Political Romanism [1872] - By G.W. Hughey

8/13/2019 Political Romanism [1872] - By G.W. Hughey

1/300

#>.jivV

..-I VI

'Art I r* , . V I ^ ,' *i


2/300

^v-:.^*' /^\ V ^X* '^

\ ^^ ^(^M^- -^^^^


3/300


4/300


5/300


6/300


7/300

/o $r s-Political Romanism;

OR, THE

SECULAR POLICYOF THE

PAPAL CHURCH.Rev. G. W. HUGHEY, A. M.

CINCINNAri: ^-rHITCHCOCK AND WA L D E N .NEW YORK:CARLTON AND LANAHAN.1872.


8/300

Eiiiered, according to act of Congress, in llie year 1872, by

HITCHCOCK & WALDEN,In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.

/z~'5y


9/300

PREFACE.'T^HE object of the writer of this little

volume has not been to present argu-ments, but to set forth facts. He has beensatisfied that t^ie high claims of the RomanCatholic Church to the supreme political powerof her head, the Pope, over all the kings,rulers, and governments of the earth, is notfully understood by the American people, asit should be in order that the dangers whichthreaten our free institutions from this quar-ter may be averted. He is also fully satisfiedthat no logic is so convincing and unanswer-able as the logic of facts ; and hence he haspresented, in a small compass, the facts of


10/300

4 PREFACE,history on this question for the past elevenhundred years, so that every one may see forhimself what the Pope claims, and what theRomish Church claims for him, on this mo-mentous question.The facts set forth in the following pages

are the undeniable facts of history, and thedeductions drawn from them are the legitimateand necessary consequences of them, and whichno man of intelligence will for a moment ques-tion. The authorities quoted, whether Prot-estant or Romanist, are all standard authori-ties, and therefore every quotation may befully relied on as authentic.The writer has endeavored to present to the

reader such a complete compend of RomanCatholic teaching on this question, as to furnishevery thing necessary for a full and perfectunderstanding of the doctrine of Rome on thepolitical supremacy of the Pope, so that theobject and aims of the hierarchy in this coun-try may be fully understood by every one.


11/300

PREFACE. 5Hence he has been especially particular toquote freely from the Allocutions, Encyclicals,and Syllabus of Pius IX, so that the readermay see that the civilization of the nineteenthcentury has had no effect whatever in liberal-izing the Pope, or causing him to relinquishone jot or tittle of his high claim to politicalsupremacy over the nations of the earth. Hehas also quoted largely from the protests,speeches, and resolutions of American RomanCatholics, clerical and lay, to show that thegreat mass of the Roman Catholic Church inthis free country are just as strong advocatesof the political supremacy of the Pope as thePapists of the Middle Ages were.

In the hope that the facts set forth in thislittle volume may contribute to the awaken-ing of the public mind on this important ques-tion, the vmter submits it to a candid public,praying that his beloved native land may neverbe cursed with the withering shadow of Papaldespotism, but that the tree of liberty, planted


12/300

6 PREFACE.by the hand of Divine Providence in this fairheritage of freedom, and watered with the tearsand blood of our fathers, may continue togrow and extend its branches, until all theoppressed and downtrodden children of earthshall find a secure retreat and safe protectionbeneath its shade.

G. W. HUGHEY.Lebanon, Illinois, September, 1871.


13/300

CONTENTS.CHAPTER. PAGE.

I. The Question Stated and Explained, . 9II. Bishop Purcell on the Temporal Power

O. A. Brownson on Gallicanism, . . 28III. Dr, Brownson on the Right of the PopesTO Depose Kings, 43

IV, Position of Cardinal Bellarmine, . 55V. Teachings of the Leading Divines, . .71VI. Teachings of Popes and Councils, . , 79

VII. Teachings of Popes and Councils, . . loiVIII. Teachings of Modern Popes, . . . 118IX. Allocution of Pius IX, . . . .145

X. Modern Romanist Divines and Journals, 160XL First Constitution Concerning the Church, 176XII. General Summary, 193

XIII. Occupation of Rome by the King of Italy, 220XIV. Dangers of Catholicism, .... 264


14/300


15/300

POLITICAL ROMANISM.CHAPTER I.

THE QUESTION STATED AND EXPLAINED.THE POPE OF ROME claims not only

the right to govern, as a civil prince orruler, what is, or has been, styled The Patri-mony of St. Peter, and which has just nowbeen wrested from him by the King of Italy,and which we fondly hope he may never re-gain ; but he also claims, by virtue of his of-fice as Vicar of Jesus Christ, at least an indi-rect supreme authority in temporals over all thekingdoms of the earth. In order that we mayhave the question fully before us in the begin-ning of our investigation of this importantquestion, we will present a statement of the

9


16/300

lO POLITICAL ROMANISM,different views taken of this question even byRoman Catholics themselves, so that we maynot appear to do them injustice in our remarksin the following pages. Bellarmine, than whoma higher authority among the standard writersof the Church of Rome can not be fourd, statesthe different theories of the temporal power ofthe Pope as follows : *The first is, that the chief Pontiff, by Di-

vine rights hath the fullest power over the wholeworld, as well in ecclesiastical as in politicalaffairs.

The other opinion, placed on the other ex-treme, teaches that the Pontiff, as Pontijf, andby Divine right, hath no temporal power, norcan he, in any manner, govern secular princes,nor deprive them of their kingdom and author-ity, although they otherwise deserve to be de-privedall the heretics of our times teach so.

The third is the middle, and is the commonopinion of Catholic theologians, that the Pontiff,as Pontiff, has not directly and immediately anytemporal power, but only spiritual power ; yet,on account of the spiritual power, he hath,

* M'Clintock on the Temporal Power of the Pope, pp.Ill, 112.


17/300

THE QUESTION STA TED. 1especially indirectlyy a certain power, and thatstcpreme^ in temporal matters/'The second view set forth by Bellarmine as

that held by all the heretics of his time, is theview also held by that party in the RomishChurch known as Galilean, who always deniedthe supremacy of the Pope as held by the Ul-tramontane party, both in spiritual and tempo-ral things. But the Galilean party has alwaysbeen largely in the minority, while the Ultra-montane party has always been the dominant,the controlling party; and it never was moreso than at the present time. Gallicanism hasbeen completely and entirely eradicated fromthe Church of Rome by the proclamation ofPapal infallibility, and the Ultramontane doc-trine is the doctrine of the entire Roman Cath-olic Church.The teachings of the Galilean divines and

universities, however, afford a cover behindwhich the defenders of the Romish Church inEngland and the United States retreat whenpressed with the true teachings of their Churchin regard to the temporal power of the Pope.Hence, nothing is more common than to hearthem roundly deny his temporal stipremacy, and


18/300

12 POLITICAL ROMANISM,declare that the Church holds no such senti-ment.

Cardinal Wiseman, in his lecture on the'' Supremacy of the Pope, denies any temporalpower as belonging to the Pope at all, by virtueof his office as Pope, and contends for only aspiritual supremacy. He says: ''What thendo Catholics mean by the supremacy of thePope, which for so many years we were requiredto abjure, if we would be partakers of the bene-fits of our country's laws } Why, it signifiesnothing more than that the Pope, or Bishopof Rome, as the successor of St. Peter, pos-sesses authority and jurisdiction, in thingsspiritual, over the entii^e Church, so as to con-stitute its visible head, and the vicegerent ofChrist upon earth. (Lectures on the Doctrinesof the Church, p. 226.)Again he says: The supremacy which I

have described is of a character /?/r^/j/ spiritual,and has no connection with the possession ofany temporal jurisdiction. . . . Nor hasthis spiritual supremacy any relation to thewider sway once held by the Pontiffs over thedestinies of Europe. That the headship of theChurch won naturally the highest weight and


19/300

THE QUESTION STATED, 1authority in a social and political state groundedon Catholic principles, we can not wonder.That power arose and disappeared with the in-stitutions which produced or supported it, andforms no part of the doctrine held by theChurch regarding the Papal supremacy. {Ibid,pp. 227, 228.)Here Cardinal Wiseman teaches the senti-

ments of the heretics, as stated hy Bellarmine.But how far his statements are correct concern-ing the doctrine held by the Church regard-ing the Papal supremacy, we shall see as weproceed with our inquiry.

Dr. Milner gives us the same view of thetemporal power of the Pope as that presentedby Cardinal Wiseman. He says : ^^ It is not, then, the faith of this Church thatthe Pope has any civil or temporal supremacyby virtue of which he can depose princes, orgive or take away the property of other per-sons out of his own domain ; for even theincarnate Son of God, from whom he derivesthe supremacy which he possesses, did notclaim, here upon earth, any right of the above-mefitioned kind. On the contrary, he pos-

* End of Controversy, pp. 282, 283.


20/300

14 POLITICAL ROMANISM,itively declared that his kingdom is not ofthis zvorld Hence, the Catholics of bothour islands have, without impeachment evenfrom Rome, denied, upon oath, that 'the Popehas any civil jurisdiction, power, superiority,or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, withinthis realm.' But, as it is undeniable that dif-ferent Popes, in former ages, have pronouncedsentence of deposition against certain contem-porary princes, and, as great numbers of theo-logians have held (though not as a matter offaith) that they had a right to do sOy it seemsproper, by w^ay of mitigating the odium whichDr. Porteous and other Protestants raise againstthem on this head, to state the grounds onwhich the Pontiffs acted and the divines rea-soned in this business. Heretofore, the king-doms, principalities, and states composing theLatin Church, when they were all of the samereligion, formed, as it were, one Christian re-public, of which the Pope was the accreditedhead. Now, as mankind have been sensible atall times that the duty of civil allegiance andsubmission can not extend beyond a certainpoint, and that they ought not to surrendertheir property, lives, and morality to be sported


21/300

THE QUESTION STA TED. 1with by a Nero or a Heliogabalus, instead ofdeciding the nice point for themselves, whenresistance became lawful, they thought it rightto be guided by their chief pastor. The kingsand princes themselves acknowledged this rightin the Pope, and frequently applied to him tomake use of his indirect temporal power, as ap-pears in numberless instances.The British ''Roman Catholic bishops, the

vicars apostolic, and their coadjutors, in set-ting forth their views on the rights of the kingand the power of the Pope, give the same viewas that set forth by Cardinal Wiseman and Dr.Milner, as may be seen in Elliott on Roman-ism, vol. ii, pp. 167 and 8.

Bishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio, in hisdebate with Alexander Campbell, gives thesame exposition of the temporal power of thePope as that given by Wiseman and Milner,and quotes, with full approbation, from BishopEngland's speech before the Congress of theUnited States, the following : *We are now arrived at the place where wemay easily find the origin and the extent of thePapal power of deposing sovereigns, and of

* Campbell and Purcell's Debate, p. 344.


22/300

1 POLITICAL ROMANISM.absolving subjects from their oaths of allegi-ance. To judge properly of facts we mustknow their special circumstances, not theirmere outline. The circumstances of Christen-dom were then widely different from those inwhich w^e now are placed. Europe was thenunder the feudal system. I have seldom founda writer, not a Catholic, who in treating of thatage and that system, has been accurate, and whohas not done us very serious injustice. But afriend of mine, who is a respectable memberof your honorable body, has led me to readHallam's account of it, and I must say that Ihave seldom met with so much candor, andw^hat I call so much truth. From reading hisstatement of that system it will be plainly seenthat there existed among Christian potentatesa sort of federation, in which they bound them-selves by certain regulations, and to the ob-servance of those they w^ere held not merely bytheir oaths but by various penalties ; sometimesthey consented the penalty should be the lossof their station. It was, of course, necessaryto ascertain that the fact existed before its con-sequences should be declared to follow ; it wasalso necessary to establish some tribunal to


23/300

THE QUESTION STATED. 1/examine and to decide as to the existence ofthe fact itself, and to proclaim that existence,x^mong independent sovereigns there was nosuperior, and it was natural to fear that mutualjealousy would create great difficulty in select-ing a chief, and that what originated in conces-sion might afterward be claimed as a right.They were, however, all members of oneChurch, of which the Pope was the head, and,in this respect, their common father; a7td byttnivei'sal consent it was 7'egnlated that he shouldexamine^ ascertain the fact, proclaim it, a^nd de-clare its consequences. Thus he did, in 7'eality,possess the power of deposing monarchs and ofabsolving their subjects front oaths offealty, butonly those monarchs who zvere members of thatfedemtion, and in cases legally p7^ovidedfor, andby their concession, not by divine right, and dicr-ing the tenn of that federation and tlie existenceof his commission. He governed the Churchby divine right, he deposed kings and absolvedsubjects fror/i their allegiance by hitman conces-sion. I preach the doctrines of my Churchby divine right, but I preach from this spotnot by that right but by the permission ofothers.

2


24/300

1 POLITICAL ROMANISM,It is not then a doctrine of our Church

that the Pope has been divinely commissionedeither to depose kings, or to interfere with re-publics, or to absolve the subjects of the formerfrom their allegiance, or interfere with the civilconcerns of the latter.

The following,'' says Dr. Elliott,* are theopinions of the universities of Sorbonne, Lou-vain, Douay, Alcala, and Salamanca, on thetemporal power of the Pope, and furnished tothe English Roman Catholics at their re-quest :

I. That the Pope or cardinals, or any bodyof men, or any individual of the Church ofRome, has not, nor have any civil authority,power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence whatsoeverwithin the realm of England.

2. That the Pope or cardinals, or any bodyof men, or any individual of the Church ofRome, can not absolve or dispense his maj-esty's subjects from their oath of allegiance,upon any pretext whatever.

3. That there is no principle in the tenetsof the Catholic faith by which Catholics arejustified in not keeping faith with heretics, or

* Elliott on Romanism, vol. ii, p. 168.


25/300

THE QUESTION STA TED, 1other persons differing from them in religiousopinions, in any transactions either of a publicor a private nature.

I have been thus particular in giving sofully the views of the Galilean faction of theRomish Church on the temporal power of thePope, which has been adopted from politicalconsiderations by the Roman Catholic divinesof England and the United States, that everyoccasion may be taken away for accusing meof unfairness in presenting the views of RomanCatholics on this important question. I havegiven those who charge Protestants with mis-representing the doctrines and teachings oftheir Church the privilege of speaking outfully on this question, and explaining what theyare pleased to call the teaching of the RomanCatholic Church in regard to the temporalpower of the Pope. Before proceeding to pre-sent the real Catholic doctrine of the sitpremetemporal power of the Pope, as held and taughtby the Popes themselves, their general councils,and their admitted standards of theology, Iwish to make a few observations on the fore-going extracts.

I. It is remarkable, that neither Cardinal


26/300

20 POLITICAL ROMANISM.Wiseman, Dr. Milner, Bishop England, northe five universities referred to, give us a sin-gle authority from Pope, council, or canon law,to sustain their views, or rather their explana-tions of the temporal power of the PopeWhy is this ? They could not have beenignorant of the fact that their explanations ofthe doctrine of their Church, unless supportedby a7tthoritative documents, were only theiropinions, and of no binding force whatever. Ifit had been possible for them to have fortifiedtheir positions by authoritative documents, suchas the acts and decrees of general councils,Papal bulls, decretals, etc., the circumstancesunder which they were placed make it certainthat they would have produced them ; for theiropponents, of whom they complained as mis-representing and slandering the Church ofRome, were continually presenting, in supportof the charges they brought against her, theacts of her general councils, the bulls and de-cretals of her Popes, and the declarations ofher canon law. Against these oAUhoritativedocuments, those learned Roman Catholicdivines place their explanations of the temporalpower of the Pope, unsupported by a single


27/300

THE QUESTION STA TED. 2 1autJiojniy, and ask us to accept their unauthor-ized and unsupported explanations as the doc-trine of their Church on this important ques-tion

2. Every one of the above parties, whentiiey gave the opinions and explanationsabove, gave them with the distinct knowl-edge and understanding, that they were givennot as authoritative statements of the viewsand teachings of the Church of Rome, butmerely as opinions v^hich must be held '^sub-ject to the judgment of the Church. ThisCardinal Wiseman states on page eight ofthe preface to the work from v/hich I quote.He says*' I need not say, that in this publication, asin every other that proceeds from my pen, /completely subject myself to the jitdgnient of theChiL7xh, and mean to presei^ve tJie strictest adher-ence to every thing that she teaches ' If theChurch should condemn these opinions, everyone of those v/ho have expressed them, if liv-ing, would renounce them also, for this is thevery principle of Roman Catholicism. Conse-quently such documents and opinions are ofno force whatever in controversy on this ques-


28/300

22 POLITICAL ROMANISM.tion, and none are more fully aware of thisthan are Roman Catholics themselves ; and thevery fact that they rely on such documents, andbring up such testimony as this, in defend-ing their Church from the grave charges whichare brought against her under this head, isproof positive of a conscious weakness of theircause.

3. The circumstances that called forth someof these declarations are strongly against thosewho hold the views they set forth on the tem-poral power of the Pope. The circumstanceswhich called forth the declarations of the Uni-versities were of the most momentous char-acter to the Roman Catholics of Great Britain.They were struggling to obtain th^ir politicalrights ; but this very question of the temporalpower of the Pope was in the way. The Brit-ish Government, after its sad experience forten centuries with the See of Rome, was fear-ful of a return of former troubles, and it wasguarding against the possibility of their recur-rence. The Roman Catholics, having learnedpriidence, at least, by their privations of polit-ical privileges, were anxious to have their disa-bilities removed ; but the claims of the Pope


29/300

THE QUESTION STATED. 2^and the teachings of the Church were in theirway.

So, instead of going to the authoritativeacts and decrees of the Councils of the Churchto learn what her real doctrines and the claimsof her Pontiffs were, the British Catholics ap-pealed to the Universities, which they knewhad no more power nor authority to declarewhat the claims of the Pope or the teach-ings of the Church were than they themselveshad. The most effective way to quiet thefears of the Government would have been forthem to show,/h?;^ the history of the past^ thatthose fears were groundless, and that the Popemade no claim to temporal supremacy. If mycharacter is assailed in a certain point, themost effective method for me to adopt to vin-dicate myself is to go to the record I havemade and show the charge is false. But thisthe British Catholics did not do, because theyknew that the facts were all against them, andtheir only chance to make out a case in self-defense was to resort to yesuitical cunningsand get the testimony of the Universities,which would satisfy the unsuspecting, and, atthe same time, it would be of no binding force,


30/300

24 POLITICAL ROMANISM.either on Pope, Council, or the Catholic subjectsof the British Government.The same is also true, in a certain sense,

concerning the speech of Bishop England be-fore the Congress of the United States. It istrue Roman Catholics have never been de-prived of their political rights and privileges inthis country; but the v/ell-known claims andcharacter of their Church can not but causeuneasiness in the public mind for the safety ofour free institutions, when we see the increaseof Roman Catholicism in this country ; and itwas to remove this uneasiness from the publicmind that the Bishop made the address beforeCongress. But why did he not show, from thehistory of the past, that no such fe?trs need beentertained t This would have at once re-moved the whole difficulty, and set the publicmind at rest on this question. But this is pre-cisely what that learned prelate would not at-tempt, because he knew too v/ell that the wholehistory of his Church was against the explana-tion he was attempting to give of the temporalpower of the Roman Pontiff.

4. But it is here admitted by these learnedRoman Catholic divines that ''it is undeniable''


31/300

THE QUESTION STATED, 25that the Pope of Rome did dethrone kings andsovereign princes during the middle ages. Thefact itself is fully admitted. But they tell usthis was not done by Divine 7nghtl' but by''human concessionr Bishop England tells usthat during the confusion that prevailed in me-diaeval times, in order to prevent difficulties thatmight arise among the princes of Christendom,they entered into ''a sort of federation, ofwhich the Pope, .as the head of the Church,was the head, and therefore possessed the rightto enforce, even by excommunication and depo-sition, the terms and agreements of their arti-cles of federation. He says :

*'Thus he did, in reality, possess the powerof deposing monarchs, and of absolving theirsubjects from oaths of fealty; but only thosemonarchs zvlio were members of that federation,and in the cases legally provided for, and bytheir concession, not by Divine right, and dur-ing the term of that federation and the exist-ence of his commission. He governed theChurch by Divine rigJit, he deposed kings andabsolved subjects from their allegiance by hu-man concession '

Unfortunately for Bishop England, and those


32/300

26 POLITICAL ROMANISM.who take this view, or rather give this explana-tioii of the temporal power of the Pope, all thefacts of history are against them. The Popenever claimed the right to depose sovereigns,and release their subjects from their obligationof allegiance to them ^^ by htimmi concession^'but always by '' Divine right ' This I shallprove by the most undeniable facts of history.Now, just here is the point in controversy.

Did the Popes of the middle ages claim theright to depose kings and absolve their subjectsfrom their obligations of allegiance by hu-man concession, as claimed by their modernapologists, or did they claim to exercise thisprerogative over the kings of the earth by Di-vine right, as the successor of St. Peter andthe vicars of Jesus Christ.'^ If they claimedthat right by human concession, as herecontended by Bishop England, Dr. Milner,Cardinal Wiseman, and others, then, as theycontend, when the circumstances passed awaywhich called that power into being, that poweror right itself passed away also. But if, onthe other hand, they claimed and exercisedthat power by Divine right, as the successorsof St. Peter and vicars of Jesus Christ, the


33/300

THE QUESTION STATED, 2/right inheres in the office of Pontiff, and cannot pass away; for it is a right and powerthat inheres in Papacy itself A change ofcircumstances may come over the Papacy, andit may lose the power to enforce this right;but this does not impair the right in the least,and Pius IX has the same Divine and inalieji-able right to depose heretical sovereigns to-dayas Gregory VII or Innocent III had. It istrue, the circumstances of society during me-diaeval times were such as enabled the Popespractically to carry out their claim to temporalsupremacy; but the claim itself did not origin-ate in that condition of society, nor in the con-sent of the princes of Christendom ; and shouldcircumstances ever become such again (whichmay God in his mercy forbid), the same claimwould be practically carried out by the Pope,as we shall conclusively prove in the followingpages.


34/300

28 POLITICAL ROMANISM,

CHAPTER II.BISHOP PURCELL ON THE TEMPORAL POWER

O. A-. BROWNSON ON GALIJCANISM.

BEFORE giving the views of the Ultra-montane majority in the Church of Rome,which includes all her acknowledged standards,her Popes, her Councils, and her canon law, wewill hear Bishop Pur cell once more. He says :

Christian charity and common sense, truthand justice, require imperatively that no oneshould be condemned without a hearing, or becharged with holding sentiments which he dis-avows. Here is the fullest, the clearest, themost unequivocal disavowal of the doctrine ofthe Pope's deposing power. We would beamong the first to oppose him in its exerciseand we would be neither heretics nor badCatholics ; and we each of us bishops swear bythe very words of the oath, ' Persequar et tnt-

* Campbell and Purcell's Debate, p. 353.


35/300

THE TEMPORAL POWER, 29pugnaboy salvo meo ordine^ in the sense speci-fied, which is the only true sense, the assump-tion of any such power by the Pope, or thePope for the assumption of any such power.'' For ten centuries this power was neverCLAIMED BY ANY PoPE. It CAN, THEREFORE,BE NO PART OF CaTHOLIC DOCTRINE. It HASNOT GAINED ONE FOOT OF LAND FOR THE PoPE.It IS NOT ANYWHERE BELIEVED OR ACTEDUPON IN THE Catholic Church. Nor canIT BE, AT THIS LATE DAY, ESTABLISHED, IF ANYMAN COULD BE FOUND MAD ENOUGH TO MAKETHE ATTEMPT. Let thcse go before the Amer-ican people as the real principles of Catholicsconcerning the power of the Pope. And, if wemust pronounce a judgment on the past, let itbe remembered that when the Pope did usethis power it was when appealed to as a com-mon father, and in favor of the oppressed.The capitals and italics in the above are his

own. It is true. Christian charity forbids thata man should be charged with holding senti-ments which he disavows, tmless it is apparentycr can be shozvny that he is endeavoring to con-ceal his I'cal sentiments ; then justice demandsthat his hypocrisy shall be made manifest by


36/300


37/300

GALLICANISM, 3Purcell, and the Galilean teachings in general.I do not want the reader to forget the lastsentence quoted from Bishop Purcell : Andif we must pronounce a judgment on the past,let it be remembered that when the Pope diduse this power it was when appealed to as acommon father, and in favor of the oppressed '*We shall see, as we proceed, how fully thisdeclaration of the Bishop is sustained by thefacts of history. Indeed, I am surprised thatany man at all conversant with the facts ofhistory should make such a reckless state-menta statement contradicted by the wholehistory of the Papal despotism.We will now hear what one of the ablest de-fenders of Catholicism in the United States hasto say on this Gallican doctrine of the tem-poral power of the PopeDr. O. A. Brownson,in his Review, one of the ablest Catholic jour-nals ever published in America, outspoken andultramontane in the extreme, and indorsed bytwenty-five Catholic bishops in this country,among whom is John Baptist, Bishop of Cin-cinnati. In his review of a work written byM. Gosselin, a Gallican writer, on ''The Powerof the Popes during the Middle Ages, in


38/300

32 POLITICAL ROMANISM,which the writer takes precisely the positiontaken by Cardinal Wiseman, Dr. Milner, BishopEngland, and Bishop Purcell, Dr. Brownsonsays : *

This excellent author, no doubt, believesthat he has hit upon a theory which enableshim to vindicate the conduct of the Popes andcouncils of the middle ages, in their relationsto temporal sovereigns, without incurring theodium attached to the higher ground of Divineright, and this, he will pardon us for believing,is his chief motive for elaborating and defendingit. He can not be unaware that the doctrinehe rejects is the most logical, the miost con-sonant to Catholic instincts, the most honor-able to the dignity and majesty of the Papacy,or that it has undeniably the weight of au-.thority on its side. The principal Catholicauthorities are certainly in favor of the Divineright, and the principal authorities v/hich heis able to oppose to them are of parliaments,sovereigns, jurisconsults, courtiers, and pre-lates and doctors, who sustained the temporalpowers in their wars against the Popes. The*Brownson's Review for 1854, as quoted by M'Clintock,

pp. 94, seq.


39/300

GALLICANISM. 33Gallican doctrine was, from the first, the doc-trine of the courts in opposition to that of theVicars of Jesus Christ, and should therefore beregarded by every Catholic with suspicion.M. Gosselin can not be ignorant of this, andtherefore we must believe that he is attachedto his theory principally from prudential con-siderations.

Dr. Brownson here states the truth in regardto Gallicanism fully. It is, and always hasbeen the doctrine of the courts, and time-serving prelates and doctors, and was neverthe doctrine of Rome, but has always beencondemned by the Popes and Councils. Dr.Brownson states an undeniable fact that thereader must not forget, and that is, the weightof authority is on the side of the Divine rightof the temporal power of the Pope. But thislearned reviewer continuesWe do not like M. Gosselin's theory; we donot believe it, and could not believe it, withoutviolence to our whole understanding of theCatholic system of truth. The author, in prin-ciple, is a. thorough-going Gallican, and, if hedefends the illustrious Pontiffs who have beenso maligned by non-Catholics and courtiers, he

3


40/300

34 POLITICAL ROMANISM,does it on principles which seem to us tohumiliate them and degrade them to the rankof mere secular princes. His theory, at firstview, may have a plausible appearance, but itis illusory, like all other theories invented torecommend the Church to her enemies, or toescape the odium always attached to truth bythe world. In saying this, we are not ignorantthat many whom we love and respect embracethat theory in part, and explain and defend byit the temporal power exercised by Popes andCouncils over sovereigns in the middle ages.They do not, indeed, agree with M. Gosselin inhis denial that the Popes held that power byDivine right, but they think it suffices to ex-plain and defend it on the ground of humanright. They agree with us as to the suprem-acy of the spiritual order, and the temporaljurisdiction of the Popes, but they think thatall the objections of non-Catholics can be ade-quately and honestly answered without takingsuch high ground, and the ground of humanright being sufficient and less offensive, itshould, in prudence, be adopted, and the otherdoctrine be passed under the disciplina arcani.They therefore disapprove of the course we


41/300

GALLICANISM. 35take, and wish we would content ourselveswith more moderate views, not because weare uncatholic, but because we are imprudent,and subject Catholics to unnecessary odium.

In this paragraph Dr. Brownson suffers histemerity to get the better of his judgment, andhe lets out a fact that it is exceedingly im-portant that the people of the United Statesshould know ; that is, that many of those Ro-man Catholic divines, who explain the tem-poral supremacy of the Pope during the mid-dle ages, as M. Gosselin, Bishop England,Bishop Purcell, and the Gallicans in generaldo when talking to non-Catholics, that is, whenspeaking before the public, agree with himas to the supremacy of the spiritual order,and the temporal jurisdiction of the PopesThey simply think him imprudent. Hespeaks out too plainly, and, therefore, theywould adopt the less offensive ground ofhuman right in their public teachings beforenon-Catholics, while the doctrine of Divineright they would pass under the disciplinaarcaiii, This disciplina a7xani, under whichthese Romish teachers would have their 7'ealdoctrine on the question of the Pope's tem-


42/300

36 POLITICAL ROMANISM.poral supremacy pass, is the secret discipline^or doctrine which is only revealed and taughtto the initiated. This disciplina arcani hasfor centuries past been the refuge of RomanCatholic divines when pressed for authority forthe corrupt practices and doctrines of theirChurch. Here Dr. Brownson tells the wholestory on his brethren and friends, and lets outtheir secret. They agree with him, but theydo not think it prudent in this country of freeinstitutions, at least for the present, to speakout as he does. They will adopt the Galileanexplanation before the public to allay the sus-picions and fears of non-Catholics, but they willhold their ultramontane views as a part of thedisciplina arcani, the secret discipline and doc-trine of the Church which only the initiatedare instructed in, and which non-Catholicshave no business with until they get strongenough to enforce it, and then they will nothesitate to let us know their real sentiments.But the most remarkable thing in this wholeparagraph is, they think that all the objec-tions of non-Catholics can be adequately andhonestly answered by taking the ground of'' human right Now how can any man think


43/300

GALLICANISM. 3/he is honestly answering the objections ofnon-Catholics'' when he is stating what heknows to be false, arguing against his ownconvictions, and publicly and solemnly declar-ing that the Church holds the doctrine of thetemporal supremacy of the Popes in the middleages as originating in human concessions'*and not in Divine right, while he holds, andthe Church holds with him, as a part of thesecret doctrine, that the temporal supremacy ofthe Pope is of Divine right, and not by hu-man concessions at all It will take a Jesuitto answer this question. No man can recon-cile such a course with honesty who does nothold that detestable and immoral doctrine ofthe Jesuits: The end justifies the means.Roman Cathohc prelates may deny that suchis the maxim of the Jesuits, but while menwill act thus, and claim they are acting hon-estly, they can vindicate their conduct on noother principle. The end here sought is thesubjugation of this country under the tem-poral jurisdiction and supremacy of the Pope;the means, is the denial, before the publictonon-Catholics, that the Pope claims, or theChurch teaches any such supremacy ; this doc-


44/300


45/300

'

GALLICANISM,39

Brownson here reveals in self-justification,ought never to be forgotten by the lovers ofcivil and religious liberty. They reveal a deep-laid conspiracy against our liberties, to be car-ried on in the dark until such time as it willbe safe to strike, and then its full extent andreal objects will be fully manifested.

Dr. Brownson, in vindicating his course fur-ther, in speaking out so plainly on the tem-poral supremacy of the Pope, against thoseprudent brethren, who do not disagree with hisviews, but who do not like to have him speakout so fully on this question because it sub-jects Catholics to unnecessary odium, says

We found a very general disposition amongthe Catholic laity to separate religion frompolitics, to emancipate politics from the Chris-tian law, to vote God out of the State, and toset up the people against the Almighty. Wasthis, in these revolutionary times, to be passedover in silence and no effort made to arrest thetide of political atheism.^ We saw our holyfather driven into exile, we saw large numbersof nominal Catholics rejoicing at the impioususurpations of Mazzini & Co., sympathizingwith the infamous assassins and parricides who,


46/300


47/300

GALLICANISM, 4Inot have taken up the subject. ... Asthe denial of spiritual authority soon leads toa denial of the temporal, so a denial of thetemporal soon leads to a denial of the spiritual.When we found democracy, even by nominalCatholics, embraced in that sense in which itdenies all law, and asserts the right of thepeople, or rather of the mob, to do whateverthey please, and making it criminal in us todispute their infallibility, we felt that we mustbring out the truth against them, and if scan-dal resulted, we were not its cause. The re-sponsibility rests on those whose obsequious-ness to the multitude made our oppositionnecessary. ... In proportion, as we wishto save religion and society, we must raiseour voice against Gallicanism, turn to theholy father, and, instead of weakening his

.

hands and saddening his heart by our denial iof his plenary authority, re-assert his temporal*as well as spiritual prerogatives. We have nohope but in God, and God helps us only throughPeter, and Peter helps us only through his suc-cessors, in whom he still lives and exerciseshis apostolate. Blame not us, then, if thereare scandals, but them rather whose errors or


48/300

42 POLITICAL ROMANISM.whose timidity, whose indolence or worldly-mindedness have caused them, and made ourcourse a painful duty.

Dr. Brownson had evidently not learned thelessons of the Jesuits well when he penned theabove article, or he never would have spokenout so much honest truth in regard to theclaims of the Roman Catholic Church on thetemporal supremacy of the Pope. It can notbe denied that Dr. Brownson has as good op-portunities of knowing wJiat ^^ the real positionof the Papacy in the Catholic system is, asany man in America, and here we have hisunequivocal testimony sustaining our position.He denounces those persons who hold andteach such sentiments as Bishop England,Bishop Purcell, Dr. Milner, etc., as timid, time-servers, obsequious, and their doctrine as thefatal error of Gallicanism We commendthis article in Brownson's Review to the care-ful consideration of John B. Purcell, Arch-bishop of Cincinnati, and we hope it will teachhim to be a little more orthodox on the ques-tion of the temporal power of the Pope.


49/300

THE POPES' RIGHT OVER KINGS. 43

CHAPTER III.DR. BROWNSON ON THE RIGHT OF THE POPESTO DEPOSE KINGS.

WE will now hear what Dr. Brownsonsays in regard to the right by whichthe Popes of the middle ages deposed kingsand sovereign princes, and we shall see thathe takes the true Roman Catholic view of thisquestion also. He says : *''We have said that we believe Catholic

dogma requires us to maintain at least theindirect temporal authority of the Popes orto forswear our logic, by which we evidentlymean, not that it is Catholic dogma, but astrict logical deduction from it.Catholic writers sometimes try to dodge theforce of the arguments of their opponents on*Brownson's Review, April, 1854, p. 191; quoted by

M'Clintock on *'the Temporal Power of the Pope, pp.73 to 76.


50/300

44 POLITICAL ROMANISM.this question, by stating that the temporalpower of the Pope is not an article of faith inthe Roman Catholic Church. But every oneknows, who understands the requirements ofthat Church, that her authority does not ex-tend only to matters of faith, but it embracesalso morals and discipline as fully as it doesmatters of faith. This is a matter or questionof discipline, and therefore as binding as mat-ters of faith. But more of this hereafter.Dr. Brownson here, however, gives the trueview of the question. It is a strict logicaldeduction from the dogma, or faith of theChurch, as any one capable of drawing a log-ical conclusion from the plainest premises cansee at once. But he continues

Now, although we do not say that the Churchcommissions the State, or imposes the condi-tions on which it holds its right to govern, yetas it holds under the law of Christ, and onconditions imposed by that law, we do say thatshe, as the guardian and judge of that law,must have the power to take cognizance ofthe State, and to judge whether it does or doesnot conform to the conditions of its trust, andto pronounce sentence accordingly ; which sen-


51/300

THE POPES' RIGHT OVER KINGS, 45tence ought to have immediate practical execu-tion in the temporal order, and the temporalpower that resists it is not only faithless to itstrust but guilty of direct rebellion against God,the only real Sovereign, the Fountain of all law,and Source of all rights in the temporal orderas in the spiritual.The reasoning here from the premises laid

down by the Roman Catholic Church is whollyconclusive. Now, either the premises are falseor the conclusion is inevitable. It is a matterof faith, an article of Roman Catholic dogma,that the Church is the guardian and judge ofthe law of Christ; that she has the right tojudge of the true sense and interpretation ofthe Holy Scriptures. This being the case, itnecessarily follows that all who are subject tothe law of Christ are subject to the Church asthe Divinely appointed guardian and judge ofthat law. The law of Christ regulates theduties of rulers and subjects, therefore the du-ties of rulers and subjects must legitimatelycome before the bar of the Church, and she, asthe Divinely appointed judge of the law, mustapply the law and affix the penalty. Dr. B.'sreasoning can not be answered, if we admit


52/300

46 POLITICAL ROMANISM.his premises, and his premises all RomanCatholics admit as an article of faith Buthe still goes on :

She mtcst have the right to take cognizanceof the fidelity of subjects, since they are boundto obey the legitimate prince for conscience'sake, and therefore of the manner in whichprinces discharge their duties to their subjects,and to judge and declare whether they have orhave not forfeited their trusts, and lost theirright to reign or to command the obedience oftheir subjects. The deposing power, then, isinherent in her as the spiritual authority, asthe guardian and judge of the law under whichkings and emperors hold their crowns and havethe right co reign ; for in deposing a sovereign,absolving his subjects from their allegiance,and authorizing them to proceed to the choiceof a new sovereign, she does but apply the lawof Christ to a particular case, and judiciallydeclare what is already true by that law. Sheonly declares that the forfeiture has occurred,and that subjects are released from their oathof fidelity who are already released by the lawof God.

This power which we claim for the Church


53/300

THE POPES' RIGHT OVER KINGS. 47over temporals is not \\.^^i precisely a temporalpozver. We are, indeed, not at liberty to assertthat the Church has no temporal authority,for that she has no temporal authority, di-rect or indirect, is a condemned propositioncondemned, if we are not mistaken, by ourpresent holy father, in his condemnation of thework on canon law by Professor Nuytz, of Tu-rinand we have seen that she has even di-rect temporal authority by Divine right ; butthe power we are now asserting, though apower over temporals, is itself, strictly speak-ing, a spiritual power, held by a spiritual per-son, and exerted for a spiritual end. The tem-poral order by its own nature, or by the fact thatit exists in the present decree of God only foran end not in its own order, is subjected tothe spiritual, and consequently every questionthat does or can arise in the temporal order isindirectly a spiritual question, and within thejurisdiction of the Church as the spiritualauthority, and therefore of the Pope, who, asthe supreme chief of the Church, possesses thatauthority in all its plenitude. The Pope, then,even by virtue of his spiritual authority, hasthe power to judge all temporal questions, if


54/300

48 POLITICAL ROMANISM,not precisely as temporal, yet as spiritualforall temporal questions are to be decided bytheir relation to the spiritualand thereforehas the right to pronounce sentence of deposi-tion against any sovereign, when required bythe good of the spiritual order

^^If the Church is the spiritual power, withthe right to declare the law of Christ for allmen and nations, can any act of the State, incontravention of her canons, be regarded aslaw ? The most vulgar common sense answersthat it can not. Tell us, then, even supposingthe Church to have only spiritual power, whatquestion can come up between man and man,between sovereign and sovereign, between sub-ject and sovereign, or sovereign and subject,that does not come within the legitimate juris-diction of the Church, and on which she hasnot by Divine right the power to pronounce ajudicial sentence ? None. Then the power heexercised over sovereigns in the middle agesw^as not a usurpation, was not derived fromthe concession of princes, or the consent ofthe people, but was, and is, his by Divine right,and whoso resists it rebels against the Kingof kings and Lord of lords. This is the


55/300

THE POPES' RIGHT OVER KINGS, 49ground upon which we defend the power exer-cised over sovereigns by Popes and Councils inthe middle ages.

Again, Dr. Brownson, in the April numberof his Review for 1854, in reviewing the workof M. Gosselin, before referred to, says : *

All history fails to 3how an instance inwhich the Pope, in deposing a temporal sover-eign, professes to do it by the authority vestedin him by the pious belief of the faithful, gen-erally received maxims, the opinion of the age,the concession of sovereigns, or civil constitu-tion and public laws of Catholic States. Onthe contrary, he always claims to do it byauthority committed to him as the successorof the Prince of the apostles, by the authorityof his apostolic ministry, by the authoritycommitted to him of binding and loosing, bythe authority of Almighty God, of Jesus Christ,King of kings and Lord of lords, whose min-ister, though unworthy, he asserts that he isor some such formula, which solemnly and ex-pressly sets forth that his authority is held byDivine right, by virtue of his ministry, and ex-

* M'Clintock on the Temporal Power of the Pope, pp.97, 98, and 99. 4


56/300

50 POLITICAL ROMANISM.ercised solely in his character of vicar of JesusChrist on earth. To this we believe there isnot a single exception. Wherever the Popescite their titles, they never, so far as we canfind, cite a human title, but always a Divinetitle. Whence is this } Did the Popes cite afalse title } Were they ignorant of their owntitle?Here the true doctrine of Rome is set forth,

that ^//questions of every class must be viewedas spiritual^ and, as such, the Church has su-preme jurisdiction over them as the Divinelyconstituted guardian and judge of the law ofChrist; and this supreme authority of theChurch is vested in the Pope as the head ofthe Church and vicar of Jesus Christ in all itsplenitude Here again it is asserted that nolaw of the State, contravening the canons ofthe Church, can '^be regarded as law. Thisis the doctrine of the Church of Rome to-day,and has been attempted to be carried intopractical effect by the reigning Pontiff, PiusIX. This doctrine of the Church of Romestands diametrically opposed to every principleof our Government ; and, should it prevail inthis country, it would overthrow our free insti-


57/300

THE POPES' RIGHT OVER KINGS. 5 Itutions, and establish an absolute spiritual andpolitical despotism under the supreme autoc-racy of the Pope. This is the aim of theRomish hierarchy in this country, as we shallshow conclusively, and it therefore becomesevery lover of his country, every friend of freegovernment, to watch closely the movementsof this, great enemy of human liberty andprogress in our midst, and not permit it to layits polluted hands upon the fair fabric of ourglorious and free institutions. But Dr. Brown-son continues

*^ There are documents enough in which thePope not only excommunicates, but solemnlydeposes a prince, and in these very documentswe find the title set forth, and the only titleset forth is that derived from his apostolicministry. Never does the Pope profess to de-pose, any more than to excommunicate, by vir-tue of any other than a Divine title. What-ever he does in the case, he always professesto do it by his supreme jurisdiction as the vicarof Jesus Christ, and the successor of Peter, theprince of the apostles. That the Popes will-fully erred, M. Gosselin can not pretend. . . .

One of two things, it seems to us, must be


58/300


59/300

THE POPES' RIGHT OVER KINGS. 53the successor of St. Peter, the prince of theapostles, and visible head of the Church. Anydefense of them on lower ground must, in ourjudgment, fail to meet the real points in thecase, and is rather an evasion than a fair, hon-est, direct, and satisfactory reply. To defendtheir power as an extraordinary power, or as anaccident in Church history, growing out of thepeculiar circumstances, civil constitutions, andlaws of the times, now passed away, perhapsforever, may be regarded as less likely to dis-please non-Catholics, and to offend the sensi-bilities of power than to defend it on theground of Divine right, and as inherent in theDivine constitution of the Church; but, evenon the low ground of policy, we do not thinkit the wisest in the long run. Say what wewill, we can gain little credit with those wewould concihate. Always, to their minds, willthe temporal power of the Pope by Divineright loom up in the distance, and always willthey believe, however individual Catholics hereand there may deny it, or nominal Catholicgovernments oppose it, that it is the real Ro-man Catholic doctrine, to be re-asserted andacted the moment that circumstances render


60/300

54 POLITICAL ROMANISM,it prudent or expedient. We gain nothingwith them but doubts of our sincerity, and weonly weaken among ourselves that warm andgenerous devotion to the holy father which isdue from every one of the faithful, and whichis so essential to the prosperity of the Churchin her unceasing struggles with the godlesspowers of this world.We can but admire the honesty of Dr.Brownson in speaking out so candidly andfully the real sentiments and doctrines of theRomish Church on the temporal power of thePope, and we shall see, by the authentic docu-ments of the Church, that he does here pre-sent her real doctrine on this point, in opposi-tion to the Galileans and the time-serving andJesuitical ultramontanes, who agree with him,but who would have their real sentimentspassed under the disciplina arcani^'' and onthe ground of policy adopt the ground of hu-man right when speaking to non-Catholics.


61/300

CARDINAL BELLARMINE. 55

CHAPTER IV.POSITION OF CARDINAL BELLARMINE.

CARDINAL BELLARMINE thus statesand argues the question of the temporal

powerThat the Pope, as Pope, although he has

not any merely temporal power, hath never-theless, in order to a spiritual good, the su-preme power of disposing of the temporal con-cerns of all Christians.

That the Pope can not, as Pope, ordinarilydepose temporal princes, even for just cause,in the same manner in which he deposes bish-opsthat is, as ordinary judge. Yet he canchange the kingdoms, and take away from one,and confer on another, as supreme spiritualprince, if that is necessary for the salvation ofsouls.

This doctrine may be proved in a twofoldway, namely, by reasons and examples.


62/300

56 POLITICAL ROMANISM. The First Reason. The civil power is sub-

ject to the spiritual power, when each is a partof the same Christian republic ; for the spirit-ual prince can govern temporal princes, anddispose of temporal affairs, for the purpose of aspiritual good, because every superior can gov-ern his own inferiors.For the political power, as such, not only

as it is Christian, but also as political, is subjectto the ecclesiastical power. This is demon-strated: I. From the ends of each; for a tem-poral, or civil end, is subordinate to a spiritualend. This is plain, because a temporal felicityis not absolutely an ultimate end, so that itcan be referred to eternal felicity. 2. Kingsand Pontiffs, clergymen and laymen, do notmake two republics, but one, that is, oneChurch ; for we are all one body : Romans xiiI Corinthians xii. But in every body themembers are connected, and depend the oneupon another. But it can not be properlysaid that spiritual things depend on temporaltherefore, temporal things depend on spiritualthings, and are subjected to them. 3. If a tem-poral administration impedes a spiritual good,in the judgment of all, the temporal prince is


63/300

CARDINAL BELLARMINE. 57bound to change that mode of administration,although it may be with the loss of a temporalgood. Therefore, the standard is, that thetemporal, or civil power, is to be subject to thespiritual.

'* The Second Reason. The ecclesiastical stateought to be perfect and sufficient in itself, inorder to obtain its own end. Such are allwell-constituted states ; therefore, it ought tohave every power necessary to accomplish itsown end. But the power of using and dispos-ing of temporal, or civil things, is necessaryto the spiritual end, because, otherwise, badprinces could, with impunity, cherish heretics,and overthrow religion. Therefore the spirit-ual power hath this authority.

*' Furthermore, any state, because it oughtto be perfect and sufficient of itself, ought togovern another state not subject to it, andforce it to change its administration, nay, evento depose its prince, and institute another whenit can not otherwise defend itself from the in-juries of the other. Therefore, much morecan the spiritual kingdom govern the temporalstate subject to it, and force it to change itsadministration, and deoose princes, and insti-


64/300


65/300

CARDINAL BELLARMINE. 59tie : Behold, here are two swords. The Lorddoes not say it is too much, but it is enough.Each, therefore, belongs to the Church, namely,the spiritual sword and the material sword.But the latter is to be exercised for theChurch, and the former by the Church. Theone is to be used by the hand of the priest,the other by the hand of the soldier, but atthe nod of the priest and the command of theemperor.'

'' Here, also, it is to be observed, that whenheretics reprehend the Extravagant of Bonifaceas erroneous, arrogant, tyrannicalfor so theyspeak concerning it in generalthey are to beadmonished that they should consider thatthese are the words of Bernard in his bookson Consideration. And without praising him,Calvin would seem to say, that Bernard spoke,in these books, as truth itself would seem tospeak.

The Thifd Reason, It is not lawful forChristians to tolerate an infidel king or aheretic, if he should endeavor to draw away hissubjects to his heresy, or to infidelity; but tojudge whether the king does or does not drawthem away to heresy belongs to the Pope, to


66/300

6o POLITICAL ROMANISM,whom is committed the care of religion ; there-fore, it belongs to the Pope to judge whetherthe king is to be deposed or not to be de-posed.

'' The proposition on this argument is provedfrom Deuteronomy xvii, where the people areprohibited to choose a king who is not of theirbrethren, that is, not a Jew, lest he would drawaway the Jews to idolatry. Therefore, Chris-tians are also prohibited to choose a king whois not a Christian, for this is a moral preceptand supported by moral equity. Again, it is amatter of danger and loss to choose one not aChristian, and not to depose one not a Chris-tian ; therefore Christians are bound not tosuffer over them a king not a Christian, if heshould endeavor to draw away people from thefaith. But I add this condition for the sakeof infidel princes who had dominion over theirpeople, before the people were converted tothe faith ; for if such princes do not endeavorto take away the faithful from the path, I donot think they should be deprived of theirdominion, although St. Thomas thinks thecontrary on 2. 2. quest. 10, art. 10; but if thesesame princes should endeavor to turn people


67/300

CARDINAL BELLARMINE, 6from the faith, by the consent of all, they couldand ought to be deprived of their dominion.

''Moreover, to tolerate a heretical king, oran infidel, endeavoring to draw away men tohis sect, is to expose religion to the most evi-dent peril ; for such as the ruler of the city is,such also are the inhabitants in it: Ecclesi-astes x; and also this proverb: The wholeworld copies the example of the king. Andexperience teaches the same; for becauseJeroboam, the king, was an idolater, thegreater part of the kingdom began to wor-ship idols : I Kings x ; and after the comingof Christ, in the reign of Constantine, Chris-tianity flourished ; in the reign of Constantius,Arianism flourished ; in the reign of Julian,Heathenism again flourished ; in England, inour own times, in the reign of Henry, andafterward, under Edward, the whole nationapostatized from the faith ; in the reign ofMary, the whole nation again returned to theChurch ; in the reign of Elizabeth, Calvinismagain began to reign, and the true religionwent into exile.

*' But Christians are not required, nay, theyought not, to tolerate an infidel king at the


68/300

62 POLITICAL ROMANISM.evident danger of religion ; for when Divineright and human right are opposed, Divine

. right ought to be preserved at the expense ofhuman right ; for it is a matter of Divine rightto preserve the true faith and religion, which isone only, and not many. It is a matter ofhuman right that we should have this or thatking.

Finally, why can not a believing people befreed from the yoke of an infidel king who isleading them to infidelity, if a believing husbandis free from the obligation of remaining withan unbelieving wife, when he is unwilHng toremain with a Christian wife, without injury tothe faith, as is manifest from Paul: i Cor-inthians vii. Innocent III on the CanonLaw. (Decret. Greg. IX, lib. iv, tit. 19, cap. 8,Gaudeamus) For the power of a husbandover a wife is not less than that of a kingover his subjects, and sometimes is greater.

TheFourth Reason, When kings and princescame to the Church that they might becomeChristians, they are received with this expresscondition, either expressed or understood, thattheir scepters should be subject to Christ, andthey promise that they shall preserve and de-


69/300

CARDINAL BELLARMINE. 63fend the faith of Christ, even under the pain oflosing their kingdoms. When, therefore, theybecome heretics, or oppose religion, they can bejudged by the Church, and even deposed fromtheir dominion; nor is there any injury donethem should they be deposed. For he is not fitfor the sacrament of baptism who is not ready toserve Christ, and for his sake lose whatsoever henow possesses. Luke xiv : ' If any one comethto me, and hateth not his father, and mother,and wife, and children, nay, even his own life,he can not be my disciple.' Moreover, theChurch would err very much if she should tol-erate any king who would, with impunity,cherish any sect, and defend heretics, and over-turn religion. The Fifth Reason, When it is said to Peter,^Feed my sheep,' John xxi, every power isgiven to him which is necessary to tend theflock.. But a threefold power is necessary forthe pastor, namely, one respecting the wolves,that he might drive them av/ay in any mannerhe can ; another respecting the rams, that ifany of them should hurt the flock with hishorns, he could shut them in and prevent them,that they should not thereafter lead astray the


70/300

64 POLITICAL ROMANISM,flock ; the third is about the other sheep, thathe would furnish to each of them suitable food.Therefore this triple power hath the supremePontiff. Bellarmine de Rom. Pontiff, lib. v,cap. 7, tom. i, pages 1071 to 1075/' (M'Clin-tock on the Temporal Power of the Pope, pages112 to 116.)On the foregoing extract from Cardinal Bel-larmine we remark:

1. He was born in 1542, and during hisyouth, and while he was prosecuting hisstudies in theology, the Council of Trent wasin session, and he thus had abundant oppor-tunity to understand the real doctrines andsentiments of that inspired (?) body; and wasin that period of life when the mind is sus-ceptible of receiving the most profound andindelible impressions, during the most im-portant part of that celebrated Council.

2. He was the most learned controversialRoman Catholic writer of his time, and hisposition as lecturer in Controversial Divin-ity, in the new college {Collegmm Romaniini)which had just been founded in Rome, and aslibrarian of the Vatican, gave him the bestopportunity of understanding fully the real


71/300


72/300

66 POLITICAL ROMANISM,change the kingdoms, and take away from oneand confer on another, as supreme spiritualprince, if that is necessary for the salvation ofsouls.

6. We have also the doctrine expressly setforth that the civil power is subject to thespiritual power, when each is a part of thesame Christian republic, for the spiritual princecan govern temporal princes, and dispose oftemporal affairs, for the purpose of a spiritualgood, because every superior can govern hisown inferiors/' Here the doctrine of the Pa-pacy is set forth in regard to the superiority ofthe ecclesiastical over the civil government,and the consequent right of the Pope to gov-ern temporal princes, because they are inferiorto him.

7. Here we have, also, the express declara-tion that the political power, as such, notonly as it is Christian, but also as political, issubject to the ecclesiastical power.'' This isthe doctrine of Rome, and has been for athousand years, and is held to-day by all trueRoman Catholics, as fully as it was by Bellar-mine in the sixteenth century. Here we arealso explicitly taught that both the spiritual and


73/300

CARDINAL DELLARMINE, 6/the material swords belong to the Church*'But the latter is to be exercised for theChurch, and the former by the Church. Theone is to be used by the hand of the priest, theother by the hand of the soldier, but at thenod of the priest and the command of the em-peror.'* The history of the Church of Romeduring the middle ages is a fearful illustrationof the doctrine here set forth by Bellarmine,and had she the power to-day, there are notwanting evidences to show clearly that shewould prove true to her doctrine, and to herancient practice.

8. But here we are told further, that it isnot lawful for Christians to tolerate an infidelking, or a heretic, if he should endeavor todraw away his subjects to his heresy, or to in-fidelity. Again, '' Moreover, to tolerate a he-retical king, or an infidel, endeavoring to drawaway men to his sect, is to expose religion tothe most imminent peril. And again, ButChristians are not required, nay, they oughtnot to tolerate an infidel king at the evidentdanger of religion. And finally, we are heretold, Moreover, the Church would err verymuch if she should tolerate any king who


74/300

68 POLITICAL ROMANISM,would, with impunity, cherish any sect, anddefend heretics, and overturn religion. Herewe have the doctrine of Rome laid down, that*'it is not lawful for the Church to tolerateany king or government that cherishes or tol-erates any sect or heresy, nor was the Churchever known to err in this respect, by tol-erating such king or government, when shehad the power to enforce her claim to supremetemporal authority.

9. But to complete this claim to absolutetemporal supremacy over the kings and gov-ernments of the earth, we are here told, tojudge whether the king does or does notdraw them away to heresy belongs to thePope, to whom is committed the care of re-ligion ; therefore, it belongs to the Pope tojudge whether the king is to be deposed ornot to be deposed.^'How different are the teachings of this emi-nent Italian Cardinal, who wrote in the de-fense of the Papacy right under the eye of hismaster, and the declarations of the specialpleaders for the Pope in England and theUnited States, where the pressure in favor ofpolitical and religious freedom, and against


75/300

CARDINAL BELLARMINE, 69these absurd and tyrannical claims of theChurch of Rome is so great that an openand honest avowal of the real doctrine of theChurch on this question would not only sub-ject the teachers of such monstrous claims tojust odium, but would also effectually blockup the way of success in their scheme ofproselyting the nation to the Roman Catholicfaith But when we compare the teachingsof Bellarmine with the declarations of Dr.Milner, Cardinal Wiseman, Bishop England,and Archbishop Purcell, the contrast is per-fect. We here meet with not even a hint ofthe temporal supremacy resting upon theconsent of the princes of Christendom, or originating in human concessions, etc. But,on the other hand, it is expressly claimed toinhere in the Papacy itself, and to be essentialto the preservation of the Church. This isthe true doctrine of Rome, and the Pope, inthe life-time of Cardinal Bellarmine, did, in theyear 1570, in the plenitude of his power, asthe vicar of Christ, and successor of St. Peter,thunder forth his bull of excommunication anddeprivation against Elizabeth, Queen of En-gland, and absolved her subjects from their


76/300

70 POLITICAL ROMANISM.oath of allegiance to her, and forbade themto obey her mandates or laws under pain ofanathema. This is testimony in regard to theclaims of the Pope to temporal supremacy thatamounts to something ; while the disclaimer ofsuch special pleaders as Bishop England andArchbishop Purcell, put forth before the Amer-ican people for political effect, and unsupportedby a single authority, and right in the face ofboth the teachings and history of the Churchof Rome, are of no authority on the question,and were never intended or designed so to bebut were only designed to lull the public mindto rest, which had become partially aroused andalarmed at the progress the Church of Romewas making in this land, consecrated by theblood of our fathers to civil and religious lib-erty.


77/300

I

TEACHINGS OF LEADING DIVINES. 7

CHAPTER V.TEACHINGS OF THE LEADING DIVINES.

IT is the doctrine of the canonists and di-vines of the Church of Rome, that thePope has supreme temporal and spiritual juris-diction, over the whole worldsome maintain-ing the direct, and others, like Bellarmine, theindirect temporal supremacy ; but all admit-tingexcept the Galilean school, as we haveseenthat it is a doctrine of Rome that thePope is the supreme temporal and spiritualruler of the world.

Bellarmine tells us : The first opinion is,that the Pope, by divine right, hath supremepower over the whole world, both in ecclesias-tical and civil aJBfairs. This is the opinion ofAugustinus Triumphus, Alvarus Pelagius,Panormitanus, Hostiensis, Sylvester, and manyothers. (Elliott on Romanism, vol. ii, p. 156.)Thomas Aquinas, the leading theologian of


78/300

*]2 POLITICAL ROMANISM,the Catholic Church, says : In the Pope isthe summit of each power. When any-one is denounced excommunicate by his de-cision on account of apostasy, his subjects areimmediately freed from his dominion and theiroath of allegiance to him. (Ibid.) Bellar-mine tells us that in his book on the Ruleof Princes, St. Thomas affirms that thePope, by Divine right, hath spiritual and tem-poral power, as supreme king of the world ;that he can impose taxes on all Christians anddestroy towns and castles for the preservationof Christianity. (Ibid.)

Farrasis, in his Ecclesiastical Dictionary,which is used as a standard for Roman Cath-olic divinity, and whose authorities are deducedfrom the acknowledged standards of the Churchof Rome, gives the following outlines of Papalpower under the word Papa, Article II : ThePope is of such dignity and highness that heis not simply man, but, as it were, God, andthe vicar of God. Hence, the Pope is of suchsupreme and sovereign dignity that, properlyspeaking, he is not merely constituted in dig-nity, but is rather placed on the very sum-mit of dignities. Hence, also, the Pope is


79/300

TEACHINGS OF LEADING DIVINES. 73father of fathers, and he alone can use thisname, because he only can be called the fatherof fathers, since he possesses the primacy overall, is truly greater than all, and the greatestof all. He is called most holy, because he ispresum^ed to be such. On account of the ex-cellency of his supreme dignity he is calledbishop of bishops, ordinary of ordinaries, uni-versal bishop of the Church, bishop or dio-cesan of the whole world, divine monarch,supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence,the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, asking of heaven, of earth, and {iiiferionnn) ofhell. Nay, the Pope's excellence and poweris not only about heavenly, terrestrial, and in-fernal things, but he is also above angels, andis their superior, so that if it were possiblethat angels could err from the faith or enter-tain sentiments contrary thereto, they couldbe judged and excommunicated by the Pope.He is of such great dignity and power thathe occupies one and the same tribunal withChrist, so that whatsoever the Pope doesseems to proceed from the mouth of God, asis proved from many doctors. The Pope is,as it were, God on earth, the only prince of


80/300

74 POLITICAL ROMANISM.the faithful of Christ, the greatest king of allkings, possessing the plenitude of power, towhom the government of the earthly and theheavenly kingdom is intrusted. Hence thecommon doctrine teacheth that the Pope haththe power of the two swords, namely, the spirit-ual and temporal, which jurisdiction and powerChrist himself committed to Peter and hissuccessors. Matt, xvi : * To thee will I givethe keys of the kingdom of heaven,' etc., wheredoctors note that he did not say key, but keys,and by this comprehending the temporal andspiritual power, which opinion is abundantlyconfirmed by the authority of the holy fa-thers, the decision of the canon and civil law,and by the apostolic constitutions ; so thatthose who hold to the contrary seem to ad-here to the opinion of the heretics, reprobatedby Boniface VIII, in his Extravagant, enti-tled Unam Sancamr Hence, infidel princesand kings, by the decision of the Pope, maybe deprived, in certain cases, of that dominionwhich they have over the faithful, as if theyhave occupied the country of the Christiansby violence, or endeavor to draw away theirfaithfulCatholicsubjects from the faith, or


81/300

TEACHINGS OF LEADING DIVINES, 75any such thing, as Bellarmine, Suarez, Bar-bara, Gonzalez, Cardinal Petra, etc., very fullydemonstrate. And hence the Pope may cedethose provinces, which formerly belonged toChristians, that were subsequently occupiedby infidels, to any Christian princes to beredeemed. And if a king becomes heretic hecan be removed from his kingdom by thePope, to whom the right of appointing hissuccessor belongs, if his sons and nearest rela-tives are heretics. Nay, in cases in which, onaccount of the heresy of the king, the re-ligion of his kingdom and the faith of othersseem to be in danger, if he can in no other wayprevent this loss, the Pope may not only de-prive him of his kingdom, but he may alsoconcede it to a Christian prince and his suc-cessors, if this prince will fight for it and con-quer it. Hence it is not wonderful if to theRoman Pontiff, as vicar of Him whose is theearth and its fullness, the world and all theywho dwell therein, to whom supreme authorityand power are given, not only holds the spirit-ual, but also the material unsheathed sword, forjust cause, of transferring empires, breakingscepters, and taking away crowns ; which


82/300

*j6 POLITICAL ROMAKISILplenitude of power not only once, but often,the Popes used, whenever it was necessary,by binding, most courageously, the sword ontheir thighs, as is sufficiently manifest, notonly from the most ample testimonies of theo-logians, the asserters of Pontifical and regalright, but also of innumerable historians ofundoubted credibility, as well profane as sa-cred, as well Greek as Latin/' (Ibid., pp. 156,157, 158.)

Baronius, the great Roman annalist, teachesthe same doctrine. He says : There can beno doubt that the civil principality is sub-ject to the sacerdotal. And again : Godhath made the political government subject tothe dominion of the spiritual Church. (Ibid.,pp. 158, 159.)

Elliott remarks : Antoninus, Archbishopof Florence, who is counted a sound RomanCatholic divine, inculcates, as strongly as Fer-raris and the Popes themselves, the sovereignauthority of the Bishop of Rome in all mat-ters, both spiritual and temporal. After ap-plying the eighth Psalm to the Pope, ' Thouhast made him a little lower than the angels,'and saying that all power in heaven and earth


83/300

TEACHINGS OF LKADING DIVINES. yjwas given to the Pope he proceeds : * For thePope is greater than man, as saith Hostiensus,but less than an angel, because he is mortal, butgreater in authority and power. For an angelcan not consecrate the body and blood ofChrist, nor absolve or bind, the jurisdiction ofwhich exists in a plenary manner in the Popenor can an angel ordain, grant indulgences, orany such thing. He is crowned with gloryand honorthe glory of commendation, be-cause he is not only called blessed but mostblessed, as saith the canon law. Who candoubt that he is holy, whom the summit of suchgreat dignity hath exalted.'^ He is crovmedwith the honor of veneration, that the faithfulmay kiss his feet ; for greater honor can notexist than that mentioned by the psalmist:Adore his footstool. (Ps. xcviii.) He iscrowned, also, with th'e greatness of authority,because he judges all persons, and is judgedof none, unless he is found an apostate fromthe faith. Hence, also, he is crowned with atriple crown ; and is constituted over all theworks of his hands to regulate concerning allinferiors ; he opens heaven, sends the guilty to


84/300


85/300

POPES AND COUNCILS, jg

CHAPTER VI.TEACHINGS OF POPES AND COUNCILS.

THE Popes of Rome have claimed supremepower over the kings of the earth for athousand years past ; and since the time Greg-ory n succeeded in overturning the power ofthe Emperor Leo in Italy, in the year 730, theyhave put forth this claim, and, in many in-stances, have practically carried it out, as maybe seen in Millman's Latin Christianity, Hal-lam's Middle Ages, De Cormenin's Lives ofthe Popes, or any authentic history of thisperiod. This claim they did not ground uponhuman concession, but upon Divine right, asthe successors of St. Peter and vicars of Christ.

Gregory II writes to the Emperor Leo:With the power given me by St. Peter, Icould inflict punishment upon thee, but sincethou hast heaped a curse upon thyself, I leavethee to endure it. (Milman's Latin Chris-


86/300

80 POLITICAL ROMANISM,tianity, vol. ii, p. 314.) Here is a distinct as-sertion of the right of the Pope to depose theEmperor by virtue of his office as the successorof St. Peter; and though he did not at thattime exercise that right, yet he did this after-ward, and successfully overturned the powerof the Emperor in Italy.

Gregory III, successor to Gregory II, suc-ceeded in overturning the kingdom of the Lom-bards, through the power of Charles Martel,and thus secured the full establishment ofthe temporal power of the Pope as a civil rulerover the States of the Church.Leo III, by the restoration of the Western

Empire, conferring the empire and the imperialcrown upon Charlemagne, and proclaiminghim *' Caesar Augustus, and the Emperor, byreceiving the crown and empire at his hands,laid the foundation of that colossal power whichthree centuries later was fully developed underGregory VII and Innocent III. By this trans-action, as Milman remarks, The Pope (forCharlemagne swore at the same time to main-tain all the power and privileges of the RomanPontiff) obtained the recognition of a spiritualdominion commensurate with the secular em-


87/300

POPES AAW COUNCILS, 8pire of Charlemagne. The Emperor and thePope were bound in indissoluble alliance ; and,notwithstanding the occasional outbursts ofindependence, or even superiority, asserted byCharlemagne himself, he still professed, andusually showed, the most profound venerationfor the Roman spiritual supremacy, and left tohis successors and to their subjects an awfulsense of subjugation, from which they werenot emancipated for ages/' (Milman's LatinChristianity, vol. ii, pp. 461, 462.) From thistime to the reign of Gregory VII, the contestbetween the civil and ecclesiastical powers forsupremacy continued, until the imperious willof Gregory brought every thing to submit tohis authority.In the contest between Gregory VII andthe Emperor Henry IV, the supreme temporalpower of the Pope was not only explicitly setforth, but also practically carried out. AfterGregory had received the formal citation fromthe Emperor to abdicate the chair of St. Peter,sitting in the midst of his third Lateran Coun-cil, of February, 1076, he addressed theassembled bishops thus : Now, therefore,brethren, it behooves us to draw the sword of

6


88/300

82 POLITICAL ROMANISM,vengeance ; now must we smite the foe of Godand of his Church ; now shall his bruised head,which lifts itself in its haughtiness against thefoundation of the faith and of all the Churches,fall to the earth, there, according to the sen-tence pronounced against his pride, to go uponhis belly and eat the dust. Fear not, littleflock, saith the Lord, for it is the will of yourFather to grant you the kingdom. Longenough have ye borne with him ; often enoughhave ye admonished him^let his seared con-science be made at length to feel.'' The wholesynod replied with one voice : *' Let thy wis-dom, most holy father, whom the Divine mercyhas raised up to ncle the world in our days,utter such a sentence against this blasphemer,this usurper, this tyrant, this apostate, as maycrush him to the earth, and make him a warn-ing to future ages Draw thesword, pass the judgment, that the righteousmay rejoice when he seeth the vengeance, andwash his hands in the blood of the ungodly.''On the next day, Gregory took his seat again

in the Council, and proceeded to read his bullof excommunication and deprivation againstthe Emperor, which was thus : In full confi-


89/300

POPES AND COUNCILS. 83dence in the authority over all Christian people,granted by God to the delegate of St. Peter,for the honor and defense of the Church, in

the name of the Almighty God, the Father, theSon, and the Holy Ghost, and by the power andauthority of St. Peter, I interdict King Henry,son of Henry the Emperor, who, in his unexam-pled pride, has risen against the Church, fromthe government of the whole realm of Ger-many and Italy. I absolve all Christians fromthe oath which they have sworn, or may swear,to him, and forbid all obedience to him asking. For it is just that he who impugns thehonor of the Church should himself forfeit allhonor which he seems to have ; and becausehe has scorned the obedience of a Christian,nor returned to the Lord, from whom he hadrevolted by holding communion with the ex-communicate, by committing many iniquities,and despising the admonitions, which, as thouknowest, I have given him for his salvation,and has separated himself from the Church bycreating schism : I bind him, therefore, in thyname, in the bonds of thy anathema, that all thenations may know and may acknowledge thatthou art Peter ; that upon thy rock the Son


90/300

84 POLITICAL ROMANISM.of the living God has built his Church, andthat the gates of hell shall not prevail againstit/' (Milman's Latin Christianity, vol. iii, pp.436-438.)

Here we have the bull of Gregory VII, de-throning Henry IV, and it expressly claims toperform this act by the authority of St. Peter,and in the name of the Almighty God. Nota hint do we here have of this right havingbeen conferred by the consent of the princesof Christendom no intimation that it wasdone by human right or power, but by Divineright alone. This bull of deprivation was pro-nounced by the Pope from his throne in theCouncil of Bishops and Abbots, one hundredand ten in number, and is therefore an excathed^'a decision, and consequently infallible,if the infallibility of the Pope is to be be-lieved But this is not all. In vindicationof his decree of deprivation, Gregory says : If the Pope may judge spiritual persons, howmuch more must secular persons give an ac-count of their evil deeds before his tribunal

Think they that the royal excels the episco-pal dignity 1the former the invention of hu-man pride, the latter of Divine holiness ; the


91/300

POPES AND COUNCILS. 85former ever coveting vainglory, the latter as-piring after heavenly life. The glory of aking, St. Ambrose says, to that of a bishop,is as lead to gold. (Ibid., p. 445.)

This bull of deprivation was no idle threat,as the Emperor learned by sad experience.To save himself from its consequences he wascompelled to cross the Alps in midwinter, andsubmit to the most disgraceful humiliation tothe Pope, in order to get the sentence of ex-communication and deprivation removed.The closing scene of this humiliation is thusdescribed by Milman : On a dreary Wintermorning, with the ground deep in snow, theKing, the heir of a long line of emperors, waspermitted to enter within the two of the threewalls which girded the castle of Canosa. Hehad laid aside every mark of royalty or of dis-tinguished station ; he was clad only in thethin white linen dress of the penitent, andthere, fasting, he awaited in humble patiencethe pleasure of the Pope. But the gates didnot unclose.' A second day he stood, cold,hungry, and mocked by vain hope ; and yeta third day dragged on, morning to evening,over the unsheltered head of the discrowned


92/300

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	recuperatedbyjesus
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

Political Romanism [1872] - By G.W. Hughey

Documents