"And, in truth, the Church has never intended, nor now intends, to exercise any direct and absolute power over the political rights of the State. Having received from God the lofty mission of guiding men, whether individually or congregated in society, to a supernatural end, she has by that very fact the authority and the duty to judge concerning the morality and justice of all acts, internal and external, in relation to their conformity with the natural and divine law. And as no action, whether it be ordained by a supreme power, or be freely elicited by an individual, can be exempt from this character of morality and justice, so it happens that the judgment of the Church, though falling directly on the morality of the acts, indirectly reaches over every thing with which that morality is concerned."(")

This is distinct enough to convince the most incredulous that it is a fixed and well-understood law of the Roman Church, that all individuals and societies and nations are within the circle of the papal jurisdiction; and that whatsoever they may do not compatible with God's law, as the pope shall define it, in the whole domain of faith and morals, he has the right to condemn, and does condemn, by virtue of authority derived directly from God. Hence, it will be perceived that the law of the Church is to-day just what it was announced to be by Innocent III., and that it confers upon Pius IX. precisely the same authority which he claimed over the crown of England, and which Alexander II. exércised when he decided it to belong to William of Normandy.

The law being the same, the penalty for disobedience must be the same-for the Church never changes! In any given case of disobedience, whether by an individual or a nation, the act must be, necessarily, treason against God, as Innocent declared. The individual, for this offense, is cut off by the sword of excommunication from all fellowship with the faithful, and the doors of heaven are closed against him; if he be a civil ruler, his authority to govern is stricken from his hands, and those who owe him obedience by the laws of the State are commanded not to obey him. The

(40) "Vatican Council," by Archbishop Manning, appendix, p. 185.

OBEDIENCE EXACTED BY FORCE.

453

nation, not having, like the individual, a corporeal body to be punished or a soul to be damned, forfeits all rights to the exercise of the power out of which its disobedience arose, and becomes thereby subject to the "sovereign of the sovereigns," to whom God has given authority to pronounce judgment against it "in his court," and to transfer it to whomsoever he shall think "just;" that is, to the faithful who will bring it into the path of duty! And when all other remedial measures have failed, the Church, says Pius IX., has the right to avail "herself of force" to compel obedience!(1)

We are not left to any conjecture in reference to the punishment of individuals or nations for the heresy of disobedience to the pope, which is considered as disobedience to God. If the doctrine laid down by Innocent III. and Pius IX. is not explicit enough on this subject, it is so laid down by authors of recognized authority, who have compiled the law of the Church, as to leave no room for cavil. In 1778, a work was published in Spain, written by Alfonzo de Castro, a learned friar, which was designed to set forth the law of the Church for the punishment of heretics. These punishments he divides into two classes, spiritual and temporal. The latter are defined to be proscription and confiscation of property, and "the deprival of every sort of pre-eminence, jurisdiction, and government, which they previously exercised over persons of every condition." To this class belong kings and those who govern public affairs. "A king," says he, "having become a heretic, is ipso jure deprived of his kingdom, a duke of his dukedom, an earl of his earldom, and so with other governors of the people, by whatever name they are known." And this is done by the pope, who deprives a king of his royal dignity, and strips him of his kingdom; for in the matter of faith, kings, like other subor dinates, are the subjects of the sovereign pontiff, who can punish them as he does others."

Inasmuch as to deprive a ruler of his kingdom, the coun

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

try would be left without a governor, unless something more were done, the law goes a step farther. This author states it in these words:

"If an heretical king have no heir, or if the heir be also a heretic, then if the nation be not infected with heresy, I should say that it has the power and right of electing the king, as it is said in the First Book of Kings, "The people makes itself a king.' But if the people be infected with the same pestilence (of heresy) as the king, the people will be deprived ipso jure of the power of choosing for itself a king, and then the business will devolve on the sovereign pontiff!" (*)

And thus the remote facts in English history, already detailed, connect themselves with our own times, by the attempt of the papacy, under the lead of the Jesuits, to revive the papal doctrines of the Middle Ages, as the means of ar resting the progress and advancing civilization of the nineteenth century. The passionate declamation of the pope, and the vaporing of a few hierarchs, or all of them, for that matter, amount to nothing in the abstract. Like all others of disappointed ambition, they are most prolific in terms of denunciation against those who have been driven out of the Roman Church by their severity and injustice. And if they choose to drive them still farther by additional severity and injustice, and every form of anathema and malediction, Protestants are not likely to concern themselves very much about it. But when they impudently arraign whole nations of people, deny to them the right to govern their own af fairs, pronounce judgment against them as heretics and traitors to God, and claim that the pope has the divine right to set his own rulers over them, it is quite time for us to understand what is to be the effect of all this upon the future destiny of our own country. But this question can be more satisfactorily considered when we shall have learned some thing more of the working of the papal system, which we are now asked to adopt in preference to that which has placed us in so eminent a position among the nations.

(1) Apud Dr. Cumming. See his "Lectures on Romanism," in London, in explanation of the teaching of Cardinal Wiseman, pp. 55, 56.

The Pope turns England over to France.-Resistance of the Barons.—John resigns the Crown to the Pope.-Langton.-Charter of Henry I.—Barons form a League.—Langton supports the Barons.-Magna Charta.—John swears to obey it.-The Pope releases Him, and annuls the Charter.— He claims England as a Fief.-Foreign Mercenaries.—Henry III.—Italian and Foreign Priests.-King promises to observe the Charter.— The Pope again releases Him.-Appeals to Rome.-Peter-pence.—Immunities of Clergy. They murder with Impunity.-House of Commons established.-Pope again releases the King from his Oath.-Civil War.-The Barons defeated.—Their Treatment by the King and Pope.-Edward I. confirms the Charter. - The Pope releases Him. — Edward II. — The Statutes of Provisors and of Præmunire.-The Lollards.-Law for burning Heretics.-William Sawtre and Thomas Badby burned.-Lollards attacked.-Clergy exempt from Punishment in Secular Courts.-Their Corruption and that of the Popes.-Urban V. and Gregory XI.-Popes and Antipopes.- Scandalous and Disgraceful Conduct. — Gregory XII. Pope at Rome, and Benedict XIII. at Avignon.-Both declared Infamous by the Council of Pisa. - Alexander V.-John XXIII. deposed for Enormous Crimes by Council of Constance.-Martin V.-Influence upon the Church. -Corruption almost Universal.—The Fruits of the False Decretals.

THE condition into which King John was thrown by the attempt of Innocent III. to stir up an insurrection in England against his authority was embarrassing in an extreme degree. He had incurred the animosity of the Norman barons, who, after having at first entertained hostility toward the native Britons and the Saxons, had become reconciled to both, and were anxious to defend and share with them their ancient rights and privileges. These barons were Roman Catholics in all the essentials of religious faith; but as they found nothing in that faith, when uncontaminated by the influence of the papacy, requiring them to submit passively to the tyranny of either kings or popes, they became early impressed with the necessity of adopting such measures as would teach their rulers that the English people had some rights they were bound to respect. The occasion afforded them an opportunity of seeking to avenge themselves upon

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