f e n ^ ^ p o o j c f £ X 

7 0 6 , 

u Then the Pontiffs are free. 





"THEN THE PONTIFFS ARE FREE." 

THE CIVIL PRINCIPALITY; 

OR, 

TEMPORAL PRINCEDOM OF THE VICAR OF CHRIST 

FORESHADOWED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 
AND VINDICATED IN THE NEW. 

BY THE 

REV. C. F. P E T E R C O L L I N G R I D G E . 

" D A B I T ILLI DOMINUS D E U S SEDEM DAVID PATRIS EJUS ET REGNABIT 

IN DOMO JACOB IN .STERNUM." 

[All Rights Reserved.] 

LONDON : B U R N S & O A T E S , LTD. 

N E W Y O R K : CATHOLIC PUBLICATION SOCIETY COMPANY. 





THIS DISCOURSE, FULL OF ASSOCIATION WITH HIM, 

IS INSCRIBED 

TO THE MEMORY OF ALFRED, 

A DEAR BROTHER, 

WHO HAVING OFFERED TO GOD FOR SERVICE IN THE SANCTUARY 

A HEART ADMIRABLE FOR PURITY, DETACHMENT, AND 

CONFORMITY TO THE DIVINE WILL, 

VOLUNTEERED IN A TIME OF DANGER FOR THE 

DEFENCE OF T H E PRINCELY RIGHTS OF THE VICAR OF CHRIST, 

F IRMLY RESOLVING 

THAT SHOULD NO SACRIFICE OF BLOOD BE REQUIRED, 

HIS FIRST OBLATION SHOULD BE CONSUMMATED. 

T H E SACRIFICE 

IN THE CAUSE OF THE HOLY SEE WAS ACCEPTED. 

HE DIED OF HIS WOUNDS AT NEROLA, 

OCTOBER I8TH, 1867. 

L. J . C. 



THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT OF A DISCOURSE 

ADDRESSED TO THE 
CONGREGATION OF ST. MARY'S, MACLEAN, N.S.W., 

AUSTRALIA, 
ON PALM SUNDA Y, i88ç. 



BISHOP'S H O U S E , S A L F O R D , 

October 12th, 1889. 

D E A R F A T H E R COLLINGRIDGE, 

I have read your paper upon the Temporal 
Power of the Holy See with much interest. I recom-
mend you to publish it. The subject has been abundantly 
treated from the historical, the political, and the economic 
points of view, as it regards the interests of Christendom. 
It has not however been so fully brought before the 
public from the scriptural and theological standpoint. 
You have attempted to analyse and draw out the meaning 
which lies hidden in the words of Sacred Scripture and 
in events recorded in the Gospel. Thus your study 
cannot fail to interest a great number of Catholic minds. 
The more you can show that the Prerogatives of the 
Roman Pontiff are in reality inherited from Blessed 
Peter, who in his turn received them from His Divine 
Master upon being associated with Him as His Vicar 
and Representative on earth, the more you will raise the 
esteem in which those Prerogatives are held by Catholics. 

The principal text on which you comment—that of 
Matthew xvii. 25, 26—is carefully examined by Suarez 
in his " Defence of the Faith against Anglican Errors," 
where he asks the question, Why does Christ associate 
Peter with Himself in the freedom of the children of 
kings and in the payment of the stater ? 

This great theologian, who speaks for the whole 
school, says that Christ declared Peter to be exempt from 



6 
tribute just as He Himself was ; and that we are to under-
stand that Christ granted this privilege of exemption to 
Peter because Peter was to be the Prince and Head of 
the Church and the Vicar of Jesus Christ Himself. 

This privilege was therefore not personal to Peter 
alone, but real, and attached to the dignity and office 
which passes on to his successors in virtue of Divine 
power and of the peculiar institution and will of Christ. 
If tribute be the sign of temporal dependence and sub-
jection, he who is not really subject to the payment 
of tribute is not really under temporal subjection. He 
is independent: if independent he is Sovereign. The 
principle, therefore, of the temporal independence of 
the Pope appears to be contained in the text of the 
Gospel just referred to. 

That there may be, and are, differences of opinion 
among theologians as to the precise meaning of certain 
texts and facts, is no reason why we should not put 
forward for acceptance the sense and the consequences, 
which we, after careful study of such texts or facts, 
consider to be evidently contained in them. 

This you have done with becoming modesty, and I 
therefore think that your little treatise cannot fail to 
render a real service to the great cause of the Papacy. 

Wishing you every blessing, 

I am, your faithful and devoted servant, 

* H E R B E R T , 

BISHOP OF S A L F O R D . 



The Civil Principality or Temporal Princedom of the 
Vicar of Christ, foreshadowed in the Old Testaj 

ment and vindicated in the New. 

D E A R B R E T H R E N , — I have frequently in past discourses 
reminded you of the event which took place in Rome on 
the 20th of September of the year 1870, of which 1 was 
an eye-witness; how the Vicar of Christ was then 
violently despoiled of the last remnant of territorial 
independence constituting what is called the Civil Princi-
pality. I have quoted the page of history.in proof that 
the Civil Principality was acknowledged as a right of the 
successors of Peter so soon as rulers and subjects embrac-
ing the Christian Faith understood the unique, supreme, 
and universal position of the Vicar of Our Lord, and that 
in all Christian ages both Kings and their subjects have 
in their conduct towards the Pontiffs, more eloquently 
than in words, manifested their implicit Faith in his 
civil independence and temporal sovereignty. 

1 have now to inquire whether this great historical 
fact which, like a ray of Heavenly guidance, is cast down 
the Christian ages with only here and there an exceptional 
diminution of splendour, is merely the outcome of the 
goodwill of Christian nations, or a provisional state 
allowed by Divine Providence to be followed by some 
more enlightened agreement with modern rulers of the 
Nineteenth Century, or whether it is not rather the work 
of the Invisible Head of the Church, securing to His 
Vicar the exercise of a right once Divinely bestowed upon 
H im in the person of Peter. I f once we become convinced 
that his Civil Principality or Temporal Princedom is a 
gift of Jesus Christ and an essential part of the Divine 
Plan for the Church Militant, we shall not be surprised, 
as unbelievers have sometimes been, at the luminous fact 



8 
just alluded to, namely : that except in times of persecu-
tion, which God's providence over His Church does not 
permit to last long, the Roman Pontiffs have ever 
enjoyed territorial independence with all Kingly rights. 
I maintain then that the Civil Principality or Temporal 
Princedom is a gift of Jesus Christ, and a Divine 
institution foreshadowed in the Old Testament and 
vindicated in the New. To defend this thesis, dear 
brethren, I will confine myself to texts that are clear in 
themselves or susceptible of plain deductions, and shall 
have recourse to two principal arguments. 

First: That the order of Christ, which is that of Melchise-dech, to which the Roman Pontiffs belong, constitutes them Kings and therefore gives them a territorial independence. 
Second: That the Roman Pontiffs were actually associated in the person of Peter in the supreme independence of the Son of Man, and therefore in His earthly Freedom. 

I .—That the order of Christ, which is that of Melchisedech, to 
which the Roman Pontiffs belong, constitutes them Kings 
and therefore gives them a territorial independence. 

T H E O R D E R OF M E L C H I S E D E C H . 

Let us examine the essential features of the order of 
Melchisedech by which it is distinguished from the 
Levitical order. We read in Genesis, chapter xiv., that 
" Melchisedech, the King of Salem, bringing forth bread 
and wine, for he was a priest of the most High God, 
blessed " Abraham. In the Psalms we read the follow-
ing words of King David in reference to his Divine 
descendant and successor: " Thou art a priest for ever 
according to the order of Melchisedech." These words 
are quoted in the Epistle to the Hebrews. From the 
commentary of St. Paul and from the tradition of the 
Church we gather these essential features of the new 
order which distinguish it from the old. 

1. That it is the fulfilment of the old which it 
abolishes. 

2. That the Pontiff thereof belongs to no particular 
tribe. 



9 
3. That his oblation is that of bread and wine. 
4. That besides being priest he is King. 

Each of these essential features must now come 
under our particular notice^^Es, 

First: The first feature or characteristic of the order 
of Melchisedech seems also to be- the one which the 
Apostle St. Paul writing from Italy insists on principally. 
For the Hebrews clung to the old order of things. If 
the Levitical order were changed, then the law, then the 
inheritance of the sceptre, then the whole national 
organization must be at least altered. St. Paul insisted 
that the new order put an end to the old, that Christ 
constituted " priest for ever according to the order of 
Melchisedech " had entered the true sanctuary, Heaven, 
which He had opened not with the blood of animals, but 
with His own, and once for all; that the typical sanc-
tuary of the temple, with the annual visit of the Pontiff 
carrying the typical blood was therefore put an end to. 

Again according to the Apostle, Melchisedech had 
by legal prescription neither "beginningof days nor end 
of l i fe" which was typical of the eternal priesthood of 
Christ, whereas the Jewish rontiff had a limited term 
of office, which was ominous of the limited duration of 
the Levitical order. 

Second : The second essential feature of the order of 
Melchisedech which distinguishes it from the order of 
Aaron consists in this, that the Pontiff thereof belongs to 
no particular tribe, but may be chosen from any nation, 
whereas the Jewish Pontiff was taken from the tribe of 
Levi and the family of Aaron. Which St. Paul expresses 
by saying that Melchisedech was " without father, 
without mother, without genealogy." The same idea is 
expressed by the Apostle, when speaking of Christ, the 
eternal Priest, he shows Him to belong to the tribe of 
Juda, "o f which no one gave attendance at the altar," 
which translation of Priesthood brought about therefore 
a translation of the law. 



I O 

Third: The third essential feature of the same 
order is that the Pontiff s oblation is that of bread and 
wine. This essential characteristic of the everlasting 
order of Priesthood, although not so interesting to the 
Jewish priests or nation as the foregoing, is the most 
striking for us. In Abraham's day God raised up a 
Priest to offer bread and wine, a typical oblation on the 
same spot where Christ instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice. 
The blood of animals slain on the Levitical altar fore-
shadowed the coming Sacrifice of the Son of God, but 
the. oblation of bread and wine by Melchisedech was 
typical of the unseen presence of the Divine Victim on 
the Christian altar. 

Fourth: Having outlined these distinguishing 
features of the order of Melchisedech, I now come to the 
one with which I am most concerned in this discourse, 
namely, that the Pontiff of the order of Melchisedech, 
besides being Priest is also King. 

St. Paul quotes from Genesis: " F o r this Melchisedech 
was King of Salem, priest of the most High God . . . 
who first by interpretation of his name is King of Justice, 
and then also King of Salem, that is King of Peace." 
This then is also an essential7 feature of the order of Mel-
chisedech which distinguishes from the order of Aaron. 
For in the former the priestly and Kingly .dignities are 
combined in the one person, whereas in the latter the Law 
makes no provision for the sceptre on behalf of the priest-
hood, but according to the national prophecy of Jacob 
it is to be held principally by another tribe, that of Juda, 
and in fact was held as an hereditary right, by the suc-
cessors of David, the first King of the said tribe. It may 
possibly be objected, but was Melchisedech any more than 
a nominal King ? Had he a kingdom or real territorial 
independence ? If anyone were bold enough to make such 
an objection, it would suffice to answer, that history has 
nowhere put' on record the existence of a king of no place, 
or of an honorary king or of a king in partibus ; that such 
an empty title would not be mentioned in Scripture nor 



11 
repeated by the Apostle when insisting on the character 
of the priest, whose order was typical of, or rather iden-
tical with, Christ's. That Melchisedech without his king-
ship would be unrecognisable, and that his kingship is as 
essential as his Priesthood in order to his being recognised. 
But there is a plainer answer. Melchisedech was King of 
Salem just as truly as Bara was King of Sodom or Bersa 
King of Gomorrha. And Salem is the ancient name of 
the city of Jerusalem. Melchisedech then was truly King 
and in the enjoyment of a real territory and capital, whose 
name explains why its Pontiff-King took no part in the 
wars of the other Kings, but considered it his part to bless 
the righteous and victorious Abraham. All possible 
doubt as to the Kingly character of Melchisedech being 
removed, it remains clear that an essential feature of his 
order, which is the order of Christ, is the combination of 
the Pontifical and Kingly characters and dignities. And 
this feature is nowhere found in the Levitical order. The 
Priests for a time combined the office of Prince or Chief 
Ruler with the sacerdotal office, but besides the fact that 
such authority was delegated from the Jews, never was a 
High Priest saluted or recognised as King. Having 
passed in review the essential features of the eternal Priest-
hood of Melchisedech and dwelt particularly on his 
combined dignity as Pontiff-King, we may now, dear 
brethren, turn with love and reverence to Christ and to 
His Vicar and view these essential features in the head 
of the everlasting Priesthood. 

C H R I S T IS P O N T I F F - K I N G . 

We ha .ve it from David's inspired pen : " Thou art 
a Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech." 
But some timid inquirer might suggest the question : 
Did Christ really possess all the essential features or 
characteristic powers of the order of Melchisedech ? To 
which common sense at once replies : Certainly. For a 
portion of the features or characteristic powers of an order 
are not that order, which must be taken in its integrity or 



12 • 
forfeit all reality. Remove from the order of Melchise 
dech its Kingly character and it becomes unrecognisable 
and drops out of existence. Since Christ then belongs to 
the order of Melchisedech, and Melchisedech is Pontiff-
King, so is Christ Pontiff-King. It is impossible that 
the other characteristics of the order should apply to 
Christ, this remarkable one alone excepted. 

P E T E R , AFTER ASSOCIATION WITH CHRIST, WAS P O N T I F F - K I N G . 

The above reasoning applies also to the Vicar of 
Christ. If the order of Christ be that of Melchisedech, 
then is the order of the New Testament identical with it. 
The order of Christ has its succession of Pontiffs like the 
order of Aaron. To these Christ transmits His Priest-
hood, not throughgenealogical succession, but individually, 
and with all its characteristic powers. If Christ trans-
mitted the Priesthood without the Kingly character, He 
would not transmit the Priesthood of Melchisedech. The 
order of Melchisedech, destined to be everlasting, is that 
of the Catholic Church. The plenitude of characteristic 
powers must reside in the Pontiff, for the Pontiff's 
character determines that of the whole body and Hierarchy. 
Christ then could not confer, or rather transfer, the pleni-
tude of spiritual power to Peter, His first Vicar, without 
endowing him also with the Kingly character and dignity, 
which carries with it territorial independence. Therefore 
the order of Christ, which is that of Melchisedech, to which 
the Roman Pontiffs belong, constitutes them Kings and 
therefore gives them a territorial independence. 

If this be revealed truth we should be able to trace 
the Kingly dignity of Christ and of His Vicar and 
ascertain how they came by it. And there is plenty of 
evidence at hand for the purpose. We shall trace else-
where Christ's Kingly dignity as a necessity in the order 
of society created by God. We shall trace it in prophecy. 
We shall gather it from contemporary witnesses, and 
from, the lips of the Saviour Himself. But before 
examining this most consoling evidence in the times we 



13 
live in, we may, as a preliminary question connected with 
the order of Melchisedech, trace the Kingly character of 
the Redeemer in what I believe to be the reason of one 
of the great contrasts between the two orders and the 
two laws, namely, the divided authority of the old law 
and the united authority of the new. 

For this reason or mystical meaning I go to St. 
Paul. He declares that " all these things happened to 
them in figure." If all, therefore probably this divided 
authority under a single legislation. 

C H R I S T ' S K I N G L Y D I G N I T Y T R A C E D TO R E A S O N OF D I V I D E D 

A U T H O R I T Y OF O L D L A W AND U N I T E D A U T H O R I T Y 

OF N E W . 

And what was such divided authority moulding the 
one people under the same Divine legislation a figure of ? 
It seems to me it was a figure of what was wanted and 
to come ; the union of the two elements of the sacred 
humanity together and to the second Divine Person and 
of their respective functions for the redemption of man-
kind. " Drop down dew, ye Heavens, from above, and let 
the clouds rain the just ; (His holy soul) let the earth be 
opened, and bud forth a Saviour (His sacred body)." 

Look back then, dear brethren, sixteen centuries 
before the coming of Christ to the early days of our 
race and behold God, ever the Saviour of men, pre-
paring the Redemption to come. Out of the twelve 
tribes, the offspring of Jacob, two, I cannot find better 
words, are preeminently pre-destined. Listen to the 
prophetical blessing bestowed respectively upon Juda 
and upon Levi. " Thou hast couched as a lion and 
lioness, who shall rouse him ? " says the Patriarch bles-
sing his son Juda, " the sceptre shall not be taken away 
from Juda nor a ruler from his thigh, till He come that 
is to be sent, and He shall be the expectation of nations." 

Here is a blessing all temporal, physical and political, 
winding up with a prophecy of the sleep and the resur-
rection of the body of the Redeemer taken from the tribe 



H 
of Juda. He alone slept as a lion in His death, and none 
could rouse Him but His own Divine Person. 

But of Levi the Patriarch says: " I will divide 
them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel." There is no 
temporal blessing, but rather a temporal curse for Levi's 
posterity. The Levites are to inherit no tribal portion of 
the promised land, but then God draws good out of evil 
and through Jacob bestows a spiritual blessing in com-
pensation for the temporal punishment or deprivation. 
For the Levitical tribe will be the soul of their brethren 
in Israel, scattered indeed throughout the whole national 
body. And when the limbs are broken away and the 
heart and head alone remain in the enduring tribe of 
Juda, that Levitical soul will cling to what remains and 
with Juda will live on in mutual preservation. The two 
tribes receive opposite blessings, the one to carry and 
represent the earthly or temporal life of the coming 
Saviour, the other to energize with His spiritual life. 
The former to transmit the blood, to hand down the 
sceptre, to defend His temporal interests, to fix His 
country and birthplace and determine His earthly rights 
and social position. The latter to anticipate the work of 
His soul, to forego earthly rights, to bow before His 
Heavenly Father, to offer up His blood for the various 
wants of mankind in typical sacrifices. Such anticipa-
tion and separation of His temporal and spiritual life and 
of their respective functions in the national life of the 
people of God was not the work of man. It was 
the love of the second Divine Person preluding the 
work of Redemption that did it. And as long as 
He had not assumed a united body and soul in the 
mystery of the Incarnation, so long did the temporal 
and spiritual elements remain separate in the life 
and government of His people. But when the sacred 
humanity of the Son of God appeared and Christ had 
reached the plenitude of His age, it was fitting 
also that the theocracy should cease to contain two 
separate elements of government and distinct sources of 



i5 
authority under the single Divine legislation. And if 
such be the reason of a divided authority under the old 
law, then do we understand why Christ holds both the 
sceptre and the priesthood in the perfection of the new. 
" For the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that 
a translation also be made of the Law." 
I I .—That the Roman Pontiffs were actually associated in the 

person of Peter in the supreme independence of the Son of 
Man, and therefore in His earthly freedom. 

C H R I S T ' S K I N G S H I P A SOCIAL N E C E S S I T Y . 

God alone, my dear brethren, is supremely inde-
pendent. Independence, in other words, is a Divine 
attribute. It means exemption from control, power, 
direction, influence, or support. Christ being God 
enjoys this supreme independence. But Christ led also 
a human life. He was truly man. He had a country 
with a definite lawful position therein like other men. 
For this is essential to man. God, who hath created 
society, is likewise the author of the lawful position of 
citizens and of the lawful position of rulers. And 
there is none other created by God. Christ therefore 
in His own country could only be lawful subject or 
lawful Prince. Let us suppose for one moment that 
He was lawful subject. If so, He was bound to the 
Levitical Priesthood as well as to the political power, 
bound to pay tribute to the temple and bound to pay 
tribute to Caesar, bound therefore to contribute to the 
preservation of the Old Law and forbidden to procure its 
abolition. It will be seen at once that there is utter in-
compatibility between His subjection as man and His 
independence as God. In other words, it is inconceivable 
that the Son of Man on account of His Sovereign Divine 
Power and independence among His fellow-men should 
not be possessed likewise of Sovereign earthly power and 
independence and therefore of the lawful position of King. 
For the former could not be exercised or vindicated by the 
God-Man without the latter. 



J:6 

D I V I N E VINDICATION OF T H E K I N G L Y R I G H T OF C H R I S T 

AND H i s C H I E F A P O S T L E . 

We are now about to consider how Christ vindicated 
for Himself and for His Chief Apostle this right to 
supreme earthly freedom. But we must bear in mind 
that as Our Lord transmitted the identical Divine truth 
under various parables because of its various aspects, so 
did He transfer or intimate the transference of His 
supreme power to His Vicar under various comparisons 
or images because of its various relations. 

Thus the Chief Apostle received communication of 
the spiritual firmness symbolized by the rock as a founda-
tion for the spiritual structure of the Church. He received 
the spiritual care of the whole flock in the command to 
feed both sheep and lambs. He received the universal 
spiritual power of binding and loosing with the metaphori-
cal keys. And as a remedy against Satanic" sifting of the 
Church, he received the power and was imposed the duty 
of confirming the whole Hierarchy in the Faith resulting 
from the prayer for the infallibility of himself in particular 
and his successors. On all these occasions the Chief 
Apostle received communication of the Supreme Power 
that was in Christ. But Supreme Power besides these 
positive relations has negative ones. Supreme Power 
is also supreme independence. In God it is inherent and 
absolute. In man, who is finite, it must be delegated and 
relative. In Christ there was inherent and absolute 
independence, which called for a corresponding supreme 
earthly freedom. The supreme spiritual power transmitted 
to the Chief Apostle has also its counterpart in supreme 
earthly independence. Independence of spiritual control 
and influence, independence of temporal control and in-
fluence. I will then introduce you, dear brethren, to a 
most wonderful and pleasing scene wherein you will 
discover'the supreme rights of the Son of Man and the 
association of Peter in the same rightsi It is only another 
of those occasions wherein the Chief Apostle's supremacy 
is declared and vindicated. 



i7 
We read in St. Matthew, chapter xvii. : " And when 

they were come to Capharnaum, they that received the 
didrachmas came to Peter, and said to him : Doth not 
your master pay the didrachma ? He said : Yes. And 
when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him 
saying : What is thy opinion, Simon ? Of whom do the 
Kings of the earth take tribute or custom ? Of their own 
children, or of strangers ? And he said : Of strangers. 
Jesus said to him : Then the children are free. But that 
we may not scandalize them, go thou to the sea, and cast 
in? a hook ; and that fish which shall first come up, take ; 
and when thou hast opened its mouth thou shalt find a 
stater ; take that, and give it to them for Me and thee." 

In this scene on the shore of the lake _ depicted by 
the inspired pen you behold the most admirable mani-
festation of the Divine Power of Christ, yet with a 
definite ulterior object. For why, may we ask reverently, 
was the Divine Power exerted on this occasion ? Was 
it principally in self-manifestation or not rather to shield 
the human rights of the Son of Man ? For on the same 
occasion you have recorded the declaration of the supreme 
earthly right of Jesus Christ and of His Vicar: " T h e n 
the children are free." Christ instructed His Chief 
Apostle as to the supremacy of His freedom before 
vindicating it. Before Peter had time to report to his 
Divine Master the reply he unwarily gave to the tax-
gatherers or to carry Him their request, Christ antici-
pated His Chief Apostle on the very subject and elicited 
from him the opinion that the children of the Kings of 
the earth are free from the payment of tribute or custom. 
Here then is a comparison instituted between .the Kings 
of the earth and their children on the one hand and the 
Lord of the temple, for which the tax was gathered, and 
Jesus Christ and His Chief Apostle on the other. If 
the Kings of the earth do not take tribute or custom 
from their own children, neither does the Lord God from 
His Divine Son made man nor from the Apostle 
associated in His freedom. Here it will-be-useful-to 



i8 
bear in mind what has been said of the necessarily 
definite and lawful position of Christ as man within 
His own country. The Jews who believed Christ to 
be God, believed in His supreme right, for who will 
deny or misconstrue the supreme Divine right ? But 
the earthly right of Christ as man was liable to be 
misunderstood and in fact was on this occasion being 
invaded. Rather than this should be the Son of God 
resolved to pay as God :* " Voile pagare da Dio." The 
first fish that comes to the hook is the treasurer of the 
Son of God for this occasion. The human purse 
carried by Judas is dispensed with, not because Judas 
will betray his Divine Master, but because Christ 
on this occasion hath resolved not to pay as man. 
Now I reason thus: If Christ were subject as 
man at this period of His life, His Divine freedom 
would not exempt Him from the duty of a subject. 
Christ did not so teach, who deemed it became Him " to 
fulfil all justice," whom " it behoved in all things to be 
made like His brethren," who was " one tempted in all 
things like as we are, yet without sin," who before His 
public ministry, that is, before He came into the exercise 
of His supreme rights, was subject to His parents, who, 
even on the threshold of His public ministry, acknow-
ledged the authority over Him of John the Baptist. 
Christ nevertheless had recourse to a miracle on this 
great occasion to avoid yielding the obedience of an 
earthly subject. If so, and who can deny it, what lesson 
could more significantly set forth the sovereign earthly 
right of the Son of Man ? The Lord who loved to waive 
every right, to take the place of a servant at the feet of 
His Apostles, to appear not only as a subject, but as an 
outcast, was also the Divine teacher of man and the 
Founder of the New Law and the Introducer of the new 
Priestly order. Hence the reason for declaring and 
vindicating His earthly supremacy and that of His Chief 
Apostle. 

* Mastai Ferretti. Gli evangelisti uniti. 



19 
ASSOCIATION OF P E T E R IN C H R I S T ' S K I N G L Y R I G H T . 

said • • M R b r e t h r e n ' f r o m w h at has been 
• P ! ^ t h e ? x e r c i s e o f D i v i n e independence 
and Power in Christ is inconceivable without correspond-
mg earthly freedom and supremacy; and Second-That 8K8HI C e fe b r a t e d , ° C C a s i ° n vindicated not His right 
as God, since He paid as God, but His supreme earthly 
right as man and Son of the Lord of the temple 7 

As bt. Peter is associated in the declaration and 
vindication of the earthly right of the Son of the Lord 

assocktion! ' * ^ ^ P W ^ ^ t h a t m m r e n e m b e r the words 8 the text from St. 
Matthew, it will occur to you, dear brethren, that Peter 
is not merely the instrument of Christ for the perform-

materill h mi , raC G- b U t H h e i s a s h a r e r ' first- I t h e H I BSI 1 /-eCOnd' in the benefit of it- and 
tnird, in the purpose of it. 

. ^ i r s t i r J
I e i ? ,a s h a r e r in the material object of the 

miracle. The Chief Apostle, and he alone is cal ed 1 1 1 m f h r e l f A h a t h e ^ives I chit 
i B f o r M e a n d t h e e - " The stater or silver 

H i 1 1 being equal to twice the didrachma and 
as w i ^ V v ' n - e - t h e M X f 0 r ° u n e P e r s ° n ' Peter obtained S i l l i WmR M a S t e - r t h e w h e r e w i t h to apparently 
pay the tax The amount is not levied on his earnings 
f r n i T 5 B B S I P a y ' m g t h e t r i b u t e ' subtracts nothing 
from his means, whatever they were or might have been 
Which amounts to saying, that neither Peter nor his 
Divine Master have been taxed. Those who receive the 
didrachma receive from Peter a silver coin equal to the 

1 1 1 1 °[KWO P e r S ° n S ' b u t n e i t h e r f r o m peter nor from 
Christ do they get it as a tribute, for neither have really 
been taxed. Peter therefore is here associated with 
S S f e f e h ; s r e i " a i n i ng untaxed according to the meaning 

freedom W P t h e r e f ° r e i n H i s e a r t h I y 



20 
Second: Peter is a sharer in the benefit of the miracle: 

the avoiding of scandal. " That we may not scandalize 
them, go thou to the sea. . ." Those who received the 
tribute, as well as those who employed them, were quite 
unprepared to admit Christ's right of exemption or that 
of H is Chief Apostle. They were no doubt also unfit as 
yet to be enlightened on the subject. There was nothing 
therefore to do but to yield to their demand or to present 
the appearance of doing so, if the appearance of insubor-
dination were to be avoided. Peter is associated with 
his Divine Master in avoiding the appearance of insubor-
dination, by presenting the appearance of earthly sub-
jection. Now, a good subject should not only wish to 
avoid the scandal of refusing to pay tribute, but he 
should be also willing to pay what he is bound. But 
Peter is associated with Christ in a proceeding which 
reveals no anxiety to pay the tribute, but only to avoid 
the scandal. Therefore Peter is associated with Christ 
in his exemption from tribute. Therefore the Chief 
Apostle is no longer subject to the temple or Jewish 
Priesthood or Levitical law, but he is raised from sub-
jection to the old order to partnership in the new. 

Third : Peter is associated with Christ in the pur-, 
pose for which the miracle was wrought, namely the safe 
guarding of the supreme spiritual and temporal earthly 
freedom of those who are compared to, although they 
rank higher than, the children of the Kings of the earth. 
The vindicating of this freedom for His Apostle was so 
important in the Divine plan, that it must be secured, 
cost what it might. There would be scandal! Then let 
scandal be removed by a Divine payment. It only cost 
Christ a few words and some prayer to bestow upon His 
Chief Apostle the plenitude of spiritual power and the 
perfection of Doctrinal Infallibility in the church, but to 
vindicate his supreme independence it cost nothing less 
than a miracle. But I foresee a possible objection, I 
may be told : your reasoning proves no doubt the 
spiritual independence and supremacy of the Vicar of 



21 
Christ, and so far his earthly freedom, but you have yet 
to show that his temporal or political freedom was 
declared or vindicated on the occasion. 

To which I reply that Peter was associated in the same 
freedom which Christ, his Master, vindicated for Himself. 
But Christ could not vindicate spiritual supremacy and 
exemption, without at the same time vindicating temporal 
supremacy and exemption. For according to St. Paul: 
" The priesthood being translated, it is necessary that 
a translation also be made of the Law." Claiming inde-
pendence of one therefore was claiming independence 
of the other. And for the same reason the tribute 
tq be paid to the temple, although purely spiritual so 
far as it was paid for the Divine worship and spiritual 
rule, was temporal and political insomuch as it was 
enforced by the co-ordinate authorities of the Priesthood 
and the sceptre under the one national legislation of Israel. 
Therefore refusing as man to pay the tribute to the temple 
and associating Peter in the same right is tantamount to 
vindicating for the Chief Apostle both spiritual and 
political independence. But supreme spiritual independ-
ence^ constitutes Peter Supreme Pontiff, and supreme 
political independence constitutes him King. Therefore 
like his Divine Master he is Pontiff-King. 

Possibly my supposed objector might still feel inclined 
to insist, saying : No doubt Christ as man could not have 
been a subject in His Country, but must have held both 
spiritual and temporal supreme power, since He trans-
lated both the Priesthood and the Law, but what proves 
that He on the occasion associated Peter in both supreme 
powers? Well, two reasons: First—Because He declared 
and vindicated His supreme freedom as man in respect to 
both spiritual and political authorities on the same im-
portant occasion, and simultaneously associated His Chief 
Apostle in the declaration and vindication of the identical 
freedom. " Then the children are free," and " give it to 
them for Me and for thee." Second—Because if Peter 
and his successors were not associated both in spiritual and 

3 



2 2 j 

temporal independence, then there would not be translation 
both of the Priesthood and of the Law, but only of the 
Priesthood to the New Testament. Then the plenitude 
of authority inherited by Christ from the Old Law would 
not have passed to the New. Christ, to whom as man is 
given all power in Heaven and on earth, inherited all the 
spiritual and temporal authority with which God had 
invested the leaders of His people. Such authority was 
divided by the Mosaic legislation between the heir to the 
•sceptre and the heir to the priestly rule. Christ abolished 
the co-ordinate authorities with their imperfections and 
their shadows by gathering God's one authority over body ' 
and soul, over time and eternity, to Himself. He com-
bined, or more truly united, in Himself the authority of 
the Jewish sceptre and the authority of the Levitical 
priesthood, and translated the united authority under the 
order of Melchisedech to the future rulers of His Church 
in the person of His Chief Apostle. Therefore the 
Roman Pontiffs were actually associated in the person 
of Peter in the supreme independence of the Son of Man, 
and therefore in His earthly and temporal freedom. 

HOW FACTS CORRESPOND WITH RIGHTS. 
In the first argument it was proved that the order of 

Christ which is that of Melchisedech, to which the Roman 
Pontiffs belong, constitutes them Kings and therefore 
gives them a territorial independence. In both argu- Ij 
ments, which rest on different texts of Scripture and are 
quite independent, a distinct principle is conveyed, 
namely : the Kingly right of Christ and of the Supreme 
Pontiff of the New Law. But rights so far as they are 
acknowledged become embodied in facts. The facts 
therefore should square with the Kingly right both of 
Christ and His Vicar. The History of the Catholic 
Church will supply the great, luminous, constant, central 
fact, which is the embodiment of the Kingly right of 
Christ's Vicar on earth, namely : the civil or temporal 
Princedom and Patrimony of St. Peter, also called the 
temporal Power of the Pope. 



23 
" T H O U A R T T H E K I N G OF I S R A E L . " 

I will now, dear brethren, proceed to consider how 
far the Kingly right of Jesus Christ is acknowledged and 
becomes a fact of history, how it is hailed by friends, or 
disavowed, charged against Him, and derided by enemies. 
Needless to inquire how witnesses friendly or hostile come 
to the knowledge of the Kingly right of Jesus Christ. 
Whether through acquiring the knowledge of His Divinity 
they naturally infer his supreme human right, or whether 
they learn it from prophecy, or pick it up from the tradition 
of their race or from Christ's own testimony. 

Nosooner had Nathanael believed His Divine Nature 
than he saluted Him also as King : " Rabbi, thou art the 
Son of God, thou art the King of Israel." Again, as he 
approached Jerusalem after raising Lazarus, the multitude 
came forth to meet Him, saluting Him and saying : 
" Blessed be the King, who cometh in the name of the 
Lord," and " Blessed be the Kingdom of our father David 
that cometh." And the prophet, who in the distance of 
time saw His poverty as He rode into Jerusalem, failed not 
to mention His rank : " Fear not, daughter of Sion ; 
behold thy King cometh sitting on an ass's colt." 

J E S U S OF N A Z A R E T H T H E K I N G OF T H E J E W S . 

I shall possibly be met by the objection founded on 
the words of the Divine Prisoner : " My Kingdom is not 
of this world." But on careful inspection it will be found 
that these words of the Divine Prisoner in the Hall of 
Pilate harmonize completely with the claims of the Divine 
Teacher and Vindicator of right at Capharnaum, and with 
the essential characteristics of the everlasting order of 
Priesthood. 

Let us approach the subject with loving reverence, 
dear brethren, lifting the eyes of Faith upon the Divine 
Captive, imploring Him to cast upon us, as upon the 
Apostle, one look, which may make us hate sin for ever. 
The Governor has been called outside to the Jews, who 



24 
would not enter the Hall. In answer to his inquiry 
the Jews say : '* If He were not a malefactor, we would 
not have delivered Him up to thee." On returning to the 
Hall, Pilate, according to St. John, simply inquires : 
" A r t thou the King of the Jews ? " And Jesus, putting 
the Governor to the test, by giving him a chance of 
stating his own opinion, says : " Sayest thou this of thy-
self, or have others told it thee of Me ? " " Am I a Jew ? " 
is the scornful reply of the representative of the usurping 
power and the indignant outburst of a guilty conscience 
in self-defence, which told that Christ's question was 
a thrust home. And now again : " Thy own nation and 
the chief priests have delivered thee up to me, what hast 
thou done ? " Jesus answered : " My Kingdom is not of 
this world. If My Kingdom were of this world, My 
servants would certainly strive that I should not be 
delivered to the Jews : but now My Kingdom is not hence." 
Pilate therefore said to Him : " Art thou King then ? " 
Jesus answered : " Thou sayest that I am King. For 
this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that 
I should give testimony unto the truth." Let us now 
examine this confession of the Divine Prisoner. Before 
clearly stating that He is King, although He has implied 
as much, by referring the case to Pilate's conscience, Christ 
declares : " My Kingdom is not of this world." Observe, 
He says not: " My Kingdom is not in this world," but, 
" o f this world." An indirect reply to the previous 
question concerning His Kingship and a direct one to the 
statement of Pilate that His nation had delivered Him up. 
$ My Kingdom is not of this world," which obviously 
means : " M y Kingly right is not of this world." . I 
waive My right and choose not to enforce it by appeal to 
My servants and to violence, as is the custom of the Princes 
of this world. My people will not have Me to reign 
over them. The suffrage of the nation is not in My 
favour. My right is built up neither on the force nor on 
the suffrage of this world. Mine is a Heavenly Sanctioned 
right. My earthly Kingship is subordinate to My Divine 



rule, therefore I would reign over a willing people; "but 
now My Kingdom is not hence." Pilate therefore said to 
H im: "Art thou a King then?" And here comes the 
straight reply of Christ: " Thou sayest that I am King." 
As a lover of subjection, Our Lord would again have 
preferred to conceal His right, but as "having been born 
and having come into this world that He should give 
testimony unto the truth," He could not withhold it from 
the conditionally sanctioned authority claiming to hear it. 
Pilate need not have inquired again: "What is the truth?" 
Had he been willing he might have discovered it in every 
word uttered before his Court by the King of the Jews. 

But the whole history of the Passion, dear brethren, 
gives loud testimony of the Kingly character of the 
Saviour of mankind. Had Christ, as man, and inhabitant 
of the land given to Abraham, His father, been a subject 
only among His fellow citizens, if the thing were conceiv-
able, had He clearly disclaimed all earthly title, so that 
no Jew might suspect Him of possessing any power or 
freedom below the God-Head with His Father, what 
charge, I ask you, could the Jews have brought against 
Him to interest the Political and usurping Power, and to 
screen, if it had been possible, their Heaven-opposing 
malice stirred to its depths by a higher claim, for which 
alone they had twice condemned Him in the Council of 
the Nation ? What would have been the meaning or 
import of the mock King, saluted, sceptred, and crowned? 
The Jews were Regicides as well as Deicides, although 
Regicides because Deicides. 

The Saviour was both adored and persecuted at His 
birth as being the King of ,the Jews by men who knew 
Him by no other title, and the title was written over the 
instrument of His torture. Vain were the efforts of the 
Chief Priests .to destroy its significance. Not: " H e 
said, I am King of the Jews," but: " Jesus of Nazareth, 
the King of the Jews," remained written in the languages 
of the world, 



26 
The unfortunate Governor's sin was that of weakness. 

No one to my knowledge has been more severe with him. 
Who reads the Passion goes cordially with him in his 
persistent efforts to declare the innocence of the Just man. 
His attitude and his words to the Jews give striking proof 
that they had not, in the accusations they brought against 
Him, put their real grievance in the foreground. The 
Governor was not impressed with the charge of active 
rivalship with Caesar, nor with the accusing nation's 
loyalty to his Imperial Master. And he seemed to make 
it his business to punish the Deicides for their duplicity. 
"Behold your King," said he, and again as they insisted: 
"Shall I crucify your King?" And when the deed was 
being done, when no doubt Pilate still better realized his 
sin, he further punished the nation by annulling, as far as 
in him lay, his own act, and the political charge brought 
against the Saviour. The inscription written by himself 
in the three languages was no indictment, but an opposite 
declaration. And he stood by it: "What I have written, 
I have written." 

C H R I S T T H E L A S T B E A R E R OF T H E S C E P T R E OF J U D A . 

But such Kingly right should not only be borne out 
by the facts of acknowledgment. It should agree also 
with all the conditions of civil and national local right. 
Let us examine how Christ could civilly and politically 
come by this earthly power and freedom. We have seen 
that God is the author of society and therefore of all 
legitimate rights whether bestowed by or inherited in the 
nation. He is only the Permitter of usurpation. The 
Kingly right of Christ was not a usurped right, nor was 
it bestowed by the nation, which rejected Him, therefore 
it must have been an inherited right. It must have been 
the right of the Jewish rulers and of the Jewish nation. 
And such inherited right of the Son of David and of the 
Son of Juda was clearly attested by the National prophecy. 
"The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda nor a 
ruler from his thigh till He come." This does not mean 



27 
that the sceptre should depart before Christ could inherit 
it, nor that violence or subjugation could snatch away a 
God-given right. The great national prophecy evidently 
alludes to the termination of the old order of things, when 
both the Law and the priesthood should be translated. 
The sceptre then was safely carried down to Christ. The 
tribe of Juda had alone endured for that purpose, returning 
after the Captivity with a small remnant of Benjamin and 
Levi, the latter to be at its service for the ministry of the 
temple. Not only the ancestral line of Christ, the guarding 
of which was the main purpose of the national organization, 
but the ruling power of the organized tribe, endured, who-
ever may have been in right the holders of the sceptre, 
and remained vested in the leading Jewish families. 
True, the power of the priests seemed paramount within 
the nation after the Captivity, but, as already abundantly 
shown, the Priestly authority was at most only co-ordinate 
with the power of the sceptre, for "which is greater, he 
that sitteth at table, or he that serveth ? Is not he that 
sitteth at table ? And again it should not be forgotten 
when comparing the relative importance of the two tribes 
of juda and Levi, that the former did really hand down 
with the sceptre the elements of which the sacred body 
of the Redeemer was formed, whereas the latter which 
foreshadowed the spiritual functions of His Holy soul had 
nothing to hand down but a shadow. Thus not before 
Christ transferred elsewhere both the Priesthood and the 
Sovereign rule was the sceptre taken away from Juda. 
What though His sceptre were a reed or His crown one 
of thorns? His enemies, by seeking to destroy His title, 
only published it to the world. Jesus the Son of David 
was therefore the last bearer of the sceptre of Juda. 

T R A N S L A T I O N OF T H E L A W AND T H E PRIESTHOOD. 

•We have seen, dear brethren, that the Kingly right 
of Christ did not remain a mere principle, that it was 
borne out by the facts of the acknowledgment of friends 
and could not be smothered by the hatred, disavowal, or 



28 
derision of enemies. We then proceeded to examine how 
Christ's claim to Kingly rank harmonized with local right. 
We have now to consider how the translation of right from 
the old Law to the New is embodied in the facts of history. 
Let us go back for a moment to the National prophecy. 
The Holy Patriarch's words are : " The sceptre shall not 
be taken away." You will observe that the word " taken 
away " or " depart " from Juda, does not mean " die out" 
or " b e destroyed " or " cease altogether "; the idea con-
veyed by these expressions is one of transference, not 
of destruction or cessation. And the prophetical blessing 
agrees with the historical statement of one equally inspired. 
What Jacob expresses by the words "taken away," 
St. Paul expresses by the word "translation." The 
two expressions, I take it, were moulded by two aspects 
of the identical truth. Jesus Christ of the tribe of Juda, 
" of which no one gave attendance at the altar," without 
renouncing or forfeiting the power symbolized by the 
sceptre, gathered to Himself the spiritual power of the 
priesthood by becoming Himself Pontiff, and transmitted 
to Peter His undivided Sacerdotal and Kingly Power. 
" For the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that 
a translation also be made of the Law." 

But there is not only translation of power to men of 
a New order, there is also translation of the New order 
to a New territory. St. Peter goes to Rome. Here is an 
historical fact which embodies more than the mere trans-
lation of the Law and the Priesthood. We shall see that 
St. Peter went forth with no empty title, but with a 
territorial right. For the Priestly and Kingly authority 
is transferred from Juda and Jerusalem to the centre of 
the Gentile world. The works of God are. complete and 
break not down in the middle. * 

God said to Abraham : " To thy seed will I give 
this land;" the Roman power subjugated that land, violated 
the right of the sceptre, and sentenced to death the King 

* " D o not think that I am come to destroy the law or the Prophets. I am not 
come to destroy, but to fulfil." 



29 

of the Jews. What more could they have done to forfeit 
sovereignty at the head of the empire ? The eloquence of 
facts is too great to leave any doubt about the existence 
of right. We think of God's ways and exclaim : a fair 
and providential exchange ! Who enlightened the Roman 
sage, or what tradition did he come across to know that 
some would come from Judea, who should succeed to the 
mastery at the head-quarters of Imperial Power ? 

Thus after being associated with Christ, Peter comes 
under the New order, which as Divinely sworn shall last 
for ever. The fisherman moves forth from Salem to take 
possession of the great empire-city, which his order will 
transform into a city of Peace. As priest of the Most 
High God, he will there offer the bread and wine of the 
sacrifice of the New Testament. You may not trace his 
right or dignity to his race as the Jewish Pontiff's of old. 
For he is "without father or mother or genealogy " in his 
succession to the Pontificate and his successors after him." 
" The Lord hath sworn and He will not repent. Thou 
art a Priest for ever according to the order of Melchise-
dech." He carries with him from Sion the Priesthood, 
the Law, and sceptre, and settles them at the head-quarters 
of the enemies of the Jewish nation. " The Lord will 
send forth the sceptre of thy power out of Sion : rule thou 
in the midst of thy enemies." 

If hypothesis were not out of place it might be in-
teresting to consider how events would have shaped if the 
Jewish nation had not been scattered. Theologians have 
gone so far as to suppose Christ redeeming the world 
without passing through Death. I will suppose that a 
Jewish faction had alone been guilty of Deicide, that no 
punishment had fallen on the nation as such, that the 
Jews had remained in their land, that no foreign power 
had usurped local rights. What would have been the 
consequence ? The Law and the Priesthood would have 
passed out of the former hands to the successors of the 
Prince of the Apostles; so far we are certain. But then no 
reason appears for the dereliction of the land given to the 



3 ° 
people of God from the beginning. The Chief Apostle's 
See must have been the throne of David. The whole 
Jewish Constitution would have been merged into the 
paternal Government of the Pontiff-King. The Pontifi-
cate would have been open to any tribe. The Patrimony 
of St. Peter would have been the Holy Land. Christians 
would have been called after Salem and not after Rome. 
The hypothesis indeed seems necessary to explain the 
expectations of the nation and the promises which gave 
rise to them. 

The people evidently believed before and after Christ's 
resurrection that the Theocracy was not abandoned, that 
God would sooner or later vindicate His right to the 
Government of one state for the good of the world. We 
have gathered as much from the shouts of the multitude 
hailing their King : " Blessed be the Kingdom of our 
Father David that cometh." A temporal Government 
under the immediate control of Christ was the natural 
and legitimate expectation of the early Church instructed 
in all things spiritual and preparing for the baptism of 
the Holy Ghost: " Lord," said the assembled Apostles, 
" wilt Thou at this time restore again the Kingdom to 
Israel ? " Christ denied not that the restoration would 
take place, but He indicated neither the time nor the 
manner. 

Although the Pontificate of the New order is not 
inherited by tribal right, but is open to all nations, the 
fact of the Jewish race constituting the mother Church 
would have brought many sons of David through spiritual 
right to the succession of the everlasting throne of their 
Father. It depended only on their fidelity. Such ex-
pectations were not incompatible with the instructions 
Christ had given. In the following words of the 131st 
Psalm we have, with the absolute promise that Christ the 
Son of David should succeed to his throne, a conditional 
promise concerning his children and concerning Sion for 
all time. " The Lord hath sworn truth to David, and He 
will not make it void ; of the fruit of thy womb I will set 



3i 
upon thy throne. If thy children will keep My covenant, 
and these My testimonies, which I shall teach them; 
their children also for evermore shall sit upon thy throne. 
For the Lord hath chosen Sion: He hath chosen it for 
His dwelling. This is My rest for ever and ever: here 
will I dwell, for I have chosen it." 

But the children of David did not keep the covenant. 
Christ's brethren sold Him and resolved His death. The 
Jews forfeited their right to constitute the mother and 
mistress Christian Church. The Gentiles were allowed to 
scatter the nation and raze the Holy City, but in return 
were called upon to yield Rome and its Sovereignty for 
the Pontiff-King of the Christian Church. Salem was 
and Rome is the Holy City. We are not children of 
Peace, but of the Sword. 

L I M I T A T I O N OF T E R R I T O R I A L R I G H T . 

But here some critic might put me to the test by the 
following objection: You have spoken of the temporal 
freedom in Christ and in His Vicar as a result of the 
supreme earthly independence of the Son of Man. What 
have you to say of the positive relations of the same 
earthly supremacy? In other words, does not Christ as 
man inherit the plenitude of temporal power on earth ? 
To this I reply that Christ only laid claim to temporal 
rule in the country which belonged to Him by ancestral 
right, and which became through foreign usurpation the 
foundation of the temporal patrimony of His Vicar in the 
land of the usurper. No doubt to Christ is given all 
power in Heaven and on earth. But having given to 
earthly Kings their temporal rights, He does not with-
draw as man what He has given as God. His territorial 
right was therefore limited, and so is that of His Vicar. 

As for the universal arbitration of the Pontiff, which 
is quite a distinct question, there have been signs that 
such an event is possible, and nothing more desirable can 
be conceived for the peace of mankind. 



32 
T H E PAPACY, T H E W O R L D , AND T H E REVOLUTION. 

• The Papacy as it presents itself to the world is the 
greatest human fact. The genius of man unassisted by 
Faith, in presence of this fact, has dictated lines which 
rise almost to the beauty of Biblical poetry and prophetic 
language. Statesmen of various creeds, familiar with the 
Government of nations, have surveyed the fact without 
reference to right and have said: that is well done, that 
is a necessity; a universal Church spread among the 
nations cannot be subject to any one of them, therefore 
its Chief authority must be free. 

We also, dear brethren, conclude to the necessity of 
the Pope's freedom from his universal rule, but we rest 
that spiritual rule on a Divine institution. I have 
introduced this argument when treating of Christ's King-
ship as a social necessity. It is the familiar theme of 
eloquent preachers and able Catholic writers. My 
business has been to endeavour to show you that besides 
this inferential proof of the necessity of the Pope's 
temporal power there is contained in Holy Scripture a 
positive declaration and a Divine vindication of the 
Pontiff's Kingly character and Princely freedom. 

You will conclude then that the constant and 
luminous central fact of Church history, the temporal 
Sovereignty enjoyed by the successors of Peter, is not 
merely the outcome of the good will of Christian nations,, 
nor a provisional state to be succeeded by some more 
enlightened agreement with rulers of the nineteenth 
century, but that it is indeed the use, exercise, and 
actuation of a Divinely bestowed right and power, which 
Christ also vindicates from age to age. 

Christ waived His own rights as King so far as was 
compatible with His office of Divine teacher and Founder 
of the Church, but it was to secure the peaceable exercise 
of the same rights in His representative on earth. He 



33 
would not have miraculously vindicated and upheld the 
Princely right of His Vicar unless He had intended such 
right to be exercised for the freedom of His church in the 
midst of a strife-loving world. 

I alluded in the beginning of this lecture to the 
present state of the Pontiff. He is in the hands of the 
worst enemy that has appeared since the world was ruled 
by the heathen. It is the spirit of national apostasy or 
the revolution. Men have cast off the yoke of religion 
and personal authority from their new society. They are 
driven by the fever of a godless nationalism, wherein they 
imagine to secure worldly greatness. The evil reaches its 
climax in the secret hatred of revealed Religion, and of 
the Pontiff its Chief exponent and Divine foundation. 
This hatred is embodied and energizing in dark societies, 
which drive men unconsciously against the Church and 
against the Pontiff. It is the rebellion of men who hate 
God, and would prefer any rule rather than His. It is a 
repetition of history. " We have no King but Caesar," 
says the revolted nation. We will own no authority but 
that which is secular, we will salute no symbol but that 
of independence. 

And thus the Italian revolution, like the Apostasy 
elsewhere, has been steadily doing the work of the evil 
one. Short of personal violence to the Pope, which would 
not be safe for the nation, the revolution has undone the 
work of God, the civil Princedom, respected in all 
Christian ages. 

Not a remnant is left to Leo of the patrimony of St. 
Peter. He enjoys the independence of his palace as any 
important subject might in a civilized country. But, if 
I mistake not, his Sovereignty is in nowise acknowledged, 
but in every way violated and insulted. Violated and 
insulted by foreign swords at his very gates, violated and 
insulted by the intrusion of foreign courts of justice, 
violated and insulted by a foreign coin and a foreign 
stamp, violated and insulted by the perilous prospect of 



34 
being shut out from communication with the rest of the 
world should the usurper engage in hostilities with other 
earthly powers : in one word, violated and insulted by the 
sacrilegious occupation of a deluded Prince. Your duty 
is prayer. The duty of constitutional agitation is going 
on elsewhere. But we may rest assured as regards the 
event. 

The sceptre of Juda was led into Captivity of old, 
dear brethren, but it returned to its appointed realm. 
So will the Pontiff's everlasting right be hailed again in 
the restored Patrimony of St. Peter. Amen. 

f 

Burns and Oates, Ltd. , Printers, London. 









" I am appointed King by Mm 
over Sion.