Continued from Chapter IV. Papal Hopes of Success in the United States.

The Pope’s Infallibility makes him a Domestic Prince in all Nations.—The Popes never Exceeded the Limits of their Authority.—The Temporal Power Divinely Conferred as Part of the Spiritual.—The Pope to be King everywhere.—No Right of Complaint against Him.—First Dogmatic Constitution of the Late Council.—Decree of the Pope’s Infallibility.—Archbishop 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.

Note: When you consider all the demands of the Pope, just think of all the demands the god of the world, Satan, must want over every person on earth.

Isaiah 14:13,14  For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Is there any difference between the Devil and the Pope? They both are trying to usurp God’s authority over mankind!

IT is not probable that any candid man, whatever his attachment 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 getting away from the teachings of the apostolic fathers, and building up the papal system, its defenders can not reasonably expect that, in this age, it will escape the investigation of Protestant communities, compelled, as they now are, to defend 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 political 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 comprehensiveness of this infallibility, as it was claimed by the Jesuits to exist, before the decree of the late Lateran Council. Even if the investigation of it were to stop at this point, it 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 he owes allegiance. But the subject is so fruitful of inquiry, that it would require many volumes to exhaust it, each step making the design more apparent.

A work was, not long ago, republished and circulated in the United States, which is stamped with “the approbation of the Lord Bishop of Beverly,” in England, by way of giving it ecclesiastical authority. The American hierarchy manifestly consider this book an important auxiliary in propagating the true faith. It has this imposing and attractive title, “His Holiness Pope Pius IX. and the Temporal Rights of the Holy See, as involving Religious, Social, and Political Interests of the Whole World.” The perusal of it will not only show with what intense earnestness the cause of the papacy is defended, but explain the grounds upon which that defense is rested. Its avowals are so clearly and frankly made as to entitle the author to our respect on account of his candor, however much we may disagree with and resist his theory.

Not content with treating of the temporal power of the pope, merely in its religious and social aspects, the author 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.” (Ibid.)

Accepting this proposition as true, he leaves us to the logical inference that we owe a secondary duty to government and society, in all those matters in which 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, he said: “It is not our will, it is the will of God, whose place we occupy on earth!” (“His Holiness Pope Pius IX.,” etc., by M. I. Rhodes, p. 28. ) And thus the example of this pope, who blasphemously claimed equality with God and put himself 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;” (Ibid., pp. 47, 48.) including, 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 Protestant countries, he endeavors to quiet all their scruples of conscience by this artful and insidious argument:

“Suppose it be said, ‘I acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Holy Father; but why am I, an Englishman [or American, we may add], to come forward in a political way, and use all my exertions to protect the temporal rights of a foreign prince?’ My answer at once is plain. The pope is not a foreign prince to any Christian, to any human being.” (Ibid., p. 48.)

The reader should not pass this by too quickly; it is worthy of much reflection. The last proposition is stated negatively, 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 government 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 governor 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 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 government, and to require of him so to act and vote that the universality 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 sovereignty. 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 appointment 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 insists, 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 Church are all such suppositions. First, it is false that the Roman pontiffs have ever exceeded the limits of their power, and interfered 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 concern the ecclesiastical discipline called exterior, then, of two things, one: either men ignore, or else they resist, the divine and immutable organization of the Catholic Church. It has ever been, and ever will remain, stable, and can not be subject to change, especially in those countries where the proper liberty and security of the Catholic Church have been assured by the decrees of the head of the state. In fact, as it is of faith that the Church is one, and that the Roman pontiff 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 a 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 fail in the faith due to the Catholic 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 (sic, John 10:5 says flee) from ‘the stranger, 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 stranger 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 human tie of nationality, as they 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 Catholic Church.”(*)

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 conversion 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 condemning 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 borders, 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 domestic governor, he has also the right to require of the faithful 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 dissenter 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 of the 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 announcement, made ex cathedra by the “vicar of Christ” himself, that it is a part of the religious faith of the Church that these prerogatives shall be conceded to him; in other words, that he is a domestic governor throughout all the United States, that all the faithful are bound to obey him in whatsoever 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 hereafter 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 whatsoever 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 affairs” 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, (“His Holiness Pope Pius IX.,” etc., by M. I. Rhodes, p. 49.) 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 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 absolutely 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; (His Holiness Pope Pius IX.,” etc., by M. I. Rhodes, p. 139.) that is, that he must be above all governments 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 universal 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 political 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. Whatever 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 of the 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 of the United States should 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 of the papal theory 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 of the Church,” holds the papal states” for the good of the Church.” Therefore, he says again, “he is not a foreign power in that sense of the word;”(“His Holiness Pope Pius IX.,” etc., by M. I. Rhodes, p. 51) still holding fast to the idea that the kingship of the pope is necessary wherever he is the “head of the 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 possible for a Roman Catholic government to invade the United 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 the 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 universality of authority!

It is scarcely necessary to say that, in this supposed case, there are many thousands of Roman Catholic laymen in the United States who would refuse to obey such a command, were it ever issued by the pope; for then they would realize 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 oppressive 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 excommunicated by the pope.

See how this author clings to his favorite idea when, elsewhere, 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 necessary accompaniment (I use the word “necessary” not in its absolute, but its ordinary, sense) of their spiritual sovereignty, 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 miraculously 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 circumstances, was a miracle; it ceased with her infancy. When she reached maturity, God supplied her with temporal sovereignty, which, though no part of her essence, is nevertheless her natural and proper mode of action, and, as such, her right.”(“His Holiness Pope Pius IX.,” etc., by M. I. Rhodes, pp. 52, 53.)

What an admirable specimen of consistent and methodical 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 power;” but that, after it “reached maturity” and became strong, it could not exist without having “temporal sovereignty” 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 confession, that, throughout the early ages of Christianity, when Christians at Rome and elsewhere were known by the purity 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 other 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 asserted 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 temporal 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 present, 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 striving 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 authority—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 decrees, his word, and his sacred person, should enjoy the fill 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.”(“His Holiness Pope Pius IX.,” etc., by M. I. Rhodes, p. 98.)

The Bishop of Orleans might as well have added that the pope should rise above all governments too; for this is involved 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 the world. It is the papacy which preserves it from moral decay and death.” “The papacy 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.” (His Holiness Pope Pius IX.,” etc., by M. I. Rhodes, pp. 128, 129.)

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 renew under a pseudo—Christianity the desolation of paganism. “(Ibid., p. 132.)

In all this we have it plainly and distinctly avowed that the authority which the pope acquires by virtue of his possession of temporal power is absolutely necessary to his government of the 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 subject to a monarch. It must follow, consequently, that wheresoever 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 papal advocates in this country talk about the freedom of the pope, the freedom of the Church, and all that sort of thing, 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, worthy of excommunication. If, then, it requires this temporal power to raise the Church above the world, so that the papacy 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 Lateran decree of papal infallibility was passed; and the papacy 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 command 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 obedience. Whatever position he may fill in any of the relations of life, if he be a Christian, he acknowledges his responsibility 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 of the 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 concentration 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 propriety and expediency of his decrees. He considers him as occupying 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 everything the pope shall decree, and pronounces all to be heretics and disbelievers 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 baptism, with unquestioning submission and obedience of the intellect and the will.(*)….

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 Almighty God, as a preliminary to our submission. We are to take with unquestioning docility whatever instruction the Church [the pope] gives us.” (The Catholic World, August, 1871, vol. xiii., pp. 580-589.)

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 whether, as it regards each individual, God foreknew which of these he would prefer to follow—that belongs to the theologians; 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 sufficient 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 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 cannot 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 given him as a monitor to approve the right and condemn the wrong; a duty which, blunt it as he may, it never fails to discharge. If, then, he surrenders his “intellect and will” into the keeping of another, no matter who, and yields “unquestioning 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 concerns faith and morals, but also in what concerns the government and discipline of the Church, in everything necessary to bring the individual into complete “hierarchical subordination and true obedience.” In the “first dogmatic constitution,” 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 ordinary power over all other churches, and that this power of 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 salvation.” (“The Vatican Council, and its Definitions,” by Manning, pp. 234, 235.)

In order to make this “hierarchical subordination” complete, 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 cannot be appealed from, which is precisely 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 vouchsafed to join with the supreme pontifical office;” wherefore the pope “remains ever free from all 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 trumpets, from the heavens, thus:

“We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed, that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when, in discharge of the 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 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 irreformnable 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 Vatican Council, and its Definitions,” by Manning, p. 240.)

The full extent and scope of all this is not generally understood; 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 acquiescence—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 obligation 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 inquiry, we shall take Archbishop Manning, of England, who was a member of the Lateran Council, and is one of the most distinguished prelates of the Church, as furnishing the correct papal interpretation; for it will not be said by anyone that he is not the 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 endorsement 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 dashed against the heaviest columns of the enemy, not doubting 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!”(“The Vatican Council, and its Definitions,” by Manning, p. 61.)

Now, if it shall appear that, in the domain of faith and morals, everything that 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 Catholic 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 extends it to those things “which are in themselves good or evil;” and Gregory of Valentia to “any controverted matter of religion:” (Ibid., pp. 66, 67.) 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.” (Ibid., p. 70.)

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 which are opposed to revelation;” for, says he, “the Church could not discharge its office as a teacher of all nations, unless it were able with infallible certainty to proscribe doctrines at variance with the word of God.”(“The Vatican Council, and its Definitions,” by Manning, p. 72.)

To make himself 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 exposition 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;” (Ibid., p. 73.) which enables him to reach out far beyond the commonly recognized domain of the Church. He extends his authority so as to make it embrace also “positive truths which are not revealed, whensoever 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;”(Ibid., p.73.) 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 judgment 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 condemning those of heterodox authors.”(Ibid., p. 79.) Also, to “condemning heretical propositions;”(Ibid., p. 79.) and the “ethical character of propositions;” (Ibid., p. 80.) and propositions “less than heresy,” or “erroneous propositions,”(Ibid., p. 81.) that is, such as are “scandalous, offensive, schismatical, injurious.”(Ibid., p. 83.) And, more important 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;” (Ibid., p. 84.) 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 infallible, then he is so! That there may be no misunderstanding 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 entrusted to it. There exists no other. There is no tribunal to which appeal from the Church can lie. There is no coordinate witness, teacher, or judge, who can revise, or criticize, or test, the teaching of the Church. It is sole and alone in the world.”(“The Vatican Council, and its Definitions,” by Manning, pp. 128, 129.)

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, because all its power and authority are centered in him alone. And so the late Lateran Council deliberately decided. Not withstanding the third Council of Constantinople anathematized the infallible (!) pope Honorius for heresy, and the Council of Constance deposed John XXIII. for the most infamous 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 surrendered themselves into the hands of the Jesuits or ultramontanes, 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 drowned in the general rejoicing, and afterward silenced into humiliating acquiescence.

In the Encyclical of 1864, he condemned the “audacity of those persons” who ventured to insist that they had the right to withhold their “assent and obedience” to his decrees, when they did “not touch dogmas of faith and morals;” and declared that all such were “entirely opposed” to “the Catholic dogma of the full power divinely given to the Roman pontiff,” etc.; (Appendix C.) that is to 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 authority, unsupported by the decree of anyone of the many ecumenical councils which have been held, and was, therefore, resisted by many thousands of honest Roman Catholics, 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 the pope shall think proper 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, whatsoever 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 anything that is not true, or to demand anything 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 those who are the official and authorized interpreters of its meaning.

In The Catholic World for May, 1871, there is an ably written article, reviewing Archbishop Manning’s pastoral letter, under the significant title, “The Church Accredits Herself.”(The Catholic World, May, 1871, vol. xiii., p. 145.) 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 witness 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 jurisdiction and authority! No Oriental monarch ever had more absolute power than this.

Many good and intelligent laymen of the Roman Catholic Church have been deluded into the belief that the pope’s infallibility is limited to questions of faith alone, in the ordinary 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 everything pertaining to the domain of morals—everything, 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 particular 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 declaration as infallibly made, as an essential part of the faith of the Church, and that disbelief in it is heresy, and sinful in the 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 without an infallible discernment of such unrevealed truths.” (“The Vatican Council, and its Definitions,” by Manning, p. 84.)

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 maintained, at every hazard! Whatever government, or constitution, 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, standing “in the place of God!”

The Catholic World, in the article referred to, is somewhat more specific than Archbishop Manning in defining the indirect 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 disposed 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.”(*)

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 governments not based upon “theology” are “purely empirical!”

Political affairs are reached indirectly, inasmuch as they are not revealed; but being included in morals, which are revealed, a papal decree in reference to them is just as infallibly true and obligatory as if it were confined to revealed faith alone. Hence if the pope shall declare that any political 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 heresy, they must make exterminating war upon all such opinions. Hence, also, if he shall declare that any existing government is opposed 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 allows 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 between conformity to his opinions and excommunication? between obedience to him and the forfeiture of eternal salvation? between resistance to the Government and his pontifical curse? between treason and hierarchical denunciation?

Archbishop Manning reasons thus: “The primacy is a personal privilege in Peter and his successors;” (“The Vatican Council, and its Definitions,” by Manning, p. 101.) and therefore “the Roman pontiff needs the help and society of no other;”(Ibid., p. 102.) and therefore, also, the “doctrinal authority” of the pope is “personal.” (Ibid., p. 103.) 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, in the faithful 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 ascribed to it, and a COERCIVE POWER to CONSTRAIN 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.” (Ibid., p. 103.)

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 authority of the Church, as a “personal privilege,” Archbishop Manning reconciles the apparent difficulty by declaring, “This infallibility and coercive power are to be ascribed to him [the pope], and are personal.”(Ibid., p. 104.) Hence we have this logical and inevitable result, that, when the pope alone, without 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 government, 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 obedience of the intellect and will!”

And it is only by rendering this obedience that the body of the Church becomes as infallible as the head, for it seems to be possessed of such diffusive qualities that it may be made to permeate the entire membership. “Both are infallible,” that is, the head and body, says Archbishop Manning, “the one actively, in teaching, the other personally in believing.” (“The Vatican Council, and its Definitions,” by Manning, p. 113.) He gives the reasons, “Because its head can never err, it, as a body, can never err.”(Ibid.) And because the pope can not exercise “an infallible office fallibly,” therefore he can not err “in the selection of the means of its exercise;” (Ibid., p. 114.) 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 bringing 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 of the Church, by passive obedience, becomes also infallible! To deny his infallibility “after the definition, is heresy;” to deny it before, is “proximate to heresy.” (Ibid., pp. 118, 119.)

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.”(Ibid.) 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 teachings of Christ, or of his immediate disciples, or of the apostolic 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.”(Ibid., p. 121.) 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 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 history, and independent of it. Its history is to be learned of itself.” (The Vatican Council, and its Definitions,” by Manning, p. 125.)

Thus the pope is made the last, final, and only judge in everything. He is the tribunal of last resort upon every question he shall undertake to decide. He is infallible whenever 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 attached 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 hierarchy 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. Everything 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 entrusted to it;”(Ibid., p. 128.) because no human power “can revise, or criticize, or test” her teachings; (Ibid., p. 129.) 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, in councils, and in the interpretation of all these things by the supreme authority of the Church itself“(Ibid., p. 129.)—that is, the pope—and because the Church, through the pope, “can alone determine the extent of its own infallibility!“(Ibid., p. 135.)

Archbishop Manning is, beyond all question, a man of eminent 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 morals, by an infallible pope. And, therefore, observing the present condition of the Christian world, and seeing the nations, 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 will have its justification. The SYLLABUS, which condemned atheism and revolution, would have saved society. But men would not. They are dissolving the temporal power of the vicar of Christ. And why do they dissolve it? Because governments are no longer Christian.”(Ibid., p. 165.)

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 “atheism 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 result: 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 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 certain death of the papacy—the sure downfall of the whole superstructure of the papal temporal dominion.

And he exclaims, 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 dictation! 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 infidelity and the most odious form of heresy! Under its pernicious influence the world is rapidly drifting toward a fearful precipice, “without helm, chart, or light,” and must soon, if not arrested by the papal arm, plunge into the terrible abyss below! When it shall 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 reached the heavens, then “the hated SYLLABUS will have its justification,” because it pointed out the method of escape! The SYLLABUS “would have saved society!”

Having thus ascertained what the infallibility of the 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 peoples of earth; how it likens the pope to God in all the essential attributes of sovereignty; how it enables him to decide for himself, and without any human restraint, the extent 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 enforce 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 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 of the 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 “Infallibility,” 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.” (The Catholic World, August, 1871, vol. xiii., p. 586.)

And this he must do, as this same authority instructs us, “with unquestioning submission and obedience of the intellect and will,” by the forfeiture of his manhood and the debasement of his nature, and with no more “right to ask reasons” of either pope or priest, than he has to ask them of Almighty God! The servitude of negro slavery was not more humiliating, the difference being only the substitution of the 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 portion of our population as to assure us, with reasonable certainty, that many of them will attempt to do, directly or indirectly, whatsoever the pope shall require of them. That he would reconstruct our Government so as to make it conform to his own views in all those things which concern the 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 the domination of the Church in the entire domain of faith and morals, everybody knows. That he would give entire independence to his hierarchy in the United States, so that they should not be answerable to the civil law, even for crimes of the greatest magnitude, there is abundant 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 penal laws, and abolish free speech and a free press, he has himself avowed in almost every form of utterance.

Therefore, we have the greatest possible interest in knowing to what extent he is likely to obtain obedience from his followers in this country upon each and all of these great and vital questions; 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 little 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 submission.

Continued in The Papacy And The Civil Power – Chapter VI. Claim of Divine Power

Download a PDF file of this article.

Please follow and like us: