Continued from Chapter VI. Claim of Divine Power.

The Encyclical and Syllabus of Pius IX.—The Doctrines of the Encyclical. —It includes Bulls of other Popes.—The Doctrines of the Syllabus.—Opposed to Modern 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 courageously 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 adversary 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 omnipotence, that he may mold all his followers into compact and unbroken columns, with but a single impulse in every heart, and but a single thought in every mind. He invokes the aid of the Almighty arm, but the voice of his invocation dies away amidst the desolation of imperial Rome. He tries to shake the earth with the thunder of excommunication, 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 separation between all the nations, and to resolve the world into one great “Christian commonwealth “—a grand “holy, empire”—subject to his single will, and bowing before his single scepter! He claims authority, by virtue of the divine appointment, to enter every nation, to defy every government, to break the allegiance of every people, and to pluck up by the roots whatsoever he shall find that bars his progress 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 be 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 passed by without more detail. Pope Pius IX., however much we may resist his efforts to restore the papacy, is, on account 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 and Syllabus of 1864 should be made, as these celebrated official documents were issued ex cathedra, and undoubtedly contain the most authoritative exposition of the papal policy.(*)

This examination may be premised, however, by the remark, 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 important 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 sentiments then prevailing among the Roman Catholics of Europe, 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 representation 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 ambition 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 capital 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 expressed himself on these subjects, that it is not at all difficult 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 country, what particular principles of our Government have excited his hatred, and what other principles he and his adherents 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 order. 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 divine 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 matters only which do not concern the Church are temporals, that all matters which do concern it, either directly or indirectly, are involved in spirituals, and that the pope has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over these.

The Encyclical sets out by denouncing “the nefarious attempts 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 political 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 of the age,” and to “exhort all the sons of the 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.”

Proceeding 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 consummation of the world, not only over individuals, but nations, peoples, and sovereigns.”

After thus generalizing, he advances to specific allegations. He considers it “impious 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 govern 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 constructed so as to inflict these penalties when the laws of the Roman Catholic Church are violated. The withholding this power of punishment, to protect “the Catholic religion,” but no other, he calls a totally false notion of social government, “because it leads to other erroneous opinions most 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 forward openly all their ideas whatsoever, either by speaking, in print, or by any other method!”

All these principles are essentially fundamentals in our form of government, and they could not be destroyed without the immediate overthrow of all our civil institutions. Yet the pope declares that they are “pernicious to the Catholic 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 citizenship, “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 doctrines as these grafted into its profession of faith that our Government is to be saved from destruction? We understand well enough what the pope means; it is to declare that in no Roman Catholic government could such “pernicious” principles exist; that the anathemas of the 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 together, showing that he promulgates a politico—religious faith: first, he denounces the idea that “the will of the people, manifested by public opinion,” can ever become the law of a country, independent of the “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 vicegerent, considers unjust can become legitimated, by the fact of its existence, for any length of time; and, consequently, that the Government of the United States, being 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 exist 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 dogmatically, manner, when we shall come to consider the modes contrived by the papacy to release the Roman 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 socialism and communism—with which he has invariably classed 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 of the 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 institutions, mark well his words—these “presume, with extraordinary 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—because they are considered as having all the solemnity of law—of his predecessors, Clement XII., Benedict XIV., Pius VII., and Leo XII., which, among other things, condemn all secret societies, and especially freemasonry, and brand, with their heaviest curses, their followers and partisans. He denounces those who deny to the Church the right to “bind the consciences of the faithful in the temporal order of things;” and also those who say “that the right of the Church is not competent to restrain, with temporal penalties, the violators of her laws.” He declares it 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 consistent with the divine plan, to maintain that it is both distinct and independent. He characterizes those as audacious who assert that his judgments and decrees, concerning 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 infallible 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 combined authority of the Church cannot 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 utter 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 malignity of the prosecutor than the skill of a professional adept. He takes care that there shall be no misconception 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 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 letter, and we wish that they may be held as reprobated, denounced, and condemned by all the children of the Catholic Church.”

But the pope is not yet content—his work is not yet accomplished. He next turns his attention to the free discussion of the 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 Emperor Zeno. And he quotes approvingly from an encyclical letter of Pius VII., in 1800, this 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.” (See Appendix C.)

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 ordinary reader, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant. The hierarchy understand it perfectly well: if they were addressed by the pope in cabalistic words (having secret or hidden meaning), they would be furnished 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 private 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 societies, 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 reaffirms 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 writing,” 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 commanded 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 of the Church;” wherefore he beseeches them to “defend the liberty and prosperity 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, 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 —reaffirming 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, delivered in former times by apostolic authority, against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the Holy Scriptures, translated into the vulgar tongue.”(Dowling’s “History of Romanism,” p. 623.)

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 infallibility, 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 increasing intelligence of the world, and to resist the encroachments made upon the papacy by the open Bible of Protestantism, obedience is so far paid to that part of the injunction 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 possess a Bible, and thousands in the United States who know of its contents only what their priests choose to communicate.

But the bull of Gregory XVI., of 1832—referred to and endorsed 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 anathematizes “liberty of conscience” as a “most pestiferous error,” from which spring revolutions, corruption, contempt of sacred things, holy institutions, and laws, and, “in one word, that pest, of all others most to be dreaded in a state, unbridled liberty of opinion!”

That also, of 1844, is most expressive 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!” (Dowling’s “History of Romanism,” pp. 619, 620.) like the people of the United States— result which the papacy will never tolerate, and to prevent which Pius IX. was always ready to turn the bayonets of his “papal zouaves” (soldiers) against his subjects, until they fled before the artillery of Victor Emmanuel.

But this is not all that is secretly embodied in this Encyclical. It has already been seen that it refers to, and approves, 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 Roman 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 himself up as a pontiff of the Middle Agrees.” (“History of the Popes,” by Cormenin, vol. ii., p. 376.) This same historian, alluding to the bull which he issued against the Freemasons, 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 anyone 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 corporal punishment, to denounce those whom they suspected 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, lie, at first secretly, and afterward openly, aided them in arresting the intellectual progress of the people, and in their opposition to the enlightenment advocated and excited by the philosophers and encyclopedists of France, under the lead of Roussean, Montesqulieu, 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 distinguished 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 experienced rowers” to guide the papacy and save it from “shipwreck and death.” (“History of the Popes,” by Cormenin, vol, ii., p. 423.) But his condemnation of Bible societies, 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 wickedness of this nefarious scheme. It is evident, from experience, that the Holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit. Warn the people entrusted to your care, that they fall not into the snares prepared for their everlasting ruin.”(*)

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 VI.”(Cormenin, vol. ii., p. 426.)

He promulgated the bull “Quod hoc ineunte saeculo,” which fixed a universal jubilee for the year 1825, in order to “revive the trade in dispensations, indulgences, benefices, and absolutions.” (Ibid.) 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 errors,” and his denunciation of them and their teachings, in the following words:

“This sect, covered externally by the flattering appearance 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 opinion which suits his private judgment….. This doctrine, though seducing and sensible in appearance, is profoundly absurd; and I cannot warn you too much against the impiety of these maniacs.” (Ibid., vol. ii., p. 427.)

Passing then to the “deluge of pernicious books” which had obtained circulation, Pope Leo XII. exhibits also his uncompromising animosity to Bible societies, which, he said, were spreading “audaciously over the whole earth,” and to the publication of translations of the 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 the holy Scriptures from being made common.” Thus expressing 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.” (*)

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 realize 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 cannot 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 prescribe upon all those who dare to violate any of these laws!

The Constitution secures the right to every man of worshiping 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 guarantees liberty of speech and of the press: yet the pope says that this is “the liberty of perdition,” and should not be tolerated.

The Constitution provides for its own perpetuity by making its principles “the supreme law of the 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 churches, 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 the 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 of the Catholic faith,” with himself alone as the source and interpreter of law.

The Constitution repudiates all “royal power:” 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 circulation of the Bible, and the right of private judgment in interpreting it: yet the pope denounces this, and says that the Roman Catholic Church is the only “living authority” which has the right to interpret it, and that its interpretation should be the only one allowed, and should be protected by law, while all others should be condemned and disallowed.

In all these respects, and upon each of these important and fundamental ideas of government, there is an irreconcilable difference between the Constitution of the United States and the papal principles announced by this encyclical letter. The two classes of principles cannot both exist, anywhere, at the same time. Where one is, there it is impossible 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 people to be obedient to princes, and all princes obedient to him! He would exterminate freemasonry by making “corporal punishment” the penalty of any association or fellowship with its members, and death the penalty of uniting with the order! He would “repress, confound, annihilate the unbridled 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 “vigorous 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, however, to analyze this most remarkable paper, it should be observed that it was put forth by the pope expressly as a judgment against all the progressive nations—against all existing civil and religious institutions not in compatibility 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, under their guidance, intended it as an arraignment of the whole non—Catholic world. To say that he meant to condemn 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 Catholicism 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 substitution of constitutional and representative government in place of the absolute monarchies which had so long held Europe in bondage, the general diffusion of liberal sentiments, such as favored the erection of popular governments, the growing intelligence of the masses; seeing all this, and finding his throne in a tottering condition—gradually moving from under him—he issued this pronunciamento, 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, everything which has tended to carry the nations away from the papacy, its censures were designed, manifestly, to fall most heavily upon those who had contributed, in the greatest degree, to this result, upon the United States especially, for nowhere else have the principles it anathematizes been carried so far.

As a Protestant people, we built our civil institutions upon the popular plan, because that is the most direct road to political and religious 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 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 Constitution, is based upon the essential principles of true Christianity, and shelters, protects, and defends the worship of God, in a manner acceptable to Him, and according to the teachings of the 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 infidels, 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 sixteenth 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 institutions; and commands the defenders of the papacy everywhere to unite in executing the judgment. It is, consequently, 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 order 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 liberalism such as we boast of, all “recent civilization,” is accursed of God; and that heaven can be reached only by resistance to such impiety! It recognizes no form of Christianity but the Roman Catholic—no civilization but Roman Catholic civilization; whatever does not lean upon the papacy for support is infidelity, atheism, or, at best, materialism, which, in order to serve God truly, must be exterminated! It points out no source of authority but the royal 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 Constitution. It is a flagrant act of aggression, unparalleled, except in the conduct of former popes—such an act as cannot pass unnoticed and unrebuked by the people of the United States, unless they are ready to give up their freedom 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 father, 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 papal censure. It contains eighty propositions, arranged in ten sections, each section constituting a distinct class of errors. That the reader may see that what has just been said is not undeservedly harsh, a few of its leading propositions will be stated, with brief explanations of their meaning, to aid him in the examination of the document for himself. (Appendix D.)

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 condemnation of the principle upon which all our American constitutions are based. It makes all these constitutions heretical; and as all the supporters of the papacy consider it their bounden duty, in the proper service of God, to oppose heresy, 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 religion, or to consult our own consciences upon the subject, we must be compelled to take his— that is, to become Roman Catholics; for the absence of freedom implies, necessarily, that there is a power to command.

As belonging to the same class, Proposition XVIII. condemns 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 that Protestants have any Christian faith. Hence it is the duty of all Roman Catholics to destroy it—which, in this country, can only be done by destroying our 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 without 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 governing everybody 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 favors the erection of a privileged class, superior to all other classes, and, therefore, having 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 endorses all that any of the popes have done in reference to dethroning kings, releasing their subjects from their allegiance, and bestowing heretical governments upon Roman Catholic princes. It claims also that all the popes, from the beginning, have been infallible 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 of force, or any direct or indirect temporal power.” This necessarily affirms the opposite of the condemned error, and means that the Roman Catholic Church, and himself 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 distinctly claimed that the Roman Catholic clergy, wherever they may be, possess immunity above the law, which elevates 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 XXXI., 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 institutions, 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 clergy 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 ecclesiastical courts.” (New York Tablet, April 8th, 1871.)

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.” (*)

Thus the State would become, in every sense, subordinated to the Roman Catholic Church, and every one of its laws which the pope should, either by himself or through his hierarchy, decide to be contrary to the law of God, would fall, because not binding on the conscience. And thus the law 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 destroyed, because not binding upon the Roman Catholic conscience! The pope understands this. All the Roman Catholic 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, considered both in itself and in its relation to the Church,” Proposition XXXIX. condemns the principle that “the Republic is the origin and source of all rights which are not circumscribed 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 conflicting 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 lawmaking power of this country, and govern it and all its citizens 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 requires his hierarchy to denounce it, and they obey him. He and they would have the Church and the State united, the Church governing the State. And thus they would put an end to our Government, which should be held to be the object of every man, priest or layman, who advocates the doctrines of this extraordinary document.

In the class entitled “Errors concerning Natural and Christian Ethics,” Proposition LXIII. condemns the principle 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 of the temporal 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 command, 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 monarchy 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 asserts that “in 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.” 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 cannot 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 toleration stigmatized as an error, as against the divine command, and as inconsistent with the interests of the Roman Catholic 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 Protestant 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 medieval 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 introduced.” 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 representative, he plants his feet upon them all. As the sovereign lord of the universe, he repudiates, denounces, and scorns them. The world must not go forward, but backward— 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 thousands 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 guidance of a priesthood who have tortured their ignorant acquiescence 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 together in few, if any, of their papers or periodicals. A leading Jesuit journal of New York (Saint Peter, June 24th, 1871.) has published the Syllabus, but without note or comment. It has taken care, however, to accompany it, in the same paper, with documents of kindred 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 Easter—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 religion 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 authority, 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 infallibility. 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 “medieval hierarchic system.” But it is so made as to bear the appearance of sincerity 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 doctrine [infallibility] as dangerous to the State, only one is dogmatic, 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.” (Hallam’s “Middle Ages,” chap. vii., p. 304, Harper & Brother’s edition.) 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 commit incest, robberies, and murders without being criminal, and that it was heresy even to accuse him of having sinned;” 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, and had several children by both of them.” (Cormenin, vol. ii., pp. 35, 36.)

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 ridiculous; 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.” (Ibid., p. 37.)

This pope was, of course, infallible (!) by virtue of the decision of the 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 reminded, 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 her ministry invests them.” (“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.)

And being incapable of committing any error in matters concerning the powers of the papacy and the welfare of the Church, being, in these respects, the “vicegerent of God,” though as a man he was utterly debased, his bull Uncam 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 “dogmatic,” and is now a part of the religious faith of the Roman Catholic Church, which all its members are bound to entertain, 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 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 interpretation, 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 of the 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.”(*)

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 “would have saved society!” Its justification will be found in the complete wreck of all the Protestant and non—Catholic nations, whose people are to be saved from themselves by being made the degraded and miserable subjects of the papacy. And then, when the Jesuit shout of gratified revenge shall go up from Rome, and the debris 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 Inquisition, or consumed by its re-enkindled flames.

Continued in Chapter VIII. Pope’s Temporal Power Not Divine

Download a PDF file of this article.

Please follow and like us: