THE POPE'S PATRIMONY NOT DIVINE.

227

only for the Universal Church; and the other insisting that if it were recognized it would confer no temporal power upon the pope, because it was not necessarily included in the spiritual, and had not been divinely established as an incident to the primacy of Peter. To this latter class, it

may be fairly said, belonged a considerable portion, if not a majority, of the Roman Catholics in the United States. These had not yet felt the tremendous pressure of the Jesuit power, and honestly endeavored, by this argument, to remove what they considered to be Protestant prejudice against their Church. It was not composed entirely of laymen, but included some of the prelates and clergy, who were not yet prepared to turn over the Church to Jesuit dominion. They could not see how it was possible, if God had made the temporal an appendage to the spiritual power, that so many centuries should have elapsed without its announcement by the Church in some authoritative form. And they were encouraged in this by the highest ecclesiastical authority in the United States.

In 1848, Archbishop Kenrick, of Baltimore, prepared for the press a treatise on the Primacy, in which great learning and ability are displayed. It was published in that year, and a sixth revised edition was also published in 1867. When he comes to speak of the relations between the pope and secular affairs, he begins his first chapter on the "Patrimony of St. Peter" with this emphatic sentence: "The primacy is essentially a spiritual office, which has not, of divine right, any temporal appendage." The "small principality in Italy" over which he is sovereign is, he says, designated "the Patrimony of St. Peter," on account of its having been "attached to the pontifical office, through reverence for the Prince of the Apostles." He declares that this "has no necessary connection with the primacy," and because "Catholics not living within the Roman States are not subject to the civil authority of the pope,” he treated of it no further than to trace its history ;(') and to this we shall have occasion hereafter to refer.

() "The Primacy of the Apostolic See," by Archbishop Kenrick, sixth edition, p. 255.

He says again: "In making Peter the ruler of his kingdom, he [Christ] did not give him dominion, or wealth, or any of the appendages of royalty."(") Then, going on to show that "the Bishop of Rome was not yet a temporal sovereign "() at the time of Leo the Great-the middle of the fifth century-he says also, at another place, that the power of interfering with, and regulating, the "political order" in the nations was vested in the popes "by the force of circumstances," and was not "a divine prerogative of their office."()

What Roman Catholic archbishop, or bishop, or priest, in the United States would repeat these words to-day? See, again, what the pope says: "The civil sovereignty of the Holy See has been given to the Roman pontiff by a singu lar counsel of Divine Providence;" and as "regards the relations of the Church and civil society," ""all the prerogatives, and all the rights of authority necessary to governing the Universal Church, have been received by us, in the person of the most blessed Peter, directly from God himself."() Has the faith changed? Did not Archbishop Kenrick understand what it was? Was he a heretic? But this conflict of authority is in no other way important to us than to show how the honest apprehensions of Roman Catholics in the United States were allayed before the pope's infalli bility was announced, and to excite to such inquiry as will show how, in reality, the temporal power was acquiredwhether it is of God or man, whether it was obtained legitimately or by usurpation. Thus we shall be better prepared to understand the import of the issues which the papacy has precipitated upon us.

Archbishop Kenrick did not consider it necessary, in his work on the Primacy, to treat of the pope's temporal power in Rome, any further than to trace its history. Nor was it necessary that he should do so, in view of his denial of its divine origin. He did not consider it to be a part of the faith of the Church that he, or any body else, should believe that it was conferred by Christ upon Peter, and had come down through an unbroken line of succession to the present

("The Primacy of the Apostolic See," by Archbishop Kenrick, sixth edition, p. 255. (*) Ante, chap. vi., p. 162.

(*) Ibid., p. 257.

(*) Ibid., p. 276.

CIVIL GOVERNMENT IN ROME.

229

pope. The new order of things, however the introduction of the new faith-gives great importance to the question; because if it be true that the temporal power of the pope, anywhere, is of divine origin, then the new faith is right and the old faith wrong; and the world may reasonably expect that, either by its own consent or the providences of God, it may yet be compelled to admit its universality. If, on the other hand, it had its origin in fraud, usurpation, and imposture, those of us to whom the charge of infidelity is now imputed may breathe more freely.

Can it be possible that the Italian people violated the law of God by the act of terminating the pope's temporal power in the Papal States? and that they have thereby cut themselves off from reasonable hopes of heaven, unless they shall restore it? Or were they justified, after the example of the United States, in throwing off the papal yoke and adopting a form of government which, although monarchical, is representative? If the former-if God did make Peter king of Rome, and Pius IX. his successor in royal authority-then no such justification can exist, revolution is offensive to God, and every government which has grown out of it must stand accursed at the bar of heaven. Arraigned, as we are, upon such a charge, both as principals and accessories, we must be allowed the privilege of the most abandoned criminal, the right to plead to the jurisdiction of his triers.

It is a common remark of the supporters of the papacy, that the civil Government of Rome and the Papal States, by the pope and his curia, was altogether paternal, that it looked carefully after the interests of the people, was most considerate of their happiness, and was, in fact, one of the best governments in the world. If this were true, it is not easy, according to any ordinary rules of reasoning, to account for the fact that Pope Pius IX. has held the temporal sceptre, during all the years of his long pontificate, by an exceedingly frail and uncertain tenure. To him, as a king, there could be no strong personal objections. He is represented as kind-hearted and benevolent, and, no doubt, truthfully so. Even Gavazzi concedes as much.() But these

(*) Gavazzi's "Lectures and Life," p. 230.

very qualities may unfit him for the duties of government, by subjecting him to the undue influence of men around him, who play upon them. Such has, undoubtedly, been the case. Antonelli, his Cardinal Secretary of State, is understood to be both ambitious and unscrupulous, just such a man as would hold the curia and all the inferior officers of government in strict subordination to his will. (') He would, in all probability, have little difficulty in dictating the policy and measures of the administration. If the pope has ambition, he could excite it; if he has none, he could create it. Thus we may account for their joint efforts to check the current of adverse circumstances which have, during the present pontificate, pressed upon the papacy, and rendered it necessary that the pope should be held upon his throne by French bayonets. Thus, also, may we account for the Encyclical and Syllabus, and other papal bulls and briefs, wherein the attempt is made to weld religion and politics together, and make it appear that the people, however oppressed, have no more right to resist the divine right of

(7) Mr. Edmund About, a modern writer, and Gallican Catholic, thus speaks of Pius IX. :

"The character of this honest old man is made up of devotion, of good nature, of vanity, of weakness, and of obstinacy; with a spice of malice, which peeps out from time to time. He blesses with unction, and pardons with difficulty; a good priest, and an incompetent king."-The Roman Question, by About, p. 135.

Of Cardinal Antonelli he says: "He was born in a den of thieves.”—P. 140. "He seems a minister ingrafted on a savage."-P. 147. "All classes of society hate him equally."—Ibid.

F. Petruccelli de la Gattina, who has continued the discussion of the questions begun by Mr. About, does not speak so favorably of the pope. He says: "The mildness of Pius IX. resembles those coverings which are put on old arm-chairs, to conceal stains and rents.” - Rome and the Papacy: its Men, Manners, and Government in the Nineteenth Century, by F. Petruccelli de la Gattina, p. 272. He continues: "He does not elevate himself to the stature of God, but shrinks God to the stature of a poor priest, and drags him into all the follies, passions, and interests of a caste which is confounded with humanity."-P. 277.

He also condemns Antonelli in the strongest terms, by speaking of "the thefts, the villainies, the rudeness of this cardinal."-P. 275. Of the papacy, under his guidance, he says, it "is like the subterranean sewers of large cities; it carries all the filth; and where it is stopped and filters, it spreads infection and death."-P. 292.

PAPAL DESPOTISM IN ROME.

231

kings than they have to violate the ten commandments. That the papal government was oppressive has been settled by the Italian people, hitherto the most devout Roman Catholics in the world. By their act, that fact, as such, is entitled to a place in history; and that they were justified in it, as we were justified in our Revolution, a brief recital of facts will abundantly show.

The Papal States, during the pope's temporal dominion, were held as religious property-as "an ecclesiastical benefice." The people were considered as so many tenants, who occupied and enjoyed the estate on "the condition affixed by the infallible head of the Church, for her welfare, and not their own." They possessed no civil rights whatever, in the sense in which the world holds them, but only such privi leges as their sovereign, the pope, thought proper to confer upon them; and these could be changed, modified, or wholly withdrawn, at his personal discretion, or whenever the interests of the Church should require it. If the Government was a trust, held alone for the benefit of the Church, as papists allege, then the people had no right to demand of it any thing on their own account. The Government was conducted wholly without reference to them, and they were required to submit to whatsoever it did, and to all the laws proclaimed by the papacy. Popular liberty was, therefore, unknown, and was impossible. The papacy alone was free to do as it pleased; and this was called the freedom of the Church! The people, having thus no voice in public affairs, were in a condition of vassalage. The Government was a revival, with slight exceptions, of the old system of feudalism, without its redeeming features. There was no change, or promise of change: every thing moved on in the old grooves which had been worn by centuries of papal absolutism. A writer who personally observed this says:

"At every appeal to alienate any part of his sacred estate, or to grant any privileges to his subjects, on the ground of their inherent rights, the pope talks of Constantine, and Pepin, and the blessed Countess Matilda, and, shaking his infallible head, doggedly thunders, "Non possumus !" (")

(*) “Inner Rome," by Rev. C. M. Butler, p. 15. This book deserves ex