Ozh^.Ci- - Papaa
'i

- -f {AJ . X

THE PAPACY

AND

I NATIONAL LIFE. I

A GERMAN CATHOLIC
(Professor FROHSCHAMMER, of Munich.)

REPRINTED FROM THE ^-^CONTEMPORARY REVIEWS





THE PAPACY

AND

NATIONAL LIFE.

BY

A GERMAN CATHOLIC
(Professor FROHSCHAMMER, of Munich^)

REPRINTED FROM THE ** CONTEMPORARY REVIEWS

pelliBumc

:

STILLWELL AND KNIGHT, PRINTERS, COLLINS STREET EAST.

1870.



•

J .
'^1



PEEF ACE.

So much turgid nonsense has been written upon the Roman

question, by the enemies of political freedom and human progress,

both in Europe and Australia, that it appears desirable to make the

public acquainted with the views entertained by enlightened Catholics

concerning the abrogation of the Pope’s temporal authority. Hence

the republication of Professor Frohschammer’s able and unanswerable

article on the subject, contributed to the October number of the

Contemporary Review. While papers like the Dublin Nation, which

advocates liberal principles in Ireland and is the slavish partisan of

spiritual despotism and priestly misrule in Italy, are exhausting the

vocabulary of abuse upon His Majesty King Victor Emanuel, and

while its example is being feebly copied by lecturers and pamphle-

teers in Victoria and Tasmania, it is refreshing to find a distinguished

Catholic writer, like Professor Frohschammer, exposing with masterly

vigour and irresistible logic, the irreconcileable hostility which exists

between the spirit and policy of the Papacy, and the national life of

modem Europe.

Perhaps the most emphatic condemnation of the temporal authority

of the Pope is to be found in the fact that, with the exception of a

few foreign mercenaries, not a hand was raised in Rome to avert the

overthrow of his rule. If it had been the benign and blessed thing

which its indiscreet eulogists at this end of the world pronounce it to

have been, a pious and grateful people would have rallied round the

venerable Pontiff, and would have defended his earthly throne with

a courage and determination animated by the warmest affection, and

inflamed with the most fervid piety. Surely no people were so well

qualified to appreciate the advantages of Papal government as those

who lived under the shadow of St. Peter’s
;
and, inasmuch as



4

Pope’s own subjects hailed his deposition with rapture, we may

legitimately conclude that the tree was rotten, and that its removal

was universally regarded as a great gain to the cause of popular

freedom and the spread of true religion.

“ The middle ages,” it has been well said, “ terminated on the

20th of September, 1870;” and no clear-sighted and unprejudiced

Catholic can read Professor Frohschammer’s essay on the Papacy

and National Life, without coming to the conclusion that the divorce

of the Pope’s spiritual from his temporal authority marks the com-

mencement of a new and brighter era in the history of the Church

and in the history of Christendom.



THE PAPACY AND NATIONAL' LIFE.

W® ^^6 accustomed to regard as one of the most prominent and
significant characteristics of educated men in the present day, the
desire to be free, as far as possible, from ecclesiastical laws and
restrictions. Especially is there a desire to emancipate political life
and scientific inquiry from the authority of the Church and of
dogmas, to make them altogether independent of religion, and, we
may say, to secularize them. In fact, since the middle of the last
century there has been a powerful and successful movement in this
direction. It would, however be an error to suppose that it is
altogether a new movement, belonging only to our age, and never
heard of before. The liberation of science and civil life from the
authority of religion began in antiquity. It began at the moment
when science recognised and contemplated nature as a natural region
under the dominion of fixed laws, and not as a region of continual
miracle, where every phenomenon was the immediate result of the
divine working. It began when human actions, and especially
political questions and public undertakings, were no longer de-
termined by oracles, by the flight of birds, or by inspecting the
entrails of the victims offered in sacrifice

;
but by the intelligent

deliberation and judgment of enlightened and experienced men.
From that time began the liberation of human thought and political
life from the dominion of religion, and so far, in some measure, their
secularization. The process, indeed, has been slow and difficult, and
not without interruption and retrogression

;
but in our day the

question has become pressing, and has reached a crisis. This is true
of science, and still more of the relation of the Church or religion
to the State. The present seems a proper -time to devote to the
subject a closer inquiry. In its most direct form it appears in the
conduct of the Papacy towards the civil government in the middle
ages, and in the attitude it has assumed towards the governments of
the present day. The general bearing of the question, as it relates
to other forms of religion, will be manifest as we proceed.

I.

The Catholic Church, or rather the hierarchy which centres in the
Papacy, had suffered great defeats, especially in the second half of
the last century. It had lost much of its power and influence,
whilst the emancipation and secularization of science and civil life
had made important progress. But in our century, as most people
know, there has been a reaction. The .civil governments came



6

again into closer relations with the Church. By means of these
relations the Papacy has acquired greater power, and now it
contemplates bringing science also under its dominion. The resusci-
tated order of the Jesuits has been working specially in this direction.

Catholic authors of liberal tendencies have been kept down by
Church censures and every possible form of persecution. The old
science, of scholasticism, subject to Church authority, has been

inculcated as the only science permitted by the Church. After the
people had again become accustomed to the old ecclesiasticism it was

thought by the Roman Curia that the time had arrived to make war
in the name of the Church against the modern development of
national life, and to renew the old ecclesiastical claims of the middle

ages. In the Encyclica of December 8, 1864, and in the more

recent so-called Syllabus of Errors, this is done in the widest sense,

and in a manner not to be misunderstood. This Syllabus formed the

programme of the General Council summoned to meet at Rome on
December 8, 1869. The essential business of this Council was the
annihilation of all the rights of science, the complete deification of

the Pope, and an aggressive warfare against nati(,)nal life. Its object

was entirely to bind the faith and knowledge of the people to the

will of the Bishop of Rome, and to give them a place in his warfare

against temporal governments with all their rights and liberties.

The formulated claims of the Pope in relation to civil government
are fundamentally the same as in the middle ages, only increased by

circumstances peculiar to our times. In fact, so little has any one

single mediaeval claim of the Pope been given up, that it is even

expressly rejected as an error and anti-Catholic, to say that the Popes

have ever at any time gone beyond their lawful rights. By this it is
intended, expressly to justify all the political arrogance and all the

assumptions of dominion over temporal States of which the Popes

have ever been guilty. And thus* all the acts of the Bishops of
Rome as to the crowning or deposing of kings, as to the things which
people have seized in their revolt against their rulers, or again, as to

the kingdoms and peoples sold or given to princes, without or

against the will of the people, and all the attempts to bring princes

as such, because of their temporal government, before the judgment-

seat of the Popes, are now to be regarded by the Bishop of Rome
as nothing more than as the exercise of his legitimate right, which

any moment may be exercised again. Whoever does not admit this,
is to be regarded as a bad Catholic. On the other hand, the
Encyclica denies to any State the right to influence in any way the
Papal government of the Church. The Pope declares with blunt

vehemence that it is a “ notable impudence ” finsignis impudentia

)

to maintain the “ wicked and oft condemned ” position that the

highest power of the Church and the Apostle’s chair is subject to

the judgment (arbitrio) of the civil government in the exercise of

rights which relate to external order. This refers to those who are
so “ shameless ” (non pudet

J

as to maintain that “ the laws of the

Church are binding in conscience only when they have been ratified

by the State, that the indulgences and decrees of the Bishop of Rome



7

which relate to religion and the Church require the sanction and

approval, or at least the assent, of the civil power.” To discover

the significance of the condemnation of this principle is not diflicult.

If the laws of the Church, the Pope’s indulgences to the faithful,

are binding in conscience without the consent of the civil ruler,

perhaps even against his will, then is the Pope unquestionably the

sovereign ruler over the nations and their governments, and not

merely as some suppose a co-partner in the government of every State.

By the expressions of his will, or by his indulgences to the faithful,

he can remove or hinder the execution of civil laws. On the other

hand, he can free the people from the duty of obedience, and demand

submission to his own laws in place of those of the State. It depends

on his pleasure to require of Catholic subjects under any civil

government which may be in conflict with him, that they “ obey

God rather than man;” while he, according to the universal custom,

and as the people are taught to do even from their youth, understands

by “ God ” himself, and by “ man ” the princes or the civil

government. It must then be in the plentitude of the power of the

Pope to recognise or to refuse to recognise any government or

constitution as it seems to him to be or not to be in accordance with

ecclesiastical laws and Papal supremacy.

Of the exercise of this plenitude of power, not the middle ages

only, but recent, even the most recent, times furnish examples.

Entirely corresponding to this assumed sovereignty, the Pope claims

the power of inflicting external punishments in ecclesiastical cases,

and wishes the power of the State to be at his disposal for the

execution of the sentences pronounced by the Church—to perform,
as it were, the office of a policeman or a hangman. In the Encyclica

the position is expressly renounced that “ the best condition of

society is that in which it is reckoned the duty of the government

to keep in check, by lawfully determined punishments, the adversaries

of the Catholic religion, only so far as public safety demands it.”

This position is also condemned, “that it is not the duty of the Church

to keep in check by temporal punishments the transgressors of its

laws.” The condemnation of these two positions, sufficiently shows

the sorrowful demand of the Papacy on the State. In relation to this,

the bishops are strongly admonished by the Pope constantly to teach
“ that the power of kings is not bestowed merely for the govern-

ment of the world, but chiefly for the protection of the Church, and

that nothing conduces more to the advantage and renown of princes

than for them to allow the Catholic Church to exist according to its

own laws, and not to suffer any one to hinder its freedom
;
that it is

to their interest to study, when it is a question concerning the things

of God, to give by their royal will the precedence to the priests of

Christ, appointed in His place.” The meaning of this is sufficiently

manifest, and scarcely requires any further explanation. God, Pope,

and priests are continually used as equivalents or substitutes. This

is the great trick of the hierarchy. All that belongs to God is

transferred to the Pope. He claims in this way the obedience of
princes and the subjection of States to the Church— that is, to



8

himself. The Church is regarded as a united ecclesiastical

government, standing over against all States, but altogether

independent of every one of them. They are condemned who say

that “the ecclesiastical power is not by divine appointment, separate

from the civil, and independent of it
;
nor can such a separation and

independence be admitted without the Church usurping to itself

the essential rights of the civil power.” But the separation of the

Church from the State is nevertheless rejected. It is found advan-

tageous to ecclesiastical authority, and the Church would not

willingly lose its old obedient servant. The State has nothing to

teach the Church, but the Church has everything to teach the State.

This union of priest and king the Pope declares to have been at

all times rich in health and blessing to the civil, as well as to the

religious, community—a declaration which openly scorns the facts
of history, for out of this union have sprung great evils, both to

religion and the State. The pure genuine essence of each has been

troubled, and, in consequence, there has arisen much hatred, strife,

and persecution.

We have seen what are the chief features of the relation of the
Church to civil States as the Catholic Church or hierarchy wishes it

to be. We have also seen what are the chief points, the inventory,
so to speak, of the Papal claims, the programme which the Jesuits

in the name of the Church, by command of the Pope, and under

his protection, are seeking to realize. They are striving, again, to

reach the point, which, expressed in a few words, means that the

Church—that is to say, the Pope—commands, and the State—that
is to say, the Prince—obeys. In order perfectly and decidedly to
maintain this dominion, the organs of the Pope—that is, the
members of the hierarchy, the whole clergy—are to be independent
of the laws of the State, to be free in every way to obtain property,

and to use it for the objects of the hierarchy, as the Syllabus

expressly desires. Schools, and the instruction of youth, are to be

given over entirely to the Church, that the next generation may be

educated as good Churchmen, and the mind of the people made

familiar with the supremacy of the Church—that is, the Pope—over
the State. For this object the Church is to have a veto on the

educational schemes of the State, but the State is to have no veto

on the doings of the Church. And so God is to persuade men, to

give them laws and restrictions, but men are not to claim to be able

to do these things for “ God !
”

II.

it has been the cause of great and universal amazement and

indignation that the Catholic hierarchy, or rather the Papacy, should

ever have made such demands as to science and civil government.

Still greater have been the amazement and indignation that they

should have been made in the presence of modern science and

civilization, announced in an aggressive form, and that efforts should

have been made in every possible way to establish them. The

amazement, however, as well as the indignation, will decrease when



9

we consider out of what historical foundation this ecclesiastical
domination arose, and on what particular ecclesiastical principles, or
premisses, it is built. These premisses are universally received as

correct by Catholics, and partly, also, by Protestants. This inquiry

is essentially necessary both to estimate the things rightly in

themselves, and to determine in what way in our time these Papal
pretensions and assaults on the mental progress of the people are

to be met as they ought to be.

We have already said that the striving of science and civil
government to be independent and free from the control of religion

and the priesthood, is a thing which began in antiquity in relation

to the so-called heathen religions. It is universal, and not a mere

temporary opposition to the authority of the Christian or Catholic

faith. On the other hand, the striving of the Papacy to hinder this
emancipation is not one isolated and peculiar to the Catholic priest-
hood. It has found a place more or less in all religions, and with
every religious authority, or community of priests. But it has
entered with all its concentrated power and phenomena into the
Catholic priesthood, and especially into the Pope, who is the head
of that priesthood. Science and philosophy in classical antiquity
had to sacrifice their objects ", natural knowledge, its development
and furtherance, to the dominion of rebgion or superstition, in the
same way as the system of Copernicus had to bow before Catholic
authority. And the old zealots of the religions indigenous to their
fatherlands and their religious customs, wished to hold the State,
and its conduct in political matters, under the power of superstitions
and incantations, instead of natural knowledge and the guidance of
reason, in the same way as the Popes did in old times, and as the
Papacy is striving to do now. In the course of the development of
Christianity to an external organization and a visible Church, there
came moments which favoured in an extraordinary way the formation
of an elevated, and very intensified, sacerdotal power. One, before
all, of these favourable circumstances, was that in Eome, the centre
at that time of the Roman world-dominion, there arose very early a
Christian community. Of this community, tradition pointed out as
the founder and head the apostle Peter. There were also other
favourable circumstances, particularly through the seat of govern-
ment being transferred to Constantinople. The bishop of this
Roman community soon succeeded in obtaining a greater authority
in the West than all other bishops. He also profited by the rever-
ence and obedience of the people towards imperial Rome, which he
succeeded in passing over to the spiritual head of this city, the
bishop of the Roman Church. Christianity with its new world-
moving ideas, was thus in a measure conquered by Rome. These
ideas were used for the interest of Roman dominion, and were
shaped so as to serve this object. On the other hand, Christianity
early obtained an important, influential, and flxed centre for the
formation of a settled ecclesiastical organization, which received at
the same time the unmistakeable impression of the Roman genius for
business and government, and which adopted the rich external cere-



10

monial of the old Roman religion—partly with some changes, and
partly imitated. But, on the other side, the dignity and authority

of the Bishop of Rome, as head of the Christian Church, depended

chiefly on the credit which was obtained for the tradition that Peter

once lived at Rome, and presided for a long time as head of the

Christian community. There was but little foundation for the

tradition, but it came to be universally received. By means of it,

the Bishop of Rome succeeded by degrees in making himself pass

for the successor of St. Peter, the head of all other churches, and the

special Vicar of Christ. By means of it he transferred to himself all

that importance, and that plenitude of power and right, which the

dogmatical development of Christian tradition attributed to Christ.

The power and dominion of the Roman priesthood, of the hierarchy,

and especially of the absolute Roman Papacy, are essentially

grounded, in union with the circumstances mentioned, on principles

that belong to dogmatical Christo] ogy. They rest on the belief that

Jesus being God as well as man, did not merely preach absolute

truth, but also possessed absolute divine power, and left these to his

successors and Vicars. It belongs therefore to them to give out

their doctrine as absolute truth, to claim for it unconditional faith,

even to govern absolutely, and to demand unlimited obedience. The

Bishops soon made this demand, not indeed individually, yet col-

lectively, for their decrees in their Synods, and gradually the Pope,

as universal heir, concentrated in himself all the plenitude of power

and all the claims which flow from his ofiice as Vicar of Christ.

When once the Bishop of Rome possessed superior authority in the

Church, he was soon able to put himself above both tradition and

Scripture. When he once passed for the successor of Peter and chief

Vicar of Christ, he soon succeeded without much difiiculty in laying

claim to all the powers of the Christ of dogma, as well as those

which Christ ascribed to Himself, and those which He communicated

to His apostles and disciples. In the full feeling of Divine Vicar-

ship what claims may not arise in the mind of an energetic and

ambitious man ! From such assumptions and such premisses what

could not be deduced and justifled by a subtle logic and dialectic ]

Christ says, according to the Gospel, “ All power is given unto me

in heaven and in earth.” Let us only think of a man who regards

himself as the Vicar of Him who spoke these words, and who under-

stands them not in a religious or ethical sense of pure religious life, but

in an earthly and literal sense, as meaning that there was com-

mitted to him a juridical, and so far along with that in a measure,

a physical dominion as well as a spiritual ! He will find no end to

his claims. He will come to regard himself as God, or as a re-

presentative of God upon earth, and make himself pass for such.

Or “ I give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. What-

soever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and

whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

When it has been once received that these words are applicable to

the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter, to whom they

were spoken, it was scarcely to be expected but that people in Rome,



11

accustomed to earthly dominion, would understand them in a sense

altogether juridical, not religious
;
and that they were used to obtain

spiritual or rather ecclesiastical dominion. They were understood

as intended to persuade men that their weal or woe depended on the

decrees of the Pope, and that in this temporal life unconditional

obedience was to be yielded to him in all things. It is also to be

remembered that it was prescribed and enforced that this hierarchical

kingdom was identical with the kingdom of God, of which Christ so

often speaks, and which He places in such sharp opposition to the
kingdoms of the world, which were immediately identified with the

State, or the temporal rule of princes. We can now understand
how the priests were able to make the Church and ecclesiastical

government to prevail over the State and civil governments. And
no one who has once received or acknowledged the ecclesiastical

stand-point which grants the fundamental assumptions, can rightly

reject the hierarchical claims. The hierarchy was the keeper of the

Holy Scriptures, and determined their meaning. It prescribed, and

had the right to prescribe, a meaning favourable to itself. From

the assumptions made by the Papacy, and granted by all Catholics,

the Papal claims are deduced consistently and logically.

We come now to the historical development of the Papacy, and the
relation of the Church—that is, the hierarchy—to civil governments.
When this has been considered we shall be able to judge rightly the
conduct of the hierarchy and especially of the Pope. In the bound-

less claims of the Papacy, both as to science and national life, we

perceive less personal usurpation, or a merely usurped authority, than

the necessary working out of what was, and still is, the foundation

of aU ecclesiastical organization, and its absolute authority in mat-

ters of faith. We shall therefore be tender towards the persons, but
only in order to be more resolute in our judgment of the system.

We shall also find that but little can be done by merely opposing the
personal claims of this or that Pope, or rejecting individual usurp-

ations which we may consider excessive or illegal
;
and that the

problems for science and national life are to conquer this Roman
hierarchical system, fully to root it out of the consciousness and

faith of the people through education and enlightenment, to refuse

unconditionally every help for furthering it by force, and as far as

possible to take all precautions against spiritual usurpations by

securing full and free toleration in religion. If only individual de-

mands of the absolute Papacy are rejected and not the whole system
itself, these will ever be returning as they find opportunity. No
satisfactory results can follow from merely opposing individual claims.

For so long as the direct divine authority of the Papacy is allowed to

stand, scarcely anywhere can a claim or a fact be shown which is an
illegal transgression of the rights belonging to it. We must demand
earnestly that in this respect the roots be torn up, or otherwise the

overgrown branches that have been cut down wiU sprout and grow
again.

When Gregory VII., for example, with such great decision asserted
the supremacy of the Pope over princes, and demanded obedience



12

from them in all things which he chose to explain as Church

matters, he did so because he regarded himself, and was acknow-

ledged by all the faithful of the whole Church, as the actual Vicar

and plenipotentiary of God. At the same time he regarded the

world and the kingdoms of the world, with their princes, as a region

of sin and the devil, which could only be sanctified and saved by the

Pope. He looked on princes as only a necessary evil, established by

force. They were the consequence of the temptation of Satan and

of sin, so that in a measure they must be superfluous when the direct

divine dominion of the Pope universally prevails. In fact, from the

stand-point of the hierarchy and the foundation principles of the

Catholic Church, this doctrine is perfectly just and logical. Who-

ever condem,ns the claim of this Pope, if he has any real foundation

for his condemnation, and thinks out the matter logically, must

reject the whole Catholic system, and chief of all, the foundation or

premisses on which it rests. But this supposes an interpretation of

the whole of Christianity entirely different from that in which the

ecclesiastical system originated. It supposes, too, an entirely

different meaning of the places of Scripture on which the power and

right of the hierarchy are supposed to be established—yea, an entire
modification of the interpretation of dogmas which are received as

the essence of Christianity. We must np longer grant that the
world in itself is a kingdom of sin and the devil, over against which

the Church is to stand as an immediate juridical and externally

organised kingdom of God. As little can we admit that Christ is

to be regarded as an earthly God-king, into whose place the apostles

and their successors entered. Even the doctrine of God must

undergo a purification, for so long as the Pope is regarded as the

immediate Vicar of God, who interferes in all civil matters, gives

temporal laws, inflicts physical punishments, and commands entire

nations to be rooted out by the sword : in short, so long as the

Popes, with the hierarchy, claim to be the Vicars of the Old

Testament God, and are acknowledged as such by the faithful, their

claims and interferences in the temporal and political region, even if

combined with the exercise of force, can scarcely be rejected as

illegal. All this is only the logical consequence of the theocratic

idea and its realization. Whoever—as was the' case universally in
the middle ages, and must in modern times be the case with all

Catholics—whoever believes in the absolute divinity of the Church,
and the immediate Vicarship of Christ and God through the Pope,

or holds fast to obedience from a submissive sense of duty—whoever,
I say, allows the ground principles to be valid, and accepts the

premisses, commits a logical, and from his stand-point a moral, offence

if he rejects the great, even if unwarrantable and altogether illegal

pretensions of the Pope, as they have been put forward from the

earliest middle ages. He alone thinks and acts consistently and

rationally who rejects, along with the consequences and the pre-

tensions, the ground principles and premisses. The so-called Liberal

theologians and statesmen among Catholics should consider this well,

that they may come out of the halfness and uncertainty of thought



13

and action in whicli they are bound, and which greatly hinder them

from doing anything really useful for religious reform, and the

spiritual development of the people.

If we are justly to Estimate the views and pretensions of other

Popes these considerations must be our guide. Innocent III. says,

“ The Roman high priest takes upon earth, not the place of a mere

man, but of the true God.” This was, in fact, the universal belief at

that time, and is to-day with all strong Roman Catholics
;
and,

indeed, it must be with all who regard the Pope as the Yicar of

Christ, and Christ as God. Innocent III. avowedly was led entirely

by the theocratic idea
;
only instead of the Jewish national theocracy,

a universal one was to be established. The Pope was to be the

universal ruler over all kingdoms, princes, and nations of the earth.

To us this seems an adventurous thought and a chimerical effort,

but well-grounded and legitimate for him who regards himself* as the

plenipotentiary, vicar, and representative of God upon earth, to

whom is committed all power in heaven and on earth, and who can
believe that God is so created in the image of man that a man may

be His Vicar for all other men
;
and whose government of this

world, at least in its relation to the spiritual life of humanity, is of

that kind that it can be transferred to a man as locum tenens, and to

whom the theocratic endeavours of this Vicar, or Vice-God, upon
earth after universal dominion do not appear unreasonable or

unwarrantable. What bounds, then, can be put to such a repre-

sentative of God upon earth] What demands for unconditional

subjection and service from men can be regarded as too great or as

unlawful by those who once believe this authority and plenitude of

power as belonging to the immediate Vicar of God
;

a being

supernatural, endowed with gifts of incantation, and now also declared

infallible ! Pope Boniface VIII. maintained that God had placed
him over kings and kingdoms, and charged him with the duty of
destroying and building, of rooting out and planting again. Kings

were made subject to him because of their sins, and he was able to

depose them. The Bull “ Unam Sanctam ” maintains that the
temporal sword is subject to the spiritual, and must be drawn by the

king for the Church at the will and nod of the priest
;

that the

spiritual power has to sit in judgment on the temporal, if it does

wrong, but that the spiritual is responsible to none but God.

Whoever denies this power is declared to be a Manichsean. It is
said that for every creature there is a necessary condition of salvation

laid down by the Pope. This Pope, then, expresses himself with the
utmost decision

;
and who can fairly deny that he only drew the

extreme consequences from principles, or premisses, which even now
are received, and which, if rightly believed and earnestly carried out,

would necessarily lead to the immense pretensions of the Papacy

which we have just mentioned.

In like manner the following Popes
;
Leo. X. confirmed the Bull

“ Unam Sanctam,” at the Lateran Council, in 1517. In the Bull
against Luther, this Pope says expressly that it is a work of the

Holy Ghost to burn heretics. Since the Pope regarded this as good,



14

it must follow that it was also willed by the Holy Ghost, whose
orpn the Pope is. Paul III,, with a lofty sense of his authority as
Divine Vicar, and, consequent on this, of his sovereignty over princes

and peoples, sent out a Bull against Henry VIII. of England, which
freed his subjects from the oath of allegiance, and instigated them
to open war against him

;
offered England to any one who could

conquer it, and promised all the goods, movable and immovable, of

heretical England to the conqueror. Pope Paul IV. appealed to the

decree of the Council of Florence that all power in Christendom

belonged to him, that all imperial and temporal power belonged

to him. “ The Pope,” he said, “ has two swords in his hand. He
created and creates kings every day, and transfers kingdoms as he

wills. Since God appoints that the Apostles and their successors
shall judge angels, how much more are they able to judge men?”
This is spoken plainly and decidedly. But considering the assump-

tions with which the Popes started, it was impossible to escape

going so far in a time when mental scientific activity consisted

essentially in drawing with scholastic subtlety the proper conse-

quences from given premisses. But even in the present time, in

writings and edifying discourses, this pious insanity concerning the

authority and importance of the priesthood comes to light. It is

even maintained that the priest has a certain power over God,

especially in the Eucharist
;
that at the word of the priest, God

must come with all His essence into the transubstantiated bread.

How then could a limit be set to the power or the right of the
Pope, the priest of all priests ? The same Pope Paul explained in

the presence of the royal ambassadors, in a full consistory, that he

was the successor of the high priests who had deposed kings and

emperors
;
that he would sooner set fire to the corners of the world

than forego that right. In 1558, he sent out the Bull “ Ex Aposto-
latus Ofiicio,” in which he, as Vicar on earth of God and Christ,

out of the fulness of his apostolical power, solemnly sanctions all

the most extreme doctrines concerning the universal dominion of

the Pope
;
and curses all his enemies. Pope Pius V. was penetrated

by the same consciousness of his absolute fulness of power. In the

Bull against Elizabeth, Queen of England, “ Eegnans in Excelsis,”

he said that God had set him over all nations and kingdoms. By

this power he was “ to tear up, to overthrow, to scatter, and lay

waste, to build, or plant again,” and in virtue of it he orders the

excommunication and deposition of the Queen. There is a suspicion,

apparently not without foundation, that he hired assassins to attempt

her life. By a like spirit almost all the Popes were animated, even to

the present time. They never gave up their pretensions and their

principles, though they have not always been able to enforce them.

Pius IX. believed that in consequence of the resuscitated faith of

the people and the powerful influence of the Jesuits, the

time had come and the circumstances were again favourable for

putting forth these claims, and ratifying them in a General Council.

That he has the right to set up and put down kings he does not

say expressly either in tbe Encyclica or the Syllabus
;

yet it will



15

be easy, when the circumstances are again favourable, to infer this

right from the office of divine Vicarahip, and to find it contained

both in the Encyclica and the Syllabus. It is clearly maintained in

them both that, in the rising conflicts between the authority of the

State and that of the Church, it is the duty of all Catholic nations

to obey the Church, and to prefer its authority to that of the State.

The Papal privileges appear also to extend even to the forms of the

constitution of States. The Pope certainly in the Encyclica strongly

condemns those who “ with entire misapprehension and neglect of

the most certain principles of sound reason, dare to maintain that

the will of the people, through so-called public opinion, or in any

other way, constitutes the highest law, independent of all divine

and human law.” In like manner the Pope rejects the kind of

governments which secure freedom in religion, or make no distinction

between the true and the false religion. In this it is implied that

from him alone can they learn the true religion. He complains

that “people dare apply to the civil community the godless and

absurd principle of so-called Naturalism, and to teach that the best

kind of government and civil progress to be desired is, that human

society be guided and governed without any reference to religion, as

if it did not exist, or at least without making any difference between

the true religion and the false.” There is, then, nothing given up

of all the pretensions to the highest universal sovereignty, and

nothing ever will or can be consistently given up so long as the

already mentioned assumptions concerning the office, authority, and

power of the hierarchy, and especially of the Pope, are rightly held

and believingly received in the Catholic world.

Catholic theologians have not omitted to teaoh and establish with

all earnestness, with scholastic subtlety and pious unction, the rights

and pretensions which the Popes inferred from their authority and

assumed functions. They have also caused these doctrines and the

proofs of them, with their scholastic subtleties, to be set forth as

the genuine “ Church science,” which no good Catholic is to oppose.

This was done with every circumstance of ecclesiastical authority,

and before aU by the Pope himself. It was in this business that

the Jesuits in particular led the way with the greatest audacity,

as, we might say, the logical enfants terrihles. The Jesuit Molina

says, “ The spiritual dominion of the Pope, because of its super-

natural object, embraces also the highest, most extended power of

temporal jurisdiction over all princes and all persons belonging to

the Church. So far as this object requires it the Pope can depose

kings, and deprive them of their kingdoms; can judge between them

concerning temporal things, annul their laws, and perform among

Christians all other things which he, according to his wise will,

because of the supernatural object and common spiritual salvation,

reckons to belong to him. And this he can do, not merely through

censures, that is, spiritual penalties, but also by force and arms, the

same as any other temporal power
;
but it is most becoming that

the Pope should not do this himself, but cause it to be done by

temporal princes. On this account it is said that the Pope has two



16

swords, and the highest temporal and spiritual power.” So far this

Jesuit. In fact, when it is once admitted that to the Pope belongs
the highest spiritual dominion, an actual spiritual imperium

;
that it

is his function, and that he has power to rule the world by means of

a juridical organization and canon laws, in order thereby to promote

truth and morality in the world
;
to establish and build up a theo-

cratic kingdom in the world
;
then it can scarcely be otherwise but

that he will also claim the temporal power, since it has the means at

command to further and put in force the spiritual power. And as to
the physical weapons themselves, how can they be better used than
for the furtherance of the kingdom of God, for the propagation of

truth, as well as for the extirpation of heretics
;
the adversaries and

enemies of God, who, as destroyers of the Church and kingdom of

God, and as offenders against the divine majesty, deserve not merely

chastisement, but death ? Like all other transgressors, they must

be rooted out, even as the Israelites destroyed the inhabitants of

Canaan. It is' not, then, amazing that Salmeron, another Jesuit,

says that the Pope can command the execution of a heretical prince;
for, according to the Scriptures, entire nations with their princes had

to be destroyed, because of the chosen people, and to promote the

erection of a perfect theocracy
;
much more must the same be done

for the furtherance and protection of the Christian Church, which is

a much higher theocracy ! The logic is formidable and inexorable,
if once the premisses are admitted. Most scholastic theologians of

later times, especially those of the order of Jesuits, maintain a

direct power of the Pope over states, princes, and nations as to their

temporal affairs. The people are reckoned the source of the power

of princes, to whom they transfer it. But the institution of princely
power in this way by the sovereignty of the people, can only be valid

through the confirmation of the Pope. According to this the Pope

is the ultimate or true ground of all legitimate dominion
;
and it

belongs, therefore, to him to crown princes, and to depose them

again. The Jesuit Bellarmine avowedly modifies this doctrine. He
does not recognise in the Pope a direct, but only an indirect, power

over temporal princes
;
yet with such explanations that the Papal

privileges remain fundamentally the same as if the power were

direct. But so decidedly is the direct power over princes received

at Borne, that by the command of the Pope at that time, the furious

Sixtus V., Bellarmine’s work was put in the index of books for-

bidden. It was not till the reign of the next Pope that the Jesuits

succeeded in getting it out of the Index. Afterwards, in the seven-

teenth century, with all possible decision, the doctrine of the direct

spiritual-temporal universal dominion of the Pope was restored. By

it princes themselves, because of their sins, their religious belief, or

their incapacity, might be deposed, their subjects freed from the

oath of allegiance, their lands given to others, and even the princes

themselves punished with imprisonment and death. This was the

Boman theological doctrine of Papal power, a doctrine which agreed

entirely with the Papal exercise of it. According to the theory of

Catholic theologians it must accord with the will of the Pope; for.



17

in the Syllabus, as we have already remarked, it is declared to be

un-Catholic and an error to say that the Popes have ever at any time

exceeded their legitimate power and authority.

in.

It is impossible that modern States can endure such an eccle-

siastical authority, or enter into union with it, if they are to execute

their own functions and be true to their mission of culture. These

functions are, to bring the entire being of humanity to its highest

development and perfection in matters spiritual as well as material.

Even if they agree to the most extreme concessions as to the abso-

lute power of the hierarchy, which claims an unlimited plenitude of

divine power, yet they will not satisfy the Pope so long as they do

not renounce their sovereignty, acknowledge Papal supremacy, and

regard its highest privileges as a gift of grace. Unless this is done,

they will find the Papacy and the Jesuits always aggressive, and

always ready, as far as possible, to excite the ignorant and credulous

people against the civil governments in favour of Church domina-

tion. This will be done by the watch-word that “ we are to obey

God rather than man.” Under these circumstances there is no

other way for the State to secure its independence and to render

possible the execution of its functions than the perfect severance of

the union with the Church
;
the most complete liberation from its

influence as a hierarchical organization and system of government.

This is what we call the complete secularization of the State. If

the civil power does not do this, if it remains in union or in contract

with the Church as a kind of spiritual government, then, to be con-

sistent, it must acknowledge the higher authority of the Church over

itself, and for the most part be subject to it, waiting the privileges

which the Pope will be pleased to confer. But if, notwithstanding

this recognition of the Church, and of the absolute Papacy as a

legal power and as a direct divine authority,—that which it claims
to be

;
if the State does not seriously regard the Church as

altogether divine, but in part limits and opposes it in its claims, not

merely provoking its opposition, but treating it with halfness and

inconsistency, then the reproach of injustice towards the authority

of the Church is not undeserved. For, in this case, the State has

placed itself on the same ground with the absolute Papacy, and,

notwithstanding its superhuman and supernatural pretensions, has

recognised it as a power with which terms may be made. It appears

then to us, that the only right and consistent thing which the State

can do, is not to acknowledge the direct divine foundation which the

Church maintains for itself, that is to say, to let it rest on itself in

the same way as with all other religions and denominations. The

State should ignore the premisses, and then it will have a right,

logically and juridically, entirely to ignore the consequences. But it

is altogether inadmissible, yea, irrational and illogical, to yield the

premisses, and yet, arbitrarily or according to human law, to judge,



18

limit, partly or even entirely to remove that which has been acknow-

ledged as divine. It is not to be wondered at, if the advocates of

the ecclesiastical claims say that the State and human law in this

set themselves above God, and constitute themselves judges of

God, since they wish to judge and limit by human measures that

authority with which, notwithstanding its claims to an immediate

Divinity, they have entered into a union which presupposes an

admission that these claims are valid. Such a proceeding must be

dangerous to the State itself. On the one side it is granted that to

the people this authority, recognised by the State, is announced as

divine, supernatural, above all other, and the recognition of it to be

enforced even by physical means. On the other side, the civil

governments themselves limit the claims of this divine power, oppose

and thwart it, so that by the people it may easily be suspected as

wicked and godless.

In our judgment, the only way out of these difficulties is in the

dissolution of the connection of the State and the Church, especially

the Catholic Church, or the absolute Papacy. The middle age con-

nection must be thoroughly removed, since all the grounds which

gave it meaning and made it useful are now gone. The State as

such can no longer believe in an immediate direct divine power in

the Church or the Papacy, and yet not believingly be subject to it.

On the one side, if it did this, it would illegally overstep its own

province, and interfere in ecclesiastical and religious matters without

either right or competency. Whilst on the other side its own

sovereignty must lie in submissive obedience to that of the Church,

that is, at the feet of the Pope. But again the old idea of the

State as a temporal kingdom, a profane world, the special region of

sin and the devil, standing over against the Church as the kingdom

of God and redemption, must be regarded as an idea of the past.

It can never again exercise that influence on the relation of Church

and State which for centuries hitherto it has exercised, to the setting

up of the authority of the Church, and the putting down of that

of the State. So also every mean or superficial view of the consti-

tution of the State must be overcome. Such as that its only duty

is to take care of bodies, but that souls are the property of the

Church, to be placed under its spiritual jurisdiction. The functions

of the State, as we understand them now, are to form and nourish

the entire human life, chiefly indeed through the furtherance of the

spiritual development, but to raise also the physical material well-

being, to beautify and ennoble the external as well as the spiritual

existence. The State has also an ethical and intellectual function

to fulfil. It is a kingdom of right, of truth, and of morality. The

right ordering of human relations, and the furtherance of science

and humanity in all their relations, is the goal of its endeavours.

On the other hand, in regard to religion, especially the Christian

religion, we are irresistibly driven to the conviction that it

was not intended to be, and cannot be, an external spiritual

dominion. Christ Himself expressly forbade His disciples to seek



19

after the manner of earthly kings to rule over the faithful in his

kingdom.

The relations of Church and State will have been duly considered

if we can show that the objections usually brought against the

separation of this union are of no weight. The objections which

chiefly concern the State are that through this separation it will be

perfectly “godless,” that the secularization will be a profanation.

This can only be maintained according to the old way of seeing in

nature and the natural formations of history a kingdom of the

wicked or the devil, and only recognising something divine in

miracles and in the so-called supernatural region of the Church.

This view—in fact a remnant of the old Manichaean dualism—must
be regarded as a stand-point which has been conquered. Nature,

even matter itself in its essence and operations, is no longer

regarded as a reasonless region of darkness and a kingdom of the

wicked, as formerly it was, especially in the east. In consequence

of scientific enquiry, it is discovered even in its minutest parts to

be a kingdom of law and order, a region of rational phenomena, and

so far a divine revelation. So also is it with the state. It is indeed

a natural work of man, created and formed in all its relations

through the natural powers of man, and yet not to be considered as

a bad, profane kingdom of the world, and region of ungodliness and

anti-godliness. On the contrary, it is to be regarded as the expres-
sion of the legal rational striving of the spirit, an effort continually

perfecting itself, to bring the being of humanity to an expression of

the full measure of reason, and to realize in it divine ideas. And
therefore the State in its way is divine as well as the Chutch. It

is at length time to admit that reason, order, and law, are the

proper expressions of the divine existence and government
;

not

that which wants order, and cannot be comprehended
;

not that

which appears lawless and marvellous. It is for the protection

and furtherance of religion itself that we desire earnestly to

acknowledge, and to lead the people to acknowledge, that the

highest and most manifest revelation of the Godhead is to be found

in the known, the clear, the rational, and the orderly
;
not in the

dark, the inconceivable, the incomprehensible, and what is called

the miraculous. Hitherto religion and faith in God have been
grounded on miracles and incomprehensibles. By these the truth of
religion and the existence of God have been proved. So now every

incomprehensibility explained, every law of nature or history dis-

closed and divested of its miraculous character, removes a pillar from

religious belief, gives it a shock, or annihilates it altogether. It is

then no marvel that the authority of faith and the positive theology

are unfriendly to science, that they treat it with distrust, and in

every way try to hinder it. The blame, however, of injuring reli-
gion does not fall fairly on science, but on the misunderstanding of

religious faith, and the resting it on a wrong foundation. By the
believers in positive theology the present age is charged with the

worship of reason, which puts itself in the place of the worship of



20

God
;

with “ Kationalism,” which takes the place of faith, and

renders it unnecessary. But even if this were the case, which we

do not for a moment admit, it would probably be better, more

worthy of man, and more pleasing to God, to reverence the divine

in reason and in law, than in the inconceivable, the accidental, and

the miraculous. Keason and the rational is ever the expression of

the Eternal. It is the divine, that in which God is revealed, mani-

fests Himself, works, and is. The consciousness of the divine, and

the reverence of it, which are grounded in science, are firm, sure,

and unchangeable
;
as reasonable as the religious faith commonly

is, which rests only on miracles, darkness, and incomprehensibility.

Morality also has a firm foundation in rational convictions, so that

it cannot in any case come into collision with science.

The State then can no longer be regarded as somethicg merely

worldly, profane, or directly undivine. It appears rather as the

stamp of the divine, because in it reason, right, morality, humanity,

ever find their highest representation. An era therefore may begin

in which again, as in the earlier times of the human race, all that

happens and all that is will be regarded as the continual moving

and working of God. Hot merely, as in former times, that all

phenomena and all the operations of nature be fantastically per-

sonified and divinized, but that through the active understanding of

the orderly and rational course of existence the divine will be seen

in the reign of law rather than in the miraculous. The Bible as

well as Homer, ascribes great thoughts, wise counsels, and good

resolutions to the influence of the Deity agreeably to the religious

mode of contemplating the world in these early times. Would it

not be admissible even now to maintain this, only not in the sense

of a supernatural divine development or miraculous inspiration, but

in the sense that the natural powers of the mind and the exercise of

them is a proof or proclamation of the divine in the present

constitution of the world.

With this view of the State and its functions we are, however,

far from putting it in the place of religion, or from wishing to

concede to it the dominion over religion and the Church. We wish

rather that religion and all the forms of religion be altogether

separated from the State and from civil governments. It is entirely

consistent with our view that the State and religion become uniform

and homogeneous, that thereby more unity and harmony come into

the spiritual life of the people, and that every remnant of the

Manicheean dualism should disappear ; yet the State
and religion

are entirely distinct regions, and have very different functions to

perform. The State, with all its strivings, is contained purely

within the temporal, the mere earthly stream of the transient. The

goal which waves before it and towards which it aims, is only the

ideal and the realization of the ideas of perfection in their earthly

relations. Keligion, on the other hand, in accordance with its

nature, presses out continually beyond this earthly being, seeks to

determine and to realize first the relation of the soul, and then of



21

the whole of the earthly life, to the divine and eternal, to the abso-

lute first ground and essence. Its tendency ever is to turn away

from the world-striving and to sink into its divine Original.*

But religion will reform itself in accordance with this, its true

essential being, and as the result of the interpretation of the State

which we have given, when the State, on its side, has been put

right. And Christianity must especially be made conformable to

the mind and will of its author. It must, as we have already said,

cease to be a region of earthly dominion, and must at the same

time cease to influence earthly relations by incantations and by

means of the supernatural. It must not seek to rule over or hinder

the activity and development of earthly powers, whether they be

physical or mental. It must become a purefy spiritual, purely

inward disposition of the heart or mind, and must have for its

objects only piety and morality. No more must it seek to change

the course of nature through direct divine working, arbitrarily and

in the way of miracle, at any moment, according to the wishes or

necessities of men. Its only aim must be the disinterested worship

and glory of God, the purification and elevation of the human soul,

the working in it of higher feelings, of a humble resigned disposition,

of a pure mind and moral rectitude of will. But this inward

ennobling and sanctifying of the human soul must no more be

carried on in an arbitrary and accidental way, by magic and incan-

tations, but through the individual activity of men under the intel-

ligible influence of the universal divine government. Christ nowhere

attaches importance to a magical, mysterious divine favour, com-

municated as an especial gift. He everywhere teaches that men,

through ethical striving, through fulfilling the will of the “ Heavenly

Father,” shall make themselves well-pleasing to God, and obtain

everlasting life. If the “ Christianity of Christ ” seems on the one

side too much to favour fleeing from the world, this is yet more than

counterbalanced by the express command of practical love to our

neighbour, which is equally enforced with the command for the

perfect love of God. It is to be ascribed to the influence of the

old religions, which chiefly consisted of magic and theurgy, that

ceremonies and worship of this kind were introduced into the

Christian Church, and with the same object. It may have been

that, in the centuries that are past, these correspond to the circum-

stances of men and nations, and so were in some sense necessary.

But now that the orderly and necessary course of nature has been

clearly understood, and since, through inquiries of all kinds, the old

idea of God has become in part untenable, has undergone, and must

stiU undergo purification, such religious ceremonials and continuous

miracles are no more to be received. How could it accord with our
idea of the all-good and all-just God, that arbitrarily, through easy

* These ideas are brought out more fully in the author’s work “Das

Christenthum und die moderne Naturwissenschaft,” in the section “ Das

Cbristenthum und die moderne Civilization.”



22

and partly external mechanical means, the divine displeasure could be

removed from men, or the divine favour obtained ? How could God,
if He can help all men by a miracle, not be willing to help all men ]
If He can help some without this co-operation, how can He not be
able to help all? Or how can He only help half, when it it is possible
for Him to help all together ? If he has resolved, in consequence of
His power and might to help them by miracles, how is it that He
leaves this help to the accident of the earthly course of this world,

and to the uncertainty and weakness of human endeavours ?
When these things are duly weighed, it will be admitted that the

old ideas are as untenable with the course of nature as they are

irreconcileable with the idea of God. In connection with this is the

necessity td free the conception of divine “revelation ” from the nar-

rowness and narrow-heartedness which have been attached to it by

positive theology and the Church, and to understand it in a wider and

fuller sense. It is impossible to believe concerning such aGod as Christ

taught and science requires, that He could arbitrarily give or promise a
revelation as a special privilege, that He could give it only to this or
that people, preserve to them truth and law whilst He refuses these to
all other men and nations, although it would have been easy for Him
to communicate it also to them, and thus to free them from error,

sin, and everlasting destruction. So, likewise, it is not reconcileable

with the higher idea of God, and with an actual divine revelation,

that it should be given to mankind, and yet committed only as a

peculiar inheritance to a few men who are to administer it at their

will or according to their capacity. How could the Christian’s God
have given up the salvation of men, “ His children,” to the power

and arbitrary will of a few weak men, if according to His goodness

and justice He wills all men to be saved, is impartially disposed
towards all, and has had the same object in the creation of all ? The

idea of revelation must then be taken in a wider sense. In reality

all religion, all religious consciousness rests on revelation, on that

universal and natural revelation which is given in and with the spirit

of man by means of its capacity to have a God-consciousness, and

thereby a religion. Hence this revelation is the ground of all

religions, and the truth or essence of religion is in all so far as they

are, more or less a perfect, often, indeed, a very perverted, activity of

the revelation talent of human nature. Judaism and Christianity

are not separated by an absolute cleft from all other religions, nor is

their essence so different that they alone and expressly are absolutely

divine, true, and perfect, while all others are undivine, false, and

wicked. Even the highest pride of the orthodox might be satisfied

that in Christianity they consciously recognise and practise the

relatively best religion. But this will not satisfy them : they find

it agreeable to Christian modesty, humility, and the belief that God

is the Father of all men, to think that they and they only possess

the absolute, true, and perfect religion, but that all other men are

bound in chains of error and consigned to destruction ! It is really

time, especially for Christians, to give up this foolish imagination.



23

In any case we are to believe that religion, with all its forms in time

and space, is under definite laws of nature and history. It must

follow a certain historical course of development which cannot be

changed at the desire of man, and will not be changed by the power

of God, We may assume that but for this, salvation would have
come long ago to the human race. To learn something concerning

this dark law is one of the problems of science. It must be learned

ere we we can understand human existence, or be able “ to justify

the ways of God to man.”

To these remarks we only wish to add a few explanations in

reference to the religious reform which out of the present crisis

has arisen in the Catholic Church, and more or less also in all

Christian Churches. It is highly probable that many will not be

friendly to our views, that they may appear strange and contrary to

their own, perhaps, also unchristian according to their views of

Christianity. But we do not ask a blind assent without examina-

tion. We do not set forth these views as propositions of faith. Let
them be earnestly and freely examined, and let them find as much

assent or consent as the reasons we have brought forward have

weight and significance. If the religious change in relation to faith

and the essence of the Church which at the present time seems

offered, is to be great and thorough, we must reflect that never in

the course of human history has there been a period in which the

views of nature and of the historical, political, and social relations,

have experienced so thorough a change, on sure scientific grounds,

as at present
;
and, moreover, that there has arisen the pressing

necessity in the interests of religion itself to undertake a decided

reform for the preservation and furtherance of its true essence, and

in order so to set it forth that it may be in harmony with the certain

results of science and with all other human culture
;
and that the

people remain or again become partakers of its blessings.

J. FROHSCHAMMER.

STILLWELL AND KNIGHT, PRINTERS, MELBOURNE.