ART. VIII.-ROME vs. LIBERTY. Historical Outlines of Political Romanism. London: Chapman & Hall. Delineation of Roman Catholicism. By REV. CHARLES ELLIOTT, D.D. New York: Carlton & Porter. OUR free institutions, the unbounded liberty enjoyed by us, the liberal tone of public opinion, the ease with which the Americans, as a people, are dazzled by splendor and mystery, however tawdry may be the first, or empty the last, and above all, and more than all, the continual struggle of party for power, regardless of principle, which is going on in our midst, and in which both sides are but too ready to pander to the prejudices, or further the ambitious designs of any clique or set in order to "gain votes"-all these considerations offer facilities to Rome for the advancement of her prosperity, which she has not been slow to see or backward to take advantage of. Of course she does all in the most innocent manner. She has no desire for aggrandizement. only the advancement of the glory of God. She has designs, to be sure; but all her designs are said to be in accordance with the immutable laws of the Church. That is to say, while Rome in her liberal moments declares that all the old oppressive and superstitious laws are mere dead letters upon her code, they are actually revived so soon as the power for their execution is attained. It becomes therefore a matter of interest to discover what laws Rome really has upon her code, so conveniently to be revivified, and how these laws affect those republican institutions which it becomes us all to defend and preserve. She is not ambitious. She desires What has Rome attempted and in part accomplished within this half century? In Spain she has struggled hard within eighteen years to revive the bloody horrors of the Inquisition, and this consummation has been hindered solely by the cautious fears of the government. In Germany, encouraged by the quarrels between people and rulers, she has nearly succeeded in reviving the long obsolete laws prohibiting "mixed marriages," a regulation of the Romish Church, forbidding, under ban of excommunication, the marriage of Catholics with Protestants, and shrewdly holding such marriage, when performed by Protestant ministers or by the civil law, invalid in the Church. In Austria, by the terms of the new Concordat, she has obtained enlarged temporal and spiritual power for her priesthood, agreeing in return to become the spy and agent of an oppressive and illiberal government. In France, though, under Louis Philippe, the Jesuits, caught in an intrigue to obtain the mastery of the educational system, were banished, Louis Napoleon has found subservient tools in that priesthood, whom he has flattered ad nauseam. In Tuscany and stupid and priestridden Naples she has revived the noisesome dungeons of the Inquisition, and has tortured men and women for daring to read the Bible. In Rome itself she robbed a poor persecuted Jew of his child, on the puerile excuse that it, when an infant in arms, was clandestinely baptized by a treacherous servant maid, and thus converted to the true faith. In Mexico her priests, finding themselves a real political power, have persistently overthrown every liberal and wise government which has been established, for fear of a curtailment of their vast temporal possessions and privileges; and they have now reduced that country to a condition of anarchy which is hopeless unless it ends in the entire expulsion of the priesthood. And in the United States, at present evidently the scene of her most vigorous efforts, she has steadily but subtilely battled for extension of power, by demanding the centralization of church property in the hands of her bishops (mostly aliens;) a division of the state school funds, (for which the talk about exclusion of the Bible from the public schools is only an ingenious blind;) for the elimination, in several instances, of "objectionable passages in school histories;" for authority for the Roman Catholic bishops to annul marriage contracts existing between members of their Church, independently of the civil law, which properly reserves such right to itself,* and for divers other special privileges, seemingly slight, but really the groundwork for greater demands. Its The Church of Rome has a special and, by its rulers, acknowledged code, called the Canon Law. This lies before the world an open book, and we are able therefore to lay its provisions before our readers, without fear that the adherents of Rome will deny either their authenticity or authority. In addition, however, to the Canons, the Romish Church rejoices in a never-failing source of law. head, the pope, speaks as an infallible lawgiver enlightened by the Holy Spirit; and his commands, decrees, and decisions, given not only in ages past, but even in our own degenerate days, are and must be binding upon all "true believers." That they are received at this day with as implicit faith as was accorded to them centuries ago, is abundantly proven by the avidity with which the comparatively recent decision of the "Sovereign Pontiff," concerning the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, has been heralded abroad • Such a demand was brought before a San Francisco court in 1855, and very properly hooted out. through Europe and America, and the readiness and respect with which that ridiculous farce has been received by "the faithful." The Pope's words are oracular. When he speaks, infallibilis e cathedra docens, his promulgations are binding as law upon the adherents of "the Church." "Roma locuta est, res disjudicata est," says a worthy eminent in the Church. And the Romish priests of our days only repeat his injunction: "If Rome has spoken the matter is decided." The additions made to the law code of the Church of Rome by means of this papal oracle are, as may be imagined, not few. The canon law is itself quite voluminous, but the decrees added to this original law book by the bulls, letters, and allocutions issued in later times from the papal chair, are quite as numerous. It is to the canon law, and the papal bulls, allocutions, etc., then, that we must refer to obtain an insight into the laws and doctrines which govern the Romish Church, and on which she can, when occasion serves, conveniently fall back. For easier and more systematic reference, we will take first such of the laws and tenets of the Church of Rome as, having a general application, may be said to be the foundation upon which all her vast assumptions of temporal power and authority are built up. 1. All men are, by divine command, placed in subjection to the pope. This principle of the Church of Rome, from which, as from a center, radiates the entire mass of papal commands and laws, is distinctly set forth in the canonical code, Extrav. Comm., L. 1, Tit. 8, Cap. 1, containing the celebrated bull of Pope Boniface VIII., dated 1302, (Unam Sanctam.) At the close of this document it is said: "We declare and determine it a principle absolutely necessary to salvation, that all human beings are subject to the pope." That the power here assumed by the popes over mankind in general is, according to the canons, a divine right, or one granted from the Lord, is asserted in many places. We will only mention two: In chapter 13, X, de Judic., it is said: "We (the pope) rely not upon a mundane but a divine order, (constitutio,) because our power is not of man but of God." And in the before-mentioned bull, Unam Sanctam, we read: "This (papal) power is not human, or of man, but rather divine, because given by the Lord to Peter, and settled upon him and his successors when the Saviour said to Peter: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind,' etc. Therefore, whosoever opposes this power, ordained of God, opposes the will of God." That the divine origin and force of this power is still maintained by the pope, and by the prelates of the Church, and believed in by all real Catholics, we might cite innumerable passages to prove. But this quotation from Brownson's Review for January, 1854, which had at that time the sanction of His Eminence † John of New York, will suffice here. It is there said: "All history fails to show an instance in which the pope, in deposing a temporal sovereign, professes to do it by the authority vested in him by the pious belief of the faithful, generally received maxims, the opinion of the age, the concession of sovereigns, or the civil constitution and public laws of Catholic states. On the contrary, he always claims to do it by the authority committed to him as the successor of the prince of the apostles, by the authority of his apostolic ministry, by the authority committed to him of binding and loosing, by the authority of Almighty God, of Jesus Christ, King of kings, Lord of lords, whose minister, though unworthy, he asserts that he is, or some such formula which solemnly and expressly sets forth that his authority is held by divine right, by virtue of his ministry, and exercised solely in his character of vicar of Jesus Christ on earth. To this we believe there is not a single exception. Wherever the popes cite their titles, they never, so far as we can find, cite a human title, but always a divine title. Whence is this? Did the popes cite a false title? Were they ignorant of their own titles?" Mr. Brownson says in another place in his Review, (January, 1855:) "There is in our judgment but one valid defense of the popes in their exercise of temporal authority in the middle ages over sovereigns; and that is, that they possess it by divine right, or that the pope holds that authority by virtue of his commission from Jesus Christ, as the successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, and visible head of the Church. Any defense of them on a lower ground must, in our judgment, fail to meet the real points in the case, and is rather an evasion than a fair, honest, direct, and satisfactory reply. To defend their power as an extraordinary power, or as an accident in Church history, growing out of the peculiar circumstances, civil constitution, and laws of the times, now passed away, perhaps forever, may be regarded as less likely to displease non-Catholics, and to offend the sensibilities of power, than to defend it on the ground of divine right, and as inherent in the divine constitution of the Church; but even on the low ground of policy we do not think it the wisest in the long run." Is not this plain enough? 2. The canons of the Church are of EQUAL AUTHORITY with the Holy Scriptures. This we learn from the Can. Violatores, Caus. xxv, qu. 1, where we read: "He who voluntarily and consciously trangresses against |