured by them, and probably also because he
feared that these perpetual divisions among the clergy would
weaken his hold upon the imperial throne at Rome. He ac
cordingly went to work at once to employ his temporal au
thority to heal the breach, and " rebuked " the contestants,
Arius and Alexander, as already stated. (2S) Sozomen does
not give this letter of Constantine, but Eusebius does; and
it shows very clearly that he acted in the matter wholly
without reference to the Bishop of Rome. It, moreover,
shows too that he had a just and intelligent appreciation of
the great principle upon which Protestantism is based ; for,
after characterizing the dispute between Arius and Alexan
der as upon " truly insignificant questions," merely " some
trifling and foolish verbal difference," he points them to the
example of the philosophers, who, " though they may differ
as to the perfection of a principle, they are recalled to har
mony of sentiment by the uniting power of their common
doctrines" and counsels them not to let " the circumstance
which has led to a slight difference between you, since it af
fects not the general principles of truth, be allowed to pro
long any division or schism among you ;". . . ."for we are
not all of us like-minded on every subject, nor is there such
a thing as one disposition and judgment common to all
alike."(29) It is therefore manifest that the Christian senti-
f") The author ofthe "Ecclesiastical History."
C) Sozomen, bk. i., chh. xv., xvi.
(") "Life of Constantine," by Eusebius, chh. lxiv.-lxxii.

CONSTANTINE A PAGAN EMPEROR. 295
ment which Eusebius attributes to Constantine was not that
exclusive and sectarian sentiment which the clergy at Rome
were then endeavoring to establish, and which, as he could
readily foresee, would widen rather than close up the breach.
Although he may have favored the Christians there from a
general conviction of Christian duty, and given temporal au
thority to the clergy from motives of State policy only ; yet
it is also manifest that he did not intend to permit any
church organization to grow up at Rome, with exterior au
thority sufficient to control or absorb the legitimate power
of the other churches. However much a Cbristian he may
have been, he was now at the head of a pagan empire, and
no doubt thought that his whole public duty was performed
by the establishment of religious toleration. Hence, in deal
ing with the Arian controversy, he ignored entirely any
claim of exclusive jurisdiction on the part of the Bishop of
Rome, if any such was set up, which is not probable, and
treated the question as one which he, as emperor, was re
quired to submit to all the bishops alike. And this view of
the policy of Constantine will sufficiently explain his subse
quent dealings with the Roman clergy.
Socrates gives substantially the same general account as
Eusebius and Sozomen, adding the letter of the Bishop of
Alexandria. This letter is as conclusive as it is possible for
negative evidence to be upon the question of Romish su
premacy at that time. It is addressed " to the bishops con
stituted in the several cities" — not to the Bishop of Rome
alone. This great orthodox bishop employs this language :
"To our beloved and most honored fellow-ministers ofthe
Catholic [not Roman Catholic] Church everywhere." He
complains especially that Eusebius of Nicomedia(3°) had
taken the side of Arius, and argues at length to show the
heretical tendency of their teachings. Matters, however,
only became worse : " To so disgraceful an extent," says
Socrates, " was this affair carried, that Christianity became
a subject of popular ridicule, even in the theatres." Euse
bius of Nicomedia demanded of the Bishop of Alexandria
that the sentence of excommunication he had pronounced
(") Not the historian.

296 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
against Arius should be rescinded ; and many letters were
written on both sides, some favoring and some opposing this
proposition. The opposing factions became divided into
" sects," and these, with the Eunomians, Macedonians, and
Melitians, threatened to put an end to all tbe harmony that
had previously existed in the several churches. And yet
Socrates, like Eusebius and Sozomen, omits any mention of
the Bishop or Church of Rome, either as appealed to by the
parties, or as interfering to quiet the dissensions. He makes
Hosius the messenger by whom Constantine sent his letter
of rebuke to Alexander and Arius, but does not connect him
in any way with the Bishop of Rome. (31)
Theodoret also refers to the beginning ofthe controversy.
He inserts a letter from the Bishop of Alexandria to the
Bishop of Constantinople, wherein several other " sects " are
named, besides those mentioned by Socrates : to wit, the
Ebionites, Artemontes, Sabellians, and Valentinians (a branch
of tbe Gnostics) ; thus demonstrating that sects did not
grow out of Protestantism, but justifying the inference that
if they did not necessarily arise out ofthe attempt to estab
lish Roman exclusiveness, they were increased by it. He
publishes the letter of Arius to Eusebius, wherein he calls
the Bishop of Alexandria " the Pope Alexander." This is
the first time that the title of pope appears in any of these
" Greek fathers " in connection with the Arian controversy.
And he gives also a letter from Eusebius to the Bishop of
Tyre. Nowhere, however, does he refer to the Bishop of
Rome, or the Pope of Rome, as having any thing whatev
er to do with either Alexander or Arius, or with their re
spective adherents. But, in enumerating the bishops of
Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, he says,
"The Church of Rome was at this time ruled by Silvester;"
and neither says nor intimates that he ruled any other of
the churches, or that he had any more authority than the
bishop of any other Church. (33) Manifestly, it is a just in
ference, from the fact that no letter is shown to have been
addressed to or from him, that he was then considered by

(31) Socrates, bk. i., chh. v., vi., vii.
(") " Eccl. Hist.," by Theodoret, bk. i., chh. ii.-vi.

COUNCIL OF NICE CALLED BY CONSTANTINE. 297
the whole Christian world as having no such exclusive au
thority. The evidence, therefore, both affirmative and negative,
furnished by these early fathers, rendering it almost posi
tively certain that, before the Council of Nice, the Bishop
of Rome was not referred to, by appeal or otherwise, as a
judge or arbiter to settle the dispute about Arianism, it is
necessary, in order to ascertain his true relation to that
council, to know by whom it was convened, and under
whose auspices its business was conducted. These same au
thors must also settle this question.
Eusebius says : " Resolved, therefore, to bring, as it were,
a divine array against this enemy, he [Constantine] con
voked a general council, and invited the speedy attendance
of bishops from all quarters, in letters expressive of the hon
orable estimation in which he held them." And he speaks
of his summons as a " command " and an " imperial injunc
tion."^3) Sozomen says that after the letter of the emperor,
sent by Hosius to Alexander and Arius, had failed to restore
harmony, " Constantine convened a synod at Nicsea, in Bi
thynia, and wrote to the most eminent men of the churches
in every country, directing them to be there on an appoint
ed day."(34) Socrates says, " When, therefore, the emperor
beheld the Church agitated by both these causes, he con
voked a general council, summoning all the bishops by let
ter to meet him at Nice, in Bithynia."(36) Theodoret, refer
ring to the failure of Constantine to bring about a reconcil
iation, says, " He, therefore, proceeded to summon the cele
brated Council of Nice ; and commanded that the bishops,
and those connected with them, should be mounted on the
asses, mules, and horses belonging to the public, in order to
repair thither." (3S)
Now, with this evidence before us — and this is all we
have from these early fathers, beginning with Eusebius, who
personally knew all about it — are we not justified in saying
that, when papal writers say, as Weninger does, that the
(33) "Life of Constantine," by Eusebius, bk. iii., ch. vi.
(**) Sozomen, bk. i., ch. xvii. (36) Socrates, bk. i., ch. viii.
(ae) Theodoret, bk. i., ch. vii. See also Du Pin, vol. ii., pp. 12, 250.

298 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Council of Nice was " convoked by Pope Silvester," they
state as a fact that which is not a fact — to speak in the
mildest terms? The plain and well-established truth is
that he had nothing more to do with it than the bishops of
the other churches, and not so much as some of them— es
pecially those to whom Alexander and Arius had addressed
their letters. It was wholly and entirely the work of Con
stantine, the emperor, who never even became a catechumen,
by baptism, in the Church of Rome ; whose only Christian
ity was Catholic, in the sense of universality, and not in the
sectarian sense of Rome, and who had not yet become so un
selfish as to overlook the worldly object he had in view when
he employed the clergy to aid him in the administration of
civil affairs ; which was, to keep himself firmly seated upon
the imperial throne. Lie was willing to unite the Church
with the State; but no word ever escaped him, so far as his
biographer has reported, signifying any other purpose than
that of keeping the Church below and inferior to the State.
On one occasion, when addressing a company of bishops in
the presence of Eusebius, he said to them, " You are bish
ops whose jurisdiction is within the Church : I also am a
bishop, ordained by God to overlook whatever is external
to the Church ;"(") whereby he intended to have it distinct
ly understood that he should permit no church organization
with external powers, either of coercion or otherwise, to in
termeddle, directly or indirectly, with the affairs of the em
pire. The assignment of a direct and immediate agency to the
Bishop of Rome in convoking the Council of Nice being
false, the other statements of Weninger might be held, infer-
entially, to be false also. "Falsus in uno, falsus in omni
bus" is an old and well-approved law maxim. But as it is
a maxim which, though sometimes true, is said not to be of
general application, and grave matters like those we are dis
cussing should not be left to inference merely, his other
statements should likewise be tested by the proofs.
He says, "The sovereign pontiff presided by his three
legates, one of whom was Osius, Bishop of Cordova." This
(3T) "Life of Constantine," by Eusebius, bk. iv., ch. xxiv.

THE POPE'S LEGATES AT NICE. 299
statement is more false than the one preceding it. Spenser
says, in " The Faerie Queene,"
" For he that once hath missed the right way,
The further he doth go, the further he doth stray."
Eusebius, after a general enumeration of the countries
from which the "distinguished prelates" who attended the
council came, says, " The prelate of the imperial city [Rome]
was prevented from atteuding by extreme old age ; but his
presbyters were present, and supplied his place." He does
not refer to any other presbyters who were there, and cer
tainly does not include Hosius among those who represented
the Bishop of Rome, for two reasons : first, because he class
es hiin among the prelates ; and, second, because, in the pre
ceding sentence, referring to Hosius, he had said, " Even from
Spain itself one whose fame was widely spread took his seat
as an individual in the great assembly." (3e) Hence, Hosius,
who was Bishop of Cordova, and the only representative of
Spain present, took his seat in his own individual right as
one of the most distinguished prelates, and not as a mere
presbyter or legate of the Bishop of Rome, of whom he was
the equal in authority and the superior in fame.
Sozomen, referring to the absence of the Bishop of Rome
on account of old age, says, " But his place was supplied by
Vito and Vicentius, presbyters of his Church. "(39) Thus he
makes two legates only from Rome, and not three; and does
not mention Hosius as one of them. Socrates makes no state
ment on his own authority, but refers approvingly to what
Eusebius has said. He says nothing about Hosius being the
legate of Silvester, but refers to his presbyters. Theodoret
does not mention Hosius, but agrees with Sozomen as to the
number of the papal legates, and with Eusebius,' Sozomen,
and Socrates as to their character — that is, that they were
presbyters, and not bishops. He says Silvester " sent two
presbyters to the council, for the purpose of taking part in
all the transactions."(40) Hosius was not a presbyter of
(M) "Life of Constantine," by Eusebius, bk. iii., ch. vii.
(39) Sozomen, bk. i., ch. xvii. Du Pin calls them Victor and Vicentius,
"Eccl. Hist.," vol. ii., p. 251; and Tillemont, Yitus and Vincentius. See
post. (40) Theodoret, bk. i., ch. vii.

300 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Rome, but was the Bishop of Cordova in Spain, as is stated
by both Sozomen(4') and Socrates,(42) and could not, conse
quently, have been one of the papal legates. But not a
Word is stated by either of these authors about the Bishop
of Rome being represented by Hosius, either as one of his
legates or in any other capacity. They all concur in the
precise contrary, that he was represented by presbyters, and
not bishops ; and Sozomen and Theodoret agree that there
were only two of these. And why were they only presby
ters ? The answer is plain. Each one of the churches in
Asia, Europe, and Africa had its own bishop, and its own dis
tinct jurisdiction. They existed upon terms of perfect equal
ity, none having any primacy or supremacy over the oth
ers. Therefore, when these bishops were summoned by Con
stantine, those who could not attend in person sent their
presbyters — as the Bishop of Rome did — and those who at
tended represented their own churches. Hosius represented
his own Church, and was a man of far too much celebrity
to have surrendered his equality with his brother bishops to
play an inferior part in the name of such a bishop as Silves
ter, of whom scarcely any thing was known beyond the fact
of his having been Bishop of Rome, until the false and forged
legends of the monks in the fifth century assigned to him
the connection with the Council of Nice, which has ever
since been disingenuously repeated by the supporters of pa
pal power and infallibility.
But who presided over the Council of Nice ? Weninger
says, " The sovereign pontiff presided, by his three legates.''
Enough has been said to show that there was no such thing
as a "sovereign pontiff" known or recognized in those days,
especially not in the sense here meant ; but that need not
be dwelt on here. There were but two legates, and they
were both presbyters only. Can any man of intelligence
suppose that such an assembly, composed of so many distin
guished bishops, at a time like that, when rank and station
had attached to them far more of dignity and influence than
they now have, would have submitted to be presided over
by mere presbyters ? The supporters of the monkish fable
(41) Sozomen, bk. i., ch. xvi. (") Socrates, bk. i., ch. vii.

THE PRESIDENCY OF. THE COUNCIL OF NICE. 301
have observed this difficulty, but have proved themselves
equal to it by increasing the papal legates to three, and mak-
iug Hosius one of them ! There were a large number pres
ent, besides him, of eminent ability. Eusebius says, " Some
were distinguished by wisdom and eloquence, others by the
gravity of their lives, and by patient fortitude of character,
while others again united in themselves all these graces."
And he speaks of men among them " whose years demanded
the tribute of respect and veneration. "(43) Socrates men
tions two of " extraordinary celebrity," the bishops of Upper
Thebes and of Cyprus. Who of all these presided ? There
is no positive answer to this question. Manifestly, it was
not considered a matter of any special consequence, and cer
tainly not as in any way affecting the merits or validity of
what was done, or the fact would have been stated. Euse
bius says that, upon the assembling of the body, " the bishop
who occupied the chief place in the right division of the as
sembly then rose, and, addressing the emperor, delivered a
concise speech," etc.,(44) but he does not say who this was.
Nor does Sozomen, or Socrates, or Theodoret. But Eusebius
shows enough to dispel the papal fiction and forgery, that
one of the pope's legates presided, by the statement of the
fact, of which he had personal knowledge, that a "bishop,"
and not a " presbyter," presided.
Weninger says, " Osius, whom Athanasius styles the lead
er of the council, occupied the first place." If this were an
established fact, it would prove only this : that, in order to
support the claim of Romish supremacy, its advocates origi
nated the false assertion that he was one of the papal leg
ates, without a single word of authority from any responsible
or reliable quarter. Athanasius became Bishop of Alexan
dria in 326, the year after the council. He was present at
the council as a deacon ; and whatever is found in his writ
ings in reference to it is entitled to the greatest considera
tion, and ought to be accepted as true. In his " Second
Apology," he calls " Hosius the father and president of all
the councils,"(") not specially of the Council of Nice. He
(43) "Life of Constantine," by Eusebius, bk. iii., ch. xi.
(") Ibid., bk. iii., ch. xi. (") Du Pin, vol. ii., p. 251, note.

302 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
certainly does not say here that he was the leader of that
council. Between the beginning of the fourth century and
the Council of Nice there were twelve councils assem
bled.^6) To which of these did Athanasius refer? If to all,
including that at Nice, then it was merely probable that
Hosius presided over that council. But it is more probable
that he designedly employed general language, because, like
Eusebius, Sozomen, Socrates, and Theodoret, he did not con
sider the presidency of the Council of Nice as a matter of
any special importance ; otherwise he would, undoubtedly,
have stated who presided there, for he knew precisely what
the fact was. At all events, he leaves it in doubt whether
he intended to include Nice or not. And reasoning thus,
Du Pin, the learned Roman Catholic historian, says, upon
this question, " 'Tis not certainly known who presided in
this council, but 'tis very probable that it was Hosius."(")
But, upon this hypothesis, he proceeds immediately to say
that he did so " in his own name," and, therefore, not in the
name of the Bishop of Rome, or as one of his legates. And
in a note to this text it is stated that at least two writers,
Proclus and Facundus, have alleged that Eustathius, Bishop
of Antioch, presided. It then continues : " But it is more
probable that Hosius presided there in his own name, and
not in the pope's ; for he nowhere assumes the title of Leg
ate of the Holy See, and none of the ancients say that he
presided in this council in the pope's name. Gelasius Cy-
zicenus, who first affirmed it, says it without any proof or
authority."^') But there is other cumulative evidence to the same effect,
also from the very highest Roman Catholic authority. Til-
lemont, in his learned and instructive " History of the Ari
ans, and of the Council of Nice," disposes of this question
in very decisive and expressive language. Alluding to the
council, and after stating that it was convoked by Constan
tine, and not by the Bishop of Rome, he says :
"Neither Eusebius nor the ancient historians say any
thing of St. Silvester's sending any other legates to the

(46) See Du Pin's " Chronological Table of Councils," attached to vol. ii.
of his " History." (47) Ibid., vol. ii., p. 251. (48) Ibid.

FALSEHOOD EXPOSED. 3 03
Council of Nice, but the two priests, Vitus and Vincentius.
There is none but Gelasius Cyzicenus who says that Hosius
of Corduba had the same post. His authority, how incon
siderable soever it be, could not but be of weight, if it was
not certain that he corrupts the text of Eusebius by insert
ing this and some other clauses."
Then, referring to the pretense that Hosius presided over
the council in the name of the Bishop of Rome, and to the
language of Athanasius already quoted, he continues :
" We have even some authorities for believing that it was
St. Eustathius of Antioch who presided in the council. For
John of Antioch, writing to St. Proclus, about the year 435,
gives him the title of " first " of the holy fathers assembled
at Nice, and Facundus, the " first " of that council. It is
collected from Theodoret that he had the first place on the
right hand, and that he made a speech to Constantine in the
name of all the bishops — which, of course, belongs to the
president. It is thought the same might be shown from St.
Jerome. The chronicon of Nicephorus calls him express
ly the chief of the fathers at Nice. St. Anastasius Sinaita
might likewise mean the same thing; and the title of pres
ident is found in a letter attributed to Pope Felix III.,
which would be much more considerable authority if there
were not many reasons to induce us to believe that this
piece is not older than the eighth century."
In a note it is said : " Gelasius Cyzicenus, who lived at the
end of the fifth century, is the first we find who says that
Hosius was the pope's legate in the Council of Nice, with
the priests Vito and Vincentius. He even reports this fact
as a thing very authentic, since he inserts it in the text of
Eusebius, as if it belonged to it. But it is not found there
in the printed copies. Valesius takes no notice of any thing
like it in the manuscripts. And it is even evident that the
text of that historian can not be read, as Gelasius quotes it,
without a manifest corruption and perverting his sense.
"All that can be said of this pretended delegation of Ho
sius, is that all the historians mention his assisting at the
Council of Nice, and speak of legates who were sent thither
by the pope ; but that no author more ancient than Gelasius,
nor perhaps any more modern who is worth notice in this

304 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
matter, puts Hosius in the number of those legates. Even
the ' Synodicon,' which in other respects is full of faults,
does by no means place Hosius among the pope's leg-
ates."(49) Thus is this falsehood, which originated nearly two hun
dred years after the Council of Nice, completely disposed
of by authorities which no honest searcher after the truth
can disregard. Until it was invented as a cover for papal
usurpations, not one word was to be found anywhere, in any
history, showing, or tending to show, that Hosius was one
of the pope's legates, or presided in his name. The forgery
has its parallel only in the "False Decretals," which soon
followed it. If he did preside in any other name than his
own, it is far more likely to have been in that of Constan
tine than of the Bishop of Rome. Constantine convened
the Council, and was present; the Bishop of Rome had noth
ing to do with it except to send his representatives, as he
was prevented by old age from attending in person, like
other bishops. We know nothing of the relations between
him and Hosius, except that they were bishops of distinct
and independent churches, one in Italy and the other in
Spain. But we do know, as Du Pin says, that Hosius "was
much esteemed by the emperor," and that he was, accord
ing to the intimation of Eusebius and the statements of
Sozomen and Socrates, the messenger by whom he sent his
letter of rebuke to Alexander and Arius. This would give
some plausibility to the belief that he presided in the em
peror's name. But this is of no importance, since the ques
tion before us involves simply the truth or falsehood ofthe
pretense that Hosius presided in the name of the pope.
This is shown to be not only unsupported by a word of
proof, but absolutely false — a bold and unblushing forgery !
Weninger says again : " The fathers were guided in their
deliberations by these instructions [those of the pope to his
legates], as well as by the symbol of faith prescribed by
Silvester and brought from Rome."
If history did not furnish the most positive proof of the
(40) "History of the Arians and of the Council of Nice," by Tillemont,
vol. ii., pp. 599, 600, 669, note iv. London ed., 1732.

CONSTANTINE RULED THE COUNCIL OF NICE! 305
falsity of what is here asserted, it might be supposed to be
true, because of the frequency of its repetition and the ap
parent sincerity with which it is made. But, like what has
gone before it, it vanishes before the " touch-stone of truth."
The council was disturbed at the very beginning by
angry discussion among the discordant bishops. Says Eu
sebius : " Some began to accuse their neighbors, who de
fended themselves, and recriminated in their turn." He
continues: "In this manner numberless assertions were put
forth by each party, and a violent controversy arose at the
very commencement." The contending parties seem to
have addressed themselves not merely to the assembly it
self, but to the emperor. Manifestly, he was regarded as
the ruling spirit of the council. He, probably, did not at
tempt to employ his imperial authority to control its de
liberations, but it is unquestionably true that they were
mainly influenced by the deference paid to it by a majority
of the prelates. It is probable, even, that many of them
were absolutely governed by it. Eusebius says as much in
this : that, notwithstanding the violence of the discussion,
" the emperor gave patient audience to all alike, and re
ceived every proposition with steadfast attention, and, by
occasionally assisting the argument of each party in turn,
he gradually disposed even the most vehement disputants
to a reconciliation." By his address, and his eloquence in
the Greek language, he persuaded some, and convinced oth
ers, " until at last he succeeded in bringing them to one
mind and judgment respecting every disputed question."
The result thus produced was, " that they were not only
united as concerning the faith," but also as to the time of
celebrating the feast of Easter. Whereupon the " points "
were " committed to writing, and received the signature of
each several member," and a festival was solemnized in hon
or of God.(60) In all this there is no mention made of the
Bishop of Rome, or of any instructions from him, or of any
formula of faith prepared by him, or of any thing said or
done by his legates. The emperor himself is the front fig
ure in the assembly. All others are in the background.
(5°) "Life of Constantine," by Eusebius, bk. iii., chh. xiii., xiv.
20

306 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Sozomen says that after Constantine had burned all the
complaints of the contending bishops against each other
that had been handed to him for investigation, he took
part in the deliberations of the council. He heard each
party for and against Arius, and, after the condemnation
of Arius by the council, sent his followers into banishment
by an imperial decree. The " Confession," or " Symbol of
Faith," was decided on with his approval. This is not in
serted in Sozomen's history, because he thought " that such
matters ought to be kept secret " from " the unlearned,"
and to be known only "by disciples and their instruct
ors.'^61) But he nowhere mentions any instructions from
Rome, or any participation by the pope's legates in the pro
ceedings of the council.
The account given by Socrates agrees with that of Euse
bius, from whom it is taken, but he gives the " Confession
of Faith," and points out the manner of its adoption, with
out any reference to the Bishop of Rome or his legates, or
any instructions. from him.(62)
Theodoret is somewhat specific as to the manner in which
the creed was adopted, predicating his statement upon the
authority of a letter written by Athanasius immediately aft
er the council to the Christians of Africa. Alluding to the
bishops, he says "they all agreed in propounding" certain
declarations of faith ; yet he does not include the Arians
among these, for they stated their " conclusions " in such a
way as, according to him, to expose " their evil design and
impious artifice." He states the final adoption of the " Sym
bol of Faith," and gives also an important letter from Euse
bius of Cesarea, the historian, which throws much additional
light upon the character of the proceedings, and the person
al agency of Constantine in fixing the terms of the formu
lary. It shows, indeed, that the word consubstantial — the
most important and conspicuous word in the creed — was
inserted upon his suggestion alone. When the creed, as
agreed upon by the bishops, was laid before the council, it
did not contain this word, yet it is here stated that it was
"fully approved by all;" and the letter continues: "No one
(51) Sozomen, bk. i., ch. xx. (M) Socrates, bk. i., ch. viii.

CONSTANTINE DICTATES THE CREED. 307
found occasion to gainsay it ; but our beloved emperor was
the first to testify that it was most orthodox, and that he
coincided in opinion with it; and he exhorted the others to
sign it, and to receive all the doctrines it contained, with the
single addition of one word — consubstantial." ("*)
With such facts as these staring them full in the face, it
is but little less than the boldest imposture for the papal
writers to pretend, as they do, that the proceedings of this
council were controlled by instructions from Rome, and that
the formulary of the creed was prepared there and forward
ed by the legates of the pope. In what estimate can they
themselves hold the theory of papal primacy and suprema
cy when it has to be upheld by such wholesale perversions
of history ?
The introduction of the one word, consubstantial, into
the creed by an emperor who, whatever may have been his
Christian convictions, was not yet baptized into the Church,
led to one of the fiercest and most protracted controversies
the Church ever had. The insertion of it, after the assent
of all the bishops had been obtained to a form of creed
without it, shows the degree of influence which Constan
tine had over the council, how completely it was the creat
ure of his imperial will, and how idle and violative of truth
it is to say that he would himself have yielded, or have per
mitted others to yield, to the dictation of the Bishop of
Rome. The latter may have commanded respect by his
age and piety, but he had no right to command any obe
dience beyond the limits of his own ecclesiastical jurisdic
tion, which he may have asserted himself, or which had been
assented to by other bishops ; whereas it is well known that
Constantine so wore the robes and wielded the imperial pow
er of Caesar as to brook no disobedience to his royal will,
whether exercised in the affairs of State or Church. Hav
ing convoked this council of his own accord, he felt that he
had the right to overlook, if not to dictate, its proceedings,
as the most certain and expedient mode of bringing discord
ant elements into harmony, and saving the cause of Chris
tianity from discomfiture. If any instructions from Rome
(B3) Theodoret, bk. i., chh. viii., xii.

308 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
had been presented, he would have heeded them or not, as
may have suited his designs. That he was master of ev
ery thing done there is sufficiently apparent from all the pro
ceedings ; and if it were not, Theodoret shows that he was,
at another place. When certain accusations of a criminal
character were made against some of the bishops, and laid
before him, he put them aside till the close of the council,
when he burned them publicly, and declared he had never
read them, saying "that the crimes of priests ought not to
be made known to the multitude, lest they should become
an occasion of offense or of sin. He also said that if he
had detected a bishop in the very act of committing adul
tery, he would have thrown his imperial robe over the un
lawful deed, lest any should witness the scene, and be there
by injured."(04)
Most amiable and considerate emperor ! Most fortunate
bishops ! Yet it ought not to be supposed that any very
large number of those who were assembled in this cele
brated council needed this kind of royal protection, as it is
not to be doubted for a moment that many of them were
of that class of sincere Christians in whose care the cause
of true Christianity and genuine piety is at all times safe.
Those who had control of the proceedings were, doubtless,
in a great degree, the instruments of Constantine; while
such as were really devoted to the welfare of the Church
were left to acquiesce, from fear of the royal displeasure, and
to return to their churches, and there regulate, by their ex
ample, the Christian deportment of their flocks.
Weninger makes another equally unsupported assertion
when he says that " at the close of the council all the acts
were sent to Rome for confirmation." His object is to main
tain by it the propositions, first, that the decrees of a gen
eral council are not valid without the approval of the pope;
and, second, that this approval was obtained before those
passed by the Council of Nice took effect. Nothing of
the kind then occurred. There is not a word or syllable of
evidence to that effect.
Eusebius says that, after the council had closed, Constan
ce Theodoret, bk. i., ch. x.

GENERAL COUNCILS INFALLIBLE. 309
tine " gave information of the proceedings of the synod to
those who had not been present, by a letter in his own
handwriting," which letter he gives at length. It is impe
rially addressed by " Constantinus Augustus to the Church
es." He tells them, "I myself have undertaken that this
decision should meet the approval of your sagacities;" and
commands them to receive it as a " truly Divine injunction,
and regard it as the gift of God ;" because " whatever is de
termined in the holy assemblies of the bishops is to be re
garded as indicative of the Divine will." He does not re
fer to the Bishop of Rome at all, either with reference to
his approval or otherwise. And when counseling unity of
practice in regard to the festival of Easter, he does not re
fer to the practice at Rome alone, or to the decrees of its
bishops, or to any other particular church, to show what
that unity is, but tells them that it consists in the practice
which prevails in Rome, Africa, Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul,
Britain, Libya, Greece, Asia, Pontus, and Cilicia ; thus ig
noring, to all intents and purposes, the claim of Roman
primacy, if any such were then made. Eusebius also alludes
to a letter from the emperor to the Egyptians as " confirm
ing and sanctioning the decrees of the council."(6B)
Sozomen alludes to the letter mentioned by Eusebius,
written by the emperor to the churches, as well as that to
, the Alexandrians, and says he " urged them to receive unan
imously the exposition of faith which had been set forth by
the council ;" making no reference to the pope's approval. (66)
Socrates gives this letter to the Alexandrians, and another
to the " bishops and people," as well as that to " the church
es." They all set forth the binding obligation of the de
crees of the council, without any reference to the pope, or
his connection with them in any way.(67) And Theodoret
states the same facts, and inserts the same letters. (B8) It is
not pretended by any of these authors that the decrees of
the council were ever submitted to the pope, or that it was
supposed to be necessary. The very reverse is true, both

(B6) "Life of Constantine, "by Eusebius, bk. iii., chh. xvi. -xxi., xxiii.
(**) Sozomen, bk. i., ch. xxv. (") Socrates, bk. i., ch. ix.
(6S) Theodoret, bk. i., chh. ix., x.

310 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
as it regards the fact and the universal sentiment then pre
vailing. However much Rome may have desired her tri
umph over the old apostolic churches, she had not then
achieved it.
The reference to the proceedings of the council, and to
the eighteenth and twenty-ninth canons, made by Wenin
ger, to show that it fully recognized the primacy of Rome
and the infallibility of the pope, not only does not help him
out of the difficulty, but gets him deeper into it. We give
him the benefit of his statement in his own words. He
says: "A yet more cogent proof is furnished us by the very
acts of the council itself. The eighteenth canon rules that
the Church, faithful to the teachings of the apostles, has
reserved all cases of importance to the arbitration of the
Holy See : 'Cujus dispositioni omnes majores causas antiqua
apostolorum auctoritas reservavit.' Can there be any case
of greater importance — 'major causa' — than a question
about matters of faith ?"(69)
Now, it so happens — unfortunately for this author and
the cause he supports at the cost of so much candor — that
there is not one word in the eighteenth canon of the Coun
cil of Nice which the most skilled and practiced ingenuity
can torture into what he has here alleged. On the contra
ry, the sentiment and action of the council, so far as it act
ed at all, was precisely the reverse. The eighteenth canon
is not even upon the subject referred to, and makes no ref
erence to it whatever. There are no such words to'be found
in it as "Cujus dispositioni omnes majores causas antiqua
apostolorum auctoritas reservavit." It has relation to pres
byters receiving the eucharist from deacons, and is in these
words, as translated by Boyle :
" Canon XVIII. Of Presbyters receiving the Eucharist
from Deacons. — It having come to the knowledge of the
great and holy council, that in certain places and cities the
eucharist is administered by deacons to presbyters; and
neither law nor custom permitting that those who have no
authority to offer the body of Christ should deliver it to
(M) Weninger, p. 106.

EQUALITY OF CHURCHES AT NICE. 311
those who have; and it being also understood that some
deacons receive the eucharist before even the bishops, let,
therefore, all these irregularities be removed, and let the
deacons remain within their own limits, knowing that they
are ministers of the bishops, and inferior to the presbyters.
Let them receive the eucharist in their proper place, after
the presbyters, whether it be administered by a bishop or a
presbyter. Nor is it permitted to deacons to sit among the
presbyters, as that is against rule and order. If any one
will not obey, even after these regulations, let him desist
from the ministry. "('")
If it be objected that the translation here used is by a
Protestant divine, it is answered that to the same effect is
that of the learned Du Pin, a doctor of the Sarbonne, and
Regius Professor of Divinity at Paris. (") And the great
Tillemont, whose authority as a Roman Catholic historian
is unquestioned, speaking of it, says : " The eighteenth can
on humbles the pride of some deacons who administered the
eucharist to priests. It likewise forbids them to sit among
the priests — that is, to sit in the church as priests. "(62)
Here it is abundantly shown that there could not, by any
possibility, have been in this eighteenth canon any thing
of the kind alleged by Weninger, and that his statement
amounts to an entire perversion of its meaning — that it is,
in fact, a palpable misrepresentation of it. Whether orig
inated by him or some other defender of the papacy, is of
no consequence, since the forgery and its object are both
apparent. That it is a forgery, like the " False Decretals,"
any body who will take the pains to investigate may easily
see. The Council of Nice did not intend, in any part of its
proceedings, to confer supremacy over the other churches
upon that at Rome, or upon the Bishop of Rome, or to rec
ognize it as existing. The jurisdiction ofthe several church
es, as established by "ancient usage," was defined by the
sixth canon, which is thus given by Du Pin :(63)
(M) "Historical Views of the Council of Nice," by Boyle (1836), p. 62.
These "views" may also be found attached to Cruse's Eusebius, Boston
ed., 1836.
(ei) Du Pin, vol. ii., p. 253. (e2) Tillemont, vol. ii., p. 644.
(,3) The Nicene Council did not, in the sixth canon, consider the question

312 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
" We ordain, that the ancient custom shall be observed
which gives power to the Bishop of Alexandria over all the
provinces of Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, because the Bish
op of Rome has the like jurisdiction over all the suburbicary
regions (for this addition must be supplied out of Ruffinus) ;
we would likewise have the rights and privileges of the
Church of Antioch and the other churches preserved ; but
these rights ought not to prejudice those of the metropoli
tans. If any one is ordained without the consent of the
metropolitan, the council declares that he is no bishop ; but
if any one is canonically chosen by the suffrage of almost
all the bishops of the province, and if there are but one or
two of a contrary opinion, the suffrages of the far greater
number ought to carry it for the ordination of those partic
ular persons. "(°4)
Tillemont says it was the opinion of Baronius that the ne
cessity for this sixth canon grew out of the resistance by
Melitius, the Bishop of Lycopolis, and founder of the sect
called Melitians, to the authority of the Bishop of Alexan
dria ; and thus refers to the canon :

of primacy at all. Referring to that part of it which points' out such rights
of the Bishop of Rome as were analogous to those of the bishops of Alex
andria and Antioch, Dr. Hefele says: "It is evident that the council has
not in view here the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Church,
but simply his power as a patriarch." — History ofthe Christian Councils,
by Hefele, p. 394. Elsewhere he quotes approvingly from another: "The
Council of Nicsea did not speak of the primacy." — Ibid., p. .397. He also
says the sixth canon "does not consider the pope as primate of the Uni
versal Church, nor as simple Bishop of Rome, but it treats him as one of the
great metropolitans who had not merely one province, but several, under their
jurisdiction." — Ibid., p. 397. St. Augustin spoke of Pope Innocent I. as
"President of the Church of the West" — not as primate of the whole
Church. — Ibid., p. 399. St. Jerome considered the Bishop of Alexandria
as Patriarch of Egypt, and the Bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the West,
each having authority only in his own patriarchate. — Ibid. , p. 400. The
Synod of Aries, in 314, regarded the Bishop of Rome as having jurisdiction
only over several dioceses. — Ibid. Justinian spoke of the ecclesiastical di
vision of the world, in his day, as divided into five patriarchates — Rome, Con
stantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem — each independent ofthe
ether. — Ibid.
(M) Du Pin, vol. ii. , p. 252. Boyle's translation (p. 69) is substantially
the same, though somewhat different in phraseology.

POPE'S JURISDICTION LIMITED TO ROME. 313
"This canon orders that the rights and pre-eminences
which some churches had of old, as those of Alexandria and
of Antioch, should be preserved. It regulates particularly
the jurisdiction of that of Alexandria over Egypt, Lybia,
and Pentapolis, by that which the Church of Rome had."
He then proceeds to show that Ruffinus confines the ju
risdiction of the Church of Rome to the " suburbicary
churches" only; and, thus limited, he considers it to have
included no other churches than those existing in Italy, Sici
ly, Sardinia, and Corsica. (6B)
This canon, as interpreted by both these great Roman
Catholic authors, as well as by Boyle, means this, and noth
ing more: that as the Bishop of Alexandria had power and
jurisdiction over the churcbes in the provinces of Egypt,
Lybia, and Pentapolis, and the Bishop of Rome had like
power and jurisdiction over those in the diocese, or suburbs,
of Rome, so should the Bishop of Antioch and the bishops
ofthe other churcbes have like power and jurisdiction, each
within his provincial limits, each province being required to
preserve, according to the ancient custom, the rights of its
metropolitan church. There is not one word about the ju
risdiction of the Bishop of Rome beyond his diocese ; not a
word about his authority over any other churches but those
within the Roman suburbs ; not a word about appeals to
him in cases of disagreement about the selection and ordi
nation of bishops outside his provincial limits ; not a word
about the Church at Rome as the " mother and mistress of
all the churches ;" not a word about the " Holy See " of
Rome ; not a word about any obligation to obey the Bishop
of Rome, any more than the bishops of other churches ; and
not a word about the pope, either in his pretended capacity
of "Head of the Church," or any other. With all tbis be
fore him, it was necessary that this author should have been
trained in the Jesuit school, in order to fit him for the task
of unblushingly shutting his eyes to it.
But Du Pin leaves no room for doubt about the meaning
of the council, or the interpretation of its decrees, when he
says : " This canon, being thus explained, has no difficulty
(M) Tillemont, vol. ii., p. 640.

314 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
in it. It does not oppose the primacy of the Church of
Rome, but neither does it establish it. It preserves the
great sees their ancient privileges — that is, the jurisdiction
or authority which they had over many provinces, which
was afterward called the jurisdiction of the patriarch or ex
arch. In this sense it is that it compares the Church of
Rome to the Church of Alexandria, by considering them as
patriarchal churches. It continues, also, to the Church of
Antioch, and all other great churches, whatsoever rights
they could have ; but, lest their authority should be prejudi
cial to the ordinary metropolitans, who were subject to their
jurisdiction, the council confirms what had been ordained
in the fourth canon concerning the authority of metropoli
tans in the ordination of bishops. "(66)
It is important to observe scrutinizingly this language of
this great author, for it is full of meaning. He says this
canon "does not oppose the primacy of the Church of
Rome, but neither does it establish it." The reason is plain:
no such primacy was then asserted, or had then been heard
of, except in the pretenses set up by a few of the popes,
or would have been tolerated by the bishops of the other
churches. For these reasons, the canon was silent on the
subject. But although it was silent in words, it rebuked in
spirit this ambitious pretense, by defining distinctly the ju
risdiction of each one of the " great churches," and so de
fined it that one should not be considered greater or more
privileged than another. No thought of primacy or superi
ority entered the minds of any of the leading bishops of the
council, and if there had been one there to claim it for any
particular church, he would have been sternly and indig
nantly rebuked. The whole history of those times, and ev
ery thing known of this council, proves this, and whatsoev
er may be palmed off upon the superstitious and credulous
part of the world to establish the contrary is false and forged,
(e°) Du Pin, vol. ii., p. 252. The fourth canon provides that a bishop
should be ordained by all the bishops, except where it is difficult to assemble
them, etc., when it may be done by three, with the consent of the others by
letter — its validity depending upon the metropolitan bishop of the diocese ;
which means that it shall not depend upon the consent of the Bishop of
Rome, unless in his diocese. — Ibid.

PRIMACY NOT CONFERRED AT NICE. 315
manufactured with the same disregard of truth and history
as were the pseudo-Isidorian and other fabricated decretals.
The metropolitan bishops referred to in these canons had
a recognized superiority over the other bishops of their prov
inces. Originally the bishops had assistants, or coadjutors,
who aided them in the discharge of their episcopal duties,
when disabled by old age or infirmity. It is supposed that
some of these had episcopal ordination, and that others were
only presbyters ; but, in the end, they were all recognized
as bishops, with limited and distinctly marked jurisdiction.
This difficulty was remedied, however, when one was chosen
superior to the rest, and invested with certain powers and
privileges for the good of the whole. He became the pri
mate, or metropolitan, that is, the principal bishop of the
province to which he belonged. Eusebius speaks of Titus
as superintendent, that is, metropolitan, of the churches in
Crete ;(°7) aud Chrysostom says that Timothy was intrusted
with the government of the Church throughout Asia.(68)
And it was in this sense alone that the jurisdiction and su
periority of metropolitan bishops was spoken of by the
Council of Nice. Each province, or diocese, had its own
metropolitan bishop, or primate, and the idea that the
Church at Rome was, as it regarded the others, the metro
politan church, and its bishop primate over all, never was
asserted in this council, or claimed by any body there, so
far as any true history shows, or tends to show.
Weninger, pursuing his favorite idea, and seemingly re
solved that it shall be no fault of his if it is not maintained,
as the foundation upon which the claim of papal supremacy
must rest, says also :
"The twenty-ninth canon [of Nice] reads as follows: 'The
incumbent of the Roman See, acting as Christ's vicegerent
in the government of the Church, is the head of the patri
archs, as well as Peter himself was.' ' Ille, qui tenet sedem
Romanum, caput est omnium Patriarcharum cicut Petrus, ut
qui sit Vicarius Christi super cunctum Ecclesiam."(69)
(") Eusebius, bk. iii., ch. iv.
(M) Bingham's "Antiquities of the Christian Church," bk. ii., chh. xv.,
xvi., where this subject is fully discussed.
(™) Weninger, p. 107.

316 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
It has already been clearly and sufficiently shown that no
such matters as are involved in this statement were consid
ered or acted on by the Council of Nice at all, in so far as
either of the canons referred to is concerned. But, after
perverting, and misquoting, and mutilating these, this au
thor overleaps every possible difficulty at a single bound,
and adds a canon which was never enacted by the council !
There were only twenty canons in all passed by the Coun
cil of Nice! And such is the undoubted "truth of history."
Neither Sozomen nor Socrates give the number. Theodoret
gives the number as twenty. These are his words : " The
bishops then returned to the council, and drew up twenty
laws to regulate the discipline of the Church."(70) Du Pin
says: "These rules, which are called canons, are in number
twenty, and there never were more genuine, though some
modern authors have added many more."(71)
There is this note explanatory of this text of Du Pin :
"Theodoret and Ruffinus mention only these twenty can
ons : though the latter reckons twenty-two of them, yet he
owned no more, because he divided two of them. .The bish
ops of Africa found but twenty of them, after they had in
quired very diligently all over the East for all the canons
made by the Council of Nice. Dionysius Exiguus, and all
the other collectors of canons, have acknowledged but these
twenty. The Arabic canons which Ecchellensis published
under the name of the Council of Nice can not belong to
this Council."(")
Referring again to " the twenty canons," he continues:
" I do not think that there ever were any other acts of
this council, since they were unknown to all the ancient his
torians. There is a Latin letter of this synod to St. Silves
ter [then Bishop of Rome] extant, but it is supposititious,
which has no authority, and which has all the marks of for
gery that any writing can have, as well as the pretended
answer of St. Silvester. Neither is that council genuine,
which is said to have been assembled at Rome by St. Sil-
(,0) Theodoret, bk. i., ch. viii. (") Du Pin, vol. ii., p. 252.
(") Ibid., note (k).

A FORGED CANON OF THE COUNCIL OF NICE. 317
vester for the confirmation of the Council of Nice. The
canons of this council are also forged, which contain rules
contrary to the practice of the time, and which it had been
impossible to observe."('3)
Tillemont is not less explicit. In his "History of the
Council of Nice," he explains the contents of the twenty
canons, and says:
"These are the twenty canons of the famous council,
which are come to our hands, and are the only ones which
were made. At least, none of the ancients reckoned them
more than twenty. Theodoret mentions no more. When
the Church of Africa sent to the churches of Alexandria,
Antioch, and Constantinople for the canons of Nice, they
sent them only the same twenty which we still have; and
the twenty -two of Ruffinus contain no more than these
twenty, only they are divided after another manner; inso
much that there is no room to believe that any more were
made."('4) But Tillemont was fully informed of the efforts that had
been made — like that of Weninger — to add to these canons,
in order -to build up and support the papal system. And,
as a faithful historian and honest member of the Roman
Catholic Church, he felt himself constrained to expose and
denounce them. He says :
"We find many other determinations attributed to the
Council of Nice, in the pretended letters of the popes Mark,
Julius, and Felix ; in a letter from St. Athanasius to Pope
Mark; in Gelasius Cyzienus ; and in an Arabic collection
given us by Turrianus. But there is nothing more plain
than that all these are apocryphal, without excepting Gela
sius, who we know gives us very often suspected pieces."(75)
And he does not spare one of the infallible (!) popes who
engaged in this nefarious attempt to add to these canons
by forgery, in order to affirm the right of appeal to Rome !
He says :
"Pope Zosimus alleges two canons of the Council of
Nice, which allowed bishops and even other ecclesiastics to
('¦) Du Pin, vol. ii., pp. 253, 254. See, also, note (I).
Cl) Tillemont, vol. ii., p. 645. (") Ibid., p. 646.

318 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
appeal to the pope. But the Church of Africa prov'd these
canons to be forg'd ; neither Zosimus nor his successors were
able to prove the contrary ; and it is acknowledged now
that these canons belong to the Council of Sardica,('6) and
not to that of Nice."(77)
It is not often that so much convincing evidence is found
accumulating upon one point as there is upon this. So over
whelming is it, that no writer of the present day, unless he
be a Jesuit, will venture to hazard the loss of his reputa
tion for veracity by assigning any other than twenty as the
number of Nicene canons. One of the most recent inves
tigators of this question among the learned divines of En
gland is Dr. E. B. Pusey, who published, a few years ago, a
history of all the councils, from the assembly at Jerusalem,
in 51, to the Council of Constantinople, in 381. Having be
fore him all the authorities bearing on the question, he fixes
the number of Nicene canons at twenty, without seeming
to suppose the matter debatable. ('") Yet, directly in the
face of all this, this Jesuit defender of the primacy*and infal
libility of the pope unblushingly publishes a false and forged
canon, which he calls the twenty-ninth, to prove that the
Council of Nice thereby declared the Bishop of Rome to
be " Christ's vicegerent in the government of the Church,"
and "the head of the patriarchs as well as Peter was!"
Can bold effrontery be carried further? The forgery, when
ever and by whomsoever made, is bold and entire, made out
of whole cloth. There is not a single word by any of the
early " fathers " that can be tortured, by the utmost ingenu
ity, into such a meaning. On the contrary, we have seen
that where the Bishop of Rome is spoken of in the sixth
canon — and he is referred to in no otber — he is merely call
ed by that title, as all the other bishops are called by their
titles, without any indication of preference to him over the
others. He is never spoken of as " Christ's vicegerent," or
as "head of the patriarchs," nor is the Church of Rome
ever alluded to as the "Apostolic Church." It can not be
(7e) Which was not an ecumenical or general council.
(") Tillemont, vol. ii., p. 647.
CB) Pusey's " Councils of the Church," p. 112. See, also, " History of the
Christian Councils," by Hefele, pp. 262, 434.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY UNKNOWN AT NICE. 319
too frequently repeated that this twenty- ninth canon is a
downright forgery — one by which the world has been al
ready sufficiently imposed on. It has been clung to by the
supporters of the pope, as against the rights of the whole
Church, because tbey know that if deprived of evidence
that the first ecumenical council sustained their theory of
papal infallibility, it necessarily falls to the ground. That
it did not sustain it, and that there was no pretense of its
existence then, is absolutely incontestable.

320 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.

CHAPTER XI.
Temporal Power. — None possessed by Peter. — Alliance between Pepin and
Zachary. — Double Conspiracy. — The Pope released the Allegiance of the
French People. — Made Pepin King. — The Lombards in Italy. — The Pope
bargained with Pepin, and was guilty of Revolt against the Empire. — Pep
in seized Territory from the Lombards, and gave it to the Pope. — Both
were Revolutionists and Traitors. — The Pope usurped what belonged to
the Empire. — Pepin did not conquer Rome. — The Divine Right of Kings.
— Pepin's Second Visit.— Pope sent Letters to him from the Virgin Mary,
Peter, etc. — He re-affirmed his Gift to the Pope. — Charlemagne. — Adri
an I. — He absolves the Franks from all Crimes in Bavaria. — Makes
Charlemagne Emperor. — He completes the Papal Rebellion against the
Empire. — Charlemagne confirmed Pepin's Gift. — He did not grant any
Temporal Dominion in Rome. — He dictated the Filioque in the Creed.
All inquiry into the origin and history of the temporal
power of the popes is necessarily attended with difficulty.
It often requires a very discriminating judgment to sepa
rate fact from conjecture — that which is true from myths
and fables. One reason for this is found in the fact that
the papal writers are not agreed among themselves, either
in reference to its real source, the time of its origin, or
the precise occasion and manner of its recognition by the
Church. This of itself excites in an intelligent mind a rea
sonable doubt of its legitimacy ; for, however derived, there
would be, if it were legitimate, some landmarks to verify its
title. If it were divine, as Pius IX. asserts, there would be,
undoubtedly, some word or act of Christ, or of his apostles,
or of the primitive Christians during the first centuries, to
attest a fact of so much importance, especially as it is now
required that it shall be accepted as a necessary part of the
true faith. If conferred by the nations, to preserve them
selves from anarchy, some distinct historic record would
have been made of it, as a guide to future ages. In the ab
sence of any convincing proof upon these points, the impar
tial mind will naturally run into the conclusion that its ori
gin was, at least, suspicious. And if it is found that it had

PETER CLAIMED NO PRIMACY. 321
no existence in the Apostolic Age, and was not recognized
as a part of the early Christian system, this other conclusion
must inevitably follow : that it is the product of human am
bition, resting upon authority which the popes have wrench
ed from the nations by illegitimate means, and not upon any
divinely conferred upon Peter or the Church of Rome.
When the apostle Peter, in anticipation of the approach
ing end of his life, wrote to the Christians of Asia Minor, he
affectionately admonished the elders or ancients as an equal,
not as a superior in the papal sense; and was careful to
tell them that, in feeding their flocks, they should not be
" lords over God's heritage " — or, as tbe Douay version has
it, should not be " domineering over the clergy " — but that
all Christians, old and young, should be clothed with " hu
mility." He claimed to be only an elder himself, and as
sumed no authority whatsoever beyond that possessed by
other apostles — the authority to counsel and advise those
to whom he wrote, that they should not " be led away with
the error of the wicked," or fall from their " own steadfast
ness." With this fact kept in our minds, we shall be the
better able to understand the history already detailed, and
to interpret that which follows.
Glancing, then, at the centuries immediately following the
age of Constantine, we find nothing better established than
that the thrones of the European nations were disposed of
by fraud, violence, and bloodshed. They were at the mercy
of those monarchs who had the heaviest legions and were
the most skillful in crime, especially those who were adepts
in murder and assassination. By these means one line of
kings was terminated and another established, as interest or
policy dictated, the people all the while being transferred
from master to master, with no other change in the charac
ter of their slavery than that which arose out of a change
of tyrants. Clovis the Great, who terminated the domin
ion of pagan Rome in Gaul by the battle of Soissons, in the
year 486, established the French monarchy and the Mero
vingian line of its kings. His descendants, by regular he
reditary succession, held the crown for more than two cent
uries and a half. Childeric III. was the last king of that
line ; and when we reach the termination of his reign we be-
21

322 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
gin to stand on solid ground in our inquiries into the origin
of the temporal power. The incidents connected with that
event are inseparably associated also with the growth ofthe
papacy, and iu no other way than by an accurate under
standing of them can we see how its enormous power has
been acquired — how, by the successful union of Church and
State, the divine right to govern the nations, and to dispose
of crowns and peoples, has been established and perpetuated.
Childeric ILL was the legitimate heir to the throne of
France, and held it by virtue of the established and recog
nized law of the monarchy, there having been no break in
the regular line of succession from Clovis for two hundred
and fifty years. Pepin, son of Charles Martel, held the of
fice of " mayor of the palace," which placed him next to,
but not upon, the throne. For fifty or sixty years his fam
ily had furnished to France some of the most distinguished
leaders of her armies, and Pepin was in no sense inferior to
any who had preceded him. Childeric was a feeble prince,
but he was the lawful king ; and Pepin, stimulated by his
ambition, conceived the purpose of supplanting him, and
placing the crown upon his own head. The plan, how
ever, was more easily formed than executed, as, notwith
standing his effeminacy, Childeric was esteemed on the
ground of his being an immediate descendant of the great
Clovis. This fact forbade any resort to direct force by
Pepin, but his genius enabled him to contrive other effect
ive means — the first of the kind known in history. Like
all the descendants of Charles Martel, he was a champion
of Christianity, and sympathized with the popes in their ef
forts to terminate their allegiance to the Eastern emperors;
and hence he conceived the idea of bringing to his aid the
authority of the Church of Rome to enable him to accom
plish his ambitious plans. He therefore sent embassadors to
Pope Zachary, soliciting him to employ this authority to re
lease the people of France from their allegiance to Childer
ic, in direct disregard of the laws of France, and to trans
fer the crown to him.(') What had the Church of Rome,
(') "Milman's Gibbon's Rome," vol. v., p. 28 ; "Latin Christianity," by
Milman, vol. ii., p. 410; " History of France," by Michelet, vol. i., p. HI I
" History of France," by Parke Godwin, p. 393.

CONSPIRACY OF PEPIN AND THE POPE. 323
or its pope, to do with the internal and domestic affairs of
France ? or with the allegiance of the people of France to
the legitimate possessor of its throne ? Unquestionably there
is no other fair construction to be put upon the conduct of
Pepin than that it was an invitation to the pope to become
a joint revolutionary conspirator with him against the law
ful government of France. And both Pepin and Pope
Zachary so understood it, as is manifest from their subse
quent conduct, especially from the promptness with which
the latter interfered in behalf of the former by the employ
ment of his ecclesiastical power of absolution. At that
time the pope was a subject of the Eastern emperors, the
successors of Constantine ; and it will appear in the sequel
that he the more readily lent his high autbority to this end,
because he saw in the success of Pepin the promise of erect
ing a power in the West which he, orhis successors, could
employ in sundering their own allegiance to the Eastern
empire. His reasoning was, doubtless, this : that if Pepin,
by his ecclesiastical aid, could make treason against Chil
deric successful in France, he, by the aid of Pepin, might
make his own successful against the empire to which Rome
belonged. - Whatever the motive, however, the fact is at
tested by the unanimous voice of history, that Pepin did
become king of France only by the aid of the pope's exer
cise of spiritual authority, as the head ofthe Roman Church,
which he unscrupulously employed for that purpose, while
he was himself tbe subject. of, and owed temporal allegiance
to another monarch. Seemingly unconscious of the obli
gation which rested upon him to keep the Church pure and
uncontaminated, and not to employ the sacred things of re
ligion for mere worldly and ambitious ends, he entered into
the schemes of Pepin with the greatest alacrity. Without
stopping to count the cost, either to religion or the Church,
he complied with Pepin's request in a manner which must
have been exceedingly gratifying to him, and which placed
him under obligations he was subsequently quite ready to
recognize. In violation of the hereditary and legal right of
Childeric, and in direct opposition to the established laws of
France, he issued his papal brief absolving the people from
their allegiance, and transferring the crown to PepiD, the

324 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ambitious and revolutionary usurper. And, as if he actual
ly wielded the authority of God himself, he went even one
step farther than this, by prohibiting the French people from
ever thereafter exercising any freedom of choice in the elec
tion of their king, or from ever depriving the Carlovingian
princes of the crown — that is, the descendants of Charles
Martel. Gibbon, speaking of this extraordinary use of spiritual
power, says: "The Franks were absolved from their ancient
oath ; but a dire anathema was thundered against them and
their posterity if they should dare to renew the same free^
dom of choice, or to elect a king, except in the holy and
meritorious race of the Carlovingian princes ;"(2) that is,
having thus been brought under the spiritual dominion of
the pope to such an extent as to allow him to dictate their
domestic policy and dispose of their crown, the curse of God
would rest upon them if ever thereafter the French people
should dare to repeat the act of electing a king, except in
the interest ofthe papacy and with the consent ofthe pope!
A monarchy thus established could not be otherwise than
devoted to the pope. Michelet, speaking of it, says: "This
monarchy of Pepin's, founded by the priests, was devoted to
the priests."(3)
Tbere is no dispute about the main facts thus far. A
modern Roman Catholic historian in the United States has
put them in a succinct form ; and, while he endeavors to con
vey the idea that it was altogether right and proper for the
pope to absolve the French people from their allegiance to
Childeric, yet he narrates the circumstances with commend
able fairness and impartiality. (4)
The ecclesiastical historians are not less distinct in their
(2) " Milman's Gibbon," vol. v., p. 29. "To be crowned king in those
days was to have the sanction of religion added to the reality of the earthly
power. After that ennobling ceremony the office of king became invested
with loftier attributes than merely the reverence of men. It was considered
something divine and sacred ; resistance to its authority grew to be not only
rebellion, but sacrilege ; and henceforth, however nearly a great noble might
approach the monarch in power, he was immeasurably inferior to him in dig
nity and rank. " — History of France, by Rev. James White, p. 26.
O " Hist, of France," by Michelet, vol. i. , p. 111.
(4) " Modern Hist.," by Peter Fredet, D.D., p. 183, and note F., p. 494.

POLITICO-RELIGIOUS ALLIANCE. 325
statements. Dr. Waddington, referring to the usurpation
of Pepin, says : " This occurrence is generally related as the
first instance of the temporal ambition of the Vatican, or, at
least, of its interference with the rights of princes and the
allegiance of subjects."(B) Cormenin condemns the pope in
decided language, and cbarges that he sent letters to Pepin,
" encouraging him in his ambitious projects, and authorizing
him, in the name of religion, to depose Childeric ILL, and to
take possession of his crown. "(e)
This politico -religious alliance between Pepin and the
pope has most important aspects which can not escape ob
servation. On the part of the pope, it was the assertion of
the divine right to dispose of the crown of France without
regard to the wishes of the French people, and to compel
them to obey him in the subsequent management of their
own affairs. And it was equivalent to the assumption of
like authority over all other nations and peoples. This is a
claim before which the temporal power in tbe Papal States
is dwarfed into insignificance ; and yet the pope did not
even possess this at the time of this extraordinary assump
tion. Manifestly it could not be conceded to him without
bringing all the nations at his feet, and without taking
away from the people, wherever they possess it, the power
to make their own laws, select their own agents to execute
them, and regulate their own domestic concerns. And it
should not be overlooked, in view of its enormity, that it is
precisely this same divine power to which Pius IX. now
lays claim. With him there can be no higher or better ev
idence of right than the exercise of it by one of his infalli
ble predecessors. And there will be no impediment to its
universal recognition, whenever mankind shall be brought
to the concession that the Church, through her infallible
head, defines her own powers and jurisdiction.
(*) "Church Hist.," by Waddington, p. 148 ; " Maclaine's Mosheim's Eccl.
Hist.," vol. i., pp. 194, 195; "The Old Catholic Church," by Killen, pp.
389, 390.
(') "Hist, of the Popes," by Cormenin, vol. i., p. 188. That the Roman
Catholic annalists claimed, in behalf of the pope, that he acted by virtue of
"¦his apostolic authority" in disposing of the French crown, is shown by
Parke Godwin, in his "History of France," vol. i., p. 394.

326. THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
The alliance began to bear its legitimate fruits without
much delay. The Lombards had seized upon and held a
great part of Italy, including the province of Ravenna, the
capital of which, as the former residence of the great Os-
tragothic King Theodoric, and of the Greek Exarchs, had
grown into rivalry with Rome. This territory belonged to
the Eastern empire, whose emperors, it is alleged by the de
fenders of the papacy, were either not disposed or too feeble
to defend it, and had been held about two years by its
Lombard conquerors. But Astolphus, the Lombard king,
was not satisfied with these possessions, and threatened to
seize upon Rome, which still belonged to the empire. The
pope, being unwilling to let Rome be brought under the
dominion of the Lombards, fearing that its ecclesiastical
power would be transferred to Ravenna, and the papacy be
thereby made subordinate to the Exarchate, inaugurated
immediate measures for resistance. Those who justify the
exercise of temporal power by the popes, say that he.peti-
tioned the emperors to send assistance to Rome, to repel the
contemplated attack of Astolphus. Dr. Fredet, being too
candid to deny that Rome then " belonged to the emperors
of Constantinople," but admitting that fact, says, "Pope
Stephen sent to implore necessary succors from Constantine
Copronymus, in whose name the government of Rome was
still exercised." (7) These succors, if called for, were not fur
nished ; and the same author, in assigning the reason, says
that the "emperor was too deeply engaged in warring
against the images of the saints to think of sending troops
against the Lombards."(") Whatever the precise facts may
have been, the question lay between the Roman people, in
whose name the pope acted, and the emperor, to whom, as
subjects, they owed allegiance by the existing law of na
tions. The pope, as a subject, also owed this allegiance no
less than the people. His power was exclusively ecclesias
tical, and possessing none over temporal and political mat
ters, whatsoever he did in reference to these, he did, neces
sarily, as a subject. He could not get rid of the obligation
of his allegiance by any act short of revolt against legiti-
(') Fredet, p. 184. (") Ibid.

EXCUSES FOR THE POPE'S TREASON. 327
mate authority. And this relation in which he and the Ro
man people stood to the emperors must be kept in mind,
in order to understand the full bearing of the subsequent
events out of which the temporal power arose.
Dr. Fredet, referring to the condition into which the peo
ple were thrown by the neglect of the emperors, also says :
" In this extremity the Romans embraced the last resource
which was left them, that of calling the valiant monarch of
the French to their assistance."(9) And upon the same sub
ject he says, at another place :
" Thus, finding implacable enemies both in the barbarians
[Lombards] and in their own sovereigns, the people, driven
almost to despair, began to sigh ardently after a new and
better order of things. The eyes of all were turned toward
the pope, as their only refuge and the common father of all
in distress. In this state of desolation, the sovereign pon
tiffs, unable any longer to resist the eagerness of the multi
tudes flying into their arms for protection and refuge, and
destitute of every other means, applied to the French, who
alone were both willing and able to defend them against the
Lombards."(10) This statement presents, it is believed, the papal view in
the most satisfactory light. And yet the reader can not fail
to observe how distinctly it asserts the revolutionary right
of the Roman people, under the guidance of the pope, to
throw off their allegiance to their lawful sovereigns, the
successors of Constantine. And the resort to this remedy
is both excused and justified, in the absence of any accusa
tion of misgovernment or oppression against the emperors.
They are charged with not having been sufficiently prompt
and energetic in defending Rome against the threatened at
tack ofthe Lombards; not with having been guilty of any
wrong or injustice toward either the Roman people or the
pope. Modern revolutions have been inaugurated as the
last and ultimate remedy for grievances which can be en
dured no longer without an abandonment of all natural
rights; and yet it is against these that the fiercest anathe
mas of the papacy have been launched. Here, however, the
(") Fredet, p. 184. (,0) Ibid., note G, pp. 495, 496.

328 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
pope is justified for having put the temporal affairs of Rome
in the keeping of the French king, for the twofold purpose
of defending them against the Lombards, and of acquiring
the temporal power himself, at a time when the Roman
people were not suffering any oppression from the empire.
Rome, for several centuries before that time, had acquired no
distinct existence as a nation, and, as Dr. Fredet agrees, it
belonged to the territorial possessions of the Eastern emper
ors. They had never abandoned their claim to it, and had
never expressed a willingness to do so. Hence, the right
of the Romans to act independently of the emperors, in or
der ultimately to resist their authority, was purely revolu
tionary, and can not be justified, even in the modern view,
unless it was a necessary measure of relief against severe
and irremediable oppression. How such a right can be de
fended at all, consistently with the expressed opinions of the
present pope and his defenders, it is difficult to understand.
Can it be that they regard revolution as justifiable only
when it inures to the benefit of the papacy ?
The Eastern emperors, at the time referred to, were at
war with the Arabs, a fierce and formidable enemy. (") The
fact of having to carry on such a war as this may, in some
degree, account for their alleged neglect of the Roman peo
ple. But, besides this, it is also true that the controversy
between the Eastern and Western Christians, in reference
to the worship of images, had much to do in fixing the
relations between them, especially those between the em
perors and the popes. It is the most probable and plausi
ble view of the matter to say that, on account of this pure
ly religious disagreement, and the violence to which it led
on both sides, the pope was very ready to avail himself of
the existing condition of affairs to throw himself under the
royal protection of Pepin, and thus build up a powerful
monarchy in the West, under the shelter of which he could
consummate his contemplated revolt against the emperors.
In the light of subsequent events this is the most natural
conclusion, and several contemporaneous facts contribute to
its support. When the pope invoked the aid of the emper-
(") Cormenin, vol. i., p. 191.

THE POPE'S PERFIDY. 32g
or, the latter instructed him to go to the court of Astolphus,
the Lombard king, and to demand the restoration of Raven
na and the other cities he had seized, in the name of the em
pire ; showing thereby that he had no idea of abandoning
his authority and jurisdiction over any part of Italy. This
imperial order was obeyed by Stephen III., who was then
pope,(12) by visiting the court ofthe Lombard king and mak
ing the demand in the name of the emperor, and as his em
bassador. It was, however, refused by Astolphus, who had
no idea of willingly surrendering the advantages he had ac
quired by the possession of Ravenna and other cities. The
pope not only expected this, but had prepared for it by tak
ing other steps independently of the emperor, and without
his knowledge. These exercise a controlling influence in
deciding upon his motives. He had already addressed him
self to Pepin, and had also written to the French dukes,
" beseeching them to come to the rescue of St. Peter," and
promising them, says Cormenin, " in the name of the apos
tle, the remission of all the sins they had committed, or
might commit in the future, and guaranteeing to them un
alterable happiness in this world, and eternal life in the
next."(13) He had also made up his mind, before he set
out for Pavia, where the Lombard king held his court, that
he would go directly to France, and hold a personal inter
view with Pepin, for the better explanation and understand
ing of his alliance with Pope Zachary, and of their mutual
relations in consequence of it. (") From these facts it is
perfectly apparent that he had deliberated upon his revolt
against the empire, and plotted the means of carrying it out
before he left Rome.
That he was guilty of both duplicity and perfidy is be
yond all question ; for, while acting as the official embassa
dor of his sovereign, he was at the same time engaged in
making a hostile treaty with a foreign monarch. He was
not deterred by the consideration of any misfortune which
might befall the empire. After the refusal of Astolphus, he

(") He is sometimes called Stephen II. , but erroneously, as Stephen II.
was pope only a few days, and was never consecrated.
(la) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 191. (,4) Ibid.

330 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
hastened on to France, and negotiated another alliance with
Pepin, without reporting his failure to the emperor. He
had set out upon his revolt with resolute steps, and, con
scious of the strength of the military power he was invok
ing, cast his eyes no longer toward Constantinople, except
with a view to plan more successfully the measures by
which he hoped to sunder his allegiance to the empire. By
the laws of nations, as they now exist, this would be trea
son ; but, however it may have been then considered, the
pope doubtless sought for his justification in the fact that
Constantine Copronymus was an iconoclastic emperor, and
Pepin was a faithful son of the Church, and the head of a
monarchy which, " founded by the priests, was true to the
priests." It was the most natural thing in the world for
him to conclude that, as the papacy had been the means of
enabling Pepin to make his own revolt against Childeric III.
successful, Pepin would reciprocate the favor by helping him
to break off his allegiance to the Eastern emperors. Such
combinations among ambitious and aspiring men have been
frequent in the world, yet history gives no account of any
other that has been followed by so long a train of conse
quences. Pepin, no doubt anticipating advantages to himself, readi
ly consented to comply with the request of the pope. He
marched his army against the Lombard king, and compel
led him to surrender up all the Italian territory occupied by
him. And here at this point we see the advantages which
the papacy achieved by the alliance ; for Pepin, entirely ig
noring the claim of the empire, caused the territory to be
surrendered to the pope, in the name of " the see of Rome !"
And the pope accepted the royal present with as little com
punctions of conscience as if he were a subject of the King
of France, instead of the emperor of the East. The territory
thus surrendered included Ravenna, Bologna, Ferrara, and
the Pentapolis, all of which, it is said by the papal writers,
was conveyed by " solemn grant," in order that Rome, with
these territories as an appendage to it, should be erected
into an ecclesiastical State, with the temporal power to gov
ern it in the hands ofthe pope. This, it should be observed,
was in the year 754 — seven and a half centuries after the

THE GRANT OF PEPIN TO THE POPE. 331
commencement of the Christian era — and constitutes the
only basis of the papal claim to temporal power which
has the slightest plausibility about it, or is in any sense de
fensible. Without stopping now to inquire why, if this
power were absolutely necessary to Christianity and the
Church, it was so long permitted by Providence to be de
ferred, there are several questions arising out of the forego
ing circumstances too important to be passed by.
Was there any such " grant " as is alleged to have been
made by Pepin, conferring title to the surrendered territory
upon the pope ? One would suppose, if there had been, that
it would bave been produced before now, in order to settle
the many controversies that have taken place on the sub
ject. Its existence has been frequently denied, and its ex
hibition has been invited and challenged in a variety of
ways. The limits of the grant have been often controverted,
some popes endeavoring to enlarge and others to contract
them. An inspection of it at any time would have settled
all these questions. But, although it has been said that it
is preserved in the Vatican at Rome, it has never yet been
produced! Fontanini, in his defense of the jurisdiction of
the pope, " intimates that this grant is yet extant, and even
makes use of some phrases that are said to be contained in
it." But, as is well remarked by Dr. Maclaine, this " will
scarcely be believed. Were it, indeed, true that such a deed
remains, its being published to the world would be undoubt
edly unfavorable to the pretensions of Rome." He refers
also to the fact that, in a dispute between the Emperor Jo
seph I. and the pope concerning Commachio, the partisans
of the latter constantly refused to exhibit the deed ; and
also to the further fact that Bianchini had given a specimen
of it " from a Farnesian manuscript, which seems to carry the
marks of a remote antiquity ;" and then says : " Be this as it
may, a multitude of witnesses unite in assuring us that the re
morse of a wounded conscience was the source of Pepin's liber
ality, and that his grant to the Roman pontiff was the super
stitious remedy by which he hoped to expiate his enormities,
and particularly his horrid perfidy to his master, Childeric." (")
(") " Maclaine's Mosheim," vol. i., p. 195, note.

332 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
It is a rule of law that, when a party pretends to have in
his possession evidence that would explain any matter of
controversy in which he is involved, the fact of his withhold
ing it should be construed unfavorably to his pretensions.
Therefore, as more than eleven hundred years have elapsed
since the conquest of Pepin from the Lombards, and during
all this time no "grant" from him to the pope has ever
been produced, it is not unreasonable to conclude that none
such was ever made. And yet it is true, doubtless, that
Pepin did put the pope in possession of the conquered ter
ritory, and confer upon him, as far as he could, the authori
ty to govern it, as the head of the Roman Church, but with
out any attempt to convey it by deed. If history were en
tirely silent upon the subject, this much might be inferred
from the nature of their relations to each other, they being
such as to create upon the part of each the reciprocal obli
gation to do any thing the other should require. The pope
made Pepin a king, and why should not Pepin aid the pope
to break his allegiance to the Eastern emperors and become
a king also ? Whatever would justify the act of revolt in
the one case would equally justify it in the other. If the
pope had ecclesiastical authority sufficient to legalize the
treason of Pepin against Childeric, the French legions had
physical power enough to legalize the pope's treason against
his lawful sovereign. Therefore, in this spirit of mutuality,
and in entire disregard of all legal rights, " the splendid do
nation was granted, in supreme and absolute dominion, and
the world beheld, for the first time, a Christian bishop in
vested with the prerogatives of a temporal prince."(le)
It is insisted by many who defend the temporal preroga
tives of the popes, that this donation of Pepin only restored
to them jurisdiction which they had previously possessed.
Even Archbishop Kenrick, in support of this assertion, has
been tempted, wben speaking of the act of Pepin, incautious
ly to say :
" This can scarcely be considered a mere donation, since
a great portion, if not all, of the territory had already be-
(") " Milman's Gibbon," vol. v., p. 32 ; " The Temporal Power of the Pa
pacy," by Legge, p. 23.

THE POPE'S JURISDICTION USURPED. 333
longed to the pope; whence Stephen IV, in the year 769,
urged the French princes, Charles and Carloman, as a mat
ter of duty which they owed to St. Peter, to see that his
property, usurped by the Lombards, should be fully re
stored."^1) The mind of the learned archbishop must have been some
what confused when he wrote this. He first states as a fact
the ownership of territory by the popes before the donation
of Pepin, in the year 754, during the pontificate of Stephen
IH., and, to establish this, cites the action and claim of Pope
Stephen IV., in the year 769— fifteen years afterward ! This
is neither logical nor satisfactory. But the important ques
tion at last is, whether or no the statement of fact is to be
relied on. It is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile it
with the historical narrative, if, indeed, it is not positively
contradicted. Dr. Fredet, manifestly, does not believe it ;
on the other hand, he directly contradicts it. He insists
that the donation of Pepin was " a solemn grant to the see
of Rome of that part of Italy which is, on tbis account, call
ed the Ecclesiastical State, and has ever since composed the
temporal dominion ofthe popes." But he immediately says,
"Before that time they [tbe popes] had been subject, in civil
matters, to the Roman or Greek emperors."^") And such is,
undoubtedly, the fact, as history abundantly attests. This
is conclusive upon the subject: that the authority and juris
diction of the Eastern emperors over Rome never absolute
ly ceased until Charlemagne was made emperor of the West,
in the year 800 — nearly balf a century after the alleged do
nation of Pepin. It took the popes all this time to sunder
entirely the ties of their allegiance to the East, and it was
only tben accomplished by the strength of the French ar
mies. The prowess of Charlemagne made their usurped ju
risdiction over civil matters secure ; and until then, both by
the laws of the empire and the law of nations, the popes
were the subjects of the emperors, and owed to them the
duty of allegiance and fidelity.
History does not inform us that there was any political
quarrel, or cause of quarrel, between the government at
(") Kenrick's " Primacy," p. 261. (IB) Fredet, p. 185.

334 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Constantinople and the people of Italy or Rome. So far as
their civil affairs were concerned, every thing was satisfac
tory and harmonious. The whole existing disagreement
arose out of the question of the worship of images, and was
therefore entirely religious. ('") Upon this subject the dif
ference was radical and irreconcilable; and there can be no
reasonable doubt that this was the primary and inciting
cause of the pope's action. He could readily foresee his
own weakness as the subject of an iconoclastic emperor,
and the strength he would acquire by a close alliance with
the French kings, and the establishment of a strong mon
archy in the West, devoted to the Church and, more espe
cially, to the papacy. Hence, the only legitimate inference
from his whole conduct is, that he employed the influence
of religion and of the Church to excite the minds of a su
perstitious and ignorant population against their civil gov
ernment, in order to obtain from a foreign king, to whom he
owed no allegiance, the concession of his temporal power,
that he might thereby be enabled to break off bis own law
ful allegiance to the empire. Every step taken by the dif
ferent popes who participated in these movements justifies
this belief, and the result confirms it. Rome needed only
that her popes should possess temporal power to make her
superior to Constantinople ; and for this prize the contest
was carried on with unabated zeal until the final victory
was won.
How could Pope Stephen III., while occupying the rela
tion of subject to the empire, acquire title to territory or
temporal power, by the donation of Pepin, a foreign prince?
(") The iconoclastic controversy began under the pontificate of Gregory
II. (715-31), and while Leo the Isaurian was emperor. It was carried on
with great violence. There is great discrepancy among the Eastern and
Western historians in regard to its earliest stages. The former charge Greg
ory II. with having immediately proceeded to the extremity of organizing a
revolt against the empire, and of releasing the Italian people from their alle
giance. This is denied by the latter. Du Pin does not credit it.— Eccl.
Hist., vol. vi., p. 132. Dean Milman omits any reference to the charge.—
Latin Christianity, vol. ii., p. 293-327. But Cormenin treats it as true, and
records many alleged outrages committed by the pope, such as seizing the
envoys, who were the bearers of conciliatory letters from the emperor, and
putting them to death. — Cormenin, vol. i., pp. 178, 179.

PEPIN'S GRANT TO THE POPE INVALID. 335
Was it within the power of Pepin to release him from his
lawful allegiance? Did not all the rights transferred to
him by Pepin inure to the benefit of the empire? Can a
rebel, by treaty or alliance with a foreign power, acquire
any legitimate rights against his government or his lawful
sovereign ?
It is necessary that these questions shall be decided in or
der to understand the nature of the donation from Pepin to
the pope — whether or no any temporal power was rightful
ly acquired by means of it, even if it be conceded to have
been to the full extent claimed by the papal writers.
It is believed that the law of nations has undergone no
change in reference to these matters, from the earliest ages
of Christian civilization. By its provisions a rebel can ac
quire no rights in his own behalf as against his own gov
ernment ; for whatever he may do, whether by himself or
by foreign aid, is considered only as resistance to lawful au
thority. A successful revolt is another and different mat
ter. In that case, rights are obtained and held only by rev
olutionary force, and when they become accomplished facts,
are, in the judgment of modern nations especially, entitled
to the highest consideration. The American idea is, that
the best nations in the world have been the result of revolu
tion ; which is justified or not, according to the degree of
wrong and oppression it is designed to resist. But those
who defend the temporal power of the popes derive no as
sistance from this doctrine ; for one of the most prominent
features in the papal teaching is the doctrine which de
nounces revolution and resistance to legitimate civil author
ity. If the conduct of Pope Stephen be measured and
judged by these teachings, he undoubtedly brought himself,
not only in open hostility to the law of the empire, but to
the law of nations and of God. Nor will the papacy be aid
ed by what is called the doctrine of accomplished facts, for
it has invariably taught that no rights are conferred by
them when they grow out of resistance to lawful author
ity, no matter how long they may be enjoyed; as the pope
shows in his Encyclical of 1864, and as will abundantly ap
pear hereafter.
The conclusion is unavoidable, that the popes acquired no

336 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
rightful authority by the donation of Pepin. The territo
ries donated were held by the Lombard king only by con
quest, and had only been so held since the year 752 — but
two years. (2<l) The superior title ofthe empire had not been
abandoned, but still existed. If Pepin had taken them from
the emperor, then his title might have been defended ; and
in that event he could have disposed of them as he pleased.
But he took them from the Lombards, not from the empire,
which left the title of the empire a subsisting and valid
claim, which could only be extinguished by force or treaty.
Neither of these modes having been resorted to, they could
be taken by the pope only as a subject, not as an independ
ent prince ; having no right, by the law of nations, to ac
quire such title as Pepin attempted to confer upon him. He
could only hold them in trust for his sovereign. Therefore,
as he owed lawful allegiance to the empire, the title confer
red upon him by Pepin inured to the empire. If he claim
ed, or attempted to exercise, power independently of the
empire by virtue of it, he was, by the law of nations, guilty
of usurpation. And hence it follows that the temporal
power ofthe popes derived from the donation of Pepin was
not legitimately obtained, but was usurped by a flagrant
violation of the law of the empire, and the law of nations.
The controversy about the worship of images was used as a
pretext for its acquisition, but the real motive is exposed by
the whole transaction. It was to build up a civil power in
the West, with the pope as a temporal prince, which should
make the West more powerful than the East, and restore to
Rome her old pagan distinction of "Mistress ofthe World."
And such is the " truth of history," when it is extracted
from the mass of contradictions.
Dr. Fredet was too sagacious not to have seen the force
of the suggestions here made, and he has endeavored to
counteract their influence. He is compelled to admit that,
at the time of the defeat of the Lombards by Pepin, the em
peror, Constantine Copronymus, continued to maintain his
claim to the territory embraced in the donation of Pepin,
C) "Fall of the Roman Empire," by Sismondi, p. 312; "History of the
Church," by Fry, p. 186, London.

THE POPE VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW. 337
He says: "At this juncture two embassadors arrived from
Constantinople, to claim for the emperor the restitution of
the cities and provinces which had been usurped by the Lom
bards."^1) But then, in order to avoid the force of the ar
gument that, as these territories were held by the Lombards
by usurpation, their recapture inured to the nationality to
which they legitimately belonged, he says also, at another
place :
" It is a principle laid down by civilians, and founded on
the law of nations, that he who conquers a country in a just
war not undertaken for the former possessors, nor in union
with them, is not bound to restore to them what they would
not, or could not, protect and secure."(33)
But if it be conceded that this is the statement of a just
principle, it is broad enough to disprove the claim of tempo
ral power based upon Pepin's donation. The reconquest of
the territory held by the Lombards was, in the eye of the
law of nations, "undertaken for the former possessors."
The emperor, it is true, did not solicit aid from Pepin ; but
the pope, who was his subject, did. Pepin was bound to
know, and did know, that the pope was in revolt against
his sovereign. Consequently, there were but two aspects in
which he could have viewed his interference — either that
he was acting in behalf of the emperor, at the solicitation
of his subject, or was acting in behalf of a rebellious sub
ject against his lawful sovereign. If the former, then, by
the law of nations, his donation inured to the empire ; if
the latter, he violated that law by becoming a party to an
armed rebellion. But, in point of fact, Pepin did not render
assistance to the pope, as against the emperor, but moved his
army against the Lombards, and left the pope, after his do
nation, to settle the question of his treason with the em
peror. Therefore, his donation to the pope was made to
him as a subject, not as a prince; and, consequently, as a
subject can take no title to territory which had once be
longed to his sovereign after its recapture, the donation of
Pepin inured to the empire, and not to the pope. If, there
after, the pope was enabled to maintain his title to it, he
C") Fredet, p. 185. (") Ibid., note (y), p. 496.
22

338 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
could only have done it by successful revolution, which
would bring it within the doctrine of accomplished facts,
now repudiated by the papacy. In any view of it, we can
not escape the fact that wbatever temporal power the popes
acquired by these proceedings was obtained by usurpation.
Why did the French king make a donation of territory,
with the authority of temporal government, to the pope?
This was about the middle of the eighth century, and for
more than seven hundred years the Church had existed
without a temporal ruler, without a king, and without a
crown to place upon the brow of a king. There had been,
up to that time, six ecumenical councils of the Church, (")
and by none of them had it been declared, as an essential
part of Christian faith, that the pope was infallible, or that
his temporal power was necessary to the successful govern
ment of the Church, or to the successful propagation of the
truths of the Gospel. Why, therefore, this gift of a tempo
ral crown ? Manifestly, it was the reward which Pepin paid
to the pope for enabling him to maintain his treasonable re
sistance to the King of France, by means of which he hoped
to destroy a rival political power in the East, and transfer
the sceptre of universal dominion to the West. It was
the legitimate fruit of the alliance between the king and
the pope, by which the former gave political power in ex
change for the ecclesiastical protection of the latter. The
king made himself a party to the treason of the pope, and
the pope made himself a party to the treason of the king.
They were joint conspirators against lawful authority; one
against his lawful king, the other against his lawful emper
or — both against their national allegiance. Each had a
worldly object alone — the acquisition of princely power;
and therefore they both stand condemned by every just prin
ciple of international law, as they would do were their con
duct now to be adjudged by the unbiased judgment of all
the leading nations.
During the late rebellion in this country ten of our States
(23) The first Council of Nice, a.d. 325 ; the first Council of Constantino
ple, a.d. 381 ; the Council of Ephesus, a.d. 431 ; the Council of Chalcedon,
a.d. 451 ; the second Council of Constantinople, a.d. 553; and the third
Council of Constantinople, a.d. 682.

PEPIN DID NOT CONQUER ROME. 339
held possession of all their territory, by military force, for
several years — more than twice as long as the Lombards
held Ravenna. They excluded the authority of the Na
tional Government, defied its power, and erected a govern
ment of their own. Suppose Napoleon ILL, the " favorite
son of the Church," had marched his army from Mexico
into these States, taken possession of them, and turned
them over to the temporal government of Pope Pius IX.,
whose throne he was then holding up, then the pope would
have had precisely the same temporal power over all these
ten States as Pope Stephen IIL acquired by the gift of the
King of France ! The statement of such a proposition suffi
ciently refutes it; and yet there are those who habitually
exhaust argument and eloquence in supporting the validity
of a title thus acquired. Toleration does not require that
these things shall be passed over in silence, nor is its spirit
violated by their arraignment at the bar of public opinion.
But there is a view of the question of temporal power,
designedly passed over until now, which is of sufficient im
portance to be considered. Suppose it be conceded that
the pope did acquire temporal power by the donation of
Pepin, what, then, was its extent? We have already seen,
what all readers of history know to be true, that this dona
tion only included the Italian territory held by the Lom
bards, and taken by Pepin from Astolphus, the Lombard
king. This was Ravenna, Bologna, Ferrara, and the Pen
tapolis — but not Rome. The Lombards did not hold pos
session of Rome. Pepin did not have any authority over
Rome, for he made no conquest of it ; nor did he pretend
to donate it, or any temporal authority over it, to the pope.
If he had the authority, and did confer temporal power
over the territory he took from Astolphus, then he made
the pope prince over that territory alone, and not over
Rome. In Rome he remained a subject to the emperor,
and could derive no right there from the donation of Pep
in. Whatever temporal power, therefore, he acquired. in
Rome must rest upon some other foundation than the do
nation of Pepin. As the papists pretend to assign no oth
er, it is necessarily the result of usurpation.
It bas been remarked that the motives of both Pepin and

340 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
the pope were worldly — that they had reference alone to
temporal dominion. This is a legitimate inference from all
the facts. The faith or creed of the Church, as it had come
down from the Council of Nice, was iu no way involved in
any of the pending matters of controversy, except as it was
connected with the disagreement about the worship of im
ages. There were no prevailing heresies calculated to dis
turb the harmony ofthe Church. (") The heresy of Mace
donia, which denied the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, had
been disposed of by the first Council of Constantinople, in
381 ; that of Nestorius, which affirmed that there were two
distinct persons in Jesus Christ, by the Council of Ephesus,
in 431 ; that of Eutyches, which denied the two distinct nat
ures, divine and human, in Jesus Christ, by the Council of
Chalcedon, in 451 ; and the Monothelite heresy, which as
serted Jesus Christ to have no human will separate from
the divine will, by the third Council of Constantinople, in
682. Harmony, therefore, pervaded the Church in all its re
ligious departments. Its faith was unagitated, its creed un-
assailed. But the pope, looking out from the midst of this
internal peace and concord upon the troubled political ele
ments in France, had his own ambition excited, and did not
stop long to consider of the means of gratifying it. The
step taken by him was as fatal to true piety, as it has in
the end, after centuries of agitation, proved to be to the
papal power he so ambitiously acquired. By it, he pulled
down the Church from her high mission of saving souls,
draggled her sacred robes in the muddy pool of earthly
politics, and put her upon a career of corruption which has
C4) There is nothing to be found in the proceedings of the first six ecu
menical councils favoring the worship of images. The Emperor Leo, there
fore, when he attempted to put a stop to it, did not violate any expressed ar
ticle of faith. A council of three hundred and thirty-eight bishops was held
in Constantinople, in the year 754, which condemned it. But this council
was repudiated by the Roman Christians. — Do Pin, vol. vi., p. 133. The
second Council of Nice was held under the pontificate of Adrian I., in the
year 757. and is called ecumenical, although the number of bishops who at
tended it were less than those who assembled at Constantinople. It con
demned the council at Constantinople, anathematized those who repudiated
the worship of image's, and authorized that kind of worship, by introducing
it for the first time into the confession of faith. — Du Pin, vol. vi., p. 139.

THE DIVINE RIGHT TO GOVERN. 341
caused her own children to afflict her with mortal stabs.
He declared to Pepin that it was the iciU of God that he
should take the crown from the head of Childeric, and put
it upon his own head ! Pepin needed no other persuasion
than this to make him a devotee of a religion so favorable
to his ambition. It was the very faith which of all others
suited him the best. He was easily persuaded to aid a
pope who taught a doctrine so palatable to him, and to
make it the religion of France, because it confined all sub
sequent kings to his own line ! He staked all his fortunes
upon the hazard. And he won the prize ; while the ven
erable Church, which was thus turned away from her peace
ful paths, and made to enter upon an ignoble mission, re
ceived a cruel and paralyzing blow. Centuries have pass
ed since then, during which she has experienced the most va
ried fortunes, but she is yet reeling under that blow.
We have but to look at the manner in which the popes
employed their spiritual authority in order to promote tem
poral and secular ends, to see how the Church was made to
violate the injunctions of its founder, the example of the
apostles, and the peaceful teachings of the early Christians.
The retrospect reflects no credit upon those who became the
active agents in these measures, but is made necessary by
the enormous pretensions now set up in behalf of the pa
pacy. And it will serve to show, also, how necessary it is
for the best interests of mankind that the nations shall not
again suffer the Church and the State to be united.
As perfidy seemed to be a common vice in those days
among both popes and kings, Pepin had scarcely retired
with his army from Italy, before Astolphus, the Lombard
king, made preparations to break his treaty by threatening
to retake the provinces he had surrendered aud lay siege to
Rome. Pope Stephen III. again had recourse to Pepin, ur
ging him in the most imploring terms to return to Italy and
defend his " donation " to the Holy See. With him the great
question was the possession of the exarchate of Ravenna,
supposing that, unless that were destroyed, it would become,
in the hands of the Lombards, who were Arian Christians
but defended the worship of images, too formidable as the
ecclesiastical rival of Rome. It is quite certain that this

342 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
was the chief ground of quarrel between the pope and As
tolphus ; and that, " if the pope had allowed the Lombards
to occupy the exarchate, tbey would have been loyal allies
of the pope."(36) The pope, therefore, could not keep his
anxiety within moderate bounds, and addressed several let
ters to Pepin. In one of them, according to Cormenin, he
says : " I conjure you by the Lord our God, and his glorious
mother — by the celestial virtues and the holy apostle who
has consecrated you king — to render to our see the dona
tion which you have offered it ;"(36) thus again invoking the
aid of religion in securing temporal power to himself. But
Pepin was not so ready as before to embark in an enterprise
which offered no further prospect of gain to himself; and, in
dicating some indifference to these appeals to his religious
sentiments, the pope was driven to a still more desperate
expedient — that of sending him several letters purporting
to have been written by the Virgin Mary, angels, martyrs,
and saints, and one by St. Peter himself, all of which, it was
alleged, had been sent down from heaven for the purpose!
The translation of that from Peter is thus given by Dean
Milman :
"I, Peter the Apostle, protest, admonish, and conjure you,
the most Christian kings, Pepin, Charles, and Carloman, with
all the hierarchy, bishops, abbots, priests, and all monks; all
judges, dukes, counts, and the whole people of the Franks.
The mother of God likewise adjures you, and admonishes
and commands you, she as well as the thrones and domin
ions, and all the hosts of heaven, to save the beloved city of
Rome from the detested Lombards. If ye hasten, I, Peter
the Apostle, promise you my protection in this life and in
the next, will prepare for you the most glorious mansions in
heaven, and will bestow on you the everlasting joys of para
dise. Make common cause with my people of Rome, and 1
will grant whatever ye may pray for. I conjure you not
to yield up this city to be lacerated and tormented by the
Lombards, lest your own souls be lacerated and tormented in
hell, with the devil and his pestilential angels. Of all nations
(55) "Latin Christianity," by Milman, vol. ii., p. 424, note 1.
(20) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 193.

PRETENDED LETTER FROM ST. PETER. 343
under heaven, the Franks are highest in the esteem of St.
Peter ; to me you owe all your victories. Obey, and obey
speedily, and, by my suffrage, our Lord Jesus Christ will give
you in this life length of days, security, victory ; in the life
to come, will multiply his blessings upon you, among his
saints and angels."^7)
We can account for this letter and its contents only upon
the supposition that its author considered himself as stand
ing in the place of God on earth, or that he was entirely in
different to the means employed, provided they produced
the result he sought for. The ignorance and superstition
of the age was such as to encourage this mingling together
of divine and temporal things; and Stephen III. was the
kind of pope to avail himself of it, notwithstanding the im
pious and blasphemous character of the act. He understood
the temper and position of Pepin, and knew that he consid
ered himself indebted to Pope Zachary for his crown, and
to the priests of France for the encouragement of that pop
ular superstition which enabled him to maintain it under
pretense of "divine right." And he did not miscalculate.
Whether Pepin believed*that the letter came from heaven,
and directly from St. Peter, or that the pope, as God's vice
gerent, had the prerogative right of committing so palpable
a forgery, it is of no present consequence to inquire. He
yielded to the entreaties of the pope, and again advanced
into Italy with his army ; acting, doubtless, from the con
viction that, if he did not, the clergy would persuade the
(27) "Latin Christianity," vol. ii., p. 424. Cormenin gives this same let
ter, in a somewhat different translation, but one which does not make the
sense materially different from the above. The original Latin, taken from
Labbe, may be found in " The See of Rome in the Middle Ages," by Reichel.
London ed., p. 65. For Cormenin's translation, see " History of the Popes,"
vol. i., p. 193. Du Pin refers to this letter as "in St. Peter and Stephen's
name," but does not publish it. Du Pin's "Ecclesiastical History," vol. vi.,
p. 108. He attributes it to Pope Stephen II., when the transaction occurred
during the pontificate of Stephen III.
Archbishop Kenrick, although he alludes to the relations between Stephen
III. and Pepin, does not directly mention this letter, neither admitting or de
nying it ; yet he gives a quotation from a letter which could scarcely have
been any other than this.— The Primacy ofthe Apostolic See, by Kenrick,
part ii., p. 261.

344 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
people of France that he was defiant to the commands of
the apostle, and deserved the anathemas of the Church.
This time, bowever, his movements were attended with no
other immediate consequences than the resurrender of Ra
venna to the pope, and probably the confirmation of his for
mer donation. Cormenin speaks of the subsequent deposit
of his " deed of gift " upon the confessional of St. Peter, by
Fulrad, the counselor of the French king ;(28) but we have
already seen that the probabilities are against the existence
of such a document, and that the gift of Pepin was only
verbal. Astolphus, the Lombard king, did not long survive these
events. He died in the year 756, when a controversy arose
about the Lombard crown between Didier, Duke of Istria,
and Ratchis, a monk. The latter gained Pope Stephen to
his support by promising not to disturb him in his posses
sion of Ravenna, and that he would make large donations
"to enrich St. Peter" — an object of which the popes have
never lost sight. But Pepin did not favor this arrange
ment, and took the side of Didier. The pope then, from
policy alone, abandoned the cause of the monk, and recog
nized Didier as the lawful sovereign of Lombardy. He
was not disposed, however, to change sides so readily with
out some reward, and succeeded in obtaining from Didier a
concession of the city of Fuenza and the duchy of Ferrara,
and some other places — so true was he to the purpose of
enlarging the papal domains and the establishment of the
temporal power. He soon after died, in the year 757, and
was succeeded by Paul I. The events of the three next
pontificates have no special bearing upon the question we
are considering, except as showing that the controversies
about tbe worship of images between the popes and the
emperors continued, and that Didier still cherished the pur
pose of seizing upon the exarchate of Ravenna. All the
plottings and political intrigues of him and the popes had
reference to that object, each being resolved to possess it at
every hazard.
Pepin died in the year 768, and left the kingdom to his
(28) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 193.

CHARLEMAGNE BECOMES KING. 345
two sons, Carl and Carloman, the former of whom, at the
death of his brother, became the sole possessor of the
crown, by the name of Charlemagne. In the year 772,
Adrian I. became pope. During his pontificate, which last
ed twenty-three years, the politico - alliance between the pa
pacy and the French king bore other fruits, not less condu
cive than those already borne to the advancement of papal
power. When Charlemagne became king he found all the nations
of Europe in a state of comparative decrepitude ; and, in
heriting the sentiments and courage of his father, resolved
upon making the French monarchy the controlling and all-
absorbing power in the West. Not satisfied with the pos
session of France and Western Germany, he extended his
dominion into Italy, Spain, and other parts of Germany;
which of necessity brought him into immediate intercourse
with the popes. Fully informed of the advantages his fa
ther had derived from their employment of the ecclesiastic
al power in his behalf, he readily saw that his interests re
quired him to make a similar use of them. He therefore
gathered about his court distinguished "foreign priests"
from all the leading nations ; who, besides being men of
great learning, were " the light of the Church " and the kins
men " of bishops and of saints."(28) He professed strong at
tachment to tbe Roman Church and its religion, and there
is no reason for supposing that he was insincere. But, as
he understood it, the Church and its teachings were de
signed as aids to his political power. Beyond this, it is
probable that he cared but little for either. With these
opinions, he was readily induced, by the influences around
him, to strengthen the ecclesiastical power in France. " Be
ing," says Michelet, " sure of the pope, whom his family had
protected against the Greeks and Lombards," he displayed
bis great sagacity as a statesman by these movements, de
signed as they were to bring all the authority of the Church
to bear upon the measures of his reign. Two measures were
specially conspicuous. He " confirmed the institution of
tithes," which required that one-tenth of all the taxes lev-
O Michelet, vol. i., p. 114.

346 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ied upon the people should be paid to the churches and the
priests. He also freed the Church from secular jurisdiction
— that is, made it independent ofthe State — by a law, found
in his Capitularies, in these words : " It is our pleasure that
neither abbots, nor presbyters, nor deacons, nor sub-deacons,
nor any priest whatsoever, be brought before the public and
secular tribunals, but be delivered for trial to their bish
op."^") His munificence toward the clergy was unbound
ed. "He augmented their wealth, he enlarged their priv
ileges, he confirmed and extended their immunities; and,
were it not that he was one of the greatest and wisest
princes who ever reigned, some writers would not have
hesitated to place him among the weakest of mankind."(31)
And his direct dealings with the pope were not less distin
guished for their liberality. He was a consummate states
man — far the greatest of his age — and was quite willing to
leave the popes to the gratification of their ambition when
it did not interfere with the success of his own measures.
One object he was specially desirous to accomplish; this
was, to sustain the popes in their defiance of the Eastern
emperors, that thereby the seat of empire might be trans
ferred from the East to the West.
Besides his wars with the neighboring nations, Charle
magne had a quarrel with the Duke of Bavaria, which fur
nished him an opportunity of availing himself of the alliance
between the pope and his father, and of making religion
serve the purpose of promoting both his own and the pope's
ambition. Pope Adrian I., in full sympathy with his pur
poses and plans, took his side against the Duke of Bavaria,
and launched a terrible bull of excommunication against
him and all his subjects — not for any offensive act against
religion or the Church, but on account of objects entirely
temporal. It is necessary to observe the character of this
bull, in order to understand the progressive steps toward
the acquisition of temporal power, and to see with what lit
tle remorse of conscience sacred things were mingled with
political controversies, and made subservient to ambitious
ends. If, in order to make an act infallible, it must concern
(so) Michelet, p. 115, note. (31) Waddington, pp. 149, 150.

OUTRAGES AUTHORIZED BY ADRIAN I. 347
the faith alone, and be addressed to the Universal Church,
then it would be unjust to say that this bull was stamped
with that character. But if, when the pope speaks in the
name of God, he speaks ex cathedrd, then Adrian I. was infal
lible when in this bull he declared "that the Franks were ab
solved in advance from all crimes they might commit in the
enemy's country; and that God commanded £Aem, through his
vicar, to violate girls, murder women, children, and old men,
to burn cities, and put all the inhabitants to the sword." ^)
The obligations between the pope and the king were, of
course, reciprocal, and required each to serve the other — the
one with the thunders of excommunication, and the other
with the thunders of artillery. The pope had a quarrel
with the Duke of Beneventum, because the duke refused
him permission to make money levies upon his subjects for
increasing the revenues of St. Peter; and Charlemagne, in
return for the sanction which the Pope had given, in God's
name, of all the enormities his army might commit in Bava
ria, despoiled the duke, by force, of five of his best cities,
and added them to the domains of the pope ! The alliance
now began to bear richer and more abundant fruits, which
had become so ripened as to be ready for plucking by either
party, accordingly as temporal interest or ambition stimu
lated him. Adrian I. died, however, before they were all
gathered, and left it to his successor, Leo III., to compensate
Charlemagne for his munificent gift. This was done by Leo
in a manner well calculated to gratify the vanity of a less
ambitious king than Charlemagne. He sent to him " the
keys ofthe confessional of St. Peter, the standard ofthe city
of Rome, and magnificent presents," and urged him to send
some French lords to Rome, who should receive the oath of

(f) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 204. Such a bull as this would seem almost in
credible, if it were not found in the histoiy of a Roman Catholic author.
But this is the pope who absolved Offa, King of the Mercians, in England,
from the crime of killing Ethelbert, the king of the East Angles, upon the
condition that he should allow Peter - pence to be collected in England.
The same author says that "avarice was his ruling passion, "and that "he
displayed remarkable political skill in the management of the Church, His
supple and adroit spirit knew how to bend before power, in order to augment
the authority of Rome, and extend her rule over the people." — Ibid., p. 207.

348 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
temporal fidelity from the Romans ;(33) for, as yet, notwith
standing the donation of Pepin, the pope had not ventured
to make any pretensions to the rights of a temporal king.
It had not then been revealed to him that the law of God
made this necessary for the protection of Christianity and
the Church ! The presence of weaker and feebler kings than
Pepin and Charlemagne was necessary to such a revelation
as this. Charlemagne did not, of course, object to being
made emperor, for that was one of his cherished objects;
but, bad as the times were, he had so just a sense of shame,
that he desired the vices ofthe Roman clergy to be first re
formed. These were so flagrant that he Considered it a re
proach to Christianity that they should be tolerated under
the very eye of the pope, and so wrote to Leo III., urging
the application of corrective measures. Leo, unwilling to
take issue with him upon the subject, indicated a wish to
make the desired reform. But whatever efforts were made
in that direction proved abortive on account of the oppo
sition of the clergy of Rome, who organized a conspiracy
against the pope. Two priests, aided by the monks, made
an attempt to take his life, seized him in the street, dragged
him by the beard, sought to break his skull with stones,
to put out his eyes, and pull out his tongue; and at last
plunged him into a dungeon. He was, however, released,
after several days of confinement ; when, fearing a renewal
of the attack, he invited Charlemagne to visit Rome, that he
might more certainly secure his protection. The invitation
was accepted, and the great king entered Rome in Decem
ber, 800, when the pope, placing a crown upon his head,
turned over to him that part of the empire with as cool im
pudence as if it were his to bestow, declared him emperor,
crowned as such " by the hand of God !" Two objects were
accomplished by this stroke of policy — the pope's treason to
the empire was made effectual, and Charlemagne was made
"Emperor of the Romans" which placed the diadem of the
Caesars upon his brow.(34) The Eastern emperors were now
supplanted at Rome, and the King of France was placed at
the head of a great Western empire ! Of course he could
(3S) Cormenin, p. 207. (M) Fredet, p. 191 ; Cormenin, vol. i., p. 209.

CHARLEMAGNE BECOMES EMPEROR. 349
do nothing less, in return for the crown given him by the
pope, than confirm the donation of Pepin, his father, to the
Church ; which it is said he did without hesitation. By
this means he acquired the title of " the favorite son ofthe
Church," which title has been ever since applied to all the
monarchs of France who have remained true to the Church
and the papacy. He was also repaid by the pontifical
blessing, and furnished with a copy of the canon laws of the
Church, from which it was designed he should learn the nat
ure and extent of his obligations of obedience to the pope,
and the necessity of preserving the union between the State
and the Church. (35) Most unfortunate has it been for France
that this code of canon laws was ever assented to by her
great king, or taken by bim into her dominions. It tied her
fast to the car of the papacy, and through tribulation, an
guish, revolution, bloodshed, and every form of suffering, it
has at last pulled her down into the abyss. The magnifi
cence of her scenery, the grandeur of her cities, the fertility
of her soil, the beauty of her climate, the bravery of her ar
mies, the genius of her children, all combined, could not ex
cite in the minds of her people a sufficient sense of their own
manhood to save her. With her fate sealed to that of the
papacy, she and it have sunk into a common grave. When
her day of resurrection shall come, she must clothe herself
in new robes, leave the papal wreck to decay amidst the
debris oi fallen and lost nations, construct with her own
hands a new grandeur, and place her people where they yet
deserve to be — far forward in the ranks of those who know
what it is to shelter and protect themselves by institutions
of their own creation, without the aid of kings or popes, or
any other of the mediaeval forms of tyranny.
It is important to know, in this connection, the extent of
the territory granted by Charlemagne to the pope, in order
that the precise extent of the papal domains may be ascer
tained. Fredet confines it to the provinces granted by Pep
in. Speaking of the popes becoming independent of secular
(S5) Du Pin says that "Adrian gave to Charlemagne the code of Dionys
ius Exiguus;" with additions "favorable to the pretensions ofthe Court of
Rome." These, he says, however, were "forged when the False Decretals
were made, and perhaps by the same author." — Du Pin, vol. vi., p. 115.

350 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
princes, he says : " This independence they obtained through
the instrumentality of Pepin and his successor Charlemagne,
who conferred on the popes such an extent of temporal pow
er as might enable them freely to exercise their spiritual
authority."(36) At another place he says, " Charlemagne
mauifested his attachment to the Apostolic See by ratifying
and augmenting the donation which Pepin had made in its
favor;" but he does not state in what the augmentation
consisted. (") He does not speak of any additional grant
made in the year 800. Cormenin is not more specific, al
though he speaks of large donations given to several church
es in Rome. Waddington says "he renewed and even in
creased the grant " of Pepin. (3S) Reichel says he " ratified
the donation of his father, Pepin, by ceding to the pope the
exarchate and the Pentapolis."(39) Dean Milman is more
satisfactory, and limits the grant to those cities which after
ward paid homage and delivered their keys to the pope —
Ravenna, Rimini, Pesaro, Fano, Cesena, Sinigaglia, Iesi, For-
limpopoli, Forli, with the castle Sussibio, Montefeltro, Acer-
ra, Monte di Lucano, Serra, San Marino, Bobbio, Urbino,
Cagli, Luciolo, Gubbio, Comachio, and Narni, taken from the
Duke of Spoleto.(40)
Thus we are enabled to see that neither by Pepin nor Char
lemagne was there any grant of temporal power in Rome
made to the popes. If it was designed by either of them to
make them temporal princes at all, their authority, by the
very nature of the concessions, was limited to the provinces
taken from the Lombards and from the Duke of Spoleto,
and held by conquest. There was no conquest of Rome by
Pepin or Charlemagne. After the grant of Pepin, the pope
was left a subject of the Eastern emperor, still in rebellion.
But after that of Charlemagne, his relations were changed,
and he became a subject of the " emperor of the Romans."
It is perfectly manifest, from all the bistory of those times,
that Charlemagne did not intend to leave a king in any
part of his dominions with superior authority to his own,
or even with equal authority. When the iron crown was
(36) Fredet, p. 185. (") Ibid., p. 187. (3B) Waddington, p. 149.
(3D) Reichel, p. 69. (40) Milman's "Latin Christianity," vol. ii., p. 427.

THE POPE A SUBJECT OF CHARLEMAGNE. 351
placed upon his brow by the pope, he became the sovereign
of the Western empire, which included Rome. Mr. Hallam,
referring to this sovereignty, says: "Money was coined in
his name, and an oath of fidelity was taken by the clergy
and people."^') Undoubtedly, there was a considerable ju
risdiction and authority conferred upon the popes, but it
was subordinate to the jurisdiction and authority of the
emperor. It was not temporal power in the sense claimed
by the papacy. If so, the oath of fidelity would have been
taken by the Roman people to the pope, and not to Charle
magne. It may be assumed, therefore, as a well- attested
historic fact, that up to the time of Charlemagne's death,
which occurred in tbe year 814, the popes possessed no such
temporal power in Rome as conferred upon them the right
to prescribe the laws, administer the government, or exact
civil allegiance to themselves. Whatever power they exeiv
cised, beyond that necessary for the mere protection of the
property of the Church, was usurpation. And when they
carried this usurpation to the extent of uniting the Church
and the State in the territory since known as the Papal
States, they impaired the spiritual strength of the Church,
retarded the progress of true religion, and laid the founda
tion for that series of unfortunate measures by means of
which the people were held in ignorance, superstition, and
civil bondage for hundreds of years, until they were res
cued by the great reformation of the sixteenth century.
That the popes were both ready and willing to usurp tem
poral authority, is abundantly shown by history. In all the
proceedings here recorded there was nothing of a religious
nature — nothing that concerned the Christian faith — noth
ing to remind one ofthe devotion and simplicity by which
the apostolic times were so much distinguished. They
were the mere schemings of ambitious and selfish politi
cians, whose sole object was to concentrate temporal pow
er in their own hands, as the means of bringing the people
in subjection to themselves. They differ from similar acts
of other despots only in this, that they were accompanied
by an almost total disregard for the teachings of Christ and

(41) Hallam's "Middle Ages," p. 22 : Harper & Brother's ed.

352 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
the apostles, while at the same time the name of God was
constantly invoked to sanction every form of oppression and
outrage. The popes even allowed the creed ofthe Church
to be changed by the emperor,(") in exchange for the priv
ileges he conferred upon them. Wealth and power seemed
to be the only objects worth striving for, and corruption be
came almost universal. The papacy was at once elevated
beyond any thing known in its previous history, and imme
diately commenced to interfere in temporal affairs. The
popes, separating themselves from the Eastern empire, as
sumed to direct the domestic affairs of nations, impiously
claiming that whatever power they had derived from Pep
in or Charlemagne was the gift of God, and that, therefore,
God had appointed them to rule the world in his name !
They accordingly entered upon the career of territorial con
quest, and succeeded in further extorting from Louis le De-
bonnaire, the son and successor of Charlemagne, the right
of sovereignty over Campania, Calabria, Naples, Salerno,
and the islands of Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily, although
Sicily did not belong to France by any title known to the
law of nations, even in those days of lawless conquest. By
these and other kindred means the popes acquired their
temporal power, and used it so ambitiously, and with so
little regard for the rights of others, as at last to reduce
all the sovereigns of Europe into obedience. Cormenin
says :
"The sovereigns ofthe West placed armies under their
command, ruined empires, exterminated people in the name
of St. Peter, and sent the spoils of the vanquished to in-
(42) The controversy between the Eastern and Western churches in refer
ence to the procession of the Holy Spirit — whether it proceeded from the Fa
ther alone, or from the Father and the Son — was carried on in an acrimoni
ous spirit for many years. The Roman Church, while maintaining the lat
ter doctrine, refused to permit the creed to be sung with the addition ofthe
" Filioque." Charlemagne, however, convened a council at Aix la Chapelle,
in the year 809, to decide the question ; and afterward commanded Pope
Leo III. to confirm its decision, and to allow the "Filioque" to be added
to the creed and to be sung witli it. The pope, though "not pleased with
this addition," yielded to the dictation of the king, being afraid to incur his
displeasure. — Du Pin's Eccl. Hist., vol. vn., p. 114; History of Doctrines,
by Hagenbach, vol. L, pp. 468, 469.

ECCLESIASTICAL MONARCHY IN ROME. 353
crease the wealth of the Roman clergy, and to support the
monks in idleness and debauchery."(43)
Influence and power thus acquired were used, of course,
for selfish and sinister ends ; for men in all ages have been
in this respect the same. And it was so used by the popes
that the government over the'Papal States became altogeth
er ecclesiastical. It was conducted entirely by the popes,
by the assistance of their cardinals and priests, all of whom
were created by the popes, and were the mere slaves and
creatures of their will. The people were treated as if born
only for the purpose of being ruled, and of contributing to
the pride and elevation of their rulers. The popular, degra
dation during the Middle Ages contributed to this ; and, in
order that there should be no change in this condition of af
fairs, and that the people should be kept so ignorant as not
to aspire to any higher position, they were either deprived
of all opportunity of education, or, if educated at all, it was
only in ecclesiastical matters, and under the special direc
tion ofthe priests, who took good care to see that their first
and last lesson was obedience. Every thing was ecclesias
tical ; and the power of excommunication, which was held
in great dread by the ignorant population, was so pervert
ed from its original meaning and design, that it was em
ployed as the means of exacting submission to the papacy
in all matters connected with the Government as well as
the Church, and in the most common and trifling affairs of
life. (44) The popes, haviug achieved success by tempting
C3) Cormenin, vol. i.. p. 213.
(44) "Very few of these exertions ofthe supreme authority of the Vicar
of Christ have any bearing on the interests of religion. The political in
trigues of the day, the temporal possessions of the Church, or the subordi
nation of the hierarchy are, in almost all instances, the objects of the anath
ema. How the awful authority over the souls of men was degraded to the
level of the pettiest interests is seen when some audacious scoundrels stole
the horses of the pope during his progress through France. He promptly
excommunicates the unknown thieves, unless the beasts shall be returned
within three days ; and he takes advantage of the opportunity to include in
the curse some knaves who had previously pilfered his plate while staying at
the Abbey of Flavigny — as he shrewdly suspects, with the connivance of the
holy monks there. That bishops were not disinclined to follow the example
of their chief, and to use their control over salvation for their personal bene-
23

354 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
the ambition of kings, and conferring crowns and king
doms upon them, on the condition that they should ac
knowledge the gift as made in accordance with the divine
command, had no difficulty in making an ignorant and su
perstitious population believe that all the laws they pre
scribed were equally a part of God's laws ; that obedience
paid to them was obedience to God ; and, therefore, that
any act of disobedience would not only deprive them ofthe
protection of the Church in this life, but consign them inev
itably to eternal tortures in the next. And thus the Church
and the State were completely united — the State obeying
the Church. The Church, in fact, became the State by hold
ing it in subordination. The people alone were punished ;
the ecclesiastics never. They were an exclusive and privi
leged class, who considered all others as mere "hewers of
wood and drawers of water " for their superiors, of whom
they were the chief. The great and controlling object
was to make Rome what she had been in pagan times, the
" mistress of the world ;" so that the pope, as her pope-king,
might make and unmake other kings, build up and destroy
governments, and thus subject all mankind to his dominion,
under the impious and shameless pretense that God had so
provided in his law! The foundation ofthe whole struct
ure of government was this : that the pope was ordained
king by Almighty God, and ruled by divine authority; and
consequently, the subject was bound to passive obedience;
and, not rendering this, offended God and committed a sin
for which he deserved punishment at the hands of the
Church ! This is precisely the kind of government which
Pope Pius IX. defends in his Encyclical and Syllabus, and
which he prefers to any of those constructed after the mod-

fit, is apparent from the treatment of royalty in Wales about this time. Tew-
dwr, King of Brecknock, profanely stole Bishop Libiau's dinner from the Ab
bey of Llancore, when the angry prelate excommunicated him, and exacted
an enormous fine as the price of reconciliation ; and when Brockmeal, King
of Gwent, and his family were anathematized by Bishop Cyfeiliawg for
some personal offense, the fee for removing the censure was a plate of pure
gold the size of the bishop's face. A power so persistently and so ignobly
abused requires something more than merely moral force to insure respect
and obedience." — Studies in Church History, by Henry C. Lea, p. 324.

PAPAL GOVERNMENT. 355
ern forms, and especially to that of the United States. It
is the kind of government which he requires his followers
to defend as a necessary part of their religious faith ; and
it is the kind of government which his hierarchy in this
country would substitute to-morrow, if they had the pow
er, for the popular institutions under which our nation has
grown to its present greatness and distinction.

356 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.

CHAPTER XH
Thfe Popes Subjects of the Eastern Empire. — The Ninth Century.— The
Emperor Leo V. and Pope Pascal I. — Image-worship. — Church of St.
Cecilia in Rome. — Louis le Debonnaire. — Factions at Rome. — Constitu
tion of Lothaire. — Eugenius II. and Valentine. — Gregory IV. — Sergius.
— Death of Pope Leo IV. — The Alleged Popess Joan. — Peter-pence. —
East separates from West. — Nicholas 1. claims Universal Power. — His
Manner of exercising it. — Boniface VI. poisoned by Stephen VII. — Trial
of Dead Pope. — The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. — Victor I. and the Cel
ebration of Easter. — Polycarp and Anacetus. — Irenaeus. — The Character
of the Decretals. — The Papal System based upon them. — All False and
Forged. If, as Pius IX. and his Jesuit allies affirm, the temporal
power of the pope is included in the spiritual, and has, like
it, a divine origin, it must necessarily have a like univer
sality with Christianity itself. It is in this sense that it is
claimed to belong to "the primacy of Peter," and is con
sidered essential to the pope's ecclesiastical supremacy over
the world. Our investigations into its origin and growth,
therefore, should be limited only by the means within our
reach. If it is in reality divine, and necessary, either at Rome or
elsewhere, to the existence and dissemination of true relig
ion, and if the liberalism and civilization of society based
upon principles in opposition to it are injurious instead of
beneficial to mankind, then its legitimacy, with all its at
tendant authority and consequences, should be conceded, in
order that the papacy may have supreme jurisdiction over
the world, and be able to bring all laws and institutions
into harmony with its own conceptions of the divine will.
But if, on the other hand, it has been the result of usurpa
tion, fraud, and imposture, and if the world has been im
proved and advanced in proportion as it has escaped and
separated from its influence, then those who are now so
clamorous for its restoration should be held to be unsafe

THE APOSTLES HAD NO TEMPORAL POWER. 357
couuselors, and be dealt with accordingly. But whether it
is the one or the other — whether it is to be restored at
Rome or in any other part of the world — the study of its
history is in every sense instructive, inasmuch as we can in
no other way be brought into familiarity with the papacy,
or comprehend fully the nature and character of the extraor
dinary pretensions now set up in its behalf. We should
not expect good and beneficent results to flow from that
which is founded upon fraud and wrong, if it shall appear
to have been thus founded.
The question is constantly recurring — why should there
have been such delay in the establishment of this tremen
dous power, if Christ or the apostles designed that belief in
its necessity should be made an essential and indispensable
part of the system of Christian faith ? Manifestly they did
not so design, or they would have taught it by some word
or sign which would have come down to our age, by the
Scriptures, or by tradition from the apostles. But nothing
of tbis kind has reached us by either of these modes. Paul
was imprisoned and martyred at Rome by the civil author
ity; and, if Peter was ever there, he met a similar fate. The
several persecutions through which the early Christians pass
ed originated with, and were conducted by, the same author
ity. And nowhere, in any history of the first centuries, is
there a single word affirming that either Peter or Paul, or
any bishop ofthe Roman or any other church, possessed the
power of a temporal prince. On the other hand, in those
primitive days of the Church the bishops and clergy de
voted themselves to the work given them to do by the Mas
ter, and made it the study and effort of their lives to imitate
his example of benevolence, humility, and love. They did
not strive after the honors, wealth, or power of this world —
after temporal sceptres and the crowns of kings— but after
the salvation of immortal souls. And yet he who to-day de
nies either the lawfulness or necessity of the pope's temporal
power, if he belongs to the Roman Church, is excommuni
cated because he violates the true faith ; and if he do not,
is denounced, cursed, and anathematized as a heretic. And
whole books are written, with learning and wonderful inge
nuity, to prove that Christ's Church can not exist without it !

358 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
The pope himself sends forth from his pretended prison his
lamentations at its loss, and bis followers forthwith com
bine themselves into a compact and formidable organization,
demand assistance from the governments, threaten another
bloody crusade, and pledge themselves never to remit their
efforts until the crown of royalty is again placed upon the
papal brow.
We have seen that this power did not exist in any form
before the separation of Rome from Constantinople — of the
West from the East — and also the effect of this separation
upon its acquisition. This brings us to still more solid
ground — to the investigation of events which, although not
entirely free from difficulty, have a better foundation.
Mr. Hallam, who is accepted as undoubted authority on
all hands, says : " The popes appear to have possessed some
measure of temporal power, even while the city was profess
edly governed by the exarchs of Ravenna, in the name of
the Eastern empire. This power became more extensive
after hex separation from Constantinople. It was, however,
subordinate to the undeniable sovereignty of the new impe
rial family, who were supposed to enter upon all the rights
of their predecessors. There was always an imperial officer,
or prefect, in that city, to render criminal justice ; an oath
of allegiance to the emperor was taken by the people ; and
upon any irregular election of a pope, a circumstance by no
means unusual, the emperors held themselves entitled to in
terpose. But the spirit and even the institutions ofthe Ro
mans were republican."^)
Archbishop Kenrick is not ingenuous when he quotes the
first two sentences of the above extract to show the exist
ence of the temporal power before the separation from Con
stantinople, and its increase " on her separation from Con
stantinople." By the omission of all the latter part of what
Mr. Hallam says, he fails to show the " undeniable sovereign
ty " of the empire, that an oath of allegiance to it was re
quired, and that the emperor had the right to interfere even
in the election of a pope. Why this omission ? Manifestly
(') Hallam's "Middle Ages," ch. iii., part i., pp. 126, 127. Harper &
Brothers' ed.,1843.

BEGINNING OF THE NINTH CENTURY. 359
because the whole of what Mr. Hallam says repudiates all
idea of any sovereignty except that possessed by the emper
ors — a concession which even so fair a man as Archbishop
Kenrick could not make while held in the toils of the papa
cy. But his omission is not so bad as his misquotation.
For the purpose of making it appear that the immediate ef
fect of the separation of Rome from Constantinople was a
great increase of the temporal power, with the consent of
the King of France, he quotes the second sentence in the
above extract from Mr. Hallam, thus : " This power became
more extensive on her separation from Constantinople."^)
Mr. Hallam did uot use this language. The word employed
by him is" after," not "on:" "this power became more exten
sive after her separation from Constantinople." To say that
the result was produced " on the separation," is equivalent
to stating that it followed directly as a consequence; where
as if it were after that event, the growth may bave been slow
and gradual, each step the work of usurpation. And this is
Mr. Hallam's meaning, which Archbishop Kenrick endeavors
to obscure by misquoting him.
The ninth century opened under the influence ofthe new
order of things. For eight hundred years Chris'tianity had
existed in the world, and had grown, strengthened, and
prospered, under the guardianship of bishops and priests
who had no jurisdiction over temporal affairs. Even the
bishops of Rome, with all their pride and ambition, had
been limited in their authority to spiritual affairs, and the
occasional claims they set up for an enlargement of their
powers served only to show them that no such enlargement
could ever be obtained with the consent of the people, and
that if obtained at all, it must be the result of a combi
nation with princes — a conspiracy against popular govern
ment. They well knew that it would be impossible to ac
quire the possession of unlimited power in Rome without
the accomplishment of two things — successful revolt against
the Eastern emperors, and the destruction of the Roman re
public. The achievement of the first gave them the means
of bringing about the last result.
C) Kenrick, p. 261.

360 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
The immediate consequence of the protection given to
the popes by the French monarchs was the exercise of ty
rannical authority over the inferior bishops and clergy, the
object being to make the single will of the pope the gov
erning authority of the Church, not only in Rome, but all
over the Christian world. Notwithstanding the recognized
independence of the several churches during the apostolic
times and for centuries afterward, and the unity of faith
which had been then preserved by the diversities of local
government, papal ambition soon became so all-absorbing
as to see no other motive in the management of church af
fairs but its own gratification. Cormenin, referring to the
change thus produced in religion, says :
"... .holy traditions were despised, the morality of Christ
was outraged ; the orthodoxy of the Church no longer con
sisted iu any thing but the sovereignty of the pope, the ado
ration of images, and the invocation of saints ; in sacred
singing, the solemnity of masses, and the pomps of cere
monies ; in the consecration of temples, splendid churches,
monastic vows, and pilgrimages.
" Rome imposed its fanaticism and its superstitions on all
the other churches ; morality, faith, and true piety were re
placed by cupidity, ambition, and luxury ; the ignorance of
the clergy was so profound that a knowledge of the singing
of the Lord's Prayer, the creed, and the service of the mass
was all that was demanded from princes and ecclesiastical
dignitaries." (3)
Pascal I. became pope in the year 817. Leo V.,the Em
peror of the East, and Theodore, Patriarch of Constantino
ple, sent nuncios to him with the view of reconciling the
disagreement between the Eastern and Western Christians
in reference to the worship of images. But the pope, fear
ing that a reconciliation of this kind would lead to the im
pairment of his papal influence and put an end to the alli
ance with France — and caring far more for his temporal
power than for the restoration of harmony in the Church
— refused to receive the nuncios, or to hear any sugges
tions of compromise. He drove them out of Rome in dis-
(3) Cormenin, vol. i., pp. 211, 212.

ENCOURAGEMENT OF SUPERSTITION. 361
grace, and, relying upon the protection ofthe King of France,
had the impudence, soon after, to send legates to Constanti
nople, and command the emperor to restore the worship of
images. How much, at that time, a few mild words, and the
meekness and charity of true Christianity, would have done
for the cause of genuine religion may be seen by those who
will examine the history of those times. If the conciliatory
spirit of the Eastern emperor had been reciprocated by the
Roman pontiff, the East and the West might have been
to-day united in Christian bonds, and the Church of Rome
might have spread her spiritual influence over all the world.
But other objects filled the mind of Pope Pascal I., who was
determined to maintain his own authority, whatever the re
sult to Christianity and the Church. His stubbornness in
vited, naturally, a corresponding degree of illiberality on
the part ofthe emperor, who caused the pope's envoys to
be whipped through the streets of Constantinople, and the
image- worshipers within his dominions to be treated with
harshness and severity. The pope now resorted to artifice
to maintain himself. He invited the image- worshipers of
the East to come to Rome, promising them protection. He
rebuilt monasteries and churches for their accommodation,
and, having exhausted his revenues in this undertaking, cun
ningly contrived an appeal to the superstition of his sub
jects, in order to extort further contributions from them.
After rebuilding the Church of St. Cecilia, he placed her
shrine upon its high altar; but the remains ofthe saint,
who had been dead about six hundred years, were wanting
to give sanctity to the place, and to excite the superstition
of the attendants. With the view of discovering them, he
convoked the people on Sunday, and, in their presence, fell
into a supernatural sleep. After awaking, he declared that
Cecilia had appeared to him in a vision, and pointed with
her finger to the place of her interment ! He visited the
spot, took a spade, dug up the earth, and "discovered the
body of the saint clothed in a robe of tissue of gold," and
with " linen rags freshly i?npregnaled with her blood!"(*)
(4) Coi-menin, vol. i., p. 214 ; " Encyclopaedia Americana," vol. iii., p. 21,
article Cecilia.

362 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
These relics were removed to the church : the faithful were
thereby excited to contribute largely of their wealth to the
pontifical treasury, and an example was thus set which led
to like imposture and fraud to such an extent that innumer
able saints were fabricated in order that money might be
raised by the sale of their bones — a practice which has
been carried to such disgraceful and ridiculous extent that
the wood of the true cross, the hair of the Virgin Mary, and
that of St. John the Baptist, a part of the body of Christ
himself, and hundreds of other equally impossible relics,
have been, from time to time, fraudulently imposed as gen
uine upon the ignorant and deluded followers of the papa
cy. Such a state of things could not possibly exist without
almost universal corruption and degeneracy at Rome, espe
cially among the popes, priests, and lower clergy.
After the death of Charlemagne, Louis le Debonnaire, his
son, became his successor as emperor, Germany having been
added to the dominions of France. He was both weak and
superstitions, and was easily subjected to the will ofthe
pope. He sent his son Lothaire to Rome to be consecrated
by the pope, who, when he reached there, was both sur
prised and shocked at the general depravity of morals
which prevailed. He called the attention of Pope Pascal
to it, and obtained from him a promise of reform ; but so
soon as Lothaire had left Rome, the pope caused two ven
erable priests to be arrested, charged them with having been
informers, had their eyes put out, and their tongues dragged
out, in his own presence, as punishment for their desire to
reform the morals ofthe pope and clergy !(6) The Emper
or Louis became indignant when he heard of this, and sent
embassadors to Rome to investigate the facts. Before these
Pope Pascal solemnly swore he had nothing to do with it!
They then demanded the delivery ofthe murderers, but this
the pope refused, because they " were of the family of St.
Peter, and that it was his duty to protect them against all
the sovereigns of the world !"(")
That factions should have grown up under such a pope as
this is not at all wonderful. They were excited to such a
C) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 214. (6) Ibid.

TWO POPES AT THE SAME TIME. 363
degree that at his death two popes were elected — one by
the nobles and clergy, and the other by the people of Rome.
The latter being the strongest, succeeded in placing Euge
nius II. upon the pontifical throne. Being a Roman, and
the representative of the people, be was disposed to suppress
tbe general immorality which prevailed among the clergy,
and for this purpose sought the aid of the Emperor Louis
to put down the opposing faction. Louis again sent Lo
thaire to Rome, accompanied by the venerable Abbot of St.
Denis, in France, to ascertain the true condition of affairs.
When he reached there, he heard the complaints of the peo
ple, who represented to him that they had been stripped of
their wealth by former popes, and greatly oppressed by their
tyranny. Lothaire, indignant at these abuses and outrages,
commanded the 'pope to restore to the citizens their proper
ty which had been unjustly confiscated, and endeavored to
provide against the repetition of these wrongs by the pro
mulgation of a decree for securing to the people a voice in
the government of their own affairs. This constitution is
important, as showing what might have been done for the
cause of religion and reform, under an honest and unambi
tious pope, if Eugenius II. had lived long enough to provide
for the faithful execution of its provisions. Among other
things, it required that "equitable justice" should be ren
dered to the people; that "the exercise ofthe right of elec
tion of the chiefs of the Church " should not be impeded ;
that the emperor should be annually informed " in what
manner justice has been rendered to the citizens," and how
the constitution was observed ; that the people of Rome
should be asked " under what law they wished to live, in
order that they may be judged according to the law which
they shall have adopted;" and that all the dignitaries of
the State should take an oath of fidelity to the emperor,
which should be of superior obligation to their promise of
fidelity to the Holy See.(7)
This liberal constitution restored tranquillity among the
Roman people, which was greatly promoted by the proceed
ings of a council called by Pope Eugenius IL, and the en-

(') Cormenin, vol. i., p. 215.

364 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
actment by it of decrees looking to the reform of the clergy.
But Eugenius died, after a pontificate of only three years,
before any reformatory results were secured; leaving the
clergy of Rome in a state of utter and debasing ignorance.
They only knew how to follow the prescribed rules, to ex
plain the Pater and the Credo, and to exact contributions
from the people. Many of the inferior clergy could not dis
tinguish the names of angels from those of devils, and, says
Cormenin: "They believed that God was corporeal; they
knew neither the creed of the apostles, nor that of the mass,
nor that of St. Athanasius, nor even the Lord's Prayer."(8)
Valentine, the successor of Eugenius IL, would have done
much to promote reform if he had lived ; but it so happen
ed that in those days the lives of such popes were of Short
duration. His pontificate lasted only five weeks. Upon his
death Gregory IV., who was but a deacon, became pope.
Though consecrated with the consent of the emperor, the
latter wrote him, threatening to depose him if his conduct
was not exemplary. At this Gregory became offended, and
vowed that he would have revenge. This passion became
more violent when, soon afterward, Louis compelled him to
restore some property to the monastery of St. Mary, which
he had illegally seized. The first step incited by his pon
tifical vengeance was to stir up Lothaire to revolt against
his father, under the promise that for this act of treason he
should have the protection of the Church. History has re
corded but few acts of perfidy so base as this. But it was
a step in the road toward temporal and imperial power, and
Pope Gregory IV. had no such conscientious scruples as
forbade him to take it. He went to France to make his
success more sure ; and the French " Chronicle of St. Den
is" says, that "the demons of hell animated all the children
of Louis, and that Satan himself came in the person of the
Bishop of Rome, under the charitable pretext as if he wish
ed to establish peace between the emperor and his children,
but in reality to excommunicate the monarch and the bish
ops who opposed the execrable wishes of these unnatural
children."(") (") Cormenin, vol. i., p. 217. . (B) Ibid., vol. i., p. 219.

THE POPE PLOTS REBELLION IN FRANCE. 365
The prelates of France, becoming indignant at the course
of the pope, wrote him that if he persisted further in inter
fering with the temporal affairs of France, in violation of
his oath of fidelity to the emperor, they would resist his ec
clesiastical authority ; and if he undertook to excommunicate
them, they would defy him. Alarmed at this, he resolved
upon leaving France. But before he carried this resolution
into effect, his pride was excited by some monks who pre
tended to lay before him some declarations of the fathers
and portions of the decrees of the Italian councils, which
" declared him to be the supreme judge of all Christians."
Stimulated by these means, he again resolved to consum
mate his own and the treason of Lothaire. Then, pretend
ing to desire a reconciliation between him and his father, he
visited the emperor's camp, where he was received with kind
ness. While protesting to the emperor his " unutterable de
votion," he was engaged in producing defection among his
troops, " by presents, promises, or threats." Thus he suc
ceeded in drawing away the troops from the emperor, and,
after the pope left the camp, they went over to Lothaire,
who made Louis prisoner, deprived him of his crown and
royal robes, and made himself Emperor of the West, and
King of France — all of which was directed and consecrated
by this base and perfidious pope, whose conscience was not
bound by either vow, pledge, or oath, however solenin. He
was, nevertheless, infallible !
The people of France became excited to the highest de
gree by these movements. They refused to recognize Lo
thaire, drove him from the throne, and re-established Louis
in power. Now it came his turn to be revenged upon the
pope. For this purpose, he sent embassadors to Rome to
investigate his conduct; but, when they reached there,
Gregory solemnly swore that he had rendered no assistance
to Lothaire, that all his intentions were pure and innocent,
and that he was devoted to Louis, whom he was ready to
assist in punishing Lothaire, and his other children, for their
treason ! " Louis, who was not only a weak prince, but kind-
hearted and excessively superstitious, forgave him and his
children also, hoping to restore concord and quiet. But Lo
thaire, now realizing that the false-hearted pope had been

366 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
making a tool of him to advance his own ambition, became
furious at his new treachery, and ordered that both he and
his priests should be treated with severity on account of
it. This was also arrested by Louis, whose magnanimous
conduct stands in striking contrast to that of this "exe
crable pontiff, who used religion as a plea to arm children
against their father," and of whom a Roman Catholic pen
has recorded that he was a " cowardly, knavish, perfid
ious, and sacrilegious priest, destitute of principles and
faith."(10) The death of Louis led to a violent contest between his
children ; and to such disturbance throughout France as
rendered the government and all public affairs insecure.
Pope Sergius, successor to Gregory IV., had also an occasion
to show himself the patron of treason growing out of these
disorders, and to contribute by that means, his example to
the many others which, by the force of precedent, go to
make up the law of the papacy. Nomenoe, a duke of Brit
tany, revolted against the King of Brittany, Charles the
Bald, but was opposed by the bishops ofthe province. Lo
thaire, who favored the duke, sent large presents to the
pope, and bribed him also to take his side. He, accordingly,
issued his papal decree commanding the bishops to recog
nize Nomenoe as king, under pain of deposition and anathe
ma, thus invoking, as many other popes have done, both be
fore and since, the aid of religion to accomplish worldly and
ambitious ends. And while these examples present us with
some of the instructive lessons taught by history, they also
exhibit the manner in which the papal power grew, in a few
centuries more, into enormous proportions.
The invasion of Italy by the Saracens put a stop, for a
while, to the growth ofthe temporal power; but upon their
defeat, under the pontificate of Leo IV., the affairs of the
Church at Rome were thrown into such confusion that the
few years following his death have never since ceased to he
the cause of angry and acrimonious controversy. It is dur
ing these years when it is alleged that the Popess Joan oc
cupied the pontifical chair, a matter not proper for discus-
(10) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 220.

PETER-PENCE IN ENGLAND. 367
sion here.(") About this time an event occurred which con
tributed greatly to the increase of papal ambition. Ethel-
wolf, King of England, was a religious devotee — ardently en
listed in the papal cause. He visited Rome and had an in
terview with the pope, which resulted in his agreeing that
the pope might levy Peter-pence all over his dominions, and
in bis agreeing to pay to him yearly large sums of money.
Some historians allege that he made the kingdom of Great
Britain tributary to the Holy See; but this, though not posi
tively denied, is not stated by others. (ia) However the fact
may be, it is certain that the interview between King Ethel-
wolf and the pope did give greater impunity to those popes
who were resolved upon interfering in the affairs of the na
tions. It was soon after this that the Eastern Christians,
despairing of any compromise of their disagreements with
Rome, resolved upon making their final separation from
those of the West. And Pope Nicholas I., tbus rid of this
perplexing controversy, was furnished with more leisure to
increase his temporal authority. Surrounded by kings who
were ready, as tbe German emperor did, to kiss his feet, and
(") This question is not without difficulty. Cormenin maintains that
Joan was popess from a.d. 853, after the death of Leo IV., to 855, when
the pontificate of Benedict III. commenced. — Cormenin, vol. i., p. 225.
But Butler, in his "Lives of the Saints," denies the whole story, and calls
it "a most notorious forgery." — Butler, July nth, article St. Leo IV.
In this all the defenders of the papacy are agreed. In the chronological
table of the popes published by the Church, they make Leo IV. pope up
to a.d. 855, and Benedict III. his successor. But did he die in 853, as
Cormenin asserts, or live until 855, as the papists assert ? If he did, then
there was either a Popess Joan, or an interregnum of more than two years.
If he did not, but lived till 855, then there was neither the one nor the other.
It is a question which may excite curiosity, but does not bear, in any form,
upon that of the temporal power of the popes. Although Dr. Dollinger
classes it along with the fables and myths of the Middle Ages, yet he says
that there was no doubt, in the fifteenth century, about the existence of a
female pope. According to him, her bust was placed in the cathedral at
Sienna along with the busts of the other popes ; and it was not till the sev
enteenth century that Pope Clement VIII. caused Joan to be " metamor
phosed into Pope Zacharias." John Huss, at the Council of Constance, re
ferred to the Popess Joan, and was not contradicted. — Fables respecting the
Popes of the Middle Ages, by Dollinger, pp. 30, 31.
(B) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 233 ; " Hist, of Eng.," by Rapin, vol. i., p. 309 ;
"Hist, of Eng. "by Lingard, vol. i., p. 95.

368 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
to put themselves under his protection, in order to keep upon
their thrones, he resolved upon asserting, as one of the pre
rogatives of Peter, the right to rule over the world. In re
plying to a letter from the bishops of Lorraine, in which
they declared their submission to him, he employed this ex
traordinary language :
" You affirm that you are submissive to your sovereign,
in order to obey the words of the apostle Peter, who said,
' Be subject to the prince, because he is above all mortals
in this world.' But you appear to forget that we, as the
vicar of Christ, have the right to judge aU men: thus, be
fore obeying kings, you owe obedience to us ; and if we de
clare a monarch guilty, you should reject him from your
communion until we pardon him.
" We alone have the power to bind and to loose, to ab
solve Nero and to condemn him ; and Christians can not,
under penalty of excommunication, execute other judgment
than ours, which alone is infallible. People are not the
judges of their princes; they should obey without mur
muring the most iniquitous orders ; they should bow their
foreheads under the chastisements which it pleases kings to
inflict on them ; for a sovereign can violate the fundament
al laws ofthe State, and seize upon the wealth ofthe cit
izen, by imposts or by confiscations ; he can even dispose
of their lives, without any of his subjects having the right
to address to him simple remonstrances. But if we declare
a king heretical and sacrilegious, if we drive him from the
Church, clergy and laity, whatever their rank, are freed from
their oaths of fidelity, and may revolt against his power."(13)
The same pope wrote to Charles the Bald, to incite him
against the King of Lorraine, saying, " We order you, in
the name of religion, to invade bis states, burn his cities,
and massacre his people, whom we render responsible for
the resistance of their bad prince."(14)
He thus addressed an envoy from Constantinople : " Know,
prince, that the vicars of Christ are above the judgment of
mortals; and that the most powerful sovereigns have no
right to punish the crimes of popes, how enormous soever
(13) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 242. (") Ibid., p. 243.

ENORMOUS PRETENSIONS OF NICHOLAS I. 369
they may be  ; for no matter how scandalous or crimi
nal may be the debaucheries ofthe pontiffs, you should obey
them, for they are seated on the chair of St. Peter."(16)
Again : " Fear, then, our wrath and the thunders of our
vengeance ; for Jesus Christ has appointed us with his own
mouth absolute judges of all men; and kings themselves are
submitted to our authority."(18)
When the King of Bulgaria became a convert to Christi
anity, he persecuted those of his subjects who refused to fol
low his example ; and Pope Nicholas I. thus wrote him :
"I glorify you for having maintained your authority by
putting to death those wandering sheep who refuse to enter
the fold ; and you not only have not sinned by showing a
holy rigor, but I even congratulate you upon having open
ed the kingdom of heaven to the people submitted to your
rule. A king need not fear to command massacres, when
these will retain his subjects in obedience, or cause them to
submit to the faith of Christj and God will reward him in
this world, and in eternal life, for these murders."(")
It should surprise no one to know that this pope so bold
ly asserted his infallibility as to claim equality with God.
According to Gratian, he issued a pontifical decree, wherein
be said :
"It is evident that the popes can neither be bound nor
unbound by any earthly power, nor even by that of the
apostle, if he should return upon the earth ; since Constan
tine the Great has recognized that the pontiffs held the place
of God upon earth, the divinity not being able to be judged
by any living man. We are, then, infallible, and whatever
may be our acts, we are not accountable for them but to our
selves." (")
The Roman Catholic Church canonizes and places in her
calendar of saints those whose devotion and piety she con
siders worthy of imitation. In this list she has placed sev
enty-six of her popes; and pointing out these saints to her
children, she says to them that their lives exhibit " the most
perfect maxims of the Gospel reduced to practice," point out
"the true path," and lead, "as it were, by the hand into it,
(I5) Cormenin. (,6) Ibid., p. 244. (") Ibid. (18) Ib id. , p. 248.
24

370 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
sweetly inviting and encouraging us to walk cheerfully in
the steps of those that are gone before us." They are call
ed " the greatest personages who have ever adorned the
world, the brightest ornaments of the Church militant, and
the shining stars and suns of the triumphant, our future
companions in eternal glory." And " their penitential lives
and holy maxims " are commended to the faithful, as fur
nishing "the sublime lessons of practical virtue."(13) Now,
when we consider that this pope, Nicholas I., has been made
a saint,(20) and that what he did and said is held in the
most sacred remembrance, we can not fail to realize the im
portance of scrutinizing closely the language employed by
him in the foregoing decrees and encyclicals, and of know
ing also their effect upon the acquisition of temporal pow
er, and the ultimate consequences to which they led. Why
was he made a saint if his pontificate was not designed as
a model for imitation ? Why should he be imitated, if his
principles and policy are not to be made the principles and
policy of all time ? He was infallible, and could not err !
He was in " the place of God upon earth !" Therefore, the
Church must be as obedient to him to-day as it was during
his pontificate ! The Encyclical and Syllabus of Pope Pius
IX. sufficiently show that he so understands it.
Between the close of the pontificate of Nicholas I. and the
beginning of the tenth century, eight popes occupied the
chair of Peter, as it is called, and were all faithful to the
policy of Nicholas, in so far as they had the ability to be so.
One of these, Boniface VL, called by Baronius "an infamous
wretch," was poisoned by the agency of the Bishop of Ana-
guia, who became his successor, under the name of Stephen
VII. (") This infallible pope caused the body of his infalli
ble predecessor, Formosus, who had been pope from the
year 891 to 896, to be exhumed from its burial-place, "to
punish him for having usurped the supreme dignity to his
detriment." He assembled a council of bishops, bad the
dead body " placed in the pontifical seat, the tiara on its

(19) " Lives of the Saints," by Butler, vol. i., preface, p. 46.
(M) " Catholic Family Almanac," 1870, p. 47.
(21) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 273.

A LIVE POPE PUNISHING A DEAD ONE. 371
head, the pastoral baton in its hand, and clothed with the
sacerdotal ornaments." He appointed an advocate to de
fend him, and propounded to the dead Formosus questions,
which the advocate so answered as to amount to a confes
sion of guilt by Formosus ! Whereupon Pope Stephen VH.
impiously pronounced sentence of excommunication and dep
osition against the insensible victim of his pontifical venge
ance, struck him a blow which prostrated the dead body
at his feet, stripped off its pontifical robes with his own
hands, cut off three of its fingers, ordered the head to be cut
off, and the body to be thrown into the Tiber !(33) All this
was done in the name of religion,, under the criminal pre
tense of obedience to the Gospel of Christ, which every
where places love, charity, and benevolence as among the
highest cardinal virtues. It is no wonder, then, that Baro-
nius, the great Roman Catholic annalist, who defended the
papacy in every thing in which it was possible to do so,
spoke thus of the condition of the Church at this time :
" Never had divisions, civil wars, the persecution of pa
gans, heretics, and schismatics caused it to suffer so much
as the monsters who installed themselves on the throne of
Christ by simony and murders. The Roman Church was
transformed into a shameless courtesan, covered with silks
and precious stones, which publicly prostituted itself for
gold ; the palace of the Lateran was become a disgraceful
tavern, in which ecclesiastics of all nations disputed with
harlots the price of infamy.
" Never did priests, and especially popes, commit so many
adulteries, rapes, incests, robberies, and murders ; and never
was the ignorance of the clergy so great as during this de
plorable period. Christ was then assuredly sleeping a pro
found sleep in the bottom of his vessel, while the winds
buffeted it on all sides, and covered it with the waves of the
sea. And, what was more unfortunate still, the disciples
of the Lord slept more profoundly than he, and could not
awaken him either by their cries or their clamors. Thus the
tempest of abomination fastened itself on the Church, and
offered to the inspection of men the most horrid spectacle !
O Cormenin, vol. i., p. 274.

372 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
The canons of councils, the creed ofthe apostles, the faith of
Nice, the old traditions, the sacred rites, were buried in the
abyss of oblivion, and the most unbridled dissoluteness, fero
cious despotism, and insatiable ambition usurped their place.
Who could call legitimate pontiffs the intruders who seated
themselves on the chair of the apostles, and what must have
been the cardinals selected by such monsters ?"(23)
Such times as these were adapted to the practice of any
kind of imposture and fraud which the popes and clergy
considered necessary to strengthen the authority of the pa
pacy. As an effective means of establishing a code of can
on laws for the government of the Church, one Dionysius
had previously compiled a body of decrees made by former
popes. These went back no further than the pontificate of
Siricius, in the year 885 ;(") and had reference to matters of
faith and the forms of church government. They gave no
special impunity to crime, and were, in no very great degree,
inconsistent with the principles prevailing in the apostolic
times, except in so far as they recognized such pagan cus
toms as were calculated to give popularity to the public
worship of Rome. But they were unsuited to these times,
in that they did not furnish a sufficient shelter for the cor
ruption and imperialism of the popes, and did not sufficient
ly lay the foundation for their claim of dominion over the
world. Something more was necessary ; and the means of
supplying this were not wanting. It consisted of the False
Decretals, which are now universally considered to have
been bold and unblushing forgeries. Yet, forgeries as they
were, they constitute the corner-stone of that enormous sys
tem of wrong and usurpation which has since been built up
by the papacy, to revive which Pope Pius IX has now put
forth his Encyclical and Syllabus, and numerous encyclical
letters. These forgeries are attributed to one Isadore Mer-
cator, of Seville, in Spain ; but their real authorship is not
entirely free from doubt. It is known, however, that they
were carried from Spain to Rome by the Bishop of Mayence
about the times we have been reviewing; times which, as
(23) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 275.
(M) Ibid.,vol. i., p. 24 ; Milman's "Latin Christianity, " vol. iii., p. 191.

PSEUDO-ISIDORIAN DECRETALS. 373
there is no difficulty in seeing, were admirably adapted to
such imposture. Dr. Dorner thinks that recent investiga
tions have shown that they originated between the years
847 and 853, which period is covered by the pontificate of
Leo IV. aud the time assigned to the alleged Popess Joan; (36)
so short a time before the pontificate of Nicholas I. as to
show that they constituted the authority upon which he
based his extraordinary and impious assumptions of au
thority. These pseudo-Isidorian decrees were designed as a com
pilation of the canons established as far back as the pon
tificate of Clement L, in the year 91, so as to fill up the
gap between him and Siricius, who became pope in the year
385. During this period there were thirty-three popes, all
of whom, except one, Liberius, have been made saints. We
shall better understand the purpose and character of these
decretals by going back to the times of their alleged origin.
The second century closed with the pontificate of Pope
Victor I., who distinguished himself by having, with the cel
ebrated Tertullian, adopted the heresy of the Montanists,(20)
and inaugurated the controversy in relation to the festival
of Easter. The Asiatic Christians, following the custom es
tablished by the evangelists St. John and St. Philip, cele
brated this festival, like the Jews, on the fortieth day after
the first new moon of each year ; and when Polycarp, Bish
op of Smyrna and a disciple of St. John, visited Rome about
the year 167-'68, and found that it was the custom there to
wait until the Sunday after the fortieth day, he declined to
adopt it, and it was agreed between him and Anicetus, who
was then pope, that each Church, the Eastern and Western,
should follow its own custom. Thus, up to this time, there
was perfect equality between the Greek and Latin church
es, each retaining its own independence of the other. But
when Victor L became pope, he was not disposed to let the
affairs of the churches remain in this quiet and pacific con
dition — so admirably calculated to advance the cause aud
progress of Christianity. He was the first pope who em-

(a5) " History of Protestant Theology,"by Dorner, vol. i., p. 30.
(M) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 31.

374 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ployed the thunders of excommunication, which have since
been used with such terrible effect upon both nations and
individuals. He excommunicated Theophilus for asserting
that Christ was a mere human, and Praxeus for his attempt
to abolish the distinction between the three persons in the
Trinity. For the latter purpose, he assembled at Rome a
council — the first ever convened by a pope of his own au
thority — and this exercise of power caused him to conceive
the idea ofthe superiority ofthe Church of Rome over all
the other churches. And hence, in order to establish this
superiority, he resolved upon forcing the Eastern Christians
to adopt the custom of Rome in reference to Easter; and
thus inaugurated a controversy which gave rise to subse
quent usurpations, and, in the end, to the final separation
ofthe Greek and Latin Christians. This effort to make a
matter of so small importance a cause of quarrel was, at
its inception, resisted by many of the bishops ; and Irenae
us, Bishop of Lyons, censured the pope for it, in the name
of the Cburch in France — then Gaul. Lie yielded to the
pressure of these opinions, but not without having contrib
uted toward laying the foundation for the subsequent claim
of supremacy. His immediate successor, Zephyrinus, who
became pope in the year 202, has also been accused of fa
voring the Montanists ; but this accusation is probably un
just, as, imitating Victor, he excommunicated them, includ
ing Tertullian. Tertullian was so much esteemed for his pi
ety, and on account of the services he had rendered Chris
tianity in his "Apology " and other works, especially that
against the heresy of Marcion, that his excommunication
excited general indignation. And, in order to escape the
consequences of this act, Pope Zephyrinus was driven to as
sert the claim of superiority made by Victor, hoping there
by to pacify the Western priesthood by the prospect of their
sharing with him the power and authority he hoped to se
cure by a triumph over the Eastern Christians. Under
these two pontificates, therefore — from the year 194 to 221
— ambition first began to creep into the Church at Rome,
and to stimulate its popes to substitute motives of worldly
grandeur and wealth for that simplicity which had distin
guished the humble fishermen who had followed the Saviour

POPES CLEMENT I. AND ANACLETUS. 375
during his earthly but divine ministrations. And thus we
see the reason why these False Decretals are carried back
to the times previous to Pope Siricius, in order to show that
these popes, who were the alleged authors of them, predica
ted their claim of superiority upon the doctrines they con
tained, and designed them as the means of elevating the
popes into earthly monarchs, and the whole priesthood into
a powerful and irresponsible hierarchy. The efforts now
making to revive and re-establish them in this country
make it important that the people should understand what
they contain, so as to know what is meant by the temporal
power of the pope, and what is proposed in the place of
our Protestant institutions. They are, also, an additional
key for the interpretation of the Encyclical and Syllabus.
In the first epistle attributed to Pope Clement I. he is
made to represent himself as having immediately succeed
ed the apostle Peter in the pontifical chair, whereas it is
well understood, and now conceded, that Linus and Ana-
cletus were both bishops of Rome before Clement. But it
needed authority of this kind to establish the assumption
that Peter was the first pope, and this forgery answered
the purpose. Besides, it recognized the book called " The
Itinerary, or Book of the Voyages of St. Peter," which is, un
doubtedly, apocryphal. There are four other epistles also
attributed to Clement, all of which are manifest forgeries.
In one he is made to speak of princes and other ecclesias
tical officers of the Church, when, in the time of Clement,
none such were known. In another he is represented as
addressing an epistle to St. James, wherein he calls himself
the successor of St. Peter, when James died before Peter.
And Clement is made to approve the doctrines of the Nico-
laitans, who taught, says Du Pin, " that women ought to be
kept in common. "(")
In a pretended epistle by Pope Anacletus, he is repre
sented as a defender of Clement, when he died before Clem
ent was Bishop of Rome. But he is made to speak of hav
ing received many things by tradition, in order to substi-

(2') For a thorough exposition of all these forgeries see Du Pin's "Eccl.
Hist.," vol. i., p. 173.

376 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
tute tradition for fact — a thing which it was impossible
for Anacletus to do, because be lived in the times ofthe
apostles, when no tradition was necessary. The special ob
ject of this epistle, however, was to establish, by Anacletus,
the proposition " that appeals from secular judges ought to
be determined before bishops ;" that " the privileges and
laws of the Church ought to be confirmed ;" that there
should be "appeals from ecclesiastical judgments to the
Holy See ;" that there were " primates and metropolitans "
in the Church : whereas it is well known that none of these
orders existed, and none of these things were ever talked
of or debated, until after the death of Anacletus.
In another epistle by the same bishop, it is said that he
" would neither have bishops to be accused nor judged " —
a claim of immunity still persevered in.
The epistles attributed to Popes Evaristus and Alexander
I., who were the immediate successors of Clement, contain
nothing of special importance, but are made up of extracts
from authors who lived long after their time, and refer to
matters which did not occur for more than a century after
they were dead.
Pope Sixtus I. is made to call himself an archbishop — a
word not then used — and to speak of "appeals to Rome,"
and "the grandeur of that Church," and ofthe requirement
"that all bishops wait for the pope's decision, and are in
structed by his letters" — which, says Du Pin, are "modes
of speaking never used by the first bishops of Rome."
Pope Telesphorus is made to say " that the laity and cler
gy could not accuse one another in judgment." And two
letters are ascribed to Pope Higinus, of no special import,
but condemned by their containing quotations from the
popes Leo I., Martin I., and Adrian I., who lived long after.
There are also three letters from Pope Pius I., which are
shown, in the same way, to be spurious.
Pope Anicetus speaks of archbishops, primates, and patri
archs — not instituted till long after — besides, says Du Pin,
"many other things ofthe same nature." There are also
two letters from Pope Soter, which are also manifestly spu
rious. An epistle by Pope Eleutherus " treats of ecclesiastical

POPES VICTOR I. AND ZEPHYRINUS. 377
judgments in favor ofthe Court of Rome." He is made to
insist that " all causes relating to the Church ought to be
determined there," which, says Du Pin, " is a practice con
trary to all antiquity." This epistle is shown to be a for
gery by abundant proofs. It copies a text out of St. John,
and attributes it to St. Paul. It also contains passages
from the writings of Pope Leo I. (a.d. 440), Felix III. (a.d.
526), Adrian I. (a.d. 772), from councils which had not met,
and from the Theodosian code, when Theodosius was not em
peror until nearly two hundred years after the death of this
pope. In an epistle by Pope Victor I. he is made to confer upon
himself the further title of "Archbishop of the Universal
Church" and to speak of " appeals to Rome." Its falsity is
shown by the fact that it is addressed to Theophilus of Al
exandria, who did not live till nearly two hundred years
after. There is also another letter of his, directed to De-
siderius, Bishop of Vienna, when there was no bishop of
that name in Vienna till near the close of the sixth cent-
ury."0 Pope Zephyrinus is represented as addressing an encyc
lical epistle, ex cathedrd, to the bishops of Sicily, wherein he
claims "final" jurisdiction in all cases relating to the trial
of bishops, as belonging to the " seat of the apostles," that
is, Rome. He prescribes the rules which shall govern such
trials, the chief of which is, that " an accused bishop " should
not be condemned by " patriarchs and primates" until "they
find that the person either confesses himself guilty, or is
proved so by witnesses trustworthy and regularly exam
ined, who shall not be fewer in number than were those
disciples whom the Lord directed to be chosen for the help
ofthe apostles, that is, seventy-two" — a number quite suf-
ficent to prevent a conviction in any case. He then pro
ceeds to declare, " Nor should any one of superior rank be
indicted or condemned on the accusation of inferiors," and
that all cases should be appealed to Rome. He claims for
the pope the divine authority to bind and loose on earth
and in heaven, as conferred by Peter and by the apostolic
(M)Du Pin, pp. 173-178.

378 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
canons and constitutions. (39) He then provides what was
most needed for establishing the power of the hierarchy,
and securing perfect impunity to them by covering up and
concealing whatever crime a bishop may commit, in these
words: "For bishops are to be borne by the laity and cler
gy, and masters by servants, in order that, under the exer
cise of endurance, things temporal may be maintained, aud
things eternal hoped for."(30) Another epistle of this same
pope, to the bishops of Egypt, is only worthy of notice be
cause of the claim of power it sets up for the "Apostolic
Church" at Rome, and the assertion that Peter was "chief
of the apostles." Both these epistles are shown to be for
geries, by the fact that they contain passages from Popes
Leo I. (a.d. 440), Vigilius (a.d. 540), Gregory I. (a.d. 590),
Martin I. (a.d. 649), Adrian I. (a.d. 772), and from the Theo
dosian code.
Pope Calistus is represented as also issuing encyclical let
ters upon sundry subjects. In one he says: "Let no one
take up an accusation against a doctor [teacher or priest],
because it is not right for sons to find fault with fathers,
nor for slaves to wound their masters." In another, to the
bishops of Gaul, he says, " Those who conspire against bish
ops, or who take part with such," are guilty of a crime, and
are condemned, " not only by the laws of the Church, but
of the world." Defining the punishment prescribed for this
offense, he is made to say it had been " ordained " by his
" predecessors," that if the inferior clergy were guilty of it,
they "should be deprived ofthe honor which they enjoy;"
that those who did not belong to the clergy "should be cut
off from communion, and expelled from the Church;" and
" that all men of both orders should be infamous ; and that,
too, not only for those who did the deed, but for those also
who took part with such." Assigning the reason for this
extraordinary protection to the bishops, and severity to
their accusers, be says : " For it is but equitable that those

(!S) Du Pin shows, incontrovertibly, that these canons and constitutions
attributed to the apostles are also spurious. — Du Pin's Eccl. Hist., vol. i.,
pp. 13-16.
(30) "Anti-Nicene Library,'' vol. ix., p. 145, Epistles of Pope Zephyrinus.

POPE URBAN I. 3*79
who despise the divine mandates, and prove themselves dis
obedient to the mandates of the fathers, should be chastised
with severer penalties, in order that others may fear to do
such things, and that all may rejoice in brotherly concord,
and all take to themselves the example of severity and
goodness." Section II. is on " those who have intercourse
with excommunicated persons, or with unbelievers." No one
is to " have any intercourse with such in speech, or in eat
ing or drinking, or in the salutation with the kiss, nor let
him greet such ; because, whosoever willingly holds inter
course with the excommunicated, in these or other prohibit
ed matters, will subject himself, according to the ordinance
ofthe apostles, to like excommunication. From these, there
fore, let the clergy and laity keep themselves, if they would
not have the same penalty to endure. Also, do not join
with unbelievers, neither bave any fellowship with them.
They who do such things, indeed, are judged, not as believ
ers, but as unbelievers." Section IH treats of " those who
ought not to be permitted to prefer an accusation, or to
bear witness, etc.," and says : " Those, again, who are sus
pected in the matter of the right faith should by no means
be permitted to prefer charges against priests and against
those of whose faith there is no doubt; and such persons
should be held of doubtful authority in matters of human
testimony. Their voice, consequently, should be reckoned
invalid whose faith is doubted, and no credit should be
given to those who are ignorant ofthe right faith." Even
as it regards one who is entitled to make an accusation
against a bishop or priest, be must not do it, except in the
presence of him whom he seeks to accuse. (31) These epis
tles contain passages taken from the Council of Nice, and
the fifth Council of Rome, which were held long after; and
from the popes Gelasius (a.d. 492), Symmachus (a.d. 498),
Gregory I. (a.d. 590), aud Adrian I. (a.d. 772) — all showing
their false and fraudulent character.
There is an epistle containing an ex-cathedrd decree of
Pope Urban I. addressed " to all Christians," wherein it is
(31) "Anti-Nicene Christian Library," vol. ix., p. 203, Epistles of Pope Ca-

380 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
prescribed that, instead of the practice which prevailed
among the early Christians of holding property in common,
it should be " left in the hands of the bishops, who hold the
place of the apostles ;" that the bishops should have " ele
vated seats, set up aud prepared like a throne, ' to show ' by
these that the power of inspection and of judging, and the
authority to loose and bind, are given to them by the Lord ;"
that the faithful should hold " no communication with those
with whom they [the bishops] have none ;" and that those
"whom they have cast out" shall not be received. (33) The
forgery of this epistle is shown by the fact that it contains
thougbts and words from Eusebius, who was not born until
nearly one hundred years after, from Pope Gregory IV. (a.d.
827), and from the Theodosian code.
Pope Poutianus had but little time for issuing decrees;
for his entire pontificate lasted only a few months. For the
suspicion of wishing to disturb the peace of the Roman em
pire, during the reign of Alexander Severus, he was banish
ed to Siberia, where he remained till about the year 235-237,
when he was brought back, " and expired under the scourge."
Eusebius makes his pontificate embrace five or six years,
but there is great uncertainty about it. Nevertheless, epis
tles from him are placed among these palpable forgeries. In
the first, to Felix Subscribonius, " On the Honor to be bestow
ed on Priests," he is represented as saying: "And, again,
they are not to be accused by the infamous or the wicked,
or the hostile, or by members of another sect or religion. If
they sin, they are to be arraigned by other priests ; further,
they are to be held in check by the chief pontiffs, and they
are not to be arraigned or restrained by seculars or by men
of evil life." In his second epistle, " to all bishops," he is
made to say : " Wherefore persons suspected, or hostile, or
litigious, and those who are not of good conversation, or
whose life is reprehensible, and those who do not teach the
right faith, have been debarred from being either accusers
or witnesses by our predecessors with apostolic authority;
and we, too, remove them from that function, and exclude
them from it in times to come, etc."(33) To show the for-
(32) "Anti-Nicene Library,"vol. ix., p. 217, Epistle of Pope Urban I.
(33) Ibid., vol. ix., p. 232, Pope Pontianus.

POPES ANTERUS AND FABIAN. 381
gery of these epistles, Du Pin says they " are made up of
passages taken out of the vulgar Latin, St. Gregory, St. Je
rome, Sixtus the Pythagorean : the rest is written in a bar
barous style."
An epistle from Pope Anterus, " On the Transference of
Bishops," was designed to prove, what no antecedent histo
ry shows, that Peter, as bishop, was transferred from Anti
och to Rome. He says, "Peter, our holy master and the
prince of the apostles, was translated for the sake of the
common good from Antioch to Rome, in order that he might
be in a position there of doing more service." At another
place he recognizes the obligation of the old Mosaic law,
"that whoever has not given obedience to the priests
should be stoned outside the camp by the people, or, with
his neck beneath the sword, should expiate his presumption
with his blood ;"(34) with the single qualification that "now,
however, the disobedient is cut off by spiritual chastise
ment, and, being cast out of the Churcb, is torn by the rab
id mouth of demons."(36) Du Pin establishes this forgery
by showing that the author speaks of a Bishop of Ephesus
named Felix, when there was none such, and of a Bishop
of Alexandria named Eusebius, which was untrue. He also
shows that he was contradicted by the three councils, of An
tioch, Sardica, and Chalcedon; and that he quotes from popes
and others who did not live until after that time.
There are epistles from Pope Fabian, or Fabianus, who,
according to Eusebius, was indebted for his election to the
presence of the Holy Ghost alighting upon his head in the
form of a dove ! This pope employed the power of excom
munication against Privatus, a bishop, for heresy ; and inau
gurated the ceremony of prostration at the feet of the pope
upon the occasion of his election. Therefore there seemed,
doubtless, to be a fitness in attributing some of these for
geries to him. The first of his epistles is addressed " to all
the ministers ofthe Church Catholic," and concerns "those
who ought not to be admitted to clear themselves, and of
the duty of having no fellowship with the excommunicated."
(M) Deuteronomy xviii. ,12.
(35) "Anti-Nicene Library," vol. ix., p. 240, Pope Anterus.

382 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Assuming that "by the divine precepts and the apostolic
institutes " the pope is required to watch over " all the
churches," and exhorting the clergy to be " obedient and
faithful children of the holy Church of God" — that is, of
Rome — he says, " These men, and all else who do not teach
the true doctrine, and hold not the true faith, can not act
as accusers of any true believer, because they are branded
with infamy, and are cut off from the bosom of our holy
mother, the Church, by the sword of the apostles, until
their return to correct conversation and belief." And he
is made to repeat the same idea in other forms, thus : "All
who come under suspicion with respect to the Catholic
faith can not be admitted as accusers of those who hold the
true creed;" and thus : "And therefore are charges, which
are preferred by those who are objects of suspicion in the
matter of the true faith, rejected." He is also represent
ed as saying, "And if any one, setting aside the rules wit
tingly, sings with the excommunicated in his house, or
speaks or prays in company with them, that man is to be
deprived of the privilege of communion." He is then made
to originate and invent, what every reader of ecclesiastical
history knows to be untrue, the statement that Peter or
dained Clement as his successor in the pontificate, and "ad
dressed the people " at his ordination ; whereas Peter died
about the year 65-67, and Clement's pontificate did not
commence till the year 91, nearly thirty years after ! The
words he is said to have used are these : " Whence, also,
the blessed chief of the apostles, Peter, addressing the peo
ple at the ordination of Clement, says this, among other
things ;" making him say that no man should be " on terms
of friendship " with any one who was hostile to Clement ;
and also : " If, however, any one is not friendly, and speaks
with those with whom he [the chief] speaks not, such a
one belongs to those who seek to exterminate the Church
of God ; and though he seems to be with you in body, he
is against you in mind and heart. And such a one is a
much more dangerous enemy than those who -are without,
and who are openly hostile." All this is as entirely opposed
to the spirit of true Christianity, such as Peter taught in
obedience to the precepts and example of his Divine mas-

PRIESTS ABOVE ALL HUMAN LAWS. 383
ter, as it is consistent with that stupendous system of pa
pal power and fraud which these forgeries were designed to
build up.
There is another epistle of this same pope, addressed " to
all the bishops of the East." A portion of this has reference
to the renewal of the chrism at the Lord's- supper every
year; but it does not fail to lay down the same instruction,
attributed by these forged Decretals to his predecessors.
These words are put into his mouth : " The apostles them
selves and their successors decreed of old time that those
persons should not be admitted to lay accusations who are
under suspicion,. .. .or who are doubtful in the matter of
the true faith." Also : " Those have neither the right nor
the power to accuse the priests or the clergy, who are in
capable themselves of being made priests legitimately, and
are not of their order," etc. And again : " The priests, too,
whom the Lord has taken to himself from among all men,
and has willed to be his own, are not to be dealt with light
ly, nor injured, nor rashly accused or reprehended, save by
their masters, seeing that the Lord has chosen to reserve
their causes to himself, and ministers vengeance according
to his own judgment  For these are rather to be borne
with by the faithful than made subjects of reproach, just as
there is chaff with the wheat even in the last winnowing,
and as there is bad fish with good even on their separation,
which is yet to be on the shore — that is to say, at the end of
the world. By no means, then, can that man be condemned
by a human examination whom God has reserved for his
own judgment, that the purpose of God, according to which
he has decreed to save what had perished, may be unaltera
ble." He is then made to declare that all who have sinned
shall "go down into the pit," unless "restored by sacerdotal
authority ;" and to assign to the apostles the determination
"that the accusing of priests should be a matter undertaken
with difficulty, or never undertaken, that they ought not to
be ruined or displaced by wicked men." By the assumption
tbat he, as pope, is equal to the apostles, he is made to de
clare that if any one of the clergy " proves an enemy to his
bishops, and seeks to criminate them," he shall be removed
and given over to the curice, or Court of the Inquisition at

384 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Rome, as its prisoner and slave for life, and " remain infa
mous without any hope of restoration ;" and then this epis
tle proceeds, " In like manner, we decree and ordain by
apostolic authority that the flock should not dare to bring a
charge against their pastor, to whose care they had been
consigned, unless he falls into error in the faith; for the
deeds of superiors are not to be smitten with the sword of
the mouth ; neither can the disciple be above the master,"
etc. Again: "After the example of Ham, the son of Noah,
they are condemned who bring the faults of their fathers
into public view, or presume to accuse or calumniate them,
even as was the case with Ham, who did not cover the
shame of his father Noah, but exhibited it for mockery.
And in like manner those are justified by the example of
Shem and Japhet, who reverently cover and seek not to dis
play those matters in which they find that their fathers have
erred." Then the mode of procedure against a bishop for
violating the faith is prescribed, when the epistle says, "For
his other actings, however, he is rather to be borne with by
his flock and those put under him, than accused or made the
subject of public detraction," etc.
There is also a third epistle from this same pope, address
ed " to Bishop Hilary," wherein he is represented as repeat
ing his decree in favor of priestly impunity, in these words :
" We decree and resolve that those who are not of good con
versation, or whose life is impeachable, or whose faith and
life and liberty are unknown, should not have tbe power of
accusing the priests ofthe Lord."(36)
Epistles are also inserted from other popes, to wit : Cor
nelius, Lucius, Stephen I., Sixtus IL, Dionysius, Felix I., Eu
tychian, Cains, Marcellinus, Marcellus I., Eusebius, Sylvester,
Marcus, Julius I., Liberius, and Damasus I., so as to bring
the Decretals down to the time of Pope Siricius, in the y%ar
385 ; and thus, with those compiled by Dionysius, to render
the code of canon laws complete. The great ecclesiastical
historian, Du Pin, says of them all, that they " are full of
several passages taken out of the fathers, popes, and councils
more modern than the very popes by whom they are pre-
(3e) " Anti-Nicene Library," vol. ix., p. 249, Epistles of Pope Fabian.

PROGRESS OF PAPAL POWER. 385
tended to be written ; and in which many things are to be
found that don't in the least agree with the history of those
times, and were purposely said to favor the court of Rome,
and establish her pretensions against the rights of bishops
and the liberties of churches. But it would take up too
much time to show the gross falsity of these monuments
that are now rejected by common consent, and even by
those authors that are most favorable to tbe court of Rome,
who are obliged to abandon the patronage of these epistles
though they have done a great deal of service in establishing
the greatness of the court of Rome, and ruining the ancient
discipline of the Church, especially in relation to ecclesias
tical decisions and rights of bishops."(37)
These liberal quotations from the False Decretals — other
wise scarcely excusable — are necessary to show how the
popes and the Roman Catholic hierarchy have laid the foun
dation of their enormous power and prerogatives. The sys
tem they have built upon this foundation would have been
bad enough if what has been put into the mouths of these
popes had been actually uttered by them. But when it is
considered that these things are the corrupt inventions of
priests of the ninth century, and that this fact is known to
all intelligent Roman Catholics, and frankly admitted by
many of them, it almost staggers human credulity to sup
pose that there are now any in the world who are willing
to risk their reputation for integrity and candor by attempt
ing to maintain a system thus originated and upheld. There
is nothing else, among all the nations of earth, bearing any
resemblance to it — no other system by which it has been so
daringly and perseveringly proposed to erect within all the
governments a foreign and antagonistic power, independent
of all human law, and irresponsible to human authority. By
means of it emperors, kings, princes, and peoples have been
brought down in abject humiliation at the feet of innu
merable popes, who, claiming to be in the place of God on
earth, have lorded it over them with a severity which never
abated and an ambition that could never be satisfied. It
is marvelous to contemplate the origin and progress of such
(") Du Pin's " Eccl. Hist.," vol. i., p. 178.
25

386 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
a structure of fraud and wrong, to observe the popular deg
radation which it wrought out, as the means of securing the
triumph of tbe papacy, and to see the patience with which
the world now tolerates the insolent ambition which de
mands its reconstruction in the name of God and humanity !
This language is not too harsh. The pretense set up in
these false and forged decrees deserves condemnation in
even harsher and severer terms. They were designed to se
cure to the priesthood the most perfect impunity, and to
place them so far above the people as to put it out of the
power of the latter even to complain at their oppressions.
They allow a bishop or priest to commit any crime he
pleases — murder, robbery, rape, or seduction — and deny his
responsibility to the laws of the country where he resides,
or to any other law but that which the pope may enact!
They command the members of the Roman Catholic Church
to regard these bishops and priests as their masters, and to
conceal and cover up whatsoever crimes they may commit,
rather than bring disgrace upon the Church ! They pro
nounce as unworthy of belief all who are not members of
that Church, so as to render the conviction of a bishop or
priest impossible upon their testimony before the court of
Rome, even for the most outrageous offenses ! They, in fact,
authorize and license whatsoever a bishop or priest shall do,
although he may drag his clerical robes into the very filth
and mire of profligacy, prostitution, and vice !

PSEUDO-ISIDORIAN DECRETALS. 387

CHAPTER XIII.
The False Decretals.— Nicholas I. governed by Them.— His Character.—
Adrian II. —John VIII.— John XII. —Benedict IX.— Three Popes at
Same Time.— German Emperors create Popes.— Leo IX.— .Hildebrand.
—He becomes Pope as Gregory VII.— Principles established by Him.—
His Quarrel with Philip of France.— His Bull against Henry IV. —He
adopts the False Decretals. — Pius IX. does the Same. — Gregoiy VII.
stirs up Revolt in Germany.— The Emperor Henry IV. in Rome.— Death
of Gregory VII.— His Successors maintain his Policy. —Urban II.— Ca-
lixtus II. — Adrian IV. grants Ireland to England. — The Gratian Decre
tals. — They authorize Physical Compulsion and Torture.— Arnold of Bres
cia burned by Adrian IV.— Alexander III. and Victor IV. —Alexander
III. releases the Subjects of Frederick Barbarossa from their Allegiance. —
His Character. — Submission of Frederick. — The Third Lateran Council.
— Decree authorizing Waldenses and Albigenses to be put to Death. —
The Thirteenth Century. — Innocent III. — His Ambition and Usurpation.
— His Claim of Divine Power. — He releases the Subjects of Otho from
their Allegiance. — His Bull to put the Vaudois to Death. — The Inquisi
tion. — Boniface VIII. — His Bull Unam Sanctam. — He caused a New
Body of False Decretals to be composed. — Opposition of the Gallican
Church. We shall leave our investigations incomplete, and our
task unfinished, without further notice of the False Decre
tals and their contribution to the growth of the temporal
power, inasmuch as the principles derived from them still
remain a part of the canon law of Rome — those of the En
cyclical and Syllabus of Pius IX. being taken in part from
them — and as the present struggles ofthe papacy and its
Jesuit supporters are designed for the purpose of reviving
and enforcing them wheresoever they can obtain the power
to do so.
Although there were many good and pious Christians
among the early popes and clergy of Rome, yet there was
enough in the vicious habits of many of those who consti
tuted the priesthood, at the time when these Decretals are
alleged to have been dated, to justify the assignment of
them to the popes whose names they bear. Many of them

388 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
yielded to the influence ofthe example of Pope Victor, and
the effect was apparent in their ambition and that of the
clergy, which existed to such a degree that religion was al
most entirely neglected, except in the mere ceremonial re
quirements of the Church. We have the authority of Eu
sebius — who is quoted by all Roman Catholic ecclesiastic
al authors as reliable authority — for the condition of the
priesthood in his time. There is no other author whose
history covers the times to which he refers, and as a lead
ing prelate, aud a member of the celebrated Council of Nice,
he had ample opportunity for ascertaining the true condi
tion of affairs. He says :
" But some that appeared to be our pastors, deserting the
law of piety, were inflamed against each other with mutual
strifes, only accumulating quarrels and threats, rivalship,
hostility, and hatred to each other, only anxious to assert
the government as a kind of sovereignty for themselves."(')
And it is said by Cormenin that Marcellinus — who was
pope in the year 304, and has been canonized as a saint —
even abjured the Christian religion, in order thereby to es
cape the persecution of the Emperor Diocletian !(2) Even
if these tbings were not true to the extent alleged, they
were sufficiently so, beyond all question, to have had an in
jurious influence upon the cause of true piety, and to have
placed the affairs of the Church in an unsettled and preca-
(') "Eccl. Hist.," by Eusebius, bk. viii., ch. i. At another place, in his
"Book of Martyrs," when speaking ofthe prelates ofthe Church, Eusebius
says that he had "thought proper to pass by" other events than those re
lated by him — that is, " particularly the circumstances ofthe different heads
ofthe churches, who, from being shepherds of the* reasonable flocks of Christ
that did not govern in a lawful and becoming manner, were condemned, by
divine justice, as unworthy of such a charge  Moreover, the ambitious
aspirings of many to office, and the injudicious and unlawful ordinations
that took place, the divisions among the confessors themselves, the great
schisms and difficulties industriously fomented by the factious among the
new membei-s against the relics ofthe Church, devising one innovation after
another, and unmercifully thrusting them into the midst of all these calami
ties, heaping up affliction upon affliction ; all this, I say, I have resolved to
pass by, judging it foreign to my purpose, wishing, as I said in the beginning,
to shun and avoid giving an account of them." — Book of Martyrs, ch. xii.,
pp. 374, 375.
C) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 48.

ROME IN THE NINTH CENTURY. 389
rious condition, the precise extent of which it is now ex
ceedingly difficult to ascertain. And this accounts, in a
large measure, for the pertinacity with which these False
Decretals have been assigned to those times. Their au
thors well understood, at the date of their origin, and their
defenders understand now, how easy it is to make history,
and to make it acceptable to credulous minds, especially
where there is no precise detail of facts to expose their
falsehoods and assumptions. By all Roman Catholics who
accept the teachings of the Church uninquiringly, these De
cretals are regarded yet as true and genuine, because they
have been put forth and indorsed by infallible popes, and
because they are so instructed by their bishops and priests;
while the bishops and priests deliberately employ them as
the means of continuing their hierarchical power and au
thority, and thus gratifying their inordinate ambition.
Mosheim, after pointing out how different the ecclesiastic
al system of the ninth century was from that which prevail
ed in the ancient Church, says that the popes found it " nec
essary to produce the authority of ancient deeds to stop the
mouths of such as were disposed to set bounds to their usur
pations ;" and he then proceeds :
"The bishops of Rome were aware of this; and as those
means were deemed the most lawful that tended best to
the accomplishment of their purposes, they employed some
of their most ingenious and zealous partisans in forging con
ventions, acts of councils, epistles, and the like records, by
which it might appear that in the first ages of the Church
the Roman pontiffs were clothed with the same spiritual
majesty and supreme authority which they now assumed.
Among these fictitious supports of the papal dignity the fa
mous Decretal Epistles, as they are called, said to have been
written by the pontiffs of the primitive time, deserve chief
ly to be stigmatized. They were the production of an ob
scure writer, who fraudulently prefixed to them the name
of Isidore, Bishop of Seville, to make the world believe that
they had been collected by this illustrious and learned prel
ate. Some of them had appeared in the eighth century,
but they were now entirely drawn from their obscurity,
and produced, with an air of ostentation and triumph, to

390 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
demonstrate the supremacy ofthe Roman pontiffs. The de
cisions of a certain Roman Council, which is said to have
been holden during the pontificate of Sylvester, were like
wise alleged iu behalf of the same cause ; but this council
had not been heard of before the present century, and the ac
counts now given of it proceeded from the same source
with the Decretals, and were equally authentic. Be that as
it may, the decrees of this pretended council contributed
much to enrich and aggrandize the Roman pontiffs, and ex
alt them above all human authority and jurisdiction."(3)
Dean Milman, one of the most learned and reliable au
thors of the present times, says : " The False Decretals do
not merely assert the supremacy of the popes — the dignity
and privileges of the Bishop of Rome — they comprehend
the whole dogmatic system and discipline of the Church, the
whole hierarchy from the highest to the lowest degree, their
sanctity and immunities, their persecutions, their disputes,
their right of appeal to Rome  But for the too mani
fest design, the aggrandizement of the see of Rome and the
aggrandizement of the whole clergy in subordination to the
see of Rome ; but for the monstrous ignorance of history,
which betrays itself in glaring anachronisms, and in the ut
ter confusion of the order of events and the lives of distin
guished men — the former awakening keen and jealous sus
picion, the latter making the detection of the spuriousness
of the whole easy, clear, irrefragable — the False Decretals
might still have maintained their place in ecclesiastical his
tory. They are now given up by all ; not a voice is raised
in their favor ; the utmost that is done by those who can
not suppress all regret at their explosion is to palliate the
guilt of the forger, to call in question or to weaken the influ
ence which they had in their own day, and throughout the
later history of Christianity."(4)
That they are now, and have been for many years, regard
ed as forgeries by candid Roman Catholics, even among
the ultramontanes, is undoubtedly true. Marchetti says:
" Learned men of great piety have declared against these
(3) Maclaine's " Mosheim's Church History," part ii., ch. ii., p. 216.
(4) " Latin Christianity," by Milman, vol. iii., pp. 59, 60.

FORGERIES ADMITTED BY PAPISTS. 391
false collections, which Cardinal Bona frankly calls a pious
fraud." "Barouius does not as frankly regard them as a fraud;
nevertheless, he would not use them in his ' Ecclesiastical
Annals,' lest it should be believed that the Roman Church
needed suspicious documents to establish her richts."
Marchetti also says: "We may conjecture that Isidore
gathered the decretals of ancient popes which the persecu
tions of the first centuries had not permitted to be col
lected, and that, animated by a desire to transmit the col
lection to posterity, he made such haste that he overlooked
some faults and chronological errors, which were afterward
corrected by a more exact criticism. "(B)
While they are here rejected as false, or, at least, as sus
picious, there is an evident disinclination to give them up.
Yet Fleury, the great Roman Catholic historian, is too frank
to participate in the imposture or to exhibit any such incon
sistency. He thus disposes of them:
" The subject-matter of these letters reveals their spuri
ousness. They speak of archbishops, primates, patriarchs, as
as if these titles had existed from the birth ofthe Church.
They forbid the holding of any council, even a provincial
one, without permission from the pope, and represent ap
peals to Rome as habitual. Frequent complaint is therein
made of usurpations of the temporalities of the Church.
We find there this maxim, that bishops falling into sin may,
after having done penance, exercise their functions as before.
Finally, the principal subject of these Decretals is that of
complaints against bishops; there is scarcely one that does
not speak of them and give rules to make them difficult.
And Isidore makes it very apparent in his preface that he
had this matter deeply at heart."(")
The purpose and immediate effect of the False Decretals
were shown in the last chapter, in the encyclicals, decrees,
and letters of Pope Nicholas I. It was during his pontifi
cate that they took " their place in the jurisprudence of Latin
Christendom," (') by becoming an essential part ofthe law
(6) Apud Abbe" Guettfe, in his late work on "The Papacy," p. 258 (note).
(6) "Eccl. Hist.," by Fleury, liv., xliv. ; apud Guette'e, p. 260 (note).
(') "Latin Christianity," by Milman, vol. iii., p. 58.

392 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
of the Church." He introduced them at Rome with true
pontifical audacity, and the whole history of his pontificate
shows that he regarded them as contributing material aid
to his ambition. He did not hesitate to employ them, most
unblushingly, as a justification for his outrageous blasphe
mies and usurpations. (e) Now, when it is remembered that
he did not become pope till the year 858; that previous to
that time nothing of the kind had been known to exist at
Rome ; and that the assumption of all-absorbing supremacy
was based upon these palpable forgeries, he must be a bold
man, and greatly insensible to shame, who will, in this en
lightened and inquiring age, attempt to excuse or palliate
his conduct. Even during his pontifical reign, powerful as
he became, the French, or Gallican, bishops were not sub
dued by his threats of anathema and excommunication. Aft
er the Synod of Metz, in France, had sustained the claims of
Lothaire to his kingdom, which Nicholas was endeavoring to
wrest from him, he tore up its decrees, pronounced it to be
" an assembly of brigands and robbers," and " declared the
French prelates to be deprived of episcopal power." He ex
communicated and anathematized all who opposed the meas
ures of his grasping ambition. But Gonthier, Metropolitan
of Cologne; Teutgard, Archbishop of Treves; John of Ra
venna, and "a great number of other bishops," addressed
him a letter, wherein they called him " infamous," " a greedy
robber," " the murderer of Christians," " iniquitous and cruel
priest," " sanguinary wolf," " cowardly tyrant," " the most in
famous of the ministers of the temple of God," " shameless
cockatrice," " venomous serpent," " dog," and by other names
equally expressive of indignation and contempt; and con
cluded in these words :
" We doubt neither thy venom nor thy bite ; we have re-
(s) "Soon after receiving the new implements forged in the Isidorian
workshop (about 863 or 861), Nicholas met the doubts of the Frankish bish
ops with the assurance that the Roman Church had long preserved all those
documents with honor in her archives, and that every writing of a pope, even
if not part of the Dionysian collection of canons, was binding on the whole
Church. " — The Pope and the Council, by ' ' Janus, " p. 80. See, also, Church
of France, by Jervis, vol. i., p. 34. D'Aguesseau says that these Decretals
may be "more correctly styled the body of the pope's law than of the law
of the Church." Apud Jervis, Church oj France, vol. i., p. 36(note).

BISHOPS DENOUNCE NICHOLAS I. 393
solved with our brethren to tear thy sacrilegious decretals,
thy impious bulls, and will leave thee to growl forth thy
powerless thunders. Thou darest to accuse of impiety those
who refuse from love to the faith to submit to thy sacrile
gious laws! Thou who castest discord among Christians;
thou who violatest evangelical peace, that immortal mark
which Christ has placed upon the forehead of his Church ;
'thou, execrable pontiff, who spits upon the book of thy God,
thou darest to call us impious ! How, then, wilt thou call
the clergy which bends before thy power, those unworthy
priests vomited forth from hell, and whose forehead is of
wax, their heart of steel, and their sides are formed of the
wine of Sodom and Gomorrah ! Go to, these ministers are
well made to crawl under thy abominable pride, in thy
Rome, frightful Babylon, which thou callest the holy city,
eternal and infallible ! Go to, thy cohort of priests, soiled with
adulteries, incests, rapes, and assassinations, is well worthy to
form thy infamous court ; for Rome is the residence of de
mons, and thou, pope, thou art its Satan."(")
These bold and defiant words go to prove that there
was, for a time at least, formidable opposition to the am
bitious intrigues of the popes. The French and German
clergy were so far removed from the neighborhood of Rome
that they were slow to become the mere slaves of papal
dictation. They looked rather to their own sovereigns for
protection — which soon brought them all, sovereigns and
subjects, under the pope's censure and excommunication.
And thus arose, out of these Decretals, that abhorrent and
dangerous doctrine which so disgraced the Middle Ages, by
which the popes claimed the power to release the subject
from his allegiance to any disobedient prince, and to put
any ofthe kingdoms under interdict, on account of matters
merely temporal, and in no way concerning the faith ofthe
Church. An instance of this kind occurred under the pon
tificate of Adrian IL, the immediate successor of Nicholas
I.(") When Lothaire, King of Lorraine, died, he left no
(9) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 241.
(10) Pope Adrian II. was a married man. His wife's name was Steph-
ania. He had a daughter, who was stolen away by the son of another prel
ate !— Cormenin, vol. i., p. 250 ; Milman, vol. iii., p. 67.

394 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
rightful heir to his kingdom ; and a claim to it was set up
by his brother Louis, who prevailed upon Adrian to espouse
his cause and to interfere in his behalf by the employment
of his pontifical authority. The pope wrote to the lords of
Lorraine, not requesting merely, but commanding them to
support the pretensions of Louis. He irreverently and im
piously made this command " in the name of Christ," and
threatened all the metropolitans, dukes, and counts with ex
communication in the event of their disobedience. He told
them that, if they did not obey him, they should " be struck
by the arms which God has placed in our [his] hands for
the defense of this prince ;"(") thus perverting the religious
functions of his office by using them to accomplish ends en
tirely worldly. Charles the Bald, in the mean time, seized
upon the dominions of Lothaire, and was crowned King of
Lorraine with the consent of the people, and by the bishops
ofthe kingdom. Pope Adrian was greatly incensed. He
declared that all who should assist Charles in his diabolical
usurpation " would fall under anathema, and be given up to
the companions ofthe devil." He told the bishops of Lor
raine that by the coronation of Charles " they were prepar
ing him for hell."(13) While he did not accomplish any
thing by this impertinent intermeddling with the affairs of
a government over which he had no legal control, yet he
exhibited the purpose to interpose his pontifical power be
tween Charles and his subjects, and thus to make himself
master of their temporal affairs. That he did it under the
claim of authority assumed by previous popes, and affirmed
by the False Decretals, there is no reason to doubt. Mil-
man says, " He quoted against the king the irrefragable au
thority of passages from the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals "—
that is, from the pretended letters of Popes Lucius and
Stephen.(13) And thus these miserable forgeries began ear
ly to bear their natural fruit. So strongly did Adrian rely
upon them to sustain his presumptuous demands, that he
ventured to censure Charles for having dared to insult his
pontifical authority, and for not having prostrated himself
(") Cormenin, vol. i., p. 255 ; Milman, vol. iii., p. 71.
(,2) Milman, vol. iii., p. 71. (13) Ibid., p. 7C.

ADRIAN II. STIRS UP REVOLT IN FRANCE. 395
at the feet of his legates ! His letter to him concludes thus :
" Impious king, we order thee to retire from the kingdom of
Lorraine, and to surrender it to the Emperor Louis. If thou
refusest submission to our will, we will ourselves go into
France to excommunicate thee, and drive thee from thy
wicked throne. "(14)
Finding Charles unmoved by his threats, Adrian sent leg
ates into France to excite Carloman, the king's son, to re
volt against his father — a favorite mode of procedure with
the popes of that age, and which they tried to justify to
themselves and the world upon the ground that the good
of the Church required it, and therefore that God approved
it. Carloman willingly entered into the papal plans; but
he was arrested by Charles before they were carried into
execution, and severely punished. Charles then sent the
pope's legates back to Rome, accompanied by his own em
bassadors, who bore a letter from Hincmar, Archbishop of
Rheims, on his own behalf and that of the French bishops,
in which Adrian was severely censured, and given to under
stand, in plain and most emphatic terms, that neither his
anathemas nor excommunications would prevent Charles
from holding on to the kingdom of Lorraine. At this the
pope became perfectly infuriated, and immediately wrote to
Charles, calling him an " execrable prince," ordering him to
surrender Lorraine to Carloman, whose treason he had al
ready excited, and informing him that if he did not, he
would send his legate into his " accursed kingdom " to deal
with him as he should think proper. He commanded the
French lords not to take up arms in defense of their king,
the French bishops not to obey his orders — all "under the
penalty of excommunication and eternal damnation."
Charles now became irritated " by the audacity and inso
lence of this letter," and instructed Archbishop Hincmar to
give the pope to understand, in unmistakable terms, and
without further equivocation, that he would no longer sub
mit to this unwarrantable interference with the domestic
affairs of France. Among other things, Hincmar's letter in
behalf of the king contained these strong words : " We are
(14) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 257.

396 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
established by God sovereign over the people, and are arm
ed with a twofold sword, to strike the wicked and defend
the good." Bold as the pope was, and secure as he felt
himself to be, in that ignorant and superstitious age, under
the protection of the False Decretals, he now became alarm
ed at the intrepidity of the King of France. He knew that
Hincmar had counseled the king to separate France from
Italy, on account, mainly, of the controversy between the
pope and the Gallican Christians, and he greatly dreaded
this result, on account of the fact that the withdrawal of
French protection would expose Rome to powerful and vin
dictive enemies in other directions. Lie was anxious to hold
on to France by means of the alliance formed by his prede
cessors with Pepin and Charlemagne, and govern its kings,
at least to the extent of being able to employ their military
strength in defense of the papacy ; but finding Charles not
disposed to bow before him, either his courage failed him,
or he resolved upon practicing such duplicity as other
popes besides him have well understood how to employ.
In this art he was a perfect adept. Consequently, he im
mediately retracted every thing he had said against Charles
in a letter which, as a specimen of papal insincerity and hy
pocrisy, has scarcely a parallel. It shows how unreliable
has been the judgment of at least one of the great popes
about the duty which men owe to God. What it is one
day it is not the next, accordingly as the pope's views of
temporal policy may change, or as the papacy is the gainer
or the loser ! Here is what he said to the king :
" Prince Charles, we have been apprised by virtuous per
sons that you are the most zealous protector of churches in
the world ; that there exists not in your immense kingdom
any bishopric or monastery on whicb you have not heaped
wealth, and we know that you honor the see of St. Peter,
and that you desire to spread your liberality on his vicar,
and to defend him against all his enemies.
" We consequently retract our former decisions, recogniz
ing that you have acted with justice in punishing a guilty
son and a prelatical debauchee, and in causing yourself to he
declared sovereign of Lorraine and Burgundy. We renew to
you the assurance that we, the clergy, tbe people, and the no-

THE HYPOCRISY OF ADRIAN II. 397
bility of Rome, wait with impatience for the day on which
you shall be declared king, patrician, emperor, and defender
of the Church. We, however, beseech you to keep this letter a
secret from your nephew Louis."^)
Thus we see how these False Decretals became a part of
the canon law of Rome, how they were expressly prepared
in aid of papal ambition, and how unblushingly they were
employed to justify perfidious popes in assuming, as one of
their official prerogatives derived from Peter, the right to
dictate the temporal policy of governments, to make and
unmake kings, and to require universal obedience; such obe
dience as should be prescribed by an ecclesiastical hierarchy
raised above all human laws, entitled to commit the highest
crimes, and to perpetrate all sorts of wrongs with impuni
ty and without responsibility to any tribunals except those
which were the mere passive and submissive tools of the pa
pal will. True, the blow aimed by Adrian II. at the rigbts
of the French king recoiled upon his own head, and taught
him that the Gallican Christians, under the lead of Hincmar,
were not as easily reduced to obedience as were those of
Italy, upon whose necks he had already planted his pontif
ical heel. But his immediate successor, John VIII., endeav
ored to recover from the effects of this recoil, and to regain
the ground he had lost by recognizing the refractory Charles
as the legitimate sovereign of Lorraine and Burgundy. This
he resolved to do, if possible, by imitating {he perfidious pol
icy of Adrian ; so as to bring Charles, by flattery, into the
meshes of his pontifical net — a result which he well under
stood could not be accomplished by threats. Accordingly,
he offered to make him "the protector of the Holy See,"
and for that purpose invited him to Rome. Charles could
not resist the temptation, and, upon going to Rome, was
crowned emperor by the pope, who, true to the papal policy,
took care to say to him, as he placed the crown upon his
brow, "Do not forget, prince, that the popes have the right
to create emperors!"^') Charles was overcome by his am
bition, and by accepting the crown upon these conditions re
duced the empire over which he presided to the humiliating
(1B) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 259. (1S) Ibid., vol. i., p. 260.

398 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
condition of a fief to the Holy See, and gave his sanction
to the custom of crowning emperors by the popes ; and, in
the end, to the recognition of their authority over all the
governments and temporal affairs of Europe. With what
complacency such examples as this are referred to by the
papal writers in proof of the pope's supremacy ! An agree
ment between kings and popes that they shall jointly gov
ern all mankind is held up to the world as a part of the law
of God ! Shall this example ofthe ninth century be repeat
ed in the nineteenth ? Or shall those who are now seeking
to repeat it be rebuked by the voice of popular indignation,
which shall ring in their ears so long as they shall live ?
But the end sought for was only reached by slow degrees
and by gradual usurpations. It took many years of severe
struggle on the part of the popes to consummate it, by the
abolition of the old and the introduction of the new ecclesi
astical system founded upon the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.
It required the combined intellect, courage, and unbending
will of the three great popes, Gregory VII., Alexander III.,
and Innocent ILL, to do what all the other popes were un
able to accomplish; that is, to elevate the papacy above
all the nations, and place emperors and kings at their feet.
The author of "The Pope and the Council" — a book that
deserves careful study, not merely because of the great abil
ity it displays, but because it is written by a Roman Catho
lic, though opposed to papal infallibility — thus speaks of the
times following immediately after the pontificates of Nicho
las I., Adrian IL, and John VIII. :
" Nearly three centuries passed before the seed sown pro
duced its full harvest. For almost two hundred years,
from the death of Nicholas I. to the time of Leo IX., the
Roman See was in a condition which did not allow of any
systematic acquisition and enforcement of new or extend
ed rights. For above sixty years (883-955) the Roman
Church was enslaved and degraded, while the Apostolic
See became the prey and the plaything of rival factions of
the nobles, and for a long time of ambitious and profligate
women. It was only renovated for a brief interval (997-
1003) in the persons of Gregory V. and Sylvester IL, by
the influence of the Saxon emperor. Then the papacy sunk

THOROUGH DEBASEMENT AT ROME. 399
back into utter confusion and moral impotence ; the Tuscan
counts made it hereditary in their family; again and again
dissolute boys, like John XII.(") and Benedict IX, (1B) oc
cupied and disgraced the apostolic throne, which was now
bought and sold like a piece of merchandise ; and at last
three popes fought for the tiara, until the Emperor Henry
ILL put an end to the scandal by elevating a German bishop
to the see of Rome." (18)
The emperor having, by virtue of his temporal sovereign
ty over the empire (including Italy), obtained this recog
nized authority over the popes, they became, from necessi
ty, more subject to Teutonic than to the Frankish influ
ences by which they had been directed from the time of
their alliance with Pepin and Charlemagne. The Saxon
and Salique emperors bad by that time placed Germany in
the very front rank of the nations ; and although the Ger
man people were devoted, from education and babit, to the
Roman Catholic religion, even then they gave occasional
evidences of that natural love of freedom which has since
enabled them to reach a condition of superiority over the
Latin races, and to assert principles whicb have become es-
(n) John XII. was made pope a.d. 956, when he did not exceed eighteen
years of age, and some authors represent him as only twelve. He was ex
ceedingly dissolute, and was accused of incest with his own mother! Baro-
nius, the great annalist, calls him " an abortion." — Cokmenin, vol. i., p. 292.
(1B) Benedict IX. became pope a.d. 1033, at twelve years of age. He
was driven from Rome ; and Sylvester III. was made pope a.d. 1044. Syl
vester was driven out by Benedict, at the end of about three months, when
the latter again mounted the pontifical throne. He then sold the tiara, for
fifteen thousand pounds of gold, to John XX., who entered upon the pontif
icate a.d. 1045. Benedict soon dissipated the money, when he retook the
"chair of Peter "from John — thus making three "vicars" at the same
time! They finally agreed to hold their orgies together, and "filled Rome
with adnltery, robbery, and murder," and finally united in selling the pontif
icate to Gregory VI., and concluded the bargain " on the very altar of Christ
itself!" Clement II. succeeded Gregory VL, when Benedict IX., "at the
head of a troop of brigands," again seized the throne. The emperor then
made Damasus II. pope ; and Benedict, getting rid of him by poison in a few
days, once more placed the tiara upon his brow. The Emperor of Germany
then put an end to these disgraceful scenes by giving the pontificate to Leo
IX.— Ibid., pp. 328, etc.
(") "The Pope and the Council," by "Janus," pp. 80, 81.

400 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
sential to all the advancing and progressive governments
of the world. The emperors protected the popes of their
own creation with strong hands ; and but for this, it is al
most certain that the Church at Rome would have been
overwhelmed by Italian corruption, and have sunk out of
sight.(30) After the Emperor Henry III. had placed Leo
IX., a German, in the pontifical chair, in preference to an
Italian, it became well understood by all the aspirants for
that position that, in whatsoever manner selected, no pope
could be recognized as such without his consent. He sway
ed his temporal sceptre over all parts of the empire, in
cluding the city of Rome. But this condition of affairs was
submitted to by the Italians from necessity, not choice ; and
influences designed to counteract it were readily contrived.
Among those most conspicuous in these counter-movements
was the celebrated Hildebrand, afterward Pope Gregory
VII., who employed all his acknowledged ability in the
endeavor to persuade even the German popes that it was
beneath their dignity to accept the tiara from a temporal
prince. Llis ambition led him to abandon his cloistered
life, that he might put himself into a position ultimately to
become pope, and by these means he hoped to lay the foun
dation of that system of measures out of which subsequent
ly arose, under his skillful management, that vast pontifical
power which he wielded with so much success over emper
ors, kings, and peoples. For more than a quarter of a cent
ury before he became pope — passing through the reigns of
eight popes — Hildebrand exercised a larger share of influ
ence at Rome than any other man, not a pope, had ever
done before. This commanding position was owing to his
great courage, superior talents, and unbending will — all of
which were employed to gratify his inordinate ambition.
His leading and most cherished object was to overthrow
the power of the emperors and establish the papal suprema
cy, not only at Rome, but elsewhere throughout the world.
While Henry III. lived, he practiced his intrigues with great
caution ; but at his death, when Henry IV. became emperor,
at five years of age, he took advantage of his minority, and
(20) "Hist, of the Popes," by Ranke, p. 23.

POPE GREGORY VII. 401
more openly and daringly avowed his purpose. Although
the popes Leo IX., Victor H., Stephen IX., Nicholas II. , and
Alexander II. all held their positions with the consent of
these emperors, yet none of them was able to conduct the
affairs of the Church upon any other policy than that dic
tated by Hildebrand, before whom they were all dwarfed
into comparative insignificance. And when he himself be
came pope as Gregory VII., he had laid his plans so skill
fully, that, while also compelled to obtain the assent of Hen
ry IV. to his pontifical ordination, he had very clearly mark
ed out his way to ultimate success. He took his place at
once in the very front rank of the leading men of his age.
Like some giant oak which overshadows all the lesser trees
of the forest, he rose to au immense height above all around
him, and so impressed all Europe by the superiority of his
intellect, that it required centuries to get rid of the influ
ences of his pontificate. No man in history has received
more fulsome praise or more violent censure ; and while
this is not the place to inquire which of these he most de
served, it can not be denied that among all his other quali
ties none distinguished him so much as his ambition — his
desire to make the papacy the governing and controlling
power of the whole world, in both spiritual and temporal
affairs. In this aspect of his character alone is it now pro
posed to view him.
Gregory VII. commenced his pontificate by asserting the
right to dispose of kingdoms, in imitation of the example set
by Pope Gregory I., nearly four hundred years before. He
granted to the Count of Champagne, in consideration of
large sums of money, the right to conquer the kingdom of
Arragon ; and authorized him and other lords to seize upon
the territory held by the Saracens and erect it into an in
dependent kingdom, subordinate to the papacy. He quar
reled with Philip, King of France, and threatened him with
anathema if he refused to obey him. He concerted meas
ures to force all the bishops and priests of the Church to the
practice of celibacy, so that, separated from all family and
domestic influences, they might constitute a great army,
thoroughly and entirely devoted to the papacy. He roused
up all the superstitious populations of Europe to undertake
26

402 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
a holy war, by marching to Palestine and wresting it from
the hands of the infidel ; and failed to execute this purpose
only because he feared the power of the Emperor of Ger
many, who opposed it. He took from the King of France
the power of investing bishops, and excommunicated him
for his resistance to his will. He directed the bishops of
France to put the whole kingdom under interdict, and to tell
the king, if he persisted in his refusal to obey him, that "the
thunders of St. Peter will strike him, as God before struck
Satan." He summoned Henry IV. to appear before a coun
cil in Rome, under penalty of anathema, in case of disobedi
ence ; and when Henry threatened him in turn, he issued his
bull of excommunication against him — not because of his
want of devotion to the faith of the Church, but on account
of their differences upon questions merely temporal. In
this celebrated bull he appealed to the "holy mother of
God, St. Paul, and all the saints in heaven," to witness his
sincerity, and then declared : " But since I have reached this
throne by your grace, I believe that it is your will that
Christian people should obey me, by virtue of the power
• which you [St. Peter] have transmitted to me of binding and
loosing in heaven and on earth. Thus, for the safety ofthe
Church, and in the name of God all-powerful, the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, I prohibit Henry, who by reason of
an unheard-of pride has elevated himself against us, from
governing the kingdoms of Germany and Italy. I free all
Christians from the oaths which they have taken to him,
and I prohibit all from serving him as king; for he who
would oppose our authority deserves to lose his crown, his
liberty, and his life. I burden Henry, then, with anathema
and malediction ; I devote him to the execration of men,
and I deliver up his soul to Satan, in order that the people
may know that the sovereign pontiff is the rock upon which
the Son of the living God has built his Church, and that the
gates of hell shall never prevail against it."(31)
Gregory, far too bold for disguise, does not here pretend,
as do many of the modern papists, that his right to interfere
(!I) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 370; "See of Rome in the Middle Ages," by
Reichel, p. 208 ; "Latin Christianity," by Milman, vol. iii., pp. 437, 438.

THE CLAIM OF DIVINE POWER. 403
in the domestic affairs of Germany, so far as to dethrone the
emperor and release all his subjects from their allegiance
to him, was derived from the consent of the nations or from
any human authority. He placed it upon the ground where
the present pope and all his hierarchy understand it to rest ;
that is, upon tbe power to bind and loose — the power ofthe
keys— as derived directly from God. In this sense he re
garded it as a power sufficiently great and omnipotent to
absorb all other power upon earth, by the possession of
which, as the successor of Peter, he had the right to make
and unmake kings, to construct and reconstruct govern
ments, to wrest from those who disobeyed him all the terri
tory held by them, and to bestow it upon those who would
hold it in subjection to his authority, and to do any and ev
ery thing, no matter what, necessary to put the whole world
under his feet. He had deliberately formed the purpose of
creating an absolute and universal monarchy in the Church,
and a no less extensive and despotic civil monarchy which
should overshadow all existing nations, and had the courage
to declare that he was acting in obedience to the commands
of God, who had given him, as his earthly vicar, full power
over all mankind, so that he could open or close the. gates
of heaven or of hell to them at his pleasure. He desired to
bind all the people of every nation by a bond of allegiance
to the Roman pontiffs, as the successors of Peter, so that
all the contests in -which nations or men should become in
volved should be settled at Rome, where the sole power of
arbitrament and decision should exist. (22) And the ground
upon which he rested this enormous claim of authority
shows that he had no other idea in his mind than that it
rightfully belonged to him as the head ofthe Roman Cath
olic Church. He placed his right to command Philip of
France expressly upon the ground that both that country
and the soul of the king " were under the dominion of St.
Peter," by virtue of his right " to bind and loose, in heaven
and upon earth," well knowing, as he did, that the popes
were indebted for all their dignity and dominion to the
French princes, Pepin, Charlemagne, and their successors.
(M) Maclaine's Mosheim, part ii., ch. ii., p. 269.

404 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
He pretended that Saxony was held as a fief in subjection
to the papacy, because Charlemagne had given it as a pious
offering to St. Peter. He maintained that Spain was the
property of the Apostolic See ; and that he had the right, by
virtue of divine appointment, to exact homage of the Em
peror of Germany, and the Kings of England, Hungary, Den
mark, Poland, Russia, and all the powers and principalities
of Europe, and to release their subjects from their allegiance
in case of refusal, because they were all held in the same
right. (23) Therefore, when he found that there were many
refractory bishops who were unwilling to be drawn away
from the support of their own kings, he endeavored to incite
them to disobedience and revolt, by such letters as the fol
lowing, which he addressed to the Bishop of Metz:
"As for those who maintain that kings can not be legiti
mately deposed by popes, I refer them to the words and the
example of the fathers ; and they will learn that St. Peter
said, ' Be ye always ready to punish the guilty, whatever
their rank.' Let them consider the motives which induced
Pope Zachary to depose King Childeric, and to free all the
Franks from their oath of fidelity. Let them learn that St.
Gregory in his Decretals [a.d. 590-604] not only excommu
nicated the lords and kings who opposed the execution of
his orders, but that he even deprived them of their power.
Let them not forget that St. Ambrose himself drove from
the temple the Emperor Theodosius, calling him a profane
man, sacrilegious, and a murderer.
" Perhaps these miserable slaves of kings would maintain
that God, when he said to St. Peter, ' Feed my lambs,' except
ed princes ; but we will demonstrate that Christ, in giving
to the apostle power to bind and loose men, excepted no one.
The Holy See has absolute power over all spiritual things :
why should it not also rule temporal affairs? God reigns
in the heavens ; his vicar should reign over all the earth.
These senseless wretches, however, maintain that the royal
is above the episcopal dignity. Are they, then, ignorant
that the name of king was invented by human pride, and
that the title of bishop was instituted by Christ ? St. Am-
(M) Maclaine's Mosheim, part ii., chap, ii., p. 270.

USURPATION JUSTIFIED BY EXAMPLE. 405
brose affirms that the episcopate is superior to royalty, as
gold is superior to a viler metal."(")
Here we have an example of the manner in which prece
dent may be made an apology for the most flagrant usurpa
tion. Without pretense of authority for the construction
he gave to the words of Christ when he conferred the pow
er to bind and loose upon the apostles, except that derived
from the examples of Popes Gregory I. and Zachary, the
bold ambition of Gregory VII. prompted him to declare
that this was sufficient for his purpose. He reached this con
clusion manifestly because he regarded all popes, both good
and bad, as infallible, and therefore incapable of error. In
the same way the whole system of papal supremacy is built
up: one pope proving the existence of his enormous spiritual
and temporal power by another! Thus, after the pontificate
of Gregory VII. had ended, Alexander III. added him to the
list of examples; and then Innocent III. added Alexander;
and Boniface VHI. added Innocent ; and now, in the nine
teenth century, and in the face of all its progress, when the
list is brought down to Pius IX, he invokes, in support of
the doctrines ofthe Encyclical and Syllabus of 1864, the ex
amples of all his "illustrious predecessors!"
Gregory VH. carried his interference in the affairs of Ger
many further than merely issuing papal bulls against Henry
IV. He succeeded in stirring up revolt against him among
the German nobles, who elevated Rudolph, Duke of Suabia,
to the imperial throne, in opposition to Henry. The pope
issued a decree in favor of Rudolph, again declaring Henry
dispossessed of the crown, invoking upon his head the thun
ders of heaven, and declaring Rudolph " the lawful king of
the Teutonic States." Then, addressing St. Peter and St.
Paul, he said :
" Now, blessed St. Peter and St. Paul, let the world know,
by giving victory to Rudolph, that you can bind and loose
in heaven ; that you can give or take away empires, king
doms, principalities, duchies, marquisates, countships, and
the goods of all men ; finally, that you take from the un-
(M) Cormenin, vol. i.,p. 371; Milman's "Latin Christianity," vol. hi., p.
445.

406 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
worthy and bestow on the good, the pontificate, primacies,
archbishoprics, and bishoprics. Let the people know that
you judge spiritual things, and that you have an absolute
power over temporal affairs ; that you can curb the demons
who are the counselors of princes, and annihilate kings and
the powerful of the earth. Display, then, your greatness
and your power, and let the world now tremble before the
redoubtable orders of your Church. Cause especially the
sword of your justice promptly to strike the head of the
criminal Henry, in order that all Christians may learn that
he has been stricken by your will."(S6)
Notwithstanding this solemn appeal to Heaven — this im
pious invocation of the apostles in favor of his political in
trigues in Germany — the prayer ofthe pope was not heard,
the empire of Germany was not taken from its legitimate
possessor, and the world did not tremble before the thun
ders of the Vatican ! The pride of Henry, which had been
sorely wounded by his former humiliation by Gregory, be
came excited ; and the slumbering energies of the German
people became aroused at this insolent attempt to place
them at the feet of the papacy. Henry raised a large
army, overthrew Rudolph — who lost his life in battle —
marched to Rome, convened a council of German ecclesi
astics and nobles, deposed Gregory, and placed the Metro
politan of Ravenna upon the pontifical throne, under the
name of Clement III. (ae) After many varying fortunes,
Gregory was enabled to drive the anti - pope Clement
from the throne, but he soon sunk under the tremendous
load which pressed upon him, and in the year 1085 died,
uttering these words: "No, my hatred is implacable. I
curse the pretended Emperor Henry, the anti -pope Gui
bert, and the reprobates who sustain them. I absolve and
bless the simple who believe that a pope has power to bind
and loose." '(")
One other explanation by Gregory VII. of the principles
upon which he acted will enable the reader to form a just

(S5) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 375.
C) Ibid. ; " Hist, of the CathoUc Church," by Noethen, p. 340.
(2T) Cormenin, vol, i,, p. 377.

WHATEVER THE POPE COMMANDS IS RIGHT. 407
appreciation of his character and ambition. It is given by
Cormenin in these words :
" ' God is a spirit,' says Gregory ; ' he rules matter ; thus
the spiritual is above the temporal power. The pope is the
representative of God on earth ; he should, then, govern the
world.. To him alone pertain infallibility and universali
ty ; all men are submitted to his laws, and he can only be
judged by God; he ought to wear imperial ornaments;
people and kings should kiss his feet ; Christians are irrev
ocably submitted to his orders; they shoidd murder their
princes, fathers, and children if he commands it; no council
can be declared universal without the orders of the pope ;
no book can be received as canonical without his authori
ty ; finally, no good or evil exists but in what he has con
demned or approved.' "(a8)
Thus understanding the principles of this great pope, we
are the better enabled to press our inquiries one step fur
ther, in order to understand the source of these principles,
and the method adopted by him to justify and. enforce them.
And here, again, the exhaustive work of "Janus " conies to
our assistance. This author says :
" Gregory collected about him by degrees the right men
for elaborating his system of Church law. Anselm of Luc
ca, nephew of Pope Alexander II. , compiled the most im
portant and comprehensive work, at his command, between
1080 and 1086. Anselm may be called the founder ofthe
new Gregorian system of Church law, first, by extracting
and putting into convenient working shape every thing in
the Isidorian forgeries serviceable for the papal absolutism;
next, by altering the law of the Church, through a tissue of
fresh inventions and interpolations, in accordance with the
requirements of his party and the stand -point of Gregory.
Then came Deusdedit, whom Gregory made a cardinal, with
some more inventions. At the same time Bonizo compiled
his work, the main object of which was to exalt the papal
prerogatives. The forty propositions or titles of this part
of his work correspond entirely to Gregory's 'Dictatus,' and
the materials supplied by Anselm and Deusdedit."(2")
C8) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 377. , C) " Janus," pp. 82, 83.

408 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
This same author then goes on to show how, by these old
and new forgeries, all based upon the pseudo-Isidorian De
cretals, authority was found to justify every claim set up by
the pope ; how the pretended decrees of the popes were put
in tbe place of the canons of councils, to supply all existing
deficiencies; how they were made to justify the claim of
Gregory of the right to give or take away kingdoms at his
pleasure ; how the bishops were made gods, so that no hu
man tribunal could judge them ; how even the lower cler
gy were made higher and more powerful than secular mon
archs ; and how Deusdedit, one of the forgers, falsely attrib
uted to Boniface, the Apostle of Germany, the abominable
sentiment that, " Even if a pope is so bad that he drags
down whole nations to hell with him in troops, nobody can
rebuke him; for he who judges all can be judged of no
man : the only exception is in case of his swerving from
the faith."(30)
The main object of Gregory, and of all these forgeries,
was to bring the Church to the point of recognizing the
doctrine of papal infallibility as absolutely necessary to sal
vation. To accomplish this it was indispensable that the
pope should, individually and personally, absorb all the pow
ers of the Church, so that his decrees should become the law
for the government of all Christians, without the aid or con
sent of either general or provincial councils. In the earlier
ages general councils had always been assembled whenever
it was necessary to settle questions of faith or discipline, and
the canon law of the Church was rightfully composed only
of their enactments. Previous to the pontificate of Gregory
there had been eight of these. The Council of Nice, in the
year 325, condemned Arianism. The first of Constantinople,
in 381, condemned the heresy of Macedonius. The Council
of Ephesus, in 431, condemned the heresy of Nestorius. The
Council of Chalcedon, in 451, condemned the heresy of Eu
tyches. The second of Constantinople, in 553, acted upon
the disagreements between the Eastern and Western Chris
tians. The third of Constantinople, in 682, condemned the
Monothelite heresy. The second Council of Nice, in 757,
(so) "Janus," p. 92.

ABSOLUTISM ASSERTED BY GREGORY VII. 409
condemned the Iconoclast heresy. And the fourth Council
of Constantinople, in 869, deposed the Patriarch Photius, and
restored Ignatius to his see. None of these councils would
have been held, or would have been necessary, if the doc
trine of papal infallibility had prevailed in the apostolic
times, or for centuries afterward. But Gregory was not
satisfied with this old order of things — with the principles
which prevailed before the Church of Rome was contami
nated by the influence of papal ambition. Like those secu
lar despots who governed their nations by laws of their own
creation, without asking the assent of lords, nobles, or peo
ple, he resolved upon governing the Church without the
consent of bishops, clergy, or laymen ; in other words, to
put himself in the place of God, as the sole dispenser of all
spiritual and temporal authority. He loved absolutism be
cause it gave him power, and he exercised power so as to
make papal absolutism complete and universal. Therefore,
he was the first pope who attempted the degradation of
civil potentates, the first who " lifted the sacerdotal lance
against the royal diadem. "(3I) And it should excite no sur
prise when we find him appealing " to the first forged docu
ment that came to hand as a solid proof "(32) of the lawful
ness of his usurpations; or that he set up tbe false pretense
that Charlemagne had made all France and Saxony tribu
tary to the Holy See, and declared that there were docu
ments in proof of it preserved in the archives of St. Pe
ter's!^3) Great as he was, he had that bad ambition which
has so often left its blighting influence upon the world, and
which prompts its possessor to justify the means by the end
in view. By the impious employment of sacred things to
bring about mere temporal results, he left an example the
influence of which has not yet died away at Rome. And, if
his pontificate may yet be justly referred to as one of ex
ceeding brilliancy and splendor, and if he may be pointed
out as one ofthe cherished saints ofthe Church, to be loved
and imitated by the faithful, the " truth of history " assigns
this position to him only because the world judges by re-
(31) "Var. of Popery,"by Edgar, p. 217. (S2) " Janus,"p. 114.
(33) Ibid.

410 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER. '
suits, not details. If we look only at the lustre which rest
ed upon the brow ofthe pagan Caesar, we are dazzled by its
splendor; yet if we pause to inquire how he won the dia
dem, we almost hear the groans of the multitude of victims
who were crushed beneath his heel. So, if we search accu
rately the history of this papal Csesar, we shall find him
reaching his lofty eminence by trampling the most holy and
sacred things under his feet, by giving way to the prompt
ings of an unholy and unjust ambition, and by setting such
an example as led to the corruption of subsequent popes,
and the demoralization of nearly the entire clergy.
The successors of Gregory VII. not only adopted his prin
ciples, but followed his example, so far as they were per
mitted by surrounding circumstances to do so. Urban II.
(1088-1099) incited a crusade against the infidels in Pales
tine by holding out "the spoils "of victory as an induce
ment. Calixtus II. (1118-1124) gave to a monk the author
ity to subjugate the Church of England to the court of
Rome,, and of re-establishing his authority in France. In'
nocent II. (1130-1143) hurled his anathemas at the head of
Arnold of Brescia because he preached against the effemi
nate and corrupt lives of the priests and monks. Adrian
IV. (1154-1159) excommunicated the King of Sicily, and
granted the crown of Ireland to the King of England. (sl)
(3i) A feeble effort has been recently made to break the force of this im
portant fact by a flat denial. The Rev. Father Burke, an Irish priest of
great eloquence, in reply to a statement made by Mr. Froude, solemnly and
fearlessly asserts " that Pope Adrian never issued any such document," basing
this positive statement mainly upon the ground that it was not heard of until
about twenty years after its alleged date. — Ireland's Case stated, in Reply to
Mr. Froude, by Burke, leet. i., p. 36. Bold affirmation of this sort may
serve the purpose of a popular lecture, especially when delivered to an ex
cited and sympathizing audience, but it amounts to very little against the
weight of historic evidence. To say nothing of the numerous Protestant au
thorities in support of this grant, it is well attested by Roman Catholic histo
rians. Lingard admits it, and states that it was read to a synod of Irish
bishops, and afterward caused Roderic, King of Connaught, to hold his
crown under the English king as long as he was faithful to him and paid
tribute. He also shows that, in 1175, this grant was confirmed by Pope Al
exander III., which last grant Father Burke also tries to prove a forgery. —
History of England, by Lingard, vol. ii., p. 94. The Rev. Father The'baud,
a Jesuit, is the author of a very instructive work, published in 1873, entitled

THE GRATIAN DECRETALS. 411
All these things were done in the name of religion, by its
perversion to uses never contemplated by Christ or the
apostles. The character of St. Peter was wholly changed ;
instead of being a minister of peace and love, sent forth
without staff or scrip to preach the Gospel, he was trans
formed into a temporal priuce, ambitiously striving after the
conquest and subjugation of the world !
The Gratian Decretals made their appearance about the
middle of the twelfth century. (36) These were issued from
Bologna, then renowned for having the best law school in
Europe, and were put forth under the sanction of the high
est ecclesiastical authority. They too, like their predeces
sors, were full of forgeries — all designed to promote the
cause of papal absolutism. " Janus " says of them :
"In this work the Isidorian forgeries were combined with
those of the Gregorian writers, Deusdedit, Anselm, Gregory
ofPavia, and with Gratian's own additions. His work dis
placed all the older collections of canon law, and became
the manual and repertory, not for canonists only, but for
the scholastic theologians, who, for the most part, derived
all their knowledge of fathers and councils from it. No
book has ever come near it in its influence in the Church,
although there is scarcely another so choke-full of gross er
rors, both intentional and unintentional  All these fab-
"The Irish Race in the Past and the Present," in which he speaks of the
grant of Adrian without denying it. He says it was not known to Pope
Clement III. (1187-1191). He admits that when Henry II. sent his army
into Ireland, the Irish people or clans and their chieftains acknowledged his
authority, but thinks they did not do it in the feudal sense, claiming for them,
what is probably true, that their pledge "to do homage "to the English king
did not deprive them of their right to live in the Pale if they chose, and to
be governed by the Brehon law (pp. 138-145). A " History of Ireland "
was published only a few years ago (1868), written by Miss M. F. Cusack,
"nun of Kenmare," in which the existence of Adrian's grant is spoken of as
an undoubted fact. It is said that it was made by the pope because he was
an Englishman. The author subjoins the original bull in a note, wherein she
says, "There can be no reasonable doubt ofthe authenticity of this docu
ment." She further says that it was published by Baronius, from the"Codex
Vaticanus," and annexed to a brief addressed by Pope John XXII. (1316-
1334) to Edward II. ; also that John of Salisbury states in his " Metalogicus "
that he obtained the bull from Adrian (p. 275, n. 6).
(35) "Janus," p. 115.

412 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
rications — the rich harvest of three centuries — Gratian in
serted, in good faith, into his collection ; but he also added,
knowingly and deliberately, a number of fresh corruptions,
all in the spirit and interest of the papal system. "C")
A brief enumeration of a few of the principles, which by
these new forgeries of Gratian became a part of the canon
law of the Roman Church, will serve to illustrate still fur
ther the manner in which the papal system has grown. A
system of religious persecution was elaborated. Protection
was given by the Cburch to homicides and murderers, when
the acts were done in behalf of the papal cause. It was
made not only lawful, but a duty, to "constrain men to
goodness, and therefore to faith, and to what was then reck
oned matter of faith, by all means of physical compulsion,
and particularly to torture and execute heretics, and con
fiscate their property." It was provided that whosoever
should kill an excommunicated person out of zeal to the
Church was by no means a murderer; because all who are
declared " bad " by the Church authorities " are not only to
be scourged, but executed." All who " dared to disobey a
papal command, or speak against a papal decision or doc
trine," were made heretics. The pope was placed upon an
equality with Christ; these Decretals declaring that, "as
Christ submitted to the law on earth, though in truth he
was its Lord, so the pope is high above all laws of the Church,
and can dispose of them as he will, since they derive all their
force from him alone." (S7)
If the reader has kept in mind the principles embodied in
the false Isidorian Decretals, as well as those ofthe Grego
rian code, and will add to them these equally flagrant for
geries of Gratian, he will be able to comprehend what was
meant by the canon law ofthe Roman Catholic Church
about the middle of the twelfth century, and what is still
meant by it! It took more than a thousand years, from
the close of the apostolic era, for these principles to grow
and expand into the wonderful proportions they had then
acquired ; and even then the popes were indebted to the
basest and most palpable forgeries for their existence.
(3e) "Janus," p. 116.

ARNOLD OF BRESCIA BURNED TO DEATH. 413
Adrian IV. became pope in the year 1154. When Fred
erick Barbarossa, the Emperor of Germany, consented to be
crowned by the pope, he made a concession to the papal au
thority which greatly flattered the pride and aroused the
ambition of Adrian. But, besides his cession of Ireland to
England, his pontificate was distinguished by nothing else
so much as the conviction and execution of Arnold of Bres
cia, by burning, on account of his denunciation of the cor
ruptions ofthe Roman priesthood. (3e) The forged Decretals
were just beginning to bear fresh fruits — most palatable to
the papal taste, because it was considered necessary to the
further and successful growth of the papacy that every
voice, like that of Arnold's, which cried out for reform
should be hushed, and that every arm raised against papal
usurpation should be stricken down.
Alexander HL was his immediate successor — equally
ambitious, and far more bold and daring. At the time of
his election ail anti -pope was also elected, who took the
name of Victor IV. — the pontificate having become the ob
ject of most disgraceful struggles between rival aspirants.
Frederick Barbarossa was at that time prosecuting a war
in Lombard y, and Alexander III. commanded him not to
press his conquests any further, unless he desired to incur
the censures of the Church. Frederick paid no attention to
these threats, but summoned both Alexander and Victor to
appear before a council at Pavia, where it was proposed to
decide which of them was the rightful claimant ofthe tia
ra. Alexander treated the order of the emperor with as
much disdain as his own had received, and both anathema
tized and excommunicated Frederick, declaring that "the
power of the popes is superior to that of princes." The
council, however, assembled and decided in favor of Victor
IV., who was crowned at Pavia, and recognized as pope by
the bishops and clergy of Germany and Lombardy. Alex-
(3S) Arnold was a republican, and opposed the whole hierarchical system,
including the temporal power of the pope. He was condemned to silence
by a council at Rome, and banished ; but was finally seized and carried
back to Rome, where, "by the judgment of the clergy," he was "executed
by the officer of the pope." — Milman's Latin Christianity, vol. iv., pp. 270,
271.

414 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER. '
ander now excommunicated Frederick the second time, and
declared all his subjects freed from their oath of fidelity to
him. This, like his former excommunication, was witbout
effect upon the emperor, but it surrounded Alexander with
embarrassments which would have crushed a less coura
geous man. With the Emperor of Germany, and the kings
of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Lombardy recognizing
Victor as the pope, and without any other support than the
doubtful and hesitating alliance of the kings of France and
England, Alexander III. bore up against the pressure with
wonderful ability. Though unable to reach the papal pal
ace in Rome, he was, nevertheless, " every inch a king" —
bold, firm, and defiant. Such persistent courage rarely fails
in the accomplishment of its object, whether good or bad.
At the death of Victor, which occurred in the year 1164,
after the schism had lasted about five years, the whole as
pect of affairs underwent a change. The exactions of Fred
erick, in Lombardy had caused a formidable party to be
formed against him there, and Alexander, taking advantage
ofthe disaffection, was enabled, by the use of money, to buy
his way into the city of Rome. Seated now upon the chair
of Peter, and without a rival, he was able to turn his atten
tion to the difficulties between the Holy See and the King
of England, growing out ofthe exertions of Becket, Arch
bishop of Canterbury, to bring that country into complete
obedience to Rome. This he did so effectually, that in a
short time he had the satisfaction of seeing the English
king completely humiliated before him, begging his pontif
ical protection, and disgracefully swearing that he would
"submit always to the Roman Church," and requiring his
sons to do the same. The contest between Alexander and
Frederick was long and fierce. The emperor marched into
Italy with his army, but was repulsed. At one time a pes
tilence swept off his soldiers so rapidly, before the walls of
Rome, that he was compelled to retreat, which strengthen
ed Alexander, on account of the popular belief that it was
the work ofthe Divine hand. At last Frederick was driven
to the necessity of submitting to terms of peace with the
pope ; and, when these had been agreed upon, he went to
Venice to meet Alexander, from whom he humiliatingly

TRIUMPH OF THE POPE. 415
begged absolution and forgiveness. The following account
of this disgraceful scene is copied by Cormenin from the
historian Fortunatus TJlmus :
"When the emperor arrived in the presence ofthe pope,
he laid aside his imperial mantle, and knelt on both knees,
with his breast on the earth. Alexander advanced and
placed his foot on his neck, while the cardinals thundered
forth in loud tones, ' Thou shalt tread upon the cockatrice,
and crush the lion and the dragon.'(38) Frederick exclaim
ed : 'Pontiff, this prediction was made of St. Peter, and not
of thee !' ' Thou liest,' replied Alexander ; ' it is written of
the apostle and of me ;' and, bearing all the weight of his
body on the neck of the prince, he compelled him to si
lence. He then permitted him to rise, and gave him his
blessing ; after which the whole assembly thundered forth
the'TeDeum."'(40) The next day Frederick Barbarossa, the degraded em
peror of the great German nation, kissed the feet of Alex
ander, and, on foot, led his horse by the bridle as he return
ed from solemn mass, to the pontifical palace. And thus
Alexander III. succeeded in accomplishing what many of
his predecessors had striven for — actually placing his foot
-upon the neck of one ofthe greatest and proudest of earth
ly monarchs ! The papacy had now risen to a height of
grandeur and power which it had never reached before.
The sword of Peter had conquered the sword of Csesar !
This event gave so much joy to Rome that a picture of
the pope treading under his feet the head of the emperor
hung for a long time upon the walls of St. Peter's Cburch
at Rome, and was afterward painted in the hall of the Vat
ican. (4I)
Alexander, now seated upon a throne higher than that of
princes, found that while he had been so vigorously engaged
in the prosecution of his ambitious projects, the internal af
fairs of the Church had become greatly deranged in conse
quence of the prevailing corruption among the clergy. The
(") Psalm xc, 13. (") Cormenin, vol. i., p. 444.
(4I) "Journey into Italy," by Montaigne, p. 321. Montaigne saw this
picture in 1581.

416 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
necessity for reform had also given rise to numerous heresies
— as every thing was called that did not favor the Court of
Rome. He accordingly convened a general council at Rome,
in 1179,(") for the purpose, more particularly, of suppressing
the Waldenses and the Albigenses. Among other decrees,
this council enacted a canon, in which these humble and
devout Christians are called "abominable" and "execra
ble heretics;" the faithful are admonished to take up arms
against them, under the promise of indulgences ; are re
leased from all their obligations to them, even though they
may arise out of treaty stipulations ; are freed from all their
oaths to them, however solemn ; and are enjoined " to con
fiscate their goods, reduce them to slavery, and put to death
all who are unwilling to be converted."(43)
Thus we find the False Decretals bearing still other fruit
— the legitimate offspring ofthe execrable principle intro
duced by Gratian, which justifies a resort to force, in order
to compel the recognition of the Roman Catholic faith — a
principle still maintained, in our own day, in the Syllabus
of Pope Pius IX. !(44) Alexander, in obedience to the coun
cil, preached a crusade against the Vaudois, and sent thou
sands of ignorant and rapacious fanatics among them to
strip them of their property, to persecute and exterminate
them. All readers of history are familiar with the terrible
scenes which ensued. Under a legate of the pope, their
peaceful valleys were invaded, " scaffolds were erected, the
instruments of torture rent anew the victims of supersti
tion ; then re-appeared all the frightful apparatus which the
ministers of tyranny could carry with them. Thousands of
heretics, old men, women, and children, were hung, quarter
ed, broken upon the wheel, or burned alive, and their prop
erty confiscated for the benefit ofthe king and the Holy
See."(4fi) The thirteenth century opened with Innocent III. and
closed with Boniface VIII. in the pontifical chair, each of
them ready to put in practice all the principles of the False
(4S) This is called the Third Lateran Council.
(") Cormenin, vol. i. , p. 446.
(44) See the Syllabus, Appendix D, proposition xxiv.
(46) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 447.

A.

INNOCENT III. 417
Decretals, especially those which contributed to the aug
mentation of the papal power. The sixteen popes who in
tervened between them so conducted the affairs of the
Church as to cause the historian Matthew Paris, a monk of
St. Albans, to declare that he had rather die than assist in
the prevailing iniquities. According to him, they practiced
an " odious tyranny," and their harpies snatched " even the
last rags which cover the faithful to maintain the luxury of
the court of Rome ;" and so universal was the corruption,
that he exclaimed, " Religion is dead, and the Holy City has
become an infamous prostitute, whose shamelessness surpasses
that of Sodom and Gomorrah." Therefore, it was but the
natural result of the condition of affairs at the beginning and
end of this century, that both Innocent and Boniface should
each endeavor to rival the most ambitious of their predecessors
in extending and consolidating the power of the papacy.
Innocent HI., after repossessing himself of some Italian
possessions which his predecessors had lost, turned his at
tention elsewhere, so as to widen the fields of his conquests.
He made an effort at negotiation with the Greek Christians,
that he might bring them again under the papal dominion.
But failing in this, he incited the Bulgarians to revolt
against the Eastern emperor, caused a part of Servia to be
detached from his empire,, and made one of his own tools
governor of that province. He quarreled with Philip, King
of France, excommunicated him, and placed his kingdom un
der interdict, so that all the churches were closed for eight
months, and the dead were left unburied ! He pursued the
grandson of Frederick Barbarossa, who was the legitimate
heir to the throne of Germany, with his implacable hatred,
and endeavored to dispossess him by declaring, first for
Philip of Suabia, and then for Otho of Saxony, after the lat
ter had made him large "presents!" He wrote to Otho:
" By the authority which God has given us in the person of
St. Peter, we declare you king, and we order the people to
render you, in this capacity, homage and obedience. We,
however, shall expect you to subscribe to all our desires as
a return for the imperial crown."('°) But after this pontif-
(48) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 459.
27

418 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ical gift of the German crown to Otho, he was defeated by
Philip ; when the pope, with the adroit cunning of a politi
cian, recognized Philip as emperor. Philip, however, was
assassinated soon after, and, thus being out of the way, the
pope turned again to Otho and consecrated him as emperor
at St. Peter's in Rome, taking care to require of him an oath
that he would defend the Church and its patrimony. Otho,
failing in this to the extent demanded by the pope, was ex
communicated, and all his subjects released from their alle
giance to him ! Innocent was satisfied with nothing less
than complete and entire submission to his will. And, true
to the teachings of the False Decretals, he inaugurated meas
ures of force and oppression to compel obedience to the doc
trines of the Churcb. He issued a bull to his legate, Dom
inic, commanding him to put all the inhabitants of the city
of Beziers, in France, to the sword ;(47) and, in obedience to
it, sixty thousand Vaudois were buried beneath its ashes,
none being saved but young girls and boys, who were aban
doned to the brutality of the soldiers. He resolved to crush
out the rising spirit of popular liberty wherever it made its

(") Du Pin, vol. ii., p. 151. This Roman Catholic author shows the steps
taken by Innocent III. to "exterminate " the Albigenses in Languedoc, Prov
ence, Danphine, and Arragon. In the year 1199, he confiscated their es
tates. He excited their princes to engage in a crusade for their destruction.
And whatsoever was done to accomplish this end was either by his express
direction, or had his pontifical approval — even the establishment of the cruel
and bloody Inquisition. He leaves no doubt whatever upon this latter point,
when he says : " The pope and the prelates were of opinion that it was law
ful to make use of force, to see whether those who were not reclaimed out of
a sense of their salvation might be so by the fear of punishments, and even
of temporal death. There had been already several instances of heretics
condemned to fines, to banishments, to punishments, and even lo death it
self; but there had never yet been any war proclaimed against them, nor any
crusade preached up for the extirpation of them. Innocent III. was the
first that proclaimed such a war against the Albigenses and Waldenses, and
against Raymond, Count of Toulouse, their protector. War might subdue
the heads, and reduce whole bodies of people ; but it was not capable of al
tering the sentiments of particular persons, or of hindering them from teach
ing their doctrines secretly. Whereupon the pope thought it advisable to set
up a tribunal of such persons whose business it should be to make inquiry
after heretics, and to draw up informations against them : and from hence
this tribunal was called The Inquisition." — Ibid., p. 154.

INNOCENT III. CANCELS MAGNA CHART A. 419
appearance, and, for this purpose, canceled the concessions
which the English barons had obtained from King John, in
the Great Charter of Liberties, and ordered that they be
disregarded, under the penalty of excommunication. In all
these acts, and others of a kindred character, he showed
himself possessed of very high qualities as the leader of a
party; but all that he did was prompted by but one motive
— that of raising the papacy above all the thrones and gov
ernments of earth. This, with him, was an all-absorbing
and controlling passion. The canon law, founded, as it then
stood, mainly upon the pseudo-Isidorian, Gregorian, and Gra
tian forgeries, had already been constructed and construed
with this end in view; and, therefore, the personal interest,
no less than the ambition of Innocent III., led him to pre
serve all these forgeries with care, so that, in the course of
time, the " pious fraud " might become sanctified by time,
because perpetrated in the name of St. Peter ! The result he
hoped and sought for has been accomplished.
When Boniface VIII. became pope, in the year 1294, the
affairs of the Church were in a very unsettled and disturbed
condition. There were then, as there have always been,
good and pious Christians among both clergy and laymen,
with whom it was impossible to look unconcernedly upon
the prevailing corruptions at Rome. Notwithstanding the
Inquisition had been established by Pope Innocent III. for
the purpose of suppressing all inquiry into these corruptions,
there were some of this class who had the courage to defy
it, and to cry out against the immoralities and vices of the
popes and those who basked in the sunshine of their favor.
Not being numerous or powerful enough, however, to con
stitute an effective body of reformers, their very weakness
invited the continuance by Boniface VIII. of the means in
augurated by Innocent III., in order to stifle their investi
gations and put an end to their complaints. The resort to
force to do this, having now become a fixed principle of the
canon law, Boniface, in continuing to employ it, not only
had the example of his predecessors to justify him, but acted
in accordance with his own inclinations. Ciaconius said of
him, while he was a cardinal, " This cardinal had a great
depth of iniquity, knavery, audacity, and cruelty, as well as

420 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
a measureless ambition, and an insatiable avarice."(49) And
many opportunities were offered him, during his pontificate,
to exhibit all these characteristics.
Boniface made a cruel and unjustifiable war upon the fam
ily of the Colonuas. There were two cardinals of this fami
ly, and these he drove out of Italy, despoiling their property
aud seizing their castles. He quarreled with Philip, King
of France, about his affair with the Earl of Flanders, one of
his own subjects, and threatened to interdict the kingdom
unless he would recognize his temporal power over him. He
commanded the clergy of France not to pay any thing to
the king for the support of the Government without his
consent. He declared, in a bull issued for the purpose, that
" God had established him over kings and kingdoms, to
pluck up, to destroy, to scatter, to build ; that the King of
France ought not to think he has no superior, and is not
subject to the pope ; that he who is of that opinion is a fool
and an infidel." He addressed himself thus to Philip : "Boni
face the bishop, a servant of the servants of God, to Philip,
King of France : Fear God, and keep his commandments.
We will you to know that you are subject to us, both in
spirituals and temporals  We declare them heretics
who believe the contrary."(49) Here was an act ex cathedrd,
from the chair of Peter, and concerning the faith. It was
performed by an infallible pope, and, therefore, binds the
faithful no less now than the day on which the bull of Boni
face was issued.
The king, dukes, earls, and barons of France united in a
protest against these extraordinary demands, and the As
sembly of the States resolved that France was not subject
to the pope in temporals. The prelates also interfered on
the side of Philip, and addressed Boniface in favor of recon
ciliation. The pope, in reply, declared that the doctrine of
the French Assembly was " schismatical, because it tends to
the establishment of two supreme heads,"(00) and summoned
the French prelates to Rome. This was forbidden by the
king, and the controversy became exceedingly angry on
(48) Apud Cormenin, vol. ii., p. 31. (40) Du Pin, vol. xii., p. 5.
, C) Ibid.,?. 6.

THE BULL UNAM SANCTAM. 421
both sides— one party asserting and the other denying the
temporal authority of the pope, in France. Boniface" con
vened a consistory in Rome, wherein one of the cardinals
spoke " boldly for the authority of the pope over the tem
poralities of kings," and Boniface did the same, insisting
that he had the right to " depose " the king. The king, on
his part, listened to severe accusations against the pope,
made by Nogaret, wherein he was charged with heresy, sim
ony, robbing churches, tyranny, blasphemy, extortion, and
many other crimes. The pope then issued his famous bull,
Unam Sanctam, which was also an act ex cathedrd, part of
the faith of the Church. In this bull he declares " that the
Church, which is one, has two swords, one spiritual, and the
other temporal ; that the temporal is subject to the spirit
ual; and that none can deny this truth without admitting
of two supreme heads, with the Manichees."(B1) We have
already seen, elsewhere, the precise wording of this bull, and
also that Pope Pius IX. has in his Encyclical declared it to
be yet a part of the canon law, as containing principles
by which his own pontifical conduct is regulated. And it
remains only, in this connection, to be seen that Boniface,
by virtue of his claim of infallibility, made it a part ofthe
canon law of Rome.
Du Pin says : " This pope caused to be composed and pub
lished a new body of decretals, entitled Sextus, divided into
five books, containing some decretals of his predecessors,
from the time of Gregory IX., and many of those which he
made in his own pontificate. This collection was not only
rejected in France, but there was even a time when nobody
durst make use of it, or quote it."(52)
In view of all the foregoing facts, it is impossible to
doubt about the origin of the temporal power of the popes,
or that it was the result of usurpation, fraud, and forgery.
Even acquired as it has been, it would have been acquiesced
in by the Christian nations if the ambition of the popes had
not tempted them to extend it beyond the boundary of the
Papal States. If they had been content to let it stand
where the Gallican Catholics of France were willing to con-
(61) Du Pin, vol. xii. , p. 7. (M) Ibid. , p. 9.

422 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
cede that it existed — in those states alone — the present
pope might yet have been the " King of Rome." The elo
quent pen of Bossuet was employed to defend the independ
ence ofthe Holy See, so as to protect it from the jealousies
of kings and princes ; yet he assigned to it the " heavenly
power of governing" only when it was "under the protec
tion of Christian kings."(63) Not satisfied, however, with
this, the popes have struggled for centuries, with untiring
assiduity, to place all the governments of the world under
their protection ; to ignore the right of the people every
where to construct their own governments ; to make both
kings and people obey them; to convert all the nations into
one grand Holy Empire, with whomsoever should occupy the
papal chair as its absolute monarch ; and by these means to
put the whole world under their feet ! Passing along near
er to our own time, we shall have no difficulty in observ
ing the progress of the struggle inaugurated by these papal
usurpations, and in realizing how necessary it was to the
happiness, and especially to the freedom, of mankind that
these usurpations should be resisted. And the lessons we
shall thus learn will not only be instructive in this view,
but we shall be compensated for the performance of the
task by seeing the condition into which the world would be
thrown if its progress were now arrested, and the nations
were thrown back into the darkness and superstition ofthe
Middle Ages by the triumph ofthe principles announced by
the present pope. If forewarned, we shall ourselves be to
blame if we are not also forearmed.
(63) " Primacy of the Holy See," by Kenrick, p. 267.

CHRISTIANITY IN ENGLAND. 423

CHAPTER XIV.
The Native Britons.— Their Religion before Augustine.— Gildas and Bede.
— Augustine holds Synod with British Bishops. — His Threats against
Them.— Conversion of Ethelfred. — Battle of Carlegeon, and Murder of
Monks of Bangor. — Roman Religion introduced. — The Effects of It. —
Offa murders Ethelbert, and the Pope pardons Him. — He establishes Pe
ter-pence. — He accepts a Code of Canon Laws from Adrian I. — The Na
tive Britons and the Saxons. — Their Customs and Religion are imparted
to each Other. — Saxon Kings willingly accept the Doctrine ofthe "Di
vine Right" to govern from Rome. — The Norman Conquest. — Harold. —
William of Normandy. — The Decision of Alexander II. upon his Claim.
— Consecrated Banner and a Hair of St. Peter. — Battle of Hastings. — In
fluence on England.— Celibacy introduced.— Example ofthe Legate of
Honorius II. — Innocent III. and King John. — He releases the Subjects
of John from their Allegiance. — Holds all Disobedient Kings to be Traitors
to God. — His Claim of Power and that of Pius IX. the Same. — Church
and State united. — Cardinal Antonelli to Papal Nuncio at Paris. — He
approves the Bull Unigenitus of Clement XI. — His Theory of the Indi
rect Power. — Its Effect. — A Heretical King forfeits his Kingdom. — The
Pope chooses a King for a Heretical Nation.
The working of the papal system and its influence upon
civil policy are nowhere more clearly seen than in the prin
cipal events which led to the Reformation in England. As
we trace the birth of our popular institutions back to the
great uprising of the people there, we can not fail to realize
how manifestly it was designed by Providence as the means
of breaking the sceptre of ecclesiastical tyranny and giv
ing freedom to the human mind. Having already observed
enough to demonstrate the necessity for reform among the
prelates and clergy of the Roman Church, we shall find, as
we go along, ample means of comparing Protestantism with
Romanism, and more particularly with that perverted form
of it which is maintained by those who direct the policy of
the papacy, and exultingly call themselves " the princes of
the Church."
The native Britons had their own form of Christianity,

424 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
existing apart from their Druidical worship, which, in what
soever way it was acquired, they believed to be of apostol
ic origin. Upon this subject there is much false teaching in
history. All the papal writers affirm that Christianity was
first introduced into Great Britain in the year 597, by the
monk Augustine and the missionaries who accompanied him
from Rome, during the pontificate of Gregory I. And many
Protestant writers concede this, seemingly disposed, without
investigation, to accept it as a fact, because it has been so
frequently and dogmatically asserted. (') There is nothing
farther from the truth ; and the evidence of this is so abun
dant and conclusive that no intelligent man, if he will take
the pains to examine it, can entertain any reasonable doubt
upon the subje'ct.
Clement, who was a disciple of Peter and a fellow-worker
of Paul, and who was Bishop ofthe R.oman Church about
the end of the first century, wrote his First Epistle to the
Corinthians shortly before his death — probably about the
year 97. Referring to Paul, he says he preached "both in
the East and West," and went to " the extreme limit of the
West."{f) Now, we know that after the Roman conquest
of Great Britain, before the birth of Christ, the country was
governed by a Roman prefect or propraBtor, who maintained
his authority by a large military force, and required the pay
ment of an annual tribute by the native inhabitants. And
we know also that the Britons were unable to expel the
Roman magistrates and establish their independence until
(') In the " Outlines of History," by Willson, which has become an Amer
ican school-book, the subject is disposed of in a few words, thus: "It ap
pears that about the year 597 Christianity was first introduced into England
by the monk Augustine, accompanied by forty missionaries, who had been
sent out by Pope Gregory for the conversion of the Britons. The new faith,
such as it pleased the Church to promulgate, being received cordially by the
kings, descended from them to their subjects, and was established without
persecution, and without the shedding of the blood of a single martyr."—
P. 261. The text will show how entirely unreliable are such unconsidered
statements as these. They are almost as far from the "truth of history" as
the stories of " The Arabian Nights."
(2) "Anti-Nicene Christian Library," The Apostolic Fathers, vol. i., p. 11.
This epistle of Clement is also found in "The Apocryphal New Testament,"
published some years ago in New York.

PAUL PREACHED IN THE EXTREME WEST. 425
about the beginning of tbe fifth century. Hence the con
clusion is clear that, if Paul preached in "the extreme lim
it of the West," he must have gone to Great Britain and
planted the Gospel there. Or, if the expression of Clement
be taken in a narrower and more limited sense, and Gaul be
considered as the utmost field of Paul's labors, then we may
conclude that the Christianity planted by him there was car
ried over to Britain by means ofthe intercourse between the
Gauls and the Britons.
Eusebius and Theodoret both assert that Christianity was
carried to Britain by some of the apostles, but without nam
ing Paul or any other apostle. Tertullian and Origen both
speak of it as established in their day — the first half of the
third century — and the former says distinctly that Christ
was solemnly worshiped by the inhabitants. Irenaeus says
that Christianity was carried to the " Celtic nations," which
included the Britons. Baronius, the annalist, says that there
was a MS. in the Vatican library at Rome which proved that
Simon Zelotes, the apostle, propagated the Gospel in Brit
ain, and that Joseph of Arimathea went there about the
year 35, and died there. Other authors mention the same
facts ; and Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre, says that Aristobulus,
to whom St. Paul refers in his Epistle to the Romans, was
the first bishop of Britain. (3)
Gildas the Wise wrote his "History ofthe Destruction of
the Brittaines" in the year 546, fifty-one years before the
mission of Augustine. Every page, and almost every sen
tence, of this book shows the existence of a British Christian
Church at that time. It is crowded with extracts from the
Old and the New Testament, and makes many references
to the condition of the British Christians. At one place he
says: "Britaine hath Priests, but some shee hath that are un
wise ; very many that minister, but many of them impu
dent; Clearkes shee hath, but certaine of them deceitful rav-

(3) The authorities upon this subject are all compiled by Bishop Short in
his "History of the Church of England," pp. 1, 2. And also by a more re
cent author, the Rev. T. C. Collins Trelawny, in a work entitled "Perranza-
bnloe: The Lost Church Found."

426 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
eners ; Pastors (as they are called), but rather wolves pre
pared for the slaughter of Soules."(4)
In the same connection he immediately speaks of "Apos-
tolicall decrees," " Priesthood or episcopal dignity," " follow
ers of the Apostles," " the office of a Bishop or Priest," etc.,
thus establishing the fact, beyond controversy, that Chris
tianity had been introduced and a British Church establish
ed long before Augustine was sent there by Gregory. As to
the time when this was done, Gildas is not very explicit, but
he states quite enough to show that the British Christians
in his day traced their Christianity back to the apostolic
times. Referring to their religion, he says:
"In the meane while, Christ, the true Son of God, spread
ing forth not onely from this temporall firmament, but also
from the Castell and Court of Heaven (which exceedeth all
times) throughout the whole world, his most glorious light,
especially (as we know) in the Raigne of Tiberius Ccesar,
(whereas in regard to that Emperour) against the will of
the Senate threatned death to the disturbers of the profess
ors thereof, Religion was most largely without any hin
drance dispersed of his infinite mercy, did first cast on this
Island, starving with frozen cold, and in a farre remote cli
mate from the visible sunne, his gladsome beames, to wit, his
most holy Lawes."(6)
Some have supposed that Gildas intended to assert here
that Christianity was carried to Britain in the reign of Ti
berius. But this conclusion can not be reached without
great confusion of dates. Tiberius died about the year 37,
and it was either during that or the preceding year that
Paul was converted on the road to Damascus. The " door
of faith " was opened to the Gentiles about the year 42 or
43. The assemblage of the apostles at Jerusalem was about
the year 50. At that time it was agreed that Paul and
Barnabas should "go unto the heathen," that is, to the
Greeks and Romans ; and that Peter and John should " go

(4) Gildas, London, 1641, p. 184. See "The Conquest of Britain by the
Saxons," by Haigh, London, vol. i., pp. 15, 16, showing that the native Brit
ons carried their Christianity into Cornwall and Wales.
(B) Gildas, pp. 13, 14.

PETER PREACHED IN ASIA MINOR. 427
unto the circumcision," that is, to the Dispersion, in the
provinces of Asia Minor. Paul did not go to Rome until
about the year 60, when he went as a prisoner, and there is
not a word in the whole of the gospels to show that any
one of the apostles visited that city before that time. It
was undoubtedly after that when Paul went to " the ex
treme limit of the West " to preach, and it is not likely that
any of the apostles were there before him. Therefore Gil
das could not have meant to fix the reign of Tiberius as the
time when the Gospel was preached in Britain. And if his
language be carefully scanned, it does not bear that mean
ing, although it is somewhat obscure. He must have meant
to say that the light of the Gospel began to spread forth
during the reign of Tiberius, which is the fact; that Tiberius
"threatened death to the disturbers of the professors" of re
ligion, and that then Christianity, having an opportunity to
disperse itself, first reached the island of Britain. That this
is his real meaning, and that he intended to assign the intro
duction of Christianity to Paul, is evident from the following
language, which he elsewhere uses:
"Which of yee for the confession of the true word of
Christ, hath, like the vessell of election, and chosen Doctor
of the Gentiles [Paul], after suffering the chaines of impris
onment, sustayning of shipwracke, after the terrible scourges
of whips, the continuall dangers of seas, of theeves, of Gen
tiles, of Jews, and of false apostles, after the labours of fam
ine, of fasting, etc., after his incessant care had over all the
churches, after his exceeding trouble for such as scandalized,
after his infirmity for the weake, after his admirable pere
grination over almost the whole world in preaching the Gos
pel of Christ, through the stroke of the sword lost his head,"
etc.O Here, in speaking ofthe labors of Paul as extending over
"almost the whole world," the inference is unavoidable that
he intended to include Great Britain, which, as a Roman
province, was an important part ofthe world. But, howev
er this may be, the fact is incontestable that Christianity in
Great Britain antedated many years the mission of Augus-
(") Gildns, p. 217.

428 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
tine from Rome. And it is equally true that the British
Christians had a church of their own, regularly organized,
which existed independently of the Church of Rome. Even.
Lingard, the great Roman Catholic historian, is compelled
to say, " That the Christian faith was publicly professed in
Britain before the close of the second century, is clear from
incontestable authority. "(') But he immediately endeavors
to break the force of this admission by insisting that after
this time the race of native Britons disappeared before the
Saxons, and that with them also disappeared their refine
ments and "knowledge ofthe Gospel;" and that the worship
of Woden took the place ofthe worship of God. This is not
probable, if it is even possible. It is a naked assertion with
out any proof to sustain it.
Venerable Bede refers to the desolating war carried on by
the Saxons against the Britons, showing that the country
was overrun by fire and sword, and the inhabitants "butch
ered in heaps." But he says that some of them escaped to
the mountains, some fled beyond the seas, and others " led a
miserable life among the woods, rocks, and mountains."(6)
Rapin says the Saxons became masters everywhere except
in Wales. (9) And Lingard himself, in another work, with
out entering into details, says it would be interesting "to
exhibit the causes which transferred the greater part ofthe
island from the milder dominion of the Romans to the ex
terminating sword of the Saxons."(10) It is not true, then,
that the race of native Britons disappeared before the Sax
ons ; and, inasmuch as they were not exterminated, it is a
most natural conclusion that those of them who remained in
Wales, and were concealed in different parts of the island,
retained and preserved their religious faith and church or
ganization. All history shows that when a people are thus
persecuted and driven from their homes, they cling to these
with the utmost tenacity and with unfaltering courage.
And this conclusion is supported by the condition in which

(') "Anglo-Saxon Church," by Lingard, p. 18 (note).
(8) "Eccl. Hist, of England," by Bede, Bohn's ed., p. 25.
(9) " History of England," by Rapin, vol. i., pp. 144, 145.
(10) " History of England," by Lingard, vol. i., pp. 42, 43.

THE EARLY BRITISH CHURCH. 429
Augustine found the inhabitants when he reached there.
That there were then Christians there is undoubtedly true ;
and that they were all native Britons is equally true, for,
as is conceded on all hands, none of the Saxons were con
verted until afterward. It may be laid down, then, as an
indisputable fact, that Christianity always existed in Great
Britain from the time of its first introduction; that is, at all
events, from the second century.
When Augustine arrived in Kent, during the reign of
Ethelbert, he came in immediate contact with an organized
Christian community, having ordained bishops and other
church functionaries. With the assistance of the king he
assembled these together, and invited them to unite with
him in " the common labor of preaching the Gospel to the
Gentiles." They kept the festival of Easter according to
the custom ofthe Eastern Christians, and not that of Rome —
a fact which goes to show that they had not then submitted
to the Council of Nice, and were, consequently, independent
of the Roman Church. And " they did several other things
which were against the unity of the Church," in the Roman
sense; that is, against the supremacy of the pope. Thus,
having their own Church organization and their fixed prin
ciples of religious faith, they declined to " comply with the
entreaties, exhortations, or rebukes of Augustine and his
companions, but preferred their own traditions before all
the churches in the world." Then, it is said, the pretended
miracle performed by Augustine, of restoring a blind man to
sight, extorted from the Britons the concession that he was
a preacher ofthe divine truth; nevertheless, they declared
"that they could not depart from their ancient customs
without tbe consent and leave of their people." A second
synod was subsequently held, no more favorable to Rome
than the first. At this assemblage there were present, on
the part of the British Christians, seven bishops, " and many
most learned men." To these Augustine proposed that if
they would consent to keep Easter and administer baptism
according to the custom of the Roman Church, aud unite
with him in the propagation ofthe word of God among the
British people, he would " tolerate all other things " they
might do ; that is, if they would only recognize the sover-

430 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
eign supremacy of the pope over them, they could believe
and do whatsoever else tbey pleased ! The papal proposi
tion was again rejected, the British Christians continuing to
prefer their own to the religion of Rome, and at once the
true spirit of Roman propagandism was displayed. (") Seem
ingly conscious of being supported by a strong and aggress
ive power, Augustine replied to these humble and tolerant
British Christians in words of insolent defiance and threat,
" that in case they would not join in unity with their breth
ren they should be warred upon by their enemies ; and if
they would not preach the way of life to the English na
tion, they should at their hands undergo the vengeance of
death !"(12)
Did Augustine design this language as a threat? The
language itself is susceptible of no other meaning ; and if
the foregoing quotation shows truly what he said, there is no
room for doubt about it. The extract is taken from Bede,
(") Rapin gives the answer of Dinoth, Abbot of Bangor, to the proposition
of Augustine, in these expressive words :
"You propose to us obedience to the Church at Rome. Are you ignorant
that we already owe a deference to the Church of God, to the bishop of
Rome, and to all Christians, of love and charity, which obliges us to en
deavor by all possible means to assist and do them all the good we can?
Other obedience than this to him you call pope we know not of, and this we
are always ready to pay. But for a superior, what need have we to go so
far as Rome, when we are governed, under God, by the Bishop of Caerleon,
who hath authority to take care of our churches and spiritual affairs ?" — His
tory of England, by Rapin, vol. i. , p. 237.
"Giraldus Cambrensis is of opinion that Christianity came to England
from Asia ; it must not, however, be forgotten that the island was much vis
ited by ships sailing from a portion of Africa, where a church was early es
tablished. There can not be a question that, for a considerable period before
the advent of Augustine, the Christian faith had taken root in England ; and
at the period of his visit there were among the Britons, in Wales and Scot
land, native prelates, an ordained priesthood, and a ritual differing in essen
tial features from the Roman. The Abbot of Bangor explained to Augustine
and his associates that an apostolic church had existed in this part of the
world without any subjection to the father of fathers, and, notwithstanding
his mission from Pope Gregory, was likely to remain so. " — Lives of the En
glish Cardinals, by Williams, London ed. , vol. i., p. 22 (note), citing also
"Historical Vindication ofthe Church of England, in point of Schism," by
Twysden, p. 7.
{'") Bede, pp. 68-71.

AUGUSTINE THREATENS PERSECUTION. 431
whose accuracy is not doubted by any body, and who un
doubtedly understood Augustine as threatening vengeance
against the British Christians, because they would not con
sent to obey the pope ! No contrary interpretation could
ever have been given to his words, had not the defenders
of the pope's supremacy found it necessary to break the
force of this objection to their system of ecclesiastical or
ganization by placing Augustine in the attitude of making
a prophecy, and not a threat. Hence we find Lingard, one
of their standard authors, instead of quoting truly from
Bede, representing him as putting this language into the
mouth of Augustine : " Know, then, that if you will not as
sist me in pointing out to the Saxons the way of life, they,
by the just judgment of God, will prove to you the minis
ters of death."(13)
Let the reader compare these words with those of Bede,
and he will see at a glance how the latter are perverted.
Bede does not say a word about the judgment of God, which
was to fall upon the Britons for their disobedience, or that
they were to be providentially punished by having the Sax
ons become the " ministers of death " to them, or any thing
that can be tortured into such a meaning. Lingard is incon
sistent with himself in putting these words into the mouth
of Augustine. He had, but a little while before, said that
before that time the Britons had " disappeared " before the
Saxons ; and yet, in order to change the threat of Augus
tine into a prophecy, he has the British Christians still exist
ing as fit subjects for Saxon vengeance ! The papacy, how
ever, requires far greater inconsistencies of those who enter
upon its defense. In this particular case, it required the in
vention of a new set of words ; and Lingard has supplied
them. And, seeming indisposed to dwell upon them, he
follows them with this single sentence, "He did not live to
see the prediction verified," using the word in the sense of
prophecy. But it is clear that the language of Augustine, as
recorded by Bede, does not bear this interpretation. Other
words are found at another place in his history, wherein he
(J3) "Anglo-Saxon Church," by Lingard, p. 42. The same author also
uses the same language in his "History of England," vol. i., p. 55.

432 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
is represented as speaking of " the prediction of the holy
Bishop Augustine." Referring to the murder of "about
twelve hundred " of the unarmed monks of Bangor by the
Saxon king, a convert of Augustine, for no other offense than
that oi praying for the success of their countrymen, and re
fusing obedience to Rome, he says: "Thus was fulfilled the
prediction of the holy Bishop Augustine, though he him
self had been long before taken up into the heavenly king-
dom."(14) If these words are really such as Bede used, they
are consistent only with the supposition that the language
of Augustine was that given by Lingard. But we have seen
that his language was in every essential particular different,
and therefore are justified in looking upon this last extract
at least with some degree of suspicion. If, however, it is ac
curately taken from the original, it is but the construction
which Bede placed upon the language of Augustine, which
he has hauded down to us, and which we can interpret for
ourselves. Now, when it is considered that the words of
Augustine were, that the British Christians " should be war
red upon by their enemies," and " should, at their hands, un
dergo the vengeance of death;'' and, further, that he did not,
as Lingard alleges, say one word about "the just judgment
of God" which was to fall upon them, his plain and obvious
meaning must have been that he would employ the means
necessary to bring about this result ; in other words, that as
it was a part of the canon law of Rome that force could be
rightfully employed to compel obedience to the papacy, he
(") Bede, p. 72. See also note, where it is said that this passage has been
regarded as having been added to the original.
M. Augustin Thierry, referring to this statement, says : " It was a nation
al tradition among the Welsh, that the chief of the new Anglo-Saxon Church
caused this invasion, and pointed out tlie monastery of Bangor to the pagans
of Northumberland. It is impossible to affirm any thing positive on this
point ; but the coincidence of time rendered the imputation so grave as to
make the friends of the Romish Church desirous of destroying all traces of
that coincidence. In almost all the manuscripts of tlie sole historian of these
events [Bede] they inserted the statement that Augustine was dead when the
defeat of the Britons and the massacre of the monks of Bangor took place.
Augustine was, indeed, old at that period ; but he lived at least a year after the
military execution which he had so exactly predicted." — History of the Con
quest nf England by the Normans, by Thierry, Bohn's ed., vol. i., pp. 39, 40.

PERSECUTION OF BRITISH CHRISTIANS. 433
would teach this to the Saxon kings, his converts, and incite
them to the bloody and murderous work. Why, otherwise,
did he omit any reference to the "judgment of God?" And
why, if the meaning of his language, as given by Bede, were
not perfectly clear, and did not mean a threat instead of a
prophecy, has it been considered necessary to substitute oth
er language for it, not used by Bede, entirely perverting the
original meaning ?
There can be no other conclusion fairly arrived at, from
the whole account of this transaction as given by Bede, than
that Augustine had reference to his own agency, and not to
the providence of God, in bringing about the punishment of
these humble British Christians, for no other offense than
that of adhering to their " ancient customs," and preferring
their " own traditions " in preference to the customs and tra
ditions of Rome, and of choosing to obey their own bishop
rather than the pope ! What was there in all this that God
should curse them for, or should cause " about twelve hun
dred" of their number to be butchered in cold blood? Is
it not time that the world should hear no more of such de
basing superstition as this — that the vengeance of God will
fall upon all who oppose the papacy — when we now see all
the Roman Catholic governments destroyed, the temporal
sceptre of the pope broken, no king, or prince, or people on
all the earth having either the power or will to defend the
papacy, and the Protestant nations and peoples marching for
ward, with marvelous and unchecked prosperity, in the full
sunlight of intellectual, moral, and material development?
The sequel shows how well Augustine accomplished his
design, how true he was to the teachings of Rome. How
different was his method of propagating the Gospel from
that practiced by Christ and the apostles ! They went
among the humble and obscure, the poor and the unletter
ed ; but he dealt only with the Saxon kings. And when he
had brought these to realize that the best means of pre
serving their crowns was by adopting a system of religion
which taught, as its starting-point, the necessity of passive
submission and obedience to authority, he succeeded in so
training his new converts as to cause them to murder the
harmless British monks, merely for praying that the British
28

434 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Christians — their own countrymen — might be able to defend
themselves successfully against the, Roman Christians(l) at
the Battle of Carlegion, where the attempt was made to
destroy them for maintaining their ancient religion ! The
manner in which Bede relates these events must excite the
fire of indignation in every honest Christian heart, although
more than twelve centuries have passed. It was the begin
ning of religious persecution in England, and at no one time
since then has bloodier work been done. When the poor
British monks went out to pray at the battle, taking no part
in the conflict of arms, and Ethelfred, one of the converted
Saxon kings, was informed of it, he said : " If, then, they cry
to their God against us, in truth, though they do not bear
arms, yet they fight against us, because they oppose us by
their prayers."(lb) Then, out of twelve hundred and fifty,
twelve hundred of these praying Christians were cruelly
butchered, for refusing to acknowledge the Pope of Rome
as the head of their Cburch !
And thus did papal vengeance and papal intolerance be
gin their work of bloody persecution at the very first plant
ing of Romanism in England ! To Rome all other Christian
ity than its own was — as it yet is — barbarism ; and, there
fore, the sword was drawn to hew down these poor British
Christians, not because they did not worship God, but be
cause they would not obey the pope ! And thus we learn
what papal writers mean when they tell us that Augustine
first carried Christianity into England. With them there is
no Christianity except that which comes from Rome — none
which does not acknowledge entire and passive submission
to the pope, none that does not put the pope in the place of
God on earth !
Thus introduced, the papal power was preserved in En-
(1B) Bede, p. 71. Notwithstanding it is incontestably true that the British
Christians were numerous at the time of the mission of Augustine and of
this attempt to exterminate them by the sword, a late work published in the
United States makes this statement, which is an improvement upon that of
Lingard : "The Gospel was preached in England during the second century,
but had become extinct at the time that kingdom was conquered by the Sax
on idolaters, who banished the first inhabitants .'" — History of the Catholic
Church, by Noethen, p. 266.

THE POPE PARDONS OFFA FOR MURDER. 435
gland for hundreds of years, by the authority of kings who
were held in obedience to Rome by that part of its religion
which teaches that they govern by divine right ; that they
derive their crowns, not from the people, but from God,
through the pope as his sole earthly representative. What
ever occasional conflicts about spiritual and temporal juris
diction may have arisen between these kings and the popes
on account of personal interest or ambition, this sentiment
has been common to them all. Differ as they may about
other things, they have always agreed on this, because it
keeps the people in subjugation to them. None understood
better than they that tbose who select the rulers of a nation
are its masters. The papacy has always taught that the
people have no right to govern, but are bound to the duty
of obedience to princes. Therefore the popes have never
hesitated to invoke the assistance of the armies of princes in
carrying on the work of popular subjugation. They have
caused mercenary hordes to be turned loose upon harmless
and inoffensive people, as the Albigenses and Waldenses,
without the slightest "compunctious visitings of conscience,"
for no other purpose than to bring them down into a condi
tion of inferiority and subordination. And when they have
thus made princes minister to their ambition, they have held
them in like subordination, by threatening to devastate their
dominions. Thus England was governed for centuries, with
the load of papal tyranny pressing with the weight of mount
ains upon her. Her kings kept no faith except that which
bound them to Rome ; and the popes were always ready to
release them from the most solemn obligations, and to sanc-
" tion the most enormous crimes, when the interest of the pa
pacy required it. Offa, one of the Romish kings of the Hep
tarchy, invited Ethelbert, King of the East- Angles, to visit
his court, under the pretense of marrying his daughter.
But, that he might become master of East-Anglia, he vio
lated the sacred laws of personal honor and hospitality by
his assassination. To quiet the remorse of a guilty con
science, he went to Rome to obtain a pardon from the pope,
who, availing himself of the opportunity of extending his
power and enlarging .his jurisdiction, readily granted it "on
condition he would be liberal to the churches and monas-

436 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
teries !" that, says the historian, being " the way of atoning
for sins then !"(18)
Offa repaid this act of pardon by the pope in a manner
which subsequently proved most fatal to the happiness and
prosperity of England. One of the West-Saxon kings had
already established at Rome a college for the education of
English youth, and had ordered a penny to be collected each
year from every family for its support. Offa extended this
tax over Mercia and East-Anglia ; and thus was originated
the celebrated Peter -pence, which came to be afterward
claimed by the popes as a tribute from the English to St.
Peter and his successors, and which they converted to their
own use for many years, and until it was abolished by Hen
ry VIII.(17) But King Offa did more than this to degrade
his country, and to show how completely he had become
the vassal of the pope, who was at that time Adrian I. The
pope sent two legates to England with a code of ecclesias
tical laws carefully prepared by himself, which he required
to have introduced there for the government of the king
dom. These legates called two synods, one of which met in
Mercia, and was attended by King Offa in person ; and the
introduction of this papal code as the law of England was,
under his influence, consented to.(18) And thus a power was
built up in England sufficiently strong to govern the coun
try, without reference to the people or any responsibility to
them, but responsible only to the pope ! What these laws
were can now be learned only by comparing them with others
which have grown out of the papal system. But it may be
safely assumed that the papal clergy were by them freed
from all responsibility to the domestic laws of the kingdom,
and were by this means erected into a privileged and irre
sponsible class, looking only to the pope for direction in all
things. Pope Adrian I., whose character may be inferred
from what has been elsewhere said,(ls) would have been sat
isfied with nothing less than this. Into what a condition
(1B) Rapin, vol. i., p. 187 ; " Anglo-Saxon Chronicle," by Bede, A. 792, p.
342. (") Rapin, vol. i., p. 188.
(1B) "History of England," by Lingard, vol. i., p. 78.
(19) Ante, ch. xi., p. 347.

BRITONS AND SAXONS GRADUALLY UNITE. 437
of humiliating degradation, therefore, was England dragged
down when the nation and people were laid at the feet of
the papacy! It was the price of her obedience to papal
despotism — the result of the Christianizing (!) influence of
Rome upon her Saxon kings !
But it was impossible to destroy the attachment of the
native Britons for their ancient religion, for that form of
Christianity which they believed to have been derived from
the apostles, as it was also impossible to break their cour
age. They and the Saxon common people had mingled to
gether until, by association and intermarriage, their former
prejudices had been worn away, and they now constituted a
peaceful and homogeneous society. They had acquired all
the leading characteristics necessary for a new and more
vigorous nationality. The Britons imparted to the Saxqns
some of their ideas of religion and Christianity, while the
Saxons, in return, imparted to them some of the principles
of civil government they had brought with them from the
valleys of the Elbe, the Eyder, and the Rhine. Yet they
were held in tight subjection by their princes, who were
themselves held in equally tight subjection by the popes.
The people were surrounded on every side by remorse
less oppressors, and had to rise up, under this tremendous
weight, by slow degrees, and through sufferings it would re
quire many volumes to detail.
The Saxons belonged to the Teutonic, or Germanic, stock,
and differed essentially from the Latin race, which clung to
the shores of the Mediterranean. Having succeeded, as ear
ly as the fourth century, in resisting the aggressions of the
Roman empire, they formed a confederacy, which laid the
foundation of their " progressive greatness."(2°) Although
overwhelmed by the armies of Charlemagne, their influence
was never entirely eradicated, and their distinctive princi
ples were preserved through every variety of fortune. These
principles have always been, from the date of their first con
federation, "singularly propitious to human improvement."(21)
At the time of their settlement in England, they had their

C°) ' ' History of the Anglo-Saxons, " by Sharon Turner, vol. i. , p. 132.
(a,5iWrf.,voLi., p. 135.

438 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
chiefs, or war - kings, who were carefully held in subjection
to the popular power; and when they elected a king, "their
consent in the gemote continued to be necessary to the more
important acts of his authority ;"(22) thus showing that they
were not then governed without their own consent, even by
their kings. Their religion was pagan ; yet after their con
quest of England there is no evidence that they ever inter
fered with tbat of the native Britons until after their kings
yielded to the influence of Rome ! We have seen that the
religion of these native Britons was at no time eradicated
after the first introduction of Christianity, but, on the oth
er hand, that it was preserved and cherished by the people.
Hence, as the Saxons found Christianity there, it was im
possible that they could have escaped its influence, as it
was also impossible that the Britons could have escaped
the Saxon influence. The common people had no motive
to prompt them to engage in the work of exterminating
eacb other; and to assert that they did so, except when
constrained to it by the policy of their kings and the dic
tation of the popes, is utterly incredible. And it is not at
all probable that any others than those who composed the
respective armies ever engaged in this work. Indeed, there
is little in history more certain than that the body of the
people — Britons and Saxons — especially in the remote dis
tricts, mingled together in friendly association, so as to im
press each other with their respective sentiments and opin
ions. By this kind of influence they became, at last, mold
ed into one people ; and there is much in their subsequent
history to show that each imparted to the other principles
and elements of character which still impress Anglo-Saxon
institutions wherever they exist, and distinguish them from
those which have been erected by the Latin race. It can
not be doubted that the Saxon idea that the people were
the source of even the kingly power, was readily accepted
by the native Britons, who yet knew nothing about heredi
tary kings, or their divine right to govern. Nor can it be
doubted that after the Saxon kinsrs had become obedient

C) "History ofthe Anglo-Saxons," by Sharon Turner, appendix to bk. ii.,
vol. i.,p. 183.

ORIGIN OF ENGLISH NATIONALITY. 439
servants of the popes, they labored assiduously to eradicate
this principle, which had been inherited by the Saxon peo
ple from their Teutonic ancestry. These kings were capti
vated at once with the idea that they got their power from
God, through the pope, and not from the people ; for they
could easily understand, ignorant as they were, that if the
people could make, they could also unmake, kings. And
bence they became ready aud willing converts to the pa
pal teaching — to a doctrine which confirmed their power to
them. They cheerfully accepted a religion so congenial to
their tastes — so necessary as the means of promoting their
ambition. Rome has always understood well how to teach
this to kings ; and the latter have generally been apt and
submissive pupils — quick to learn, and slow to forget.
There is no satisfactory evidence anywhere that the body
of the Anglo-Saxon people ever assented to the doctrine of
the divine right of kings, until it was taught as a part of
the religious system of Rome, and imposed upon them by
force. There is abundant evidence, however, to show that
the partial and interrupted dominion of the Northmen in
England, which continued for more than two centuries, was
unable to destroy the early Anglo-Saxon influences. On the
contrary, these influences remained impressed upon the pop
ular mind, and were occasionally exhibited in the struggles
of the people to throw off the yoke which their kings, in
obedience to the popes, had fastened on their necks. But
whatever may have been the result, in the natural course of
events, of the mutuality of intercourse and sentiment be
tween the native British Christians and the Saxons, they
were, in the end, brought completely and compactly togeth
er under a common nationality, and jointly exhibited those
qualities which achieved their triumph in all their contests
with the kingly and papal power. And when they succeeded
in ultimately creating the English nation, they so stamped
it with their common sentiments and opinions, that in its
wonderful progress it has absorbed even its conquerors, un
til, in this day, the whole world is influenced by its laws,
its language, and its character.
The Norman conquest under William the Conqueror car
ried into England a fresh supply of papal influences. At

440 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
the death of Edward the Confessor, Harold became king,
by the almost unanimous consent of the nation. He was
elected by the Witan, with the full approbation of the peo
ple, " in the exercise of their ancient and undoubted right,"
and was " acknowledged as king by every earldom and ev
ery shire in England. He was king, alike by the will of his
predecessor, by the choice of his people, by the consecration
of the Church, by_the homage of the thegns and prelates
of England. "(23) But William, Duke of Normandy, set up
a claim to the throne based upon pretexts which, if they
had been valid, would have conferred upon him no right
whatsoever under the laws of England. He pretended that
Edward had made to him a gift of the English crown before
the selection of Harold as his successor, and that Harold had
violated his oath to marry his daughter and to pay homage
to him. William was a devout son of the Church, and sub
mitted willingly to the direction ofthe great Lanfranc, Prior
of Bee, and the foremost man in the Church of Normandy.
Whether the plan was concerted by both of them, or origi
nated in the fertile brain of the latter, is of no consequence;
but it was agreed that William should submit his claim to
the decision of the pope ; that is, that the pope alone should
decide who should be king of England, without any regard
to the wishes of the people or the authorities of the nation.
The pope at that time was Alexander II., but "the power be
hind the throne" was the great Hildebrand. While any
other foreign power on eartb would have refused to decide
such a question, yet the papal court did not hesitate to take
jurisdiction of it, on the ground of possessing the divine
right to dispose of crowns and kingdoms. It was of no con
sequence to inquire what the English people desired. They
were incompetent to decide what the law of God required
or forbade. Of that law the pope was the exclusive earthly
custodian, as Pope Pius IX. still claims to be, and his juris
diction was derived directly from God! It marked "a dis
tinct epoch in the history of European politics, when, for the
first time, the occupant of the apostolic throne was called on
(as) " The Norman Conquest," by Freeman, vol. iii., pp. 21-70 ; Thierry,
vol. i., p. 152.

THE CLAIM OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR. 441
to adjudge a disputed diadem."(24) The embassador of Wil
liam, an ecclesiastic, was sent to Rome to plead his cause.
No notice of the proceeding was given to Harold. But the
trial went on. The pope was told that William " craved the
blessing of the Holy See upon his righteous cause," and if he
succeeded would " hold of God and of the apostle the king
dom which he hoped to win." One side only was heard.
Harold had no advocate there to defend him against his
Norman assailant. England had not submitted the disposal
of her crown to such a tribunal, and recognized no right but
her own to give or take it away. But the interest of En
gland was not the question to be discussed or decided. The
only question considered by that papal tribunal was— what
did the interest ofthe papacy require to be done? The am
bitious Hildebrand saw that the occasion was one for the es
tablishment of a precedent, which would enable the papacy
thereafter to dispose of all other crowns; and his counsel
triumphed. A decree was passed, declaring Harold to be a
usurper, and William of Normandy to be the lawful claim
ant of the English crown ! Harold and his followers were
excommunicated, and William was authorized to go forth as
an avenger of Heaven. He was required to teach the En
glish people "due obedience to Christ's vicar," and, what the
papacy never forgets, " to secure a more punctual payment
ofthe temporal dues of his apostle."(26) A costly ring, "a
hair of the prince of the apostles," and a consecrated ban
ner were sent to William, in order that it might appear that
his " fraud and usurpation" had the sanction of Heaven.
Every blessing held in store by the Church was conferred
upon William, and the terrible thunders of anathema were
hurled at the head of Harold. (28)
While it is apparent that Pope Alexander II. had in all
this the double motive of subjugating England to the pa
pacy, and of giving greater strength and universality to
its power, yet there is something behind it which the saga
cious mind of Hildebrand could not have failed to discov
er. Although previous popes had employed the Saxon kings
(M) Freeman, p. 317. (26) Ibid. , p. 320.
(2e) Ibid., p. 321; Thierry, vol. i., p. 159.

442 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
for the advancement of their ambitious designs, it was easy
to see that it would not be safe to rely too much upon the
Saxon and British people, who now, by several hundred
years of intercourse, had become molded into one. The
Teutonic stock never furnished good materials for slavery;
and, therefore, the papal policy was so directed as to place
England in the hands of those more closely allied to the
Latin race. Hence, the preference given to, and the pontific
al blessing bestowed upon, William of Normandy — a part
of France. And hence, also, we find that, after the Battle
of Hastings, and before William had reached London, the
Romish clergy went out to meet and congratulate him be
cause he marched under the consecrated banner, was accom
panied by the papal blessing, and was " well disposed to
the Church."(27) But little more was necessary to make the
conquest of England complete. It was soon done, and Wil
liam placed the crown upon his brow, in the name, not of
the people of England, who were not consulted, but of the
Holy See of Rome. He had enforced with arms the decision
ofthe pope, and had brought England down, in degradation,
to the feet of the papacy.
Although William and other kings of the Norman line
had some fierce controversies with the popes, about investi
tures and other kindred questions, yet they constantly and
actively endeavored to eradicate all the Saxon influences in
England, as far as possible, and substitute for them those of
Norman origin ; that is, to bring the country under the in
fluence ofthe principles prevailing among the people ofthe
Latin race, in preference to those of Teutonic origin. The
popes, in order that the victory in these controversies might
be won, and, at the same time, to keep the kings within their
grasp, conducted them, on the part of the papacy, with
marked sagacity. They made a merit of necessity whenev
er it forced them to submit to firm and resolute princes, in
(") "History of England," by Rapin, vol. ii., p. 230. Freeman says, when
speaking of the disgraceful submission at Berkhampstead, that besides the
Metropolitans of York and Canterbury and the Bishops of Worcester and
Hereford, there were some of " the best men of London, and many others
of the chief men of England," who went on the " sad and shameful errand."
— The Norman Conquest, by Freeman, vol. iii. , p. 547.

CELIBACY INTRODUCED INTO ENGLAND. 443
order that thereby they might preserve their strength for
the more complete control of the weaker ones. And when
they succeeded at last in having their legates recognized in
England, they were enabled to place by the side of the king
a power sufficiently great to keep the nation bound fast to
Rome ; and to war, by the aid of the Normans, more suc
cessfully against all the liberalizing influences of the Anglo-
Saxons. The popes, however, needed a more efficient instrumental
ity than any they had yet possessed to bring about the
complete subjugation of the English people. This was the
introduction of celibacy among the English clergy. It was
considered absolutely necessary to the perfect working of
the papal system, that there should be organized a compact
body of ecclesiastics, destitute of all those generous sympa
thies which grow alone out of the family relation, that they
might be the better fitted to do the work of the popes.
Notwithstanding sacerdotal celibacy finds no sanction among
the early Christian fathers, aud is directly opposed to the
example of Peter and a majority of the apostles,(28) yet its
introduction, as a matter of policy, was a display of great sa
gacity. The experience of mankind has demonstrated that
there is no other place around wThich so many of the most
ennobling sentiments continually cluster as the domestic
hearth-stone ; and that those who cherish in their hearts the
kindly affections of home and kindred are the last to yield
to such dictates of inhumanity as have been often exbibit-
ed by those who have built up and maintained the papacy.
Therefore, the celibacy of the Roman clergy has been, since
its introduction, considered one of the most effective means
of establishing the supremacy of the popes ; and for this
purpose the attempt was made to introduce it into England,
after the Norman conquest. The pope then desired — as the
present pope also does — to set apart the clergy from the
body of the community, as a privileged class, with power to
(28) It is supposed that all the apostles, except John and Paul, were mar
ried; and Clement, Ignatius, and Eusebius think that Paul was. It is cer
tain that Peter and Philip had children. Not one of the early fathers con
demns the marriage of the clergy. See the question fully discussed in Ed
gar's " Variations of Popery," ch. xviii., p. 526.

444 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
govern themselves by laws of his and their own enacting,
independently of the civil power and the laws of the State.
The English clergy were, at first, unwilling to give up their
wives. Pope Gregory VII. (Hildebrand), during the reign
of William the Conqueror, had a decree passed by a council
at Rome forbidding them to marry. The clergy resisted it
- — for many of them had wives. A synod was called to con
sider the question, but it did not adopt the decree. A com
promise was agreed upon with the pope's legate, to the ef
fect that those who had cures in the cities should put away
their wives, while those who had benefices in the country
should be allowed to retain them ; but that none should be
thereafter admitted to orders before they had sworn that
they would not marry, thus showing that celibacy is a mere
measure of expediency and involves no religious principle,
The imposition of this restraint had the effect of preventing
competent men from taking orders, and inflicted serious in
jury upon the character of the clergy. Pope Pascal IL, to
remedy this — showing, at the same time, how pliant the
principles of the papacy are when an important result is to
be obtained — decided not to execute the canon rigorously in
England, and granted a dispensing power to the Archbishop
of Canterbury. But this prelate was less accommodating
than the pope, and procured the condemnation of marriage'
by the decree of a London synod. Pope Honorius II. had to
send one of his cardinals to England to see that it was ex
ecuted. When he reached there, he, as legate, convened a
council, wherein he denounced the married clergy in violent
terms ; saying, among other things, that " 'twas a horrible
crime to rise from the side of a harlot, and then to handle
the consecrated body of Christ." That night, after this im
pious and vulgar assault upon one of the tenderest and most
endearing relations of life — a relation sanctioned by the ex
ample of the Apostle Peter himself — this pure-minded (!)
cardinal, fresh from Rome and the side of the infallible Ho
norius IL, "was caught in bed viith a common woman /"(")
Of course, his precepts had but little effect against an exam
ple such as this, and other efforts were rendered necessary.
(M) Rapin, vol. ii., p. 420.

INNOCENT III. AND CARDINAL LANGTON. 445
Some years after, another council was held, when it was con
sidered necessary to give the power of enforcing the canon
to the king — a duty which he readily undertook. Like the
popes iu the use of their dispensing power, he employed
his authority to raise his royal revenue "by selling to the
priests a dispensation to keep their wives !"(30) But, not
withstanding all these difficulties, celibacy finally became
the absolute law of the Church in England, as elsewhere.
The papal Caesar needed his corps of ecclesiastical subordi
nates, as completely devoted to him as were the command
ers of the Roman legions to the pagan Caesars. Each strug
gled for absolute dominion, and the example of one was fol
lowed by the other. Rome, with each, was the central seat
of empire — the " mistress of the world."
Having, by these means and the politic use of the bene
fices and honors ofthe Church, caused the clergy to centre
all their affections upon the papacy, the popes were enabled
to persevere in their schemes to aggrandize their power to
such an extent that they compelled the disgraceful and hu
miliating surrender of the crown to them by King John.
Pope Innocent ILL resolved that the Archbishopric of Can
terbury should be filled by Cardinal Langton — who, though
an Englishman, had received a foreign education in France —
without regard to the wishes or consent of the king. John
firmly resisted this for a while, and the pope, to punish him,
placed the kingdom under interdict, so that divine service
ceased in all the churches, the sacraments were withheld,
public prayers were forbidden, and the church-yards were
closed — the dead being thrown into ditches, like dogs, with
out any funeral ceremony. (31) The king, in retaliation, treat
ed the clergy with severity, and was at last excommunicated
by tbe pope. John remained unmoved, until the controver
sy became one involving simply, on one side, the triumph of
the king ; on the other, that of the pope — neither party hav
ing the slightest regard for the interest or welfare ofthe peo
ple, and both king and pope entirely subordinating the peace
and quiet ofthe Church to their own personal ambition for
supremacy. The pope finally sent two nuncios to England,

(3°) Rapin, vol. ii., p. 420. (") Ibid., vol. iii., p. 193.

446 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
with whom John was persuaded to agree that some ecclesias
tics he had banished should be permitted to return, that the
privileges of the Church should be restored, and that Lang
ton should be confirmed as Archbishop of Canterbury — thus
yielding to the pope every thing he had desired at the be
ginning of the quarrel. But he yielded too readily, and dis
played so little real courage, that Innocent ILL was too bold
a politician not to take immediate advantage of it. His man
ifest object was to humiliate the king, and reduce the king
dom to entire submission to himself, so that he could bring
all the people under ecclesiastical government, with Rome
as the seat of all authority. Therefore he demanded that
all that had been taken from the clergy should be restored
and full damages paid — when he knew that it was impossi-
sible for the king to do either. John being compelled to
refuse, the pope pronounced another sentence of excommu
nication against him, and took immediate steps to stir up a
revolt against the Government, by endeavoring to increase
the dissatisfaction already existing among the people. The
occasion was one which displayed the towering ambition of
Innocent III., and developed, in a most striking degree, the
character of the papal policy, which, under like circumstan
ce's, would be developed in the same way to-day or to-mor
row. Pretending that the refusal of the king to do what he
knew he had no power to do was rebellion against his au
thority as God's vicegerent, he fulminated a terrible bull,
absolving the English people from their allegiance to the
crown, and commanding them, upon pain of excommunica
tion, no longer to obey their king !(32)
An event so remote as this would seem, at first glance, to
have no special relation to the present times ; but when it
is observed that Innocent acted under a claim of divine right
and of infallibility, and that the present pope sets up precise
ly the same claim, it is of the highest importance that the
principle upon which he based his supposed right to release
the Englisb people from their allegiance to their own Gov-
(x) "He absolved the vassals of John from their oaths of fealty, and ex
horted all Christian princes and barons to unite in dethroning the king, and
in substituting another more worthy, by the authority of the Apostolic See."
— History of England, by Lingard, vol. ii., p. 163.

ALLEGIANCE RELEASED BY INNOCENT III. 447
ernment should be well understood. What Innocent III.
then did in England, Pope Pius IX. undoubtedly thinks he
has the power and right to do in all the governments now
existing. For that purpose the late Lateran Council enacted
the decree of infallibility. In ascertaining this principle of
papal usurpation we are not confined to Protestant authori
ty. It is distinctly avowed by one of the most distinguish
ed Roman Catholic authors — one whose "History of En
gland" is recommended to the faithful in the United States.
Lingard, referring to the relations between Innocent III. and
King John, states the ground upon which the former act
ed, as avowed by himself, in interfering with the dispute be
tween John and the King of France — a matter purely tem
poral. He says that in this explicit statement is set forth
"more plainly than any speculations of modern writers, the
real ground on which the popes assumed their pretended au
thority in temporal matters;" and, therefore, the language of
the pope is the more worthy of careful scrutiny. He gives
the following as the reasons by which Innocent justified him
self: "He first transcribes the following passage from the Gos
pel : ' If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him
bis fault between him and thee alone. . . ., and if he will not
hear thee, then take with thee one or two more. . . .; and if
he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church ; but
if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an
heathen man and a publican {Matthew xviii., 15-17).' 'Now,'
he [Innocent] proceeds, 'the King of England maintains that
the King of France, by enforcing the execution of an unjust
sentence, has trespassed against him. He has, therefore, ad
monished him of his fault in the manner prescribed by the
Gospel ; and meeting with no redress, has, according to the
direction of the same Gospel, appealed to the Church. How,
then, can we, whom Divine Providence has placed at the head
of the Church, refuse to obey the Divine command? How
can we hesitate to proceed according to the form pointed
out by Christ himself?  We do not arrogate to ourselves
the right of judgment as to the fee — that belongs to the King
of France. But we have a right to judge respecting the sin;
and that right it is our duty to exercise against the offend-

448 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
er, be he who he may  By the imperial law it has been
provided that, if one of two litigant parties prefer the judg
ment of the Apostolic See to that of the civil magistrate
{apud Grat., caus. ii., 9, i. can., 35), the other shall be bound to
submit to such judgment. But if we mention this, it is not
that we found our jurisdiction on any civil authority. God
has made it our duty to reprehend the man who falls into
mortal sin, and, if he neglect our reprehension, to compel him
to amend by ecclesiastical censures. Moreover, both kings
have sworn to observe the late treaty of peace, and yet Phil
ip has broken that treaty. The cognizance of perjury is uni
versally allowed to belong to the ecclesiastical courts. On
this account, therefore, we have also a right to call the par
ties before our tribunal' "(33)
And soon after, in explanation of the bull of Innocent
releasing the English people from their allegiance, Lingard
says: "... .Innocent grounded his temporal pretensions on the
right which he possessed of judging of sin, and of the obli
gation of oaths  At first, indeed, the popes contented
themselves with spiritual censures ; but in an age when all
notions of justice were remodeled after the feudal jurispru
dence, it was soon admitted that princes, by their disobedi
ence, became traitors to God ; that as traitors, they ought to
forfeit their kingdoms, the fees which they held of God, and
that to pronounce such sentence belonged to the pontiff, the
vicegerent of Christ upon earth. By these means the serv
ant of the servants of God [the pope] became the sovereign
ofthe sovereigns, and assumed the right of judging them
in his court, and of transferring their crowns as he thought
just."(34) Now, if the reader will examine the first of these extracts,
wherein Lingard quotes the language of Innocent, he will see
that the latter derives his extraordinary power from the Gra
tian Decretals, which, as we have already seen, were made up
of numerous gross and palpable forgeries ! And if he will
then take the pains to examine any ofthe recent encyclicals
(m) " History of England," by Lingard, vol. ii., pp. 153, 154 (note).
C4) Ibid., p. 163 (note).

PAPAL TEACHINGS ALWAYS THE SAME. 449
of Pius IX., especially that of 1864,(3S) he will also see that
the latter derives his temporal power, which enables him to
require obedience of governments as well as individuals, just
as Innocent III. did, from his divine authority to judge of
sin, and therefore from the same False Decretals ! When he
talked, in the Encyclical of 1864, about having derived from
his "predecessors" jurisdiction over "all heresies and errors
which are hostile to moral honesty and to the eternal sal
vation of mankind," it was manifestly his intention to place
himself upon the ground occupied by Innocent ; and it is
equally manifest that the late Lateran Council intended to
affirm his claim of universal jurisdiction over both "faith
and morals" — that is, over all the sins committed by gov
ernments or individuals — by enacting the decree of infalli
bility. It is a common boast of tbe papal writers that the
faith and teachings of the Roman Church are immutable —
that they have always been, from the beginning, precisely
the same. Has not Pius IX., then, and will not his succes
sors have, according to its teachings, exactly the same pow
er to judge of sin, wheresoever it exists, that Innocent III.
had ? Every thing now done and said by Pius IX. and his
ultramontane allies is confirmatory of the fact that they so
understand the character ofthe papal jurisdiction. But this
question, the greatest of the present age, is susceptible of a
more practical test.
Alexander IL, at the dictation of Hildebrand, took juris
diction over the political affairs of England, and gave away
its crown to William of Normandy, because Harold had vio
lated his oath, thereby committing a sin. Pius IX. has de
clared, in almost every variety of expression, that Protestant
ism is a sin, and that all the advancing nations and peoples
are acting in violation of God's law : why may he not, there
fore, arraign them at the bar of the Roman Curia, pronounce
judgment against them, and dispose of them as tbe interest
ofthe Church shall require? Innocent III. declared that he
did not derive his jurisdiction over nations from "any civil
authority," and Pius IX. has done the same thing. They
both assert the Divine right to reprehend sin, and to com-
(**) Appendix C.
29

450 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
pel amendment by ecclesiastical censures. All this is ofthe
faith and of morals, and, therefore, what they have said is to
be taken as said ex Cathedrd. Innocent III. was as infallible
when he released the English people from their allegiance,
and declared that another king than John should be select
ed " by the authority of the Apostolic See," as Pius IX. now
is when he commands the faitbful in Germany, Switzerland,
and Brazil to resist the laws of their respective governments,
and calls such resistance the true service of God. Therefore,
tib&pe'nalty for disobedience to the papal command must be
the same in each case; for the Church — that is, the pope —
judges for herself what she shall do, how she shall do it, and
in what manner a refusal to obey her shall be punished !
Innocent III. made those who disobeyed him "traitors to
God !" Are not those who disobey Pius IX. precisely the
same? Innocent III. declared that "they ought to forfeit
their kingdoms," because they " held of God," against whom
they had committed treason ; and " that to pronounce such
sentence belonged to the pontiff, the vicegerent of Christ upon
earth!" who was "the sovereign ofthe sovereigns," and had
"the right of judging them in his court, and of transferring
their crowns as he thought just !" If one ofthe greatest of
the popes has any authority in fixing the law of the Church,
then this is as much its law to-day as it was wben it was de
creed at the Vatican ; and that Pius IX. and all his Jesuit
supporters so understand it, will not be questioned by any
wbo will take the pains to examine the facts. It would re
quire a volume even to compile, without comment, what has
been written on this subject.
The Catholic World says : " While the State has some
rights, she has them only in virtue and by permission of the
superior authority, and that authority can only be express
ed through the Church, that is, through the organic law in
fallibly announced and unchangeably asserted, regardless of
temporal consequences."(36)
Dr. Brownson says: "No civil government, be it a mon
archy, an aristocracy, a democracy, or any possible combina
tion of any two or all of them, can be a wise, just, efficient,
0") The Catholic World for July, 1870, vol. xi., p. 439.

CHURCH AND STATE UNITED. 451
or durable government, governing for the good of the com
munity, without the Catholic Church ; and without the pa
pacy there is and can be no Catholic Church. "(")
Then, as an argument to enforce the proposition that " hu
man laws repugnant to the divine law have no force what
ever, and are on no account to be obeyed," he proceeds to
say: "Now, as all laws, as all rights, are spiritual or divine,
and as all their vigor, as laws, is derived from the spiritual
order, only a spiritual court, or representative of the divine
order, is competent to judge of them, define, declare, and ap
ply them to the practical questions as they come up in indi
vidual or social life. This representative of the divine or
der on earth is the Church, instituted by God himself to
maintain his law in the government of men and nations.
Hence the necessity of the union of Church and State ; and
the condemnation in the Syllabus of those who demand their
separation and the independence of the State."(3B)
He says, moreover, that the State " is bound to protect "
the rights of the Church " with physical force, if necessary,"
and " to govern in accordance with the divine law as she in
terprets, declares, and applies it." Also, that the Church
has " the right to call upon " a Catholic state to suppress
an insurgent heresy or scbism, and to compel those who have
personally received the faith to return to the unity from
which they have broken away."(39)
Innumerable quotations of this kind could be inserted
here, but to do so would only be a work of supererogation.
It is more satisfactory to go directly to the Vatican, as ev
ery thing coming from that quarter has upon it the unmis
takable stamp of pontifical authority. In 1870, Cardinal An
tonelli issued an official communication from Rome, directed
to the papal nuncio at Paris, wherein he declared that "the
maxims and fundamental principles of the Church" were
derived from " pontifical constitutions," that is, decrees of
popes, among which is the celebrated bull Unigenitus oi
Clement XL ; and then says :
(37) Brownson's Quarterly Review, last series, January, 1873, vol. i., p. 10.
(3B) Ibid., vol. i., p. 12. O Ibid., p. 17.

452 THE PAPACY ANDTHE CIVIL POWER.
"And, in truth, the Church has never intended, nor now
intends, to exercise any direct and absolute power over the
political rights ofthe State. Having received from God the
lofty mission of guiding men, whether individually or con
gregated in society, to a supernatural end, she has by that
very fact the authority and the duty to judge concerning the
morality and justice of all acts, internal and external, in re
lation to their conformity: with the natural and divine law.
And as no action, whether it be ordained by a supreme
power, or be freely elicited by an individual, can be exempt
from this character of morality and justice, so it happens
that the judgment of the Church, though falling directly on
the morality of the acts, indirectly reaches over every thing
with which that morality is concerned."(40)
This is distinct enough to convince the most incredulous
that it is a fixed and well-understood law of the Roman
Church, that all individuals and societies and nations are
within the circle of the papal jurisdiction; and that what
soever they may do not compatible with God's law, as the
pope shall define it, in the whole domain of faith and morals,
be has the right to condemn, and does condemn, by virtue
of authority derived directly from God. Hence, it will be
perceived that the law of the Church is to-day just what it
was announced to be by Innocent III., and that it confers
upon Pius IX. precisely the same authority which he claim
ed over the crown of England, and which Alexander II. ex
ercised when he decided it to belong to William of Nor
mandy. The law being the same, the penalty for disobedience
must be the same — for the Church never changes ! In any
given case of disobedience, whether by an individual or a
nation, the act must be, necessarily, treason against God,
as Innocent declared. The individual, for this offense, is cut
off by the sword of excommunication from all fellowship
with the faithful, and the doors of heaven are closed against
him ; if he be a civil ruler, his authority to govern is strick
en from his hands, and those who owe bim obedience by the
laws of the State are commanded not to obey him. The
(_'") "Vatican Council," by Archbishop Manning, appendix, p. 185.

OBEDIENCE EXACTED BY FORCE. 453
nation, not having, like the individual, a. corporeal body to
be punished or a soul to be damned, forfeits all rights to the
exercise of the power out of which its disobedience arose,
and becomes thereby subject to the " sovereign of the sov
ereigns," to whom God has given authority to pronounce
judgment against it " in his court," and to transfer it to
whomsoever he shall think "just;" that is, to the faithful
who will bring it into the path of duty ! And when all
other remedial measures have failed, the Church, says Pius
IX., has the right to avail "herself of force" to compel obe
dience !(41)
We are not left to any conjecture in reference to the pun
ishment of individuals or nations for the heresy of disobe
dience to the pope, which is considered as disobedience to
God. If the doctrine laid down by Innocent III. and Pius
IX. is not explicit enough on this subject, it is so laid down
by authors of recognized authority, who have compiled the
law ofthe Church, as to leave no room for cavil. In 1773, a
work was published in Spain, written by Alfonzo de Castro,
a learned friar, which was designed to set forth the law of '
the Church for the punishment of heretics. These punish
ments he divides into two classes, spiritual and temporal.
The latter are defined to be proscription and confiscation of
property, and " the deprival of every sort of pre-eminence,
jurisdiction, and government, which they previously exer
cised over persons of every condition." To this class be
long kings and those who govern public affairs. "A king,"
says he, " having become a heretic, is ipso jure deprived of
his kingdom, a duke of his dukedom, an earl of his earldom,
and so with other governors of the people, by whatever
name they are known." And this is done by the pope, who
"deprives a king of his royal dignity, and strips him of his
kingdom ; for in the matter of faith, kings, like other subor
dinates, are the subjects of the sovereign pontiff, who can
punish them as he does others."
Inasmuch as to deprive a ruler of his kingdom, the coun-

(4I) The Syllabus condemns as one of the principal errors of the times the
doctrine that "the Church has not the power of availing herself of force."
See Appendix D, paragraph v. , sec. 24.

454 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
try would be left without a governor, unless something more
were done, the law goes a step farther. This author states
it in these words :
" If an heretical king have no heir, or if the heir be also a
heretic, then if the nation be not infected with heresy, I should
say that it has the power and right of electing the king, as
it is said in the First Book of Kings, 'The people makes itself
a king.' But if the people be infected with the same pesti
lence (of heresy) as the king, the people will be deprived ipso
jure of the power of choosing for itself a king, and then the
business will devolve on the sovereign pontiff !" {")
And thus the remote facts in English history, already de
tailed, connect themselves with our own times, by the at
tempt of the papacy, under the lead of the Jesuits, to revive
the papal doctrines of the Middle Ages, as the means of ar
resting the progress and advancing civilization of the nine
teenth century. The passionate declamation of the pope,
and the vaporing of a few hierarchs, or all of them, for that
matter, amount to nothing in the abstract. Like all others
of disappointed ambition, they are most prolific in terms of
denunciation against those who have been driven out ofthe
Roman Church by their severity and injustice. And if they
choose to drive them still farther by additional severity
and injustice, and every form of anathema and malediction,
Protestants are not likely to concern themselves very much
about it. But when they impudently arraign whole nations
of people, deny to them the right to govern their own af
fairs, pronounce judgment against them as heretics and trai
tors to God, and claim that the pope has the divine right to
set his own rulers over them, it is quite time for us to un
derstand what is to be the effect of all this upon the future
destiny of our own country. But this question can be more
satisfactorily considered when we shall have learned some
thing more of the working of the papal system, which we
are now asked to adopt in preference to that which has
placed us in so eminent a position among the nations.
C") Apud Dr. Cumming. See his "Lectures on Romanism," in London,
in explanation of the teaching of Cardinal Wiseman, pp. 55, 56.

THE ENGLISH BARONS. 455

CHAPTER XV.
The Pope turns England over to France. — Resistance ofthe Barons. — John
resigns the Crown to the Pope. — Langton. — Charter of Henry I. — Barons
form a League. — Langton supports the Barons. — Magna Charta. — John
swears to obey it. — The Pope releases Him, and annuls the Charter. —
He claims England as a Fief. — Foreign Mercenaries. — Henry III. — Ital
ian and Foreign Priests. — King promises to observe the Charter.— The
Pope again releases Him. — Appeals to Rome. — Peter-pence. — Immuni
ties of Clergy. — They murder with Impunity. — House of Commons estab
lished. — Pope again releases the King from his Oath.- — Civil War. — The
Barons defeated. — Their Treatment by the King and Pope. — Edward I.
confirms the Charter. — The Pope releases Him. — Edward II. — The
Statutes of Provisors and of Praemunire. — The Lollards. — Law for burning
Heretics. — William Sawtre and Thomas Badby burned. — Lollards attack
ed. — Clergy exempt from Punishment in Secular Courts. — Their Corrup
tion and that of the Popes. — Urban V. and Gregory XI. — Popes and Anti-
popes. — Scandalous and Disgraceful Conduct.- — Gregory XII. Pope at
Rome, and Benedict XIII. at Avignon. — Both declared Infamous by the
Council of Pisa. — Alexander V. — John XXIII. deposed for Enormous
Crimes by Council of Constance. — Martin V. — Influence upon the Church.
— Corruption almost Universal. — The Fruits of the False Decretals.
The condition into which King John was thrown by the
attempt of Innocent III. to stir up an insurrection in England
against his authority was embarrassing in an extreme de
gree. He had incurred the animosity of the Norman bar
ons, who, after having at first entertained hostility toward
the native Britons and the Saxons, had become reconciled to
both, and were anxious to defend and share with them their
ancient rights and privileges. These barons were Roman
Catholics in all the essentials of religious faith ; but as they
found nothing in that faith, when uncontaminated by the
influence of the papacy, requiring them to submit passively
to the tyranny of either kings or popes, they became early
impressed with the necessity of adopting such measures as
would teach their rulers that the English people had some
rights they were bound to respect. The occasion afforded
them an opportunity of seeking to avenge themselves upon

456 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
the king for the injuries he had inflicted upon them in a pre
vious part of his reign; and as the power ofthe crown, when
backed by that of the papacy, was too strong for resistance
by any ordinary means, they began to combine with a view
to his expulsion from the throne, and the election of another
king more favorable to the people. The pope, taking advan
tage of this disaffection, and supposing that there existed
no further impediment to the consummation of his plans, is
sued another bull deposing John, and empowering the King
of France to put the sentence into execution! Of course the
King of France, faithful as he was to the Church, did not
act altogether out of religious motives ; nor did the pope, al
though he claimed to be employing a divine power only for
the good ofthe Church, address himself to any such motive.
The pretext of the good of the Church was, on the part of
both, the mere cover for ambition of the baser sort. There
fore, we find the pope promising the French king, as a re
ward for his aggressive interference with the affairs of En
gland, " the remission of all his sins, together with the crown
of England, when once he had dethroned the tyrant."(') It
was scarcely possible to make a more bountiful bestowal of
pontifical favor. In one breath the sins of a whole life-time
were forgiven, and, in the next, the crown of a nation was
given away ! The pope had about as much right to do the
one as the other : the first was an assumption of a preroga
tive which belongs to God alone ; the second was a crimi
nal violation of the law of nations. Both acts, under the
pretense of Divine sanction, were impious. But the King
of France readily accepted the proposition, and commenced
military preparations to carry it into execution. The pope,
however, was too cunning a politician to permit measures to
be carried to extremes, so long as there was a possibility of
accomplishing his ends by other means; for he was sagacious
enough to see that with Philip of France in possession ofthe
English throne he might have an adversary far more formi
dable than John to deal with. Accordingly, he sent a leg
ate to John to excite his fears by telling him that the bar
ons would take the side of Philip, and to remind him of his
(') "History of England," by Rapin, vol. iii., p. 203.

JOHN GIVES THE CROWN TO THE POPE. 457
unpopularity with the people. He hoped to bring John to
terms without complying with his promise to Philip; for,
like many other popes, he always interpreted the law of
God as if it had been made flexible and yielding, merely for
the purpose of advancing the papal ambition. As the cour
age of John had already begun to fail, the legate had little
difficulty in impressing his mind with the views ofthe pope,
who, notwithstanding the anathema of the Church rested
upon John's head, was still willing to treat with an excom
municated heretic, if thereby he could add to the power of
the papacy. When the legate, therefore, found that John
had become alarmed at the formidable alliance against him,
he developed the whole papal plan by telling him that his
only remedy was to put himself wholly under the protec
tion of the pope, which he could do by becoming a dutiful
son of the Church, and by promising to perform whatsoev
er the pope should enjoin upon him ! John, caught in the
papal net, finally consented to these humiliating terms, and
agreed to take the necessary oath. However, when the leg
ate came to explain the terms of the surrender, he insisted
that as John's offenses were " against God and the Church !"
— as all offenses against the papacy are yet regarded by the
advocates of infallibility — he must also resign the crown
into the pope's hands! Forced by the seeming necessity
of his condition, and with his spirit crushed by the violence
of pontifical wrath, John consented even to this ; and, pub
licly taking the crown from his head, laid it at the feet of
the legate ! He then signed a charter, resigning to the pope
the kingdom of England and the lordship of Ireland !(2)
And thus the King of England became a vassal of the
Pope of Rome, promising to pay a thousand marks a year
in money, and' binding all his successors to like obedience !
And all this was done without any regard whatever to the
interest or wishes of the people, who, under the impious pre
tense that God required it, were transferred from one des
pot to another, like cattle sold in the public market. And
thus Pope Innocent III., by virtue of authority derived from
the Forged Decretals, planted his feet upon the necks of the
(2) Rapin, vol. iii., p. 208 ; Lingard, vol. ii., p. 165 ; Appendix, note, D.

458 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
English people. Even Lingard, conscious of the iniquity of
the act, can not refrain from saying that " this transaction
has heaped everlasting infamy on the memory of John ;"
and he might, with equal propriety and justice, have added,
like infamy upon the memory of Innocent III., who planned,
plotted, and contrived it by fraud, usurpation, and deceit
— all covered up under the flimsy disguise of infallibility.
And yet, infamous as it was, it is not at all too strong to
say that Pius IX. would avail himself of the same disguise,
to-day or to-morrow, to do the same thing in England or the
United States, or in any other country, under like favorable
circumstances. John having thus traded away the crown to the pope,
to the disgrace of both seller and buyer, the dissatisfaction
against him became intense throughout the kingdom. Lang
ton, though the pope's legate, sympathized with the barons;
and, in order to stimulate their zeal, he made known to them
the existence of an old charter granted by Henry L, a fact
which was of the utmost importance to their cause, but of
which they were previously ignorant. (3) Thus notified of
this important grant, the barons were easily induced to en
ter into a league or confederacy to secure a greater degree
of independence, upon the basis of the old Saxon liberties.
When this movement was made known to the pope, he was
gratified ; not because he desired or intended that the bar
ons should obtain any additional liberties, but because he
hoped that the breach between them and the king would
become so irreconcilable that they could not unite against
him ; for he understood perfectly well that if the king and
the barons were united in opposition to him, they could
soon terminate all his usurped authority in England. But
Langton understood the policy and schemings of the crafty
pope, and was determined that his countrymen should not
(s) Henry I., in order to obtain possession of tlie crown, promised to abro
gate all rigorous laws made after the Conquest, and to restore the Govern
ment to the condition in which it was under the first Saxon kings. This he
did by granting a charter, renouncing the unjust prerogatives usurped by
William tlie Conqueror, and by William IL, his (Henry I.'s) immediate pred
ecessor. — Rapin, vol. ii.,pp. 323-326. For copy of this charter see Thierry,
vol. i., p. 344 (note).

STEPHEN LANGTON. 459
be deprived of their ancient Saxon liberties, since they were
preparing to make such noble efforts for their restoration.
He was familiar enough with the papacy to foresee the deg
radation into which they would be plunged if the pope
should secure his triumph. And he, accordingly, brought
himself under the suspicion of the pope, who sent another
legate into England, and demanded a second resignation of
the crown by John, and an additional treaty, sealed with
gold instead of wax. When this demand was made, the
king, already humiliated to an unparalleled degi'ee, consent
ed to it; but Langton protested against it, because it was
apparent that the pope had by this time resolved to oppose
the cause of the barons, and had promised to protect John
against their demand for their ancient liberties. Langtou's
protestation greatly incensed the pope, who could not un
derstand how a papal legate could espouse the cause of En
glish liberty; but he was afraid to proceed immediately to
extremities for fear of open resistance by the people, who
were now beginning to learn something of the rights out of
which they had been cheated by treacherous rulers, under
the dictation of equally treacherous popes. The barons
were not appeased by the conduct of either the king or the
pope, but renewed their league, and courageously resolved
to demand the re-establishment of the charter of Henry I.
When they made this demand of the king, he, backed by
the pope, refused it. They then took up arms, acquired
possession of London, and besieged the king in the Tow
er. Were they justified in this? Undoubtedly they were.
There are two kinds of government — one of law, the other
of force. When the latter seizes upon and destroys the
natural and inalienable liberties of a people, they have the
right to re-assert them by whatsoever degree of force may
be necessary to resist the usurpation. In that condition the
English people were then placed. Their former freedom
had been guaranteed to them by all the proper forms of
law ; and when kings and popes, by unrighteous combina
tions, had disregarded the law and set it aside, they were
justified in resuming their position of independence, even at
the sword's point. And the barons showed themselves ca
pable of performing this great work, for they soon compel-

460 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
led the king to sign two charters, one of which was the
Charter of. Liberties, or Magna Charta, which is yet regard
ed as the foundation ofthe present liberties of England and
the United States. Being afraid to trust the king, the bar
ons required him to take an oath to observe these charters,
which he did in the most solemn form. But circumstances
soon transpired to show that, notwithstanding the solemnity
with which this oath had been taken, he did not intend to
be bound by it. It was considered an essential part of the
doctrine of the " divine right " of kings, that they were not
bound by any promise made by them to the people, in whose
hands none of the powers of government were lodged ; and
if this convenient method of escape from the obligation of
an oath had not been provided, the dispensing power ofthe
pope, as God's vicegerent (!), was always at hand to release
the representatives of absolutism from all such obligations,
whenever the interest of the papacy required it. In this
particular instance King John was stimulated to the viola
tion of his oath by the foreigners who were about his court,
and who had been sent into England by the pope to aid
him in oppressing the people by the exercise of ecclesiastic
al authority, under the canons of the Roman Church, and
who were assiduous in their efforts to become the masters
of the country. (4) These ecclesiastics assisted the king to
raise foreign troops to resist the barons, because such troops,
being merely mercenaries, and having.no sympathies with
the English people, were always ready to enlist in any cause
which promised them remuneration, whether in the form of
money or booty. The king, however, while employing these
means of subjugating his own people, called also upon the
pope for assistance. He sent to him copies of the charters
he had granted the barons, in order to show how much they
encroached upon the royal and pontifical authority, and ask
ed that he be absolved from his oath to observe them — that
is, that the pope, as God's representative, should release him
from the obligation to obey a promise solemnly made to his
own countrymen concerning their own domestic laws and
policy ! The pope was greatly incensed at the barons for
(4) Rapin, vol. iii., p. 228.

THE POPE ANNULS MAGNA CHARTA. 461
having dared to assert such liberties for themselves and the
people, understanding perfectly well that such a concession
would lead to a demand for others. And " in his rage he
swore [by St. Peter] that, cost him what it would, he would
never suffer their rashness to go unpunished."(6) He annul
led the charters, absolved the king from his oath, and wrote
to the barons commanding them to renounce what they had
extorted from John,'as the only means of escaping the pon
tifical wrath.
Lingard comes to our assistance again, by furnishing us
the reasons which influenced Innocent III. in this addition
al act of interference with English affairs. After naming
several, such as the violation of their fealty to the king by
the barons, the fact that they had presumed to sit iu judg
ment upon the conduct of their king, and the additional
fact that John had agreed to take part in the Crusades,
and was therefore entitled to protection, be proceeds to
say: "Lastly, England was become the fief of the Holy See,
and they [the barons] could not be ignorant that if the king
had the will, he had not, at least, the power, to give away
the rights of the crown without the consent of his feudal su
perior [the pope]. He [the pope] was therefore bound to an
nul the concessions which had been extorted from John, as
having been obtained in contempt of the Holy See, to the
degradation of royalty, to the disgrace ofthe nation, and to
the impediment of the Crusade."(6)
Could any thing show more satisfactorily the nature of
the divine power over the temporal affairs of nations, exer
cised by Innocent III., and now re-asserted by Pius IX. ? In
this particular case it went to the extent of claiming plenary
jurisdiction over the entire domestic policy of the kingdom,
by denying to the king any power to grant additional liber
ties to the English people without the consent of the pope !
It assumed that King John, without the consent of the na
tion, could make England a fief to the pope, and lay its crown
at his feet, but could do no act tending to give the people the

(5) Rapin, vol. iii., p. 230.
(") "History of England," by Lingard, vol. ii., p. 181.

462 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
right to be consulted about the laws by which they were to
be governed ! It attempted to legitimate the highest crime
which a king can commit — the treacherous surrender of his
crown — by covering it up under the divine sanction, as if God
had designed that the papacy should be built up by the sacri
fice of all truth, justice, and honor ! It was such an act of
deep and indelible infamy as time can not wipe out.- And
why are we, in this age, justified in so considering it? Not
merely because the precedent thus established has furnished
a rule of action for other popes, in their attempts to subordi
nate all nations and peoples to themselves, but for other rea
sons which will readily occur to a thoughtful mind. Magna
Charta shines as a bright light in history. It was the be
ginning of that great uprising of the English people which
enabled them to take the lead among the advancing nations.
It is the corner-stone of all popular government as it now
exists ; and but for it, kingly and papal absolutism might be
to-day holding its universal carnival. And yet we are told
by an infallible pope that such an act, so glorious in all its
consequences, was "in contempt ofthe Holy See!" Why?
Because it tended "to the degradation of royalty," by put
ting into the hands of the people rights which they derived
from God and nature !
John, thus released from the obligation of his oath by the
dispensing power of the pope, set on foot an army of foreign
ers to punish the barons and ravage the country. The bar
ons defied the thunders of the pope and the armies of the
king. The latter had no higher object than plunder, and
the effect was that the country was reduced to a most de
plorable condition— the private property. of the barons being
seized and appropriated by foreign mercenaries. The pope
excommunicated the barons, merely because they were un
willing to be made slaves, and not for any violation of their
religious faith. Lie ordered Langton, his legate, to publish
the bull of excommunication in England to intimidate the
barons. But Langton, though faithful to his religion, had not
forgotten that he was an Englishman ; and he refused to per
form the degrading and disgraceful act. And for this act of
devotion to his native country he was suspended by the pope
from the Archbishopric of Canterbury, which was designed

BARONS DENY THE TEMPORAL. POWER. 463
to stamp him with the indelible mark of disgrace. (7) The
bull, however, was published, but the barons again defied it,
because they were not particularly named in it. The pope,
to remove this objection, issued another, excommunicating
them by name, and putting their lands, as well as the city
of London — which took the side ofthe barons — under in
terdict. Again they refused obedience, declaring, in the spir
it of true Englishmen, that " it was not the pope's business
to meddle with temporal affairs, seeing that St. Peter had re
ceived from Christ none but spiritual power : for which rea
son it was neither just nor right that Christians should suf
fer themselves to be swayed by the ambition and avarice of
popes."(e) They were Roman Catholics in religious faith,
strongly attached to their Church and the traditions of its
early purity and greatness, but were unwilling to surrender
the independence of their country to either a treacherous
king or a domineering pope. They were resolved that they
would not become the mere slaves to the temporal power
which Innocent HI. claimed the divine right to exercise
over them. And they were determined to stand by and to
restore the liberties which they considered the birthright of
the English people. They did this with a courage which
has endeared to every lover of popular liberty the memo
ry of these hardy but unlettered old barons, who defied not
only the king, but one of the most powerful and ambitious
of the popes. Their firm adherence to their demand for
freedom kept the principles of English liberty alive in the
minds of the people, who had never yet forgotten their an-
(7) The Catholic World, in an article on "The Spirit of Protestantism, "
makes an enumeration ofthe "beneficent results" which have been "di
rectly and indirectly the work of the Catholic Church." Among other things,
such as the Crusades and the discovery of America by Columbus, it points
with exulting pride "to Archbishop Langton framing Magna Charta! ! !" —
The Catholic World, December, 1872, vol. xvi., p. 290. Lingard, referring
to the refusal of Langton to publish the bull, and his suspension in conse
quence, says that he visited Rome, but failed to "mollify the pontiff, or recov
er the exercise of his authority." — History of England, by Lingard, vol. ii.,
p. 182. Some papal writers set down Magna Charta itself to the credit of
the Church, because the barons were Roman Gatholics ! Much that passes
for history is made in that way.
(8) Rapin, vol. iii., p. 233.

464 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
cient Christianity or the teachings of their Saxon ancestors.
These principles survived every shock they received, and en
abled the people to bear themselves up under every load
of oppression with which kings and popes endeavored to
crush them. Pope Innocent III. and King John have pass
ed away. Of the former, it is related by a Roman Catholic
pen that, after death, he was seen in a vision by St. Lut-
garde, a nun, to whom he said that "he could not enter heav
en until the day of the last judgment, and after having suf
fered tortures incomprehensible by the human mind," on
account of the monstrous enormity of his crimes. (") The
world's greatest bard, in almost the last words put into the
mouth of the latter, makes him say,
" Within me is a hell ; and there the poison
Is, as a fiend, confined to tyrannize
On unreprievable, condemned blood."
Yet the principles of Magna Charta have lived, grown, and
expanded, and will continue to live, grow, and expand until
all the chains of absolutism shall have been broken, and there
shall be no bands upon either the limbs or minds of men.
During the subsequent reign of Henry III. — one of the
most disgraceful in English history — the liberties ofthe
people were almost entirely destroyed. The popes, by the
appointment of Italian ecclesiastics, had created in England
an army of foreign priests, who were exclusively devoted to
Rome, who had no sympathies in common with the English
people, and who, scattered all over the country, impoverish
ed it by their enormous exactions of money. (10) The king,
obeying the pope, also made an effort to annul the Great
Charter, although he had solemnly promised, at the begin
ning of his reign, to observe it. He excused himself for this
attempt to violate his promise, upon the ground that he was
(9) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 464.
(10) The pope, at one time, nominated three hundred Italian priests to va
cant benefices in England. And so numerous did these foreigners become,
that their annual income extorted from the people amounted to seventy thou
sand marks — over $ 230,000 — while the revenue ofthe crown, levied for the
support of the Government, scarcely exceeded one-third of that sum ! — Ra
pin, vol. iii. , pp. 349-398.

PAPAL ENORMITIES IN ENGLAND. 465
a minor when it was made ! The pope and the king " mu
tually stood by one another whenever the business was to
extort money "from the people. (") The pope made every
possible effort to alienate the affections of the king from his
English subjects, by causing him to call still more foreign
ers devoted to the papacy to assist him in conducting pub
lic affairs.(12) And when Parliament complained of this, the
Bishop of Winchester, speaking for the pope, rebuked them
upon the ground that it was an encroachment upon the roy
al prerogative !(13) Nearly all the money of the kingdom
was remitted to Rome.(14) And the pope acquired such
power over Henry that, under threat of excommunication,
he obtained a renewal of the concession of John, that the
crown should remain in vassalage to the Holy See.(ls) The
English bishops, stimulated by the pope, claimed jurisdic
tion over civil affairs, upon the pretense that there was hard
ly any case but what religion was concerned with(16) — the
logical result of the papal demand that the pope shall be
regarded as infallible upon all questions of morals as well
as of faith. The king obtained innumerable subsidies upon
promises which he violated as soon as he received the mon
ey ; in all of which his perfidious conduct was approved by
the pope, who was always ready to grant him a dispensa
tion for the violation of his most solemn engagements, when
their mutual interests were thereby advanced. (") The popes
considered England as a conquered country, its kings their
vassals, and its people as having no rights of any value
whatsoever when they came in conflict with the demands of
the papacy. (18) They entertained appeals in almost every
matter of controversy, and the people were compelled to
spend immense sums of money in traveling to Rome to so
licit their favor. (I9) They converted Peter-pence into a trib
ute to the chair of Peter, and practiced the most rigorous
measures for its collection. (20) They organized a compact
body of ecclesiastics, trained to obedience and submission,
(") Rapin, vol. iii., p. 305. (,2) Hume, vol. ii., p. 16.
(u) Rapin, vol. iii., p. 324. (") Ibid., p. 367.
H Ibid., p. 371. .('") Ibid., pp. 374, 457.
(") Ibid., p. 403. 0") Ibid., p. 454.
H Ibid. O Ibid., p. 457.
30

466 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
who, in disregard of the laws of the kingdom, took the side
of the popes against the people, as if they were the abso
lute and only sovereigns of the country. (") They demand
ed that the civil courts should have no jurisdiction to try
and condemn ecclesiastics, even for the most enormous
crimes !(") The process of excommunication was entirely
perverted from its original meaning, and made to serve the
temporal uses of the pope, upon trivial no less than upon
grave occasions, being employed to punish trifling acts of
disobedience, to raise money, and for almost every imagina
ble purpose but the advancement of the Gospel. It would
be impossible to enumerate, indeed, within a compass less
than a volume, the outrages and enormities practiced in En
gland during this gloomy period by kings and popes, who
considered the assertion of any single popular right as a
crime which God had appointed them to punish ! The pow
er, oppressions, and vices of the papacy bad nearly reached
their culminating point, and the pure religion of Christ and
his apostles, which was designed to purify and refine the
heart and soul of man, was entirely subordinated to temporal
and selfish ends, and made to play the ignoble part of minis
tering to the worldly ambition of the popes and their pros
tituted army of ecclesiastics.
The barons would have been unworthy the name of En
glishmen if they had not resisted these encroachments upon
the rights and liberties of the people, with whose interests
and happiness their own had now become inseparably iden
tified. The reciprocal hatred which had once existed be
tween the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans had, like that be
tween the native Britons and the Saxons, given way before
(") Rapin, vol. iii., p. 457. (M) Ibid.,?. 458.*
* More than a hundred murders were committed by ecclesiastics during the reign
of Henry II., in which the parties were not even punished by degradation. The cler
gy had absolute power over their own body, and no appeal was allowed from their
decisions. A layman forfeited his life by the crime of murder, but an ecclesiastic
went unpunished. This was called one of the immunities of the clergy ! A clergy
man committed a murder in 1163, and, being tried by au ecclesiastical court, was sen
tenced merely to lose his benefice and be confined in a monastery ! The king com
plained that he ought to be tried as laymen in the civil courts, but the clergy object
ed. Tbe king remained Arm, and it was finally agreed, among other things, that this
should -thereafter be done. But when the pope was informed of this, he refused Mb
sanction, and denounced it as " prejudicial to the Church, and destructive of her priv
ileges 1"— Rapin, vol. iii., pp. 21-20.

ORIGIN OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 467
the sense of common injuries and the threatened loss of their
common liberties. To the stubborn tenacity with which the
Anglo-Saxons adhered to their Teutonic principles the coun
try was indebted for this. They had gradually worn away
the Norman prejudices, and had retained their own lan
guage, and enough of their ancient laws and customs to fur
nish an ultimate barrier against the encroachment of kings
and popes — their common and implacable enemies. The
barons realizing this, firmly maintained their ground on the
side of the people, and resolved upon grappling royalty it
self by the throat, if its bold upon the country could not
otherwise be broken. The struggle was one which called
for an exhibition of the highest and noblest qualities of En
glish character. The ancient liberties were to be snatched
from the grasp of royal and papal imperialism, and given
back again to the people from wbom they had been wrench
ed by usurpation, to be sacredly preserved, as belonging of
right to every Englishman, and as the foundation of the
world's future progress.
The firmness and resolution of the barons constrained the
king to grant important concessions. Twenty-four commis
sioners were appointed — one half by the king, the other by
the barons — to provide redress for the public grievances. (!S)
These provided. for the confirmation ofthe Great Charter,
andthe introduction, for the first time, of the representatives
ofthe Commons — that is, ofthe people — into Parliament ;(34) a
measure, imperfect as it then was, which was based. upon the
natural and inalienable right of the people to give or with
hold their assent to all laws by which it is proposed to gov
ern them. The Parliament, tbus brought under popular in
fluence, approved what had been done by the commission
ers, and provided for the execution ofthe articles they had
drawn up. Beneficial results immediately followed. . They
were first seen in the expulsion from the country of the
army of foreigners, who, by the joint policy ofthe kings and
the popes, had been imported to fill the offices, consume the
wealth of the people, and keep them in bondage to the pa
pal power. (") This accomplished, the barons formed anoth
er Rapin, vol. iii., p. 431. (!4) Ibid. , p. 433. (») Ibid., p. 435.

468 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
er alliance, and swore to maintain their liberties with their
lives and fortunes. (26) The city of London joined the alli
ance. The king, however, in the mean time, fearing the loss
of his royal prerogatives, and the consequent elevation of
the people, appealed to the pope to absolve him from the
oath he had taken to abide by his compact with the barons !
This absolution was readily granted by Pope Alexander IV. ;
but, as he died before any effective measures had been con
summated, it was confirmed by Pope Urban I V.,(") who was
as little scrupulous upon this subject as any of his predeces
sors. Thus supported by the Church, the king announced
to Parliament that he would not observe his oath, and took
immediate steps to recover the prerogatives he had lost by
surrender to the barons. The barons were unyielding, and
they and the king both prepared for civil war. To avoid
this, however, if possible, the barons petitioned the king to
adopt conciliatory measures, which he finally consented to
do, to an extent satisfactory to them. But the king soon
broke his promise again — as he could easily do at any time,
by the help of the pope — and the parties again made prep
arations for war. The king at last began active hostilities
by surprising Dover Castle, which was in the hands of the
barons. (28) Before any decisive result was reached, howev
er, it was agreed to refer the matter to the King of France
as arbiter — a measure which reflects more credit upon the
peaceful disposition of the barons than it does upon their
sagacity. As might have been expected, the French king
fully sustained his royal brother of England, having precise
ly the same motive for keeping the people in subjection, and
being equally under the influence of the pope. He decided
that the provisions of the twenty-four commissioners were
null and void, that the king should be restored to his former
power, that he should appoint all the great officers of the
crown, and that foreigners should be as capable of holding
offices in England as the English themselves !(29) Consent
to this on the part of the barons would have buried English
liberty in its grave forever. Therefore, civil war became in-
(20) Rapin, vol. iii., p. 435. (") Ibid., p. 443.
C") Ibid. , p. 453. (20) Ibid. , p. 454.

CONTEST FOR POPULAR RIGHTS. 469
evitable. At the beginning of it, fortune seemed to favor
the cause of the king, but he was finally taken prisoner;
when the barons drew up a new plan of government for the
extension and security of their liberties. By this plan con
servators were appointed in each county to preserve the
privileges of the people, and these were required to nomi
nate knights to sit in Parliament as the representatives of
their shires, thus laying the foundation for popular legisla
tive representation. The Parliament elected pursuant to
this plan adopted important measures of reform for the pro
motion of the public welfare, and greatly reduced the pre
rogatives of the kino-. While the Government was thus
conducted, it made a nearer approach to the popular form
than any other that had existed in England after the popes
had obtained a foothold there, and embodied many of the
Teutonic principles brought there by the Saxons. The king,
however, having subsequently obtained his liberty, the bar
ons suffered a severe defeat, which changed the whole as
pect of affairs. After this, the barons were persecuted " a
thousand ways," and made to "endure many hardships,"
says the historian. (30) Their estates were confiscated. The
city Of London was required to deliver up her magistrates,
and pay large sums of money. The king conferred the es
tates ofthe barons upon his favorites, and left no means un
tried to punish them for their resistance to his authority.
Pope Clement IV., to convince the people that the barons
had forfeited their claim to his protection and secured to
themselves the certainty of eternal perdition, because they
had struggled to regain the ancient liberties of the country,
sent over a legate with a bull of excommunication against
them and all their adherents, dead or alive !(31) And thus,
with only their " lives and limbs " saved, these defenders of
human freedom against the encroachments of kingly and
pontifical absolutism were compelled to lay down their
arms, and go back among the people, to keep alive in their
minds the principles for whicb tbey had risked so much.
And they were kept alive — cherished in the hearts of the
English people, until the time came for their final triumph.
(3°) Rapin, vol. iii., p. 473. (31) Ibid., p. 474.

470 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
We can scarcely realize now, in the midst of our own pros
perity, how much we owe to these firm and courageous old
heroes, who, for nearly half a century, held out against both
kings and popes. But for them, the ancient liberties of En
gland would have been lost, and the world would have been
kept in the midnight of the Middle Ages. But for them,
the reign of King John would have been redeemed by no
such event as the establishment of the Great Charter to
save it from the disgrace of treachery and imbecility. And
but for them, the present civil and religious freedom of En
gland and the United States might have had no such foun
dation as has enabled it, thus far, to defy assault, aud stand
firm against encroachment. Truth and candor require that
full justice should be done to these old Roman Catholic bar
ons, who obeyed God and their own consciences, rather than
corrupt popes and ecclesiastics. They loved their religion, but
they loved freedom also ; and for loving freedom they were
cursed, anathematized, and despoiled by the Church of Rome!
They did not believe the pope to be infallible, and for this they
were consigned to eternal torment in the world to come !
But the barons made so bold a stand against imperialism,
that, from the time of this memorable contest to the birth
of Protestantism in England, no king dared again arouse
the popular indignation by an armed assault upon the de
fenders of the Great Charter. The fear of the people be
gan to manifest itself in their conduct and policy. They
conceded only what they could not withhold, and, together
with the popes, employed art and intrigue to accomplish,
by indirection, what they dared not attempt again to ob
tain by force. Edward I. confirmed the Charter at the be
ginning of his reign, in order to conciliate popular favor; and
although he had pretended to do it "of his own accord," he
soon asked the pope to absolve him from his promise, religion
and the Church being used solely to advance the temporal
ends of kings and popes. The pope absolved him, of course,
not merely because of his hostility to the Charter on account
of its enfranchisement of the people, but because, as it is
said, the king made him " a present of gold plate !"(32) Ed-
(32) Rapin, vol. iv., pp. 99-113.

THE PERFIDY OF KINGS. 471
ward II. pledged himself to Parliament that its provisions
should be faithfully kept, and when he sought to escape the
fulfillment of his promise, the barons seized him, aud held him
to his word. Yet he recognized himself as the vassal of the
pope, and suffered him to interfere in the temporal affairs of
his kingdom. This the pope did by sending a legate to En
gland with a papal commission to make peace between that
country and Scotland, to excommunicate both kings, and
place both countries under interdict if they refused obedi
ence!^3) — thus assuming that all the prerogatives of both
crowns belonged to him as the vicar of Christ! Edward
ILL, in order to obtain a subsidy from Parliament, again con
firmed the Charter, (34) and indicated a wish to curtail the
authority of the pope, by subsequently repeating this act
of confirmation, and by consenting to the statute of Provi-
sorsto prohibit the popes from disposing of benefices in En
gland.^6) This statute, however, was not effective against
the machinations ofthe popes, and, although several times re
peated under subsequent kings, its terms had to be enlarged
by the statute of Praemunire before any good was accom
plished by it.(3S) Every thing done by these kings was by
way of concession to the people, on account of fear — show
ing that they were apprehensive that their royal rights were
held by a precarious tenure, and that the people only await
ed a favorable opportunity to assert their ancient liberties.
During all the subsequent reigns between that time and the
accession of Henry VIII., these liberties were suspended, but
not forgotten : if there had been no other method of preser
vation, they would have been traditionally preserved in the
English mind. The one hundred and thirty years embraced
in that period were distinguished by many events of the
most important character to England and the world. The
fortunes of the people seemed sometimes to be almost over
whelmed by the combined oppression of kings and popes;
but their cause was never at any time entirely lost. Provi-
(33) Rapin, vol. iv., p. 152. (M) Ibid., p. 242. (35) Ibid., p. 255.
(") The statute of Provisors provided that no ecclesiastical living should
be accepted from the pope, and that nothing should be sent to him out of the
kingdom. By that of Praemunire all bulls, excommunications, etc., against
the king, crown, or realm, proceeding from Rome, were prohibited.

472 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
dence will shape our ends, "rough-hew them how we will;"
and when the popes, as the head of the Church, grasped a
temporal sword, and stained it with the blood of pious Chris
tians, for no other offense than the worship of God accord
ing to their own consciences, they called down the wrath of
Heaven upon their own heads, and aided in building up a
party of reform in the Church. As early as the reign of
Richard II. incipient steps were taken in this work of reform
— showing that the Roman Catholic Church never was with
out pious and devout Christians among its members. The
measures then inaugurated ultimately gave birth to Protest
antism — slowly, it is true, but surely. Although, in 1381, an
act was passed, in obedience to Rome, authorizing the im
prisonment of heretics by the bishops,(37) yet the House of
Commons forced a repeal of it during the next year.(3B) The
passage of such an act, however, shows that Rome was ready
to place her heel of iron upon the necks of any who dared
consult their own consciences upon questions of religious
faith. She would repeat these measures to-day if she again
possessed the power, and, therefore, they teach us a valuable
and most instructive lesson.
This inauguration of religious persecution was designed
for the suppression of the Lollards, or followers of John
Wycliffe, wbo published his reform doctrines in the year
1377, during the reign of Edward III. These new doctrines
had so spread among the people in a few years, that, while
Richard II. was carrying on his war in Ireland, the Arch
bishop of York and the Bishop of London were compelled
to entreat him to return, and look after the cause of religion.
The immediate cause of their alarm was, that at a late Par
liament the Lollards had suggested the necessity for reform
in the Church !(39) The king returned, seized upon one of
the Lollards, compelled him to abjure the new doctrines, and
threatened him with death if he again professed them !(")
Now a new and powerful element began its work — one which
the people readily saw would enable them to achieve their
ultimate freedom. There was yet no law to punish heresy;
(*') Rapin, vol. iv., p. 394. (3e) Ibid., p. 397.
C) Ibid., p. 424. (40) Ibid., pp. 424, 425.

REFORMATION BEGUN BY WYCLIFFE. 473
and, therefore, Wycliffe was unmolested, and his followers
among the people increased with wonderful rapidity. Even
his death did not dishearten them ; and as early as the year
1389 they began to separate from the Roman Catholic
Church, and to appoint their own priests(41) — thus begin
ning the Reformation. So rapidly did they increase, that
Rome had to bring forth the most fearful engines of her
power to suppress their free thought, and chain down their
limbs. The reign of Henry IV. was soon signalized by the
enactment of a law "for the burning of heretics "(") — a most
Christian(!) and truly Roman mode of disposing ofthe Lol
lards. Under this act, William Sawtre, a Lollard, was im
mediately convicted by an ecclesiastical court, and burned
to death !(43) — thus becoming the first English martyr, after
the monks of Bangor, to the cause of religious liberty. Then
Rome rejoiced, and the cruel and bloody work of persecution
began. The fires were kindled which were to consume hun
dreds more of the best of England's sons — of men whose only
crime was that they dared assert that God had given to ev
ery man the right to worship him according to the dictates
of his own conscience ! Thomas Badby, another Lollard, was
burned in 1410. When offered his life if he would recant, he
refused, and suffered death with heroic courage. (44) During
the reign of Henry V. the Romish clergy held a convocation
to decide upon measures necessary to check the progress of
the doctrines of Wycliffe ; which resulted in the king's be
ing advised by the Archbishop of Canterbury " that fire and
fagot were the only means of extirpating heresy !"(48) This
was the doctrine of Rome, announced by its highest ecclesi
astic in England ! But the king was slow to adopt it, as the
new doctrines were spreading so rapidly as to excite his fears
of the people. He, however, advanced toward it as near as
he thought he could safely do, by issuing a proclamation pro
hibiting the Lollards from holding meetings, and the people
from being present at their preaching ! But the Lollards
held their meetings, notwithstanding the proclamation, and
at one of them, held at St. Giles's Fields, near London, it was
(41) Rapin, vol. iv., p. 472.
(") Ibid., vol. v., p. 33 ; Froude's "Hist, of England," vol. i., p. 95.
(43) Rapin, vol. v., p. 33. (") Ibid., p. 74. (4B) Ibid., pp. 92, 93.

474 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
represented that twenty thousand were present, supposed to
be under Sir John Oldcastle, who had been previously con
victed of heresy, and would have been burned if he had not
escaped. Being uuable to suppress these peaceful assem
blages of the people, the clergy adopted another method for
their extermination, by persuading the king to believe that
the Lollards had a design upon his life, and were conspiring
against the Government — a method which it required the
corrupt followers ofthe papacy to invent. The king yield
ed to their importunities, summoned a body of armed men,
closed the gates of London, for fear the people there would
go out to help the Lollards, surprised about eighty peaceful
and praying Christians at midnight, cruelly murdered twen
ty of them, and made prisoners ofthe other sixty, some of
whom were forthwith executed, and the remainder set at
liberty. (46)
During the reign of Edward IV. the clergy regained much
of their lost power, and again began to press more heavily
and severely upon the people. In 1462 an act was passed,
under dictation from Rome, providing that they should only
be tried in the ecclesiastical courts, and should not be held
responsible for crimes before the civil tribunals. The king
also released them from the operation ofthe statutes of Pro-
visors and Praemunire. (47) But all these measures, while they
added to the power of the Romish clergy in England, also
increased their corruptions. These were so openly and un-
blushingly practiced as to put in striking contrast their con
duct with that of the reforming Christians ; and by this
means the numbers of the latter continually increased, es
pecially among those who had so long struggled to maintain
the Great Charter and the ancient liberties. And thus these
popular elements were consolidated into a power which per
secution could not destroy, but which was destined to be
preserved until it became strong enough to control the pol
icy of the English nation, and influence the whole civilized
world. The finger of Providence was wonderfully displayed in
the events which immediately preceded and followed this
H Rapin, vol. v., pp. 100-103. (") Ibid., vol. vi., p. 17.

GREGORY XI. AND THE VAUDOIS. 475
beginning of the Reformation, under the inspiration of the
new doctrines announced by Wycliffe; in so. exhibiting to
the world the ambition and corruption of the papacy as to
demonstrate the necessity for the restoration of the. ancient
liberties in England, in order that the English people, by the
aid of their cultivated reason, might discover the true teach
ings of the apostolic Christians, and restore Christianity to
the purity it enjoyed before Constantine tempted the bish
ops of Rome to mingle in the temporal concerns of princes.
It was but a little while before when Pope Urban V. was
shut up for " whole days " in the palace of the Vatican with
the infamous Joanna of Naples, and rewarded this "crown
ed courtesan " for her favors . by presenting her with " the
golden rose" at the public ceremony of its blessing. (49) It'
was during the pontificate of Gregory XL that Wycliffe at
tacked the ultramontane doctrines. One of the first acts of
this pope was to issue a bull against Barnabo — one ofthe
hated Visconti, who had caused the arrest of the Bishop of
Milan — denouncing him because he had refused his subjects
permission to go to Rome " to purchase indulgences, bene
fices, and absolutions."(49) And when Barnabo made overt
ures of peace to him, he refused them, saying, "No, no; it
is useless for me to see them ; I will spare them from perju
ry, and will save their souls in spite of themselves, by caus
ing them to be interred alive if they fall into my bands."
He directed the Vaudois to be exterminated by armed troops
and by his infernal Inquisitors. He wrote to the Bishop of
London to put Wycliffe "to the torture," and rejoiced as
the devouring flames consumed the bodies of thousands of
Christians whom he called heretics. (M)
The fourteenth century closed with three popes, each ex
communicating the others ; aud the fifteenth began with two
— one of whom caused the other to be poisoned !(61) For
more than a quarter of a century there w7ere popes and anti-
popes — some at Rome, others at Avignon in France, at the
same time — who denounced each other, to the scandal of all
Christendom, until pure-minded Christians all over Europe
(4S) Cormenin, vol. ii., p. 71. (49) Ibid., p. 73.
(M) Ibid. , p. 75. (") Ibid. , p. 93.

476 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
blushed for shame. Gregory XII. was pope at Rome, while
Benedict XIII. was also pope at Avignon. The " sacred col
lege " of cardinals, assembled at Rome, said of Gregory that
he was an "accursed pope," because he desired to murder
several of them. They called him "the coward, the drunk
ard, and the knave ; the man of blood, the illustrious robber,
the schismatic, the heretic, the precursor of Antichrist !" who
had "mounted the chair ofthe apostle like a thief, to set fire
to the four corners of the house of God, and to pull down its
columns!" And of Benedict they said that he was "a wor
thy copartner " of Gregory " in his work of violence and in
iquity."^3) They also charged Gregory with an "incestu
ous amour with his own sister !" and called his chamberlains
the purveyors of his " hideous lubricity !" And the Coun
cil of Pisa confirmed the iniquity of both these infallible (!)
popes, deposed both of them from their sacerdotal functions,
and elected another, who took the name of Alexander V.
In the sentence of the council it is declared " that these
two infamous men are guilty of enormous iniquities and ex
cesses !"(63) Alexander V. died of poison, when John XXIII.
"broke the pontifical gate with a golden axe,"(") and was
crowned as pope at Rome. The Ecumenical Council of Con
stance soon met, and deposed John, declaring that he was
" the oppressor of the poor, the persecutor of the just, the
support of knaves, the idol of simoniacs, the slave of the
flesh, a sink of vices, a man destitute of every virtue, a mirror
of infamy, a devil incarnate." Fifty-four articles enumera
ting his crimes were publicly read, and "twenty other se
cret ones" were not read, " so frightful were the crimes which
they announced. "(") This council, after acquiring for itself
an undesirable notoriety by condemning John Huss for here
sy, elected a new pope, Martin V. Pope Gregory XII. final
ly submitted to tbe decree of deposition, and so did John
XXIII., who retired to a fortress. But there still remained
two successors of Peter — Martin V. and Benedict XIII. The
latter lived as pope in Valencia for about ten years, and aft
er his death his cardinals elected Clement VIII. as his suc-

(M) Cormenin, vol. ii., pp. 95, 96. (5S) Ibid., p. 97.
(H) Rid., p. 100. (M) Rid., p. 108.

POPES CONDEMNED AND DEPOSED. 477
cessor; but he was finally induced to abdicate in favor of
Martin V., and thus to put an end to the corrupt and degrad
ing quarrels about the papal sovereignty at Rome which had
made all the parties concerned, for half a century, contempt
ible in the eyes of the world.
No wonder that God so directed his providences that the
lovers of true Christianity, within the pale of the Roman
Catholic Church, should see these and other kindred enor
mities of the papacy. This old Church, hallowed by an ex
istence of nearly fifteen hundred years, yet retained within
her fold many thousands of devoted and pious Christians,
who had escaped the contamination of the corruption which
had so long prevailed among the leading hierarchy. How
their hearts must have bled when they saw her led away by
these debasing influences of the papal system, so far from
the apostolic counsels she had once followed! How sad
they must have been when, looking back through the last
thousand years, they beheld her gradually descending from
her high eminence down into corruptions at which pagan
Rome would have blushed, and soiling her sacred and once
unspotted robes with the slime and filth of worldly poli
tics ! And how natural it was for them, acting in consist
ency with their understanding of religious duty, to begin
the work of reformation, and to desire the eradication of
these abuses, and the extraction of the poison that was
coursing through her veins, slowly, but steadily, consuming
her strength. Many of them must have felt as one of that
Church, referring to times subsequent to those of which we
are now writing, expressed himself when he said : " The fif
teenth century, however, surpassed all the preceding ages in
corruption ; the churches became the resorts of robbers, sod
omites, and assassins ; popes, cardinals, bishops, and mere
clerks exercised brigandage forcibly in the provinces, and
employed, as was most convenient, poison, the sword, and
fire, to free themselves from their enemies, and despoil their
victims. The Inquisition lent its horrible ministry to popes
and kings. In France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and England,
it embraced in its thousand arms the victims of the cupidi
ty of tyrants, and put them to the most frightful tortures.
The country was covered with legions of priests and monks,

478 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
who devoured the substance of the people, and carried off to
their impure retreats young girls and handsome youths, whom
they again cast out, disgraced and dishonored. The cities be
came the theatres of orgies and Saturnalia, and the palaces
of bishops were filled with equipages for the chase, packs of
dogs, troops of courtesans, minions, jugglers, and buffoons."(t8)
The reader can not fail to have observed the causes which
led to the melancholy condition of affairs, both in State and
Church, shown by the foregoing detail. There was no want
of patriotism on the part of the English people, or of true
piety on the part of the laity of the Church. These were
struggling in every way they could to -establish reform and
make it effectual in both State and Church. The wrongs
inflicted upon them were not necessary to the Church, or
sanctioned by any of her earliest teachings. They were in
herent in the papal system, arose out of the temporal power,
and grew in enormity as that power increased. The doc
trine of passive obedience and submission to authority, ap
plied to the affairs of the State, prohibited the citizen from
making any complaint against the conduct of the king and
Government, under penalty of severe punishment. The same
doctrine, applied to the affairs of the Church, prohibited the
layman, however conscientious, from expressing any disap
probation ofthe conduct of pope or priest, under penalty of
excommunication. In the one case the act was held to be a
crime against the State, in the other a sin against God ! To
say of a king that he was a tyrant, was treason against the
State ; to say of a pope or a priest that he had committed
murder, or adultery, or any otber crime, was treason against
God ! This was the teaching of the False Decretals ;(")
and to cover it up as a part of the doctrinal belief of the
Church, the popes have assumed that they act on earth in
the place of God, that all their power is derived directly
from God, and therefore that they are infallible and can not
err ! When Constantine, addressing " a company of bish
ops," said to them, in the presence of Eusebius, " You are
C) Cormenin, vol. ii., p. 91.
(6T) It has already been shown that even the celebrated Council of Trent
decreed that a minister of the Church forfeits none of his authority by any
sin, however enormous !

CONSTANTINE AND THE DIVINE RIGHT. 479
bishops whose jurisdiction is within tbe Church," he intend
ed to limit their power, and to deny them any authority
over temporal affairs. But when he continued in these
words: "I also am a bishop, ordained by God to overlook
whatever is external to the Church,"(") he asserted the di
vine right of kings. And when the popes, in order to gath
er all this external power into their own hands, built up the
wonderful machinery of the papacy, and obtained the con
sent of kings to receive temporal crowns at their hands,
they made the doctrine of Constantine a part of the relig
ious faith ofthe Roman Church, so that they, as the only in
fallible representatives of God on earth, should become the
dispensers of crowns, the regulators ofthe internal affairs of
nations, the authors of universal law, and, consequently, the
irresponsible sovereigns of the world. With Innocent III.
the crown of England was held by divine right; and as God
had intrusted the Pope, of- Rome with the sole authority to
decide what was permitted or forbidden by his law, there
fore he had a divine right higher than that of the king, by
the authority of which, he was entitled to say who should,
and who should not, wear the crown. And as he was infalli
ble and could not err, whensoever and howsoever he de
cided the question, passive obedience and submission to his
decision became a religious duty to the faithful ; and whoso
ever dared to question the correctness of his decision, or
challenge the legitimacy of his authority, became ipso jure a
heretic, and liable to be cut off from the Church, and from
all Christian association, by the terrible sword of excommu
nication ! This was the great and comprehensive, power
that absorbed all other powers. It held the kings in obedi
ence to the popes, and they plotted together, in every form
of intrigue, to make their united power so compact and un
assailable that it should press with death-like weight upon
the. people, both in Church and State, that they might re
main unconscious of their degradation; or where one ap
peared, bolder than the rest, to fling defiance in their faces,
he should be silenced by excommunication, if possible ; but
if not, by the rack, tbe dungeon, or the fagot.
(M) "Life of Constantine," by Eusebius, London, 1845, p. 193.

480 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
We shall have occasion hereafter to see how this doctrine
of the divine temporal authority and infallibility of the
popes deals with the obligations of the most solemn oaths
and promises, when the pope regards them as opposed to
the welfare of the Church ; but the readiness with which
the popes released the English kings from their oaths to ex
ecute the principles of Magna Charta is too suggestive, in
this connection, to be passed by without comment. It will
readily be perceived that if these infallible popes acted in
conformity with the law of the Church, then, by that same
law, no faith whatever can be kept with heretics !
Undoubtedly the power to release from the obligation of
an oath is held to be an incident to the power to absolve
from the consequences of sin. In order to justify its exer
cise the oath must be to do something violative of the law
of God and against the interests of the Church, in which
case it would be considered void ; or something which, law
ful in itself, would, if done, lead to one or the other of these
consequences, in which case it would be binding without
the exercise of the dispensing power. Upon which of these
grounds the popes based their action in releasing the En
glish kings from their obligations in reference to Magna
Charta is of no consequence, any further than as their con
duct served to illustrate, practically, the application of a
doctrine regulated by a law of the Church. Viewed in ei
ther light, the result is the same. For example : whether
they considered Magna Charta to be violative of the law of
God, or against the interests of the Church, and therefore
unlawful; or that if its principles were carried out in En
gland, either or both of these consequences would ensue,
their opposition to it was based upon their divine right to
judge of these things ; and their power to dispense the kings
from the observance of their oaths was the necessary and
logical consequence. That, in point of fact, they did consid
er it to be violative of the divine right of kings, because it
conferred upon the people the right to participate in the af
fairs of government, is, beyond all question, true. And, be
ing so considered, it was made a matter of religious faith
that the principles of the Great Charter should not be exe
cuted iu England. And why of religious faith ? For the

THE PRINCIPLES OF MAGNA CHARTA. 481
manifest reason that as the divine right necessarily included
the right of kings to govern the people, and the right ofthe
popes to govern the kings, therefore it was an essential part
of the doctrine, and consequently of the law, of the Church.
Now, if the reader will examine the Charter he will see how
it violated this doctrine of divine right, and wherein it was
in opposition to the doctrine and law of the Church, as un
derstood by the infallible popes of that day. In so far as it
conferred any rights upon the people, its principles may
be thus briefly summed up : it prohibited unlawful amerce
ments, distresses, or punishments ; it gave the right to the
owner of personal property to dispose of it by will ; it es
tablished the right of dower ; it gave uniformity to weights
and measures; it forbade the alienation of lands in mort
main; it provided against undue delays in the administra
tion of justice, for assizes and circuits for the trial of causes,
for the trial of every accused freeman by jury; and that no
man's life, liberty, or property should be taken from him, ex
cept by the judgment of his peers and the law of the land.
In so far as it affected the king, it merely restrained his roy
al prerogative of pre-emption and purveyance, by which he
had been allowed, by means of purveyors, to take whatever
property of the citizen he needed, without his consent, and
at whatever price he saw fit to pay, and to impress the car
riages and horses of a subject to do his business. And, in
order to show that these old barons felt keenly a sense of
justice themselves, and had a just appreciation of it in oth
ers, it contained this memorable sentence : " We will sell to
no man, we will not deny or delay to any man, right or jus
tice." Wherein, by all this, did the king surrender any thing that
ought, in rigbt and justice, to belong to the crown ? One
would suppose that if the citizens of a country are entitled
to any sort of freedom, or to have any share at all in the
management of affairs, some provisions of this kind are in
dispensable. And yet we find those kings of England who
were the mere creatures and tools of the pope resolved upon
denying them to the people ; and the popes, under pretense
of being divinely required to do so, releasing them from their
solemn oaths to observe them. The plain and obvious mean-
31

482 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ing of all which is, that, according to the law of the papacy as
it was then understood and acted on by infallible popes, the
people of England were not entitled to have any share in the
affairs of their own government, for the reason that, if they
did, the power of the papacy would be weakened and the
law of God violated! And such was the inevitable and log
ical result of the doctrine of divine right as understood and
announced by Innocent ILL, and such remains to-day its in
evitable and logical result as understood and re -announced
by Pius IX. What was the law of the papacy then is its
law yet. Admit the law to exist, and its consequences can
not be escaped — they inevitably follow, as effect follows
cause. Streams do not more certainly find their way to the
sea than it follows, from the recognition of the divine right
of kings and popes, that they become the sovereign masters
of the world, and all mankind their slaves.

WYCLIFFE AND THE LOLLARDS. 483

CHAPTER XVI.
Religious Persecution antedates Protestantism. — Lucius III. and Innocent
III. persecute the Waldenses and Albigenses. — The Fourth Lateran Coun
cil. — The Third Canon provides for extirpating Heretics, and taking away
their Country. — Law of the Church. — Acted upon in the Fifteenth Centu
ry by Innocent VIII. — The Practice of Innocent III. under it. — Persecu
tion made a Religious Duty. — Reformation in Germany. — Luther and the
Pope. — Henry VIII. and the Pope quarrel about Supremacy, not Faith. —
Protestants do not assist Him. — The Pope releases his Subjects from their
Allegiance. — Their Adherents persecute eac,h Other. — More and Fisher.
— Henry VIII. always a Roman Catholic, in Faith. — He persecutes Re
formers and Papists. — Edward VI. the first Protestant King. — He does
not persecute Papists. — Gives the Crown to Lady Jane Grey. — Mary, the
Rightful Heir, proclaimed Queeu. — Her Promise to the Reformers that
they should not be disturbed in their Religion. — She refuses to be bound
by her Promise. — The Teachings of Rome. — Mary's Measures all Papal. —
Her Persecution of Protestants. — Her Marriage to Philip of Spain. — The
Result of the League between Pope Paul III. and Charles V. — Cardinal
Pole. — Dictates Policy ofthe English Government. — Persecutions con
tinue. — Hooper, Latimer, and Ridley. — Elizabeth. — She persecutes both
Papists and Protestants. — Is educated in the School of Rome. — Only
seeks to substitute Imperial Protestantism for Imperial Romanism.
It was impossible, in the very nature of things, that the
condition of affairs portrayed in the last chapter could long
exist in England without some material change. The bar
ons had placed themselves between the people and the king,
and were the representatives of principles of civil polity
which they could not now surrender without an abandon
ment ofthe best interests ofthe country and their own hon
or. The Lollards, under the lead of Wycliffe, were similar
ly situated, as it regarded the principles of religious belief
and the affairs of the Church. Upon one point they agreed ;
that is, the necessity for reform. The barons were laboring
to reform the State; the Lollards, the Church. The barons
were not ready to concede that the king was the State; nor
were the Lollards ready to concede that the pope was the

484 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Church. Such concessions on the part of both of them would
have given to absolutism a perfect triumph over all the an
cient liberties, and would have left England completely sub
dued. She would then have been, in fact, a fief of the Holy
See, with no claim whatever to an independent national ex
istence. With her Parliament constituted as it then was,
subordinated to the king, and with the king subordinated to
the pope, the people would have borne the same relations to
the papacy that the people of the Papal States did — that of
entire dependence. The pope, as a thorough politician, could
see all this, and therefore left no possible means unemployed
to hold both the barons and the Lollards in subjection. For,
whatever else he may have seen, it must have been appar
ent to him that, unless the reform sought for by each was
speedily checked, they would both ultimately reach some
common point of union which would make them strong
enough to materially weaken both the papal and the king
ly power. As the controversy waxed warmer and warmer,
the respective parties became more earnest and aggressive;
the barons more determined not to yield; the Lollards more
resolved upon Church reform; and the pope and the king
more resolved upon keeping the Church and the State so
united that their combined power would be sufficient to
suppress all free inquiry, and to keep the people in a condi
tion of vassalage.
It was an issue between power and right — the former rep
resented by the pope and the king, the latter by the peo
ple, iu civil affairs under the lead of the barons, and in the
affairs of the Church under the lead of the Lollards. As
in all such controversies, power has invariably resorted to
force to keep itself in place, so it did in this. This force,
however, did not proceed exclusively from the King and Gov
ernment of England, inasmuch as by this time the influences
of the combined opposition had become too great for open
resistance by the king and Parliament. But as the pope
had assumed to himself the divine prerogative of governing
the country, both in its civil and ecclesiastical policy, and
held the king in complete subjugation, the Church was re
lied on as furnishing, through its ecclesiastical organization,
whatsoever was necessary in that direction to accomplish

INTOLERANCE AND PERSECUTION. 485
the desired end. The pope's recognized right of dictation
to the king made him responsible for the oppressive meas
ures resorted to by the latter ; while his position as the in
fallible head of the Church made him equally responsible
for the oppressive measures ofthe Church. It is manifestly
true that the principles of Magna Charta would have gone
into immediate effect in England but for the interference of
the pope; for if he had not intervened between the king
and the people by employing the authority of the Church
to release the king from the obligation of his oath, the bar
ons, backed by the people, would have been able to hold
him to his promise. And thus we find all the measures of
compulsion employed against the barons and the Lollards
traceable directly to the papacy, and made effectual, as far
as they could be, by means of the immense number of for
eign ecclesiastics scattered throughout the kingdom, who,
as the emissaries of the pope, dictated to the king whatso
ever measures were necessary to keep the people in check.
And hence we find also that a measure of ecclesiastical
policy was adopted, and made a part of the canon law of
the Church, during the pontificate of Innocent III., which
makes the papacy immediately and directly responsible for
all the force and persecution employed, not only in England,
but elsewhere, to keep the people in subjugation, and re
press reform both in State and Church. In the year 1215,
the Fourth Lateran Council was held in Rome, under the di
rect personal guidance of Innocent III., to whom, as already
shown, King John surrendered the crown of England. This
is conceded to have been the twelfth Ecumenical Council,
and its enactments are, consequently, regarded as part of
the canon law, equally binding upon the faithful at all times,
as much so now as when they were originally passed. In
one canon adopted by this council certain heresies were con
demned ; in another, heretics were excommunicated ; and in
another, it was provided that they should be exterminated.
Here we reach a point of vast importance to the pres
ent times, and ground on which it is necessary and right
that we should tread with great caution, so as not to mis
lead ourselves or others. For if it be true that what is here
alleged constitutes a part ofthe law ofthe Roman Church,

486 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
having, by the action of a general council and the assent of
a pope, the impress of infallibility stamped upon it, then it
will not do to say, as the papal writers do, that persecution
arose out of Protestantism and was of Protestant growth ;
for it must be observed that at the time referred to there
was no such thing as Protestantism known. Wycliffe, who
has been properly called the " Morning-star of the Reforma
tion," was not born till the year 1324, and therefore the Lol
lards, who were his followers in England, had not arisen.
The Waldenses, or Vaudois, had been excommunicated for
heresy by Lucius III., who was pope from the year 1181 to
1185; and they were afterward condemned for teaching,
contrary to the practice ofthe Roman Church, that the un
worthiness of the clergy rendered them incapable of their
ministry. (') Pope Innocent III. inaugurated measures of his
own accord in tbe year 1198 — the first of his pontificate — to
extirpate the Albigenses. The next year he ordered their
estates to be confiscated. He ordered the abbots and monks
not only to preach against them, but to "excite the princes
and people to extirpate them, and to form a crusade against
them." Raymond, Count of Toulouse, a leader among the
Albigenses, caused one of these missionaries to be assassin
ated, for which he was required to retract his errors, and to
deliver up several of his towns to the pope as the price of
his absolution — which was granted him. After this was
done, as the crusaders had no further contest with Ray
mond, they turned their arms against the town of B6ziers,
where the Albigenses were fortified, besieged, took, and burn
ed the town, and put all the inhabitants "to the edge ofthe
sword. "(2) The particular heresies, therefore, with which the
Church had to deal during the pontificate of Innocent III.
were those of the Waldenses and the Albigenses ; and, con
sequently, it is to these that the decrees of the Fourth Lat
eran Council were specially directed. All this antedated the
existence of the Lollards and the birth of Protestantism; but
when Protestantism began subsequently to arise, the law of
the Church was already prepared to visit upon the Protest
ants the same measure of pontifical vengeance as had been
(') Du Pin, vol. xi., p. 147. (2) Ibid., pp. 150, 151.

THE FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL. 487
visited upon the inoffensive Waldenses and Albigenses. The
torch of persecution, lighted for the latter, was kept continu
ally aflame, in readiness for the former.
The Fourth Council of Lateran being assembled to deal,
among other things, with the heresies then existing, it was
considered necessary that it should be so attended as to rep
resent the Universal Church. To effect this, two years were
permitted to pass between the time when it was called by
Innocent ILL and its meeting, in November, 1215. It con
tained four hundred and twelve bishops in person, eight hun
dred abbots and priors, and a great many deputies of absent
prelates who were excused from attending. There were also
embassadors from the following courts : Constantinople, Sic
ily, Germany, France, England, Hungary, Jerusalem, Cyprus,
Arragon, and from those of other princes. And thus it had
all the power and authority which could be conferred on it by
the Church. Even those who denied the personal infallibil
ity ofthe pope accepted all the decrees of such a council as
infallible, equally binding as if God, by a visible manifesta
tion, had sent them down from heaven. To say, however,
of the canons of this council that they were the deliberate
action of those who composed it would be contrary to the
fact. Du Pin, referring to the canons upon discipline, says :
"'Tis certain that these canons were not made by the coun
cil, but by Innocent III., who presented them to the council
ready drawn up, and ordered them to be read, and that the
prelates did not enter into any debate upon them, but that
their silence was taken for an approbation!"^) Neverthe
less, they became as much the law of the Church as if they
had -been debated and voted on. Any violation ofthe doc
trine of passive obedience was only another form of heresy.
The tbird canon of this General Council stands in history
without any parallel. And in order that the reader may
see this for himself, it is deemed most expedient to pass by
what is said of it by Protestant writers, and quote the pre
cise words of Du Pin, not merely on account of his great
learning and erudition, but because of the conspicuous posi
tion he occupied in the Roman Catholic Church. He says :
(3) Du Pin, vol. xi., p. 95.

488 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
"In the third canon they excommunicated and anathema
tized all the heretics who oppose the Catholic and orthodox
faith, as before explained: and 'tis therein ordered that the
heretics shall be delivered up, after their condemnation, to the
secular powers, or to their officers, to be punished according
to their demerits, the clerks being first degraded ; that their
goods shall be confiscated, if they be laics ; and if clerks,
then they shall be applied to the use of the Church ; that
those wbo lie under violent suspicions of heresy shall be
likewise anathematized, if they do not give proofs of their
innocence, and they shall be avoided till they have given
satisfaction ; and if they be in a state of excommunication
during a year, they shall be condemned as heretics; that
the lords shall be admonished and advised by ecclesiastical
censures to take an oath that they will extirpate heretics
and excommunicate persons who shall be within their terri
tories ; that if they neglect to do it after admonition, they
shall be excommunicated by the metropolitan and bishops
of the province; and in case they persist a year without
making satisfaction, the sovereign pontiff shall be advised
thereof, that so he may declare their vassals absolved from
their oath of fealty, and bestow their lands upon such Cath
olics as will seize upon them, who shall be the lawful pos
sessors of them, by extirpating heretics, and preserving the
purity, of the faith in them, but without prejudice to the
right of the superior lord, provided he offer no obstruction
or hinderance to the putting this ordinance in execution.
The same indulgences are granted to those Catholics as
shall undertake to extirpate heretics by force of arms as are
granted to those who go to the Holy Land. They excom
municated those who entertained, protected, or supported
heretics, and declare that those who shall be excommuni
cated upon that account, if they do not make satisfaction
within a year, shall be declared infamous, and divested of all
offices, as well as of votes in the elections ; that they shall
not be admitted as evidences; that they shall be deprived of
the faculty of making a will, or succeeding to an estate; and,
lastly, that they may not perform the functions of any of
fice. 'Tis likewise further ordered that those who will not
avoid the company of such persons as are by the Church

EXTERMINATION OF HERETICS. 489
denounced excommunicate shall be excommunicated them
selves till they have given satisfaction. But, above all, ec
clesiastics are forbidden to administer the sacraments to
them, to give them Christian burial, to receive their alms or
oblations, upon pain of being suspended from the functions
of their orders, wherein they may not be re-established with
out a special indulto from the pope. The same punishment
is likewise inflicted on the regulars, and, besides this, that
they be not any longer tolerated in the diocese wherein
they shall have committed such a fact. All those are ex
communicated who shall dare to preach without having re
ceived a license from the Holy See or a Catholic bishop.
Lastly, the archbishops and bishops are obliged to visit iu
person, or -by their archdeacons or by other persons, once or
twice a year, the dioceses where it is reported that there are
any heretics, and to put a certain number of inhabitants
under their oath to discover to the bishop such heretics as
may be detected. They are likewise enjoined to cause the
accused to appear, and to punish them if they do not clear
themselves, or if they relapse after they have been cleared.
Lastly, the bishops are threatened to be deposed if they neg
lect to purge their dioceses from heretics."(4)
When we remember that Innocent III. based his right to
interfere with the domestic policy of the nations upon the
(4) Du Pin, vol. xi. , pp. 96, 97. The duty of persecuting and exterminating
heretics now became a part of tbe canon law of Rome, not merely by the pre
vious infallible act of Innocent III. himself, but by force of this decree of an
Ecumenical Council. Nearly three hundred years after the time of Innocent
III., his successors found a memorable occasion for enforcing it against the
peaceful Vaudois, for daring to maintain their own religion in preference to
that of Rome. In 1487, Innocent VIII. fulminated against them a bull of
extermination, by which he enjoined all temporal powers to take arms for
6heir destruction. He commanded a crusade against them, "absolving be
forehand all who should take part in this crusade from all ecclesiastical penT
aides, general or special, setting them free from the obligation of vows which
they might have made, legitimating their possession of goods which they
might have wrongfully acquired, and concluding with a promise of the remis
sion of all sins to every one who should slay a heretic. Moreover, he annul
led all contracts subscribed in favor of the Vaudois, commanded their domes
tics to abandon them, forbade any one to give them any assistance, and
authorized all and sundry to seize upon their goods." — History of the Wal
denses, by Muston, vol. i., p. 31.

490 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ground of the possession of divine power, we shall be the
better enabled to appreciate the character and understand
the scope of this extraordinary part of the canon law of
Rome. His power being divine, obedience to it, both on the
part of nations and individuals, was the inevitable conse
quence. Therefore, this decree of the Third Lateran Coun
cil proceeds upon the idea that the obedience of the nations
had been already secured ; but that if it shonld be refused
the papacy possessed the same power to punish them that it
did to punish individuals for their disobedience. Accord
ingly, the decree provides for the extirpation of all heretics
by force of arms, the confiscation of their goods, the forfeit
ure of all their rights of property and country, the seizure
of their territory by whomsoever of the faithful shall think
proper to do so, and requires them to be hunted down by
spies and detectives, against whose accusations they are re
quired to defend themselves by proving their innocence !
It stands alone in the world in enormity ; and even now it
chills the blood to read of the horrible sufferings inflicted
upon the poor unoffending Waldenses and Albigenses, by
virtue of it, merely because they would not bow down be
fore the papacy, and agree to consider as virtues the shame
less corruptions and vices of its court.
As it will be necessary to refer to this decree again, it
will be well to inquire, at this point, what position it occu
pies in the present canon law of the Roman Church, which
Pius IX. is now laboring to make the universal law of all
the world. Since the council which enacted it there have
been eight ecumenical councils and over eighty popes, em
bracing a period of over six and a half centuries, and yet no
decree has been enacted by any one of these councils, and
no bull, or brief, or encyclical has ever been issued, by any
one of all these popes, wherein it has been declared that the
Third Lateran Council transcended its authority, or that its
third canon was not a part of the existing canon law of the
Church. Undoubtedly, therefore, it remains a part of that
law to-day, to be executed whensoever the pope shall think
it necessary to the welfare of the Church to do so, and he
shall possess the necessary power.
In 1839 a controversy was carried on in the columns of

PERSECUTION MADE A LAW OF THE CHURCH. 491
The Charleston Courier, in South Carolina, between the Rev.
Richard Fuller, a Baptist minister, and the Right Rev. John
England, Roman Catholic Bishop of Charleston, who was
greatly distinguished for his learning and piety. In the
course of it Mr. Fuller charged that, by the enactment of
this canon by the Fourth Lateran Council, the Roman Cath
olic Church had made it a part of the law of its organiza
tion, that heretics should be persecuted. Bishop England
admitted that the canon had been enacted, and set it forth
substantially as it is copied above from Du Pin, but endeav
ored to break the force of the admission by insisting that,
having been " a special law for a particular case," it is not
now, therefore, " a canon of the Church." He also insisted
that as the Fourth Lateran Council " was not merely a coun
cil of the Church, but it was also a congress ofthe civilized
world," therefore this canon was not "concerning the doc
trine of the Church," but was " a civil enactment of the
temporal power against persons they looked upon as crimi-
nals."(°) This is puerile, as will appear to any reasoning
mind upon a moment's reflection. This council was one of
the great general councils of the Church. Its provisions in
reference to heresy and heretics are both special and general.
Its canons were not enacted to meet special cases only, but
all cases covered by them. The assemblage was ecclesias
tical, solely and entirely, so far as it possessed power to pass
enactments. The ecclesiastical authorities of the Church
were alone summoned by Innocent III. to attend it. All
the embassadors from the civil powers who were present
were there by courtesy, not by right. They were not mem
bers of the council, so as to be entitled to vote upon ques
tions of either Church discipline or doctrine. They did not
vote upon these questions, but, as Du Pin says, the meas
ures were drawn up by the pope and acquiesced in by the
bishops. Therefore, to say that a canon enacted by such a
council, under the direct auspices of Innocent III., did not
become a part of the doctrine of the Church and take its

(B) "Letters concerning the Roman Chancery," by the Rev. Richard Ful
ler, of Beaufort, South Carolina, and the Right Rev. John England, Bishop
of Charleston. Published under the auspices of tlie latter, pp. 196-200.

492 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
place in the canon law, is the exhibition of a degree of ab
surdity into which nothing but sheer necessity could have
driven such a man as Bishop England. But if there were
any doubt about it when he attempted this impotent apol
ogy, there is none now, since the decree of infallibility is
broad enough and goes back far enough to embrace this en
actment as the infallible word of God. It takes in, as we
have seen heretofore, all that has been done by the popes in
all the past centuries, all that may be done now, and what
soever may be done in the future.
Was not Innocent III. an infallible pope ? No papist will
deny that. Then, without the decree of the Fourth Lateran
Council, he prescribed extermination as the remedy against
the heresy ofthe Waldenses and Albigenses, and, consequent
ly, against all heresy. Thus this method of persecution be
came a part of the canon law, and therefore a part of the
doctrine of the Church, by his infallible act alone. And
when afterward he compelled this general council to affirm
and ratify what he had done and declared by a solemn de
cree, unanimously passed by the representatives of the whole
Church, persecution became so embodied in the law of the
Church that no earthly authority can remove it. Whether
he alone, as he claimed, and as Pius IX. now claims, possess
ed all the divine power; or whether, as the Gallican Chris
tians insisted, it was in his hands when acting jointly with
the council, does not change the question. According to ei
ther, the decree as enacted was the exercise of a divine pow
er, and therefore became part of the faith. Consequently, if
there had even been an attempt made to repeal, vacate, or
set it aside, it must have failed for the want of power; for
the law of God is unchangeable. There having been no such
attempt, however, this persecuting decree is as binding upon
the faithful to-day as it was the day it was enacted.
The "temporal powers" had nothing to do with its enact
ment. They were held by the pope to be the mere instru-.
ments to secure its execution. He used them for that pur
pose ; and that is what is meant by the theory which per
mits the Church to teach the State its duty — in the domain
of faith and morals ! They neither enacted any such laws
themselves, nor authorized their embassadors at this council

NECESSITY OF REFORM. 493
to legislate in reference to their domestic and internal pol
icy. The council dealt with the affairs of the Church, and
the laws it passed were considered above those ofthe states.
Whatever nation disobeyed them was heretical, and forfeit-'
ed its right to exist ! Whatever individual disobeyed them
was cut off by excommunication ! The fact, therefore, can
not be escaped by any sophistry that the persecution of her
etics is commanded by the canon law. And thus we are en
abled to understand the condition of things existing in En
gland after the pontificate of Innocent III., who set the ex
ample of persecuting heretics, or of causing them to be per
secuted, which his successors were very willing to follow.
And the imbecile kings of England were quite as willing
to obey them ; for, not only by the letter of this law of tho
Churcb, but by the action of the infallible Innocent III., they
were taught to foresee that an act of disobedience to the
pope would be construed into heresy, and cost them their
crowns and kingdom. And looking back, through the lapse
of years, to the condition in which England must have been
placed by the prevailing policy at that time, we can not fail
to see how necessary it was for the barons to demand and
to adhere to the provisions of Magna Charta as the means
of securing civil liberty, and for the Lollards to demand re
form in the Church as the means of securing religious liberty.
But we can see, too, that it was impossible for Protestant
ism to rise immediately out of this condition of affairs. It
had to await the slow progress of events elsewhere, espe
cially iu Germany. Both there and in England the load of
papal oppression was too heavy to be thrown off at once.
Therefore we are enabled to account for the fact, that in its
first forms, during its terrible struggles for existence, it re
tained somewhat the impress left upon it by the papacy ;
and never, in fact, reached the point of full development un
til it obtained a new field of operation in the United States.
Reforms are never the result of sudden impulses. Like the
plant which enlarges by accretion, they are wrought out by
the force of opinion gradually developed.
It is well understood that in Germany, as well as in En
gland, for many years before the Reformation, the ecclesias
tical and political alliance between the reigning monarchs

494 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
and the papacy had been complete, and comparatively un
disturbed. Owing to the imbecility of some of the mon
archs and the inordinate ambition of others, the German
¦people were reduced, through instrumentalities like those
employed in England, to dependence upon the popes, who
claimed that they possessed divine authority to regulate
their domestic affairs also. By virtue of their conceded
power to appoint all the prelates of the Church, and to ex
act from them oaths of fidelity to themselves, they had suc
ceeded in building up an ecclesiastical empire, which they
maintained among the German people in entire independ
ence ofthe Government and its laws — a state of things pre
cisely similar to that which Pius IX. is now trying to bring
about. The hierarchy which composed this independent
body was freed from all responsibility to the German au
thorities, no matter what enormity its members perpetrated
upon society, or what the nature and extent of their usurpa
tions. They looked alone to Rome for the approval or dis
approval of their conduct. Whatsoever the pope command
ed them to do, they did — peaceably, if the people submitted,
but forcibly if they did not. Such enormous power as this
naturally bred arrogance and covetousness ; and as the popes
have at all times required large sums of money to maintain
the splendor and magnificence of their courts, they employ
ed it for the accumulation of large wealth, not only at Rome,
but among themselves. With this wealth in their posses
sion, these prelates became more and more exacting — know
ing that they were esteemed by the popes in proportion to
the extent ofthe contributions they levied upon the people.
It is not at all to be wondered at that the Germans, like the
English, became restless and dissatisfied under the crushing
pressure of such a burden as this. All the tendencies of their
minds were toward freedom, in the defense of which they had
always been in the foremost rank. But on account of their
devotion to the Roman Catholic Church, and the belief, con
stantly inculcated in their minds by the clergy, that they
were indebted to it for all the Christianizing and civilizing
influences they possessed, they patiently endured their sub
mission till they could bear it no longer. They at last came
to realize that the question was simply one of life or death

THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY. 495
to their nation — that it was impossible for Germany ever to
acquire an independent and commanding position among the
other nations so long as this hierarchical power was permit
ted to maintain its ascendency. And herein we undoubtedly
find the real origin ofthe Reformation in Germany — accord
ing to Hallam, "its predisposing cause." (6) Luther quarrel
ed with the pope about matters of religious faith, and when
the people of Germany saw this vast power, with all its ec
clesiastical weapons drawn, threatening him with the terrible
vengeance of the papacy, they took sides with him, not at
first on account of his religious opinions merely, but because
the time had come for them to assert their true German man
hood, and to throw off the yoke of temporal bondage which
the papacy had placed upon their necks. And thus a single
brave and unterrified man was enabled to multiply his army
of reformers into an unconquerable host, whose ultimate vic
tory over the pope consisted, not alone in the introduction
of the Reformed religion, but in marking out new paths for
the modern nations — paths which pointed, with marvelous
precision, toward that grandest achievement in history, the
American Revolution.
The Reformation in Germany did not immediately extend
itself into England ; for Henry VIII., who was a bigoted pa
pist, occupied the throne at a time when he had the pow
er to resist its influence, and, in order to keep himself in fa
vor with the pope, wrote a reply to Luther, for which he
was flattered with the title " defender ofthe faith." It was
his greatest pride to keep in existence in England the same
exacting and ambitious hierarchy against which the Ger
man people were getting ready to rebel. Between these ec
clesiastical princes and himself there was perfect accord in
this: that each should sustain the power of the other, at
every hazard, in order to keep the people in subjection, and
prevent them from having any voice in the management of
public affairs. They were held together by the cohesion of
a common faith, which taught, as had always been taught
by the papacy, the divine right of kings and the divine right
of popes above that of kings, which latter enabled the popes,
(") "Constitutional History of England," by Hallam, vol. i., p. 137.

496 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
as " vicegerents of God," to sit in judgment over all the
earth, with the right to command whatsoever should aug
ment their power, and to forbid whatsoever should curtail
it. Like the people of Germany, those of England were held
down by an oppressive weight of tyranny at the beginning
of their Reformation.
Henry VIII. was a vicious and unprincipled monarch, con
sistent in only two things— the constant indulgence of his
evil inclinations, and an equally constant adherence to the
chief doctrinal dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. He
was never a pious Christian except nominally; no more so
when he broke the alliance between the Church in England
and that at Rome, than when he .sought to win the favor of
the pope by hurling his royal and poisoned shaft at Luther's
head. And he was never a Protestant except only so far as
he resisted the papal encroachments upon the authority and
prerogatives of the English crown. Upon this subject, much
of what is called history abounds in error and misstatement.
It has led many honest minds into the belief that this profit
gate king was at the head of the Protestants of England.
The papal writers are indefatigable in maintaining this be
lief, in order to hold the Reformation responsible for his
vices ; whereas the " truth of history " is, that he never pro
fessed to be, and never was, a Protestant, in any proper sense
of that term, but lived and died in the faith of the Roman
Catholic Church ! His quarrel with the pope had nothing
to do with the faith of tbe Church. It began about the di
vorce, but soon involved the question of ecclesiastical invest
itures, by means of which he found the pope could maintain
in England a power rival to his own, if not more formida
ble. Upon these questions each supported his position with
stubborn tenacity, until the breach between them became so
wide that it could neither be healed nor bridged over. The
parties were about equal in pertinacity and ambition, nei
ther of them having the slightest respect for the people, or
regard for their political rights. As none of the religious
dogmas of the Church were assailed by Henry, the contro
versy was simply a struggle for supremacy between two
sovereigns, one of whom was the lawful king, and the otlier
claiming dominion over the kingdom in right of divine ap-

HENRY VIII. A ROMAN CATHOLIC. 497
pointment ; and each of whom, to have secured his triumph,
would have made galley-slaves of all the English people. (')'
The final triumph which Henry VIII. did win over the pope
only changed the form of English tyranny, by concentrating
all the absolute power of imperialism in the hands of one
despot, instead of leaving it to be shared by two. It re
mained papal tyranny in substance, if not in name, by the
preservation of that nefarious union between Church and
State which had its origin at Rome in the time of Constan
tine, and which, wherever it has existed, has held the people
in vassalage.
Henry VHI. and Pope Julius II. were both children of
the Church of Rome, educated in the same religious faith
and disciplined under the same papal system. With each
of them Innocent III. was infallible, and the persecuting de
cree ofthe Fourth Lateran Council was a part ofthe law of
the Church. When Henry felt the pressure of the papal
power upon himself, he called upon the Protestants of Ger
many for assistance to enable him to resist it ; but they re
fused the alliance, because they had no sympathy with his
cause, and despised his iniquities. Julius, finding him thus
unsupported, followed the example of Innocent III., in the
exercise of divine power, hurled at his head the thunders of
excommunication, and released all the English people from
their allegiance to the crown, impiously pretending also that
he stood upon earth in the place of God, and that obedience
to him, in both spirituals and temporals, was necessary to
secure admission into heaven. The demon of persecution
was unchained among the followers of these Roman Cath
olic contestants, each letting loose his own blood -hounds;
and if the distinguished More and Fisher were cruelly mur
dered for their resistance to the English oath of supremacy,
(') John Milton says : " Henry VIII. was the first that rent this kingdom
from the pope's subjection totally ; but his quarrel being more about suprem
acy than other faultiness in religion that he regarded, it is no marvel if he
stuck where he did. The next default was in the bishops, who, though they
had denounced the pope, they still hugged the popedom, and shared tbe au
thority among themselves, by their six bloody articles, persecuting the Prot
estants no slacker than the pope would have done." — Prose Works of John
Milton, Philadelphia ed., vol. i., pp. 3, 4.
32

498 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
which did nothing more than place the king above the pope,
their triers and executioners were their own brethren, rear
ed, educated, and nurtured in the same religious faith. No
drop of their blood stained the hands of a single Protestant
Christian. The children of Rome shed the blood of each
other with a ferocity akin to that of wild beasts. And even
after all this, and before the blood of the victims had be
come dry, Paul III., who, while cardinal, had taken the side
of Henry VIII., made an effort to reconcile Henry with the
papacy, there yet being no important difference of religious
faith to separate them. And a like effort at reconciliation
was made by the Roman Catholic king of France ; at the
suggestion, doubtless, of the pope. The question, however,
being one of mere supremacy in the government of England,
Henry was not disposed to give up any of his royal prerog
atives, and no compromise could be arranged. The Protest
ant Christians stood aloof from the contest, awaiting the re
sult with anxiety, of course, and hoping that it would con
tribute to the strength of their own cause. Their religious
faith received no encouragement from the king, and had the
curse ofthe pope resting upon it; so that when the final ex
pulsion ofthe papal power from England was accomplished,
the English Church, under Henry VIII., still retained the
leading tenets of faith it had learned from Rome. It con
tinued to 'maintain the doctrine of the real presence of Christ
in the sacrament ofthe eucharist. It did not regard com
munion in both kinds as at all essential. It forbade the
marriage of priests. It preserved the Romish custom of
encouraging vows of chastity. It continued private masses
for the dead. It enforced the duty of auricular confession.
It was, in fact, as much Roman Catholic under Henry VIII.
as it had been under Pope Julius II. or Pope Paul III., ex
cept that it denied the temporal authority of the pope, and
his right, divine or otherwise, to interfere with and regulate
the domestic affairs of either the English Church or na
tion. (*) And Henry, to prove how faithful he was to his
(e) "History of the Church of England," by Short; Appendix B to ch.
v., p. 79; "History of England," by Macaulay, vol. i., p. 46; "Constitu
tional History of England," by Hallam, vol. i., ch. ii. ; "History of En
gland," by Rapin, vol. viii., pp. 20, 21 ; "History of England," by Hume,

HENRY VIII. PERSECUTED REFORMERS. 499
Roman training, turned his persecution against the English
reformers, who were disposed to favor the principles of the
Protestant religion, the influence of which was beginning to
be transferred from Germany to England, and to unite with
similar influences already existing there.
The torch and the rack, so familiar to Rome, were no less
vol. iii., p. 311 ; " History of Religious Thought in England," by Hunt, vol.
i., p. 10. This last author, speaking of the "Six Articles " of 1539, says,
"They are purely Roman Catholic."
The following eminent Roman Catholic authorities are directly upon this
point: Lingard says, "The publication of ' the Articles ' showed that the
king was not disposed to dissent from the pontiff on doctrinal matters. " —
Lingard's Hist, of Engl., vol. v., p. 58.
Hearing of the death of Anne Boleyn, Pope Paul III. said : " I have long
besought God to open his majesty's eyes. It is impossible that Heaven should
have abandoned a prince who is endowed with so many virtues, and who has
rendered so many services to the Christian republic. Heaven will surely en
lighten him. Now is the time for Henry to finish the noble work which he
has commenced in defense of Christianity. If he return to the bosom of the
Church, who is there among the princes of Christendom that will be able to
resist him ? With Rome as his ally, the peace of the world will be secured.
Iwill unite with Henry, and we will join our efforts to pacify the world 
Let him not doubt the affections of my heart." — Audin's Life of Henry
VIII, p. 322.
The late Archbishop Spalding, of Baltimore, says : " Notwithstanding
his defection from the Church, Henry was still attached to the ancient faith,
and he decided to retain its principal articles, as well as the ancient worship.
In 1536, he compiled, with the assistance of his theologians, a book of "Ar
ticles," which Cromwell presented for signature to the convocation, and which
the members, of course, subscribed without a word. These articles declare
that a belief in the three ancient creeds — the Apostles', the Nicene, and the
Athanasian — is necessary to salvation ; that the sacraments of baptism, pen
ance, and the holy eucharist are the ordinary means of salvation ; and that
the use of masses, the honoring and invoking of saints, and the usual cere
monies of the public service "are highly profitable, and ought to be retain
ed." The lay vicar-general accordingly issued his injunction to the bishops
and clergy, requiring that these articles should be explained to the people,
should be accepted by all, and reduced to practice. This was followed by a
fuller exposition of doctrine, entitled "The Godly and Pious Institution of
the Christian Man," issued by the convocation on the command ofthe king.
This document strongly denies the possibility of salvation out of the Cath
olic Church ; and it inculcates slavish passive obedience to the king in the
same breath with which it denounces the papal supremacy." — Hist, of the
Prot. Refi, by M. I. Spalding, D.D., 5th ed., vol. ii., pp. 103, 104, citing
Wilkins's " Concil.," iii., 804 ; apud Lingard, vol. vi., pp. 272, 273.

500 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
terrible in the hands of the English than they were in those
of the Roman pope. The difference was this only, that Hen
ry VIIL, having learned their use from Rome, employed them,
after he established his English pontificate, in the torture of
both Roman Catholics and Protestants ! Who does not re
member the account of three of each, coupled two and two,
who were carried out to execution upon the same hurdles ?(")
In a like spirit he employed his royal power to prevent the
teachings of Luther from taking hold of the English mind,
and punished those who openly advocated them, or were sus
pected of doing so. The circulation of pamphlets and tracts
written by Luther was prohibited. He forbade his subjects
to import, sell, or keep in their possession Tyndal's transla
tion of the New Testament, " and ordered the chancellor and
the courts to prosecute any one that should disobey his com
mands ; and to punish, with the utmost rigor of the law, the
abettors ofthe new opinions "(10) — that is, the Protestant
opinions that were taking deep root in England and Germa
ny. And if before his death he abated these persecutions, it
was only because he courted an alliance with the Protest
ants, so as to make his power more effectual in his contest
with the pope. He cared nothing for religion, but strug
gled hard for royal authority and supremacy. But death,
which strikes alike both the high and low, laid its unsparing
hand upon him before he could accomplish such an alliance,
before Protestantism had become firmly planted in England,
and while he was yet, in all the religious faith he ever had, a
Roman Catholic ! True, he has extorted some praise from
portions of the English people, and the poet Gray called him
"  the majestic lord
Who broke the bonds of Rome ! " '
but these praises were bestowed because " they saw in him,
not indeed the proselyte of their faith, but the subverter of
(") Archbishop Spalding refers to this incident in strong terms. — History
ofthe Prot. Refi, by Spalding, vol. ii., p. 105. Macaulay says, Henry VIII.
•'sent to death, on the same hurdle, the heretic who denied the real pres
ence and the traitor who denied the royal supremacy." — Macaulay's Mis
cellanies, article Nare's Memoirs of Lord Burleigh, Philadelphia ed., p. 147.
("*) "Life of Henry VIIL," by Audin, p. 313. This is a Roman Catho
lic author.

HOW HENRY VIII. AIDED THE PAPACY. 50i
their enemies' power, the avenging minister of Heaven, by
whose giaut arm the chain of superstition had been broken
and the prison gates burst asunder."(")
Although Henry VIII. manifestly designed to build up an
independent Church in England, with himself as its head,
which should be freed from the spiritual and temporal au
thority of the pope, and the influence of the new doctrines
of English and German Protestantism, yet it is undoubted
ly true that he gave important, though undesigned, aid to
both. By his persecutions he demonstrated that neither
could be suppressed by that means. But as he had learned
these from Rome — whose dogmas have, since the False De
cretals, long before the decree of the Fourth Lateran Coun
cil, always embraced, as a part of the faith, the doctrine that
the Church was bound to maintain its organization and pow
er by force, if necessary— he continued them throughout his
reign, seemingly unconscious that the papal power was too
strong to be immediately broken, and that, while he could
torture the bodies of the Reformers, he could neither take
away from them the right to think, nor subdue their cour
age. The immediate assistance he gave to Roman Catholicism
was rendered by maintaining the leading principles of its
faith. The English people, as we have seen, had been suffi
ciently subdued by the power of the hierarchy to become
passively submissive to all their commands. Being deprived
ofthe use ofthe Bible, and shut out from all the advantages
of intellectual culture, the masses, though clinging to their
ancient liberties with intense affection, had not yet acquired
that sense of personality which is absolutely necessary both
to the establishment and preservation of popular liberty.
They remained, therefore — many from choice, but a larger
number from fear — still submissive to the dictation of Rome;
while the nobility vacillated from side to side, accordingly
as their interest and safety dictated. Those remote from
the cities — where the papal exactions were not so directly
realized — were the most submissive, because they were the
most ignorant, and were kept under the more immediate in-
(") " Constitutional Hist, of England," by Hallam, vol. i.. ch. i., p. 49.

502- THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
fluence of the monks. Mr. Hallam says that the citizens of
London and other large towns "had begun to acquire some
taste for the Protestant doctrine ;" and continues :
"But the common people, especially in remote countries,
had been used to an implicit reverence for the Holy See, and
had suffered comparatively little by its impositions. They
looked up also to their own teachers as guides in faith; and
the main body ofthe clergy were certainly very reluctant to
tear themselves, at the pleasure of a disappointed monarch,
in the most dangerous crisis of religion, from the bosom of
Catholic unity."0
Upon the minds of this class Henry VIII. made but little
impression favorable to his new theories. The belief very
properly entertained by them, that the divorce was sought
only for the gratification of his passions, rendered them dis
inclined to acknowledge his supremacy. And the monks,
taking advantage of this, were able to keep them compara-,
tively steadfast in their fidelity to the pope. The king hav
ing thus left the fundamental features of their religious faith
undisturbed, they remained at the close of his reign still un
der the influence ofthe monks; while the nobility and many
of the higher clergy remained as before, ready to take the
strong side — whether papal or Protestant. And thus Henry
VIII. did not do to Roman Catholicism half the injury that
its advocates pretend ; for it can not be disputed that he
left it possessed of great vigor and strength.
What he did for Protestantism may be briefly summed
up. He taught the nation that the papal sceptre could be
broken, and that the power and influence of the hierarchy
could be checked, if not terminated, by compelling it to sub
mit to the civil laws of the kingdom, as all other citizens
were required to do. He put a stop to the enormous ac
cumulation of wealth in the monasteries, which had so long
kept the people in poverty and dependence. He opened
the way, without intending it, for the further introduction
of German influence and of free thought. He inaugurated
measures which led to placing the English Bible in the hands
of the people. Lie taught the people the necessity of not
(12) "Con. Hist, of Engl.," by Hallam, vol. i., p. 93.

HOW HENRY VIII. AIDED PROTESTANTISM. 503
forgetting that they were Englishmen, and entitled to an
English nationality without being passive subjects of the
"Kiug of Rome," either by temporal or divine right. And
he established a system of measures which, in the end — how
ever designed — steadily led them forward to a point of na
tional greatness never surpassed by any people upon earth,
ancient or modern. Protestantism gained strength by these
measures, and ultimately gave rise to many of the most
cherished and important provisions of the British Constitu
tion. It still holds the people of England true to their
own national fame and greatness ; and if they have not yet
marched fully up to the side of the people of the United
States in demanding the control of their own affairs, they
have advanced so far toward it, that they no longer fear to
threaten royalty with their power, to hold the lash of pub
lic rebuke over their aristocracy, and to assert their right to
that full and complete protection which now belongs to ev
ery free-born Englishman, whether he be a peer in Parlia
ment, a mechanic in his workshop, or a laborer in the field.
But a little while ago, the leading newspaper in England,
and ofthe world, expressed this thought: "There can be no
union between the people and the possessors of unjust priv
ileges, and the fight between them must go on until the peo
ple have won."(13) It is the right to utter sentiments such
as this that Protestantism has vindicated, and to which the
policy of Henry VIIL, unconsciously to him, has led. To
this extent, then, has he been made the instrument in the
hands of Providence of serving England and the nineteenth
century; and because of this his memory should not be held
wholly in execration. The elements of character were sin
gularly mixed up in hirn. His training and education as a
papist led him into errors, excesses, and vices which we may
condemn, even while crediting him with whatever of good
he did. Providence often permits beneficent results to be
educed from the evil designs of men. Protestantism would
have lived and grown without Henry VIII. ; but God raised
hirn up within the pale of the Roman Catholic Church, so
that, becoming familiar with its policy and persecutions, he
(") London Times, October 29th, 1871.

504 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
might the more effectually employ its own weapons to de
stroy its power to harness down the freedom of religious
thought. But Protestantism in England had to gain strength by
the gradual progress of the Reformation, which at every step
was resisted by the papists with desperate energy. During
the reign of Edward VL, son and successor of Henry VIIL,
several measures were adopted which aided materially the
cause of reform, and proportionately weakened that of the
papacy. They were far in advance of any existing at the
death of Henry. Masses were abolished, and the cup was
given to the people iu communion. (H) The jurisdiction of
the ecclesiastical courts was abridged. (16) Priests were al
lowed to marry. (") But these and other kindred measures
only incensed the papists to greater violence ; and, to avenge
themselves, they engaged actively in stirring up insurrec
tions against the Government. The insurrectionists in Dev
onshire, moved by the priests and monks, set forth their de
mands in fifteen articles, and insisted upon the consent of
Edward to them. In these they required — what is now re
quired of the people and Government of the United States
— "that all the general councils and the canons of the
Church [of Rome] should be observed ;" the immediate ob
ject of which was to restore the temporal power of the pope.
They also desired that the mass should be in Latin ; that
images should be set up; that the priests should pray for
souls in purgatory; and that " the people should be forbidden
to read the Bible!"{") All these demands being refused,
the rebels marched upon and besieged Exeter, which was re
lieved by the king's troops, under Lord Russel, when the in
surgents were dispersed. ("*) Another rebellion was also be
gun by the papists in Northampton, whioh was suppressed
by the Earl of Warwick. (19) Edward VI. did all in his pow
er to promote the cause of the Reformation by promptly re
sisting all these revolutionary measures ofthe papal party;
and so far succeeded that the celebrated Confession of Faith
— consisting of forty-two articles — which was the foundation
(") Rapin, vol. viii., p. 33. (1B) Rid. (w) Rid. , p. 47.
(n)J6iU,pp. 58, 59. (IB) Ibid., p. 60. (") Ibid., p. 62.

EDWARD VI. FIRST PROTESTANT KING; 505
of the present Church of England, was drawn up by Cran
mer and Ridley during his reign.f) This, says the histo
rian, was the last mortal wound given to the old religion.
To Edward VL, therefore, justly belongs the honor of hav
ing been the first Protestant King of England; and all true
history assigns to him such honesty in the administration of
affairs, and such purity of personal motive, that, although he
died at the early age of sixteen, and reigned but seven years,
he was enabled, by his consistent policy, to leave an illustri
ous record of his virtues; and it must ever be spokeii to his
praise, that, youthful as he was, he succeeded in holding in
check the bad passions which had held their carnival during
the reign of his father, and in putting his foot firmly upon
the monster of persecution. The rack and the thumb-screw
— infernal instruments of the papal Inquisition — were cast
aside, and papists were allowed to maintain their religious
faith without fear of torture or the scaffold. Although re
ligious differences may have led to the conviction and exe
cution of his maternal uncle, the Duke of Somerset, yet the
young king was constrained to consent to his death because,
upon the record of his trial, he appeared guilty ofthe design
to seize upon his own person and the administration of the
Government, and for these purposes to raise an insurrection
in the city of London. (21) When he placed his signature to
the death-warrant of the Anabaptist Joan Bocher — who was
convicted of heresy — he did so with tears in his eyes, yield
ing rather to the persuasions of Cranmer, who had been train
ed in the school of Henry VIIL, than to his own convictions.
And it may be fairly inferred that his assent to the subse
quent execution of Van Pare for heresy was obtained by the
same influence. But of these executions the papists did not
complain on their own account, saying merely that " the Re
formers were only against burning when they were in fear
of it themselves,"(22) and availing themselves of them to stir
up disaffection and insurrections against the Government. (")
O Rapin, vol. viii., p. 85. (") Ibid., -p. 92. (22) Ibid., p. 55 (note).
(23) Lingard admits that the Reformers were persecuted under Henry VIIL,
and charges against Edward VI. only that he prepared to burn the papists,
but not that it was actually done. He says : "It might perhaps have been
expected that the Reformers, from their sufferings under Henry VIIL, would

506 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER."
If they remain as blots upon his reign, they still leave it
white as snow compared with that of his Roman Catholic
father, and only go to prove that in times so stamped as
those were with the intolerance of Rome, the principles of
Protestantism were necessarily of slow growth; that they
had to contend against such combinations as, without provi
dential protection, they could not have resisted ; and that
when iu the end they did supplant the antagonistic principles
of Romanism, they removed the most crushing weight of
tyranny which has ever rested upon mankind since the be
ginning of the Christian era.
Edward VI. was supposed to entertain some fears that his
sister Mary— daughter of Henry VIII. by Catherine of Arra-
gon, and heir to the throne — would, after his death, lend her
influence to the papists, on account of her mother's influence
upon her education. The Duke of Northumberland, taking
advantage of this, and probably being the first to suggest
it, induced him to set aside the succession of both Mary and
Elizabeth — also daughter of Henry VIII. by Anne Boleyn—
by the formal assignment ofthe crown to Jane Grey, daugh
ter of the Duke of Suffolk, who, by the will of Henry VIIL,
was made next in succession after Elizabeth. This act was
manifestly without authority of law ; and while it resulted
from the ambitious desire of the Duke of Northumberland
to get the control of the Government during the minority
of Jane Grey — who was his daughter-in-law — the motive,
on the part of Edward, was to save the Reformation from
overthrow. (24) The result, however, was not what either an
ticipated. Lady Jane Grey was one of the most accomplished wom
en in England of her age, only sixteen. She was wholly
without ambition, and devoted exclusively to her studies
and domestic pursuits. At first she declined the crown
have learned to respect the rights of conscience. They had no sooner ob
tained the ascendency, during tbe short reign of Edward, than they displayed
the same persecuting spirit which they had formerly condemned, burning the
Anabaptist, and preparing to burn the Catholic at the stake, for no other
crime than adherence to religious opinion." — Lingard's Hist, of Eng., vol.
v., p. 227, sixth London ed.
(M) Rapin, vol. viii., p. 106.

LADY JANE GREY. 507
with befitting modesty, but finally yielded to the entreaties
ofthe Duke of Northumberland, aud suffered herself to be
proclaimed queen. This was not considered a triumph by
the Protestants, who had no confidence in the duke, he being,
as they supposed, influenced entirely by his personal ambi
tion^") and ready to rejoin the papists if he could thereby
promote his temporal interests. And, besides, he was un
popular with the people, on account of his agency in pro
curing the death of the Duke of Somerset, who was greatly
esteemed. And besides, also, there existed a general im
pression that the assignment of the crown by Edward was
illegally made. The papists, of course, took advantage of
all this, and zealously pressed the claims of Mary, on ac
count of her known devotion to the pope and her support
"of the most extravagant things in the Romish religion."(26)
Mary was proclaimed queen at Norwich, and was furnished
with troops by the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, to main
tain her right. Many, if not a large majority, of these were
Reformers who, before they espoused her cause, obtained
from her a solemn promise that, while she would reserve to
herself the liberty of professing her own religion, she would
leave the religion ofthe kingdom as she found it, that is, as
it was at the close of the reign of Edward VI.(37) Whatever
may have been her secretly cherished design, they know
but little ofthe history and teachings of the papacy who do
not know that it has always regarded such promises as car
rying with them no obligation of obedience, but as absolute
ly void. Innumerable instances are recorded where popes
have violated their most solemn promises upon the flimsiest
pretexts, and authorized others to do so, alleging, by way of
apology, that the interest of the Church demanded it, and
C5) Rapin, vol. viii., p. 119. (M) Ibid., p. 121.
(27) Mr. Froude refers to the same promise made by Mary, through Re-
nard, the embassador of Charles V., a promise of which Renard considered it
necessary to remind her before she reached London, in older to defeat her
puipose of having the funeral ceremonies of Edward VI. couducted accord
ing to the Roman Catholic forms. In his letter to Mary, Renard says :
"The country dreaded any fresh convulsions, and her majesty should remem
ber that she had instructed him to tell the council that she was suspected un
justly, and had no thought of interfering with the existing settlement of the
realm." — Froude's Hist, of Eng., vol. vi., p. 53.

508 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
that no covenants injurious to that interest were binding.
We have seen this in the cases of the kings who swore to
obey Magna Charta. The Council of Constance disregarded
the promise of " safe-conduct " given by the emperor to John
Huss, although the pope, by the strongest implication, knew
of and assented to it. The Third Lateran Council, in one
of the canons enacted by it, declared that " they are not to
be called oaths, but rather perjuries, which are in opposition
to the welfare of the Church and the enactments of the holy
fathers."^) That Queen Mary yielded her royal assent to
this doctrine is beyond all question. Whether she did it of
her own volition, or in obedience to the universal sentiments
of the partisans of the papacy, is of no consequence ; it is
the fact alone that is important. Her first step in that di
rection was a proclamation qualifying her promise by de
claring that she should use no force to compel the adoption
ofthe Roman religion "till all was regulated by the authori
ty of Parliament ;" thus indicating the purpose of shielding
herself behind that body.(20) This proclamation excited the
apprehensions of the people to whom she had made the
promise, and they immediately sent to her a petition, pray
ing her " to remember a promise which she had made them
with her own mouth."(30) The manner in which this petition
was received shows not only the perfidious character of this
queen, but how completely she was controlled by the un
principled hierarchy of Rome, and the low state of morals
which prevailed among them. It was haughtily rejected
as offensive to royalty, because it reproached the queen with
failure of her word ! The petitioners were told that " sub
jects were not to control the action of their sovereigns ;"
and Dolbe, one of the number who had borne the petition,
(M) Letter from Bishop England (Roman Catholic), late of Charleston,
South Carolina, to Rev. R. Fuller, in their published controversy, entitled
"Roman Chancery," p. 159. This frank concession of Bishop England
would seem to ren,der any additional evidence of this statement unnecessary.
But there is abundantly more. These are the words of the canon law:
"An oath contrary to the utility of the Church is not to be observed.
"These are to be called perjuries rather than oaths which are attempted
against ecclesiastical utility." — Decret. Gregory IX., vol. ii., p. 358, lib. 2,
tit. 24, cap. xxvii. , apud Cumming, in his Lectures on Romanism, p. 72.
(M) Rapin, vol. viii., p. 134. (30) Rid., pp. 137, 138.

MARY MARRIED TO PHILIP. 509
was set in the pillory. (31) The mask was then unblushing-
ly thrown aside, and from that time the reign of this false
queen was distinguished by some of the most bloody and
cruel acts of persecution of which English history gives any
account. She did not even spare the innocent Jane Grey,
whose head fell beneath the axe of her executioner, for what
others had done in her name. A Protestant judge was fined
a thousand pounds sterling for ordering the justices of Kent
to conform* themselves to the laws of Edward, not yet re
pealed. (") The prisons were filled with the victims of pa
pal vengeance, and it was soon made apparent that they
were to be forced to disavow their Protestantism. Steps
were taken, without delay, to provide for the abrogation of
"all laws which had been made in favor of the Reformation,
and to restore the ancient religion. "(33)
With a view to this, it was resolved to prohibit a free
election of the Commons, in order to prevent the return of
a majority of Reformers ; and thus to avoid any Parlia
mentary action which should reflect the will of the people.
The whole power of the queen was employed for this pur
pose, and, says Rapin, " all sorts of artifices, frauds, and even
violence, were put in practice to carry the election in favor
ofthe court."(34) Protestant magistrates were removed and
Romanists put in their places. The people were intimidated
" by menaces, by actions, by imprisonments on the most friv
olous pretenses."(36) Protestants were not allowed in some
places to participate in the election assemblies ; false re
turns were made without scruple ; and thus a majority of
the Commons favorable to the queen and the pope was ob
tained. It did not, of course, take a Parliament thus elect
ed long to repeal all the laws of Edward, and to legalize the
persecutions against the Protestants. This accomplished,
the queen, through the intrigues of Charles V., was after
ward married to Philip of Spain, his son, in order to put the
throne of England in a more complete state of dependence
upon the pope, and to introduce the system of persecution
(31) Rapin, vol. viii., p. 138. Lingard fails to give any account of this
transaction, probably from prudential motives.
O Ibid., -p. 139. (33) Rid., p. 142. (") Ibid., p. 142. C*) Ibid.

510 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
so long practiced by the Spanish Inquisition, and with which
the English people had not yet become familiar. The se
quel proved that the real object was, not to convert the
Protestants, but to overwhelm and exterminate them.(3°)
The whole reign of Mary was, consequently, one of blood.
In the last year before her death thirty-nine Protestants suf
fered martyrdom ; and four of these about a week before she
died ! It is difficult to arrive at a true estimate ofthe num
ber of her Protestant victims — it being variously stated at
from two to eight hundred !(3')
That the object of Philip in becoming the husband of
Mary was to obtain control of the English Government, so
as to subject the people to the complete dominion of the
papacy, there is no earthly doubt. His ruling passion was
ambition, and there was no surer method of gratifying it
than to become master of England. (38) "He inherited his
father's vices, fraud and ambition," and " united to them
more dangerous vices of his own, sullen pride and barbarity.
England seemed already a province of Spain, groaning un
der the load of despotism, and subjected to all the horrors
of the Inquisition. The people were everywhere ripe for re
bellion, and w-anted only an able leader to have subverted
the queen's authority. No such leader appeared. "{") And
why did no such leader appear? All candid historians give
the answer. The nobility had become so corrupted that
they cared for nothing but to retain their power, which they
were ready to do by conforming to the royal will, no matter
at what sacrifice of character or conscience. The few of
them who dared to maintain their independence, or to de
fend the right of the people to adopt their own form of re
ligious belief, paid for it with their lives, or escaped miracu
lously. The bishops who had favored the Reformation were
removed, and Romish bishops put in their places ; and these
last, in a short time— true to the papal policy — became "a
power behind the throne, greater than the throne itself."
They were the fit tools of the papacy — fully prepared and

(3°) Rapin, vol. viii., p. 212. (") Ibid., p. 213, and note.
(38) " Hist, of Eng., "by Hume, vol. iii., p. 410.
(3S) "Modern Europe," by Russell, vol. ii., p. 346.

LEAGUE AGAINST HERESY. 51 1
ready, not only to dictate to Philip and Mary the bloody
work which Rome required to be done, but to do it with
untiring alacrity.
A few years before, during the reign of Henry VIIL, the
pope, Paul III., had entered into an alliance with the em
peror, Charles V., the father of Philip, for the extermination
of heresy in Germany ; or, " in other words," says Mr. Rus
sell, "for oppressing the liberties of Germany, wider pretense
of maintaining the jurisdiction of the Holy See."{") This
league — one of the most infamous and accursed in all his
tory — was understood by both the contracting parties to
involve the necessity of applying force to put down the
hitherto unresisting Protestants, to totally .destroy them!
That the pope so understood it, is shown by the fact that it
bound him to furnish the emperor with twelve thousand
foot, five hundred horse, and two hundred thousand crowns,
for carrying on the war. He also gave the emperor one
year's revenue of the benefices in Spain, with power to alien
ate a hundred thousand crowns' worth of Church lands, to
defray his expenses !(41) Trained in such a school as this,
and with such examples for his imitation, no wonder that
Philip felt himself charged with the obligation to inaugurate
a reign of terror in England — one transcending all the out
rages and enormities of Henry VIII. Under the pressure,
therefore, of such a system, far the larger part of those who
were concerned in the management of the Government and
Church in England sunk into ignominious subjection to the
joint power ofthe crown and the papacy; and the people,
without some master spirit to guide them, were compelled
to submit to the same degradation. Those from whom they
had a right to expect encouragement and protection either
suffered death at the hands of the public executioner, or
were engaged in contriving plans for their greater humilia
tion. These latter, both peers and bishops, labored "how to
qualify and mold the sufferance and subjection of the peo
ple to the length of that foot that is to tread on their necks;
how rapine may serve itself with the fair and honorable pre-
0°) Russell, vol. ii., p. 296.
(41) Rapin, vol. vii., p. 684 ; Fox's "Book of Martyrs," Philadelphia ed.,
pp. 602, 603.

512 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
tense of public good ; how the puny law may be brought
under the wardship and control of lust and will."(") And
their efforts were successful, according to the most sanguine
anticipations of the pope, of Charles V, of Philip, and of all
those who were thirsting for Protestant blood, and were
ready to engage in exterminating its possessors.
Cardinal Pole, who had been driven out of England, arid
had received the protection of Charles V., and who was thor
oughly devoted to the papacy, was recalled, and placed in
such relations to Queen Mary that he was allowed to mold
her policy in reference to both temporal and ecclesiastical
affairs. He was governed by instructions from Rome, which,
of course, required him to reduce England to the low condi
tion of becoming again a papal province. In an oration, de
livered before Philip and Mary and the whole Parliament,
this cardinal, as legate of the pope, spoke of the great love
of the pope for England, on account of its having been the
first island converted to Christianity; reminded them that
this affection was so strong in the mind of Pope Adrian IV.
that he gave to King Henry II. "the right and seigniory of
the dominion of Ireland, which pertained to the See of Rome;"
referred to his conference with the Emperor Charles V., who,
he said, " hath travailed most in the cause of religion ;" and
avowed the purpose of his mission to be the bringing of En
gland into unity with Rome. This, said he, required that
all should adhere to the pope as " vicar of God," who derives
his power not from man or the consent of governments, but
"from above;" and whose power is both " imperial and eccle
siastical !" And he told them that, in order to bring the na
tion into subjection to the pope, they must " revoke and re
peal those laws and statutes which be impediments, blocks,
and bars to the execution of my [his] commission !"(43)
" The pope never interferes with temporal affairs !" constant
ly declare his followers. But here he stood before the whole
nation of England, iu the person of his legate, who spoke by
his command, and directed such legislation by Parliament as
should concentrate all dominion in his hands ! Not interfere

(42) Milton's Prose Works, vol. i., p. 17.
(43) Fox's " Book of Martyrs," pp. 309-312.

PAPAL DICTATION. 51 3
with temporal affairs !— when he causes his legate to tell the
people of England that they ought to become his slaves, be
cause his predecessor, Adrian IV, had given Ireland to them,
and made the Irish people their slaves ! Not interfere with
temporal affairs ! — when he points out the very acts and stat
utes which are to be abrogated and repealed ! Not interfere
with temporal affairs ! — when this great legate, at one of the
most critical points in English history, tells the king, queen,
and Parliament that the power ofthe pope over the nation
comes directly from God, and that it is therefore " imperial
and ecclesiastical," and that it will be for the welfare of their
" souls and bodies " that they should obey him !
The legate was obeyed ; the pope had his own way ; the
obnoxious statutes were all repealed ; the people were sub
dued by threats, persecution, and bloodshed ; and Philip and
Mary did all they could to carry out the infernal league be
tween Charles V. and the pope. No matter what else a man
did, if he acknowledged the supremacy of the pope, he was
rewarded by royal and papal favor. No matter how faith
ful a Protestant was to all the obligations of citizenship, his
religion was crime enough to subject him to torture or
death. Philip had brought with him from Spain the passion
for torture which the Inquisition had incited there; and the
war of extermination was carried on with a thirst for blood
such as fills alike the mind of an untutored savage and an in
tolerant pope. John Rogers and other martyrs were burned
to ashes for the crime of denying the doctrine of transubstan
tiation, and calling the Church of Rome the Church of Anti
christ.^4) When Bishop Hooper was carried to the stake,
the process of burning was so tardy that he died by slow de
grees of torture, knocking his breast with his hands until one
of his arms fell off, and then with the other till it stuck fast
to the hot iron!(46) Latimer and Ridley had to be burn
ed to gratify the vengeance of that "papistical monster,"
Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester and Lord Chancellor of En
gland.^8) And so horrible were the innumerable cruelties
practiced upon the multitude of papal victims,'that the blood
(44) Fox's " Book of Martyrs," p. 330. (46) Rid., p. 350.
(,") Ibid., p. 382. 33

514 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVLL POWER.
almost curdles as we read, at this distance of time, the narra
tives of them. As they stand without example in all histo
ry — except in the pagan persecutions ofthe early Christians,
and the Romish persecutions in the valleys ofthe Vaudois —
so there is nothing to save them from universal execration.
All that even Lingard can say for them is that " it was the
lot of Mary to live in an age of religious intolerance, when
to punish the professors of erroneous doctrine was inculcated
as a duty no less by those who rejected than by those who
asserted the papal authority "(") — overlooking the impor
tant facts that up to the reign of Mary there had been no per
secution in England in behalf of Protestantism ; that Henry
VIII. had persecuted both papists and Protestants, and was
never a Protestant in religious faith ; and that no single drop
of Roman Catholic blood had been shed during the Protest
ant reign of Edward VI. !
But we have already learned that the persecutions of Prot
estants in England did not begin with either Mary or Henry
VIII. The examples heretofore enumerated show that it
was learned by both of them, not alone from some of their
Roman Catholic predecessors, but from the direct teachings
and faith of the Church at Rome, which were supported by
the False Decretals and the additions made to tbem from
time to time, after the adoption of the original forgeries.
But these forgeries merely conferred the power to persecute
when necessary for the Church : the decree of the Fourth
Lateran Council made it a duty, and fixed a penalty for its
non - performance. This was manifestly the interpretation
given to it by Pope Gregory IX. in his subsequent attempt
to execute this canon with all the terrible vengeance it in
vited. With a view to the extortion of money, he exacted,
in England, a tenth part of all the movable goods of the
kingdom. (4S) Because the Emperor Frederick hindered the
persecution of the Albigenses, and for other reasons, he ex
communicated him, and released all his subjects from their
allegiance ;"(49) which proves incontestably that the duty to
persecute and" exterminate heretics was not only a part of
(") Lingard, vol. v., p. 227.
(48) Rapin, vol. iii., p. 303 ; Cormenin, vol. i., p. 409.
(4S) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 471.

OATHS WITH HERETICS NOT BINDING. 515
the canon law, but of the doctrinal faith of the Church ! To
give the utmost possible strength to the injunction, this same
pope, Gregory IX, announced (infallibly[!], of course) the im
pious doctrine, that " Christians should not regard the sanc
tity of an oath toward him who is the enemy of God, and
who tramples under feet the decrees of the Church !"(M)
Claiming, as he did, in the most unequivocal manuer, the
right to govern the world, temporally and spiritually, by vir
tue of power derived from God, it is not to be doubted that
when he sent the code of cation laws into England, during
the reign of Henry III., the decree of the Lateran CouncU
constituted a part of it ; and that, interpreted by the perse
cutions of the Albigenses, it was designed to place the duty
of exterminating heretics upon the ground that he who did
so would thereby serve God and win his way to heaven ! It
was so understood by Henry IV. more than a hundred years
after Gregory IX., when he assured a convocation of the pa
pal clergy, in London, that he was ready to join them in what
ever means should be judged proper to extirpate heresy and
punish obstinate heretics !(")
Now, when it is considered that this Lateran decree be
came the canon law in England three hundred years before
Luther ; that it was enforced against the Lollards more than
a hundred years before that time, and when those in favor of
reform in the Church were too feeble to attempt persecu
tion in any form ; and when it is remembered that it became
the law of the Church of Rome by the solemn action of
the Twelfth Ecumenical Council and the approval of the
infallible pope, Innocent IH, and was expressly recognized
by another infallible pope, Gregory IX. ;(") and that the
Church of Rome requires every act thus performed to be
held as unerringly right as if done by Christ himself; ,tben
the whole responsibility for the introduction of religious per
secution into England unquestionably rests with the popes
(60) Cormenin, vol. i., p. 470. (5I) Rapin, vol. v., p. 15.
(M) By the highest Roman Catholic authority it is said: "In the Fourth
Council of Lateran, in 1215, held by his [Innocent's] authority, the discipline
of the Church was regulated by seventy wholesome decrees, or canons, very
famous in the canon law. " — Butler's Lives of the Saints, Sadlier & Co. 's
ed., vol. x., p. 56 (note).

516 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Of Rome and their ecclesiastical and royal subordinates, all
of whom, under the influence of such teachings, learned to
rejoice when the muscles of their victims cracked under their
torture, and their bodies were consumed in the flames ! And
thus we see that the persecution of Protestants became 'le
gitimated and sanctified in the eyes ofthe popes, princes, and
hierarchy of the Romish Church ; and thus did that Church
give its high sanction to the persecutions of Mary. And it
will ever stand so written in history, whatsoever ingenu
ity may be resorted to, or falsehood employed, to deny or
disguise it. The canons of the Lateran Council still remain
the law ofthe Roman Catholic Church! The pope who made
the infamous compact with Charles V. was infallible (!), and
therefore could not err! The recent decree of infallibility
makes all that he did, and all that every other pope has done
in the domain of faith and morals, as unerring as if done
by God himself! But the nineteenth century has reason to
thank God that there are no more such rulers upon the
thrones of Christendom as Charles and Philip and Mary. If
there were, the Encyclical and Syllabus of Pius IX. would
soon find bloody work for them to do in their dominions.
No royal marriage ever occurred in England more fatal
to the happiness and prosperity of the kingdom than that
of Philip and Mary. That it was plotted by the pope and
Charles V., and that they employed Cardinal Pole to accom
plish it, there seems no reason to doubt. It was in manifest
opposition to the wishes of the English people, who desired
tbe marriage of their queen to a native prince. It could
never have been accomplished, for there was no pretense of
affection about it, had not Mary been completely under the
control of the papacy and the papists. She was a religious
bigot, to so great an extent that she had no will of her own
in opposition to the commands ofthe pope or other author
ities of the Church. She may have been sincere in the con
viction that it was best for the people that they should be
governed in obedience to these authorities, rather than by
laws of their own making ; but, however this was, she did
govern them as if England still remained a Roman province.
She permitted the pope, by his legate, to dictate what should
and what should not be done. No law was enforced against

THE PERSECUTIONS OF ELIZABETH. 517
the wishes of the pope, and every thing commanded by him
was blindly and faithfully executed. He governed England
as if he were the occupant of its throne. Cardinal Pole was
an Englishman, it is true, but the papacy never had a more
zealous defender of all its usurpations and oppressions than
he was. As the presiding genius and guiding spirit of the
court, he was the papal manipulator of all who had any
thing to do with the affairs of the Government. He repre
sented the pope directly and immediately, kept him regular
ly advised of whatever transpired, and obeyed all his edicts
with a fidelity and zeal that challenged tbe admiration of
Rome. So that by means of his and the influence of Philip
over Mary, her reign was as completely papal, in all its lead
ing features and characteristics, as if the English crown had
lawfully rested upon the head of the pope. In all this she
was unjust to the nation, and must ever be regarded as a
betrayer of its trust. (63)
There is no reason for disguising the fact that Elizabeth,
after the death of Mary, persecuted the papists. She, too,
had been educated and trained under Romisb influences, and
before the commencement of her reign had professed the
Roman Catholic religion. It is hard to get rid of the influ
ences of education, especially when they have produced in
tolerance ; and in such times as she lived, when every thing
tended to extremes, but few endeavored to do so ; and these
few were hidden in tbe multitude, who floated along with
the current, rather than assert any counteracting principles.
If Elizabeth had any special ideas ofthe duties of a sover
eign, beyond those which involved the simple administra
tion ofthe Government, she acquired them as a sort of fam
ily inheritance from her father, and by immediate personal
intercourse with Mary. If she had any conception of church
discipline or church organization, or of a system of religious
faith, it was likewise acquired in the same way. Having
learned by such means as these, with the influence of the
papal clergy superadded to them, that it was the duty of
the custodians of any religious organization to maintain it
hj force when necessary; this, in other words, being an es-
(53) " History of England," by Froude, vol. vi., p. 489, etc.

518 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
sential part of the Romish system of religion, when she
reached the throne it is not to be wondered at that what
ever she felt it her duty to do was done under these influ
ences and according to these principles. She had to deal
with ambitious and proud ecclesiastics, whose hands were
yet red with some of the best blood of England, and who
had inculcated the necessity of exterminating heretics, ac
cording to the Lateran decree, in order to secure the protec
tion of the Church in this life, and eternal happiness in the
next. And if, when she found them to be her own enemies
and the persecutors of those of her subjects with whom she
sympathized, and saw them relaxing none of their efforts to
keep the crown of England subject to the disposal of the
pope, she struck back at them with their own weapons,
what is there very surprising about it, considering all the
circumstances and the times? She did persecute papists,
cruelly and wrongfully, but she persecuted Protestants also,
like her father. She found the papal system relying for its
chief strength and support upon the State ; and had not ad
vanced so far toward the results designed b}' the best Prot
estant reformers as to understand how a new system could
be established without the preservation of this principle.
Like the papal advocates of the old system, she, too, de
rived the right to govern directly from God, and not from
the people ; and, in common with them, desired the union
between the Church and the State to be preserved, in order
that imperialism should not be endangered. And hence, led
on by existing complications, and by motives thus engen
dered, she aimed her blows at all the enemies of her civil as
well as ecclesiastical authority — at Protestants as well as
papists. If, therefore, there are victims of her cruelty who
will rise up in judgment against her when they shall meet
her at the final bar, she can say, as can also Henry VIIL,
that, unlike the persecutions of her sister Mary, they were
not all of one Church — that both Roman Catholics and Prot
estants fell beneath her royal vengeance ! Let the true dis
tinction be observed. She persecuted Roman Catholics be
cause they denied her ecclesiastical supremacy, and endeav
ored to snatch the sceptre of the kingdom from her hands
and lay it at the feet of the pope. She persecuted Protest-

ELIZABETH'S OPPOSITION TO THE PURITANS. 519
ants because they denied both her ecclesiastical supremacy
and her divine right, and inculcated a doctrine which she
and her courtiers saw, at a glance, would ultimately dis
pense with the agency of kings in the management of pub
lic affairs. And she entered, with her strong will and un
conquerable resolution, upon the task of building up a new
system and a new Church, which, while it should gather up
the fundamental principles of the old British Christians — al
most buried beneath a load of oppression which had existed
for nearly a thousand years — should, at the same time, pre
serve enough of modern Romanism to keep the people in
complete subjection to the dominion of kings.
Hence it is easy to see that her persecuting spirit ante
dated all the Protestantism she had, and was the natural
fruit of the papal intolerance to which she had, all her life,
been accustomed. She was trained, by both precept and
example, in the religious belief that it was ordained of God
that the Church and the State should remain united ; and,
as the undoubted Queen of England, she demanded the rec
ognition, by all her subjects, of her right to govern both.
She did not intend that their fealty should be divided be
tween her and the Pope of Rome, or the army of foreign ec
clesiastics he had imported into her dominions; but, wom
an as she was, resolved that the crown should rest exclu
sively upon her own brow, and that the sceptre of absolu
tism should be grasped by her own hand. When she began
her persecutions against the papists, she, like Henry VIIL,
might have been reconciled to Rome but for the question
of supremacy.
But between her and the Puritans there was no point of
reconciliation, for the plain reason that their Protestantism
struck directly at the foundation of her royal right to gov
ern the conscience and hold it in passive obedience to au
thority. The Protestantism she desired to build up was
mere antagonism to the papacy, mere resistance to the right
of the pope to govern England. She understood it to in
volve, necessarily, the existence of an English episcopacy,
—hierarchical, but not Roman— and the maintenance of a
Church organization attached to the State, but, unlike that
of Rome, subordinate to its laws. Upon these questions

520 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
there was no common ground of union between ber and
the Protestantism then struggling for existence, which was
striving to unshackle the conscience, and to establish, upon
the basis of the old English liberties, the right of free
thought and free speech. She, possibly, might not have
been disposed to quarrel with the Presbyterians, Anabap
tists, Puritans, or Lutherans, upon many of the fundamental
principles of their faith, had they been willing to concede
her ecclesiastical as well as temporal supremacy; but with
her the denial of this was an unpardonable violation of obe
dience to the crown, although she knew that it had led to
the separation from Rome.
In so far as she was influenced by religious motives at all,
her chief object was to re-establish the National Church or
ganization of Edward, either upon the basis of the articles
then adopted, or such new ones as should give it strength
and efficiency enough to cope successfully with its powerful
antagonist, the papacy. Ller courage, more than her piety,
was tried at every step. Multitudes of difficulties and em
barrassments crowded into every hour of the controversy.
Those immediately around her — with some honorable ex
ceptions — by whom her ecclesiastical policy was directed,
were, in the main, governed by inordinate selfishness, and
were ready to sacrifice even religion itself to obtain the
possession of wealth, power, and station. In these respects
they were no improvement upon the Romish hierarchy, to
whom the most of them had belonged. They were papists
or Protestants, according to circumstances ; passing from
one to the other with the ease and facility of time-serving
politicians. They were Protestants under Edward, papists
under Mary, and again Protestants under Elizabeth.
Surrounded by such influences, it is altogether probable
that Elizabeth might have been prevailed on by her clergy
to accept either a Roman Catholic or a Protestant creed, ac
cordingly as their own personal fortunes were advanced; and
that the creed adopted, in so far as herself and her courtiers
were concerned, was assented to from no higher motive. As
with Henry VIIL, so with her — the question of supremacy
merged all others ; which shows her persecutions, even more
than his, to have grown naturally out of the times and the

RELIGION IN TIME OF ELIZABETH. 521
affairs of her kingdom, as they had been molded by the pol
icy of the papacy. She fell back behind the reign of Mary
upon the issue made by Henry VIII. with the papacy ; and
tbis led her to abrogate every thing that Mary had done con
cerning religion. And as Henry VIII. had not gone so far
as to deny the fundamental principles of the Romish faith —
which she could not preserve without defeating the project
of a National Church in England — she adopted that form of
religion which had been established by law during the reign
of Edward VL This was merely Protestantism in an imper
fect and undeveloped form; not that which Luther and his
adherents had established in Germany, nor that which the
Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Puritans, and other non-conform
ists maintained in England, nor that which now exists in En
gland, Prussia, and tbe United States. It was a religious
system established by law, like the papal system it was de
signed to supplant, in opposition to the liberalizing tenden
cies of true Protestantism — of that which has been since de
veloped. It was, in a word, an attempt to constitute a sys
tem of imperial Protestantism, constructed after the model
of imperial Romanism, its authors being seemingly uncon
scious of the fact that it contained elements altogether too
incongruous for reconciliation and harmony.
Not only, therefore, did Elizabeth strive hard to throw off
all the influences left upon the country by the reign of Mary,
but she strove equally hard to prevent all those who desired
a further and fuller development of Protestantism from dis
seminating their doctrines among the people. Having to
maintain her own supremacy against the papists, and her di
vine right to govern against the more advanced Protestants,
her persecutions, consequently, embraced both these classes.
She found ready at hand a system of persecution regularly
organized by the hands ofthe papists, after the Roman and
Spanish methods, which came to ber as a family inheritance
from her sister Mary. And she employed this more furious
ly, it is true, against the papists than the Protestants, because
they were her most powerful and formidable adversaries, and
were supported by a Church which had made itself almost
omnipotent by ruling the nations and peoples of Europe with
imperial grandeur for hundreds of years.

522 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Such a contestant could not be successfully resisted, except
by hard blows ; and as this Church had made itself great by
employing such blows against all its antagonists, Elizabeth
did not hesitate to retaliate upon it with its own weapons,
to employ its own instruments of torture, to light the fagots
around the bodies of its children with the same torch which
it had set on fire when the body of William Sawtre was burn
ed under the reign of Henry IV. Llence, her persecutions
ofthe papists were precisely such as were practiced by the
papists themselves against the Reformers under Mary and
some of her papal predecessors. Hence, also, her persecutions
of the non-conforming Protestants were less excusable, be
cause less provoked, and were therefore cruel and merciless.
By the former she broke the papal power, and provided there
by for not only the triumph, but the subsequent elevation, of
her kingdom, and to that extent was a public benefactor.
By the latter she failed to destroy the courage and true no
bility of character which belonged to the English people, or
to eradicate from their minds the principles of Anglo-Saxon
liberty. These principles were providentially preserved, un
til a system of fully developed Protestantism, as it now ex
ists in the United States, has grown out of them ; and this,
reacting upon the English mind, is rapidly leading, in that
country as it has done in this, to an abrogation of the divine
right of kings, and a full recognition of the right and capac
ity of the people to govern themselves.

THE POPES BECOME POLITICIANS. 523

CHAPTER XVII.
Coercive Power of the Church. — Parties and Factions. — Quarrel between
Rome and Avignon. — Philip of France and Boniface VIII. — Power
claimed by his Bull Unam Sanctam. — Promise of Clement V. to Con
demn Boniface VIIL— John XXII. and Nicholas V. — Benedict XII. —
CoiTuption of the Fourteenth Century. — The Beginning of the Fifteenth
Century. — Three Councils called by Gregory XII., Benedict XIII., and
the Cardinals. — Council of Pisa. — It condemns both Popes, and deposes
Them. — Alexander V. elected. — He confirms all the Decrees of the
Council. — Three Popes.— Balthasar Costa becomes Pope, as John XXIII.
— Council of Constance. — Tries and Condemns Gregory XII., Benedict
XIII., and John XXIII. — The Latter found Guilty of Enormous and
Scandalous Crimes. — He is deposed, and the Doctrine of the Pope's In
fallibility condemned. — Difficulty in maintaining the Succession of the
Popes. — May be two Infallible Popes at same Time. — Corruption in the
Council. — John Huss and Jerome. — Their Trial and Death. — Effect in
Bohemia. — Martin V. — His Policy. — Violation of his Promise to Alpbon-
so. — His Bull against the King of Arragon. — His Letter to his Legate. —
Becomes sole Pope. — His Letter to the King of Poland for exterminating
the Hussites. — His Death. — Effects of his Reign.
The interference of the popes with the domestic civil af
fairs of the nations was, undoubtedly, superinduced by their
possession of temporal power in Rome. The fact of having
acquired this power by means so totally different from any
employed by the apostles, or by the Christians of the first
centuries, naturally tended to destroy their Christian humil
ity, and to implant in their' minds ideas of personal and of
ficial grandeur. Under such influences many of the popes
became mere politicians, and were mixed up for several cent
uries in controversies with kings and princes. They neglect
ed the spiritual affairs of the Church, and seemed to think
that God was sufficiently served by an enlargement of their
own temporal authority. The number of bulls, briefs, and
encyclicals issued by them concerning temporal matters
greatly exceeded those which involved the interest of relig
ion. Having in this way separated themselves from the in
fluence of the apostolic example, and finding the world, on

524 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
account of its ignorance, in a condition to acquiesce in the
imposture, they did not hesitate to set up the claim of divine
power, sufficiently broad and comprehensive to embrace
within it the right to govern the kings and princes, and,
through them, the people. When they succeeded in obtain
ing a practical recognition of this power, as pertaining to
the organization of the Church, they found it necessary to
go one step farther in order to preserve it. This was the
introduction of the doctrine, as a part of their religious sys
tem, that this immense power must be maintained, if neces
sary, by force. Hence, the persecution and extirpation of
heretics ; and also the doctrines now avowed by Pius IX.
in his Syllabus.
Although, by these means, they were enabled to secure
several centuries of success, during which the world was
held in complete subjugation and darkness; yet, in the
course of time, the light began to break in upon the minds
of men, and to disclose the fact, in spite of the reigning ec
clesiasticism, that this entire system of oppression was the
offspring of usurpation and fraud. Then, like t^he possessors
of all other ill-gotten power, the leading and most ambitious
popes became adepts in all the arts and practices of politic
al intrigue and diplomacy, and in the pursuit of whatsoever
means were necessary to maintain their authority, without
any regard whatever to the morality or immorality of their
acts. And thus it is that they themselves created the com
bination of influences out of which the Reformation arose.
Had they been content to employ their spiritual power for
the legitimate uses of the Church, the Church would have
possessed within itself sufficient power to have applied the
necessary corrective to all abuses in its government. But
when they went beyond this, and claimed the right to uni
versal dominion, as derived directly from God and as a part
of "the patrimony of Peter," it became necessary to the
world that this claim should not only be resisted, but, if
possible, absolutely destroyed. It could not undergo any
abatement merely ; for, according to the papal theory, the
power of the papacy is plenary, and can be nothing less ;
and therefore the contest, in so far as the papacy was con
cerned, became a death-struggle.

THE CHURCH NOT WHOLLY CORRUPT. 525
And thus we have seen that, in point of fact, the Reforma
tion in England— as the reigns of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth
sufficiently demonstrate — was not so much a protestation
against the faith and just authority of the Roman Church
as against the abuses of the hierarcby, and the gross corrup
tions practiced by them under papal sanction and toleration.
There were many intelligent and devout Roman Catholics
who, before that time, had been sagacious enough to under
stand, and honest enough to declare, that the papacy had de
parted from the apostolic teachings and the practices of the
first centuries of Christianity. Their efforts — preceding the
great Protestant Reformation — to save their ancient and
time-honored Church were heroic, but unavailing. They are
brilliant lights in these former centuries, and attract no less
our admiration than our wonder. They convince us — if any
thing were necessary to do so — that there was yet enough
in the true faith of the Roman Catholic Church, even in the
worst days of Rome, to give consolation to the Christian
mind, and to excite its liveliest Christian hopes ; and that
much that is essentially true and consistent with the teach
ings of the Saviour and his apostles has been preserved in
its shifting creeds during all the years of its existence. The
genuine love and veneration they felt for the Church to which
their affections clung so tenaciously, stimulated them to de
sire and to labor for its reform, for the lopping-off the de
cayed branches, that the trunk ofthe old tree which had with
stood so many storms might continue to bear good and whole
some fruit. We can not withhold from Anselm and Abe
lard, and Arnold of Brescia — all devout Roman Catholics —
the concession of sincerity for their bold appeals to reason
against the unjust assumptions and usurpation of authority
by the popes. They were not of the number of those com
monly classed with the Reformers ; but when they asserted
the right of free inquiry and free thought, they brought them
selves under the ban of the papacy, which feared an open ex
posure of its enormous offenses against religion and society;
and the controversy thus inaugurated necessarily incited such
inquiries as could never thereafter be suppressed or silenced.
Nor can we fail to appreciate the integrity and manliness
of Savonarola when he stirred up the people of Florence to

526 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
intense excitement by his denunciations of papal infallibility
— declaring that the constitutions issued by some popes had
been annulled by others ; that the opinions of some are con
trary to those of others; and that the prevalent doctrines
of the papacy led to "evil doings — to waste in eating and
drinking, to avarice, to concubinage, to the sale of benefices,
and to many lies, and to all wickedness."(') It should in
crease our admiration of this intrepid priest to know that for
the avowal of his honest convictions he lost his life. Arrest
ed by violence, tried by authority of Pope Alexander VI.
with " true Inquisitorial mercilessness," and put to death by
his persecutors, his courage, exhibited in the midst of the
flames, imparted itself to bis defenders, and gave fresh im
pulse to the work of reform. {')
If the reforms sought for by these and other faithful Chris
tians had been obtained within the Church, the Christian
world would have been disinclined to rebel against the spir
itual authority of the popes, being content to regard it as in
dicating the unity of the faith. But the authorities of the
Church — including popes, prelates, and the inferior clergy —
had become so corrupt that practical reform became impossi
ble. The long residence of the popes at Avignon, in France
— brought about by the political intrigues carried on between
popes and princes — so demoralized those who conducted the
affairs of the Church, both there and at Rome, that with them
religion became a matter of secondary importance, if not of
utter indifference. The Church was divided into parties and
factions, each accusing and anathematizing the others as her
etics and schismatics, and visiting upon them the curse of ex
communication. We have heretofore seen that Boniface IX. was pope at
Rome, while Clement VII. and Benedict XIII. respectively
claimed the pontificate at Avignon. This state of things
manifestly grew out ofthe quarrel between Philip of France
and Boniface VIIL, which was conducted with great asper
ity on both sides, and reduced the election of a pope to a
(') "Predica," by Savonarola; apud Dean Milman, in his "Essays," Es
say I., pp. 37, 57 ; "Life of Lorenzo de' Medici," by Roscoe, Bohn's ed., p.
347. O Milman's " Essays," p. 66, etc.

THE BULL UNAM SANCTAM. 527
mere matter of temporal expediency, the real interests of the
Church or of religion having little or nothing to do with it.
The celebrated bull of Boniface — Unam Sanctum — where
in he asserted that the pope holds in his hands both the
spiritual and the temporal sword, led him into such direct
conflict with the temporal power, that, without resistance on
the part of the nations, he would have reduced them all to
the condition of entire dependency upon the papacy. Hence
we find Clement V. securing the pontificate, as the successor
of Boniface VIIL, by taking an oath to Philip, " by the body
of Jesus Christ," that he would "blot out the memory of Pope
Boniface /" and proceeding soon after his election to revoke
several of the bulls of Boniface, and, especially, to declare
"that the bull Unam Sanctam should do no prejudice to
the king or kingdom of France, and that all things should
remain in the same posture they were in before that bull;"(3)
notwithstanding which, the faithful are now instructed that
this same bull continues to be, even at the present day, a
part of the canon law ! Hence, also, we find that, after the
death of Clement V. the discord prevailing among the car
dinals occasioned so much delay in the election of his suc
cessor, that the people became so disgusted as to " set fire
on the conclave,"(4) and disperse the cardinals. The terri
fied prelates could not be assembled again until after the
death of Philip, and "the chair of Peter" remained without
an occupant for two years ! John XXII. was then elected
at Lyons and took up his residence at Avignon, and Nicho
las V. was elected at Rome. But the Italians, though back
ed by the King of Bavaria, were unable to protect their
pope, and he ultimately fell into the hands of John XXII.,
who imprisoned him till he died.(6) So prostituted had the
papacy become under such influences, that heresy consisted
in disobedience to the pope in the merest trifles, and punish
ments were inflicted on account of them, without the slight
est remorse. John XXII. caused four Gray Friars to be
arrested because they would not wear their gowns in the
shape prescribed by his pontifical bull Quorundam! They
were condemned to be burned as heretics, and were exe-
(3)Du Pin, vol. xii., p. 11. (4) Rid., p. 21. (5) R id. , p. 24.

528 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
cuted ! A fifth one was degraded and imprisoned for life
for the same offense !(") Benedict XII., successor of John
XXII., was himself a heretic, in this; that he maintained
that " the souls of those who die in mortal sin descend act
ually right into hell, where they suffer the pains of the
damned ;"(') in express violation of the doctrine of purga
tory, which the General Council of Florence, at its twenty-
fifth session, in 1438, declared to have always been the doc
trine of the Church. Such a condition of affairs as thus exist
ed at Avignon, aided by what occurred during the subsequent
pontificates of Clement VL, Innocent VL, Urban V, Greg
ory XL, and Urban VL, surrounded the papacy, in the four
teenth century, with an amount of corruption which had no
parallel in all the previous history of the world. The good
men of the Churcb, of whom there were many, were made
heart-sick at the spectacle. They desired reform, but were
overpowered by the prevailing corruption.
The fifteenth century opened with demands for three
councils: one summoned by Gregory XII.; another by the
rival pope, Benedict XIII. ; and the third by the cardinals.
The latter, which assembled at Pisa, was the most numer
ously attended, having, besides a number of cardinals, em
bassadors from France and England. That this council did
not believe in the doctrine of papal infallibility is perfectly
certain ; for, soon after it convened, it caused both popes,
Gregory XII. aud Benedict XIII., to be called at the gate
of the Church ; and neither of them appearing, proctors were
appointed, in the name of the Universal Church, to consider
what steps were necessary to be taken against both of them,
in order to put an end to the schism and restore the peace
of the Church. After they had been several times called,
and had failed to appear by themselves or legates, the coun
cil unanimously adopted a sentence against them to the
effect that they were both " contumacious of faith and of
schism." Here was an issue directly and explicitly made
between the cardinals and these two contumacious popes,
as to where the controlling authority of the Church was
lodged ; whether in a general council representing the whole
O Du Pin, vol. xii., p. 25. (T) Ibid., p. 29.

THE COUNCDL OF PISA. 529
Church, or, as Pius IX. and his Jesuit defenders now say, in
the pope alone, as the infallible vicegerent of God.
The settlement of this great question by the Council of Pisa
assures us that if Pius IX. had then been pope, he would not
have been considered infallible ; or if the cardinals of Pisa had
been at the late Lateran Council at Rome, the decree of in
fallibility would not have been enacted. It was decided that
the cardinals had power to call the council, that it was law
fully assembled, and that it had power to proceed to a defini
tive sentence against both popes. The trial was, therefore, en
tered upon with all necessary solemnity. The popes remain
ing contumacious, although duly summoned to appear, com
missioners were appointed to appear for and defend them.
After all the evidence had been heard and duly considered,
the council decided, by a solemn and deliberate vote, that
both Gregory XIL and Benedict XIII. had violated their
oaths by continuing the schism, and that all Christians were
released from the obligation of obedience to them ! Bene
dict XIIL was accused of heresy upon the authority of the
universities of Paris, Angiers, Orleans, and Toulouse, and
three hundred doctors of that of Bononia. And all the ac
cusations against him and Gregory XII. being fully sustain
ed, a decree was unanimously passed declaring that they
were both " manifest schismatics, favorers of schism, heretics,
guilty of perjury and ofthe violation of their oaths; that
they give a scandal to the whole Church by their manifest
obstinateness and contumacy ; that they are unworthy of all
honor and dignity, and particularly ofthe pontifical ; and that
they are fallen from it, deprived of it, and separate from the
Church, ipso facto." The See of Rome was declared vacant;
all Christians were forbidden to obey either of the popes ;
and all their judgments and sentences were declared null
and void !(")
Now, when it is considered that this council was composed
of one hundred and forty cardinals, archbishops, bishops, and
mitred abbots, of twenty - six doctors of divinity, of three
hundred doctors of civil and canon law, and of embassadors
from France, England, Jerusalem, Sicily, Cyprus, Poland,
(8) Du Pin, vol. xiii., n. 5.
34

530 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Brabant, Austria, Bavaria, and from a number of lesser pow
ers, including some of the princes of Italy, it must require
more than a common amount of assurance to pretend, as all
the Jesuit and ultramontane writers now do, that infallibili
ty was always and everywhere the universal doctrine of the
Church ! For although it has suited the purposes ofthe pa
pacy to deny that the Council of Pisa was an ecumenical
council, and to disguise its proceedings as much as possible,
yet that it did represent the real sentiments of the Church
is abundantly attested by the history of those times.. There
could not then have been assembled in Europe any consider
able concourse of Christians who would not have denounced
the infallibility ofthe pope as impious and unchristian. And
of this we shall soon see more satisfactory proof than that
furnished by the Council of Pisa.
After Gregory XII. and Benedict XIII. had both been de
posed, the Council of Pisa proceeded to the election of a new
pope; when Alexander V. was chosen, and, being present, pre
sided over the council and approved all its sentences and de
crees. After a few more sessions the council adjourned, and
another general council was ordered to meet in 1412, to pro
vide for reform in the Church. Pope Alexander V. after
ward published a bull in 1410, confirming all that the Coun
cil of Pisa had done, against which bull many ultramontane
maledictions have since been hurled.
In the mean time, Gregory XII. assembled his council in
Aquileia, but it was attended by very few prelates. He,
however, caused it to decree that his election was canonical,
as had been also that of Urban VL, Boniface IX., and Inno
cent X. ; and that the elections of Clement VIL, Benedict
XIIL, and Alexander V. " were' temerarious, unlawful, and
sacrilegious, and that they were schismatics and usurpers."
He, moreover, caused it to be announced that he would re
sign the pontifical dignity, in order to restore harmony, if
Benedict XIII. and Alexander V. would do so ; for it must
be remembered that there were now three popes, each claim
ing to be the successor of Peter !
But Alexander V. was disposed neither to surrender his
dignity nor to carry on the work of reform which was ex
pected of him by the Council of Pisa. He was under the

THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE CALLED. 531
control of Baltbasar Costa, who directed the measures of his
pontificate with the sole view of making himself his succes
sor, in which he succeeded. Yet he was, says Du Pin, "ac
knowledged for pope by all Christendom, except Apulia and
some part of Italy which had not yet abandoned Gregory,
and the kingdoms of Arragon, Castile, and Scotland, and the
states of Count Armagnac, who acknowledged Benedict."
At his death, which occurred in 1410, Balthasar Costa was
elected his successor, and took the name of John XXIII.
He made war upon the King of Naples with a view of
wresting his dominions from him, and placing the Duke of
Anjou upon his throne. The king, however, finally drove
him from Rome, where he was hated by the people in con
sequence of his having " drawn great sums of money from
the richest men in the city." He took refuge at the Court
ofthe King of Hungary, where he went to consult about the
meeting of a council. He sent his legate to France with a
bull, whereby he assured the French clergy that he desired
that a council should be held at the time agreed on at Pisa,
to endeavor to bring about a union between the Greek and
Latin churches, to make peace between France and England,
and "to reform the Church both in its head and members."
He finally succeeded, by obtaining the protection of Sigis
mund of Hungary, in getting his views so generally acqui
esced in that he at last called the Council of Constance to
meet in 1414 — the time fixed at Pisa. This council, although
thus convened by a pope who had participated in the pro
ceedings of the Council of Pisa, and had, by acquiescing in
them, committed himself to the doctrine that a council can
try, condemn, and depose a pope, and, therefore, that popes
are not infallible, is regarde'd by all the Church as the Six
teenth Ecumenical Council. Whatever it did, therefore, car
ries with it the highest sanction of the Church, and has all
the authority of law.
At this council the means of restoring peace to the Church
by terminating the schism were much discussed by the fa
thers. Deputies attended from Gregory XII. and Benedict
XIIL, the former of whom proposed his resignation. The
fathers, however, although they declared that the Council
of Pisa was lawfully celebrated, were mostly of opinion that

532 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
the best way to put an end to tbe schism was to require
that all three of the popes — Gregory XII., Benedict XIIL,
and John XXIII. — should resign ! They held that, notwith
standing John XXIII. was a lawful pope, yet the Universal
Church might constrain him to resign, and that the council
was the representative of the Universal Church. John en
deavored to defeat this measure by sowing divisions among
the members of the council ; but all his exertions in that
direction were without avail, the vote being unanimous. In
the mean time an Italian bishop accused John XXIH of
having committed " all sorts of crimes," which were not im
mediately made public. The prelates from Germany, En
gland, and Poland thought they ought not to be published,
because it " could only serve to disgrace the Holy See, to
scandalize the Church, and throw it in confusion." John
at first thought he would defy the council, and deny their
power to depose him, except for heresy; but he was per
suaded by his friends not to make this attempt. Before the
investigation of the charges was begun, the council proposed
to him his resignation, according to the plan they had pre
viously adopted. Embarrassed as he was, he had no other
method left which seemed to open the door of escape ; and
he accepted the plan with apparent pleasure, proposing that
he would voluntarily resign if Gregory XII. and Benedict
XIII. would also agree to do so. This contingent proposi
tion was not acceptable to tbe council, and he made anoth
er, equally unsatisfactory for the same reasons. A third one
was drawn up which, through fear of the Emperor Sigis
mund, he agreed to accept. He then pronounced the decla
ration, and the next day repeated it in the presence ofthe
council. He vowed, and swore' to God, to the Church, and
the Holy Council, that he would, resign so soon as Gregory
XII. and Benedict XIII. should do so, or should be deprived
of their claims to the pontificate by death or otherwise. He
offered to visit Benedict XIII. himself and procure his abdi
cation ; but the council would not consent to this, suspecting
that his only object was to get away from Constance, and
thus break up its sessions. This suspicion was not without
foundation; for soon after, notwithstanding he had prom
ised the emperor that he would not leave, he escaped in dis-

JOHN XXIII. VIOLATES HIS OATH; 533
guise, and took shelter in a castle several leagues distant,
followed by only five or six cardinals, four of whom returned
in a few days.
This absence of the pope led immediately to the consider
ation in the council of the question whether the pope Was
above the council, and, therefore, infallible, or was inferior
to it, and consequently not infallible. There were only six
cardinals who maintained the first of these propositions, and
who insisted that the council was dissolved in consequence
of the absence of the pope. But the council answered them
" that the pope was not above the council, but inferior to
it," thus directly and emphatically condemning the doctrine
of papal infallibility ! The ill-fated John XXIII., finding his
efforts to break up the council ineffectual, fled to another
castle, where he summoned a notary, and mtde solemn prot
estation against all that he had promised to the council, and
sworn to because, as he said, he was " forced to it by vio
lence and fear," so little did the popes in those days regard
even their most solemn oaths, though taken in the presence
of an ecumenical council.
The council, in order to counteract the influences which
John XXIII. was trying to invoke in his own behalf, then
proceeded to pass several important decrees. In one of
these it is declared that the Council of Constance was "law
fully assembled in the name of the Holy Ghost ;" that it
"represented the whole Catholic Church militant; had its
power immediately from Jesus Christ ; and that every per
son, of whatsoever state or dignity, even the pope himself,
is obliged to obey it in what concerns the faith, the extir
pation of schism, and the general reformation of the Church
in its members and its head."(") Other decrees were passed,
declaring that those who refused to obey the council, " even
the popes themselves not excepted," should be punished ; that
(') The ultramontane writers pretend that the words, " in what concerns
the faith," in the above decree, were afterward added by the Council of Basil.
They do this in order to break the force of this decision of a general council
against papal infallibility. But Du Pin, from whom the above facts are taken,
shows the falsity of this pretense, and also that, even without these words,
the decree sufficiently affirms the supremacy of a council over the pope. —
Du Pin, vol. xiii., pp. 14, 15.

534 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
if the pope, when required by the council to enounce the
pontificate, failed or delayed to do so, he had thereby for
feited his dignity, and no obedience was due him ; and that
if John XXIII. did not return to Constance, "they would
proceed against him as a favorer of schism, and suspected of
heresy." John XXIII. resorted to many subterfuges to escape his
impending doom. He endeavored to apologize for his se
cret departure from Constance by pretending that it was
necessary on account of the condition of his health ; and
even went so far as to propose the second time to resign.
But the council had no confidence in him or his promises.
Having already committed perjury by the violation of a
most solemn oath, the fathers could put no other estimate
upon him than *that he was capable of any kind of treach
ery — was both base and false-hearted. They therefore pro
ceeded with his trial, and, after the most careful examina
tion of the evidence and full deliberation, found him guilty
of crimes before which the iniquities of the basest of mod
ern criminals dwarf into insignificance. Du Pin thus enu
merates them :
" Lewdness and disorders in his youth, the purchasing of
benefices by simony ; his advancement to the dignity of a
cardinal by the same means ; his tyranny while he was leg
ate at Bononia ; his incests and adulteries while he was in
that city; his poisoning of Alexander V. and his own physi
cian ;(10) his contempt of the divine offices after he was pope;
his neglecting to recite the canonical prayers, and to prac
tice the fasts, abstinences, and ceremonies ofthe Church; his
denying justice, and oppressing the poor; his selling bene
fices and ecclesiastical dignities to those that bid most; his
authorizing an infinite number of dreadful abuses in dis
tributing of preferments, and committing a thousand and
a thousand cheats ; his selling bulls, indulgences, dispensa
tions, and other spiritual graces ; his wasting the patrimo
ny of the Church of Rome, and mortgaging that of other

(10) The accusation against him was that he had caused his physician to
poison Pope Alexander V., in order that he might obtain the papal chair,
and then poisoned his physician to prevent detection.

CRIMES OF JOHN XXIII. 535
Churches; his maladministration of the spiritual and tem
poral affairs of the Church ; and lastly his breaking the oath
and promise he had made to renounce the pontificate, by re
tiring shamefully from Constance, to maintain and continue
the sehism."(1')
Cormenin gives the decision of the council somewhat more
in detail, thus :
" The General Council of Constance, after having invoked
the name of Christ and examined the accusations brought
against John XXIII., and established on irrefragable proof,
pronounces, decrees, and declares, that Balthasar Costa [the
pope] is the oppressor ofthe poor, the persecutor ofthe just,
the support of knaves, the idol of simoniacs, the slave of the
flesh, a sink of vices, a man destitute of every virtue, a mir
ror of infamy, and devil incarnate ; as such it deposes him
from the pontificate, prohibiting all Christians from obeying
him and calling him pope. The council further reserves to
itself the punishment of his crimes in accordance with the
laws of secular justice; and his pursuit as an obstinate and
hardened, noxious, and incorrigible sinner, whose conduct is
abominable and morals infamous ; as a simoniac, ravisher,
incendiary, disturber of the peace and unity of the Church ;
as a traitor, murderer, Sodomite, poisoner, committer of in
cest, and corrupter of young nuns and monks !"(12)
Few men have reached so low a point of infamy and deg
radation as that reached by John XXIII., who is recognized
by all the Church historians as having been lawfully elected
pope. On account of the enormity of his crimes, he was de
posed and disgraced by the council, and all persons were
forbidden to recognize him thereafter as pope, or to obey
him. Thus reduced, and abandoned by the few friends who

(") Du Pin, vol. xiii., p. 17.
(n) Cormenin, vol. ii., p. 108. This author also says that only a portion
of the articles were publicly read ; and that there were, besides these, secret
ones too frightful to be announced. In a recent work it is said that these
latter were "dropped for the sake of public decency." — The See of Rome in
the Middle Ages, by Reichel, part iii., p. 484. This last-named author
publishes some of the charges, and the sentence of the council, taken from
Labbe's collection, in the original Latin. — Ibid., note 5, and p. 485,' note 1 ;
see also Life and Times of John Huss, by Gillett, vol. i., pp. 515-517.

538 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
had previously adhered to him, he humiliatingly announced
to the council that he had no defense to offer, declared the
council to be most holy and infallible, and approved of all
its decrees up to his deposition at the twelfth session, thus
entitling that decree which declared that a general council
was superior to the pope, and, therefore, that the pope was
not infallible, to take its place in the canons and to become
a part ofthe law ofthe Church !
The Jesuit defenders of infallibility, with all their cunning
and ingenuity, have been sorely puzzled over this part of the
history of the Church. They have found it exceedingly dif
ficult to make the links in the chain of regular apostolic suc
cession interlock each other. In whatsoever way they at
tempt it, they run afoul of numerous palpable facts which,
when fully understood, upset all their theories. In the
"Catholic Family Almanac for the United States," for 1870,
there appears a chronological table of the Roman pontiffs,
beginning with St. Peter and ending with Pius IX.(13) This
is intended for the instruction of the faithful. Referring to
the forty years of disputed succession which followed the
close of the pontificate of Urban VL, in 1389, it carries down
the Roman line of succession as follows : Boniface IX., from
1389 to 1404; Innocent VIL, from 1404 to 1406; Gregory
XII., from 1406 to 1417 ; and then follows it with Martin V,
from 1417 to 1431 — thus making the line unbroken. With
in these same years it puts down as " rival popes," Clement
VIL, Benedict XIIL, Alexander V., and John XXHL A re
cent "History ofthe Catholic Church," published also in the
United States in 1870, and highly commended for its accu
racy, contains also a chronological table of the same kindi
Covering the period given above, it makes the line as fol
lows: Boniface IX., from 1389 to 1404; Innocent VIL, from
1404 to 1406 ; Gregory XII., from 1406 to 1409 ; Alexander
V., 1409 ; John XXHL, from 1409 to 1413 ; and then follows
Martin V., from 1413 to 1431 — with the additional statement,
indicated by the letters "abd" opposite their names, that
Gregory XII. abdicated in 1409, and John XXIII. in 141 3. (,4)
(I3) " Catholic Almanac," 1870, pp. 47, 48.
('*) "History of the Catholic Church," by Rev. Theodore Noethen, p. 577.

LINE OF SUCCESSION CONFUSED. 537
Now, without stopping to comment upon other facts con
nected with the great schism of forty years, during which
the, right to the chair of Peter was continually and obstinate
ly contested, to the disgrace of all the parties and the injury
of the cause of Christianity, it may be well asked, how are
the faithful to decide between contradictory statements like
these? One places Alexander V. and John XXIII. among
the " rival popes," and the other places them in the regular
line of succession ! One continues the pontificate of Grego
ry XII. in the regular line down to 1417, and makes no men^
tion of Alexander V. and John XXIII. in that line ; while
the other represents Gregory XII. as having abdicated in
1409, and continues the regular line down to Martin V., with
both Alexander V. and John XXIII. One represents Maiv
tin V. as having been made pope in 1417, and the other in
1413 — four years before.
But the puzzle will become more difficult of solution to
an intelligent investigator when he finds out, as he would
do, that neither of these tables represents the precise truth.
Gregory XII. was not pope from 1406 to 1417. He was
elected at Rome in 1406, while Benedict XIIL was yet pope
at Avignon, where he had held his pontifical court since 1394
as the successor of Clement VH. At the time of his election
he promised the cardinals at Rome to resign if Benedict
would do so, but afterward equivocated to such an extent
that all his cardinals except four withdrew from him, and
appealed from his authority to that of the Council of Pisa.
This council deposed him in 1409, as they also did Benedict
XIIL, and elected Alexander V., who was regarded as the le
gal pope. Alexander V. was not, therefore, a " rival pope ;"
nor was John XXIII. Gregory XII. did not abdicate in
1409 ; but after he was then deposed by the Council of Pisa,
claimed still to be pope as against Benedict XIIL, Alexan
der V., and John XXIII. up till the fourteenth session ofthe
Council of Constance, in 1415, when he resigned his right
to the pontificate and recognized the validity of the coun
cil. The council then approved of what he had canonically
done;(1B) that is, what he had done before he was deposed

(ls) Du Pin, vol. xiii., p. 18.

538 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
by the Council of Pisa. This broke his fall somewhat by rec
ognizing him as legal pope at Rome against Benedict XIIL'
at Avignon, from 1406 to 1409 — only three years out ofthe
twelve which he claimed. And this was perhaps more a mat
ter of policy and necessity than principle ; for if Gregory XII.
was not the lawful pope from 1406 to 1409, then Benedict
XIII. was ; and he is properly put down as a " rival pope "
in one of the above tables, and does not appear in tbe other
at all. And if Gregory XII. was a lawful pope after he was
deposed by the Council of Pisa, then Alexander V., who was
elected by that council, was not. As the Council of Con
stance decided that at Pisa to have been regularly and le
gally held, and recognized Alexander V. and John XXHL
both to be legal popes, they could not stultify themselves by
approving of what Gregory XII. had done after he was de
posed ; for that would have been equivalent to deciding that
Peter had two successors at the same time !
But, apart from this confusion in tracing out the line of
regular apostolic succession, this complicated condition of
affairs suggests this most pertinent inquiry : where, during
all this time, was infallibility deposited ? Was Gregory XII.
infallible ? He was deposed by the Council of Pisa, and the
Council of Constance recognized the act as valid. Was
Benedict XIII. infallible ? He also was deposed by the same
authority. Was John XXIII. infallible ? He was deposed
by the Council of Constance, after having been found guilty
of the most outrageous offenses. Was the Council of Con
stance infallible ? That it claimed infallibility is certainly
true ; that the whole Church assented to this claim is also
true, and yet to affirm now that it was would be heresy, un
der the decree of the late Lateran Council. By it the faith
ful are taught that the pope is alone the possessor of infal
libility, and is the source from which all others receive it.
Therefore they are driven to the necessity of deciding that
Gregory XII., or Benedict XIIL, or John XXIII. was in
fallible. If they select Gregory XII., the Council of Pisa
stands in the way to condemn them. If they select Bene
dict XIIL, they1 meet the same difficulty. If John XXHL,
the Council of Constance, and his tremendous catalogue of
crimes, stare them in the face. If they pass by all three

NO MATTER HOW MANY POPES. 539
of them, and lodge infallibility in the General Council of
Constance, they are pronounced heretics by Pius IX. and
his Jesuit and ultramontane prelates, and cut off from the
Church by excommunication. What, then, are the faithful
to do in the midst of all these complications ? To a com
mon-sense mind this question would be hard to answer;
but the defenders of the papacy are equal to the occasion.
See how admirably this difficulty is disposed of by St. An
toninus, Archbishop of Florence, who wrote shortly after the
schism. He says :
"It is possible for one to have belonged to either party
in good faith and with a safe conscience, for, although it is
necessary to believe that there is but one visible head of
the Church, if it should nevertheless happen that two sov
ereign pontiffs are elected at the same time, it is not obliga
tory to accept either as the legitimate pope ; but only to ac
knowledge as the true pope the one who has been canonic
ally elected ; and the people are not expected to determine
which is the pope, but can follow the opinion and guidance
of their pastors."('e)
That is to say, " it is necessary to believe that there is
but one" pope at a time, but "not obligatory." Peter can
have but one legitimate successor occupying the pontifical
chair; but if there should be two, it is no matter, as it is
" not obligatory " upon the faithful to select between them.
All that is necessary is to believe that one or the other is
the pope, no matter which. " The people " are too ignorant
and simple-minded to " determine " any thing about matters
of so much intricacy. All they are required to do is to "fol
low the opinion and guidance of their pastors !" to avoid all
thoughts of their own, all investigation ofthe facts, and pas
sively submit to whatsoever commands shall be given them.
Even though, as was tbe case in the instances referred to,
one set of the faithful should be taught by their pastors to
support one pope, and another class another pope, still no
matter! for notwithstanding each should denounce the oth-
(") " History of the Catholic Church," by Noethen, p. 404. This author
gives an account ofthe great schism in three pages, and without even men
tioning the name of Gregory XII. , Benedict XIIL, or John XXIII. He
quotes the above with approbation.

540 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
er as a heretic and guilty of all sorts of crimes, Still, as in
fallibility must be somewhere, one or the other must have
it ! Until the Council of Pisa deposed Gregory XII. and
Benedict XIIL, the faithful were permitted to believe that
either was infallible as taught by their pastors. And the
only effect of the election of Alexander V. by the council
was to add to the list another representative of infallibility.
The necessary effect was, each was infallible to those who
followed him, so that infallibility became triplicated, exist
ing in three places at the same time. The Church had not
so many heads as Briareus, yet it had so many that nobody
then and nobody now can tell which was tbe true head !
And yet this book, designed for the edification of American
readers, after admitting that " the obstinacy of the popes "
divided the Christian world, "increased the schism, and
caused all the subsequent evils " to the Church ; and that as
" God has promised his Church that he will not forsake her
in time of extreme peril," his providence selected the car
dinals as the agents for convening a council in defiance of
these schismatic popes, and thus saving the Church from
overthrow — after admitting all this with every appearance
of candor, does not hesitate to tell us that each of these
popes was infallible to his followers ; that each was in the
line of regular apostolic succession ; that each wore the crown
and held the sword of St. Peter, provided only that the pas
tors who paid obedience to each so commanded their sever
al flocks to believe, as they undoubtedly did ! And this is
put forth with apparent sincerity in this intelligent and in
vestigating age, as if men's minds were still incased in an
impenetrable coat of ignorance and stupidity, and bold and
unblushing dogmatism were alone possessed of impunity.
But it will not do to pass by the Council of Constance
without further comment. When it is remembered that it
is regarded by all the Church as ecumenical ; that the pope
found guilty by it of the most infamous crimes belongs to
the regular line of succession from Peter ; and that he was
the pope at Rome; some ofthe impending difficulties in the
way of reform in the Church may be seen and appreciated,
even at this distance of time. It was claimed that the
" chair of St. Peter " was at Rome, and that the Church

ROME THE SEAT OF CORRUPTION. 541
there was, consequently, "the mother and mistress of ajl the
Churches." As pagan Rome was the chief imperial city of
the world, so the popes, in imitation of the emperors, had en
deavored to make Christian Rome the sole representative of
ecclesiastical imperialism. It was so iu the person of John
XXIH., an Italian, who was in possession of the Vatican, of
all the holy churches of Rome, of the triple papal crown, of
the fisherman's ring, of all the relics of the saints, part of the
true cross, of the thorns in the cross of Christ, and of the
garments worn by the Virgin Mary, aud the thousands of
other things which the ignorant and superstitious are still
taught to worship. And, more than all that, was he not in
fallible, so that he could not err in matters of faith or mor
als ? — though steeped in crime and villainy sufficient to con
taminate, the whole atmosphere of Rome. The festering and
consuming sore of corruption was, therefore, more violent at
the heart of the Church than at the extremities ; it was viler
and move filthy there than the world ever saw anywhere
else, in any of the departments of society, since Sodom and
Gomorrah were overwhelmed by the wrath of God. And
such was the solemn and deliberate decision of an ecumen
ical council, pronounced without a single dissenting voice !
There were some good men in the council who desired to
make it a reform council — the ostensible object for which it
was convened. But the ideas which prevailed with the ma
jority limited the work of reform to the pope alone : they
desired to reform him, but not themselves. If the cardinals
and higher prelates of the Church had been willing to prac
tice such virtues as they demanded of the pope, and of the
inferior clergy, results very different from those which did
ensue might bave been brought about. But, so far from this
having been the case, a large number of them were as cor
rupt as the pope, and habitually practiced the very vices
they condemned in him, thus influencing the lower clergy
to a still greater degree of degradation. And such is the
undeniable voice of all impartial history. John Huss, after
the conviction and disgrace of John XXIII. , thus spoke from
his dreary prison at Gottlieben :
"The council has condemned its chief— its proper head
— for having sold indulgences, bishoprics, in fact, every

542 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
thing; and yet among those who have condemned him are
many bishops who are themselves guilty of the shameful
traffic !  O profligate men ! why did you not first pull
out the beam from your own eye ? . . . . They have declared
the seller to be accursed, and bave condemned him, and yet
themselves are the purchasers. They are the other party
in the compact, and yet they remain unpunished."(")
The learned Clemingis, who lived in those days, whose
Christian fidelity was unquestioned, and who, together with
Gerson and D'Ailly, shed lustre upon the University of
Paris, spoke of the members of the council as " carnal, for
the most part bent on their pleasures, not to say their
lusts ;" and said :
" These carnal sons of the Church do not only have no
care or apprehension of spiritual things, but they even per
secute those who walk after the Spirit, as has been the case
from the days of just Abel, and will be to the end of time.
These are the men who fly together to the Church merely
to seize upon temporalities ; who lead in the Church a secu
lar life, conspire, covet, plunder, rejoice in pre-eminence, not
in profiting others ; oppress and rob their subjects ; glory in
the honor of promotion ; riot in pomp, pride, and luxury ; who
count gain godliness, sneer at such as wish to live holily,
chastely, innocently, spiritually, calling them hypocrites 
Of sucb men the Church is full this day, and scarcely, in
whole chapters or universities, can you find any others 
Are men like these the ones to exert themselves for a refor
mation of the Church — men who would account such a refor
mation the greatest calamity to themselves ?"(18)
The Council of Constance, controlled by men of this sort,
and subject to such influences as would naturally emanate
from them, while its action, like that of the Council of Pisa,
was a blow at the ambition of the papacy and the infallibil
ity of the pope, did as much as lay in its power to advance
the cause of ecclesiastical absolutism, and to crush out the
rising and growing spirit of inquiry which had been ex
cited by Anselm, Arnold, Savonarola, and Wycliffe, of former
(") "Life and Times of John Huss," by Gillett, vol. i., p. 524.
(") Apud Gillett, ibid.

HUSS AND JEROME. 543
times, and by John Huss and Jerome of Prague, who then
lived. The trial, condemnation, and execution of Huss and
of Jerome will remain a reproach to it as long as history is
read — will forever Convict it of injustice, cruelty, intoler
ance, and persecution. Whatever amount of ingenuity may
be expended, and however the facts may be perverted and
distorted by Jesuit art and cunning, it can not be disguised
that the cruelty practiced toward them was designed as a
condemnation of free thought, and an attempt on the part of
the highest authority of the Roman Catholic Church to per
petuate the corruption and vices which then prevailed at the
expense of all that was sanctified in the former history of
the Church, and that purity of faith and practice which it
had derived from the teaching and example of the apostolic
Christians. No language is fertile enough in words of de
nunciation to express what all intelligent and thinking minds
must feel in relation to it.
Both Huss and Jerome had always led pure and Chris
tian lives. No charge of vice or immorality was ever made
against either of them. The Bohemian Christians venerated
and followed them, not merely on account of their eloquence
as preachers, but because no breath of suspicion ever rested
upon their integrity as men or upon their fidelity as Chris
tians. But they were accused of favoring the doctrines of
Wycliffe, which pointed to reform; and tbat was an unpar
donable sin, because they struck at the multifarious forms
of vice and corruption which were then sanctioned by the
example of such popes as John XXHL, and such prelates as
constituted the majority ofthe Council of Constance. This
pope and these prelates were their accusers, triers, and exe
cutioners, and it should surprise no one to know with what
alacrity they hastened to their conviction, and how their
hearts leaped with gladness when the torches that consumed
their bodies were lighted by their emissaries.
John Huss had a " safe-conduct " from the Emperor Sigis
mund, under whose influence John XXIII. consented that the
council should be held. He was promised full protection both
in going and returning to the council, where he was summon
ed to answer the charge of heresy. Yet this promise of pro
tection was violated, to the damning disgrace of all the par-

544 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ties concerned in the treacherous and dastardly act. Wheth
er it was justified by the perpetrators of the wrong upon the
declared ground that "faith should not be kept with here
tics," is no matter, since it is undoubtedly true that such was
the doctrine which then prevailed among the popes and the
leading members of the. hierarchy, and which yet prevails, as
there are volumes of evidence to show. Both upon this and
less satisfactory grounds, innumerable contracts, agreements,
and promises bave been violated and disregarded without
the slightest compunctions of conscience ; and in all these
matters the popes themselves were far ahead of all others.
Whether John XXIII. or Sigismund was most to blame for
the betrayal of Huss is of no consequence now, since the
pope is shown to have been capable of that or any other
enormity, and the emperor was ready to do whatsoever was
necessary to the protection of his imperial authority. The
council was equally guilty with either or both of them, for,
knowing that the " safe - conduct " had been given by the
very authority under which it convened, if it had. not been
insensible to shame it would have scorned to maintain a ju
risdiction acquired over a defenseless adversary by such base
and cowardly means. Du Pin says, "The pope and the em
peror invited John Huss to come thither," and " the emperor
granted him a safe - conduct."(1B) This invitation, if it did
not expressly engage the pope to good faith, implied it so
strongly that any man less infamous than John XXIII. would
have protested against its violation. And if the council had
entertained any respect for the pope, and had not been influ
enced by the loose principles of morality which then prevail
ed, the blood of John Huss would not yet be clinging to its
skirts. The next morning after Huss arrived at Constance,
two noblemen, who had accompanied him, visited the pope
to notify him of his arrival. Tbey inquired of him whether
he could safely remain without any risk of violence. The
pope replied : " Had he killed my own brother, not a hair
of his head should be touched while he remained in the
city."(!0) So that, if the pope was not a party to the " safe-
(w) Du Pin, vol. xiii., p. 120.
(!°) "History ofthe Council of Constance," by L'Enfant; apud Gillett,
vol. i.,p. 329 (note 1).

THE PERSECUTION OF HUSS. 545
conduct," he gave his solemn promise that it should be ob
served. Either would have bound an honest man, but nei
ther would have bound John XXIII. ! Even his oath, taken
before the council with a solemn appeal to God, could not
bind him, infallible as he was !
Infamous as John XXIII. was, he was not destitute of
ability or cunning. Having reached Constance some time
before the emperor, he endeavored to shape the policy of
the council so as to divert attention from his own crimes.
He had already distinguished his pontificate by emptying
the vials of his wrath upon the head of King Ladislaus of
Naples for no other offense than his having been an ally
of Gregory XII., which, as we have just been taught by
Noethen, quoting from St. Antoninus, was no offense against
the law of the Church. Harmless as this preference of La
dislaus is now pretended to have been, yet for it alone he
was declared by this infallible pope to be " a heretic, a schis
matic, a man guilty of high treason against the majesty of
God ;" a crusade was proclaimed against him, and those who
should take part in it were promised that all their sins
should be forgiven, upon repentance and confession. (21) His
success in bringing the hierarchy to adopt his views in ref
erence to Ladislaus, and his promptness in dealing with her
esy, led him to believe that if he could turn the attention
of the council to inquiries of that kind, he might himself
escape. Accordingly, " the foil he used was the heresy of
Hues," which he hoped would give him the opportunity of
showing how faithfully he guarded the faith of the Church !
To effect his purpose the more certainly, he caused his bull
of convocation to be read, wherein, in order to establish the
legitimacy of his own pontificate, he claimed that the Coun
cil of Constance was but a continuation of that of Pisa, and
then announced, through one of his cardinals, that the coun
cil would be expected to direct its attention especially to
some prevalent errors of doctrine, and "pre-eminently to
those which were originated by Wycliffe," knowing that
Huss had been accused of maintaining them. He succeed
ed in part of his plan, that is, in inciting the persecution
C) Gillett, vol i., p. 181.
35

546 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
of Huss, but not in escaping the doom which he himself so
richly merited. (")
Huss, when summoned before the council, was told that
he had been charged with disseminating "errors of the
gravest kind " in Bohemia, but they were not specifically
stated. He was only notified that they were " manifestly
opposed to the Catholic Church." To this indefinite accu
sation he replied, like an honest man, " If any one can con
vince me of any error, I will unhesitatingly abjure it."(23)
Specific articles of accusation were, however, afterward drawn
up against him, by which it was charged, 1st, that he reject
ed the doctrine of transubstantiation ; 2d, with maintaining
that a priest in mortal sin can not administer the sacra
ments; 3d, that by the Church is not to be understood the
pope, clergy, or members of the hierarchy ; 4th, that the en
dowment of the Church by secular princes is unwise ; 5th,
that all priests are equal, and it is false that bishops alone
have the right to consecrate and ordain ; 6th, that the en
tire Church has no power of the keys, when the whole cler
gy is in gross sin ; and, 7th, that he had contemned his ex
communication by saying mass every day on his journey to
Constance. (24) He was immediately arrested and held in
custody as a prisoner, to answer this indictment. His place
of imprisonment was a nauseous and unhealthy apartment,
"through which every sort of impurity was discharged into
the lake " — of Constance. When the emperor, who had not
yet arrived, heard of this, he sent forward embassadors to
demand the release of Huss, but he was not discharged. On
account of his sickness, occasioned by the foul air he was
compelled to breathe in his filthy and poisonous dungeon,
he was at last removed to more healthy apartments. This
is said to have been done by the pope, " lest Huss should
die in prison, and the cause of orthodoxy lose the incense of
a burning heretic."(2S) His failing health admonished him
of the necessity of having an advocate to defend him, and
he asked that one might be appointed. But this was re
fused ; and he was told " that, according to the canon law,
C) Gillett, vol. i., p. 342. (2a) Rid., p. 345. (M) Ibid., p. 347.
C6) Ibid., p. 357.

HUSS DENIED AN ADVOCATE. 547
no one could be allowed to take the part or plead the cause
of a man suspected of heresy ;" an act of tyranny worthy
only of the most heartless despotism. Weak and feeble as
he was, however, his defense of himself was a masterly ex
hibition of his great powers of mind, and of his unflinching
courage. But it was of no avail. All sorts of evidence were
admitted against him ; every thing he said was tortured into
heresy ; and, after a mock trial of a few days, he was pro
nounced by this great ecumenical council to be guilty —
not of any crime, but of daring to think ! He had veutured
to say that immoral priests could not administer the sacra
ments, and this was considered by a majority ofthe council
as an impeachment of themselves. He had endeavored to
lower the pride and diminish the authority of the pope and
hierarchy, and had thus brought himself under the ban of
these corrupt officials. Of course he was convicted — that
had been predetermined — for no victim could be furnished
so likely as Huss to satisfy the world of the orthodoxy of
the council and the pope !
There was but a single mode of escape for this intrepid
champion of free thought ; that was, to admit the errors
charged against him, and to retract them. Unconscious of
error, he could not in his conscience admit it; and there
fore he had nothing to retract. He appealed to reason and
the enlightened judgment ofthe council; but that body re
fused him the right to address himself to any motive high
er than that which grew out of its own selfish and partisan
passions, and demanded unconditional submission. It would
allow no debate, no inquiry ; every one of its assumptions
had to be accepted as infallibly true. Huss, then, when he
demanded to be heard in defense of his own opinions, was
the representative ofthe free spirit ofthe present age — the
champion of that intellectual and moral freedom upon which
the central column of Protestantism is now resting. How
much fairer and nobler a place does he occupy in history
than the infamous pope whose victim he became, or any of
those members of the council who aided in producing his
conviction ! Their names are scarcely known except to the
readers of history, while his is lisped by almost every school
boy throughout Christendom.

548 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Jerome met the same fate. He and Huss were burned at
the stake — martyrs in the cause of truth and freedom. Nei
ther of them exhibited the slightest fear of death. No quiv
ering muscle displayed the cowardice of conscious guilt.
They were heroes in the highest sense, and left behind them
influences which were not long in producing fruits, not ex
pected by their persecutors, but which laid the foundation
for some of the grandest results in history.
To pretend that the Roman Catholic Church is not guilty
of the death of Huss and Jerome, as the papists do, is worse
than idle. The Council of Constance was its highest author
ity. It represented the entire Church, and in this capacity
tried, convicted, and turned them over to the secular author
ities for execution. After their conviction, and before they
were removed from the council chamber, paper crowns were
placed upon their heads. These were covered with " pict
ured fiends" with flames around them, to signify that they
were devoted to death by burning. (2e) When this was placed
upon the head of Huss, his persecutors exclaimed, " We de
vote thy soul to the devils in hell," which was more the lan
guage of a fiend than of a Christian. The council knew what
the result of the conviction would be. The Church at that
time shaped the domestic policy ofthe nations, in so far as it
concerned the Church or dealt with heresy. Wherever there
was an emperor or king who refused to enact laws against
heretics consistently with the decree of persecution enacted
by the Fourth Lateran Council, he was cursed and excom
municated, and his subjects were released from their alle
giance. Hence the law under which Huss and Jerome were
executed was the result of that obedience which the nations
then paid to the Church, which the Church required of them,
and for the failure or refusal to pay which it visited its se
verest punishments upon them. The blood, therefore, of
these murdered Christians is still crying out against the hi
erarchy of the Church, and will not be washed away until
they learn to exchange their persecuting intolerance for the
mild and forbearing teachings ofthe Gospel.
Soon after the vengeance ofthe Council of Constance had
O Gillett, vol. ii., pp. 65, 255.

THE MARTYRDOM OF HUSS AND JEROME. 549
spent itself in the flames which consumed the bodies of Huss
and Jerome, avengers begun to spring up on every side to
proclaim anew the truths uttered by them, and more espe
cially to assert the right to challenge the oppressions aud
usurpations of imperialism. The contest- became one be
tween reason and authority — between the papacy, wielding
all the power of the Church in maintaining its demand for
absolute and uninquiring submission, and in denying to its
followers free access to the Scriptures, and the right of free
inquiry into the truths of religion, philosophy, and science.
In order ignobly to maintain its authority, and thus to per
petuate the existing corruptions, every artifice was employ
ed. Bulls of excommunication and ecclesiastical interdicts
— employed far more frequently in reference to secular than
spiritual affairs — were the common resort of the popes, who,
forgetting that God still reigned over the world, impiously
claimed that they could open or close the gates of heaven
and hell at their pleasure, and could withdraw the thunder
and the lightning from the 6ky to scathe and blast the oppo
nents of their ignominious and debasing vices. What won
der is there, then, that these avengers arose within the Church,
when tbey remembered how much it had done to Christian
ize and civilize the world, and how much of apostolic puri
ty there was yet retained in its cherished faith ? They saw
clearly that the struggle involved the life of Christianity and
the dearest hopes of the Christian world ; and the inspiriting
thought that they were the champions of such a cause gave
them a courage and heroism which the world will never
cease to admire. The oceans of blood which papal imperi
alism caused to be shed throughout the beautiful plains and
valleys of Europe have not been sufficient to wasb from the
pages of history the bright record of their virtues and their
courage. The flames could consume their bodies, but other
flames were enkindled which could not be extinguished; and
from out of these flashed forth the light of truth.
The Bohemians were very much attached to Huss and Je
rome, and their cruel murder produced intense excitement
among them. The King of Bohemia observing, one day,
a nobleman, named John Zisca, deeply wrapped in thought,
inquired of him what he was thinking about; when he re-

550 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
plied : " I was thinking on the affront offered to our king
dom by the death of John Huss." The king replied: "It is
out of your power or mine to revenge it, but if you know
which way to do it, exert yourself."(27) And he did exert
himself in such a way as to bring down terrible revenge
upon the heads of the persecutors. With the assistance of
Nicholas de Hussinetz, he raised an army of forty thousand
men, and a war immediately ensued between the emperor, as
the representative of papal imperialism, and the Bohemians,
which lasted for thirteen years. Inhuman cruelties were
practiced on both sides, and the termination of the struggle
was marked by a concession to the Bohemians which they
considered of the utmost importance in maintaining their
faith and mode of religious worship. This was the allow
ance to their laity of tbe use of the cup in the sacrament,
which the Romanists had denied to them, because it gave
too much importance to the common people. The introduc
tion of this concession in the treaty of peace was, to some
extent, the recognition of the fact that the laity were not a
mere canaille ; and it resulted, ultimately, in bringing about
a union between the Waldenses and the Hussites, and in
giving new impetus to the cause of the Moravian Chris
tians. And although the Hussites were banished from Mo
ravia some time afterward, they had two hundred congrega
tions in Bohemia and Moravia at the beginning of the six
teenth century.
Martin V. was elected pope by the Council of Constance,
and having finally succeeded, after much difficulty, in get
ting rid of his rivals, was also anxious to get rid ofthe coun
cil — for, like other popes, he desired to govern alone. He
was afraid to break it up, and endeavored to keep in its fa
vor by continuing to execute the Hussites, making for that
purpose "a magnificent auto-da-fe!" Unable to accomplish
his wish in this way, he announced his intention of leaving
Constance, but was opposed in this by the emperor, who de
sired to have the relations between them satisfactorily ar
ranged. Martin, dreading the possibility of being cited to
a new council, in case of disagreement with the emperor,
C) "Church History," by Fry, London, 1824, p. 261.

MARTIN V. 55!
thought to put an end to the proceedings by resort to a
pontifical bull, wherein he maintained that " a pope was the *
absolute judge of his own actions, in all circumstances,
and that he could annul the promises he had previously
made Z"(28) And he adopted this principle in practice.
He endeavored to establish the papal rule over the cities
of Genoa, Venice, Florence, and Naples, which had freed
themselves from the tyranny of the popes. He found the
husband of Joanna, Queen of Naples, driven out in conse
quence of his cruelties ; and, taking advantage of the exist
ing disorders, he offered the crown to Louis of Anjou, on
condition of his assisting him to re-acquire tbe papal pos
sessions, thus claiming the divine right to dispose of crowns
and kingdoms. Joanna, to defeat this, obtained assistance
from Alphonso, King of Arragon; and as the pope's army
was upon the eve of being defeated, the wily pope had re
course to the cunning expedient of making another agree
ment with Alphonso, to the effect that if he would dethrone
Joanna, he would obtain the renunciation of Louis of Anjou,
and give the crown to him. Alphonso consented, and seized
the government of Naples, requiring an oath of allegiance
from the inhabitants. Joanna fled, and Alphonso became
master of Naples. He called on the pope for the fulfillment
of his promise, by deposing Joanna and conferring the title
of king upou him. But as the pope, when he made the
promise, had not the slightest idea of complying with it, he
replied, very deliberately, that "he had never intended to ful
fill the promises he had made him /"(29) that the crown of
right belonged to Louis, who had bought the investiture
of it from Popes Alexander V. and John XXIII. ; and that,
besides, he would not aid a prince who had given shelter to
a rival pope, as Alphonso had done to Benedict XIII. His
solemn promise did not weigh with him the weight of a
feather. Alphonso determined to avenge the insult, and
Martin V., seeing that he was likely to do it effectually, sent
to him a legate to sue for peace. But Alphonso, having
learned his perfidy and hypocrisy sufficiently, declined any
intercourse with the legate, and published an edict forbid-
(2B) Cormenin, vol. ii., p. 111. (") Rid., p. 113.

552 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ding the reception of any ofthe pope's bulls in Spain. This
•was purely a temporal matter, yet the pope issued a bull
against the King of Arragon declaring him an enemy of re
ligion, a supporter of schism, and as such deprived him of
his dignity and kingdom ; not, it will be observed, for any
sin against God and the Church, but for daring to rebuke
him, an infallible pope, for his perfidy and want of truth.
The pope now gathered an army of Italian, French, Ger
man, and English soldiers, and sent them into Bohemia, tin
der the command of one of his cardinals, to exterminate all
who embraced the doctrines of Huss. The Bohemians were
not easily overcome, and drove the papal troops out of their
country. But the pope, although thus defeated, was grati
fied that he had succeeded in stirring up a civil war in Ger
many, from which he hoped great gains to the papal cause.
Therefore he wrote to his defeated legate :
"You will immediately recruit new troops to recom
mence hostilities, and to wash out, in the blood of the Huss
ites, the opprobrium with which your name is covered. Let
no consideration arrest you ; spare neither money nor men.
Believe that we are acting for religion, and that God has
no more agreeable holocaust than the blood of his enemies!
Strike with the sword, and when your arm can not reach
the guilty, employ poison, burn all the towns of Bohemia,
that fire may purify this accursed land; transform the coun
try into arid steppes, and let the dead bodies of the heretics
hang from the trees in greater number than the leaves of
the forest."(30)
Benedict XIIL having died, and Clement VIIL having re
signed his claims to tbe pontificate, Martin V. became the
sole possessor of the tiara, in 1429, thus ending the great
Western schism, which had for more than fifty years ena
bled the chief actors to exhibit themselves as " ambitious,
avaricious, vindictive, debauched, and cruel ; solely occupied
with duping men, and changing the holy water into a stream
of gold." This gave to Martin V. more leisure to prosecute
his war of extermination of the Hussites ; and we bave still
further insight into the character of this war, and the policy
(3C) Cormenin, vol. ii., pp. 115, 116.

PERSECUTION IN BOHEMIA. 553
of this infallible pope, by the following letter, addressed by
him to the King of Poland, endeavoring to procure his aid
in bringing back the Bohemians to the true faith :
" Know that the interests of the Holy See, and those Of
your crown, make it a duty to exterminate the Hussites. Re
member that these impious persons dare proclaim principles
of equality; they maintain that all Christians are brethren,
and that God has not given to privileged men the right
of ruling the nations ; they hold that Christ came on earth
to abolish slavery ; they call the people to liberty, that is,
to the annihilation of kings and priests. While there is
still time, then, turn your forces against Bohemia; burn,
massacre, make deserts everywhere, for nothing could be more
agreeable to God, or more useful to the cause of kings, than
the extermination ofthe Hussites."{31)
Martin V. did not live long enough, after issuing this
bloody edict, to witness its desolating effect upon the Bohe
mians. The gallant Hussites, invigorated by the conscious
ness that they were defending an inalienable right which
God had given them, rallied, like true soldiers, to the defense
of their principles and their homes, and cut the papal army
to pieces, driving it back in dismay and disgrace. At their
hands liberty won another triumph over imperialism, and
the cause of free conscience was, under the protecting
providence of God, still preserved. The shock which the
pope sustained when this sad news reached the Vatican was
too great for him. Finding himself thus defied, and with an
army routed and dispirited, he was seized with a fit of apo
plexy, and died, disappointed in his hopes, and despised by
all except those who were united with him in the effort to
keep the people in degradation and perpetuate the reign of
papal and imperial absolutism. But he lived long enough
to show the world that the canon of the Fourth Lateran
Council, which commanded the extermination of heresy by
force, was still the law of the Church, and that from it the
papacy derived the leading and governing principle of its
action. With a view to the enforcement of tbis law, he pro
claimed his infallibility, that he might the more readily
(31) Cormenin, vol. ii., pp. 116, 117.

554 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
grasp sufficient temporal power to unsheath the swords of
princes, and send forth their armies, with torch and fagot,
to murder, to destroy, and to desolate some of the fairest
portions of Europe. What impious blasphemy it is to say
that God was on the side of the fiendish and infernal work
prescribed by this pope for the defenders of papal sover
eignty !
But the healing of the schism to which the pontificate of
Martin V. led did not put an end to the corruptions of popes,
prelates, or priests. God seems to have permitted tbese
to continue during the remainder of the fifteenth century,
and into the sixteenth, in order that the Christian world
might realize how far the papacy had departed from the
teachings and practices of the apostolic age, and be pre
pared for the ushering -in of the Protestant Reformation.
Notwithstanding that torrents of blood were shed, and the
fires of the terrible Inquisition were kindled, and gibbets and
scaffolds were erected wherever the papacy had power, God
did not design that the world should be longer ruled by de
praved popes and priests ; and, therefore, by the consumma
tion of that great event, he marked out for it new roads to
happiness and prosperity, and to Christianity fresh triumphs
in more peaceful fields. And thousands who had before felt
the crushing weight of papal oppression, and groaned under
the burden, enlisted under the banner of religious freedom,
which has been borne onward and upward, through terrible
trials, until at last it floats in front ofthe Vatican at Rome,
despite the curses and anathemas of Pope Pius IX., who,
that it might again be trailed in the dust before him, invites
another crusade, revives the canon of the Lateran Council,
and gnashes his teeth in desperate rage, because there is no
king upon any throne to do his bidding, and because man
kind will not tamely submit to the pressure of his heel upon
their necks. By the proclamation of his sovereignty, his in
fallibility, and his omnipotence, he leaves no room to doubt
that he desires to turn the Christian world back from its
progressive advancement into the terrible condition from
which the Reformation raised it, and by the substitution of
terror, hatred, and intolerance, for love, charity, and tolera
tion, to win again universal supremacy for the papacy. To

CONSEQUENCE OF PAPAL SUPREMACY. 555
do this, he would enslave all peoples who will not obey him,
destroy all governments wherein the people have power, ab
rogate every law iu conflict with papal enactments, restore
the universal reign of kings, and establish a Holy Empire,
with ecclesiastical supremacy, upon the ruins of all popular
government.

556 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.

CHAPTER XVIH
Adrian TV., and the Grant of Ireland to England. — Ireland brought within
Jurisdiction of Rome in the Twelfth Century. — Enlargement of the Papal
Power. • — Secular Power administered by Commission from the Pope. —
Gregory VIL and Innocent III. — The Fourth Lateran Council establish
es the Faith that Institutions prejudicial to the Church should not be ob
served. — Papal Doctrine in Regard to Oaths. — Urban VL, Eugenius IV.,
and Innocent III. — Nature of the Oath exacted by Innocent III. from
King John.— Subjects all Governments to the Pope. — Effect in the United
States. — Constitutional Oath of Allegiance. — Its Obligation. — The Papal
Theory on that Subject. — Oaths opposed to the Welfare ofthe Church not
binding. — Unlawful Oaths not binding. — What are Lawful, and what are
Unlawful. — The Papal Principle applied to the Government ofthe United
States. — The Papal Argument by Balmes. — Resistance to Civil Power
usurped. —When it is usurped. — When Legal, and when Illegal. — Govern
ments de jure and de facto. — Obedience to the Last not Obligatory. — May
be recognized from Prudential Motives. — Government of the United States
is de facto.- — The Monarchies of Europe, when Obedient to the Pope, are
de jure. — The Doctrine of Consummated Facts denied. — Illegitimate Au
thority can not become Legitimate by Time. — Rendering to Caesar the
Things that are Caesar's only requires Obedience to Legitimate Govern
ments. — Legitimate Governments are only such as are based on the Law
of God. — That of the United States is not Legitimate.
The dignity and power acquired by the Roman Church
by means of the exercise of its spiritual jurisdiction, how
ever great, was not sufficient to answer the ends and grati
fy the ambition of the mediaeval popes. The frequent ef
forts ofthe Italian people to establish republican institutions,
which were often attended with the expulsion of the popes
from Rome, were not intended as a denial of that jurisdic
tion, in the proper sense, but as the means of limiting it to
its own ecclesiastical sphere. But the popes were not satis
fied with this. With them republicanism was synonymous
with heresy, which they resolved to uproot with all the
power necessary to that end. They denied, totally, the right
of any people to make the laws or mold the institutions un
der which they were to live. Therefore, when Arnold of

PAPAL JURISDICTION OVER IRELAND. 557
Brescia preached at Rome against their temporal power, and
in favor of a republican form of government, the people were
so incensed against Adrian IV. that they drove him out of
the city. And when he was afterward restored to his see
by the army of Frederick Barbarossa — who delivered Ar
nold to him, in consideration of his coronation as emperor —
he consigned his patriotic victim to death at the stake, and
held the Roman people in subjugation by force. (') Thus,
also, we find this same pope authorizing the like subjuga
tion of Ireland by the English king, and consigning its peace
ful and Christian people to the merciless cruelties of Henry
IL, upon the ground that it was a portion of " the patrimo
ny of St. Peter and the Holy Roman Church ;" and this, too,
notwithstanding the Irish Church had grown up independent
ly of Rome ; had derived its faith from the canons of St. Pat
rick, and not from those of the Roman Church ; had appoint
ed and consecrated its own bishops and priests; had held
its own synods ; and had received the pallium from the pope
only three years before the commencement of Adrian's pon
tificate. (2) The idea that all this enormous and comprehen-
(') " History of Germany," by Menzel, Bohn's ed., vol. i., p. 459 ; "His
tory of Germany," by Lewis, p. 189 ; "Mediaeval Kings," by Busk, vol. i.,
p. 358 ; " Temporal Power of the Papacy," by Legge, p. 49.
(2) The pallium is the universal " symbol of ecclesiastical union and de
pendence," the "insignia of investiture, " by which alone the pope imparts
"a portion of his own primatial authority." — Universal Church History, by
Alzog, p. 693, and note (3) by American translators. Malachy, the Irish
Archbishop of Armagh, solicited the pallium, for the first time, from Inno
cent II. , but he refused it. It was afterward granted by one of his succes
sors, and was carried to Ireland, in 1151, by his legate — so that the union of
the Irish Church with that of Rome was nearly a hundred years after the
conquest of England by the Normans, and nearly seven hundred years after
the death of St. Patrick. The transfer of Ireland to England was the first
jurisdictional act of the pope, after the ecclesiastical investiture which fol
lowed the granting of the pallium ; and it was done under such circumstan
ces as to authorize the conclusion that it arose from a combination between
Henry II. , the pope, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, his primate in En
gland, that the pallium should be granted for the express purpose of bringing
the country under the papal jurisdiction, in order to give — according to the
prevailing belief-— the divine sanction to the subjugation of the Irish people,
and the exaction from them of tithes for the support of the popes and the
maintenance of their royalty. — History of Ireland, by M. F. Cusack, Nun
of Kenmare, pp. 231, 232 ; Norman Conquest, by Thierry, vol. ii., pp. 143,

558 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
sive power was derived from the pretended donation of Con
stantine was fast becoming obsolete, for the reason that if
that were its only foundation, it would be circumscribed with
in too narrow limits. To enlarge rather than curtail it was
what the popes of that age specially sought for. Hence
they maintained the more steadily the idea of their own per
sonal infallibility, in order by means of it to ingraft upon the
faith of the Church the doctrine that their temporal power
was derived from Christ through Peter; and therefore, hav
ing that origin, was not confined to the Papal States, but ex
tended to the entire world, and subjected all nations and peo
ples to their dominion, within the domain of morals no less
than that of faith. This domain was considered as almost
without limitation, or, at all events, as broad enough to in
clude, not only the entire conduct of individuals in their pub
lic and private intercourse, but all such secular action of na
tions as involved questions of public or private morality.
Thus, monarchs were to hold their crowns and exercise their
royalty at the will of the reigning pope ; nations were to ex
ecute only such laws as he considered in conformity to the
divine law, and to abrogate those which were not so; and
he was to intervene between them and their citizens at his
own discretion, and release them from their allegiance, and
turn over their territorial possessions to the dominion of
those who would obey his commands and execute his will.
" Secular power was only to be tolerated, as secular princes
avowedly exercised it, by commission from the pope."(3)
This doctrine had continued to grow and strengthen from
the time when Gregory VIL, the great Hildebrand, had
excommunicated and deposed Henry IV., Emperor of Ger
many, and released all his subjects from their allegiance to
him. Each of the succeeding pontiffs of the eleventh and
twelfth centuries had avowed it whenever they could safe
ly venture to do so. But it remained for Innocent' III., one
189 ; History of England, by Hume, Harper & Brother's ed., vol. i., p. 329 ;
History of England, by Rapin, vol. iii., pp. 50-54; Latin Christianity, by
Milman, vol. iv., p. 264 ; Eccl. Hist., by Jones, London ed., vol. ii., pp. 70,
71, citing M. Paris's history, p. 67; History of England, by Lingard, vol. ii.,
pp. 89, 90.
O, Legge, p. 50.

CLAIM OF UNIVERSAL SOVEREIGNTY. 559
ofthe leading and ruling spirits ofthe age, to make it a part
of religious faith, by ingrafting it, by virtue of his infalli
bility, upon the dogmas of the Churoh. His towering and
unsatisfied ambition stimulated him to use it as the means
of making himself " the general arbiter of differences and
conservator of the peace throughout Christendom." (4) His
proud spirit chafed at the thought that any earthly po
tentate should equal him either in greatness or authority.
Therefore he required that " all disputes between princes "
should be referred to him ; and if either party should refuse
"to obey the sentence of Rome, he was to be excommuni
cated and deposed," and a like penaltjr was to be visited
upon those who refused to attack whatsoever " refractory
delinquent " he should point out. (6) Forfeitures, interdicts,
excommunications, and every other form of ecclesiastical
censure and punishment, were of almost daily occurrence.
Even such monarchs as Philip Augustus and Henry IV.
quailed before him, and Peter II. of Arragon and John of
England — as we have seen — ignominiously consented to
convert their kingdoms into spiritual fiefs, and to hold them
in subordination to him, upon the condition of paying an
annual tribute. By virtue of the claim of infallibility, the
power of arbitrary papal dispensation was carried to its ex-
tremest limit, even to the assertion and exercise of the right
to infringe the canons of the Church. " Innocent III. laid
down as a maxim, that out of the plenitude of his power he
might lawfully dispense with the law;"(") and caused the
Fourth General Lateran Council to insert among its canons
one which provided " that the constitutions of princes which
are prejudicial to the rights of the Church shall not be ob
served ;"(') — thus establishing this as a fixed principle of the
canon law, and, consequently, as a part of the religious faith
(4) "Middle Ages," by Hallam, Harper & Brothers' ed., ch. vii., p. 287.
O Ibid. C) Ibid., p. 293.
(') "Eccl. Hist.," by Du Pin, vol. xi., p. 100. This is the same council
referred to in a former chapter, by one of the canons of which it was pro
vided that heretics should be extirpated, and that whenever, upon proper no
tice, any prince should fail or refuse to do so, his dominions should be for
feited to the pope, who should turn them over to some one who would per
form that duty. — See Du Pin, vol. xi., p. 96.

560 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
of the Church. It did not take long to carry this doctrine
of dispensation to the extent of applying it to the observance
of oaths, and to find in the Decretals this provision : " That
an oath disadvantageous to the Church is not binding ; and
that one extorted by force was of slight obligation, and
might be annulled by ecclesiastical authority."(e)
Instances are numerous to show the effect of these teach
ings upon the lives and conduct of the popes, and Mr. Hal
lam gives two memorable ones by way of illustration — that
of Urban VL, who promulgated a solemn and general dec
laration against keeping faith with heretics; and that of
Eugenius IV, who, acting upon this principle, annulled com
pacts with the Hussites by releasing those who had sworn
to them, and made the King of Hungary break his treaty
with Amurath IL, absolving him from his promise " on the
express ground that a treaty disadvantageous to the Church
ought not to be kept."(9)
These instances are dwarfed before the more flagrant ex
ercise of the same power by Innocent III. in the advance
ment of his schemes of temporal policy. At the very begin
ning of his pontificate he required the Roman prefect to take

(*) " Juramentum contra utilitatem ecclesiam praestitum non tenet." Hal
lam, p. 293 and note ; "Church History," p. 201, by Fry, London. It ha§
undoubtedly become the settled law of the Roman Church that the pope
may dispense with any promissory oath by withdrawing the promise or pro
hibiting its performance. The doctrine is thus laid down by an author great
ly distinguished in the Church for his learning. In answering the objection
that the obligation of an oath is of natural and divine right, and therefore that
it can not cease to be binding through dispensation, commutation, or veto,
he says : The consequence is denied, because through dispensation, etc., it is
brought about, that that which was included under the oath, by withdrawing,
prohibiting, etc., is not included under the oath, and so there is nothing done
contrary to the oath. ("Neg. cons, quia per dispensationem, etc., efficitur,
' ut id, quod sub juramento cadebat, sub juramento non cadat subtrahendo,
prohibendo, etc., et ita non fit aliquid contra juramentum.' — S. Th. 2, 2, q.
89, a. 9, ad. 1.") — Theologia Moralis et Dogmatica, by Peter Dens, Dublin
ed., 1832, vol. iv., No. 177, p. 216. The same author goes one step farther,
and says : "And then in every oath there is this condition : ' the right of the
superior is reserved.'" (" Deinde omni juramento inest haec conditio : ' salvo
jure superioris.' ") — Rid.
(') Hallam, p. 293 (note), citing Sismondi, t. ix., p. 196, and Rymer, t.
vii., p. 352.

DISPENSING OATHS. 561
the oath of allegiance to himself, when it was his duty to
take it to the emperor, from the obligation of which duty
he. released him. He asserted the right to punish offenses
against the civil law, and " to interpose with his judgment
and annul the decisions of the civil tribunal." He reminded
the inhabitants of the Tuscan States, who owed allegiance
to the emperor, " that there were two great lights in the so
cial heaven, having their seat in Italy, the lesser of which,
the imperial authority, received its light from the greater,
the Papal See." He fulminated against Otho, Emperor of
Germany, a bull of excommunication ; released his subjects
from their allegiance to him, and stirred up a rebellion
against him and in favor of Frederick, the youthful son of
Henry VI. As we have seen at another place, he released
King John from the oath he had taken before the barons at
Runnymede, to observe and enforce the salutary provisions
of Magna Charta; and, concentrating, as it were, all his
enormous claim of power in a single expressive thought, he
proudly announced the maxim, that " the pope, in virtue of the
plenitude of his power, might dispense even with rights."(10)
The very nature of the oath exacted by Innocent ILL of
King John shows the inordinate ambition of the one and
the pusillanimity ofthe other. Lingard says, " He swore that
he would be faithful to God, to the blessed Peter, to the
Romau Church, to Pope Innocent, and to Innocent's rightful
successors.'^11) This oath was extorted by the papal inter
dict, which closed all the churches in England and left the
dead to go unburied, and by the terrible thunder of excom
munication. It placed the English king at the feet of the
pope, and the entire destiny of the English people in his
hands, to be disposed of, not as their wants and interests de
manded, but as the wants and interests of the papacy and
the welfare of the Roman Church required. What wonder,
then, that, at the very beginning of the Reformation in En
gland, an earnest protest was made against this absorption
by the pope of all the civil power of the Government, and
this plotting to destroy the last vestige of popular authority.
This protest might have been heard in the mutterings of dis-
(I0) Legge, pp. 53-56. (") Lingard, vol. ii., p. 165.
36

562 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
content among the body of the people ; but it was unavail
ing, except as the measures already narrated grew gradual
ly out of it. Wycliffe, a hundred years after the papal con
quest of England, and two hundred years before Luther,
maintained, in the face of all the powerful and persecuting
prelates in the kingdom, that the nation had forfeited her
dearest rights by so long consenting that the crown should
be held as a fief of the See of Rome ; and that the king could
properly and rightfully administer the government, even
though, at the same time, he refused any tribute to the Pope
of Rome. Pointing out the life and example of Christ, who
was "unwilling to become a ruler in civil matters," and did
not teach his disciples to seek after civil dominion — he de
clared, " Therefore it behooves us to require that the pope
should be observant of his religious obligations after this
pattern. It is clear," said he, " that we are bound to resist
him in the exaction of a condition which caii not be proper
to him, as being purely civil."(12)
Wherein does the difference consist between the claim of
papal power and prerogatives in the time of Wycliffe and
the present ? The infallibility of the pope means now just
what it did then, with whatsoever has been done and said
by all the popes and in all the centuries since superadded,
as the means of overcoming the increased power of resistance
among the people of the advancing and progressive nations.
The doctrine runs back to the remotest times so as to include
every assertion of pontifical power made by any ofthe popes
from the beginning, and concentrates it all in the present.
If any single pope, by virtue ofthe primacy of St. Peter,"
struck nations out of existence, dethroned monarchs, released
subjects from their oaths of allegiance, appointed rulers for
the people without their consent, extirpated heretics by fire
and sword, dispensed the obligation of the most solemn
oaths on the part of others, and violated their own, then
may the present or any future pope do any or all of these
things infallibly, whensoever it shall seem to him that the
interests of the Roman Church require it. There is no
word in any language more comprehensive than the word
(12) " Day of Rest," London, vol iii., part v., p. 238.

AMERICAN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. 563
infallibility. It embraces every thing in the past, the pres
ent, and the future. Even while its earthly possessor re
mains in the world, it elevates him above the world, and
makes him a copartner with God in the exercise of divine
power. Keeping these things in mind, we shall be the better en
abled to apply the doctrines of the papacy to the condition
of things in our own country, and to understand what the
present pope expects and requires of those citizens who rec
ognize him as a "domestic prince" within the territorial
limits of the United States. We have nothing to do, now,
with the question how far and how many of these citizens
will render obedience to any demands he shall make : it is
but just to assume that multitudes of them will not, when
they may be pressed to the extremity of impairing any of
the fundamental principles ofthe Government. But we bave
directly and immediately to do with the papal doctrines he
is now so assiduously laboring to re-establish, so that we may
fully comprehend them, in all their length and breadth, and
understand wherein, if successfully established, they will as
sail the integrity of our institutions.
The people of the United States, appreciating the advan
tages and distinctive features of their Government, have wise
ly and unselfishly provided a mode by which those born in
other countries may enjoy, to a like extent with themselves,
all these advantages. They have provided by their natural
ization laws that an alien may become a citizen; and, in re
turn for this valuable privilege, have required of him only
that he shall take an oath of allegiance to the Government,
whereby he shall swear that he " doth absolutely and entire
ly renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every
foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever."
Such an invitation to citizenship in a free government, ex
tended to those who have felt the burden and pressure of
absolutism, commends itself to the admiration of mankind.
It stamped our Government, from the beginning, with a de
gree of liberality hitherto unknown among the nations.
That oaths of allegiance are sometimes taken by those
who regard them as mere form, and as having no binding
obligation upon their consciences, is unquestionably true.

564 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
There are very few who have not realized the truth of this,
in their own experience and observation. But it is equally
true that a large majority of those who become naturalized
citizens of the United States become so with a full and prop
er appreciation of the binding nature of the allegiance they
assume, and with the determination to discharge, faithfully
and honestly, all the obligations which attach to their new
relations. Innumerable considerations combine thus to in
fluence them, apart from the mere integrity of personal mo
tive and conduct. Chief among these is the fact that, by
coming here, they have sought to escape the consequences
of monarchical rule, and to better their condition by enjoy
ing the protection of civil institutions which recognize the
people, and not a monarch, as the authors of the law ; and
where they, by also becoming law-makers, may increase the
sense of their own personal dignity and importance in soci
ety, and thus elevate themselves and their posterity. It is
altogether natural that, after obtaining privileges of so much
personal and social importance, they should be unwilling to
forfeit or lose them by any act of their own. But, while
this is readily and cheerfully conceded to the bulk of our
naturalized citizens, the fact can not and should not be dis
guised that there are some among them whose minds are
impressed, or liable to be impressed, with the belief that, al
though they have improved their condition by coming to
this country, it may be yet further improved by the estab
lishment of an independent ecclesiastical hierarchy, with au
thority to subordinate the Government to such laws and
regulations as they, under the direction and dictation ofthe
pope, shall consider necessary to bring the people under
subjection to the Roman Catholic Church. Their liability
to this impression is the result of their education, which is
called religious, because it is received alone from priests,
acting as officers of their Church. One of the first princi
ples taught them is the belief that as .the laws of God are
higher than the laws of man, and the eternal welfare of their
souls of more importance than all secular and temporal
things, therefore the State must obey the Church, and not
be permitted to enact or enforce any law which the Roman
Catholic Church, or the pope, as its infallible head, shall con-

OBEDIENCE TO THE POPE. 565
sider inconsistent with the divine law, the faith ofthe Church,
or good morals.
Under the influence of this teaching, it is difficult for them
to realize the wisdom and virtues exhibited by our fathers
in resorting to revolution to throw off the authority of the
British crown, and substituting for it the authority of the
people. They have a sort of undefined idea that the peo
ple should be permitted to make the laws by which they are
to be governed ; and this idea, which arises naturally in all
minds, might be developed into positive belief in theirs, and
probably would be, if it were not that the faith and teach
ings of their Church, as interpreted and explained to them
by their priests, forbid it. For fear that they may be influ
enced by it, they are held under the strictest surveillance
by these priests, who employ every opportunity to remind
them that they owe higher allegiance and duty to the
Church than to the State, and must obey the pope at every
and any cost, even though, by doing so, all human govern
ments and laws should be destroyed. They are required to
believe that this obedience to the pope is obedience to God,
because God has placed the pope above all human govern
ments and laws, with power, as his only infallible represent
ative on earth, to require and command obedience to all his
decrees upon matters of faith and morals. And the utmost
precaution is observed by the papal hierarchy to exclude
such impressions as would naturally arise in their minds
from the contemplation and enjoyment of our liberal institu
tions, and especially from their participation in the manage
ment of public affairs. In this their vigilance is extreme,
and exhibits itself most strikingly in prohibiting them from
permitting their children to mingle with ours in our com
mon schools,, because they are provided by the State; and
because, in order that they may comprehend and understand
the structure of the Government, the pupils are taught that
the people are the primary source of all our laws, and not
the pope or the Church, and that every citizen of the United
States is bound to pay obedience to them ; the pope, the
Church, and all the kings and princes of the earth, to the
contrary notwithstanding.
Few things are so wonderful as the readiness with which

566 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
many of the Roman Catholic part of our population, especial
ly among those who are naturalized, accept these teachings
and act upon them ; while, at the same time, they are unwill
ing to admit, or are too ignorant to realize, their inevitable
tendency — which is, that they are training and educating
their children in the belief that our Government is altogeth
er wrong in separating Church and State ; that our fathers
were wrong in resorting to revolution to get rid of mon
archy; that it is wrong for the people to make their own
laws; and that the only form of government upon which
the blessing of God can rest is that wherein the Church shall
govern the State, and the pope the Church. They fail to see
that, by these means, they are aiding in the erection of a
" State within the State," whose authority will be sufficient,
if its exercise be permitted, to regulate the Government
and society by its laws, and to compel obedience to them
by force, whenever it shall become necessary to resort to it.
They fail also to see that this state of things can not exist
so long as our form of government shall stand, and that
those who require them to aid in producing it would not
hesitate to sacrifice the Government itself if by that means
they could establish their hierarchical system. And, since
such is the position in which many of our Roman Catholic
population stand, it is in every possible sense important that
the country should realize to what point their present sub
serviency to the papal hierarchy may by possibility lead
them, unless something be done to counteract its influence.
In order to do this intelligently, it is necessary to understand
how far their oath of allegiance is considered by the Roman
Catholic hierarchy as standing in the way of their complete
obedience and submission to the pope, whenever he shall
consider that the interest ofthe Church requires any change
in our plan of government, or disobedience to any of our
laws. The obligation of an oath is understood to arise out ofthe
law authorizing it. Although it binds the conscience, in a
moral sense, in whatever form it may be taken, yet if not
taken pursuant to law its violation does not amount to per
jury. An invalid law is universally held as no law at all,
altbough it may possess the ordinary forms. Hence, if an

THE NATURE OF AN OATH. 567
oath is required by a law which is null and void, on account
of its violation of constitutional or fundamental principles,
no legal consequences attach to its violation — the violator
being left to settle the matter with his own conscience.
Hence, also, if our naturalization laws require allegiance to
institutions which oppose the fundamental principles of
Christianity as maintained by the papacy, and are therefore,
in the opinion ofthe pope, invalid, the papal hierarchy readi
ly infer that the violation of this allegiance would involve
no crime whatever, but, on the contrary, would arise out of
the obligation of duty to God and the Church. Aud hence,
again, if this violation be merely a matter of conscience, and
the pope possesses the power — as standing in the place of
God — to dispense with all merely conscientious obligations,
then a dispensation from him would place all Roman Catho
lic violators of the oath of allegiance right before God and
the Church. To comprehend properly tbe results which
might ensue from this mode of reasoning, it is necessary to
inquire into the doctrines and teachings of the Roman Catho
lic Church in relation to oaths — their nature and obligation.
The reader will remember the reference heretofore to a
controversy carried on, some years ago, between the Right
Rev. John England, Roman Catholic Bishop of Charleston,
South Carolina, and the Rev. Richard Fuller, a Baptist min
ister of Beaufort, in the same State. (13) Being afterward
published in book form, under the auspices of Bishop En
gland, it is proper to assume that what he has there said
is a just and fair exposition of the doctrines of his Church.
(13) Ante. This book, entitled " Concerning the Roman Chancery," etc.,
was published in 1840, by Fielding Lucas, Jun., of Baltimore, and by John P.
Beale, Charleston.
A book was published as late as 1874, at Rome, with the special indorse
ment of Beckk, the General of the Jesuits, and with the approbation of the
Propaganda Fide, and therefore of the pope, wherein tbe obligation of a
promissory oath is thus stated: "Nunquam obligatur juramento, qui rem
malam juravit ; imo dupliciter peccat, si juramentum adimpleat, nempe contra
religionem, et virtutem, cui opponitur materia juramenti. — /S. Lig., n. 176."
Translation : One is never bound by an oath who has sworn to do an evil
thing, for he sins doubly if he shall perform his oath against religion and
virtue, to which the substance of the oath is opposed. — Theologia Mora-
lis, P. Joannis Petri Gury, S. J., Rome ed., vol. i., p. 310.

568 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Among other accusations made against this Church by Mr.
Fuller, this was a prominent one, which could not fail to ar
rest public attention and excite inquiry : that the Third Lat
eran Council, held in 1179, made not only falsehood, but^er-
jury, a virtue when practiced in behalf of the Church. So
grave a charge as this greatly excited Bishop England, and
drove him, after some ingenious equivocation, to an expla
nation of the doctrines which had been established by his
Church. He endeavored at first to parry, with true hie
rarchical adroitness, the home-thrusts of Mr. Fuller; but the
latter was too able and learned a disputant to allow this,
and the bishop was at last driven to a degree of particulari
ty which, in all probability, he did not contemplate at the
beginning of the controversy. His language should com
mand the most serious attention. He said :
"Among Catholics, sir, perjury is the violation of a lawful
oath, or the taking of an unlawful one. Thus, if we swear
to declare the truth, and do not declare it, it would be per
jury; and should a man attempt to bind me by the form of
an oath to declare a falsehood, I would be guilty of perjury,
in going through the form to tell a lie, but I am obliged to
go against the words by which I appeared to be bound, be
cause it is no oath, but a perjury. An oath can not be a
bond of iniquity. A conspirator who has sworn with his fel
lows to commit robbery or murder is not bound by his oath.
In fact, it is no oath ; to be an oath it must have three qual
ities, viz., truth, judgment, and justice: the defect of either
renders it no oath."{")
Here the distinctive principle is announced that an unlaw
ful oath can not be taken without perjury ; but if taken, he
who takes it must go against it, because it is no oath in the
opinion of the Roman Catholic Church. With this as his
postulate, Bishop England proceeds to explain what the di
rect action of this Church has been upon this important sub
ject. He quotes Canon XVI. of the Third Lateran Council,
which he calls " the legislature of the Church," wherein this
sentence is found :
" For they are not to be called oaths, but rather perjuries,
(14) "Letters Concerning the Roman Chancery," p. 157.

CHURCH MUST PREVAIL OVER STATE. 569
which are in opposition to the welfare ofthe Church and the
enactments ofthe holy fathers." '(")
Then, addressing himself directly to Mr. Fuller, the bishop
defends these principles as follows :
"I need not inform you that the first obligation of every
citizen is tbe law of God ; the second is the constitution of
his State ; and as no form of oath could bind him to the vio
lation of the divine law, so, except the constitution of his State
should conflict with the divine law, no form of oath could
bind him to violate that constitution ; and should there be
such a conflict, he is bound to the State in every other point
save that in which the conflict exists : and his exemption in
this instance arises from that sound maxim of legal interpre
tation that where two laws are in irreconcilable conflict,
that of the first or highest authority must prevail. These are
the principles which I have been taught from Roman Cath
olic authors, by Roman Catholic professors ; they are the
principles which I find recognized in all enactments and in
terpretations of councils in the Roman Catholic Church, from
the council at Jerusalem, held by the apostles, down to the
present day."(18)
To make the matter so clear that no room for misappre
hension should exist, he quotes from chapter xix. of the Ro
man Catholic catechism the following questions and an
swers :
"Q. What else is commanded by the second command
ment? "A. To keep our lawful oaths and vows.
" Q. What is forbidden by this commandment ?
"A. All false, rash, unjust, and unnecessary oaths ; also
cursing, swearing, blaspheming, and profane words (Matt, v.,
34; James v., 12).
" Q. Is it ever lawful to swear ?
"A. It is : when God's honor, our own or our neighbor's
good, or necessary defense, requires it.

( ) " Non enim dicenda sunt juramenta, sed potius perjuria, quae contra
ntilitatem ecclesiasticam et sanctorum patrum veniunt instituta." — Ibid., p.
158. (le) "Letters Concerning the Roman Chancery," pp. 162, 163.

570 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
" Q. What do you mean by an unjust oath ?
"A. An oath injurious to God, to ourselves, or to our neigh
bor. " Q. Is a person obliged to keep an unjust oath ?
"A. No; he sinned in taking it, and would sin also in
keeping it.
" Q. Is a person obliged to keep a lawful oath ?
"A. Yes ; and it would be perjury to break it.
" Q- What is perjury ?
"A. The breaking of a lawful oath, or the taking of an un
lawful one.
" Q. Is perjury a great crime ?
"A. It is a most grievous one."(")
And then, summing up his argument and putting the doc
trine in the most compact form, he says :
"My argument, sir, would have been more fairly put in
this way : Man's first duty is to observe the divine law ;
but the divine law requires that an oath shall bind when it
is taken in truth, in judgment, and in justice, and that it shall
not bind when either of these conditions is wanted. The di
vine law is paramount to every other luw, constitution, tribu
nal, or authority. Therefore, no law, constitution, tribunal,
or authority can allow a man to swear falsely, to swear in
support of injustice, or to swear rashly, or injudiciously, or
profanely. No tribunal, civil or ecclesiastical, can do what
God himself could not do! — he can not do what is incompat
ible with his divine attributes : the sanctioning of perjury
would be incompatible therewith, and therefore no tribunal
could sanction it."(18)
The language here employed by this distinguished prelate
has the merit of simplicity and frankness, and it requires no
critical analysis to understand its meaning. It lays down
the following propositions as settled and established by the
Roman Catholic Church :
1. An unlawful oath can not be taken without perjury.
(") "Letters Concerning tbe Roman Chancery," pp. 190, 191.
(18) Ibid., pp. 194, 195. This argument is found, as set forth in the text,
in all Roman Catholic publications on the subject ; but the manner in which
Bishop England makes it is preferred on account of the authority which his
name and office cany with them.

WHEN AN OATH IS NOT BINDING. 571
2. He who takes an unlawful oath is not obliged to ob
serve it, but should go against it.
3. An oath can not be a bond of iniquity ; that is, in oppo
sition to the divine law.
4. To be a binding oath it must have the three qualities
of truth, judgment, and justice; the absence of either ren
ders it no oath.
5. They are not oaths, but perjuries, which are in opposi
tion to the welfare of the Church, and the enactments of the
holy fathers.
6. The first obligation of every citizen is the law of God ;
the second is the Constitution of his State.
7. The obligation of a citizen to the constitution of his
State is only binding when it does not conflict with the di
vine law.
8. The obligation of a citizen to the constitution of his
state is not binding when it does conflict with the divine
law. 9. The divine law is of higher authority than the law of
the State, and must always prevail when they come in con
flict. 10. A person is not obliged to keep an unjust oath; he
sinned in taking it, and would sin also in keeping it.
11. An oath is not binding when it lacks the element of
either justice, judgment, or truth.
12. No law, constitution, tribunal, or authority can bind a
man to act unjustly ; God can not even do it.
From this recapitulation it will be seen that in order to
determine upon the binding obligation of an oath, it is nec
essary, in any given case, to understand its character. If it
is unlawful, it is not binding. To this, as an abstract propo
sition, there may be no special objection ; but the difficulty
lies in agreeing upon what is lawful and what unlawful. Let
us give the doctrine a practical application as it is under
stood by those whose minds are trained in papal polemics.
Having separated the Church from the State, and made
the latter entirely independent of the former, we have pro
vided in our National Constitution that it and all the laws
passed pursuant to it are " the supreme law of the land,"
binding alike upon all citizens. In order, therefore, to de-

572 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
cide whether the oath of naturalization is or is not lawful,
we look to the Constitution and the powers it confers upon
Congress as the legislative department of the Government.
By that instrument it is provided that Congress shall have
power " to establish a uniform rule of naturalization " — thus
leaving, in the legal or common mind, no sort of doubt about
the legality of the oath of naturalization under our laws.
Hence, in view of our Constitution and laws, such an oath is
both lawful and of binding obligation. But, according to
Bishop England, the Roman Catholic Church does not rea
son in this way. It goes behind the Constitution in order to
inquire whether it violates the divine law or not ; whether
it is just or unjust ; whether or not it is in opposition to the
welfare of the Church and the enactments of the holy fa
thers ; whether it is consistent, or inconsistent, with truth ;
and if it finds the Constitution lacking in any of these essen
tial elements, whatever oath it shall authorize, looking to
any of these ends, or in any way bearing upon them, is un
lawful, and not binding. Recognizing no other form of gov
ernment as consistent with the divine law, except that which
keeps the State and the Church united, it, of course, meas
ures all laws by the standard of the divine law, and regards
as invalid and not binding all such as do not come up to that
standard. It receives the divine law from itself — that is,
from the pope as God's only infallible representative upon
earth ; and whatsoever constitution or law shall be found op
posed to its welfare is unlawful, and must not be obeyed. It
searches the enactments of the holy fathers for precedents
by which to decide upon the character of all existing insti
tutions; and whatsoever they shall not sanction and approve
must fall before its supreme authority. Let us apply these
principles and rules more particularly to the subject in hand
— our naturalization laws.
The oath of allegiance implies, necessarily, the obligation
to support the Government and maintain its principles. In
direct and express terms, it requires the support of the Con
stitution as the fundamental law ; and the oath, in this form,
is taken by every naturalized citizen. How does the Ro
man Catholic Church, with the pope as its expounder of the
divine law, look at this oath ? Taking up the Constitution,

PAPAL PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT. 573
it finds the following principles of government distinctly
and emphatically set forth : the separation of Church and
State, and the Church subordinated to the State, and re
quired to obey its laws ; the people made the source of all
laws and of all political authority ; the prohibition of any
law respecting an establishment of religion, or interfering
with the free exercise thereof; and the freedom of speech
and of the press fully secured. How does it regard these
provisions? In every form in which it can authoritatively
speak, and especially through the mouths of a multitude of
its most illustrious popes, it has declared that the divine
law requires the Church and the State to be united, and the
State to be subordinated to the Church, being required to
obey its commands as the only mode of obeying God; that
the people are incapable of self-government, and that it
must declare what laws they shall, and what they shall not,
obey; that the law of God commands "an establishment of
religion," with the pope at its head, with sufficient power
and authority to govern the world ; that Christ established
the Roman Catholic Church, and founded it upon the apos
tle Peter, making all other forms of religious belief heretical
and sinful ; and, therefore, that the " free exercise " of relig
ious belief is violative of the divine law ; and that the free
dom of speech and of the press are "in opposition to the
welfare of the Church," and tend to irreligion and infidelity,
by giving license to free discussion, by inviting the exercise
of individual reason and judgment in the formation of re
ligious faith, and by stimulating the people to revolution,
which is against the law of God, because violative of the
" divine right of kings " to govern mankind. Looking upon
the foregoing provisions of the Constitution of the United
States in the light of these authoritative teachings, the Ro
man Catholic Church must, of necessity, regard each one of
them as opposed to the divine law, the welfare ofthe Church,
and the teachings of the holy fathers : such is the logical re
sult of its mode of reasoning. Hence, the Constitution of
the United States, in so far as these principles are involved,
is not binding upon the conscience of any who adhere to
those doctrines of that Church which are dictated by the
papacy. Hence, also, an oath to support these principles of

574 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
the Constitution is perjury, and no oath at all, because it
enjoins disobedience to the divine law. Hence, again, our
naturalization oath is not binding upon the supporter of
papal infallibility, because it obliges bim to support princi
ples which are opposed to the teachings ofthe pope and the
Church, and which he is commanded to resist as the only
mode of securing the favor of God. And, still further, it is
the inevitable consequence of these papal doctrines — as an
nounced by Bishop England, and involved in the recent dog
ma of papal infallibility — that not only these principles of
our Constitution, but all other constitutions and laws which
the pope shall declare to be in opposition to the law of God,
" the welfare of the Church, and the enactments of the holy
fathers," must be resisted by all who hope for the approba
tion ofthe Church, arid expect salvation in the world to come ;
thus making all human institutions dependent upon the will
of a single man — upon whomsoever shall, for the time being,
be the " King of Rome !"
It is altogether probable that Bishop England did not
foresee the ultimate tendency of the doctrine he defended
with so much learning and ability ; for at the time of his
controversy with Mr. Fuller, the doctrine of papal infallibil
ity was not recognized as a part of the faith ofthe Roman
Catholic Church, and its hierarchy in the United States had
not become sufficiently bold to avow their support of it, or
openly to assume, as they now do, a defense of the princi
ples and enormities of the Jesuits or ultramontanes of Eu
rope. They were " biding their time " — waiting for the ac
cumulation of such strength as would afford some promise
of ultimate victory, and therefore spoke upon all the delicate
subjects touching the papal power and prerogatives with
suppressed voice and " bated breath."
But there were observant eyes in Europe constantly
watching the progress of events in the United States ; for
it has become almost a proverb that Jesuitism never sleeps.
Those who possessed a vision keen enough to see that the
American hierarchy were well versed in the law of obedi
ence, served a valuable purpose to the pope by influencing
him to advance his claims and pretensions, so as to educate
the whole Roman Catholic world up to the position it now

PREPARATION FOR PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 575
occupies. Books setting forth these claims and pretensions,
some covertly, others openly, multiplied in every direction.
Among the authors of these none won more distinction than
the Rev. J. Balmez, a Roman Catholic priest of Spain, who
was the author of a work which exhibits great power, learn
ing, aud erudition, by which he designed to show that the
world is far more indebted to " Catholicity," as he calls it,
than to Protestantism for its present advanced civilization.
This work, originally in Spanish, was soon translated into
French, and then into English, so that a large circulation
should be secured for it. It was published in the United
States by the Roman Catholic publishing houses, and was
commended in the highest terms by the authorities of the
Church. In the preface to the American edition the author
is spoken of as one who " has supplied the age with a work
which is peculiarly adapted to its wants, and which must
command a general attention in the United States." The
Roman Catholic is especially referred to it as furnishing rea
sons why he should " admire still more the glorious charac
ter of the faith which he professes ;" and the Protestant is
kindly informed that it "will open his eyes to the incompat
ibility of his principles with the happiness of mankind."(19)
This book was written in order to counteract the "perni
cious influence exerted among his countrymen by Guizot's
lectures on European civilization."(2°) But there were spe
cial objects designed to be accomplished by it, which were
very distinctly aud emphatically avowed. It is said, for ex-
('") "Protestantism and Catholicity compared in their Effects on the Civ
ilization of Europe," by Balmes, p. v. of Preface to the American edition.
Published by John Murphy & Co., Baltimore, and by George Quigley, Pitts
burgh, 1851. It is worthy of note that Archbishop Bayley, of Baltimore,
who has deemed an effort to break the force of Mr. Gladstone's late pam
phlet necessary in this country, as Archbishop Manning did in England, has
referred to this author as uttering authoritatively the true doctrines of the
Church. In his letter of November 17th, 1874 — published in most of the
leading papers — he says: "When I find time I will write to you more at
length, and recommend to you certain works to read which will show you
more fully how little our theologians or political writers, like De Maistre, or
De Bonald, or Balmez, have entertained any of the nonsense which Mr. Glad
stone falsely attributes to us."
(20) Ibid., p. ix.

576 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ample, that the pope " is the best guide of men in the path
of liberty and progress," and that the present pontiff, Pius
IX., " shows a profound knowledge of the evils which afflict
society."(21) It was manifestly intended to aid in laying the
groundwork upon which the structure of papal infallibility
was to be erected.
In a work so highly commended as this is to American
readers, one would scarcely expect to find a labored effort
to prove that the oath of allegiance to our Government,
taken by a Roman Catholic, amounts to nothing, and has no
binding obligation, when the welfare of the Roman Catholic
Church requires it to be disregarded. But those who pre
pared it for publication here understood perfectly well the
character of the persons into whose hands it would mostly
fall, and that their minds were easily impressed by any
thing, however extravagant or preposterous, put forth au
thoritatively in behalf of their Church. And they did not
miscalculate, as we may infer from the fact that in the
United States the dogma of infallibility has been accepted
with greater unanimity and more readily than in any other
country in the world — a fact which renders an exposition
of the teachings of this book, and others like it, not only in
teresting and instructive, but of more than ordinary impor
tance, as well as significance.
This author has a chapter upon "Resistance to the Civil
Power," in which, after the necessary preliminary discussion,
he begs his readers to " bear in mind the general principles
at all times inculcated by Catholicity, viz., the obligation of
obeying legitimate authority."(22) In order to make the de
sired application of this principle, and to explain what he
means by legitimate authority, he puts and answers a most
pertinent question, as follows: "In the first place, Are we to
obey the civil power when it commands something that is evil
in itself? No, we are not; for the simple reason that what
is evil in itself is forbidden by God : now, we must obey God
rather than man."(23)

(21) "Protestantism and Catholicity compared in their Effects on the Civ
ilization of Europe," by Balmes, p. xi.
(?) Ibid., ch. liv. , p. 325. (») Rid., p. 326.

LIMITATION OF STATE AUTHORITY. 577
He does not stop here to explain what is and what is not
evil, but proceeds as follows : " In the second place, Are we
to obey the civil power when it interferes in matters not in
cluded in the circle of its faculties ? No; for with regard to
these matters it is not a power."(24)
In order that there may be no misapprehension of his
meaning, he then points out the distinction between the
temporal and the spiritual power, and insists upon the inde
pendence of the latter witb respect to the former. In his
view, the Church must be left by the State perfectly free to
act for itself, in all matters within the spiritual jurisdiction.
It must in no sense be subject to the laws of the State, be
cause that would impair its freedom. And whenever the
State undertakes to subject the Church to its laws, it passes
beyond "the circle of its faculties." He then continues:
"Ever since the foundation ofthe Church, this principle of
the independence of the spiritual power has at all times
served, by the mere fact of its existence, to remind men that
the rights of the civil power are limited; that there are
things beyond its province — cases in which a man may say,
and ought to say, I will not o5ey."(25)
Satisfied with his argument to maintain and enforce these
propositions — and it undoubtedly displays great ingenuity
and ability — he reverts to his original question, and repeats
what he had already said, but in more expressive terms,
thus: "It remains, then, established that we are to be sub
ject to the civil power so long as it does not go beyond its
proper limits ; but that the Catholic doctrine never enjoins
obedience when the civil power oversteps the limits of its
faculties."(26) He adopts the general and commonly accepted definition
of unjust laws, such as are against the common welfare, pub
lic policy, etc., in regard to which nobody would enter into
controversy with him. But he goes beyond this, and finds
other laws equally unjust, because of their opposition to the
divine law. He says: "Laws may also be unjust in another

(24) "Protestantism and Catholicity compared in their Effects on the Civ
ilization of Europe," by Balmes, ch. liv., p. 326.
C)Rid. C") Rid., p. 328.
37

578 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
point of view, when they are contrary to the will of God ;
as the laws of tyrants enforcing idolatry, or any thing else
contrary to the divine law. With respect to such laws, it is
not allowable under any circumstances to obey them ; for,
as it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, 'We must obey God
rather than man.'"(2')
Having thus established his premises, he lays down, as the
logical result of the doctrines maintained by the Roman
Catholic Church, these rules: "1. We can not, under any
circumstances, obey the civil power when its commands are
opposed to the divine law. 2. When laws are unjust, they
are not binding in conscience. 3. It may become necessary
to obey these laws from motives of prudence, that is, in or
der to avoid scandal and commotions."(2S)
These are the principles upon which he is rejoiced to know
that " the admirable institution of European monarchy was
founded ;" principles which he thinks it the duty of the
Roman Catholic Church to maintain throughout the world,
because, as he says, they constitute " the moral defenses by
which that monarchy is surrounded." He thinks the minds
of men are already sufficiently " wearied with foolish decla
mations against tbe tyranny of kings," and would bring back
to these salutary principles all such governments as have
departed from them.(29)
These principles are the same, substantially, with those
laid down by Bishop England, and, if applied in this coun
try, would test all our civil institutions by their conformity
to the divine law. We have established our Government
upon the theory that God recognizes the personality of each
individual, and will deal with him accordingly. Therefore
the conscience of every man is left free, that he may main
tain whatsoever religious belief it shall approve. Necessa
rily, in order to establish and preserve this great principle,
every individual and all Church organizations are required
to obey the laws of the State. The spiritual power is not
made independent of the temporal, but, in so far as the au-

(") "Protestantism and Catholicity compared in their Effects on the Civ
ilization of Europe," by Balmes, ch. liv., p. 328.
(28) Rid. (w) Rid., p. 330.

THE STATE TRIED BY THE DIVINE LAW. 579
thority to enact the necessary laws for the public good is
concerned, the temporal power is made independent of the
spiritual. In all else the spiritual power is left unimpair
ed ; that is, it is left independent within its proper spiritual
sphere. But according to the papal doctrine, as announced
by this distinguished author, this places our Government in
tbe condition of having transcended the proper " limits of
its faculties," of having violated the divine law, and of re
quiring certain obligations of obedience from every citizen
which can not be yielded by those who obey the papacy
without disobedience of the fundamental principles of their
Church organization. He insists that the Government shall
be arraigned at the bar of the papacy, where it shall be
judged by the divine law; that the pope alone, as God's
vicegerent, is the only proper and infallible interpreter of
that law, and that whatsoever principle of the Government
he shall declare to be unjust or heretical shall have no bind
ing obligation upon the conscience of any Roman Catholic.
Already the present pope has declared that, in order that a
government shall conform to the divine law, the State and
the Church must be so united that the State shall obey the
Church; that the ecclesiastical or hierarchical body must
govern itself by its own laws, and not be governed by, or
answerable to, the laws of the State, even for crime; that
there must be but one form of religion, and that the religion
of Rome ; that all other forms of religion except that of
Rome, including the Protestantism of the United States,
are heretical, and ought to be annihilated ; that freedom of
speech and of the press and of conscience are all inconsist
ent with the " divine right of kings " to govern, and, there
fore, should not be tolerated or allowed; that the present
" progress " of the nations, which we attribute greatly to
the influence of our example, must be arrested, and the world
turned back to the mediaeval times ; that he must be recog
nized as the only just and infallible expounder of the Word
of God, and as incapable of error in all matters of faith and
morals ; that all mankind must obey him, in faith and mor
als, because he stands upon earth in the place of God ; and
that the Church, whose tremendous power is concentrated in
his hands, may employ force whenever he shall deem it nee-

580 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
essary to exact obedience as the means of reaching these re
sults. All these things are openly and distinctly avowed in
his Encyclical and Syllabus ; are set forth in books, pam
phlets, newspapers, and tracts of immense circulation ; and
are foreshadowed by the persistent movements of the Ro
man Catholic hierarchy all over the world. And it requires
but an ordinary amount of intelligence to see that if the
time should ever come when these principles shall obtain
the ascendency in the United States, it must be, necessarily,
at the expense of the fundamental and most cherished prin
ciples of our Government, the very principles whose protec
tion the Roman Catholic emigrants from Europe professed
ly desired to secure when they abandoned their citizenship
among the effete monarchies of the Old World and hopeful
ly acquired it in the New.
But, in order to demonstrate the legitimate use of the
right of resistance to civil authority, this Jesuit author ex
plains the "Catholic doctrines" in relation to de-facto gov
ernments, that is, governments existing by what he calls a
" consummated act," whether of revolution or otherwise, and
in the actual possession of all necessary power. That these
doctrines may be comprehended, it is necessary to keep in
mind that, according to the teachings of Rome, governments
de facto are those which have been established by the peo
ple upon the overthrow of the kingly authority — which is
considered the only legitimate authority. Governments de
jure are such as are based upon the law of God, with kings
at their head, who shall obey the pope as the highest au
thority upon earth. In this view, all Roman Catholic mon
archies are governments de jure, and therefore legitimate;
while all popular republics are governments de facto, and
therefore illegitimate. Kings must always rule ; the people,
never. Hence, the old Roman Catholic monarchy of Spain,
overthrown a few years ago, was a government de jure, to
which implicit and passive obedience was due. Hence, also,
the Government of the United States is a government de
facto, because it was the offspring of revolution, and was
substituted in place of a monarchy. And hence, again, the
latter is an illegitimate government, borne with by the pa
pal hierarchy for a while, only " from motives of prudence,"

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ILLEGITIMATE. 581
but subject to resistance and overthrow, to make room for
a government dejure, or a legitimate government, whenever
the interest and welfare of the papacy shall require it, and
the result can be made certain. It is wonderful how surely
all Roman Catholic authors and publicists who adopt the
Jesuit or ultramontane views argue within such circles as
bring them inevitably to these conclusions. This author
shows that they are the only logical deductions from their
mode of reasoning.
Asking the question, How far do "Catholic doctrines"
extend on the subject of resistance to the civil power " by
physical force ?" he proceeds at once to combat and deny
the proposition that "obedience is due to a government
from tbe very fact of its existence." This he calls unsound
doctrine, " which is contrary to right reason, and has never
been taught by Catholicity."(3°) Whenever, according to
him, the Roman Catholic Church speaks of obedience " to
the powers that be," it has reference to " powers that have
a legitimate existence." Why ? Because, says he, " the ab
surdity that a simple fact can create right can never be
come a dogma of Catholicity ;"(31) that is, the papacy asserts
the right to go behind the fact that a government exists,
and inquire whether it is or is not legitimate ; whether, in
other words, it is de facto or de jure; and if it is found to
be de facto merely, it may be resisted, because otherwise it
would be the concession to an illegitimate government of
"a right to command," which would be to legitimatize usur-
pation.(32) Therefore he argues "that no reasonable man
can seriously accept " such a doctrine as that " of consum
mated facts" as applied to governments. Yet, remembering
what he had just said about not resisting existing govern
ments "from motives of prudence," he continues:
"I do not deny that there are cases in which obedience,
even to an illegitimate government, is to be recommended;
when, for instance, we foresee that resistance would be use
less, that it would only lead to new disorders, and to a

(™) "Protestantism and Catholicity compared in their Effects on the Civ
ilization of Europe," by Balmes, ch. Iv., p. 330.
(31) Ibid. (32) Ibid.

582 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
greater effusion of blood : but in recommending prudence
to the people, let us not disguise it under false doctrines —
let us beware of calming the exasperation of misfortune by
circulating errors subversive of all governments, of all so-
ciety."(33) It is a favorite idea with all the supporters of the papacy
— most persistently maintained — that whenever society gets
from under the influence and control of the Roman Catholic
Church, it necessarily runs into heresy, infidelity, anarchy,
and all that sort of thing. They repudiate every thing like
middle or conservative ground, and seem to be utterly un
conscious of their intolerant and partisan excesses, as well
as of the fact that it is only the progressive influence of
Protestantism which has lifted the nations out of the dark
ness and superstition into which they were sunk during the
Middle Ages. We ought not to be surprised, therefore, at
finding this recognized and authoritative propagator of
"Catholic doctrines" falling into this error, and talking
about the subversion of all governments and of all society,
whenever they refuse obedience to the pope and his hie
rarchy. The standard he sets up recognizes only Roman
Catholic governments and society! — for from them alone
does he suppose all human advancement and prosperity to
spring. All else is evil — and that continually. Yet he pru
dently recommends that this evil, terrible as it is in its con
sequences both in this life and that which is to come, be en
dured, wherever " resistance would be useless," because such
resistance would be but " the exasperation of misfortune."
Still, however, this " prudence " must not be practiced at the
expense of truth — it must not be disguised "under false
doctrines" — but the true "Catholic doctrines" should be
proclaimed, so that the power shall be preserved by the pa
pacy to upturn and destroy all illegitimate governments
whenever resistance can be successfully resorted to, and es
tablish legitimate governments in their places ! This was
the real design of the publication of this book in Europe in
two languages ; a design manifestly sympathized with, if
(33) "Protestantism and Catholicity compared in their Effects on the Civ
ilization of Europe," by Balmes, ch. Iv., p. 331.

PAPAL GOVERNMENTS ALONE LEGAL. 533
not openly avowed, by its American publishers, when they
professed to regard it as having " supplied the age with a
work which is peculiarly adapted to .its wants."(34)
He finds no difficulty in arguing out ofthe way the Script
ural teaching that the civil authority must be obeyed : this
merely furnishing him a field for the display of Jesuit inge
nuity. "Illegitimate authority," says he, "is no authority
at all ;" because " power involves the idea of right," and
where no right exists, there is only force. Therefore, he
argues, " when the Scriptures prescribe obedience to the
authorities, it is the lawful authorities that are implied."(36)
Again, the kind of civil power to which the Scriptures enjoin
obedience upon us is that " ordained by God himself," that
which "is the minister of God himself," which a usurped
and illegitimate government can never be, and Which none
but a Roman Catholic government can be ! And, again^
the obedience to the civil power prescribed by the Script
ures is the same as that prescribed " to the slave in relation
to his master ;" it exists only where there is a " legitimate
dominion." If the slave is unjustly held in servitude, he
may rebel against the authority of his master ; but ii justly
held, he may not. So, if the civil authorities be not lawful
—that is, " ordained by God himself" — as the pope shall de:
clare his law — no obedience to them is required, except that
" which prudence would dictate ;" and they must, therefore,
be endured as a " misfortune " until resistance can be made
successful! Whatever process of reasoning he adopts, he
reaches always the same conclusion. He keeps always with
in his prescribed circle ; but, whether it be large or small, he
never fails to terminate at the point most prominently be
fore him, and most indelibly fixed upon his mind — the ille
gitimacy of all governments not based upon the divine law
— meaning, of course, the divine law as the infallible pope
shall declare it !
Conscious of the opposition to these " Catholic doctrines "
ofthe practice ofthe early Christians, who always submitted

(M) "Protestantism and Catholicity compared in their Effects on the Civ
ilization of Europe," by Balmes, Preface to American edition, p. v.
C) Rid., ch. lv.,p.332.

584 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
to the ruling authority ofthe Government without concern
ing themselves about the temporal power, he endeavors to
point out the "futility" of their position, by insisting upon
a distinction between the state of things existing then and
that existing in our day. In these early centuries, accord
ing to him, " all that upright men could do was quietly to
resign themselves to the calamitous circumstances of the
times, and by fervent prayer to implore the Almighty to
take compassion on mankind."(38) But now, since the num
ber of Christians has increased so that they have become a
controlling power in the world ; since they have, in many
instances, overturned governments, and may do so again
whenever circumstances make it prudent to attempt it, he
admonishes the faithful adherents of the papal cause to hus
band their resources, and submit prudently, for a while, to
illegitimate rule ; but, in the mean time, to prepare to strike
when the proper hour shall arrive ! He cautions them, first,
to be sure that the government at which they strike is ille
gitimate—a question which now, since the dogma of infalli
bility, belongs to the pope alone to decide. Then, second,
they should have in view the substitution of a lawful power,
which, of course, the pope also decides. And, third, they
" should count besides on the probability of the success of
their enterprise ;" a matter which involves prudential con
siderations alone. In the absence of " these conditions,"
there would be "no object" accomplished; it would be "a
mere fruitless attempt, an impotent revenge;" it would only
cause " bloodshed," only incense and " irritate the power at
tacked," and have no other result than "to increase oppres
sion and tyranny."(37)
An Archbishop of Palmyra had published a work upon
the Church Militant, in which he maintained that when
Christ commanded his followers to " render to Caesar the
things that are Caesar's," he, meant "that the mere fact of a
government's existence is sufficient for enforcing the obedi
ence of the subjects to it;" that is, he established the doc-

(36) " Protestantism and Catholicity compared in their Effects on the Civ
ilization of Europe," by Balmes, ch. Iv., p. 332.
C1) Rid., ch. lv.,p. 332.

THE RIGHT OF REVOLUTION CONDEMNED. 585
trine " of consummated facts." But this he calls a " fallacy,"
and declares that this work of the archbishop " was forbid
den at Rome " by the " Sacred Congregation !" a decree, he
says, in which "every man who is jealous of his rights"— that
is, all the defenders of papal infallibility— will acquiesce. (3B)
Keeping in mind his prudential argument, and suggesting
that "the interference of Christians in political disputes"
would only bring their holy religion into disrepute, in the
event that they should fail of success, he surmounts the dif
ficulty arising out of " consummated facts " by repeating his
argument that they must be legally consummated before the
obligation of obedience can arise out of them. And then,
by way of a practical application of these " Catholic doc
trines," he continues :
" Hence, in a political and social sense, we designate con
summated facts a usurpation, completely overthrowing the
legitimate power, and by means of which the usurper is al
ready substituted in its place ; a measure executed in all its
points. Such is the suppression ofthe regular clergy in Spain,
and the confiscation of their property to the treasury ; a rev
olution which has been triumphant, and which has entirely
disposed of a country, as was the case with our American
possessions."(39) This is the culmination of this distinguished author's the
ory— of the "Catholic doctrines" of which he is the able and
eloquent expounder. It reaches the point to which every
thing is now pressed by the defenders of papal infallibility
— that is, to the point of revolution. Recognizing no other
form of government except the monarchical as consistent
with the divine law, Pope Pius IX. and his hierarchy do not
hesitate to declare, in the face of the world's progress, that
every other form of government is revolutionary and usur
pation. Therefore these "Catholic doctrines" are put forth
by one ofthe most eloquent men in the Church, to show that
all revolutionary governments are unlawful, and that al
though prudence may dictate obedience to them for a sea-

C) "Protestantism and Catholicity compared in their Effects on the Civ
ilization of Europe," bv Balmes, ch. Iv., p. 333.
C) Rid., ch.lv., p. 334.

586 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
son, yet that, as they confer no right whatever, they may be
destroyed, and lawful governments erected in their places
whenever it can be done without the infliction of too much
harm upon the attacking party ! And therefore, in order
that the prudential submission to a revolutionary govern:
ment for the present may not be disguised " under false doc
trines," the teachings of this author are translated into En
glish, published in the United States, and circulated am6ng
our Roman Catholic population, avowedly upon the ground
that they are " peculiarly adapted " to the wants of the pres
ent age !
The Government of the United States had its origin in rev
olution. Our fathers cut with the sword the cord which had
bound the American colonies to one of the monarchies of Eu
rope. Believing their cause to be just, they appealed to God
for the protection of his providence, and we believe that they
won their success under that protection. They snatched liber
ty — civil and religious — from those princes of the Old World
who had managed to keep their feet upon the necks of all
who desired to enjoy it, and thus elevated the inhabitants of
this country to a condition of prosperity and happiness which
has no parallel in all the ages of the past. They built up a
government which secures, in a higher degree than any other
government on earth, all the rights and immunities of citi
zenship. They recognized the common brotherhood of man,
and opened their arms to the oppressed, persecuted, and
down-trodden of the world, inviting them to come and share
with them the blessings of free and popular institutions.
Millions of them, who were the slaves of political and eccle
siastical tyranny in the countries of their birth, are now in
this country, and have already experienced the improvement
of their condition — have acquired a new and more invigor
ating manhood. Of these there are thousands who love our
Government with fervid intensity — who have defended its
honor and its flag when they have been attacked, and are
ready to do so again, to the very death, if necessary. But
there are others — no matter whether they may be counted
by hundreds or thousands — who accept, with seeming acqui
escence, the idea that they shall subordinate their patriotism
to the Government to their devotion to the papacy ; and who

CHURCH AND STATE BOTH FREE. 587
appear content to be recognized as maintaining, with their
hierarchy, that the Church is higher and more potent than
the State — even within the constitutional domain of the
State. They are invited, by the most earnest and pathetic
appeals, to love the Church first, the State second, and then
only as the Church shall decree ; and to merge their respon
sibility to the laws in their responsibility to the pope.
The laws of this country do not interfere with the religion
of any of these ; nor can they do so. They leave each indi
vidual conscience free, so that the citizen shall act upon his
own responsibility to God. All our Protestant institutions
assume that each of us may enjoy a pure Christian faith
without ingrafting upon it any of tbe principles of civil pol
ity which are confided to the State. They will not allow the
State to invade the rightful jurisdiction of the Church, and
declare what the faith shall be ; nor will they submit to any
impairment of the legitimate functions of the State by the
Church. The line which separates these jurisdictions can
not be obliterated without marring the beauty of the one
and assailing the integrity of the other. The Church and
State must be kept apart — each in its own proper sphere.
Therefore, our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens, for them
selves as well as Protestants, have the deepest interest in
having these questions properly and satisfactorily solved:
What is the design of those hierarchs who claim to be their
sole and exclusive teachers, no less in the domain of social
and political morality than in that of religious faith ? Are
they endeavoring to extend their spiritual jurisdiction be
yond the limits fixed by our laws, and to trench upon the
civil jurisdiction as marked out and defined? Does the
pope claim for himself a jurisdiction over them, as citizens,
superior to and above that of the State ? Does he or not
recognize as a legitimate fact our separation of Church and
State ? Does he expect of them to resist those principles of
our Government wbich he shall declare to be contrary to
God's law, or against the welfare and interest of the Church?
Does he demand of them, by virtue of his asserted infallibil
ity, to enlarge the circle of their religious faith, so as to in
clude within it any of the essential principles of our civil
polity ? Does he require them, as any part of their religion,

588 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
to test their obedience to our laws by their conformity to
the Constitution, or to his will ? Which does he command
them to obey, the civil laws of the State or the canon laws
ofthe Churcb, in case of conflict between them? Which al
legiance does he consider the highest, that which they owe
to the Government of the United States, or that which they
owe to the ecclesiastical government constructed by the Ro
man pontiffs ? In so far as the pope is concerned, every in
telligent man who has taken the trouble to investigate un
derstands the answers to all these questions. In so far as
they are concerned, the time has come when they can no
longer defer to answer them for themselves.

DOCTRINES OF THE JESUITS. 589

CHAPTER XIX.
The Rights of the Papacy not lost by Revolution. — No Legitimate Right
acquired by it. — Revolutions always Iniquitous. — Christopher Columbus.
— He takes Possession of the New World in the Name of the Church of
Rome. — He thereby expands its Domain. — The Popes claim Jurisdic
tion in Consequence. — Illegitimate Power obtained by Revolution can not
destroy this Right of Jurisdiction. — Exercise of the Power in England by
Alexander II. , and in Germany by Gregory VII. — Defense of Gregory
VII. — Direct and Indirect Power. — Doctrine asserted by Peter Deus. —
Bellarmine the Author of the Theory of Indirect Power. — Doctrine of St.
Thomas. — That of Cardinal D'Ostia. — Infidels can have no Just Title to
Governments. — The Pope may dispose of Them. — Gregory III., Stephen
IL, and Leo III. all justified. — Also Gregory VIL, Innocent III., Adrian
IV., and Boniface VIII. — The Late Lateran Council makes them all In
fallible. — They claim the Direct Power. — The Doctrine of Indirect
Power an After-thought in Answer to the Objection of Protestants. — The
Papal Jurisdiction in America the Same under Either.- — Alexander VI.
divides America between Spain and Portugal. — Resumption of this Au
thority defended by Jesuits. — Obedience to Governments de facto not en
joined by the Church of Rome. — Effect of this Doctrine upon the Oath
of Allegiance. — Doctrine of "Mental Restrictions," and "Ambiguity and
Equivocation" in Oaths. — Jesuit Teachings on this Subject. — The Object
of the Second Council of Baltimore to introduce the Canon Law. — What
it is. — Its Effect if introduced in the United States. — Punishment of Her
etics. — Extirpation of Infidelity. — Heretics rightfully punished with Death.
— All Baptized Protestants are Subjects of the Pope. — May all be right
fully punished for Disobedience.
The author of " Protestantism and Catholicity Compared
in their Effects on the Civilization of Europe " must be fol
lowed still further, in order that the full import of his teach
ings may be understood. His eminent ability, and his dis
tinction as an expositor of the true faith in so far as it in
volves the dealings of the papacy with the nations, give an
unusual degree of prominence and importance to what he
says. Assuming, as his premise, that the "American posses
sions " of Spain were separated from the mother country by

590 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
"usurpation," and that thereby illegitimate was substituted
for legitimate authority, he reaches the next step in his ar
gument, as a logical conclusion : that the new government
thus formed can impose no absolute obligation of allegiance
— it may be submitted to as a measure of prudence, but not
obeyed on the ground of right. Manifestly he had a twofold
meaning: first, to assert the existing right of Spain to retake
possession of such portions of America as she had lost by
revolution ; and, second, the right of the papacy, also subsist
ing, to re-assert and maintain the spiritual jurisdiction and
authority it once exercised in America. The application of
this doctrine designed by him is readily seen. Mexico sun
dered her allegiance from Spain, as tbe United States did
theirs from Great Britain. In both cases new governments
were established and became "consummated facts" — so rec
ognized by other governments. But, in his view, these new
governments became " usurpations " by the fact that they
were the result of illegitimate, or revolutionary, resistance
to legitimate authority. To such governments he does not
consider any obedience due, as of right ; because, says he, a
government which has " abolished legitimate rights can not
justify its acts by the simple fact of its having sufficient
strength to execute these iniquities." {') Therefore, accord
ing to the "Catholic doctrines" as announced by him, the
rights of Spain and Great Britain in America are in no way
legitimately impaired by consummated acts of revolution
ary resistance; but remain intact — as complete and perfect
as they were before the revolutions began. Therefore, also,
Mexico belongs, rightfully and legitimately, to the old Span
ish monarchy, under its old de-jure form of government, and
the United States to Great Britain ; subject, of course, in
both cases, to the papal claim of primacy and superior right,
recognized by both countries when they had the legitimate
right to do so. Neither Mexico nor the United States has
acquired any legitimate and valid right, as against the legit
imate authority they defied, or as against the papacy, right
fully acknowledged by that authority, by reason of the
mere fact of having had "sufficient strength to execute"
(') Balmes, p. 334.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE NOT BINDING. 591
the iniquitous purpose of establishing revolutionary govern
ments. Hence, he reasons that, as the original obligation of
obedience to the old monarchies — the only form of govern
ment which he considers as known to the divine law — has
not been impaired by "these iniquities" or "consummated
facts," and can not be impaired by the substitution of new
and illegitimate allegiance for it, the papacy, as the repre
sentative and divinely appointed guardian of the monarchic
al power, has the legitimate right to sweep out of existence,
whenever it shall become prudent to attempt it, every thing
that shall stand in the way of this original and primary obe
dience. And hence, also, the oath of allegiance to the Uni
ted States, with those who accept the doctrine of papal in
fallibility, has no other than a temporary binding force, be
cause, being illegitimate and unjust, it is perjury, and no
oath at all !
Thus always reasons the papal monarchist, who invariably
argues so as to make every thing centre in the proposition
that the bulk of mankind are fit only to be governed — not
to govern. He and the political monarchist start from this
same stand-point. They do not differ in their process of rea
soning, except in this: that the former never fails to concen
trate every thing in the papacy as the legitimate source of
all power, because it is the only authorized interpreter ofthe
divine law, to which all mankind must become subject; and
is sufficiently comprehensive to include the temporal or civil
power, as the greater includes the lesser.
Those who defend the claim of papal supremacy in this
sense see, or pretend to see, in the discovery of America by
Columbus, the act of God consummated only through the in
strumentality ofthe Roman Church, specially chosen for that
purpose. They have always considered this fact as having
conferred jurisdiction upon the pope to govern the new con
tinent in whatsoever concerns the faith and the divine law —
including, necessarily, in their view such direction of tempo
ral affairs as is required to make them conform to that law.
These ideas, somewhat remitted heretofore from necessity
and prudence, have acquired additional strength from the
dogma of papal infallibility. They are now avowed with
great emphasis and vehemence by the ultramontane author-

592 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ities at Rome, who are, seemingly, the more pertinacious in
their advocacy in proportion to tbe resistance of them by the
progressive nations.
A new life of Columbus has lately appeared. It was writ
ten in French by De Lorgues, but has been translated, and
published in this country. Any one who will carefully read
this book will see that one design of it is the inculcation of
the idea of papal supremacy in America. Speaking of the
preparation of Columbus for his work of discovery, by pen
ance, prayer, and the meditation of divine things, the author
says: "His expedition takes the religious character of its origin
and object : he gives the name of the Blessed Virgin to his
ship, and hoists the cross in her; he departs on a Friday,
and commands the sails to be unfurled in the name of Jesus
Christ. "It is in the name of Jesus Christ that he takes posses
sion ofthe lands he discovers. It is to honor the Redeemer
that he erects crosses everywhere he lands."(2)
He is described, not only as the first who carried the cross
to the New World, but as " the herald of Catholicity, and the
tacit mandatory ofthe papacy."(3) It is said that "he pre
sents the Holy See with an opportunity, or occasion, of show
ing the spirit of infallible sagacity that perpetually inspires
the Church, etc."(4) Events are recited to establish for him
" the character of apostolic legate, with which he showed
himself invested in his acts and by his intentions."(6) It is
declared that " evidently God chose Christopher Columbus
as a messenger of sal vation. "(") And treating the discov
ery of America as a fact accomplished in accordance with
the divine decree, it is said that by means of it he " enlarges
the known surface of the earth, brings nations, as it were,
nearer each other, and expands the domain of the Catholic
Church."^) He is called a saint, even without canonization,
because, as " a hero of the Gospel " and " a great servant of
the Church," the "messenger of the cross is found, as re-

C) "Life of Christopher Columbus," translated by Dr. Barry, p. 570.
(3) Ibid., p. 571. (4) Ibid. (<¦) Rid., p. 573.
(6) Rid. (7) Ibid., p. 590.

COLUMBUS THE LEGATE OF THE POPE. 593
gards history," in him.(8) And, finally, in assigning the dis
covery to " the infallible wisdom of the Church," he sums up
by saying that " the history of Columbus contains the glori
fication of the Catholic Church ; it shows the spirit of light
which always guides the papacy in the government of in
telligence;"^) which assigns all the honor and glory ofthe
discovery to the papacy alone, and treats the agency of Feiv
dinand and Isabella as merely secondary to it.
The papist who by this process of reasoning argues himself
into the belief that this enlargement of " the domain of the
Catholic Church" conferred higher jurisdiction upon the pa-.
pacy than that acquired by Ferdinand and Isabella by virtue
ofthe right of discovery and the law of nations, because the
papal rights were divine, and the royal rights human only,has
no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the pope obtain
ed by means of it a degree of authority within tbe new " do
main " which can not be impaired by the employment of il
legitimate power, or a resort to revolution and usurpation,
which with him are convertible terms. Undoubtedly, the
popes have thus reasoned in reference to the jurisdiction they
acquired over all nations once submitting to their authority ;
and when this jurisdiction has been suspended or disturbed
for a time by forces they could not resist, they have not hes
itated to re-assert it when occasion offered, and to insist. upon
resuming it when these forces were overcome or withdrawn.
They have maintained that neither time nor circumstances,
of whatsoever nature, could operate in bar or limitation of
their right, for the reason that it is derived from God ; and
that, therefore, every thing in conflict with it is wrong and
usurpation. They bave never been known to abandon any
jurisdiction, and the rights arising out of it, exercised by
them over any nation, however remote may have been the
period of its exercise. In the case of Great Britain, for ex
ample, their theory supports, and in their view justifies, the
claim that as Gregory I. introduced the Roman faith there,
and the early Saxon kings became converts to it and submit
ted to the jurisdiction of the pope, and other kings did the

(B) "Life of Christopher Columbus," translated by Dr. Barry, p. 596.
C) Rid., p. 616.

38

594 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
same thing, especially John, who consented to hold the crown
and country as a fief of the pope, therefore they acquired a
spiritual supremacy there, whicb, whatsoever " consummated
facts " may have since transpired, has lost none of its origi
nal validity or legitimacy. They do not acknowledge that
the statute of limitations or any analogous principle of the
law of nations can run against tbe papal rights over either
nations or individuals, because they have the stamp of the
divine sanction. Their reasoning is based upon the ideas
that Christ intrusted to them the keys, giving to them
thereby the power to bind and loose in heaven and upon
earth; that this power is necessarily plenary, and confers
upon them the right of spiritual government over all na
tions and peoples brought under the influence of Christian
ity. The extraordinary nature of this claim is not more
startling than the manner of its exercise, whenever there
have not been sufficient means of repelling it. Examples al
ready referred to in a different connection, as illustrating
other aspects of the papal question, bear directly on this
point. It was by virtue of this jurisdiction that Alexander II.
blessed the banner of William the Conqueror, and gave him
pontifical permission to dispossess Harold, the legitimate
King, of Great Britain, and occupy the country in the name
of the papacy. In support of it, he and his successors sent
an army of legates and Italian monks into the country, in or
der to extend the pontifical dominion, and, according to the
historian, " they carved and clipped ecclesiastical matters as
they pleased."(10)
It was under the same claim of authority that Gregory
VII. pronounced his anathemas against the Emperor Henry
IV, and stirred up against him an insurrection in favor of
Rudolph, without any regard to the wishes or desires ofthe
German people. And the papists, not being disposed to at
tempt a direct justification of his enormous pretensions, in
an age of so much enlightenment as the present, have resort
ed to various subterfuges to escape the consequences of his
bold and defiant demands. (10) Rapin.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT POWER. 595
An effort has been made by a learned papal writer— which
has the merit of great ability— to show that Gregory VII.
"did not pretend to ground himself merely on the divine pow
er of binding and loosing, but on the laws both of God and
man."(u) He does not by any means make this clear. On
the contrary, his shifting of position merely suggests the im
possibility of drawing the line, in ascertaining the extent of
papal power, between the laws of God and those of man ; for
if the power is divine in any sense, it must be plenary, and
not dependent upon human consent. Bellarmine, with more
ability, called it indirect power — distinguishing it from di
rect; the ground also taken by Cardinal Antonelli in his
letter to the French embassador, heretofore alluded to. (12)
What is meant by this, however, is that in the Papal States
the power ofthe pope is direct, whereas outside their limits,
and elsewhere throughout the world, it is indirect. But there
is no difference in degree, it being the same wherever it ex
ists. Thus we find it laid down by Peter Dens in these
words :
"Bellarmine, Sylvius, and others say that the pope has
not by divine right direct power over temporal kingdoms,
but indirect; that is, when the spiritual power can not be
freely exercised, nor his object be attained by spiritual, then
he may have resource to temporal means, according to St.
Thomas, 22, q. 10, a. 12, et q. 12, a. 2, who teaches that princes
may sometimes be deprived of their rule, and their subjects
be liberated from the oath of fidelity ; and thus it has been
done by pontiffs more than once."(13)
The Jesuit Bellarmine is supposed to be the author of this
doctrine ; but as he lived in the sixteenth century — five hun-
(") "The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages," by Gosselin, vol. ii.,
p. 106.
(B) Ante.
(13) " Bellarminus, Sylvius, aliique dicunt Pontificem non habere jure di-
vino potestatem directam in temporalia regna, sed indirectam ; hoc est,
quando potestas spiritualis exerceri libere non potest, nee suum finem asse-
qni per media spiritualia, tunc ad temporalia recurrere possit, juxta S. Thom.
22, q. 10, a. 12, et q. 12, a. 2, qui docet Principes interdum privari posse domi-
natione et subditos a fidelitatis juramento liberari ; et ita a Pontificibus non
semel est practicatum. " — Theologia Moralis et Dogmatica, by Dens, vol. ii.,
No. 98, p. 164.

596 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
dred years after Gregory VIL — the latter, of course, had no
idea of any other than tbe direct power, and being an infalli
ble pope, the opinions of a mere cardinal, however distinguish
ed, can not be set up against his. Nor do they avail much
against the opinions of St. Thomas, who is regarded as one
of the foremost of the fathers. As represented by Dens, St.
Thomas merely refers to the exercise, but not to the origin,
of the power. When, however, he does refer to the origin
of it, he says, " that according to the institution of God him
self, the King of kings, the pope possesses the highest degree
of both powers, the spiritual and the temporal."^) And
Cardinal D' Ostia makes a more practical application of the
doctrine when he asserts that " since the coming of Jesus
Christ all the dominion of infidel princes was transferred to
the Church, and is vested iu the pope as the vicar of Jesus
Christ, the King of kings ; whence be infers that the pope
can, by his own authority, grant the kingdoms of infidel
princes to any ofthe faithful whom he may think proper to
select."(,B) But although St. Thomas sustains the direct
and Bellarmine the indirect power, they agree in its appli
cation according to the principle laid down by D' Ostia. In
justifying Popes Gregory III., Stephen III., and Leo III. in
seizing upon a number of Italian provinces after the emper
ors of the East had separated from the Roman Church and
united with the Eastern Christians — thus becoming heretics
— they both " maintain that the Church and the pope could
have declared the pagan emperors of Rome, and especially
Julian, deposed from the empire, and their subjects absolved
from all obligation toward them, if such a declaration had
been consistent with prudence."(16) The fact is, this theory
of indirect power is an after -thought. It had no existence
in the minds of the ambitious popes who laid the foundation
of papal power, and under whose administrations that pow
er was made to overshadow the world. With them — Grego
ry VIL, Innocent III., Adrian IV, Boniface VIIL, and all the
rest — the pontifical power was direct, full, plenary, omnip
otent, derived immediately from God. They denied that it
(I4) Gosselin, vol. ii., p. 365, and note. (15) Rid., p. 362.
(") Ibid., p. 367.

BELLARMINE AND ANTONELLI. 597
was in any sense indebted to human grants or concessions,
or that it could be enlarged or diminished by them. When,
however, Protestantism began its work, and the papacy reel
ed and tottered under the blows of the great Reformers, it
required the genius and ability of Bellarmine to conceive
and promulgate the idea of indirect power, so that the as
sailants of the direct power might be answered with an ar
gument that was at least plausible. It is said that he was
" driven to the theory of the indirect power by the desire
of vindicating the popes and clergy of the Middle Ages
against the attacks of Protestants and of the more ancient
heretics," and that he " believed that he struck the middle
and proper course, between the excesses of heresy and the
opinion of the direct power, which he considered to be man
ifestly extravagant." (")
If the great popes who originated, maintained, and acted
upon the doctrine of the direct power were infallible — and
tbe dogma of the late Lateran Council makes them so — then
this doctrine became an essential part of the faith of the
Church, which it would now be heresy to deny or change.
It is a vain pretense, therefore, to talk about the indirect
power, as Cardinal Antonelli does, it being merely the in
genious argument of a Jesuit of the sixteenth century, not
promulgated by authority as a part of the faith, but as a
mere shelter for the enormities practiced under the claim of
direct power. If it be that the faith of the Church is im
mutable, and the popes all infallible and incapable of error,
then the doctrine ofthe indirect power is heresy. Or, if the
promulgation of it from the Vatican, under the official au
spices of the present pope, makes it a necessary part of the
faith at this time, then tbe popes who maintained the direct
power were heretics. Let the papist take either horn of
the dilemma, and his theory falls to the ground as utterly
untenable, alike opposed to the divine and human law and
the best interests of mankind.
It is apparent, therefore, that Gregory VII. did not pre
tend to shelter himself behind any indirection, and that in
asserting his primacy and supremacy he required it to be
(") Gosselin, vol. ii., p. 368 (note).

598 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
recognized as a part of the faith, that the power of the pope
over both spirituals and temporals was derived directly
from God, and was not susceptible of any human limitation.
This is the fair and only import of his language, previous
ly quoted, (18) and of all his official acts when dealing with
the European kings. Even in dealing with Philip, King of
France — the favorite " Son of the Church " — he forbade him
lay investiture, and addressed a letter to the French bish
ops, declaring that if they did not obey him, and not the
king, to whom by the law of France they owed allegiance,
" he would, with God's help, use every means to wrest the
kingdom of France from his hands."('°) And his labored
exertions to establish a holy empire or ecclesiastical state, in
the form of a revived Jewish theocracy, indicates how com
pletely, if he had succeeded, he would have absorbed all the
spiritual and political power of the world. (20)
Nor did Adrian IV., Innocent III., or Boniface VIIL, up to
the beginning of the fourteenth century, pretend to rest
this supremacy upon any other ground than that asserted
by Gregory VII. The blight of the Middle Ages was rest
ing upon the world during their pontificates, and there was
no necessity for moderation or disguise. Reason was not
then free to expose or combat their errors or usurpations.
There was no free thought or free press in those days. Prot
estantism was not then born. The iron weight of the papa
cy rested upon all the nations, and even kings so crouched
at the feet of these great pontiffs as to cause Dante to ex
claim, " How many now hold themselves mighty kings,
Who here like swine shall wallow in the mire,
Leaving behind them horrible dispraise ! "
When Adrian IV. granted Ireland to King Henry II. and
authorized him to subjugate the Irish people, he did so ex
pressly upon the ground that it " belonged to the Holy See "
by a divine right, and that he could dispose of it as seemed
right to him ; asserting, at the same time, the right in all
the popes to dispose of every country where Christianity
had been received. Innocent III. declared that his power
(M) Ante, ch. iii. (ia) Reichel, p. 205. (m) Ibid., p. 282.

THE PAPAL CLAIM OF DIRECT POWER. 599
came directly from Heaven, and was based " on a divine ordi
nance ;" and that the authority of princes was derived from
him ; wherefore he gave away crowns, disposed of govern
ments, and transferred peoples from one allegiance to an
other, in the name of God and the Church. And Boniface
VIIL, in his bull Unam Sanctarn — which remains a part of
the canon law — set forth the doctrine that temporal govern
ments should be conducted "for the Church," and that "for
every human being subjection to the pope was necessary for
salvation ;" deriving the tremendous power he asserted di
rectly from God alone.
All the popes who at various times before the sixteenth
century claimed this supremacy asserted the direct power
over all nations. They universally regarded it as an attri
bute attached to the papacy by Christ, descending to them
from the apostle Peter, and reaching out to the utmost
bounds of the earth, in order that all mankind may in the
end be saved. Whatever may have been said by others for
them since then is no part of the original argument by which
the power was sustained, but merely the invention of such
limitations upon it as prudence and expediency have dic
tated. The original argument remains the same. Lf it does
not, the power does. Its comprehensiveness is in no way
lessened by shifting the method and grounds of its defense.
While, since Bellarmine, a vast amount of ingenuity has
been displayed in the discovery of various arguments, often
conflicting, to reconcile the world to its exercise, the popes
themselves, even when it has been held in abeyance, have
treated it as a part of the faith — unalterable and forever the
same. And Pope Pius IX. is not behind any of them in as
serting it to be all-absorbing, and in denouncing and anath
ematizing every thing which stands in its way. His infalli
bility being now established, the Church has assigned to him
the incapacity to err, and the same incapacity to all his pred
ecessors. Hence it binds itself, and requires all its mem
bers to recognize the doctrines and principles advanced by
any and all of them as the true " Catholic doctrines." And
these doctrines being true, the inevitable and logical result,
from which no ingenuity can contrive a loop-hole of escape,
is that the divine and legitimate authority which the pope

600 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
has at any time acquired over any government or country
by virtue of discovery, conquest, or compact, can not be dis
placed by any act considered as usurpation, or by any ille
gitimate act, no matter in what way it may have been con
summated. As "the domain ofthe Catholic Church" was
extended by the discovery of America by Columbus, acting
for and in the name ofthe reigning pope, Alexander VI.,(ai)
and spiritual jurisdiction was thereby acquired over this con
tinent in obedience to the providence of God, that jurisdic
tion, though disturbed for a time by revolution and usurpa
tion, exists yet in all its original vigor ! As temporal juris
diction necessarily follows the spiritual, that also exists in a
like degree, to be resumed whensoever by possibility it may
be done, and it shall become prudent to attempt its recov
ery ! The resumption of both these jurisdictions is com
manded by Almighty God in order to secure the universal
ity of the only true Church, against which " the gates of hell
shall not prevail !"
Thus has the Jesuit reasoned ever since the wonderful sys
tem of Loyola was contrived in aid ofthe papacy; and thus
must necessarily reason all who accept the dogma of papal
infallibility. The author of " Protestantism and Catholici
ty Compared," etc., understood all this when he wrote his
book, as also did his American publishers when they recom
mended it as " peculiarly adapted " to the wants of this age,
(21) It seems little less than profanation to assign infallibility to such a pope
as Alexander VL, when all history assigns to him a multitude of crimes —
among them an incestuous intimacy with his own daughter, Lucretia Borgia
— as inconsistent with the life of a professing Christian as they are shocking
to the moral sense of mankind.
It was to this pope that the kings of Spain and Portugal referred the ques
tion of boundaiy between the American possessions each of them claimed by
virtue of discovery. If he had merely decided what was submitted to him, it
might be claimed for him that he was a mere arbitrator. But he went fur
ther, and "traced a line from pole to pole, through the Azores, or Western
islands, and decreed, by virtue of his universal omnipotence, that all countries
which were beyond this line— that is, the West Indies or America — should
belong to the King of Spain ; and those on this side — that is, the East Indies
and the shores of Africa — to the King of Portugal." The only conditions
were the payment of a large sum of money to him, and the conversion of the
inhabitants to Christianity, by force if necessary. — Cokmenin, vol. ii.. p. 154.

WHEN ALLEGIANCE IS NOT DUE. 601
because it sets forth " tbe glorious character of the faith ;"
and he and they manifestly contemplated the occurrence of
such events as would bring the world into a condition for
the practical application of these doctrines. At all events, he
felt it to be the duty of the papacy, in whose behalf he wrote,
to keep them fresh in the minds of its devotees, so as to hold
them in readiness for such a time, whensoever it should ar
rive. And, consequently, his work would have been left in
complete if he had failed to point out the ultimate results
to be expected from these " Catholic doctrines ;" that is, if
he had not indicated " how the civil power may be lawfully
resisted." To this special subject, therefore, he has devoted
a chapter, which begins thus :
"From what has been said in the foregoing chapters, it
follows that it is allowable to resist illegitimate power by
force. The Catholic religion does not enjoin obedience to
governments existing merely de facto ; for morality does
not admit a mere fact unsupported by right and justice."(22)
And then, referring to the teachings of St. Thomas, whicb
we have already seen, in support of his proposition that " an
equality of social and political rights" is impossible, he pass
es on to define what is meant by papal interference in the
affairs of governments, and to show that it is nothing less
than the direct interposition of God himself! He says:
"For many centuries there has been inculcated in Europe
a doctrine much criticised by those who do not understand
it, the intervention of the pontifical authority between the
people and their sovereigns. This doctrine was nothing less
than Heaven descending as an arbiter and judge, to put an
end to the dispute of the earth."(23)
And this remarkable chapter is wound up by pointing to
the times when the tempest of revolution has burst upon the
world, and thrones have been overturned, and royal heads
cut off " in the name of liberty ;" to all of which he declares
the Church says " this is no liberty, but a succession of
crimes; the fraternity and equality which I have taught
were never your orgies and guillotines "(21) — thus placing
all political revolutions along-side of each other, and seeming
(m) Balmes, ch. lvi., p. 336. (23) Rid., p. 340. (24) Rid., p. 343.

602 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
not to know that it was only that of Roman Catholic France
where " orgies and guillotines " were substituted for law and
order. What man is so ignorant as not to understand all this?
" The Catholic religion does not enjoin obedience to govern
ments existing de facto /" that is, governments not founded
on the law of God. No such thing as " an equality of social
and political rights " is possible ! " The intervention of the
pontifical authority between the people and the sovereigns,"
or between them and their governments, is only "Heaven
descending as an arbiter and judge," in the person of the
pope, to hold them to the line of duty ! The liberty which
allows thrones to be overturned and kings to be dispensed
with, "is no liberty, but a succession of crimes !"(26)
This author was not disposed to shield the papacy behind
any disguise whatever, but marched bravely up to the work
he had in hand. He felt himself too secure in Spain to prac
tice any deception upon a point of doctrine so absolutely
essential to tbe maintenance of the ultramontane party, of
which he was a distinguished member. He was too truth
ful for subterfuge. And, therefore, he could do no less than
declare that the power of the pope over both spirituals and
temporals is derived directly from God, and that its exercise
over the world is the act of God himself!
We all concede that whatever is derived from God must
be just and right: he is infallible. Whosoever shall be per
suaded to believe that these doctrines are according to his
teachings, to him they necessarily become just and right.
No defender of papal infallibility is permitted to deny them
— excommunication and anathema have already been decreed
against him if he does. With all such, then, their duty to
the Church is higher and more obligatory than any duty
they can owe to human governments, either in the United
States or elsewhere. And if the pope shall tell them, in an
official bull or brief, that there are principles of government
(25) It should not be forgotten that this is one of the authors to whom
Archbishop Bayley, of Baltimore, referred his friend for the true teachings of
the Church. Should it not command the most serious attention, when the
fact is thus openly avowed that American citizens are trained in such a
school ?

THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED. 603
prevailing here which are condemned by the law of God ;
that this country belongs of right to " the domain of the
Catholic Church " by virtue of the discovery by Columbus ;
that this right, being divine, can never be destroyed or im
paired by revolution ; that the papal jurisdiction has been
wrongfully and criminally displaced by lawless usurpation ;
that the Government existing here is de facto, and not de
jure, because it is merely human, and not such as God's law
requires ; that it does not recognize the temporal power as
subordinate to the spiritual, which God commands, but the
spiritual, in its exterior organization, as subordinate to the
temporal, which God forbids ; that it has disunited the State
and the Church, and tolerates different forms of religion,
which is heresy; that all such institutions as ours, being
Protestant, are infidel, because they deny to the papacy
the right to measure our laws by the papal standard — if he
shall tell them any or all of these things, and enjoin upon
them that, in view of all this wrong, injustice, and crime, it
is a duty which the papacy owes to God to re-assert its ju
risdiction here, to restore again the true apostolic Christian
ity, to banish all this heresy, and to build up a lawful gov
ernment constructed according to the divine plan ; with all
these and other kindred propositions before their minds,
pressed and urged upon them by cunning and adroit priests,
trained for the purpose in Jesuit schools, what will those
who believe that the pope is infallible do and say? Will
they obey or disobey the pope? That is the question which
no ingenuity can evade. He who accepts papal infallibility,
and with it the ultramontane interpretation ofthe power of
the pope over the world, and thinks that by offending the
pope he offends God, will obey passively, unresistingly, un-
inquiringly. Such a man, whether priest or layman, high or
low, is necessarily inimical to the Government and political
institutions of the United States. With him his oath of al
legiance would be worth no more than the paper upon which
it is written. It would not stand a single moment before
the all-absorbing absolutism of the pope, whose commands
are equivalent with him to those of God. Or if, for a mo
ment, he should stop to consider the extent of its possible
obligation, tbe pope would be ready to assure him that, as it

604 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
required him to do what the welfare of his Church and the
will of God forbade him to do, it was null and void from the
beginning. Or if still there should be some little unrest in
his conscience, some slight misgivings as to the true line of
his duty, the power of dispensation would be ready at hand
to release him from the obligation of his sworn allegiance,
and snap the cords that bind him to the Government, as the
same kind of cords have been snapped by other popes and
in other countries. To this end do the papal teachings in
evitably lead : it is their natural and logical result.
The law of the Church is in its canons. These are made
by the decrees of popes and councils. One of the greatest
of the popes, Innocent III., asserted for himself such pleni
tude of power as gave him the right to dispense witb any
law. The Fourth General Lateran Council, with the approv
al of this same pope, enacted a canon wherein it is declared
that constitutions which are prejudicial to the rights ofthe
Church shall not be observed ; thus, by the use of impera
tive language, making the non-observance of them obliga
tory. The Decretals, which are the body of the canon law,
contain provisions to the same effect. The Third General
Lateran Council, with the approval of Alexander III., de
creed that an oath in opposition to the welfare of the
Church and the enactments of the holy fathers is not to be
called an oath at all, but rather perjury. Peter Dens, the
great commentator on the laws and moral theology of the
Church, lays it down as the law of the Church that the
right of the pope, as the ultimate superior and sovereign, is
reserved in every oath ; which, of course, includes the oath
of allegiance. He also instructs the faithful that the pope
has the power of withdrawing or prohibiting what is in
cluded in an oath, and that when he does so it is no longer
included. And Bishop England, driven to the wall by an
ingenious and learned adversary, from the point of whose
lance he could not escape, was compelled to admit the law
of the Church yet to be as it was established by the Third
Lateran Council. Under such a law the papacy has but to
demonstrate to its followers that a constitution or law of
the State is opposed to the welfare of the Church, when it
becomes their religious duty to treat the oath to obey such

"MENTAL RESTRICTIONS." 605
constitution or law as no oath at all, but rather perjury.
And if this provision were not so plain and emphatic as to
be insusceptible of misunderstanding, the papacy, ever on
tbe alert, has provided its doctrines of "mental restrictions"
and " ambiguity and equivocation," as the final means of es
cape from almost every imaginable promise or oath, except
where the party is bound to the papacy itself. Its adroit
training of its subjects in the school of dissimulation shows
how completely the practice of falsehood may be systema
tized into a science. Of course, the abstract proposition
that it is unlawful to lie in any event is laid down in gener
al terms ; but in each special case as it arises rules are fur
nished by which to decide what is and what is not a lie.
"Mental restrictions " are of two kinds: purely mental and
real. In the first, falsehood is not excused, because there is
no external sign to signify that which is restricted in the
mind. In the second, there is no falsehood, because the ex
ternal circumstances signify that something is secretly un
derstood. Thus, as to real restriction, it is said :
"Real restriction occurs when the declaration is false, if
we regard the words alone ; but circumstances concur which
signify that something is to be secretly understood, which
the speaker keeps iu his mind, and which, being secretly un
derstood, the declaration is true."(26)
This rule had the sanction of one of the infallible popes,

(") "Restrictio realis occurrit, dum enuntiato, spectatis solis verbis, falsa
est, sed circumstantial concurrunt, quoe significant aliquid esse subintelligen-
dum, quod loquens in mente tenet, et quo subintellecto, enuntiato est vera."
—Dens, vol. iv., No. 244, p. 309.
It is almost impossible to procure in the United States a copy of this work
of Peter Dens. I have seen it advertised by at least two Catholic publishing
houses, and have made the effort to obtain it from them, but failed. I suc
ceeded, at last, in getting a copy from London. It is in Latin, in eight vol
umes — manifestly designed as instructive to the priesthood alone, by whom
laymen are to be impressed with its teachings. Messrs. Lippincott & Co.
have recently published a ' ' Synopsis " of it, translated by Professor Berg,
which contains the most material parts of it, except what relates to confes
sional, etc., which is too indecent for translation. I have used this transla
tion, except in the case of oaths — which it does not include — and have given
the original along with it, that the classical reader may test its accuracy. He
will find it both literal and faithful.

606 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Innocent XL, which, of course, adds greatly to its influence.
In a proposition laid down by him, he said :
" If any, either alone or before others, whether asked or
of his own accord, or for the purpose of sport, or for any oth
er object, swears that he has not done something which in
reality he has done, by understanding within himself some
thing else which he has not done, or a different way from that
in which he has done it, or any other truth that is added,
he does not really lie, nor is he perjured. "(")
It will be readily observed how wide tbese rules open the
door for falsehood and perjury — how completely they tend
to destroy all confidence between men, and all faith and in
tegrity. But as if this abominable doctrine of "mental re
striction " were not sufficient to enable the order of Jesuits
to triumph over the world by the system of fraud which it
is designed to legitimate, that of " ambiguity and equivoca
tion " is superadded to give it both efficiency and complete
ness. It amounts to this : that if a proposition is suscepti
ble of two meanings, one may be expressed when it is not
meant, and the other, which is meant, may be reserved in the
mind. Hence it is said :
"An equivocation of this kind does not contain a lie, in
whatever sense it may be received ; because the external
words truly signify that sense which the speaker has in
his mind, and thus differs from a purely mental reserva
tion, in which the external words do not contain the mental
sense."(2B) That tbese rules are part of the Jesuit system of " mental
reservations," is undoubted. Sanchez, one of the fathers,
says: "A man may swear that he never did such a thing
(tbough he actually did it), meaning within himself that he
(27) " Probatur etiam ex damnatione hujus prop. 36., Innoc. XI. : ' Si quis
vel solus vel coram aliis, sive interrogatus, sive sponte propria, sive recrea-
tionis causa, sive quocumque alio fine, juret se non fecisse aliquid, quod re-
vera fecit intelligendo intra se aliquid aliud, quod non fecit, vel aliam viam
ab ea, in qua fecit, vel quodvis aliud additum, revera non mentitur, nee est
perjurus.'" — Dens, vol. iv., pp. 309, 310.
(2B) "Hujusmodi asquivocatio non continet mendacium, in quocumque
sensu accipiatur, quia verba externa vere significant ilium sensum, quem lo-
quens in mente habet, et sic differt a restrictione pure mentali, in qua verba
externa non continent sensum mentalem." — Dens, vol. iv., p. 311.

AMBIGUITY AND EQUIVOCATION. 607
did not do so on a certain day, or before he was born, or un
derstanding any other such circumstance, while the words
which he employs have no such sense as would discover
his meaning." (2B) The reason given by him and Filiutius,
another father, is that " it is the intention that determines
the quality ofthe action."(30) And they give a surer meth
od of avoiding falsehood : "After saying aloud, I swear that
I have not done that, to add in a low voice, to-day; or aft
er saying aloud, I swear, to interpose in a whisper, that I
say, and then continue aloud, that I have done that."(31) The '
same rule is also expressed in these words : " No more is re
quired of them to avoid lying than simply to say that they
have not done what they have done, provided ' tbey have in
general the intention of giving to their language the sense
which an able man would give to it.'"(32) And Escobar, an
other and greater of the Jesuit fathers, lays down the fol
lowing lax and demoralizing rule in reference to promises
not confirmed by an oath : " Promises are not binding when
the person in making them had no intention to bind him-
self."(33) Now, with the believer in the ultramontane doctrines which
prevail at Rome, and which, since the decree of papal infal
libility, have become the only doctrines which the pope will
allow to be accepted as true, it is quite certain that the oath
of allegiance will not stand, for a single moment, in the way
of his obedience to any command ofthe pope for the promo
tion of the welfare and interest of the Church. In taking
the oath, how easy was it for him to have renounced his al
legiance to some civil monarch ; yet, at the same time, to
have reserved in his mind his allegiance to the pope, not as
a civil monarch in the same sense, but as the spiritual head
of the Church, whose power, divinely granted, included au
thority over all temporal affairs within its jurisdiction ! But
if he did not have this reservation, the other modes of es
cape are equally effective. Possibly, there are not very
(29) "The Provincial Letters," by Pascal, letter ix., p. 277.
C°) Rid. (31) Rid. O Rid.
(33) Ibid. , p. 278. The great Bossuet condemned all this doctrine as ' ' per
nicious in morality," and for that and other reasons was a Gallican Catholic,
and not a Jesuit.

608 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
many who have made this reservation, but these will la
bor assiduously to increase their number. The Jesuits, and
those upon wbose minds they have impressed their teach
ings, understand it perfectly well ; and their struggles to
obtain the mastery over the world are unremitting. They
have the unabating ardor of an army held together and in
spirited by the promise and expectation of victory.
It is fair to assume that a majority of those Roman Cath
olics who have taken the oath of allegiance had no such
mental reservation. But these well-meaning and good citi
zens are relied on to acquiesce, by their silence, in what may
be done by such as had. These seem to have no conception
of the extent to which this passive submission may carry
them. They may well pause at this point for reflection and
self-examination, while they are protected by institutions
which allow this to them. If they shall do so, they may
readily see how completely they have become entangled in
the meshes of the Jesuit net, and realize the nature of the
efforts their hierarchy are now making to bring them under
the government of the canon laws of Rome, whensoever the
existing laws of the United States shall conflict with them.
Perhaps not one in a thousand is aware of these efforts.
The proceedings of " the Second Plenary Council of Bal
timore " were referred to in the second chapter, to show the
preference of the American hierarchy for the Catholic over
the Protestant system of government, and their opposition
to certain laws ofthe United States. From what was there
said it would appear, very satisfactorily, that their purpose
was to bring about that condition of things which shall re
sult in governing this country by the canon law of Rome —
some ofthe principles of which, as they affect the obligation
of allegiance, have been explained. If there was left any
doubt upon that subject, it may be easily removed. Since
that chapter was written, a work has appeared entitled
" Notes on the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore." The
preface thus begins :
"The desire of gradually introducing in this country,
as far as practicable, the ecclesiastical discipline prevalent
throughout almost the entire Church, was strongly and re
peatedly expressed by the fathers of the late National Coun-

SECOND COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE. 609
cil of Baltimore. Its decrees tend both avowedly and implic
itly to promote the accomplishment of this object."{s>)
The author professes to propound the Decrees of Balti
more, because they are designed to establish " the same hie
rarchy, and, in consequence, substantially the same relations
between bishops, priests, and laity," as exist elsewhere iu the
same Church. {")
In defining the canon law, he calls the Church a perfect and
sovereign society, which possesses " a three-fold power — leg
islative, judicial, and coercive or executive," and which can
not be subordinate to any other society. (36) There are but
two perfect societies — the Church and the State ; the Church
is " absolutely supreme;" the State " but relatively supreme."
The State, when emancipated from the Church, " stands in
open revolt against God himself;" there should, therefore,
be such " close union " between them that they should " as
sist each other."(37) He calls the canon law the " common
law" ofthe Church, which " is obligatory on all the faithful
spread throughout the world ;" and makes it comprise, in so
far as it is written, " The Constitutions and Decretal Epistles
ofthe Sovereign Pontiffs," and the "Decrees of Ecumenical
Councils."(38) He then defines the principles ofthe common
law, among which are those which follow :
The pope can dispense with any law.(39) The constitutions
and decrees of the popes are explanations of the divine law,
and are, therefore, binding as soon as known. (40) The Church
does not recognize the right in any government to say wheth
er or not the pontifical decrees shall be enforced : " She is su
preme and independent, and therefore can admit of no inter
meddling with her authority. "(41) The Isidorian Decretals,
although now known to be spurious and false, were looked
upon as genuine for seven hundred years, or until their fraud
ulent character was discovered by Protestants in the six
teenth century ;(42) yet they aided materially in building up
the papal system, and there is no pretense that the popes
(M) "Notes on the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore," by Smith,
Preface, p. iii.
(36) Rid. , Preface, p. vii. (36) Rid. , p. 7. (3T) Rid. , pp. 8, 9.
(36) Ibid., pp. 11, 12. (3e) Rid., p. 17. (40) Rid., p. 21.
C) Rid., p. 27. (K)Rid.,p.32. 39

610 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
have abandoned such provisions of them as increase their
power. The pope alone is the interpreter of the divine law,
and his temporal power is necessary to the free exercise of
his spiritual authority. (43) He derives his jurisdiction im
mediately from God, and imparts a share of the plenitude
of his power to his bishops. (44) Ecclesiastical property must
be governed by the laws ofthe Church. (46) The State ought
to recognize and carry into effect the laws ofthe Church. (4e)
By these laws, laymen have no right of property in the
Cburch, and it is against the law of God that they should
dispose of its revenues. (") Where the mother of a child is
a Catholic, and the father a heretic, or Protestant, the child
may be baptized at the request of the mother, and against
the wishes and consent of the father. (48) Children of heretics
may be baptized against the will of both their parents ; be
cause all heretics are "per se subject to the laws of the
Church."(49) Religious books, including Bibles, shall not be
printed without the consent ofthe priesthood; and all such
as have not their approbation are forbidden to be read.(B0)
The coercive power of the Church includes the power " to
punish the insubordinate and repress the lawless;" which
extends to any punishment short of shedding blood, such as
imprisonment in monasteries, and other chastisements. (")
These provisions fall very far short of the whole body of
the canon law, which is set forth in the papal and consu
lar decrees, many of which have been noticed ; but they dis
tinctly show the purpose of the hierarchy to be the introduc
tion ofthe whole into this country, gradually, but as rapid
ly as they can, either by the exercise of direct power, or be
cause of the inattention and toleration of the American peo
ple. All the power they can now control is directed to, aud
concentrated in, this object. It will be observed that one
reason assigned for the jurisdiction they seek to establish
over this country, is that all heretics are " subject to the
laws, of the Church." And inasmuch as infidels, who have

C3) "Notes on the Second Plenarv Council of Baltimore," by Smith, p. 47.
(44) Ibid. , pp. 77, 78. (4S) Ibid. , p. 144. («) Ibid. , p. 149.
(47) Ibid., p. 150. (ts) Ibid., p. 178. O Ibid., pp. 178, 179.
(50) Ibid., pp. 354, 361, 362. (51) Ibid., p. 372.

INFIDELS AND HERETICS TO BE PUNISHED. 611
always denied the faith, are included among the heretics
along with Jews and pagans, this jurisdiction is made so
complete and broad as to include the entire population of
the country. Not only, therefore, do these hierarchs con
sider themselves entitled to possess the country and gov
ern it, in the name and by virtue of the divine right of
the pope, but to act as the masters and superiors of all class
es of the people — only awaiting, prudentially, the opportu
nity to assert and exercise this high ecclesiastical prerog
ative. In the mean time, while this tremendous authori
ty is held in abeyance by our civil institutions, the papacy
stands ready with its armory full of ecclesiastical weapons
prepared for use. If these are somewhat dulled by the length
of time they have lain idle, the dogma of infallibility has cre
ated a necessity for resharpening and burnishing them up
again. Therefore, we find the faithful instructed in the law
of the papacy as to the manner in which it would deal with
the host of its enemies and persecutors. Thus, it is said, infi
dels " are not to be tolerated ; because they are so bad that
no truth or advantage for the good of the Church can be
thence derived."(62) And they are to be dealt with without
trial or proof, on the ground of being incorrigible and rebell
ious from the beginning. Infidelity "is not to be tried or
proved, but extirpated," subject only to this condition — that
this extirpation may be suspended where " there may be rea
sons which may render it advisable tbat it should be toler
ated;" for example, where the power to extirpate is not pos
sessed. (63) Heretics as such are to be dealt with under spe
cial provisions of the law, made to fit their case on account
of their crime and impiety practiced in the act of setting up
a false faith in opposition to that of Rome. Baptized here
tics are to be visited with the greater excommunication by
the pope, as in the case of the bull, of Pius IX., a few years
ago, excommunicating all Protestants. They are to be con
sidered as infamous ; and their temporal goods are to be con-

(62) "Ritus aliorum infidelium, nempe paganorum et hsereticorum, per se
non sunt tolerandi; quia ita sunt mali, ut nihil veritatis aut utilitatis in bo-
num Ecclesiae inde derivetur." — Dens, vol. ii., No. 53, p. 83.
(B3) "Unde tentenda non est vel probanda, sed extirpanda, nisi adsint ra-
tiones, quae illam tolerandam esse suadeant." — Dens, Ibid.

612 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
fiscated.(") They are to be subjected to corporal punish
ment, to exile, and imprisonment.^") And then, to complete
the work, in case they shall remain obstinate, and not heed
the warnings of the Church, they are to be dealt with as
John Huss and Jerome were under a decree of the Council
of Constance — that is, they shall suffer death. Let not the
Protestant reader be alarmed ; this is only the law of the pa
pacy, which the infallible pope with his bierarchical auxilia
ries is trying to enforce here, and which they would enforce
if the world could be carried back by them into the gloom
and superstition of the Middle Ages. See, however, the em
phatic and plain language in which this death penalty is re
corded in question and answer:
"Are heretics rightly punished with death ? St. Thomas
answers, Yes, because forgers of money, or other disturbers of
the State, are justly punished with death; therefore also her
etics, who are forgers of the faith, aud experience being the
witness, grievously disturb the State."(M)
It must not be supposed that the baptized heretics who
are thus to be dealt with are only those who have been bap
tized into the Roman Catholic Church. The class is much
larger, and includes all baptized Protestants as well, pro
vided the ceremony has been performed with reference to
the ordinary essentials. These are not required to be re-
baptized upon reception into the Roman Church ; and are,
therefore, proper subjects of excommunication and punish
ment. Since the time of St. Augustine, more than fourteen
centuries ago, the doctrine on this subject has been as laid
down by him, as follows : " For in all points in which they
[heretics] think with us [Catholics] they are also in com
munion with us — are severed from us only in those points

(M) "Bona eorum temporalia sunt ipso jure confiscata." — Dens, vol. ii.,
No. 56, p. 88.
(M) "Denique aliis pcenis etiam corporalibus, ut exilio, carcere, etc., merito
afficiuntur." — Ibid., p. 89.
(5e) "An hseretici recte puniuntur morte? Respondet S. Thomas, 2, 2,
qusast. 11, art. 3, in ' Corp. ' affirmative : quia falsarii pecuniae, vel alii Rera-
publicam turbantes, juste morte puniuntur: ergo etiam hoeretici, qui sunt
falsarii fidei, et experientia teste, Rempublicam graviter perturbant." —
Dens, p. 89.

JURISDICTION OVER PROTESTANTS. 613
in which they dissent from us. What they have retained of
the teaching of the Church, they do not lose by severance
from her ; hence, the power of conferring baptism may be
found outside the Church. Moreover, it is Christ himself
who baptizes. The grace of the Sacrament is wholly inde
pendent ofthe qualification of him who administers it."(")
Thus it is manifest that all Protestants who have been
baptized are held to be in "communion" with the Roman
Church for the purpose of punishment for the crime of here
sy, and, consequently, they are now, in the papal view, under
sentence of death — the executioner merely waiting for suffi
cient power to enforce the decree, which has stood unre
voked and unchanged since the Lateran Council of Inno
cent LLT. provided for the extermination of the Albigenses.
Founded upon this enlarged and extraordinary jurisdiction
and the subtle reasoning employed to maintain it, the law
of the Church distinctly lays down the power of the pope to
compel obedience from us all, from the millions of Protest
ant people in the United States who have vainly supposed
themselves to be outside of his jurisdiction. It says: "Bap
tized infidels, such as heretics and apostates usually are, also
baptized schismatics, may be compelled, even by corporal
punishment, to return to the Catholic faith and the unity of
the Church. The reason is, because these by baptism have
become subject to the Church ; and therefore the Church
has jurisdiction over them, and the power of compelling
them through appointed means to obedience, and to fulfill
the obligations contracted in baptism."(BS)
It is easy now to understand what the pope, in his Sylla
bus, and Archbishop Manning, in his pastoral, mean by the
right ofthe Roman Church to employ force to coerce obedi
ence to its decrees. With them the jurisdiction of the pa-
(") Alzog, p. 424.
(6B) ' ' Infidelis baptizati, quales esse solent Hseretici et Apostate, item Schis-
matici baptizati cogi possunt, etiam pcenis corporalibus, ut revertantur ad Fi
dem Catholicam, et unitatem Ecclesise.
"Ratio est, quod isti per Baptismum subditi facti sint Ecclesia?: adeoque
Ecclesia in eos jurisdictionem habet et potestatem eos compellendi per media
ordinata ad obedientiam, et ad implendas obligationes in Baptismo contrac-
tas."— Dens, vol. ii., No. 51, p. 80.

614 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
pacy is limited only by tbe boundaries of the world, and
professing Christians of every creed are brought within the
sweep of the pontifical sabre, by a system of ecclesiastical
law and ethics, which, built up in ages of superstition and
ignorance, they are now seeking to revive. They admit
no compromise and practice no moderation. Whatsoever
stands in the way of their success is visited with the pontif
ical wrath ; and anathemas and curses, in the name of God,
are scattered broadcast over the world, as if God did not
delight to exhibit himself more in the sunshine than in the
lightning and the storm. How many of the multitude of
criminals upon whom the sentence of condemnation has been
already pronounced are destined to pay the penalty of their
disobedience, and how many shall escape, are matters con
cealed in the womb of the future. It is no trifling and idle
thing for nations and peoples to find themselves thus plot
ted against. Nor is it a trifling and idle thing for the peo
ple of the United States to find such an enemy, with drilled
and disciplined troops, in the very midst of their peaceful
institutions. Heretofore they have not failed to meet the
necessities of every crisis to which this country has been
subjected, and it seems impossible that they can remain list
less and indifferent with so formidable and dangerous an
adversary at their very doors.

THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 615

CHAPTER XX.
Infallibility fonnerly in General Councils and the Popes conjointly. — Efforts
made to prove this in England and the United States. — Books published
on the Subject in both Countries. — Extracts from Several of Them. —
Doctrine of French Christians on that Subject. — They deny the Infallibili
ty of the Pope. — Proceedings in England to obtain Catholic Emancipa
tion. — The Doctrine denied both in England and Ireland. — The Pope's
Infallibility a new Doctrine. — Denied in the Catechism. — Distinction be
tween the Church and the Papacy. — Infallibility in the Church during the
Early Times. — The Greeks never admitted the Infallibility of the Pope. —
The First Seven Councils mainly Greek. — They concede Primacy of Hon
or, not Jurisdiction, to the Pope. — The Council of Nice. — The First Coun
cil of Constantinople. — The Council of Ephesus. — The Council of Chalce
don. — The Second Council of Constantinople. — The Third Council of
Constantinople. — The Second Council of Nice. — The Fourth Council of
Constantinople. — Subsequent Councils held by the Latins. — The First
Lateran Council. — The Second Lateran Council. — The Third Lateran
Council. — The Introduction of Papal Constitutions. — Adding them to De
crees of Councils. — More Effort to make Law for the Church by the Force
of Precedent. — The Fourth Lateran Council. — Blindly obedient to Inno
cent III. — The Primacy of the Church, not of the Pope, established. —
Constitutions of Heretical Princes not Binding. — Part of the Canon Law.
— The First Council of Lyons. — The Second Council of Lyons. — The
Council of Vienue. — None of these Councils declare the Pope Infallible.
It ought not to be considered as asking too much of those
who support the absolutism of the papacy, when we insist
that they shall address themselves to our consciences in fur
nishing a solution of the problem involved in the claim of
the pope's infallibility. It concerns the present age of the
world too much, to let it rest upon the mere assertion that
because it has been dogmatically avowed by a number of
popes, therefore it is true. Such persons as have been trained
in the school of submission, and accept whatsoever is told
them by their superiors, may be satisfied with this ; but to
those who recognize no obligation of this nature, something
more is due if they are expected to acquiesce in it. "No

616 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
man," said Archbishop Tillotson, "can be under an obli
gation to believe any thing who hath not sufficient means
whereby he may be assured that such a thing is true."
Yet, when the objection is urged that this dogma places
the papacy in direct antagonism to the domestic, policy of
the progressive nations, we are told — as if it were a complete
answer — that there is nothing new in this ; that it is a part
of the ancient faith, descending from Peter, and which has
known no variation from the beginning. Thus the whole
question is rested ; and we are required to give our assent,
or remain under the pontifical curse if we do not.(')
It has been elsewhere asserted that before the late coun
cil the infallibility of the Church was generally recognized
by its lay members, especially in the United States, as lodged
iu the whole body ofthe Church, acting, according to the un
varying custom, through general councils and the popes con
jointly. Even if the hierarchy thought otherwise, they stu
diously avoided any open declaration to that effect, leaving
those to whom it was their duty to teach the whole truth in
ignorance and delusion. There were even some of them who
were not only guilty of this unpardonable sin of omission,
but actually misled their flocks into the acceptance of a fa
tal error. And others, who did not go so far, silently acqui
esced in the imposture.
About twenty years ago there was published and exten
sively circulated in the United States a work devoted to the
discussion ofthe question of "Church authority" — the pre
cise question involved in the dogma of papal infallibility.
It was written by a former clergyman of the English Church,
who had gone over to the Roman, as an explanation of his
reasons for so doing. Starting out by defining the word ec
clesia to mean any combination of men, he insists that in that
sense the Church was established by Christ with the office
of deciding what is human and what divine, and of interpret-
(') The whole substance of Archbishop Manning's reply to Mr. Gladstone
is centred in his second and third propositions, set forth in his letter to the
editor of the New York Herald, to wit, "that the Vatican Council an
nounced no new dogma, but simply declared an old truth," and that the civil
allegiance of Roman Catholics, " since the council, is precisely what it was be
fore. "—New York Tablet, December 21st, 1874, p. 405.

THE INFALLIBILITY OF COUNCILS. 617
ing the system of which it is the depository. {') He then pro
ceeds to instruct us what the Church is, where it is that the
Holy Ghost is always present, and where this power of inter
pretation is lodged. He proves by Ireneus, Origen, and oth
er fathers that "the divine spirit" which directs the Church
" has its dwelling in the collective body," which " is our sole
guide in the things of God."(3) He defines " the collective
episcopate " to be " the medium of Church authority," and in
sists that Christ provided for the Church, " as the law of its
organization, that the same persons [the bishops] who were
(!) The Greek word ecclesia was in use in that language before the birth
of Christ. Liddell and Scott, in their lexicon, define it to mean "an as
sembly of the citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly."
Potter says it was " an assembly of the people met together according to
law to consult about the good of the commonwealth." — Antiquities of Greece,
ch. xvii., p. 81. In the " Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge " it is said to
denote "an assembly called together upon business, whether lawful or un
lawful." Thucydides used it to signify an assembly. — Bloomfie/d's Thucyd
ides, bk. vi., § viii., p. 19, and bk. lxix., p. 338, vol. iii. It occurs frequently
in the New Testament, and is generally translated church. But a different
rendering is given to it, both in the Douay (Roman Catholic) and Protestant
Bibles, where it occurs in Acts xix., 32, 39, at both of which places it is
translated assembly. In several of the earlier versions of the New Testa
ment, the translation given it in Matthew xvi., 18, was congregation: " Upon
this rock I will build my congregation." But this was not satisfactory to the
Romanists, because it did not sufficiently convey the idea of an ecclesiastical
organization with external authority. They therefore repudiated this transla
tion, and adhered to the meaning attached by Jerome to the Latin word ec-
clesiam, when he introduced it into his "Vulgate " edition. When the revis
ion was made in the reign of King James, he seems to have had some fear
that the translators would introduce congregation instead of church, and thus
favor the popular idea in opposition to ecclesiastical authority. He therefore
caused to be drawn up a series of rules for their direction, in one of which he
instructed them as follows: "The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. :
the word church not to be translated congregation," etc.— History ofthe Bi
ble, by Westcott, ch. ii., p. 151.
It would thus seem that the word ecclesia, though translated church, was
intended by Christ to mean a body of believers assembled together at a par
ticular place, or the whole body of Christians in general assembling by repre
sentation, as they did at Jerusalem when Paul and Barnabas went up from
Antioch. To say, therefore, that it is composed of an organization with ex
ternal powers, and that Christ's design in establishing his Church was that
there should be a pope and a body of privileged ecclesiastics to govern it, is a
manifest perversion of its original meaning.
(3) "Principles of Church Authority," by Wilberforce, pp. 27, 47, 61, 65.

618 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
individually the dispensers of grace should collectively be
the witnesses to doctrine."(4) And then, in flat denial of pa
pal infallibility, if not of the primacy of Peter, he declares
that this principle of Church organization " proceeds on the
supposition that the gift bestowed upon the apostles, and
which had been inherited by their successors, had been given
to them as a body ; that no bishop or bishops could possess
it apart from the communion of the whole ; that as grace and
truth lay in Christ our Lord, and afterward in the college of
apostles, so it had been inherited by the whole episcopate as
a trust, in which they had a common share."(B) That this
principle has received the approbation of all the ages since
Christ, he considers " manifest from the weight attached to
general councils." He quotes this language from Cyprian :
" The episcopate is a single trust administered collectively
by many individuals." And this from the Apostolic Consti
tutions : " For the confirmation of you who are put in trust
with the universal episcopate." This episcopate he calls by
the equivalent names of the " one Church " of Christ, " the
federal union," and "the sacerdotal college." And then,
summing up, he says : "... .these principles evidently imply
that the interpretation of doctrine was lodged as a perpetual
trust in the episcopate, but the exercise of this function im
plied the co-operation of all bishops as a collective whole."(6)
It would be hard to find language more directly condem
natory of the doctrine of papal infallibility than this. Not
only does it show that no such doctrine prevailed in the
early ages of the Church, but that it is in express conflict
with "the law of its organization" as ordained by Christ.
The writer was highly complimented for the manner in
which he performed his task, and for the learning he dis
played. He was considered as a valuable acquisition to the
Church, and, doubtless, one object in circulating his book
was to influence hesitating Protestants, if they could be
found, by his argument. Another object undoubtedly was
to disprove what many Protestants considered the tendency
toward papal infallibility in the Church. And still another,
C) "Principles of Church Authority," by Wilberforce, pp.- 77, 84, 89, 92, 98.
C) Ibid. , p. 103. (•) Ibid. , pp. 103, 104, 107, 108.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE DENIED. 619
to quiet any apprehension that might exist among the lay
men of the Church in regard to the threatened concentra
tion of all the power of tbe Church in the hands of the pope.
It may be readily called to mind, by almost any body, how
flatly, and even spitefully, it was denied that any such con
centration was designed ; as it may now be realized how
this denial served to mislead many who find themselves de
luded. This book was only one of the many instrumentali
ties employed to carry on this work. Having performed its
task, it is now consigned to obscure places where the dust
and cobweb may settle on it; while the faithful are instruct
ed that the very doctrine it denied and condemned has al
ways been the doctrine of the Church !
Another book was published a few years ago, written by a
priest, designed to show that "the father of lies "had circu
lated misrepresentations and calumnies against the Church
in this country. In reference to "new additions" to the
faith, he says, it would be "damnable" to believe otherwise
than as Christ teaches, although it " should be defined and
commanded to be believed by ten thousand councils." And,
answering the accusation that the pastors and prelates are
held to be infallible, he classes it along with other " misrep
resentations " of which " the father of lies " is the author, and
says: "The papist, truly represented, believes that the pas
tors and prelates of his Church are fallible; that there is
none of them but what may fall into error and heresies, and
consequently liable to be deceived." And he assigns infal
libility only to " the whole Church." (')
Coming at last to the pope, he says that it is an exhibi
tion of tbe " black art " which the devil practiced in para
dise, to charge the papist with believing that he has taken
the place of Christ, "and that whatsoever he orders, decrees,
or commands is to be received by his flock with the same
respect, submission, and awe as if Christ had spoken it by
his own mouth," or that he is "no longer liable to error, but
is infallible." He indignantly repels the insulting and impi
ous falsehood, as the devil's work, and declares that the pope
(7) "A Papist Misrepresented and Represented," by Rev. John Gother,
pp. 44-46.

620 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
is the head of the Church only as " every father of a family
owns himself to be master of it under Christ;" and that,
while God assists the popes in the administration of their
office, no man is " obliged to believe them infallible," because
no such doctrine has ever been defined by the Church. (8)
There was yet another book of this same kind, published
with the official indorsement of Bishop Fitzpatrick, of Bos
ton, who certainly was fully instructed in the doctrines of
his Church. The author of this book meets the question of
papal infallibility squarely, and disposes of it without equiv
ocation ; manifestly intending to put it at rest, so that his
adversary should have no excuse for again referring to it.
That there may be no misconception of his meaning, the
whole of what he said is given as follows :
" I shall therefore tell the gentleman, once for all, and in
the clearest terms I am able to express myself, that when
you speak of the Roman Catholic Church, and maintain it
to be that infallible Church which Christ has established
upon earth, and to which all his promises of perpetual as
sistance were made, we mean not the particular Church or
diocese of Rome, which, as a diocese has its jurisdiction lim
ited, and is no more the Universal Church than the diocese
of Paris or Toledo — because a part is not the whole ; but
we mean the whole body of Roman Catholics, whatsoever
country or diocese they belong to, professing the same faith,
and living in communion with the Bishop of Rome, whom
they acknowledge to be their supreme pastor, or head of
their Church on earth. This is plain English; and, if the
gentleman will not understand it, but persists in his real or
pretended ignorance, and to impose upon his reader with a
manifest equivocation, I can say no more to render him sen
sible of his mistake.
" I observe, fourthly, that the gentleman has sometimes a
great itching to shift the state of the question from the in
fallibility ofthe Church to that ofthe pope. Nay, he tells
his lordship in plain terms ' that not to place the infallibili
ty in the pope is giving up our whole foundation.' I am
(") "A Papist Misrepresented and Represented," by Rev. John Gother,
pp. 49-51.

EFFORTS OF THE JESUITS IN FRANCE. 621
sorry he understands the doctrine of our Church no better,
which he ought to have done before he wrote against it.
For, as a controvertist, he ought only to dispute against ar
ticles of our faith fairly stated, and not against private opin
ions. Now, the infallibility of the pope is one of these.
Some Catholic divines write for it, and many against it, with
out any breach of communion with the See of Rome. And
therefore the gentleman shall have the liberty of talking by
himself upon that subject as much as he pleases ; for I am
not bound to answer any thing wherein the article of faith
which I pretend to maintain is not concerned."(")
Language more expressive could scarcely have been found.
It will be observed that he not only lodges infallibility in
the whole body of the Church, but denies flatly the doctrine
of the pope's infallibility. Some divines favor it, he says,
but many oppose it; clearly signifying that the latter con
stitute the majority. When it is considered that all this
was specially approved by a distinguished prelate of the
Churcb, it may be regarded as a sufficient set - off against
the contrary assertions now so frequently and dogmatically
made. But there is abundant evidence, equally conclusive and
satisfactory, to show that this question was met 'and dealt
with in Europe in the same way, from the very earliest ef
forts of the Jesuits to keep the popes on their side by its
persistent and pertinacious advocacy. A thesis was pub
lished in Paris, in the seventeenth century, wherein it was
claimed that Christ had communicated his own infallibility
to the pope, both in questions of right and of fact. This
thesis was immediately laid before all the bishops of France ;
it being well understood that it came from the college of the
Jesuits. Another soon after appeared from the same source,
not merely affirming what the first contained, but insisting
that the system of Copernicus, as defended by Galileo, should
be considered as battered down, because " the Vatican has
also thundered against it, and the sentence delivered by the
congregation of the Cardinals of the Inquisition has over-
(") " The Shortest Way to end Disputes about Religion, " by the Rev. Rob
ert Manning, Boston, 1855, pp. 189, 190.

622 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
thrown by its just censure the hypothesis, or rather the
thesis, of Copernicus in the person of Galileo." The avowed
purpose was to carry the doctrine of the pope's infallibility
to the extent of requiring " some mathematicians, more bold
than religious," who accepted the Copernican theory and
the teachings of Galileo, to " submit to the authority of this
censure." This thesis was submitted to the learned Faculty
of Divinity of Paris. The Parliament of Paris also took the
matter into consideration. It was thus brought directly be
fore the whole country, and presented in such form as to in
voke all the best intellects of France in its consideration.
The result was a strong and decided affirmance of the doc
trines set forth in the ancient decrees of the Faculty of Di
vinity, which were embodied in six distinct propositions.
1. It is denied that the pope has any indirect power or au
thority over the temporalities of the king. 2. That the king
has no other superior in temporals than God alone. S. That
subjects owe such allegiance to the king that it can not be
dispensed with upon any pretense whatsoever. 4. That the
pope can not depose bishops against the rules of the canons.
5. That the pope is not above a general council. 6. That the
pope is not infallible, when he has not the concurring con
sent ofthe Church. (10)
The opinion of these leading minds of France, so clearly
(10) 1. "Non esse Doctrinam Facultatis quod Summus Pontifex aliquam
in temporalia Regis Christianissimi authoritatem habeat ; imo Facultatem
semper obstitisse etiam iis qui indirectam tantum esse ilium authoritatem
voluerunt. 2. "Esse Doctrinam Facultatis ejusdem, quod Rex Christianissimus nul
lum omnino agnoscit nee habet in temporalibus superiorem praster Deum ;
eatnque suam esse antiquam Doctrinam, k qua nunquam recessura est.
3. "Doctrinam Facultatis esse quod subditi Fidem et Obedientiara1 Regi
Christianissimo ita debeant, ut ab iis nullo prsetextu dispensari possint.
4. "Doctrinam Facultatis esse non probare, nee unquam probasse Propo-
sitiones ullas Regis Christianissimi Authoritate aut germanis Ecclesia; Galli-
cana? libertatibus, et receptis in Regno Canonibus contrarias; v. g., quod
Summus Pontifex possit deponere Episcopos adversus easdem Canones.
5. " Doctrinam Facultatis non esse, quod Summus Pontifex sit supra Con
cilium (Ecumenicum.
6. "Non esse Doctrinam vel Dogma Facultatis, quod Summus Pontifex,
nullo accedente Ecclesia; consensu, sit infallibilis." — Ecclesiastical History,
by Du Pin, vol. xvii., pp. 146-150.

JESUIT DOCTRINES CONDEMNED. 623
and strongly expressed, shows, beyond all controversy, what
was the opinion of the Gallican Christians on this subject.
The Jesuits were not able to drive them from their position,
and, therefore, when Bossuet, the great Bishop of Meaux,
who stood at their head, undertook to define the relation
between sovereigns and the popes, he said " that kings and
princes are not subject in the temporal order to any ecclesi
astical power by the order of God ; that they can not be
deposed, either directly or indirectly, by virtue of the keys
of the Church ; finally, that by virtue of that power, their
subjects can not be absolved from their fidelity, obedience,
and oath of allegiance which bind them to their prince."(")
The oath of supremacy and allegiance which the English
law, during the reign of James I., required Roman Catholics
to take, made it necessary they should swear that, iu their
opinion, the pope had no power to depose the king, or to
dispose of the kingdom, or to authorize its invasion, or to
discharge the citizens from their allegiance. With them it
became a question whether, in view of their obligations to
the pope, they could lawfully take this oath. They were
not left in doubt long, in so far as the pope, Paul V., was
concerned ; for he addressed to them a brief which con
demned " the oath as unlawful, and containing many things
manifestly contrary to faith and to salvation." He address
ed them also a second brief of the same tenor ; and Innocent
X., after the death of Paul, condemned the oath anew. In
this perplexed condition, arising out of their divided loyal
ty, they consulted the Faculty of Divinity of Paris whether
they could, in their opinion, take the oath without prejudice
to the faith, and this after two infallible popes had declared
solemnly and officially, ex cathedrd, that they could not.
The sixty doctors of the Faculty declared, against these
popes, that they could take the oath without prejudice to
the faith ; and they did take it. The Jesuits, of course, were
not satisfied at this direct and powerful opposition to their
favorite theory of the pope's infallibility ; and they had no
difficulty in having this opinion of the French doctors placed
(u) "Defense of the Declaration, " by Bossuet, lib. i., s. i., ch. xvi., pp.
272, 273. Apud Gosselin, vol. ii., pp. 299, 300.

624 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
upon the Index at Rome, so as to stamp it with pontifical
condemnation and censure. (12)
The same question arose afterward in England, at a period
nearer our own times. When, toward the close of the last
century, the question of Catholic emancipation was pending
before the British Parliament, it was doubted by many
whether it would be safe to confer full political privileges
upon Roman Catholics because of the doctrines of the papa-
cy in regard to their allegiance. Strong efforts were made
to remove this doubt, and, as the most efficient means of do
ing so, the opinions of learned divines and foreign universi
ties were solicited directly upon the questions of the power
ofthe pope to depose monarchs, and to release their subjects
from allegiance, and the obligation of papists to keep faith
with heretics. Three questions, embracing these points,
were sent to the universities of Louvain, Douay, and Paris,
in France; and Alcala, Valladolid, and Salamanca, in Spain.
The answers were all condemnatory ofthe doctrine of papal
infallibility. In that from Douay, taken as a specimen, it is
said : " That no power whatsoever, in civil or temporal con
cerns, was given by the Almighty either to the pope, the
cardinals, or the Church herself*, and consequently that kings
and sovereigns are not, in temporal concerns, subject by the
ordination of God to any ecclesiastical power whatsoever;
neither can their subjects, by any authority granted to the
pope or the Church from above, be freed from their obedi
ence or absolved from their oath of allegiance." And they
declared that they were bound to keep all oaths, whether
pledged to " Catholic, heretic, or infidel." These doctrines
were also asserted, in 1792, by a Roman Catholic committee
in Ireland, acting for and in the name of all their country
men of that faith. And when, long afterward, in 1826, the
three Irish bishops, Murray, Doyle, and Kelley, were exam
ined before the British House of Commons on this same sub
ject, they also unanimously affirmed the doctrines set forth
by the universities. (13)
('*) Gosselin, vol. ii., pp. 252, 253 (note).
(13) "Papal Conspiracy Exposed," by Dr. Edward Beecher, pp. 36-40.
Mr. Gladstone gives the evidence of Bishop Doyle. When asked by the
committee whether the obligation of the Roman Catholic to obey the pope,

THE POPE'S INFALLIBILITY DENIED. 625
If the question then to be decided had been, whether or
not the popes themselves had claimed and asserted their
own infallibility, these inquiries would have been entirely
useless. That a very large number of them had done so,
directly and most explicitly, was well understood. The ob
ject of the inquiries, however, was to ascertain whether or
not the claim they set up was recognized by the Church as
a part of its faith — whether or not their frequent repetition
of the claim gave it the binding force of law to the whole
Church. Like all other aspiring and ambitious rulers, they
endeavored, at all times, to extend their power, and omit
ted no argument necessary to maintain it. Nor were they
ever known to abate their pretensions. On the other hand,
by including the deposing power in the spiritual, they had
enlarged the limits of their jurisdiction so as to embrace the
world. Hence, it became necessary to know to what extent
the faith of the Church had been influenced by these exorbi
tant demands ; for the plain reason that if the assertion of
this enormous power, frequently repeated, by any number of
popes, had ingrafted the doctrine of papal infallibility upon
the canons of the Church, so that the whole membership
were bound to accept it as a necessary part of the faith,
then it was undoubted that the obligation of allegiance to
the pope was higher and more binding than that to any
nation on earth. Therefore it was necessary to ascertain
whether the Roman Catholics of England and Ireland adopt
ed or repudiated this kind of faith, so that Parliament could
decide advisedly whether they should or should not be al
lowed to share in the management of public affairs. It
would be unjust, in the absence of all evidence to that ef-
divided his allegiance so as to interfere with that he owed to the State, he
replied :
" I do not think it does in any way. We are bound to obey the pope in
those things that I have already mentioned — [that is, in matters concerning
"religious faith" and "ecclesiastical discipline"]. But our obedience to
the law, and the allegiance which we owe the sovereign, are complete, and
full, and perfect, and undivided, inasmuch as they extend to all political, le
gal, and civil rights of the king or of his subjects. I think the allegiance
due to the king and the allegiance due to the pope are as distinct and as di
vided in their nature as any two things can possibly be." — New York Trib
une, November 24th, 1874. 40

626 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
feet, to say that they acted with duplicity by concealing
their real belief. However this may have been, the answers
were satisfactory, and the bill for Catholic emancipation ul
timately became a law. The object they desired was ac
complished.^4) If we are to decide upon the existence of facts not within
our personal knowledge, by the settled and common-sense
rules of evidence, it must be accepted as established, beyond
contradiction, that, at the times referred to, the Roman Cath
olics of the United States, France, England, and Ireland not
only did not accept papal infallibility as a part of their re
ligious faith, but positively denied it. They constituted a
very large portion of the Roman Catholic world ; so large
a portion that it would be absolute folly to talk about tbe
universality of any dogma of faith which was rejected by
them. In France especially, notwithstanding Protestantism
was tolerated, the Government was Roman Catholic; and
to say that it could remain so, and reject so important a
dogma as this, would amount to the impeachment of the in
tegrity of the pope for not condemning it, and of the intelli
gence and piety of those who did so. And in Ireland, as is
well known, there has been, for several centuries, such devo
tion to the true faith, that no shadow of doubt has ever rest
ed upon the loyalty of its Roman Catholic people to Rome.
Shall we not accept all these people, then, as denying the
pope's infallibility? If they trutbfully declared the doc
trine of the Church on this subject, has not the dogma of
the late Council prescribed a new article of faith? Mani
festly, it has declared that to be the faith which, before its
passage, was not the faith. Then it was not heresy to deny
it; now it is. Then a Roman Catholic could believe it or
not, as seemed fit to him ; now he is anathematized if he
does not believe it. It has changed his relations to the
Church, and to the country in which he resides. It super
adds to his obligation of allegiance to his country the obli
gation of a higher allegiance to the pope. It subordinates
his national citizenship to his citizenship of a great ecclesi-
. (") Any body who will examine the doctrines of the Gallican Church in
France will see that the opinions here expressed agree precisely with them. ,

CHANGE OF FAITH. 627
astical empire. It changes the orthodox faith into heresy.
It takes away the right of individual opinion upon the very
question involved, and denies any further exercise of reason.
And carrying along with it all the consequences which tbe
popes have claimed as involved in their infallibility, it re
quires the Church to accept, for the first time, as an abso
lutely necessary part of its faith, the equality of the pope
with God in the government of all human affairs, within the
extensive domain of faith and morals. Is not all this new ?
We may readily agree that it is not so to the popes, who,
like other ambitious men, are ever ready to assert doctrines
designed to increase and consolidate their power. That is
not the question, any more than it is now a question to de
cide whether kings, by the persistent assertion of the " di
vine right " to govern, have established a principle of law
by which all mankind are to be, now and forever, held in
subjugation by them. The question is, whether it is not
new as the doctrine of the Church. How can it be other
wise, when the Universal Church never assented to it — when
no council ever declared it as it is now declared — and when
at least one ecumenical council has expressly asserted pre
cisely the reverse ? The claim is not new, for the popes and
the Jesuits have repeatedly asserted it — but the doctrine is;
and it is only as doctrine that it becomes part of the faith.
If, then, it is faith for the first time, it is new faith, neces
sarily. But is it faith for the first time ? The catechisms of the
Church answer this. Previous to the late Lateran Council,
there was an authorized version of catechism circulated in
England which had the sanction of the highest authorities
ofthe Church, including Dr. Manning, the great Archbishop
of Westminster, wherein the following question and answer
are found :
"Q. Are not Catholics bound to believe the pope in him
self to be infallible ?"
"A. This is a Protestant invention, and is no article of the
Catholic faith."0
(w) Apud Bishop Coxe, of Western New York, in his pamphlet entitled
" Catholics andOld Catholics," p. 15.

628 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
And confirmatory of the fact that it was not an article of
faith before the enactment of the dogma to that effect, it is
well understood that a considerable number of the bishops
petitioned the pope not to submit to the council his infalli
bility as a dogma of faith. Of these there were five arch
bishops and twenty-two bishops from America. (16)
(,e) While the council was in session, Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati,
addressed to Archbishop Dupanloup, of Orleans, France, a letter, wherein he
says : " The American prelates have especial reason to hesitate upon the ques
tion of pontifical infallibility. Neither Catholics nor Protestants in our coun
try admit that the popes have the right to depose sovereigns, to release sub
jects from their oath of allegiance, and to transfer, when they please, the
kingdom of one prince to another. Our citizens of Irish nativity, who are
the majority and chief support of the Catholic Church in the United States,
will have much difficulty — de la peine — in admitting that Pope Adrian IV.,
who was an Englishman, was infallible when he gave Ireland to Hemy II.,
King of England ; on the other hand, the bulls of the popes upon this subject
are so clear and positive that the defenders of pontifical infallibility in gen
eral believe themselves forced to admit the temporal sovereignty of the pope
over the universe.
"Adrian IV. said most especially : 'Ad cujus (Romanae ecclesiae) jus earn
insulam, aliasque omnes quas documenta fidei cepissent pertinere, nemini du-
bium esset ' — ' to which (the Roman Church) belong that island and all others
which have received the faith, as no one will ever doubt.'
" That donation of Adrian IV. was confirmed by his successor, Alexander
III. It is also remarkable that the modern authors who speak so high —
parlent si haut — of the privilege of pontifical infallibility, preserve at present
a profound silence upon the other privilege, which their predecessors estimated
as important, and as well proven. Until now we have been permitted to say
that the Catholic Church has nothing to do with these transactions, and that
it is not responsible for all that the popes have done or may do. But if these
pontifical decisions become articles of faith, the Archbishop of Baltimore will
be placed in an embarrassing position, as well as all that has happened lately
in the matter of the liberty of worship — de la liberte des cultes. The expla
nations which your lordship believed yourself obliged to give have calmed
and appeased a petite tempest which threatened the Church. If our memo
ry does not deceive us — the proof we have left behind us in the United States
— it appears to us that the Archbishop of Baltimore esteemed himself happy
to be able to subscribe to your explanations when adopting them.
"The Archbishop of Baltimore tells us in his letter that he has never doubt
ed the general belief of the Church relative to the infallibility of the vicar of
Jesus Christ. In that case will it not be better to ask nothing more, and
leave things where they are and where they have always been ? Why does
he ask for new definitions which do violence to the conscience of several of
his colleagues in the episcopate ? Many of us believe that ecclesiastical his-

THE EARLY COUNCILS ALL GREEK.

629

We shall fail to reach correct conclusions upon this subject,
unless by observing the true distinction between the Church,
as such, and the papacy. The former conveys the idea of
universality, and includes the whole body of membership—
the pope, cardinals, all the hierarchy and laymen. The lat
ter excludes laymen from any participation in the manage
ment of Church affairs ; and, if the pope's infallibility be con
ceded, places the entire power and authority of the Church
in his hands without any responsibility either to the Church
as an organization, or to the lay members. In the former
sense, the Church has held nineteen ecumenical councils be
fore that recently held at Rome ; and from the opening of that
at Nice down to the last — a period of over fifteen hundred
years — it was universally understood, except by the popes
themselves who succeeded Gregory VIL, that whatever of
infallibility it possessed was lodged in the whole body, act
ing through the episcopate assembled in general council, or
through them and the pope acting conjointly. There is noth
ing in the early history of the Church contrary to this, but
every thing to confirm it. All the dogmas of faith express
this idea in one or the other of these forms. The seven first
councils were almost entirely composed of Greeks, and were
assembled by the Eastern emperors — not by the bishops of
Rome. The aggregate number of bishops attending them at
their different sessions was 1486, and only twenty -six of all
these were Romans. There were only three Roman bishops
in the Council of Nice; only one in each of the first of Con
stantinople and Ephesus ; only three at Chalcedon ; only six
tory, the history of the popes, the history of the councils, and tradition of the
Church, are not in harmony with the new dogma, and ihat is why we believe
that it is very inopportune to wish to define as an article of faith an opinion
which appears to us to lack any solid foundation in Scripture and tradition —
dans V&riture et la tradition — while it is contradicted by many irrefragable
monuments. It would be out of place to continue any longer a discussion
which is the business of the council ; but before concluding we can not re
frain from expressing our profound regret that the friends so devoted in ap
pearance to the Holy See have raised by their indiscreet zeal many painful
questions where religion has nothing to gain."
This letter, written in French, was translated for and published in the Cin
cinnati Commercial of May 22d, 1870, and the above extract republished in
the same paper of December 18th, 1874.

630 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
at the second of Constantinople; only five at the third of
Constantinople; and only seven at tbe second of Nice.(")
The Greeks never admitted the primacy of the Bishop of
Rome over the Patriarch of Constantinople. The most they
ever agreed to was to concede to him primacy of honor,
but not jurisdiction. This was a point of perpetual con
troversy and disagreement, which continued up to the final
schism. And therefore it falsifies all history to say that any
of these early councils established or recognized the infalli
bility ofthe Pope of Rome. The pretense has no shadow of
foundation. The Council of Nice did not even consider the
assent of the pope as necessary to the infallibility of its ac
tion, and therefore did not submit its decrees to him for ap
proval. They were communicated to him and the other ab
sent bishops by Constantine, the emperor, "by a letter in his
own handwriting." Constantine tells him that he is to re
ceive them as a " divine injunction," because " whatever is
determined in the holy assembly of the bishops is to be re
garded as indicative of the Divine will." And Eusebius, in
explanation ofthe universal Christian sentiment of the fourth
century, says that the decrees of the council were confirmed
and sanctioned by the emperor. (ie) He does not mention
the Bishop of Rome as having any thing to do with them,
except that, like all the other bishops, he was required to ac
cept them as the infallible action of the council.
The First Council of Constantinople conceded to the Bishop
of Rome the " place of honor " in the council, on account of
the superiority of Rome over Constantinople ; but did not
extend his jurisdiction or concede to him any power not
equally possessed by other bishops. It defined the jurisdic
tion of each bishop with great particularity, confining each
one to his own diocese. The Bishop of Alexandria was to
(") "Debate between Campbell and Purcell,"p. 45.
(18) "Life of Constantine," by Eusebius, pp. 127, 132, 135. Dr. Hefele,
Roman Catholic Bishop of Rottenburg, and a member of the late Lateran
Council, admits that the emperors presided " at some of the first eight coun
cils." He says, " Pope Stephen V. himself writes that the Emperor Constan
tine presided at the First Council of Nice, and the ancient acts of the synods
frequently refer to a presidency of the emperor or his representatives." — His
tory of the Christian Councils, by Hefele, Edinburgh ed., p. 28.

THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS. 631
govern Egypt only; the bishops ofthe East were to govern
the East, saving the ancient privileges and prerogatives of
the Church at Antioch; those of Asia, their own dioceses;
those of Thrace, the churches of Thrace ; and those of Pon-
tus, the churches of Pontus. Each one was expressly forbid
den to interfere with the affairs of another diocese. Each
province was to regulate what concerned itself. And when
a bishop was accused, the accusation had to be carried to
the bishops of his own province. If they could not decide,
the case was to be taken to the synod ofthe diocese. No
appeal to the Bishop of Rome is spoken of; there is not a
word on the subject.(19) If there had existed any such idea
as that he had supreme jurisdiction over all the churches and
was infallible, these provisions would have been perfectly
idle and useless.
Nothing can be inferred in favor of the pope's infallibility
from the proceedings ofthe Council of Ephesus; but direct
ly the contrary. That council was called by the Emperor
Theodosius, without any conference with Pope Celestine I.
The object of it was to deal with the heresy of Nestorius,
Bishop of Constantinople. This prelate and some of his
priests had insisted that the Virgin Mary ought not to be
called the Mother of God ; and the heresy having reached
the Egyptian churches, Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, called a
council of the bishops of bis province to condemn it. After
this was done the Church became much agitated, and both
Nestorius and Cyril corresponded with the Bishop of Rome
upon the subject. His opinion was solicited, more as an ar
bitrator than any thing else; certainly not as a final judge.
He decided against Nestorius, who appealed to a general
council, which was called by the emperor. The council af
firmed the decision of Celestine I. and deposed Nestorius.
In this there was not a single element of infallibility recog
nized as being possessed by the pope. Nor was his primacy
recognized. If he had possessed either, his judgment would
have been executed without a general council. But it had
no validity until ratified by a council, which he did not call,
and over which he did not preside, either in person or by his
(1B) "Eccl. Hist.," by Du Pin, vol. ii., p. 273.

632 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
legates, and which his legates did not attend until after Nes
torius had been tried and deposed. This council re-affirmed
what the first of Constantinople had done in reference to ju
risdiction, by confining the bishops to their own provinces. (2°)
The Council of Chalcedon gives no more support to pa
pal infallibility than any of the three preceding. Eutyches,
a priest, and abbot of the monastery of Constantinople, was
found guilty of heresy by a provincial council assembled in
that city, and excommunicated. He appealed to a general
council, and wrote to Pope Leo I. asking him not to decide
the question in dispute between him and his diocesan bishop,
but to give his judgment about the point of doctrine alleged
to be heretical. Nor did he ask Leo to summon the council :
this he solicited of the Emperor Theodosius. It was done
by the emperor, who caused all the bishops, including the
pope, to attend. The pope did not know of it until after it
was summoned, but sent his legates. It was presided over
by Dioscorus of Alexandria, by order of the emperor — the
chief legate of the pope having the second place. Its de
cision corresponded with that of Pope Leo in reference to
the heresy of Eutyches, who had denied the two distinct nat
ures, human and divine, in Christ; and its final result Was
the enactment of thirty canons. By none of these is any ju
risdiction conferred upon the pope which had not already
been conferred by the former councils. On the contrary, by
one of them, the twenty-eighth, there were expressly confer
red upon the Church of Constantinople " the same privileges
with old Rome," and jurisdiction given to it over the dio
ceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, and the churches " out of
the bounds of the emperor," together with " the right to or
dain metropolitans in the provinces of these dioceses."(21)
Here, it will be observed, there is no recognition of the
primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the other churches.
The First Council of Constantinople had conferred upon him
only " the place of honor," without interfering with the
jurisdiction of any of the bishops, except to define it. This
council leaves that honorary distinction undisturbed ; but,
when it comes to speak of " privileges " and "jurisdiction,"
(20) Du Pin, vol. iv., pp. 191-217. (21) Ibid., vol. iv., pp. 218-242.

THE COUNCILS OF CONSTANTINOPLE. 633
places Rome and Constantinople upon a footing of perfect
equality ; thus absolutely repudiating the idea of the pope's
infallibility or supremacy.
The Second Council of Constantinople was called by the
Emperor Justinian, to settle the controversy about "the
three chapters." Pope Vigilius exhibited some inconsist
encies during its proceedings, not being inclined to go to
the whole extent of condemnation demanded by the em
peror, but he finally yielded his assent to what was done.
It included, however, nothing concerning his jurisdiction;
for, although he was present in Constantinople during the
session of the council, its proceedings were directed almost
entirely by the emperor. (22)
The Third Council of Constantinople grew out ofthe con
troversy about the two wills of Christ, and was called by
the emperor, Constantinus Pogonatus, with a view to recon
ciling the disagreement between the Eastern and Western
Christians. The emperor himself presided, although the
pope had three legates present. The heresy condemned by
the council had been professed over forty years before by
Pope Honorius I., and, consequently, in finding Sergius, The
odoras, and others guilty of it, they included Pope Honorius
by name. Its decrees were approved by Pope Agatho, who
has been made a saint by the Church. So that the proceed--
ings of this council have always been wonderfully perplex
ing to the advocates of papal infallibility, instead of being
available to them in support of that doctrine. How Hono
rius could have been infallible and yet a heretic, at the same
time, is not a little puzzling. Baronius, the annalist, brought
all his learning and ingenuity to bear on the question, but,
as Du Pin says, his " fancy must pass for a matchless piece
of rashness."(23) While the Jesuits have been taxing their
ingenuity to escape the effect of this decree of a general
council that Pope Honorius was a heretic, and its approval
by Pope Agatho, the common sense of mankind has long
since settled the difficulty by deciding that neither of these
popes was infallible. Manifestly, the Third Council of Con
stantinople thought so.

C2) Du Pin, vol. v., pp. 131-146. (23) Rid., vol. vi., pp. 66-74.

634 THE PAPACY AND THE CI VIL POWER.
Constantine Copronymus, the emperor, called a council at
Constantinople to settle the dispute about tbe worship of
images. It was afterward removed, and became the Second
Council of Nice. The pope, Adrian I., sent his legates, to
whom he intrusted a letter setting forth the necessity and
orthodoxy of image-worship, which he traced back, of course,
to Peter. The letter was addressed to the emperor, in the
nature of a petition ; and, among other things, entreated the
emperor " to cause St. Peter's patrimony to be restored to
him," and " to maintain the Church of Rome's supremacy."
He exhibited the accustomed papal presumption in assert
ing his superiority. But, unfortunately for the cause of pa
pal infallibility, his legates did not venture to lay this inso
lent demand before the council. Referring to these propo
sitions, Du Pin says, "The pope's legates durst not, perhaps,
present them to the synod iu which Tarasius [Patriarch of
Constantinople] presided." The council passed twenty-two
canons, but none of them interfered with the jurisdiction of
the churches, as previously fixed. (24)
The Fourth Council of Constantinople, during the pontif
icate of Adrian II. , was called by Basilius, the emperor, in
consequence of the controversy between Ignatius and Pho
tius, after the deposition ofthe former and the appointment
ofthe latter as Patriarch of Constantinople. The pope took
the side of Ignatius, and his decision was affirmed by the
council. Twenty- seven canons were enacted, but one of
them, however, having any bearing on the question of the
pope's supremacy. This, the twenty-first, provided, "That
the pope of old Rome ought to be honored and respected
in the first place, and next to him the patriarchs of Constan
tinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem." It provides
that no obloquy should be cast "against St. Peter's Holy See,
the prince of the apostles," and that whosoever shall do
so shall be condemned for heresy. Also, that he shall not
be deposed by princes. And then it also provides as fol
lows : " But if a general council being met, there happens
any difference with the Bishop of Rome, he ought to be
conferred with about the matter, and his answers be had, to
(21) Du Pin, vol. vi., pp. 131-148.

BEGINNING OF LATIN 'COUNCILS. 635
make the best of it on either side, and no rash judgment to
be passed against the supreme bishop."(2B) Careful obser
vation of this language will show its whole import. In the
first place, following the First Council of Constantinople, it
assigns the chief place of honor merely to the pope ; and
then, in the second place, gives as the reason for it that this
precedence of honor was conferred upon Peter when he was
made "prince of the apostles." But all this falls very far
shdrt of infallibility, which, besides honor, includes power
and jurisdiction. And the council did not pretend, either
that Peter had any superior power and jurisdiction beyond
that conferred upon the other apostles, or that the pope had
them in any greater degree than the other bishops. On the
other hand, they, in the final clause of the canon, exclude
any such idea by providing that differences existing be
tween the pope and others may be settled by general coun
cils, both parties being heard. How could there be any
such differences, or how could a council have jurisdiction
over them if the pope was infallible ? And this council, it
should be observed, met in 869, long after the temporal
power of the popes had begun to grow under the patronage
of Pepin and Charlemagne, and just after the pontificate of
Nicholas I., who had augmented the power of the papacy
by means of the False Decretals. Even then the council
was unwilling to surrender its supreme jurisdiction over-
the pope.
After the close of this council no other general one was
held for nearly two hundred and fifty years. In the mean
time, events of the greatest importance, bearing upon the in
crease ofthe papal power, had transpired. By the agency
of Pepin and Charlemagne the popes had severed their alle
giance from the emperors, and had become the acknowl
edged head of the Western or Latin Church, as distinct and
separate from the Eastern or Greek Church. They had also
succeeded in building up an immense fabric of papal power
by means of false and forged decretals, which were manu
factured as occasion required, to suit each exigency as it
arose. And being thus separated from and independent of
(26) Du Pin, vol. vii., pp. 92-98.

636 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
the Greeks, the remaining councils, covering the whole pe
riod of the Middle Ages, were held by the Latin Church,
and under the immediate auspices of the popes. True to
the purpose of acquiring every possible degree of power,
and of establishing their supremacy over the world, they
began these Western councils at Rome, where the pope, by
means of Italian influence, could generally have his own
way. We shall see, however, that, with all these advan
tages, slow progress was made toward papal infallibility.
,It took all the time from 869 to 1870 — a tbousand years — to
find a general council with so little self-respect as to place
the whole power ofthe Church in the hands of the pope.
The First Council of Lateran, called the Ninth Ecumenical,
met during the pontificate of Calixtus IL, but made no en
actment in reference to the power and jurisdiction of the
pope. It passed twenty-two canons, having reference to
otber matters. (26)
The Second Council of Lateran, under Innocent IL, con
fined itself mainly to the regulation of discipline. There
seems to have been, by this time, a necessity for providing,
as it did, that priests who kept concubines should not hear
mass. But it also secured to them immunity from public
censure by subjecting to anathema those who should abuse
ra_cjergyman.(a') The Third Council of Lateran, under Alexander III., was
professedly a reform council, designed "to reform a great
number of abuses that had crept into the Church," and also
to condemn heresies. By this time the power of the papacy
had nearly reached its culmination, and Alexander III. was
not the kind of pope to permit any abatement of it. Not
one of the twelve popes between him and Gregory VII.
equaled him in ambition or strength of will ; and not one
among all his predecessors was more fitted than he to pre
pare the way for those events which were soon to transpire
under Innocent III. While this council asserted nothing in
reference to the pope's supremacy, it enacted twenty-seven
disciplinary canons, some of which were pointed at existing
abuses. It went somewhat farther than that immediately
(!») Du Pin, vol. x., pp. 33, 34. (27) Ibid., p. 206.

PAPAL CONSTITUTIONS. 637
preceding, in the recognition of principles asserted in the
False Decretals. It anathematized those laymen " who ex
act duties and lay taxes on the churches, and on ecclesias
tical persons ;" and those who should dare to " summon cler
gymen before their judges " in the secular courts. It relax
ed nothing whatever in the work of establishing papal su
premacy, wliile it omitted any avowal of it. (28)
The practice of publishing what are called " papal consti
tutions " along with the proceedings of councils, seems, how
ever, to have been then introduced. These consist of the
briefs, bulls, and encyclical letters of the popes, wherein they
asserted their own supremacy, and occasionally their infalli
bility. They were designed, of course, to maintain " the im
munities of the Church," by making the power of the popes,
in its government, superior to all other. The object to be
accomplished by their publication in this form was, manifest
ly, to give to them a sort of consular sanction, in order that
the Church might, in the end, be brought to the point of ac
cepting them as of equal obligation with the canons of coun
cils. The process was simple, and the argument plain. The
False Decretals had furnished the claims of authority set up
by the popes from Clement to Siricius, and these " constitu
tions " were such as the popes had made since then ; and as
they all claimed supremacy and infallibility, therefore they
were supreme and infallible ! Hence we find annexed to
the proceedings of this council " a large collection of divers
constitutions of Alexander III. and of the popes who pre
ceded," and, subsequently, of those also who "succeeded
him," which are published "as a sequel to this council," (29)
The proceedings of the Fourth Lateran Council exTiituT"'
the unbounded ambition of Innocent III., under whose pon
tificate it was held. There we find the celebrated third can
on, which makes the persecution and extirpation of heretics
a religious duty, which yet remains the law of the papacy.
By this time the claim of supremacy made, and so frequently
repeated by the popes, was considered to have the sanction
ofthe Church, because there was no formidable resistance to
it. Acquiescence was inferred from silence. Innocent III.
(28) Du Pin, vol. x., pp. 207-209. (28) Ibid., p. 209.

638 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
availed himself of this, in order that the practice of asserting
this claim in papal " constitutions " should become ripened
into the force of law. He, accordingly, is the first pope who
boldly and openly struck at the independence of a gener
al council; and he was not accustomed to aim his blows
ineffectually. Seventy canons were passed without debate,
which " were already drawn up" by him when, the council
assembled in Rome. There was no deliberation or debate
about them. They were laid before the council by the pope,
who " ordered them to be read ;" but they were not acted
on. But because the prelates did not openly resist and de
nounce them, "their sileUce was taken for an approbation;"
a rule of procedure yet adhered to. Among these canons we
find it avowed, for the first time in the proceedings of a gen
eral council, that " the Church of Rome " has " the primacy
over all otlier churches according to the appointment of our
Saviour;" that they all owe "obedience to the Holy See;"
and that the pall received from Rome is "the ensign ofthe
plenitude of the pastoral power." This bold avowal was
not made, therefore, till the thirteenth century; but even
then, when the world was enveloped in the thick mist ofthe
Middle Ages, it stopped somewhat short of the claim ofthe
pope's personal infallibility. Innocent lit. was undoubted
ly ready to carry it to that extent, but, with all his daring,
he was not prepared to ask of a general council a direct de
cree to that effect. It will be perceived that the primacy
asserted was alleged to be in "the Church of Rome," not in
the pope. It manifestly designed to consider the Church to
be, according to the invariable custom, the whole body of
Christians, as represented by the universal episcopate in gen
eral council ; and that the pope, in asserting this primacy,
should act within the limitations fixed by the Church. Oth
erwise, many of the canons Avould have been useless — es
pecially the forty - fourth. This canon solemnly declares,
"That the constitutions of princes which are prejudicial to
the rights of the Church shall not be observed, whether they
be for the alienation of fiefs, or for the encroaching on the
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or for any other goods." If the
council had intended to change the deposit of infallibility
from themselves, as representing the Church, to the pope

STRUGGLE FOR PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 639
alone ; or if the pope had thought it expedient to have his
personal infallibility distinct from that of the council openly
acknowledged, there would have been no necessity for this
canon. The principle asserted in the canon was considered
necessary to the Church, and as requiring the stamp of infal
libility upon it, in order that it should stand throughout all
time. To give it this, the consent of the council was neces
sary; and that not having been withheld, this canon is one
of those which the present pope is desirous of enforcing, and
with reference to which the late council must be considered
to have acted. (30)
The principal object of the First Council of Lyons, under
Innocent IV, was to decree a general crusade. And al
though much may be inferred from its silence, under the
then existing state of affairs, yet it made no decree about
primacy, supremacy, or infallibility. It, however, gave its
sanction to the bull of the pope wbich deposed the Emperor
Frederick and released his subjects from their allegiance;
from which it is fair to suppose that both the pope and the
council considered this sanction as necessary to give that
act the ratification of the Church. Be this as it may, the
stamp of infallibility was also given in this mode to the
right of deposing monarchs and releasing their subjects from
their allegiance, and that principle, with the approbation of
this council, took its place among the canons of the Church,
where it has ever since remained. (31)
The Second Council of Lyons, under Gregory X., was
called with reference chiefly to a reunion with the Greek
Church ; which fact will sufficiently account for its silence
in reference to papal infallibility, primacy, etc. Its doctrin
al decrees had reference to the procession ofthe Holy Spirit,
though it passed a number of a disciplinary character and
upon general subjects. (32)
The Council of Vienne was assembled under Clement V
This pope had reached the pontificate by a corrupt bargain
with Philip, King of France, by which he solemnly pledged
himself that, if elected, he would cause Pope Boniface VIIL
(30) Du Pin, vol. xi., pp. 95-103. (S1) Ibid., pp. 6-8, 114, 115.
(32) Ibid., pp. 123, 124.

640 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
to be declared infamous. He was one of those who held the
corrupt papal court at Avignon, in France, and who contrib
uted his full share toward causing it to be esteemed the
most prostituted place in Europe; so much so that Bishop
Durandi said of it that it was " the retreat of dragons, the
place of resort of satyrs, and the kingdom of demons."
Clement V. called this council to avoid, if possible, the fulfill
ment of his promise to Philip, as he hoped to find shelter
behind its unwillingness to defame a former pope. He suc
ceeded so far as to pacify the king by issuing a bull to the
effect that all the former bulls of Boniface against him
should be held void. The council did nothing but pass some
canons concerning the faith, and others condemning and
anathematizing some heretics. With its proceedings, how
ever, there were published a number of "papal constitutions,"
after the practice introduced by other popes, all tending to
increase tbe power of the papacy. Some of these by Clem
ent V. himself only go to show how entirely impossible it
was for such a man to be infallible: it is scarcely possible
they could ever have been accepted by the Church, or that
any general council would have allowed them a moment's
consideration. Among those given by Du Pin are such as
these : that as man may reach perfection in this life, when
he has done so, he " may freely allow his body what he
pleases ;" that he is not then " obliged to obey, or tied to
practice, the principles of the Church ;" " that to kiss a wom
an is a mortal sin, but the carnal knowledge of her is no sin,"
etc., etc. This latter papal precept was probably designed
as a shield for his intercourse with the beautiful Countess
de Foix.(33)
This Council of Vienne was the fifteenth recognized as
ecumenical, and the last which preceded that at Constance.
Neither by any of its decrees, nor by any of those assem
bled before it, was there any direct averment to the effect
that the pope was infallible. With all of them infallibili-
(33) Du Pin, vol. xii., pp. 95, 96 ; Cormenin, vol. ii., pp. 39-44. Wenin
ger is not content with referring to the claim of infallibility made by Pope
Clement V. in his own behalf, but refers also to these " Clementine enact
ments," or constitutions of Clement V., to shbw that he was infallible! —
Weningek, pp. 143, 144.

COUNCILS MAINTAIN THEIR SUPERIORITY. 641
ty was lodged in the collective Church, and nowhere else.
But so frequently had some of the most ambitious and pre
tentious popes endeavored to assert it for themselves inde
pendently of the Church, acting as an organized body, and
by this means to enlarge the circle of their admitted spirit
ual primacy so as to make it broad enough to include juris
diction over temporals, that it became absolutely necessary
to the peace and welfare of the Church, that the Council of
Constance should grapple directly with the question and
put it at rest. It did endeavor to do so, as we bave already
seen, by deposing one pope and declaring the superiority of
a general council over all of them. This was undoubted
ly the voice of the Church, declared in the only recognized
mode, and was accepted as such by all but the popes them
selves, and their special adherents in Italy, where their pow
er was omnipotent. They were not disposed to rest long
under this direct censure of a general council ; for even
Martin V., who accepted from it the place of the deposed
pope, so soon as he could get away from its immediate influ
ence, commenced a series of measures designed expressly to
reverse its decisions and bring it into disrepute. In this he
was sympathized with by Eugenius IV, his immediate suc
cessor, under whose pontificate the Council of Florence was
held, only seventeen years after the Council of Constance.
To this council we are now referred by all the defenders
of papal infallibility, in proof that this doctrine has always
been recognized by the Church as a part of its faith. From
that time they trace it down to the present, through the
councils of the Fifth Lateran and of Trent, to show that the
late council — the Sixth Lateran — did not introduce any new
dogma, but only gave expression to the faith which had
always and everywhere existed. This pretense requires a
minute examination, somewhat more in detail ; but in order
to see that it is a pretense, and nothing more, it is only nec
essary to observe the manner in which the Jesuit writers
dispose of the Council of Constance. Whether, in doing
this, mendacity or ingenuity prevails the most, the reader
must judge for himself.
Passing by the equivocations of Weninger — from whose
book repeated quotations have already been made — and his
41

642 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
flagrant suppression of important facts necessary to a cor
rect understanding of the Council of Constance, let us come
directly to the important points of his explanation. He says
that in condemning the heresy of the Wycliffites, the council
"did not pronounce new ecclesiastical censures against them,
but contented themselves with reminding the faithful that
the sect and its infamous doctrines had been previously con
demned by the decisions of the Holy See. These decisions
are irrefragable, remarks the council, because it is impossi
ble that the Apostolic See — that is to say, the pope — should
err."(34) It requires but a moment's thought to see that it was im
possible, in the very nature of things, for the fathers of Con
stance to have stultified themselves by any such declaration
as this. It would have been as diametrically opposed to
what they actually did, as darkness is to light. They had
tried, condemned, and deposed John XXHL, a lawful pope,
for innumerable crimes, including heresy; and to have fol
lowed such an act with the assertion that it was impossi
ble that " the pope should err " would have made them the
laughing-stock of all Europe. But it is not necessary to ar
gue upon general principles to show how entirely this asser
tion of Weninger is without any fact to support it. Du
Pin says, the decree of the Council of Constance " concern
ing the authority of the council above the pope did plainly
decide the question, and subjected the pope, as well as to
faith as manners, to the judgment of a general council;"
which applied not only to times of schism, or where there
were rival popes, " but generally in all other cases." And
he gives the reason for this decision : " Because they deduce
the authority of the council above the pope from its repre
sentation of the Church, and from its infallibility." And
when speaking of the bull of Martin V. against the errors
of the Wycliffites, he says also, that, in the forty-first de
cree, " the authority of the Universal Church is distinguish
ed from that of the pope ; and there it is ordained that the
Universal Church, or the General Council, have a sovereign

(M) "Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope," by Weninger, pp.
145, 146.

BULL OF MARTIN V. 643
authority indefinitely; whereas 'tis only said of the pope
that he hath a primacy over other particular churches, which
amounts to the same thing with the decision of the coun-
cil."(36) This same author asserts, moreover, that, after Martin V.
had been elected by the Council of Constance, and while it
was yet in session, he issued a bull prohibiting all appeals
from the pope to any other tribunal, and that it was ap
proved by the council. The words of this bull given by him
are these : " It is not lawful for any person to appeal from
the Roman pontiff, who is the supreme judge and the Vicar
of Christ on earth, or by subterfuge to elude his judgment
in matters of faith."(36) This statement is untrue, or else
Du Pin did not understand, or has perverted the facts — nei
ther of which is probable. When the Council was nearly
drawn to a close, a question arose about which there was so
much disagreement that the embassadors of Poland talked
about appealing to a future council — a remedy in entire 'ac
cord with the common sentiment of the time. Martin V.,
like some of his predecessors, was disposed to avail himself
of every opportunity to resist this idea, so as to concen
trate all the power of the Church in his own hands, and ac
cordingly issued the bull alluded to, notwithstanding, as
was then declared, it was directly contradictory of what the
council had decreed. But it did not receive the sanction of
the council, as Weninger asserts. On the other hand, if the
council had acted upon it, there can be no reasonable doubt
that it would have been not merely rejected, but sternly
condemned. Du Pin says : " However, the bull of Martin
V. containing the prohibition of appealing to the council
was not read, nor approved, in this session ofthe council, but
published in a private assembly of the cardinals;"^) that
is, sent out as the popes have generally promulgated their
"constitutions," with the hope that, in the course of time,
their custom of asserting universality of power would ripen
into the force of law. They understood full well the nature
and import of that principle of their Church organization

if) Du Pin, vol. xiii., p. 15. C) Weninger, p. 147.
(") DuPin, vol. xiii., p. 24.

644 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
which construes silence into acquiescence — as do also the
hierarchy of the present day. And they acted upon this
principle, if not with impunity, at least with courage, until
at last it has come to be a part of the settled faith of the
Church that no layman has any right to inquire by what
authority a papal decree has been issued, or to what extent
it goes, or what it commands to be believed or done, but is
bound to accept it as true and obey it accordingly, without
any regard to whatsoever human power and authority it
may defy.
Notwithstanding the contrary assertion of Weninger and
other Jesuits, no man can study the history of the Coun
cil of Constance without seeing that the infallibility of the
pope was directly contradicted by it — not merely by the
act of deposing an obnoxious and heretical pope, and elect
ing another in his place, but by the enactment of a decree to
that effect, which was approved by Martin V And if it be
true, as alleged, that Martin V., after approving this decree,
endeavored to counteract its effect by a papal bull — of which
there seems to be no doubt — he is presented to all impartial
minds in the attitude of having played a double part — of
having misled the council by the pretense of approving what
it did, while, at the same time, he cherished the purpose of
resisting it at the earliest opportunity. But this is nothing
new in the conduct of the popes, who, in building up the
wonderful system of the papacy, have taken care to reserve
to themselves the right of doing whatsoever they may sup
pose the interest ofthe Church requires, without any regard
whatever to what they themselves or any others may have
done or said. Martin V. found ample justification for his
duplicity in the example of many of his predecessors, and
only increased the number of those popes whose conduct has
since added to tbe significance of the precedent.

COUNCILS OF BASEL AND FLORENCE. 645

CHAPTER XXI.
The Condition of the Church at the Time of the Councils of Basel and Flor
ence. — Council at Pavia fixed by that of Florence. — Approved by Martin
V. — Transferred to Basel. — Meets there, and is presided over by Legate of
Eugenius IV. — It is Ecumenical. — Agrees with that of Constance about
its Power over the Pope. — Eugenius IV. endeavors to defeat It. — His
Proceedings against It. — Organizes a Factious Assembly at Ferrara. —
Proceedings of the Council against Him. — He pretends to yield, and ap
proves its Decrees. — He violates his Pledge. — He draws the Greeks to
Florence, and calls the Meeting there a Council. — It is not Ecumen
ical ; the Council at Basel is at first, when its Decree against the Pope's
Infallibility is passed. — It represents a Majority of Christians. — The
Council at Florence is mainly Italian. — The Pope's Agreement with the
Greeks about his Primacy. — Limited by Decrees of Councils and Canons
of the Church. — The Greeks reject the Agreement, and it falls. —This is
called a Decree. — Its Terms. — Misrepresentation of Them. — Do not make
the Pope Infallible. — Give Him the Primacy conferred by Decrees and
Canons. — Primacy of Honor, not Jurisdiction. — The Fifteenth Century, aft
er the Council of Florence. — The French Church. — Charles VII. — Coun
cil at Bourges. — Pragmatic Sanction. — Opposition of the Popes to it. —
Revoked by Louis XI. — Parliament resisted. — Council of Pisa. — The
Fifth Lateran Council in Opposition to it. — The Former renews the De
crees of Constance and Basel. — The Latter factious at Beginning. — -Aft
erward assents to. — Concordat of Bologna agreed to by Francis I. and
Pope Julius II. — Rejected by France. — French Bishops do not attend the
Council. — It is not Ecumenical. — No Deliberation in it. — Submissive to
Leo X. — Council of Trent. —Does not assert the. pope's Infallibility. —
Does not deny the Validity of the Decree of Council; of Constance. —
Concedes merely Power of Pope to interpret the Canons, not to set them
aside. — Pius IV. does this only in his Profession of Faith.
It is so positively and dogmatically asserted that the
pope's infallibility was recognized by the Council of Flor
ence, that, in order to know whether it is to be accepted as
a fact or rejected, we must understand the character of that
council, the circumstances which led to it, and the nature of
its decrees.
The Church at the time of the two Councils of Basel and
Florence was fearfully rent by a most disgraceful schism.

646 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
The Council of Constance, only a few years before, had ap
pointed a council to meet at Pavia, which had the sanction
and approval of Martin V. This fixed its ecumenical char
acter; and when it did afterward meet, in 1423, and was at
tended by five legates of the pope, and by deputies from
France, Germany, and England, it, of course, retained this
character. It was, therefore, an ecumenical council at the
beginning, according to the principles then and now univer
sally recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. It was
subsequently transferred to Basel, where it was presided over
by a legate of Pope Eugenius IV. — his immediate predeces
sor, Martin V, having, in the mean time, died. One of the
first questions that came before it was that which had been
decided by the Council of Constance, involving the relative
powers of popes and councils. It became apparent, at once,
to the pope that the council would decide, as that at Con
stance had done, in favor of its own and against his author
ity; in other words, that it possessed the rightful power to
settle and prescribe the faith, independently of the pope, and
that the pope had no such power without its consent, be
cause it alone represented the Universal Church. To pre
vent this, Pope Eugenius IV. immediately began a most dis
reputable war against the council, intending, if possible, at
wbatever cost or injury to the Church, to defeat this action.
He did not hesitate to inaugurate a war between the Church
and the papacy ; the former represented by a regularly or
ganized ecumenical council, and tbe latter by the pope
alone. He undoubtedly supposed that the times were favor
able to the recognition of the claim of papal supremacy and
infallibility; a supposition well warranted by the condition
of affairs then existing. The long residence ofthe popes at
Avignon had corrupted the highest authorities ofthe Church
to so fearful an extent, and the disgraceful schisms existing
but a little while before had so rent the Church into factions,
that it only required a bold and courageous pope to bring
the bishops into obedience, especially when they were assured
that they would be the sharers with him of whatsoever pow
er he should acquire over the lay members of the Church.
Therefore, Eugenius LV, in the very first step taken by him,
exhibited a determination to take advantage of the times,

EUGENIUS IV. x 647
and bring the whole Church to his feet at a single blow.
He was determined to lose nothing by equivocation, and, ac
cordingly, as if he were already dictator, commanded his leg
ate to transfer the council to Bologna, where he could pre
side over it in person, and thus direct and control its action.
Acting under the protection of the Emperor Sigismund, the
legate refused to obey this insolent command; whereupon
the pope, greatly incensed, published a bull dissolving the
cowicil — a course of proceeding both factious and disorganiz
ing. In the mean time, and before this bull was issued, the
council had passed a decree to the effect that " every person,
of whatsoever state or dignity, even the pope himself, is bound
to obey it in what concerns the faith," and another deny
ing the right of the pope to dissolve it. The issue was thus
distinctly made — the pope on one side, representing himself
alone; the council on the other, representing the whole
Church. One or the other had to recede, or divide the
Church — separate its body from its head! The council,
backed by tbe emperor, sent a deputation to the pope ear
nestly desiring him to recall his bull for its dissolution.
He refused. Whereupon the council renewed their former
decrees, and declared that, as they were abandoned by the
pope, it was their duty to provide for the necessities of
the Church, " as the Holy Spirit should dictate to them."
They summoned the pope to attend in person. This he also
refused, and was declared contumacious. He was then noti
fied that unless he appeared at a fixed time he would be pro
ceeded against. The council declared, also, that no prelates
should attend a council at any other place, under the penalty
of excommunication. It manifestly did not desire to press
matters to an extremity with the pope, unless, by his con
duct, he rendered it impossible for tbem to do otherwise.
They accordingly deferred any final action several times, to
give him every possible opportunity of seeing that the wel
fare of the Church required the restoration of the pacific re
lations between them. The pope, however, when he found
the council resolved to treat him as contumacious, and to
deal with him accordingly, solicited ten more days of delay,
which were readily granted him. He thus acknowledged the
jurisdiction ofthe council over him, and again asked for ad-

648 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ditional delay of ninety days, which was also granted. Dur
ing the third year of the council, the pope sent to it his pon
tifical bull, wberein he declared that the council was lawful ;
' that it ought to continue, without dissolution ; that he an
nulled and revoked his bulls dissolving it; that he approved
it, and would do nothing prejudicial to it. Earnestly de
siring conciliation, it accepted this bull as satisfactory ; and
admitted the pope's legates, upon their taking an oath to
approve the decrees of the Council of Constance. And thus
peace was seemingly restored upon the basis of the superi
ority of a council over a pope — the pope having, by his last
bull, proposed and agreed to this as the basis of an adjust
ment. But it was only seemingly restored. The pope soon made
up his mind to falsify his own promise, and to get rid of the
troublesome fathers of Basel in some way, it mattered little
to him how. He was playing the game for empire, and, like
other pretentious potentates, considered himself entitled to
do'with impunity what the universal law of ethics forbids
without dishonor. Accordingly, while the fathers were en
gaged in faithful exertions to bring about a union with the
Greek Christians, he, by his emissaries, was constantly en
gaged in plotting against them. He issued a bull to trans
fer the council, this time to Florence. Baffled again in this/
he issued another transferring it to Ferrara. Here, at last,
" some Italian bishops," with a single cardinal, met and or
ganized a rival council, which immediately proceeded to en
act that the council at Basel was illegal, and its acts void. It
will be seen at once that such a council as this was schismat-
ical, unless the whole power of the Church were taken away
from its legitimate and only representative body, and trans
ferred to the pope. Two councils could not lawfully sit at
the same time ; aud as that at Basel had been legally called
and organized, this assemblage at Ferrara was manifestly
irregular and factious. In so far as the pope himself was
concerned, it was fraudulent ; for in the act of convening it
he violated the promise made in his bull sent to the Coun
cil of Basel. But the two councils did sit at the same time,
each having its own representative character: that at Basel
representing the Churcb ; that at Ferrara, the pope. The for-

THE VIOLENCE OF THE CONTEST. 649
mer remained almost entirely unreduced in numbers, being
deserted only by the pope's legate and four prelates. These
followed their master and the few other Italian prelates to
Ferrara ; while all the other prelates, with the embassadors
of princes, remained at Basel, representing nearly the entire
Church. The Council of Basel, driven at last to extremities by the
factious aud malignant conduct of the pope, proceeded with
his trial. He was accused by it, among other things, of si
mony and breaking his oath ; and, being found guilty, a de
cree was adopted which "declared Eugenius suspended from
all kind of administration of the papal power, as well in spir
ituals as temporals, which had now devolved on the coun
cil ; decreed that all he did should be null ; and forbade all
sorts of persons to obey him, under pain of excommunica
tion." Measures of resistance were adopted by the pope,
who caused the prelates at Ferrara to declare all these pro
ceedings void. And he issued another bull to that effect,,
commanding those at Basel to come to Ferrara, and pro
nouncing excommunication against those who did not. Ho
enjoined the magistrates and inhabitants of Basel " to force
them away under pain of excommunication, and an inter
dict ; and in case they should not do it, he forbade all per
sons to enter within tbe city, under the same pains, and en
joined all merchants to withdraw from it." What a mild
and Christian temper did this infallible pontiff display!
In dealing with the Baselian fathers, who represented the
Church, he exhibited that malignity which bad men always
show when balked in the pursuit of unworthy enterprises.
But the council at Basel was not intimidated, and retaliated
by decreeing that that at Ferrara was illegal, and all its pro
ceedings null. There seemed to be no oil of Christian char
ity to pour upon the troubled waters. Every thing was
cursing and anathema.
In the mean time, the Greeks, who had been invited by
the Council of Basel to attend it, were on their way to the
West, and the pope inaugurated measures to draw them
away from Basel to Ferrara, upon the pretext that the prel
ates at Basel were schismatics because they had opposed
him. In this he succeeded, and negotiations were com-

650 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
menced for settling the terms of union between the Greek
and Latin Christians. These lasted for some time. The
pope insisted that the primacy denied him at Basel should
be recognized, but the Greeks refused. The controversy
was attended with a great deal of violence, but no compro
mise was agreed upon at Ferrara. The pope issued another
bull transferring his council from there to Florence, where
it could be more directly surrounded by Italian influences,
and, consequently, more subject to his dictation. After it
reached Florence, much time was consumed in discussions
about the procession of the Holy Ghost, and the phraseolo
gy to be used in expressing the nature and extent of the
pope's power. He desired an unqualified expression of his
primacy over both spirituals and temporals — the very oppo
site of what had been declared at Constance and Basel. His
object was to have it so broadly set forth as to show that
his power was plenary over every thing, including councils,
and even the canons of the Church. To this the Greeks
were unwilling, because such a concession by them would
admit the inferiority of the Church at Constantinople to
that at Rome; whereas they had always maintained that
each of them possessed equal authority within its own ju
risdiction. They would not consent to go farther than
the First Council of Constantinople had gone, more than a
thousand years before, which was to concede to Rome the
first rank of honor, on account of its having been the old im
perial city. This they insisted would be sufficiently indi
cated by a decree which should provide for the primacy of
the pope, within the limitations fixed by the decrees of the
ecumenical councils and the canon law — that is, that in the
exercise of his primacy he should obey these. The issue
was a very plain one, and required the employment of an
unusual degree of diplomatic skill on the part of the pope
and his adherents. He was dealing exclusively with those
who had been cut off from the Roman or Latin Church by
the sword of excommunication, and were therefore heretics;
and his manifest object was to entrap them into an agree
ment as to the extent of his power, which he could fling into
the faces of the Latin Christians. These latter were then
regularly assembled in the council at Basel, from which he

TREATY WITH THE GREEK CHRISTIANS. 651

*

had been able to draw off only the Italian prelates and a
few others, leaving the great bulk of the Church still faith
ful to the decrees of the Council of Constance. And the
pope understood perfectly well that, if the sentiment of the
Latin Christians were honestly expressed, it would remain
thus faithful. Therefore he employed the utmost skill and
assiduity in procuring such an act of assent from the Greek
heretics as would enable him to set up some claim of right
to resist this sentiment, and to disregard the decrees of Con
stance and Basel. In other words, he desired to employ the
Greeks only for the purpose of subverting one of the funda
mental principles of faith in the Latin Church, that he might
be enabled thereby to bring the whole Church to his feet,
and make the pope alone, as its infallible head, the sole cus
todian of all .its authority, the sole guardian of all its rights,
and the sole dictator of its faith. How far this papal arti
fice succeeded will appear in the sequel.
As furnishing one of the best modes of interpreting the
result, it is necessary to observe that the chief action of this
Council of Florence was in the nature of a treaty between
the pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople, and their fol
lowers, with reference alone to a union between the Latin
and Greek Christians, and not for the settlement of questions
of faith. Certainly, it can not be pretended by any body
that the Greeks had any authority whatever to decide upon
matters of faith, so as to bind the Latin Christians, until
they had first made such atonement as would remove the
sentence of excommunication, and restore them to Christian
fellowship. Their visit to the West, and all these negotia
tions, had this principal object; and therefore what they did
or assented to can not, in any just sense, be considered as a
part of the faith, unless also assented to by such regularly
constituted authorities of the Church as were then recog
nized as having the right to bind the Church.
The parties had no special difficulty in agreeing to such
general terms as would express the primacy of the pope,
and his headship over the Universal Church. They, howev
er, understood these terms differently. The pope consider
ed them as a concession of his infallibility, along with that
degree of spiritual power which included jurisdiction over

652 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
<
temporals; while the patriarch and the Greek Christians un
derstood them as conferring the utmost degree of honor, but
no such authority as should justify the pope in invading
their local jurisdiction. The Greeks not being disposed to
make the concession in the former sense, it became necessa
ry to insert some terms of limitation or qualification which
should serve to interpret the meaning of the treaty, in order
to obtain their assent. The pope proposed to insert, after
the words declaring his primacy, and power to feed, rule,
and govern the Church, these words, "According to Script
ure and the writings of the saints.'^1) But to this the
Greeks could not, of course, consent without surrendering
every thing. They could easily see that the proposition
had the stamp of trickery about it. Finally, however, a
treaty was agreed to wherein the words proposed by the
pope were so changed as to express the idea that the pope
bad the power, as the head of the Church, to govern it, ac
cording to the acts of ecumenical councils and the canons of
the Church. To this we must refer presently, in order to
see what its precise meaning is, since it is the basis ofthe
papal claim of infallibility ; but, whatever its meaning is, it
was the best the pope could do. It may be fairly supposed
that he was only reconciled to it in that form, because he
saw the possibility of so perverting its terms as to base t,he
claim of infallibility upon it and his own superiority to
councils ; especially if tbe Greeks should withdraw from it,
and he should be left alone as the only contracting party
authorized to interpret its meaning. At all events, he soon
found himself in this position ; for the Greek Christians at
Constantinople, when they learned what had been done, dis
agreed to and repudiated the treaty of settlement, and thus
the effort at union proved abortive, and the compact made
at Florence fell to the ground. This left it, of course, en
tirely worthless for all practical purposes, unless the pope
could secure influence enough to gather up its repudiated
provisions and impose them upon the Latin Christians as
the law of the Church, in opposition to the decrees of Con
stance and Basel; in other words, unless he could reduce
(') "Latin Christianity," by Milman, vol. viii., p. 46 (note).

COUNCIL OF FLORENCE FACTIOUS. 653
the Latin Christians to such a degree of submission and
obedience as to compel them to accept their faith, not from
their own legally constituted and assembled councils, but
from the heretical Greeks, merely because, by all sorts of
art and intrigue, they had been enticed into an agreement
which, if it did elevate the pope, most certainly humiliated
the Latin Church.
There is nothing to justify the assertion that the Latin
Christians assented to these proceedings at Florence. Those
of them who attended the council held there under the au
spices of the pope, were only such as he had succeeded in
drawing away from Basel. The agreement made there took
the form of a consular decree only because it was signed by
those who followed the pope. Of the Latins, these were, be
sides the pope, only eight cardinals, two patriarchs (of Jeru
salem and Grado), two bishops, embassadors of the Duke of
Burgundy, eight archbishops, forty-seven bishops, four heads
of orders, forty-one abbots, and the Archdeacon of Troyes,(2)
only one hundred and thirteen in all ; while the council at
Basel was attended by the recognized representatives of all
the remainder of the Latin Christians, and had the sanction
and approval of the Roman Catholic princes. Consequently,
when the Greek Christians refused to be bound by the trea
ty, the only support it had left, in all Christendom, was this
schismatical faction of the pope. The Council of Basel still
represented the Church, and continued its sessions. It re
affirmed its previous decree, and that of Constance, wherein
it was declared that a council was superior to the pope, and
more formally than before deposed Eugenius IV. When this
formal act of deposition was passed, there were thirty-nine
prelates and nearly three hundred ecclesiastics present — about
three times as many as signed the decree at Florence ! They
declared him " disobedient to the commands ofthe universal
Church; one that persists in his rebellion, a violator and con
temner of the Holy Synodical canons; a disturber of the
peace and unity; one that gives open scandal to the whole
Church — simoniacal, perjured, incorrigible, schismatical, he
retical, etc." This was, undoubtedly, the act of a large ma-
(?) "Latin Christianity," by Milman, vol. yiii., p. 47.

654 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
jority — in fact, of nearly the whole — ofthe Latin Christians,
speaking in the only mode then known to their Church or
ganization. Du Pin says that at that time " some prelates"
were with the pope at Florence, and we have seen, that their
number was insignificant compared with that of those who
remained at Basel. Consequently, the Baselian fathers, aft
er having deposed Eugenius IV., were compelled to elect
a successor to him. They did elect Felix V. The combat
now thickened, and bulls and other papal weapons were
hurled, from side to side, with no less fierceness tban veloci
ty. Pope Eugenius flung his bull at the head of Pope Felix,
declaring him heretical and schismatical, and excommunica
ting all his supporters — that is, condemning to eternal per
dition all the Baselian fathers and the bulk of the Christian
world — for daring to deny to him the right to clothe himself
in the robes of deity. The Council of Basel retaliated by
declaring the bull null, and signified their contempt of it by
consecrating Felix as pope. The struggle waxed warmer
and warmer. Deputies from each party were dispatched to
secure the approbation of the princes. The Kings of France
and England hesitated, and desired a compromise. Arragon,
Llungary, Bavaria, Poland, and Austria took the side of
Felix and the Baselian prelates. The universities of Paris,
Germany, and Cracow wrote theses acknowledging Felix,
and maintaining the authority of councils above popes. An
other general council was suggested, but neither party would
agree to it. And the consequence was that the schism thus
created by Eugenius in attempting to force the recognition
of his infallibility upon the Church, and to destroy a legally
convened ecumenical council, lasted until his death, which
occurred after the councils of Basel and Florence had both
terminated their sessions.
Nicholas V. was elected pope by those who espoused the
cause of Eugenius. Being of a meek and peaceful temper,
he agreed to the suggestions of the princes with a view to
compromise. The final result was such an accommodation
of the difficulty upon the conditions that Felix should resign
and be made chief cardinal, that all the excommunications
and censures on both sides should be revoked, and that " also
the decrees, dispositions, and regulations they had made

COUNCIL OF FLORENCE NOT ECUMENICAL. 655
should be confirmed." This arrangement was carried into
effect, and Nicholas V. issued a bull accordingly, approving
the decrees of both the Council of Florence and that of Ba°-
sel ! What there was, in all these proceedings, indicating
the presence and special direction ofthe Holy Spirit, it would
be hard to find. The conduct of Pope Eugenius was char
acterized by violence, passion, malevolence, and perfidy— an
entire absence of Christian charity and love. If he had lived,
the schism would, in all probability, have inflicted still great
er injury upon the Church. But it was healed, for the" time
being, by the pacific temper of Nicholas V, and comparative
quiet was restored. (3)
The Roman Catholic Church rejects the Council of Basel,
and accepts that of Florence as ecumenical. The latter,
manifestly, has no just claim to that character; or certainly
less claim to it than the former, which undoubtedly repre
sented a majority of the Latin Christians. It has been suf
fered to acquire this character, however, because the popes
and those passively obedient to them have been permitted
to make up the history of the Church; and they, favoring
their own infallibility, and desirous of the power it gives
them, have rejected the Council of Basel, which really repre
sented the Universal Church, and the sentiments ofthe Chris
tian world, far more than did the papal faction at Ferrara
and Florence. The assembly at Florence can not be called
ecumenical in any proper sense, because there is nothing to
show that it represented the Universal Church. That at Ba
sel was ecumenical for a time, at all events, even according
to the papal rule. When Eugenius solicited delay in its
proceedings, aud agreed, in consideration of its being grant
ed, that he would sustain its action and approve its decrees,
he knew that the decree declaring the council above the
pope had been passed. He must be understood, therefore,
as having by this act made that decree a part of the law of
the Church, according to the recognized forms of procedure.
True, he supposed he could change it, and resorted to false-
(3) Du Pin, vol. xiii., pp. 28-56; Cormenin, vol. ii., pp. 118-120;
"Church of France," by Jervis, vol. i., pp. 94-98; "Latin Christianity,'"
by Milman, vol. vii., ch. xii., vol. viii., chh. xiii., xiv; "Mosheim's Church
History," by Maclaine, vol. i., pp. 416-418.

656 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
hood and intrigue to do so. But having failed in this, the
only course left him was to assemble a seceding faction of
his own, entice the Greeks to join it, cause it to enact a new
decree, and then employ all the authority of the papacy to
bring the Church to accept it as an ecumenical council.
Even this, however, does not help the supporters of the
pope's infallibility out of the difficulty — for Pope Nicholas
V. afterward approved the decrees of the Council of Basel,
which, according to their theory, makes them a necessary
part of the faith, whether the council enacting them was
ecumenical or not. But he also approved those of Florence,
which, of course, had been also approved previously by Eu
genius. What then ? There is but one common-sense view
of it : if Florence decreed in favor of the pope's infallibili
ty and Eugenius approved it, Basel decreed against it and
Nicholas approved that ! Were they both infallible ? If so,
then the act of one was what the lawyers would call a set
off against that of the other. If neither was infallible, then
the act of Nicholas, being the last in point of time, must be
held to be of more weight than that of Eugenius ; or else
Nicholas must be put in the singular attitude of having ap
proved two decrees directly in conflict with each other!
This would certainly require infallibility — though the integ
rity of such an act might well be questioned.
But if it be conceded that the Council of Florence was
ecumenical, and that it did regularly enact a decree in refer
ence to the primacy ofthe pope, as the advocates of papal
infallibility now insist, we are brought to the point of in
quiring what that decree in point of fact was — whether it
went to the extent asserted, or stopped short of it.
If the reader will keep in mind the circumstances already
detailed explaining the difficulty the pope encountered in
bringing the Greeks to enter into the treaty in reference to
his primacy, it will materially aid him in satisfactorily inter
preting what follows.
The Jesuits regard what they call the decree of the Coun
cil of Florence as furnishing one of the strongest arguments
in favor of their theory of infallibility ; and Weninger, true
to their cause, gives the whole of it in these words:
"We define that the Apostolic See, that is, the Roman

JESUIT PERVERSION. 657
pontiff, has the right of primacy over all the churches ofthe
world ; that the Roman pontiff is the successor of St. Peter ;
that he is the very vicar of Christ, the head of the whole
Church, the father and teacher of all the faithful ; that in
the person of Peter he was intrusted by our Lord with full
power to feed, direct, and govern the whole flock of Christ.
Such is manifestly the doctrine taught by the acts of the
general councils, as well as by the sacred canons."(4)
Weninger's book is so full of errors and misquotations as
to excite suspicion against the integrity of much that he has
said ; and where we find him differing with such an author
as Du Pin, if the question rested alone between them, the
preference should be given to the latter. There is no diffi
culty about that part ofthe decree which precedes the pow
er to feed, etc. Du Pin makes it confer the primacy, with
" power to feed, to rule and govern the Catholic Church, as
it is explained in the acts of ecumenical councils, and in the
holy canons ;" thus confining it within the limitations pre
scribed by the latter. But Weninger goes further, and rep
resents the decree as conceding the primacy as an inde
pendent and substantive power, with no limitations whatever
upon it ; and then, beginning with a new sentence, makes it
declare that " such is manifestly the doctrine taught by the
acts of the general councils, as well as by the sacred can
ons." This rendering ofthe decree is false at the very point
upon which its whole meaning turns. The decree is in a
single sentence, as the Latin in the last note will show. To
be understood correctly, all its parts must be taken togeth
er, not detached. But Weninger very deliberately divides
it into two sentences. He takes out the comma after the
words "traditam esse," in the original, and substitutes ape-
(4) "Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope," by Weninger, p.
148. He gives the Latin thus : " Definimus sanctam Apostolicam sedem et
Romanum Pontificem in universum orbem terrarum primatum tenere, et ip
sum Romanum Pontificem successorem esse Beati Petri, principis Aposto
lorum, et verum Christi vicarium, totiusque ecclesiae caput, et omnium Chris
tianorum patrem et doctorem existere, et ipsi in Beato Petro pascendi, re'
gendi et gubernandi universalem ecclesiam a D. N. J. C. plenam potestatem
traditam esse, quemadmodum etiam in gestis CEcumenicorum Coneiliorum et
in Sacris Canonibus continetur." See, also, "Delineations of Romanism,"
by Elliott, London ed., by Hannah, p. 607 (note).
42

658 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
riod for it — thus closing the sentence. And then he trans
lates the remainder (" quemadmodum etiam," etc.), so as to
make it mean, independently of what had preceded, that the
same degree of primacy which the first sentence conceded
was conferred by the councils and the canons. A school-boy
ought to detect ' this false translation, as almost any one
would with the original before him. The words "quemad
modum etiam" mean " as also," and can not be tortured into
such a meaning as Weninger has given them.
Retaining the comma, then, in its proper place, and leaving
the decree one continuous sentence, as it is in fact, the last
clause should be rendered, "as also is contained in the acts
of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons ;" making
the two clauses dependent upon each other, and the last re
ferring to and qualifying what precedes it. This meaning is
equivalent to that given by Du Pin, " as it is explained in
the acts ofthe ecumenical councils and in the holy canons;"
and substantially like that given by Milman, "according
to the canons of the Church. "(6) The true meaning un
doubtedly is this : that the power and primacy of the pope
exist just in that degree which is expressed by the councils
and in the canons. To have declared the pope infallible,
and to have followed it up with the assertion that he was
also so declared by the councils and in the canons, would
have been false in point of fact — for the very last preceding
ecumenical council had decreed precisely the reverse, and
there was no existing canon to that effect outside the " con
stitutions" of the popes themselves. And, besides, the
Greeks, who were jealous of Rome, would manifestly not
have agreed to a treaty of union with the Latin Church if it
had been understood that they thereby surrendered their in
dependence within their accustomed jurisdiction, and subject
ed themselves entirely to the dominion of an infallible pope
at Rome. Construing the treaty in the light of the actual
relations then existing between the two churches, it must
be understood that thevGreeks intended to concede nothing
more than they had conceded at the first Council of Con
stantinople ; that is, that the Roman Church had the prima
ry) Milman, vol. viii., ch. xiv., p. 46.

FIFTH LATERAN COUNCIL. 659
cy of honor, and nothing more, except such authority as
had been from time to time granted by the councils and the
canons. (")
During the remainder of the fifteenth century, after the
proceedings at Florence had ended, the popes were undis
turbed both in the claim and exercise of authority, except as
they brought themselves in contact with princes. But their
efforts to have it accepted as universal were in no manner
slackened. Under the influences exercised by them the dis
cipline of the Church had become so relaxed that, in 1512,
the Fifth Lateran Council was convened by Pope Julius II.
to provide, in some effective mode, for its re-establishment.
And this brings us to the inquiry whether or not papal infal
libility was so decreed by this council as to make it binding
upon the whole Church. This can not be decided satisfacto
ry) A distinguished British prelate, Monsignor Capel, in defending the
Church against the attack of Mr. Gladstone, quotes this decree of the Coun
cil of Florence to prove that the pope's infallibility was established by it.
He shows the falsity of Weninger' s translation, and substantially confirms
that of Du Pin, by giving the words "quemadmodum etiam" their true ren
dering. He thus quotes the latter part of the decree: "the full power of
feeding, ruling, and governing the Universal Church : as also is contained in
the acts of the ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons." — New York
Tablet, December 12th, 1874, p. 450. But he commits an error also in this :
that he, like Weninger, takes out the comma, but substitutes a colon for it —
thus designing to show that the words which follow have no necessary de
pendence upon the previous part of the sentence. He does not pretend to
any such translation as that given by Weninger, although, by this introduc
tion of a colon, he evidently intends to convey the same idea, which does vio
lence to the language of the original.
The Rev. Dr. M'Glynn addressed a large audience in the hall of Cooper
Institute, New York, December 27th, 1874, in what is called an "eloquent
answer to England's fallen statesman !" After such reckless statements as,
that the pope presided, by his legates, over the Council of Nice ; and over all
subsequent councils, either in person or by his legates, he quotes the decree
of the Council of Florence in the precise words of Weninger— from whose
book he probably took it, without looking to see whether it was truly or false
ly given. He also refers to the language of the pope's legate in an address
to the Council of Ephesus, in 430, to show that the legate claimed infallibili
ty for the pope, and that the council acquiesced in it; whereas the fact is
that the Council of Ephesus was convoked by the Emperor Theodosius, was
presided over by Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, and decided the controversy
upon which it was called to act by deposing Nestorius, before the arrival of
the pope's legates !— Dtr Pin, vol. iii., pp. 195-201.

660 ' THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
rily without understanding also the true character of that
council, and the circumstances which led to it.
At the time of the Council of Basel the French Church_ oc
cupied an anomalous position toward the papacy. Realiz
ing that the popes were endeavoring to encroach upon its
ancient liberties, and that to concede to them superiority
over general councils would enable them to do so, it moved
with as much caution as possible, consistently with the pres
ervation of its boasted independence. Therefore, the King
of France, Charles VIL, instead of giving an open adhesion
to the Baselian decrees, favored a compromise of the disa
greement between the two councils — Basel and Florence —
rather than an open rupture. At the same time, he was
unwilling to concede to the pope his asserted supremacy.
Finding, however, that both parties were driven to extrem
ities — each anathematizing the other as schismatical and he
retical — no other course remained to him but independent
action. Accordingly, he assembled a national council at
Bourges, in 1438, by which was promulgated the "Pragmat
ic Sanction of Bourges," which not only asserted the right
of councils to legislate for the Church and to control the
pope by its canons, but went even further, and insisted
upon the authority of a national council of France to leg
islate for the French Church. Thus, upon the vital question
out of which the issue between the two rival councils had
arisen, the French Christians took the side of the Baselian
fathers, maintaining the decrees of the Council of Con
stance ; but from motives of expediency merely they re
fused to recognize the deposition of Eugenius, and rejected
the claims of Felix V. These contradictory movements had
their origin in state policy far more than in the necessities
and interests of Christianity. These latter were of second
ary consideration both with the pope and the king — the
principal motive with each being the acquisition of tempo
ral power. The pope, of course, was deadly hostile to the
" Pragmatic Sanction," while the king was determined to
maintain it. The former and his adherents insisted that,
by virtue of his supremacy, he had the power to revoke the
authority of the Council of Basel, and that, although it was
ecumenical at the beginning, all its decrees passed subse-

THE FRENCH CHRISTIANS. 661
quent to his act of revocation were void. On the other
hand, the king claimed that the pope's approval of its de
crees previous to the calling of the council at Ferrara made
valid that which asserted the superiority of councils ; and
that as the council was assembled with the assent of the
pope, his sanction related to all the decrees passed by it
during its entire session. And hence, as the "Pragmatic
Sanction " was but a re-affirmance of the decree passed at
Basel, therefore it also had the implied, if not express, sanc
tion ofthe pope.(')
The "Pragmatic Sanction" became the statute-law of
France by enactment of Parliament. It was fiercely de
nounced by several popes in the language of denunciation
so familiar to them. But all their efforts to get it out of
the way were unsuccessful during the reign of Charles VII.
Under that of Louis XI. they were attended with better re
sults so far as the papacy was concerned. This arbitrary
monarch, influenced by both papal flattery and threats, re
voked the sanction by an imperial decree, utterly disre
garding the will of the French Christians aud the dignity
of France. Upon the question of his authority to do this,
he and the pope were fully agreed — each maintaining the
"divine right" of kings and princes to rule without regard
to the wishes of the people. But they disagreed upon an
other point : Louis supposed that the rescission of the Sanc
tion would give him the whole power, as king, to control
the Church in France; whereas, as soon as the act was con
summated, the pope claimed all this power for himself, and
so exercised it as to sow the seeds of corruption broadcast
all over France, and to cause both him and the king to be
held in contempt by the French Christians. Parliament
now interfered, and declared the king's act of revocation il
legal, which left the principles of the " Pragmatic Sanction "
in force.
Yet the restoration of the papal authority consequent
upon the conduct of the king had produced such results that
the French Church became paralyzed by the blow. This
paralysis continued until the reign of Louis XII., who form-

(') Jervis, vol. i., pp. 97-99.

662 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ally re-established the Sanction. Julius II. was then pope,
and immediately assumed a hostile attitude toward the
king. This led to remonstrances on the part of the French
clergy, who insisted upon a general council to settle over
again the points of disagreement. To this Pope Julius
would not consent, fearing a repetition of the decrees of
Constance and Basel. His refusal induced the King of
France and the Emperor of Germany to take steps on their
own responsibility to have a council convened. Having ob
tained tbe acquiescence of nine cardinals, these latter called
a council to meet at Pisa in 1511. The pope now became
both embarrassed and incensed, and, like his predecessor, Eu
genius IV, immediately inaugurated measures to prevent, if
possible, the re-enactment of the decrees of Constance and
Basel — the question what was, or was not, the true faith be
ing of far less concern to him than the gratification of his
ambition. For this purpose he called a council at Rome,
which would be more under his control than that at Pisa,
and summoned the prelates who had appointed the latter
council to attend his, at his Palace ofthe Lateran, in 1512.
He threatened to degrade them of their dignity, and deprive
them of their benefices, if they did not attend. Disregard
ing both his summons and threat, they opened the council at
Pisa, asserting their right to do it, under the protection of
the princes at whose instance they had acted, independently
of tbe pope. It was attended by four cardinals in person,
the procurators of three others, two archbishops, thirteen
bishops, five abbots, several doctors of law and divinity, and
the deputies of the universities of France. This council re
newed the decrees of the councils of Constance and Basel,
concerning the authority of councils over the pope, and ad
journed to meet at Milan, where they endeavored to have
the pope to meet with them, in order to decide upon the nec
essary measures of reform. This he refused, and they at
last proceeded to declare him contumacious and schismatic,
and to suspend him from the administration of the papacy.
The Council of Pisa then came to an end. And although it
had not at any time any authority as an ecumenical council,
and only serves to show how large a portion ofthe Christians
of Europe refused to admit the supremacy claimed by the

STRUGGLE BETWEEN KING AND POPE. '663
pope, yet its decree suspending the pope was accepted in
France, where the king, Louis XII., forbade his subjects any
longer to regard Julius II. as pope, or to pay any attention
to his bulls. The pope replied by excommunicating the king,
putting France under an interdict, and releasing his subjects
from their oath of allegiance. And thus the contest be
tween these royal representatives of the " divine right" wax
ed to an exceeding degree of warmth. (8)
The council called by Julius II. — the Fifth Lateran — met
in Rome in 1512. It was certainly not ecumenical at the
beginning, having no juster claim to be so considered than
the assemblage at Pisa, unless the pope's claim of suprema
cy is primarily conceded. The word "ecumenical" has but
one meaning — that of universal. Ecumenical councils are
designed to give expression to the universal faith, and, there
fore, in all the early ages of the Church, they constituted
"the highest courts of judicature in all dogmatic discus
sions.'^') But they obtained that character only by virtue
of the fact that they represented the entire Church ; that is,
included all the episcopate. If they did not do this, they
had no just jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the Uni
versal Church ; or, in other words, could not decide questions
of faith. Measured by this rule, the Fifth Council of Lat
eran was certainly not ecumenical at its commencement, be
cause the whole Church was not represented there. There
were no prelates from England, France, Germany, Spain,
Austria, Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, or any other part of the
Christian world outside of Italy ; and only those who lived
alone upon the favor and patronage of the pope. Du Pin
says they were " all Italians," except some abbots. Thus
far, then, it was entirely factious, like that at Ferrara ; both
factions having their origin in precisely the same motive.
Did it afterward become ecumenical ? Its original character
was not changed during the life of Julius IL, although, with
in that time, it had declared annulled all the proceedings
at Pisa, confirmed the bull against the King of France, and

(a) Du Pin, vol. xiii., pp. 17-19 ; Jervis, vol. i., pp. 100-103 ; Fleury, livre
cxxii., §§ 115-117 ; apud Jervis.
O Alzog, p. 677.

664 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
fiercely attacked the Pragmatic Sanction. It had also sum
moned all its supporters to appear and show cause why it
should not be revoked. At this point, the death of Julius II.
occurred, and Leo X. became pope. Being of the princely
family De' Medici, of Florence, he entertained more enlarged
views than Julius IL, and the King of France was encour
aged by hopes of a satisfactory reconciliation with him.
Accordingly, he sent his embassadors to the council, and re
nounced the proceedings at Pisa. The King of Spain and
the Emperor of Germany did the same; and the prelates
who had assembled at Pisa also attended the council. The
French bishops had not yet done so. The king stipulated
that they should, but the time was postponed till the lat
ter part of the year 1516, when the council was to hold its
eleventh session. Before that time arrived, Louis XII. died,
and Francis I. became King of France. With him and the
pope the question now became one of diplomacy, the inter
ests ofthe Church still remaining secondary. A diplomatic
embassador was sent to Rome, and finally came to a com
promise with Leo X.,by abrogating the Pragmatic Sanction
and substituting the celebrated Concordat of Bologna in its
place. Each of the parties to this arrangement supposed
himself the gainer — the king by being made the head ofthe
Church in France, and the pope by being enabled to collect
annats or imposts in France, which had been denied by the
Pragmatic Sanction. The pope exchanged a share of the
spiritual right claimed by his predecessors for this temporal
advantage. But France was not as easily reconciled as the
king. The Parliament resisted the Concordat, and adhered
to the Pragmatic Sanction. The University of Paris did the
same. An appeal to a general council was insisted on — that
at Rome not being so considered. The king, becoming in
censed at this resistance to his royal will, denounced these
proceedings as seditious, and undertook to enforce the Con
cordat by despotic power.
In the mean time the period fixed for the eleventh session
of the Lateran Council had arrived, and the session was held
without the attendance of any of the French clergy. Noth
ing had transpired to give it universality, inasmuch as many
parts of the Christian world yet remained unrepresented in

LEO X. 665
it. It still retained its original Italian character, and was,
to all intents and purposes, the pope's council, and not that
of the Church. And yet it was at this eleventh session of
the council that a decree was passed which, it is now claim
ed, recognizes the pope's infallibility. The foregoing facts
show, if such a decree was passed, that it was not binding
on the Church as a part of its faith; and the fact that it was
not so considered by the Church is fully established by sub
sequent events.
But no such decree was, in point of fact, passed by the
Fifth Lateran Council. The facts are these: the pope is
sued a bull abrogating the Pragmatic Sanction, affirming
the Concordat, and declaring that he had authority above
councils, and full power to call, remove, or dissolve them
at will. He also renewed the bull of Boniface VIII. called
Unam Sanctum, which asserted the supremacy of the pope
over the world, both in spirituals and temporals. When
this bull was read in the council, it was " approved by all
the bishops" except one, says Du Pin.(10) There was no
freedom either of discussion or of will. It was simply a
strong man, as Leo X. was, commanding and exacting obe
dience by the superiority of his own will. There was no
decree about it — nothing but the simple approval of the
pope's bull. And, consequently, this is to be taken merely
as the assent to it by those prelates who were present;
which was in no way binding upon those who were not
present. The Church, as such, was not represented in the
council, and consequently did not assent to its action, what
ever it may have been. The French Christians resisted the
whole thing, continued to adhere to the Pragmatic Sanc
tion, and to resist the Concordat. And therefore the de
fenders of the pope's infallibility can not, with any proprie
ty whatever, insist that the Fifth Lateran Council made it
a part of the law of the Church.
What was done by the Ecumenical Council of Trent upon
this subject is more readily disposed of; although this was
the most important of all the councils, and its various ses-

(M) Du Pin, vol. xiii., pp. 22-25 ; Jervis, vol. i., pp. 107, 108 ; Maclaine's
'Mosheim's Church History," vol. ii., p. 9.

666 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
sions were held from 1545 to 1563. In its decree for gen
eral reformation it is provided that " they will be obedient
to the constitutions of the pope, and of councils, determin
ing that all constitutions of general councils, and of the
Apostolic See, in favor of ecclesiastical persons and liberty,
shall be observed by all." In another decree, which was
held back until the final session, and was "never mentioned
in any congregation," it was provided that in all the decrees
of reformation made in the council, under the three previous
popes, " the authority of the Apostolic See is excepted and
preserved. "(n) That this council intended to enlarge the
power of the papacy to the utmost extent there is no sort
of doubt. Its final action was mainly controlled by Italian
bishops from Rome — the tools of the pope; and they would
listen to nothing that limited his power. The French em
bassador present, writing to the king, said, " They will give
ear to nothing that may hinder the profit and authority of
the Court of Rome. Besides, the pope is so much master
of this council, that his pensioners, whatsoever the emperor's
embassadors or we do remonstrate unto them, will do but
what they list."(12)
But it will be observed that neither of these decrees asserts
the doctrine of the pope's infallibility. The most they do is
to assert that the Church is to be governed by the constitu
tions of the popes and the canons of councils. They do not
decide, nor did the Council of Trent at any other time de
cide, which of the two should prevail when the constitutions
of the popes and the canons of councils came in conflict.
The general terms employed embrace all the councils. And
as one canon of the Council of Constance declared that the
pope was inferior to a council, and no ecumenical council, as
we have seen, has repealed that canon, therefore it is in
cluded in the decree of the Council of Trent. Besides, it is
said that the faith never changes — that it never can change.
This being true, the canon of Constance was a part of the
faith after that council had adjourned; and must have con
tinued so up to the Council of Trent, and could not be
(") "History of the Council of Trent," by Sarpi, pp. 756, 757.
(") Ibid., p. 783.

COUNCIL OF TRENT. 667
changed by it. Therefore, the Council of Trent, while it
went as far as it dared to go to give supremacy to the pope,
must be considered as denying his infallibility, because they
did not affirm it. If they had intended to affirm it, they
would have required obedience to him alone, as the late Lat
eran Council has done, and not to him and the canons of
councils conjointly. Requiring the faithful to look to the
constitutions of popes and the canons of councils is almost
an express denial of the pope's infallibility.
Yet it is true that the Council of Trent did not expressly
place any limitation upon the power of the pope. It left it
as it found it, but somewhat augmented in strength by the
failure to place a curb upon it. While it conceded to the
pope the power to interpret its canons, and thereby gave
him great control over the faith, yet it did not give him the
power to set aside existing canons, or to make new ones.
Therefore it stopped short of declaring him infallible. And
so Pius IV. understood it when, in 1564, he promulgated the
creed, founded upon existing canons, which has been since
reproclaimed by Pius IX. and remained as the faith of the
Church up to the late Lateran Council. That creed requires
that interpretation of the Scriptures to be accepted which
has " the unanimous consent of the fathers ;" and, while it
enjoins "true obedience to the Roman pontiff," it does not
concede to him the power to set aside this " unanimous con
sent " and substitute his own interpretation for it. That re
mained for the late council, which has so changed the creed
as to require it now to mean that the " true obedience to
the Roman pontiff" which is now enjoined is to accept that
interpretation of Scripture which he, and not the fathers,
shall give ! Does not this change the old faith, and substi
tute a new one for it ?
Now, it is undoubtedly true that those who, by this
change of faith, have elevated the pope above the fathers
and all the great councils of the Church, by assigning to
him equality with God on earth, have done so because they
hope thereby to be able to bring the world back again into
that condition in which it was when the popes did exercise
the utmost plenitude of power by usurpations they were
strong enough to maintain. Every intelligent reader knows

668 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
what that condition was ; but it is nowhere more graphical
ly portrayed, in so far as the popes were concerned, tban by
the greatest of Italian historians, who was a personal ob
server of the passing events just preceding the Council of
Trent. After enumerating some of the usurpations by which
the popes had obtained their ascendency over princes and
peoples, he says : " Being raised by these steps unto earthly
power, they laid aside by little and little the care of souls
and of divine precepts: so that setting their affections whol
ly upon earthly greatness, and using their spiritual authori
ty only as an instrument of their temporal, they seemed rath
er to be secular princes than priests. After this their care
and business was no more sanctity of life, increase of relig
ion, love, and charity toward their neighbor, but armies, and
wars against Christians, handling the sacrifices even with
bloody hands; but heaping up wealth; but new laws, new
arts, new snares to scrape money from all parts. For this
end they used their spiritual weapons without respect, and
sold things, both sacred and profane, without any shame at
all. The popes and the court thus abounding with wealth,
there followed pomp, riot, dishonesty, lust, and abominable
pleasures : no care of posterity, no thought of maintaining
the perpetual dignity of the papacy; but in place hereof
succeeded ambitious and pestiferous desires to exalt their
sons, nephews, and kindred, not only to immoderate riches,
but to principalities and to kingdoms ; bestowing their dig
nities and benefices not upon virtuous and well-deserving
men, but either selling them to those who would give most,
or misplacing them upon ambitious, covetous, and impudent
ly voluptuous persons."(13)

(I3) Francis Guicciardini, from the fourth book of his "History;" apud
Sarpi, pp. 781, 782.

THE PAPACY ALWAYS EXCLUSIVE. 669

CHAPTER XXII.
The Laity and the Church.— They once aid in Election of Popes.— Greg
ory VII. takes away this Power, and vests it in the College of Cardinals.
— His Object is Universal Dominion. — The Papacy necessarily Intoler
ant. — Never satisfied with Freedom of Conscience.— Condemned in Sylla
bus of Pius IX. — Denounced when introduced in Austria. — He excom
municates all Heretics. — Magna Charta. — Religious Toleration in Mary
land. — The Colony Part of Virginia. — English Supremacy established by
Law in Virginia. — The Law extended over Maryland. — Lord Baltimore
in Virginia. — He can not take the Oath as a Roman Catholic. — Obtains
Grant from Charles I. — It provides for Religious Toleration in the New
Colony. — This is a Necessity to Lord Baltimore. — He can not settle a
Roman Catholic Colony without it. — Charles I. favors the Papists. — Ro
man Catholic Emigrants to Maryland. — Make War on Virginians found
there. — They suppress the Protestants. — Efforts to establish the Royal
Authority of Lord Baltimore. — Oath of Allegiance to him. — Offices filled
by Roman Catholics. — All Writs run in his Name. — Those who refuse
Fidelity to him forfeit their Property. — Their Lands to be seized. — Col
onists under Control of Jesuit Priests. — Their Claim of Church Immuni
ties. — Opposition to English Law. — Jesuits never in Favor of Religious Tol
eration. — The Condition of the Papacy at that Time. — Completely allied
with the Jesuits. — Gregory XV. — His Persecutions. — His Influence over
Louis XIII. of France. — Urban VIII. — Terrible Persecutions under his
Reign. — Cardinal Richelieu andOlivarez. — Persecution of Galileo. — Bank
Debt collected by Bull ofthe Pope. — All the Teachings ofthe Church op
posed to Religious Toleration. — The Legislation in Maryland is only in
Obedience to the Charter. — May have had the Assent of Laymen, but
not of the Priests or the Church. — Could not have the Assent of Pope
Pius IX. now.
It has abundantly appeared in the preceding chapters
that the theory upon which the papal system has been con
structed requires all Roman Catholics to be exclusive, intol
erant, and aggressive. To say that they are not all so, is
only to say what every body knows ; but it is no answer to
the allegation against the system itself. Those who con
stitute these commendable and praiseworthy examples are
mostly single individuals; but sometimes communities —

670 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
as is frequently found to be the case in the United States.
They are, however, generally influenced by their special sur
roundings, and have never acquired sufficient prominence
to impress their sentiments upon those who mold the princi
ples and direct the course of the papacy. The popes have
never been influenced by them in any degree since the pa
pal power reached its culmination ; but, on the contrary
bave simply borne with them on account of their general
acceptance ofthe fundamentals of the Roman Catholic faith,
and their habit of non-resistance.
For a number of centuries the laity had a voice in the
election of the popes,^) which, of course, made those elected,
or desiring to be elected, somewhat circumspect in their con
duct toward them. This did not give the people any direct
influence over the faith, but rather indirect, by means of
that representative feature in the Church constitution which
provided for general councils. There was no change in this
mode of procedure until the emperors and kings of France,
Spain, and Germany, from political motives only, arrogant
ly asserted the imperial right to select popes obedient to
themselves, and to dispossess such as were not so. And
when, after severe and long-continued struggles, the popes
were enabled to wrench this usurped power from the bands
of royalty, they felt themselves under no obligation to re
store the ancient authority of the people ; because, by that
time they had become so inoculated with the sentiments of
imperialism themselves, that they did not consider the peo
ple as having any rights whatever in matters of so much im
portance. Insisting that the episcopal order was establish
ed by direct appointment of Christ, they claimed for it the
power of self-perpetuation ; and therefore it became an es
tablished principle of the papacy that, even when the peo
ple aided in the election of a pope, they had no right to as
sume that he derived any authority from them.(") From
this principle it was easy for so ambitious and talented a
man as Gregory VIL, surrounded by the prevailing super
stition of the eleventh century, to deduce others wbich
(') "Antiquities of the Christian Church," by Bingham, vol. i., p. 132.
C) " Universal Church History," by Alzog, pp. 396, 397, 659, etc.

COLLEGE OF CARDINALS ESTABLISHED. 671
have since become necessary to the life of the papacy. En
gaged as he was in consolidating a vast spiritual despotism,
he was sagacious enough to know that his success would be
in proportion to the removal of its power and authority from
the people. Therefore, he employed his vigorous mind, not
only while the confidential adviser of four popes, but more
especially after he became pope himself, " to render all au
thority, civil and religious, dependent on the fiat of the
Holy See ; to place thrones and mitres alike at the papal
disposal ; and to realize what had long floated dimly before
the eyes of preceding pontiffs, an object of desire rather than
of hope, the sceptre of the universe swayed by the succes
sor of St. Peter as vicegerent ofthe Almighty."(3) Chiefest
among the means of consummating this object was the re
moval of all popular influences from the election ofthe pope,
so that the ecclesiastical constitution should provide for a
pure theocracy, with imperial powers. This he accomplish
ed by vesting it exclusively in the college of cardinals, des
ignated and appointed by the pope; by compelling all prel
ates and laymen to bind themselves, under the most solemn
obligations, to the See of Rome ; and visiting them with
curses, anathemas, and excommunications in the event of their
disobedience. So powerful was the influence he exercised
upon his age, and so indelibly did he impress his principles
upon the- constitution ofthe papacy, that those of his succes
sors who have imitated his usurpations have sheltered them
selves behind his great name. And this has been done so
frequently, with the apparent acquiescence ofthe laity, that
at last what was originally the conception of overweening
ambition has come to be considered as the infallible teach
ing of God — as an essential part of his eternal truth. If
some of these successors did impair the strength ofthe sys
tem he had constructed by vices which outraged the Chris
tian sentiment of the world, the present pope, by his exem
plary life and piety, has been enabled, in some measure, to
win back their losses. He has, at least, done so to the ex
tent of being enabled to turn all his papal artillery upon
the liberalizing and tolerant opinions of the nineteenth cent-

(8) " Church History," by Baxter, p. 211.

6*72 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ury, and of finding multitudes of followers who agree with
him in the pretense that Hildebrand, no less than himself,
was the infallible representative of Christ on earth.
We must no longer look, then, to the laity of the Roman
Church for its faith or discipline. They have nothing to do
with either, except to obey whatsoever is prescribed to
them. And this obedience is required to be so comprehen
sive and unlimited as to include all that has been in the
past, now is in the present, and may hereafter be in the fut
ure. Their whole duty is involved in the simple act of
submission. Consequently, if there are here and there some
of them, or even many, who are liberal and tolerant, and
therefore not aggressive, they either hush up these senti
ments in their own breasts, or, if they express them, have
not authority sufficient to make them felt, if even known, at
Rome. The papacy is reached only through the hierarchy,
and they are sworn to obey the pope implicitly, and to pre
serve and extend his royalties. He imparts a portion of
his infallibility to them in the execution of their theocrat
ic functions, and through them to the laity in the single
act of obedience. The strength of the papacy is by these
means left unimpaired, and, in so far as the claim of uni
versal supremacy is concerned, it is set forth as boldly and
defiantly as when Gregory VII. hurled his thunders of ex
communication and anathema at the head of the German
emperor. What government has ever existed which has recognized
freedom of religious belief and worship while submissive to
the authority of the papacy ? In all history there is no ac
count of any such. Wheresoever it has been done, the popes
have considered it an act of disobedience to them, and dealt
with it accordingly. In all the forms of bulls and briefs
they have condemned and denounced it as heresy. Pius IX.
has done so in his Syllabus and other official papers. When
the Austrian Government, in 1855, abolished the Concordat,
allowing liberty for all opinions — liberty ofthe press, of faith,
and of instruction in the schools — he characterized the act
as inimical to the Church, as " in flagrant contradiction with
the doctrines of the Catholic religion ;" and, by virtue of
power which he claimed to have derived directly from Christ,

ROMAN CATHOLICS IN MARYLAND. 673
he declared all the acts and decrees in that respect "null aud
powerless in themselves and in their effect, both as regards
the present and the future." And he threatened all engaged
in their execution with the censures of the Church and with
excommunication. (*) These threats have been executed by
the proclamation of excommunication, in 1869, of all here
tics, "whatever their name, and to what sect soever belong
ing, and those who believe in them, and their receivers, pro
moters, and defenders ;"(6) so that the pontifical curse is now
resting upon all the institutions of Protestantism, and upon
all liberal and tolerant opinions, wheresoever they are to be
found in the world. When, therefore, we talk about what
the Church of Rome teaches and allows in reference to free
dom of religion, of the press, and of speech, such as is se
cured by the Constitution of the United States, we must
look, not to what is done and said by exceptional individ
uals, or even by communities of liberal tendencies, but to
tbe pope alone. He is the Church, and absorbs in himself
whatsoever power it possesses, in all its height, depth, length,
and breadth. The pen of inspiration has instructed us that
" God is not a man," but the pope tells us that he, of all the
earth, possesses the attributes of God, and must, therefore,
prescribe the faith, reward the faithful, and punish the dis
obedient. There are two memorable events in history which are
sometimes referred to by defenders of the papacy to show
that such accusations as the foregoing are unjust and un
merited : the granting of Magna Charta ; and the introduc
tion of religious liberty into the Colony of Maryland. If this
defense were designed only to show that there had been, and
yet existed, numbers of Roman Catholics who approved the
principles involved in these great measures, it would be per
fectly legitimate, and nobody could object, for that is an un
doubted fact. But it is not so limited. On the other hand,
it is placed to the credit of the papacy, which is not in any
sense entitled to it. As to Magna Charta, we have seen

(*) See the pope's allocution, delivered June 2d, 1855, in consistory at
Rome, Appletons' "Annual Cyclopedia" for 1868, pp. 675, 676.
(5) Ibid., for 1869, p. 619. 43

674 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVLL POWER.
that the barons of England incurred the displeasure of Pope
Innocent III. for extorting it from King John, and that he
excommunicated them for doing so; and that he released
the king from his sworn obligation to observe it, as he also
did several of his successors. We have seen, too, the direct
conflict between the principles it expressed and those which
pertain to the papal system. The other inquiry — whether
the papacy is entitled to any credit for religious toleration
in Maryland — comes more directly home to the people of
the United States ; which makes the investigation of it of
more immediate concern to us.
The Colony of Virginia was settled under several royal
charters. That which erected it into " a corporation and
body politic" was dated May 23d, 1609, and was granted
by James I. The district of country included within the
colonial limits extended "from sea to sea, west and north
west," and included all of what afterward became the Colo
ny, and is now the State, of Maryland. One of the purposes
expressed in this charter was "the conversion and reduction
of the people in those parts unto the true worship of God
and Christian religion." And inasmuch as the true wor
ship was at that time in England considered to be that pro
vided by the Established Church, in opposition to that of
Rome, King James further said, " We should be loath that
any person should be permitted to pass that we suspected to
affect the superstitions of the Church of Rome." It required
also that the English oath of supremacy should be taken by
all the colonists. By these provisions of the charter, there
fore, Roman Catholics were positively prohibited from set
tling in any part ofthe colony. Other and subsequent pro
visions were designed to enforce this exclusion. By royal
instructions issued to the governor in 1621, the colony was
required " to keep up the religion of the Church of England
as near as may be." In obedience to these instructions, the
General Assembly of Virginia — the first that ever met in
the United States — enacted a law providing " that there be
uniformity in our church as neere as may be to the canons
in England, both in substance and circumstance; and that
all persons yield readie obedience unto them under paine
of censure." This was also repeated in 1629 and 1631, be-

LORD BALTIMORE. 675
fore the charter to colonize Maryland had been granted to
Lord Baltimore. (")
The condition of things existing in the Colony of Virginia
was not at all satisfactory to the king. The first legisla
tive assembly had met at Jamestown in 1619, each borough
sending a representative. The impulse given to popular
freedom by this means excited his apprehension that the
monarchical principles he desired to plant in the New World
might be endangered. He manifestly feared that if the
right of representation in the Colonial Legislature were
granted to the people, it would, in the end, result in organiz
ing a formidable opposition to his own authority. And be
ing a monarchist in the strictest sense, he therefore resolved
at once to bring the colonists into complete subjugation.
For this purpose he resorted to several wrongful and op
pressive measures. He commanded that a number of fel
ons, unfit to remain in England, should be transported to the
colony; and also made the most grinding exactions upon
the people in order to draw off their wealth, and thereby to
supply his own treasury. This injustice, which violated the
chartered rights of the colonists, they could not endure with
out remonstrance ; and when they did undertake to set forth
their grievances, and to appeal to the settled principles ofthe
law of England for protection, they were regarded as sedi
tious. This furnished a pretext, in 1622, for an attempt to
destroy the charter. The first step to this end was to es
tablish in England the entire governing power of the colony,
and thus deprive the people of all agency in making their
own laws and managing their own affairs, which was secured
to them in the charter as pertaining to " the privileges, fran
chises, liberties, and immunities " which belonged to all En
glishmen. This scheme of government, as a substitute for
the charter, was laid before the colonists, who were told that
if they did not accept it, they would be crushed by the pow
er of the king. Not at all intimidated by this threat, they
rejected the proposition with indignation, being resolved to
cling to their chartered rights. The king, therefore, found

(•) " Henning's [Virginia] Statutes at Large," vol. i. , pp. 97, 98, 114, 123,
149, 155.

676, THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
it necessary to resort to a more direct measure. He caused
a writ of quo warranto to be issued from the Court of King's
Bench in England to declare the charter forfeited. The col
onists could not, of course, make any successful defense to
this, for the king could easily find the means, in those days,
to bring the judges over to the royal side if they were other
wise inclined. The English law gave the court no jurisdic
tion over the whole body of colonists, and they rightfully
decided to treat whatever judgment should be pronounced
against them as null and void. The judgment of forfeiture
was arbitrarily rendered in 1625, just before the death of
King James, but no steps were taken toward its execution
before that event. Charles I., who succeeded him, took up
the matter where his father had left it, and in one of his
proclamations assigned all the misfortunes in the colony to
what he called " corporate democracy." His principal effort,
therefore, was to destroy entirely the representative form of,
government inaugurated in 1619. To this end he appointed
a governor and council with powers as royal as he himself
possessed. But the people were determined not to give up
their General Assembly, and it continued to meet at regular
periods, passing such laws as we have seen, in strict conform-.
ity to those of England. They cherished the rights of En
glishmen too fervently to surrender them at the mere dicta
tion of the royal power, or in obedience to the illegal judg
ment of a court subservient to it.
In 1628, Lord Baltimore visited Virginia. This nobleman
was a monarchist both from inclination and education. He
was so devoted to the interests of the king as to have be
come a special favorite of both James I. and Charles L He
had many excellent and ennobling qualities, which made
him exceedingly popular. In 1624 — only four years before
— he had become a Roman Catholic. When he reached
Virginia he found the English Episcopal Church established
by law, and also a legal requirement that, in becoming a citi
zen, he should take the English oath of supremacy. This he
could not do consistently with his new religious convictions.
He was willing, as all the papists in England were, to take
the oath of allegiance, whicb involved merely the support of
the kingly prerogative, but not that of supremacy, wbich de-

MARYLAND CHARTER. 677
nied the authority of the pope. Consequently he did not
unite himself with the colonists. But being delighted with
the climate, soil, and scenery about the Chesapeake Bay and
Potomac River, he formed the design of obtaining a charter
from King Charles authorizing him to make a settlement
there, in entire disregard of the rights ofthe Virginia colony.
Upon that question, being a monarchist, he, of course, took
sides with the king — both having an equal disregard for the
rights of the people when they came in conflict with the
prerogatives of royalty. He relied manifestly upon his well-
known devotion to these principles for his success with the
king. And in this he was not disappointed ; for Charles
was not only disposed to oblige him personally, but was re
solved upon punishing the seditious colonists of Virginia,
notwithstanding they rigidly maintained the religious wor
ship established by the laws of England.
The charter to Lord Baltimore was granted in 1632; but
in consequence of his death it was transferred to his son,
who took his title. It granted the tract of country lying on
both sides ofthe Chesapeake Bay and north of the Potomac,
up to the fortieth parallel of latitude — the whole of which
was within the limits of the Virginia colony.Q This char
ter contained the celebrated provision that while Christianity
was made the law of the colony, yet no preference should
be given "to any sect," but "equality in religious rights,
not less than in civil freedom," was secured. (B) This con
stitutes the groundwork of the Roman Catholic claim of
toleration in the United States. A critical examination of
it will demonstrate not only that this claim is groundless,
but also what was understood by Charles I. and the elder
Lord Baltimore by giving security to civil freedom in Mary
land — in other words, by granting the right of legislation to
those Roman Catholics who should emigrate to the colony.
The English oath of supremacy had been established one
hundred years before the date of this charter. This oath
required that every subject should recognize the king as the

(') "History of Virginia," by Howison, vol. i., p. 270; "History of the
United States," by Bancroft, vol. i., pp. 238-241.
(e) Bancroft, p. 243.

678 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
supreme head of the Church of England ; that the Pope of
Rome had no more jurisdiction than any other bishop; and
that obedience to him should be renounced. (°) This was
not only the law in England, but it was also the law in the
Colony of Virginia. It was because of this that Lord Balti
more could not become a citizen of the latter colony. Now
when this, and the further fact that the territory granted to
him was within the limits of the Virginia colony, are ob
served, it will be seen that he could have accomplished no
possible object designed by him without a provision for re
ligious toleration in his cbarter. He was about to under
take a settlement in a region of the New World where there
was an existing form of religion established by law, which,
in his conscience, he entirely repudiated — which he had re
nounced only four years before as contrary to the law of
God, and which, if he remained true to his religious convic
tions and papal obedience, he would feel it his duty not
merely to oppose, but to exterminate. Like other papists of
that day, and the advocates of the pope's infallibility now,
he favored religious toleration in a Protestant country —
that is, such toleration as would enable him to maintain the
cause of the papacy in the midst of Protestantism as the
means of rooting out the Protestant religion, and securing
the establishment of the Roman Catholic by law. His only
means of getting rid ofthe oath of supremacy in the Colony
of Virginia was to get the king so far to set it aside, with
out authority of law and by his royal will alone, as to allow
him to colonize part of the territory with Roman Catholics
—this being, at that time, the only possible means of intro
ducing that class of population into the colonies. Hence,
the provision for religious toleration was a matter of neces
sity, not choice, with Lord Baltimore.
On the part of the king there was one principal object
to be attained by the establishment ofthe new colony. As
Lord Baltimore was a thorough monarchist, it was expected
of him that he would check the tendency among the Vir
ginia colonists toward popular liberty, and so employ the
right of legislation granted to the Maryland colonists as to
(*) " History of England," by Rapin, vol. vii., p. 480.

ROYAL FAVOR SECURED. 679
preserve the monarchical principle ; which Charles well un
derstood to be an established feature of the papal system.
This object was so near the heart of Charles that he was
quite willing that the established religion should be sacri
ficed, if it could be done in no other way. Although he had
no power by the law of England to set aside the oath of su
premacy, yet he could even venture to defy the authority of
Parliament in order to punish the Virginia colonists for dar
ing to assert their just rights as Englishmen. He may, in
deed, have had, and possibly did have, another motive be
yond this : the subversion of the English Church in the col
onies and the establishment of the Roman Catholic by law.
It is very well known to the readers of English history that
both Charles I. and his father, James I., while professedly
Protestants, were inclined to favor the papists as far as they
dared to go. During the reign of Charles the laws were
not executed against them, and they were allowed to go un
punished for refusing to take the oath of supremacy, when
ever they consented to swear allegiance to him.('°) By this
latter oath they assured themselves of his royal favor to
such an extent that they contributed greatly toward the
general policy of his administration. They were allowed
publicly to celebrate mass at Somerset-house, especially un
der the royal protection. A papal nuncio resided in Lon
don, and his house was their general rendezvous. The
queen was an acknowledged and fanatical papist. It is,
therefore, quite certain that they materially aided the con
vocation and Archbishop Laud in implanting in the mind
of Charles an intense hatred of the Presbyterians and Puri
tans.^1) And as the influence of the latter was beginning,
about that time, to create a sentiment in the Plymouth col
ony, like that in Virginia, in favor of the principles of pop
ular government, it was probably an easy matter for Lord
Baltimore to obtain from Charles the charter of 1632. Both
of them thought alike upon the political questions likely to
be involved in the settlement of the new colony ; and these

(") Rapin, vol. xi., p. 89.
(u) Ibid., vol. x., p. 435 ; " History of the Rebellion," by the Earl of Clar
endon, Oxford ed., vol. i., p. 243.

680 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
were considered by Charles as of more consequence than
the religious worship established by tbe English law.
Thus, when all these facts are taken into account, the con
clusion is a natural if not unavoidable one — that the inser
tion of the provision in favor of religious toleration in the
Maryland charter was alone for the objects and purposes
already suggested. So far as Lord Baltimore himself was
concerned, it was undoubtedly a necessity with him. He did
not take it in that form because he favored religious tolera
tion in a broad and liberal sense, even if he did so favor it,
but because it was the only mode by which he could main
tain Roman Catholicism in opposition to the existing law
of the Virginia colony. By precisely the same process of
reasoning as may have influenced him, Pope Pius IX. is in
favor of religious toleration in the United States, but not at
Rome ; and so with his hierarchy all over the world.
The second Lord Baltimore did not accompany his colo
nists to America. They were placed under the care of Leon
ard Calvert, his brother, who arrived in Virginia with two
hundred Roman Catholics in 1634. They visited James
town, where they were notified by the governor and council
that their grant was considered as an encroachment upon
the rights of Virginia. (12) They then sailed up the Chesa
peake, and established a colony which they called Maryland,
in honor of Henrietta Maria, the Roman Catholic queen of
Charles I. Upon Kent's Island, near the present city of An
napolis, they found a settlement of Virginians, already made
under the authority of the Virginia charter. They demand
ed of these that their jurisdiction and authority at Kent's
Island should be immediately recognized. The Virginians
not consenting to this, which they considered an invasion
of their colonial rights, hostilities were commenced. Their
leader was seized by Calvert and his party, tried, and con
victed of sedition and other crimes, and would doubtless
have been executed if he had not succeeded in making his
escape to Jamestown, where he demanded the protection of
the governor, who was then Sir John Harvey. No effective
steps were taken by him; and he was suspected of favoring
(12) Howison, vol. i., p. 270.

USURPATION BY LORD BALTIMORE. 681
the views of the king, and of Calvert also. On this account
he became so odious to the Virginia colonists that he was
removed by the General Assembly, and sent back to En
gland. But he was restored by the king, who was not dis
posed to listen to any popular complaints, or to do any thing
to protect the Virginians. (13)
The facts thus far stated may be found in the general his
tories of those times; but auy careful student of them will
readily perceive that many things are omitted which are
necessary to a perfect understanding of the early history
of the Maryland colony, especially in so far as religious tol
eration was concerned. One reason for this is found in the
fact that hitherto it has been deemed expedient by Protest
ants to permit the claim of Roman Gatholic toleration to go
unchallenged, as there was nothing to be gained by contro
verting it, and its evident tendency was to keep alive that
sentiment in the minds of the multitude of Roman Catho
lic laymen to whom it is most acceptable. But now, when
this claim is set up with such apparent candor, and so much
is demanded on account of it, it has become necessary that
it shall be more particularly examined and accurately under
stood. And it is fortunate that we are not entirely with
out the means of doing so.
In 1655, soon after these events occurred, there was pub
lished in Westminster Hall, London, an account of the set
tlement of the Maryland colony, wherein it was shown, by
facts and arguments which could not be easily overthrown,
that the patent of Lord Baltimore was illegal, and that un
der it the younger Lord Baltimore had usurped royal juris
diction and prerogatives in violation of the laws and liber
ties of the English nation, and of the just rights of the Vir
ginia colonists. In order to demonstrate this, a relation
was given of the leading incidents connected with the re
bellion of the Roman Catholic colonists against the existing
government organized under the Virginia charter. Some
years ago, this account, along with many others connected
with our colonial history, was put in an accessible form by
a gentleman who, during his life, was greatly esteemed for
(ia) Howison, vol. i.,p. 273.

682 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
his erudition as well as for his painstaking in collecting to
gether the materials of our early history. From this source
the facts now to be related have been obtained. (14)
After speaking of the seizure and confiscation of vessels
belonging to the Virginians who had been trading with the
natives of Mary land for a number of years, under proper and
legal authority derived from their Colonial Government, and
the invalidity of the Maryland charter, which it was alleged
Lord Baltimore had obtained by falsely representing the
country as unsettled, it thus speaks of the Roman Catholic
colonists :
"And professing an establishment ofthe Romish religion
only, they suppressed the poor Protestants among them, and
carried on the whole frame of their Government in the Lord
Proprietaries name ; all their Proceedings, Judicature, Try-
als, and Warrants, in his name, Power and Dignity, and from
him onely ; not the least mention of the Sovereign Authori
ty of England in all their Government ; to that purpose,
forceably imposing Oaths (judged illegal in a Report made
by a Committee of the Council of State, 1652), to maintain
his royal Jurisdictions, Prerogatives, and Dominions, as ab
solute Lord and Proprietary, to protect chiefly the Roman
Catholic religion in the free exercise thereof; and all done
by yeerly Instructions from him out of England, as if he had
been absolute Prince and King."(16)
There is no difficulty in seeing the object and precise nat
ure of the oaths prescribed by Lord Baltimore for all of
ficers and citizens, when it is considered that both by the
laws of England and those existing in the colony at the time
of his settlement, the English Episcopal was the established
Church. And while the practice of religious toleration was
compulsory, being provided for in the charter, it is undoubt
edly true that these oaths were specially designed to give
undue preference to the Roman Catholic colonists — a prefer
ence destructive of the equality which the charter was de
signed to establish. This is one of the requirements :
(") " Historical Tracts," collected and printed by Peter Force, Washing
ton City, 1838. See tract entitled " Virginia and Maryland ; or, The Lord
Baltimore's Case Uncased and Answered," etc., vol. ii.
(f) Ibid., p. 5.

ALLEGIANCE REQUIRED BY LORD BALTIMORE. 683
"And I do further swear I will not by my selfe, nor any
other person directly, trouble, molest, or discountenance any
person whatsoever in the said province professing to believe
in Jesus Christ, and in particular no Roman Catholick, for
or in respect of his or her Religion, nor his or her free exer
cise thereof within the said province, so as they be not un
faithful to his said Lordship or molest or conspire against
the civill Government established under him."(16)
We must necessarily look to the character of the civil
government established by Lord Baltimore, in order to as
certain the obligations imposed by this oath. The oath of
fidelity to him required that he should be acknowledged " to
be the true and absolute Lord and Proprietary " of the col
ony; that "true faith" should be rendered to him and his
heirs, and that his and their " Right, Title, Interest, Privi-
ledges, Royal Jurisdiction, Prerogative, Propriety and Do
minion over" the colony should be maintained. (") Here
was a manifest attempt to substitute his own royal power
for that of the king, to whom all the original colonists were
ready and willing to pay obedience. But the same is fur
ther shown by the commissions, writs, and processes that
were issued. The law of England required all these to issue
in the name of the " Keepers of the Liberty of England ;"
but, in disobedience of this requirement, they were issued in
his name — a clear usurpation of royal jurisdiction and do
minion.^8) The plan of government constructed by means
of these usurped powers and prerogatives became such that
the Protestant inhabitants of the colony who were loyal to
England could not conscientiously take this oath, because it
imposed the obligation of violating the law of the mother
country. Whether that law was right or wrong is not now
necessary to be inquired into ; it was in accordance with the
spirit of that, though not of the present age. It prescribed
tbe line of duty for all English eitizens, whether at home or
in the colonies, and these Maryland colonists by violating it
would have been subjected to prosecutions for sedition and

(ie) "Historical Tracts," collected and printed by Peter Force, Washing
ton Citv, 1838, pp. 23, 24, 26.
(") Rid., p. 25. 08) Rid., p. 10.

684 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
treason. All this Lord Baltimore knew perfectly well, and
therefore he prescribed an oath of fidelity to himself of such
a nature that a loyal Protestant could not take it, being well
assured, at the same time, that the Roman Catholics would
all do so. And to show the little favor he was disposed to
exhibit toward those who should refuse — if, indeed, he did
not design to drive out the Protestants entirely — he caused
a proclamation to be issued to the effect " that all such per
sons so refusing shall be forever debarred from any Right
or claim to the Lands they now enjoy and live on ;" that is,
their property should be confiscated ; and " his Lordship's
Governor " was instructed " to cause the said lands to be
entred, and seized upon to his Lordship's use."('°)
As might well be supposed, the results were just what Lord
Baltimore designed they should be, and are fully set forth in
this tract. " Papists and Priests and Jesuits " flocked into
the colony. " Papist Governors and Counselors, dedicated to
St. Ignatius," filled the offices. The Protestants were " mis
erably disturbed in the Exercise of their Religion." A num
ber of " illegal Executions and Murthers " occurred. There
were "Imprisonments, Confiscations of many men's Estates,
and of widows' and orphans', to the destruction of many Fam
ilies." Those who would not take the oath were disarmed
and plundered. " Popish Officers " were appointed, " outing
those" who were previously in office. "Lands and Planta
tions" were seized and confiscated. And it can not fail to
arrest attention that all these persecutions were visited upon
Protestants, while not one Roman Catholic suffered from
them!(20) As for these, they were so favored that if one
of them was called " Papish Priest, Jesuite, Jesuited Papist,"
etc., the offender forfeited a penalty of " ten pounds !"(21)
The inferior position occupied by laymen in those days
should relieve them from any responsibility for these meas
ures. The civil authority of the colony was entirely in the
hands of those appointed by Lord Baltimore, who, as it ap
pears, selected Roman Catholic agents exclusively. At that

(") "Historical Tracts," collected and printed by Peter Force, Washing
ton City, 1838, p. 35.
O Ibid., pp. 12, 13, 16, 30, 31. (21) Ibid., p. 27.

THE JESUITS IN MARYLAND. 685
time, in England, the papists were chiefly under the influ
ence ofthe Jesuits, whose vigilance was too sleepless to per
mit this opportunity of planting their society in the New
World to escape them. How far they had the sympathy
and support of Lord Baltimore is, of course, not known ; but
it is undoubtedly true that they were the authors of all these
measures in the Maryland Colony, and that they had pretty
much their own way there. This appears from a narrative
preserved in the Jesuit college at Rome, which is also found
among the "Historical Tracts" above referred to. It was
prepared by the Jesuit fathers appointed by the superior-
general of the order at Rome, to superintend the first emi
gration of Roman Catholic colonists who left England in the
fall of 1633. They went, as it is declared, to " carry the light
of the Gospel and of truth where it has been found out that
hitherto no knowledge of the true God has shone " — that is,
where neither the pope nor popery had been heard of. His
tory has amply shown the kind of light they throw upon the
pathway of nations as well as individuals, and the events
in the Maryland Colony show that they acted there, as ev
erywhere else, under instructions from Rome. "Bulls, let
ters, etc., from the pope and Rome " — that is, from the pope
and the general of the Jesuits — became familiar to the colo
nists. (22) By means of these the Jesuits became omnipoteilt
in the colony ; and in the tract last named they show how
successfully they exercised their power. Then, as now, the
first object of tbe order was the acquisition of wealth, with
the right to govern and control their property without any
reference or obedience to the laws of the country in which
they reside. On this subject Father White, one of these
Jesuits, reports that when they set up this claim in Mary
land, tbey were met by those who insisted that the laws
of England, which bound the colony, forbade it ; and he
speaks of them as those " who, too intent upon their own
affairs, have not feared to violate the immunities of the
Church by using their endeavors that laws of this kind for
merly passed in England, and unjustly observed there, may

(™) "Historical Tracts," collected and printed by Peter Force. Washing
ton City, 1838, p. 12.

686 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
obtaiu like force here, to wit : that it shall not be lawful for
any person or community, even ecclesiastical, in any wise,
even by gift, to acquire or possess any land unless the per
mission of the civil magistrate first be obtained. Which
thing, when our people declared it to be repugnant to the
laws of the Church, two priests were sent from England
who might teach the contrary." Aud then, in order to show
his superior what admirable success he had in resisting this
unjust English law, and how all-powerful the order had al
ready become in America, he continues : " But the reverse
of what was expected happened ; for our reasons being
heard, and the tbing itself being more clearly understood,
they easily fell in with our opinion, and the laity in like
manner generally."(23) And thus the Jesuits won their first
triumph in the United States. The two priests sent over
from England to demonstrate the necessity of obeying the
English law were easily converted ; the laity were unresist
ing; the law was trampled under their feet; and tbey were
allowed to acquire, hold, and govern their own property with
impunity, and without any responsibility to the civil power.
This is precisely the claim now set up by the American hie
rarchy at the Second National Council at Baltimore, who
have again revived, and upon the same soil, the old Jesuit
demand of nearly two centuries and a half ago.
If the simple narration of the foregoing facts were not suf-
ficent of itself to prove that the Jesuits in Maryland were
only in favor of religious toleration as a means of extirpa
ting Protestantism — which is acknowledged to have been the
chief object of their organization — the game they were then
playing throughout Europe sufficiently removes all doubt
upon the subject. Those were the days of Popes Gregory
XV and Urban VIIL, both of whom strove hard to estab
lish papal omnipotence. Gregory XV canonized Ignatius
Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits. He organized missions
to every country in the world. He founded the society of
the Propaganda. He formed an alliance with Roman Catho-
(2a) "A Relation of the Colony of the Lord Baron of Baltimore," by Fa
ther Andrew White, "copied from the Archives of tho Jesuit College at
Rome by the late Rev. William M 'Sherry, of Georgetown College," etc. ;
" Historical Tracts," by Peter Force, vol. iv., last tract, p. 42.

PAPAL PERSECUTIONS. 687
lie sovereigns for the extirpation of the Lutherans and Cal
vinists. He sent into Bohemia " cohorts of Dominicans, Au-
gustines, Franciscans, Carmelites, and Jesuits," under Cardi
nal Caraffa, with a subsidy of two hundred thousand crowns,
who attacked and murdered Protestants wherever they found
them ; who " burned the farm-houses, murdered the farmers,
violated girls, polluted young children, sparing those only
who called themselves Catholics." He sent Cardinal Stein
to Moravia, with like cruel and rapacious soldiers, who drove
fifteen thousand Moravian brothers from their homes. His
Jesuit missionaries, in Bavaria and Saxony, terrified twenty
thousand people with the axe of the executioner, until they
renounced Protestantism. He prohibited Protestant wor
ship in the Palatinate, and forced the inhabitants to submit
to the Church of Rome. His emissaries penetrated to Up
per Baden, to Bamberg, Fulda, Eichsfeld, Paderborn, Hal-
berstadt, Magdeburg, Altona, and threatened Denmark aud
Norway. He made Duke Maximilian of Bavaria Elector
of the Palatine, as a reward for his heartless persecutions,
which, he said, filled his heart " with a torrent of delight,"
because it gave him assurance that " soon will all the en
emies of the throne of the apostle be reduced to dust."
He stimulated Louis XIII. of France to make war upon the
Huguenots. Everywhere they went, his legions of Jesu
its, Franciscans, and Capuchins preached tbe extinction of
heresy. With the heartlessness of a fiend he wrote thus
to Louis XIIL, on account of his cruelties to the Calvin
ists : " My dear son, the ornament of the universe, the glory
of our age, march on steadily in your holy path ; cause the
power of your arm to be felt by those who know not God;
be pitiless toward the heretics; and merit to be seated one
day on the right hand of Christ, by offering to him as a hol
ocaust all the children of perdition who infest your king
dom." He wrote to the King of Spain " to have no pity on
the heretics; to order his governors to establish the Catholic
religion by force in the provinces dependent on his crown ;
to light up the stake ; and to leave the Calvinists no alter
native but the mass or death." Dreading the power of the
English people, he changed his tactics in that country, and
sought to win James I. by flattery, and by favoring the

688 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
marriage of his son Charles to the daughter of the King of
Spain. He conceived the idea of bringing the whole world
into dependence upon Rome by the instruments he was then
employing, and of sending these desolating missionaries to
the Indies, China, Japan/all Asia, and Africa. It was his
fertile and inventive brain which first conceived the thoughtj
just before the Maryland charter was granted to Lord Balti
more, of planting Roman Catholicism in North America by
means of Jesuit missionaries^24) And to notify the world
how it would be governed if he had the power, this infallible
pope issued a bull, Contra Hcereticos in locis Itulice, whereby
he ordained that no heretic, under any pretense whatever,
should reside in Italy, or the islands adjacent. (2B)
Urban VIII. was a fit successor to Gregory XV. in some
respects, while in others he was not. The condition into
which Europe was thrown by the violent measures and re
morseless persecutions of Gregory was one of convulsion
and uncertainty. The Protestants were everywhere seek
ing places of refuge ; and the princes who were obedient to
Rome were emulous of each other in the adoption of meas
ures to extirpate them. There was no valley in the Alps or
the Pyrenees so remote as to furnish them a hiding-place.
Spain had almost worn out its strength during the forty odd
years of the tyranny of Philip II. by the expulsion of more
than a million and a half of Jews and Moors, and the murder
of untold numbers of Protestants. Ferdinand II. of Ger
many had swept over the Protestant settlements of Bohemia
as with a besom of destruction. The bloody and unrelent
ing Alva had desolated the Netherlands. The fires ofthe
Thirty Years' War were blazing all over Germany. Lu
theranism was forbidden in Austria. Hungary was sub
dued, impoverished, and paralyzed. The indomitable but
treacherous Wallenstein was crushing out the spirit of civil
and religious liberty with his mighty army. The tramp of
soldiery was heard everywhere. James I. and Charles I.
were concerting plans, under the dictation of Buckingham
and Laud, to turn over England to the papacy. The minor
(M) Cormenin, vol. ii., pp. 295, 297.
(2B) " Religion and Policy," by Clarendon, vol. ii., p. 530.

RICHELIEU AND THE PROTESTANTS. 689
princes everywhere were intimidated. Nowhere, in all Eu
rope, was there to be found a single conspicuous Roman
Cathohc, except the great Richelieu, who dared to defy the
thunders of Rome ; and even he was so impressed with the
teachings of the queen-mother, Mary of Medici, that he was
as remorseless as his royal master, Louis XIIL, could desire,
in spreading consternation and dismay throughout the ranks
of the Protestants. He used their swords to further his am
bition, but punished them for their heresy. He added them
to his armies in order to strike terror into the mind of Ur
ban VIIL, and then struck them down to keep within the
pale of the Church. He would brook no rival to the king in
France, and with his strong arm snapped every cord with
which the infallible pope tried to bind him. Olivarez of
Spain was a puppet in his hands. He played with kings as
with toys. As there was no check to his ambition, so there
was no limit to his power. His mighty genius displayed it
self in the grandest measures of state policy ; and finding
that the greatness and glory of France lay through fields of
blood, his cardinal robes were not sacred enough in his eyes
to cause him an instant's pause in the task of achieving them.
Surrounded by men and events like these, Urban VIII.
would have had an insignificant existence had he not pos
sessed the papacy. This position required him, not alone to
carry on the persecutions against the Protestants, but to mix
himself up with the contests ofthe princes. Spain was try
ing to hold Portugal with one hand, and to keep France in
check with the other. Urban, afraid to offend either, court
ed both. He dreaded the perfidy of Olivarez as much as he
did the power of Richelieu. Necessity, therefore, not choice,
kept him from reaching out the papal arm over the nations
as boldly as his immediate predecessor had done; but, nev
ertheless, he quietly left at work, whenever he was not pre
vented, all the instruments of papal vengeance which Grego
ry XV had sent out. Italy was the only place where his
infallibility was recognized, and there it was conceded only
from dread of his power. It having been charged against
him that he reached the pontificate only by causing some of
the cardinals who had opposed him to be poisoned,(26) and
(") Cormenin, vol. ii., p. 299.
44

690 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
by intimidating others, the Italians were kept in silence by
fears of his cruelty. Hence, in this limited field of ecclesi
astical jurisdiction — where his mastery was undisputed, he
felt authorized to show, to the fullest extent, what an infal
lible pope could do when undisturbed in the exercise of his
power. The first measure by which he distinguished his
pontificate was to set aside a bull of Sixtus V. by inaugura
ting a shameless system of nepotism, in making cardinals of
his brother and two of his nephews, and in rewarding his
own family with gifts of money and power. He caused Gal
ileo to be thrown into prison and persecuted because he vio
lated the faith of the Church in teaching the earth's revolu
tion, according to the theory of the heretic Copernicus. He
disgracefully converted the papal power into an instrument
for extorting money from an orthodox prince, to oblige his
nephew, Cardinal Francisco.
The Duke of Parma was largely indebted to the Monte,
or Bank, of Rome, as security for which the revenues of the
Duchy of Castro were pledged. Cardinal Francisco, desir
ing to obtain possession of Castro, prevailed upon the pope
to summon the duke before him and command the payment
of the debt to the bank. The duke was notified that if he
did not appear within a fixed time, he would be excommu
nicated, and the revenues of Castro be sequestered for that
purpose. The notice was disregarded, and the duke, know
ing the character of Cardinal Francisco and his great in
fluence over the pope, commenced the erection of fortifica
tions to defend his territory in the event of forcible invasion.
This the pope held to be an offense amounting to "crimen
Icese majestatis," because it was done without his consent,
and he proceeded to pronounce a solemn judgment against
the duke. This consisted in fulminating a formal bull, ex
communicating him, forfeiting all his dominions, and absolv
ing all his subjects from their oaths of fidelity. (27) In this
act Urban VIIL went a bow-shot beyond any of his prede
cessors. With them the practice of excommunicating here
tics, releasing their subjects, and taking away their domin
ions was familiar enough as the exercise of their divine
C) "Religion and Policy," by Clarendon, vol. ii., pp. 548-550.

DEATH OF URBAN VIII. 691
power; but Urban was the first pontiff who employed this
extraordinary power to compel an orthodox prince, as faith
ful to the Church as himself, to pay a debt to a banking cor
poration ! What other than an infallible genius could have
originated the idea of converting an ecclesiastical bull of
excommunication into a capias ad satisfaciendum? When
forced, at last, to experience the mortification of defeat in
consummating this nefarious scheme, in consequence of the
combination of princes to protect the Duke of Parma, he
gnashed his teetb in anger, like a madman, and died a mis
erable and ignominious death; "blaspheming the name of
God, and confounding in the same curses the Doge of Ven
ice, the Dukes of Parma, Modena, and Tuscany, the French
and Spaniards, Protestants and Catholics."(28)
The events heretofore related, immediately preceding and
connected with the colonization of Maryland, occurred dur
ing the pontificates of these two popes ; and there is noth
ing more certain than that neither of them did any thing up
to that time to counteract the influence of the Jesuits, or to
check their career of conquest. Suarez, and Sanchez, and
Emanuel Sa, and Bellarmin, and other fathers, had just died,
leaving immense volumes of defense as a legacy to the or
der. Neither the " Augustinius " of Jansen nor the " Provin
cial Letters " of Pascal had yet been published. The heavy
artillery of Port-Royal had not yet been opened upon them.
They were holding "high carnival" among the nations;
crowding around the courts of kings to subjugate them by
their intrigues, bending popes to their will through such
generals as Acquaviva, and lighting the torch wheresoever
there were victims to be found. But a few years before, the
accursed and infernal Inquisition had been declared " holy "
and "universal " by Pope Sixtus V, and no monarch had yet
been powerful enough to succeed in mitigating its cruelties.
John IV. of Portugal was the only one among the Roman
Catholic sovereigns who, at that time, dared to incur the
pontifical displeasure by denouncing its ferocities and seek
ing to destroy it. Under all these circumstances, it is ab
surd — the very height of absurdity — to suppose that these

(2B) Cormenin, vol. ii., p. 317.

692 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
Jesuit fathers, White, and Altham, and Brock, and others,
who accompanied the first Roman Catholic colonists to
Maryland, came over with the purpose in their minds to
plant religious toleration and freedom of conscience in the
New World. The idea is preposterous; and he who is
credulous enough to believe it, is also ready to believe that
Gregory VIL, and Adrian IV., and Alexander ILL, and Inno
cent III., and Boniface VIIL, Made the service. of God the
sole motive of their lives, and undertook no efforts to seize
upon the temporal sceptres of kings.
Whatsoever, then, was done in the Colony of Maryland in
favor of religious toleration was done only in obedience to
the charter, and against the known and steady policy both
of the Church of Rome and the Jesuits. Nobody can jus
tify the intolerance of the Episcopalians of Virginia or the
Puritans of New England ; and while we may now congrat
ulate ourselves that counteracting influences were plant
ed in Maryland, it should not be forgotten that those who
brought them accepted toleration from compulsion, and em
ployed all the arts and cunning of Jesuitism to get rid of
it. Intolerance, it is true, accorded with the spirit of that
age, and some allowance — but no apology — is to be made
for it on that account. But the first influences that set in
against it were Protestant exclusively, not Roman Catholic.
Nowhere in the Roman Catholic world could religious toler
ation obtain a foot-hold. Although great men and laymen
of the Church gave it their support, Rome would not permit
it, and her fiat was the law of the Church : " when Rome
has spoken," said Augustine, " that is the end of the matter."
The first legislation in Maryland in favor of freedom of
conscience was in 1649, fifteen years after the colony had
been planted. Earlier assemblies had enacted laws, but they
were not approved by Lord Baltimore, and were, therefore,
lost. It was necessary in passing all these that the colo
nists, while preserving the legal rights of the Proprietary,
should, at the same time, be careful to express their alle
giance to the English monarch. They had the example of.
Virginia before them to teach them how necessary it was
that their legislation should conform to their charter, in or
der to avoid a forfeiture. This conformity to the charter

TOLERATION IN MARYLAND. 693
was the expression of their allegiance. Without it Lord
Baltimore could not legally have approved of their legisla
tion, and the displeasure of the king would have been in
curred. In any aspect of the question, then, the legislation
of 1649 was a necessary duty imposed by their fundamental
law, and was almost in the language of the charter. It was
an act of legal obedience, nothing more. If, apart from this,
it had the hearty assent of the Roman Catholic laymen of
the colony, that only goes to show, what has often appeared
elsewhere, that liberal-minded men of that Church have had
courage enough to defy the papacy, in their advocacy of the
inalienable natural rights of mankind. To these, if such
were the fact, all possible honor is due, and we should not
be slow to render it. And even now, in the present aspect
of affairs, it may well be left unchallenged ; for neither then
nor now could religious toleration obtain the sanction and
approval of the papacy. It could not have done so then, be
cause Innocent X. was pope, and he, in a pontifical bull, ex
cathedrd, denounced the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended
the Thirty Years' War by restoring peace to Germany, and
placed every religious sect on an equal footing; declar
ing it to be " prejudicial to the Catholic religion, to divine
worship, to the safety of souls, to the Apostolic See," and
"null, vain, iniquitous."(29) It could not be done now, be
cause Pius IX. has announced, in his Syllabus of 1864 and
elsewhere, that it is in violation of God's law and the faith
of the Church ; that Innocent X. and all other intolerant
popes were infallible ; and that unqualified and unresisting
obedience is due both to the doctrines set forth by them, as
well as to those which have been set forth by him. If the
Roman Catholic laymen of Maryland, in 1649, were so far
removed from the immediate influence of Innocent X. that
they dared to give expression to their honest sentiments in
favor of toleration, let us cherish their memory with affec
tion. But the immediate question which concerns us now,
and which is practical in all its bearings, is this: Are the
Roman Catholic laymen of the United States at this time
(»>) it History of Germany," by Menzel, vol. ii., p. 395 ; Cormenin, vol. ii.,
p. 321.

694 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
sufficiently removed from the immediate influence of Pius
IX. to stand firmly by the honest sentiments of their own
hearts, and defend religious toleration at the hazard of in
curring excommunication and anathema? If they. are — if
our free institutions have given growth and strength to
their natural love of liberty, and they cherish the hope that
they may be preserved as an asylum where Protestants and
Roman Catholics may mingle together in harmony, and en
joy whatsoever forms of religious belief their consciences
shall approve, then to them also should appropriate honors
be given.
And this is the great question to which all our inquiries
tend. How it is to be decided, and what shall be the char
acter of the struggle through which a decision shall be
reached, is known only to the Searcher of all hearts. The
head of the pope no longer wears a crown, but he will tol
erate no subjects whose submissive obedience is not the
same as if he did. With him there can be no religion with
out this obedience ; there can be no service of God without
serving him! If this is to be the religion ofthe Roman Cath
olic population of the United States, then the obligation of
self-protection will require measures of defense against it.
What these shall be it would be premature to discuss until
this preliminary question shall have been decided. Aud this
can not be put off much longer. It is crowding upon us ev
ery day, and each demand from Rome increases its propor
tions.

PAPAL THEORY OF GOVERNMENT. 695

CHAPTER XXIII.
The Papal Theory of Government.— The Kind of Christian State it requires.
— The Laws of Theodosius and Justinian. — The Ordinances in France
in the Times of her Kings most in Favor at Rome. — No Other Religion
than the Roman Catholic allowed. — Heresy made a Crime against the State.
—Modes of punishing Heretics. — These Laws required by the Church. —
The State Heretical without them. — The Protestant System. — Separates
the Church and the State. — Is in Obedience to the Example of Christ and
the Apostles. — The Harmony they established between the Spiritual and
Temporal Powers disturbed by the Popes. — The Consequences of disturb
ing this Harmony. — Papal Doctrines in the United States. — They subject
the State to the Government of the Pope. — How far they do this. — In All
Temporals which concern the Faith or Morality. — The Government can
not stand if this Doctrine prevail. — The Extent to which it is carried. —
It is based upon the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII. — "Temporal
Monarchy" claimed as Necessary for the World. — Harmonious Condition
of the First Christians. — Churches planted in Asia before those in Eu
rope. — The Work well done by the Apostles. — Jerusalem the "Mother
Church." — No Necessity for Another at Rome. — The Consequences of
Opposition to the Apostolic Plan. — They lead to the Reformation. — Effect
of the Reformation. — Present Efforts of the Papacy to turn the World
back. — The Contest in the United States. — Conclusion.
Peotestant no less than Roman Catholic Christians as
sign to the spiritual and temporal powers a common foun
dation in the order and appointment of God. But they dif
fer with them essentially in the application of this general
principle to the civil affairs of government.
The, papal theory of government, taking this principle as
the starting - point, reaches the following results: that the
Church and the State, having this common origin, are bound
to extend mutual aid to each other; that the Church, be
longing to the spiritual or higher order, is bound to see that
both the State and individuals conform, in their laws and
conduct, to the law of God ; and that, as the two powers are
thus united in the common end of obtaining order and hold
ing society together, they should also be so united in their
action that the Church, as the superior, may always be in a

696 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
condition to command obedience from the State, as the in
ferior. As it regards all those things which do not concern
the law of God or the moral well-being of society, the State
is left to deal with its citizens, collectively and individually,
without any interference from the Church. This is its sepa
rate and independent sphere of action. But whenever ques
tions arise wbich involve conformity to the law of God or
of morality, then the Church is bound to interfere and pre
scribe the rule of conduct both to the State and the individ
ual. This is called the separate and independent sphere of
the Church. Correlative obligations arise out of these rela
tions. The chiefest of these is, that when the Church com
mands what the law of God and morality require, the State
is bound to obey, just as each individual is. And if it does
not obey, it, like the individual, is subject to whatsoever pen
alty the Church may prescribe for disobedience. (¦)
In looking through the history of such governments as
have been constructed upon the papal plan, we find many
illustrations of the manner in whicb these principles have
been practically applied, especially in reference to the inflic
tion of such penalties as the Church has from time to time
imposed for the violation of its laws. The codes of the em
perors Theodosius and Justinian contain many laws relating
to religion, enacted only in obedience to the command ofthe
Church ; merely, says Domat, in his great work on the Civil
Law, " to enforce the observance of the laws which the

(') " Politics, or the science which treats of the State, its rights, duties,
and relations, presents from its ethical character many points of contact with
revealed truth. The principles on which it is based flow from the natural
law. They can never, therefore, be in real contradiction with the precepts
ofthe divine and positive law. Hence the State, if it only remains 'true to
its fundamental principles, must ever be in the completest harmony with the
Church and revelation. Now, so long as this harmony continues, the Church
has neither call nor right to interfere with the State, for earthly politics do
not fall within her direct jurisdiction. The moment, however, the State be
comes unfaithful to its principles, and contravenes the divine and positive
law, that moment it is the Church's right and duty, as guardian of revealed
truth, to interfere, and to proclaim to the State the truths which it has ig
nored, and to condemn the erroneous maxims which it has adopted." — When
does the Church speak Infallibly ? by Thomas Francis Knox, of the Lon
don Oratory, London ed., pp. 70, 71.

LAWS DICTATED BY THE PAPACY. 697
Church herself, and the spiritual powers to whom God has
committed the care of her, have established, and to protect
aud maintain the execution of those laws." Referring fur
ther to these emperors, thus obedient to the Church, and to
those kings of France under whose reigns ordinances on re
ligious subjects were passed of the same nature, this same
author says, " They add to the authority of the laws of the
Church that which God has put in their hands ; enjoining,
as to what concerns the articles of faith, their subjects to
submit themselves to the doctrine of the Church, prohibit
ing all persons to preach or to teach any thing contrary
thereto, and enacting punishments against heretics."(2)
These are not called laws of the Church, and, strictly
speaking, they are not, because they are not enacted by the
spiritual, but by the temporal, authority. They are passed,
however, because the Church obliges the State to enact them
as a necessary protection to its religion and what it calls its
"free exercise," and holds the State to be heretical if it does
not do so. If the laws are passed according to its dictation,
then the civil power, being Christian, must be obeyed ; but
if they are not, then the Church releases all citizens from
the obligation of obedience to it, because it is sinful to obey
an heretical power. And this is called rendering " unto Cae
sar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that
are God's."
In France, when the papal power was sufficiently predomi
nant to exact obedience to the laws of the Church, it caused
the temporal power to be so employed in matters relating
to the Church, that sundry laws were enacted which exhibit,
in a strong light, the real spirit of the papal system of gov
ernment. Domat, in defining the policy which prompted
them, says it requires " that Catholic princes prohibit with
in their dominions divisions touching matters of religion,
schisms, and the exercise of any other religion except the
Catholic alone, and exclude all heretics from it, by inflict
ing penalties against them as there is occasion. "(3) Again,
speaking of the obligation resting upon the civil magistrate,
(2) "The Civil Law," etc., by Domat, London ed., 1737, vol. ii., p. 507.
(3) Rid., p. 515.

698 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
he says: "It is likewise his duty to employ his authority for
enforcing the observance of the laws of the Church, in so far
as they contain rules about manners which may regard the
public order."(4) And the same obligation is said to rest
upon princes. (B) And then, as a consequence necessarily re
sulting from tbis superiority of the Church and inferiority
of the State, he says " that no person has a right to revenge
the encroachments which the ministers of the Church may
make on the rights of temporal princes ;"(") thus exempting
the pope, in administering the affairs of the papacy, from re
sponsibility to any earthly power, and extending or limiting
his jurisdiction only as his own discretion shall dictate.
One of these ordinances was in these words: "Heresy is
a crime of high treason against the Divine Majesty, whereof
one is guilty when he abandons the true Catholic faith, and
obstinately maintains an error which the Universal Church
hath condemned." (7)
And another: "They who will not hearken to the Church,
which is the pillar of truth, and against which the gates of
hell shall not prevail, ought to be treated as heathens and
publicans."(8) The following modes whereby tbe progress of heresy was
required to be hindered are particularly pointed out : take
from heretics the places where they assemble for worship ;
forbid them from assembling in private houses ; remove their
ministers into distant parts ; " take care that, the children
of heretics be educated in the schools ofthe orthodox;" pre
vent heretics from holding any public office or any honora
ble employment, or from exercising reputable professions,
such as advocates, physicians, or professors in colleges ; sub
ject them to corporal punishment ; and, finally, put them to
death. (9) And tbose guilty of blasphemy were thus dealt
with : they were fined for the first offense, but, in the event
of frequent relapses, " their lips are pierced with a hot iron,
their tongue is cut out, and they are condemned to the pil
lory, to banishment, or to the galleys," and, at last, " even to
death itself."(10)
(4) " The Civil Law," etc., by Domat, London ed., 1737, vol. ii., p. 516.
C) Rid., p. 517. («) Rid., p. 519. (') Rid., p. 624.
(") Rid., p. 625. (9) Ibid., pp. 625, 626. (,0) Ibid., p. 627.

A CHRISTIAN STATE AFTER THE PAPAL PLAN.
These ordinances were enacted in France during the reigns
of those kings who are held in the highest estimation by the
papacy, as the most beloved and honored sons ofthe Church,
on account of their obedience to its commands and their
devotion to the cause of religion. By means of them, and
others of like nature, they caused themselves to be esteem
ed in Rome as foremost among Christian princes, and placed
France in the very front rank of Christian states. The na
tion presented to the world a model form of government, ac
cording to the papal plan. If it had not passed these laws
in obedience to the dictation of the Church, it would have
been heretical, and not Christian. And if those who exer
cised the temporal power had not caused them to be vigor
ously executed, they would have subjected themselves to
the anathemas of the Church. Thus we see the nature and
character of the civil institutions for which we are now asked
to exchange our own — in other words, what the papacy and
its defenders mean by a Christian state!
Why are Roman Catholic states required to exhibit their
obedience to the Church by enacting such laws as these ?
Manifestly, because they concern the faith, and the princi
ples involved in them are considered necessary to be be
lieved as a part of it. They are laws for the advancement
aud protection of religion — rules prescribed by the Church
to the State, whereby the State and its citizens are to be
held in the line of religious duty, and thus maintain their
Christian character. The obligation of obedience on the
part of both is the same — the measure of punishment differ
ing from necessity. As the above-named ordinances can not
reach the State, which has no corporeal body to be punished
or soul to be damned, it becomes equally heretical with the
individual by its act of disobedience, and thereby forfeits its
right to exist as a state — because the Church considers it as
much a violation of the laws of God for a state to commit
heresy, as it does for an individual to commit it. And those
who administer its affairs forfeit their right to do so, because
they are guilty of treason against God. Consequently, the
Church — that is, the pope — releases the citizens ofthe hereti
cal State from any further obligation to obey its laws or its
heretical governors, and supplies it with such other laws and

700 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
governors as shall put it back again upon the Christian
path !
The Protestant system of government draws a marked
and palpable line of distinction between religion and civil
policy — between the Church and the State ; and while rec
ognizing also their common foundation in the order and ap
pointment of God, it so separates them in their respective
spheres of action that neither shall trench upon the jurisdic
tion of the other, and therefore leaves no question of sub
mission by the temporal to the spiritual authority, and, con
sequently, none about punishment of the State for disobedi
ence to the laws of the Church. It leaves religion to its in
fluence upon the hearts of individuals, so as to form good
dispositions within each one, in order that society may be
influenced by the love of justice and right, and the govern
ment be enabled, under these influences, to secure the public
tranquillity. In this it follows, with strict exactitude, the
example of Christ himself. Before his appearing, the Jewish
commonwealth consisted in a union of Church and State —
the subjection of the temporal to the spiritual power. But
he came upon earth to undo this old order of things, and to
establish his spiritual kingdom. In order to do this so that
it should stand out prominently before the world as some
thing distinct from what had ever existed before, he express
ly abstained from exercising his own spiritual power over
temporal things, or over any of the affairs of existing gov
ernments. So far from doing so, whatever he did was di
rectly opposite to the grandeur and power of a temporal
kingdom — of such a kingdom as the papacy afterward built
up at Rome. He did not take a single mark of temporal
power. He exercised no single function of it. On the con
trary, when appealed to by one brother to cause another to
divide the inheritance with him, he refused to act the part
of judge. (")
To show that it was necessary to his spiritual kingdom
that it should exist apart from the temporal power — be sep
arated entirely from it — he left the temporal princes to ex
ercise the latter, and he himself paid strict obedience to
(") Luke xii., 13, 14.

CHRIST'S OBEDIENCE TO CIVIL LAW. 701
them. As God, he caused his earthly parents, Joseph and
Mary, to go up to Bethlehem, to be taxed, under a decree
from Csesar Augustus ;(12) thereby making even his birth to
depend on his obedience to a law of a heathen prince. In
order to demonstrate the absolute necessity of disuniting
his own spiritual kingdom from the temporal kingdoms of
princes, he taught his disciples to render unto the tem
poral power what belonged to it ; and exhibited the manner
of doing this by requiring Peter to pay tribute -money at
Capernaum, when none was due, and by working a miracle
for that purpose. (13) He pointed out the distinction between
his spiritual kingdom and the temporal power of princes, by
declaring, " My kingdom is not of this world."(14) When he
was delivered up to be crucified, he told Pilate that he could
have had no temporal power at all against him, except it
were given him from God,(16) and yet did not employ his
own supernatural power to release himself from his enemies
and persecutors. When he made his disciples the ministers
of his spiritual kingdom, prescribed to them rules for the
government of their conduct, and defined the boundaries of
the power he intrusted to them, he did not give them a sin
gle iota of power over temporal affairs. And they, obedient
to his commands, neither claimed nor exercised any temporal
power. On the contrary, they obeyed it, as he had done.
And although the temporal princes opposed them in their
ministry, and persecuted them under temporal laws, they
practiced obedience themselves and taught it to their fol
lowers, performing all the duties of their sacred ministry,
without attempting, in any single instance, to break down
the authority of the temporal power or to subject it to the
spiritual power which Christ had given them. "Taken from
among men," and " ordained for men in things pertaining to
God,"(16) they exercised their ministry in spiritual things,
without intruding themselves upon temporals, inculcating
at the same time, on the part of those who exercised the
temporal power, the necessity of their not encroaching upon
spirituals. And thus, while they recognized both powers as
(12) Luke ii., 1-5. (13) Matthew xvii., 24-27. (") John xviii., 36.
(16) John xix. , 11. (le) Hebrews v. , 1.

702 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
established by the band of God, the harmony between them
consisted in the performance by each of its own distinctive
functions ; the spiritual purifying the heart of man and fit
ting him for all the duties of life, and the temporal conform
ing to his wants and necessities arising out of the discharge
of those duties.
There would have been no disturbance of this harmony
but for the establishment and introduction ofthe canon law
of Rome. Nor would even this have done it, had its opera
tions been confined to the temporal things within the terri
tories known as " the States ofthe Church" of Rome. When,
however, the provisions of this law were carried beyond
these territories by those kings who held their crowns from
the popes and their governments to be " fiefs of the See of
Rome," collisions between the two powers immediately be
gan, and did not end until ignorance and superstition be
came almost universal, as in the Middle Ages, and the tem
poral power was subjugated by the spiritual. The same
spirit of ambition which incited these popes to stretch out
their arms beyond the limits of their Italian possessions in
fluenced them to the effort of making the world a grand
"Holy Empire," with themselves its rulers ; and when they
so far succeeded as to cause governments to be framed ac
cording to the papal (or what they called the Christian) plan,
mankind became subject to such laws as we have seen em
bodied in the ordinances of France, when, under their dicta
tion, that Government was held up as a model for all Chris
tian states !
Thus we see the radical and irreconcilable difference be
tween these two opposing systems of government — the
Protestant and the papal. And it is impossible to escape
the conviction that the substitution ofthe former for the lat
ter was not only accordant to the principles recognized by
Christ and the apostles, but absolutely necessary to elevate
and improve the condition of mankind. So long as but one
form of religious faith was tolerated, and- all else was regard
ed as treason against God, popes and princes kept mankind
in degrading servitude, by the infliction of the most terrible
punisbments. Charity, love, and the mild Christian virtues,
so beautifully exemplified in the lives of Christ and the apos-

NO LAYMAN CAN DEFINE THE FAITH. 703
ties, were dethroned by hatred and revenge. And now,
when the established, fully developed, and tolerant Protest
antism of the United States has carried us forward to the
very front rank of the nations, we have those among us who
impudently tell us that every step of our prosperity is mark
ed by treason to God, and that they are the chosen and se
lected vicegerents ofthe Almighty to bring us back to the
obligations of Christian duty. If we rebuke them ever so
mildly for their insolence, and protest against their destroy
ing the work of our fathers, they call it persecution, because
it denies to them the liberty of striking down whatsoever
the pope shall command to be destroyed. If we insist that
they shall obey our Constitution in consideration ofthe pro
tection they receive from it, they tell us that the pope is, to
them, a domestic prince, who steps in between them and it,
bids defiance to its injunctions, and sets aside its obligations
whensoever he shall deem it necessary to the ends and aims
of the papacy to do so. Even if there were no principle in
the Constitution the pope might desire to set aside, the as
sertion ofthe right and power to do so should command our
most serious attention. But when he fixes his pontifical
curse upon the very fundamentals of our Government, and
marshals his forces to assail them, it is as much our duty to
resist him as it is to defend our lives.
We have sufficiently indicated, in the previous chapters,
wherein he has done so, and there is no authority in the
Church — whether hierarchical or lay — entitled to gainsay
what he has declared. There is no single man in the United
States, no matter how high his position in the Church, who
has authority to define the principles or declare the pur
poses ofthe papacy. He may avow what would seem best
to him, under any given state of circumstances ; but in do
ing so he speaks for himself alone. Whenever he speaks for
the Church, his individual opinions are of no value, since by
the dogma of the pope's infallibility he is required to sur
render his will and conscience into the keeping of the pope.
The pope is the sole exponent and interpreter of the law of
the Church, which he may abrogate or change at his pleas
ure; and however much he may tolerate, for a time and
from prudential motives, the expression of individual opin-

704 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ions contrary to those set forth in the Encyclical and Sylla
bus of 1864, and other pontifical briefs, from these alone can
we derive a just and accurate understanding of the faith
and doctrines of the Church. Let us take a single illustra
tion out of the many which are exhibited almost every day.
A late number of The Catholic World contains an eloquent
article on "Religion and State in our Republic," evidently
from the pen of the learned and distinguished editor. Re
ferring to the time when, by possibility, the Roman Cath
olic population of the United States may " become an over
whelming majority," and endeavoring to remove any cause
of alarm among Protestants on that account, he says, " They
will never seek to tyrannize over their fellow-citizens, to es
tablish their religion by force, or to compel any one to do
those things which are required only by the Catholic con-
science."(17) Such assertions as these are not worth the val
ue of a rush-light in showing what the pope would require
to be done in the United States if he had an obedient ma
jority to control the Government. Whatever the author of
them may think for himself, and however hearty the re
sponse they may meet in the minds of intelligent laymen,
tbey utterly fail of any other effect than to delude those lay
men and such Protestants as accept them. Measured by
the papal standard, they are heretical. By the constitu
tions of popes, the decrees of councils, the repeated action
of Roman Catholic governments, and by the avowals ofthe
present pope, the law of the Church is held to enjoin upon
its authorities the duty to extirpate heresy, to destroy ev
ery other form of religion than the Roman Catholic, to com
pel obedience to it, in faith and morals, and to do all this by
force, by uniting the Church and the State together, and re
quiring the State, as in the case of France under her obedi
ent kings, to pass such statutes as shall bring these results
about. And it can only mislead the incautious aud unwary
to pretend that different results would be sought after in
this country, if the policy of the Government were directed
by the pope. The form of Government which the papacy
dictated when it had the power to enforce obedience, and
(") The Catholic World, February, 1875, vol. xx., pp. 624, 625.

THE CHURCH ABOVE THE STATE. 705
none other, would, if it had that power in the United States,
spring up upon the ruins of our Protestant institutions.
What was a Christian government in France, acceptable to
popes, would furnish the model for the construction of the
new government here.
And this writer, perhaps unwittingly, concedes as much
in the very next sentence, when he says that " the difficul
ty lies chiefly in respect to those laws which forbid certain
things as contrary to the divine law."(18) Certainly, the dif
ficulty lies just there ; because out of it grows the whole
controversy about the spiritual and the temporal powers.
At that point exists the radical disagreement between the
Protestant and the papal systems of government ; between
the United States Government and that of France when it
was a Christian state after the papal model. This difference
has been pointed out sufficiently to show wherein the princi
ples of our Government are " contrary to the divine law," as
the pope interprets it ; and he must be exceedingly ignorant
who does not see that if these were destroyed the Govern
ment would fall. All the talk about the necessity of giving
to the law an ethical standard is a mere pretext for keeping-
governments as well as individuals within the circle of mor
al duty which the pope may choose, from time to time, to
mark out. When he shall prescribe that duty in anything,
whether it concerns civil policy or the intercourse of indi
viduals with each other, whatsoever is done to the contrary,
by the Government or the individual, becomes heretical, and
therefore sinful. In such a case, to which command — that
of the Government or the pope — does the doctrine ofthe
pope's infallibility require the papist to render obedience?
This writer in The Catholic World answers just as all other
ultramontanes do. Setting aside, with entire frankness, all
mere "private versions or modifications of Catholicity " as
counting for nothing, and going directly to the pope as the
fountain-head of all authority in the Church, he says : " For
ourselves, we are purely and simply Catholic, and profess an
unreserved allegiance to the Church which takes precedence
of, and gives the rule to, our allegiance to the State. If al-

(ie) TU Catholic World, February, 1875, vol. xx., p. 625.
45

706 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
legiance to the Church demanded of us opposition to po
litical principles adopted by our civil government, or dis
obedience to any laws which were impious and immoral,
we should not hesitate to obey the Church and God. We
should either keep silence and avoid all discussion of the
subject, or else speak out frankly in condemnation of our
laws and institutions, if we believed them to be anti-Chris
tian, or, which is the same thing, anti-Catholic, in their princi-
ples."(1B) The reader need not be again reminded of the many im
portant principles of our Government, already pointed out,
whereby our civil institutions have become, in the view of
the papacy, " anti - Christian " and " anti - Catholic." The
avowal here is distinct and emphatic, that to none, of these
does the papist owe allegiance. If he acquiesces in them for
the time being, it is only that strength enough may be ac
quired, by prudential and cautious movements, to aim effect
ive blows at them when the open battle shall begin.
Dr. Brownson again brings his powerful pen to the sup
port of this theory, and expresses himself with his accus
tomed boldness and indifference to consequences. Binding
us all to an acceptance of the law of God, as the infallible
pope shall announce it, he says : " Under this supreme law
the State holds, and this law is the ground and limit of this
authority, or of its rights and its obligations. This law is,
therefore, the ground and limit of civil allegiance. The civil
power holds all its authority from this supreme law, and,
consequently, it has no authority to do or command any
thing that it forbids, or that is contrary to it. Hence it fol
lows that, if the civil power commands any thing contrary
to the law of God, its commands do not bind the subject or
citizen, and are not only not obligatory, but are to be treat
ed as null and void from the beginning, simply because the
civil power has no right to issue them, and the law of God
forbids them. Here is the limit of civil obedience, or my
allegiance to the civil powers."(2")
(1S) The Catholic World, February, 1875, vol. xx., p. 621.
(m) Brownson's Quarterly Review ;" apud New York Tablet, January 23d,
1875, p. 546. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Savannah, Georgia, has thought
fit to throw his official influence against Mr. Gladstone's late pamphlet. His

DEFENSE OF THE SYLLABUS. 707
There is abundant evidence to show, besides what has
been embodied in the preceding chapters, that these are the
doctrines of religious faith' set forth by the recognized au
thorities of the Roman Catholic Church, both in the United
States and in Europe. A single additional reference, how
ever, must now suffice, leaving the inquiring reader to search
out others, if he desires them, for himself.
A work, considered exhaustive, has recently appeared in
reply to " Janus ;" the main object of which is to support
and justify the claim of the present pope of power over the
government of civil society. He quotes from a letter of
Pius IX. to show that the Church " requires of those clothed
with political power that they should conform to those laws
[of morality], and, indeed, such as she proclaims them. Were
she to abandon this postulate, she would then renounce her
very mission." {") He justifies the doctrines set forth by the
Syllabus of 1864, in a whole chapter; and thus denounces
that principle of our Government which treats all churches
with an equal degree of respect : " To prescribe an equal re
spect for another religious community [not, observe, for the
persons of its members] is to require that the doctrines of
the true Church should be placed on the same level with the
opinions of other religious bodies." (22) He says, "The pope
can do nothing against the divine law."(23) He insists upon
a union of Church and State.(24) He admits that the pow
ers of the pope have heretofore been enlarged by " forger-
letter to J. G. Bennett, Esq., which appeared in the New York Herald of
December 20th, 1874, is, to say the least of it, a curious production. Start
ing out with the wonderfully profound principle of constitutional law, that
"our own Federal constitution " declares "unconstitutional any law infrin
ging on the consciences of the people!!" he lays down the papal rule to be
that, as "in questions concerning conscience " the Church is always present
"to tell her children how far Csesar [the State] may go without usurping to
himself the things that are God's," therefore the Roman Catholic citizen of
the United States owes no allegiance to any principle of the Government
which is condemned by the Church or the pope ! If, according to him, the
courts were to pass upon a law involving a question of conscience, the pope
would furnish the only proper rule of decision! — New York Tablet, Decem
ber 26th, 1874, p. 485.
(21) "Anti- Janus," bv Hergenrother, p. 37.
(M) Ibid., pp. 39, 40. (23) Rid., p. 42. (24) Ibid., p. 44.

708 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
ies," and yet asserts them to exist to the same extent as
those forgeries were designed to stretch them.(2B) But these
are comparatively immaterial by the side of his justification
of the bull Unam Sanctum of Boniface VIIL, the doctrines
of which have been already shown to be the necessary con
sequence of papal supremacy.
The distinctive principles proclaimed by this bull, and
now a part ofthe canon law ofthe Church, he sets down as
follows : first, " it is necessary fo salvation that every man
should submit to tbe Roman pontiff;" second, " this is a nec
essary consequence of the dogma of the papal supremacy ;"
third, " it condemns the assertion by the State of any power
over 'church property;'" fourth, "the temporal power of
Christian princes does not exempt them from obedience to
the head ofthe Church ;" fifth, " tbe material sword is drawn
for the Church, the spiritual by the Church ;" sixth, " the
material sword must co-operate with the spiritual and assist
it ;" seventh, " the secular power should be guided by the
spiritual as the higher;" eighth, "the spiritual has the pre
eminence over the material ;" ninth, " the temporal power is
subordinated to the ecclesiastical, as to the higher;" tenth,
" the temporal power, if it is not good, is judged by the spir
itual ;" eleventh, " to the ecclesiastical authority" (that is, to
the pope and his hierarchy) " the words of the prophet Jere
miah apply, 'Lo! I have set thee this day over tbe nations
and over kingdoms to root up, and to pull down, and to
waste, and to destroy, and to build, and to plant ;' " twelfth,
when " the temporal power goes astray, it is judged by the
spiritual ;" thirteenth, " for obtaining eternal happiness, each
one is required to submit to the pope ;" fourteenth, " the su
premacy ofthe pope, even in temporal things ;" and, fifteenth,
the popes "recognize human authorities in their proper place,
till they lift up their will against God."(2e)
This book has upon it the imprint of "The Catholic Pub
lishing Society," of New York, and is extensively circulated
in the United States, for the enlightenment and instruction
of the faithful. Its general character is recommended by an
(26) "Anti-Janus," by Hergenrother, ch. iv., p. 144.
C") Ibid., pp. 203-209.

TEMPORAL MONARCHY SOUGHT AFTER. V09
"Introduction," wherein it is said that "the spiritual royal
ty of Christ's vicar will ultimately tend to consolidate anew
temporal monarchy, and all its concomitant institutions."^')
And the preference entertained by papists for a monarchical
over a popular or democratic form of government is thus
unequivocally avowed, "The Church, it is truly said, needs
not kings and emperors ; but civil society in great states
needs them ; and this is especially true under the Christian
dispensation, which, by the abolition of slavery, has indefi
nitely multiplied popular suffrages, and therefore aggravated
the difficulties of popular government."(28)
We have here the deliberate sentiments and purposes of
the papacy, thai is, of the only legitimate authority of the
Church. No individual opinions weigh a feather's weight
in the scale against them, although uttered by one or a thou
sand prelates or laymen. Every man who has any connec
tion whatever with the Church must accept them without
change or modification as a necessary part of the faith. If
he shall accept them, and is intelligent enough to understand
them, he must be regarded as prepared to take all the con
sequences which must necessarily follow if they are pressed,
as now seems inevitable, to their legitimate results. But if,
like the " Old Catholics " of Europe, the Roman Catholic
population of the United States shall sternly and manfully
rebuke these politico-religious teaching's of the papacy, they
will yet retain the power to save their honored and vener
able Church from open antagonism with the Government
which shields them so effectually from harm, and carry her
back to those smooth and pleasant paths of peace and quiet
and Christian concord, where she once stood so proudly, and
where they, side by side with other Christians, may dispense
the cheerful and benignant influences of pure, tolerant, and
apostolic Christianity.
How beautifully and harmoniously were unity and diver
sity blended in the churches of the early Christians — diver
sity in discipline and economy — unity centring in Christ as
C") "Anti-Janus," by Hergenrother, Introduction, p. xl.
(2S) Ibid., p. 47, note e. Reference is not here made to the abolition of
slavery in the United States, but to the elevation of the masses of the people
in Europe.

710 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
the rock upon which it was built. Then, the bishops of Je
rusalem, of Antioch, of Alexandria, of Corinth, of Rome, and
elsewhere, presided over the clergy and people of their re
spective churches and provinces, with the internal policy and
economy of each so conducted as should best promote the
advancement of Christianity, leaving its external policy un
der the superintendence of the whole Church, not as it con
cerned discipline and government, but only the prime and
essential part of religion, the preservation of the Christian
faith. (29) Neither Christ nor his apostles made provision for
any form of church imperialism. He did all things perfect
ly. He established this simple plan of a perfect Church,
leaving the apostles to rear the superstructure. They, with
inspired wisdom, built the churches at Jerusalem and An
tioch, and other cities of Asia, before a Christian was ever
known to be at Rome, and their work was also well and per
fectly done, so well and perfectly that it was scarcely need
ed to be repeated at Rome in order to establish tbe true
Church of Christ.
There was every thing to recommend this plan of the
Master and the apostles. The city of Jerusalem, in the
midst of the fallen columns ofthe temple of God," and
near Calvary and Gethsemane and Bethlehem, and where
Christ had first disputed with, the learned doctors of the
Jewish law, and whose streets bad been trodden by his feet;
this " Holy City " was a far more fitting place for planting
the first Christian Church than the old pagan and imperial
city of the Caesars, where God's providence had been defied
for centuries ; where the name of Christ was cast out with
derision and reproach ; where Christianity was held to be a
pernicious and dangerous superstition ;(30) where the demon
of persecution first held his bloody orgies; and where vice
and corruption were consuming all its pagan glories, and
leaving it, wrapped in clouds of life-consuming miasma, to
become the place where the curse of God would surely rest,
as it had once rested upon the old Babylon of the Euphrates.
(") "Antiquities of the Christian Church," by Bingham, vol. i., bk. ii.,
ch. v., p. 33.
(3°) Tacitus, bk. xv., § xliv. " Exitiabilis superstitio" are the words of
Tacitus.

JERUSALEM THE "MOTHER CHURCH." 711
As the first churches of Asia were established, under the
express commission of Christ before the Church of Rome, it
was manifestly against the divine plan for the latter Church
to set up the false claim that she was the "mother aud mis
tress" of all the churches. Besides the presumption and
vanity of the assumption, it was untrue in point of fact — for
the Church at Jerusalem is conceded on all hands to have
been the "mother Church." On this account the apostles
assembled there to settle the differences which had arisen
among the Christians at Antioch. (31) The Roman Church
was, therefore, the daughter of the older Asiatic churches —
not the mother. They preceded her in the order of time so
far that Christianity was planted by means of them, before
she had a beginning — or before it had reached any part of
Europe. These Asiatic churches possessed, undoubtedly,
all the external authority which Christ designed should be
conferred upon his Church ; for, being presided over by the
apostles and specially cared for by them, it is an impeach
ment of them to say that, in this or in any other respect,
they failed in obeying the divine injunction to establish the
Church rightfully. While the system they organized con
tinued, every thing worked well and harmoniously. If there
were differences, they were adjusted by conference, as at
Jerusalem ; and nothing occurred to plant discord among
them until the Church at Rome endeavored to bring them
(3J) Acts xv. Roman Catholics claim that at this "first council" of the
apostles the primacy of Peter over the other apostles was recognized — in
other words, that he was then regarded as "the prince of the apostles."
This is not warranted by the recorded facts. Peter, on account, probably,
of his advanced age and great wisdom, was the first whose speech is record
ed; but it must be observed that he uttered no opinion or decision to bind
tbe others. On the contrary, he merely opened the discussion, and was fol
lowed by Barnabas and Paul. And after them, James, who was Bishop of
Jerusalem, spoke, manifestly with the authority of a superior position. He
desired all present to "hearken" unto what he said. And when he had set
forth his views, he said, "Wherefore my sentence is," etc. (ver. 19). This
shows that if there was any precedence, it belonged to James, who must have
presided. In the Douay Bible this verse reads : "Wherefore I judge," etc.,
following the Latin Vulgate, ego judico. But the word judico does not mean
a mere individual opinion. It means a judgment, sentence, or decision, an
nounced by authority. Hence, the conclusion that James possessed official
superiority in this council can not be escaped.

712 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
all to her feet. At every step she took in that direction,
she struck fatal blows at this original system of church or
ganization, and never rested from her work of demolition un
til the columns of all the ancient churches had fallen to the
ground. To add to the efficacy of her measures, she snatched
from the State the imperialism of temporal power, which she
employed as the means of achieving her universal dominion;
and thus, by uniting Church and State, she has afflicted both
herself and the world with incalculable calamities. As usur
pation and imposture have their reward, as well as virtue,
these have been visited upon her in terrible abundance, since
she sought to place the triple crown upon the brows of her
bishops, and to gild her papal palaces with gold. Ever since
the time of Constantine and the Nicene Council, she has
been dealing in various modes of compulsion, with multi
tudes of her rebellious and heretical children — born within
her fold and nurtured upon her bosom. The most formida
ble resistance she has encountered has been invited by the
vacillations of her faith, or has been produced by the tyranny
and persecutions of the papacy. The hardest blows under
which she has reeled and staggered — and under which she
is now reeling and staggering — have been struck by those
who have been compelled to strike them, in order to assert
and vindicate their manhood by breaking the fetters with
which she had manacled their limbs.
Before the Reformation, the Roman Church had some good
popes, many bad ones, and some who were almost monsters
of impiety and vice. The seventy years of papal residence
in France had created a rivalry in crime and prostitution
between the two pontifical cities, Rome and Avignon; and
whenever the one excelled the other, it was only because of
tbe larger number of cardinals and priests, and of the court
esans who followed them. Of course, reformers grew up in
formidable numbers — for there were many good men in the
Church, belonging to every class — but anti-reformers exist
ed in greater force, composed of those who held the chief
authority in the Church. Of the first, there were those who
believed, in all Christian sincerity, that the Church could be
reformed within herself, and thus her life and purity be pre
served. Of the latter, there were those who either supposed

THE REFORMATION A NECESSITY. 713
that corruption had done its work so thoroughly that the
disease was beyond the reach of remedy, or preferred the
wealth and power which her vast revenues produced, and
the ambition it gratified, to the preservation of her purity.
And when the great Council of Trent placed the Church in
a condition to become an engine of mischievous power and
bad ambition in the hands of the Jesuits, it made Protest
antism an absolute necessity for the world — because, with
out it, the terrible pressure under which both Church and
State were rapidly sinking into a common grave could nev
er have been removed. Protestantism, therefore, finds both
its truth and its philosophy in the history of those times.
God was its author. He did not design it to exterminate,
but to preserve; to support the cause of truth, and to resist
error. There was yet good enough in the Roman Catholic
Church to have secured the complete triumph of divine
truth, but for the perverseness of those who seemed to defy
all the providences of God. It needed only the winnowing
process of reform to separate the good from the bad — the
genuine grain from the chaff— so that this venerable Church
could drift back again into the calm and placid current
along which it had moved so beautifully and majestically
in the days of her primitive purity.
The Reformation was not the result of impulse and pas
sion. Preceding events had convinced the leading nations
of the necessity of taking care of their own affairs, which it
was evident they could not do without resisting the ao--
gressions of the papacy. These aggressions had become so
repeated and flagrant that some of the governments were
entirely subordinated to Rome. With the imperialism of
princes and of popes, the people were almost crushed, as it
were, between the upper and the nether millstone. The ne
cessity of self-protection and self-existence compelled them
to seek out other paths. France was the foremost in the
movement of resistance (32) — as we have seen how soon as a
Christian nation, according to the papal standard, her very
life would have been crusbed out. Germany followed, and
then England ; and finally the United States rose up in the
C3-) " History of. the Popes," by Ranke, Introduction, p. xxvi.

714 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
New World, clothed in fresh robes, to prove how benignant
are the influences which spring from popular government
and Protestant toleration. These influences are now react
ing upon the older nations, and one by one they are mov
ing into the same paths. As the light from each increases
more and more — just as it is almost ready to break out in
meridian brightness — the papal sword is unsheathed, and
they are commanded, under the impious pretense that God
has spoken through the voice of an infallible pope, to turn
back into darkness and slavery and imbecility again.
There are many Roman Catholic laymen in the United
States, who, if they could be prevailed upon to investigate
these matters for themselves, and to abate somewhat their
unbounded confidence in their ecclesiastical superiors, would
see — as many of their brethren iu Europe have done — that
there is a broad and manifest distinction between their
Church as it existed in its original purity in the days of
the early fathers, and that enormous papal structure into
which ambitious and designing men have since converted
it, with power to domineer over princes and tyrannize over
peoples. It would be impossible for them not to know that,
in order to restore and maintain the pretensions now set up
in behalf of the papacy, its emissaries would be guilty of in
fractions upon the rights of all existing governments, espe
cially those where the people are the rulers ; and that their
own continued acquiescence in these excessive demands of
the pope and his priesthood must, in the end, lead them into
opposition to the most essential principles of our own Gov
ernment, and especially to that which makes the people —
themselves included — the true and legitimate source of all
civil authority. It is impossible to suppose that they de
sire to forget the sacrifices many of them have made for the
cause of popular government, or that they can become will
ingly insensible to the precious interests they have wrapped
up in its continuance.
•Whatsoever they may decide, however — whether they
shall resolve to become the guardians of their own civil
rights, or leave them to the guardianship of an army of
papal hierarchs, irresponsible to all human authority and
above all human laws — the American people, as a whole,

AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS WILL BE PRESERVED. 715
will not be likely to remain passive and unresisting under
these continued threatenings. And when they shall be
brought to realize— a point they are rapidly reaching— that
their popular form of government is actually and insolent
ly threatened ; that opposition to some of the most highly
prized features of their civil institutions is already inaugu
rated, with the view of substituting the power of the papa
cy for their own constitutional authority, aud of subordina
ting their fundamental laws to the decrees cf the pope, as a
foreign king and despot— when the great body of the Amer
ican people shall become fully apprised of all these things,
they will then understand what remedy to apply, and how
to apply it.
They will not find this remedy in the violation of any of
the cherished principles of their Government ; by the aban
donment of its liberal or tolerant spirit ; or by any act un
worthy a Protestant nation pledged to maintain free thought,
free speech, and a free press. They will not find it in any
form of wrong or oppression; either by withdrawing from
the Roman Catholic religion any part of that protection
they give to Protestantism, or by excluding any who think
proper to profess that religion from the shelter of their civil
institutions. They will not find it by imitating the example
set them by those Roman Catholic governments that have
allowed coercive measures to be employed to prohibit every
form of religion but that of Rome. But they will find it
by maintaining at every hazard, and in the face of all con
sequences, their right to enact their own laws, to preserve
their own constitutions, and to regulate their own affairs ac
cording to their own sovereign will, and without foreign dic
tation ; by perpetuating their popular form of government
as the rightful inheritance of their children ; by resisting to
the last the " divine right " of kings or popes to rule over
them ; by firmly refusing to permit the canon laws of the
Roman Catholic, or of any other church, to take the place
of those of their own enacting; and by teaching the Roman
hierarchy and all others who shall willingly become subserv
ient to the schemes of the pope, that, while citizens of the
United States, they can enjoy unimpaired all the rights of
citizenship secured to themselves ; but that, in order to this,

716 THE PAPACY AND THE CIVIL POWER.
they must render the same obedience to all existing laws
which others are required to render; and that they can en
joy no exclusive privileges, whether civil or ecclesiastical,
which shall put it in their power to violate the principles of
American liberty — to impose unwilling restraint upon a sin
gle conscience — or to endanger the existence of a single fun
damental principle upon which they have erected their civil
and religious freedom.

APPENDIX.

A.
BISHOP'S OATH.

The following is the oath of allegiance to the pope, taken by every arch
bishop and bishop, and by all who are elevated to positions of official dignity
by the pope. It is copied by Dr. Dowling from the treatise on the papal su
premacy by Dr. Barrow (vol. i., p. 553), who copied it from "The Roman
Pontificate, set out by order of Pope Clement VIIL," Antwerp, 1626, p. 59,
etc. I, N. , elect of the Church of N. , from henceforward will be faithful and
obedient to St. Peter the Apostle, and to the Holy Roman Church, and to our
Lord, the Lord N. , Pope N. , and to his successors canonically entering. I will
neither advise, consent, nor do any thing that they may lose life or member, or
that their persons may be seized, or hands in anywise laid upon them, or any
injuries offered to them, under any pretense whatsoever. The counsel with
which they shall intrust me by themselves, their messengers, or letters, I will
not knowingly reveal to any to their prejudice. I will help them to defend
and keep the Roman papacy, and the royalties of St. Peter, saving my
order, against all men. The legate of the Apostolic See, going and coming,
I will honorably treat and help in his necessities. The rights, honors, privi
leges, and authority of the Holy Roman Church, of our Lord the Pope, and
his aforesaid successors, I will endeavor _to preserve, defend, increase, and
advance. I will not be in any counsel, action, or treaty in which shall be
plotted against our said Lord, and the said Roman Church, any thing to the
hurt or prejudice of their persons, right, honor, state, or power ; and if I shall
know any such thing to be treated or agitated by any whatsoever, I will hin
der it to my utmost, and, as soon as I can, will signify it to our said Lord, or
to some other, by whom it may come to his knowledge. The rules of the
holy Fathers, the apostolic decrees, ordinances, or disposals, reservations, pro
visions, and mandates, I will observe with all my might, and cause to be ob
served by others.
Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said Lord, or his aforesaid succes
sors, I will to my utmost persecute and oppose. [Hsereticos, schismaticos, et
rebelles eidem Domino nostro vel successoribus prasdictis pro posse persequar

718 APPENDIX.
et oppugnabo.~] I will come to a council when I am called, unless I be hin
dered by a canonical impediment. I will, by myself in person, visit the
threshold of the Apostles every three years; and give an account to our Lord
and his foresaid successors of all my pastoral office, and of all things any
wise belonging to the state of my Church, to the discipline of my clergy and
people, and lastly to the salvation of souls committed to my trust ; and will
in like manner humbly receive and diligently execute the apostolic commands.
And if I be detained by a lawful impediment, I will perform all the things
aforesaid by a certain messenger hereto specially empowered, a member of
my chapter, or some other in ecclesiastical dignity, or else having a parson
age ; or in default of those, by a priest of the diocese ; or in default of one
of the clergy of the diocese, by some other secular or regular priest of ap
proved integrity and religion, fully instructed in all things above mentioned.
And such impediment I will make out by lawful proofs to be transmitted by
the foresaid messenger to the cardinal proponent of the Holy Roman Church
in the Congregation of the Sacred Council. The possessions belonging to my
table I will neither sell, nor give away, nor mortgage, nor grant anew in fee,
nor anywise alienate, not even with the consent of the chapter of my Church,
without consulting the Roman Pontiff. And if I shall make any alienation,
I will thereby incur the penalties contained in a certain constitution put forth
about this matter. So help me God and these Holy Gospels of God. — Dow-
ling's History of Romanism, pp. 615, 616 ; Debate between Rev. Alexander
Campbell and Archbishop Purcell, pp. 280-317.

B.
The pastoral letter of the Second National Council of Baltimore con
tained thirteen articles. The third concerns the "Relations ofthe Church
to the State, "and is as follows :
The enemies of the Church fail not to represent her claims as incompati
ble with the independence of the civil power, and her action as impeding the
exertions of the State to promote the well-being of society. So far from
these charges being founded in fact, the authority and influence of the
Church will be found to be the most efficacious support of the temporal au
thority by which society is governed. The Church, indeed, does not pro
claim the absolute and entire independence of the civil power, because it
teaches with the apostles that " all power is of God ;" that the temporal
magistrate is His minister ; and that the power of the sword he wields is a
delegated exercise of authority committed to him from on high. For the
children of the Church, obedience to the civil power is not a submission to
force which may not be resisted, nor merely the compliance with a condition
for peace and security ; but a religious duty founded on obedience to God,
by whose authority the civil magistrate exercises his power. This power,
however, as subordinate and delegated, must always be exercised agreeably to

APPENDIX. 719
God's law. In prescribing any thing contrary to that law, the civil power
transcends its authority, and has no claim on the obedience of the citizen.
Never can it be lawful to disobey God, as the apostles Peter and John so
explicitly declared before the tribunal which sat in judgment on them, " If
it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye." This
undeniable principle does not, however, entail the same consequences in the
Catholic system as in those of the sects. In these the individual is the ulti
mate judge of what the law of God commands or forbids, and is consequent
ly liable to claim the sanction of the higher law, for what, after all, may be,
and often is, but the suggestions of an undisciplined mind or an overheated
imagination. Nor can the civil government be expected to recognize an au
thority which has no warrant for its character as divine, and no limits in its
application, without exposing the State to disorder and anarchy. The Cath
olic has a guide in the Church, as a divine institution, which enables him to
discriminate between what the law of God forbids or allows ; and this au
thority the State is bound to recognize as supreme in its sphere, of moral no
less than dogmatic teaching. There may, indeed, be instances in which in
dividual Catholics will make a misapplication of the principle ; or in which,
while the principle of obedience to civil authority is recognized as of divine
obligation, the seat of that authority may be a matter of doubt, by reason
of the clashing opinions that prevail in regard to this important fact. The
Church does not assume to decide such matters in the temporal order, as she
is not the judge of civil controversies, although she always, when invited to
do so, has endeavored to remove the misconceptions from which disputes so
often arise, and to consult for every interest while maintaining the peace of
society and the rights of justice.
While cheerfully recognizing the fact, that hitherto the General and State
Governments of our country, except in some brief intervals of excitement
and delusion, have not interfered with our ecclesiastical organization or civil
rights, we still have to lament that in many of the States we are not as yet
permitted legally to make those arrangements for the security of church
property which are in accordance with the canons and discipline of the Cath
olic Church. In some of the States we gratefully acknowledge that all is
granted in this regard that we could reasonably ask for. The right of the
Church to possess property, whether churches, residences for the clergy, cem
eteries or school-houses, asylums, etc., can not be denied without depriving
her of a necessary means of promoting the end for which she has been es
tablished. We are aware of the alleged grounds for this refusal to recognize
the Church in her corporate capacity, unless on the condition that in the
matter of the tenure of ecclesiastical property she conform to the general
laws providing for this object. These laws, however, are for the most part
based on principles which she can not accept without departing from her
practice from the beginning, as soon as she was permitted to enjoy liberty of
worship. They are the expression of a distrust of ecclesiastical power, as
such ; and are the fruit of the misrepresentations which have been made of
the action of the Church in past ages. As well might the civil power pre
scribe to her the doctrines she is to teach, and the worship with which she is

720 APPENDIX.
to honor God, as to impose on her a system of holding her temporalities
which is alien to her principles, and which is borrowed from those who have
rejected her authority. Instead of seeking to disprove the various reasons
alleged for this denial of the Church's rights in some of the States, we con
tent ourselves with the formal protest we hereby enter against it ; and briefly
remark, that even in the supposition, which we by no means admit, that such
denial was the result of legitimate motives, the denial itself is incompatible
with the full measure of ecclesiastical or religious liberty which we are sup
posed to enjoy.
Nor is this an unimportant matter, or one which has not practical results
of a most embarrassing character. Not only are we obliged to place church
property in conditions of extreme hazard, because not permitted to manage
our church temporalities on Catholic principles, but in at least one of these
United States (Missouri) laws have been passed by which all church proper
ty, not held by corporations, is subjected to taxation ; and the avowed object
of this discriminating legislation is hostility to the Catholic Church. In
concluding these remarks, we merely refer to the attempt made in that State
to make the exercise of the ecclesiastical ministry depend on a condition laid
down by the civil power.
The bishops of the council sent to the pope the following dispatch, through
the Atlantic cable :
Seven archbishops and forty bishops, met in council, unanimously salute
your holiness, wishing you long life, with the preservation of all the ancient
and sacred rights of the Holy See.
To which the following answer was received :
Home, from the Propaganda, October 34th, 1866.
To the Most Reverend Martin John Spalding, Archbishop of Baltimore:
The telegram which the bishops of the States of tbe American Union as
sembled in council had the happy thought to address to the Holy Father
proved to be of great comfort and consolation to his holiness, and so highly
did he appreciate its spirit that he ordered it to be immediately published in
the official journals at Rome, for the edification of his Roman people and the
faithful at large. His holiness looks with interest for the acts and decrees
of the Plenary Council, which he expects to receive in due time, and from
which he hopes a new impulse and continued increase to religion in the
United States will result. He has, however, directed me to express directly
to your amplitude, and through you to all your colleagues, his great pleasure,
and to request you to thank them for the interest they have taken, and still
take, in defending the Holy See and in vindicating its contested rights. More
over, his holiness has learned with satisfaction that the papal loan is suc
ceeding also, through the co-operation of the American episcopate. He
thanks them particularly for this, and nourishes the hope that such co-oper
ation will not cease, and that thence a prosperous result may be obtained.
In the mean time, I pray the Lord that he long preserve and prosper you.
Alexander Cardinal Barnabo, Secretary.

APPENDIX. 721
C.
THE ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF POPE PIUS IX.
To Our Venerable Brothers the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and
Bishops of the Universal Church having Grace and Communion of the

PIUS PP. IX.
Health and Apostolic Benediction.
It is well known unto all men, and especially to You, Venerable Brothers,
with what great care and pastoral vigilance Our Predecessors, the Roman
Pontiffs, have discharged the Office intrusted by Christ Our Lord to them in
the person of the Most Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and have unre
mittingly discharged the duty of feeding the lambs and sheep, and have dili
gently nourished the Lord's entire flock with the words of faith, imbued it
with salutary doctrine, and guarded it from poisoned pastures. And those
Our Predecessors, who were the assertors and champions of the august Cath
olic Religion, truth, and justice, being, as they were, chiefly solicitous for the
salvation of souls, held nothing to be of so great importance as the duty of
exposing and condemning, in their most wise Letters and Constitutions, all
heresies and errors which are hostile to moral honesty and to the eternal sal
vation of mankind, and which have frequently stirred up terrible commotions,
and have damaged both the Christian and civil commonwealths in a, disas
trous manner.
Wherefore those Our Predecessors have with apostolic fortitude continu
ally resisted the nefarious attempts of unjust men, of those who, like raging
waves of the sea, foaming forth their own confusion and promising liberty
whilst they are the slaves of corruption, endeavored by their false opinions
and most pernicious writings to overthrow the foundations ofthe Catholic re
ligion and of civil society, to abolish all virtue and justice, to deprave the souls
and minds of all men, and especially to pervert inexperienced youth from up
rightness of morals, to corrupt them miserably, to lead them into snares of er
ror, and finally to tear them from the bosom of the Catholic Church.
And now, Venerable Brothers, as is also very well known to you, scarce
ly had We (by the secret dispensation of Divine Providence, certainly by no
merit of Our own) been called to this Chair of Peter when We, to the ex
treme grief of Our soul, beheld a horrible tempest stirred* up by so many er
roneous opinions, and the dreadful and never-enough-to-be-lamented mis
chiefs which redound to Christian people from such errors : and We then, in
discharge of Our Apostolic Ministerial Office, imitating the example of Onr il
lustrious Predecessors, raised Our voice, and in several published Encyclical
Letters, and in Allocutions delivered in Consistory, and in other Apostolical
Letters, We condemned the prominent, most grievous errors of the age, and
We stirred up Your excellent episcopal vigilance, and again and again did We
admonish and exhort all the sons of the Catholic Church, who are most dear
to Us, that they should abhor and shun all the said errors as they would the
contagion of a fatal pestilence. Especially in Our first Encyclical Letter,
46

722 APPENDIX.
written to you on the 9th of November, anno 1846, and in two Allocutions,
one of which was delivered by Us in Consistory on the 9th of December,
anno 1854, and the other on the 9th of June, anno 1862, We condemned the
monstrous and portentous opinions which prevail especially in the present age,
to the very great loss of souls, and even to the detriment of civil society, and
which are in the highest degree hostile not only to the Catholic Church, and
to her salutary doctrine and venerable laws, but also to the everlasting law of
nature engraven by God upon the hearts of all men, and to right reason ; and
out of which almost all other errors originate.
Now, although hitherto We have not omitted to denounce and reprove
the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church and the
salvation of souls committed to Us by God, and even the interests of human
society absolutely demand, that once again We should stir up Your pastoral
solicitude to drive away other erroneous opinions which flow from those er
rors above specified, as their source.
These false and perverse opinions are so much the more detestable by
how much they have chiefly for their object to hinder and banish that saluta
ry influence which the Catholic Church, by the institution and command of
her Divine Author, ought freely to exercise, even to the consummation ofthe
world, not only over individual men, but nations, peoples, and sovereigns —
and to abolish that mutual co-operation and agreement of counsels between
the Priesthood and Governments which has always been propitious and con
ducive to the welfare both of Church and State (Gregory XVI., Encyclical,
13th August, 1832). You are well aware that at this time there are not a
few who apply to civil society the impious and absurd principle of naturalism,
as they term it, and dare to teach that " the welfare of the State and politic
al and social progress require that human society should be constituted and
governed irrespective of religion, which is to be treated just as if it did not
exist, or as if no real difference existed between true and false religions."
Contrary to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, of the Church, and of the
Holy Fathers, these persons do not hesitate to assert that "the best condi
tion of human society is that wherein no duty is recognized by the Govern
ment of correcting by enacted penalties the violators of the Catholic Religion,
except when the maintenance of the public peace requires it." From this
totally false notion of social government they fear not to uphold that errone
ous opinion most pernicious to the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of
souls, which was called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI. [lately quoted], the
insanity (Encycl., 13th August, 1832) [deliramentum], namely, that "liberty
of conscience and of worship is the right of every man ; and that this right
ought, in every well- governed State, to be proclaimed and asserted by the
law ; and that the citizens possess the right of being unrestrained in the ex
ercise of every kind of liberty, by any law, ecclesiastical or civil, so that they
are authorized to publish and put forward openly all their ideas whatsoever,
either by speaking, in print, or by any other method." But whilst these
men make these rash assertions, they do not reflect or consider that they
preach the liberty of perdition (St. Augustine, epistle 105, al. 166), and that
" if it is always free to human arguments to discuss, men will never be want-

APPENDIX. 723
ing who will dare to resist the truth, and to rely upon the loquacity of hu
man wisdom, when we know from the command of our Lord Jesus Christ
how faith and Christian wisdom ought to avoid this most mischievous van
ity " (St. Leo, epistle 164, al. 133, sec. 2, Boll. ed.).
And since religion has been banished from civil government— since the
teaching and authority of Divine revelation have been repudiated— the idea
inseparable therefrom of justice and human right is obscured by darkness, and
lost ; and in place of true justice and legitimate right, material force is substi
tuted ; whence it appears why some, entirely neglecting and slighting the most
certain principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim " that the will of the peo
ple, manifested by public opinion (as they call it), or by other means, consti
tutes a supreme law independent of all Divine and human right ; and that,
in the political order, accomplished facts, by the mere fact of their having
been accomplished, have the force of right." But who does not plainly see
and understand that human society, released from the ties of religion and
true justice, can have no other purpose than to compass its own ends, and to
amass riches, and can follow no other law in its actions than the indomitable
wickedness of a heart given up to the service of its selfish pleasures and in
terests ?
For this reason also these same men persecute with such bitter hatred the
Religious Orders who have deserved so well of religion, civil society, and let
ters ; they loudly declare that the Orders have no right to exist, and, in so
doing, make common cause with the falsehoods of the heretics. For, as was
most wisely taught by Our Predecessor of illustrious memory, Pius VI. , "the
abolition of Religious Orders injures the state of public profession of the
Evangelical counsels ; injures a mode of life recommended by the Church as
in conformity with Apostolical doctrine ; does wrong to the illustrious founders
whom we venerate upon our altars, and who constituted these societies under
the inspiration of God " (Epistle to Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, March 10th,
1791). And these same persons also impiously pretend that citizens should
be deprived of the liberty of publicly bestowing on the Church their alms for
the sake of Christian charity, and that the law forbidding "servile labor on
account of Divine worship " upon certain fixed days should be abolished,
upon the most fallacious pretext that such liberty and such law are contrary
to the principles of political economy. Not content with abolishing religion
in public society, they desire, further, to banish it from families and private
life. Teaching and professing those most fatal errors of Socialism and Com
munism, they declare that "domestic society, or the family, derives all its
reason of existence solely from civil law, whence it is to be concluded that
from civil law descend and depend all the rights of parents over their chil
dren, and, above all, the right of instructing and educating them." By such
impious opinions and machinations do these most false teachers endeavor to
eliminate the salutary teaching and influence of the Catholic Church from
the instruction and education of youth, and to miserably infect and deprave
by every pernicious error and vice the tender and pliant minds of youth.
All those who endeavor to throw into confusion both religious and political
affairs to destroy the good order of society, and to annihilate all Divine and

724 Appendix.
human rights, have always exerted all their criminal schemes, attention, and
efforts upon the manner in which they might, above all, deprave and delude
unthinking youth, as We have already shown : it is upon the corruption of
youth that they place all their hopes. Thus, they never cease to attack by
every method the Clergy, both secular and regular, from whom, as testify to
us in so conspicuous a manner the most certain records of history, such con
siderable benefits have been bestowed in abundance upon Christian and Civil
society, and upon the republic of letters ; asserting of the clergy in general
that they are the enemies of the useful sciences, of progress, and of civiliza
tion, and that they ought to be deprived of all participation in the work of
teaching and training the young.
Others, reviving the depraving fictions of innovators, errors many times
condemned, presume, with extraordinary impudence, to subordinate the au
thority of the Church and of this Apostolic See, conferred upon it by Christ
Our Lord, to the judgment of civil authority, and to deny all the rights of
this same Church and this See with regard to those things which appertain
to the secular order. For these persons do not blush to affirm "that the laws
of the Church do not bind the conscience if they are not promulgated by the
civil power ; that the acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs concerning re
ligion and the Church require the sanction and approbation, or at least, the
assent of the civil powers ; and that the Apostolic Constitutions (Clement
XII., Benedict XIV., Pius VIL, Leo XII.) condemning secret societies,
whether these exact or do not exact an oath of secrecy, and branding with
anathema their followers and partisans, have no force in those countries of
the world where such associations are tolerated by the civil government." It
is likewise affirmed "that the excommunications launched by the Council of
Trent and the Roman Pontiffs against those who invade and usurp the pos
sessions of the Church and its rights, strive, by confounding the spiritual and
temporal orders, to attain solely a mere earthly end ; that the Church can de
cide nothing which may bind the consciences of the faithful in the temporal
order of things ; that the right of the Church is not competent to restrain
with temporal penalties the violators of her laws ; and that it is in accord
ance with the principles of theology and of public law for the Civil Govern
ment to appropriate property possessed by the churches, the Religious Or
ders, and other pious establishments. And they have no shame in avowing
openly and publicly the heretical statement and principle from which has
emanated so many errors and perverse opinions, that the ecclesiastical power
is not by the law of God made distinct from, and independent of, civil pow
er, and that no distinction, no independence of this kind, can be maintained
without the Church invading and usurping the essential rights of the civil
power." Neither can We pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not endur
ing sound doctrine, assert that "the judgments and decrees of the Holy See,
the object of which is declared to concern the general welfare of the Church,
its rights, and its discipline, do not claim acquiescence and obedience under
pain of sin and loss of the Catholic profession, if they do not treat of the dog
mas of faith and of morals."

APPENDIX. 725
How contrary is this doctrine to the Catholic dogma of the plenary pow
er divinely conferred on the Sovereign Pontiff by Our Lord Jesus Christ, to
guide, to supervise, and govern the Universal Church, no one can fail to see
and understand clearly and evidently.
Amid so great a perversity of depraved opinions, We, remembering Our
Apostohc duty, and solicitous before all things for Our most holy religion,
for sound doctrine, for the salvation of the souls confided to Us, and for the
welfare of human society itself, have considered the moment opportune to
raise anew Our Apostolic voice.
Therefore do We by Our Apostolic authority reprobate, denounce, and
condemn generally and particularly all the evil opinions and doctrines spe
cially mentioned in this Letter, and We wish that they may be held as rep
robated, denounced, and condemned by all the children of the Catholic Church.
But You know further, Venerable Brothers, that in our time the haters of
all truth and justice and violent enemies of our religion have spread abroad
other impious doctrines by means of pestilent books, pamphlets, and journals,
which, distributed over the surface of the earth, deceive the people and wick
edly lie. You are not ignorant that in our day men are found who, animated
and excited by the spirit of Satan, have arrived at that excess of impiety as
not to fear to deny Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, and to attack His
Divinity with scandalous persistence. And here We can not abstain from
awarding You well-merited praise, Venerable Brothers, for all the care and
zeal with which You have raised Your episcopal voice against so great an im
piety. And therefore in this present letter, We speak to You with all affection ;
to You who, called to partake Our cares, are Our greatest support in the
midst of Our very great grief, Our joy and Our consolation, by reason of the
excellent piety of which You give proof in maintaining religion, and the mar
velous love, faith, and discipline with which, united by the strongest and most
affectionate ties to Us and this Apostolic See, You strive valiantly and accu
rately to fulfill Your most weighty episcopal ministry. We do, then, expect
from Your excellent pastoral zeal that, taking the sword of the Spirit, which
is the Word of God, and strengthened by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ,
You will watch with redoubled care, that the faithful committed to Your
charge "abstain from evil pasturage, which Jesus Christ doth not till, because
His Father hath not planted it " (St. Ignac. M. ad Philadelph. St. Leo,
epist. 156, al. 125). Never cease, then, to inculcate on the faithful that all
true happiness for mankind proceeds from our august religion, from its doc
trines and practice, and that that people is happy who have the Lord for
their God (Psalm 143). Teach them " that kingdoms rest upon the founda
tion of the Catholic faith (St. Celest., epist. 22, ad Syn. Eph.), and that noth
ing is so deadly, nothing so certain to engender every ill, nothing so exposed
to danger, as for men to believe that they stand in need of nothing else than
the free-will which we received at birth, if we ask nothing further from the
Lord— that is to say, if, forgetting our Author, we abjure his power to show
that we are free." And do not omit to teach "that the Royal power has
been established not only to exercise the government of the world, but, above

726 APPENDIX
all, for the protection of the Church (St. Leo, epist. 156, al. 125), and that
there is nothing more profitable and more glorious for the Sovereigns of
States and Kings than to leave the Catholic Church to exercise its laws, and
not to permit any to curtail its liberty;" as Our most wise and courageous
Predecessor, St. Felix, wrote to the Emperor Zeno. "It is certain that it
is advantageous for Sovereigns, when the cause of God is in question, to sub
mit their Royal will according to his ordinance to the Priests of Jesus Christ,
and not to prefer it before them." (Pius VII. Epist. Encycl. Diu satis, 15th
May, 1800.)
And if always, so, especially at present, is it Our duty, Venerable Brothers,
in the midst of the numerous calamities of the Church and of civil society, in
view of the terrible conspiracy of our adversaries against the Catholic Church
and this Apostolic See, and the great accumulation of errors, it is, before all
things, necessary to go with faith to the Throne of Grace to obtain mercy and
find grace in timely aid.
We have therefore judged it right to excite the piety of all the faithful in
order that, with Us and with You all, they may pray without ceasing to the
Father of lights and of mercies, supplicating and beseeching Him fervently
and humbly, in order also in the plenitude of their faith they may seek refj
uge in Our Lord Jesus Christ, who has redeemed us to God with His blood,
that by their earnest and continual prayers they may obtain from that most
dear Heart, victim of burning charity for us, that it would draw all by the
bonds of His love, and that all men being inflamed by His holy love may live
according to His heart, pleasing God in all things, and being fruitful in all
good works.
But, as there is no doubt that the prayers most agreeable to God are those
of the men who approach Him with :t heart pure from all stain, We have'
thought it good to open to Christians, with Apostolic liberality, the Heavenly
treasures of the Church confided to Our dispensation, so that the faithful,
more strongly drawn toward true piety and purified from the stain of their
sins by the Sacrament of Penance, may more confidently offer up their prayers
to God and obtain His mercy and grace.
By these Letters emanating from Our Apostolic authority, We grant to all
and each of the faithful of both sexes throughout the Catholic world a Ple
nary Indulgence in the manner of a Jubilee during one month up to the end
of the coming year, 1865, and not longer, to be carried into effect by You,
Venerable Brethren, and the other legitimate local Ordinaries, in the form
and manner laid down at the commencement of Our Sovereign Pontificate
by Our Apostolical Letters, in form of a Brief, dated the 20th of November,
anno 1846, and sent to the whole Episcopate of the world, commencing with
the words "Arcano Divince Providential consilio," and with the faculties given
by Us in those same Letters. We desire, however, that all the prescriptions
of Our letters shall be observed, saving the exceptions We have declared are
to be made. And We have granted this, notwithstanding all which might
make to the contrary, even those worthy of special and individual mention and
derogation ; and in order that every doubt and difficulty may be removed, We
have ordered that copies of those Letters should be again forwarded to You.

APPENDIX.. 727
Let us implore, Venerable Brethren, from our inmost hearts, and with all
our Souls, the mercy of God. He has encouraged us so to do, by saying,
" I will not withdraw my mercy from them." Let us ask, and we shall re
ceive ; and if there is slowness or delay in its reception, because we have
grievously offended, let us knock, because to him that knocketh it shall be
opened ; if our prayers, groans, and tears, in which we must persist and be
obstinate, knock at the door; and if our prayer be united, let each one pray
to God, not for himself alone, but for all his brethren, as the "Lord hath
taught us to pray " (St. Cyprian, epistle ii.). But in order that God may
accede more easily to Our and Your prayers, and to those of all His faithful
servants, let us employ in all confidence as our Mediatrix with him the Vir
gin Mary, Mother of God, who " has destroyed all heresies throughout the
world, and who, the most loving Mother of us all, is very gracious  and
full of mercy  allows herself to be entreated by all, shows herself most
clement toward all, and takes under her pitying care all our necessities with
a most ample affection" (St. Bernard, Germ, de duodecim perogativis B.M.
V. in verbis Apocalyp.), and who, " sitting as queen upon the right hand of
her only begotten Son Our Lord Jesus Christ, in a golden vestment clothed
around with various adornments," there is nothing which she can not obtain
from Him. Let us implore also the intervention of the Blessed Peter, Chief
of the Apostles, and of his co-Apostle Paul, and of all those Saints of Heav
en, who, having already become the friends of God, have been admitted into
the celestial kingdom, where they are crowned and bear palms, and who
henceforth, certain of their own immortality, are solicitous for our salvation.
In conclusion, We ask of God, from Our inmost soul, the abundance of all
his celestial benefits for You, and We bestow upon You, Venerable Brethren,
and upon all faithful Clergy and Laity committed to Your care, Our Apos
tolic Benediction from the most loving depths of Our hearts, in token of Our
charity toward You. Pius PP. IX.
Given at Home, from St. Peter's, this 8th of December, 1864, the tenth anniversary
of the Dogmatic Definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary,
Mother of God, in the nineteenth Tear of Our Pontificate.

D.
THE SYLLABUS OF THE PRINCIPAL ERRORS OF OUR TIME,
WHICH ARE STIGMATIZED IN THE CONSISTORIAL ALLO
CUTIONS, ENCYCLICAL, AND OTHER APOSTOLICAL LET
TERS OF OUR MOST HOLY FATHER POPE PIUS IX.
I. Pantheism, Naturalism, and Absolute Rationalism.
1. There exists no Divine Power, Supreme Being, Wisdom, and Provi
dence distinct from the universe, and God is none other than nature, and is
therefore mutable. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and
all things are God, and have the very substance of God. God is therefore
one and the same thing with the world, and thence spirit is the same thing

728 APPENDIX.
with matter, necessity with liberty, true with false, good with evil, justice
with injustice. (Allocution " Maxima quidem," 9th June, 1862.)
2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. (Allocu
tion "Maxima quidem,"9th June, 1862.)
3. Human reason, without any regard to God, is the sole arbiter of truth
and falsehood, of good and evil ; it is its own law to itself, and suffices by its
natural force to secure tlie welfare of men and of nations. (Allocution ' ' Max
ima quidem," 9th June, 1862.)
4. All the truths of religion are derived from the native strength of human
reason ; whence reason is the master rule by which man can and ought to
arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind. (Encyclical letters, " Qui
pluribus,"9th November, 1846, "Singulari quidem," 17th March, 1856, and
the Allocution " Maxima quidem," 9th June, 1862.)
5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and
indefinite progress, which corresponds with the progress of human reason.
(Encyclical "Qui pluribus,"9th November, 1846, and the Allocution "Max
ima quidem," 9th June, 1862.)
6. Christian faith is in opposition to human reason, and divine revelation
not only does not benefit, but even injures, the perfection of man. (Encyclical
"Qui pluribus," 9th November, 1846, and the Allocution "Maxima qui
dem," 9th June, 1862.)
7. The prophecies and miracles, uttered and narrated in the Sacred Script
ures, are the fictions of poets ; and the mysteries of the Christian faith, the
result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the two Testaments
there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth
ical fiction. (Encyclical "Qui pluribus," 9th November, 1846, and the Allo
cution "Maxima quidem," 9th June, 1862.)
II. Moderate Rationalism.
8. As human reason is placed on a level with Religion, so theological mat
ters must be treated in the same manner as philosophical ones. (Allocution
" Singulari quadam perfusi," 9th December, 1854.)
9. All the dogmas of the Christian Religion are, without exception, the
object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, instructed solely
by history, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to arrive at the
true knowledge of even the most abstruse dogmas : provided such dogmas
be proposed as subject-matter for human reason. (Letter ad Archiep. Frising,
"Gravissimas," 11th December, 1862; to the same, "Tuas libenter," 21st
December, 1863.)
10. As the philosopher is one thing, and philosophy is another, so it is the
right and duty of the philosopher to submit himself to the authority which he
shall have recognized as true ; but philosophy neither can nor ought to sub
mit to any authority. (Letter ad Archiep. Frising, ' ' Gravissimas, " 11th De
cember, 1862; to the same, "Tuas libenter," 21st December, 1863.)
11. The Church not only ought never to animadvert upon philosophy, but
ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving to philosophy the care of
their correction. (Letter ad Archiep. Frising, 11th December, 1862.)

APPENDIX. 729
12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Congregation fet
ter the free progress of science. {Id. ibid.)
13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic Doctors cul
tivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of the age and the
progress of science. (Ib. "Tuas libenter," 21st December, 1863.)
14. Philosophy must be treated of without any account being taken of su
pernatural revelation. (Id. ibid.)
N.B. — To the rationalistic system belong, in great part, the errors of An
thony Gunther, condemned in the letter to the Cardinal Archbishop of Co
logne, "Eximiam tuam, " 15th June, 1847; and in that to the Bishop of
Breslau, "Dolore haud mediocri," 30th April, 1860.
IH. Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism.
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he shall believe
true, guided by the light of reason. (Apostolic Letters " Multiplices inter,"
10th June, 1851 ; Allocution "Maxima quidem," 9th June, 1862.)
16. Men may in any religion find the way of eternal salvation, and obtain
eternal salvation. (Encyclical Letter " Qui pluribus," 9th November, 1846 ;
Allocution " Ubi primum," 17th December, 1847; Encyclical Letter "Sin
gulari quidem," 17th March, 1856.)
17. We may entertain at least a well-founded hope for the eternal salvation
of all those who are in no manner in the true Church of Christ. (Allocution
"Singulari quadam," 9th December, 1854; Encyclical Letter "Quanto
conficiamur," 17th August, 1863.)
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true
Christian Religion, in which it is possible to be equally pleasing to God as in
the Catholic Church. (Encyclical Letter " Noscitis et Nobiscum," 8th Decem
ber, 1849.)
IV. Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies, Biblical Societies, Clerico-lib-
eral Societies.
Pests of this description are frequently rebuked in the severest terms in
the Encyclical "Qui pluribus," 9th November, 1846; Allocution "Quibus
quantisque," 20th April, 1849; Encyclical "Noscitis et Nobiscum," 8th
December, 1849; Allocution "Singulari quadam," 9th December, 1854;
Encyclical " Quanto conficiamur ma?rore," 10th August, 1863.
V. Errors concerning the Church and her Rights.
19. The Church is not a true, and perfect, and entirely free society, nor
does she enjoy peculiar and perpetual rights conferred upon her by her Di
vine Founder, but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the
rights and limits with which the Church may exercise authority. (Allocu
tion " Singulari quadam," 9th December, 1854 ; " Multis gravibusque," 17th
December, 1860 ; " Maxima quidem," 9th June, 1862. )
20. The ecclesiastical power must not exercise its authority without the
permission and assent of the civil Government. (Allocution " Meminit unus
quisque," 30th September, 1861.)

730 APPENDIX,
21. The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the Re
ligion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion. (Letter Apostolic
" Multiplices inter," 10th June, 1851.)
22. The obligation which binds Catholic teachers and authors applies only
to those things which are proposed for universal belief as dogmas of the faith,
by the infallible judgment of the Church. (Letter ad Archiep. Frising, " Tuas
libenter," 21st December, 1863.)
23. The Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils have exceeded the
limits of their power, have usurped the rights of Princes, and have even
committed errors in defining matters of faith and morals. (Letter Apostolic
"Multiplices inter," 10th June, 1851.)
24. The Church has not the power of availing herself of force or any di
rect or indirect temporal power. (Letter Apostolic "Ad Apostolicas," 22d
August, 1851.)
25. In addition to the authority inherent in the Episcopate, a further and
temporal power is granted to it by the civil authority, either expressly or
tacitly, which power is on that account also revocable by the civil authority
whenever it pleases. (Letter Apostolic "Ad Apostolica;, " 22d August, 1851.)
26. The Church has not the innate and legitimate right of acquisition and
possession. (Allocution "Nunquam fore," 15th December, 1856 ; Encyclical
"Incredibili," 17th September, 1863.)
27. The ministers of the Church and the Roman Pontiff ought to be ab
solutely excluded from all charge and dominion over temporal affairs. (Allo
cution " Maxima quidem," 9th June, 1862.)
28. Bishops have not the right of promulgating even their Apostolic Let
ters without the permission of the Government. (Allocution ' ' Nunquam fore, "
15th December, 1856.)
29. Dispensations granted by the Roman Pontiff must be considered null,
unless they have been asked for by the civil Government. (Id. ibid.)
30. The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons derives its
origin from civil law. (Letter Apostolic " Multiplices inter," 10th June,1851.)
31. Ecclesiastical Courts for the temporal causes of the clergy, whether
civil or criminal, ought by all means to be abolished, even without the con
currence and against the protest ofthe Holy See. (Allocution "Acerbissi-
mum," 27th September, 1852 ; and "Nunquam fore," 15th December, 1856.)
32. The personal immunity exonerating the clergy from military service
may be abolished, without violation either of natural right or of equity. Its
abolition is called for by civil progress, especially in a community constituted
upon principles of Liberal Government. (Letter to the Archbishop of Mont
real, "Singularis Nobisque," 29th September, 1864.)
33. It does not appertain exclusively to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by any
right, proper and inherent, to direct the teaching of theological subjects.
(Letter ad Archiep. Frising, "Tuas libenter," 21st December, 1863.)
34. The teaching of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a free
Sovereign acting in the Universal Church, is a doctrine which prevailed in
the Middle Ages. (Letter Apostolic "Ad Apostolicse," 22d August, 1851.)
35. There would be no obstacle to the sentence of a General Council, or

APPENDIX. 731
the act of all the universal peoples, transferring the Pontifical Sovereignty
from the Bishop and city of Rome to some other bishopric and some other
city. (Id. ibid.)
36. The definition of a National Council does not admit of any subsequent
discussion, and the civil power can regard as settled an affair decided by such
National Council. (Id. ibid.)
37. National Churches can be established after being withdrawn and plain
ly separated from the authority of the Roman Pontiff. (Allocution " Multis
gravibusque,"17th December, 1860 ; "Jamdudum cernimus," 18th March,
1861.) 38. Roman Pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to
the division of the Church into Eastern and Western. (Letter Apostolic
"Ad Apostolicse," 22d August, 1851.)
VI. Errors about Civil Society considered both in itself and in its Relation
to the Church.
39. The Republic is the origin and source of all rights, and possesses rights
which are not circumscribed by any limits. (Allocution ' ' Maxima quidem, "
9th June, 1862.)
40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is opposed to the well-being and
interests of society. (Encyclical " Qui pluribus," 9th November, 1846 ; Allo
cution " Quibus quantisque," 20th April, 1849.)
41. The civil power, even when exercised by an infidel Sovereign, possess
es an indirect and negative power over religious affairs. It therefore possess
es not only the right called that of exequatur, but that of the (so-called) ap-
pellatio ab abusu. (Letter Apostolic "Ad Apostolica?," 22d August, 1861.)
42. In the case of conflicting laws between the two Powers, the civil law
ought to prevail. (Letter Apostolic "Ad Apostolica?," 22d August, 1851.)
43. The civil power has a right to break, and to declara and render null
the conventions (commonly called Concordats) concluded with the Apostolic
See, relative to the use of rights appertaining to the ecclesiastical immunity,
without the consent of the Holy See, and even contrary to its protest. (Allo
cution "In Consistoriali," 1st November, 1850; "Multis gravibusque," 17th
December, 1860.)
44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to Religion, mo
rality, and spiritual government. Hence it has control over the instructions
for the guidance of consciences issued, conformably with their mission, by
the pastors of the Church. Further, it possesses power to decree, in the mat
ter of administering the Divine Sacraments, as to the dispositions necessary
for their reception. (Allocution " In Consistoriali," 1st November, 1850 ; Al
locution "Maxima quidem,"9th June, 1862.)
45. The entire direction of public schools in which the youth of Christian
States are educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of Episcopal
seminaries, may and must appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so
far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any
right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the
studies, the taking of degrees, or the choice and approval of the teachers.

732 APPENDIX.
(Allocution "In Consistoriali," 1st November, 1850; Allocution "Quibus
luctuosissimis, 5th September, 1851.)
46. Much more, even in Clerical Seminaries, the method of study to be
adopted is subject to the civil authority. (Allocution "Nunquam fore," 15th
December, 1856.)
47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools, open to
the children of all classes, and generally all public institutes intended for in
struction in letters and philosophy, and for conducting the education of the
young, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, government, and in
terference, and should be fully subject to the civil and political power, in con
formity with the will of rulers and the prevalent opinions of the age. (Letter
to the Archbishop of Fribourg, " Quum non Sine," 14th July, 1864.)
48. This system of instructing youth, which consists in separating it from
the Catholic faith and from the power ofthe Church, and in teaching exclu
sively, or at least primarily, the knowledge of natural things, and the earthly
ends of social life alone, may be approved by Catholics. (Id. ibid.)
49. The civil power has the right to prevent ministers of Religion and the
faithful from communicating freely and mutually with each other, and with
the Roman Pontiff. (Allocution " Maxima quidem," 9th June, 1862.)
50. The secular authority possesses, as inherent in itself, the right of pre
senting Bishops, and may require of them that they take possession of their di
oceses, before having received canonical institution and the Apostolic Letters
from the Holy See. (Allocution "Nunquam fore," 15th December, 1856.)
51. And, further, the Secular Government has the right of deposing Bish
ops from their Pastoral functions, and it is not bound to obey the Roman
Pontiff in those things which relate to Episcopal Sees and the institution of
Bishops. (Letter Apostolic "Multiplices inter," 10th June, 1851; Allocu
tion " Aeerbissimum," 27th September, 1852.)
52. The Government has of itself the right to alter the age prescribed by
the Church for the religious profession both of men and women ; and it may
enjoin upon all religious establishments to admit no person to take solemn
vows without its permission. (Allocution " Nunquam fore," 15th December,
1856.) 53. The laws for the protection of religious establishments, and securing
their rights and duties, ought to be abolished ; nay, more, the civil govern
ment may lend its assistance to all who desire to quit the religious life they
have undertaken, and break their vows. The government may also suppress
Religious Orders, collegiate Churches, and simple Benefices, even those be
longing to private patronage, and submit their goods and revenues to the
administration and disposal ofthe civil power. (Allocution "Aeerbissimum,"
27th September, 1852 ; Allocution "Probe memineritis," 22d January, 1855 ;
Allocution " Cum sa?pe," 26th July, 1855.)
54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the
Church, but are superior to the Church, in litigated questions of jurisdic
tion. (Letter Apostolic "Multiplices inter," 10th June, 1851.)
55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from
the Church. (Allocution "Aeerbissimum," 27th September, 1852.)

Appendix. 733
VII. Errors concerning Natural and Christian Ethics.
56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and there is
no necessity that human laws should be conformable to the law of nature,
and receive their sanction from God. (Allocution "Maxima quidem," 9th
June, 1862.)
57. Knowledge of Philosophical things and morals, and also civil laws,
may and must be independent of divine and ecclesiastical authority. (Allo
cution "Maxima quidem," 9th June, 1862.)
58. No other forces are to be recognized than those which reside in mat
ter ; and all moral teaching and moral excellence ought to be made to con
sist in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and
in the enjoyment of pleasure. (Allocution "Maxima quidem;" 9th June,
1862 ; Encyclical " Quanto conficiamur," 10th August, 1863.)
59. Right consists in the material fact, and all human duties are but vain
words, and all human acts have the force of right. (Allocution " Maxima
qnidem," 9th June, 1862.)
60. Authority is nothing else but the result of numerical superiority and
material force. (Allocution "Maxima quidem," 9th June, 1862.)
61. An unjust act, being successful, inflicts no injury upon the sanctity of
right. (Allocution " Jamdudum cernimus, " 18th March, 1861.)
, 62. The principle of non-intervention, as it is called, ought to be proclaim
ed and adhered to. (Allocution "Novos et ante," 28th September, 1860.)
63. It is allowable to refuse obedience to legitimate Princes ; nay, more, to
rise in insurrection against them. (Encyclical "Qui pluribus," 9th Novem
ber, 1846; Allocution "Quisque vestrum," 4th October, 1847; Encyclical
"Noscitis et Nobiscum," 8th December, 1849; Letter Apostolic "Quum
Catholica," 26th March, 1860.)
64. The violation of a solemn oath, even every wicked and flagitious ac
tion repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blamable, but quite lawful,
and worthy of the highest praise, when done for the love of country. (Allo
cution "Quibus quantisque," 20th April, 1849.)
VHI. Errors concerning Christian Marriage.
65. It can not be by any means tolerated, to maintain that Christ has
raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament. (Letter Apostolic "Ad
Apostolica;," 22d August, 1851.)
66. The Sacrament of marriage is only an adjunct of the contract, and
separable from it, and the sacrament itself consists in the nuptial benediction
alone. (Id. ibid.)
67. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many
cases divorce, properly so called, may be pronounced by the civil authority.
(Id. ibid.; Allocution "Aeerbissimum," 27th September, 1852.)
68. The Church has not the power of laying down what are diriment im
pediments to marriage. The civil authority does possess such a power, and
can do away with existing impediments to marriage. (Letter Apostolic
"Multiplices inter," 10th June, 1851.)

734 APPENDIX.
69. The Church only commenced in later ages to bring in diriment imped
iments, and then availing herself of a right not her own, but borrowed from
the civil power. (Letter Apostolic "Ad Apostolicaj, " 22d August, 1851.)
70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which pronounce censure of
anathema against those who deny to the Church the right of laying down
what are diriment impediments, either are not dogmatic, or must be under
stood as referring only to such borrowed power. (Letter Apostolic, ibid.)
71. The form of solemnizing marriage prescribed by the said Council, un
der penalty of nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law has appoint
ed another form, and where it decrees that this new form "shall effectuate a
valid marriage. (Id. ibid.)
72. Boniface VIII. is the first who declared that the vow of chastity pro
nounced at Ordination annuls nuptials. (Id. ibid.)
73. A merely civil contract may among Christians constitute a true mar
riage ; and it is false, either that the marriage contract between Christians
is always a sacrament, or that the contract is null if the sacrament be ex
cluded. (Id. ibid. ; Letter to King of Sardinia, 9th Sept., 1852 ; Allocution
"Aeerbissimum," 27th Sept., 1852; "Multis gravibusque," 17th Dec, 1860.)
74. Matrimonial causes and espousals belong by their very nature to civil
jurisdiction. (Letter Apostolic "Ad Apostoliese," 22d August, 1851 ; Allo
cution "Aeerbissimum," 27th September, 1862.)
N.B. — Two other errors may tend in this direction : those upon the aboli
tion of the celibacy of priests, and the preference due to the state of mar
riage over that of virginity. These have been proscribed ; the first in the
Encyclical "Qui pluribus," 9th November, 1846; the second in the Apos
tolic Letter "Multiplices inter," 10th June, 1851.)
IX. Errors regarding the Civil Power of the Sovereign Pontiff.
75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are not agreed
upon the compatibility of the -temporal with the spiritual power. (Letter
Apostolic "Ad Apostolic®," 22d August, 1851.)
76. The abolition of the temporal power, of which the Apostolic See is
possessed, would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and pros
perity of the Church. (Allocution "Quibus quantisque," 20th April, 1849.)
N.B. — Besides these errors, explicitly noted, many others are impliedly re
buked by the proposed and asserted doctrine, which all Catholics are bound
most firmly to hold, touching the temporal Sovereignty of the Roman Pon
tiff. These doctrines are clearly stated in the Allocutions "Quibus quan
tisque," 20th April, 1849, and "Si semper antea," 20th May, 1850; Apos
tolic Letter "Quum Catholica Ecclesia, " 26th March, 1860; Allocutions —
"Novos,"28th September, 1860; " Jamdudum," 18th March, 1861; and
" Maxima quidem," 9th June, 1862.
X. Errors having Reference to Modern Liberalism.
77. Tn the present day, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic Religion
shall be held as the only Religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other
modes of Worship. (Allocution "Nemo vestrum," 26th July, 1855.)

APPENDIX. 735

78. Whence it has been wisely provided by law, in some countries called
Cathohc, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise
of their own worship. (Allocution "Aeerbissimum," 27th September, 1852.)
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every mode of worship,
and the full power given to all of overtly and publicly manifesting their opin
ions and their ideas, of all kinds whatsoever, conduce more easily to corrupt
the morals and minds of the people, and to the propagation of the pest of in-
differentism. (Allocution "Nunquam fore," 15th December, 1856.)
80. The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to, and agree
with, progress, liberalism, and civilization as lately introduced. (Allocution
"Jamdudum cernimus,"18th March, 1861.)— Pastoral Letter of Archbishop
Spalding, etc. , etc.

INDEX.

Abelard an early reformer, 523.
Absolute power justified by precedent,
123, 405.
Absolving sins, 191.
Adrian L, Pope, sets up pretended dona
tion of Constantine, 253 ; pretensions
of, 345, 346 ; absolves the Franks from
crime, 34T ; advocates image -worship,
634.
 LT., Pope, interferes with temporal
affairs, 393 ; is forced to retract, 396 ;
his relations to the emperor, 634.
 IV., Pope, grants Ireland to the king
of England, 410, 413, 557, 598 ; his execu
tion of Arnold of Brescia, 413, 557.
Agapetns, Pope, burns the bull of Boni
face II., 275.
Agatho, Pope, 633.
Albigenses, the, 416 ; war upon them by
Innocent LU., 418, 435; excommuni
cated, 4S6.
Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, 293 ;
first called pope, 296.
 1., Pope, 3T6.
 IL, Pope, 401 ; gives England to Wil
liam of Normandy, 441, 449.
 III., Pope, 398, 413 ; ambition and
character of, 414 ; triumph of, over Em
peror Frederick Barbarossa, 415 ; intro
duces papal constitutions, 637.
¦  . IV., Pope, dispenses the oath of the
King of England, 468.
 V., Pope, poisoned, 4T6; elected by
the Council of Pisa, 530.
 VL, Pope, the model of Machiavelli's
" Prince," 242 ; America discovered dur
ing bis pontificate, 600.
Allegiance, right to dissolve, asserted,
368, 402 ; oath of, in the United States,
563^ 5T2 ; the English people released

from their allegiance to John, 446, 456;
also to Henry VIIL, 497.
Alphouso, King of Arragon, 551.
Alva, Duke of, 688.
Ambiguity, Jesuit theory of, 606.
American hierarchy, bound by oath to de
fend the royalties of the pope, 42 ; and
to persecute heretics, ib. ; seek to intro
duce canon laws into the United States,
46 ; support the Encyclical and Syllabus
of Pius IX., 51 ; their disobedience to
State laws, 44 ; place the Church above
the State, 42.
 institutions, effect of papal preten
sions upon them, 168 ; held to be no
government at all, 172 ; exertions to
make them papal, 173.
 papists, justify rebellion against
German laws, 181 ; invoke the Govern
ment of the United States against Italy,
111.
Anacletus, Pope, his forged epistles, 3T5.
Anicetus, Pope, agrees with Polycarp
about the festival of Easter, 373 ; his
forged epistles, 376.
Anselm, 525.
Anterus, Pope, his forged epistles, 381.
Antonelli, Cardinal, character of, 230 ; his
letter to the papal nuncio at Paris, 451,
595, 597.
Apostles, the, all equal in performing
miracles, 258 ; had no temporal power,
261, 35T.
Aquinas, Thomas, on absolution, 191.
Arian controversy, its origin, 293 ; its im
mediate effect, 295.
Arianism, 289 ; condemned at Council of
Nice, 408.
Arins, tried by an African Council, 293 ;
he did not appeal to Rome, 294.
Armenian Christians, letter to them by
the present pope, 133.

47

738

INDEX.

Arnold of Brescia, an early reformer, 413,
525, 556.
Artemontes, an early sect, 296.
Asiatic churches, originally all equal, 259.
Astolphus, King of Lombardy, 326, 329,
341, 344.
Athanasius upon the presidency of the
Council of Nice, 301.
Atheism, political, what it is alleged to
be, 166.
Augustine, papal missionary to Britain,
finds Christians in Kent, 429; he
threatens them with persecution, 430.
Aurelian, Emperor, his decision, 247.
Austria sets aside papal concordat, 26.
Avignon, the popes at, 475; their in
trigues while there, 626.
B.
Badbey, Thomas, put to deatb, 473.
Balmez, Jesuit author, 575 ; on obedience
to civil power, 576, 577 ; the State to be
tried by divine law, 579; ou govern
ments de jure and de facto, 580 ; the
United States a de facto and illegitimate
government, 581.
Baltimore, Lord, the elder, 675-677.
 , the younger, 680 ; his usurpations in
Maryland, 681 ; requires the oath of al
legiance to himself, 683; grants spe
cial favors to papists, 684.
Balitmore, National Council of, in 1866,
43 ; its pastoral letter, 44 ; its claim of
authority, 46 ; joy it afforded the pope,
51; notes on it, 608; Appendix B, 713.
Baltbasar Costa, Pope John XXIII., 531.
Bangor, monks of, murdered, 432.
Baptized, all who are, subject to the pope,
611, 612.
Barbarossa, Frederick, Emperor, submits
to the pope, 124 ; threatened by the pope,
413 ; excommunicated, and his subjects
released from their allegiance, 414 ; the
result of his contest with the pope, 46. ;
bis humiliation, 415.
Barnabas and Paul, apostles, go to the
heathen, 426.
Baronius, his opinion of Boniface VI.,
370 ; on the False Decretals, 391 ; on
Christianity in Britain, 425.
Barons, the, in England, 455 ; informed of
old charter by Cardinal Langton, 458 ;
they resort to arms, 459 ; obtain Magna
Charta, 460 ; are excommunicated, 462,
469 ; attacked at Dover Castle, 468 ; how
they were persecuted, 469; they were

Roman Catholics, 470 ; they would not
concede that the pope was tbe Church,
483.
Basel, Council of, 645 ; it was ecumenical,
653 ; deposes one pope aud elects an
other, 654.
Bavaria resists decree of infallibility,
26.
Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, 414.
Bede, the Venerable, on the war between
the Saxons and Britons, 428.
Belief, papal, includes past, present, and
future, 159.
Belisarius, enters Bome, 276 ; makes Vi
gilius pope, 277.
Bellarmine, author ofthe doctrine of the
indirect power, 595, 597.
Bellerini justifies coercive power, 154.
Benedict IX., Pope, 399.
 XII., Pope, a heretic, 52S.
¦  XIIL, Pope, 476, 526, 628 ; convicted
of heresy by the Council of Pisa, 529 ;
condemned by the Council of Constance,
632 ; bis claim to infallibility, 538.
 XIV., Pope, condemns freemasonry,
201, 207.
Beziers, city of, destroyed by order of the
pope, 418.
Bible, not the rule of papal faith, 77 ; not
to be read without annotations, 78 ; tbe
Protestant, denounced as false, 79 ; not
to be published and read in the vul
gar tongue, 205; priests demand that
it should not be read in England, 504.
Bible societies condemned, 78, 205.
Bishop's oath, what it requires, 42 ; its
form, Appendix A, 717.
Bohemians, aroused at death of Huss and
Jerome, 549 ; persecution of them, 552,
553.
Bologna given by Pepin to the pope, 330.
Book mutilated at Rome, 241.
Boniface II., Pope, 275.
 IV., Pope, to the King of England,
123.
 VL, Pope, 370.
 VIIL, Pope, his bull Unam Samctom,
222, 224, 421, 527 ; his character and opin
ions, 223; employs force, 419; claims
both spiritual and temporal supremacy,
420 ; his addition to the canon law, 421 ;
his quarrel with Philip, 626.
 IX., Pope, ib.
Bourges, Council of, 660.
Britain, how governed before Christ, 424;
when Christianity reached there, 425.

INDEX.

B36t6any' KiDS °f' diCtated by the P°Pe>
Britons, native, their Christianity, 423-
their war with the Saxons, 428- the
union between them and the Saxons
437.
Brownson, Dr. O. A., on authority and
liberty, 30 ; his intolerance, 31 ; claims
that the people must have a master, 33 •
defends the Spanish Inquisition, 93'; on
nnion of Church and State, ib.; on the
superiority of the Middle Ages, 95 ; de
nounces the Reformation, 96 ; justifies
resort to force, 451, 452 ; treats the State
as inferior to the Church, 706.
C.
Cains, Pope, forgeries in his name, 384.
Galistus, Pope, forgeries iu his name, 37S.
Calixtns LL, Pope, 410.
Calvert, Leonard, in Virginia, 680.
Canon laws, carried to France by Char
lemagne, 349 ; compiled by Dionysius,
372; are the laws ofthe Church, 604.
Cardinals, power of, to call a council, 529 ;
college of, first established, 671.
Carlegion, Battle of, 434.
Catechism, Roman, denies the pope's in
fallibility, 627.
Catholic, Roman, system of government,
44, 45 ; theChurch a Christian Church, 58.
Catholics, Roman, can not be liberal to
Protestants, 235.
Cecilia, St., pretended discovery of her re
mains, 361.
Celestine I., Pope, a heretic, 631.
Celibacy introduced into England, 443.
Chalcedon, Council of, 408 ; on the tem
poral power, 237, 632.
Chambord, Count de, king by divine
right, 184.
Charlemagne, Emperor, 333, 345 ; his Ca
pitularies, 346 ; he adds to tbe papal do
minions, 347 ; is made emperor by the
pope, 348 ; he confirms the donation of
Pepin, 349 ; he carries the canon laws
to France, ib.; the extent of his dona
tion to the pope, 350 ; he dictates the
"Filioque" in the creed, 352.
Charles V., Emperor, 509 ; his league with
Paul III. against heresy, 511.
 VII. of France, 661.
 the Bald, 394, 395.
Childeric III., King of France, 321, 322.
Christian commonwealth, with the pope
as sovereign, 163.

739

Christianity, it begins at Jerusalem, 256 ;
introduced into Gaul and Britain, 424.
Church, Roman Catholic, demands that it
6hall govern its property by the canon
law, 47 ; exclusive and aggressive, 70 ; in
tolerant, 80 ; the enemy of Protestant
ism, 71 ; it is fully protected in the Uni
ted States, 46. ; its influence united with
the State, 61, 354 ; claims to be above
the State, 165; condemns separation
from the State, 218 ; insists on union of
Chnrch and State, 282, 283, 286 ; former
ly enslaved at Rome, 398 ; its condition
in England under Henry VIIL, 498.
Churches, the apostolic, independent of
each other, 140, 281, 283, 296.
Clement I., Pope, 373 ; his forged epistles,
375 ; his testimony as to Paul, 424.
 IIL made anti - pope by Henry IV
406.
 IV., Pope, persecutes the English
barons, 469.
 V., Pope, swears to blot ont the mem
ory of Boniface VIIL, 527, 639 ; revokes
his bnll Uruvm Sanctam, 527.
 VI., Pope, 528.
 VU., Pope, 526.
 VIIL, Pope, authorizes the mutila
tion of books, 241 ; elected successor to
Benedict XIIL, 476.
 XL, Pope, his bull Unigenitus, 451.
 XII., Pope, condemns freemasonry,
201 : the enemy of democratic ideas,
206.
 XIV., Pope, suppresses the Jesuits,
98 ; his bull for that purpose, 99 ; he is
supposed to have been poisoned by
them, 101.
Clemingis upon character of prelates at
the Council of Constance, 542.
Clergy, Roman, must not be subject to
the secular power, 145 ; their union with
Constantine, 287 ; exempted from civil
punishment by Charlemagne, 346 ; they
overrun England, 364 ; the reduced con
dition of that country, 466.
Clovis the Great, 321.
Coercive power, justified as a personal
right, 154; claimed by popes, 48S, 524,
601, 613.
Colonnas, the family of the, 420.
Columbus, Christopher, 591.
Commons, House of, its origin, 467.
Confessional, dangerous influence of the,
189 ; public, in early times, 46. ; made se
cret by Leo L, 190 ; its immorality, 192.

740

INDEX.

"Congregation of the Index" at Rome,
91.
Conscience, liberty of, Protestant and pa
pal ideas of, 35.
Consolidation of papists to defend the
pope, 187.
Constance, Council of, burns John Huss,
476 ; called by John XXIII., 531 ; it rec
ognizes the Council of Pisa, 46.; re
quires resignation of rival popes, 532 ;
its claim of infallibility, 538 ; its corrup
tions, 541 ; elects Martin V. pope, 550,
643.
Constantine, first to unite Church and
State, 140, 242; his entry into Rome,
250 ; his relations to the Council of Nice,
250, 286, 297, 304 ; he never was a Roman
Catholic, 251, 283, 286 ; what he did for
the Church, 251, 287 ; holds the Church
in obedience, 252 ; separates the clergy
from temporal affairs, 46. ; the origin of
his pretended donation, 253 ; he did not
reside at Rome, 254; is a usurper aud
a pagan emperor, 284 ; he advances the
clergy with temporal views, 286 ; is an
Arian and heretic, 287 ; his opinion of
the Arian controversy, 289, 294; main
tains the Protestant idea of unity
among Christians, 294; he dictates the
creed at Nice, 305 ; governs the Council
of Nice, 46. ; introduces the word con
substantial, 306 ; shields the clergy from
exposure, 308 ; approves the decrees of
the Council, 309 ; claims divine right,
479.
Constantine Copronymus, Emperor, 330,
336 ; demands territory taken by Pepin
from the Lombards, 337 ; calls a coun
cil, 634.
Constantinople, First Council of, 408, 630.
— — , Second Council of, 237, 408, 633.
 , Third Council of, 408, 633.
 , Fourth Council of, 409, 634.
Constitution of the United States, oppo
sition to the freedom it sets forth, 210.
 of Lothaire at Rome, 363.
Cornelius, Pope, forgeries in his name,
384.
Corruption at Rome, in electing a pope,
276; it becomes universal, 371.
Council at Rome, late, its first dogmatic
constitution, 144; earliest held there,
374.
Councils, ecumenical, first, 289 ; they con
demn and depose popes, 476 ; the early
ones all Greek, 629 ; tbe Latin ones, 636.

Crime redeemed by taxes, 209.
Cross greater than the sword, 125.
Cyprian upon Church unity, 259 ; he re
bukes ambitious popes, 282; his idea
of the independence of bishops, 288,
D.
Damasus, Pope, forgeries in his name, 384.
Decretals, the Gratian, 411 ; what they
claim, 412.
 , the False, 372, 387, 369, 390, 397.
De' Medici, the family of, 664.
Dens, Peter, what he teaches, 59S, 606, 606.
Dionysius, Pope, 282; forgeries iu his
name, 384.
Direct and indirect power, 595.
Disloyalty encouraged, 181.
Divine power claimed by Pius IX., 162,
449, 599 ; by Gregory VIL, 403 ; by In
nocent III., 447.
Divine right to govern to be decided by
the pope, 184.
Dollinger, Dr., on donation of Constan
tine, 253.
Dover Castle, barons attacked in, 468.
Du Pin, on the eighteenth canon of Nice,
311 ; on the number of Nicene canons,
316. E.
Easter, controversy about the festival o£
373.
Ebionites, an early sect, 296.
Educational institutions, papal, 20.
Edward I., King of England, confirms
Magna Charta, 470 ; released from his
oath by the pope, 46.
 IL, King of England, confirms Mag
na Charta, 471.
 III., King of England, confirms
Magna Charta, 471.
 IV., King of England, 474.
 VI., King of England, the reforms
during his reign, 504; present Church
of England founded by him, 46. ; he is
the first Protestant king, 505 ; does not
persecute the papists, 46. ; assigns the
crown to Lady Jane Grey, 506.
Elentherus, Pope, his forged epistles, 376.
Elizabeth, Queen of England, 506; she
persecutes the papists, 517 ; learns per
secution from the Lateran decree, 518 ;
persecutes Protestants also, 46.,- the
kind of church she desires to establish,
520 ; her Protestantism imperial and
undeveloped, 521 ; state of religion iu
her time, 46.

INDEX.

741

Encyclical of Htts IX., 198; it condemns
modern uleas and progress, 199, 204-
also liberty of conscience, 46. ; and of
speech, 45.,- and ofthe press, 46.; asserts
that kingdoms rest on the Church, 209 ;
directly in conflict with the Constitu
tion of the United States, 209. See Ap
pendix C.
Encyclopedists, 103.
England, Peter -pence introduced into,
367, 436 ; ecclesiastical law introduced
into, 436; clergy freed from civil law,
46. ; origin of nationality, 439 ; crown
of, surrendered to the pope by John,
457; foreign troops sent to subjugate
it to the pope, 460 ; clergy of, claimed
exemption from civil laws, 466, 474;
Church in, is Roman Catholic in faith
under Henry VIIL, 498; insolence of
priests and monks, 504.
 , Right Rev. John, his controversy
with Mr. Fuller, 491 ; the nature aud
obligation of an oatb, 568, 569.
Ephesus, Council of, and the temporal
power, 237; it condemns Nestorius,
408, 631.
Equivocation, Jesuit theory of, 606.
Ethelbert, King of East Angles, pardoned
by the pope for murder, 435.
Ethelwolf, King of England, grants Pe
ter-pence to the pope, 367.
Eugenius IL, Pope, 363.
 IV., Pope, against keeping faith with
heretics, S60 ; his war upon the Church,
646.
Eunomians an early sect, 296.
Eusebius, the historian, his account of
the early clergy, 282, 287 ; on the early
growth of Christianity, 284 ; on the bap
tism of Constantine, 286 ; his omis
sions, 292 ; on the Council of Nice, 297 ;
on the pope's legates at Nice, 299 ; on
the approval of the Nicene decrees by
Constantine, 309; on Christianity in
Great Britain, 425.
 , Pope, forgeries in his name, 384
Eutyches, heresy of, 340.
Eutychian, Pope, forgeries in his name,
384.
Evaristus, Pope, 376.
Ex mthedrd, what it means, 186.
Excommunication, power of, perverted,
353,460. F_
Fabianus, Pope, forgeries in his name,
381.

Faith, profession of, by Pius IV. and Pius
IX., 75 ; not kept with heretics, 515, 644.
Falsehoods of Jesuits, 290.
Felix I., Pope, forgeries in his name, 384.
 II., Pope, and the Emperor Zeno,
271.
 V., Pope, elected by Council of Basel,
654.
Ferrara, given by Pepin to the pope, 330 ;
the Council held there, 648 ; misquota
tion of its canons, 657.
" Filioque " dictated by Charlemagne, 352.
Fleury on the False Decretals, 391.
Florence, Council of, 528, 641, 645, 655.
Foreigners as priests and educators, 23,
93.
Formosus, Pope, exhumed and mutilated
by Stephen VIL, 370.
Fortunatus Ulmus, on the degradation of
Frederick Barbarossa, 415.
France withdraws support from the pa
pacy, 26 ; betrayed by Napoleon LU.,
120 ; monarchy established there, 321 ;
its Merovingian kings, 46.; it denies
the temporal power of the pope, 420 ;
England granted to it by Innocent III.,
456 ; a model papal state, 697.
Franco-Prussian war, 177.
Fredet, Dr., his testimony, 324, 326, 327,
333.
Freedom of the Church, what it means,
94.
 of thought and religion condemned,
85, 208, 214.
Freemasonry, condemned, 89, 201; for
merly punished with death, 206.
Free State, what it means, 61.
French Church, 660.
Friars, Gray, burned by John XXII., 527.
Fuller, Rev. Richard, his controversy with
Bishop England, 491. G.
Galileo persecuted, 91, 621.
Gallican Christians, 392, 397.
Gelasius Cyzicenus, his falsehood about
the Council of Nice, 303.
German clergy, 393.
Germany, laws of, defied by Pius IX., 170 ;
effect of this in the United States, 171 ;
the same questions in both countries,
176,179; disloyalty justified by Ameri
can papists, 181 ; its condition under
the Saxon and Saliqne emperors, 399 ;
tbe Reformation in, 495.
Gildas the Wise, his " History," 425.

742

INDEX.

Government, science of, what it involves,
63 ; of the Papal States, 229 ; not pater
nal, 230 ; an ecclesiastical benefice, 231 ;
the people possessed of no civil rights,
46.; purely ecclesiastical, 232.
 of the United States, denounced as
no Government, 172 ; as de facto and il
legitimate, 581 ; to be obeyed from pol
icy, not duty, 582 ; it does not interfere
with religion, 587.
Governments, papal, they alone legiti
mate, 583.
— , those heretical to be overthrown,
454 ; not to be obeyed, 601.
Greek Christians and Innocent LU., 417.
 councils, 629 ; attempt at union with
them, 651.
Gregory I., Pope, 278, 401.
 III., Pope, 596.
 IV., Pope, 364 ; he excites revolt in
France, 365.
 V., Pope, 398.
 VIL, Pope, 398 ; his ambition, 400 ;
claims the right to dispose of king
doms, 401 ; his quarrel with Philip, 46. ;
his bull excommunicating Henry IV.,
and releasing his subjects from their al
legiance, 402 ; his claim of divine pow
er, 403 ; he exacts homage from kings,
404 ; his letter to the Bishop of Metz,
46.; decree in favor of Rudolph, 405;
his death, 406; his claim of infallibility,
407 ; his character, 409 ; his effort to in
troduce celibacy, 444.
 IX., Pope, 421, 514 ; he declares that
oaths with heretics are not binding,
515.
 X., Pope, attempts union with the
Greeks, 639.
 XL, Pope, 475 ; makes war upon the
Vaudois, 46. ; orders Wycliffe to be tort
ured, 46.; his pontificate, 528.
 XII., Pope, 476, 528; convicted of
heresy and perjury by the Council of
Pisa, 529 ; he calls a rival council, 530 ;
is condemned by the Council of Con
stance, 532; his claim to infallibility,
538.
 XV., Pope, 686 ; his persecutions, 687.
 XVI., Pope, 33 ; his bull against Bi
ble societies, 78 ; hopes to establish the
papacy in the United States, 98 ; he em
ploys the Jesuits in the United States,
105 ; condemns publication and reading
of the Scriptures, 205 ; also the freedom
of conscience and opinion, 206.

H.
Harold the lawful King of England, 440.
Henry I., King of England, his old char
ter, 458.
 H., King of England, submits to the
pope, 124 ; Ireland granted to him by
the pope, 557.
 DU., King of England, 464; renews
the grant of the crown to the pope,
465.
 IV., King of England, 473.
 V., King of England, 473.
 VHI., King of England, abolishes
Peter - pence, 436; defends the pope
against Luther, 495 ; never was a Prot
estant, 496 ; always maintains the Ro
man Catholic faith, 497, 498 ; persecutes
both Reformers and Protestants, 499;
he learns persecution from Rome, 500 ;
his aid to Romanism, 501 ; his aid to
Protestantism, 502.
 III., Emperor, 399 ; made Leo IX.
pope, 400.
 IV., Emperor, 401, 406.
Heresies, early, 289.
Heresy, it is to deny that the Church is
independent of the State, 202.
Heretics, persecuted by Leo I., 269 ; their
punishment, 453, 511, 514, 612 ; burned
in England, 473 ; faith not td be kept
with them, 515, 544, 560 ; how punished
in France, 698.
Hierarchical subordination decreed, 145.
Hierarchy, bound to defend the royalties
of the pope, 42 ; to persecute heretics,
46. ; their literature, 73 ; they arraign
Protestantism as infidelity, 74.
Higinus, Pope, 376.
Hildebrand, Pope Gregory VTL, 400.
Hincmar, Archbishop, his letter to Adrian
U., 395.
History to be tanght only by the pope,
156.
Holy Empire to be established, 221.
Honorius, Pope, anathematized for here
sy, 149, 633.
Hooper, Bishop, his martyrdom, 513.
Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, 291 ; messen
ger of Constantine, 296 ; not the legate
of the pope at the Council of Nice, 299,
302.
Hughes, Archbishop, his illiberality, 7.
Hungary, King of, absolved from his oath,
560.
Huss, John, burned by Council of Con-

INDEX.

743

Btance, 476, 543 ; had safe-condnct from
the emperor, 543 ; his arrest, trial, and
execution, 546, 547.
Hussites banished from Moravia, 550;
how persecuted, 552. I.
Ignatius, does not maintain Roman su
premacy, 243 ; his epistles to several
churches, 244; denied the patrimony
of Peter, 245.
Images, worship of, 328, 360.
Index Expurgatorius, at Rome, 91.
Indulgences sold at Rome, 475.
Infallibility of the pope, its ready adop
tion in the United States, 24 ; not a new
doctrine when attached to the Church,
37 ; decreed by Vatican Council, 41, 145 ;
makes the pope a domestic prince in
every country, 131 ; gives him jurisdic
tion over both morals and politics, 152 ;
it extends to pope, priests, and lay
men, 155 ; the pope alone can define its
extent, 157 ; it is claimed by Gregory
vn., 407 ; why it is decreed, 447 ; the
difficulties in the way, 538 ; it was for
merly denied, 616-621 ; it iB condemned
by the Parliament of Paris, 622; con
demned in England and denied by Irish
clergy, 624 ; denied by the Roman cat-
echism, 627 ; condemned by American
bishops present at the Council, 628.
Innocent LT., Pope, 410.
 III., Pope, 398, 416; his claim of di
vine power, 417 ; his vacillation, 46. ; he
tries to reduce the Greek Christians to
obedience, 46. ; his bull against the Vau
dois, 418 ; he establishes the Inquisition,
419; his efforts to subjugate England,
445 ; he releases the people from their
allegiance, 446, 456, 561 ; he annuls Mag
na Charta, 461 ; makes war on the Al
bigenses, 486 ; dispenses with the laws,
559 ; dispenses oaths, 561.
 VL, Pope, 528.
 X., Pope, 623.
Inquisition, Roman, established by Inno
cent LU., 419.
 , Spanish, justified, 81, 93.
Intolerance boasted of as meritorious,
80.
Ireland granted by Adrian IV. to Henry
U., King of England, 410, 413, 557.
Irenasus, rebukes ambitious popes, 282,
374 ; on Christianity among the Celts,
425.

Irish Church, its independence of Rome,
557.
 clergy deny the pope's infallibility,
624.
Isadore Mercator, supposed forger of the
False Decretals, 372.
Issue forced by the Jesuits, 603.
Italian ecclesiastics sent to England, 464.
 patriots put to death by Pius IX.,
234. J.
Jackson, Andrew, on foreign influence,
181.
" Janus " on Gregory VH., 407.
Jefferson, Thomas, on religious intoler
ance, 68.
Jerome of Prague burned by Council of
Constance, 643, 548.
Jerusalem, assembly ofthe apostles tbere,
426; the "mother Church" planted
there, 711.
Jesuits, as educators in the United States,
23; expelled from Prussia, Italy, Ba
varia, Switzerland, and Guatemala, 46. ;
suppressed by Clement XIV., 98 ; ex
pelled from France, Spain, Portugal,
and Sicily, 99 ; their ambition and
wealth, 101 ; denounced by Alexander
of Russia, 103; incorporated by Paul
HI., 46.; re-established by Pius VIL,
104 ; the order not religious, 107; their
constitution requires absolute obedi
ence and submission, 108 ; their power
in Rome, 235 ; their perversion of his
tory, 290 ; their doctrines, 605-608 ; tbe
order in Maryland, 6S5.
Joan, supposed Popess, 366.
Joanna of Naples and Urban V., 475.
John, the apostle, goes to Asia with Pe
ter, 426.
 , King of England, how treated by
Innocent HI., 445 ; his subjects released
from their allegiance, 446, 456; the base
surrender of his crown to the pope, 457 ;
forced by the barons to grant Magna
Charta, 460 ; released from his oath by
the pope, 461 ; his oath to the pope, 561.
 II,, Pope, buys the pontificate, 275.
 . in., Pope, entertains appeals, 278.
 VIH., Pope, 398.
 XII., Pope, 399.
 XXII., Pope, 527.
 XXHL, Pope, deposed for infamous
crimes, 149, 476 ; buys the pontificate,
476 ; calls the Council of Constance,
531; violates his oath, 633; is tried,

744

INDEX.

convicted, and deposed for numerous
" offenses, 534, 535 ; his claim to infallibil
ity, 538.
John IV., of Portugal, 691.
Julius I., Pope, forgeries in his name, 384.
- — II. , Pope, excommunicates Henry
VHI., and releases his subjects from
their allegiance, 497, 662.
Jnstinian, Emperor, makes Pelagius I.
pope, 278 ; the laws of, 696.
K.
Kenrick, Archbishop, on the temporal
power, 227 ; he differs from Pins IX.,
228 ; concedes that Peter had no domin
ion, 46. ; gives supernatural power to
the pope, 257 ; considers the pretended
donation of Constantine as fraudulent,
242 ; on the donation of Pepin, 332 ; his
misquotation of Hallam, 35S.
Kings chosen by the pope by divine right,
184. L.
Lanfranc, prior of Bee, 440.
Langton, Cardinal, Archbishop of Can
terbury, 445 ; notifies the barons of old
charter, 458 ; he incurs the animosity
of the pope, 459 ; he refuses tp publish
bull excommunicating the barons, 462;
, his suspension in consequence, 462.
Lateran, First Council of, 636.
 , Second Council of, 636.
 , Third Council of, 636.
 , Fourth Council of, 485; its canons
dictated by Innocent HL, 487; the third
canon makes persecution of heretics
a duty, 488; constitutions against the
Church treated as void, 638.
 , Fifth Council of, 663.
Latimer bnrned, 513.
Latin councils, beginning of, 635.
Laws of the Church must prevail over
those of the State, 42.
 of the United States, disobedience to
them encouraged, 172.
Laymen, distinction between, and the
priesthood, 112; they are obliged to
obey, 122 ; are made infallible by obedi
ence, 155 ; they must surrender all con
demned opinions, 159 ; they are not al
lowed to define the faith, 703.
Legate sent to England by the pope, 471.
Le Maistre, bis defense of the Spanish
Inquisition, 82; thinks mankind must
be bridled, 124.
Leo I., Pope, makes confession secret,

190, 376; his relations to the Emperor
Marcian, 263; his pontificate, 264; he
possesses no temporal power, 265; is
great and ambitious, 266; he saves
Rome from Attila by his eloquence,
267 ; myths connected with that event,
268 ; can not save Rome from Genseric,
269 ; he persecutes heretics, 46. ; causes
the death of Priscillian, 270.
Leo in., Pope, 347 ; makes Charlemagne
emperor, 348, 596.
 IV., Pope, 366.
 V., Emperor, 360.
 IX., Pope, 398; made pope by the
Emperor Henry IH., 400.
 X., Pope, 664.
 XII., Pope, his bull against Bible so
cieties, 78; he condemns freemasonry,
201 ; also the publication and reading
of the Scriptures, 205 ; also freedom of
conscience, 208.
Liberalism condemned by Pius IX., 220.
LiberiuB, Pope, 373 ; forgeries in his name,
384.
Liberty of conscience according to papal
teaching, 35 ; pioneers of, 61 ; condemn
ed by Pius IX., 199 ; what it was in
Maryland, 673 ; that of the people con
sidered the liberty of perdition, 200.
Lingard, on Christianity in Britain, 428 ;
on divine power claimed by Innocent
III., 447 ; on the pope's annulling Mag
na Charta, 461.
Linus, Pope, 375.
Llorente on the enormities ofthe Spanish
Inquisition, 82.
Lollards in England, 472 ; their separation
from the Roman Church, 473 ; punished
by death, 46.; their desire for reform,
483.
Lombards, they occupy part of Italy, 326.
Lombardy, contest for the crown of, 344.
Lothaire, sent to Rome, 362 ; his constitu
tion, 363.
Louis le Debonnaire, 352, 362.
 the Pious submits to the pope, 123.
 XI., of France, 661.
 XIIL, of France, 687.
Loyola, Ignatius, his followers in the Uni
ted States, 22 ; he draws the Jesuit con
stitution, 107 ; canonized, 686.
Lucius, Pope, forgeries in his name, 384.
 HI., Pope, 4S6.
Luther at the Diet of Worms, 126 ; circu
lation of his tracts prohibited in En
gland by Henry VIII., 500.

INDEX.

745

Lyons, First Council of, 639; Second Coun
cil of, 46.

Macedonians, an early sect, 296 ; their her
esy, 340.
Machlavelli, Pope Alexander VI. the mod
el of his " Prince," 241.
Madison, James, on religions intolerance,
68.
Magna Charta, 65, 419, 460 ; annulled by
the pope, 461 ; confirmed by kings, 471 ;
its principles, 481, 673.
Manning, Archbishop, his pastoral letter,
146 ; bis definition of infallibility, 147 ;
it gives the pope all the power he may
claim over temporals, 148 ; makes him
the Church, 149 ; he justifies the Sylla
bus, 157 ; he claims that the Church is
its own evidence, 202.
Marcellinns, Pope, accused of idolatry,
283 ; forgeries in his name, 384 ; his het
erodoxy, 3S8.
Marcellus I., Pope, forgeries in his name,
384
Marchetti on the False Decretals, 391.
Marcian, Emperor, and Pope Leo L, 263.
Marcus, Pope, forgeries in his name, 384.
Martel, Charles, 322.
Martin I., Pope, 376.
 V., Pope, 476 ; elected by Council of
Constance, 550 ; his ambition and per
fidy, 551 ; he deposes Joanna of Naples,
46. ; his command to desolate Bohemia,
652, 553 ; he becomes sole pope, 552, 641,
643, 616.
Mary, Queen of England, 506 ; how pro
claimed qneen, 507 ; promises not to in
terfere with religion, 46. ; violates her
promise, 508 ; causes Lady Jane Grey to
be put to death, 509 ; her persecutions,
46. ; she carries out the league between
Charles V. aud the pope, 513 ; her perse
cutions approved at Rome, 516.
Maryland, Colony of, 677 ; religions toler
ation in, 678, 692, 693.
Maxentius, Emperor, overthrown by Con
stantine, 283.
Maximilian dnpe of Napoleon IH. and the
pope, 120.
Melitians an early sect, 296.
Mental restrictions, Jesuit theory of, 605.
Metz, Synod of, 392.
 , Bishop of, letter of Gregory VII. to
him, 404.

Mexico, object- of the attempt to seize,
119.
Milchiades, Pope, 283.
Milman, Dean, on the forged donation of
Constantine, 253; ou the False Decre
tals, 390.
Miracles, all the apostles had power to
perform, 258 ; are now performed by the
"Mother of God," 260.
Monarchs quoted in defense of monarchy,
125.
Monarchy, absolute, what it is, 65.
 , ecclesiastical, at Rome, 353.
Monothelite heresy, 340.
Montesquieu, his definition of a free state,
61.
Moravians, 550.
Mortmain, statutes of, in the United
States, 47.
Mosheim on the False Decretals, 389.
Munich, citizens of, denounce infallibili
ty, 168. N.
Napoleon I. and Pope Pius VII., 104.
 in., betrays France, 120 ; his object
in making war on Prnssia, 177.
Nationality in England, its origin, 439.
Nations, the, their condition after Con
stantine, 321.
Natural right to freedom, 64.
Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
408, 631 ; heresy of, 340.
Newman, John Henry, his definition of
faith, 187.
Nice, Council of, and the temporal pow
er; 237 ; called by Constantine, 250, 286,
297 ; First Ecumenical Council, 289 ; Jes
uit falsification of history in reference
to, 290 ; the legates of the pope not
presiding at, 300 ; the pope sends no in
structions, 304 ; the angry discussions
there, 305 ; Constantine the ruling spirit
there, 46. ; he dictates the creed of, 46. ;
he approves the decrees of, 309 ; Jesuit
perversion of the eighteenth canon,
310 ; it recognizes the equality of the
churcbes, 311 ; introduction of false can
ons, 315 ; canons forged by Pope Zosi
mus, 317; it condemns Arianism, 408.
 , Second Council of, 408.
Nicholas I., Pope, 367; his claim of uni
versal dominion, 368 ; he introduces the
False Decretals, 373, 391 ; his character,
392.
 IL, Pope, 401.

746

INDEX.

Nicholas V., Pope, 527, 664.
Northumberland, Duke of, influences Ed
ward VL, 506.

Oaths, obligation of, dispensed by the
pope, 460, 480 ; defined by Third Later
an Council, 508 ; those with heretics not
binding, 515, 544, 560 ; not binding when
disadvantageous to the Church, 560;
their nature and obligation, 566-570;
when not binding, 571.
Obedience, to the pope, 75; of Jesuit
priests to their superiors must be abso
lute, 108 ; to the pope, what it is, 143,
159; to the pope may be exacted by
force, 453 ; is not due to de facto govern
ments, 601.
Offa, King of West Saxony, establishes
Peter-pence, 436 ; introduces ecclesias
tical law into England, 46.
Oldcastle, Sir John, a Lollard leader, 474.
" Old Catholics," 178.
Otho of Saxony, 417.

Papacy, the, its supremacy in the United
States, 31 ; its defiance ofthe State, 36 ;
its relation to civil affairs, 40 ; its con
flict with Protestantism, 121 ; the ene
my of liberty, 127 ; claimed by Jesuits
to be the soul of the world, 141.
Paris, the Faculty of Divinity of, condemn
the pope's infallibility, 622, 623.
Paris, Matthew, on papal iniquity, 417.
Pascal I., Pope, 360 ; a pretended miracle
by him, 361 ; his persecution of priests,
362. .
Pascal, his " Provincial Letters," 607.
Paul I., Pope, 344.
 in., Pope, incorporates the Jesnits,
103; as cardinal, defends Henry VIIL,
498.
 V., Pope, persecutes Galileo, 92, 623.
 , the apostle, preaches in the West,
424; goes to the heathen with Barna
bas, 426 ; goes to Rome, 427.
 of Samosata, his trial, 247.
Pelagius L, Pope, made so by Justinian,
278.
Pentapolis given by Pepin to the pope,
330.
People of the United States a mere mob,
174; have no power to enact binding
laws, 200.
Pepin, King of France, 322 ; how he be

comes so, 323 ; his alliance with the
pope, 325 ; its temporal fruits, 326 ; he
seizes territory from the King of Lom
bardy and gives it to the pope, 330 ; did
he make a " grant f " 331 ; its invalidity,
335 ; what he gives the pope inures to
the empire, 337 ; the fruits of his trea
son, 338 ; he does not give Rome to the
pope, 339, 360 ; the forged letter from
Peter to him, 342 ; he marches his army
to Italy, 343 ; his death, 344 ; extent of
his donation to the pope, 350.
Persecution of heretics, 42, 269; of the
British Christians, 433; papal, ante
dates Protestantism, 4S3 ; commanded
by the canon law, 438 ; how long con
fined to papists in England, 497 ; under
Mary, 509, 513 ; the origiM of the attacks
on Roman Catholics, 514 ; by the Jesu
its, 687 ; dictated by the papacy, 697.
Peter, the apostle, 70 ; civil principality
claimed for him, 162 ; without dominion
or royalty, 228 ; his primacy asserted,
237; the nature of his patrimony, 243;
primacy not claimed by him, 321 ; he
goes to Asia Minor with John, 426.
Peter-pence, its origin, 347 ; first allowed
in England, 367, 436; converted into a
tribute, 465.
Philip, King of France, 401, 456.
 , King of Spain, married to Queen
Mary, 509 ; his object, 510.
Pisa, Council of, 476 ; it tries and con
demns two popes, 528, 629 ; why it was
ecumenical, 529 ; it elects a new pope,
530; its decrees are approved by him,
530, 662.
Pius IV., Pope, his profession of faith, 75.
 VIL, Pope, condemns Bible societies,
¦ 78 ; restores the Jesuits, 104 ; condemns
freemasonry, 201, 207.
 VIIL, Pope, condemns Bible socie
ties, 78 ; also the publication and read
ing of the Scriptures, 205.
 IX., Pope, 24-26 ; he hates popular
government, 28, 34, 40 ; he wars upon
progress, 41, 42, 49, 52, 54, 90 ; he hopes
for dominion in the United States, 35,
51, 111, 117; his profession of faith, 75;
his reliance upon the Jesuits, 109 ; his
address to some American papists in
Rome, 110; his brief to Maximilian
against religions freedom in Mexico,
119 ; he claims to be sole guardian of
liberty, 127 ; and to be a domestic prince
in every country, 133; and that the

INDEX.

747

?ope^ hav<5 never exceeded their power,
iO. ; he derives his temporal power from
God, 137 ; he claims jurisdiction over
all Protestants, 143 ; his Encyclical, 149,
198; he justifies the use of coercive
power, 154; the nature of his claim of
divine power, 162, 228, 449 ; his claim of
superiority over the nations, 163; he
asserts his divine right to appoint kings,
185; he curses freemasonry, 201; he
claims power to punish all disobedience
to the laws of the Church, 46. ; he as
serts that it is sinful to disobey him,
202; he insists that all governments
rest on him as head of the Church, 203 ;
he approves papal bulls condemning
the publication and reading of the
Scriptures, 205 ; he denounces religious
toleration, 206; also the freedom of
speaking, writing, and publishing, 209 ;
his opposition to the Constitution of
the United States, 210 ; his Syllabus,
211 ; his civil government in Rome, 231 ;
his intolerance toward Protestantism,
234 ; the kind of government he desires,
354 ; his reliance upon precedent to es
tablish his power, 405 ; he desires to
imitate Innocent in., 447.
Pole, Cardinal, legate of the pope in En
gland, 512 ; his interference with civil
affairs, 46. ; was an Englishman, 517.
Polycarp, his agreement with the pope
about Easter, 373.
Pontianus, Pope, his forged epistles, 380
Pontificate, the, vacant two years, 527.
Pope, first use of the word, 296.
Popes, the, to be always obeyed, 76 ; in
dependent of the civil power, 88; sn
perior to all human governments, 46.
judges of individuals and states, 89
equal with Christ, 46.; rulers of the
world, 116 ; domestic princes in every
country, 132 ; have never exceeded their
power, 133 ; are kings over all nations,
138 ; are never to be complained against,
140, 369 ; no limitation to their powers,
148 ; their power is what they assert it
to be, 150 ; they are the sole teachers of
history, 156 ; they alone define the ex
tent of their own infallibility, 157 ; their
primacy is a personal privilege, 153;
they are equal with God, 167, 369, 601,
602; they choose kings by divine right,
184; they possess the rights of God,
185 403 ; disobedience to them is sin,
202 • they mutilate books with impuni

ty, 241 ; rival popes elected at Rome,
275 ; each condemns the other, 276 ;
they never produced the pretended
grant of Pepin, 331; they are support
ers of treason, 338 ; the effect of their
example in the United States, 339;
Rome not given them by Pepin, 46.;
they forge letters from heaven, 342;
two elected at same time, 363 ; they
dictate kings, 366 ; their claim of uni
versal dominion, 368, 559; their as
sumed right to create emperoi'B, 397 ;
have been appointed by emperorB, 401 ;
whatever they command is right, 407 ;
they dispense the obligation of oaths,
460, 468 ; their enormities in England,
465 ; condemned and deposed by coun
cils, 476 ; their claim of coercive power,
487, 488, 523 ; the difficulties in tracing
their succession, 536-538 ; when there
are two or more, either may be believed
in, 539 ; their power to dispense with
law, 559 ; they require implicit obedi
ence, 565 ; they can dispose of king
doms, 696 ; the former election of, 670.
Popular rights, struggle for, in England,
469.
Power, absolute, justified by precedent,
123,125.
Praemunire, statute of, 471, 474.
Prerogatives, temporal, first acquired by
the popes, 382.
Priests, in the United States, educated in
Europe, 23, 93 ; their efforts to stir up
disloyalty, 181 ; they do not forfeit their
power by crime, 115, 193, 223 ; they claim
to be above all human laws, 383 ; they
must not be accused, 384.
Primacy of the popes a personal privi
lege, 153.
Princes, legitimate, always to be obeyed,
219.
Priscillian put to death by Leo I., 270.
Progress condemned by Pius IX., 199,
204, 220.
Propaganda, Society of, founded, 686.
Protestant churches and schools in Italy,
26.
 and Roman Catholic statistics com
pared, 21.
 religion, what it means, 57.
 system of government, 53 ; repudi
ated by papists, 172.
Protestantism, on trial in tbe United
States, 54 ; what it means, 55 ; the fruit
of the Reformation, 58 ; the war upon

748

LNDEX.

it, 70, 73 ; it is denounced as intolerant
and persecuting, 79 ; declared to be no
religion, 84; assailed as infidelity, 74,
114; its birth in England, 472; its
growth, 504.
Protestants denied the right to worship
in Rome under papal dominion, 234.
Provieors, statute of, 471, 474.
Pseudo-Isidorian decrees, 373.
Puritans in England, 519.
Pusey, Dr., on the canons of Nice, 318. '
R.
Ravenna given by Pepin to the pope, 330.
Raymond, Count of Toulouse, 486.
Reason, right to, denied, 143.
Rebellion in the United States, papal
hopes excited by it, 117.
Reformation in England begun by Wyc
liffe, 473.
•  in Germany, 495.
Reform, civil, impossible in papal Rome,
231.
Reichel on forged donation of Constan
tine, 253.
Relics, 362.
Religious liberty defined by American
prelates, 47.
 war, dangers of, 72.
Revolution, papal precedent for, 327.
Revolutionary governments illegitimate,
590.
Richard IL, King of England, 472.
Richelieu and the Protestants, 689.
Ridley burned, 513.
Rival popes curse each other, 475.
Rogers, John, his martyrdom, 513.
Roman Catholics in the United States,
20; how educated, 49; fully protected,
71 ; their intolerance admitted, 80.
Rome, the final judge in all things, 184;
its condition at the beginning of the
ninth century, 359; the extent of cor
ruption there, 371, 541 ; its Church en
slaved, 398 ; its civil government under
Pius IX., 231.
Royalties of St. Peter to be preserved, 42.
S.
Sabellians an early sect, 296.
Saints canonized by Pius IX., 40 ; why it
was done, 369.
Sanction, Pragmatic, 661.
Sarpi, Paul, on papal ambition, 239; on
mutilation of books at Rome, 241,
Savonarola, 525.

Sawtre, William, burned to death, 473.
Saxon and Salique emperors of Germany,
399.
Saxous and Britons, war between them,
428.
Saxons, belong to Teutonic stock, 437;
the principles carried by them to En
gland, 438.
Schism, the forty years', 536 ; healed at
last, 554.
SchismB, their causes, 280.
Schools, religious instrnction in, 188.
Segur, Mgr., his assault on Protestantism
in France, 73; condemns freedom of
thought, 85 ; his opinion on divine right
of popes and kings, 184.
Sergins, Pope, dictates who shall be king
of Brittany, 366.
Severus, Alexander, Emperor, his decis
ion, 246.
Sigismund, Emperor, 544.
Silverius, Pope, buys the pontificate, 276.
Simplicius, Pope, and the Emperor Zeno,
272 ; his vacillation, 46.
Siricius, Pope, 372, 375.
Sixtns I., Pope, his forged epistles, 376.
 II., Pope, his forged epistles, 384.
 V., Pope, makes tbe Inquisition holy,
691.
Socrates, on the baptism of Constantine,
286 ; on the Arian controversy, 292, 295 ;
on the Council of Nice, 297; on the
pope's legates there, 299 ; on approval
of its decrees by Constantine, 309.
Soissons, Battle of, 321.
Sozomen, on the baptism of Constantine,
286 ; on the Arian controversy, 292, 295 ;
on the Council of Nice, 297; on the
pope's legates tbere, 299 ; on approval
of its decrees by Constantine, 309.
Spalding, Archbishop, recognizes the re
sults of the Reformation, 59.
Spanish Inquisition justified, 81.
Spires, Diet of, 56.
Spiritual order above the temporal, 165.
State, defied, 36; subordinated to the
Church, 165 ; must be held in obedience,
167, 451, 452, 610.
Statistics, Protestant and papal, in the
United States, 21.
Stephen I., Pope, 282; was a subject of
the empire, 326 ; forgeries in his name,
384.
 III., Pope, his duplicity and treason,
329, 334 ; invokes the aid of Pepin, 341 ;
forges letter from the Apostle Peter,

INDEX.

749

342 ; justified by St. Thomas and Bel
larmine, 596.
Stephen VIL, Pope, poisons his predeces
sor, 370; exhumes and mutilates the
body of Pope Formosus, after a mock
trial, 371.
 LX., Pope, 401.
Syllabus, tbe, of Pius IX., subordinates
the State to the Church, 42 ; an analysis
of it, 211 ; condemns freedom of relig
ion, 214 ; treats Protestant faith aa no
religion, 215 ; Church independent of
State, 46.; the popes have never ex
ceeded their authority, 46. ; never been
guilty of usurpation, 46. ; the Church
may resort to force, 216; ecclesiastics
do not derive any authority from the
State, 46. ; they should not be tried by
the civil courts, 46. ; all rights derived
from the Church, 218 ; Church and State
must be united, 46. ; legitimate princes
must always be obeyed, 219; Roman
Catholic religion must be established
by law, 220 ; religions toleration an er
ror, 46. ; modern progress and civiliza
tion condemned, 46.; form of, see Ap
pendix D. T.
Tablet, New York, claims exemption of
priests from civil law, 216 ; the Church
is the supreme judge, 217.
Telesphorus, Pope, epistles forged in his
name, 376.
Temporal power, necessary to the pope,
141 ; none was conferred on Peter, 228 ;
inquiry into its origin, 236 ; none con
ferred on any of the apostles, 261,. 357 ;
none possessed by the popes in the
time of Constantine, 264 ; it is whatever
the pope claims, 148, 150 ; npne possess
ed in the time of Aurelian, 247 ; motives
for its acquisition, 339 ; absolute, claim
ed by Gregory VIL, 404, 405.
Tertullian, a Montanist, 373 ; excommu
nicated, 374 ; on Christianity in Britain,
425.
Teutonic and Latin ideas, conflict be
tween them, 26.
Theodoret, on the baptism of Constan
tine, 286 ; on the Council of Nice, 297 ;
on the pope's legates there, 299 ; on ap
proval of the decrees by Constantine,
309 ; on the number of Nicene canons,
316.
Theodoric, King, decides who shall be
pope, 274.

Theodosius, laws Of, 696.
Thomas, St., on direct power over tem
porals, 595.
Tillemont, on the Council of Nice, 302 ;
on the eighteenth canon, 311 ; on the
number of canons, 317.
Toleration condemned by Pius IX., 119.
Tracts, papal, character of in the United
States, 87.
Trent, Council of, gave priests power to
absolve sins, 191 ; to commit crime with
impunity, 115, 193, 223 ; its action con
trolled mainly by Italian bishops, 666.
Tyndal, his New Testament prohibited
in England by Henry VLH., 600.
U.
Ultramontanism the same everywhere,
. 176,179,182.
Unam Sanetam, bull of Boniface VHI.,
222, 224, 421, 527, 708, 709.
Unigenitus, bull of Clement XL, 451.
United States a Protestant country, 55.
Urban I., Pope, his forged epistles, 379.
 II. , Pope, excites a crusade, 410.
 IV., Pope, dispenses oath of the King
of England, 468.
 V., Pope, 475, 528 ; he decrees against
keeping faith with heretics, 560.
 VIIL, Pope, persecutes Galileo, 92,
686, 688 ; collects a debt by excommuni
cation, 690.

Valentine, Pope, 364.
Valentinians, an early sect, 296.
Vaudois, crusade against them, 416 ; their
massacre, 418 ; war upon them by Greg
ory XL, 475 ; measures for their extir
pation, 486.
Victor I., Pope, stirs np controversy about
Easter, 282, 373; is a Montanist, 373;
introduces excommunication, 374; be
gins war on Eastern Christians, 46.;
his forged epistles, 377 ; his example,
388.
 n., Pope, 401.
 IV., Anti -pope, 413; recognized by
several nations, 414.
Vienne, Council of, 639.
Vigilius, Pope, made so by Belisarius,
277 ; deposes and murders Pope Silve
rius, 46. ; recognized as lawful pope, 46. ;
calls the Second Council of Constan
tinople, 46.; his contest with Justinian,
46.

750

INDEX.

Villani, John, on the character and opin
ions of Boniface VHL, 223.
Virginia, Colony of, 674.
W.
Waldenses, 416 ; war upon them by Inno
cent UL, 418, 435; excommunicated,
486.
WallenBtein, 688.
Washington, his farewell addreBS, 180.
Weninger, a Jesnit, assails Protestant
ism as infidelity and heathenism, 114 ;
threatens a resort to the Inquisition,
117 ; his perversions of history, 121, 290 ;
his falsehoods about the Council of
Nice, 298 ; and the number of tbe pope's
legates, 300; and about instructions
from Rome, 304; and about the num
ber of canons, 310, 315 ; his argument,
642 ; his misquotation, 657.
Western and Latin Church, 635.
William the Conqueror, 439 ; his claim to

the English crown, 440; it was given to
him by the pope, 441 ; his efforts to de
stroy the Saxons, 442.
World, The Catholic, makes tbe Church
accredit herself above the State, 450.
Wycliffe, John, 472; attacks the Ultra
montanes, 475 ; begins the Reformation,
486. Z.
Zachary, Pope, 322; his intrigues with
Pepin, 323 ; absolves the French from
their allegiance, 324; his alliance of,
with Pepin, 325 ; the frnitB of it, 326.
Zelotes, Simon, supposed to have carried
Christianity to Britain, 425.
Zeno, Emperor, and Pope Felix IL, 271;
and Pope Simplicius, 272.
Zephyrinus, Pope, accused of Montanism,
374; epistles forged in his name, 377.
Zisca, John, stirs np tbe Bohemians, 549.
Zosimus, Pope, his forgery of canons of
the Council of Nice, 317.

THE END.

STANDARD HISTORICAL WORKS,
Published by HAEPER & BROTHERS, New York.

Haeper & Bbotherb will eend any of the following looks by mail or express,
postage or freight prepaid, to any part of the United States or Canada, on receipt
of tlie price.
For a full list of works <tf a historical character, published by Haepee & Beoth
erb, see Harper's New and Enlarged Catalogue, 300 pp. Svo, with a Complete
Analytical Index, sent by mail on receipt of Ten Cents.

ALISON'S HISTORY OF EUROPE. History of Europe. Fiest Series: from the
Commencement of the French Revolution, in 1789, to the Restoration of the
Bourbons in 1815. In addition to the Notes on Chapter LXXVL, which correct
the errors of the original work concerning the United States, a copious Analyt
ical Index has been appended to this American Edition. Second Series : from
the Fall of Napoleon, in 1815, to the Accession of Lonis Napoleon, in 1852. By
Sir Archibald Alison. 8 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $16 00; Sheep, $20 00; Half Calf,
$34 00.
ALISON'S LIFE OF MARLBOROUGH. Military Life of John, Duke of Marlbor
ough. With Maps. By Sir Archibald Alibon. 12mo, Cloth, $1 75.
ABBOTT'S FREDERICK THE GREAT. The History of Frederick the Second,
called Frederick the Great. By John S. C. Abbott. Elegantly Illustrated.
8vo, Cloth, $5 00 ; Half Calf, $7 25.
ABBOTT'S FRENCH REVOLUTION. The French Revolution of 1789, as viewed
in the Light of Republican Institutions. By John S. C. Abbott. 100 Illustra
tions.. Svo, Cloth, $5 00; Sheep, $5 50; Half Calf, $7 25.
ABBOTT'S NAPOLEON BONAPARTE. Tbe History of Napoleon Bonaparte.
By John S. C. Abbott. With Maps, Illustrations, and Portraits on Steel. 2 vols.,
8vo, Cloth, $10 00 ; Sheep, $11 00 ; Half Calf, $14 50.
ABBOTT'S NAPOLEON AT ST. HELENA. Napoleon at St. Helena ; or, Interest
ing Anecdotes and Remarkable Conversations of the Emperor during the Five
and a Half Tears of- his Captivity. Collected froin the Memorials of Las Casas,
O'Meara, Montholon, Antommarcbi, and others. By John S.C.Abbott. Illus
trations. Svo, Cloth, $5 00 ; Sheep, $5 50 ; Half Calf, $7 25.
BACON'S GENESIS OF THE NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES. The Genesis of
the New England Churches. By the Rev. Leonard Baoon, D.D. With Illus
trations. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2 50.
BRODHEAD'S HISTORY OF NEW YORK. History of the State of New York.
By John Romeyn Brodhead. 2 vols, published. Vol. I., 1609-1664 ; VoL IL,
1664-1691. Svo, Cloth, $3 00 each.
CARLYLE'S OLIVER CROMWELL. Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell,
including the Supplement to the First Edition. With Elucidations. By Thomas
Carlyle. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3 50 ; Sheep, $4 30 ; Half Calf, $7 00.
CARLYLE'S FREDERICK THE GREAT. History of Friedrich II, called Fred
erick the Great. By Thomas Carlyle. Portraits, Maps, Plans, &c. 6 vols.,
12mo, Cloth, $12 00 ; Sheep, $14 40 ; Half Calf, $22 50.
CARLYLE'S FRENCH REVOLUTION. History of the French Revolution. By
Thomas Carlyle. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3 50 ; Sheep, $4 30 ; Half Calf, $7 00.
DRAPER'S INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPE. A History of the
Intellectual Development of Europe. By John W. Deapke, M.D., LL.D. 2 vols.,
12mo, Cloth, $3 00 ; Half Calf, $6 50.
DRAPER'S AMERICAN CIVIL WAR. History of the American Civil War. By
John W. Drapee, M.D., LL.D. In Three Vols. Cloth, Beveled Edges, $10 50 ;
Sheep, $12 00 ; Half Calf, $17 25.
GIBBON'S ROME. History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. By
Edward Gibbon. With Notes, by Rev. H. H. Milman and M. Guizot. To which
is added a complete Index ofthe whole Work. 6 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $6 00 ; Sheep,
$8 40; Half Calf, $16 50.

2 Harper 6° Brothers' Standard Historical Works.
GIESELER'S ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. A Text-Book of Church History. By
Dr. John C. L. Gieseleb. Translated from the Fourth Revised German Edition.
By Samuel Davidson, LL.D., and Rev. John Winstanley Hull, M.A. A new
American Edition, Revised and Edited by Rev. Henry B. Smith, D.D., Professor
in the Union Theological Seminary, New York. Four Volumes, 8vo, Ready. (Vol.
V. in Preparation.) Price per volume, Cloth, $2 25 ; Sheep, $2 75 ; Half Calf, $4 50.
GREEN'S SHORT HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE. A Short History of
the English People. By J. R. Geeen, M.A., Examiner in the School of Modern
History, Oxford. With TableB and Colored Maps. 8vo, Cloth, $1 75.
GROTE'S HISTORY OF GREECE. A History of Greece, from the Earliest Period
to the Close of tbe Generation Contemporary with Alexander the Great. By
George Geote. 12 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $18 00 ; Sheep, $22 SO ; Half Calf, $39 00.
HALLAM'S WORKS:
THE MIDDLE AGES. View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages.
By Henry Hallam, LL.D., F.R.A.S. 8vo, Cloth, $2 00 ; Sheep, $2 50.
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. The Constitutional History
of England, from the Accession of Henry VIL to the Death of George IL By
Heney Hallam, LL.D., F.R A.S. 8vo, Cloth, $2 00 ; Sheep, $2 50.
LITERATURE OF EUROPE. Introduction to the Literature of Europe, in
the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Centuries. By Heney Hallam,
LL.D., F.R.A.S. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $4 00 ; Sheep, $5 00.
STUDENT'S MIDDLE AGES. View of the State of Europe during the Middle
Ages. By Henry Hallam, LL.D., F.R.A.S. Incorporating in the Text the
Author's Latest Researches, with Additions from Recent Writers, and Adapt
ed to the Use of Students. Edited by William Smith, D.C.L.,LL.D. 12mo,
Cloth, $2 00.
STUDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. The Constitutional History of
England, from the Accession of Henry VII. to the Death of George II. By
Henry Hallam, LL.D., F.R.A.S. Incorporating the Author's Latest Addi
tions and Corrections, and Adapted to the Use of Students. Edited by Wil
liam Smith, D.C.L., LL.D. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.
HAYDN'S DICTIONARY OF DATES. Haydn's Dictionary of Dates, relating to
all Ages and Nations. For Universal Reference. Edited by Benjamin Vin
cent, Assistant Secretary and Keeper of the Library of the Royal Institution of
Great Britain ; and Revised for the Use of American Readers. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00 ;
Sheep, $6 00 ; Half Calf, $7 25.
HELPS'S SPANISH CONQUEST. The Spanish Conquest in America, and its Rela
tion to the History of Slavery, and to the Government of Colonies. By Arthur
Helps. 4 vols., large 12mo, Cloth, $1 50 each ; Half Calf, $3 25 each.
HILDRETH'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. The History of the United
States. First Series : From the First Settlement of the Country to the Adop
tion ofthe Federal Constitution. Second Series: From the Adoption ofthe
Federal Constitution to the End of the Sixteenth Congress. By Ricuaed
Hildreth. 6 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $18 00 ; Sheep, $21 00 ; Half Calf, $31 50.
HUME'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. History of England, from the Invasion of
Julius Csesar to the Abdication of James IL, 1683. By David Hume. With the
Author's Last Corrections and Improvements. To which is prefixed a short
Account of his Life, written by himself. 6 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $6 00; Sheep,
$8 40; Half Calf, $16 50.
KINGLAKE'S CRIMEAN WAR. The Invasion of the Crimea: its Origin, and an
Account of its Progress down to the Death of Lord Raglan. By Alexander
William Kinglake. With Maps and Plans. Three Volumes now ready. 12mo,
Cloth, $2 00 per vol. ; Half Calf, $3 75 per vol.
LEWIS'S HISTORY OF GERMANY. A History of Germany, from the Earliest
Times. Founded on Dr. David Mulleb's "History of the German People."
By Chaelton T. Lewis. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2 50.
MACAULAY'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. The History of England from the Acces
sion of James II. By Lord Maoaulay. In Five Volumes.— A handsome Octavo
Library Edition, complete. With elaborate Index, of indispensable value to a
Library Edition. Cloth, $10 00 ; Sheep, $12 50 ; Half Calf, $21 25.— A popular
Duodecimo Edition, complete. With elaborate Index. Cloth, $6 00 : SheeD.
$7 00; Half Calf, $13 75. *'

Harper <5-> Brothers' Standard Historical Works. 3
LOSSING'S FIELD-BOOK OF THE REVOLUTION. Pictorial Field-Book of the
Revolution ; or, Illustrations by Pen and Pencil ofthe History, Biography, Scen
ery, Relics, and Traditions of the War for Independence. By Benson J. Lossing.
2 vols., Svo, Cloth, $14 00 ; Sheep, $15 00 ; Half Calf, $18 00.
LOSSING'S FIELD-BOOK OF THE WAR OF 1812. Pictorial Field-Book of tbe
War of 1812 ; or, Illustrations by Pen aud Pencil of the History, Biography, Scen
ery, Relics, and Traditions of the last War for American Independence. By Ben
son J. Lossing. With S82 Illustrations, engraved on Wood by Lossing & Barritt,
chiefly from Original Sketches by the Author. Complete in One Volume, 1084
pages, large 8vo. Price, in Cloth, $7 00; Sheep, $8 50; Full Roan, $9 00; Half
Calf or Half Morocco extra, $10 00.
MACKINTOSH'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. A History of England to the Seven
teenth Century. By Sir Jakss Mackintosh. 3 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3 00.
MOSHEIM'S ECCLESIASTICAti HISTORY. Ancient and Modern Ecclesiastical
History, in which the Rise, Progress, and Variation of Church Power are con
sidered in their Connectica with the State of Learning and Philosophy, and the
Political History of Europe during that Period. Translated, with Notes, <fcc, by
A. Maclaine, D.D. A new Edition, continued to 1S26, by C. Coote, LL.D. 2
vols., Svo, Cloth, $4 00; Sheep, $5 00.
MOTLEY'S DUTCH REPUBLIC. The Rise of the Dutch Republic. A History.
Bv John Lotiirop Motley, LL.D., D.C.L. With a Portrait of William of Orange.
3 vols., Svo, Cloth, $10 50 ; Sheep, $12 00 ; Half Calf, Extra, $17 25.
MOTLEY'S UNITED NETHERLANDS. History of the United Netherlands: from
the Death of William the Silent to the Twelve Years' Truce. With a full View
ofthe English-Dutch Struggle against Spain, and ofthe Origin and Destruction
of the Spanish Armada. By John Lotiikop Motley, LL.D., D.C.L. Portraits. 4
vols., 8vo, Cloth, $14 00; Sheep, $16 00; Half Calf, Extra, $23 00.
MOTLEY'S LIFE AND DEATH OF JOHN OF BARNEVELD. Life and Death of
John of Barneveld, Advocate of Holland. With a View ofthe Primary Causes
and Movements of "The Thirty- Years' War." By John Lotheop Motley,D.C.L.
With Illustrations. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $7 00 ; Sheep, $8 00 ; Half Calf, $11 50.
NEAL'S HISTORY OF THE PURITANS. History of the Puritans, or Protestant
Non-conformists ; from the Reformation in 1518 to the Revolution in 1688 ; com
prising an Account of their Principles, Sufferings, and the Lives and Characters
of their most considerable Divines.- By Daniel Neal, M.A. With Notes by
J. O. Choules, D.D. 2 vols., Svo, Cloth, $4 00 ; Sheep, $5 00 ; Half Calf, $8 25.
RAWLINSON'S MANUAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY. A Manual of Ancient His
tory, from the Earliest Times to the Fall of the Western Empire. Comprising
the History of Chaldsea, Assyria, Media, Babylonia, Lydia, Phoenicia, Syria, Judsea,
Egypt, Carthage, Persia, Greece, Macedonia, Parthia, and Rome. By George
Rawlinson, M.A., Camden Professor of Ancient History in the University of
Oxford. 12mo, Cloth, $2 50.
ROBERTSON'S WORKS:
AMERICA. History of the Discovery of America. By William Robeet60n,
LL.D. With an Account of his Life and Writings. With Questions for the
Examination of Students, by John Frost, A.M. Illustrations. 8vo, Clotb,
$2 25 ; Sheep, $2 75 ; Half Calf, $4 50.
CHARLES V. History of the Emperor Charles V. ; with a View of tbe Progress
of Society in Europe to the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century. By William
Robeetson, LL.D. With Questions for the Examination of Students, by John
Feost, A.M. Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $2 25 ; Sheep, $2 75 ; Half Calf, $4 50.
SCOTLAND AND ANCIENT INDIA. A History of Scotland during the Reigns
of Oueen Mary and James VL, till his Accession to the Crown of England.
With a Review of the Scottish History previous to that Period. Included in
the same Volnme is a Dissertation concerning Ancient India. By William
RoberSon, LL.D. 8vo, Cloth, $2 25 ; Sheep, $2 75 ; Half Calf, $4 50.
<mtt FS'S HISTORY OF THE HUGUENOTS. The Huguenots ; their Settlements,
Churches and Industries in England and Ireland. By Samuel Smiles, Author
nf "Self Helri " " Character," "Thrift," "Life of the Stephensons," &c. With
an Appendix relating to the Huguenots in America. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2 00.
othtt ir<j'q TTTTOTTENOTS AFTER THE REVOCATION. The Huguenots in France
SMIafter th? Revocation of the Edict of Nantes : with a Visit to the Country of the
Vaudois. By Samuel Smiles. Crown 8vo, Cloth, %l 00.

4 Harper &f Brothers' Standard Historical Works.
STEPHEN'S HISTORY OP FRANCE. Lectures on the History of France. By Sir
James Stephen, K.C.B. Svo, Cloth, $3 00 ; Half Calf, $5 25.
STRICKLAND'S QUEENS OP SCOTLAND. Lives of the Queens of Scotland and
English Princesses connected with the Regal Succession of Great Britain. By
Agnes Strickland. Complete in 8 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $12 00 ; Half Calf, $26 00.
THE STUDENT'S SERIES. With Maps and Woodcuts.
THE STUDENT'S OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY ; from the Creation to the
Return of the Jews from Captivity. Edited by William Smith, LL.D. 12mo,
715 pages, Cloth, $2 00.
THE STUDENT'S NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. With an Introduction,
connecting the History of the Old and New Testaments. Edited by William
Smith, LL.D. 12mo, 780 pages, Cloth, $2 00.
THE STUDENT'S ANCIENT HISTORY OF THE EAST; from the Earliest
Times to the Conquest of Alexander the Great. Including Egypt, Assyria,
Babylonia, Media, Persia, Asia Minor, and Phoenicia. By Philip Smith, B.A.,
Author of the " History of tbe World." 12mo, 649 pages, Cloth, $2 00.
THE STUDENT'S GREECE. A History of Greece, from the Earliest Times to
the Roman Conquest. With Supplementary Chapters on the History of Lit
erature and Art. By William Smith, LL.D. Revised, with an Appendix, by
George W. Greene, A.M. 12mo, 738 pages, Cloth, $2 00.
THE STUDENT'S COX'S GREECE. A General History of Greece, from the
Earliest Period to the Death of Alexander the Great. With a Sketch of the
Subsequent History to the Preseut Time. By George W. Cox, M.A. 12mo,
737 pages, Cloth, $2 00.
THE STUDENT'S ROME. A History of Rome, from the Earliest Times to the
Establishment of tbe Empire. With Chapters on the History of Literature and
Art. By H. G. Liddell, D.D., Dean of Christ Church, Oxford. 12mo, 778 pages,
Cloth, $2 00.
THE STUDENT'S MERIVALE'S ROME. A General History of Rome, from
the Foundation ofthe Citv to the Fall of Augustulus. B.C. 753— A.D. 476. By
Charles Merivai.e, D.D.,"Dean of Ely. 12mo, 700 pages, Cloth, $2 00.
THE STUDENT'S GIBBON. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire. By Edward Gibbon. Abridged. Incorporating the Researches of Re
cent Commentators. By William Smith, LL.D. 12mo, 705 pages, Cloth, $2 00.
THE STUDENT'S FRANCE. A History of France, from the Earliest Times to
the Establishment of the Second Empire in 1852. By Rev. W. H. Jervis, M.A.
12mo, 742 pages, Cloth, $2 00.
THE STUDENT'S HUME. A History of England, from the Earliest Times to
the Revolution in 1688. By David Hume. Abridged. Incorporating the Cor
rections and Researches of Recent Historians, and continued down to the
Year 1868. 12mo, 805 pages, Cloth, $2 00.
THE STUDENT'S STRICKLAND. Lives of the Queens of England, from the
Norman Conqnest. By Agnes Strickland. Author of "Lives of the Queens
of Scotland." Abridged by the Author. Revised and Edited by Caroline G.
Paeker. 12mo, 681 pages, Cloth, $2 00.
THE STUDENT'S HALLAM'S CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
The Constitutional History of England, from the Accession of Henry VII. to
the Death of George II. By Heney Hallam, LL.D., F.R.A.S. Incorporating
. the Author's Latest Additions and Corrections, and adapted to the Use of Stu
dents. By William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D. 12mo, 747 pages, Cloth, $2 00.
THE STUDENT'S HALLAM'S MIDDLE AGES. View of the State of Europe
during the Middle Ages. By Henry Hallam, LL.D., F.R.A.S. Incorpora
ting in the Text the Author's Latest Researches, with Additions from Recent
Writers, and adapted to the Use of Students. Edited by William Smith,
D.C.L., LL.D. 12mo, 708 pages, Cloth, $2 00.
THIRLWALL'S GREECE. History of Greece. By Rev. Connop Thirlwall, D.D.
2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $4 00 ; Sheep, $5 00 ; Half Calf, $8 50.
TICKNOR'S HISTORY OF SPANISH LITERATURE. History of Spanish Litera
ture. With Criticisms on the particular Works, and Biographical Notices of
Prominent Writers. By George Tioknor. 3 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $5 00 ; Half Calf,
$11 75.
WHITE'S MASSACRE OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW. The Massacre of St. Bartholo
mew : Preceded by a History of the Religious Wars in the Reign of Charles IX
By Henry Wiiite, M.A. With Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $1 75.