26. Americanism Versus Romanism
Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter,
Immortale Dei,
He says of the Middle Ages: “[then] church and state were happily united.” - “The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII,” pp. 118, 114, 119. Benziger Bros., 1903.
“Sad it is to call to mind how the harmful and lamentable rage for innovations which rose to a climax in the sixteenth century, . . . spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountainhead, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license. . . .
“Amongst these principles the main one lays down that as all men are alike by race and nature . . . that each is free to think on every subject just as he may choose. . . . In a society grounded upon such maxims, all government is nothing more nor less than the will of the people . . . .
“And it is a part of this theory . . . that every one is to be free to follow whatever religion he prefers, or none at all if he disapprove of all. . . .
“Now when the state rests on foundations like those just named - and for the time being they are greatly in favour - it readily appears into what and how unrightful a position the Church is driven. . . . They who administer the civil power. . .defiantly put aside the most sacred decrees of the Church. . .
“The sovereignty of the people . . . is
doubtless a doctrine . . . which lacks all reasonable proof.” -
The theory “that the church be
separated from the state,” Pope Leo further calls a “fatal error,” “a great
folly, a sheer injustice,” and “a shameless liberty.” -
In his next encyclical letter, of
In his letter of January 6, 1895, he says:
“It would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be
sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would beuniversally lawful or expedient for state and
church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. . . . She would bring
forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favour
of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.” -
Among the many authorities that could
be cited, we have chosen that of Pope Leo XIII, because he is not a medieval,
but a modern, exponent of papal doctrines, which no Roman Catholic would deny.
Any one familiar with the phraseology of the Declaration of Independence and
the Federal Constitution cannot help but see in the expressions of Pope Leo a declared
opposition to the fundamental principles upon which our government is
founded. He urges his followers not to be content with attending to their
religious duties, but “Catholics should extend their efforts beyond this
restricted sphere, and give their attention to national politics.” -
“It is the duty of all Catholics . . .
to strive that liberty of action shall not transgress the bounds marked out by
nature and the law of God - to endeavour to bring back all civil society to the
pattern and form of Christianity which We have described. . . . Both these
objects will be carried into effect without fail if all will follow the
guidance of the Apostolic See as their rule of life and obey the bishops.” -
“Especially with reference to the
so-called ‘Liberties’ which are so greatly coveted in these days, all must
stand by the judgment of the Apostolic See.” -
In his encyclical letter of
“As to those who mean to take part in
public affairs they should avoid . . . leading the lives of cowards, untouched
in the fight. . . . Honour, then, to those who shrink not from entering the
arena as often as need calls, believing and being convinced that the violence
of injustice will be brought to an end and finally give way to the sanctity of
right and religion.” -
They are urged to support (in elections) only those men who will stand by the principles of union of church and state:
“The Church cannot give countenance or favour to those whom she knows to be imbued with a spirit of hostility to her; who refuse openly to respect her rights; who make it their aim and purpose to tear asunder the alliance that should, by the very nature of things, connect the interests of religion with those of the state. On the contrary, she is (as she is bound to be) the upholder of those who are themselves imbued with the right way of thinking as to the relations between church and state, and who strive to make them work in perfect accord for the common good. These precepts contain the abiding principle by which every Catholic should shape his conduct in regard to public life. In short, where the Church does not forbid taking part in public affairs, it is fit and proper to give support to men of acknowledged worth, and who pledge themselves to deserve well in the Catholic cause, and on no account may it be allowed to prefer to them any such individuals as are hostile to religion. . . .
“Whence it appears how urgent is the
duty to maintain perfect union of minds.” -
“
“The political prudence of the Pontiff
embraces diverse and multiform things; for it is his charge not only to rule
the Church, but generally so to regulate the actions of Christian citizens. . .
. The faithful should imitate the practical political wisdom of the
ecclesiastical authority.” -
“But if the laws of the state are
manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to
the Church, . . . or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the
authority of Jesus Christ, then truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to
obey, a crime.” -
“If, then, a civil government strives .
. . to put God aside, it deflects woefully from its right course and from the
injunctions of nature. Nor should such a gathering together and association of men
be accounted as a commonwealth, but only as a deceitful imitation and
make-believe of civil organisation.” -
These are the exact statements of Pope
Leo XIII, taken from his authentic records, published by the Catholics under
the seal of the Church; and they show that the Papacy stands for the same
principles today as it did in the Dark Ages. How truthfully the Pontiff says:
“And in truth, wherever the Church has set her foot, she has straightway
changed the face of things.” -
A letter from the
“What the church has done in the past for others, she will now do for the United States. . . . He [the pope) hails in the United American States, and in their young and flourishing church the source of new life for Europeans. . . . If the United States succeed in solving the many problems that puzzle us, Europe will follow her example.” - “New York Sun,” July 11, 1892; quoted in “Liberty,” 1907, No. 4, p. 10.
How remarkably this coincides with the prophetic prediction: “His deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.” Revelation 13: 3. Yes, it is true that “as America, the land of religious liberty, shall unite with the Papacy in forcing the conscience and compelling men to honour the false Sabbath, the people of every country on the globe will be led to follow her example.” - “Testimonies,” Vol. VI, p. 18. This country led the world from despotism to liberty, and it will lead the way back.
The doctrine of Pope Leo XIII is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and it is taught in her schools in the United States. One of their schoolbooks, “Manual of Christian Doctrine, by a Seminary Professor,” printed by J. J. McVey, Philadelphia, 1915, and carrying the sanction of the Catholic Censor and the seal of the Church, has this to say concerning the “Relations of Church and State”:
“Why is the Church superior to the state?
“Because the end to which the Church tends is the noblest of all ends.
“What right has the pope in virtue of his supremacy?
“The right to annul those laws or acts of government that would injure the salvation of souls or attack the natural rights of citizens.
“What then is the principle obligation of the heads of states?
“Their principle obligation is to practice the Catholic religion themselves, and, as they are in power, to protect and defend it.”
“Has the State the right and the duty to proscribe schism or heresy?
“Yes, it has the right and the duty to do so.
“May the state separate itself from the Church?
“No, because it may not withdraw from the supreme rule of Christ.
“What name is given to the doctrine that the state has neither the right nor the duty to be united to the Church to protect it?
“This doctrine is called Liberalism. It is founded principally on the fact that modern society rests on liberty of conscience and of worship, on liberty of speech and of the press.
“Why is Liberalism to be condemned?
“Because it denies all subordination of the state to the Church.” - Pp. 131-133.
We respectfully ask: With such avowed principles taught in Catholic schoolbooks, would it be safe to allow Romanised textbooks to be used in our public schools?
Pope Paul IV sets forth this same papal doctrine. We read:
“On February 15, 1559, appeared the Bull Quum ex apostolatus.officio of which the most important heads are these:
“(1) The Pope as representative of Christ on earth has complete authority over princes and kingdoms, and may judge the same.
“(2) All monarchs, who are guilty of heresy or schism, are irrevocably deposed, without the necessity of any judicial formalities. They are deprived forever of their right to rule, and fall under sentence of death. If they repent, they are to be confined in a monastery for the term of their life, with bread and water as their only fare.
“(3) No man is to help an heretical or schismatic prince.
The monarch guilty of this sin is to lose his kingdom in favor of rulers obedient to the Pope.” - “Life and Times of Hildebrand, Arnold Harris Mathews, D. D., p. 288. London: 1910.
Later papal encyclicals show the same attitude toward Protestants. Here is a sample from the encyclical of Pope Pius X. Speaking of the Reformation of the sixteenth century, it says:
“That tumult of rebellion and that perversion of faith and morals they called reformation and themselves reformers. But, in truth, they were corrupters, for undermining with dissensions and wars the forces of Europe. They paved the way for the rebellions and the apostasy of modern times, in which were united and renewed in one onslaught those three kinds of conflict, hitherto separated, from which the Church has always issued victorious. The bloody conflicts of the first ages, then the internal pest of heresies, and, finally, under the name of evangelical liberty, a vicious corruption and a perversion of discipline unknown perhaps in medieval times.” - “Encyclical Letter of Our Most Holy Lord Pius X,” quoted in Supplement to “The Tablet,” June 11, 1910, p. 950. London: England (For further evidences that the Papacy claims the right of interfering with the affairs of civil governments, see “The Middle Ages,- Henry Hallam, LL.D.. F.R.A.S.. Vol. 1. chap. 7. Parts I, 1I).
The Jesuits in this country endeavour to make us believe that it is not within the pope’s domain to ‘‘meddle with the civil allegiance of Catholics” or to interfere with a ruler’s governing of his subject and that, should any pope “try such interference, he would be going beyond the limits of his proper authority; Catholics would be under no obligation to obey him - nor would they obey him.” - “The Pope and the American Republic,” by J. E. Graham, p. 3. But it is understood that this is only “mission” literature written for the American people, who can best be won by such sentiments, and that it does not apply to Catholic countries; nor will it apply to our own when conditions here can be changed.
We do not suppose that such writers have forgotten the claims of so many popes that civil magistrates are not exempt from the rule of Christ, or from the governing power of His Vicar, and that “the church never changes.” Nor can any well read man have forgotten that Pope Gregory VII on the twenty second of February, 1076, excommunicated Henry IV, “forbade him to govern Germany and Italy, dispensed all his subjects from the oath of allegiance they had taken to him, and forbade every one to obey him as a king’ - “Life and Times of Hildebrand,” A. H. Mathews, D. D., p. 109. London: 1910. Pope Gregory VII wrote the following letter on September 3, 1076:
“To All the Faithful in Germany, Counselling them to Choose a New King:
“Gregory . . . to all the . . . bishops, dukes, counts, and all defenders of the Christian faith dwelling in the kingdom of Germany . . . Henry, king so-called, was excommunicated . . . he was bound in bondage of anathema and deposed from his royal dignity, and that every people formerly subject to him is released from its oath of allegiance. . . .
“Let another ruler of the kingdom be found by divine favour, such an one as shall bind himself by unquestionable obligation to carry out the measures we have indicated.” - “Records of Civilisation Sources and Studies,” edited under the auspices of the Department of History, Columbia University,” Vol. XIV, pp. 105-107.
Any person who had any dealing with the excommunicated king became thereby himself excommunicated. If the king did not secure release from this “band” within a year, he was to lose his kingdom and be put to death, or if he repented after the year passed he would be imprisoned in a monastery, and fed with bread and water till his death, and this finally became his fate. Henry had to set out across the dangerous Alps in midwinter. “The cold was intense, and there had been heavy falls of snow, so that neither men nor horses could advance in the narrow road alongside precipices without running the greatest risks. Nevertheless, they could not delay, for the anniversary of the King’s excommunication was drawing near.” The men walked, and the queen was placed in “a kind of sledge made of ox hide, and the guides dragged [it] the whole way.” At last they arrived at Canossa, where the pope temporarily abode.
“Then, in the penitent’s garb of wool, and barefoot, the King appeared before the walls of the fortress. He had laid aside every mark of royalty, and, fasting, he awaited the pleasure of the Pope for three days. The severity of the penance was enhanced by the coldness of the season. Bonitho speaks of it as avery bitter winter, and says that the King waited in the courtyard amid snow and ice. Even in the presence of Gregory there were loud murmurs against his pride and inhumanity.” – “Life and Times of Hildebrand,” pp. 126-128. At last through the intercession of others the pope admitted the king and released him of the excommunication, January 28, 1077.
Pope Gregory VII himself acknowledged the whole proceeding with evident satisfaction in a letter to the princes of Germany, dated January 28, 1077, in the following words:
“At length he came in person with a few followers to the town of Canossa where we were staying. Not a sign of hostility or boldness did he show. All his royal insignia he laid aside, and, wretchedly clad in woollen garments, he stood persistently for three long days with bare feet before the gate of the Castle. Constantly and with many tears he implored the apostolic mercy for help and consolation until he had moved all who were within hearing to such pity and depth of compassion that they interceded for him with many prayers and tears. They expressed wonder at the unusual hardness of our heart, and some even insisted that we were exercising, not apostolic severity, but the ferocious cruelty of a tyrant.” - “Parallel Source Problems in Medieval History,” F. Duncalf, Ph. D., and A. C. Krey, M. A., p. 89. New York and London: 1912.
And yet the pope had the audacity to extract from the humiliated king the promise of a meeting among the princes of Germany, where “the pope as judge” was to decide whether Henry was to be “held unworthy of the throne according to ecclesiastical law” or not. (Id., p. 51) And finally the pope excommunicated Henry the second time, March 7, 1080, and a new king, Rudolph of Suabia, was elected, the pope sending him a costly crown. Civil war ensued, which deluged Germany in blood, and Rudolph, the king of the papal party, was slain. This is not an isolated case.
“When, in the year 1119, Calixtus excommunicated Henry V, the Pope also solemnly absolved from their allegiance all the subjects of the Emperor.” - “Life and Times of Hildebrand,” p. 284.
On May 24, 1160, Pope Alexander III excommunicated Frederic Barbarossa, “and released his subjects from their allegiance.” Pope Innocent III “deposed and reinstated princes and released subjects from their oaths” as if he were a universal ruler. In 1208 he placed the whole kingdom of England under “interdict,” excommunicated King John in 1209, and deposed him in 1212, releasing all his subjects from their allegiance to him, and invited King Philip of France to occupy England in the name of the pope. John was finally forced to surrender the kingdom into the hands of the pope, to be returned to him as a fief. The barons, displeased with such transactions, forced the king to sign the “Magna Charta,” a document of liberty. But the pope declared it null and void.
“The Emperor Frederick II was excommunicated by Gregory IX; his subjects were released from their allegiance, and he was deposed by Innocent IV [in 1245]. Boniface VIII, who meddled incessantly in foreign affairs, [explained the pope’s] two swords [to mean, that the temporal sword of] the monarch is borne only at the will and by the permission of the Pontiff.” - Id., p. 286.
One more example of a later date may be of interest. For centuries France had been under the controlling power of thePapacy, and in the Revolutionary period she attempted to shake off the shackles. But, the fetters were so strong and the chains so heavy, that she found herself unable to do so, till finally the Association Law of 1901 and the Separation Law of 1905 granted religious liberty to all denominations alike. Rome, however, does not want liberty, but sole control, and so her thunderbolts were hurled against the “injustice” of France, till the impression was created that Rome was fighting for “liberty.” It is the same old story. The Papacy always feels oppressed where it is not given a free hand to control. F. T. Morton (member of the Massachusetts bar) says:
“It is not in defence of religious liberty the pope is attacking the French republic, but because the republic has placed all religious bodies alike under the regime of religious liberty, equality, and toleration, and this he calls the law of oppression.” - “The Roman Catholic Church and Its Relation to the Federal Government,” p. 110. Boston: 1909. See also “Papal Attack on France,” in the Nineteenth Century Magazine, April, 1909, and “Papal Aggression in France,” in Fortnightly Review, October, 1906.
In a Catholic booklet, Rev. J. T. Roche, LL. D., says of the French law:
“Three hundred million dollars’ worth of property has been swept away by a single legal enactment, because the French laity did not have an influential, efficient, and vigorous press to protest against this colossal injustice. The Cardinal Archbishop of France a few weeks ago made the statement, that if one tenth of the money put into churches and religious institutions, had been expended on their Catholic press, this property would never have been confiscated. This utterance has been well borne out by the results already achieved in Germany. That country today has over two hundred Catholic daily papers, and a great number of weekly and monthly periodicals. It has a great lay society, the Volksverein, which devotes its energies to the up building of the press. . . . From end to end of the country, the people are kept in touch with what is going on in governmental as well as church circles. There is unity of thought and action. . . . It has become a universally accepted axiom amongst us, that the church in any country is no stronger or weaker than its official press.” - “The Catholic Paper,” pp. 9, 10; printed by “Catholic Register and Canadian Extension.” Toronto, Can.: 1910.
Attorney F. T. Morton quotes the following from newspaper clippings concerning a mass meeting of nearly 8,000 Catholics, held in Brooklyn, N. Y., Feb. 3, 1907, to protest against the Separation Law of France: “Even Bismarck had to pass on his way to a metaphorical Canossa.” - “The Roman Catholic Church,” p. 114, Boston: 1909.
The Roman Catholic weekly, The Tablet, of London, March 21, 1914, pp. 440, 441, has an article on “French Catholics and the General Elections,” which we wish we had space to copy in full, as it shows the way leaders in the Roman church instruct her people, and marshal them in mass in times of elections. We quote:
“Catholics have had their duty in this matter long ago placed before them by the Pope: to unite together under their Bishops on the platform of religion.’ . . .
“‘Catholics above all things’ was to be their motto.
“The only purpose was to form a vast association of Catholic citizens to act together for ends which he summed up as follows: - ‘What we want is religious peace (1) by the revision of the laws which have attacked our liberties, and (2) by an understanding between the State and the Head of the Catholic Church.’
“In accordance with these principles it was determined to constitute at once a Committee to multiply organisations which would group Catholics together for this work, and that action should be taken as far as possible in the forthcoming electoral struggle.
“The call to united action thus sounded finds a strong re-enforcement in the pastorals of the Bishops. Thus Cardinal Andrieu, Archbishop of Bordeaux, has reminded his flock that they should use their votes, and that in doing so they are bound in conscience to vote only for those candidates who shall have promised to respect the rights of God and the Church. ‘Those,’ declares His Eminence, ‘who decline to make this promise are undeserving of your confidence, and if, from fear or from self interest, you vote for them, you make yourselves responsible before God and men for the harm that may be done by their sectarianism to our religion and to our country.’
“Cardinal Dubillard, Archbishop of Chambery, has written in the same sense. Even still stronger is the note struck in a Joint Pastoral issued by the six Bishops of the Province of Bourges. They open by declaring that with the elections in view it is their right and their duty to speak about them to their people, who are under an obligation, not only to vote, but to vote right. ‘To vote is not an indifferent, because it is a political, act, for politics cannot escape from Christian morality or claim independence seeing that conscience is binding in public as well as in private life.’ . . .
“Catholics have gone to the ballot as individuals, disunited and without a program. This time they should unite on behalf of the interests of religion. Now more than ever before united action is necessary sub vexillo Christi. . . . The Bishops proceed to lay down the line of conduct to be followed by Catholic electors: to refuse to vote for all candidates who shall take their stand on the laws described as secular and intangible; to vote unhesitatingly and without arriere pensee [mental reservation] for every Catholic candidate - Republican, Royalist, or Imperialist - because he is a Catholic, and determined above all to defend and demand the rights of God and of the Church; to vote for those Liberal candidates who give a satisfactory pledge to support the Catholic claims. From this it will be seen that the laymen’s movement is in full accord with the directions of the Bishops.” - Pp. 440, 441.
Now, in the Roman Catholic Church rests one of its main propositions on the fact that it is the same the world over, and never changes, and seeing that it is governed in every country by the same rules of the Roman Curia, with the pope at its head, we know that the same regulations apply to the United States as to the Republic of France. As an illustration of this fact we find that, when the Poles of Milwaukee, Wis., in their city election of 1912, voted the Socialist ticket, the Roman Catholic paper, Western Watchman, of April 11, 1912, commented thus: “We are sorry for the Poles. It is a shame that their clergy have them not under better control.” - Quoted in “Protestant Magazine,” December, 1913, p. 568. When Mr. T. J. Carey of Palestine, Texas, in a letter to Archbishop John Bonzano, the Papal Delegate, of Washington, D. C., dated June 10, 1912, asked: “Must I as a Catholic surrender my political freedom to the Church?” the Archbishop answered in a letter dated June 16, 1912: “You should submit to the decisions of the Church even at the cost of sacrificing political principles.” - Frontispiece in “Protestant Magazine,” August, 1913. Many other incidents could be cited if space permitted.
Let no one, therefore, claim that the Catholic Church is not active in politics. As a sequel to this Catholic Action in France, we read in the Minneapolis Journal, December 7, 1920, in the report of a sermon by Dr. P. B. Donally, O. M. I. (Catholic) of London, England, preached at the Pro-Cathedral in Minneapolis, the following significant words:
“‘The Church, Christ’s Masterpiece.’ . . . Amid the universal crash of nations, thrones, and doctrines, she is the one moral force that remains standing.
“Protestant England sends its ambassador to the Pope of Rome. Lutheran Germany, through her representative at the Vatican, seeks light and counsel from the Vicar of Christ. And the infidel government of France has walked the road to Canossa.”
We have seen the reason why the Republic of “France has walked the road to Canossa”; namely, through the activities of Catholic bishops, and their organisations, in elections. As sure as that same power is operating in other countries, they too will walk the road to Canossa. What a delight it seems for the leaders of the Roman church to look back to the grand scene at Canossa, and see a mighty king standing with bare feet in snow and cold for three days, begging the pope to allow him to rule his own country. This is the Roman ideal, it appears. We could continue this subject by relating Rome’s fight against government officials of Spain, Mexico, etc., bringing its activities in politics up to date, but space forbids. To sum up: Rome is unchanged in principle, and will do today what it did in the Middle Ages, whenever opportunity offers itself.
The World War gave the Papacy a new hold on the nations of Europe. Mr. Michael Williams, an eminent Catholic editor, says: “Before the World War . . . there were few national representatives at the Vatican.” But now “a spiritual movement such as the world has not seen since the Crusades or the conquest of the Roman Empire by the earlier members of the same church [has taken place]. In that movement the laity are participating in close cooperation with the ecclesiastical leaders.” - “Current History Magazine,” Aug., 1926. And what a change has taken place!
“A total of thirty-one countries now maintain official diplomatic relations with the Vatican. . . . To this number it is expected here both France and the United States will be added. . .
“As a consequence the Vatican is today in diplomatic relations not only with all of the great Catholic countries of the world and most of the Protestant nations, but it has succeeded in entering into semiofficial relations with several of the great nations with other religions, such as Turkey, Japan, and China.” - By mail from Rome, printed in Minneapolis “Tribune,” April 10, 1921.
Such pressure was brought to bear on the smaller nations not having diplomatic relations with the Vatican, that Latvia felt the need of having a “pull” there too. “The papal authorities agreed to extend their recognition to Latvia and to make Riga the seat of a Roman Catholic archbishop, provided the government of Latvia would turn over to the archbishop the Cathedral of Riga. Though the cathedral had been in the continuous possession of the Lutherans for more than three hundred years, the government accepted the condition of the Vatican.” - Bishop Edgar Blake, in New York “Christian Advocate,” Sept. 23, 1926.
Now the Vatican is strongly urging the United States to begin diplomatic relations with the Holy See. We read in a New York Herald-Tribune - Minneapolis Journal cable for April 15, 1934:
“Rome, April 14. - The ‘preparation’ by President Franklin D. Roosevelt of a favourable public opinion now appears to be considered at the Vatican . . . of a resumption of diplomatic relations between the United States and the Holy See. . . . The Roosevelt administration has progressed from a merely friendly attitude to a definite willingness to dispatch a minister to the Holy See as soon as the American public - and especially Congress - can be put into the frame of mind to accept the step.
“The frequent and amiable contacts of the President and Archbishop Cicognani, Apostolic Delegate to Washington, are said to have done much to prepare the ground, but at the Vatican the greatest hope is pinned to the clear-cut assurance which Postmaster General James A. Farley gave the Pope when he was received last August.” - Minneapolis “Journal,” April 15, 1934.
What this diplomatic relation will cost this country in concessions to the Vatican, time alone will tell. We venture to say that it will be of a different nature from that of Latvia, and infinitely greater in its consequences! But Protestants seem to be so fast asleep that they do not even dream of danger. Dr. Samuel Hanson Cox says:
“Our greatest national dangers arise from our lamentable apathy; as this arises mainly from our ignorance. While men slept, says our Saviour, the enemy sowed tares. And if ‘the price of liberty is eternal vigilance it ill becomes the heirs of such a boon, from such ancestors as ours, to lose or even to peril the freedom which was purchased by them at the cost of blood.
Not will any thing like indifference suit the occasion. America expects every citizen, as Christ every Christian, to do his duty. And to omit this on any pretence is criminal. It is suiting and serving the enemy. It is servility and subserviency to the common foe. Sleep on, says Rome, and we will have you! We need do nothing, but only omit to do our duty, and we act for him; and our ruined posterity may remember only to accuse us, only to execrate our memories. Shall we then be indifferent, and so abet the interests of Antichrist? What could we do more truly to favour the worst adversary of this most noble and desirable nation? “ - “The History of the Popes to A. D. 1758,” Archibald Bower, Esq., with Introduction by Rev. Samuel Hanson Cox, D. D., p. xi of Introduction. Philadelphia: 1844.