תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

CHURCH AND STATE BOTH FREE.

587

appear content to be recognized as maintaining, with their hierarchy, that the Church is higher and more potent than the State-even within the constitutional domain of the State. They are invited, by the most earnest and pathetic appeals, to love the Church first, the State second, and then only as the Church shall decree; and to merge their responsibility to the laws in their responsibility to the pope.

The laws of this country do not interfere with the religion of any of these; nor can they do so. They leave each individual conscience free, so that the citizen shall act upon his own responsibility to God. All our Protestant institutions assume that each of us may enjoy a pure Christian faith without ingrafting upon it any of the principles of civil polity which are confided to the State. They will not allow the State to invade the rightful jurisdiction of the Church, and declare what the faith shall be; nor will they submit to any impairment of the legitimate functions of the State by the Church. The line which separates these jurisdictions can not be obliterated without marring the beauty of the one and assailing the integrity of the other. The Church and State must be kept apart-each in its own proper sphere.

Therefore, our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens, for themselves as well as Protestants, have the deepest interest in having these questions properly and satisfactorily solved: What is the design of those hierarchs who claim to be their sole and exclusive teachers, no less in the domain of social and political morality than in that of religious faith? Are they endeavoring to extend their spiritual jurisdiction beyond the limits fixed by our laws, and to trench upon the civil jurisdiction as marked out and defined? Does the pope claim for himself a jurisdiction over them, as citizens, superior to and above that of the State? Does he or not recognize as a legitimate fact our separation of Church and State? Does he expect of them to resist those principles of our Government which he shall declare to be contrary to God's law, or against the welfare and interest of the Church? Does he demand of them, by virtue of his asserted infallibility, to enlarge the circle of their religious faith, so as to include within it any of the essential principles of our civil polity? Does he require them, as any part of their religion,

to test their obedience to our laws by their conformity to the Constitution, or to his will? Which does he command them to obey, the civil laws of the State or the canon laws of the Church, in case of conflict between them? Which allegiance does he consider the highest, that which they owe to the Government of the United States, or that which they owe to the ecclesiastical government constructed by the Roman pontiffs? In so far as the pope is concerned, every intelligent man who has taken the trouble to investigate understands the answers to all these questions. In so far as they are concerned, the time has come when they can no longer defer to answer them for themselves.

DOCTRINES OF THE JESUITS.

589

CHAPTER XIX.

The Rights of the Papacy not lost by Revolution.-No Legitimate Right acquired by it.-Revolutions always Iniquitous.-Christopher Columbus. -He takes Possession of the New World in the Name of the Church of Rome. He thereby expands its Domain. -The Popes claim Jurisdiction in Consequence.-Illegitimate Power obtained by Revolution can not destroy this Right of Jurisdiction.-Exercise of the Power in England by Alexander II., and in Germany by Gregory VII.-Defense of Gregory VII.-Direct and Indirect Power.-Doctrine asserted by Peter Deus.— Bellarmine the Author of the Theory of Indirect Power.-Doctrine of St. Thomas.-That of Cardinal D'Ostia.-Infidels can have no Just Title to Governments.-The Pope may dispose of Them.-Gregory III., Stephen II., and Leo III. all justified.—Also Gregory VII., Innocent III., Adrian IV., and Boniface VIII.-The Late Lateran Council makes them all Infallible. They claim the Direct Power. —The Doctrine of Indirect Power an After-thought in Answer to the Objection of Protestants.-The Papal Jurisdiction in America the Same under Either.-Alexander VI. divides America between Spain and Portugal.-Resumption of this Authority defended by Jesuits.-Obedience to Governments de facto not enjoined by the Church of Rome.-Effect of this Doctrine upon the Oath of Allegiance.-Doctrine of “Mental Restrictions,” and “Ambiguity and Equivocation" in Oaths.-Jesuit Teachings on this Subject.—The Object of the Second Council of Baltimore to introduce the Canon Law.-What it is.-Its Effect if introduced in the United States.-Punishment of Heretics.-Extirpation of Infidelity.-Heretics rightfully punished with Death. -All Baptized Protestants are Subjects of the Pope.-May all be rightfully punished for Disobedience.

THE author of "Protestantism and Catholicity Compared in their Effects on the Civilization of Europe" must be followed still further, in order that the full import of his teachings may be understood. His eminent ability, and his distinction as an expositor of the true faith in so far as it involves the dealings of the papacy with the nations, give an unusual degree of prominence and importance to what he

says.

Assuming, as his premise, that the "American possessions" of Spain were separated from the mother country by

"usurpation," and that thereby illegitimate was substituted for legitimate authority, he reaches the next step in his argument, as a logical conclusion: that the new government thus formed can impose no absolute obligation of allegiance -it may be submitted to as a measure of prudence, but not obeyed on the ground of right. Manifestly he had a twofold meaning: first, to assert the existing right of Spain to retake possession of such portions of America as she had lost by revolution; and, second, the right of the papacy, also subsisting, to re-assert and maintain the spiritual jurisdiction and authority it once exercised in America. The application of this doctrine designed by him is readily seen. Mexico sundered her allegiance from Spain, as the United States did theirs from Great Britain. In both cases new governments were established and became "consummated facts"-so recognized by other governments. But, in his view, these new governments became "usurpations" by the fact that they were the result of illegitimate, or revolutionary, resistance to legitimate authority. To such governments he does not consider any obedience due, as of right; because, says he, a government which has "abolished legitimate rights can not justify its acts by the simple fact of its having sufficient strength to execute these iniquities."() Therefore, according to the "Catholic doctrines" as announced by him, the rights of Spain and Great Britain in America are in no way legitimately impaired by consummated acts of revolutionary resistance; but remain intact-as complete and perfect as they were before the revolutions began. Therefore, also, Mexico belongs, rightfully and legitimately, to the old Spanish monarchy, under its old de-jure form of government, and the United States to Great Britain; subject, of course, in both cases, to the papal claim of primacy and superior right, recognized by both countries when they had the legitimate right to do so. Neither Mexico nor the United States has acquired any legitimate and valid right, as against the legitimate authority they defied, or as against the papacy, rightfully acknowledged by that authority, by reason of the mere fact of having had "sufficient strength to execute"

(1) Balmes, p. 334.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE NOT BINDING.

591

the iniquitous purpose of establishing revolutionary governments. Hence, he reasons that, as the original obligation of obedience to the old monarchies-the only form of government which he considers as known to the divine law-has not been impaired by "these iniquities" or "consummated facts," and can not be impaired by the substitution of new and illegitimate allegiance for it, the papacy, as the representative and divinely appointed guardian of the monarchical power, has the legitimate right to sweep out of existence, whenever it shall become prudent to attempt it, every thing that shall stand in the way of this original and primary obedience. And hence, also, the oath of allegiance to the United States, with those who accept the doctrine of papal infallibility, has no other than a temporary binding force, because, being illegitimate and unjust, it is perjury, and no

oath at all!

Thus always reasons the papal monarchist, who invariably argues so as to make every thing centre in the proposition that the bulk of mankind are fit only to be governed-not to govern. He and the political monarchist start from this same stand-point. They do not differ in their process of reasoning, except in this: that the former never fails to concentrate every thing in the papacy as the legitimate source of all power, because it is the only authorized interpreter of the divine law, to which all mankind must become subject; and is sufficiently comprehensive to include the temporal or civil power, as the greater includes the lesser.

Those who defend the claim of papal supremacy in this sense see, or pretend to see, in the discovery of America by Columbus, the act of God consummated only through the instrumentality of the Roman Church, specially chosen for that purpose. They have always considered this fact as having conferred jurisdiction upon the pope to govern the new continent in whatsoever concerns the faith and the divine law— including, necessarily, in their view such direction of temporal affairs as is required to make them conform to that law. These ideas, somewhat remitted heretofore from necessity and prudence, have acquired additional strength from the dogma of papal infallibility. They are now avowed with great emphasis and vehemence by the ultramontane author

« הקודםהמשך »