Mexico is ours; shall not the whole empire of Cortez be ours, not by force, or conquest, or fraud, but in obedience to the same laws that have extended our institutions across this continent? Will not that enfeebled and enervate nation in time awake to the real blessings of self-government, of industry, of enterprise, and of free institutions? And Central America,-is there any hindrance to her many petty powers throwing aside their differences, and coming peacefully and hopefully under the influence of this large family of States? Cuba was plainly intended by nature as the key to the great valley of the Mississippi, and will yet be knocking at our doors, for the day cannot be far distant when she will be free. The new reciproThe Provinces on On the north, we see no reason why the great lakes interpose any boundary between ourselves and Canada. We see not why all will not yet become UNITED AMERICA. We are not able to understand why an imaginary parallel of latitude should keep the spirit of free thought back, dooming it to a tract that has been bounded and surveyed by the dictum of a purely arbitrary power. city treaty is a long step in the direction desired. the east are separated only by lines that may be easily wiped out, but not at all by any such great and deep differences in sympathy as divide nations. Their natural interests are in common with our own. Their modes of thinking continually assimilate to ours. Their pursuits require the same perseverance and courage in order to attain like results. And it can hardly be questioned that the logical course of events will in due time bring them also, peacefully and voluntarily, into this extended federal compact. Our boundaries are wide apart, and contain territory enough to sustain a countless population. Under free institutions like ours, all may rise to the level of their true destiny; individual selfishness and usurpation cease, and nothing but wishes for the common good be in the ascendant. Who can clearly predict the condition of our country in the far-off future? We are alive with hope,—a hope that blazes with a brighter and still brighter illumination, lighting us along on the broad pathway of realization. ROMANISM AND FREEDOM. "By the patriot's hallowed rest, PIERREPONT. THE advocates of Romanism claim that she is the patron of learning and of freedom!—the encourager of free thought, free opinion, and free expression; and there are some favorite examples quoted to maintain this monstrous proposition. The Magna Charta, the very groundwork of freedom, is held up as the fruit of Catholic liberality, and so continually announced in our Legislative Halls, from the stump, and in flaming editorials. Unfolding the page of history, we find that John, king of England, engaged in a controversy with the Pope, which resulted in the king's yielding up his possessions to the Holy See, and receiving them back as a vassal. The proud Barons, who at the time possessed no defined rights, could not brook the insults and degradation which were heaped upon them through the weakness of their king, and solemnly demanded, for their protection, what is now known as the Magna Charta. In the struggle between the lords and the crown, the Pope took part with John against the Barons, and brought the whole of his temporal and spiritual power to defeat their demands. Against them Pope Innocent, from the Council of Lateran, thundered his bulls of excommunication:-" We will have you to know, that in General Council we have excommunicated and anathematized, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, in the name of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and in our own name, the Barons of England, with their partisans and abettors, for persecuting John, the illustrious King of England, who has taken the cross, and is a vassal of the Roman Church, for striving to deprive him of a kingdom, which is known to belong to the Roman Church.” The example of France, which has in modern times shaken off a tyrannical monarchy, and made approaches towards republican institutions, has been held up as a testimony that Romanism favors liberty. The French people always resisted, more perseveringly than those of any other Catholic country, the assumptions of Popery; to France, the world is indebted, not only for Catholics imbued with a true spirit of Christianity, but also for some of the most powerful writers against the assumptions of the Holy See. The Kings of France ever contended for the right of appointing their own Bishops, and it was only under monarchs most deeply imbued with Romanism that France found her greatest tyrants. Of late years, as the light of true liberty has made encroachments upon the domain of despotism, it has modified the illiberality of darker times, and one of the first fruits of the late popular revolutions in that country was the separation of Church and State, and protection to every religious belief. But France, liberal as her people naturally are, is yet too much under the influence of Roman supremacy to be quoted as an example of religious toleration. It seems but yesterday that Rome herself woke from her long night of slavery, and declaring herself free, her spiritual and temporal despot, the Pope, fled from her walls, and took refuge in Gaeta. The regenerated Romans offered to receive the Pope as their spiritual head, but resolutely insisted on the abolition of his temporal power, and that of his tyrannical cardinals. The overture was scorned, and the work of their subjugation to despotism was assigned to France, and, in spite of her Republicanism, the lingering slavery of priestcraft was so wrought into the blood and bones of her rulers and her soldiery, that she accepted the work, marched her armies on Rome, bombarded and carried the city by assault, and crushed the new Republic and the liberals of Italy in the dust. Maryland, settled under the auspices of Cecil Calvert, a Catholic, and by its charter granting popular liberty and religious freedom, has been held up as an example of Catholic toleration. The wily Bishop, the innocent layman, and the designing politician, can never sufficiently eulogize the liberality that characterized that Colonial government, where, in times of universal intolerance, men could live unmolested in the enjoyment of the rights of conscience. If this were the result of the direct interference of the Roman Church, had it been voluntarily suggested by Lord Baltimore, then it certainly would have been an illustrious example, and would have stood out a monument of light from among the accumulated darkness. But history shows, that neither the Church nor its adherents in any way favored the cause of liberty, so far as the early settlement of Maryland was concerned. If Lord Baltimore had been a Protestant nobleman, a Protestant prince would have granted him a charter for a Protestant province. If the king had been a Catholic, a Catholic proprietary would have procured a charter for a Catholic province. This course of action characterizes the history of the period. The luminous and beautiful exception of Maryland to the spirit of colonization of the seventeenth century was owing to the happy coincidence of a wise and energetic statesman receiving a charter from a Protestant monarch jealous of his faith, and both statesman and monarch compelled to pay deference to the progressive doctrines and political strength of the Independents of England, who were then preparing the way for successful revolution, and the final triumph of universal liberty, in these American States.* The claim that Romanism is in favor of free thought, free expression, and free opinion, is never urged by her votaries out of the United States; the policy of doing it in this country, however, sometimes becomes insupportable, and the leading Catholic presses occasionally break forth in the following natural language: "No good government can exist without religion-and there can *See History of Democracy in the United States, Maryland, p. 199. be no religion without an Inquisition, which is wisely designed for the promotion and protection of the true faith."* "For our own part, we take this opportunity to explain our hearty delight at the suppression of the Protestant chapel in Rome. This may be thought intolerant; but when, we ask, Did we ever profess to be tolerant of Protestantism, or to favor the question that Protestantisin ought to be tolerated? On the contrary, we HATE Protestantism— we DETEST it with our whole heart and soul, and we pray our aversion to it may never decrease." In the United States toleration is claimed as a Papal virtue, because it is known to be harmonious with public sentiment. Upon the Continent of Europe all is different, and Romanism becomes the strong right arm of despotism, and the enemy of every thing that is free. Not the supporter of tyranny by inference of its enthusiastic devotees, but by the powerful precepts of its written laws, sanctioned by all the solemnities of tradition, and all the massive machinery of the Church. Of the doctrines of the Council of Trent it is decreed, "If any one shall presume to teach, or to think differently from these decrees, let him be accursed." As late as 1832, the Church, through Gregory XVII., in its famous Encyclical letter, pronounces, "From that polluted fountain of indifference flows the absurd and erroneous doctrine, or rather raving, in favor and in defence of liberty of conscience, for which most pestilential error, the course opened by that entire and wild liberty of opinion, which is everywhere attempting the overthrow of civil and religious institutions, and which the unblushing impudence of some has held forth as an advantage to religion." "From hence arise those revolutions in the minds of men, hence this aggravated corruption of youths, hence the contempt among the people of sacred things, and of the most holy institutions and laws; hence, in one word, that pest of all others most to be dreaded in a State, unbridled liberty of opinion." The establishment of the Inquisition in the sixteenth century was *Boston Pilot. + Pittsburg Catholic Visitor, 1848. 4 |