*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 61731 ***

Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
      file which includes the original illustration.
      See 61731-h.htm or 61731-h.zip:
      (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61731/61731-h/61731-h.htm)
      or
      (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61731/61731-h.zip)


      Images of the original pages are available through
      Internet Archive. See
      https://archive.org/details/footprintsofjesu00thom





[Illustration: _R. W. Thompson._]


THE FOOTPRINTS OF THE JESUITS.

by

R. W. THOMPSON,

Ex-Secretary of the Navy, and Author of "The Papacy
and the Civil Power."


  "It was very difficult, not to say impossible, that the Church
  could recover a firm or durable peace so long as the said society
  existed."--Pope Clement XIV.

  "The Jesuits, by their very calling, by the very essence of
  their institution, are bound to seek, by every means, right or
  wrong, the destruction of Protestantism. This is the condition
  of their existence, the duty they must fulfill, or cease to be
  Jesuits."--Nicolini, of Rome.






Cincinnati: Cranston & Curts.
New York: Hunt & Eaton.
1894.

Copyright
by Cranston & Curts,
1894.




PREFACE.


The civil institutions of the United States could not have been formed
without the separation of Church and State, and could not continue to
exist if they were again united. Christianity could not maintain its
primitive purity if politics and religious faith were mingled together;
nor could the State preserve its capacity to provide for the general
welfare if subjected to the dominion of ecclesiastical authority. Our
success as a nation is mainly attributable to the fact that these
sentiments are deeply imbedded in the American mind.

A party pledged to restore to the pope the temporal power
which the Italian people have taken away, must necessarily be
_politico-religious_ in character, because it proposes to interfere
with the temporal affairs of one of the European nations. And if the
attempt to do this is justified upon the ground that such restoration
involves religious duty, any one can see that the obligation is the
same in the United States as in Italy, for the laws of God do not shift
to suit the exigencies of human affairs.

In the times before the Reformation the temporal affairs of Governments
were required to conform to the commands of the ecclesiastical
authority--that is, the pope--and it was held to be a necessary and
essential part of religion that this union should be continued, no
matter what might be the degree of popular ignorance and humiliation.
The founders of our Government started out upon a different theory,
believing it to be their duty to separate "the things of God" from
"the things of Cæsar," so that each could reach perfection in its own
distinct sphere. Therefore, it is clear that a _politico-religious_
party in this country, pledged to unite Church and State in Italy,
against the expressed will of the Italian people, not only must oppose
one of the fundamental principles of our Government, but disturb the
public peace.

To my mind it is also clear that a nation acts politically, and not
religiously, when it decides upon the structure of its temporal
Government--that is, whether its affairs shall be managed by an
absolute or elective monarch, or by machinery provided by a written
constitution. I have, therefore, refrained from the discussion or
criticism of religious belief--as it is understood in the American
sense--any further than it is made the pretext for the reversal of this
opinion, so generally prevalent in this country. It would be an evil
day for the people of the United States if they should be persuaded to
permit any power whatsoever, whether temporal or spiritual, at home or
abroad, to share with them any portion of their political authority, or
to dictate, in any degree, the measures of their civil polity.

In reminding those into whose hands this volume may chance to fall, of
their obligations of citizenship under our popular form of government,
I have found it absolutely necessary to portray the character of the
Jesuits, but for whom, in my opinion, there would be but little to
disturb us. This society has nothing in common with American ideas
or principles. It represents monarchism in its most despotic and
obnoxious form, by requiring each of its members to impersonate the
most abject servility, and to accept this humiliation as an absolutely
necessary part of religious faith. It has had a history unlike that
of any other society in the world. In pointing out its origin and
tracing its footprints among the nations, I have relied upon the most
undoubted authority, much of which is furnished by Jesuit authors. A
careful examination of the evidence will leave the mind of the reader
in no doubt as to the odium which rested upon the society from the
beginning, as well as the manner in which it has disturbed the quiet
of the nations, defied the popes themselves when adverse to them,
and disregarded the interest, welfare, and harmony of the Church it
professed to serve, when required by its general.

I have deemed it important to trace out some of the leading events
which have transpired under the pontificates of Gregory XVI, Pius
IX, and Leo XIII, up to the present time. In this way only is it
possible to understand the full meaning of the revolution which led
to Italian unity and the overthrow of the temporal power of the pope
by Roman Catholic populations, and what is involved in the demand for
its restoration. In doing this I have considered only such matters
as are _politico-religious_, in the sense common among the people
of the United States, and which can not be made a part of religious
faith without doing violence to the recognized spirit of our civil
institutions. Thus I have avoided any conflict with those who prefer
the Roman Catholic to the Protestant form of religious belief, for the
express reason that I have neither the purpose nor desire to question
their right to do so. It seems to me that the constitutional guarantee
which protects this right ought to be satisfactory to all, and can
not be disturbed without imperiling our Government. Therefore, all I
desire will be accomplished if I shall succeed in convincing thoughtful
Roman Catholics that it will be far better for all of us if they shall
decline to accept the _politico-religious_ teachings of the Jesuits
as a part of their religious faith, and content themselves without
interference with the political affairs of their Christian brethren in
Italy. They may maintain fidelity to the Government as patriotically as
professed Protestants, without abating their devotion to the spiritual
doctrines which prevailed in their Church before the fall of the Roman
Empire enabled the popes to place the crown of temporal royalty upon
their heads. To this end I would, if permitted, appeal to that portion
of our population in all sincerity, and invoke the exercise of their
intelligence no less than their patriotism. And if any of them shall
peruse this volume, and carefully consider its contents, they will see
that what I have written centers in the hope that the Protestants and
Roman Catholics of the United States shall live together in the concord
of Christian fellowship, emulating each other in those things that
shall tend most to promote their mutual happiness, and preserve for
their common posterity the civil and religious liberty guaranteed by
our Constitution and laws.

There are abundant evidences to show that the Jesuits have adopted
a loose code of morality, upon which they have built up a system of
"moral theology" as irreconcilable with the true teachings of the Roman
Catholic religion as they are with the well-established doctrines of
all Protestant Christians. But I have refrained from any discussion
of these, not only because this is sufficiently done by Pascal and
Bert, in France, and by numerous American authors, but because my main
object is to show that the triumph of the Jesuits in this country
would bring about such a condition of things as would imperil our
civil institutions. They teach as _religious_ doctrines necessary to
salvation the following: That the State must be reunited with the
Church, and be required to obey its spiritual commands in the enactment
of laws; that the Roman Catholic religion shall be established by law
as the only true religion, and every other form of religious belief
treated and punished as heresy; that, along with this destruction
of the freedom of religious belief, there must be corresponding
restrictions placed upon the liberty of speech and of the press; that
the Roman Catholic Church shall be recognized as an organization
exempt from obedience to all our laws relating to the ownership and
management of real property; that the clergy of that Church shall be
also exempt from obedience to the laws as other citizens, and shall
obey only such as the pope may prescribe; and that our common-school
system of education must be absolutely and entirely destroyed. If,
in these things, the Jesuits should obtain success, our Government
would necessarily come to an end; and what this volume contains has
been written alone with the view of making this question plain and
palpable to the ordinary reader. I have written from the standpoint of
an American citizen, thoroughly impressed with the belief that this
is the most prosperous country in the world, and not from that of a
theologian. About the duties and obligations of the former to the
Government, I assume to have learned something from both instinct and
education; but about the metaphysical subtleties of the theologians, I
do not trouble myself.

I know how difficult it is to escape the accusation of a persecuting
spirit from those who, like the Jesuits, allow nothing for honest
differences of opinion. This, however, ought not to be permitted to
interfere with the plain and obvious duty of defending our civil
institutions from any assault made upon them, no matter by whom,
or in whose name, the assailing forces shall be marshaled. With the
consciousness, therefore, that this volume may subject me to the
imputation of uncharitableness from some upon whom I would inflict no
injury in return, I have expressed myself with candor and fairness, and
have written nothing in malice.

 R.W.T.

 Terre Haute, 1894.




CONTENTS.


   CHAPTER I.

   INTRODUCTORY.

   Abolition of the Pope's Temporal Power--The Pope commands
   its Restoration--Organization for that Purpose--Duties of
   American Citizens,                                                    15


   CHAPTER II.

   IGNATIUS LOYOLA, FOUNDER OF THE ORDER.

   Ignatius Loyola, the Founder of the Jesuit Society--His Original
   Purpose to reform the Church, and to establish his Society
   in Palestine--Having failed, he was compelled to have it approved
   by the Pope--This was done by Paul III, after the
   Constitution was amended,                                             32


   CHAPTER III.

   THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIETY.

   (The Constitution of the Jesuits) Entirely Monarchical--Substitutes
   the General for God upon Earth--Sin committed with
   out Offense when the General commands it--The General Independent
   of the Pope--The Society obey him alone,                              49


   CHAPTER IV.

   GOVERNMENT OF THE SOCIETY.

   Loyola, a "Soldier of Fortune"--His Monarchical Government--His
   Unpopularity among the Dominican Monks--His Plottings
   against the Franciscans at Saragossa and Condemnation
   by the Church Authorities--His Success Accomplished
   only by aid of Monarchical Power,                                     66


   CHAPTER V.

   STRUGGLES AND OPPOSITION.

   Conduct of the Jesuits at Toledo in Spain--Opposition of the
   Church Authorities to them--They again get Protection from
   Royal Power--The Effort to get into France--Opposition of
   the French People to them--Long Continued Struggle,                   84


   CHAPTER VI.

   THE STRUGGLE FOR FRANCE.

   Continued Struggle of the Jesuits to get into France--Resisted
   by the Parliament--Their Intrigues and Reliance upon Royal
   Power--Council at Poissy--Attended by the Jesuit General,
   who suppressed Discussion with Protestants--Their Reliance
   upon Catharine de Medicis--Her Aid in the St. Bartholomew
   Massacre,                                                             99


   CHAPTER VII.

   THE SOCIETY ENTERS GERMANY.

   Jesuit Efforts to get into Germany--Less Difficulty than in
   France--When they reached there, Protestants and Roman
   Catholics living in Peace--Jesuit German College at Rome--Teaching
   Treason to German Youth as a Religious Duty,                         114


   CHAPTER VIII.

   THE JESUITS IN ENGLAND.

   Plottings of the Jesuits in England--Their Opposition to Religious
   Toleration--Opposition to Elizabeth by the Pope, and her
   Trial at Rome--Papal Decree dethroning her, and releasing
   the English People from their Allegiance to her,                     130


   CHAPTER IX.

   JESUIT INFLUENCE IN INDIA.

   Jesuit Mission to India--Imposition of Xavier upon the Monks at
   Goa--His Pretended Miracles,                                         152


   CHAPTER X.

   IN PARAGUAY.

   The Jesuits in Paraguay--Their Government of the Indians--Their
   Resistance to the Authority of the Spanish and the Portuguese
   Governments,                                                         168


   CHAPTER XI.

   THE PORTUGUESE AND THE JESUITS.

   Conflict between the Portuguese and the Jesuits--Charges
   against them laid before the Pope, Benedict XIV--Investigation
   ordered by him,                                                      183


   CHAPTER XII.

   IDOLATROUS USAGES INTRODUCED.

   Jesuits become Idolaters by the Worship of Brahma in India,
   and of Confucius in China,                                          196


   CHAPTER XIII.

   PAPAL SUPPRESSION OF THE SOCIETY.

   Clement XIII was compelled by Public Opinion to Promise the
   Suppression of the Jesuits, but was murdered--They were
   suppressed by Clement XIV, who was poisoned--His Decree
   of Suppression,                                                      217


   CHAPTER XIV.

   RE-ESTABLISHMENT.

   The Jesuits evade the Decree of the Pope suppressing them, and
   seek Shelter in Russia and Prussia--They were re-established
   by Pius VII, to aid the "Allied Powers" to perpetuate
   Monarchism,                                                          236


   CHAPTER XV.

   RE-ENTERING SPAIN.

   The Jesuits re-enter Spain--They support Ferdinand VII in
   trampling upon the Constitution--They arouse a Revolutionary
   Spirit among the People,                                             257


   CHAPTER XVI.

   REVOLUTIONS IN SOUTHERN EUROPE.

   Retrogressive Policy of Gregory XVI--He holds the Italians in
   Subjection by the Austrian Army--Is succeeded by Pius IX
   during the Revolution,                                               282


   CHAPTER XVII.

   TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE OVERTHROWN.

   Pius IX unable to quiet the Revolution--He drives the Jesuits
   out of Italy--Italy unites with Sardinia--Italian Independence
   established, and the Temporal Power of the Pope abolished--Terms
   of Conciliation proposed by Victor Emmanuel,
   and rejected by the Pope--The New Government anathematized,          306


   CHAPTER XVIII.

   PAPAL DEMANDS.

   Distinction between the Church and the Papacy--Allocution of
   Pius IX--Demand for the Restoration of the Temporal
   Power--An Act of Infallibility--Leo XIII elected--Educated
   by the Jesuits--Refused to be reconciled to Modern Progress--His
   Encyclical--Demands Temporal Power--Prefers
   the Middle Ages--His Jesuit Training,                                329


   CHAPTER XIX.

   PRESENT ATTITUDE OF THE PAPACY.

   The Faithful in the United States required to organize to restore
   the Temporal Power--That Question an International One--Its
   Opposition to the Policy of this Country--Opinion of
   Leo XIII upon Freedom of the Press--He condemns Separation
   of Church and State--Politico-Religious Questions,                   347


   CHAPTER XX.

   THE CHURCH AND THE STATE.

   Doctrines maintained by Leo XIII before he became Pope--The
   Union of Church and State--Absolute Obedience to the
   Church,                                                              366


   CHAPTER XXI.

   THE CHURCH SUPREME.

   The Church the Mistress of all Nations--Its Right to command
   Universal Obedience--The School Question--Mgr. Satolli, the
   Vice-Pope--His Theory as dictated by the Pope--Our Common
   Schools Heretical--Must be superseded by Parochial
   Schools, where Religion is taught,                                   388


   CHAPTER XXII.

   JESUITICAL TEACHINGS.

   Doctrines of Thomas Aquinas--Also those of the Jesuits--_De
   jure_ and _de facto_ Governments--The United States the Latter,
   and may be resisted--Persistence in these Teachings,                 407


   CHAPTER XXIII.

   PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.

   The Decree of Infallibility--Its Passage by the Vatican Council--Its
   Definition and Meaning--Extends the Jurisdiction of the
   Pope--Gives him Authority over Politico-Religious Questions
   throughout the World,                                                427


   CHAPTER XXIV.

   THE CHURCH AND LITERATURE.

   Papal Teachings by Means of Literature--Arraignment of American
   Institutions--Attack upon the Liberties of the People--Free
   Institutions are Heretical--Religion requires their
   Overthrow,                                                           443


   CHAPTER XXV.

   INTRIGUES AND INTERPRETATIONS.

   The Temporal Power Hurtful to the Church--Has led to its
   Disintegration--Maintained by Oppressions--Designed to check
   the Reformation--Infallibility Essential to it--Jesuit Influence
   in the Council of Trent--Perversions of Scripture--Infallibility
   not decreed by the Council of Trent,                                 463


   CHAPTER XXVI.

   CONCLUSION.

   The Vatican Council--Effect of the Decree of Infallibility--The
   Bull _Unam Sanctam_ of Boniface VIII--Absolute Dominion
   over Peoples and Nations--Necessity of Guarding against it
   in the United States--Importance of Common Schools--The
   Duty of keeping them free from Jesuit Control,                       479




Footprints of the Jesuits.




CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY.


The American people have imbibed, from association, the spirit of
their civil institutions, and are ready at all times to repel any
direct assault upon them. They are, however, so actively engaged in
their various pursuits, that multitudes of them fail to realize the
necessity of inquiring whether the conflict between opposing principles
of government which resulted in our national independence, has or has
not ended--whether, in other words, the victory the founders of the
Republic won over monarchism, is or is not final.

Those who won this victory intended to provide against this seeming
want of vigilance by means of some system of education, which should
assimilate the principles and opinions of the people, as a perpetual
bulwark against aggression. This would have been accomplished long
ago if the paternal counsels of Presidents Washington and Madison had
been heeded as they deserved to be,--that we should educate "our youth
in the science of government,"[1] under the auspices and protection
of national authority. Instead of this, we have considered ourselves
sufficiently shielded by our system of public-school education, under
State control, and have mainly relied upon this to fit our children for
citizenship and self-government. Hitherto, we have not been seriously
disturbed by the apprehension that it would result in failure, and
for that reason it has been maintained with great popular unanimity.
It is now, however, assailed with violence, and, manifestly, with the
purpose of destroying it entirely. Hence, we are all required, by
obligations we can not rightfully evade, to rest long enough from our
active avocations to discover, if possible, why this is--what motives
impel the assailants--and whether or no they desire to substitute other
principles of government for ours, by turning us back upon a course we
have solemnly repudiated.

In addition to other works of like character but less ability, there is
one, extensively circulated in this country, from the pen of a writer
conspicuous for his learning and ability. The author asserts without
disguise that what he calls "Catholicity"--that is, what the Roman
popes taught when they were temporal monarchs--has been more beneficial
to the world and more civilizing in its influences upon mankind
than Protestantism, not alone in a social, but in a _political_,
religious, and literary point of view. His argument proceeds from the
Jesuit standpoint, and may be summed up in a single sentence,--that
Protestantism has placed mankind in a far worse condition than they
were when dominated over by papal kings.[2]

This work was intended to counteract the effect produced by the
writings of Guizot, the great French historian, who maintained, by
eloquent and matchless reasoning, that mankind had been improved, in
every point of view, by the influences of Protestantism. Accordingly,
it was translated from Spanish, in which language it was originally
written, into French and German, and extensively circulated in France
and Germany. It soon acquired the reputation among the Jesuits of being
unanswerable, and on that account was regarded, in the conflict between
progress and retrogression, like heavy ordnance in battle--a suitable
weapon with which to attack Protestantism and its institutions in the
seat of its greatest strength. Therefore it was translated into the
English language, and printed by two publishing-houses in the United
States, for circulation among the American people. An American preface
is attached, wherein these propositions are affirmed: _First_, that
Protestantism compels its votaries to infidelity, by its variations
of belief; _second_, that civilization was not only commenced but was
prospering under "Catholicity," when it was retarded by Protestantism,
which is unfavorable and injurious to it; and, _third_, that the
principles of Protestantism are incompatible with the happiness of
mankind and "unfavorable to civil liberty."

This preface--which manifestly bears the Jesuit impress--was intended
to notify American readers, beforehand, that the three foregoing
propositions are maintained in the body of the work, and to prepare
their minds for the acceptance of them. Its reprint and circulation
in the United States could have had no other object than to inculcate
the belief that what the people of this country have supposed to be
the advantages they have derived from Protestant institutions are, in
fact, absolutely injurious to them, and that their condition would be
improved by the revival of such as existed during the Middle Ages,
before the Reformation.

By giving prominence to political matters, and discussing them from
the Jesuit point of view, this author presents a plain, distinct,
and practical issue between progress and retrogression. He intends
to make it as plain to the minds of his readers as it seems to be
to his own, that Governments constructed upon the monarchical plan
confer more happiness and prosperity upon society than those upon the
Protestant plan of self-government. Evidently it was with the hope
of disseminating this belief that this work has been reprinted and
circulated in the United States so extensively that it is believed
to have become a standard authority among the Jesuit enemies of
Protestantism. If it does nothing else, however, it apprises our
Protestant population that a powerful influence exists among them
which is uncompromisingly hostile to the principles which underlie
the whole structure of their Government. And, being thus apprised,
their indifference would be little less than criminal; because their
adroit aggressors would construe it into fear of possible consequences,
or assign it to their inability to combat successfully the arguments
supplied by this work, whose author is an acknowledged monarchist.

The differences between popular and monarchical governments are well
known, and appear at every point of comparison which has arisen during
the course of events since the Reformation of the sixteenth century.
The former have achieved their completest triumphs where Protestantism
prevails, and in its presence the latter have been compelled either
entirely to surrender their pretensions, or to abate their demands
for absolutism. Until the Reformation became an accomplished fact,
monarchism was maintained by uniting Church and State, and employing
their joint authority to coerce obedience from the multitude. The
dominion thus acquired condemned self-government by the people as both
heresy and treason, punishable at the pleasure of those who held the
reins of authority in their hands. It took many years of conflict to
change this condition of affairs; and when the people of the United
States were, in the course of events, placed in a condition to choose
between this coercive system and that which was the natural outgrowth
of Protestantism, and to construct a Government for themselves, their
wisdom was sufficient to assure them that any plan of government they
adopted would result in failure, unless they distinguished between
their politics and their religion by separating the Church from the
State, and by so framing their civil institutions as to reserve to
themselves alone the entire sovereignty over them. If either of these
essential prerequisites had been omitted, all exertions to better and
improve their condition would have resulted in failure, as all readers
of history know. Instead of failure, however, they created a Government
which has survived the vicissitudes of more than a hundred years, is
now supplying protection to more than sixty millions of people, and
has reached a most commanding position among the leading nations; if,
indeed, its influence over the happiness and prosperity of mankind does
not surpass that of any of them. Of this we may be assured, that the
measure of its success has been such as to incite among other peoples
the desire to imitate its example; and that the conflicts of opinion
which now agitate the world give reasonable promise that the popular
right of self-government may, in less than another century of time, be
universally recognized. To this end the American people are obliged
to contribute by warding off every blow aimed at their institutions
by either domestic or alien adversaries, especially when these blows
are aimed, as some of them are, at the fundamental principles of their
government.

The influence of our example finds a striking illustration in the
revolution in Italy in 1870, which abolished the temporal power,
or kingship, of the pope, separated the State from the Church, and
established a constitutional form of government in place of the
absolute monarchism which had prevailed, almost uninterruptedly,
for many centuries. The fires of this revolution had been burning
for a long time, kindled originally by oppressions, which had been
so magnified that the people could endure them no longer. Their
culminating point was the passage of the Conciliar Decree, called a
"Dogmatic Constitution," whereby it was declared that the pope was
infallible, and could not err in matters pertaining to faith or morals;
that is, within such spheres of governmental, social, and individual
duties and obligations as the pope alone, for the time being, should
decide to be included in his spiritual and pontifical jurisdiction.
This act was considered the consummation of the "Jesuit plan," at which
the Italian people had been so incensed but a short time before, that
Pope Pius IX had been compelled to expel the members of that odious
society from Rome. The consequence was that the fires which popular
indignation had kindled grew hotter, and it became impossible to
extinguish them except by assuring complete success to the revolution.
Therefore, the ink with which this decree of papal infallibility was
written was scarcely dry before the Italian people, with extraordinary
unanimity, determined to reject it, not merely because it was the
introduction of a new principle of faith hitherto unrecognized, but
because they could easily see that it would place them, and their
children after them, under Jesuit dominion and dictation. They realized
that its acceptance would involve them in the obligation to submit to
the absolute temporal rule of the pope, in whose selection they had
no voice, and to those whom he should think proper to put over them,
whether fit or unfit, and thus put an end to all popular demands for
the right of political self-government. It involved no question of
religious faith, as the faith had been handed down to them by their
fathers; nothing whatsoever which involved their duty to God, otherwise
than as presumptuous men, to answer their own selfish ends, were
striving to convert the pope into a God upon earth, and themselves
into his plenipotentiaries. Influenced solely by this conviction, and
stimulated by the success the people of the United States had won,
they merely abolished the temporal power of the pope, and created a
constitutional form of civil government, which places satisfactory
limitations upon the authority of their king, and establishes
representative political institutions, which provide that their voice
shall be heard in the enactment of public laws. In this they have
taken a long stride in the direction of government "of the people,
for the people, and by the people." They have cast off political
absolutism--which the Jesuits commend to us as "Catholicity"--and have
assumed the station and dignity of an independent people. They have
converted a priest-ridden oligarchy into a nation. On this account, and
this alone, they have made themselves the special objects of Jesuit
malevolence, for the simple reason that the monarchical society of
Jesuits has never, since its beginning, relented in its vindictive
opposition to every form of civil government which recognizes the
people as the source of political power. By the most fundamental
principles of its organization it is forbidden to sympathize with the
sentiment of personal independence, or to allow its members to acquire
the dignity of manhood necessary for participation in the affairs of
government.

In the face of the fact that the Italian people have not changed the
religious convictions they have maintained for hundreds of years
with steadfast fidelity, and in the face also of the successes of
Protestantism as universally recognized, the Jesuits employ the
extorted decree of papal infallibility as the basis of an argument to
prove that the pope is divinely endowed with such spiritual sovereignty
over nations and peoples as entitles him to prescribe, at his own
personal will and pleasure, such laws and regulations, concerning
both faith and morals, as are necessary for the government of society
and the conduct of individuals throughout the world. Within the
circle of this extraordinary and unlimited jurisdiction, they make no
distinction between spirituals and temporals,--never failing to make
the power over the former sufficiently comprehensive to embrace the
latter, accordingly as the pope himself shall decide. Hence they infer
that this papal jurisdiction is not subject to any other limitation
than such as he shall establish, and that it may, consequently, be
rightfully enlarged so as to exact submission from all, and set aside
all requirements in conflict with it. And the result they reach--as
logically following this premise--is, that the refusal of obedience
to the pope, within this comprehensive jurisdiction, violates the law
of God, and is heresy. Therefore, as the Jesuits believe that the
separation of Church and State by the Italian people is heresy, so they
are required also to believe that all civil institutions which have
grown out of that separation--like those of the United States--not only
have the curse of God resting upon them, but that they are the divinely
chosen messengers of heaven to bring them within this enormous circle
of papal dominion.

In assigning these powers to the pope alone, they entirely ignore
everything associated with the original and primitive organization
of the Christian Church, and especially the important fact that it
was not until the beginning of the sixth century that the bishop of
Rome succeeded in acquiring the distinctive title of pope.[3] Before
that time they had exercised at Rome only such powers as metropolitan
bishops elsewhere--each of them having been called _papa_ or pope. When
the Roman bishop acquired by usurpation the exclusive title of _the_
pope, the other metropolitan bishops were reduced to a condition of
inferiority and subordination, and he then required only the temporal
power to assure to him the power and jurisdiction the Jesuits now claim
for him. It took several hundred years of conflict within the Churches
and with the civil powers to accomplish this, and was only accomplished
at last by subduing impotent kings, and so uniting the power of the
Church with that of the State as to hold ignorant populations in
subjugation. And now that the Italians, after submitting to this
humiliation for more than a thousand years, and finding all the sources
of their prosperity withered up, have abolished and destroyed this
illicit and usurped temporal power, and taken into their own hands the
administration of their own temporal affairs--obeying the example set
them by the people of the United States--the Jesuits employ all their
energies to reverse this popular verdict, and plunge them again into
the dreary chasm from which they have escaped.

The Jesuits are subtle disputants. When they talk about the papacy
reconciling itself to any form of government, they reserve to
themselves the meaning that it does not interfere--either in monarchies
or republics--with such local and limited affairs as pertain to the
common and ordinary interests of society in the management of counties,
townships, cities, and municipalities. These may be conducted without
complaint, under one form of government as well as another, and are
held to be such temporal affairs as the pope may exclude from his
spiritual jurisdiction without any violation of the divine law. But
when measures of public policy pass beyond these local and limited
spheres, and involve matters which the pope shall decide to have
relation to the Church, to the papacy, to faith, or to morals, his
jurisdiction attaches, and, according to the Jesuits, he possesses
the divine right to regulate and direct them. So that, when civil
institutions are constructed--no matter in what form--by which Church
and State are separated and the freedom of religious belief is
guaranteed, as they are by the Constitution of the United States, they
are brought within this unlimited jurisdiction of the pope, and he may
pass such sentence of condemnation upon them as he shall deem necessary
to maintain his own infallibility, as well as his spiritual and
temporal power. If, in the execution of this extraordinary spiritual
power, the pope and the Jesuit general at Rome shall unite in a decree
that all such institutions shall be opposed, resisted, and overthrown,
the Jesuit militia are always ready to pay obedience, because it is one
of the fundamental maxims of their society, that when thus commanded,
with reference to anything concerning the Church, the papacy, faith, or
morals, disobedience is visited with divine displeasure.

Before he entered Rome with his victorious troops, and with the hope
of pacifying the pope, Victor Emmanuel, the liberator of the Italian
people, addressed an affectionate letter to Pope Pius IX, calling him
"the chief of Catholicity," and expressing the hope and intention
that nothing should be done inconsistent "with the inviolability
of the sovereign pontiff and of his spiritual authority, and with
the independence of the Holy See." But this kindly spirit was not
reciprocated by the irascible pope, who excitedly rejected the overture
of pacification. Thereupon the victorious troops entered the city of
Rome, and terminated the temporal dominion of the pope, which had
rested upon the Italian people with crushing weight for nearly fourteen
hundred years. Then the pope, having lost his royal diadem--nothing
more--and with the view of prescribing it as an article of faith that
it should be recovered again, caused his Cardinal Secretary of State to
notify Victor Emmanuel to that effect. This he did as follows:

"I have the command from his holiness to declare, and the undersigned
does hereby declare in the august name of his holiness, that such
usurpation is devoid of all effect, is null and invalid, and that it
can never convey any prejudice to the indisputable and lawful rights
of dominion and of possession, whether of the holy father himself, or
of his successors in perpetuity; and, although the exercise of these
rights may be forcibly prevented and hindered, yet his holiness both
knows his rights, intends to conserve them intact, and _re-enter at the
proper time into their actual possession_."

These are expressive words, and every Jesuit interprets them to mean
that, having the direct approval of an infallible pope, they impose
the religious obligation of obedience upon all the members of their
society, and that it will be offensive to God if they shall cease
their struggle for the restoration of the temporal power before it is
accomplished. Therefore they so enlarge the spiritual jurisdiction and
authority of the pope as to make the question of the restoration of his
temporal power an international one, so that he shall have the divine
right to require all professing Christians to obey him in all matters
relating to that question, no matter under what Government, or in what
part of the world they may live. The refusal of this obedience is held
by them to be heresy. Consequently, when the Roman Catholic people of
Italy abolished the temporal power of the pope, remaining in all other
respects faithful to the historic and traditional teachings of the
Church, the Jesuits made an organized appeal to all the Roman Catholics
throughout the world, to unite themselves into a politico-religious
party, in order to restore the temporal power, and thereby to teach
their Christian brethren in Italy that they have no right to govern
themselves by laws of their own making, and that by irreligiously
asserting that right, in imitation of the heretical people of the
United States, they have themselves become heretics. In point of
fact, the Jesuit appeal is made to populations entirely foreign to
the people of Italy, inviting these foreign populations to subvert
the civil institutions the latter have established for themselves,
by forcibly substituting the pope as an arbitrary and irresponsible
monarch, without any constitutional check, for a constitutional king
whose powers have been placed under satisfactory restraint. The pope
himself, when he realized that he was about to lose his crown, talked
about the two hundred millions of Roman Catholics scattered throughout
the world, who were to be excited to this conflict with the Italian
people; and the Jesuits consider themselves specially assigned to the
duty of massing the forces of this great papal army, and directing its
movements. In that capacity, and with that secret purpose, they have
distributed themselves throughout the populous parts of the United
States, crowding into our cities, and employing their tireless energies
in the work of educating a considerable portion of our people, both
old and young, in the religious belief that it is their Christian duty
to snatch the crown from the head of the constitutional king of Italy,
where those of their own religious faith have placed it, and restore
it to the pope, from whose head they removed it by employing the same
sovereign power which the people of the United States invoked when they
laid the foundations of their own institutions.

It is a serious thing, too serious to be disregarded, to know that,
under protection of the liberalism of our laws, there are scattered
among our people those who are striving to entangle us in alliances
which can have no other end than to disturb the quiet of the nation,
and endanger the public welfare. The sacrifices made by the American
people in behalf of the right of self-government entitle them to be
left to themselves in the undisturbed enjoyment of that right. They
have shown themselves wise enough to understand the causes which led
to the decay of former nations, and discreet enough to avoid them.
Among these causes the union of Church and State has always been
conspicuously prominent; wherefore they found it necessary to put an
end to this union, by leaving the Church independent in the spiritual,
and the State equally so in the temporal sphere. This separation
constitutes a great and important political fact, wholly distinct from
any of the forms or principles of religious belief, and practically
embodies the American idea--perpetuated in Protestantism--that the
right to perfect and untrammeled freedom of conscience is not derived
by concession from either spiritual or temporal monarchs, but from the
inalienable laws of nature. In view of the past experience of mankind,
it seemed clear to them that the best form of government is that which
guarantees this natural right to each individual, to be enjoyed as a
political right, without any restraint whatsoever. In no other way can
free popular government ever become possible. They believed also that
mankind had been held long enough in inferiority and bondage by the
combined influence of Church and State despotism, and that inasmuch
as they had been providentially placed in possession of a new and
undeveloped continent, it was not only wise but best for them and their
posterity that, in establishing their Government, they should make the
further union of Church and State impossible, unless some alien power
should be strong enough to overthrow their institutions, or they should
fall into decay by means of the corruptions engendered by this fatal
union, as other Governments had fallen. It was an experiment, hitherto
unsuccessful, and was consequently observed by multitudes throughout
the world with intense solicitude. If there were any who considered
the experiment injudicious, and likely to prove a failure, but little
time elapsed before their doubts were dissipated by the results
accomplished--results which all who are rightfully entitled to American
citizenship, now accept as a precious inheritance from the founders of
the Republic. Our institutions are no longer an experiment; they have
become actual and accomplished reality. And it is not now the time for
us to think of turning back to the bondage of monarchism, as we should
indicate the desire to do by denying to the people of Italy the right
to imitate our example by separating Church and State, and governing
themselves by laws of their own making. They who invite us to this are
counselors of evil.

That the Jesuits are not content with the separation of Church and
State is a fact too palpable for contradiction. Hence the readiness
with which they engage in the organization, in this country, of a
politico-religious party pledged to restore the pope's temporal
power, notwithstanding such a party is condemned by the spirit of our
institutions, and is regarded by the general public as impolitic,
inexpedient, and hazardous; and inasmuch as they have chosen to thrust
this issue upon us, we are not permitted to become indifferent to it,
or shrink from our responsibility of citizenship under a Government
entitled to our patriotic allegiance. Such an issue can not be evaded,
and must be met with fearlessness and becoming candor. If one is
informed that a poisonous viper is coiled up under a pillow upon which
he is about to lay his head, he will instinctively strive after the
means necessary to escape its fangs. So, when apprised that cunning and
adroit adversaries, like the Jesuits, are plotting against cherished
and vital principles of our institutions, the obligation to make
ourselves familiar with their principles, policy, and history becomes
imperative. Being forewarned, we shall have no excuse for not being
forearmed.

We must do nothing, either now or hereafter, forbidden by our national
character, or by the liberalism we prize so highly. Our Constitution
amply protects the rights of free speech, free thought, and a free
press, all of which must be held inviolable; but violence is manifestly
done to the spirit of patriotism which guarantees this protection
when it is demanded of any portion of our population that they shall
participate in the work of undoing, in any degree whatsoever, what the
founders of the Government considered fundamental. We are prohibited
from submitting to anything that shall tend, even by possibility, to
subject the people to any sovereignty, either spiritual or temporal,
higher than themselves, in such matters as involve their own happiness
and welfare. It would be well, consequently, for those who are seeking
to accomplish this, to learn that the world is large enough for them
and us; that there are other fields wherein better grounds of hope are
furnished for re-welding the fragments of shattered monarchies; and
that, when they avail themselves of the tolerance of our institutions
to assail their foundations, they become intruders into a peaceful and
harmonious circle, where, but for them, universal peace and quiet would
prevail.

In his conflict with the Italian people for the re-possession of the
temporal power, by overthrowing the Constitutional Government they
have established, the pope could not find another ally so formidable
as the Jesuits, nor one with such implacable hatred of liberalism
and popular government. Their society is so united and compact that
its ranks can not be broken. They are everywhere the same, moved
by a common impulse, under the dictation of their general in Rome.
They are the deadly enemies of civil and religious liberty. Nothing
that stands in their way can become so sacred as to escape their
vengeance. Protestantism has borne no fruits to which they have ever
been reconciled. They consider the Reformation which gave birth to it
to have been criminal resistance to the only rightful authority upon
earth--that which proceeds from Church and State combined. They believe
that the condition of mankind during the Middle Ages, staggering under
the weight of feudal oppression, was preferable to modern progress
and enlightenment; that human happiness would be promoted by the
return to that period; that the political right of self-government
by the people can not be set up against the higher right of papal
and monarchical power; that the progress of the advancing nations is
delusive and unsubstantial; and that institutions which guarantee civil
and religious freedom, if not arrested by some coercive power strong
enough to put an end to them, will lead, through heresy, to social ruin
and desolation. If, at the period of the Reformation, this society had
not been established for the express purpose of counteracting its
influence, a knowledge of the difference between primitive Christianity
and the prevailing dogmas might have led to such reforms as would have
reconciled Christians to dwell together in peace and concord. But
when a dove should have been sent forth bearing the olive-branch of
Christian charity, this society sprang from the brain of a disappointed
military adventurer, and began at once to scatter the seeds of strife
and discord. Almost from the beginning it has been a disturber of the
peace of nations, suffering only such as have bestowed patronage upon
it to escape its maledictions and its plottings.

The members of this society are numerous and powerful in the United
States. They are constantly increasing, mainly by accessions from
their drilled and disciplined companions in Europe, but also by
conversions of unsuspecting young men, who are seduced by their vain
and supercilious pretensions as educators. They are, as they have
always been, selfish and vindictive--restless under opposition, and
compromising in nothing. They have neither country, nor homes, nor
families, nor friendships beyond the limits of their order--none
of the affections of the heart which give charm to life and social
intercourse--being required to abandon all these and fit themselves for
uninquiring obedience to their general, whose commands, whether right
or wrong, good or bad, they have solemnly vowed to execute, without the
least regard for consequences. Having persistently refused to become
reconciled to the forms and methods of Christian civilization which
prevail among our Protestant population, they employ all the resources
they can command in endeavoring to arrest them. They insist that Church
and State shall be united wheresoever they are separate, and that the
basis of such union shall be the subordination of the State to the
Church. Self-government by the people is held by them to be violative
of the divine law, and on that account may rightfully be resisted
as heretical, when its overthrow can be assured. They will allow no
rights to exist in either States, peoples, or individuals, against
what they consider the prerogatives of their society as defined by
their general, who, in their estimation, possesses the divine right
to enlarge or contract them at his own pleasure. There must be no
limitation to the power and independence of the pope, either in the
spiritual or temporal domain, except where the interests of their
society command otherwise; they must be full, absolute, unquestioned,
to the extent defined by himself. His liberty must be such that he
may, at his own discretion, curtail the liberties of all others. His
spiritual sovereignty must include whatsoever he shall embrace within
it. Neither the existence nor the extent of this sovereignty must be
brought in question before any human tribunal; but he alone shall
define it, together with the character of the obedience he shall
exact. And if, in the course of the papal economy, he should ever find
it necessary to hold in one hand emblems of harmony and peace, this
restless and uncompromising society stands always ready to place the
rod of chastisement in the other.

The conflict of opinions, therefore, in which the Protestant people of
the United States find themselves engaged is not of their own inviting.
They are unwilling parties to it. It had its origin in the spirit of
aggression which prevails among those who have stronger sympathy for
an alien power than for the right of self-government, and, on account
of their peculiar fitness for the work, it will engage every Jesuit
tongue and pen in the land. Because of this, a sense of both duty and
security demands that the history and character of this skilled and
powerful adversary--alien in birth, growth, and sentiment--should be
understood; as also the causes which have led to the expulsion of the
Jesuits from every country in Europe, the public odium which has rested
upon them for many years, their long-continued disturbance of the peace
of nations, and the final suppression and abolition of their society
by one of the best and most enlightened of the popes. In view of the
obligation to preserve our civil institutions as they are, not only
for ourselves and our children, but for the multitudes who shall seek
shelter under them, we have no right to become either indifferent
or inactive in the presence of such assailants, who complacently
fling defiance in our faces, and seek to impregnate the free and pure
atmosphere of our schools and seminaries of learning with the poison of
monarchism. "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence," said
Washington, "the jealousy of a free people ought ever to be constantly
awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one
of the most baneful foes of republican government."

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Washington's Eighth and Madison's Second Message.]

[Footnote 2: Protestantism and Catholicity Compared in their Effects on
the Civilization of Europe, By the Rev. I. Balmes.]

[Footnote 3: Universal Church History. By Alzog. Vol. I, p. 674. This
recognized papal authority, in order to be as nearly exact as possible,
fixes it in the year 510.]




CHAPTER II.

IGNATIUS LOYOLA, FOUNDER OF THE ORDER.


It is of little consequence to the general reader what place in history
is assigned to Ignatius Loyola, apart from the fact that he was the
founder and originator of the society of Jesuits, and lived long
enough to stamp upon it the impress of his own personality. He availed
himself of that organization to maintain among its members the vain and
impious assumption of his equality with God, and in that way obtained
such complete mastery over them that, in explanation and justification
of their slavish obedience, they represent him as having possessed
miraculous powers. They assign to him the performance of more miracles
than Christ, and do not hesitate to record that he not only restored
the dead to life, but, in one conspicuous case, gave life to a child
born dead! The silly stories of this character, told of him in apparent
seriousness, can have no other effect than to impose upon and encourage
ignorant and superstitious people, and are undoubtedly repeated by his
Jesuit biographers for this purpose. They seem never to have realized
that the world has grown wiser, and that the period has passed when
fictions and myths can be proclaimed as realities.

The life of Loyola was written, soon after his death, by Rabadenira,
one of his Jesuit followers, who had known him intimately. Of course,
under such circumstances, his statement of personal characteristics
was presumably reliable. What he stated in the first edition was
professedly based upon his own knowledge and what he had learned from
Loyola's "intimate friends" and "inseparable companions." And with
these facts before him and fully considered, he declared that his
"sanctity was not justified by miracles." Some years after, however, it
was deemed expedient that this concession should be withdrawn entirely,
and another more favorable to the Jesuits be substituted for it.
Accordingly, in another edition of the same work, it is stated that
Loyola's performance of miracles was "confirmed by the most authentic
proofs and careful examination."[4] These statements are in direct
conflict, and can not both be true. The first bears the impress of
veracity because it is consistent with human experience, while the
latter shows the tracings of Jesuit fingers too clearly to mislead any
thoughtful and intelligent mind.

It is singularly strange that, in the present reading and enlightened
age, these pretended miracles are cited by Jesuits to prove that
divine power and authority were conferred upon Loyola, because God
chose him to accomplish special objects in his name; when the very
things which, as they allege, he was providentially appointed to
defeat, have transpired in spite of him, his successors, and all their
followers. The suppression of the Reformation and the extirpation
of Protestantism--its legitimate fruit--were the avowed purposes of
himself and his society, because, according to them, the curse of
God rested upon these as the excess of unpardonable heresy. For the
accomplishments of these objects he converted the members of his
society into a compact body of militia, and placed in their hands
weapons chosen by himself, instructing them that they were specially
selected as the executioners of the Divine vengeance. Yet the
Reformation progressed until it marked out new paths of advancement for
the nations; and Protestantism has extended its beneficent influences
until it is to-day the controlling power in human affairs, and has even
taken possession of places where the papacy once ruled with sovereign
and unchallenged authority. And the great work thus begun, in the face
of Jesuit maledictions and curses, has not yet ended; for Protestantism
still continues to build up new nations, elevate and improve peoples,
and make mankind freer, happier, and more prosperous; whilst there
has not been a time since the Jesuits existed as a society when they
have not been odious in all parts of the world, and have not been
regarded as the plotters of mischief and disturbers of the public
peace. How can a thoughtful mind account for these results by any known
process of human reasoning, if it were true that Loyola had divine
power conferred upon him expressly for the purpose of exterminating
Protestantism as heresy? And how, if his society of Jesuits has been
providentially endowed with faculties to consummate his ends, could it
have happened that one of the wisest and best of the popes--for whom
infallibility is now claimed--was constrained to condemn it by positive
suppression, and to declare, under the solemn responsibilities of his
sacred office, that it was not worthy of longer existence? But leaving
these questions unanswered for the present, it is sufficient to say
here that no qualities possessed by Loyola, whatsoever they were, can
oblige the present age to recognize his society as entitled to any
such prerogatives and immunities as exempt it from having its real
worth tested by the rules universally accepted as applicable to human
conduct and affairs. It must now be tried by these rules; and if it
shall be found that its conduct has been marked by wrong and injustice,
its boastful claim of superiority will appear to every investigator as
merely vain and presumptuous.

That Loyola was shrewd and sagacious, and laid his plans with a full
and intelligent comprehension of the ends he had in view, ought not to
be denied. When engaged in framing the constitution of the Jesuits,
he was familiar with the troubles existing in the Church, and with
the prevailing public sentiment with reference to their causes; that
is, the unfitness for the proper discharge of spiritual functions of
those charged with their exercise. The Jesuits themselves assert this,
in explanation of the necessity for the establishment of theirs as a
new society, declaring that the numerous orders then existing--such as
the Benedictines, Dominicans, Franciscans, Minorites, and others--were
incompetent to arrest the decline of the Church, on account of their
own need of reform. This point in their history should invite the
closest attention and scrutiny, because it shows, in a conspicuous
degree, the basis of their assumed superiority over all other societies
and orders which, in the course of time, have had the sanction of
the Church. And this scrutiny is desirable, moreover, inasmuch as it
will be seen that the pictures of demoralization prevailing among
the clergy, as they were drawn by the reformers in their most vivid
coloring, had their accuracy vouched for by Loyola himself, to justify
the establishment of his society of Jesuits, not merely because it
would constitute a distinct, independent, and superior organization,
but would bring back all dissenters to obedience, which he made its
main and fundamental principle.

One of the leading Jesuit authorities--an author upon whom the
society relies to make known that part of its history considered
favorable--endeavors to maintain the proposition that it was absolutely
obligatory for Loyola to have been intrusted with the duty "of
reforming the morals of the people of Rome," immediately within the
shadow of the Vatican. He represents the task as "most difficult and
important, as at that time the people were much demoralized, and
indulged in the most frightful excesses," notwithstanding the papal
Government, with plenary and absolute powers, had existed there during
all the period of the Middle Ages--nearly a thousand years. Not content
alone with asserting that the people were demoralized, this same author
affirms, in addition, that Loyola "sought to reform the monastic
orders, and reanimate the priesthood with a holy fervor,"[5] thus
alleging that the monastic orders and the priesthood were demoralized
like the people, and needed that a new guardian of their morals, other
and better than any the Church had ever furnished, should be empowered
to regulate their conduct. In further explanation of the reasons why
Loyola desired to establish the society of Jesuits, he represents him
as having addressed directly to the pope, Paul III, this argument: "It
appears that this society is absolutely necessary for the eradication
of those abuses with which the Church is afflicted."[6] And at another
place, referring to the condition of the Church in Germany, he says
it was "mainly attributable to the ignorance of the people, and, more
dangerous still, to the shortcomings of the priesthood, abandoned to
the gratification of their own passions. In the entire city of Worms
there was but one priest worthy of respect."[7] Neither Luther nor the
reformers could have employed apter words to justify themselves; nor
can those of the present time, who comment upon the vices which then
prevailed among the clergy, express themselves in stronger language.
The well-established historical fact is, that the same condition of
things existed throughout the leading nations of Europe, beginning at
Rome and reaching out in every direction, having the papacy as its
common center. When the Jesuits, therefore, bestow their curses upon
Luther and other reformers for having proclaimed the necessity for
reform in the Church because of the demoralization of the clergy, they
show their memories to be short in forgetting that their society was
justified by its founder upon the plea of the same necessity.

Loyola was fully advised, also, of the progress made by the
Reformation, and doubtless persuaded himself to believe that the
necessity for reform would be made available by others of less ambition
than himself, who would be likely to seek for it elsewhere than through
the papacy, under whose auspices so many evils had grown up, unless he
could check the progress of the Reformation by the creation of some new
and opposing influences which he could himself control. There were no
fundamental points of Christian doctrine involved; and, if there had
been, the whole life of Loyola proves that he would have regarded them
of inferior importance, compared with his main purpose of preventing
the enlightenment of society by free religious thought, and holding
it in obedience to authority superior to itself. The friendly author
already quoted declares his object to have been "to re-establish
those principles of submission and discipline which alone can insure
obedience to legitimate authority;"[8] that is, to the combined
authority of Church and State, as no other was at that time considered
legitimate by him, or has ever been by his society since then.

The acute and penetrating intellect of Loyola enabled him to foresee
that, unless some new method of counteracting the effects of the
Reformation should be discovered, the disintegration of the Church,
already begun, could not be arrested. The difficulties surrounding
this problem were increased by the fact that the papacy had been
unable to put a stop to its own decline; and accordingly he taxed
his inventive faculties, not to reform doctrine--for that was not
needed beyond the points interpolated upon the primitive faith by the
ambitious popes--but to prevent the decay of papal and ecclesiastical
power. Undoubtedly it was his purpose that whatsoever plan he might
adopt should supersede the old methods to which the Church had been
long accustomed, and which had the sanction of numerous popes and
many centuries of time. He intended to enter upon an experiment,
the chief recommendation of which was, that it required new paths
to be marked out in preference to those which had acquired the
approval of antiquity. But he was careful to see, at every step he
took, that whatsoever was done should inure to his own credit in the
accomplishment of such ends as were suggested by the burning ardor and
ambition of a soldier; in other words, that if good results ensued,
they should be attributed to himself, and neither to the pope, nor
to the Church, nor to the ancient monastic orders. Assuming, as he
manifestly did, that all these combined had failed to check the
advancing corruptions of the clergy, which had grown up under their
protracted auspices, his inventive and ambitious mind was animated by
the hope of bringing the world to realize that he alone could give to
the organized authority of Church and State the vigor and efficiency
necessary to keep society in obedience. Having a mind thoroughly
indoctrinated with the principle of absolute monarchism, he did not
regard it as possible or desirable to accomplish this in any other mode
than by making that the central and controlling feature of whatsoever
plan should be adopted. Accordingly, in the constitution of the society
of Jesuits, which was the product of his reflections, he provided for
consolidating in his own hands, as superior or general, such absolute
authority as would subject all its members to his individual will, so
as to hold them, at all times and under all possible circumstances, in
perfect and uninquiring obedience, surrendering their right to think
as completely as if they had never possessed it. By this method he
designed to annihilate all personal independence, so that freedom of
thought should not, by any possibility, exist in the society. He meant
to convert all who were brought within the circle of his influence,
from thoughtful and reflecting men into mere human automatons, and so
to mold and fashion them that each one should be reduced to a universal
and common level of humiliating submission and obedience. Thus he
hoped to arrest the further development of popular intelligence, so
that those who had been lifted out of the old grooves of despotism
might be plunged into them again, and such as had not should be held
there in ignorance and superstition. This he supposed would defeat
the Reformation, in which event he and his society, as the originator
and executors of the plan, would enjoy the glory of the achievement.
If he had ever exhibited any evidences of great sanctity of life,
this presumption of selfish ambition might have been rebutted; but
he was known only as an aspiring soldier, whose early life had been
characterized by such follies and irregularities as prevailed about the
courts of royalty at that time. He had done nothing to raise him above
the character of an adventurer.

There was nothing in the original Jesuit constitution necessary to
Christian faith or to the established doctrines of the Roman Church.
It provided for the organization of a select body of men, united
together professedly to maintain what Loyola chose to call the greater
glory of God--"_ad majorem Dei gloriam_"--by such undefined methods as
might be, from time to time, made known to them by their general, and
without fixing any limitation or restraint upon either his discretion
or authority. There was no pretense of adding to or taking from the
settled doctrines or dogmas of the Church; for that could have been
done only by the pope, or by a General Council, or by the two powers
acting conjointly--in unity. It would have been a direct censure of
the Church to have assumed the necessity of this, or to have solicited
authority to undertake it--equivalent to saying that it had failed to
provide the necessary means of maintaining the true faith after many
centuries of unlimited power. It was the duty of Loyola, as a faithful
son of the Church, no less than it was the duty of those who were
less pretentious, to have regarded its faith and doctrines as already
perfect. To have done otherwise would have given aid and comfort to
Luther and the Reformation. Hence his pretense of the necessity for the
organization of a new society or order, with special methods of its
own hitherto unknown, clearly indicated a desire to act apart from and
independently of the existing methods and authorities of the Church.

No matter, however, what pretenses were made by Loyola, or what his
secretly cherished designs were, there is not the least ground for
doubt that his method of establishing and organizing a new society had
no relations whatsoever to the principles of Christian faith--in other
words, that the existing methods were competent for all practicable
and necessary purposes without it. It was, consequently, temporal
merely; that is, it had reference exclusively to the management of
men, so as to reduce them to uninquiring obedience to such authority
as was set over them. There was nothing besides this which the Church
and the ancient monastic orders did not already possess the power to
accomplish. The "exercises" he prescribed were, it is true, spiritual
in character--such as penance and mortification of the flesh--but the
Church had already provided these, and they were rigidly observed by
the monastic orders. The pledge to employ them, made by the members
of the Jesuit society so as to promote their own spiritual welfare,
was merely incidental to the duty they already owed to the Church.
Consequently, while these "exercises" conformed to the existing
obligations imposed by the Church, the new society projected by
Loyola was intended to furnish the machinery necessary for exacting
obedience--for training and disciplining all who could be influenced by
it for that single purpose. And in order to accomplish effectually this
obedience to himself and his new society, leaving out entirely both the
Church and the pope, he originally designed that the members of the
society should be responsible alone to their general, from whom all the
laws and regulations for their government should emanate. The pope, as
the head of the Church, had not the least authority over these members
conferred upon him by the original constitution; nor was it intended
that they should obey any other authority than that of their general,
because he, and he alone, was recognized as the sole representative of
God upon earth. There was nothing spiritual in all this, in the sense
in which the Church had defined spiritual things and the Christian
world understood them; but it made the society, as Loyola planned
it, temporal merely--a mere police corps, drilled and disciplined to
obedience alone, without the right either to inquire or decide whether
the commands of their superior were right or wrong. It should surprise
no intelligent man, therefore, at learning the fact that the pope
hesitated about giving the society his approval, when Loyola first
requested his pontifical ratification of its constitution.

That Loyola's original intention was that his new society should exact
from its members a pledge of fidelity alone to himself and those who
should succeed him in its government, and not to the Church or to
the pope, is plainly to be seen in the fact that when he found a few
sympathizing friends to unite with him, he did not submit the plan of
organization to the pope for approval, so as to make it a religious
order like the Dominican, Franciscan, and other ancient orders, but
sought only from him permission for himself and friends to go as
missionaries to the Holy Land, to labor for the conversion of the
infidel Turks to Christianity. That he then contemplated acting, in
so far as the movements and operations of his society were concerned,
independently of the Church and the pope, is evidenced by the most
undoubted authority. The author of the "Lives of the Saints," a work
which has the highest indorsement, says: "In 1534, on the Feast of the
Assumption of our Lady, St. Ignatius and his six companions, of whom
Francis [Xavier] was one, made a vow at Montmartre to visit the Holy
Land, and unite their labors for the conversion of the infidels; or, if
this should be found not practicable, to cast themselves at the feet of
the pope, and offer their services wherever he thought fit to employ
them."[9]

It will be seen, therefore, that it was entirely conditional whether
or no Loyola would make known to the pope his new society and the plan
of its organization, and ask his pontifical approval. He had already
formed the primary organization, and obtained from Xavier and his
five other associates the necessary vow of obedience, by which they
had placed themselves entirely under his dominion and control. If it
should prove "practicable" for him to plant his new and independent
society in the Holy Land, which presented a large and tempting field
of operations, it was undoubtedly his secretly-cherished purpose to
do so, without making his constitution known to the pope, and thus
to establish in Asia an organization independent of the pope, and
submissive only to himself. But if found to be "not practicable," then,
and only then, he and his companions would "cast themselves at the feet
of the pope, and offer their services" to him and to the Church. His
military ambition, not yet extinguished, was manifestly kindled afresh
by the hope that a whole continent would be opened before him, where he
would find the Oriental methods of obedience strictly consistent with
those he desired to introduce, and where he could create, unmolested,
such influences as, being introduced into Europe, might counteract
those already produced by the Reformation. But not until he found
that he was balked in this, did he intend to devote himself and his
companions to the immediate work of attempting to arrest the progress
of the Reformation in Europe, where the existing methods of resisting
it were not under his control. It was worthy of the founder of the
Jesuits to solicit the pope's approval of this great missionary scheme,
and to conceal from him, at the same time, his secret purpose to act
in the name of a new society, adverse to the ancient monastic orders
and submissive to himself alone. That this concealment was studied and
premeditated, there can be no reasonable doubt; and as it was the first
step taken by Loyola in the execution of his plan, he thereby practiced
such duplicity and deceit toward the Church and the pope, that these
qualities may well be considered as fundamental in the society of
Jesuits. And there is ample proof in the strange and eventful history
of this society that it has been, from that time till the present,
consistently faithful to this example of its founder.

His first successes were, doubtless, flattering to the pride, as well
as encouraging to the hopes, of Loyola. Having succeeded in obtaining
the consent of the pope that he and his companions should become
missionaries to the Holy Land, without having revealed the existence
or character of his society, they were all ordained as priests for
that purpose, as none of them had been previously admitted to the
priesthood. Thus equipped, they took their departure for Palestine,
with the plan and principles of their organization locked up in their
own minds, and the ultimate design of their ambitious leader known,
probably, to himself alone. They must have commenced their journey with
joyful hearts and rapturous hopes, which soon, however, became chilled
by what Loyola must have considered a sad misfortune, probably the
first he had encountered since he had received the wound at the battle
of Pampeluna, which disfigured his person so that he could share no
longer in the gay festivities of the royal court. They were prevented
from reaching Palestine by the war then in progress between the Emperor
Charles V and the Turks, and, after an absence of about a year, were
compelled to return to Europe disheartened, as may well be supposed,
by their failure. This put a new aspect upon the fortunes of Loyola.
His first advance towards independence and the acquisition of power
had accomplished nothing favorable to his ambition, and, consequently,
it became necessary for him to discover some more promising field of
operations, where no such mishap as he had encountered would be likely
to occur again. There was abundant room in Europe for missionary labor;
but he was now, for the first time, confronted by the fact that his
society could not engage in this work, in the presence of numerous
religious orders already in existence, without obtaining for it the
express approval of the pope, so that, by this means, it might be also
stamped with a religious character, in so far as that approval would
confer it. He, manifestly, had not calculated upon a crisis which
would make it necessary to submit the provisions of his constitution
to the pope, or to make them known to any others besides those who
were to become members of his society, and were willing to yield
up their manhood so completely as to vow uninquiring obedience and
submission to him and his successors as the only representatives and
vicegerents of God upon earth. It can not be supposed that a man of so
much sagacity as he undoubtedly possessed, would not have foreseen the
difficulty in obtaining the approval of the pope to a constitution
which humiliated him by assigning higher authority to the general of
a new society than the Church had confided to him. But he had gone
too far to retreat, and had too much courage to attempt it; for his
courage was never doubted, either upon the battle-field or elsewhere;
and when he found it absolutely necessary to visit Rome in order to
obtain the pope's sanction, he did so, accompanied by Lefevre and
Laynez, two of his companions. Before their departure, however, from
Vicenza in Austrian Italy, where they were assembled, Loyola deemed it
important to announce to his followers, probably for the first time,
the name he had decided to give his society. He thus instructed them:
"To those who ask what we are, we will reply, we are the Soldiers of
the Holy Church, and we form '_The Society of Jesus_.'"[10] This was
evidently suggested by the necessities which then confronted him. He
had not found it expedient to adopt such a designation, or to announce
that they were "Soldiers of the Holy Church," until their attempt to
obtain an independent position in Palestine had failed. Therefore,
these avowals, made before going to Rome, are justly to be considered
as mere expedients, suggested by the necessity of obtaining the pope's
approval. The existing religious orders had taken their names from
their founders; but Loyola's profane use of the sacred name of the Son
of God, clearly indicated that he intended to set up for his society a
claim for holiness superior to all others. Or it was assumed as a cover
for practices, contemplated by him, that would not bear inspection
in the light. That it was intended as a reflection upon the ancient
monastic orders then existing, and to express superiority over them,
can not be doubted. In any view, to say the least, it was impudent and
presumptuous, and was generally offensive to the Christian world.

At the time of Loyola's visit to Rome, Paul III was pope. When his
approval of the new society was solicited, he deemed it indispensable,
as a measure of precaution, that the question should be investigated
with the greatest care; for until then no opportunity had been afforded
him of knowing the ultimate purposes of Loyola, or the machinery he
had constructed for executing them. Whether the pope suspected him
of concealment or not, it is impossible now to tell; but that he had
reason to do so is evident from the most favorable accounts given of
the original official interview between them. Then it was that the pope
was apprised, for the first time, that the constitution under which the
society of Jesuits had been organized, required a solemn vow, by which
all the members were pledged to "implicit and unquestioning obedience
to their superior,"[11] without the possibility of equivocation or
mental reservation; that is, to Loyola himself as the first general,
and to his successors from time to time thereafter. It required but
little deliberation upon the part of the pope to realize that neither
the Church nor the papacy could derive any advantage from this, but
rather injury; for the reason that it would create a society under the
protection of both, and, at the same time, absolutely independent of
both. He therefore hesitated, evidently supposing that his approval
under those circumstances would drag him into deep waters from which it
would not be easy to escape, and referred the question to a committee
of cardinals for thorough and scrutinizing investigation, so that his
final action should be based upon full information.

Loyola was too sagacious not to have anticipated this difficulty;
but he manifestly hoped to escape it in some way, either by evading
or bridging it over, or he would not have asked the pope to approve
the original constitution which contained it. He certainly did not
desire or contemplate any change in his original constitution or plan;
and therefore, when Paul III hesitated and appointed a committee of
cardinals to scrutinize them, he must have felt a degree of perplexity
to which his proud and ambitious military spirit had not been hitherto
accustomed to submit unresistingly. He could not avoid seeing, however,
that if the pope's final decision should be adverse to him, it would
necessarily be the death of his society, upon which he had, with
inordinate ambition, fixed his hopes. The occasion constituted the
most serious crisis in his personal fortunes he had ever encountered.
Success promised him a long list of triumphs; defeat, nothing but
obscurity. He had no such intellectual resources as fitted him for
rencounter with those who had, not having attended school until after
he had reached the years of manhood, and not having then shown any
special aptness for learning. Whatsoever capacity he possessed, tended
in the direction of governing men, his faculty for which was developed
during his service in the army; and he must therefore have experienced
the consciousness that if he failed to obtain the sanction of the
pope, his career would be seriously, if not entirely, checked. The
future of the papacy depended upon the successful training of men to
obedience; and Loyola, understanding this, could have had no difficulty
in persuading the pope that a society like his, contrived especially
to suspend the power of human reasoning and reduce its members to mere
unthinking machines, would more assuredly produce that result than had
been done by the very worst forms of absolute despotism which had, for
so many centuries, held the Oriental world in subjugation.

But Loyola's embarrassment did not amount to discomfiture. He may never
have held personal intercourse with Paul III before; but he understood
the papacy, its wants and necessities, and had ample opportunity to
study the character and penetrate the motives of the pope. For this
he was specially fitted--few men have lived who excelled him in this
respect--and, having constructed his society upon the theory that men
were of no value unless persuaded to surrender up their personality
to superiors, the occasion served him to address such arguments to
the pope as would convince him that the obedience to authority he had
introduced in his society was just what the existing exigencies of
the papacy required to save it from overthrow. It may easily be seen
now--although the pope may not have then employed penetration enough
to discover it--that he did not intend to deal unequivocally and in
entire frankness with the pope, so long as there remained a prospect of
obtaining his end otherwise. He evidently had an accurate conception
of what is meant by the terms confession and avoidance, in the sense
of seeming to consent while not consenting. Thus, in order to remove
the objection of the pope and secure his approval, he suggested another
and new obligation to be inserted in the constitution of his society,
providing that the members should also take a vow "of obedience to the
Holy See and to the pope _pro tempore_, with the express obligation of
going, without remuneration, to whatsoever part of the world it shall
please the pope to send them."[12] These words must be read critically
in order that their meaning as intended by Loyola, and always since
interpreted by the Jesuits, may not be misconceived. Their true import
is, that whilst the members of the society were to pay obedience to the
pope as well as to their general, it was qualified as to the former,
and absolute as to the latter; that is, that as they were nominally
to have two heads, the authority of both should, for all practical
purposes, center in one. In point of fact, as amply demonstrated by
subsequent experience, this new provision did not change the nature or
limit the extent of the obligation of unquestioning obedience to the
Jesuit general. Its most essential feature was that which required the
members to go wheresoever ordered by the pope, without compensation;
but with regard to this and all other duties, and the manner of
discharging them, they were required to obey their general. They could
receive no instructions except those which came from him, all of which
they were required to obey as coming directly from God. This amendment
created no special relations--or, indeed, any whatsoever--between the
pope and the society; for he held no direct intercourse with it. And
it only created such relations between the pope and the general as
obliged the latter to send the members wheresoever the former desired,
without remuneration. They remained the slaves of the general, and
not the slaves of the pope. They obeyed the general, and not the
pope, unless ordered to do so by the general, in which case they
paid obedience only to the latter. But Paul III did not detect the
well-concealed purposes of Loyola, and may not even have suspected
them, in view of his anxiety to arrest the disintegration of the
Church and the threatened decay of the papacy. Howsoever this may
have been, the cunningly-contrived concession made to him by Loyola
was satisfactory to him, notwithstanding the opposition of one of the
committee of cardinals, and he issued his pontifical bull approving
the society of Jesuits as a religious order. This pledge of fidelity
to the pope, however, has been kept or evaded accordingly as the
interests of the society have from time to time demanded. Its history
shows prominent instances when the decisions of the popes have been
denounced and resisted, and when the popes themselves have been treated
with contempt and defiance. When the Jesuits have found shelter and
protection under the authority of the popes, they have exalted them to
absolute equality with God; when otherwise, they have disobeyed and
traduced them.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 4: Crit. and Phi. Dictionary. By Bayle. Article "Loyola,"
Vol. III, p. 889, note.]

[Footnote 5: History of the Society of Jesus. By Daurignac. Vol. I, p.
14. This work was translated by Clements, and published in Cincinnati
by Walsh, in 1865.]

[Footnote 6: History of the Society of Jesus. By Daurignac. Vol I, p.
22.]

[Footnote 7: _Ibid._, p. 40.]

[Footnote 8: History of the Society of Jesus. By Daurignac. Vol. I, p.
40.]

[Footnote 9: Lives of the Saints. By the Rev. Alban Butler. Vol. XII,
article "St. Francis Xavier," December 3, p. 603.]

[Footnote 10: Daurignac. Vol. I, pp. 11-12.]

[Footnote 11: History of the Jesuits. By Nicolini. Page 27.]

[Footnote 12: History of the Jesuits. By Nicolini. Page 27.]




CHAPTER III.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIETY.


All the circumstances which attended the origin and establishment of
the society of Jesuits combine to explain, with unmistakable clearness,
the motives which must have influenced the mind and incited the action
of Loyola in every step he took. They plainly show that his leading
and controlling purpose was to organize a body of men, each one of
whom should be brought into implicit and unquestioning obedience to
the authority of their general, and hold themselves in readiness so
long as the society existed, to do, without the least inquiry into
results, whatsoever he should command to be done, so that they should
have no wills or opinions of their own upon any subject over which
he should assert jurisdiction. By making this the central and most
fundamental principle of the constitution, he placed his society in
direct antagonism to all intellectual progress and enlightenment--to
everything that tended to dignify and elevate mankind. No one,
therefore, ought to wonder that it has produced more disturbance in the
world than any other organization that has ever existed; or, if it were
out of the way, could ever exist again.

The constitution was locked up in the secret archives of the society
for more than two hundred years, many of its details having been
unknown, it is said, even by a considerable portion of the members,
whose submissive obedience must have reduced them to the condition of
trained animals. This concealment by a society professedly religious
could not have been favorable to Christianity, and must have been
the consequence of some sinister motive, as subsequent developments
have shown. This is a fair inference from the reluctance with which
the constitution was surrendered when the French Government demanded
its exposure. The facts connected with the proceedings of the French
Parliament, when they compelled the society to make it known, justify
the belief that there must have been some special reason for its
long concealment, and that the public odium, so long resting upon
it in France, was attributable, among other things, to the secrecy
of its proceedings. And when it is considered that the strong and
vigorous measures adopted by the Parliament to extort the constitution
by dragging it from its hiding-place, transpired at a time when
Protestantism had no control whatsoever over the public affairs of
France, it conclusively proves that the integrity of the society was
suspected by the French people whilst they were faithful adherents of
the Roman Church. Such a fact as this indicates--what every Jesuit
stands ready to deny if necessary--that where the society was best
known, it was most suspected and disliked.

The whole machinery of this society was admirably designed to
accomplish its complete consolidation. Although Loyola was neither
a theologian nor a learned man, having obtained almost his entire
education after he was thirty years of age, yet he understood, far
better than many who had acquired higher intellectual culture,
the springs and motives of human conduct; and this, supplemented
by cunning, which never deserted him, constituted his leading
characteristic. As his sole object was to dominate over others
by promising them a place in paradise as a reward for unmanning
themselves, he studiously excluded all who could not be reduced to this
low condition by training, discipline, and education. Accordingly,
before an applicant could be admitted to probation, his whole life and
character were closely scrutinized by the general, if it were in his
power to do so; but if not, by persons selected as spies, who were
"to live with him and examine him," so as to be able to penetrate his
most secret thoughts.[13] Upon admission, he was required to confess
to a rector, who was to be recognized by him as holding "the place
of Christ our Lord," and from whom nothing should be concealed--"not
opposing, not contradicting, nor showing an opinion in any case opposed
to his opinion."[14] When the probationer was found by these tests
qualified for membership--that is, when it was ascertained that he had
no will of his own, but was fitted by nature and inclination for a
state of complete bondage--he was required to recognize the general of
the society as occupying the place of God, and as possessing absolute
authority over him, with the right to exact absolute obedience from
him. He was reduced to the condition of a mere inanimate machine, with
no discretionary power whatsoever over his own emotions, opinions,
or actions. This obligation is thus expressed in the constitution:
"He must regard the superior as Christ the Lord, and must strive to
acquire perfect resignation and denial of his own will and judgment,
in all things conforming his will and judgment to that which the
superior wills and judges."[15] And, in order to assure, beyond the
possibility of mistake, the complete surrender of all individuality,
and to bring the probationer down to the lowest possible degradation,
his uninquiring obedience is defined and exacted in these words: "As
for holy obedience, this virtue must be perfect in every point--in
execution, in will, in intellect--doing what is enjoined with all
celerity, spiritual joy, and perseverance; persuading ourselves that
everything is just; suppressing every repugnant thought and judgment
of one's own, in a certain obedience; ... and let every one persuade
himself that he who lives under obedience should be moved and directed,
under Divine Providence, by his superior, just as if he were a corpse
(_perinde ac si cadaver esset_), which allows itself to be moved and
led in any direction."[16]

It would be hard to find, in any written or spoken language, words
more expressive than these of the complete eradication of all sense
of personality, unless it be some elsewhere employed in the same
society to express the same or equivalent ideas. In the Prague edition
of the "Institutes," the following is given as the language of one
of its decrees: "It behooves our brethren to be pre-eminent in true
and absolute obedience, in abnegation of all individual will and
judgment."[17] The Jesuit Bartoli, in his history of Loyola, expresses
the meaning of the constitution in substantially the same words, thus:
"_An entire abnegation of their own will, of their own judgment_."[18]
Elsewhere he says the members must act "according to the pleasure
of the superior."[19] Again: "What can be more complete than our
submission to the orders of our superiors in everything that concerns
our state of life, the places we are to dwell in, the employments, the
offices we are to be engaged in."[20] And again, this submission to the
will and judgment of the superior, or general, is called "renouncing
our own judgment," "the annihilation of self," "complete obedience,
entire dependence upon the will of others, perfect abandonment of
personal reputation."[21]

This self-abnegation, this slavery of the mind, is a worse form of
servitude than the slavery of the body. The latter places fetters upon
the limbs, the former rivets shackles upon the mind. A brief comparison
will illustrate this. The methods of punishing slaves for disobedience
have varied accordingly as masters have been humane or otherwise. Some
have been compelled to endure the torture of solitary imprisonment and
starvation; others to wear iron fetters until they have eaten, by slow
degrees, into their flesh; and multitudes have escaped only with the
lash. In all this, merely the animal capacity for enduring physical
suffering has been put to the test,--the minds of the victims having
been left free to implore the mercy and protection of Providence,
according to their own wills and consciences. But this Jesuit method
of training probationers and novices to secure their implicit obedience
to their superiors, transcends anything pertaining, especially in
modern times, to the relation of master and slaves. It trifles with
the interests and destiny of the soul, its relations to God and to
eternity, by substituting a mere man, with the passions and impulses of
other men, as the final arbiter of human conduct, and with the power
to open and close the doors of heaven at his own personal pleasure.
It is for fitting him to assent implicitly to this that the Jesuit is
required to abnegate his individual self, dismiss from his mind the
idea that God gave him the priceless faculty of thought and reflection,
and abase himself to such a degree that he has no will or judgment of
his own concerning the future condition of his soul. By considering
himself a mere corpse--dead to everything in life but humiliating
obedience to the general--he consents to accept his commands as equal
to those of God, and to recognize the sentence he might see fit to pass
upon him in this life, in lieu of the judgment of God in the life to
come.

There is a vast deal of cumulative evidence upon these points, which
have evidently been considered fundamental and indispensable. Besides
the foregoing humiliating vows, strict rules and regulations are
established for the government of the novices. Number 34 is as follows:
"At the voice of the superior, just as if it came from Christ the
Lord, we must be most ready, leaving everything whatsoever, even a
letter of the alphabet, unfinished, though begun." Rule 35 defines
"holy obedience" to be "abnegating all opinion and judgment of our own
contrary thereto [that is, to what they are commanded to do], with a
certain blind obedience." Rule 36 is in these words: "Let every member
persuade himself that those who wish to live under obedience, ought
to suffer themselves to be borne along and governed through Divine
Providence through the superiors, just as if they were a corpse, which
may be borne as we please, and permits itself to be handled anyhow;
or like an old man's stick, which everywhere serves any purpose that
he who holds it chooses to employ it in."[22] The same ideas exactly
are expressed in one of the vows which Loyola made conspicuous, and
which is given by Bartoli in his biography, as follows: "I should
regard myself as a dead body, without will or intelligence, as a little
crucifix which is turned about unresistingly at the will of him who
holds it, as a staff in the hands of an old man, who uses it as he
requires it, and as it suits him best."[23]

The human mind is not fertile enough in invention to discover a lower
depth of humiliation than this--a more complete surrender of all the
ennobling qualities and instincts of manhood. If these have ever been
possessed, the remembrance of them is required to be obliterated, so
that there may be no room in the mind for a single generous emotion.
When Shakespeare conceived the idea of a "mindless slave," he must
have had before his mind the portrait of a Jesuit, after he had been
disciplined and fashioned under the master-hand of Loyola, who left his
followers no personal sense of truth or right or justice, having made
their abnegation so thorough that, even with the knowledge of right and
wrong, truth and falsehood, they were trained to incline indifferently
to either as commanded by their superiors. He allowed no hesitation,
heard no reasons, accepted neither apology nor excuse. Their whole
duty consisted in blind and uninquiring obedience to him in thought,
word, and deed, no matter what consequences might follow, or what harm
be inflicted. What of consciences they had left, were required to
become so callous as to be insensible to either honor or shame, all
conscientious sense being extinguished as if it had never existed--like
the light of a candle blown out. Nowhere else in the world, within the
confines of civilization, has such a point of the absolute annihilation
of individuality been reached. Nowhere else is a man required to
acknowledge himself a "corpse," a "dead body," a "little crucifix,"
a "staff" in the hands of another, with no will, or thought, or
sensibility, or emotion, except such as shall be dictated by those to
whose mastery he has ignominiously submitted. It is the very perfection
of tyranny, such as the most heartless despots known to history would
have rejoiced to discover.

Far too little consideration is generally given, even by careful
students of history, to this assumption of equality with Christ--this
vain pretense of a state of divine perfection which recognizes a single
human being as possessing upon earth the authority of God. Undoubtedly
it is true that multitudes of individuals, of good intentions, have
been misled by it into the false belief that the most prominent
feature in the plan of Christ's atonement was the substitution for
himself of a mere man, to whom alone, of all mankind, he assigned his
own divine attributes. The original suggestion of such a proposition
must have startled the Christian mind; and its establishment as an
article of faith may be intelligently accounted for by the fact that
the superstition and ignorance of the Middle Ages enabled monarchism
in Church and State to perpetuate itself by requiring this dogma
to be accepted as revealed by Christ himself. In evidence of its
repugnance to the common sense of mankind, it is proper to observe
that the Christian world has ever since labored hard to get rid of the
delusion, and would in all probability long since have done so, but
for the society of Jesuits, which has ceaselessly maintained it as an
essential part of its machinery. That it is condemned and repudiated
by reason, it requires no argument to prove in this enlightened age.
If the Creator had designed that he should have such a representative
upon earth after the ascension of Christ, he would have imparted his
divine attributes to him by such manifestations of his own power as
the world could not misunderstand--either by such simple and peaceful
incidents as attested the birth and divinity of the Savior, or by such
convulsions of nature as accompanied the delivery of the tables of the
law to Moses. In the entire absence of any visible and intelligent
evidences whatsoever of this divine purpose, the pretension of it,
as the mere means of acquiring authority over others and exacting
obedience from them, is nothing less than presumptuous and vainglorious
impiety. It seeks to dethrone God by abolishing the bar of judgment,
where he has announced that all mankind shall appear; for what is it
less than this to say that conformity to the commands of the Jesuit
general assures, beyond any peradventure, admission to the kingdom of
heaven? God manifestly reserved to himself this great prerogative; and
he who claims it as pertaining to an earthly office of man's creation,
arraigns the divine authority, and insults the Majesty of heaven by
requiring that the Creator shall abdicate his throne. If, moreover, God
had intended to confer divine attributes upon any individual man, it is
contrary to a just estimate of his character, as well as to all human
experience, to suppose he would have chosen the general of a society
which has from its origin been a byword of reproach among the nations,
upon which such a heavy weight of odium has rested that it has been
ignominiously driven out of every nation in Europe; whose enormities
compelled a good and virtuous pope to suppress and abolish it in order
to assure the peace and welfare of the Church; and whose members are
still skulking through these same nations, silently and secretly, as
ghostly apparitions are supposed to move about in the night-time under
the cover of darkness.

But the Jesuit constitution goes to even a greater extent of impiety.
After a novitiate has, by the foregoing methods, been converted into an
unthinking and unresisting piece of machinery, like a block of wood or
marble carved by the hand of an artist, his course of future servility
is so opened before him that he may fully understand how he shall give
proof of fidelity to his vows, by doing whatsoever the general shall
command, or by omitting to do whatsoever he shall forbid. Here the
thoughtful reader to whom these revelations are new, no matter what
form of religious faith he may profess, will be likely to pause in
astonishment at the deliberately-avowed purpose to disregard the laws
of States, of social morality, and even of God, when the general shall
command either of these things to be done. The following are the words
of the constitution, as given by Nicolini:

"No constitution, declaration, or any order of living, can involve
an obligation to commit sin, mortal or venial, unless the superior
command it in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, or in virtue of holy
obedience, which shall be done in those cases or persons wherein it
shall be judged that it will greatly conduce to the particular good of
each, or to the general advantage; and, instead of the fear of offense,
let the love and desire of all perfection proceed, that the greater
glory and praise of Christ, our Creator and Lord, may follow."[24]

This language should be re-read and carefully scanned; for, at a
single glance, it seems to have been written so as to furnish ground
for equivocation, a practice in which the Jesuits, by long use, have
acquired consummate skill. It may be easily interpreted, however,
in the light of what Bartoli says. According to him, the novice is
required to place himself "entirely in the hands of God, and of him
who holds the place of God by his authority," which, of course, is
the general or superior. After setting forth that the novitiate is
required to take this vow, "In everything which is not sinful, I must
do the will of my superior and not my own," he enlarges upon the
obligations of the same vow with the following particularity: "If it
seems to me that the superior has ordered me to do something against
my conscience, or in which there appears to be something sinful, if
he is of a contrary opinion, and I have no certainty, I should rely
upon him. If my trouble continues, I should lay aside my own judgment,
and confide my doubts to one, two, or three persons, and rely upon
their decision. If all this shall not satisfy me, I am far from the
perfection which my religious state requires. I must no longer belong
to myself, but to my Creator, and to those who govern in his name,
and in whose hands I should be as soft wax, whatsoever he chooses to
require of me."[25] Another vow, also given by Bartoli, shows that this
same obedience is due as well to a vicious and immoral as to a virtuous
superior; that is, that by the religion which the Jesuits profess, it
makes no difference, in so far as the obligation of obedience to his
interpretation of the laws of God and morality is concerned, whether
he be wise or unwise, saint or sinner. It says: "To believe that a
thing ought to be because the superior orders it, is the last and most
perfect degree. We can not arrive at this degree without recognizing in
the person of our superior, be he wise or imprudent, holy or imperfect,
the authority of Jesus Christ himself, whom he represents."[26] And
another vow, illustrating the character of this obedience, is thus
given: "With regard to property, I must depend upon the superior alone,
consider nothing as my personal property, and myself, in all that I am,
as a statue, which allows itself to be stripped, no matter what the
occasion may be, and offers no resistance."[27]

It requires but ordinary sagacity to interpret all this; its meaning
is too plain to mislead. The constitution, according to Nicolini,
prohibits the commission of sin--not absolutely, but conditionally;
that is, "unless the superior command it in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ;" which imports, as even an uninstructed mind may see, that
there are occasions when the sanction of Christ may be invoked to
justify the commission of sin; or, in other words, when the general
of the Jesuits, by virtue of his representing God upon earth, may, at
his own personal will, convert vice into virtue! The Jesuit is not
permitted to do anything on his own account, or upon his own judgment,
that would amount to sin; but must do, upon the command of the general,
what he, in his own conscience, believes to be sin; because, as the
general stands in the place of God, he is bound to accept it as not
sin. The word "unless," as employed in the constitution, is a simple
negation, which makes the plain meaning of the sentence this, that
if the general does not command the members of the society to commit
sin, they are not permitted to do of themselves what he considers to
be sin; but if he does so command, in the name of Christ, then they
may sin without fear of consequences, either in this world or in the
world to come. Every instructed Christian mind, no matter what its
form of faith, must consider this blasphemous, because it assumes that
the general may successfully exercise the divine authority of Christ
to authorize sin to be committed, or to condone and pardon it after
commission. This assumption goes to the full extent of deciding what
is and what is not sin, by considering it alone with reference "to the
particular good of each" member of the society, or to its "general
advantage," and not to the law of God. Whatsoever either of these shall
require, if commanded by the general, "shall be done," if the command
shall be given "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ!" Nothing can be
allowed to stand in the way of this. "No constitution, declaration,
or any order of living"--not even the law of God--can be set up
against the general! He occupies the place of God, and must be obeyed,
howsoever the peace and welfare of the multitude may be imperiled, or
the nations be convulsed from center to circumference. The society of
Jesuits must obtain the mastery, even if general anarchy shall prevail,
or all the world besides be covered with the fragments of a universal
wreck!

There should be no mistake at this point, for the doctrine involved
is vital to the Jesuits. Their society could no more exist without
it than could a watch keep time after the removal of its mainspring.
Although, unlike Nicolini, Bartoli does not give the precise words of
the constitution, this important vow, as set forth by him in his life
of Loyola, has substantially the same meaning. According to him, its
import is plainly this, that the general, whether "wise or imprudent,
holy or imperfect," stands in "the place of God;" that, whilst in
the abstract it is sinful to commit sin, when the act is performed
upon individual judgment, yet, if the general shall order it, and the
conscience of the Jesuit rebel against it because he considers it
sin, he shall "rely" upon the general, and not upon himself; that is,
he shall so close his mind that no conscientious convictions shall
penetrate it. And until he has reached this condition of stupid and
servile obedience, he is "far from the perfection which his religious
state requires." And, to reduce the matter to the plainest and simplest
proposition, the Jesuit is bound "to believe that a thing ought to be,
because the superior orders it;" so that, if he shall order sin to be
committed, the Jesuit is required not to consider it as sin because
God, through the general, commands it! This is precisely as if it were
said that sin may be justifiably committed in God's name, whensoever it
shall be required by "the particular good of each," or by the "general
advantage" of the society. It requires, of course, no argument to show
that this authority of the general is considered comprehensive enough
to justify resistance or covert opposition to the constitution and laws
of any State, or the violation of any treaty, contract, or oath, which
shall stand in the way of the society in its struggle after universal
dominion.

Here we have information from two sources with reference to Jesuit
doctrine upon a point of the very chiefest importance. Nicolini was a
native Italian, and resided at Rome, where he undoubtedly had access
to the best and most reliable sources of information. Bartoli was a
Jesuit, and must have been familiar with the principles and teachings
of the society, or he would not have been trusted and patronized by
it as the biographer of Loyola. They do not disagree materially with
regard to the general principle which forbids sin in an abstract form
and upon individual responsibility, but justifies its commission when
ordered by the general of the Jesuits. It is, therefore, obviously
deducible from this general principle, as stated by both of them, that
when the general shall require the perpetration of any crime, or the
violation of any obligation, or oath, or constitution, or law, or the
performance of any act howsoever perfidious or shameless,--in all,
or any of these cases, the Jesuit shall execute his commands without
"fear of offense." The general is thus placed above all governments,
constitutions, and laws, and even above God himself! There are no laws
of a State, no rules of morality established by society, no principles
of religious faith established by any Church--including even the
Roman Church itself--that the Jesuit is not bound to resist, when
commanded by his general to do so, no matter if it shall lead to war,
revolution, or bloodshed, or to the upheaval of society from its very
foundations. Everything is centered in the good of the society, and
to that all else must defer. No wonder that the Jesuit casuists have
found in this provision of their constitution the source of that odious
and demoralizing maxim that "the means are justified by the end;" in
other words, if, in the judgment of the general, the end is considered
right, howsoever criminal or sinful, it becomes sanctified, and may be
accomplished without "the fear of offense."

Nor is this all. After, as Nicolini says, "having thus transferred the
allegiance of the Jesuit from his God to his general, the constitution
proceeds to secure that allegiance from all conflict with the natural
affections or worldly interests."[28] It does not allow anything--any
affections of the heart or earthly interests of any kind or nature
whatsoever--to intervene between the Jesuit and his superior. If he
has family ties, he must break them; if friends, he must discard them;
if property, he must surrender it to the superior, and take the vow
of absolute and extreme poverty; he must, in fact, render himself
insensible to every sentiment, or emotion, or feeling that could,
by possibility, exist from instinct or habits of thought in his own
mind. As it regards property, the constitution provides that "he will
accomplish a work of great perfection if he dispose of it in benefit of
the society." And continuing this subject, with reference to paternal
affections, it continues: "And that his better example may shine
before men, he must put away all strong affection for his parents, and
refrain from the unsuitable desire of a bountiful distribution arising
from such disadvantageous affection."[29] He shall not communicate
with any person by letter without its inspection by the superior, who
shall read all letters addressed to him before their delivery; of
course, permitting only such to be sent by or to reach him as shall be
approved. "He shall not leave the house except at such times and with
such companions as the superior shall allow; nor within the house shall
he converse, without restraint, with any one at his own pleasure, but
with such only as shall be appointed by the superior."[30] He shall
not be allowed to go out of the house unless accompanied by two of the
brethren as spies upon his conduct, and the neglect of either to report
faithfully what the others have done and said is held to be sinful. And
to make sure that all the members reflect only the opinions dictated
by him, they are bound to absolute uniformity, as follows: "Let all
think, let all speak, as far as possible, the same thing, according to
the apostle. Let no contradictory doctrines, therefore, be allowed,
either by word of mouth, or public sermons, or in written books,
which last shall not be published without the approbation and consent
of the general; and, indeed, all differences of opinion regarding
practical matters shall be avoided."[31] Commenting upon these things,
Nicolini most appropriately says: "Thus no one but the general can
exercise the right of uttering a single original thought or opinion.
It is almost impossible to conceive the power, especially in former
times, of a general having at his absolute disposal such an amount of
intelligences, wills, and energies."[32]

If there were any evidences to prove that the Jesuits, as a society,
have abandoned any of the principles or policy which bear the stamp
of Loyola's approval, there would be no necessity, other than that
which incites to historic investigation, for a careful and critical
investigation of them. But there are none. On the contrary, it will
be seen that, from their very nature, they are not susceptible of
change so long as the society shall exist. The memory of Loyola is
still preserved with intense devotion. He is worshiped as a saint, and
the words uttered by him are as much reverenced as those spoken by
the Savior. It seems impossible, therefore, to escape the conviction
that this extraordinary society is unlike any other now existing, or
which has heretofore existed, in the world. That it was conceived by
the active brain of an ambitious and worldly-minded enthusiast, who
had been disappointed at not winning the military distinction he had
expected, is an irresistible inference from facts well established
in his personal history. His vanity and imperiousness suggested
the starting-point of his organization, whereby man was treated as
incapable of intelligent reflection--fit only to become the unresisting
tool of those who venture profanely to affirm, contrary to any
divine revelation, that God has endowed them alone with authority
to subject the world to obedience. His plan of operations was,
from the beginning, a direct censure of all the ancient religious
orders, as it was also of the methods the Church had adopted after
the experience of many centuries. When he conceived it, his chief
purpose undoubtedly was, as heretofore explained,[33] to make himself
and his successors independent of and superior to the pope and the
Church. His contemplated antagonism to both was sufficiently indicated
by the fact that his original constitution centered absolute and
irresponsible power in the hands of the general of his society; and the
subsequent introduction of the simulated vow of qualified fidelity to
the pope--which was brought about by a degree of necessity amounting
almost to duress--has had no other effect than to tax the strategic
ingenuity of more than one general by the invention of subterfuges to
evade it. In furtherance of this idea, the society holds no intercourse
with the pope, nor he with it. Its members are all independent of
him. They are the creatures and instruments of the general alone.
They obey him, and no other. If he, as the head of the society, does
not think proper to execute the orders of the pope--as has often
occurred--the question is alone between the pope and him, not with
the society. The only point of unity is between the general and the
members; and of this the society boasts with its habitual vanity. In
enumerating the methods by which its duration is considered assured,
Bartoli says: "The chief is a strict union between the members and the
head, consequent upon entire dependence, which results from perfect
obedience. Ignatius established a _monarchical form of government_ in
the society, and placed the whole administration of the order in the
hands of the general, with an authority absolute and independent of
all men, with the sole exception of the sovereign pontiff. The general
then decided absolutely, both in the choice of the superiors, as well
as in everything which concerns the members of the company."[34]
This sufficiently shows that the pope deals alone with the general,
and he alone with the society; except through the latter, the former
can not reach the members, or communicate his will to them; and even
when the pope communicates with the general, the whole obligation
of the latter's obedience consists in sending the members of the
society to whatsoever part of the world the pope shall direct without
remuneration. And it is by these means that the society constitutes
what Bartoli calls "one solid and durable whole," nominally with two
heads, but practically paying obedience to but one.

It was scarcely necessary to say that the society existed under "a
monarchical form of government," for it is impossible for such an
organization to exist in any other form. In fact, it surpasses in that
respect any institution ever known, not excepting the most tyrannical
despotisms by which the Oriental peoples were held in bondage for
centuries. Until the time of Loyola no man ever conceived--or if he
did, the avowal of it is unknown to history--the idea that the plain
and simple teachings of Christ, which are easily interpreted, could
be distorted into an apology for reducing mankind to a multitude
of unthinking corpses or dead bodies, without thoughts, opinions,
or motives of their own, so that they should submit implicitly to
the dictation of a single man, who, to prepare them for perfect
obedience, required that the best affections of their hearts should
be extinguished, and nothing generous or kindly or noble be permitted
to exist in them. Absolutism could not possibly be carried further,
for there is no degree of humiliation lower than that the Jesuit is
required to reach. Howsoever cultivated in art, or learned in letters,
or courtly in manners, or fascinating in oratory he may become, his
conscience is dwarfed into cowardice, and he has parted with his
manhood as if it were an old garment to be cast aside at pleasure. No
picture of him could be more true than that drawn by the friendly pen
of Bartoli, who tells us, boastingly, that "the society requires no
members who are governed by human respect."[35] It requires, according
to this biographer of Loyola, only those who hold in utter contempt the
opinions of the world, those who extinguish in their minds all sense of
either praise or shame, and who close all avenues by which men's hearts
are reached by noble or generous or patriotic impulses. They seem to
think that God, after making man "in his own image" and with capacity
for inspiring thoughts, paralyzed his best affections in mere sport,
and left him only fitted for blind obedience to an imperious master,
who requires him to sunder all the tenderest domestic relations as if
they invited to impiety, and who treats all the highest social virtues
as vices when they do not advance his ambitious ends, and any form of
vice as virtue when it does.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 13: Constitution. Part I, chap, i, § 3. _Apud_ Nicolini:
History of the Jesuits, p. 32.]

[Footnote 14: Constitution. Part IV, chap. x, § 5. _Apud_ Nicolini:
History of the Jesuits, p. 33.]

[Footnote 15: Const. Part III, chap. i, § 23. _Ibid._]

[Footnote 16: Const. Part VI, chap. i, § 1. _Ibid._]

[Footnote 17: The Jesuits, their Constitution and Teaching. By
Cartwright. Page 15, note.]

[Footnote 18: History of St. Ignatius Loyola. By Bartoli. Vol. II, p.
46.]

[Footnote 19: _Ibid._, p. 47.]

[Footnote 20: _Ibid._, p. 49.]

[Footnote 21: _Ibid._, p. 51.]

[Footnote 22: History of the Jesuits. By Steinmetz. Vol. I, p. 251, N.
1.]

[Footnote 23: Bartoli. Vol. II, p. 93.]

[Footnote 24: Constitution. Part VI, chap. v, § 31. _Apud_ Nicolini, p.
34.]

[Footnote 25: Bartoli, Vol. II, pp. 92, 93.]

[Footnote 26: _Ibid._, p. 95.]

[Footnote 27: _Ibid._, p. 94.]

[Footnote 28: Nicolini, p. 34.]

[Footnote 29: Constitution. Part III, chap. i, § 7-9. _Apud_ Nicolini,
pp. 34, 35.]

[Footnote 30: Const. Part III, chap. i, § 2, 3. _Apud_ Nicolini, p. 36.]

[Footnote 31: Const. Part III, chap. i, § 18. _Apud_ Nicolini, p. 36.
These general matters are also treated of by Bartoli, Vol. II, chaps.
iv and v, pp. from 33-78.]

[Footnote 32: Nicolini, p. 36.]

[Footnote 33: Ante, chap. ii, p. 41.]

[Footnote 34: Bartoli, Vol. II, p. 88.]

[Footnote 35: Bartoli, Vol. II, p. 85.]




CHAPTER IV.

GOVERNMENT OF THE SOCIETY.


Any reader of the last two chapters can see--without the admission of
Bartoli to that effect--that the government of the society of Jesuits
is entirely monarchical, and founded upon the paternalism set up by
imperial rulers in proof of their divine right to govern. Like these
rulers, Loyola maintained that mankind were not competent to govern
themselves, and therefore that Providence has ordained that they can
be rightfully and wisely governed only by their superiors, no matter
whether they acquire and maintain their superiority by fraud, intrigue,
or violence. He had observed society when it was accustomed to pay but
little attention, if any, to the structure and details of government,
and left all matters of public concern to drift into channels created
by those who ruled them with the view of preserving their own power.
And hence he imitated their imperial example by making this principle
of paternalism the fundamental basis of his society; but transcended
the despotism of antiquity by enslaving both the minds and bodies of
its members, and annihilating all sense of personality among them. This
society, consequently, has never been reconciled to any other form
of government than absolute monarchy, nor can it ever be, so long as
it shall exist. Without absolutism in its most extreme form it would
lose its power of cohesion and fall to pieces, as inevitably as a ship
drifts away from its course when the rudder is broken.

Having become thus familiar with the constitution and organization of
this society, and the principles which underlie them, it is equally
important to discover how these were administered by Loyola himself,
and his immediate successors; for otherwise its real character can
not be known. It has a history of its own--created by itself, and, in
a great measure, when not subject to the inspection of others--and
unless we shall become also familiar with this it will be hard, if not
impossible, to understand the fierce and tireless animosity with which
it has resisted all who have endeavored to block its way to universal
dominion, including even popes and the Church. If any other society
ever had such a history, it has not been written.

When Loyola obtained the approval of his society from Paul III, he
undoubtedly accomplished a great triumph--greater than any he had
previously known. It gave him the opportunity of foreseeing that,
whensoever thereafter it should be demanded by his own or the interests
of the society, he would have it in his power, with a servile host
at his command, to create a factious rivalry to the papacy itself.
It may be supposed that the pope acted with reference to what he
regarded as the welfare of the Church, and under a due sense of
his own responsibility; but Loyola experienced no such feeling.
Backed by a mere handful of zealots, who were unable to withstand
his importunities, and from whom he probably concealed his ulterior
designs, he concentrated all his energies upon the single object
of obtaining the centralization of power in his own hands, without
troubling himself to inquire at whose expense it might be accomplished,
or the means to be employed. The pope had his own character as the
head of the Church to maintain, while Loyola was a mere "soldier of
fortune," seeking adventure, and stimulated by personal ambition to
acquire both power and fame by means of an organization with which
the pope was not familiar, but which he had constructed in secret, so
as to make possible any form of disguise or dissimulation necessary
to accomplish his desired ends. It would be unfair to assert, in the
absence of explicit proof, that the pope acted otherwise than with
reference primarily to the interests of the Church, whilst at the
same time he manifestly did not desire to weaken the papal--that is,
his own--power. Although he ordered the assembling of what afterwards
became the Council of Trent, he was not distinguished as a reforming
pope, inasmuch as he was understood to have been constrained to this
act to counteract the imperial policy of Charles V, who had threatened
a National Council in his own dominions. Yet it is possible that some
reforms might have been introduced to which he would have given his
assent, provided they had not lessened the authority of the papacy.
Loyola was not influenced by any of these motives. He attributed
the corruptions of the clergy and the disturbed condition of the
Church to the imbecility of the popes, and their inability to contend
successfully against the impending evils. And thus influenced, he
evidently hoped to put in operation, through the agency of his new
society, such instrumentalities as would counteract the existing evils
in a manner that would assure the glory of the achievement to himself
and his society. He doubtless desired in this way to obtain such fame
as would overshadow the papacy itself. Of the contemptuous disregard
and defiance of popes who have opposed Jesuit pretensions, we shall
hereafter see many and convincing proofs.

It should not be forgotten, in this connection, that the infallibility
of the pope was not, at that time, an accepted part of the faith
of the Church. The effort to make it so would, if then made, have
been fruitless, in view of the recent pontificates of John XXIII,
and Julius II, and Alexander VI, and the decrees of the Councils of
Constance and Basel, as well as the general sentiment of the Christian
world. Although there were some in the Church who maintained this
doctrine, yet it was far from being approved by the multitude, and
never actually became part of the faith until within our own time,
when it was dictated to the Council of the Vatican at Rome by Pius IX,
and forced to a final decree without free discussion. Mr. Gladstone
has given a list of heretical popes before the time of Loyola, none
of whom could have been infallible, unless infallibility and heresy
may mingle harmoniously together in the same mind at the same time.
Gregory I regarded the claim of universality--a necessary incident
to infallibility--as "blasphemous, anti-Christian, and devilish."
Even Innocent III admitted that a pope could "sin against the faith,
and thus become subject to the judgment of the Church." Hadrian VI
declared that a pope could err in matters of faith. Zephyrinus and
Callistus both taught heresy in maintaining "that God the Father became
incarnate, and suffered with the Son." Liberius subscribed an Arian
creed, the most noted of all heresies, and condemned the orthodox
Athanasius. Felix II was an Arian, and yet has been placed upon the
calendar of saints. Zosimus indorsed the heresy of Pelagianism.
Vigilius was upon both sides of the controversy about the Three
Chapters. John XXII condemned Nicholas III and Clement V as heretics.
Honorius was condemned and excommunicated for heresy by a General
Council at Constantinople. Consequently, Mr. Gladstone, whose great
learning and wisdom is recognized by all, felt himself warranted in
affirming that "the popes themselves, therefore, for more than three
centuries, publicly recognized, first, that an Ecumenical Council may
condemn a pope for open heresy; and, secondly, that Pope Honorius was
justly condemned for heresy."[36]

The contest in England about "Catholic Emancipation," covered a
period of more than a quarter of a century after the ill-fated union
by which Ireland gave up her independence. It terminated so near the
present time that there are some yet living who may remember the
rejoicing it occasioned among the friends of Ireland. It involved
a practical political question, although it had a semi-religious
aspect. Upon the part of Ireland it was insisted that, as the Irish
were recognized by the British Constitution as subjects of the United
Kingdom, they were entitled to hold civil office and participate in
the legislation of Parliament. This was for a long time successfully
resisted by the English Government and people upon the ground that,
by the religion which the Irish professed, the pope was held to be
infallible, and, consequently, as possessing the spiritual power to
interfere with the temporal affairs and policy of Great Britain. As
it had been always understood among European peoples that this was
the legitimate consequence of that doctrine, it became absolutely
necessary to the Irish cause to show that the religion which prevailed
in Ireland did not include it; in other words, that the Irish people
did not believe the pope to be infallible. In proof of this, it was
insisted by the Irish hierarchy, with unusual earnestness, that the
three leading universities in France, and three not less distinguished
in Spain, had condemned and repudiated that doctrine, and that the
Irish people accepted their opinions. In addition, several Irish
bishops were examined before a committee of the House of Commons, and
testified to the same effect. This turned the scale in favor of "Irish
Emancipation," and the controversy ended by the passage of that measure
by both Houses of Parliament.

There is nothing, therefore, to show, or tending to show, that Loyola
considered Paul III, or any other pope, to be infallible. On the
contrary, inasmuch as that doctrine was not a part of the faith of the
Church, and he was not required to believe it, it is a fair inference,
from all we can now learn of their intercourse, that he regarded the
pope as fallible, and, consequently, wedded to a false and erroneous
system of Church government, which had been attended with mischievous
results, and for which he desired to substitute a better and more
efficient system of his own, under his own direction. And all the
contemporary facts combine to show that he intended, by the original
Jesuit Constitution, to bring the pope, and through him the Church, to
the point of recognizing him and his successors as infallible, because
they were declared to stand in the place of Christ, and were to be
obeyed accordingly. Whatsoever benefits he proposed to confer upon the
Church, were intended by him to be consequential alone upon those he
designed for himself and his society.

The amendment of the original constitution, so as to require fidelity
to the pope, was simply a measure of policy and expediency on the part
of Loyola, having been suggested to him, as we have seen, after he
reached Rome and discovered that it was the only method of removing
the scruples of the pope, and obtaining the approval of his new
society. Interpreted, therefore, in the light of all the facts, this
amendment amounts only and simply to a recognition of the pope as the
head of the Church, but not infallible, because that was not then part
of the faith of the Church. At the same time, however, Loyola was
sagacious enough to provide in the body of the constitution for the
infallibility of the general of his society by declaring him as equal
to God, and as occupying the place and exercising the authority of
Christ. He expected the pope to recognize this by his act of approving
the original constitution and establishing the society as a religious
order, in imitation of the ancient monastic orders. Whether the pope
so understood the constitution or not, can not now be decided; but it
is perfectly apparent that Loyola did, as is evidenced by the fact
that the vow of each member pledged him to this belief as one of the
absolutely controlling principles of the organization. But Loyola
made a more conspicuous exhibition of his sagacity by providing,
in the secret but practical working of the society, a loophole of
escape from the pledge of obedience to the pope whensoever the
general deemed this expedient, as, in the sequel, it will appear he
frequently did. It is well to repeat here, for illustration, that
the pope was not permitted to hold immediate or direct intercourse
with the individual members of the society. He was required to regard
them only as a company whose members had no power over themselves,
and were expressly prohibited from setting up any individual claim to
independent thought or action. The pope could consequently convey his
desires, or opinions, or commands to the society only through their
general; that is, in Loyola's view, as well as in that of the society,
the fallible head of the Church could make known his wishes to the
infallible head of the society! If the latter occupied the place of God
and pronounced his judgments--as the members declared by their vows,
and the constitution asserts--then any violation of his commands upon
their part was not only heresy within the society, but punishable by
the general, no matter what the pope might do or say. The infallible
head of the Jesuits became, consequently, in the estimation of the
society, superior to the fallible head of the Church in everything
that concerned the opinions, sentiments, or action of the members.
A man would almost stultify himself who should argue that, in case
of conflict between the pope and the general--which has frequently
occurred--the society would hesitate about obeying the general and
disobeying the pope.

This point requires deliberate consideration, for it is that at which
the commanding ability and shrewdness of Loyola were exhibited most
conspicuously. The society is allowed to know its general only upon
all matters involving either duty or conduct. He, and not the pope, or
any other authority upon earth, determines what the members shall or
shall not do within the whole domain of individual or company action.
The members are required and pledged by their solemn vows to think his
thoughts, to utter his words, to execute his commands, and to suppress
every emotion not in sympathy with his. And hence it has sometimes
happened, in precise consistence with the plan of Loyola, that the
Jesuits have obeyed the pope when commanded to do so by their general;
whilst, at other times, his wishes have been disregarded and opposed by
them because their general has so commanded. He alone is the god of the
society, and nothing but his electric touch can galvanize their dead
corpses into life and action. Until he speaks, they are like serpents
coiled up in their wintry graves, lifeless and inactive; but the moment
he gives the word of command, each member springs instantaneously to
his feet, leaving unfinished whatsoever may have engaged him, ready
to assail whomsoever he may require to be assailed, and to strike
wheresoever he shall direct a blow to be stricken. Summed up, it
amounts to this, that if the pope decides according to the will of the
general, he is obeyed, because in that case the members show obedience
to the general, according to their vow, and not to the pope, whose
wishes they know only through the general; whereas, whensoever the pope
decides contrary to the will of the general, he is disobeyed if the
general shall so require, because the members have religiously vowed
to accept his commands as expressing the will of God infallibly. With
them the highest tribunal in the world is that presided over by him. He
alone is equal to God. From all other judgments there may be appeal;
but his are irreversible.

The people of Europe were beginning to feel the influence of the
Reformation--at the period here referred to--so extensively, especially
in Germany, as to comprehend the fact that the evils which had
afflicted them, as well as the decaying condition of the Church, were
attributable to the long-continued union of Church and State. And
their increasing intelligence caused them at least to suspect, if not
absolutely to foresee, that a secret and mysterious society like that
of the Jesuits would tend to increase rather than diminish these evils.
That the Jesuits encountered this suspicion from the beginning, is as
plainly proven in history as any other fact. Patient investigation will
show how they were resisted in France, England, Germany, Spain, and
Portugal, as plainly as the rivulet may be traced from its mountain
sources to the sea. And he who does not take the pains to make himself
familiar with the current of events to which this resistance gave rise,
will fall far short of accurate knowledge of the philosophy of history.
Nor, when he has acquired this information, will it surprise him in
the least to know that, after Loyola had succeeded in providing for
himself and his successors the means of possibly becoming superior to
the pope and the Church, he encountered also the formidable opposition
of the existing religious orders, as well as almost the entire body
of the Christian people, when he undertook to introduce his new and
strangely-constituted society into the various States of Europe. Even
then, before the Jesuits had practically exhibited their capacity
for intrigue, the public mind became convinced that the organization
contained elements of mischief, if not of positive danger, which it
was the duty of society to suppress rather than allow to be developed.
From that time up till the present, nothing has occurred to remove
this general impression, but much to strengthen and confirm it. So
steadfastly imbedded has it become in the minds of the English-speaking
race that they have invented and added to their language the new word,
"Jesuitism," to signify the extremest degree of "cunning, deceit,
hypocrisy, prevarication, deceptive practices to effect a purpose."
There was nothing in the life and character of Loyola to remove this
impression; but, on the contrary, as all his movements were shrouded
in mystery, and the public had no sympathy for him, nor he any for the
public, his whole conduct tended to excite suspicion against him and
his society. Accordingly, even with the aid he may be supposed to have
derived from the indorsement of the pope, he had to fight his way inch
by inch among the Christian peoples of Europe--a fact of commanding
significance.

The order of Dominicans had existed, under the patronage of the Church,
for over three hundred years, and had made itself conspicuous for the
part it took in the war of extermination prosecuted by Innocent III
against the Albigenses, for having asserted the right to free religious
thought and worship. The Dominicans were not restrained, therefore, by
sympathy with any of the heresies which Loyola expressed the desire
to suppress; so far from this, they sought after the most active and
certain methods of putting an end to all heresy. Hence, it may be
accepted as certain that they would willingly have accepted the Jesuits
as coadjutors in the work of checking the progress of the Reformation
if they had not seen in Loyola something to excite their indignation
rather than their friendship. The conduct of the Jesuits at Salamanca,
in Spain, had this effect in a high degree. Melchior Cano, one of the
most distinguished and orthodox of the Dominican monks, having seen
and conversed with Loyola at Rome, under circumstances which enabled
him to form an estimate of his character, did not hesitate to denounce
the Jesuits as impostors. What he said of Loyola personally deserves
special notice, and was in these emphatic words:

"When I was in Rome I took it into my head to see this Ignatius. He
began at once, without preliminary, to talk of his virtue, and the
persecution he had experienced in Spain without deserving it in the
least. And a vast deal of mighty things he poured forth concerning
the revelations which he had from on high, though there was no need
of the disclosure. This induced me to look upon him as a vain man,
and not to have the least faith in his revelations." Referring also
to the Jesuits, as a society molded and governed by Loyola, he said
"he apprehended the coming of Antichrist, and believed the Jesuits to
be his forerunners," and charged them with "licentiousness," and the
practice of "abominable mysteries."[37]

This was the first experience that Loyola had in dealing with so
conspicuous an adversary as Melchior Cano, and he realized the
necessity of having him silenced in some way, so as to preserve
his own personal influence. It furnished him, therefore, an
opportunity--perhaps the first--to display his fitness for leadership,
as well as to instruct his society in the indirect and artful methods
by which he expected it, when necessary, to accomplish its objects.
By means of the pope's bull approving the society, and the authority
he claimed to have been conferred upon him by it, he succeeded in
inducing the general of the Dominicans to cause Melchior to be made a
bishop and sent to the Canaries, which removed him from Spain, and was
equivalent to exile. The success he won in this way was, however, of
short duration; for Melchior accepted his banishment for a brief period
only, and, upon returning to Spain, he renewed his attack upon the
Jesuits, which then became more violent and undisguised than before. He
continued it as long as he lived, and at his death left this prophetic
warning: "If the members of the society continue as they have begun,
God grant that the time may not come when kings will wish to resist
them, and will find no means of doing so!"[38]

Events, which deserve somewhat more particularity of detail, occurred
also in Spain, at Saragossa, because they explain how the society was
trained and disciplined from the beginning, under the inspiration
of Loyola's immediate command. "As the twig is bent, so is the tree
inclined," is an adage no less applicable to a compact body like the
Jesuits than to individuals. Loyola understood this, and lost no time,
after he put his society in working order, to teach the members the
art of circumventing their adversaries--an art which their successors,
so far from forgetting, have improved upon. In this primary lesson he
also taught them that they were justified in disregarding any human law
that stood in the way of their success; that public opinion in conflict
with their interests was entitled to no respect whatsoever; and that by
steadfastly adhering to the principle of monarchism, upon which their
society rested, they might confidently invoke the aid of monarchs to
assure them success in any conflict with the people. And he taught
them, moreover, that they were entitled to resist the authorities of
the Church when the latter attempted to check their progress. And thus,
almost in the infancy of the society, its founder fixed indelibly in
the mind of every member the idea of their superiority over every
department of society, over all the ancient monastic orders, and over
even the Church itself, when its authority was employed to check their
progress. All this will appear in the conflict about to be detailed.

The city of Saragossa was the capital of Aragon, where the law
prohibited, by strict and explicit provisions, "the erection of a
chapel or monastery within a certain distance of an established parish
church or religious community." The Jesuits found a place they desired
to occupy, but were forbidden to do so by this law, which all others
had obeyed, and which the public desired to maintain for satisfactory
reasons. The law, however, did not restrain them in the least; and in
utter disregard of it, and in open defiance of the public authorities,
they asserted the right to take possession of and erect a building upon
it for their own uses. They proposed to encroach upon the rights of
the Augustinians, when the Franciscans--both being ancient religious
orders of monks--united with the former in resisting this threatened
violation of public law, which had been, up to that time, universally
acquiesced in by both these orders, and by the public as a prudential
measure of public policy. But the Jesuits did not consider any law as
of the least consequence when it placed obstructions in their path,
and, consequently, persisted in their purpose despite the protests of
the Augustinians and the Franciscans, all of whom were esteemed by
the citizens of Saragossa for their sanctity. The controversy soon
assumed such importance that the vicar-general of the Church issued a
formal order, in the name and by the authority of the Church, whereby
he prohibited the Jesuits from erecting their new building within the
forbidden limits. Any other body of men, professing the least respect
for the Church and its official representatives, would at least have
hesitated after this. But the Jesuits paid no more respect to the
ecclesiastical dignity and authority of the vicar-general than they had
proposed to show to the existing public law, or to the two protesting
monastic orders. The consequence was, that the vicar-general was
constrained, in vindication of his authority as the representative of
the Church, to denounce the Jesuits as heretics for their flagrant
disobedience, and to threaten them with excommunication if they did not
desist. He declared them accursed, and hurled the thunders of anathema
against them. But the Jesuits, realizing how much strength lay in
Loyola's single arm, remained unterrified. These thunders, which had
caused even monarchs to quake, were powerless against his commands,
which were communicated to his followers by the superior who watched
over the interests of the society at Saragossa. The latter ordered
the ceremony of consecrating the forbidden ground to proceed, in the
face of both the law and the commands of the vicar-general; and the
infatuated and disloyal Jesuits obeyed him. This was a new experience
to the citizens of the capital of Aragon, who had witnessed nothing
like it before, and they became incensed and thoroughly aroused.
They took the side of the Augustinians and the Franciscans, and the
"priests and religious" who defended them, and proceeded to display
their indignation in such public and emphatic manner that it could not
be mistaken. The historic statement is that "effigies of the Jesuits
being precipitated into hell by legions of devils, were exhibited in
the streets, and it was even inculcated among the people that the town
was profaned by the presence of the Jesuits, who, it was declared,
had brought heresy into it, and that the whole of Saragossa was under
excommunication, and would so remain until they left it." This account
is substantially given by all who have undertaken to write the history
of the Jesuits, but it is taken from Daurignac, one of their ablest
defenders, whose language is here quoted. He further explains the
estimate in which the Jesuits were held by the people of Saragossa,
while obedient to the faith of the Roman Church, in these words: "At
length the populace, whose feelings had been thus worked upon, became
more violent; and, proceeding to the house of the Jesuits, they threw
stones, breaking the panes of glass, and threatening the inmates
with their vengeance, while a procession, similar to the one already
described, paraded around the ill-fated house, uttering cries of
disapprobation, reproach, and condemnation."[39]

In a matter which involved, as this did, the mere enforcement of a
public law universally approved, the duty of the Jesuits was plain
and simple, not admitting of any equivocation. Like all others who
enjoyed the protection of law, they were bound to obey the public
authorities, to which was superadded their obligation to obey also
the vicar-general as the official organ of the Church. But the reader
should not be so far misled as to suppose that they were influenced
by any such idea, or that they were in the least discouraged by the
severe ecclesiastical and popular rebuke they received at Saragossa.
No man understood better than Loyola what complete control can be
obtained over the sentiments, opinions, and conduct of individuals by
educational training; and he had taken the precaution so to discipline
the novices of his society, from the moment of their initiation, as
to make their blind and passive obedience the effectual method of
consolidating his influence and authority over them. It is perfectly
apparent, from the occurrences at Saragossa, that one of the first
lessons they had learned was that form of obedience which required
them to disregard and defy any law whatsoever, when commanded by their
superiors to do so, without inquiring or caring what consequences might
follow, either to the public or to individuals. Consequently, when
compelled by the combined influence of the public authorities, those of
the Church, and the indignant population of Saragossa, to abandon the
erection of their new building upon the forbidden ground, they treated
it as mere suspension, and not abandonment, still intending, by some
means or other, to overcome this array of adversaries and defeat the
execution of the law. With this view they ceased operations, seemingly
yielding to the existing necessity. At this point in their history,
however, they learned their first lesson in duplicity and deceit--and
the sequel proves how well they learned it--by showing that, although
apparently discomfited, they did not consider themselves as defeated.
Loyola himself was not familiar with defeat, when success depended
in any measure upon strategic intrigues with imperial rulers, all of
whom fully understood that his society represented the most absolute
monarchism then existing in Europe, and on that account, if no other,
required them to extend to it every possible degree of protection,
especially where, as at Saragossa, the people had taken active steps
to require the enforcement of law. He had also prepared for escaping
defeat in any matter concerning the Jesuits by fixing in their minds
the conviction, as a religious sentiment, that there was no degree
of courage so high and commendable as that exhibited by them when
their obedience was carried to the extent of resisting whatsoever and
whosoever stood in their way when commanded to do so for the interests
of the society, which he required them to believe was for "the greater
glory of God!" He had taught them to consider this as courage, but
it was a misuse of terms so to call it; for, in its rightful sense,
courage invokes the best and most ennobling faculties of the mind.
Instead of this, the sentiment he inculcated proceeded from that
indifference to public opinion and insensibility to shame which, as
Bartoli concedes, is a necessary feature of Jesuit education. It is
rather to be compared to the animal instinct of the tiger, which,
after his coveted victim has once escaped, prompts him to approach it
thereafter by stealthy steps, crouching in concealment until the time
shall come when the final plunge may be successfully made.

The superior of the Jesuits at Saragossa was too well instructed in the
policy dictated by Loyola not to understand wherein the main and real
strength of the society consisted. Having, undoubtedly, full knowledge
of the designs of Loyola, and molded to all his purposes, as the human
form is chiseled from the lifeless block of marble, he proceeded at
once to invoke the aid of the monarchical power of the Government
of Spain, in order to bring the vicar-general of the Church, the
Augustinian and the Franciscan monks, together with the priests and
religious who adhered to them, and the people and local authorities of
Saragossa, into absolute humiliation at his feet. For the first time,
therefore, there was then opened to the Jesuits a new and broad field,
wherein they were incited to display their wonderful capacity for
intrigue. They were to be practically taught with what facility they
could obtain the intervention of monarchical power to trample upon the
rights of the ancient religious and monastic orders, violate the public
laws, defy the ecclesiastical representatives of the Church, and make
the people realize how powerless they were to influence the policy of
the society, to modify its principles, or to impede its progress to the
ultimate dominion it had started out to obtain.

Charles V was then emperor; but, as he was absent from Spain, his
daughter, the Princess Jane, was the acting regent, with the full
possession of imperial power. The superior of the Jesuits at Saragossa
appealed to her by arguments which, although not preserved, may be
fairly presumed to have centered in the necessity for establishing
and preserving the society as the best and most certain method of
perpetuating the monarchical principle, so absolutely essential to
kings that, if it were destroyed, they could not exist; or, if they
did exist, it would be with greatly diminished powers, and subject, in
some degree, to the control of popular opinion. The regent was fully
informed of the determination of her imperial father to maintain this
principle at every hazard, and was aware of the fact that he was not
at all choice about the methods of doing so. She understood how well
fitted he was, by his vacillating course, for any emergency he might
encounter; and that she was not mistaken in his character, history
attests by the facts that, although a native of the Netherlands,
he persecuted his own countrymen for daring to assert freedom of
conscience for themselves; and at one time plotted with the king of
France against the pope, at another with the pope against the king of
France, and at still another succeeded in enticing the Protestants of
Germany into an offensive alliance against both. As the representative
of such a monarch--so unscrupulous about the means employed, either by
himself or by others, in his behalf--the regent became a willing and
easy convert to the appeal of the Jesuit superior. Holding both the law
and public opinion in contempt, and looking upon the people as having
no rights which kings were bound to recognize, she took the side of the
Jesuits at Saragossa, and at once inaugurated the measures necessary
to secure their triumph over all their adversaries. The pope's nuncio
in Spain was easily brought to the same side, because it was the royal
side; and, thus supported, the Jesuits soon reached the end they had
sought after so anxiously by their triumphal re-entry into Saragossa,
and the compulsory submission of the vicar-general, the Augustinians,
the Franciscans, the priests, and the people! No combination which
all these could then form could any longer resist the power and
insolence of the Jesuits, when backed by the enormous monarchical
power which Charles V had placed in the regent's hands. Daurignac, the
Jesuit historian, tells all this in praise of his society, boastingly
informing his readers how the vicar-general was "compelled to remove
the ban of excommunication," and how the Jesuits were thereby enabled
peacefully "to take possession of their house," and occupy it without
further resistance. Of course, their adversaries were all subdued,
not because of any change of opinion with regard to the Jesuits, but
because they feared to disobey the regent, who held in her hands the
power of the merciless Charles V. And the Jesuits, with the vanity
inspired by success, marched the streets of Saragossa, through the
subdued and humiliated crowd, in such conspicuous exultation as told
emphatically with what indifference and contempt they looked upon human
institutions and laws, or the rights of the monastic orders, or the
sanction of local ecclesiastical authority, or municipal regulations,
or the interests and sentiments of the people, or all these combined,
when they undertook to place a check upon their ambition, or subject
them to any other obedience than that they had vowed to their
superior.[40]

These details, under ordinary circumstances, might seem tedious to the
general reader, but they are justified by their necessity in showing
how the Jesuits obtained their first signal triumph. There has been a
long list of similar triumphs since then to which this contributed.
The events themselves, in so far as they involve merely the occupation
and use of a piece of ground, are comparatively insignificant; but
they serve, far better than many of greater magnitude, to display
the prominent and most dangerous characteristics of the Jesuits.
They show their absolute disregard of all rights and interests in
conflict with their own, and how thoroughly Loyola succeeded in making
this the governing and cardinal principle of the society; and their
significance is increased by the fact that the affair at Saragossa
inaugurated a policy which the Jesuits have steadily pursued throughout
their history, varying their methods according to the character of
the objects they have endeavored to attain. In this sense, they are
introductory to a proper estimate of them.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 36: Rome and the Newest Fashions in Religion. By Gladstone.
Pages 94 to 102. It is here stated that the "Jesuit General Linez
[Laynez], strongly advocated papal infallibility in the Council of
Trent, ... but the Council left the question undecided."]

[Footnote 37: History of the Jesuits. By Steinmetz. Vol. I, p. 378.]

[Footnote 38: History of the Jesuits. By Steinmetz. Vol. I, pp.
380-381.]

[Footnote 39: History of the Society of Jesus. By Daurignac. Vol. I,
pp. 82-83.]

[Footnote 40: Daurignac, Vol. I, pp. 84, 85.]




CHAPTER V.

STRUGGLES AND OPPOSITION.


The assistance rendered to the Jesuits at Saragossa by the regent, in
the name of the Emperor Charles V, very greatly encouraged them. It
gave them assurance of royal sympathy with the monarchical principles
of their constitution, and taught them how to invoke that sympathy
successfully in future controversies with their adversaries, although
the latter might be ecclesiastics in the active service of the Church.

At Toledo, in Spain, they also encountered formidable opposition. On
account of divers abuses and "many superstitious practices" which
prevailed among them, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Toledo was constrained
to condemn and reprove them in a public ordinance, whereby he
prohibited the Christian people from confessing to them "under pain of
excommunication," and required "all curates to exclude them from the
administration of the sacraments." It should be understood from this,
of course, that they must have been guilty of some extraordinary and
flagrant conduct, or they would not have been so harshly dealt with by
so distinguished a functionary of the Church as a cardinal-archbishop,
to whom the management of the affairs of the Church at Toledo was
confided. No other supposition can be indulged, especially in view of
the fact that, besides this emphatic denunciation, he placed their
college at Alcala under interdict. It is impossible, therefore, to
escape the conclusion that their conduct had brought reproach upon
the society and inflicted injury upon the Church. But again, as at
Saragossa, the Jesuits were not discomfited by being placed under
the ban of ecclesiastical censure, and organized resistance against
the cardinal-archbishop, as they had done against the vicar-general
at Saragossa. Their first effort was to seek the intervention of the
pope--whom they supposed to be under the influence of Loyola--that of
his nuncio in Spain, and that of the Archbishop of Burgos. They hoped
in this way to overcome all opposition. But the effort was unavailing,
for the reason that the cardinal-archbishop was so thoroughly convinced
of their unworthiness that he could not be moved from his purpose,
and sternly persisted in condemning them. Thus failing to obtain the
desired assistance from the authorities of the Church, they invoked aid
from the temporal and monarchical power of the Government, as they had
done at Saragossa. They had become well assured, by their success with
the regent, that all who served Charles V were in constant readiness to
do whatsoever was necessary to protect their society, even against the
highest officials of the Church, because of its tendency to preserve
and perpetuate the principle of monarchism. They felt entirely secure
under royal and imperial protection, understanding perfectly well the
powers wielded by the monarchs of that period, especially that of
Charles V in Spain. Accordingly they succeeded in having proceedings
instituted against the cardinal-archbishop, who was summoned before the
royal court of Spain to show cause why he had placed any impediments
in the way of the Jesuits--why, in other words, he had dared to deny
their absolute dominion over the regularly-constituted ecclesiastical
tribunal at Toledo. Loyola understood how to influence the court of
Spain, and felt entirely convinced, doubtless, that, with Charles V
upon his side, he could easily bring all his enemies at his feet; and,
in this instance, he was not disappointed. The royal court decided in
favor of the Jesuits, and the cardinal-archbishop was condemned and
silenced. In order to escape the prison of the Inquisition, he yielded
obedience at last, and the Jesuits achieved another triumph over a
distinguished ecclesiastic of the Church.[41]

The patronage of the king of Portugal enabled them to enter Portugal
without difficulty. This so excited their anticipations of a brilliant
and successful future, that they devoted themselves to the acquisition
of riches, and fell into such vices as, in that day, almost invariably
accompanied success among both clergy and laity. Nicolini says that,
after having obtained "immense wealth" in Portugal, they "relaxed
in the strictness of their conduct, pursued a life of pleasure and
debauchery," until the king "began to frown upon them," and the people
to withdraw their respect. They had a college at Coimbra which,
according to him, bore very little resemblance to a cloister. Being no
longer able, as in Spain, to appeal with confidence to the royal power
for protection--as the confidence of the king of Portugal in their
Christian integrity had become shaken--Loyola, yet alive, was forced
to remove the provincial and rector of the college, out of seeming
deference to public opinion. The new rector, by running and screaming
through the streets like a madman, and flagellating his naked shoulders
until they were covered with blood and dust, so succeeded in arousing
the fears and superstition of the Jesuits that they were induced to
introduce such reforms in the college as enabled them, in some degree,
but not entirely, to regain their influence.[42]

It is not a little puzzling to those who have not investigated the
history and character of the Jesuits, to understand how the immense
wealth they acquired in Portugal and elsewhere was obtained, when
each member was required to take a vow of "extreme poverty." There
is, however, nothing easier for a Jesuit than to satisfy his own mind
upon this subject, by aid of the casuistical method of reasoning
which enables him to escape this, or any other difficulty. Bartoli,
the biographer of Loyola, explains it in a few words. "The vow of
poverty," says he, "does not deprive the person who is under trial of
the ownership of the property which he previously possessed, nor of
the possibility of acquiring more, until he has obtained a fixed and
determined position, although he is indeed deprived of the use of his
property, and can not, any more than a professed religious, dispose
of a single farthing without the consent of his superior."[43] And he
repeats the same idea at another place, by saying, "The vow of poverty
does not preclude the possession of property."[44] Uninitiated minds
may be embarrassed by this, but it is plain and simple to a Jesuit.
He understands that his vow of "extreme poverty" does not require
him to part with the property he has, or prohibit him from obtaining
more if he can. There is but a single condition attached--that it
shall be at the disposal of the superior. And thus, by the help of
the casuists, this wonderful society, composed only of those who have
solemnly vowed their absolute disdain of wealth, has, at several
periods of its history, become the richest in the world, and would be
so again if allowed to have its own way. The vow of "extreme poverty"
means, therefore, in the minds of Jesuits, splendid palaces, marble
churches, magnificent universities, and, in fact, the absorption of as
much wealth as can be acquired through every variety of intrigue, by
a body of men who boast that they have plucked every human sympathy
from their hearts, and look upon all the tenderest relations of society
with contempt. No written language furnishes words to convey fully to
ordinary minds the Jesuit idea of "extreme poverty." One of the Jesuit
fathers, quoted by Bartoli, calls it "a rich poverty," as he also does
the bondage of the society "a free slavery."[45] By familiarizing
ourselves with this wonderfully dexterous use of words, we may soon
learn to understand what is meant by white darkness and the blackness
of sunlight.

In all the countries of Europe the first impressions with reference to
the Jesuits were extremely unfavorable to them, and the most decided
among those most conspicuous for devotion to the Church. There was
nothing in the life of Loyola to inspire confidence, either in him or
in his plan of operations. He was looked upon as an adventurer, who had
abandoned a military life only because his person was disfigured by
a wound, in order to acquire distinction in some other pursuit. Some
of the ecclesiastics--as in the case of Melchior the Dominican--were
disposed to rebuke his presumptuousness in assuming sanctity and
superiority; while others of them, like the vicar-general at Saragossa
and the Cardinal-Archbishop of Toledo, considered his teachings as
tending to encourage heresy, not only because of their novelty, but
because they blasphemously recognized him and all subsequent superiors
of the Jesuits as equal to God in both attributes and power. They could
not persuade themselves to believe that Christianity required them
to recognize Loyola as infallible, whilst the pope, by the existing
faith of the Church, remained fallible. Loyola was thus surrounded
with embarrassments which would have subdued the courage of almost
any other man. He, however, was rather strengthened than weakened
by opposition; for he belonged to that class of men who need the
excitement of conflict and the spur of necessity to develop their
commanding qualities. He had laid his plans well and skillfully, and,
with a perfect knowledge of the condition of society, had prepared to
derive power from the only sources recognized as possessing it; that
is, from the pope as head of the Church, and monarchs as the possessors
of absolute dominion. So long as he could avail himself of their united
support, he had little or no fear of the people, whom he could readily
resist and humiliate as he had done at Saragossa. He soon realized that
he could easily brush opposing ecclesiastics out of his way, so long
as he could retain monarchism as the leading and central principle of
his society; and hence he directed all his efforts to the suppression
of the Reformation, and to the continued union of Church and State, so
as to give additional strength to monarchism, upon which, as a reserved
force, he could fall back whensoever the interests of his society and
the exigencies of his affairs required it. Whilst the bulk of society
were unable to penetrate his secret purposes and motives, enough
transpired, even during the life of Loyola, to excite general suspicion
against his own and the integrity of his society, on which account it
was that he encountered such formidable opposition to the introduction
of his society into Spain, and its loss of influence and reputation
in Portugal, both of which States were eminently devoted to the Roman
Catholic religion. In obedience to the general rule, that "the same
causes produce the same results," the opposition to Loyola and his
society became more violent and protracted in France than in either
Spain or Portugal. The reason for this may be found in the peculiarity
of the Church organization existing there; but from whatsoever cause it
may have arisen, the long and tedious controversy which at last secured
the admission of the Jesuits into France, is not merely historically
instructive, but throws a flood of light upon Jesuit policy and
character.

The French Christians had for a long period refused to concede to the
pope the right to interfere with the temporal affairs of that kingdom.
This attitude was so persistently maintained by them that what they
considered their "liberties" came to be generally recognized as the
foundation of the French or Gallican Church, as distinguished from the
Papal Church at Rome. They regarded themselves under the jurisdiction
of the pope in spiritual matters--that is, in so far as religious faith
was concerned--but maintained that the domestic policy of France, in
the management of her own temporal and internal affairs, could not be
so mingled with Christian faith as to confer upon the pope any right
to dictate or interfere with that policy. Upon these points there
was entire unanimity among them before the time of Loyola, or if any
opposing sentiment existed it was too inconsiderable to influence the
public judgment.

When the attempt was first made to introduce the Jesuits into France
the knowledge of their operations elsewhere led to the belief--at all
events, the fear--that the society could not exist there without
conflicting with the Gallican liberties, and subjecting the French
Christians to foreign authority more odious than that of the pope, to
whom they had steadily refused the concession of any temporal power
over them. They were willing then, as they had always been, to look
to the pope for the regulation of all affairs of the Church that
concerned religious faith; but it was impossible for them to admit the
superior jurisdiction claimed by Loyola without conferring upon him
authority and distinction they had denied to the pope, and creating
a threatening antagonism to the liberties they had long enjoyed, and
which distinguished them from other Roman Catholic populations of
Europe. They could readily see that if the Jesuits, under the guidance
of an ambitious adventurer like Loyola, were permitted to establish
this jurisdiction, it would surely lead to interference by his society
with the temporal affairs and interests of the kingdom. Consequently
the Gallican Christians, backed by their highest ecclesiastical
authorities, sternly resisted the introduction of the Jesuits into
France. They could not have done otherwise without a tame and absolute
forfeiture of their boasted liberties. As neither Loyola nor his
followers had any respect whatsoever for this Christian sentiment,
notwithstanding it was maintained with extraordinary unanimity in
France, and persisted in the effort to plant the Jesuit society in
the midst of it with the view of its extermination, an exciting and
angry struggle ensued, in which the Jesuits displayed their habitual
disregard of public opinion, and whatsoever else stood in the way of
their success. Neither the interests of the French Church, nor the
sentiments and wishes of the French people, nor the possibility of
imperiling the cause of Christianity, nor any other consideration
beside that of their own triumph, weighed the weight of a feather with
them when in conflict with their secret plans and purposes.

The Jesuits sought the aid of the pope, and through him that of the
king of France, so that by the combined influence of the spiritual and
the temporal powers, they might bring to bear upon the French Church
and people such pressure as would render them powerless to resist
encroachment upon liberties long held in religious veneration. Their
manifest object was to center this union of Church and State upon what
they considered the only "legitimate authority," with the special view
of engrafting upon the faith of the Gallican Christians the principle
of "uninquiring obedience" to whatsoever policy should be dictated
by the interests of that combination, whether relating to spiritual
or temporal affairs. Realizing how readily the pope yielded to the
entreaties and influence of Loyola in approving his society, it was
doubtless supposed that he would as readily be persuaded to secure the
co-operation of the king, whose temporal power would thus be invoked
to bring the French Church and people to obey whatsoever the Jesuits
should dictate. The scheme was adroitly planned, and displayed, not
only the despotic policy of the Jesuits, but their unsurpassed capacity
for cunning and intrigue.

During the reign of Henry II, France had become, in a large degree,
relieved from the complications in which she had been involved in
the lifetime of Francis I, his father, growing out of the protracted
controversy in which the Emperor Charles V and the pope both bore
conspicuous parts. He was enabled therefore to turn his attention
to internal and domestic affairs, which placed him in a condition
favorable to the adoption of any methods of procedure that promised
to bring society into perfect obedience to monarchical dominion; or,
as he, along with Loyola and the Jesuits, regarded it, to "legitimate
authority." Loyola could not fail to realize that the occasion was most
opportune for him, and therefore availed himself of it with the utmost
promptitude, taking advantage of everything seemingly favorable to the
ends he desired to accomplish. The Reformation had progressed with
astonishing rapidity, and nothing aroused his ambition so much as the
hope of arresting its progress; for without the stimulating influence
of that object his occupation would have been threatened with a speedy
ending, and his society would have expired almost at its birth. This
would have caused him to sink down into an inconspicuous position,
condemned alike by ecclesiastics and people as a disturber of the
public peace.

In addition to what the Reformation had accomplished in Germany--where
its defenders had been inspirited by the presence, intrepidity, and
eloquence of Luther--its influences had become so extended in France as
to alarm all who saw in it the probable loss of power, and the end of
those oppressions by which they had so long and successfully maintained
their authority. Protestant churches were erected, not only in Paris,
but in all the principal cities and in every province of France.
Henry II saw all this with intense dissatisfaction, and was therefore
in a condition to look favorably upon suggestions from any quarter
that would give promise of forcing back the advancing tide of popular
enlightenment and Protestant progress. He inherited from his father
the most intense malignity toward what he called the "new religion,"
mainly on account, unquestionably, of its tendency to endanger the
absolutism of monarchy. And he also inherited a persecuting spirit,
which, by indulgence, had outgrown that of his father. All students of
French history are familiar with the chief events of his reign, which
caused Henry of Navarre--afterwards Henry IV--Anthony de Bourbon, Louis
de Condé, Admiral de Coligny, Francis d'Andelot, and other lords, to
unite with the reformers, and place themselves in the lead of the
Huguenots. With such accessions as these, the persecuted Protestants
of France became formidable in all parts of the country, and Henry II
found employment for all his royal resources in contriving methods for
their suppression, an object of which he seldom lost sight. Wheresoever
Protestantism appeared, the spirit of persecution rose up to extinguish
it. An eminent French historian says: "During the reign of Francis
I, within the space of twenty-three years, there had been eighty-one
executions for heresy. During that of Henry II, twelve years, there
were ninety-seven for the same cause; and at one of these executions
Henry II was present in person on the space in front of Notre Dame, a
spectacle which Francis I had always refused to see." He states also
that during the reign of Henry II, and the year before his death,
"fifteen capital sentences had been executed in Dauphiny, in Normandy,
in Poitou, and at Paris," and that, within that period, the penal
legislation against heretics had been greatly increased in severity.[46]

Francis II was distinguished for nothing so much as for his
uncompromising animosity to the Reformation, to all its legitimate
fruits, and to those who professed Protestantism. He was entirely under
the dominion of the Guises, who were the bloodiest and most unrelenting
persecutors in France. To signalize his submission to them, he issued
a royal proclamation, which they dictated, for razing to the ground
and demolishing the houses in which the Protestants met for religious
worship. Protestant assemblages were declared unlawful, and those
who attended them were punishable with death, as were also those who
sheltered and protected them. In about five months of this merciless
reign, "eighteen persons were burned alive for heresy"--that is, for
having professed the Protestant religion.[47]

In this condition France opened a broad and attractive field of
operations for the Jesuits. Keeping steadily in view the principal
and primary purpose of their organization--the suppression of the
Reformation--they must have thirsted for an opportunity to bring their
peculiar tactics into practice, not only for the accomplishment of
this cherished object, but to reduce the Gallican Christians into such
obedience to the papacy as would subject the temporal affairs of France
to the dominion of Rome, when they expected to become, through the
influence of Loyola over the pope, the chief agents in executing the
papal mandates. The Cardinal of Lorraine--one of the Guises--was in
full sympathy with them; and as he had been instrumental in dictating
the persecuting policy of Henry II and Francis I, he must have
rejoiced at the opportunity of obtaining Jesuit assistance in a work
so congenial to himself and them. He was "inordinately vain; intensely
selfish; an adept in the art of dissimulation, which he used without
scruple,"--and these qualities must have commended him to the Jesuits,
as they, on account of possessing the same, were doubtless commended
to him. That he was ambitious and a special favorite of the pope is
indicated by the multiplicity of offices he filled at the same time.
Besides being cardinal, he held two archbishoprics, six bishoprics, and
was abbot for each of four monasteries.[48]

Such a man as the Cardinal of Lorraine could, of course, render most
essential aid to the Jesuits, as the Jesuits could to him. He and
Loyola were "_par nobile fratrum_," each possessing such qualities
as fitted him to become a proficient auxiliary of the other in the
pursuit of a common object. After he had succeeded in combining
against the French Protestants all who were under royal influence, he
hastened to Rome, where, under the immediate auspices of the pope,
he desired to arrange with Loyola personally for the introduction
of the Jesuits into France. To facilitate the measure, he proposed
the establishment of the Inquisition in France, with the purpose of
disposing of heretics according to the method employed against the
Albigenses by Innocent III, and which had been, after many years of
disuse, successfully revived in Italy, Spain, and Portugal, under papal
patronage and protection. He was received with marked distinction
at Rome by both the pope and Loyola; and, having experienced no
difficulty in obtaining their approval of his proposed plan of
operations, he returned to France to carry it into execution by
exterminating Protestantism, destroying the liberties of the Gallican
Christians, and re-establishing the unity of religious faith by
inquisitorial compulsion. He found the king still in full sympathy
with him, and consequently had no difficulty in procuring from him
royal letters-patent, by which he gave his consent to the Jesuits to
enter France as an organized religious society, to build a house and
college in Paris, and to "live therein according to their rules and
statutes."[49]

These facts--narrated with all possible brevity--show the extraordinary
means of which Loyola availed himself, in his lifetime, to force his
society into France in opposition to the Gallican Church, the almost
entire body of the Gallican Christians, and the people. Relying upon
the aid of the pope, the king, the Cardinal of Lorraine, and such
courtiers as crowded about the royal palace and echoed the royal will,
he expected to overcome all opposition, and, by employing the terrible
machinery of the Inquisition, to make himself master of France, or
prepare the way for his successors to do so. And thus the founder
and builder of the Jesuit society himself stamped upon it one of its
leading and most distinguishing characteristics--the utter disregard of
everything that does not contribute to its own ends and objects.

But the enemies of the Jesuits in France were not so easily reduced
to submission as the Cardinal of Lorraine, the pope, and Loyola had
supposed. The powerful combination they had formed, with the assistance
of the king and his courtiers, was not sufficient to remove or
counteract the deep-seated antipathy existing in France against the
Jesuits. The orders of the king were not mandatory without the approval
of Parliament, which was the highest public representative body in
France. When the letters-patent of the king, admitting the Jesuits,
came before Parliament, they were rejected with great unanimity,
for the avowed reason that their introduction into France would be
prejudicial to the public welfare and the Gallican Christians.[50] The
bulk of the French clergy, and the entire faculty of the University
of Paris, also took strong and decided grounds against the Jesuits.
The king, offended by this opposition to his royal will, and assuming
an air of monarchical supremacy, commanded Parliament to register his
letters-patent. But Parliament again refused, and appealed for advice
to the Archbishop of Paris--the chief ecclesiastical functionary of the
Church. The archbishop also decided against the Jesuits. The Faculty
of Theology in the university unanimously charged them, among other
things, with arrogant presumption in assuming "the unusual title of
the name of Jesus," and with admitting into their society "all sorts
of persons, however criminal, lawless, and infamous they may be." They
further declared the society to be "dangerous as to matters of faith,
capable of disturbing the peace of the Church, overturning the monastic
orders, and were more adapted to break down than to build up." This
severe indictment is made more important and conspicuous by the fact
that it was not preferred by Protestants, but by Roman Catholics, who
had for many centuries faithfully adhered to such teachings of the
Church as had universally prevailed, before the popes, in imitation
of temporal monarchs, had built up the papal system. In addition to
all this, the Archbishop of Paris issued an interdict against them,
forbidding their exercise of any of the sacred functions.[51] The
Bishop of Paris followed with other interdictions, and the entire
clergy denounced the Jesuits in the pulpits. Placards in censure of
them were hawked about the streets. At last the public indignation
against them became so intense and violent that they were driven out of
Paris, and compelled to seek shelter elsewhere. They did this, however,
as they had done when forced by the popular tumult to leave Saragossa;
that is, with the seeming appearance of submission, but with the real
purpose of renewing their efforts when some occasion attended by more
favorable circumstances should arise--when the royal authority could
be more successfully employed to defy the Gallican Church and the
popular sentiment. This was at that time, has been ever since, and is
to-day, an essential part of Jesuit tactics, in the pursuit of which
they are persistent and tireless. And where they have had the united
aid of popes and monarchs, of Church and State, they have generally
succeeded among populations not awakened by Protestant influences to a
just appreciation of their own rights and dignity. In the case we have
been considering they did not have very long to wait before the king,
the Cardinal of Lorraine, and their allies, patronized by the pope,
secured for them a conspicuous triumph over public opinion in France.
The combination formed for that purpose needed their assistance in the
bloody and congenial work of persecution, and this furnished a pretext
for their introduction into France, notwithstanding the odium in which
they were almost universally held. Nicolini says: "Soon they were
called into France to help and cheer that atrocious and cruel hecatomb,
that bloody debauch of priests and kings--the Saint Bartholomew."[52]

Thus far a clear and distinct view is furnished of the estimate in
which the Jesuits were held during the lifetime of their founder by
those who were steadfastly obedient to the Christian teachings of the
Roman Church. None of the opposition here noted came from Protestants,
but alone from those attached to the Church which the Jesuits professed
to be serving. It originated with those who had a most favorable
opportunity of becoming familiar with the general character and
purposes of Loyola, many of whom, in all probability, had opportunities
of seeing and conversing with him, as Melchior, the Dominican monk, had
done. His boasts of extraordinary sanctity, of his frequent interviews
with Christ and the Virgin Mary, and his impious pretense that he
occupied the place of God in the world, and, like him, possessed
miraculous powers, misled very few besides those who became his
minions, or those who expected to profit by alliance with him. We shall
see all this still more fully in the subsequent events which attended
the final introduction of the society into France, all of which combine
to show the methods by which, in the course of time, it became odious
to the Christian populations of Europe, was expelled ignominiously
from all the Christian nations, and was, at last, when its iniquities
could be patiently borne no longer, suppressed and abolished by a pope
distinguished for his Christian virtue and purity of life.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 41: History of the Jesuits. By Nicolini. Page 80. History of
the Jesuits. By Steinmetz. Vol. I, pp. 382-83.]

[Footnote 42: Nicolini, pp. 82-83.]

[Footnote 43: History of St. Ignatius Loyola. By Bartoli. Vol. II, p.
57.]

[Footnote 44: _Ibid._, p. 58.]

[Footnote 45: _Ibid._, p. 234.]

[Footnote 46: Outlines of the History of France. Abridged from Guizot,
by Gustave Masson. Pages 283-285.]

[Footnote 47: _Ibid._, p. 287.]

[Footnote 48: Church of France. By Jervis. Vol. I, p. 129. History of
the Jesuits. By Steinmetz. Vol. I, p. 390, and note 1.]

[Footnote 49: Steinmetz, Vol. I, pp. 391-92.]

[Footnote 50: _Ibid._, p. 392.]

[Footnote 51: Steinmetz, Vol. I, p. 395; Nicolini, p. 86; _Apud_
Cretineau, Vol. I, p. 320; Coudrette, Vol. I, p. 42.]

[Footnote 52: Nicolini, p. 88.]




CHAPTER VI.

THE STRUGGLE FOR FRANCE.


The facts stated in the last chapter prove incontestably that the
persistent efforts of the Jesuits to procure the establishment of
their society in France as a recognized religious order were insidious
and stealthy, if not incendiary, from the beginning. The Bishop of
Clermont--influenced, probably, by the Cardinal of Lorraine--was
favorable to them; and being the owner of a house in Paris, he offered
it to them, that they might inaugurate the Jesuit method of education.
But neither the French Parliament, nor the universities, nor the
Gallican Church could be prevailed upon to withdraw their opposition.
Consequently, in order to accomplish by indirection what was forbidden
by law and the public sentiment, the Jesuits opened a college at
Clermont, within the diocese and under the patronage of the bishop, and
beyond the limits of the city of Paris.[53]

By the time of the death of Henry II the growth of Protestantism
in France had become conspicuously marked. The Jesuit historian,
Daurignac, represents this as a "calamity"--as a "deplorable state of
things"--which it became necessary to counteract by the most active
and efficient means. But as nothing could shake the stability of the
people of Paris, it was deemed necessary to reach the population
of that city by gradual approaches, after the manner of military
commanders. Accordingly the Bishop of Pamiers was induced to solicit
the assistance of the Jesuits in his diocese, and had no difficulty
in finding enough of them to engage in that mission, for they were
held in constant readiness to obey the orders of their superior. These
Jesuit missionaries are represented as having caused many who had
professed Protestantism to renounce their "heretical errors," and as
having commenced their educational plan of operations by establishing
a college at Pamiers. Whatsoever else they did, they obeyed implicitly
the teachings of their society, for it is boastingly said that they
caused the Protestants to be treated as possessing no rights of
citizenship worthy of regard; for "their books were destroyed and
their preachers compelled to flee."[54] But the Jesuits were still
unable, by these violent means, to obtain entrance into Paris, the
combined opposition of the Gallican Christians and the Protestants--who
had, by this time, become sufficiently numerous to take part in the
controversy--being sufficiently formidable to keep them out.

While there is no evidence of a direct and positive alliance between
the Gallican Christians and the Protestants, yet it is apparent that
their united opposition to the Jesuits had created between them such
common sentiments as materially softened the asperities which had
previously separated them. This is seen in the fact that large and
influential numbers of the former--notably many in Parliament and
attached to the universities--became disposed to grant to the latter
"entire freedom in the propagation of their doctrines and control of
their clergy."[55] Even the king, bigot as he was, was constrained,
in consequence of their rapidly increasing influence, to grant some
concessions to the Protestants which it would have been far more
agreeable to him to have withheld. They had rendered such essential
service to the State as soldiers in the army of Francis I--who
rewarded their patriotism by persecution--and had shown such marked
courage in battle, that he was obliged, manifestly against his will,
to recognize them as a power neither to be despised nor trifled with,
unless a force could be employed to crush them out entirely. This was
especially the case after the Prince of Condé became the acknowledged
leader of the Huguenots. Fear, therefore, far more than the spirit
of toleration, influenced the king in conceding to the Protestants
the rights of citizenship, which he so grudgingly granted that his
concession was almost a denial. That which was considered the most
valuable was the allowance to the Protestants of the right to assemble
in open conference at Poissy, and to consider and discuss such matters
as pertained to their own interests and religious opinions. The
sincerity and honesty of their religious convictions inspired them with
the belief that if they could ever be submitted to the arbitrament
of reason, they would, if not fully justified, be found entitled to
legal protection in the open profession of them. On this account they
considered the conference at Poissy as a favorable omen, and hailed its
assembling with satisfaction. Their flattering anticipations, however,
were not realized. It was not intended that reason and argument should
avail anything in the presence of the only "legitimate authority"--that
of Church and State; and the Jesuits were standing ready and filled
with the most anxious solicitude to demonstrate that the highest duty
of life consisted of "uninquiring obedience"--the closing of every
avenue through which the light could reach the minds and consciences
of the multitude. Evidences of this are found in what transpired at
Poissy, where, for the first time in the history of France, the general
of the Jesuits was allowed to appear in a public assemblage as the
representative of the order, and to suppress any inquiry whatsoever
into the matters which the conference was especially appointed
to consider, except by ecclesiastics. From that time forward the
Protestants were reminded at every step they took that the sleepless
eyes of the Jesuits were constantly upon them, ready to drive them to
their hiding-places, turn them over to the Inquisition, or hunt them,
with tireless vigilance, to the point of entire extermination.

Referring to the conference at Poissy, and the liberality indicated
toward the Protestants by the king when he consented that they should
attend it, Daurignac instructs his readers that the pope "beheld with
pain and regret" this tendency toward liberalism and free religious
thought; and that, in order to check the progress of events in that
direction, he commanded Laynez--the immediate successor of Loyola
as general of the Jesuits--to attend the conference at Poissy, with
the view of preventing any adjustment of the existing religious
differences, and deferring the final determination of them until
they could be decided by the Council of Trent. Nobody can doubt that
the object of the pope was to bring matters into such a condition as
should require universal obedience to the decrees of that Council, by
persuasion if possible, but by coercion if necessary. With the same
end in view, the court of France continued its efforts to establish
the Jesuits in Paris, well understanding what efficient aid they would
willingly render in the work of suppressing every tendency toward
liberalism and freedom of religious belief. The hostility of the
Parliament toward the Jesuits, however, was so decided and violent
that it still refused to yield obedience to the royal command; and
affairs remained in this condition until the death of Henry II led to
the introduction of other influences. It was then deemed necessary
to invoke the aid of Catharine de Medicis, mother of the new king,
Francis II, "to show a bold front against the incursions of heresy by
at once _compelling_ the Parliament to acknowledge and receive the
Jesuits."[56] It was not difficult to enlist the aid of Catharine,
who was always ready to promise anything either to mislead or destroy
the Protestants, greatly preferring the latter. By her influence
and authority royal orders were issued commanding the Parliament to
ratify and register the letters-patent to the Jesuits which had been
prepared by Henry II before his death. It should not be overlooked
that this was an effort to _force_ the Jesuits into Paris against the
repeated remonstrances of Parliament, the universities, the leading
ecclesiastical authorities of the Gallican Church, the whole body of
the Gallican and Protestant Christians; and, in fact, against the
existing laws and the public sentiment of the people. A fact like this
not only tends to show, but is convincing proof, that the Jesuits were
ready to defy all these influences, and to disregard every existing law
or custom that imposed the least restraint upon them, their controlling
object being not only to aid the king and the pope in destroying the
"liberties" of the Gallican Church and Christians, and thus subjecting
France to the temporal domination of the papacy, but to destroy forever
the free religious thought which Protestantism had introduced. "But,"
says the Jesuit Daurignac, evidently with regret, "the Parliament was
as intractable as ever," still refusing to obey the mandate of the
king, or to allow the Jesuits to enter Paris. If all this opposition
to the wishes of the Parisian people had been the result of impulse,
arising suddenly out of rapidly passing events, it might be passed
over as a sudden outbreak and forgotten. But it was the result of a
fixed, settled, and determinate papal policy, which had already had
several centuries of growth, and which it was deliberately resolved to
persist in until the heresy of Protestantism should be exterminated,
and free religious thought made impossible. Such a contest as that was
most congenial to the Jesuits, because they saw, in the achievement of
these results, the fulfillment of the highest objects of their society.
With a stake like that in view, backed by the king and the pope, they
persisted in their course with untiring vigilance, considering the
most serious difficulties they encountered as mere trifles compared
with the end they hoped to reach. That they might be assured of the
royal sympathy, the king, Francis II, was easily induced by Catharine
de Medicis to issue "new letters-patent, with _orders_ for their
immediate enrollment by Parliament, notwithstanding the remonstrances
of the assembly and of the Bishop of Paris."[57] But Parliament, still
unyielding, submitted them to the four Faculties of the university,
"thus indicating," says Daurignac, "a disposition 'not to submit
even to the authority of royalty,'" a most grievous offense, which,
in those days, was considered a flagrant sin. The conclusion of the
four Faculties was that the Jesuits were "inadmissible," based upon
satisfactory reasons which were fully assigned. This obstinacy was
unpardonable, and, inasmuch as it could not be overcome by direct
means, the Jesuits, at last, were driven to the necessity of resorting
to indirection, manifestly intending, if thereby successful, to regain
whatsoever ground they might be compelled to lose. Accordingly they
changed their tactics, and in order to remove the existing obstacles,
declared, in a petition to the king, that if admitted into Paris
they would conform to the laws of the country, and "to the Church of
France," a purpose they had never avowed before, and which subsequent
events proved they did not then intend to fulfill. But the Parliament
was not entrapped by this Jesuitical device, and, in response, proposed
to the king that they would withdraw their objection to the Jesuits
upon the condition that they should cease "to apply to the society the
name of Jesus; and that, moreover, they should not be considered as a
religious order in the diocese of Paris, but be designated simply as
members of a society,"[58] with civil rights exclusively. This probably
was a mere subterfuge, inasmuch as the Jesuits could not have consented
to the proposition without self-destruction. It shows, however, how
intense was the opposition to the society.

The whole Christian population of Paris, including both the Gallicans
and Protestants, were thrown into a condition of intense excitement
when Charles IX ascended the throne as the successor of Francis II.
The Protestants were in fear of total extermination; and the Gallican
Christians were convinced that the main object of the Jesuits, the
pope, and the monarchical rulers of the country, was to change the
destiny of France by bringing the country into humiliating obedience
to Rome, both in religious and temporal affairs, without any regard
whatsoever to their system of Church government, or to the integrity
of their ancient Christian faith. Charles IX was a mere child, only
nine years of age, and was, consequently, the mere creature of his
mother, Catharine de Medicis, whose familiarity with court intrigues
enabled her, as guardian of the king, to grasp all the powers of
queen regent, without reference to the sentiments or will of the
French people. She relied solely upon the possession of the powers
and prerogatives of royalty to maintain her authority; and, being an
Italian, her character resembled as nearly that of the prince portrayed
by Machiavelli, her countryman, as that of any other ruler who ever
governed. She was always profuse in her promises when she considered
them necessary to gain her objects; but never regarded herself bound
by them beyond her own pleasure. She violated them at will, whensoever
her royal or personal interests required it. In her dealings with the
French Huguenots she practiced treachery and perfidy to an extent which
would have brought a blush to the cheek of a Turkish sultan. She was,
therefore, a fit instrument in the hands of the papal authorities and
the Jesuits to bring France and the French Christians in subjugation
to Rome--an object which, as an Italian and foreigner, was especially
attractive to her. She caused the king to yield, or readily yielded
herself, as the king had no will of his own, to the entreaties of the
Jesuits by again requiring of Parliament that it should consent to
their establishment in Paris without further delay. But the Jesuits
were still so obnoxious that Parliament continued to hesitate, and
demanded an explanation of the reasons for a step of such doubtful
propriety, and so in conflict with public opinion. In explanation,
one of the leading Jesuits, with "much eloquence," it is said by
Daurignac, "clearly and energetically exposed the plans and projects of
the Calvinists," or Protestants, and "the machinations and collusions
existing between them and the university for the purpose of obtaining
their ends;" that is, their united efforts to establish in France the
freedom of religious belief--a form of heresy which the disciples of
Loyola had solemnly sworn to eradicate. This open avowal of the only
motive which influenced the Jesuits surrounded the controversy with so
much delicacy and importance, that it was referred by the Parliament
to the States General, as the representative of the whole nation, or
to the next National Council of the Church. Thus we find constantly
accumulating the most conclusive evidence to show the persistence of
the Jesuits, and how steadily and earnestly they were resisted by the
best and most enlightened part of the French people.

The Jesuits were unquestionably much discomfited and chagrined at this
continued resistance, and were constrained to seek assistance from
every available quarter. The nobility of Auvergne were consequently
persuaded to interpose in their behalf by soliciting the admission
of the society into all the towns of that province, evidently
supposing if that were done that the Jesuits would soon diffuse
themselves throughout the whole country. That the entire destruction
of Protestantism was the only and ultimate end they contemplated is
sufficiently proven by the fact that in their petition to the king,
wherein they asked for the introduction of the Jesuits, they said:
"Unless the king wishes the whole of Auvergne to fall into heresy,
it is necessary that the Society of Jesus should be admitted into
France."[59]

These proceedings were soon followed by the National Council of the
French Church at Poissy, to which, as we have seen, the Protestants
had looked forward with so much anxiety, anticipating it as an
occasion when they would be permitted to make known the reasons of
their religious belief. It was attended by the queen regent, the king,
and the entire royal court, representing monarchical power; by five
cardinals, forty archbishops and bishops, and numerous doctors, in
behalf of the Church; by several Calvinist ministers, representing that
form of faith; and by Henry, King of Navarre, and the Prince of Condé,
representing the Huguenots and the general Protestant sentiment in
favor of religious liberty. Such a body, under ordinary circumstances,
might have enabled the Protestants to realize their hopes, at least
to the extent of convincing the authorities of the Government that
they were loyal to it, and obedient to all its commands, except in
the single particular of desiring to be left free to follow their own
consciences in the worship of God. But Laynez, the Jesuit general, was
also there, to demand conformity to the requirements of the papacy
and of his society, that no discussion should be tolerated, and that
"uninquiring obedience" to authority should be exacted from all. To
him and to his society it was impossible to preserve the union of
Church and State without this; and if this were not done, its joint
monarchism would be endangered. Accordingly he took especial pains
to point out to the king and queen-mother "the indecency and danger"
of the free discussion of questions of religious faith, by those who
were disposed to defend Protestantism, in such an assembly. Daurignac
says that Laynez was "shocked and grieved by the fearful blasphemies
which had fallen from the lips of one Peter Martyr, an apostate monk,"
who had ventured to express his opinions freely. He considered it
improper for any but theologians--that is, those whose minds had been
already molded and fashioned to obedience--to be present upon such
occasions. This rebuke offended the queen-mother, who withdrew from
the Council. But this did not disconcert the Jesuit general, who was
not so easily turned from his purpose. He knew the character of her
majesty thoroughly, and said to the Prince of Condé, "She is a great
dissembler," believing, as he undoubtedly did, that whatsoever she
might then do or say, he would, in the end, bring her into obedience
to the Jesuit purposes. He soon had convincing proof of his power; for
the queen, the king, and the nobles never afterwards appeared in the
Council, and the Jesuit general had the matter in his own hands.[60]
Instead of bringing the conference to any practical results, favorable
in the least degree to freedom of conscience, Laynez succeeded in
causing it to contribute to measures having reference to the admission
of the Jesuits into all parts of France.[61] The Protestants were
dismayed, and the Jesuits were triumphant. Laynez then became the
leader of the orthodox party, and from that time commanded an influence
which Loyola himself did not acquire. We shall see hereafter how
far-reaching and controlling this influence was.

After Laynez left the Council at Poissy, flushed with triumph, he
repaired at once to the General Council of Trent, which was then in
session, as a special legate of the pope--Pius IV--who had discovered
in him such qualities as he supposed might become available in helping
the sinking fortunes of the papacy. This was the first appearance of
a Jesuit general in such a body, or in other general ecclesiastical
assemblages, and consequently dates the beginning of a new era in the
history of the Roman Church. Christianity had prevailed for more than
fifteen hundred years without the aid of such a society as the Jesuits;
but as that wonderful organization had been conceived by the restless
brain of Loyola for the sole purpose of suppressing the Reformation
and all its enlightening influences, it was readily accepted by the
papal authorities as a valuable help, after the pope had given it
his indorsement. Hence, Laynez was received by the Council of Trent
with unusual manifestations of joy and enthusiasm. The prelates of
the Council had undoubtedly been notified of his success at Poissy in
obtaining the mastery over Catharine de Medicis, and, through her,
over the king and court of France, as well as over the Protestants.
Preference was shown him over all the representatives of the ancient
religious orders of the Church, and when the latter complained of this,
upon the ground that the Jesuit society was only of recent origin, the
Council decided against them on account of the important services which
the Jesuits, by means of their compact organization, would be able
to render the cause of the papacy. And to manifest this preference of
the Jesuits over the other orders, so that it could not be mistaken, a
pulpit was prepared for Laynez in a conspicuous place in the Council
chamber, so that whatsoever he said should be distinctly heard.[62]
The monastic orders were not satisfied with the inferior position thus
assigned to them, and murmured, but could not help it.

Such a reception as this by so distinguished a body of prelates as the
Council of Trent, was well calculated to incite the pride and ambition
of the Jesuits--especially of Laynez--and to create in their minds the
belief that if they continued to pursue the cautious but aggressive
policy of Loyola, they would bring the pope and all the ecclesiastical
authorities of the Church into obedience to them. Manifestly, the
society considered this the ultimate end contemplated by Loyola;
and Laynez was sufficiently skilled in the methods of government to
understand the necessity of obtaining from the Council of Trent the
recognition of the superiority of the Jesuits over the monastic orders.
He had not yet succeeded in accomplishing the admission of the society
into France, and this he evidently regarded as an important step in
that direction. Flattering as was his reception by the Council, it
was not all he desired. He considered an additional step necessary
to obtain from the Council a full approval of the reasons assigned
by Loyola to justify the establishment of his society. Accordingly,
after the Council had passed upon the questions of faith and dogma,
it proceeded to investigate "the causes of the evils which afflicted
the Church." This opened an exceedingly broad field of inquiry, and
resulted, doubtless as Laynez desired, in the conclusion stated by
Daurignac, "that these causes were, principally, the ignorance and
immorality of a great portion of the clergy and the monastic orders,"
and that "the best remedy for this great evil was to prepare Christian
generations by a good system of education;"[63] that is to say, that
any effort to reform the existing clergy and ancient orders would
be unavailing, but that the remedy lay in educating other and future
generations. It is easy to see that this conclusion was unavoidable
under the doctrine established by the same Council, and affirmed also
by the Jesuits, that the clergy who lead virtuous and those who lead
vicious lives, possess the same power and authority in the Church.

This was a great triumph for Laynez and his society, inasmuch as it
was a specific approval by the Council of Trent of the grounds upon
which Loyola had justified the creation of the Jesuit society; that
is, the incompetency of the Church to reform itself without extraneous
aid, apart from the existing clergy and the monastic orders, and the
necessity for an educational organization, like that of the Jesuits,
to be maintained by authority and discipline for that purpose.[64]
And thus equipped by so important an indorsement, the Jesuits at once
assumed to have been constituted, with Divine approval, the exclusive
educators of the world, and to be endowed with authority to enter
every nation at will, and so to train and discipline the "Christian
generations" as to bring them down to a common level of obedience to
the united authority of Church and State.

Without the indorsement obtained by the Jesuits from the Council of
Trent, they might have been kept out of Paris entirely, or, at all
events, their entry into that city would have been greatly delayed.
As it was, the antipathy against them remained so great and universal
among the Gallican Christians, that their admission at last was
obtained only upon the condition that they should take a solemn oath to
do nothing to impair the liberties of the Gallican Church; that they
would submit to the laws of the nation, which recognized the pope as
the head of the Church, but denied to him the power to excommunicate
the king; or to lay an interdict upon the kingdom; or to exercise any
jurisdiction over temporal matters; or to dismiss bishops from their
office; or to exercise any authority by a legate, unless empowered by
the king; and that they would, moreover, maintain those provisions of
law which assigned to a General Council of the Church power superior
to that of a pope--in other words, that papal infallibility was not a
part of Christian faith.[65] There is abundant reason for believing,
in view of both preceding and subsequent events, that when the Jesuits
took this oath, they had not the least idea of being bound by it. No
Jesuit's conscience was ever bound by such an oath.

The authority of Laynez, under the circumstances related, became
potential enough to enable him to influence the decisions of the
queen-mother and the court of France, and finding himself thus
sustained, it was not long before the Jesuit policy began to bear
its legitimate fruits. Of course, his most heavily charged batteries
were immediately opened upon the Protestants, to whose heresies he
traced all the existing evils of the times. An occasion for this soon
occurred. The Protestants petitioned for "places of worship;" that
is, merely to be allowed to worship at designated places according to
their consciences. Laynez fully understood the meaning of this, and the
ends it would ultimately accomplish if the Protestant petition were
allowed. His keen sagacity enabled him to know that if the differences
between Protestantism and the papacy became the subject of intellectual
discussion, upon a forum where human reason had the right to assert
itself, the triumph of the former over the latter would be assured.
Therefore, true to his own instincts and the teachings of his society,
he remonstrated with Catharine de Medicis against granting the prayer
of the Protestants, and in his memorial upon the subject "pointed out
to her so forcibly the danger to the Church and State that such a
concession would entail, that, appreciating his arguments, she refused
to sanction the erection of Protestant places of worship."[66]

These facts--related upon Jesuit authority, and boasted of by their
historians--furnish the most palpable and incontestable proof of the
conspiracy of Catharine de Medicis and the Jesuits, after the latter
obtained admission into France, to suppress the freedom of religious
worship, and so to mold the policy of Church and State as to render
its existence impossible. It was an odious and revolting conspiracy;
but the objects to be accomplished justified it in the eyes of the
queen, of Laynez, and of all his followers. It was the cardinal
point of the professed Jesuit policy--the most prominent feature of
their organization. No imagination is fertile enough to picture the
condition into which the civilized world would have been plunged if
this conspiracy, besides its temporary and bloody triumph in France,
had become sufficiently powerful to dictate the Governments of modern
States. The Gallican Christians had for centuries successfully resisted
all attempts of the papacy to interfere with the temporal affairs of
France; and whilst they disagreed with Protestants upon questions
of religious faith, the two forces were united in opposition to the
Jesuits, because of the direct hostility of the latter to both. Each
could see that the entrance of the society into France, under the
control and dominion of an alien power, would be the introduction
of a disturbing and hostile element, which would put an end to the
concord and harmony then rapidly springing up between the two Christian
bodies. This the Jesuits intended to prevent by whatsoever means they
could manage to employ; for, from the beginning of their existence,
they have opposed everything they could not subjugate. Therefore they
realized the importance of having the monarchical power upon their
side--especially when they saw it wielded by such a queen as Catharine
de Medicis--so that by conspiracy with it against the Gallican
Christians and the Protestants, they could destroy the liberties of
the former, and entirely suppress the spirit of free inquiry asserted
by the latter. Keeping these objects always before them, the Jesuits
considered them of sufficient magnitude to justify any form of
intrigue; and they were sufficiently familiar with the qualities of
the queen to know that she possessed such love of power and capacity
for conspiracy that they could successfully play upon her ambition and
prejudices to accomplish their purposes.

There is no intelligent reader of French history who is not familiar
with the steps taken by this perfidious queen regent, after the
admission of the Jesuits into Paris, to bring about the terrible
Massacre of St. Bartholomew--an event so closely allied with others,
of which they were the undoubted authors, that one must close his eyes
not to see the evidences which point to their agency in that infamous
transaction. They needed such bloody work to give them the mastery
over France; and although they have since then been more than once
expelled in disgrace from French soil, they have returned again and
again to torment her people, who still continue to realize, under their
Republic, how unceasingly they labor for the entire overthrow of every
form of popular government.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 53: Daurignac, Vol. I, p. 36.]

[Footnote 54: Daurignac, Vol. I, pp. 103-104.]

[Footnote 55: _Ibid._, p. 104.]

[Footnote 56: Daurignac, Vol. I, p. 105.]

[Footnote 57: Daurignac, Vol. I, p. 105.]

[Footnote 58: Daurignac, Vol. I, p. 106.]

[Footnote 59: Daurignac, Vol. I, p. 107.]

[Footnote 60: Daurignac, Vol. I, pp. 108-109.]

[Footnote 61: Church in France. By Jervis. Vol. I, p. 146.]

[Footnote 62: Daurignac, Vol. I, pp. 111-112.]

[Footnote 63: _Ibid._, p. 114.]

[Footnote 64: Daurignac, Vol. I, pp. 177-178.]

[Footnote 65: Nicolini, pp. 177-178.]

[Footnote 66: Daurignac, Vol. I, p. 110.]




CHAPTER VII.

THE SOCIETY ENTERS GERMANY.


The Jesuits encountered less difficulty in establishing themselves in
Germany than in either Spain, Portugal, or France. Race differences
may have occasioned this. The populations resting upon the shores of
the Mediterranean and the Atlantic descended from the early Celts, and
became readily Latinized. They accepted the traditionary religion of
Rome; knew comparatively little of the Bible, which was a sealed book
to them; and received their Christian faith only from the Roman clergy.
There was no word in any of their languages which signified liberty in
the sense of a right derived from the law of nature. With them, liberty
conveyed the idea of a franchise, granted by authority, and subject
to be withdrawn at pleasure. Hence they yielded implicit obedience
to Rome, and accepted it as consistent with the Divine will that no
other than the Romish religion should be recognized or tolerated, and
that force might be justifiably employed to suppress all others when
it was deemed necessary to do so. Consequently they were inclined at
first to resist--or, at least, to look suspiciously upon--the Jesuits,
inasmuch as Loyola had declared it to be the controlling reason for
the creation of the society that the ancient monastic orders and
the clergy had by their vices endangered the Church. This seemed
heretical, and therefore they practiced towards him and his followers
at first their accustomed intolerance. They preferred the old system,
to which they had become accustomed, to anything new, with regard
either to the Church or the faith. Accordingly we find that among the
Latin populations the influence of the pope became necessary to the
admission and establishment of the Jesuit society. They yielded only to
his authority, because they regarded disobedience of him as heresy.

It was otherwise with the Germans. As the descendants of the old
Teutons, they had some conceptions of natural liberty, and had
indicated a desire for popular government by the election of their
kings. The Scriptures had been placed in their hands as early as
the fourth century, when Bishop Ulfilas translated the Gospels and
part of the Old Testament into the Gothic language, thereby making
them accessible to the people, and stimulating the desire to read
and understand them. This created a sense of individuality, which
soon became more diffused than elsewhere in Europe, thus making the
Germans an intelligent and tolerant race. Their tolerance, therefore,
when the Jesuits appeared, prevented any popular commotion. By that
time the influences of the Reformation had become greatly extended,
and had impressed the minds of a large number of the German people.
Protestantism had become established, and the population was divided
into two religious parties--Roman Catholic and Protestant. But these
parties, influenced towards each other by the old Teutonic liberality
and tolerance, lived together in perfect peace and harmony, each
maintaining its own religious faith and worship without interference
by the other. There were also divisions among the Protestants--some
being the followers of Luther, and others of Calvin. But there was no
religious strife between Roman Catholics and Protestants. According to
the German custom of that period, there were earnest disputations about
doctrines, but no tumult--nothing to disturb the quiet of society.
Persecution on account of religious differences was entirely unknown; a
persecutor would have been considered a public enemy. The true spirit
of Christianity prevailed--the natural consequence of the same form
of religious liberty provided for by the institutions of the United
States, and which might now exist throughout the Christian world, but
for the baneful influences of Jesuitism. The Venetian ambassador,
then in Germany, thus describes the peaceful condition of the German
Christians:

"One party has accustomed itself to put up with the other so well,
that, in any place where there happens to be a mixed population,
little or no notice is taken as to whether a person is a Catholic or
Protestant. Not only villages, but even families, are in this manner
mixed up together, and there even exist houses where the children
belong to one persuasion while the parents belong to the other, and
where brothers adhere to opposite creeds. Catholics and Protestants,
indeed, intermarry with each other, and no one takes any notice of the
circumstance, or offers any opposition thereto."[67]

The German author to whom we are indebted for the above extract says,
in addition, "Even many princes of the Catholic Church in Germany went
even a step further, and appointed men who were thorough Protestants
to situations at their courts as counselors, judges, magistrates, or
whatever other office it might be, without any opposition or objection
being offered thereto." And these, he adds in a note, "were not at all
exceptional cases."[68]

Notwithstanding Germany was enjoying this state of calm and repose,
under the influence of that religious toleration which is the natural
outgrowth of all the teachings of Christ, and has the full sanction
of his example, it afforded neither pleasure nor satisfaction to the
ecclesiastical supporters of the papacy at Rome. They saw in it the
threatened destruction of the papal system, and the ruin of their
ambitious hopes, unless, by some means, this spirit of religious
toleration and liberalism could be entirely extirpated. They regarded
Protestantism and the liberty which gave birth to it as heretical, as
the worst and most flagrant violations of God's law. How to put an
end to this liberty, and destroy all its fruits, was the practical
question which agitated the mind of the pope. He was willing enough to
imitate the example of Innocent III in his treatment of the Albigenses,
by beginning the work of persecution in Germany, and turning over
the Protestants to the Inquisition, for that would have conformed
to the Canon law. But there were difficulties in the way not easily
overcome. The Inquisition was not likely to carry on its murderous
work as successfully in Germany as among the Latin races trained to
obedience. The Germans were not so docile and submissive. And, besides,
the influences of the Reformation, under the impulse given them by the
courageous example of Luther, had reached some of the most powerful
princes in Germany, who would have stood as a strong wall of protection
against all such assaults. They were not willing to obey the pontifical
command when it required that papal emissaries should be allowed at
pleasure to burn their own subjects at the stake, and desolate their
homes. Excommunication had nearly run its course. It had been so
frequently employed to promote the personal ambition of popes, and for
trifling and temporal purposes, that it was fast coming into disrepute.
Its influence was so impaired that it had, in a large degree, lost its
effectiveness. Protestant Churches could not be closed by edicts of
interdict. The attempt to release the German people from allegiance to
their princes, would have been as ineffectual as the command of King
Canute when he ordered the waves of the ocean to retire. Any form of
papal malediction and anathema would have been unavailing.

Howsoever sick at heart the pope may have been at this prospect so
fatal to his ambition, he was not reduced to entire despair. He did
not abandon the hope of bringing back the German princes to the
old religion, and employing them as secular aids in such measures
of coercion as should be found necessary to reduce the people into
obedience. He found the old ecclesiastical weapons somewhat blunted,
and looked around for others. Fortune seemed, at last, to smile
upon the pope when, casting his eyes around, they rested upon the
Jesuits--the freshly enlisted "militia of the Church"--who, without any
sense of either pride or shame, were trained to implicit obedience,
without stopping to inquire whether the work required of them was good
or bad, noble or ignoble. Called upon by the pope, probably at the
suggestion of Loyola himself, the Jesuits were as ready to obey as
the latter was to command, even to the extent of conspiring against
the peace of Germany, or any other country where barriers had been
constructed to protect society against aggression. But the method of
procedure was by no means clear. Courageous as Loyola was, he could
not venture to send his small army into Germany with an open display
of the instruments of persecution in their hands. They could not go as
the open defenders of the papal dogmas, for they were unable to speak
or understand the German language. If they had even been able to make
known their opinions and purposes, they could not have withstood the
intense indignation and fiery eloquence of the disciples of Luther and
Calvin. The occasion, therefore, demanded of Loyola the exercise of his
keen penetration--of that wonderful sagacity which never deserted him,
and which, at his death, he succeeded in imparting to his successor.
The manner of procedure he finally adopted is suggestive of serious
reflection, especially to the people of the United States.

If it be true that "history repeats itself," and that nations, moving
in fixed cycles, follow each other in their courses, the remembrance
of the fact that many of them, once prosperous, have passed out of
existence, admonishes us to inquire with exceeding caution into the
relations which these same Jesuits have created between themselves and
our institutions. They have not changed, but are still the infatuated
and vindictive followers of Loyola, and it is well for us to know
whether there are not evidences that, if permitted, they may repeat
here what their society, at the command of its founder, attempted in
Germany, under the pretense that God had appointed them to conspire
against any free and independent nation they could not otherwise
subjugate. The people of the United States spend their time in the
pursuit of a thousand objects, and in the investigation of a thousand
questions, not the thousandth part as important to them as this.

Military men have long been accustomed to reserve sappers and miners
as helps in the emergencies of war. These always attack under cover,
approaching by slow and stealthy degrees, like the tiger or the cat.
They do not take the chances of actual conflict, and never expose
themselves to the leaden hail of battle. When the walls of a fortress
can not be battered down by direct assault, they secretly undermine
them; and when the fuse is lighted, the magazine exploded, and the
dead scattered in all directions, they return to their hiding-places
unharmed, to share in the rewards of victory.

Loyola was a skillful and courageous soldier, perfectly familiar
with all the plans and strategies of war. In the organization of his
society, he had availed himself of his knowledge both of the motives
of men and of the movements of armies. Hence, when he submitted to
the pope his proposed methods of operation, he took the precaution
to impress him with its importance and necessity, by declaring that,
as its head, he should consider himself "as the representative of
Christ, the commander-in-chief of the heavenly hosts," and as engaged
in "the war service of Christ," with an army bound by solemn oaths to
obey him implicitly "in every particular, and on all occasions."[69]
Hence, also, speaking of his society, he said: "We must be always
ready to advance against the enemy, and be always prepared to harass
him or to fall upon him, and on that account we must not venture to
tie ourselves to any particular place;"[70] that is, that Jesuits must
secretly skulk about over the world, without habitations or homes, and,
paying no allegiance to any opposing authority, to "harass" Protestants
wheresoever they are found--like freebooters upon the sea--leaving no
tracks behind them.

The "chief thing" with the Jesuits, says Greisinger, was to obtain
the sole direction of education, so that by getting the young into
their hands, they could fashion them after their own pattern, and,
by holding them down to the low standard of passive and "uninquiring
obedience," fit them to become subservient slaves of monarchical and
papal power. Nobody need be told the impressible character of the
youthful mind, or how the stamp made upon it becomes indelible. Loyola
understood this, and, realizing the impossibility of arresting the
progressive advancement of Germany under Protestant influences, or to
uproot the tolerant spirit that prevailed there among both Protestants
and Roman Catholics, by any of the usual methods of papal coercion,
he insidiously planned the scheme of bringing Germany back to papal
obedience by Jesuitical training in the German schools. The process was
slow, it is true, but the stake was great; and no man could have known
better than he how surely it would be won, if the minds of the young
could be cramped and dwarfed by Jesuit teaching.

In the Jesuit seminaries and schools, at the period here referred to,
the Latin language--being the language of the Church--grammar, and
rhetoric were taught, preparatory to a college course, which last was
confined to philosophy and theology. The latter was regarded as the
most important, because it culminated in obedience to papal authority,
and was centered in the idea that it was impossible to reach heaven
by any other methods than those prescribed by the Roman Church. Of
course, no education could be perfected, in the estimation of the
Jesuits, that did not conform to their own standard by requiring the
pupils to surrender their manhood into the keeping of their superiors,
as they had done themselves, and thereby become pieces of human
machinery, to be moved about at the will and pleasure of those whom
they were taught to regard as God's vicegerents upon earth. No matter
where Jesuit colleges or schools have existed, or yet exist, this
has always been the primary and chief object and end of the education
furnished by them. When it stops short of this, it is a failure; but
when this object is accomplished, the society exultingly adds its fresh
recruits to the papal militia, to be marshaled against Protestantism,
enlightenment, and popular government, under commanders who never
tolerate disobedience.

Pope Julius III--successor of Paul III--in aid of the conspiracy
against Germany, granted an extension of the privileges originally
conferred upon the Jesuits, and, at the suggestion of Loyola,
authorized him to establish a German college (_Collegium Germanicum_)
in Rome. The object of this was, not to teach the German language to
the Spanish, French, and Italian pupils then being educated in Rome
in the _Collegium Romanum_, but to procure German youths to be taught
there under Jesuit auspices and the patronage of the pope, so that upon
their return home they would disseminate Jesuit opinions and influences
among the people, and thus arrest the progress of Protestantism, and
put an end to the religious toleration prevailing among the Protestant
and Roman Catholic Germans. In execution of this purpose, steps were
at once taken to procure from Germany some young men, to be brought
to Rome and put in training for the ecclesiastical subjugation of
their countrymen. That such was the sole object will not be doubted by
any intelligent investigator of the facts. Germany was well supplied
with colleges and schools, where the standard of education was higher
than at Rome; but they were under Protestant management and control,
and therefore considered heretical. It was the odious form of heresy
embodied in Protestantism that Loyola and his followers were sworn
to exterminate, and these young Germans were carried to Rome that
they might be disciplined and educated for that purpose--to undermine
the institutions of their own country! Have the Jesuits ever changed
their purpose to make the extermination of Protestantism a leading and
central feature of their educational system? Have they abandoned any
of the methods employed by Loyola himself for that purpose? We shall
see as our investigations proceed.

But the institution of a Jesuit college at Rome was not the only
means employed, inasmuch as more immediate and active measures were
considered necessary. Therefore, whilst that was left to bear its
fruits at a later period, the Jesuits sent into Germany some of
their prudent and sagacious members, such as they supposed would be
likely to exercise influence over the princes, so that through them
the whole German population might be reached. These princes were the
acknowledged representatives of monarchism, and it was believed that
if they could be persuaded to accept the Jesuit emissaries as their
allies, the usual methods of papal compulsion could be employed with
impunity. In this the Jesuits calculated sagaciously, and were enabled
to establish several colleges in Germany, and ultimately to begin an
open and direct war upon Protestantism. They did not invoke the aid of
reason. They neither invited nor allowed calm discussion with learned
Protestant theologians, but relied entirely upon the united authority
of the pope and the princes--that is, upon monarchical power. Finding
the Lutherans and the Calvinists divided upon theological questions,
they availed themselves of every opportunity to incite them to mutual
strife, insisting, as they have ever since continued to do, that there
can be but one true form of Christian faith, which every human being is
obliged to accept, or to offend God. Seemingly insensible to the fact
that the Creator has made the minds of men to differ as their faces
and features, they were sagacious enough to know that differences of
opinion upon religious as upon all other subjects could be prevented
only by force and coercion. Therefore, to compel uniformity of faith
and to uproot Protestantism, they persuaded some of the princes,
especially those of Bavaria, to believe that the principle of monarchy
was endangered, and would be entirely destroyed, if the influences
of the Reformation were not obliterated. That such was, and yet is,
the natural effect of these influences is true; and therefore, as
these princes could easily see that, if popular institutions were
established in Germany, their princely occupations would be threatened,
they became the willing tools of the Jesuits. The Duke of Bavaria was
one of the most submissive, as he was the most willing to become a
persecutor. He had been educated by the Jesuits, and consequently was
soon induced to exhibit "the utmost earnestness" in adopting measures
for destroying all the influences of the Reformation, and putting an
end to Protestantism.[71] He was resolved, says Nicolini, "not to leave
a vestige of those new doctrines which, for the last forty years, had
been spreading so fast in his kingdom." Neither he nor the Jesuits made
the least disguise of the fact that all their efforts were directed
to the single object of preventing the freedom of religious belief.
His first step to this end was to require that the Profession of Faith
prescribed by the Council of Trent should be subscribed and adhered
to; that is, that Protestants should renounce the religion which their
consciences approved, and accept that which their consciences did not
approve. That the people might be brought into obedience and forced to
this, "he sent through all the provinces swarms of Jesuits, accompanied
by bands of troopers, whose bayonets came to the aid of the preachers
when their eloquence was unsuccessful in converting the heretics"--that
is, the Protestants. Those who remained unsubdued were expelled from
their estates. Prohibited books were seized and burned. All the ancient
practices were revived. And, "above all," says Ranke, "the Jesuit
institutions were promoted; for by their agency it was, that the youth
of Bavaria were to be educated in a spirit of strict orthodoxy"--which
meant then, what with the Jesuits it still means, opposition to
religious freedom.

For a time the Jesuits were restrained in Austria by Ferdinand I and
Maximilian; but during the reign of Rudolph II they became bolder
and more exacting. The provincial of the society obtained great
influence over Rudolph, and was urgent in his demands that he should
extirpate heresy from his dominions. At last he succeeded in inducing
Rudolph to inaugurate a general persecution of the Lutherans, and "the
greatest atrocity and the utmost rigor were displayed in destroying
every trace of Protestantism." The work of extirpation began in the
cities. "The Reformed clergy were removed, and their places filled by
Catholic priests." A religious formula was prescribed, which required
universal assent to the doctrine "that everything is true which the
Church of Rome has laid down as the rule of life and doctrine," and
that "the pope is the head of one Apostolic Church." The Protestants
were expelled from all offices of State. Papists alone could become
burghers. Doctors' degrees in the universities were conferred only
upon those who subscribed to the Roman Confession of Faith. The Jesuit
schools were governed by regulations "which prescribed Catholic
formularies, fasts, worship, according to the Catholic Ritual," and all
the pupils were taught the Jesuit Catechism. All Protestant books were
seized and taken away from booksellers' shops, and all that were found
in the custom-houses were confiscated. And the historian, summing it
all up, says: "All through Germany the same proceedings were resorted
to, and everywhere we find the Jesuits foremost in the reaction. There
was no bishop, no prince, who went to visit a province upon religious
concerns, who did not bring with him a troop of Jesuits, who, on his
departure, were often left there with almost unlimited powers."[72]

The task of becoming familiar with the history of those times is
formidable; but its performance will amply repay the careful and
thoughtful student, inasmuch as the events which then transpired
materially influenced the subsequent condition of the world.
Especially did they influence that current of affairs which caused
the most enlightened nations to drift towards religious freedom and
popular government, the two great and inseparable factors in modern
progress. At the period here referred to, true Christian civilization,
as inspired by the charity and gentleness exhibited in the life of
Christ, seemed to hang, for a time, at equipoise in the balance. The
struggle for mastery between the light of the Reformation and the
darkness of the Middle Ages was long and fierce, and occasionally
doubtful. One can not fail to see that the spirit of liberty had been
so nearly crushed out by the monarchism of Church and State, that it
required the finger of Providence to point out the way to the revival
of primitive Christianity, and the restoration of its beneficial
influences upon the consciences and lives of the vast multitudes who
had been long held in inferiority. The student will find the conflict
instructive at every point. It will bring into view perfidy and
treachery where there ought to have been confidence and fair dealing,
shameful betrayals of the cause of truth and justice, and the heartless
sacrifice of many thousands of inoffensive people. It will show popes
and kings uniting their power in the cause of oppression and wrong,
and shamelessly practicing vices condemned equally by the laws of God
and man. Many figures conspicuous in history will appear, among them
that of the great Emperor Charles V. He will be seen procuring imperial
dominion over a people he did not know, and whose language he could
neither speak nor understand; quarreling with the pope one day and
threatening to subvert his throne, and becoming reconciled the next, in
order that monarchism should be strengthened; sending savage hordes of
armed men to crush out the spirit of religious liberty in his native
Netherlands by blood and murder; promising protection to the German
Protestants in order to obtain their assistance in his war against
the Turks, and afterwards betraying and persecuting them for heresy;
uniting for a time with the pope against the king of France, and then
with the king of France against the pope; forcing the pope to convene
a General Council, and pretending to grant by his famous "_Interim_"
some shadowy rights to Protestants, in order that they might ultimately
be compelled to accept the faith as the Council should decree; and at
last, when his successes were turned into adversities and his tortuous
policy involved him in disappointment, abdicating his royal authority,
retiring to a monastery, and confiding the infamous work of persecuting
Protestants and desolating his native land to his cold-blooded and
murderous son. Then, as the scene shifts, Philip II will appear, with
his vicegerent, the Duke of Alva, and his bloodthirsty crew, the sounds
of whose warlike bugles were drowned by the piercing cries of their
Protestant victims. Then may also be seen, passing in panoramic view,
the whole land of the Netherlands drenched in the blood of innocent and
persecuted Protestants; the Spanish and Italian Inquisitions carrying
on their horrible work with so much activity that its machinery was
never still; France trembling upon the threshold of ruin, and her kings
and queens forming leagues with the Huguenots, to be immediately and
perfidiously violated; and Germany, torn into factions by the discord
between princes and people which was born of Jesuit intrigue, offering
a tempting field to the emissaries of the papacy, wherein usurped and
illegitimate authority might revel whilst the "sacred militia" of
Loyola rejoiced at the triumph they had won over Protestantism and free
religious thought.

Through all these courses of events the Jesuits steadily
appeared--alike indifferent to the wounds they inflicted upon the
Church and the agonies of their unnumbered victims. As confessors and
confidants of kings, their exertions to enshroud the world in the pall
of monarchism were ceaseless and untiring. They climbed into offices
of state, and molded the temporal policy of popes and kings. They
moved sovereigns from right to left, forward or backward, as children
amuse themselves with toys. They exchanged the humble worship of the
altar for the glitter of courts, as if Christ in his life had set the
example of ambitious display. They enrolled sovereigns and princes
in the ranks of their defenders, and by their help drove Protestant
preachers from their pulpits, Protestant professors and teachers from
their colleges and schools, and Protestant people into the deepest
depths of humiliation, by such measures of compulsion and repression as
it must have required the inventive faculties of fiends to discover.
All these things transpired in Europe during the terrible conflict
between Protestantism and reaction. But in no other portion of the
Continental States was the difference between the opposing forces more
distinctly marked than in Germany, after the Jesuits, by means of their
control of education, became enabled to check the progress of popular
enlightenment, and force the nation back again into the old grooves of
ignorance and superstition.

From the first entry of the Jesuits into Germany the peace of the
country was seriously disturbed. We have seen how thoroughly reconciled
to each other were those of all the shades of religious faith. Members
of the Church of Rome and Protestants were in perfect accord upon all
matters involving the welfare of Germany, neither concerning themselves
about the religious opinions of the other. In this respect it was as it
should have been, and ought yet to be throughout the Christian world.
And the happiness and progressive prosperity of Germany was assured by
it, until the spoiler came in the form of Jesuitism, not as the bearer
of messages of peace and good-will from Rome, but the vast progeny
of evils which, in the age of fable, were supposed to have escaped
when Pandora's jar was broken. They let these loose upon the land
without shame or remorse, until society was convulsed from center to
circumference, peaceful homes were desolated, hearts that had rejoiced
were broken,--all under the irreverent pretense that it was for "the
greater glory of God!"

Let it not be forgotten that Germany was indebted to Protestantism
for her condition of peace and prosperity. We have seen that the
demoralized condition of the clergy was employed by Loyola to justify
the papal approval of his society, and the learned Jesuit historian,
the Abbé Maynard, is forced to admit that when Luther gave the first
impulse to the Reformation, "the clergy of Germany offered a sad
example of corrupted faith and relaxed morals." He calls it a "mournful
period,"[73] notwithstanding for a thousand years these and other evils
had been growing and spreading under the patronage of Rome. The papacy
then dictated the Christianity of Germany. Mark the difference when
Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer, and Carlstadt announced the necessity for
reform, and put the ball of the Reformation in motion. The great Ranke,
whose impartiality has extorted even Jesuit praise, when referring to
the effect produced by the Reformation in Germany, says:

"In short, from west to east and from north to south, throughout all
Germany, Protestantism had unquestionably the preponderance. The
nobility were attached to it from the very first; the body of public
functionaries, already in those days numerous and important, was
trained up in the new doctrine; the common people would hear no more
of certain articles--such, for instance, as purgatory--or of certain
ceremonies, such as the pilgrimages; not a man durst come forward with
holy relics. A Venetian ambassador calculates, in the year 1558, that
but a tenth part of the inhabitants of Germany still clung to the
ancient faith."[74]

Maynard also refers to this approvingly, and the Jesuits make it a
matter of boasting, in order to support their claim to superior merit
for having extirpated so much Protestant heresy, and for bringing
back such multitudes of people to papal obedience. Nine Protestants
to one papist! Germany, then, was a Protestant nation, governed by
Protestant authorities, under Protestant laws, tolerant towards all
who adhered to the ancient faith, allowing no interference with the
freedom of religious opinions, happy, prosperous, and free, under her
own institutions. In these respects she was in the same condition as
the United States is to-day, so far as she could be in the absence of
written constitutional guarantees.

What people upon earth, other than the Germans themselves, had the just
right, under the law of nations or any other human law, to interfere
with their condition, or to plot, openly or secretly, against their
independence? What was all this, however, to the pope or to the
Jesuits? From whence did they derive the authority to form a conspiracy
_at Rome_ to invade Germany, overthrow her existing institutions, bind
the limbs of her people with fetters they had already broken, to gather
up the rusty iron they had cast away, and reforge it into manacles
to hold them in obedience to an alien and foreign power? Was this
conspiracy commanded by the law of God? If it was, wherein is that law
changed? If not changed, and God's laws are all immutable, may not the
Jesuits of to-day enter into fresh conspiracies to subvert the present
institutions of Germany, or of Great Britain, or of the United States,
or of any other nation that maintains the principles of Protestantism
and the freedom of conscience?

These questions command the most serious thought, and are pregnant
with considerations we are not allowed to put aside. Before this
volume closes, answers to all of them may be so plainly discovered
as to enable the friends of free thought and popular government to
see wherein their greatest danger lies. "The Jesuits," says Ranke,
"conquered the Germans on their own soil, in their very home, and
wrested from them a part of their native land." Will there not be other
conquests to be achieved by them so long as the freedom of conscience
is sheltered and guaranteed by Protestant institutions?

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 67: History of the Jesuits. By Greisinger. Page 212.]

[Footnote 68: _Ibid._, p. 213, note.]

[Footnote 69: Greisinger, p. 48, etc.]

[Footnote 70: _Ibid._, p. 63.]

[Footnote 71: History of the Popes. By Ranke. Book V, p. 172, etc. Lea
and Blanchard's edition. Nicolini, p. 199. Greisinger, p. 211, etc.
History of Germany. By Lewis. Chap, xvii, p. 398, etc.]

[Footnote 72: Nicolini, pp. 201-202. For these particulars see also
Ranke, Griesinger, Steinmetz, and Lewis.]

[Footnote 73: The Studies and Teachings of the Jesuits. By M. L'Abbé
Maynard. Page 89.]

[Footnote 74: Ranke, Book V, p. 165.]




CHAPTER VIII.

THE JESUITS IN ENGLAND.


The conspiracy to overthrow the Protestant institutions of Germany
furnished a precedent in dealing with other Governments. That against
England was characterized by some peculiarities, owing to its having
been subject to the spiritual dominion of the pope until the reign
of Henry VIII, and afterwards under that of Mary. As there are no
instances in history where a people have surrendered the control over
their institutions without a struggle, unless previously reduced to
absolute imbecility, the inauguration and progress of this conspiracy
furnish a great many "object-lessons" of special interest to all in
the United States who hold in kindly remembrance the struggles of our
English ancestry for liberty.

When Henry VIII quarreled with the pope, it was only about his
divorce. Religion was not involved. He maintained the dogmas of the
Roman Catholic Church until his death. But in order to give license
to his passions, he caused himself to be recognized by a submissive
Parliament as taking the place of the pope in the religious affairs of
England--not, however, as the head of the National Church, which did
not distinctively exist as such until the subsequent reign of Edward
VI. As between him and the pope, the dispute was about authority, not
doctrine. It excited intense anger in the minds of both, and this was
soon imparted to their respective adherents. Each was familiar with
the methods of persecution and the implements of coercion, long in use
to produce uniformity of faith, and they were equally ready to employ
them. There were, however, differences between them worthy of being
noted. The highest aspiration of Henry was to govern England; the pope
reached out after the spiritual government of the world. The pope,
without the sanction and authority of the Church, claimed personal
infallibility; Henry did not. They were consequently formidable
antagonists. Trained within the same circle of events, with minds
disciplined by the same doctrinal teachings, and entirely agreed about
the employment of compulsion in matters of faith, each dealt with the
other as a mere competitor for power.

The pope--Paul III--endeavored to bring his royal antagonist to
terms by excommunication; but Henry defied it and its accompanying
anathemas. In proportion as the passions of the pope became intensified
by resistance to his spiritual authority, the measures designed to
reduce England to obedience became more violent. Henry was denounced
as a traitor to heaven and the Church, and threatened with all the
consequences implied by that denunciation. The pope endeavored to
induce the Emperor Charles V and Francis I of France to invade England,
make conquest of the country, and bring it again into obedience
to him; but these monarchs feared the consequences, and prudently
declined the undertaking. Disappointed in this, the pope hastened to
solicit the aid of Loyola, who without delay provided Jesuits to be
sent to England as spies, and to plot secretly against Henry. These
emissaries were privately instructed by Loyola himself; and inasmuch
as these instructions have been made known, and are admitted by the
Jesuits, they serve to show the uses to which Loyola intended to put
his society. The philosophy of history is often left unperceived by
omitting to observe the force of such evidence as this.

After counseling them to practice great prudence and circumspection
in conversing with others, so as to unveil "the depth of their
sentiments"--that is, to draw out their secret thoughts--Loyola
proceeded to instruct them that, "in order to conciliate to yourselves
the good-will of men in the desire of extending the kingdom of God,
you will _make yourselves all things to all men_, after the example
of the apostle in order to gain them to Jesus Christ." And he tells
them further that "when the devil attacks a just man, he does not let
him see his snares"--therefore they must imitate him, in order to
entice men into Jesuit snares![75] Taken as a whole, these instructions
were manifestly designed so to train all Jesuits as to make them,
according to Nicolini, "crafty, insinuating, deceitful." Cretineau, a
Jesuit, attempts to argue, continues Nicolini, that they had reference
to religious and not to political matters, and this is the only
defense he offers for them. But this is itself Jesuitical, inasmuch
as these emissaries were sent to England upon a mission involving
politico-religious affairs--that is, the policy established by the
Government of England in regard to the relations between it and the
pope. Whether right or wrong, the English people established these
relations for themselves, as they had the undoubted right to do, and
no alien or foreign power, whether employed by the pope or any other
monarch, could rightfully interfere with them.

These emissaries of Loyola and the pope visited Ireland and Scotland;
but with the exception of intriguing with James V of Scotland, their
mission was ineffectual, and they returned to Rome. Henry was not
seriously disturbed by them. Nor was there any other attempt to
introduce the Jesuits into England until after the death of Queen Mary,
whose persecution of the Protestants was sufficiently satisfactory
to the papacy without their aid. Their introduction during her reign
had been opposed and defeated by Cardinal Pole, an Englishman; but
whether he was hostile to them, or considered the existing system of
persecution perfect enough without them, is not clearly shown.

We are thus brought to a portion of English history specially
interesting and instructive to all who hold in admiration the civil
institutions of the United States; for they have read history to but
little purpose who do not know how the events of that period gave
stability to principles which now constitute fundamental parts of our
national polity. In tracing our pedigree back to its English source, it
is as easy to see our intimate relations with the Elizabethan era as it
is to follow the little rivulets in the valleys or upon the mountains
in their courses to the sea. On this account some particularity
of detail is rendered necessary, or else some matters of historic
interest, not generally observed, may be omitted.

During the reign of Elizabeth the papal authorities renewed their
exertions to put a stop to Protestantism in England, and sent more
Jesuits there for that purpose. "These satellites of the pope," says
the historian, "entered the country under fictitious names, and as
stealthily as nocturnal robbers, mendacious in every word they uttered,
and exciting the people to rebellion against the 'impious' queen."[76]
The vigilance of Elizabeth, however, was of such a character that
she was not easily taken by surprise, and their plottings against
her became less effective than they and the pope had anticipated.
Accordingly other Jesuits were sent to Scotland to encourage Queen
Mary, and hold her steadfast in the faith; but they were unsuccessful
in the attempt to stir up rebellion there, and being fearful of
detection and arrest, escaped out of the country as fugitives from
justice. Nevertheless they accomplished one thing, which was to carry
away with them several young English noblemen, to be educated by the
Jesuits in Flanders, so as to fit them for treason against their own
country--repeating in this the experiment Loyola had made in Germany.
All these movements, although not immediately followed by any direct
consequences, tend to show how ready the Jesuits were to make secret
and incendiary war upon anything or any country upon which the
pontifical curse was resting. And they show, moreover, their subtle
methods of procedure--how they were trained and educated in adroitness
and cunning, the more easily to mislead others; how they raised
hypocrisy and deceit up to the side of virtue; how they endeavored to
attach to falsehood the merit which belongs alone to truth; and how,
in order to be "all things to all men," they were required to be what
they were not, or not to be what they were, in order by deception to
accomplish the subjugation of England to the authority of the pope.

The Jesuits endeavored to become the educators of English youths as
they had those of Germany. They understood, and have not yet forgotten,
the value of this. The pope therefore established an English college
_at Rome_, to educate young Englishmen for the traitorous purpose
of destroying English institutions. Loyola conceived this idea as a
covert and strategic method of uprooting obnoxious Governments, and
the pope accepted it as an effective plan of conspiracy. This college
became a hotbed of treason. The young men were doubtless instructed
that the gates of heaven would be opened to them in no other way, and
that country and patriotism were unmeaning phrases, of no significance
when weighed in the scale against the interests of the papacy and the
Jesuits. None have better understood than they "that he who guides the
youth, directs the destinies of man."

The young Englishmen, educated at this college in Rome to hate their
country and its sovereign, reached the highest round in the ladder
of collegiate culture when they were brought to realize this as the
central feature of religious faith. It takes a peculiar training to
pluck out entirely from the mind all the tender and holy memories of
home and country, of family and friends; and no others in the world
except the Jesuits have ever undertaken it. They boast of this as one
of the prominent principles of their system, and the distinguishing
merit of their society. By means of it they succeeded well at Rome, and
sent back to England a swarm of conspirators, charged with the special
duty of winning a conquest over the Government, plucking Protestantism
up by the roots, and re-establishing the papal scepter, which Henry
VIII, in the pursuit of his illicit amours, had broken.

Elizabeth, as queen, was the great obstacle to papal success. Her
position was a peculiar one. At the beginning of her reign she had been
tolerant towards her Roman Catholic subjects, and they were permitted
to enjoy their religion and mode of worship without interference,
notwithstanding the severities practiced towards the Protestants
during the preceding reign of Mary. All historians agree, and the
Roman Catholic Lingard is candid enough to admit, that she retained
in her royal council eleven of those who had served under Mary, and
appointed only eight of her own selection--an extraordinary instance
of impartiality and conservatism. She preferred the reformed religion,
but "contrived," says Lingard, "_to balance the hopes and fears of the
two parties_,"[77] which she must have done from an honest purpose to
see that justice should be shown to both, and that religious strife
and discord should cease. Her want of success in this most desirable
object can be attributed to no other cause than the machinations of
the Jesuits; for, whatsoever may be thought of the fierce and angry
controversy which followed, the evidence is conclusive that they were
the main reliance of the pope in the subsequent inauguration and
prosecution of civil war in England. If it had not been their special
avocation to enter into plots and conspiracies against all governments
and peoples who rejected the absolute rule of the pope in doctrine
and morals, and if they had not actively engaged in that work during
the reign of Elizabeth, the memory of Mary's bloody and persecuting
reign might, in a large degree, have been blotted out, and this
impartial policy of Elizabeth might have induced the Christians of
different religious faiths to live in peace and mutual toleration, as
they did in Germany before that country was blighted by the curse of
Jesuitism. But taught by the Jesuits not to submit to equality merely,
but to demand absolute and unqualified superiority and dominion by the
entire suppression of Protestantism, the English Roman Catholics were
encouraged to form leagues and combinations and conspiracies against
the queen, Protestantism, and the Government.

Under these circumstances, Elizabeth could not have remained
unresisting if she had desired. To have done so would have been a
treasonable abandonment of the country of which she was the legitimate
sovereign. Not only was she assailed in all her rights as queen, but
the pope, adopting the views and opinions of the Jesuits, impudently
attempted to justify resistance to her authority upon the ground that
she was an illegitimate daughter of Henry VIII by Anne Boleyn, and
therefore had no just right to exact obedience to her authority. He
went further than this, and claimed jurisdiction over her conscience
by commanding her to accept "the communion of the Roman Church,"
which, with queenly dignity, she refused. He required her to send
ambassadors to the Council of Trent, and this she also declined to
do. When she imprisoned Mary Queen of Scots, he usurped jurisdiction
over the case, although Mary was an English subject, and undertook to
procure her release, for the reason only that she preferred Romanism
to Protestantism. He sought the aid of the kings of France and Spain
to make war upon England in the name of religion, to release Mary,
dethrone Elizabeth, and seize upon her crown. Failing in all these
things, and being baffled by Elizabeth, he caused a prosecution to
be instituted at Rome to try "in the papal court" her title to the
crown--a sham and farce as ineffective as it was ridiculous and
discreditable. It is difficult to imagine a more presumptuous and
impotent proceeding; but it is instructive as showing the pretensions
of the popes of that period.

In the papal indictment Elizabeth was accused, among other things,
of rejecting the ancient and supporting the new worship; of having
"received the sacrament after the manner of heretics;" of having
"chosen known heretics for the lords of her council;" and of having
"imposed an oath derogating from the rights of the Holy See." The
queen, of course, did not appear; but, nevertheless, she was held to
be in default, and the trial was conducted in the papal form. Twelve
English Roman Catholics, who are represented as "exiles for their
religion," were examined as witnesses, and, after their evidence was
heard and considered, "the judges pronounced their opinion that she had
incurred the canonical penalties of heresy." The major one of these,
which included all the minors, was the forfeiture of her crown; that
is, her actual dethronement. It is to be supposed that, in the decree
of the Roman Curia, all this was recorded in solemn form. But this
decree, like those of other courts, did not execute itself. Therefore,
the pope provided for its execution by issuing his pontifical bull,
with all necessary gravity and composure, whereby he pronounced
Elizabeth guilty of heresy, deprived of her "pretended" right to the
crown of England, and absolved her subjects from all allegiance to
her.[78]

Notwithstanding the long period intervening between those and the
present times, we are not relieved from the obligation and necessity of
understanding fully upon what pretense of authority Pius V assumed the
prerogative right to pluck from the head of the English queen a crown
placed there with practical, if not absolute, unanimity by the English
people. It is not enough to say that these things occurred in another
age and under circumstances peculiar to that age. This may sufficiently
explain the conduct of individuals, and the character and structure
of governments, all of which have ever been, and will continue to be,
liable to change. But the laws of God, founded in divine wisdom, are
not subject to these changes. The creative power of the Deity alone can
change them. It is the special boast of the papists and the Jesuits
that the system of laws which governs the papacy has the stamp of
Divine approval upon it, and that, therefore, it has always been, and
still remains, the same--"_Semper eadem_," is their motto. Hence it is
important to us to know the nature and extent of the spiritual powers
asserted by Pius V over the English Government and people, in order
to ascertain whether, if a parallel case existed to-day, or may exist
hereafter, the same papal powers may not be again invoked. The question
which most concerns us is not whether they may or may not be asserted,
but whether or no they have been embodied in the Canon law of the Roman
Church, and have been thereby stamped with the character of perpetuity.
No special pleading, however adroit, can make the issue otherwise.

The question tried and decided at Rome by the Papal Curia, in so far as
it involved the right to the English crown, was exclusively political,
and the pope could not rightfully change its character by assuming
that it was brought within his spiritual jurisdiction by virtue of the
universality of his spiritual powers. It was an English and not a Roman
question. By the existing laws of England, Elizabeth was the rightful
and hereditary heir to the throne, and had possession of the crown. It
had been so decided by the Parliament, and ratified by the people with
a unanimity almost unknown in those times. She was queen, not only _de
facto_, but _de jure_. By what mode of reasoning or by what perversion
of language could the pope take to himself jurisdiction over such a
question? England was governed by laws, and whether they appear to us
now to have been right or wrong, they were her own laws, enacted by her
rightful authorities. They were exclusively political laws, provided
for her own Government and people. The pope was the spiritual head of
the Church at Rome, with a recognized jurisdiction over the spiritual
welfare of those who regarded themselves as within that jurisdiction.
By the methods of reasoning then adopted by the English nation, and
now familiar to all intelligent American minds, all who chose to
remain within that spiritual jurisdiction had the perfect right to do
so; all who did not, had an equal right to withdraw from it. Rights
of this character concern individuals, not nations, except as their
populations shall decide, in which case they may submit or not to this
jurisdiction at their pleasure. The English nation, by its domestic
laws, had established a system of government suitable for itself, and
had placed its crown upon Elizabeth's head. To say that the pope had
the divine right, as the spiritual head of the Church at Rome, to set
this National Government aside, and substitute for it another dictated
by himself, and after the papal model, means this, and only this: that
his spiritual power includes political and temporal power over all
nations, to the extent of requiring them to adopt whatsoever form of
religious faith the popes shall prescribe, to the absolute exclusion
of all other forms. And it allows him, moreover, to employ for that
purpose, against every domestic law to the contrary, all the papal
machinery of coercion. The decree pronounced at Rome against Elizabeth
affirms, in effect, that such is the Canon law; that is, the law of the
Church. Have the provisions of that law been authoritatively changed or
abrogated since the time of Pius V and Elizabeth? It may be necessary
to find an answer to this question when we come to see, as we shall,
that, at Jesuit dictation, it has been authoritatively announced that
the time has come, or is rapidly approaching, when the Canon law of the
Roman Church shall be introduced into the United States, to supersede
such of our laws, National and State, as are in conflict with it. For
the present, we must not pass by too rapidly the conflict between
the pope and Elizabeth--to the principles involved in which enough
consideration is not generally given--in order that we may comprehend
fully what it meant, and how, in the end, it turned the nations upon
their progressive courses, and brought them where they now are. In all
history there are few more instructive lessons.

In carrying on the war against Elizabeth, the Jesuits did not forget
the work of educating young Englishmen so as to make them believe that
treason was one of the highest virtues when dictated by what they chose
to consider the interests of religion; that is, of the papacy or of
their society, just as we have seen they did in Germany. Among other
seminaries of learning, they had one at Rheims, in France, established
by the Cardinal of Lorraine, one of the most vindictive persecutors of
the Huguenots. They had another at Douay, also in France. From these,
colonies of Jesuits were sent to England every year, instructed and
trained to subvert the English Government, and particularly to vilify
and calumniate Elizabeth by accusing her of leading a "licentious and
voluptuous private life." It is not easy to understand what force
was intended to be given to this accusation, as an argument against
her right to the crown, in view of the fact that a life tenfold more
licentious and voluptuous than that falsely charged against Elizabeth
did not invalidate the right of Pope Alexander VI to the papal crown
and the headship of the Church at Rome. Nevertheless, the Jesuits
availed themselves of it, without regard either to its truthfulness
or their own consistency. They were educated to this peculiar kind of
work, and it was considered their duty to educate others in the same
way, leaving the consequences to take care of themselves. Hume gives
this account of these Jesuit emissaries to England: "They infused
into all their votaries an extreme hatred against the queen, whom
they treated as a usurper, a schismatic, a heretic, a persecutor of
the orthodox, and one solemnly and publicly anathematized by the holy
father. Sedition, rebellion, sometimes _assassination_, were the
expedients by which they intended to effect their purposes against
her,"[79] pretending to find in the existing state of things in England
justification for all this, even for the assassination of the queen.

Two Jesuit leaders--Campion and Parson--were sent from Rome to give
direction to the movements of the conspirators already there. In order
more effectually to encourage treason and sedition, they "_pretended to
be Protestants_," not being ashamed of this false profession, because
the obligation to practice deception when necessary was instilled
into their minds by Jesuit training, and, on that account, created no
compunctions of conscience. When Parson reached Dover, the better to
practice his disguise, he wore the uniform of an English army officer,
and pretended to be such. In this way he deceived the inspecting
officer, and arranged with him for the safe passage of Campion, whom
he represented as a fellow officer, who would follow in a few days. It
may thus be seen how easy it is to be "all things to all men," when
those who desire to become so have quieted their consciences with the
belief that falsehood and deception may be rightfully employed in
promoting "the greater glory of God." Howsoever incomprehensible may
be the casuistry by which the mind can be brought to this belief, it
is perfectly plain to a Jesuit, and is doubtless explained in their
schools.

It is exceedingly difficult to separate the true from the false in
the history of the times here referred to. The passions of the rival
parties became so intense as seemingly to render agreement between them
impossible, either with regard to facts or conclusions. It may not even
be safe to assume that the truth lies midway between the extremes.
But there is always, in the influences and effects produced by any
given period of time, that which explains the motives and purposes
of the chief actors. By careful investigation of these, we acquire a
knowledge of the philosophy of history. Conducting our investigations
in this spirit, we can not fail to conclude that the interference
with the domestic and internal affairs of England by an alien and
foreign power, was a flagrant act of usurpation, unless the spiritual
authority of the pope gave him rightful jurisdiction over temporal and
political questions in that country. And if he did rightfully possess
this jurisdiction in 1570, when Pius V fulminated his pontifical bull
against Elizabeth, and derived it from the divine law, we, of the
present age, and especially in the United States, can not refrain
from inquiring whether, from the Jesuit standpoint, Leo XIII does
not possess the same jurisdiction derived from the same law? Without
pressing this inquiry here, however, it is deemed more essential to
ascertain still more minutely how far the Jesuits were responsible for
sowing the seeds of discord and civil war in England, when otherwise
Protestants and Roman Catholics might, at the Elizabethan period, have
lived and associated harmoniously together, as they did in Germany
before the Jesuits appeared there. Many intelligent readers of history
fail to give due consideration to the events of this important period.

We have seen--upon the authority of Lingard, a papal historian--that
Elizabeth was, at the beginning of her reign, desirous of holding
an equal balance between the rival bodies of Christians. Her mind
was not fully made up with regard to her own faith, although it is
probable she was inclined to Protestantism. There were reasons for
this, some of which may have been controlling with a masculine mind
like hers. The relations between her father, Henry VIII, and the
papacy must have created impressions not favorable to the pope as
a sharer in her governing power over the English people. And the
reign of her sister Mary must have tended to strengthen, rather than
remove, these impressions. She could not have failed to know that
Mary's marriage to Philip II of Spain had brought with it to England
a series of calamities, the remembrance of which must have made her
not only sorrowful, but indignant. If Mary's natural inclination had
been kindly and her heart benevolent, it must have been apparent to
Elizabeth that these good qualities had been exchanged for others of
the very opposite character, which had incited her to prosecute her
Protestant subjects in the spirit of intense religious bigotry, and as
if God were acceptably served by shedding blood. And when, upon coming
to the throne as the immediate successor of Mary, she found herself
confronted by the terrible condition into which England had been
thrown--with every evil passion aroused, and little ground for hope of
the future--nothing was more natural than the belief that this state of
things had been produced, mainly if not entirely, by the unfortunate
marriage of Mary with Philip II, who possessed such a combination of
bad qualities as left room for scarcely a single good one. Sullen,
morose, and selfish, Philip separated himself from everything in life
calculated to encourage good or benevolent emotions, and gave free
play to that bad ambition which led him to desolate the Netherlands by
cruelties as unparalleled as they were atrocious. He had no affection
for Mary, being incapable of any such emotion. His marriage with her
was a matter of policy alone--one of those political unions which,
in the course of time, have produced evils to all the Governments of
Europe. He had inherited religious fanaticism from his father, Charles
V, but without any of the better qualities of the latter; and gave
such excessive indulgence to his hatred of Protestants that nothing
rejoiced him so much as to know that the dungeons of the Inquisition
were crowded with them, and that none of them escaped the rack,
the thumb-screw, and the flames. The best people in England--Roman
Catholics as well as Protestants--had feared, when this ill-fated
marriage was proposed, that the bloody scenes so often witnessed on
the Continent would be repeated there, and for that reason opposed
it. But State policy prevailed, and the popular will was of no avail.
England, thus united with Spain, became subject to the influence of
Philip, who employed it over Mary, to make her, like himself, the
obedient instrument of papal outrages. English persecution hitherto
had one distinguishing characteristic, in this, that Henry VIII had
visited his vengeance upon both Protestants and Roman Catholics, who
were bound alike to the stake and burned to death because of resistance
to his royal power and assumed right, in imitation of the pope, to
hold the consciences of individuals in subjugation. Elizabeth knew all
this. Her strong and sagacious mind was penetrating enough to foresee
that, unless this disheartening course of events could be in some way
changed, England would remain where Mary had left her--a mere appendage
to the papacy--and thereby reduced to a condition of inferiority among
the nations from which she might never recover.

When Philip proposed to marry Elizabeth--for whom he had no more
affection than he had for her sister--she was brought to realize, if
she had not already done so, that the future destiny of England was
mainly in her hands. From motives of policy she took time to deliberate
before accepting or rejecting this proposition of marriage by Philip.
Whilst holding it under advisement, she suggested that it would violate
the law of the Church, inasmuch as their relationship brought them
within the prohibited degrees. But when Philip proposed that he would
obtain a dispensation from the pope, she saw at once that it was a
well-matured scheme to bring her to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the
pope over English affairs of State, and consequently declined Philip's
proposal. And thus was broken the alliance between the two crowns of
England and Spain, and Elizabeth was left to protect herself against
foreign interference in taking care of the internal affairs of her own
country. The occasion demanded that she should assert herself by taking
the affairs of the nation in her own hands, and the result has long
since proved how well and conspicuously she did so.

Elizabeth was wise. Her bitterest enemies concede this. Whilst she may
have inclined to Protestantism, she had not, at the beginning of her
reign, acquired any positive dislike to the Roman Catholic religion.
On the contrary, the Roman Catholic bishops and lords were disposed
to regard her exhibition of tolerance as indicating that she would,
at least, act with justice and impartiality towards them. Camden, the
historian, says that, during Mary's reign, Elizabeth had intimated to
Cardinal Pole that she had a disposition to prefer Roman Catholicism.
Howsoever this may have been, she not only sometimes attended
confession, but assisted at divine service after the manner of the
Roman Church. Lingard says: "She continued to assist, and occasionally
to communicate, at mass; she buried her sister with all the solemnities
of the Catholic ritual; and she ordered a solemn dirge and a mass of
requiem for the soul of the Emperor Charles V."[80] Influenced by these
considerations, and probably by others of the same character, the House
of Lords--composed entirely of Roman Catholics--declared in her favor,
and the Commons having readily and unanimously approved their decision,
she was proclaimed queen "with the acclamations of the people." Thus
her right to the crown was settled by the highest authority in the
kingdom. There was not a murmur of discontent. Some regretted the death
of Mary, but there was a general desire that the barbarities practiced
during her reign should cease. In that desire Elizabeth manifestly
shared, as is well established by the fact, already stated, that she
retained thirteen of Mary's counselors, and appointed only eight
Protestants. She could have meant nothing else by this than to express
the desire that religious persecution should cease, and that the two
religious parties should in the future live in peace with each other,
and thus enable the country to develop into greatness.

The first attack upon her right to the crown was made by Henry
II of France, and not by her Roman Catholic subjects. Henry was
thoroughly indoctrinated with the persecuting spirit which prevailed
in France among the defenders of the papacy, and was dominated
over by the Guises, one of whom was the Cardinal of Lorraine, and
patron of the Jesuits. His persecution of the Reformers has been
previously mentioned. In assailing the title of Elizabeth, Henry II
had undoubtedly several objects in view, the chief of which were to
humiliate England and probably establish French sovereignty over it,
to continue the policy of Mary in persecuting the Protestants, and to
place the crown of Elizabeth upon the head of Mary Queen of Scots.
Whether one or all these motives influenced him, he solicited the aid
of the pope, and made himself a party to the conspiracy against the
peace of England by endeavoring to obtain a papal decree that Elizabeth
was a bastard, and therefore not lawfully queen. Consequently, when,
after her rejection of Philip's proposal of marriage, she saw the
Roman Catholic powers, with the pope at their head, conspiring against
her, she resolved that her own safety and that of England required
her to dismiss the Roman Catholic members of her council, declare her
purpose to protect and encourage the Reformed religion, and submit the
matter to the people by means of a Parliament to be assembled for that
purpose. This precautionary measure was most commendable, inasmuch as
it proposed to submit to Parliament the question whether or no the two
religions were equally entitled to legal protection. In order that
her purposes might be fully understood, she issued a proclamation
allowing divine service to be performed in the English tongue, and
the Scriptures to be read by the laity--a privilege hitherto denied
them. In order to allay all undue excitement, she expressly prohibited
religious "controversy by preaching," until the meeting of Parliament.
When the new Parliament did assemble, it was addressed in her behalf
by the Keeper of the Great Seal, who announced to the representatives
of the people that the queen had commanded him to exhort them "to take
a mean between the two extremes of superstition and irreligion, which
might _reunite the partisans of both the one and the other religion_ in
the same public worship."[81]

The conciliatory course of Elizabeth, as indicated by her proclamation
and this address to Parliament, exhibited a degree of liberality to
which the English people had been unaccustomed during the reign of
Mary. It is a reasonable supposition that, if her suggestions had been
accepted in the spirit in which they were offered, England would have
bounded forward far more rapidly than she did to the condition she
subsequently reached through severe and protracted trials. The times
were suited to the introduction of compromising measures of peaceful
policy. The people were tired of commotion, persecution, and bloodshed
on account of religious differences, and would readily have acquiesced
in any amicable plan of adjustment. But, unfortunately for England,
and the world as well, neither the interests nor the wishes of the
people were of sufficient avail to bring quiet to the country. The
course of subsequent events may be easily traced. The papal machinery
of Church government had been so constructed at Rome that, in order
to keep the people in subjection, it had deposited unlimited powers
in the hands of the prelates. The Roman Catholic bishops of England,
as well as elsewhere, had been accustomed to rule with a rod of iron,
and the time had not arrived when they could be reconciled to any
diminution of their ecclesiastical authority. They became "alarmed,"
says Lingard, at the position taken by Elizabeth. They undoubtedly
viewed it only in its relation to themselves and the interests of
the Church at Rome--or, rather, of the papacy--without bestowing a
moment's thought upon the general welfare of England. They regarded
conciliation as a form of heresy not to be tolerated. What they desired
was the extirpation of Protestantism and the unity of the Roman Church,
assured by the establishment of its religion to the exclusion of any
dissenting faith. Accordingly, they assembled themselves together to
consult "whether they could in conscience officiate at the coronation"
of a queen who proposed so to adjust religious differences as to put
an end to all interference with the right of individuals to freedom of
conscience. Upon various pretexts they decided not to attend, or to
take part in, the ceremony of coronation. Consequently, the ceremony
was performed with the attendance of only a single bishop, and was made
"to conform to all the rites of the Catholic pontifical." This decision
and conduct of the bishops "created considerable embarrassment," and
might have produced serious consequences but for the withdrawal of this
single bishop from his associates.[82]

The non-attendance of the Roman Catholic bishops upon the coronation
of Elizabeth was a signal for opening the old strife. It was
unquestionably intended upon their part to array their followers in
opposition to the conciliatory measures of the queen; and it did not
take long, in those days, to be so understood upon both sides. The
consequence was that the public excitement was imparted to Parliament,
and led to the repeal of several of the statutes of Mary, and the
substitution for them of others whereby the Reformed religion was
made national, and penalties prescribed for refusing so to recognize
it. This, of course, led to severe measures and to persecution, in
imitation of the example set during the reign of Mary, and produced
the unfortunate condition of affairs with which all readers of English
history are familiar. Upon which side, during the long controversy
that followed, the responsibility rested most heavily, is not easily
decided. Wrongs were undoubtedly inflicted by both sides. But
whatsoever these were, they grew out of the spirit of that age, and
had their origin, as we have seen, in the influences created by the
papacy, aided by Jesuit intrigues. The fact, however, which most nearly
concerns our present inquiries is what has just been stated, that the
first step taken in the direction towards the renewal of religious
agitation was the organized opposition of the bishops to Elizabeth,
formed for the purpose of defeating the measures of pacification she
had proposed to Parliament. It is impossible not to have known that
the defeat of those measures by the combined opposition of the bishops
would lead to a revival of the hatreds which had been encouraged under
Mary, and, therefore, to oppose them was to invite that revival for
which, consequently, these bishops were responsible.

Whether the Protestants would have accepted or rejected the
proposition of Elizabeth can not now be decided with positive
certainty; all the probabilities indicate that they would have
accepted them. One thing, however, is certain, they were rejected
by the Roman Catholics under the lead of their bishops. This, of
course, revived the old animosities, but with increased violence.
Throughout all the departments of society passion became greatly
intensified. Nevertheless, the questions involved were English
questions alone. They were primarily and chiefly political, although
having politico-religious aspects. But they involved only the internal
and domestic condition of England. No alien or foreign power had the
right, by international or other law, or consistently with what is now
universal usage among civilized nations, to interfere with them. But we
have seen that they were interfered with, not only by a direct attempt
to make the policy of the country conform to that dictated by a foreign
power, but in the threatening form of a conspiracy between the king of
France and the pope, to impeach the title of Elizabeth upon the ground
that she was a bastard, to which she could not have submitted without
disgrace. We have also seen how this conspiracy moved stealthily
forward, step by step, until she was tried at Rome by an alien
tribunal, pronounced a usurper by a decree which declared her crown
to have been forfeited and her subjects released from their natural
and lawful allegiance. And in order that her escape from the wrath and
vengeance of the pope should become impossible, swarms of incendiary
Jesuits were turned loose upon the country, to fan the flames of
discord, stir up rebellion and civil war, and carry into execution
the judgment and sentence of the papal court at Rome. If Elizabeth
erred in defending herself and her kingdom against this formidable and
dangerous combination, her error was upon the side of patriotism; and
she is scarcely censurable for it, inasmuch as the life of the nation,
and probably her own life, were the stake for which her enemies were
playing. And whether it be true or not, that the Jesuits attempted
her assassination--as some historians allege--it must be accepted
in her praise that, although a woman, she taught her assailants that
she was "every inch a queen," and that England under her reign became
enabled to convince all these rival powers that she was competent to
conduct her own affairs and take care of herself--facts sufficiently
demonstrated by her advanced position among the modern progressive
nations.

Every American mind should be duly impressed by this portion of
English history, showing, as it does, how fierce and protracted
was the struggle which led, in the end, to popular government, and
the civil and religious freedom which it alone has guaranteed.
Elizabeth was undoubtedly a great queen--great in the qualities of
her intellect, in the steadfastness of her purposes, in that manly
courage which "mounteth with occasion." When she became queen, the
people of England, both Protestants and Roman Catholics, were tired of
religious persecution, and anxious to put an end to it. She favored
and recommended to Parliament measures of pacification, in the spirit
of liberality and toleration. If, obeying the dictates of her own
conscience, she preferred Protestantism to Roman Catholicism, she had
such respect for the conscientious convictions of others as to desire
that all her subjects should be secured in the right to accept either
the one or the other at their own discretion. By the avowal of these
and other kindred purposes, she incurred the opposition of the Roman
Catholic bishops, who, in concert with foreign powers, and backed by
the pope and his Jesuit militia, brought on a civil war which afflicted
England with a long train of evils and calamities. Under the influence
of her liberalism, the bulk of the population became tolerant of each
other, and, by the great unanimity with which they accepted her as
queen, indicated the desire that the protection of the Government
should be given to both forms of worship. And it may be accepted as
a fair inference from what then transpired, that she was defeated in
her plan of conciliation only by the animosities engendered by the
English bishops, the pope, and the Jesuits. Her defeat, however, was
not final; and having survived the machinations of all her enemies,
even the excommunication and anathemas of the pope, together with the
stealthy plottings of the Jesuits, the pages which record the events
of her reign constitute some of the brightest in English history. They
teach a philosophy that will not be forgotten so long as free popular
institutions shall continue to exist.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 75: Nicolini, p. 65. Steinmetz, Vol. I, p. 302.]

[Footnote 76: Nicolini, pp. 151, 152, note.]

[Footnote 77: History of England. By Lingard. Vol. VI, p. 4. See, also,
Hume, Vol. IV, p. 4.]

[Footnote 78: Lingard, Vol. VI, p. 110. Nicolini, p. 153.]

[Footnote 79: History of England. By Hume. Vol. IV, p. 182.]

[Footnote 80: Lingard, Vol. VI, p. 4.]

[Footnote 81: History of England. By Rapin. Vol. VIII, pp. 217 to 232.]

[Footnote 82: Lingard, Vol. VI, p. 5.]




CHAPTER IX.

JESUIT INFLUENCE IN INDIA.


The reader who shall intelligently trace the history of the Jesuit
through their conspiracies against the peace of Europe, and especially
their tireless efforts to eradicate everything that tended to freedom
of conscience and the public enlightenment, will not wonder that,
during the last century, it became necessary to the interests of
society and the Church that one of the foremost of the popes should
suppress and entirely abolish the order. And as that event was brought
about, not alone on account of the odium they incurred by intermeddling
with the temporal affairs of States, but because they pursued practices
which shocked the whole Christian world, their society can not be
thoroughly understood without becoming familiar with the history of
their missionary enterprises. As they prosecuted these among ignorant
and illiterate multitudes of peoples, where no watchful eye could
observe them, they have mainly become their own historians; yet there
is enough to be discovered to show that, at every stage of their
development, they have been true to the injunction of their founder, to
be "all things to all men."

Loyola considered his society superior to the ancient monastic orders.
We have seen that he looked upon the latter as corrupted, and no
longer worthy to be intrusted with the work of Christian missions,
on which account he claimed for his society superior jurisdiction
in the missionary field. There, among populations unable to detect
imposture, his followers had their own way, made their own history, and
executed their own purposes, without intelligent popular inspection.
Consequently, when he realized the odium his society had encountered
among European peoples, he considered it necessary to remove this by
setting up for it exaggerated claims of merit in the missionary work.
By this means he evidently hoped to be able to appeal successfully
to the pope and the Church to protect the Jesuits from the rising
indignation of such Christians as had resisted their introduction into
France. Hence it became a fixed Jesuit habit, and yet is, to shield
the society under pretense that it is a necessary part of the Church
machinery, and that the Church can not exist without it. And out of
that same necessity must have grown that multitude of miracles, said to
have been performed in remote and unfrequented parts of the world, and
in the manufacture of which the Jesuits have acquired the reputation
of being thorough adepts. It was not a difficult matter in those days
to impose upon superstitious people by the claim of miraculous powers.
None understood this better than the Jesuits.

The first important mission of the Jesuits was to the East Indies,
in charge of Francis Xavier, one of the most impressible of Loyola's
converts. This mission is of chief importance, inasmuch as it
was initiatory, and conspicuously displays the operations of the
society whilst under the immediate personal charge of its founder.
It indicates the methods of the Jesuit missionary system, and how
they were made to conform to the main purpose of acquiring dominion,
with but little regard to the means employed. There are very few of
the present age who do not regard many of the recorded events as
apocryphal--notwithstanding, the overcredulous have accepted them as
true for many centuries. They are only important now because we learn
from them the prominent characteristics of the Jesuits, and the real
foundation of the reputation to which they so boastingly lay claim.

The Portuguese had, some years before, acquired the occupancy of
territory in India, with a commercial capital and an episcopal see at
Goa. By means of these influences a number of the natives had professed
Christianity, and, along with all the Portuguese Christians, paid
spiritual allegiance to the pope. But the condition of society was
by no means favorable to the practice of the Christian virtues. On
the contrary, it had become greatly demoralized, rivaling Rome and
the principal cities of Europe in that respect. In "The Lives of the
Saints"--a work of standard ecclesiastical authority in the Roman
Church--the author represents "revenge, ambition, avarice, usury, and
debauchery," as extensively prevailing at Goa. According to him, the
Indians who had professed conversion were so influenced by the example
of the Portuguese that they had "relapsed into their ancient manners
and superstitions." Even those who professed to be Christians "lived
in direct opposition to the gospel which they professed, and by their
manners alienated the infidels from the faith."[83]

Those familiar with the condition of ecclesiastical affairs in Europe
at that time, and especially with the immorality prevailing at Rome,
will not be surprised at this description of things at so remote a
place as the Portuguese possessions in India. Of course, such tendency
to demoralization could not long exist anywhere without producing
absolute social degradation. To prevent this, the king of Portugal
made an attempt to reform these abuses, influenced probably by the
twofold purpose of desiring to spread Christianity and to improve
the commercial interests of his subjects. Xavier, therefore, was
sent to India under his auspices, and was better fitted for that
purpose than Loyola himself would have been, because he was less
ambitious, less selfish, and more conscientious. Whilst he possessed
some commendable traits of character and wonderful energy, much that
has been written about him by papal and Jesuit authors can only be
considered as imaginary, and as deserving no permanent place in
history. The character assigned to him is perfectly angelic, with
scarcely any mixture of humanity; and, like Loyola, he is represented
as having performed a vast number of miracles, even to the extent of
restoring the dead to life! With regard to these, he is said to have
resembled Loyola in another respect--in that he, too, performed more
miracles than Christ! It is not difficult to perceive the object of
all this, when it is considered that the pretenses were set up at a
time when an unenlightened public were easily misled by them. They,
like the innumerable myths of the Middle Ages, answered the ends of
their inventors, and are no further useful now than as they serve to
show, not only the character of the society which required them to
be accepted as absolutely true, but that of those who invented and
employed them to mislead the credulous and unsuspecting multitude.
The entire account of Xavier's mission is so mixed up with these idle
tales that the time spent in their perusal would be wasted, but for the
reason that they bring prominently before us some of the distinguishing
characteristics of the Jesuits, under the tuition and during the lives
of the founder of their society and his most confidential colleague.

When he reached Goa, Xavier found the Portuguese Christians in the
demoralized condition already mentioned. The order of Franciscans had
there an established monastery, which, as we may suppose, needed to
be reformed, inasmuch as they do not seem to have been excepted from
other professing Christians in the general charge of immorality. We do
not learn from Jesuit authors how far this order was in fact reformed,
since the eulogists of Xavier consider it to have been his greatest
glory that he brought vast multitudes of the natives into the Christian
fold, and thereby established Jesuit authority and dominion in India in
place of that which the Church, under the patronage of the pope and by
means of the long-established religious orders, had already acquired
there. This was manifestly the view which Xavier himself took of his
mission, as is plainly shown by his conduct. Instead of co-operating
with the established Church authorities and with the monks at Goa, he
entered upon an independent course of his own, whereby he evidently
intended to indicate the superiority of his Jesuit methods. He roamed
the streets with a bell in his hand, and when the ringing attracted a
crowd of curious lookers-on, he invited them "to send their children
and slaves to catechism," so as to learn the truths of Christianity
from him. When the children gathered around him, prompted alone by
curiosity, he taught them "the Creed and practices of devotion," which,
of course, could have been nothing more than the simplest form. After
following this method for some time, he engaged in public preaching,
and it is gravely said that "in half a year" he accomplished the
"reformation of the whole city of Goa," which must have included the
native along with the Portuguese population. The whole story is told
after the manner of the romance-writers.

Reflecting people, who read of the immense multitudes converted to
Christianity under his eloquent preaching, not only at Goa, but in
other parts of India, will naturally wonder how all this could have
occurred when the natives did not understand his language, nor he
theirs! But the Jesuits have no difficulty on that score--nor, indeed,
on any other--when the simple invention of a miracle will serve their
purpose. Xavier became as famous as Loyola in this respect. Butler
represents him as having "baptized ten thousand Indians with his own
hand in one month," and "sometimes a whole village" in a single day;
and as "having preached to five or six thousand persons together,"
but without stating in what language he preached. Seeming, however,
to anticipate that there might be some to inquire how much of real
Christianity there was in these professed conversions, and how he
could have preached with so much effect to those whose language he
could not speak and who could not understand his, he endeavors to
remove the difficulty--evidently following the Jesuit story--by
declaring that, while in India, "_God first communicated to him the
gift of tongues_," so that "_he spoke very well the language of those
barbarians without having learned it, and had no need of an interpreter
when he instructed them_!"[84] It is impossible now to decide how this
statement originated. Xavier reported only to Loyola--not to the pope
or the Church--and whatsoever was circulated in Europe to aid the cause
of the Jesuits, and to gain them popularity on account of the success
of their missions, was derived from him. But whether it originated with
Xavier or Loyola, or was invented after the death of both, neither the
repetition of it now, nor its recent appearance in an authoritative
ecclesiastical volume, published and extensively circulated in the
United States, can relieve it from the suspicion of a fabulous origin.

During the brief stay of Xavier at Goa, he availed himself of the
opportunity of setting an example which the Jesuits of every subsequent
period have been prompt to imitate--an example which gives _practical_
interpretation to the Jesuit vow of "extreme poverty." The Franciscan
monks had erected a seminary, where they taught the native youths
at least the rudiments of a Christian education. But Xavier was not
satisfied with this, having manifestly conceived the idea, still
maintained by the Jesuits, that the cause of education should be
intrusted solely to them, on account of their superiority over all
others, including every religious order. Influenced presumably by this
consideration alone, he conceived a plan of having the Franciscan
seminary turned over to him, with the view of converting it into a
Jesuit college. Claiming that he was a more immediate and responsible
representative of the Church than any of the monastic orders, inasmuch
as the brief of the pope conferred special missionary prerogatives
upon him, he succeeded in effecting his purpose by inducing the
Franciscans to transfer the building to him. Whereupon the Franciscans
were left to engage in such other methods as they could to minister
to the Portuguese Christians and convert the natives, whilst Xavier
was permitted to establish his Jesuit college, so that whatsoever
renown should follow the Indian missions might inure to the benefit
of the Jesuits, and not to that of the monastic orders. The Jesuits
have never since then lost sight of this idea or failed to profit by
it, always taking care in making up the history of these missions
to place their society in the front and the monastic orders in the
background, notwithstanding the latter preceded them in India. They
seem disinclined to allow the least credit to any of the missionary
agencies which the Church had been accustomed to employ.

Having obtained possession of the Franciscan seminary at Goa, Xavier
decided that the building should be improved, so as to impress the
simple natives with the superiority of the Jesuits over the monks.
To an ordinary mind this would appear to be a difficult thing to
accomplish, inasmuch as it is not probable that voluntary contributions
could have been procured in such a community. But to Xavier it was
easy to overcome so trivial a difficulty as this, as it always has
been to the Jesuits, without finding the least impediment in the vow
of "extreme poverty." All he had to do was to employ the Portuguese
troops stationed at Goa "in pulling down the heathen temples in
the neighborhood of Goa, and appropriating their very considerable
property, for the use and benefit of the new college."[85] Admirable
strategy! The poor natives were powerless to resist the Portuguese
troops with arms in their hands, and were compelled to stand by in
silence and see their property despoiled without compensation, all
under the pretense that "the greater glory of God" required it, when,
in fact, it was prompted by Jesuit ambition. Xavier must have felt
gratified at his inexpensive mode of improving his new college, and
Loyola undoubtedly rejoiced when the fact was reported to him. The
former, therefore, having so successfully occupied the missionary field
at Goa by this display of Jesuit power to the natives, and by reducing
the Franciscan monks to inferiority, hastened to other parts of India,
to carry on the work he had begun under such flattering auspices.

He proceeded to the coast of Malabar, where the missionaries previously
sent from Goa, under the authority and within the jurisdiction of
that episcopal see, had baptized a large number of the natives,
whom they claimed to have been converted to Christianity under the
methods employed by them. But in order to make it appear that these
missionaries were inefficient and incompetent, the Jesuits pretend
that these professed converts still "retained their superstitions and
vices,"[86] and that it was absolutely necessary they should be brought
under the influence of Xavier. The purpose of this, at that time, was
to prove to the Christian world that the Church and the papacy had
failed to accomplish any good missionary results through the agency of
the monks, and that the Jesuits were absolutely indispensable. In this
way it was hoped, doubtless, to overcome the prejudice existing against
the society in Europe. Therefore, Xavier is represented as having saved
the Malabar converts from relapsing into heathenism, and increased the
number of natives who submitted to baptism. Whilst all this is spoken
in his praise, it is quite certain, from the most favorable accounts,
that they entertain but little, if any, just conception of the ceremony
of baptism, or, indeed, of any of the fundamental principles of
Christianity.

The first effort of Xavier upon the Malabar Coast was at Cape Comorin,
in a village "full of idolaters," to whom he preached; but as they
were unable to understand what he said, they remained unmoved, having
been probably attracted, like the people of Goa, by his bell-ringing
in the streets. Why the "gift of tongues" was then withheld from him
is not easy to determine, unless it was that he might be furnished
an opportunity of impressing the ignorant natives with sentiments
of awe by performing a miracle. At all events, Butler records what
happened in these words: "A woman who had been three days in the
pains of childbirth, without being eased by any remedies or prayers
of the Brahmins, was immediately delivered, and recovered upon being
instructed in the faith, and baptized by St. Francis [Xavier], as he
himself relates in a letter to St. Ignatius [Loyola]." How she was
instructed in the faith is, of course, not explained, it being left
to the imagination of the reader to conceive by what extraordinary
process this ignorant woman was instructed in the Christian faith, so
that she could be rightfully baptized into the Church, when she did
not understand the language in which she was addressed. If she even
realized that her safe delivery and instantaneous restoration were
occasioned by his intervention, there was no possible mode of conveying
to her mind the idea that it was God's work and not Xavier's, for there
was no word in any of the languages of India signifying the Deity in
the Christian sense. The whole story is not only preposterous, but
puerile. But it bears the unmistakable stamp of Jesuitism, like others
of the same general character. For example, it is seriously recorded
by the same author, that after the happening of this event, "the chief
persons of the country listened to his doctrine, and heartily embraced
the faith." He preached to those who had never before heard of Christ,
"and so great were the multitude which he baptized, that sometimes, by
the bare fatigue of administering that sacrament, he was scarcely able
to move his arm, according to the account which he gave to his brethren
in Europe." He healed the sick by baptism, and where his presence was
impracticable, he sent a neophyte to touch them with a cross, when, if
they signified a desire to be baptized, they were restored to health.
In addition, it is also said that he brought back to life four persons
who were dead, during the fifteen months he remained upon the Malabar
Coast.[87]

He had preached at Travancore, near Comorin, where he was more
favored by having the "gift of tongues" given to him, so that he
could speak in one language as well as another. Thus endowed, as the
Jesuits insist, with divine power, he dispersed and drove out of the
country "a tribe of savages and public robbers," who were in search
of plunder, by approaching them with a crucifix in his hand, although
they had never heard of a crucifix before, and had no means of knowing
what it signified. When the people of a village near Travancore
remained uninfluenced by his preaching--an event not at all wonderful
considering their utter ignorance of Christianity--he is represented
as having again resorted to a miracle, which was the never-failing
Jesuit resource. He had a grave opened, which contained a body interred
the day before, and, after putrefaction had commenced, restored it to
life and "perfect health." Near the same place he also brought back to
life a young man whose corpse he met on the way to the grave. "These
miracles," says Butler, "made so great an impression upon the people
that the _whole kingdom_ of Travancore was subjected to Christ in a few
months, except the king and some of his courtiers."[88]

Every enlightened mind will reject such tales as pure fictions--as
absolutely incredible. They trifle with serious things, and their
inventors act in imitation of those who make merchandise of human
souls. It directly impeaches the wisdom of Providence to pretend that
he permitted miracles to be performed in his name--even the dead to
be raised to life--to influence the destiny of an ignorant heathen
population utterly unable to appreciate the character and teachings of
Christ, whilst, at the same time, he permitted almost every variety of
vice and corruption to prevail among the intelligent populations of
Europe, and to fester about the very heart of the papacy itself.

The accounts of what was done by Xavier in the various parts of
India are of the same general character as the foregoing, the chief
variations being in the kind of miracles performed by him. To minds
capable of subjecting them to the test of reason and common sense,
it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that they were either
invented by Xavier himself, and sent to Europe to aid Loyola in
giving popularity to the Jesuits, or were made up by them after his
death for the same purpose. In point of fact, his whole claim to be
considered as the "Apostle of the Indies" rests upon a flimsy and
unsubstantial foundation. This is especially so, in view of the fact
that the multitudes he pretended to convert were turned into professing
Christians by the simple ceremony of baptism. Some of them may possibly
have been able to repeat the invocations "Our Father" and "Hail Mary,"
but without any intelligent conception of the difference between the
one Omnipotent God of the Christians and the many gods they had been
accustomed to worship, or of the meaning of the words uttered to them
by Xavier, or of the sacraments he administered, or of any of the
attributes of the Deity, or of a single essential principle in the
Christian Creed. Nevertheless, other accounts are added, whereby he
is represented as having visited other places upon the Indian coast,
where like results are said to have been produced, until, after having
remained about seven years in the East Indies, he went to Japan to
bring that idolatrous nation under the same influences, leaving the
bulk of his Indian converts to succumb to the dominion of the Brahmins,
and sink back into heathenism. He did not seem to realize that true
conversion to the Christian faith involves the sympathetic emotions of
the heart, the intelligent action of the mind, and that without these,
no signs, or genuflexions, or empty words spoken merely from the lips,
can give substantial value to the profession of it. A knowledge of
the manual of arms does not impart to a coward the bravery of a true
soldier, nor does the repetition of a few familiar words convert a
parrot into an intelligent being. And not a whit more can a heathen,
who never heard of Christ, be converted into a Christian by any form of
words, or by any bodily gestures, unless his mind has been touched and
his heart stirred by some knowledge of what and who God is, and of the
wisdom of his providences displayed in the creation and government of
the universe.

One would suppose that the "gift of tongues," when once conferred upon
Xavier, remained with him, inasmuch as he could not convey his thoughts
to the multitudes of people in any other way. But, strange to say, it
was otherwise. This miraculous gift was a mere "_transient favor_,"[89]
conferred only for a season, during his intercourse with some of the
heathen populations of India, and withdrawn as miraculously as it had
been given. What strange infatuation it must be to accept it as true
that, after he had been divinely endowed with the faculty of preaching
to the people of India in their own languages, he should have entered
upon his mission to Japan without any knowledge whatsoever of the
Japanese language! Although that language is one of the most difficult
in the world, and wholly unlike any spoken then or now in Europe, yet
that fact was of trifling consequence to such a man as the Jesuits
represent Xavier to have been. He undertook this mission as if nothing
were in the way, relying, as may be inferred from the Jesuit accounts,
upon his miraculous powers to convert to Christianity an idolatrous
people he had never seen, and of whom the world at that time knew but
little. It is solemnly averred that in _forty days_ (!) he acquired
a sufficient knowledge of the Japanese language to translate into it
the Apostles' Creed, and an exposition of its meaning by himself.
With this he began to preach, and "converted a great number." Still
the intensity of his zeal made him impatient, and, being unwilling to
await the slow process of appealing to the intelligence of the Japanese
people, he resorted again to the familiar expedient of miracles, which
had accomplished so much in India. Accordingly, we are told that, "by
his blessing, a child's body, which was swelled and deformed, was made
straight and beautiful; and, by his prayers, a leper was healed, and
a pagan young maid of quality, that had been dead a whole day, was
raised to life."[90] The Jesuits have never hesitated to assign to
Xavier, as they did to Loyola, the performance of some miracle, when
anything had to be done that could be accomplished in no other way. The
aggregate number of miracles attributed to them exceed all that are
recorded in the Gospels. And neither Xavier nor Loyola ever hesitated
to avow their authority to perform them, in verification of the Jesuit
doctrine that God had transferred his divine attributes to each of them.

Such recitals are calculated to tax the patience of enlightened readers
of this day; but without them it is not possible to obtain accurate
knowledge of the record the Jesuits have made up to inform the world
of the glorious achievements of their society, and to keep out of
view the enormities for which they have been, in the course of their
history, condemned by every Christian nation and people of Europe. They
are necessary also to a proper understanding why Xavier was beatified
and canonized; for these and other kindred fables were held to be
sufficiently attested to cause his name to be enrolled among the saints.

The difficulty of conveying to the minds of the Japanese people any
proper idea of God, when their language contained no word to express
it, has already been suggested with regard to India. He told them,
says Butler, that "_Deos_" meant God. But it is impossible that this
or any other single word can so signify the Deity as to convey to an
ignorant, idolatrous people any just conception of the Creator of the
world, or of his Divine attributes, or of their own responsibilities
to him either in life or death. But the wonderful exploits of Xavier
were not balked at this or any other point. The "gift of tongues" had
once been given to him, whereby he was enabled to preach to any people
without any previous knowledge of their language. This gift, however,
as we have seen, was only a "transient favor," granted for a season,
or some special occasion, and taken away. And, notwithstanding, in
consequence of this, it had become necessary that he should learn the
Japanese language in forty days, so as to be able to speak and write
it, it still became necessary also that he should again have the power
conferred upon him to understand and speak all languages. Consequently,
we learn from Butler that "at Amanguchi _God restored to St. Francis
the gift of tongues_; for he preached often to the _Chinese_ merchants
who traded there, _in their mother tongue, which he had never
learned_."[91] To appreciate the character of this statement, it should
be borne in mind that, at that time, he had never visited China.
And it is proper to observe that, notwithstanding this providential
preparation for missionary labors in that country, he never did visit
there.

It converts serious things into mockery to pretend that God conferred
this gift upon Xavier in order to fit him specially for the conversion
of the Chinese, and yet that he so disposed his providences with
reference to him that he was never able to enter that empire, or to
hold direct intercourse with its people. If it had been the Divine
decree that he should be set apart for this great work by this
miraculous preparation, no earthly impediment would have been likely
to arrest him, or keep him out of China; for God's fixed purposes are
not subject to fluctuation to suit the exigencies of human affairs.
But, notwithstanding he made several earnest efforts to get there,
he signally failed in all of them. He returned from Japan to India,
and, after remaining a short time at Goa, resorted to the expedient
of attempting an entrance into China by indirection, because the
authorities there were inimical to the Portuguese. He conceived the
idea of procuring the organization of a diplomatic mission, and
having himself attached to it, so that, by this means, he could enter
the country. This plan having failed, he endeavored to accomplish
his object "secretly," says Butler, making the effort to be landed
somewhere upon the Chinese coast, "where no houses were in view."
Every step he took, however, proved abortive, and he died before
reaching China, thus leaving wholly unaccomplished what the Jesuits
allege was the foreordained purpose of Providence.

The death of Xavier occurred in 1552, and his remains were taken to Goa
about three months after, when, according to the Jesuit account, his
flesh "was found ruddy and fresh-colored, like a man who is in sweet
repose!" When it was cut, the blood ran! And so necessary is it deemed
by the Jesuits that his body shall appear to have been absolutely
incorruptible--as an argument to prove that their society is under the
special protection and guardianship of God--it is seriously affirmed
that "the holy corpse exhaled an odor so fragrant and delightful that
the most exquisite perfume came nothing near it." When the body reached
Malacca, a pestilence then wasting the city, suddenly ceased, the
effect alone of its mere presence! It was transported to Goa--"entire,
fresh, and still exhaling a sweet odor"--and deposited in the church
of the Jesuit college he had dextrously obtained from the Franciscan
monks. Upon this occasion we are told that "several blind persons
recovered their sight, and others, sick of palsies and other diseases,
their health and the use of their limbs!" His relics, by order of the
King of Portugal, were visited in 1774--one hundred and ninety-two
years after his death--when "the body was found without the least bad
smell, and seemed environed with a kind of shining brightness, and the
face, hands, breast, and feet had not suffered the least alteration or
symptom of corruption!"[92]

In view of the universal experience of mankind and the enlightenment
of the present age, it is difficult to treat the foregoing statements
seriously, they are so palpably the product of Jesuit imposture.
And yet they are published in this country, and recommended as
positive truths, by the highest ecclesiastical authority, as if some
intelligent providential object would be accomplished by believing
them. Notwithstanding, however, that every man of common sense will
reject them, they are indispensable to a proper understanding of the
methods employed by the Jesuits in setting forth the claims of their
society to providential favor. And although the vagaries of the wildest
enthusiasts are more credible, because they do not sport with sacred
things, their recital puts us in possession of some of the means of
unraveling the nets this wonderful society has cunningly woven.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 83: Lives of the Saints. By the Rev. Alban Butler. Vol. XII,
article "St. Francis Xavier," December 3, p. 608.]

[Footnote 84: History of the Saints. By the Rev. Alban Butler, Vol.
XII, article "St. Francis Xavier," December 3, p. 610.]

[Footnote 85: Griesinger, pp. 88-89.]

[Footnote 86: Butler, pp. 608, 609.]

[Footnote 87: Butler, p. 609]

[Footnote 88: Butler, p. 611.]

[Footnote 89: Butler, p. 614.]

[Footnote 90: Butler, p. 615.]

[Footnote 91: Butler, p. 616.]

[Footnote 92: Butler, pp. 620-622.]




CHAPTER X.

IN PARAGUAY.


The Jesuits had a fairer and better field for the display of their
peculiar characteristics, and for the successful establishment of
the principles of their constitution, during the existence of the
Government founded by them in Paraguay, than ever fell to the lot of
any other society or select body of men. It is not too late to try
them by the results they then achieved, so as to assure ourselves of
what might reasonably be expected if the modern nations should so far
forget themselves as to allow that sad and disastrous experiment to be
repeated.

After the Portuguese obtained possession of Brazil, they inaugurated
measures necessary to bring the natives under their dominion. The
problem was not of easy solution. The Indians had no conception of
the principles of international law, which the leading nations had
established to justify the subjugation of the weak by the strong, and
consequently had to be brought by slow degrees under such influences as
should persuade them to believe that their conquerors were benefactors,
and not enemies. The pretense of title, based upon the grant of the
Pope Alexander VI, was not openly avowed. If it had been, the native
population, in all probability, would have united in sufficient numbers
to drive the invaders into the sea. Pacific means of some sort had to
be employed, so as to delude the multitude of natives into a condition
of apparent but false security.

Spain had also acquired possessions in other parts of South America,
and the methods of colonization adopted by the two Governments were
substantially the same. Charles V of Spain and John III of Portugal
were both religious fanatics, and although their chief purpose was
to obtain wealth from the mines of America, each of them professed to
desire, at the same time, the civilization of the natives. Hence, as
this could not be accomplished without the influences of Christianity,
all the expeditions sent out by them to the New World were accompanied
by ecclesiastics, and were therefore under the patronage and auspices
of the Church of Rome. The controlling idea of the period was that
the Church and the State should remain united, so that wheresoever
the latter should obtain temporal and political control, the former
should be constantly present to decide and direct everything
pertaining to faith and morals; that is, to keep both the State and
the people in obedience to the Church. With these objects in view,
missionaries were sent out by the Church with the first Spanish and
Portuguese adventurers, and every step was avowedly taken in the name
of Christianity. So deeply was this sentiment embedded in every mind
that the memory of some favorite saint was perpetuated in the names of
nearly all the newly-established cities. These missionaries were taken
mainly from the ancient monastic orders--the Dominicans, Franciscans,
etc.--and had been regarded by the popes for many years as not only
the most faithful, but the most efficient coadjutors of the Church in
the work of extending Christianity over the world. We have elsewhere
seen that the Jesuits did not sympathize with this belief, and that
Loyola had urged upon the pope the necessity of creating his new
society upon the express ground that these ancient orders had become
both inefficient and corrupt. When the New World, therefore, was about
to be opened before them, the followers of Loyola endeavored to seize
the occasion to supplant the monkish orders, if possible, and take into
their own hands exclusively the dissemination of Christian influences
among the native populations. In this respect the Jesuits displayed
more zeal for their own success than for that of the Church, and
made the cause of Christianity secondary to their own interests. The
history of their missions in South America will abundantly show this,
as it will also display their insatiable ambition and unparalleled
superciliousness.

The first Jesuits were sent to South America by the King of Portugal.
They found a large district of country washed by the waters of the
Rio de la Plata and its tributaries, which had not been reached by
either the Spaniards or the Portuguese, but remained in the exclusive
possession of the Indians, who had never felt the influence of
European civilization. The natives generally had been treated by the
invaders with extreme cruelty, having been often reduced to slavery
and forced to submit to a variety of oppressions and indignities.
All the resources of the country susceptible of being converted into
wealth were seized upon to supply the royal treasuries of the Christian
kings who tyrannized over them. The whole history of that period shows
that, unless some counteracting influences had been introduced, those
who professed to desire the civilization of the natives would, in
all probability, have added to the degradation and misery in which
they were found when first discovered. The Jesuits desired to apply
some corrective, and there is no reason why the sincerity of their
first missionaries in this respect should be suspected. It can not
be justly charged against them that they were disposed to treat the
native populations with cruelty, or to do otherwise than subject them
to the influences of the Jesuit system of education and government.
Whatsoever faults of management are properly attributable to them--and
there are many--are easily traceable to that system itself, which, from
its very nature, has always been, and must continue to be, inflexible.
Inasmuch as blind and uninquiring obedience to the superior is the most
prominent and fundamental principle of the society, everything, in
either government or religion or morals, must bend to that, or break.
There is no half-way ground--no compromise--nothing but obedience.
Everything is reduced to a common level, leaving individuals without
the least sense of personal responsibility except to those in authority
above them. For these reasons, it is necessary to remember, whilst
examining the course and influences of the Jesuits in Paraguay, that
whatsoever transpired was in obedience to the command of the superior
in Rome, who held no personal intercourse with the natives, and whose
animating and controlling purpose was to grasp the entire dominion over
the New World in his own hands. It was chargeable to the constitution
and organization of the society, which, as already explained, so
emphatically embodies the principle of absolute monarchism as to place
it necessarily in antagonism with every form of liberal and popular
government. If the Government they established in Paraguay, and
maintained for one hundred and fifty years, had not been monarchical,
it could not have had Jesuit paternity or approval. If, from any
cause, at any period of its existence, it had become otherwise by the
introduction of popular features, it would have encountered Jesuit
resistance. Monarchism and Jesuitism are twin sisters. Popular liberty
and Jesuitism can not exist in unity; the former may tolerate the
latter, but the latter can not be reconciled without exterminating
everything but itself. Whatsoever institutions existed, therefore,
in Paraguay whilst the country was under the exclusive dominion of
the Jesuits, must be held to have been in precise conformity to the
Jesuit constitution, and of such a character as the society would yet
establish wheresoever they possessed the power either to frame new
institutions or to change existing ones.

The Jesuit idea of exclusiveness and superiority influenced the
conduct of their missionaries in Paraguay as elsewhere. But for this,
different results might have ensued. If they had been content to
recognize the monastic orders as equally important and meritorious
as their own in the field of missionary labor, and the ancient
machinery of the Church as retaining its capacity for effectiveness
in spreading Christianity throughout the world--if, in other words,
they had been content to recognize any merit as existing elsewhere
than among themselves--the natives might have been subjected to a very
different destiny from that which, in the end, overwhelmed them. But
they were not permitted, by the nature and character of their order,
to entertain any such feelings, or to cherish any ideas of success
other than those which promised to inure to their own advancement.
Accordingly we find them--as explained by one of their modern defenders
of high celebrity--basing their claim to exclusive jurisdiction over
the natives of Paraguay upon the express ground that the ecclesiastical
influences sent out under the auspices of the Church and the patronage
of the Spanish and Portuguese kings, had become injurious rather
than beneficial to the natives, in consequence of the most flagrant
corruption. In explanation of the course pursued by the Jesuit
missionaries, he says: "One of the first experiences of the missioners
was, that it was in vain to hope for any permanent fruit among the
Indians, unless they were separated from the evil influences of the
Europeans, who swarmed into the New World, carrying with them all the
vices of the Old, and adding to them the licentiousness and cruelty
which the freedom of a new country and the hopes of speedy riches
bring with them."[93] This same author also speaks of "the hordes of
adventurers who flocked over to the New World, the scum of the great
cities of Europe," in order to show that by intercourse with them the
natives knew "little more of the Christian name than the vices of those
who professed it."[94] To let it be known that "lay adventurers" are
not alone referred to, he mentions expressly the "worldly and ambitious
ecclesiastics and religious," who were "forgetful of the spirit of
their calling, or apostates from their rule."[95] He casts a variety
of aspersions upon the characters of the Bishops of Assumption and of
Buenos Ayres, and maintains the proposition with earnestness, that if
the Indians were allowed to have unrestrained intercourse with the
Spaniards, "they would derive the worst consequences from their bad
example, which is entirely opposed to the principles of morality."[96]

In this the Jesuits displayed their wonderful astuteness, and it may
be supposed that they employed these and other kindred allegations
with effect in Spain, inasmuch as they succeeded in obtaining from the
king a special "prohibition for Europeans to set foot in" Paraguay, so
that they could thereby secure exclusive control of the natives and
bring them under Jesuit influences alone, independent of the monastic
orders and the ecclesiastical authorities of the Church.[97] This
was a great stroke of policy upon their part, because by ignoring
the Church, its ecclesiastics, and the monastic orders, they were
enabled to assume prerogatives of the most extravagant character, and
to hold themselves out to the natives as the only Europeans worthy of
obedience and the only true representatives of Christian civilization.
Not only, therefore, in the manner of securing the royal approval of
their exclusive pretensions, but in the character of the Government
established by them, did they exhibit their chief characteristics of
ambition, vanity, and superciliousness--characteristics they have never
lost.

The Government established by them in Paraguay was essentially
monarchical. It could not have been otherwise under the principles of
their constitution. Under the false name of a Christian republic, it
was, to all intents and purposes, a theocratic State, so constructed
as to free it from all European influences except such as emanated
from their superior at Rome. All the intercourse they had with the
Church and the pope was through him, and whatsoever commands he gave
were uninquiringly obeyed by them, without stopping to investigate or
concerning themselves in the least to know whether the Church and the
pope approved or disapproved them. In order to impress the natives
with the idea of their independence and of their superiority over the
monastic orders and the Church ecclesiastics, they practiced the most
artful means to persuade them to hold no intercourse with either
Spaniards or Portuguese, upon the ground that they could not do so
without encountering the example of their vices and immoralities. The
unsuspecting Indians were easily seduced by acts of kindness, and
the result was that, in the course of a brief period, they succeeded
in establishing a number of what were called _Reductions_--or, more
properly speaking, villages--with multitudes of Indians assembled about
them; the whole aggregating, in the end, several hundred thousand.
These constituted the Jesuit State, and were all, by the mere ceremony
of baptism, brought under Jesuit dominion. At each Reduction the
natives were allowed to select a secular magistracy, with limited and
unimportant powers over such temporal affairs as could be intrusted
to them without impairing the theocratic feature of the Government.
But in order to provide against the possibility of permitting even
these few temporal affairs from being conducted independently of
them, they adopted the precaution of providing that, before any
important decisions were carried into effect, they should obtain their
sanction--as "spiritual shepherds." There never was anywhere a more
thorough and complete blending of Church and State together.

Although this new State was established under the pretense that it was
necessary to protect the natives against the bad influences of the
Spaniards and the Portuguese, the approval of it by the King of Spain,
Philip III, was obtained by the promise that "every adult must pay him
the tribute of one dollar"--a consideration of chief importance with
him. Philip IV was equally disposed to favor the Jesuits, presumably
for the want of proper information; for it would have required but
little investigation at that time to have discovered that the only
motive of the Jesuits for securing royal approbation in Europe was that
they might ultimately acquire power to plot against European royalty
itself when it should stand in the way of their ambition. To show how
little obedience was paid to the public authorities of either Spain
or Portugal, it is only necessary to observe that each Reduction was
governed by a Jesuit father, supported by a vicar and a curate as
assistants, but whose chief duty was espionage. This governing father
was under the orders of a superior, who presided over a diocese of five
or six parishes, the supervision and management of the whole being
lodged in the hands of a provincial, who "received his orders direct
from the general in Rome."[98] If, therefore, the kings of Spain and
Portugal supposed that the Jesuits in Portugal intended to pay fidelity
to them, or to either of them, they were deceived--as, in the course
of events, they discovered. They obeyed their general in Rome, and him
alone.

The praise ought not to be withheld from the Jesuits, that the
natives who were thus brought under their influences were better and
more kindly treated than those who were compelled to submit to the
dominion of Spaniards and Portuguese beyond the limits of Paraguay.
They "partook of their labors, of their amusements, of their joys,
of their sorrows. They visited daily every house in which lay a sick
person, whom they served as the kindest nurse, and to whom they seemed
to be ministering genii." By these and other kindnesses they brought
the Indians to look upon them with a feeling bordering upon idolatry.
But whilst they were friends, they were also sovereigns, and "governed
with absolute and unquestioned authority."[99] This was a necessary and
indispensable part of their system of government, which embodied the
Jesuit idea of a Christian republic. It was in everything pertaining
to the management of public affairs an absolute monarchy, with all its
powers centered in the general at Rome, whose authority was accepted as
equal to that of God, and to whose command obedience was exacted from
all.

Apart from this governing authority, universal equality prevailed.
The principles of socialism or communism--very much as now
understood--governed all the Reductions. Everything necessary to the
material comfort and prosperity of the Indians was in common. Each
family had a portion of land set apart for cultivation. They also
learned trades, and many of them, both men and women, became experts.
But the earnings of the whole were deposited in common storehouses at
each Reduction, and distributed by the Jesuits in such portions to each
individual as necessity required. "Even meat was portioned from the
public slaughter-houses in the same way." The surplus produce remaining
after these distributions was sent to Europe, and sold or exchanged
for wares and merchandise, solely at the discretion of the Jesuits.
Everything was conducted in obedience to them, and nothing contrary to
their orders was tolerated. Rigid rules of conduct and hours of labor
were prescribed, and the violators of them were subject to corporal
punishment. Houses of worship, colleges, and palatial residences for
the Jesuit fathers, were built by the common labor and at the expense
of the common treasury. Suffrage was universal; but "the sanction of
the Jesuits was necessary to the validity of the election." In fact,
says Nicolini, "the Jesuits substituted themselves for the State or
community"[100]--a fact which fully establishes the monarchical and
theocratic character of the Government.

In order to teach the confiding Indians that obedience to authority
was their chiefest duty, they were subjected to rules of conduct and
intercourse which were enforced with the strictest severity. They
were watched in everything, the searching eyes of the Jesuits being
continually upon them. They constituted, in fact, a state of society
reaching the Jesuit ideal completely; that is, docile, tractable,
submissive, obedient, without the least real semblance of manhood.
Having thus completed their subjugation, energetic measures were
adopted to render any change in their condition impossible. For this
purpose care was taken to exclude all other than Jesuit influences,
and to sow the seeds of disaffection towards everything European,
the object being to surround them with a high wall of ignorance
and superstition, which no European influences could overleap, and
within which their authority would be unbounded. They were instructed
that the Spaniards and the Portuguese were their enemies, that the
ecclesiastics and monkish missionaries sent over by the Church were
unworthy of obedience or imitation, and that the only true religion
was that which emanated from their society and had their approval. If
these simple-minded people were taught anything about the Church, it
was with the view of convincing them that the Jesuits represented all
its power, authority, and virtue, and that whatsoever did not conform
to their teachings was sinful and heretical. If they were told anything
about the pope, it was to represent him as inferior to their general,
who was to be regarded by them as the only infallible representative
of God upon earth. That all other ideas should be excluded from their
minds, they were not permitted to hold any intercourse whatsoever
with Europeans; for fear, undoubtedly, they might hear that there was
a Church at Rome, and a pope higher than their general. They were
not allowed to speak any language but their own, so as to render it
impossible to acquire any ideas or opinions except such as could be
expressed by means of its limited number of inexpressive words; that
is, to keep them entirely and exclusively under Jesuit influences. To
sum up the whole, without further detail, the Indians were regarded
as minors under guardianship, and in this condition they remained for
one hundred and fifty years, without the possibility of social and
national development. They were saved, it is true, from the miseries
of Portuguese slavery, but kept in such a condition of inferiority and
vassalage as unfitted them for independent citizenship. Their limbs
were unchained; but their minds were "cabined, cribbed, confined,"
within bounds too narrow for matured thought, sentiment, or reason.

It would not be fair to say that the first Jesuit missionaries to
Paraguay may not have been animated by the desire to improve the
condition of the Indians, or to withhold from them the meed of praise
justly due for the humanity of their motives. It is undoubtedly true,
as already intimated, that they did shield them from many of the
cruelties to which they had been subjected under the Spanish and the
Portuguese adventurers, who overran large portions of South America
in the search after wealth. But it can not be too indelibly impressed
upon our minds, in this age, that they acted in strict obedience to the
Jesuit system, which permitted no departure from absolute monarchism,
and centered all the duties of citizenship in obedience to themselves
as the sole representatives of the only authority that was or could be
legitimate. And not only did their strict adherence to their system
make it necessary for them to hold the Indians in subjugation and treat
them as inferior subjects, but it involved them, at last, in collisions
with the Spaniards and Portuguese, and obliged them to treat the latter
especially as enemies, and to impress this fact upon the minds of the
whole Indian population. The consequence of this was to create an
independent and rebellious Government within the Portuguese dominions,
which necessarily brought the Jesuits in conflict with the legitimate
authority of the Portuguese Government. The Jesuits foresaw this, and
prepared for it. It is a fair inference from all the contemporaneous
facts that they desired it. At all events they subjected the Indians
at the Reductions to military training and discipline, so as to be
prepared for such emergencies as might arise out of their relations
with both the Spaniards and the Portuguese. One would suppose that in
a Government so far separated from the rest of the world, and governed
by those who professed to be laboring alone for "the greater glory
of God," the arts of peace would be chiefly, if not exclusively,
cultivated. But the successors of the first Jesuit missionaries thought
otherwise. Consequently, besides refusing to allow the Indians any
intercourse with the Europeans, they would not permit them even to
leave the Reductions without permission, or to receive any impressions
except those emanating from themselves, or to do anything not dictated
by them. The result was what they designed, that the Indians came to
look upon all Europeans, whether ecclesiastic or lay, as enemies, and
the Jesuit as their only friends. They readily engaged, therefore,
in the manufacture of arms and ammunition, and submitted to military
discipline until they became a formidable army, subject, of course, to
the command of their Jesuit superiors. The sequel of Jesuit history
proves that in all this they were unconsciously creating an antagonism
which, in the end, overwhelmed them.

A violent feud sprang up between the Jesuits and the Franciscan
monks, which undoubtedly arose out of the claim of superiority and
exclusiveness set up and persisted in by the former. It may well be
inferred that the Jesuits were chiefly to blame for this feud, for
the reason that the Franciscans retained the confidence of the Church
authorities, and the Jesuits did not. At all events, however, they were
in open enmity with each other, and prosecuted their controversy with
an exceeding degree of bitterness upon both sides. A distinguished
citizen of the United States, who represented this country as Minister
to Paraguay, alluding to this fact, says: "The Franciscan priests in
the capital regarded them [the Jesuits] with envy, suspicion, and
jealousy. These last fomented the animosity of the people against them,
so that Government, priests, and people regarded with favor, rather
than otherwise, the destruction of the missions, and the expulsion of
their founders."[101] Notwithstanding these hostile relations, however,
between the Jesuits and the Franciscans, and the disturbed condition
of affairs existing between the former and the Portuguese authorities,
neither the pope nor the King of Spain withdrew their patronage
entirely from the Jesuits for some years, and not until it was made
manifest that they had become an independent power, which might, if not
checked, result in complications injurious alike to the Church and the
State. But the time arrived, after a while, when it became necessary
to impose severe restraints upon their ambition, and to teach them
that neither the powers of Church nor State were concentrated in their
hands. They were required to learn--what they had seemed not before to
have been conscious of--that the authority they exercised in Paraguay
was usurped, and that if they desired to continue there as a society,
they must submit to be held in proper subordination. Being unable or
unwilling to realize this, they invited results which they manifestly
had not anticipated.

When the protracted controversy between Spain and Portugal, about the
boundaries of their respective possessions in South America, reached
an adjustment, it furnished an occasion for testing the obedience of
the Jesuits to royal authority. The two Governments, after the usual
delay in such matters, came to an amicable understanding, and arranged
the boundaries to their mutual satisfaction. It placed a portion of the
Jesuit missions under the jurisdiction of the Portuguese, which they
had supposed to belong to Spain. The Jesuits refused to submit to this,
and inaugurated the necessary measures to resist it, being determined,
if they could prevent it, not to submit to the dominion of Portugal.
Their preference for Spain was because of the fact that the king of
that country was more favorably inclined to them than the Portuguese
king. But the history of the controversy justifies the belief that
they would not even have submitted to the former unresistingly,
inasmuch as it had undoubtedly become their fixed purpose to retain
the independence they had long labored to establish, by maintaining
their theocratic form of government. They had been so accustomed to
autocratic rule over the natives, that they could not become reconciled
to the idea of surrendering it to any earthly power. In this instance,
however, they encountered an adversary of whose courage and capacity
they had not the least conception, and whom they found, in a brief
period, capable of inflicting a death-blow upon the society. This was
Sebastian Cavalho, Marquis of Pombal, who was the chief counselor of
the Portuguese king.

Cavalho--better known as Pombal--and the King of Portugal, were both
faithful members of the Roman Church, and conducted the Government
in obedience to its requirements. But neither of them was disposed
to submit to the dictation of the Jesuits of Paraguay with regard to
the question of boundary--which was entirely political--or submit to
their rebellion against legitimate authority. Such a question did not
admit of compromise or equivocation. It presented a vital issue they
could neither avoid nor postpone, without endangering the Government
and forfeiting their own self-respect. Consequently, they inaugurated
prompt and energetic measures to suppress the threatened insurrection
of the Jesuits before it should be permitted to ripen into open and
armed resistance. From that time forward the controversy constantly
increased in violence. The intense hatred of Pombal by the Jesuits has
colored their opinions to such an extent that they deny to him either
talents or merit, and, inasmuch as they charge all the ensuing results
to him, he is pictured by them more as a monster of iniquity than as
a statesman of acknowledged ability. All this, however, should count
for nothing in deciding the real merits of the controversy. The whole
matter is resolved into this simple proposition--that it was the duty
of the Government to vindicate and maintain its own authority in the
face of Jesuit opposition. It had nothing to do with the Church, nor
the Church with it. It did not involve any question of faith, but was
confined solely and entirely to secular and temporal affairs. And if,
under these circumstances, Pombal had quietly permitted the Jesuits to
defy the Government and consummate their object by successful rebellion
against its authority, he would have won from Jesuit pens the brightest
and most glowing praise, but his name would have gone into history as
the betrayer of his country.

With the foregoing facts impressed upon his mind, the reader will be
prepared to appreciate the subsequent events which led to the expulsion
of the Jesuits from all the Roman Catholic nations of Europe, and
finally to the suppression and abolition of the society, as the only
means of defense against its exactions and enormities.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 93: The Suppression of the Society of Jesus in the Portuguese
Dominions. By the Rev. Alfred Weld, "of the Society of Jesus." London,
1877. Page 24.]

[Footnote 94: _Ibid._, p. 30.]

[Footnote 95: _Ibid._, p. 33.]

[Footnote 96: _Ibid._, p. 42.]

[Footnote 97: The Suppression of the Society of Jesus in the Portuguese
Dominions. By the Rev. Alfred Weld, "of the Society of Jesus." London,
1877. Page 42.]

[Footnote 98: History of the Jesuits. By Greisinger. Page 140.]

[Footnote 99: Nicolini, p. 302.]

[Footnote 100: Nicolini, pp. 303-304.]

[Footnote 101: History of Paraguay. By Washburn. Vol. I, p. 87.]




CHAPTER XI.

THE PORTUGUESE AND THE JESUITS.


At the period referred to in the last chapter the Jesuits were held
in low esteem everywhere in Europe. They were severely censured, not
alone by Government authorities, but by the great body of the Christian
people, more especially those who desired to save the Roman Church from
their dangerous and baneful influences. The leading Roman Catholic
Governments were all incensed against them, and it only required some
master spirit, some man of courage and ability, to excite universal
indignation against them. Protestants had comparatively little to do
with the matter--nothing, indeed, but to make public sentiment somewhat
more distinct and emphatic.

Pombal understood thoroughly the character of the adversary he
was about to encounter--the adroit artifices which the Jesuits,
collectively and individually, were accustomed to practice, and by
which they had often succeeded in obtaining assistance from unexpected
quarters. Therefore he resolved at the outset not to temporize with
them, but to put in operation immediately a series of measures of the
most active and energetic character. He may not have known that the
other Roman Catholic Governments would unite with that of Portugal, but
he must have seen ground for believing that they would, in the general
displeasure they exhibited at the conduct of the Jesuits throughout
Europe. Howsoever this may have been, he saw plainly his own line of
duty toward the Portuguese Government, and had not only the necessary
courage, but the ability to pursue it. A royal council was held at the
palace of the King of Portugal in 1757, at which he suggested "the
imperative necessity of removing the Jesuits from their posts of
confessors to the royal family," for the reason that the controversy
in South America could not be satisfactorily settled, if at all, so
long as they remained in a condition to influence the action and
opinions of the king in any degree whatsoever.[102] He knew perfectly
well how ingeniously they had wormed themselves into the confidence
of kings, so that by becoming their confessors they should not only
obtain a knowledge of the secrets of State, but so to influence the
policy and action of Governments as to promote their own interests.
And like a sagacious and skillful statesman, as he undoubtedly was, he
saw at a glance how necessary it was that they should not be permitted
to have further access to the king. The Jesuits represent the king
as having been unwilling to assent to this proposition; but that is
not of the least consequence, because, as they admit, he signed "the
decree which excluded all Jesuits from their office of confessors of
the court."[103] This was a terrible blow to them--perhaps the first
of a serious character they had ever encountered. It was made the
more serious by the fact that Portugal was recognized as a thoroughly
religious country, and sincerely devoted to the Church of Rome.
Whatsoever may have been its immediate effect upon the Jesuits, it left
no ground for retreat or equivocation upon either side, but placed the
contestants in direct and open hostility, each with drawn swords. From
that time forward the conflict, on the part of the Jesuits, was one
of life or death, and they fought it with a desperation born of that
belief.

To justify itself, and to explain to the European nations the reasons
which influenced it, the Portuguese Government caused to be prepared
a statement of grievances, wherein the course of the Jesuits "in the
Spanish and Portuguese dominions of the New World, and of the war
which they had carried on against the armies of the two crowns,"
were set forth. It is insinuated that Pombal was the author of this
pamphlet, but no evidence of that has been produced. It does not matter
whether he was or not, inasmuch as it amounted to such an arraignment
of the Jesuits as gave tone to the public sentiment of Europe, and
influenced the course of all the Governments toward the society. Viewed
in this light, it becomes of the utmost importance, inasmuch as we
may rightfully regard as true, even without special investigation,
whatsoever influences the action of Governments and communities, and
can not safely accept in opposition to it what interested parties--such
as the Jesuits were--may assert to the contrary. The substance of this
statement is contained in the work of Weld, one of the most earnest of
the Jesuit defenders. It is in the nature of an indictment against the
Jesuits, preferred by one of the leading Roman Catholic Governments
of Europe, and on that account is both important and instructive.
Abuse and vituperation--in the use of which the Jesuits are trained as
experts--are no answer to it.

After alleging that the power of the Jesuits had so increased as
to render it evident that there must be war between them and the
Government in Paraguay, it proceeds to affirm "that they were laboring
sedulously to undermine the good understanding existing between the
Governments of Portugal and Spain," and that "their machinations were
carried on from the Plata to the Rio Grande." It then embodies in a few
expressive words, as given by the Jesuit Weld, these serious charges:

"That they had under them thirty-one great populations, producing
immense riches to the society, while the people themselves were kept
in the most miserable slavery; that no Spaniard or Portuguese, were he
even governor or bishop, was ever admitted into the Reductions; that,
'with strange deceit,' the Spanish language was absolutely forbidden;
that the Indians were trained to an unlimited, blind obedience, kept in
the most 'extraordinary ignorance,' and the most unsufferable slavery
ever known, and under a complete despotism as to body and soul; that
they did not know there was any other sovereign in the world than the
fathers, and knew nothing of the king, or any other law than the will
of the 'holy fathers;' that the Indians were taught that white laymen
adored gold, had a devil in their bodies, were the enemies of the
Indians, and of the images which they adored; that they would destroy
their altars, and offer sacrifices of their women and infants; and they
were consequently taught to kill white men wherever they could find
them, and to be careful to cut off their heads, lest they should come
to life again."[104]

One would scarcely suppose that, after this terrible arraignment
of the Jesuits in Paraguay, there could be any other counts added
to the indictment. But in order to aggravate these offenses and to
explain their disloyalty to the Government--as we learn from the same
Jesuit authority--they were also charged with opposing and resisting
the treaty of boundary between Spain and Portugal; with carrying
on a war against the two Governments; fortifying and defending the
passes leading to the Reductions with artillery; inciting the Indians
to revolt; and with exhibiting an obstinate resistance to royal
authority.[105]

There has never been, in the civilized world, such an enumeration
of serious offenses charged against any body of men by so high and
responsible authority as that of one of the leading Governments,
as Portugal was. The modern reader can not avoid the expression of
surprise when he realizes that they were made by those who faithfully
adhered to the Church of Rome, and against a society which professed to
have been organized to promote "the _greater_ glory of God," for the
express reason that no existing order sufficiently did so.

It is scarcely possible that such accusations as these would have been
made without some justifying cause. If they were even exaggerated, the
Government of Portugal must have obtained information from responsible
sources sufficiently reliable to authorize a searching investigation.
That, undoubtedly, was the object of Pombal and the king, not merely
in explanation of their own official conduct, but to bring the conduct
and attitude of the Jesuits to the notice of other Governments.
Whatsoever the direct object they had in view, the charges thus
formally made by them against the Jesuits led to a fierce and angry
controversy. The Jesuits defended themselves with their accustomed
violence, and it has required many pages to convey to the world the
character of the maledictions visited by them upon the name and memory
of Pombal. To us of the present time these amount to very little,
inasmuch as they are almost entirely supported by _ex parte_ statements
of those implicated by the Government, and which are entitled to no
weight whatsoever against the general verdict ultimately rendered
by the European nations, in obedience to public opinion. We can not
accept the Jesuit theory that these nations were all misled by false
accusations, or that the subsequent suppression of the society was the
consequence of undue popular prejudices. It is not difficult to deceive
individuals, but Governments and communities are not apt to fall into
serious errors. The collective judgments of whole populations are
seldom wrong.

It was natural that the Christians of Europe should become, not only
interested, but in some degree excited, when they came to know the
character of the charges made against the Jesuits by the authority
of the Portuguese Government. Many of them desired to look favorably
upon the order on account of the relations they supposed it to bear to
the Church. The Roman ecclesiastics were divided, some attacking and
others defending it. It became necessary, therefore, that the matter
should be brought to the attention of the pope, in order that the final
judgment should be pronounced by him, inasmuch as they were considered
a religious order, and, consequently, within the proper jurisdiction
of the Church. With this view, Pombal, in behalf of the Government of
Portugal, forwarded an official dispatch to Rome, whereby the pope
was informed of the causes of complaint against them. The Jesuits say
this dispatch is filled with "libels;" but this is to be attributed
chiefly to their hatred of Pombal, to whom they, of course, assign the
authorship. Nevertheless, it emanated from so responsible a quarter
that the pope felt himself obliged to give it due consideration. He
owed it to Portugal, no less than to the Church, to cause a searching
investigation to be made, so that it might be ascertained whether the
charges against the Jesuits were true or false. This could not have
been avoided, even if he had desired it, and there is no evidence that
he did.

Benedict XIV was at that time pope, and his secretary of briefs was
Cardinal Passionei, who had the reputation of being a man of integrity
and ability. The initiatory steps had, consequently, to be taken by
them. The pope, however, was in infirm health, and the Jesuits insist
that his sympathies were with them. This may probably have been so;
but if it were, it furnishes no argument in their favor, because there
was yet no evidence before him upon which any decision could have been
based. The question he had then to decide was not whether they were
innocent or guilty, but whether his duty did not require of him to
take the necessary steps to ascertain what the truth really was. The
charges were too serious to be passed over without this, and whatsoever
the fact may have been with regard to his sympathies, Benedict XIV
felt himself constrained to order, and did order, an investigation
to be made. His brief to that effect was dated April 1, 1758, and
addressed to Cardinal Saldanha by Passionei, as the pope's secretary,
and commanded that the charges made by the Portuguese Government
should be thoroughly investigated, and the facts laid before him for
his pontifical guidance. This was the inauguration of a regular trial
before a tribunal of acknowledged jurisdiction, and probably had the
effect of suspending, in some degree, the public judgment to await his
final decision. The Jesuits could not rightfully have objected to this
course; and if it be true, as they insist, that the pope sympathized
with them, they doubtless congratulated themselves upon his favorable
inclination towards them. Whatsoever may have occurred afterwards, the
investigation undoubtedly had an impartial beginning. On this account,
the inquirer who desires to understand the history and character of the
Jesuits, will be interested in its important details.

Cardinal Saldanha was appointed "visitor and reformer of the society,"
with full power to reform whatsoever abuses should be found to exist,
and if, after investigation, "any grave matters" were discovered, he
was required to report them to the pope, who would then decide what
subsequent steps were to be taken.[106] The proceedings up to that
point were therefore judiciously conducted. The death of Benedict XIV,
however, within about a month after the date of this brief, passed it
over to Clement XIII, his immediate successor. The Jesuits strive hard
to show that although the pope referred in his brief to the reform
of abuses, he did not intend thereby to signify that he had then
decided that reforms were necessary. If they be allowed the benefit of
this argument, it does not avail them against the fact that Cardinal
Saldanha, after investigation, made a report in which "the fathers of
the society in Portugal, and its dominions at the end of the earth, are
declared, on the fullest information, guilty of every crime of worldly
traffic that could disgrace the ecclesiastical state."[107] Whilst the
special accusation here made had reference to the commercial traffic by
which, in express violation of the rules of the society, the Jesuits
had accumulated immense wealth in all parts of the world, and in direct
violation of their vow of "extreme poverty," Pombal considered himself
justified, with the assent of the king, in requiring of the cardinal
patriarch of Lisbon the issuance of an official order "to suspend from
the sacred ministry, or preaching and hearing confessions, all the
religious of the Society of Jesus," in the Patriarchate of Lisbon. An
order to that effect was accordingly issued by the patriarch, which
made the issue more serious and complicated than ever; for it was a
direct and practical procedure which everybody could understand. In
their own defense, the Jesuits urge that the patriarch was intimidated
by Pombal, and that, in consequence, he died of remorse within a month,
and confessed his error upon his death-bed. Such defenses as this are
of no weight as arguments, in the face of actual and known occurrences,
and especially when it is well known that the Jesuits are in the habit
of resorting so frequently to death-bed repentances, obtained in
private by themselves, as to excite general suspicion against them.
Even, however, if their statement in this case is accepted as true, the
order of the patriarch was carried into effect by the Government of
Portugal, and proved, in the end, to be the most fatal blow ever aimed
at the society before that time. The proceedings were not arrested by
the death of the patriarch; for the vacancy made by it was immediately
filled by the appointment of Cardinal Saldanha as his successor, which
the Jesuits were compelled to construe as a censure of their society,
inasmuch as he had already, in his report, charged them with crimes
disgraceful to the "ecclesiastical state." As this appointment was
made by the pope, it is at least to be inferred that he, up to this
point, regarded the investigation as fairly and impartially made. After
his appointment as patriarch, Cardinal Saldanha banished the father
superior of the Jesuit "Professed House," and caused such measures to
be taken as resulted in the arrest of two Jesuits in Brazil, who were
sent to Portugal and imprisoned. He appointed the Bishop of Para, in
Brazil, as his ecclesiastical delegate to act in his name in South
America. It would be impracticable to trace here all the events which
followed; nor is it necessary, inasmuch as it is of far more importance
to know the results than the series of details that led to them. The
first important result that occurred in South America, under the
ecclesiastical administration of the Bishop of Para, was the issuance
by him of a decree whereby "he suspended all Jesuits in his diocese
from the functions of the confessional and the pulpit."[108] He then
continued to investigate the conduct of the Jesuits, and found that the
ecclesiastics were divided with reference to them--some accusing and
others defending them. Among those who opposed them were the Bishop of
Olinda and the Bishop of San Sebastian, and these two prelates of the
Church have been violently denounced by the Jesuits on that account.
This, however, is a fixed habit with them. They denounce all who oppose
them, and bestow fulsome praises upon all their defenders. By this
indiscriminate method they impair confidence in themselves, and make it
difficult to decide how much of what they say shall be accepted and how
much rejected. The safer plan is to follow the course of public events,
giving but little heed to the vituperation with which Jesuit works
abound.

There can be no doubt of the fact that Benedict XIV had authorized the
cardinal visitor appointed by him to apply all the measures necessary
to reform the Jesuits, if, after investigation, he found any to be
required. Thus the visitor was empowered to act for the Church and the
pope; and, hence, the Jesuit resistance to his decrees was disobedience
and insubordination. When Clement XIII became pope, he found just
this condition of things existing, which not only increased his
responsibilities, but added greatly to his embarrassment. The Jesuits
say that Cardinal Passionei unjustly impressed his mind with the idea
that Benedict XIV had already decided that the reform of their society
was necessary, and that whatsoever he did under the influence of this
false impression should not be considered to their prejudice. This is
barely possible; but whether he did or not is immaterial, since Clement
XIII could not, under any circumstances, have found himself justified
in either abandoning or suspending the investigation which Benedict XIV
had ordered. Nor could he have changed its course at any time after he
reached the pontificate--the interests at stake were too important, and
the welfare of the Church was too deeply involved. At all events, the
investigation was continued under Clement XIII; and when the Jesuits
realized that he could not be persuaded to abandon it, they endeavored
to shift the issue by insisting that the hostility exhibited towards
them had not arisen out of any of the things charged by the Government
of Portugal, but had been created by the opposition of the "Jansenists
and heretics" to them on account of their orthodox adherence to the
Church of Rome. In this they exhibited their usual sagacity and
cunning, evidently believing that it was the only means left them to
bring over the body of the Roman Christians--the pope and all--to their
side. It did, probably, tend somewhat to that, but fell far short of
what they must have expected from it; for the further the investigation
proceeded, the more unpopular their society became, not only on account
of the proceedings in Paraguay, but because of their interference with
all the Governments of Europe. We see this in the measures adopted in
those Governments, and in the unanimity of the public sentiment which
sustained them. The belief can not be indulged for a moment that these
Governments and peoples--faithful and devoted as they always had been
to the Church of Rome--were influenced by prejudices alone, and acted
without some strong, controlling, and justifiable cause. It is worthy
of repetition that Governments and communities do not thus act. And
we shall soon see that there have been scarcely any other events in
history so ratified by public approval as the expulsion of the Jesuits
from the leading nations of Europe, and their final suppression and
abolition by the pope. The evidence upon these subjects is so complete
and overwhelming that it can not be set aside by volumes of eloquent
denunciation, or weakened by Jesuitical sophistry.

Whilst it is not proper to exclude from our consideration all that the
Jesuit writers have said with reference to the period and controversy
here referred to, it should be accepted with a great many grains of
allowance. Their warmth and vehemence excite suspicion, indicating
more of passion than comports with the quiet composure of innocence.
They are not willing that the least credit shall be given to anything
against them, and demand that whatsoever is said in their behalf shall
be accepted as indisputably true. It is not difficult to see, however,
that much of the matter offered by them as historic truth does not
reach the dignity of impartial evidence, and ought not to be given
any serious weight when in conflict with allegations proceeding from
reputable and responsible sources. Within a recent period an elaborate
defense of the society has been made by one of its leading and most
learned members, and sent forth to the world as a conclusive and
unanswerable vindication. It is contained in the volume so frequently
referred to in this chapter, and alleged to be mainly founded upon what
"writers of the society" have said. He supports his defense of this
method of making history by introducing the statements of anonymous
authors which bear upon their face presumptive evidence that they were
manufactured for the purpose by interested parties. He does not, of
course, rely exclusively upon them, but, with true Jesuit ingenuity,
has so interwoven these irresponsible statements with less suspicious
authorities as to give coloring and credibility to the whole. He
says: "The details have been filled chiefly in from three well-known
contemporary works, _the names of the authors of which have not reached
us_."[109] Such a course indicates the partisan rather than the
impartial chronicler of events, and an absence of the candor with which
so important a discussion should be conducted. Anonymous statements
should not be entirely discredited, because they may be true; but
in searching after the "truth of history" they should avail nothing
unless consistent with the general course of events, and then only
because of that consistency. One illustration must serve. It is argued
that Benedict XIV sympathized with the Jesuits, and was favorable to
them at the time he appointed Saldanha as visitor with authority to
investigate and reform, and yet this same pope was constrained by their
persistent disobedience to declare them "contumacious, crafty, and
reprobate men."[110]

One reason why the papal authorities found so much difficulty in
prosecuting the investigation of Jesuit affairs, was the impenetrable
mystery which hung over the conduct of the society for more than two
hundred years. By means of this secrecy and the concealment of the
principles of their constitution, they were so enabled to compact
their organization as to present a solid front to the world, with all
its energies devoted alone to its own success. It was only when the
constitution became known that Governments and society could defend
against their machinations, which, as we have seen, were sufficiently
well planned to defy even the pope and the Church functionaries
appointed by him to inspect their conduct. Their persistency in
refusing to expose to the public the principles of their constitution
indicated, in the public judgment, that they feared a knowledge of
them would add to the public indignation at their presumptuousness and
vanity. And so decided was this refusal that it required the authority
of the French Parliament--the highest judicial authority in that
country--to drag the constitution from its hiding-place. One of their
members had engaged in a mercantile adventure until he became bankrupt.
Professing to have no property of his own out of which his debts could
be collected, his creditors brought suit against the society, insisting
that as the property it possessed was held in common for the benefit
of all the members, it should be made liable for the debts of each.
This having been resisted by the society, the Parliament, in order to
reach a correct decision, compelled the surrender of the constitution.
It was then decided that the defense set up could not be maintained,
whereupon judgment was rendered against the society, and the debt was
paid. After this time--when the principles of the constitution became
known--the odium in which the Jesuits were held rapidly increased among
both Roman Catholics and Protestants, but more particularly among
the former, on account of their unremitting efforts to defeat and
embarrass the investigation ordered by the pope. Unsophisticated minds,
accustomed to respect the Church and obey its authority, could not
understand why so many impediments should be thrown in the way of the
pope in his efforts to discover the truth, if the society were, as it
pretended to be, entirely faultless in its conduct. Even the authority
of the Church was comparatively powerless to resist and overcome their
obstinacy, as we shall have many occasions to observe in the course of
our inquiries.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 102: Weld, p. 94.]

[Footnote 103: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 104: Weld, pp. 96-97.]

[Footnote 105: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 106: Weld, pp. 131-132.]

[Footnote 107: _Ibid._, p. 138.]

[Footnote 108: Weld, p. 148.]

[Footnote 109: Weld. Introduction, pp. xxxviii-xxxix.]

[Footnote 110: Nicolini, p. 128.]




CHAPTER XII.

IDOLATROUS USAGES INTRODUCED.


It must not be supposed that the only grounds of complaint against
the Jesuits were those already enumerated. Wheresoever they were sent
among heathen and unchristianized peoples, they gave trouble to the
Church, and inflicted serious injury upon the cause of Christianity.
When they found a missionary field occupied by any of the monastic
orders, they endeavored either to remove them, or to destroy their
influence by assailing their Christian integrity, so that they could
have everything their own way. They accustomed themselves to obtain
their ends by whatsoever means they found necessary, considering
the latter as justified by the former. Not in Paraguay alone, but
wheresoever else they obtained dominion over ignorant and credulous
populations, it was mainly accomplished by persuading them to believe
that conversion to Christianity consisted in the mere recital of formal
words the professed converts did not understand, and in the ceremony
of baptism without any intelligent conception of its character, or
of the example and teachings of Christ. The seeds of error they thus
succeeded in scattering broadcast among the natives of India, China,
and elsewhere, have grown into such poisonous fruits that all the
intervening years have failed to provide an antidote, and it remains a
lamentable fact that the descendants of these same professing converts
have relapsed into idolatry, and continued to shun Christianity as if
all its influences were pestilential. They became Brahmins in India,
and, by practicing the idolatrous rites and ceremonies of that country,
brought the cause of Christianity into degradation. Continuing steadily
to follow the advice of Loyola, they everywhere became "all things
to all men," by worshiping at the shrines of the lowest forms of
heathen superstition as if they were the holy altars of the Church. And
when rebuked for this by the highest authorities of the Church, they
justified themselves upon the ground that any form of vice, deception,
and immorality became legitimated by Christianity when practiced
in its name. In China they engaged with the natives in worshiping
Confucius instead of Christ, and made offerings upon his altar without
the slightest twinge of conscience. They omitted nothing, howsoever
degrading, which they found necessary to successfully planting the
Jesuit scepter among the Oriental populations, until at last, after a
long and hard struggle, they were brought into partial obedience by
the Church, whose authority they had defied, and whose precepts they
contemptuously violated.

Whatsoever may be said or thought of the various religions which have
prevailed throughout the world, there is one thing about which there
can be no misunderstanding; that is, that the Brahminism of India and
the Christianity of Christ can not be united together harmoniously.
There are many reasons for this, apparent to every intelligent mind,
but a few only are sufficient for present purposes. It has always been
the central idea of the former that Brahma should be worshiped through
a multitude of divinities, representing each passion and emotion of the
mind; and that his wrath shall be appeased by sacrificial offerings,
even of human beings, in order to reach total annihilation as the
highest and most perfect state of beatitude after death; whereas the
central idea of Christianity is that worship is due only to one God,
the Author of all being and the Sovereign of the universe, so that
when man shall reach "the last of earth," his spirit shall enter upon
immortality. Brahminism held India for centuries in degrading bondage,
and Christianity was designed to lift mankind to a higher plane of
being. This belief was universal among all Christians, howsoever they
may have differed in forms of faith and modes of worship; and none were
louder in its profession than the Jesuits, who pretended that they
alone were worthy to occupy the missionary field, and were specially
and divinely set apart to spread the gospel among all heathen peoples.
In carrying on their work, however, in India, they violated their
solemn vow of fidelity to the Church by casting aside every pretense of
Christianity, and openly, but with simulated professions of Christian
zeal, adopting the idolatrous practices common to the natives. They
shamelessly cast aside the profession of Christianity as if it were
a thing of reproach, and performed with alacrity the most revolting
Hindoo rites, seemingly as regardless of the obligation of obedience
to the Church as of their own dignity and manliness of character.
They substituted fraud, deceit, and hypocrisy for that open, frank,
and courageous course of conduct which a sense of right never fails
to suggest to ingenuous minds. They unchristianized themselves by
becoming Brahmins and pariahs, crawling stealthily and insidiously into
the highest places, and sinking with equal ease and skill into the
lowest and most degrading. Even in this enlightened and investigating
age, many intelligent people will wonder whether or no these things
are possibly true, inasmuch as they shock so seriously every sense of
personal honor and religious duty. But the verifications of them are
sufficiently abundant to remove all possible doubt, furnished, as they
are, not alone by the authors of general history, but by those friendly
to the Jesuits, and usually prompt to apologize for them.

One of the most conspicuous of the Jesuit missionaries to India, after
Xavier, was Nobili, who reached Madura about the beginning of the
seventeenth century. It is pretended that his predecessors had been
unable to convert any of the Brahmins, inasmuch as they had labored
exclusively with the pariahs, who, besides being shunned and despised
by the Brahmins, had paid no heed whatsoever to their Christian
admonitions. Nobili, therefore, taxed his ingenuity to discover some
practical method of removing this difficulty. He had before him
numerous examples of those who had spread the cause of Christianity by
openly professing and courageously vindicating it. There was something
inspiring in the thought that in its past successes Christianity had
required no disguises, but had achieved its victories over paganism in
the field of open and manly controversy. To a devout and Christian mind
there was no ground of compromise between Brahminism and Christianity.
One or the other had to yield--they could not unite. Nobili knew this,
and but for his Jesuit training would scarcely have departed from the
plain line of Christian duty. With his mind, however, disciplined by
the belief that it was his duty to be "all things to all men," he
imitated the example of Mahomet, who went to the mountain when it
would not come to him, by casting aside his character of Christian
and becoming a Brahmin himself. He assumed the character and position
of a "_Saniassi_;" that is, the highest caste among the Hindoos.
What that word means is not very plain, but the Jesuits insist that
those Brahmins who bore it had given some indications of penitence,
and that the object of Nobili was to insinuate himself into their
favor, secretly and by false pretenses, and thus bring them over to
Christianity. There is much reason for believing that this was an
afterthought, set up as a defense when the flagrant and unchristian
conduct of the Jesuits excited general distrust among the Christians of
Europe. But if it expressed the real motive existing at the time, it
was then, as always, wholly without justification or excuse--a plain
and manifest breach of Christian obligation and duty. He could not
become a Saniassi without denying that he either was or had ever been a
Christian, and without solemnly affirming that he was a native Hindoo,
and not a European--the latter, known by the hated name of Feringees,
being held in special and universal contempt by all the natives, and
especially by the Brahmins.

All these things, of course, involve false professions and oaths
without number; and, more than that, such stifling of the conscience as
to leave it incapable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood,
or between fair and false dealing. It was all done, says the Jesuit
historian Daurignac, "with the approval of his superiors and of the
Archbishop of Cranganore;" that is, it had full Jesuit indorsement. And
as if it were possible to find merit in such profanation of what all
Christians consider sacred, by departing from the rules of Christian
life, this same authority informs his readers how Nobili appeared as
a Jesuit-Brahmin, after he discarded all the distinguishing marks
and characteristics of Christianity, and presented himself in the
capacity of a full-fledged native Hindoo. "He assumed," says he, "the
costume of the penitent Brahmins, adopted their exterior rule of life,
and spoke their mysterious language." He shaved his head, wore the
Brahmin dress, including ear-rings reaching down his neck. And "to
complete the illusion"--that is, the deception and false pretense--he
represents him as having "marked his forehead with a yellow paste,
made from the wood of Sandanam"--a practice peculiar to the Hindoo
Brahmins. Thus metamorphosed he "passed for a perfect Saniassi, and the
Brahmins themselves, wondering at such a rival, sought his presence,
and questioned him as to himself, his country, and his family." His
disguise, however, perfect as it was, did not cause him to forget
that he was still in fact a Jesuit, and he, obedient to his training,
carried his impostures and falsehoods far enough to make his deception
complete and effectual. Consequently, "his oath obtained for him
admission among the most learned and holy Brahmins of the East. They
named him Tatouva-Podagar-Sonami--a master in the ninety-six qualities
of the truly wise." And thus, by means of the most unblushing hypocrisy
and false oaths, Nobili denied his religion, his name, his country, and
the God whom he had professed to worship, and became a Hindoo Saniassi,
all for "the greater glory of God."[111]

Numerous other Jesuits imitated this example of Nobili, and became
both Brahmins and pariahs. Some of them were specially trained and
tutored for the purpose, under the elastic system of Jesuit education,
each one, of course, having been carefully instructed in the best and
safest modes of practicing deception, of violating oaths, and of making
the basest means contribute to the end designed to be accomplished. It
is claimed for them, apologetically, that they thus became enabled to
convert many hundred thousand Indians, both Brahmins and pariahs, to
the cause of Christianity. No intelligent mind, however, can be misled
by such a pretense as this, for if even that number of the natives were
brought under their influence, they could not have risen higher than
the low standard fixed by the lives of their Jesuit instructors. But
this story can not be accepted as true, coming as it does only from the
active agents in this vast system of fraud and falsehood. It is far
more likely to have been only one more untruth added to the multitude
which these Jesuit impostors were in the habit of repeating daily.
Besides, if any such conversions to Christianity had occurred, the
impostures of the Jesuits would have been discovered, and the whole of
them driven from the country. The Jesuits then in India admit enough
themselves to assure us of this. One of them said: "Our whole attention
is given to concealing from the people that we are what they call
Feringees. The slightest suspicion of this on their part would oppose
an insurmountable obstacle to the propagation of the faith,"--the plain
and obvious import of which is, that honesty and fair dealing would
have weakened the cause of Christianity, whereas its strength was
increased and maintained by false pretenses, false swearing, and the
false profession of devotion to the Brahminical religion. Another one
of them said: "The missionaries are not known to be Europeans. If they
were believed to be so, they would be forced to abandon the country;
for they could gain absolutely no fruit whatever. The conversion of
the Hindoos is nearly impossible to evangelical laborers from Europe:
I mean impossible to those who pass for Europeans, even though they
wrought miracles." At another place he represents that it "would
have been the absolute ruin of Christianity" if the Jesuits had been
known as Feringees or Europeans; that is, that in order to advance
Christianity, it was necessary to deny it, even under oath, and to
profess that the idolatry of the Hindoos was the true worship of
God.[112]

The pretense of the Jesuits, therefore, that immense numbers of
converts to Christianity were made by them, must have been entitled
to no higher credit than their other professions; at all events, the
acknowledged authors of a system of falsehoods and deceptions are not
entitled to our confidence. It is possible, however, that they may have
succeeded in baptizing in secret a few of the natives, and that some
Brahmins were among them. But if they did, it is quite certain that
the ceremony must have been administered by stealth, and generally
so that those who were baptized had no distinct knowledge of what it
meant, and may not even have known the time of its administration.
At no point in the Jesuit missionary system has more harm been done
to the cause of true Christianity than at this. Millions of ignorant
and deluded people have been persuaded to believe that Christianity
consisted in nothing else but the mere ceremony of baptism, without any
intelligent conception of God. Xavier commenced this system in India,
and these Jesuit-Brahmins, who followed Nobili, were his imitators.
Taking all the accounts together, the number of converts in India was
simply enormous, and yet in 1776, after the Jesuits had left there,
a very small percentage of their estimated numbers were found.[113]
But these exaggerations are more excusable than the methods adopted
to impose baptism upon unsuspecting and simple-minded multitudes. The
German Steinmetz, alluding to this, says: "They insinuate themselves as
physicians into the houses of the Indians; draw a wet cloth over the
head and forehead of the sick person, even when at the point of death;
mutter privately to themselves the baptism service; and think they have
made one Christian more, who is immediately added to the list." The
Jesuit De Bourges is represented by him as saying: "When the children
are in danger of death, our practice is to baptize them without asking
the permission of their parents, which would certainly be refused. The
Catechists and the private Christians are well acquainted with the
formula of baptism, and they confer it on these dying children, _under
the pretext of giving them medicine_;" that is, by that kind of "pious
fraud" which, according to the Jesuits, promotes "the greater glory of
God." Another Jesuit father, whose experience in India enabled him to
speak advisedly, mentions one woman "whose knowledge of the pulse and
of the symptoms of approaching death was so unerring, that of more than
ten thousand children whom she had herself baptized, not more than two
escaped death." The number of such baptisms during a famine in 1737
are alleged by still another Jesuit to have been "upwards of 12,000."
And he supplements this statement by saying that "it was rare, in any
place where there were neophytes, for a single heathen child to die
unbaptized."[114] Looking over this whole field of Jesuit operations,
and contemplating the demoralizing influences of the Jesuits in India,
this same German historian feels himself warranted in saying that
"every Jesuit who entered within these unholy bounds, bid adieu to
principle and truth--all became perjured impostors, and the lives of
all ever afterwards were but one long, persevering, toilsome LIE."[115]

It would be a fruitless task to summarize the pretexts invented by
the Jesuits to convince ignorant and superstitious people that God
not only approved, but directly sanctioned, the frauds and perjuries
they practiced in his name, and that he had specially and divinely set
them apart--distinct from any other body of people in the world--to
demonstrate how "the greater glory of God" could be promoted by such
iniquities. If the line could be accurately drawn between their good
and evil deeds, it would be most instructive to observe how enormously
the latter exceed the former. There was no trouble whatsoever for
a Jesuit Saniassi to assume the character of a Christian and an
idolatrous Hindoo almost at the same instant of time, in which dual
capacity he could perform miracles, like those of Xavier, with the
ease and skill of a modern prestidigitator. They even held the wildest
animals at bay by the odor of sanctity which encircled them! One of
them states that, when traveling at night with his companions, a large
tiger was discovered approaching them, when, by simply crying out,
"_Sancta Maria!_" the ferocious animal became terrified and moved away,
showing, "by the grinding of his teeth, how sorry he was to let such
a fine prey escape." Another, to show how Providence overshadowed and
shielded the Jesuits, said "that when heathens and Christians happened
to be together, the tigers devour the former without doing any harm
to the faithful--these last finding armor of proof in the sign of the
cross, and in the holy name of Jesus and Mary."[116] Such superstitious
tales as these are told, and many pretended miracles added to them,
with a seeming unconsciousness upon the part of those who relate them,
that the world has reached a period when the truth can be discovered,
even through all the disguises which falsehood and deception may throw
around it.

To those who have not investigated the history of the Jesuits, as
written by themselves, these accusations may seem harsh and unmerited;
not so, however, to those who have. No matter where they went, the
obligation of being "all things to all men" was held to be obligatory
upon every member of the society. Obedience to the Superior was the
highest virtue, notwithstanding it may have involved violations of the
laws of God, of morality, and of society. How else could professed
Christians pretend to be engaged in the practice of virtue by denying
Christ, disavowing his worship, and habitually practicing the debasing
rites of the Hindoo religion, for more than a century, as Nobili
and his Jesuit followers and imitators did? And what other possible
pretext can be offered for the Jesuit worship of Confucius in China,
in religious confraternity with the natives, who made their public
ceremonies and festivities special testimonials of their adoration
of him as the founder of their national religion and the chief among
the gods of their idolatry? We shall see how these things were by the
proceedings which led to their condemnation by the popes, although the
Jesuit historians, who are forced to acknowledge them, try hard to show
that the pontifical censure was not deserved.

Daurignac--the ablest of the Jesuit defenders--referring to the
course of Nobili and others who practiced idolatrous rites, says:
"Some Europeans had been scandalized by this method of appearing _all
things to all men, in order to win all to Christ_." This sentence
is misleading in this, that instead of there being merely "some"
who felt scandalized, there were multitudes throughout Europe. The
ecclesiastical authorities at Goa, in India, were also of this number;
and when the complaint reached there that Nobili "had become a Brahmin,
and given himself up to idolatry and superstition," he was summoned
to Goa to explain his conduct. He could not disobey this summons, and
when he reached there, "the sight of his singular costume elicited a
general expression of indignation" among the Christians. When required
to explain, by the Archbishop of Goa, as the official representative of
the Church--appointed by the pope for that purpose--the only defense
he could make was that his motives were good; that is, that the
prostitution of himself and his sacred calling was well meant because
his object was to promote "the greater glory of God!" The Jesuits at
Goa accepted his reasons "as sufficient," says Daurignac. There are two
methods of accounting for this: First, they were Jesuits; and second,
because Nobili's method of falsehood and deception opened to them new
and extensive fields of operation, which, if recognized, they could
occupy with great success in extending the power of their society. But
the archbishop thought otherwise, and "absolutely refused" to accept
Nobili's reasons as satisfactory. Accordingly--speaking for the Church
and the pope, as he was authorized and empowered to do--he condemned
the conduct of Nobili and the reasons he assigned. Nobili "asserted
that the truths of the gospel could not have been introduced into
Madura by any other means;" but the archbishop refused to accept this
excuse, evidently regarding it as a debasing doctrine, aimed at the
very foundation of Christianity. Neither would yield. Nobili, backed
by the Jesuits, insisted that he was under no obligation to obey the
archbishop, although he acted under the special authority of the Church
and the pope; and the result was that the matter had to be sent to Rome
and the decision of the pope awaited. In the meantime Nobili returned
to Madura, where he continued his idolatrous practices, notwithstanding
the censure of the Archbishop of Goa was resting upon him, and he
was thereby placed in the attitude of disobedience to the legitimate
authority of the Church.[117]

Jesuit ingenuity was not sufficient to limit the scope of the inquiry
thus brought before the pope and the Papal Curia at Rome, because of
the increasing indignation against the society. Added to the complaints
of the Portuguese authorities regarding their conduct in Paraguay, and
that of Nobili at Madura, their idolatrous worship of Confucius in
China came generally to be known about this time. Consequently, the
investigation which it became necessary for the pope to make, had not
only increased in importance, but became broader almost every day. Not
only were the matters involved important to the Church, but to the
cause of Christianity throughout the world; for it was easy to foresee
the injurious and demoralizing results if the Jesuits were permitted
to mingle Christian and idolatrous worship together, so as to make
it appear to every heathen people within the limits of their missions
that Christianity sanctions both forms of worship in the same degree.
Consequently, it became necessary for the pope to examine and decide
both questions at the same time; that is, whether the Church could
rightfully tolerate either the adoption and practice of the Hindoo
rites by the Jesuits in India, or their participation in the idolatrous
worship of Confucius in China.

Among the notable events connected with the latter was the arrival
in China of some Dominican and Franciscan missionaries, and their
surprise at discovering the idolatrous practices of the Jesuits. Having
never suspected even the possibility of the teachings of the Church
being so tortured as to furnish apology for idolatry, they considered
the conduct of the Jesuits "a real scandal," which deserved to be
rebuked. What seemed to them as especially censurable was the fact
that the Jesuits had taught their neophytes to use the Chinese term
"_King-Tien_," to express the idea of God--not as the Creator of the
universe, but as the presiding Deity over a multitude of other deities,
each having a separate sphere of sovereignty. To them it was not easy
to conceive of anything more likely to undermine Christianity, because
by limiting or lessening in any way the sovereign attributes of God,
the whole Christian system would topple and fall. They, accordingly,
notified the apostolic vicar in China, as the immediate representative
of the Church there, of this unscrupulous and unchristian conduct of
the Jesuits, in order, if possible, to apply the proper corrective and
remove the "scandal" from the Church. The vicar did not have much to
do to discover that the accusations of the monks against the Jesuits
were true; and when this became known to him, he not only condemned
their idolatry, but "severely censured them" for practicing it. The
Jesuits, by way of defense, attempted to explain why they had applied
an idolatrous Chinese term to the God of the Christians, and in doing
so exhibited their accustomed sophistry--in which they have always been
adepts--in such way as to convince the vicar, as well as the Dominican
and Franciscan monks, of their entire want of sincerity and candor, to
say nothing of their loss of Christian integrity. They pretended that
"the honors paid to Confucius were merely civil ceremonies, with which
the Christians did not associate any religious ideas whatever, and that
the word _King-Tien_, in the Chinese language, simply conveyed the
idea of God as understood by Christians." This, they said, they were
informed by the Chinese mandarins and learned men. Hence, they argued
that unless the idolatrous worship they had adopted were allowed to
prevail, it would be impossible to obtain sufficient influence over
the Chinese to draw them to Christianity--the precise meaning of which
was, that unless they were permitted to practice the idolatrous rites
of heathenism, the Chinese could never be induced to become Christians.
This argument was thoroughly Jesuitical, and failed to mislead either
the vicar apostolic or the Dominican and Franciscan monks, all of whom
could see through the thin disguise with which the Jesuits attempted
to conceal their ultimate purpose of bringing the Church authorities,
with the pope at their head, in obedience to them. It did not require
any Chinese learning for them to understand that it was impossible, in
the nature of things, for the Chinese to have introduced into their
language any word, or even any set of words, expressive of the idea of
God as Christians understood it. They were familiar with the universal
rule that the language of every people is constructed solely to express
their own ideas, sentiments, and thoughts, and not such as prevail
among those with whom they hold no intercourse. Candor and fair dealing
with the Church and the cause of Christianity, therefore, required them
to recognize the facts that the Chinese word _King-Tien_ conveyed only
the idolatrous idea of the superior godship of Confucius, and that
it was so used in all the civic and other ceremonies of the Chinese.
The result consequently was, that the vicar united with the monks in
repudiating the position and doctrine of the Jesuits, and vigorously
condemned and censured them for bringing the established worship of
the Church into disrepute. This decision alone--made by the regularly
constituted authorities of the Church--constitutes a most important and
pregnant fact, which should not be overlooked by those who desire to
understand the history of the most wonderful society the world has ever
known.

This decision undoubtedly conformed to the opinion of the pope and
of all the Church authorities throughout Europe, outside the circle
of Jesuits. When announced by the apostolic vicar, with the approval
of the monks, it should have put a stop to all further idolatrous
proceedings on the part of the Jesuits. Any other body of men, who
acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Church, would either have obeyed
it by entirely abandoning the condemned practices at once, or, at all
events, would have ceased to follow them until the prohibition was
removed by the pope, whose superior jurisdiction could not be denied
without rebellion against the Church. But the Jesuits did not belong to
an order accustomed to submission to any other authority than that of
their superior, whom each of them had solemnly sworn to recognize as
equal to God, and to obey accordingly. They acquiesced in the decisions
of the popes when they conformed with their own opinions and purposes;
when they did not, they employed all their combined ingenuity and
cunning to evade them. Consequently, they disobeyed the vicar, spurned
the counsel of the monks, and persisted in continuing their idolatrous
practices, under the pretense that they were awaiting the decision of
the pope.[118]

The popes were compelled to deal slowly and cautiously with such
questions on account of the difficulty of access to such remote
countries as India and China, and the unavoidable delays in
transmitting intelligence between them and Rome. Precautionary measures
were adopted by sending special prelates of the Church, chosen by
the pope for that purpose, not only with directions to investigate
and report the facts, but with authority to establish temporary
regulations which should become operative while waiting the pope's
approval, and final when that was given. One of these prelates was a
Spanish Dominican, named Morales, who was sent to China in 1633 by Pope
Urban VIII. This was twelve years after the matter had been submitted
to Paul V, and was rendered necessary by the fact that it had remained
undecided during the pontificate of Gregory XV. When Morales reached
China, he entered upon the necessary examination with sufficient care
to become convinced of the unchristian conduct of the Jesuits, and,
accordingly, condemned their ceremonies as idolatrous. This incensed
the Chinese authorities--who are supposed to have been influenced to
this by the Jesuits--and "the Dominicans and the Franciscans were
driven from the country," leaving the Jesuits alone to follow their
idolatrous practices without the interference of the monks or of
Morales, who, being a Dominican, was included among those expelled.
Morales had then spent twelve years in China, and all that time was
laboring with the Jesuits to induce them to give up their participation
in the worship of Confucius; but his efforts were wholly unavailing.
They had brought themselves into favor at the court of the Chinese
emperor, and were unwilling to surrender the advantages thus obtained,
preferring them to the service of the Church. There was, therefore, no
other course left to Morales, after his expulsion from China, but to
proceed to Rome and report to the pope, who was then Innocent X. This
he did in 1645, when he fully laid before the pope what he had observed
in China, making known, of course, the fact that he had been banished
on account of his fidelity to the trust assigned him. It was impossible
for the pope to abandon the matter at this point, and he accordingly
submitted to the Congregation of the Propaganda, to be decided for his
information and guidance, these two questions: "Is it permissible to
prostrate one's self before the idol _Chachinchiam_? Is it permissible
to sacrifice to _Keumfucum_; that is, Confucius?" By these questions
the Jesuit methods of procedure in China were brought directly
before this established tribunal of the Church at Rome, so that the
decision of them by the pope was unavoidable. What that decision was,
is shown by the following statement made under the immediate auspices
of Archbishop Hughes, of New York, in the "Lives and Times of Roman
Pontiffs," by De Montor: "On the reply of the Congregation, the pope
issued a decree forbidding missionaries of any order or institute to do
either of those things, until the Holy See gave a contrary order."[119]
Thus, whatsoever other popes may have done or omitted to do, Innocent X
solemnly decreed that the Jesuit practices were wrong and would be no
longer tolerated by the Church. He had not then learned--what became
perfectly apparent to many of his successors--that the Jesuits were
as familiar with the various methods of brushing papal decrees out of
their way as they were with the frauds and hypocrisies by which they
duped and misled the heathen at the expense of the Christian cause.

There seems to have been some unnecessary delay, and possibly some
undue prevarication, in the manner in which the popes disposed of
these troublesome matters. De Montor represents that several of the
popes who succeeded Innocent X permitted the Jesuits to continue their
idolatrous ceremonies; to wit, Alexander VII, Clement IX, Clement X,
Innocent XI, Alexander VIII, and Innocent XII. This general statement,
however, is misleading, and calculated to do injustice to these popes,
unless taken in connection with the fact that none of them went further
than to say that the Jesuits might unite with the Chinese in their
_civil_ ceremonies, when they were, in no sense, religious. None of
them undertook to decide whether the sacrifice to Confucius did or
did not involve religious worship; for that was the question directly
submitted to them, and with regard to which the utmost pains were taken
to procure accurate and reliable evidence. But it is undoubtedly true
that the Jesuits misconstrued what had been done by these six popes,
and perverted their meaning to suit themselves, by continuing their
idolatrous practices with increased impunity. And they did this to
such an extent, and so openly, that in 1693, Maigrot, Apostolic Vicar,
Doctor of the Sorbonne, and Bishop of Conon, was constrained, as the
representative of the Church, to forbid the idolatrous ceremonies of
the Jesuits by a special prohibitory decree. The date of this decree
is important, inasmuch as it shows how many years it took and how hard
it was to bring the Jesuits into subordination to the Church; in other
words, how little they cared for the Church, or the popes, or vicars
apostolic, or the ancient monkish orders, when either of them alone, or
all combined, ventured to place the least impediment in their path. The
question with regard to the idolatrous practices of Nobili arose first
in 1618, and was submitted to Paul V in 1621. Hence, up to the time of
his official decree of condemnation by Maigrot, as vicar apostolic,
seventy-two years--nearly three-quarters of a century--had elapsed,
during all which time the Jesuits had enjoyed an uninterrupted triumph
over the Church, the popes, and Christianity.

This condition of things made it absolutely necessary that the severe
and protracted strain upon the authority of the Church should, in
some way, be brought to an end, and that the stigma the Jesuits had
inflicted upon Christianity should be removed. Consequently, Pope
Clement XI--after eight more years of delay--appointed a new vicar
apostolic and legate in the person of the distinguished Cardinal De
Tournon, in order to insure a complete and thorough investigation of
the conduct of the Jesuits in India and China. He was empowered to
represent fully the authority of the Church and to act in the place
of the pope. De Tournon entered upon his mission with zeal, and
having, after investigation, found all the accusations against the
Jesuits completely verified, issued a decree, in June, 1704, whereby
he condemned in the strongest and most explicit terms the Chinese
and Malabar rites practiced by the Jesuits. This decree is given
by Nicolini, and a perusal of it will show the degraded state into
which the Jesuits had brought the professedly Christian worship--even
to the adoption of the superstitious and immoral customs of the
idolaters.[120] Up till this time the Jesuits had enjoyed nearly a
hundred years of impunity, and as the Church had been unable, during
this long period, to impose upon them any restraint they had not
contrived the means to defy, their idolatrous worship and demoralizing
doctrines could no longer be tolerated without incalculable harm.
Therefore, the severe measures adopted by De Tournon, by the express
authority of Clement XI, were fully justified.

The Jesuits again evidenced their perverse and stubborn nature by
impudently appealing from the decree the pope had authorized De
Tournon to make in his name, to the pope himself, manifestly hoping
either to bring him over to their side, or to procrastinate his
final decision indefinitely. They repeated their favorite argument,
that Christianity could not be propagated in India and China without
making the worship of idols part of its religious ceremonies. They
also impeached the character of the evidence upon which De Tournon
had relied, by insisting that it was obtained from those who did not
understand the people of India or China, or their languages. In all
this they persisted in assuming that, in order to convert a heathen
people, Christianity must be first converted into heathenism, that
it may furnish a starting-point for obtaining ultimate dominion over
them. This meant that heathens must be converted to Christianity by the
Jesuits alone, inasmuch as none others besides them had endeavored to
engraft upon Christian faith and worship any idolatrous ceremonies, or
the duty and necessity of falsehood and hypocrisy, as means to an end.
But the pope was not misled by this demoralizing subterfuge, and, after
hearing them fully and giving all proper consideration to what they
said, he brushed it all aside by giving his express and unreserved
approval to the decree published by De Tournon as his legate. De Montor
admits this; but there is abundant evidence of it apart from this
admission. In his life of Clement XI he says:

"But Clement, having examined the affair in 1710 and 1712, confirmed
all the decrees that had been made against the ceremonies, as well as
the edicts of Cardinal De Tournon; and on the 19th of March, 1715,
by the constitution _Ex illa die_ (found in Vol. X of the _Bullarium
Romanum_), he _more vigorously condemned those rites_; and he
established the form of the oath which thenceforth was to be taken by
every missionary in the Indies, promising that observance in their own
names, and in the names of their order."[121]

No language could be plainer or more emphatic than that here employed
by the pope. It was not uttered in a mere brief, which the Jesuits
insist may be changed to answer any subsequent emergency, but in a
formal pontifical bull, issued _ex cathedra_, and which, if the popes
were all infallible, must be accepted as of divine authority. But
whether called by one or the other of these names, it was the solemn
official act of a pope--the head of the Church--and as such, according
to the teachings of the Church, was final and binding upon all who
professed fidelity to it. And it would have been so regarded by any
of the ancient monastic orders, and by all who had respect for the
authority of the Church. But the Jesuits did not represent either
of these classes; and as the power of the pope was not sufficient
to change their course, or unsettle them in their purposes, they
continued to persevere in their disobedience, with an utter disregard
of consequences. They went to the extent of persuading the Emperor of
China to order the arrest of De Tournon, which was done by the Bishop
of Macao--who was one of their tools--who caused him to be loaded
with chains, and thrown into prison, where, from "ill treatment," he
died.[122]

These incidents, so unfavorable to the peace of the Church, threw the
questions into abeyance again during the succeeding pontificate of
Innocent XIII, after which it assumed such magnitude and importance
that Benedict XIII was compelled to deal with it both energetically
and sternly. This he did by further confirming the decree of Cardinal
De Tournon, and the bull of Clement XI, reasserting the unchristian
practices and conduct of the Jesuits. But even this did not overcome
their obduracy; and the next pope, Clement XII, was compelled to
issue still another bull, confirming those of Benedict XIII and
Clement XI.[123] The world has never furnished another instance of
such flagrant and persistent disobedience as this. Even another pope,
Benedict XIV, found it absolutely necessary to issue two additional
bulls of censure and condemnation against the Jesuits, in both of which
the decree of De Tournon was approved by words of express reaffirmance.
He intended and expected to settle the matter finally, and terminate
the long-continued disregard of the Church authority by the Jesuits.
Nevertheless, like his predecessors for many years, he was compelled
to realize that he was dealing with an adversary whose ambition was
insatiable, and whose capacity for intrigue was without limitation
and as untiring as the wind. De Montor tells the result, but omits
any comment upon the triumph of the Jesuits over all the popes who
passed censure upon them and sought to impose restraints upon their
conduct. He speaks of the "discord between the other missionaries and
the Jesuits, the former reproaching the latter with not fully and
frankly observing the bull," and makes the discomfiture of the popes
palpable by adding, "These disputes lasted till the dissolution of
the society."[124] This is equivalent to saying that the only way
to bring them into obedience to the Church was to dissolve them. We
shall hereafter see, however, that they did not even obey the act of
dissolution.

As the society was originally established by Paul III in 1540, and was
abolished by Clement XIV in 1773, it thus appears that considerably
more than one-half the period of its existence had been spent in open
and flagrant resistance to the authority of the popes and the Church--a
pregnant fact, which no sophistry can palliate or explain. But as our
inquiries proceed, there will be other years of resistance to add to
these, along with such combinations of circumstances as show how the
society became odious to the Christian world, and how rightfully it was
dissolved.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 111: Daurignac, Vol. I, p. 303.]

[Footnote 112: Steinmetz, Vol. III, p. 474. Citing the Jesuit Fathers
De Bourges and Martin.]

[Footnote 113: _Ibid._, p. 489.]

[Footnote 114: Steinmetz, Vol. III, p. 490, and note 1, where these
authorities are cited.]

[Footnote 115: _Ibid._, p. 491.]

[Footnote 116: Steinmetz, Vol. III, p. 467.]

[Footnote 117: Daurignac, Vol. I, pp. 336-367.]

[Footnote 118: Daurignac, p. 53.]

[Footnote 119: Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs. By De Montor.
American edition. Vol. II, p. 191.]

[Footnote 120: Nicolini, p. 114.]

[Footnote 121: De Montor, Vol. II, p. 192.]

[Footnote 122: Nicolini, pp. 126-127.]

[Footnote 123: De Montor, Vol. II, p. 192.]

[Footnote 124: _Ibid._, p. 278.]




CHAPTER XIII.

PAPAL SUPPRESSION OF THE SOCIETY.


When Clement XIII became pope, in 1758, events which had grown out of
the conduct of the Jesuits were hurrying forward so rapidly that even
he, with all the existing pontifical power in his hands, was unable to
arrest them, although, as the patron of the society, he endeavored to
do so. There was no longer any ground for compromise. Their persistent
disobedience of royal authority and interference with political
affairs had made it necessary for the Governments to decide whether
they should further submit to them or vindicate their own authority
by whatsoever steps were required. In Portugal the culminating
point was reached by an attempt to assassinate the king. The actual
perpetrators were arrested, tried, and executed; but in the course of
the investigation it was developed, to the satisfaction of the public
authorities, that the deed had been incited by the Jesuits, who had
impressed ignorant and fanatical minds with the idea that no wrong was
committed by killing a heretical king; that is, one who did not submit
to their dictation. An effort was made to place three Jesuit fathers
upon trial, so that, if found guilty, they might also be properly
punished. But these fathers were bold enough to defy the Government by
insisting that, as priests, they were not amenable to the civil laws
of the State, even for felonious acts, but could only be tried by an
ecclesiastic tribunal under the jurisdiction of the pope. The king and
Pombal could easily see that this defiance of Government authority over
the temporal affairs of the kingdom could not be submitted to without
bringing the State into disgrace and endangering its existence. Hence,
as a measure absolutely essential to the life of the nation, the king
"issued a decree of banishment against the Jesuits as traitors, rebels,
enemies to, and aggressors on, his person, his States, and the public
peace and the general good of the people."[125] The Jesuits were then
seized, transported to the States of the Church under the jurisdiction
of Clement XIII, and the three accused fathers were placed in prison
to await his action. The pope defended the Jesuits, and threatened the
King of Portugal with his vengeance if he did not revoke his decree
against them. But the king could not submit to interference with the
temporal affairs of his kingdom even by the pope, who, by his approval
of the Jesuits, had shown himself willing to see the Governments
humiliated by them. He, accordingly, withdrew the Portuguese ambassador
from the court of Rome, and proceeded against the three Jesuits,
who had remained in prison under suspicion of having planned the
attack upon his life. The chief one of these was turned over to the
Dominicans--"the natural enemies of the Jesuits"--by whom he was burned
alive, and the other two were condemned to imprisonment for life.[126]

The people of Europe became greatly agitated at finding in their midst
so formidable an enemy to the public peace and quiet as the Jesuits.
This agitation was increased by the trial of the society for the
debt of Lavalette before the Parliament of Paris, which resulted, as
already stated, in bringing to the light the odious principles of the
Jesuit constitution, the exposure of which is represented as having
produced "alarm and consternation among all classes of society." In
France the Jesuits made an effort to arrest the public indignation
by procuring a decree from "fifty bishops," who, under the auspices
of the nuncio of Clement XIII, certified that the principles of the
constitution were harmless. But this adroit movement failed to produce
the desired effect. The Parliament, under the lead of Choiseul, the
prime minister of Louis XV, refused to permit an edict to that effect
to be registered. Whereupon, the investigation into the constitution
and statutes of the society was continued for some months, and resulted
in the enactment of a Parliamentary decree which shows the odium then
attached to the society in France. It denounced their doctrines and
practices "_as perverse, destructive of every principle of religion,
and even of probity; as injurious to Christian morality, pernicious
to civil society, seditious, dangerous to the rights of the nation,
the nature of the royal power, and the safety of the persons of
sovereigns; as fit to excite the greatest troubles in States, to form
and maintain the most profound corruption in the hearts of men_." It
would be impossible to find language more expressive; and when it is
considered that it was uttered by a Parliamentary body composed only of
those who maintained the faith of the Church of Rome, it may readily be
supposed that the most imminent necessity called it forth. And it will
excite no surprise that the same decree proceeded to provide "that the
institutions of the Jesuits should forever cease to exist throughout
the whole extent of the kingdom," and that it also prohibited them from
teaching in the schools, from longer recognizing the authority of their
general, and from wearing a religious dress.[127]

Clement XIII, feeling himself powerful enough to resist this decree,
endeavored, as the friend of the Jesuits, to break its force by issuing
a counter decree of his own. At this point it is worthy of remark that
the Parliamentary decree had reference to temporal affairs, and did
not, in any way, interfere with the religious faith of the Church,
which the French Christians continued to maintain according to their
traditions and teachings. The decree of Clement XIII, therefore, was
the assertion upon his part of the pontifical right to dictate the
temporal policy of France. He explicitly asserted this by affixing his
papal "curse" upon all who obeyed the decree of the Parliament, and
by declaring it to be "null, inefficacious, invalid, and entirely
destitute of all lawful effect," and by releasing all who had sworn to
observe it from the obligation of their oaths.[128] In the face of this
pontifical mandate, however, the decree of Parliament was executed,
and four thousand Jesuits were driven out of Paris. Clement XIII was
incensed at this, and issued a formal bull in praise of the Jesuits
and in denunciation of their opposers. The Parliament suppressed this
bull, and refused to permit it to be printed in France. The Parliament
of Aix went even further, by having it "torn up by the executioner and
publicly burned," and by inviting Louis XV "to avenge himself on the
court of Rome and the pope."[129] The King of France, however, was
weak enough to suffer himself to be prevailed upon to allow a Synod of
the clergy to be convened, under pretense of putting an end to "the
disputes between the civil and religious powers," as if such a thing
were then possible without submission to Jesuit dictation, backed as
the society was by an irritable and impracticable pope, who had vainly
supposed himself powerful enough to check the tide of indignation then
beating upon the Jesuits. Impressed by the opinions and policy of
Clement XIII, this Synod adopted a course favorable to the Jesuits by
endeavoring to change the issue, so as to conceal the real question.
With the view of making it appear that the Church itself, and even
Christianity, was in danger, they fulminated anathemas against the
works of the French philosophers--of Bayle, of Helvetius, of Rousseau,
of Voltaire, and of the Encyclopædists--thereby furnishing arguments
which have ever since done Jesuit service by misleading the unwary
into the belief that Christianity and Jesuitism are of synonymous
meaning, and that the destruction of the latter would be the death of
the former. They, moreover, tried to favor the Jesuits by declaring
"that the Church alone had the right to teach and instruct children;
that it alone could judge in matters of doctrine, and fix the degree
of submission which was due to them," and that "the civil authority
could in no way go against the Canon law."[130] This assumption of
ecclesiastical authority was intended to strengthen the papacy, and
was accepted by the Jesuits as favorable to them, because the pope at
that time was their friend. But the Parliament of Paris could not fail
to see that, if recognized, it would place the papacy above the State,
and France at the mercy of the Jesuits, at least during the pontificate
of Clement XIII. It therefore declared it to be "derogatory to the
authority of the Government," and prohibited the people from obeying
it. In consequence of this Parliamentary opposition, the prelates
who had shaped the course of the Synod were driven to the necessity
of seeking the aid of Louis XV, so as to avenge themselves upon the
enemies of the Jesuits by means of royal power. The king, who was then
"reeking from his debaucheries"--for which he found shelter in the
acquiescence of the Jesuits--succeeded in obtaining an edict which
annulled the decree of Parliament. Encouraged by this success, the
Jesuits demanded their restoration to authority, supposing that, with
the king and the pope both upon their side, they would then be able to
triumph over all opposition. But their Parliamentary antagonists were
not overcome so easily, and rallied sufficiently to obtain another
decree against them, not less condemnatory than that which had been
temporarily suspended. Meanwhile, hostility to the Jesuits was rapidly
increasing throughout Europe, which incensed them the more, inasmuch
as they would not abate their extreme demands, and could compromise
nothing without an acknowledgment of their wrong--which they were
never known to make. Spain then followed the example of Portugal, and
the king, Charles III, expelled them from his dominions. Thus, at
the time referred to, they were expelled from the territories of the
three great Roman Catholic States--Portugal, Spain, and France. The
King of the Two Sicilies, and Ferdinand, Duke of Parma and Placencia,
also expelled them from their dominions. By common consent among these
powers, the Jesuits were sent to Italy, where the pope, in return for
their devotion to him, was expected to provide for their wants and to
see that proper protection was afforded them. Clement XIII had resisted
all these strong powers in order to defend them, and this measure was
adopted in preference to an open breach with the pope, so that he might
be made to realize the extent of the indignation against them. In the
strong language of Cormenin--a Roman Catholic, but intensely hostile
to the Jesuits--"the soil of Italy was polluted by this unclean slime
which the nations had rejected, and which they had sent back to Rome,
the fountain of all corruption."[131]

Clement XIII became indignant when he found himself unable to
counteract the general prejudice existing against the Jesuits, and,
with strange infatuation, allowed his passions to obtain complete
mastery over him. He fulminated anathemas against the Kings of
Portugal, Spain, France, the Two Sicilies, and the Duke of Parma and
Placencia, and threatened them with excommunication if they did not
cease their opposition to the Jesuits. He even went so far as to send
papal troops against the Duke of Parma to bring him to obedience by
military coercion. But the other powers were not alarmed by the sound
of the pontifical thunder, and the Kings of France, Spain, Portugal,
and Naples promptly pronounced against the pope, and prepared to
punish him for marching an army against the Duke of Parma, whose
policy towards the Jesuits was the same as their own. Even Louis XV
was induced by Choiseul, his minister, to unite upon this point with
the other kings. Thereupon, the King of the Two Sicilies invaded the
papal province of Beneventum with an army, intending thereby to teach
the pope that he was transcending his legitimate powers as head of the
Church. The bull of the pope was torn up at the courts of Portugal,
Spain, and Parma, and by the Parliament of Paris. The excitement
became general, and Clement XIII was awakened from his apparent sense
of security by the mutterings of the storm gathering upon all sides
of him. He was brought to realize, possibly for the first time, that
even he, with all the powers of the Church in his hands, was unable to
drive back the waves then dashing against the papacy, and threatening
to ingulf it. In this emergency he sought aid from Maria Theresa, the
Empress of Austria, with the hope that, with the assistance of so
strong a power, he could make successful resistance to those combined
against the Jesuits. But the empress, having cause to complain of the
treachery of the Jesuits to her, declined to comply with this request,
and went a step farther by annulling one of the important papal bulls
which had been published in her dominions. The clouds, already lowering
over the head of Clement XIII, then thickened more rapidly than ever,
and the struggling pope, finding himself everywhere deserted by the
strong powers--all of which had hitherto been united in favor of the
Church--became so humbled in his pride as to declare that "_he was
ready to make concessions_;" that is, to do something--anything--to
arrest the declining fortunes of the papacy. Thus humiliated, "_he
implored the clemency of the sovereigns_," begging them, as we may
suppose, to relax their grasp upon him on account of their veneration
for the Church. But it was too late. The impracticable demands of the
Jesuits had brought on such an issue between the spiritual and the
temporal powers as to leave no ground for concessions on the part of
the sovereigns, so long as they were persisted in. They were bound to
maintain their own temporal powers within their dominions, or else
allow the Jesuits to rule over them according to their pleasure. To
this they could not submit without absolute degradation. Howsoever
strange it may now appear that the pope did not see this sooner, it
should be regarded as creditable to him that, when he did see it, he
bowed his head humbly before the pelting storm, and yielded to a
necessity he could not avoid. Due credit should not be withheld from
the man who does right, even at the last extremity, especially when,
as in this case, after Clement XIII decided to change his course, he
went to the extent of promising the sovereigns that "he would pronounce
the _abolition of the society_ in a public consistory," and leave the
Jesuits to suffer the consequences of their own folly. Having made up
his mind to this, a day was appointed for the performance of the solemn
act of signing the death-warrant of the Jesuits. But this postponement
led to a result which had not been dreamed of--one that furnished new
evidence of the capacity of the Jesuits for intrigue. During the night
preceding the day appointed for the public ceremony of announcing
the abolition of the Jesuits, Clement XIII was suddenly seized with
convulsions, and died, leaving the act unperformed, and the Jesuits
victorious. Cormenin, writing in France, where the Jesuits are better
known and understood than here, records this event in these terse and
expressive words: "_The Jesuits had poisoned him._"[132]

The Jesuits do not, of course, agree to this account of the manner and
circumstances of the pope's death. They admit that it was sudden, and
that it occurred at the time named; but attribute it to the intense
sufferings he endured in consequence of his sympathy for them on
account of their persecution, and his inability to extend further
assistance to them. De Montor says he died from a sudden fit of
coughing, brought on by a pulmonary disease.[133] The Jesuits admit,
however, that the Spanish and French ambassadors had presented to him
memorials from their respective Governments asking for the abolition
of the society, and insist that he shed tears in consequence, and
expired a few days afterwards.[134] But the manner of his death is of
no special consequence now, since it is more important for us to know
that, at the time of it, he left undecided the matters with reference
to the general conduct of the Jesuits which his predecessor had
directed to be investigated. His defense of the Jesuits had manifestly
been the result of previous and general convictions, and not his
deliberate judgment upon the actual condition of affairs with which
they were connected either in India, China, Paraguay, or in European
States beyond the limits of Italy. The facts had not been sufficiently
developed for final pontifical action, and therefore he acted upon
impressions rather than evidence. We shall soon see that when the
evidence was afterwards fully obtained, the result reached by his
successor was not only fully justified, but inevitable and unavoidable.

It required three months to elect a successor to Clement XIII. The
cardinals were divided into two parties--one supporting the Jesuits,
and the other the Governments of France, Spain, and Portugal, united in
opposition to them. The former desired to subject all civil Governments
to Jesuit dominion; the latter insisted that the Church and the State
should each remain free and independent of the other in its own
domain. After innumerable intrigues--such as are familiar to those
who manipulate party conventions--the latter party triumphed by the
election of Ganganelli, a Franciscan, who took the name of Clement XIV,
and entered upon the pontificate in 1769. He was greatly esteemed for
his virtues, and possessed a conspicuously noble character and a mind
well and thoroughly disciplined. That he was a man of profound ability
is abundantly shown by his letters, which have been preserved and
published, and which contain many passages of exceeding eloquence and
beauty.[135] He was far better prepared, therefore, to form intelligent
and impartial conclusions upon the evidence concerning the Jesuits than
Clement XIII, because, apart from his qualifications, he was not under
the dominion of undue prejudices.

The sovereigns demanded of Clement XIV that the expulsion of the
Jesuits from their territories should be approved, and the society
entirely suppressed and abolished. Upon the other hand, the Jesuits
insisted, with their accustomed superciliousness, that it was necessary
to the Church and the cause of Christianity that they should be
restored to public favor by his pontifical indorsement. This issue
confronted him at the beginning. At first he somewhat excited the hopes
of the Jesuits by the course he took against the French philosophers,
and the bulls of excommunication he issued against Diderot, d'Alembert,
Voltaire, Helvetius, Rousseau, Marmontel, and Holbach. This stimulated
them afresh, and by their machinations created a party in France,
headed by Louis XV, which demanded their return to that country.
But the pope was not driven from the plain line of his duty, which
required of him that the investigation already entered upon should be
completed, and that the questions involved should be decided according
to right and justice. This was due to the sovereigns, to the public,
and especially to the Church. Cormenin says he was suspicious of
being dealt with like his predecessor, and that he took the necessary
precautions to guard against it, by substituting a faithful monk for
the cook of the Quirinal, so as to guard against the possibility of
poison. Howsoever this may have been, he persevered in his course
with the courage of a man who fears no evil when in the faithful
discharge of duty. Resolved, however, not to act with undue haste, but
to have all the matters brought fully before him, together with the
evidence bearing upon them, he continued the investigation for the
period of four years, so that when his final decision was made the
world should be convinced that it was the result of calm deliberation
and honest conviction. He says of himself that he "omitted no care,
no pains, in order to arrive at a thorough knowledge of the origin,
the progress, and the actual state of that regular order commonly
called the Company of Jesus;" and Ranke, the great historian, says
he "applied himself with the utmost attention to the affairs of the
Jesuits;" and adds that "a commission of cardinals was formed, the
arguments of both sides were deliberately considered," before his
conclusion was announced.[136] No greater deliberation and no more
serious reflection could have been bestowed upon any question. The
evidence was carefully inspected and everything duly considered. The
scales were held at equipoise until the preponderance of proof caused
the beam to turn against the Jesuits, when he was constrained by a
sense of duty to the Church, to Christianity, to the public, and to his
own conscience, to announce the result which gave peace and quiet to
the nations and joy to the great body of Christians throughout Europe.
This he did July 21, 1773, by issuing his celebrated bull, "_Dominus ac
Redemptor_"--called by the Jesuits a brief--whereby he decreed "that
the name of the company shall be, and is, forever extinguished and
suppressed;" that "no one of them do carry their audacity so far as to
impugn, combat, or even write or speak about the said suppression, or
the reasons and motives of it;" and that the said bull of suppression
and abolition shall "forever and to all eternity be valid, permanent,
and efficacious."[137]

It is well to observe, before further comment upon this important papal
decree, that it had the effect to increase the apprehensions with
regard to the personal safety of the pope. The manner in which Clement
XIII had met his death on account of the mere promise to suppress the
Jesuits, was well calculated to excite the fear that the same fate
might befall Clement XIV, in revenge for their actual abolition. Hence,
all the avenues of approach to the pope were carefully watched, and
the utmost precautions employed to guard against the possibility of
poison. These were successful for about eight months, when a peasant
woman was persuaded, by means of a disguise, to procure entrance into
the Vatican, and offer to the pope a fig in which poison was concealed.
Clement XIV was exceedingly fond of this fruit, and ate it without
hesitation. The same day the first symptoms of severe illness were
observed, and to these rapidly succeeded violent inflammation of the
bowels. He soon became convinced that he was poisoned, and remarked:
"Alas! I knew they would poison me; but I did not expect to die in
so slow and cruel a manner." His terrible sufferings continued for
several months, when he died, "the poor victim," says Cormenin, "of the
execrable Jesuits."[138]

So much has been written about the manner of this pope's death, that
if it all were repeated, some would still continue to doubt about
it. The Jesuits treat the foregoing account as a malicious libel,
denouncing it with their usual virulence. There is this, however, to
say of it, that it has some strong affirmative proof in the fact that a
_post-mortem_ examination of his body revealed the presence of poison,
as was reported to his Government by the Spanish ambassador then at
Rome. There are probable grounds, certainly, for believing that he was
poisoned by the Jesuits, and that it was the result of their doctrine
that it was not criminal, but rather the proper service of God, to
assassinate their enemies. At all events, that opinion generally
prevailed, and had much to do in creating the sentiment of satisfaction
at the abolition of the society. This satisfaction extended throughout
all the Roman Catholic countries. There was no complaint against it
except among the Jesuits themselves, because, as it was the solemn act
of the pope, and consequently of the Church, even those who may not
have desired it were disposed to acquiesce. It pacified the minds of
the great body of Christians, because they could see that a serious and
exciting cause of disturbance had been removed. And an examination of
the reasons assigned by the pope will not only demonstrate this, but
also that it could not have been avoided without imperiling the Church
itself as well as the cause of Christianity.

We have seen how cautious Clement XIV was to examine the whole matter
thoroughly, and that for this purpose he continued the investigation
for four years, in addition to what had been previously done--hearing
everything that could be said upon both sides, and carefully weighing
all the evidence. He even went so far as to appoint a commission of
five cardinals and several prelates and advocates to assist him in
the examination,[139] all of which he would have omitted if he had
been disposed to prejudice the cause of the Jesuits or to inflict
unmerited injury upon them. In so far, therefore, as his desire and
intention were involved, there is not the least ground for supposing
that he omitted anything essential to the discovery of the truth, or
that he did not honestly desire to discover it. The Jesuit attacks
upon him exhibit bad temper, but furnish no arguments. They are too
vindictive to be courteous, and exhibit too much anger to be truthful.
It is, therefore, only left for us of the present day to understand
the reasons assigned by Clement XIV to justify his action, in order to
decide intelligently between him and the Jesuits. In his statement of
facts he is entitled to be regarded as veracious, not only because of
his pure Christian character, but because he is fully supported by the
most reliable secular history. A brief review of them will enable the
reader to place a proper estimate upon the character of the Jesuits,
which, from the nature of their organization, is incapable of change.

After a preliminary statement of his powers and responsibilities, he
declares the Jesuits to have been accused of things "very detrimental
to the peace and tranquillity of the Christian Republic," and proceeds
to enumerate the Christian sovereigns who have, from time to time,
complained of them, and asserts that Pope Sixtus V had found charges
against them "just and well founded." Referring to the favor shown them
by Gregory XIV, he says that, notwithstanding this, "the accusations
against the society were multiplied without number, and especially
with their insatiable avidity of temporal possessions." He enumerates
_eleven_ popes, including Benedict XIV, who had "employed, without
effect, all their efforts" to provide remedies against the evils they
had engendered. He accuses them with opposition to "other religious
orders;" with "the great loss of souls, and great scandal of the
people;" with the practice of "certain idolatrous ceremonies;" with
the use of maxims which the Church had "proscribed as scandalous and
manifestly contrary to good morals;" with "revolts and intestine
troubles in some of the Catholic States;" and with "persecutions
against the Church" in both Europe and Asia. He refers to the fact that
Innocent XI had been compelled to restrain the society by "forbidding
the company to receive any more novices;" that Innocent XIII was
obliged to threaten "the same punishment;" and that Benedict XIV had
ordered a general visitation and investigation of all their houses in
the Portuguese dominions. Alluding to the decree of Clement XIII in
their favor, he says it "was rather _extorted_ than _granted_"--that
is, that it was obtained by undue means and influences--and that it
"was far from bringing any comfort to the Holy See, or any advantage
to the Christian Republic;" but had made the times "more difficult and
tempestuous," so that "complaints and quarrels were multiplied on every
side. In some places dangerous seditions arose--tumults, discords,
dissensions, scandals, which, weakening or entirely breaking the bonds
of Christian charity, excited the faithful to all the rage of party
hatred and enmities." Then follows the assertion that the Kings of
France, Spain, Portugal, and Sicily had "found themselves reduced to
the necessity of expelling and driving from their States, kingdoms, and
provinces, these very Companions of Jesus," because "there remained
no other remedy to so great evils;" and that "this step was necessary
in order to prevent the Christians from rising one against the other,
and for massacring each other in the very bosom of our common mother,
the holy Church." For these and many other reasons, and because the
Christian world could not be otherwise reconciled, it was urged upon
him, he said, that the Jesuits should be "absolutely abolished and
suppressed."

He then proceeded to declare that he had examined attentively and
weighed carefully all the matters touching the conduct of the Jesuits;
that he had invoked "the presence and inspiration of the Holy Spirit;"
that, under the responsibilities of his high station, he had been
compelled to reach the conclusion that they could "no longer produce
those abundant fruits and those great advantages" which had been
promised when the society was instituted; but that, "on the contrary,
_it was very difficult, not to say impossible, that the Church
could recover a firm and durable peace so long as the said society
subsisted_." Wherefore, for these controlling reasons, he announced
that "after a mature deliberation, we do, out of our certain knowledge
and the fullness of our apostolic power, _suppress and abolish the said
company_." And to make his decree final, complete, and absolute, so
that thereafter it should not be misunderstood, he thus pronounced his
pontifical judgment:

"We deprive it of all activity whatever, of its houses, schools,
colleges, hospitals, lands, and, in short, every other place
whatsoever, in whatever kingdom or province they may be situated.
We abrogate and annul its statutes, rules, customs, decrees, and
constitutions, even though confirmed by oath, and approved by the
Holy See or otherwise. In like manner we annul all and every its
privileges, indults, general or particular, the tenor whereof is, and
is taken to be, as fully and as amply expressed in the present Brief
as if the same were inserted word for word, in whatever clauses, form,
or decree, or under whatever sanction their privileges may have been
conceived. We declare all, and all kind of authority, the general, the
provincials, the visitors, and other superiors of the said society,
to be _forever annulled and extinguished_, of what nature soever
the said society may be, as well in things spiritual as temporal."
He denies them any right to teach in colleges or schools--prohibits
them from calling in question his act of suppression and abolition,
and, after varying his language in every way necessary to show the
inviolability of his decree, he makes this declaration: "Our will and
pleasure is, that these our letters should forever and to all eternity
be valid, permanent, and efficacious, have and obtain their full force
and effect, and be inviolably observed by all and every whom they do
or may concern, now or hereafter, in any manner whatsoever." This
solemn decree was then executed by the pope "under the seal of the
Fisherman"--the highest emblem of Church authority.[140]

These extracts from the celebrated decree are necessary to convey to
the mind of the reader a correct idea of its character and scope. A
mere statement of the fact of its issuance is insufficient for that
purpose. That it was the solemn and deliberate act of Clement XIV is
not denied by anybody. The Jesuits assail its author, and by that
means seek to invalidate it. They boastingly assert that it was unduly
obtained, contrary to the Christian sentiment of that period. Every
view suggested by them is an impeachment of the integrity of the pope,
upon whom they have bestowed innumerable severe and hostile censures.
Those who now examine the document and the circumstances which led
to it, together with the Jesuit comments upon it, and are influenced
only by the desire to judge it accurately, can not withhold their
surprise at the many false and mendacious representations made by them
with regard to it. One of their most influential authors--seemingly
insensible to the idea that even an adversary should be treated
fairly--represents Clement XIV as "conscientiously opposed to the
suppression of the Jesuits,"[141] in the very face of the fact,
conceded by him, that he did issue this decree in his official
capacity as pope. This is an unequivocal charge that he violated his
own conscience, and acted faithlessly to the Church and dishonorably
as a man, by yielding to influences condemned by his judgment, and
which he was too cowardly to resist. In ordinary intercourse such
an accusation is highly offensive, and there is nothing to make it
otherwise when made by a Jesuit against a pope--especially when he
professes to believe that the latter was infallible. This same author
does not scruple to charge that the Spanish ambassador "bribed the
household of the sovereign pontiff, and undertook to overpower the pope
by his indomitable persistence"[142]--as if the pope were surrounded by
corrupt hirelings who were able to influence his decision, and could be
overpowered upon so great and serious a question by the importunities
and threats of others. And, continuing his comments in the same spirit,
he asserts, upon the alleged authority of Cardinal Pacca, that after
Clement XIV signed the Act of Suppression, "he dashed the document to
one side, cast the pen to another, and _from that moment was demented_.
This signature had cost the unhappy pontiff his reason! From that
day he possessed it only at intervals, and then only to deplore his
misfortunes."[143]

Statements of this character pertain to a low order of partisanship,
and are discreditable to their authors. No facts whatsoever have ever
been given, or can be, upon which to base them. Clement XIV lived
until September 22, 1774, fourteen months after his decree abolishing
the Jesuits. The French ambassador, Bernis, in a letter written at
Rome, November 3, 1773, three months and twelve days after the decree,
said: "_His health is perfect_, and his gayety more remarkable than
usual."[144] Nicolini says "all the authors are unanimous upon this
point," and quotes the historian Botta to the same effect. He retained
this condition of health for eight months, when his sudden sickness
gave rise, as already stated, to the belief that he had been poisoned
by the Jesuits. Certainly if he had experienced any such remorse as
the Jesuits allege, it would have been exhibited before that time.
After his illness his faculties may have become somewhat impaired,
but this was the natural result of intense physical suffering. The
Jesuits represent him, when in the agony of pain, as having exclaimed,
"I have been compelled," which they interpret to mean that he was
unduly influenced by the sovereigns. They fail in this to exhibit their
usual shrewdness by deriving an argument from an expression used by
him when in what they say was a demented condition. If he did speak
the words alleged, it is far more probable, as Nicolini suggests,
that he intended to express regret that the iniquities of the Jesuits
had been so enormous and so clearly established that he was compelled
to suppress and abolish their society, because of the injury they
had already inflicted, and would be likely to inflict in the future,
upon the Church and Christianity. It should also be remarked in this
connection that neither Cormenin nor De Montor, in their separate
histories of the pontificate of Clement XIV, says anything about his
having been demented, or about his remorse. That accusation is the
fruit of Jesuit revenge.

But we have now less to do with the motives of the pope in abolishing
the society, and with the circumstances immediately attending the act,
than with the act itself and its consequences. As pope, Clement XIV had
the undoubted power to make and promulgate the decree. When this was
done, it was accepted with satisfaction, not alone by the sovereigns
who had made themselves accusers of the Jesuits, but by the great
body of the European Christians. Among the latter the belief almost
universally prevailed that he had thereby conferred a benefit upon the
Church and the Christian world by removing a serious and disturbing
evil. In the course of history no important public act has been more
generally approved. This would have been the case even if but part
of what is alleged in their terrible arraignment by the pope had been
true. But there is every reason for believing that all the charges
were fully verified by proof, and that the Christian people accepted
that fact as complete justification for the abolition and absolute
suppression of the society.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 125: History of the Popes of Rome. By Cormenin. Vol. II, p.
392.]

[Footnote 126: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 127: History of the Popes of Rome. By Cormenin. Vol. II, p.
393.]

[Footnote 128: History of the Popes of Rome. By Cormenin. Vol. II, p.
393.]

[Footnote 129: _Ibid._, p. 394.]

[Footnote 130: History of the Popes of Rome. By Cormenin. Vol. II, p.
394.]

[Footnote 131: History of the Popes of Rome. By Cormenin. Vol. II, p.
394.]

[Footnote 132: History of the Popes of Rome. By Cormenin. Vol. II, p.
395.]

[Footnote 133: De Montor, Vol. II, p. 329.]

[Footnote 134: Daurignac, Vol. II, p. 167.]

[Footnote 135: Letters of Pope Clement XIV: To which are Prefixed
Anecdotes of His Life. By Lottin Le Jeune. London, 1781.]

[Footnote 136: Nicolini, p. 382.]

[Footnote 137: This bull is given by Nicolini, pp. 387-406.]

[Footnote 138: Cormenin, Vol. II, p. 398.]

[Footnote 139: Le Jeune, Vol. I, p. 43.]

[Footnote 140: Nicolini, pp. 387 to 406. This decree may also be found
in De Montor, Vol. II, pp. 347 to 364. His translation differs somewhat
from that of Nicolini, which is followed in the text, but the variance
is not substantial in the condemnation of the society.]

[Footnote 141: Daurignac, Vol. II, p. 173.]

[Footnote 142: Daurignac, Vol. II, p. 175.]

[Footnote 143: _Ibid._, p. 177.]

[Footnote 144: _Apud_ Nicolini, p. 412.]




CHAPTER XIV.

RE-ESTABLISHMENT.


If it be conceded, as the Jesuits insist, that Clement XIV was prompted
by unworthy and impure motives to abolish their society, and that, in
consequence, he afterwards became demented from remorse, nevertheless
the decree of abolition was an official act not subject to review or
reversal by any authority known to the Church. No appeal from it was
authorized by any existing law or Church regulation. He exercised a
power which had been always understood to belong to the popes--of the
same nature and import precisely as that exercised by Paul III when
he established the society. No matter whether it be called a bull, a
brief, or by some other name, it was undoubtedly an official decree,
pronounced by the head of the Church, acting within his proper,
well-established, and recognized pontifical jurisdiction. Consequently,
its nature can not be changed, nor can its scope and effect be limited,
by any view that can be taken of his motives, any more than can the
decree of a competent judicial tribunal be impaired in its force and
effect by the motives or inclinations of the judge who pronounces it.
There can, therefore, be no escape from either of these propositions:
First, that the decree, having been issued in conformity with the
law and custom of the Church, was valid; and, second, that after its
issuance, the Jesuit society could no longer exist as a religious
order, under the Canon law of the Church.

It is not necessary to inquire whether or no this decree was binding
upon subsequent popes; that has been of no practical importance since
the new decree of Pius VII re-establishing the order, after it had
been forty-one years abolished. Until the time of that new decree,
the Church and all its members were bound, under its existing laws and
discipline, to recognize the abolition of the society as legitimate and
proper. In point of fact this was the case, the only exceptions being
the Jesuits themselves, and such as they could influence. Pius VI, the
immediate successor of Clement XIV, although he discharged from prison
some of the Jesuits who had been arrested and confined, suffered the
decree of Clement XIV to have full effect during his pontificate, and
held on to the confiscated property of the Jesuits for the benefit of
the Church. The Christians of Europe were satisfied with this condition
of things, and indicated this, not merely by their silent acquiescence,
but by acts of positive approval. The Jesuits, however, refused to
be reconciled, and exhibited their discontent by such measures of
resistance as proved, beyond question, their malevolent hatred of
Clement XIV and their contempt for the authority of the Church and
the pope, when it was employed to curb their ambition or to impose
upon them any form of restraint. Instances of their disobedience to
popes have already been cited; but at this particular crisis in their
history their desperation became such that they recognized nothing
as meritorious, either in the Church or any of the popes, except
what tended to restore to them the power they had forfeited by the
criminality of their conduct. Their society was abolished pursuant
to the law of the Church, and by its highest authority; but they had
no respect for either--not a whit more than they had for the papal
decrees by which their practice of the heathen rites in India and China
was forbidden. They sought after no other end than their own triumph,
and to achieve this they plotted with whomsoever would consent to aid
them, and threw themselves into the arms and under the protection of
the enemies of the Church, with the facility of such deserters as pass
from camp to camp to find shelter for themselves. This part of their
history presents their leading characteristics in a striking light, and
is, perhaps, more instructive than any other, because it shows with
conspicuous prominence the little esteem in which they hold the Church
and its legitimate authority when in conflict with their own purposes
and designs, and how ready they are to curse the popes who oppose them,
whatsoever their Christian virtues, and to praise all who favor them,
whatsoever their vices.

To give effect to the decree of abolition, the general of the Jesuits
was arrested and held in confinement; the members were dispersed among
different ecclesiastical establishments in Rome; their buildings were
taken possession of; seals were placed upon their papers; and their
schools were turned over to the management of others. Proceedings
were instituted against Ricci, the general, and other members of
the society, and he and the secretary, together with several of the
prominent fathers, were sent to the Castle of St. Angelo, and held as
State prisoners. The crimes charged against them, and of which they
were convicted, were "that they had attempted, both by insinuations and
by more open efforts, to stir up a revolt in their own favor against
the Apostolic See; that they had published and circulated through
all Europe libels against the pope," in one of which Clement XIV was
charged with having been elected by simony, and that three of the
most prominent Jesuits, "Favre, Forrestier, and Gautier, were loudly
repeating everywhere that the pope was the _Antichrist_."[145]

The society generally, but not unanimously, exhibited this same
spirit of resistance to the pope and the authority of the Church. By
the decree of abolition the members were allowed to act as secular
priests, and exercised sacerdotal functions, subject to the authority
of the Church. A few of them availed themselves of this provision, and
"settled themselves quietly in different capacities." Others endeavored
insidiously to preserve the principles of their constitution and
organization, by abandoning the name of Jesuits, and adopting other
titles. "But," says Nicolini, "_the greater part, the most daring and
restless, would not submit to the Brief of Suppression; impugned its
validity in a thousand writings; called in question the validity of
Clement's election, whom they called Parricide, Sacrilegious, Simoniac,
and considered themselves still forming part of the still existing
company of Jesus_."[146]

Catharine, Empress of Russia, had given some protection to the Jesuits
before their suppression, and Ricci, the general, admitted in his
examination that he had held correspondence with Frederick of Prussia
after the decree. How is it to be accounted for, in any mode consistent
with due respect for the Church, that the Jesuits in Russia did not
withdraw themselves from the protection of the emperor, and that others
sought shelter and protection in Prussia, after the decree of the pope
had declared the order to be forever abolished throughout the world?
Russia had long before rejected all the overtures of the Roman Church,
and established the Greek faith as the religion of the State, with the
reigning sovereign as the spiritual head of the national Church. The
Church of Rome taught that the Russians were schismatics, and therefore
heretics. The Prussians were Lutherans--that is, Protestants--and
were, consequently, looked upon at Rome as the deadly enemies of the
Church, and were, besides, under the ban of excommunication for heresy.
Consequently, an alliance of the Jesuits with either Russia or Prussia,
after their suppression, could be looked upon in no other light than as
an act of rebellion against the authority of the Church and the pope--a
desire to pass from the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome to that of
alien authority arrayed against it. It amounted to a desire to exchange
their allegiance from what they had considered legitimate authority to
that of schismatics and heretics. It is impossible for the Jesuits to
escape this view of the attitude they occupied after their abolition.
They were simply rebels against the Church.

The Jesuits in Silesia, in Prussia, refused positively to obey the
decree of Clement XIV--paying no more regard to it than if it had
been issued by the chief of an Arab tribe. They continued to hold
on to their convents and houses in the same manner as before their
suppression, in doing which they directly defied the pope. They
relied upon the Lutheran Frederick for protection, preferring that to
obedience to the pope. Frederick willingly gave them this protection,
because he was induced to believe that he could employ them for the
twofold purpose of strengthening monarchism, to which they were pledged
by their constitution, and of supplanting the Roman by the Protestant
form of Christianity. The Jesuits flocked, therefore, to Silesia
from all quarters, seeking this Protestant protection, which caused
Voltaire to remark, in his caustic style, that "it would divert him
beyond measure to think of Frederick as the general of the Jesuits, and
that he hoped this would inspire the pope with the idea of becoming
mufti."[147]

The Kings of France and Spain called the attention of Pius VI--after
the death of Clement XIV--to this disobedience of the Jesuits, and
urged upon him the necessity of requiring that the decree of Clement
XIV should be strictly enforced against them. But the attitude occupied
by Pius VI required him to observe extreme caution in administering the
affairs of the Church. As he had not been directly allied with either
of the factions among the cardinals at the time of his election, he
felt constrained to adopt a conservative and moderate course, whereby
he might, if possible, restore harmony in the Church. He therefore
refrained from identifying himself with the sovereigns who were hostile
to the Jesuits, and yet did not openly espouse the Jesuit cause.
Whatsoever his personal inclinations may have been, he could not, as
pope, venture to impugn the motives of his predecessor, or assail the
fairness and integrity of the decree abolishing the Jesuits. He could
not fail to realize that Clement XIV--a canonically elected pope, with
all the powers of that office in his hands--had taken the precaution
to declare that he intended the suppression to be absolute, final, and
forever. He knew also that, as the Jesuits had derived the authority
to exist as a religious order from the approval of one pope, it was
clearly competent for another pope to withdraw that approbation and
to dissolve the order, whensoever it became obvious to him that the
good of the Church required it. Under these circumstances, even if he
had desired to do so, he manifestly was not inclined to strike what
might prove to be a fatal and deadly blow at the dignity of the papal
office and the authority of the Church, which he undoubtedly desired to
maintain in all its completeness. Consequently, he not only continued
to preserve to the Church the confiscated property of the Jesuits,
but left the decree suppressing the order in full force, in all its
entirety, during his pontificate, which terminated during the last year
of the eighteenth century.

The Jesuit writers have taxed their ingenuity to the utmost to explain
the attitude of Pius VI towards their society. They have struggled hard
to prove that, notwithstanding he caused the decree of Clement XIV to
be executed, he was in fact opposed to it. One of them, heretofore
cited--whose work abounds in a mixture of apologies for their conduct
and vilification of their adversaries--says: "In the opinion of Pius
VI the Society of Jesus was _disbanded only for a time; it was not
abolished_."[148] To this it may be answered, in the first place,
there is nothing to show that Pius VI ever so committed himself; in
the second place, that Clement XIV decreed that it should be abolished
_forever_; and in the third place that, if he had considered the
society as suspended merely for a time, he would have revived it by
his own decree, or fixed the tenure of suspension. But this method of
treating the question is trifling with a serious matter which should
be treated with fairness and candor. It is equivalent to saying that
Pius VI executed the decree of his predecessor, which absolutely
abolished the society forever, when in his conscience he did not
approve it. If he did entertain this opinion, it is not shown to have
been authoritatively announced by him; and to allege that he did, in
the absence of proof to that effect, has the appearance of attempting
to substitute fiction for fact--to make history rather than to record
it.

The Jesuits, however, draw inferences of the favorable estimate
of their society by Pius VI from his kind treatment of Ricci, the
general, while confined in the castle of St. Angelo, and his release
from confinement of the other Jesuits who had been arrested. This is
far-fetched, inasmuch as it may well be attributed alone to motives
of benevolence. But in no event are these such acts as could limit,
in the least degree, the effect of the decree of abolition so long as
it continued in force, as it did during the pontificate of Pius VI.
Besides, the propriety of punishing individuals must have depended upon
their personal agency in the offenses charged against the society as
an organized body. The Jesuits derive more support to their claim that
Pius VI favored them by quoting language alleged to have been uttered
by him, which, if actually spoken, would place him in the attitude of
being upon their side and condemning the decree of his predecessor,
but without the courage to relieve them from the condemnation of their
conduct or from the Act of Suppression. This is not very complimentary
to Pius VI, for it represents him as saying, "I _approve_ of the
Society of Jesus residing in White Russia,"[149] at the same time that
he continued his assent to their abolition in all the Roman Catholic
States. The question whether or no he made this remark is in too much
doubt to give full credit to it. It is not pretended that the words
were written, but only that they were spoken in the presence of a
single witness, who is said to have attested their utterance. This
would place him in the attitude of performing a public act contrary to
his private judgment, which might well enough be done where temporal
matters only were involved, but not by a pope concerning spiritual
matters. Hence, it is scarcely to be supposed that Pius VI ever uttered
these words. But they amount to nothing which reaches the dignity of
an official act if he did, for the plain reason that the decree of
abolition having been a solemn official act, under "the seal of the
Fisherman," if subject at all to revocation or modification by any of
the successors of Clement XIV, could only have been so dealt with by
an official act of corresponding solemnity. For some causes judicial
decrees may be changed or annulled, but only by other judicial decrees,
and it will not be pretended, even by Jesuits, that a decree pronounced
by a pope under the authority of the Canon law and the unvarying custom
of the Church, is of less dignity than the decrees of the civil courts.
What is said by De Montor disproves the allegation of Daurignac. He
tells us that when the Jesuit general in Russia took such steps as
would have enlarged the society by the admission of neophytes, Pius
VI commanded him to cease. Whilst in this he does not seem to have
condemned the existence of the Jesuits in Russia, it emphatically
approves the decree of abolition by executing it elsewhere.

Not to condemn their existence in Russia was a simple act of omission,
differing essentially from a direct approval. But whether what he did
was the one or the other, it undoubtedly had the effect of enabling the
Jesuits in Russia to defy the decree of Clement XIV by keeping their
organization alive there, so that at the death of Ricci they elected
a successor of their own, who conducted himself and the society in
open opposition to the Church, the pope, and the Canon law.[150] All,
therefore, that can be justly said about Pius VI is, that he occupied
an equivocal attitude--not willing to approve directly by any official
act the existence of the society in Russia, yet leaving the decree of
suppression in full force.

But whatsoever Pius VI may have done or said, his immediate successor,
Pius VII, did "authorize the society to establish itself _in White
Russia_." This he did in 1801, twenty-eight years after the decree of
Clement XIV. It was not done, however, by a mere verbal declaration to
that effect, but by a formal bull, or brief, or decree--no matter by
what name it may be called--in observance of the usual formality. From
this it is to be implied that there had been no attempt to change or
limit the decree of suppression by Pius VI; for if there had been, this
repetition would have been unnecessary. Pius VII manifestly understood
that without the official solemnity of a new bull, brief, or decree, no
effect would have followed; that is, that his mere verbal assent, if
he had given it, would have amounted to nothing. But what he did was
equivocal, to say the least of it, by both affirming and disaffirming
the decree of Clement XIV. It affirmed it in so far as the decree
was left in force in the Roman Catholic States of Europe, where the
jurisdiction of the pope as the head of the Church was recognized; and
disaffirmed it in Russia, where the pope had no jurisdiction. It was
as much as to say that the Jesuits should not exist as an organized
society among Roman Catholics, but might do so among schismatics and
heretics. No matter what idea he intended to convey with regard to
their abolition among the former, he accepted it as an accomplished
fact which he was officially bound to recognize. To have done otherwise
would have been perilous to the Church by inciting the opposition of
the Roman Catholic sovereigns, who could not be reconciled to the
Jesuits, and would have offended the multitude of European Christians
who had approved their abolition. Up to the first year of the present
century, therefore, the decree of Clement XIV remained unreversed
throughout Europe, and wheresoever the jurisdiction of the pope was
recognized. Whatsoever the Jesuits did to resist, defeat, or evade
it, must, consequently, be considered willful disobedience to the
recognized and legitimate authority of the Church; in other words, as
rebellion.

This measure of leniency on the part of Pius VII had the effect upon
the Jesuits of making them bolder in their general conduct and more
vindictive in their denunciation of Clement XIV, whose name and memory
they assailed with fierce and foul aspersions. They flocked to Russia
in large numbers, as they had done to Silesia, from all the Roman
Catholic States, and, under the guidance of their skillful general
in that country, soon acquired the habit of acting as if they were
sure of an ultimate revival of their organization. Thus sustained,
it was not long before they re-entered Parma and Sicily, with the
implied if not express approval of Pius VII, who seems to have been
gradually preparing himself, by cautiously feeling his way, to espouse
their cause and to acquiesce in their defamation of Clement XIV. As
their hopes grew higher they began to repeat their old practices by
venturing to interfere with the temporal affairs of Governments, as
they had been accustomed to do before their suppression. They ventured
the attempt to domineer in Russia as they had formerly done in Spain,
France, Portugal, and elsewhere. Finding themselves, for a time,
unrebuked by the Russian authorities, they carried this interference
so far, and became so exacting in their demands, that the Russian
Government was compelled, in self-defense, to impose restraints upon
them. They had learned so well how to plot treason and rebellion in
the Roman Catholic States as to make themselves familiar with all the
artifices and instrumentalities most effective for those purposes, but
their Russian field of operations presented difficulties they had not
probably anticipated. The pope, whether for or against them, had no
power there, and they were required to deal only with the authorities
of that Government. Those authorities soon became convinced that
they had warmed a viper into life, and that the Jesuits could not be
trusted even in return for favors bestowed upon them. The Russian
emperor, Alexander, was consequently compelled to issue a royal ukase
in 1816, by which he expelled them from St. Petersburg and Moscow.
This proving ineffectual, he issued another in 1820, excluding them
entirely from the Russian dominions. The emperor set forth in his
decree that he had intrusted them with the education of youth, and
had imposed no restrictions upon their right to profess and practice
their own religion, but that they had "abused the confidence which was
placed in them, and misled their inexperienced pupils;" that whilst
they enjoyed toleration themselves, "they implanted a hard intolerance
in the natures infatuated by them;" and that all their efforts "were
directed merely to secure advantages for themselves, and the extension
of their power, and their conscience found in every refractory action
a convenient justification in their statutes." After showing how
insensible they were to the duties imposed on them by gratitude for
the protection Russia had extended to them after the abolition of
the society by the pope, and charging them with the egregious crime
of sowing tares and animosities among families, and tearing the son
from the father, and the daughter from the mother, Alexander asks
this emphatic and significant question: "Where, in fact, is the State
that would tolerate in its bosom those who sow in it hatred and
discord?"[151]

This was the first attempt made by any State not Roman Catholic to
expel the Jesuits, and it is not pretended, even by the Jesuits
themselves, that it was on account of their religion, which the
Russian Government allowed them to exercise freely. It must have been,
therefore, the consequence of their having convinced the Russian
authorities that they employed their religion as a pretext for their
interference with temporal and political affairs; and that they had
thereby made themselves rightfully amenable to the charges alleged
against them in the ukase of the emperor. It is no defense against
these charges to say that the emperor may have been mistaken. This
is not probable; for the fact of their having plotted against the
peace and interests of society in return for the favors he bestowed
upon them, would have justified him in condemning them even more
severely. There are very few offenses so base as ingratitude, which
excludes the higher emotions from the mind. He gave them shelter and
protection after the pope and the Roman Catholic powers had condemned
and abolished them; and but for this they would have passed away
forever, overwhelmed by the popular indignation. The very fact that he
found himself constrained to arraign them as he did, with such crushing
severity, is convincing proof of their ingratitude, as well as of their
inability to exist anywhere, in fidelity to their constitution, without
warring upon the peace of society and upon everything they are unable
to subdue and control.

It is to be presumed that the Jesuits professed submission to Russian
authority before the decree of Pius VII which allowed them to exist in
that country. But after the same pope re-established the order, as he
soon did, by another special decree, their schemes of ambition were
more actively and openly plotted. This last act, which restored them
to active life, was dated August 7, 1814, and inasmuch as it enabled
them to reproduce all their old machinery of mischief, it deserves to
be well considered, both as regards the character of the act itself,
and the motives of its author. It constitutes one of the important
events in modern history, the influences of which have not yet ceased,
and are not likely to cease so long as the contest between monarchism
and popular institutions shall continue. Pius VII was a monarchist
in principle, besides being a temporal sovereign. Monarchism was
seriously threatened, and was ready to accept whatsoever alliance its
defenders deemed essential to its preservation. Popular government
was the special dread of kings, and there were none of these who did
not understand that nowhere else in the world was it more severely
condemned than in the Jesuit constitution, and none who would rejoice
more at its extermination than the members of the Jesuit society. We
should glance, therefore, at the condition of the European nations at
the time of Pius VII, in order to penetrate his motives and comprehend
what he must have regarded as the necessity which influenced him in
aiding the Jesuits to cast reproach upon the memory of Clement XIV, one
of the most meritorious of his predecessors.

The French Revolution had made the attempt, in imitation of the example
of the United States, to scatter the germs of popular representative
government throughout Europe. Whatsoever errors sprang out of that
great movement are attributable more to the pre-existing influences
and prejudices of false education, and to the aid which monarchism
derived from the ill-fated union of Church and State, than to all
other causes combined. When the European States became convulsed by
this event, the Jesuits seized upon the opportunity to persuade the
reigning sovereigns that the support of their society as organized by
Loyola, was absolutely necessary to the preservation and continuance
of the principle of monarchy; and that without their co-operation the
people, who were incapable of conducting the affairs of government,
would triumph over kings. They assailed liberalism in every form,
from the French Encyclopædists to the humblest advocate of popular
government, consigning all of them to eternal tortures for venturing
to assert the natural right of mankind to civil and religious liberty.
This was congenial work to them; for, although not yet re-established,
they felt assured that if they could excite the fears of the sovereigns
at the probable loss of their royal authority, they would thereby
set in operation a current of influences which would soon reach Pius
VII, and lead him to disregard the decree of their abolition, and
to cast his lot along with the other kings, whatsoever effect might
be produced upon the fortunes of the Church. Loyola had founded the
order upon the plea of its necessity to counteract the influences of
the Reformation in the sixteenth century; and now in the nineteenth,
the same argument was repeated, so varied only as to embrace all the
existing fruits of the Reformation, including the right of the people
to self-government. The Jesuits did not miscalculate. They knew how to
excite both the fears and bigotry of the sovereigns. They understood
Pius VII, and succeeded at last in obtaining from him the decree for
their re-establishment, by virtue of which they have since existed,
and are now scattered throughout all the nations, with neither their
ambition nor thirst for power in the least degree slackened.

Everybody at all familiar with history understands how necessary it
was considered by the "Allied Powers" to recast the history of Europe
after the escape of Napoleon from the Island of Elba. For this purpose
their representatives assembled at the Congress of Vienna, and took to
themselves the name of the "Holy Alliance," which, according to Prince
Metternich--who was its leading spirit--was induced by "the overflow of
the pietistic feeling of the Emperor Alexander [of Russia], and _the
application of Christian principles to politics_;" in other words, "_a
union of religious and political-liberal ideas_."[152] This effort,
on the part of the monarchists of Europe was designed to give renewed
prominence to the idea that kings governed by divine right; in other
words, to establish the union between Church and State so completely
that it could never be again disturbed. It was intended to teach the
people that all the liberties they were entitled to possess were such
only as the governing monarchs deemed it expedient to grant them; that
they were entitled to none whatsoever by virtue of the natural law;
that the attempt to establish representative and liberal government,
like that of the United States, was an unpardonable sin against God;
and that the highest duty of citizenship was obedience to monarchical
authority.

Not the least conspicuous among the maneuvering sovereigns and
politicians of Europe at this time was Pius VII, who felt himself
to be the most illustrious and important representative of the
divine right of kings. He hated Napoleon intensely, if for no other
reason, because the "little Corsican" had arrested and held him in
confinement. In casting about to discover by what means he, as pope,
could render the most conspicuous aid to the cause of monarchism, and
the suppression of liberal and popular government, he naturally turned
in the direction of the Jesuits, whose fidelity to the principles
of absolutism was vouched for by the constitution of their society
and their intense devotion to the memory of Loyola. He, accordingly,
whilst the monarchs were preparing for the Congress of Vienna, and
only a few months before its assembling, anticipated their action
by re-establishing the society of the Jesuits. His prompt action
commended him to the allied sovereigns, who could not have failed
to see in it sufficient to assure them of his hostility to popular
government and his fidelity to the monarchical cause. His purposes
may be inferred from the language of his decree. He declared that he
should be derelict of duty, "if placed in the bark of Peter, tossed
and assailed by continual storms, we [he] refused to employ _the
vigorous and experienced rowers_ [the Jesuits], who volunteered their
services, in order to break the waves of a sea which threatened every
moment shipwreck and death."[153] What did he mean by the storms that
tossed and assailed the bark of Peter? The Governments were agitated by
political and military turmoil, but these things were not within the
rightful province of the Church or the pope. The Church was at peace,
except in so far only as Pius VII had voluntarily chosen to mix himself
up with the political struggles of kings, in order to preserve his own
temporal crown. That he intended to become an active party to these
struggles is proved by all that he said and did--even by the language
of his decree. In explaining his action, he says that Ferdinand, King
of Sicily, had requested the re-establishment of the Jesuits, because
it was necessary that they should be employed as instructors "in
forming youth to Christian piety and fear of God." Ferdinand was one
of the most bigoted kings and thorough monarchists in Europe, and his
idea of "Christian piety and fear of God" was, that it centered in
the divine right of kings and the union of Church and State. With him
religion and monarchism were synonymous terms. If he sometimes made
small concessions to his subjects from fear of the popular wrath, they
were always withdrawn when his power became strong enough to enable
him to renew his oppressions with impunity. He acted upon the Jesuit
principle that a monarchical sovereign is not bound by any promise he
makes to his subjects, for the reason that the latter have no rights
which the former are bound to recognize, and if they had, that the pope
could release him from the obligation to obey his promise--a doctrine
then strictly adhered to so as to make popular institutions impossible.
His main purpose was to perpetuate his own temporal and political
authority, and he desired to employ the Jesuits for that purpose, well
knowing that their doctrines were expressly designed to hold society
in obedience to monarchism. Pius VII did not hesitate to avow his
sympathy with Ferdinand, and in doing so proved that he was influenced
by the same temporal and political motives. He considered it necessary
that the crown of absolute sovereignty should be kept upon the head of
Ferdinand, in order to assure himself that it should be kept also upon
his own. The sovereigns of the "Holy Alliance" had massed large armies,
and soon entered into a pledge to devote them to the suppression of all
uprisings of the people in favor of free government; and he desired
to devote the Jesuits, supported by his pontifical power, to the
accomplishment of that end. He knew how faithfully they would apply
themselves to that work, and hence he counseled them, in his decree
of restoration, to strictly observe the "useful advices and salutary
counsels" whereby Loyola had made absolutism the corner-stone of the
society.

Thus the motives of Pius VII are clearly shown to have been temporal
and political, and when he excused himself on account of the
"deplorable times"--that is, the political disturbance among the
nations--he manifestly had in view the advancement of those plottings
against popular liberty which soon furnished the rallying point to
the "Holy Alliance" at Vienna. He seems to have been so intent upon
this subject as not to realize that he owed at least some show of
respect to the memory of Clement XIV. As if unconscious that when the
latter abolished the society, he also was the head of the Church,
possessing all the powers and prerogatives of a lawfully-elected pope,
he abrogated and annulled his decree as if it had possessed no higher
dignity than a municipal ordinance, imitating in this the practice of
those sovereigns who brush all impediments out of the paths of their
ambition. He conferred upon the Jesuits the right to exist as an
order throughout the world, and thereby approved and indorsed their
vilification of Clement XIV. And to show his own estimate of the
plenitude of his pontifical authority, he declared that his decree of
restoration should be "inviolably observed," and that it should "never
be submitted to the judgment or revision of any judge." And then,
as if he stood in the place of God, whilst Clement XIV had rebelled
against the Divine authority, he commanded that "no one be permitted
to infringe, or by an audacious temerity to oppose any part" of his
decree; and made disobedience to it an act of sin, by declaring that
he who shall be guilty of it "will thereby incur the indignation of
Almighty God, and of the holy apostles Peter and Paul." He treated
contemptuously the decree of Clement XIV, without the least pretense
that the Jesuits had repented of the crimes for which he abolished
their society after four years of careful investigation, and without
any pledge upon their part not to repeat them--a serious and dangerous
omission.[154]

One can not refrain from wondering why Pius VII did not pause long
enough to inquire, "Upon what meat doth this our Cæsar feed, that he
is grown so great?" What source of pontifical authority existed in his
behalf that did not also exist in behalf of Clement XIV? The one was no
more pope than the other--no more infallible than the other--possessed
no higher official prerogatives than the other. They were equals in
power and official dignity. If Clement XIV had _suspended_ the society,
then it would have been within the power of Pius VII to set aside the
suspension and revive the society. But he went further, and in the
most emphatic and express terms, _suppressed, abolished, annulled,
and extinguished it forever_. His official act was valid, complete,
and final, in compliance with the Canon law and established custom.
The society, therefore, had no legal existence according to the law
of the Church, but was dead and extinct when Pius VII became pope.
Its constitution was then a nullity. He had rightfully only the power
possessed by Paul III when he first established the society; and by
exercising this power could have organized a new society and granted
it a new constitution. Instead of this he "_re-established_" the
defunct society, at the request of King Ferdinand, thereby assuming
the prerogative right to review and annul what Clement XIV had done
within the scope of his legitimate authority. In order to do this, he
had further to assume that Clement XIV had exceeded his authority,
and had acted injuriously towards the Church, by depriving it of "the
vigorous and experienced rowers" necessary to save it from "shipwreck
and death." This was, in effect, to approve the Jesuit defamation
of Clement XIV, and to deny his infallibility. It was, moreover, an
implied approval of the rebellion of the Jesuits against the authority
of the Church during the forty-one years that had elapsed after the
abolition of their society. It was an attempt to cover up, sanction,
and legitimate that rebellion, and to reward the society for its
persistent defiance of the Church and the Canon law, by galvanizing its
dead body into life.

The Jesuits themselves are sensible of this difficulty, and are
perplexed by it. In dealing with it, Daurignac displays more ingenuity
than candor. Referring to the existence of the Jesuits in White Russia,
after the decree of abolition and in violation of it, he ventures to
say: "The position of the Jesuits in White Russia was an anomaly.
Clement XIV had authorized them to remain _in statu quo_."[155] He
fails to give any authority for this, for the obvious reason that
there is none. Nothing can be found to verify it. It is undoubtedly
of Jesuit manufacture, being contradicted by everything done and said
by Clement XIV. The language of his decree is conclusive upon the
point that his object was to destroy the society and put an end to it
forever--not allowing it to exist anywhere. He makes neither exception
nor reservation. Any other pretense is a palpable perversion of his
meaning. Daurignac manifestly realized this difficulty, and made an
additional effort to escape it by attempting to impair the official
force and effect of the decree of abolition. He says elsewhere: "In
view of the future, he [Clement XIV] would not suppress the society by
a _bull_, which would be binding upon his successors. He had suppressed
it by a _brief_, which could be revoked without difficulty whenever
public feeling might allow it."[156] The Jesuits have an "exchequer
of words" from which they draw at pleasure, employing them to express
or conceal the truth as shall be necessary to advance their interests
or improve their fortunes. Here there is an attempt to interpret the
meaning of the decree, not by the plain language it contains, but by
the name given to the instrument itself. In what does the difference
between a bull and a brief consist? If there is any, it must arise out
of the subject-matter involved, and not otherwise. One can conceive
that a pope may regulate some inferior affairs, touching matters not
essential to the universal Church, by an order or decree called a
brief, in which case he or his successors may revoke it. But where
such an order or decree concerns the universal Church, it must be
considered a bull, because in that case, according to the Jesuit
theory, it partakes of infallibility, and can not be revoked--for the
reason that whatsoever is infallible must stand for good or bad. The
decree of Clement XIV is found in the "_Roman Bullarium_," preserved
in the Vatican at Rome.[157] There could have been no other purpose
in placing it there than to attach to it the same dignity and effect
as the bulls of other popes among which it is recorded. When thus
deposited it was undoubtedly considered irrevocable, because it related
to a religious order which could exist only by authority of the pope
representing the whole Church. When the pope acts with reference to a
religious order, he decides whether or no it is capable of fulfilling
its professions. He then acts with reference to faith, and his act
is therefore _ex cathedra_. Upon this ground, according to Jesuit
teaching, he is infallible in whatsoever opinion he expresses, because
it is within the domain of both faith and morals. Hence, in the
discussion of the question "When does the Church speak infallibly?" a
recent Roman Catholic author of accepted authority says that, as the
Church can never be "an unreliable guide, it follows that she can not
err when she seals a religious order with her formal approbation."[158]
Of course, no argument is necessary to prove that if the pope is
infallible in establishing a religious order, he is equally so in
abolishing and annulling an existing one, upon the ground expressed
by Clement XIV, that the good of the universal Church and the cause
of Christianity demanded it, and also upon the additional ground that
the subject-matter is the same. This proposition can not be escaped by
substituting assertion for argument.

This same Jesuit author, Daurignac, is inconsistent. Seeming to forget
that he had called the decree of Clement XIV a mere _brief_, which any
of his successors could annul, when he comes afterwards to speak of
that issued by Pius VII, he calls it a "_bull_," and frequently refers
to it as such.[159] Having previously laid his foundation by insisting
that Pius VII regarded the preservation of the Jesuits by the Emperor
of Russia as "the interposition of Divine Providence in behalf of
the society"[160]--that is, that Clement XIV had incurred the Divine
displeasure when he abolished the society--he never loses sight of the
idea that the decree of Pius VII bears the stamp of infallibility,
and can neither be annulled nor modified. This is a subtle method
of statement, but is without the force of argument. It is simply
Jesuitical.

These matters derive their present importance from the fact that they
show how the Jesuits have become familiar with crooked paths. They
show also the wonderful adroitness with which they have pursued these
paths for many years, and how they have surmounted difficulties which
would have overwhelmed any other body of men. As they have never been
known, at any period of their history, to abate any of their demands
or pretensions, they are to-day, as they have always been, a standing
menace against every form of popular self-government and whatsoever
else is the fruit of the Reformation. Their rules of conduct are
still derived from the teachings of Loyola, who, accepted by them as
occupying the place of God, they regard as higher authority than any
human law or any Government where the sovereign power is guaranteed to
the people.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 145: Nicolini, p. 411.]

[Footnote 146: Nicolini, p. 422.]

[Footnote 147: Nicolini, pp. 424-425.]

[Footnote 148: Daurignac, Vol. II, p. 191.]

[Footnote 149: Nicolini, p. 432.]

[Footnote 150: De Montor, Vol. II, p. 406. Greisinger, p. 653.]

[Footnote 151: Nicolini, pp. 433-434. Greisinger, p. 665.]

[Footnote 152: Memoirs of Prince Metternich. By Prince Metternich. Vol.
I, page 262.]

[Footnote 153: Nicolini, p. 445.]

[Footnote 154: Nicolini, p. 447.]

[Footnote 155: Daurignac, Vol. II, p. 195.]

[Footnote 156: _Ibid._, p. 177.]

[Footnote 157: De Montor, Vol. II, p. 347.]

[Footnote 158: When Does the Church Speak Infallibly? By Thomas Francis
Knox, of the London Oratory. Page 67.]

[Footnote 159: Daurignac, p. 217.]

[Footnote 160: _Ibid._, p. 205.]




CHAPTER XV.

RE-ENTERING SPAIN.


The decree abolishing the Jesuits was accepted by all the Roman
Catholic sovereigns and people of Europe as final. It was an exercise
of the highest authority of the Church. But it was not accepted by
the Jesuits, who, in contempt of this authority, brooded over the
purpose to plot stealthily against it until they could obtain its
revocation from some sympathizing and pliable pope. Their position was
that of condemned criminals--compelled to recognize the authority and
jurisdiction of their triers, while secretly endeavoring to find or to
create some antagonistic authority from which they could obtain a grant
of pardon, or a revival of their power to repeat their offenses without
pardon. It counted nothing with them that Clement XIV was canonically
pope--their own interest outweighed anything that concerned either pope
or Church. They were willing to obey the Church provided the Church
favored their society, but not otherwise. Consequently, it may be said
of them then, as at all other times, that they recognized no other form
of Christianity than that which centered in Jesuitism, and no other
authority than that of their general at Rome.

When re-established, they came out from their hiding-places, and
appeared again in all the centers of European influence. Their
numbers were sufficient to show that, instead of having considered
their society abolished--as they were commanded to do by the decree
of Clement XIV--their organization had been secretly and defiantly
preserved, without any departure from the principles of the
constitution, any abatement of their pretensions, or any perceptible
diminution in their numbers. Each one reappeared in the old armor
of the order--reburnished for use again. The weapons which Loyola
had forged for deadly warfare against Protestantism were re-issued
to the "sacred militia" of the order, and its drilled and submissive
battalions renewed their old and familiar battle-cry, announcing their
determination never to lay down their arms until all the fruits and
consequences of the Reformation were exterminated. The possibility of
achieving that result stimulated their ardor afresh; and they became
more earnestly united than ever in the cause of the Bourbon monarchs,
when they realized that Pius VII had assured the "Holy Alliance" that
all the powers of the papacy should be employed to that end, and that
they were to be placed, as the special champions of retrogression,
in the forefront of the conflict. The times were such that they drew
fresh inspiration from them. The jealousies and rivalries among the
sovereigns had thrown all Europe into tumult. The French Revolution
had been productive of consequences which created a flame of intense
excitement, reaching the outer circumference of the Continent.
Society was thrown into an agitated and perturbed condition, and the
foundations of the strongest Governments were threatened.

The appearance of Napoleon had alarmed the hereditary sovereigns. He
had succeeded in striking what they feared would be a fatal blow at the
doctrine of the divine right and hereditary descent of royal powers.
He had shattered Governments and destroyed dynasties with reckless
audacity, in order to build up new Governments and dynasties obedient
to himself. The reigning monarchs were dismayed at the rapidity and
success of his movements--being unable to anticipate when or where his
quick and decisive blows would strike. But when his star waned, they
again applied their united energies to the revival of their claim of
divine right and to a closer union of Church and State. They could not
fail to see that monarchism was threatened with defeat unless some
agencies could be discovered whereby the unwary populations who were
striving after freedom could be brought back again into the net which
the papacy and secular monarchs had spent centuries in weaving. These
terrified sovereigns were seemingly relieved from their embarrassing
fears when Pius VII ventured to bring to their aid what he intended
should be the whole power of the Church, by restoring life to the
dissolved society of Jesuits. They must have rejoiced as drowning men
do when seizing upon some object that saves them. The Jesuit spirit did
not need to be revived, for it had never been suppressed; and therefore
they reappeared fully panoplied for the renewal of the battle against
civil and religious liberty, the popular right of self-government, and
all the beneficent influences of the Reformation.

Sympathizing with Ferdinand IV of Naples--the most bigoted monarch in
Europe, at whose instance they were restored--the Jesuits selected such
points of operation as would enable them to strike their hardest blows
at the freedom of speech, of the press, and of religious belief; well
knowing that where these were allowed, they gave birth to the principle
of popular self-government where it did not exist, and strengthened and
maintained it where it did. They were encouraged by all who supported
the alliance between the papacy and the allied sovereigns, upon the
ground that the parties to that alliance were endeavoring to keep
Church and State united, as the only certain guarantee for preserving
monarchism. They were consequently accepted as co-workers in the cause
of absolute imperialism and the enemies of every form of government
where the people possess the right of sovereignty. The flag under which
they marched had upon it all the symbols of despotism, and no room for
a single star to indicate the light of modern progress and development.
Having thus reached again a condition of apparent security, they were
attracted to Rome by the patronage of the papacy, and the value of
their alliance was recognized by the papal authorities, as may be seen
in the fact that they had restored to them their property which Clement
XIV had confiscated, together with the Roman and German colleges at
Rome, and a number of churches. They became more powerful than ever
in the States of the Church, and succeeded in bringing all Italy under
the dictatorship of their general, except Sardinia and Piedmont, where,
in order to avoid a direct breach with the pope, they were tolerated,
but not installed. They moved about through Europe, openly where they
could do so safely, and secretly where they could not--rejoicing
when they witnessed the triumph of monarchism over the rights of the
people. Wheresoever a battle was to be fought against these rights,
they always aided and encouraged the cause of political despotism. If,
in the contests of that period, a single Jesuit could have been found
in the ranks of the people, except to betray them, he would have been
anathematized by his society.

The reintroduction of the Jesuits into Spain teaches a lesson which
should not be forgotten. The king, Ferdinand VII, proved himself to be
one of the most faithful of their royal pupils. After he had succeeded
in becoming freed from the grasp of Napoleon, and returned to his
kingdom, he found an existing constitution by which the Spanish people,
in his absence, had placed wholesome limitations upon the royal power.
With a view to regain possession of authority, he made a solemn pledge
that he would obey this constitution and see that it was enforced.
Having succeeded, he proved by his subsequent conduct that he was
thoroughly conversant with, and wholly approved, the Jesuit doctrine
that a monarch is not bound by any promise made to his subjects, or
by any oath to obey it, because his authority is divine, and the
people possess no rights which he does not of his own accord concede
to them. Consequently, when safely in possession of the throne--with
Jesuit emissaries crowding about his court to dictate his policy and
pardon his perjury--he traitorously proceeded to abolish the Cortes,
the legislative body of the nation, and grasp the scepter of absolute
government in his own hands. He restored the infamous Inquisition, and
the cruelty of his despotism was exhibited in the number of victims
who suffered death during his reign of terror. How such a monarch
should have enjoyed the favor and protection of Pius VII--the head of
the Church--almost passes intelligent comprehension; how he had the
approval of the Jesuits is well understood. His enormities became so
great, at last, that the Roman Catholic _people_ of Spain, weary of
his persecutions, and realizing that the nation could not live unless
they were arrested, resorted to revolution to avenge wrongs they could
endure no longer, and proclaimed a constitutional form of government,
whereby they guaranteed such popular rights as they deemed essential to
their own welfare. But the Jesuits were present to counsel the perjured
king, and, accepting their casuistical teachings as his guide, he
assented to this new constitution, and by the repetition of his solemn
promise to observe it, turned away the popular vengeance. Thus he
gained time to renew his royal strength, and when he subsequently found
the nation seemingly slumbering in a sense of security, again stamped
his feet upon the constitution, reassumed his arbitrary authority as
king by divine right, independently of the people, forfeited his honor
by repeating his perjury, and plunged Spain into the deepest misery.
This perjured tyrant was cursed by the Roman Catholic people of Spain,
and his enormities drove the Roman Catholic populations of Spanish
America to assert their independence. When he had the royal power in
his hands he brought the Inquisition and the Jesuits back to Spain;
when the people were enabled to enforce the constitution, they _drove
the Jesuits out of the country_. He knew his friends, and the people
knew their enemies. But with all the infamies of his conduct resting
upon him, he was favored and applauded by Pius VII and venerated by the
Jesuits. The contemporaneous events are full of instruction.

To accomplish the objects announced at Vienna, the "Holy Alliance" met
again in Congress at Verona, where the sovereigns pledged themselves,
in the most solemn form, that they would continue to prevent the
establishment of popular governments, and would unite all their
energies in preserving monarchical institutions where they existed,
and in re-establishing them where they had been set aside by the
people.[161] The adoption of a constitution by Spain was considered
as in conflict with this decision at Verona, and preparations were at
once made to defeat it. Louis XVIII, of France, as one of the allied
sovereigns who had undertaken to preserve monarchism and defeat all
popular Governments at every hazard, marched an army into Spain for
the sole purpose of subduing the people and setting the constitution
aside, so that the state of things that had so long existed under
Ferdinand VII should continue. It was this unnatural and unjust war
that carried back the Inquisition and the Jesuits to Spain. Nothing
could have been more grateful to the Jesuits, because they thought
they could see in it the triumph of monarchism over the people. They
followed this army of invasion with as much delight as famishing people
go to a feast. That they exulted when it succeeded in overthrowing the
constitution, and when they saw the feet of the perfidious Ferdinand
VII again upon the necks of the Spanish people, no reader of history
will doubt. They "nestled themselves in the country," says Greisinger,
"more firmly than ever," seemingly encouraged by the hope that the
cause of popular rights was lost forever among the Roman Catholic
population of Spain. But this unrighteous triumph was short-lived.
Another crisis in the affairs of Spain occurred upon the death of
Ferdinand VII, when, after a bloody civil war of six or seven years,
the ill-fated Isabella was placed upon the throne, and another liberal
constitution was proclaimed--not entirely republican, it is true,
but sufficiently representative in form to arrest the usurpations of
absolutism and assure the ultimate triumph of popular liberty. Once
more the Roman Catholic people of Spain signalized their victory over
absolutism by _driving the Jesuits out of the country_, and avowing
their determination that they would no longer be endangered by their
presence or annoyed by their intrigues. And thus the Jesuits were
compelled to find congenial fields of operations elsewhere in Europe,
among those who regarded a constitutional and representative form of
government as an offense against the divine law, the people as fit only
for servitude, and absolute monarchs as "booted and spurred to ride
them."

Those familiar with the hatred the Spanish people entertained for the
Jesuits--not only on account of their bad influences over Ferdinand
VII, but because of the tendency of their doctrines to convert men
into machines and blunt their moral sensibilities--are not surprised
at the detestation in which they were held in Germany. The Spanish
people had long been known for obedience to the Roman Church, but had
reached a point of intelligence which enabled them to understand the
difference between the Church and the papacy, and, therefore, they
would not permit even Pius VII to force the Jesuits upon them--a fact
of great significance in forming a true estimate of their character.
In Germany, however, where the Reformation began, the remembrance
of their former vicious career had not died out, the opposition
to them after their re-establishment was more intense than it had
been before their suppression; for as the German people increased
in enlightenment they were better able to see and understand the
irreconcilable hostility of the Jesuits to intellectual development and
constitutional government. Their own experience had taught them that
reconciliation and concord between Protestants and Roman Catholics were
not only possible, but desirable; and they had learned, from that same
experience, that, as the Jesuits had participated in all the measures
designed to strike down constitutional governments established by Roman
Catholic populations, their delight would be increased if, with the
same weapons, they could destroy similar governments established by
Protestants. Therefore, the German people built around themselves a
wall of defense in their own intellectual enlightenment, which Jesuit
craft and ingenuity has in vain endeavored to undermine.

France, Austria, and Bavaria were all Roman Catholic countries. France
had not forgotten the former fierce and protracted conflict which had
given the Gallican Christians their cherished liberties, by assuring
to the Government the control of its temporal affairs without papal
interference. The recollection of this revived also the remembrance of
the fact that the Jesuits had been expelled because of their efforts
to destroy these liberties. And, hence, after their re-establishment,
even Louis XVIII, with his evident partiality for them as the untiring
defenders of absolute monarchism, was unable, although backed by Pius
VII, to allow them again openly to re-enter France. Neither in Austria
nor Bavaria had there ever been any such struggle as in France; but,
nevertheless, the indignation felt towards the Jesuits by the people
of both these countries was so undisguised that neither Francis I
in the former, nor Maximilian Joseph in the latter, dared to brave
public opinion by allowing them free access to either kingdom. These
impediments, however, only offered to the Jesuits the opportunity
to practice the arts of dissimulation and deception with which they
are made familiar by their method of educational training. They
surreptitiously entered France under the name of "_Pères de la Foi_,"
or "Fathers of the True Faith," and Austria and Bavaria under that
of "Redemptionists."[162] They did not venture, in either of these
countries, to avow themselves openly as Jesuits, because of the almost
universal indignation felt towards them by these Roman Catholic
populations. But gaining admission among them by these false pretenses,
they understood well, by skillful training, how to proceed. Having
penetrated the skirmish-line of the enemy, they could survey the whole
field of battle, and plan accordingly. Every Jesuit who stealthily
crept into France or Austria or Bavaria, under these masks of
hypocrisy, stood towards the people of these countries as the Italian
bandit does to his unsuspecting victim,--ready to strike home his
stiletto in the dark. It should excite no wonder, therefore, that, with
Pius VII and the allied sovereigns upon their side--all maintaining
the divine right to govern, and denying that of the people--these
incendiary Jesuits were enabled, at last, to avow openly the name and
existence of their order, and to become scattered in all directions,
under the shelter of papal and imperial protection. Thus supported,
they extended themselves over the adjacent States, even as far as
Rhenish Prussia, opened their colleges and schools, and permitted but
little time to elapse before they assumed their former dictatorship
over Governments and peoples. Since then they have again revived their
old imperial airs among all the nations, especially where they have
found shelter under liberal institutions, and seem to be again inspired
by the hope, if not the belief, that their ultimate triumph over
Protestantism is assured, and that Roman Catholic populations will bow
down before them as the only divinely appointed exponents of the true
apostolic faith.

Pius VII was encouraged by the success of the Jesuits, and endeavored
first to make them available in France to promote the interests of the
papacy. Finding Louis XVIII submissive to his authority, he proposed
to him a Concordat with provisions intended to destroy the Gallican
liberties, and bring France into the condition struggled after so hard
by Boniface VIII; that is, of absolute submission to the papacy in
temporal as well as spiritual affairs. Louis XVIII was weak enough to
agree to this Concordat, manifestly under Jesuit influence. But the
Roman Catholic people of France were not so easily entrapped as the
pope and the king had supposed; and the latter soon learned that even
his royal authority was not sufficient to enforce this odious measure.
He was compelled, therefore, by the force of public sentiment, to
abandon it, although France still submitted to the presence of the
Jesuits. The failure of the Condordat, however, was a sore defeat; but
defeat only incensed the passions of Pius VII.

The hatred of the Jesuits in Germany was shared alike by Protestants
and Roman Catholics. These two bodies of Christians agreed that they
would unite in maintaining freedom of worship; that is, they would
return to the old order of things, which existed before peace and
harmony had been disturbed by the Jesuits at their first appearing
in Germany. They signed a Concordat to that effect, and sent it to
Pius VII for his approval, intending that he should realize how easy
it was for Christians to live together in harmony, notwithstanding
differences of religious belief prevailed among them. The importance
of this movement can not be overestimated. If the pope had thrown his
great influence in its favor, its beneficial results would have been
universally felt. But Pius VII, seeming not to know that such a union
among Christians was possible, positively and peremptorily refused
his assent to this just and liberal arrangement, declaring that it
would "compromise his temporal and spiritual power." All classes of
German Christians--howsoever they otherwise differed--rebuked his
illiberality, and adhered to their conciliatory course towards each
other. Pius VII, realizing the necessity of fulfilling his obligation
to the allied sovereigns, and of keeping the Jesuits in the active
service of the papal and imperial cause, became intensely excited
at this German persistence, and expressed his indignation in strong
language. His course is thus explained by Cormenin: "He rallied around
him the kings of the Holy Alliance, declared a terrible war against
liberal ideas, fulminated excommunications against the Democrats of
France, the Illuminati of Germany, the Radicals of England, and the
Carbonari of Italy,"[163] which includes everything that tended, at
that period, towards liberalism and popular government. Manifestly,
however, his anger was specially aroused at the thought of religious
toleration, which, looked at from the papal standpoint, meant the loss
of monarchical power and, consequently, heresy.

With this tremendous combination confronting them--composed, as it was,
of the papacy, the allied sovereigns, and the Jesuits--what other
remedy but revolution was within reach of the people? How else could
they prevent the continued union of Church and State, the complete
triumph of monarchism, and the crushing defeat of constitutional and
popular government? Nobody needs to be told to what extremities the
allied sovereigns were ready and willing to go to accomplish these
results; and when supported by a pope like Pius VII, and he by the
Jesuits, whose society he had re-established for that express purpose,
they possessed an organization of such a character, so formidable and
vast in its proportions, that there was left to the multitude no other
possibility of escape than by asserting, as the people of the United
States had done, their natural right to civil and religious liberty. No
question about the form of religious faith was involved, except in so
far as the pope, the allied sovereigns, and the Jesuits were united in
maintaining that the only true religion was that based upon the joint
monarchism of Church and State--in other words, that the faculties of
the human mind should remain undeveloped in order to fit the people for
inferiority and passive obedience to authority.

Hence, when the Roman Catholic populations came to realize what
Protestantism had done in a few centuries to enlighten and elevate
multitudes of people, it required but little intelligent thought
to see that the combination which threatened to deprive them of
liberties essential to their welfare was violative of the true faith
of the Church they revered, and from whose proper teachings they
were unwilling to depart. They could readily understand that it
was the papacy, and not the Church, that had led them to the very
edge of a fearful precipice. They were animated by the inspiring
influence of liberty--always broad, generous, conciliatory. Yielding,
therefore, to the instinctive teachings of nature, they found
themselves no less desirous than others to enjoy the protection of
constitutional government, and no less willing than others to resort
to the ultimate remedy of revolution when assured that their just
rights could not otherwise be obtained. Thus only are we enabled
to account intelligently for the revolutions in the Roman Catholic
States--organized, as they were, to resist the tremendous conspiracy of
European monarchists, in both Church and State, to defeat the formation
of popular constitutional governments, and to overthrow them where they
had been formed.

These revolutions followed each other so rapidly as to prove the
existence of a common purpose; and the nearer they were to Rome, the
more violent were the passions which incited and followed them. The
masses of the people were unwilling to submit longer to their own
humiliation, even in face of the fact that Pius VII had, by assuming
infallibility never authorized, placed the Church in the attitude of
approving the doctrines and purposes of the "Holy Alliance." They
accepted, with reverential fidelity, the faith proclaimed by "the
fathers" of the Apostolic Age, the Conciliar Decrees and the true
traditions of the Church, but were unwilling to have it perverted by
either the papacy or the Jesuits, so that it should be made the pretext
for holding them and their posterity in vassalage. They courageously
determined, therefore, to free themselves from bondage--being no longer
willing to be bound with fetters, whether drawn from the arsenals of
the papacy or newly forged in the workshops of the Jesuits. These
revolutions might have been avoided, and might have been arrested after
they broke out, by the authority of the Church in the hands of a pope
less intent upon the possession of temporal and monarchical powers
than Pius VII, and less willing than he to patronize the Jesuits and
participate in the purposes of the "Holy Alliance" for political and
ambitious ends. But Pius VII was constrained by the circumstances
surrounding him, as the representative of the papacy, to discard all
other considerations except such as promised success to the allied
powers, to whose triumph over the people he contributed, as far as he
could, all the authority of the Church. To him the Jesuits appeared
merely as "experienced rowers," who could "break the waves" of the
revolutionary sea; and having taken them on board the papal bark,
freighted with the richest treasures, he defied alike the complaints of
the oppressed peoples and the dangers of shipwreck.

That Pius VII was not disposed to abate in the least the claim to
universal sovereignty which some of his predecessors had asserted for
the papacy, and was therefore incompetent to deal compromisingly with
any of the pending questions, is abundantly demonstrated by the history
of his pontificate. His assumption that he occupied God's place upon
earth, and was so clothed with divine authority that no human tribunal
could rightly inquire into his conduct or motives, placed him in the
attitude of bold defiance to the sentiment of liberalism then rapidly
permeating the whole body of the people. He mistook the papal dogmas of
Gregory VII, Innocent III, and Boniface VIII, and a few other popes,
for the Christian doctrines of the nineteenth century. After Napoleon
had extended the empire of France over Italy, it became necessary to
adjust the relations between the spiritual and the temporal powers.
He accordingly addressed a letter to Pius VII, wherein he said: "I
will touch in nothing the independence of the Holy See;" that is, that
in all spiritual matters he would leave the independence of the pope
undisturbed. He made this clear by continuing: "Your holiness will have
for me in temporals the same regard I bear for you in spirituals."
The obvious meaning of Napoleon was that Church and State should be
separated, and that each should be independent of the other in its own
proper sphere. The pope was to be left "sovereign in Rome," with all
the temporal powers necessary to local government, but Napoleon should
remain the emperor with the general jurisdiction pertaining to that
office. In effect it was, substantially, a restoration of the relations
which existed between the Church and the Emperors Constantine and
Charlemagne.

If Pius VII had accepted this proposition, it would have gone far
towards allaying the revolutionary excitement in Europe, because the
people would have seen in it a desire on his part to become reconciled
to the progressive spirit of the nineteenth century. It would have
been accepted as a recognition of the fact--of which European society
had then become conscious--that the wonderful advancement of the
United States was attributable mainly to the separation of Church
and State. But this was what Pius VII intended neither to concede
nor recognize; for it was plain to him that if Church and State were
separated in Italy, the papacy would come to an end. Therefore, after
reminding Napoleon that he considered his proposition as offensive
to "the dignity of the Holy See," and an invasion of his "rights of
free sovereignty," although it left all his spiritual powers not
only unimpaired but fully protected, he emphatically and indignantly
rejected it. After declaring that "it is not our will, it is that
of God, whose place we occupy on earth," he proceeds to define the
relations between the spiritual and the temporal powers in these
unequivocal words:

"We can not admit the following proposition: That we should have for
your majesty in temporals the same regard that you have for us in
spirituals. This proposition has an extent that destroys and alters the
notions of our two powers. A Catholic sovereign is such only because
he professes to recognize the definitions of the visible head of the
Church, and regards him as _the master of truth and the sole vicar of
God on earth_. There is therefore no identity or equality between the
spiritual relations of a Catholic sovereign and the temporal relations
of one sovereign to another."[164]

The true meaning of this was well understood at the time, and can not
now be disguised by any method of interpretation. According to Pius
VII, therefore, a "Catholic sovereign" must accept whatsoever the pope
shall define in the domain of faith and morals, whether spiritual or
temporal, because he alone is "the master of truth," and stands in the
place of God on earth, and is, consequently, without any superior, or
even equal; that in no other way can a pope be such a supreme sovereign
as he ought to be; that it is his divine right to command, and the
duty of temporal sovereigns to obey; and that, no matter what temporal
relations shall exist among sovereigns, there can be no equality
between them and the pope, who shall rule them all, in whatsoever
concerns faith and morals, as "the sole vicar of God on earth." If
in this Pius VII is to be taken to have defined the only form of
government which the papacy can recognize as rightful, then it is clear
that none such now exists in the world--not even in Italy since the
abolition of the pope's temporal power. The European people at the time
understood him sufficiently well to foresee that all their efforts to
limit the monarchical power by constitutions would be unavailing if
the papal policy announced by him should prevail. The Roman Catholic
populations, already upon the verge of revolution, were specially
indignant when they realized that the papacy was thus availing itself
of the authority of the Church, not only to defeat the popular will,
but to require them to accept these teachings as essential parts of
the faith. Hence, the revolutionary spirit was increased, so that by
the time of the death of Pius VII, in 1823, it had become evident that
it could not be arrested unless the papacy abated its pretensions
and became reconciled to the existing condition of affairs. Pius
VII fretted out his life because of the tendency of the times to
liberalism; and if it be said in his behalf that he lived at a stormy
period, when the waves of the political sea ran high, it may well be
replied that if he had possessed a conciliatory spirit he could have
done more than any other living man to bring the discontented and
jarring elements into harmony. But instead of this, he turned loose
upon society the odious and condemned Jesuits, whose very presence
increased the popular discontent, as the storm rages more violently
when the imprisoned winds are unchained.

Under the pontificate of Leo XII, the immediate successor of Pius VII,
the revolutionary fervor was increased. He found the Jesuits actively
engaged in disturbing the peace among all who were reached by their
influence, and lost no time in assuring them of his benediction in
their efforts to exterminate everything that tended to liberalism and
free, popular institutions. With the view of bringing France completely
under the papal scepter, he demanded that the clergy there should be
made independent of the Government and irresponsible to its laws. But
the public sentiment of France was so outraged by this demand that
even Louis XVIII was constrained to condemn it by royal ordinance.
Failing in this, he turned his attention elsewhere in Europe, adopting
the Jesuit tactics of stirring up Protestant populations against their
kings, and Protestant kings against their subjects. In this way he,
manifestly, hoped to allay, if not suppress, the revolutionary spirit,
which was threatening to destroy his temporal power and deprive him
of his crown. For a time he seemed to feel assurance of success in
Germany and elsewhere, and under the influence of this assurance
visited his maledictions upon the modern philosophers, characterizing
their opinions as "phalanxes of errors," and their toleration of
different religious opinions as "indifference to all religion"--leading
to infidelity. So as not to be misunderstood, he represented them as
"teaching that God has given entirely freedom to every man, so that
each one can, without endangering his safety, embrace and adopt the
sect or opinion which suits his private judgment." He makes this
statement thus clear so that there may be no misconception of his
unqualified condemnation of the freedom of religious belief, not only
as it is taught by these modern philosophers, but as it constitutes the
foundation of Protestantism and the civil institutions it has built
up, especially those of the United States. Centering his wrath in a
single anathema, he said: "This doctrine"--that is, the freedom of
conscience--"though seducing and sensible in appearance, is _profoundly
absurd_; and I can not warn you too much against the _impiety of these
maniacs_." Then, passing to "the deluge of pernicious books" which
inundated Europe, he specially selected the Holy Scriptures in the
vernacular languages as prominent in this class. "A society," said he,
"commonly called the Bible Society, spreads itself audaciously over the
whole world, and in contempt of the traditions of the holy fathers,
in opposition to the celebrated decree of the Council of Trent, which
prohibits the Holy Scriptures from being made common, it publishes
translations of them in all the languages of the world. Several of our
predecessors have made laws to turn aside _this scourge_; and we also,
in order to acquit ourselves of our pastoral duty, urge the shepherds
to remove their flocks carefully from these mortal pasturages....
Let God arise! Let him _repress, confound, annihilate this unbridled
license of speaking, writing, and publishing_."[165]

Charles X succeeded Louis XVIII as King of France, and the Jesuits,
encouraged by the policy of Leo XII, renewed their efforts in that
country. They desired to get control of the young, as they have always
done, and therefore demanded that all public instruction in colleges
and schools should be confided to them. If assent to this demand had
depended upon the king alone, it would doubtless have been obtained,
because it was an essential part of the policy which brought about the
alliance of the Bourbon and other sovereigns with the papacy. But the
people of France knew the Jesuits too well to intrust their children to
their care, and were so united in resisting this demand, that Charles
X was compelled to refuse their request. And in order to rebuke the
Jesuits as signally as possible, the public authorities provided by
law that no one should be employed in teaching who belonged to any
religious congregation--a fact which shows how far they felt justified
in going in order to escape what they deemed a serious evil. This
provision, however, for an exclusively secular education was made in
full accordance with the Gallican Catholic and Protestant sentiment
of France, and was intended, not as tending in the least degree to
irreligion, but as a necessary step towards the complete separation of
Church and State.[166]

Leo XII died pending these agitations. When his successor was
elected--as near our own time as 1829--and took the name of Pius
VIII, the revolutionary embers needed only a little more stirring to
break out into a flame. The success of constitutional government was
becoming more and more apparent, and it was evident to the allied
sovereigns that unless the current beating against them could be set
back, they were in danger of being overwhelmed. As the idea of Church
and State united was involved in the entire papal and royal policy,
those, therefore, who were struggling after constitutional guarantees
of the freedom of the press, of speech, and of religious belief, had
no difficulty in understanding that these great natural rights were
specially anathematized by the late Pope Leo XII, for the reason that
they constituted the fundamental principles upon which that form of
government must rest. Consequently, the masses of the people--Roman
Catholics and Protestants alike--became more and more united and
clamorous for these rights; not only because they were in themselves
of inestimable value, but because they had come to realize that the
nations which maintained them were advancing in prosperity, happiness,
and enlightenment, far more rapidly than those which suppressed and
denied them. Pius VIII could not avoid realizing all this, as well
as the obligation resting upon the papacy, as the spiritual patron
and guardian of monarchism, to arrest the popular tendency towards
constitutional government. Accordingly, he had scarcely entered upon
his pontificate when, wedded to the policy of retrogression, like
his immediate predecessors, Pius VII and Leo XII, he endeavored to
ingraft the teachings of the Jesuits more firmly than ever upon the
doctrines of the Church. He addressed a circular letter to "the bishops
of Christendom"--which, being to the whole Church and concerning the
faith, was, necessarily, _ex cathedra_--wherein he pointed out some of
the existing errors they were commanded to extirpate. This, according
to the Jesuit teaching, was an act of infallibility, and required
implicit obedience from all who were faithful to the papacy. It would
have been well suited to the Middle Ages. After condemning "secret
societies"--overlooking, of course, the Jesuits--and the "fierce
republicans," or supporters of popular government, as the "enemies of
God and kings," he arraigned them for "breaking the bridle of the true
faith and _passive obedience to princes_," and thus opening "the way to
all crimes." He insisted that they were endeavoring "to hurl religion
and empires into an abyss." And when he reached the culminating point
he expressed himself in these words: "We must, venerable brethren,
pursue these dangerous sophists; we must denounce their works to the
tribunals; we must _hand over their persons to the Inquisitors, and
recall them by tortures to the sentiments of the true faith of the
spouse of Christ_."[167]

These denunciations and threatenings were intended for those Roman
Catholic populations who had always venerated the Church of Rome, in
order to turn them away from their revolutionary course. But their
increasing enlightenment enabled them to understand that they were
papal interpolations upon the primitive faith. Not being disposed to
make open war upon the pope, whose sacred office they revered, they
attributed them to the undue influence of the Jesuits over him. This
was especially the case in France, where, during the pontificate of
Pius VIII, as we have seen, the efforts to bring the Government in
subjection to the papacy were attributed to Jesuit intrigue. This gave
the general sentiment throughout France a tendency towards liberalism,
as was indicated, not only by frequent popular demonstrations during
the reign of Charles X, but specially at the period here referred to by
an election of the Chamber of Deputies. In July, 1830, an overwhelming
majority of liberal members were elected to the Chamber, which alarmed
the monarchical and royal party, and increased the activity of the
Jesuits. To counteract the influence of this election, an effort
was made to turn the popular attention away from it by exciting the
national pride in favor of royalty, in consequence of the successful
termination of the war with Algiers. The royalists made this the cause
of great rejoicing, and when they supposed that the people, impelled by
their ideas of national glory, had become sufficiently enthusiastic,
resolved upon a step designed to crush out the popular spirit of
liberalism. The king's minister, Polignac, the Archbishop of Paris, and
the Jesuits, succeeded in inducing the king to defy public opinion by
issuing a royal edict to prevent the assembling of the liberal Chamber
of Deputies. This edict was composed of three ordinances: 1. Suspension
of the liberty of the press; 2. Dissolution of the Chamber of Deputies
before it met; 3. Changing the plan of elections by placing the returns
in the hands of prefects in the pay of the Government.[168] By this
high-handed and arbitrary act all Paris was thrown into commotion.
Within the course of three days the spirit of revolution, which had
been slumbering, but was not suppressed, became thoroughly aroused. The
public indignation was exhibited among all classes of the population,
except those enlisted in the cause of retrogression. The people
demanded the rights which had been secured to them by public charter.
The deputies of the Chamber assembled. Barricades were thrown up in
the streets. The popular revolt soon ripened into active revolution,
which terrified the king, who, unable to pacify the people, attempted,
as a last resort, to do so by offering to rescind the tyrannical and
obnoxious ordinances. But he was too late. The offense against popular
rights was too flagrant to be so easily forgiven. The result was that
Charles X--the last of the Bourbons--was ignominiously driven from the
throne and from the country, and Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans, made
King of France. And thus did a Roman Catholic population fix the stamp
of their reprobation upon the policy which the king, the papacy, and
the Jesuits had designed for their enslavement.

It was impossible any longer to disguise or to mistake the true
character of the issue between progress and retrogression--between
constitutionalism and monarchism. It did not, therefore, take long for
these events in France to impart their influence to Roman Catholic
populations elsewhere. Throughout the central parts of Europe the
people were stirred up to inquiry, to protest, to revolution. Having by
this time fully realized that the chief calamities which afflicted them
proceeded from the union of Church and State, and that a constitutional
guarantee of protection was impossible so long as that union continued,
their first efforts were directed to a separation of these powers, and
the assignment to each its proper and independent sphere of duties.
Many centuries of struggles had demonstrated that in no other way could
political equality be obtained, or provision be made for assuring to
them their natural and inalienable rights. The task was most difficult,
because the papacy had been permitted to enlarge its powers by means
of false decretals and constitutions, which the ambitious popes had
employed without scruple, after they sundered their allegiance to the
Eastern Empire and divided the Church. Nevertheless, they resolved upon
the effort, hazardous as it was, rather than remain longer in their
humiliating condition of vassalage while the Protestant nations were
moving forward in their careers of progress and improvement. A brief
glance at the condition of Europe will show that they were favored by
the times, as if Providence were then specially shaping the destiny of
the world, so as to put a stop forever to the usurpations by which the
union of Church and State had been so long maintained, to the prejudice
of the Church and the cause of Christianity, no less than to the
natural rights of mankind.

The Netherlands contained a population united only under a Government
maintained by the combinations which had arisen out of the "Holy
Alliance." In the north, Protestantism had the ascendency; in
the south, Roman Catholicism prevailed. This latter part of the
population, imitating their Christian brethren in France, desired
separate independence, so that their civil institutions should be
placed under their own control. They desired a constitution by which
proper restraints could be placed upon the royal power, while, at the
same time, they did not desire to destroy entirely the principle of
monarchism; but rather that it should continue to exist under proper
limitations, so as to escape from the absolutism which had hitherto
borne so heavily upon them. Being unable to accomplish their object in
any other way, they inaugurated an insurrection in Brussels, which soon
became a revolution, and resulted in a declaration of independence. The
revolution soon acquired strength enough to establish the Government of
Belgium, which then became separated from Holland. A king was chosen
by an elected Congress, but the constitution tied his hands, and
instead of being an absolute, he became a dependent monarch. In this
there was no attempt to escape from the just and rightful influence
of the Church, for which the population retained the attachment they
had long felt. But it severed the bond of union between Church and
State by placing in the hands of the people such portion of the powers
of Government as they deemed it proper to assert, so that instead of
submitting to the absolute domination of the papacy, they protected
their own rights and interests by constitutional guarantees. It
practically condemned the doctrines of the Jesuits, which denounce
revolution against absolute monarchism as sin, and laws proceeding
from a tribunal of the people as heresy, and rightfully subject to
resistance.

France and Belgium having, therefore, both accepted revolution as a
remedy for grievances which could no longer be endured, it excited no
surprise when the same sentiment was imparted to other Roman Catholic
populations of Europe. The masses were moved, almost everywhere, by
the impulse to escape the influences of the old _régime_, and place
themselves under institutions of their own creation, responsible only
to themselves. The people of the different nations were beginning
to understand and to sympathize with each other more than ever
before. They were coming nearer together by means of the facilities
of intercommunication, for which they were indebted to the spirit
of Protestant progress. They were learning, from the marvelous
successes of the advancing nations, that the real sources of national
greatness were in their own hands, and depended for proper development
upon themselves alone. In whatsoever direction they looked, they
found evidences to assure them that these same successes could not
be obtained without the constitutional guarantee of the right of
self-government. And having been brought to the conviction--no matter
whether from choice or necessity--that they could more safely confide
their temporal welfare to governments of their own construction than to
either ecclesiastical or secular monarchs who traced the prerogatives
of absolute imperialism to the divine law, they accepted revolution as
a just and rightful remedy for their wrongs.

When France and Belgium had each broken the scepter of absolutism,
their influence was soon imparted to the Roman Catholic populations in
the south of Europe; and they, too, brooding also over their wrongs,
began to gather up the weapons of revolution and prepare to use them.
They moved slowly at first, because the chains which bound them were
tightly riveted. But they kept their eyes steadily fixed upon the
constitutional governments, and advanced cautiously towards a like
fortune for themselves. They could not expect to go at once to the
whole extent of establishing popular institutions, in the American
sense. Their education and the forms of government to which they had
been accustomed, had left them in a condition which made extreme
caution indispensable, for fear that by rash and precipitate action
the principles of the "Holy Alliance" might become so permanently
established that Church and State could not be separated, and they
would be compelled to acquiesce in the doctrine of the divine right of
kings as an essential part of Christian faith, or make war upon the
Church, which they had been taught to revere, and did, in fact, revere.
The pope was the recognized spiritual head of the Church, and with that
they were content. But he was also a temporal king in the States of
the Church, and claimed that the authority pertaining to that position
was divinely conferred, and included such spiritual sovereignty over
the world as God himself possesses; and that he was thereby made the
infallible "master of truth," and was entitled to uninquiring and
absolute obedience, not merely in spirituals, but in such temporal
matters as he alone should declare to be essential to the preservation
and exercise of his imperial prerogatives. They had endured the evils
of that form of government long enough, and having contrasted their
condition with that of peoples who had entered upon the experiment of
governing themselves--such as those of the United States--they became
convinced that they owed to themselves and their posterity the duty
of undertaking the same experiment, even at the cost of revolution.
All they could hope to do, under the conditions surrounding them, was
to separate Church and State, disavow and discard the doctrine of
the divine right of kings as temporal rulers, whether ecclesiastical
or secular, and substitute constitutional governments for absolute
monarchism; in other words, to try political institutions of their own
creation in place of the "paternal government" by which the papacy had
kept them from advancing along with the progressive peoples who had
asserted and maintained the right of self-government.

Had not these populations the right to do this? The American
Declaration of Independence asserts that this right is derived
from the law of nature, and is inalienable. The "Holy Alliance" of
European sovereigns was organized to suppress it. The papacy and the
Jesuits combined their energies to resist it as heresy. There was,
therefore, no middle ground between constitutional government and
submission--between the continuance of the old order of things and
the infusion of new life into decrepit and decaying institutions.
Consequently, the people of Southern Europe had to make choice between
these alternatives, at the risk of being denounced and punished as
unfaithful and heretical revolutionists. They patriotically chose the
latter.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 161: This gave rise to what is known as the _Monroe
Doctrine_, which declares that the United States will consider it
threatening to their own independence if European Governments shall
interfere with that of any of the American States.]

[Footnote 162: Greisinger, pp. 670 to 674.]

[Footnote 163: Cormenin, Vol. II, pp. 424-425.]

[Footnote 164: De Montor, Vol. II, pp. 614 to 620.]

[Footnote 165: Cormenin, Vol. II, pp. 426-427.]

[Footnote 166: Cormenin, Vol. II, p. 428.]

[Footnote 167: Cormenin, Vol. II, p. 429.]

[Footnote 168: History of France. By White. Page 540.]




CHAPTER XVI.

REVOLUTIONS IN SOUTHERN EUROPE.


The successor of Pius VIII was Gregory XVI, who became pope in 1831.
His election was not calculated to pacify the people or lessen the
general excitement. On the contrary, he fully committed his pontificate
to the policy of retrogression, and this was so well understood that
he had to prepare at once to grapple with the revolution, so near the
Vatican that he could witness the surgings of the enraged populations.
The Italian people assumed the attitude of defiance; and if they had
been hitherto disposed to submit passively to the oppressions of the
papacy, it then became evident that they, too, after centuries of
obedience to the pope as an absolute temporal monarch, were resolved
to try the experiment of self-government under a written constitution.
They had endured absolutism until they could do so no longer.

The revolution broke out almost simultaneously at Bologna, Parma, and
Modena, and very soon after at Rome. The pope was able to hold the
insurgents in check in the latter city only by military force; but in
the provinces the popular tumult increased. It is said, in behalf of
Gregory XVI, that the insurrection was occasioned without any personal
enmity to him; that "it arose against the _rule_, not against _the
ruler_; against _the throne_, not against its actual possessor....
It aimed at the _final overthrow of the reigning power, ... the
substitution of a republic for the existing and recognized rule_."[169]
Accepting this as true--and there is no reason for doubting it--it
establishes the proposition clearly that the Roman Catholic
populations of the papal States entered upon the revolution for the
purpose only of stripping the pope of his temporal power, leaving his
spiritual power undisturbed. What followed is best interpreted in the
light of this acknowledged fact.

A modern author thus depicts the condition of affairs from which the
people of Italy revolted: "Absolutism, administered by priests, was
the system which prevailed in the States of the Church during the
pontificate of Gregory XVI, and in no part of the Peninsula, not even
at Naples, were the people so oppressed or so ill governed."[170]

The same author further says: "In Sardinia, even more than in almost
any other portion of the Peninsula, the Church enjoyed the exceptional
privileges which she had acquired during the Middle Ages. _The civil
power had, in fact, no legal jurisdiction over the clergy._ All
offenses committed by ecclesiastics were tried by clerical tribunals,
acting upon the Canon law, and _irresponsible to the State_. Moreover,
these courts claimed, and to some extent exercised, jurisdiction over
laymen accused of heresy, blasphemy, sacrilege, and other offenses
against the Church."[171]

As soon as the revolution was fairly inaugurated in all the cities of
the legation, an insurrectionary army was marched towards Rome, avowing
the purpose not to concede anything to the papacy, but to have the
Government reformed. The pope soon saw that he was powerless to resist
so formidable a force, and that his crown would be lost to him unless
he could obtain assistance from some of the allied sovereigns; that
is, unless he could subdue his own Roman Catholic subjects by the help
of a foreign army! Notwithstanding he boastingly considered himself
as armed with divine authority, he did not feel it safe, in the face
of the stubborn facts before him, to rely alone upon assistance from
that source. He had more confidence in military than in spiritual
power, in dealing with a population he knew to be incensed with the
outrages committed by the Government he was defending. He accordingly
called upon Louis Philippe of France to send an army to Italy to
punish his own Roman Catholic subjects, because they desired only to
take the crown of temporal sovereignty from his head, leaving all his
spiritual rights unassailed. He relied upon the pledge which the "Holy
Alliance" had exacted from the sovereigns that they would intervene
forcibly, when necessary, to protect monarchism wheresoever popular
and constitutional government was set up against it, and, of course,
in making this appeal to the King of France, must have supposed that
he occupied firm ground. But France, by this time, had learned to look
upon the doctrines of the "Holy Alliance" with disfavor, and when she
expelled Charles X, the last of her Bourbon kings, established the
principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other Governments, and
tied the hands of Louis Philippe so tightly that he was compelled to
decline the request of the pope, and leave the revolution in Italy to
take its course. De Montor says, what is true, that the revolution in
France had "encouraged the rebellion" in Italy[172]--which only proves
that the Roman Catholics of Italy were apt imitators of their French
brethren, dreading revolution as little, and as resolutely determined
to avenge their own wrongs. Manifestly, they saw nothing in the faith
of the primitive Church in support of the temporal power.

Gregory XVI was undoubtedly discomfited by the refusal of Louis
Philippe, which he had not probably anticipated; and it left him but a
single method of escaping the wrath of his own people--but one way of
dispelling the clouds thickening about him and threatening a tempest.
That was to cling to the doctrines of the "Holy Alliance," and solicit
the military intervention of some power so wedded to absolute monarchy
as to be willing to march its armies against any people who were
patriotic enough to assail the doctrine of the divine right of kings
in order to build up a government of their own.

There was then but one sovereign in Europe who held himself in
readiness to respond willingly to such a call as this--who kept a
large standing army in preparation to overrun and desolate any country
whose people were trying to establish their own national freedom.
This single sovereign was the Emperor of Austria, at whose imperial
court the Jesuits were always welcome and favored guests, and every
pulsation of whose heart beat in unison with their doctrines. He
readily accepted the invitation of the pope, and sent a large army
to protect him and to desolate all Italy if his crown could not be
saved in any other way. What a spectacle! A great nation not assailed,
not even offended, sending an immense army of conscripts--made mere
machines by the relentless system of European military discipline--to
hold in perpetual bondage populations whose only offense was the desire
to establish their own constitutional government! The conflict was
between the papacy and the Roman Catholic people of Italy--not between
them and the Church. They had no fault to find with the Church, but
desired only to separate the Church from the State by transferring the
crown of temporal sovereignty to a king who would wear it under the
restraints of a written constitution, and not leave it on the head of
the pope, who claimed that it conferred absolute authority upon him by
virtue of the divine law. They accepted in good faith all the teachings
of the Church; but rejected the doctrine of the papacy and the Jesuits
that it was a necessary part of the faith that the pope should be an
absolute king over them and their children forever. And it was for
this--nothing more--that Gregory XVI, near the middle of the nineteenth
century, invoked the aid of a Roman Catholic army to make war upon
Roman Catholic populations and punish them as heretics, by desolating
their country, for desiring to be free!

Gregory XVI found none of that joy which a sense of security brings
until the Austrians occupied Central Italy with their formidable
army. Then he realized that he could keep his feet planted firmly upon
the necks of the Italian people without fear and trembling, because
he was backed by a power they were unable to resist. It was the first
ray of light and hope that had shone upon his pontificate; and as the
revolutionary insurgents seemed to melt away before this vast military
host, he was encouraged to believe they were entirely suppressed. Then
he doubtless indulged in the exhilarating belief that his temporal
crown would remain safe upon his head. It may well be imagined that the
arches of the Vatican echoed and re-echoed with the strains of sacred
music invoked to attest the pontifical rejoicing. But besides these
scenes of joy, there were others existing in many of the provincial
homes of Italy, where silence was broken by the sighs of multitudes
of sincere Roman Catholic Christians, whose hearts were depressed
with sadness at the thought that the pope, whose sacred office they
venerated, had employed the spiritual power intrusted to him by the
Church to perpetuate their civil bondage by means of an alien and
merciless military force too powerful for successful resistance.

Under these flattering circumstances Gregory XVI felt himself justified
in announcing the principles of his pontifical policy. This he did
in an encyclical letter addressed to all the hierarchy throughout
the world, who, when they read it, were required to believe that St.
Peter was speaking through him. This celebrated document, issued at
a date so recent that many now living may remember it, sets forth in
plain and expressive terms the dogmas of faith upon which Gregory XVI
rested his claim to temporal dominion. It was issued _ex cathedra_,
and, being addressed to the whole Church, was intended as an infallible
announcement of the true faith. It deserves, on that account, to be
carefully scrutinized, whereby it may be plainly seen how far the
papacy departs from the doctrines of the primitive Church in order
to enable the pope to wear a temporal crown. It requires assent to a
system of religious faith which no man, living under the protection
of free popular institutions, can entertain consistently with his
obligation to maintain those institutions.

He erects his system of faith upon this premise: That neither the
pope nor the Church can be made "subject to the civil authority"
of any country; that is, that he may disobey all human laws which
place any restraint upon his authority as he shall define it, at
his own pleasure. Affirming that all who do not assent to the faith
as announced by the pope "will perish eternally without any doubt,"
he condemned all other professions of religious faith as the "most
fruitful cause" of evil. The diversity of religious professions he
considered the "poisoned source" of "that _false and absurd_, or
rather extravagant maxim, _that liberty of conscience should be
established and guaranteed to each man_." He characterized this
liberty of conscience as "a _most contagious error_, to which leads
that absolute and unbridled liberty of opinion, which, _for the ruin
of Church and State_, spreads over the world, and which some men, by
unbridled impudence, fear not to represent as advantageous to the
Church." Having thus denounced liberty of conscience as sinful, and
its advocates as guilty of "unbridled impudence," he, as a necessary
consequence, blended with it "_the liberty of the press_," which he
called "_the most fatal liberty, an execrable liberty, for which
there never can be sufficient horror_." These two great liberties,
universally understood to constitute the basis of popular government,
caused him, as he declared, "to shudder," because he considered them
"_monstrous doctrines_, or rather _prodigies of error_." He charged the
people of Italy, who were demanding a constitution, "with the blackest
machinations of revolt and sedition" in their "endeavor to destroy the
_fidelity due to princes_, and to hurl them from their thrones." In the
further inculcation of the duty "_of constant submission to princes_,"
he declared that this submission has its "_source in the holiest
precepts of the Christian religion_;" wherefore he insisted that "the
Vaudois, Beguards, Wickliffites, and other like children of Belial, the
shame and opprobrium of the human race," were "justly anathematized by
the Apostolic See." And he condemned the separation of Church and State
by characterizing it as "the rupture of concord between the priesthood
and the empire," which he desired to preserve, because, said he, "it is
an established fact that all the votaries of the most unbridled liberty
fear more than all else this concord, which has always been so salutary
and so happy for Church and State."[173]

Gregory XVI claimed infallibility; that is, that he spoke by the
inspiration and the authority of God, and therefore could not err, and,
by virtue thereof, commanded absolute obedience to all these doctrines
as necessary parts of the Christian faith, under the severest penalties
for disobedience. Consequently, when the Roman Catholic populations of
the Italian States, who had inaugurated the revolution, were informed
of the doctrines thus announced by the pope, it was manifest to them
that his purpose was to condemn as sinful and heretical everything they
sought after. If they had doubted before, they were then forced to
realize that if the revolution should be suppressed, and the absolute
temporal authority of the pope be continued, the Church and the State
would remain united; the liberty of conscience, of speech, and of the
press would be perpetually denied to them; the laws would be made at
the pope's dictation, and not by themselves; the sovereigns of the
"Holy Alliance" and the Jesuits would win a complete and, probably,
a final triumph over liberalism; and that the Italian people would
be required, by compulsion if necessary, to assent to and maintain a
form of religious faith which inculcated the doctrine that "constant
submission to princes" was commanded by "the holiest precepts" of
the Gospels. The pope had spoken plainly, and it was impossible not
to understand how clearly and sharply he had made the issue between
submission and revolution. What were they, under these circumstances,
to do? They had already chosen revolution,--should they abandon it
from fear of Austrian bayonets? The import and seriousness of this
question are easily comprehended. It involved, if they should bring the
revolution to a successful end, a constitutional form of government,
or, by its abandonment, their own consent to the perpetuity of their
civil bondage. Independently of the fact that they considered a
constitution worth struggling for, they had gone so far they could not
retreat without abandoning a cause which might never be revived, if
they should permit the pope, in return for Austria's help, to tighten
the cords already binding them too tightly for longer endurance.
Several provisional governments had been formed in the revolting
States, and, although their functions were suspended, they were not
abandoned. In view, therefore, of the importance of the issue, and
of all the consequences involved, both present and future, they
courageously and patriotically determined that the conflict should be
continued to the end. The revolutionary spirit had been too thoroughly
aroused to be suppressed by the pope, with the Austrian armies at his
back. He held it in check--nothing more.

Events now moved slowly from necessity, requiring circumspect and
cautious management. The Provisional Governments were kept in abeyance
at Bologna, Parma, Modena, and elsewhere, to await developments. A
period of difficulty and doubt ensued, during which new combinations
were formed--all, however, pointing to a constitution as the grand
object to be achieved. The circle of revolutionary influences gradually
enlarged, almost reaching the muzzles of the Austrian guns. The pope
was forced to realize, evidently to his surprise, that the populations
would not accept the doctrines of his encyclical as part of their
religious faith, and that, if maintained at all, it could be done only
by military force. He, therefore, induced the Austrian army to invade
the States where provisional Governments had been formed. This was
an actual military invasion of Italy by an alien army, in obedience
to the requirements of the pope--an offense for which no apology
has been or can be discovered. It was successful, of course, and a
military garrison was established in Ferrara, whereupon Gregory XVI
re-established his own arbitrary pontifical authority under Austrian
protection.

Papal edicts were accordingly issued, denouncing the revolution as
irreligious and condemning the insurgents as heretics. The crisis
grew more serious every day. Pacification seemed out of the question.
Nothing but absolute and passive submission would satisfy the pope.
The public mind was in a state of extreme agitation. Terror seized
upon some, but the multitude remained courageously resolved not to
stop short of a constitution. Old men found themselves infused with
new life, and vigorous and enthusiastic young men were stimulated by
the idea of a new Italy--free, independent, and united. Under the
watchword of "Young Italy" the revolutionists soon obtained footing
in Lombardy, Genoa, Tuscany, and even in the States of the Church.
Resolute and immediate action was demanded by those who were burning
with fervid patriotism, but prudential considerations dictated extreme
caution. The questions when and where to strike involved too much to
be decided hastily. The presence of the Austrians alone prevented a
popular uprising. They stood guard over the dispersed bands of Italian
patriots, whilst Gregory XVI was allowed to gather materials for their
annihilation. Such a scene has not often been witnessed, and men of
all nations turned their eyes toward it with anxiety. Thoughtful and
intelligent people everywhere--especially in the United States, among
Roman Catholics as well as Protestants--sent words of encouragement
and cheer to these patriotic and struggling masses, congratulating
them upon having manfully resolved not to receive either their form of
government or their religion from the points of Austrian bayonets. They
were inspirited, not alone by general sympathy, but by the examples
of their religious brethren in other parts of Europe. Besides the
revolution in France and Belgium, which they had imitated from the
beginning, the events transpiring in Portugal and Spain proved to them
that their cause would become hopeless only by ignominious surrender.

In Portugal, revolution had ended in civil war and the complete
subjugation of the retrogressive papal party, the _suppression of the
Jesuits_, and the confiscation of their property. Gregory XVI, in the
supposed plenitude of his spiritual power, had attempted to interfere,
and threatened the authors of this revolution with excommunication and
other forms of pontifical malediction. But his curses only intensified
the determination to put an end to retrogression, so that Portugal
could take her place among the progressive nations. In Spain events
of the same character were also transpiring. The Jesuits _were again
suppressed_, because they were the reputed authors of all public
calamities, and even the nuncio of the pope was expelled from the
country. Such examples as these, occurring among kindred populations of
the same religion, could not fail to incite fresh hopes in the minds
of those Italians who were not becoming timid and in renewing the
courage of those who were. Nevertheless, the presence of the Austrians
compelled them still longer to await the coming of future events, some
of which were then beginning "to cast their shadows before."

We now reach a period when the scenes began to shift, and new actors
appeared--of whom thousands yet living have formed favorable or
unfavorable opinions, according to the standpoint from which they have
considered them. Gregory XVI died in 1846, leaving the revolution
unsuppressed--the storm still raging. He had been enabled, by the
presence of the Austrian army, to prevent any formidable outbreak in
the disaffected provinces, but could accomplish nothing more than to
leave to his successor, Pius IX, the inheritance of temporal power,
not merely threatened, but seriously imperiled. The condition of
things existing at the time of the latter's election can not be more
aptly described than in the language of a distinguished author who has
written the life of Pius IX. He says:

"Gregory the Sixteenth was maintained on his throne, during his
reign of fifteen years and a quarter, solely by the force of Austrian
bayonets. The reports sent by the cardinals and prelates intrusted
with the government of the various provinces to headquarters at Rome
abundantly prove the truth of this assertion. To cite these here would
occupy more space than could be allowed to the subject, and would but
be a manifold reiteration of the statement, that the _entire population
was irreconcilably hostile to the Apostolic Government_. The revolt had
indeed been crushed by the enormously superior force of the Austrian
troops. But disaffection was in no degree extinguished. Conspiracy
was chronic in all the cities of the pontifical dominions. Discovery,
repression, and punishment were the principal occupations of the
papal Government and its agents during the whole of Gregory's reign,
which may be said to have been one long struggle with conspiracy and
revolution. The number of condemnations ... are alone sufficient to
show that the countries subjected to the government of the Apostolic
Court were in a condition which could not have endured but for the
overpowering pressure of an external force."[174]

Pius IX had a generous heart, was kindly disposed, and possessed many
excellent personal qualities. After his election a general disposition
was exhibited among all classes, except the extreme revolutionists,
to await his course of action before pronouncing judgment upon his
pontificate. It was understood that among the conclave of cardinals,
assembled to elect a successor to Gregory XVI, he had united with
several others in a petition which favored reforms and improvement in
the papal Government. There were no strictly religious questions to
settle, as all were agreed with reference to these; and hence, as all
the matters involved concerned temporal affairs alone, growing out
of the revolution, a strong desire existed to give him the fullest
opportunity to decide upon the means and measures of redress demanded
by existing grievances. Even the extreme revolutionists were drawn to
this policy by the general disposition to accept Pius IX as in some
sense a reformer, and to give him full time to mature such measures
of reform as he deemed expedient. Considering the condition of things
then existing, he came into power under circumstances which might
easily have led to pacification, but for the adverse influences which
he found himself, in the end, without the power, if he had the desire,
to counteract. He should not be judged too harshly; for there are very
few who have not, some time or other, been confronted by conditions
which, instead of their being able to control, controlled them. The
questions pending were not such as the European sovereigns would allow
to be considered Italian questions alone; if they had been, he might
have found it in his power to gratify his natural desire for peace
and quiet throughout all the Italian provinces. But from the date of
the "Holy Alliance" the supporters of monarchism had assumed that all
such questions possessed an international character, which entitled
the sovereigns to interfere in the temporal and domestic affairs of
any European State, so as to suppress by military force any popular
effort to establish constitutional governments. Gregory XVI, besides
his general acquiescence, had given his express pontifical sanction to
this principle; first, by invoking the aid of the King of France, and
then by inviting the Austrian army to Italy; and whatsoever may have
been the inclination of Pius IX, he had to encounter, at the beginning
of his pontificate, difficulties of no ordinary magnitude.

Even the Conclave of Cardinals which elected him contained two
parties--the Absolutists and the Liberals. The lines separating
them were distinctly marked, and each party had its candidate. The
Absolutists, wedded to the retrogressive policy of Gregory XVI, favored
Cardinal Lambruschini, because as Secretary of State under Gregory, he
was strongly in favor of, and had given direction to, that policy. The
diplomatic representatives of all the Governments, except France, took
the same side, because it promised pontifical aid to monarchism and
opposition to liberalism and progress. Pius IX, as Cardinal Mastai,
has never been charged with having endeavored to promote his own
election, but having been supported by the Liberal cardinals and the
French ambassador, he acquired the reputation of favoring reform in the
existing order of affairs, and doubtless deserved it. His election,
consequently, was considered a triumph of Liberalism over Absolutism.

By that time the policy of Gregory XVI had "studded the country
with gibbets, crowded the galleys with prisoners, and filled Europe
with exiles, and almost every other home in the papal States with
mourning."[175] Among the "middle classes" there were few families not
grieving at the absence of some of their members, either imprisoned
or sent into exile, only for desiring reform in the civil government.
It is fair to suppose that Pius IX, influenced by a kindly nature,
sympathized with all these. Whether he did or not, however, he entered
upon the second month of his pontificate by issuing a decree of amnesty
which opened the prison doors, and brought back the exiles upon whom
the heavy hand of his immediate predecessor had fallen. This was an
amnesty for political offenses, and, viewed in that light, is entitled
to be regarded as an act creditable to its author. In order to decide,
however, what was its precise character and effect, and how subsequent
events were molded by it, its terms and conditions must be observed.
Its general purport was sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all
classes of political prisoners and offenders, except ecclesiastics; but
it required that, in consideration of the clemency granted them, they
should "make in writing a solemn declaration, on their honor, that they
will not in any manner or at any time abuse this grace, and will for
the future fulfill the duties of good and faithful subjects." A written
declaration was required, which was intended to be explanatory, but
was somewhat broader in its terms. It required that Pius IX should
be recognized as the "_lawful sovereign_," and that the disturbances
made by the revolution should be condemned for having "attacked the
_lawfully-constituted authority in his temporal dominions_."[176]

This meant, of course, the recognition of the old order of things,
except in so far as Pius IX, whose temporal authority as king was
preserved, should think proper of his own accord to introduce reforms.
It was not understood to mean a continuance of the entire retrogressive
policy of Gregory XVI, because, underlying the fact of amnesty, the
personality of Pius IX and his supposed tendency to liberalism had to
be considered in interpreting it. That being the view taken of it, and
this latter consideration having furnished the ground of hope in the
future, the amnesty was generally accepted, and shoutings, rejoicings,
and _Te Deums_ were heard in all directions, in the provinces as
well as at Rome. The only visible exception among the Italians were
the extreme revolutionists, who would be reconciled to nothing but
the absolute destruction of the temporal power of the pope, by the
separation of Church and State and the formation of a constitutional
government. They were not sufficiently numerous, however, to give
direction to the general sentiment, and matters progressed with a
seeming quietude which had not existed for a long time. They bore the
appearance of there having been a reconciliation between the pope and
the great body of the Italian people. This, however, soon proved to
be merely in appearance. It only lulled the storm, and put the winds
at rest for a time. The amnesty left the temporal power of the pope
existing; and, although apparently acquiesced in by many who desired a
constitution, it is manifest that they were persuaded to this by the
belief, founded upon the liberal tendency of the pope's mind, that he
would introduce such reforms as would remove the existing abuses in the
civil Government. With these abuses removed, they possibly hoped to
become reconciled to the temporal power, at least during the life of
Pius IX. The acceptance of the amnesty, therefore, should be considered
as the result of personal trust in him--of the hope, if not the
conviction, that he would introduce such reforms as were required by
the public welfare. The popularity of Pius IX was somewhat phenomenal,
owing probably to the fact that he had been elected and was accepted
as a Liberal, and because, moreover, he contrasted most favorably
with the harsh, cruel, and despotic Gregory XVI. The people evidently
considered a good king--as they expected Pius IX to be--preferable to
war, bloodshed, and desolation. It was a choice of evils.

Pius IX, although thus recognized as absolute sovereign in Italy,
was not the arbiter of his own fortunes. It was an omen of evil for
both Christianity and the Church when the ambition of the popes led
them to unite with political sovereigns and make common cause with
them in support of absolute monarchism. The combination necessary to
their success became unavoidably such as to require of the pope, not
merely the recognition of the avowed policy of the sovereigns--which
was purely temporal--but that this policy should be ingrafted upon
the faith of the Church, and obedience to it be exacted by compulsion
when not yielded willingly. This was the avowed object of the "Holy
Alliance," as understood and explained by Metternich, its great leader
and dictator; and when Gregory XVI found it impossible to maintain
his temporal power without the military aid of Austria, he committed
his pontificate, and endeavored to commit the Church, by making the
temporal policy of the sovereigns part of its faith. Pius IX was
compelled to accept the pontificate in the face of these existing
facts, and had consequently to contend with two opposing forces; that
is, the revolutionary element at home, and the sovereigns throughout
Europe who demanded that he should continue the retrogressive policy
of Gregory XVI. It is, therefore, but simple justice to his memory to
say that while his liberalism made him popular with the masses, he
was so hampered, restrained, and tied down by the relations between
Gregory XVI and Austria--representing the "Holy Alliance"--that much of
what he afterwards did might possibly have been avoided if he had been
permitted to have his own way.

Those who see nothing to disapprove in all the conduct of Pius IX,
speak of his course at the beginning of his pontificate as "noble." He
was, in some sense, entitled to this praise in so far as he professed
a desire for reform, although his reformatory measures were not such
as reached the root of the existing evils. But the fact that he was
accepted as a reformer in any sense by the people, was in itself the
cause of serious embarrassment to him--proving how difficult it was
to escape the scorching fires which surrounded him. His tendency to
reform excited the "alarm" of Austria, whose emperor saw in it a
possible departure from the retrogressive policy of Gregory XVI and
the "Holy Alliance." Maguire--an earnest defender of the pope--says
that this alarm of Austria was occasioned by the knowledge that "the
spirit emanating from the Vatican was kindling a new and dangerous fire
in the breast of a downtrodden people;"[177] that is, was kindling
afresh the fires of revolution. The plain and obvious meaning of this
friendly explanation is that the people of Italy had been, and still
were, oppressed by the policy of the papacy, enforced, as it then was,
by the arms of Austria, and that Austria considered that of Pius IX
threatening to the cause of monarchism, because it tended to remove
this oppression and excite in the minds of the people an increased
desire for constitutional government. He gives as the reason for this
the fact that Austria was "the most formidable enemy of reforms,
which she had every reason to dread." Why? Manifestly because reform
indicated the possible loss of the temporal power by the pope, which
would inevitably prove a serious blow to monarchical power, and the
possible establishment of popular institutions in Italy. He also says
that Naples "viewed with jealousy" the conduct of the pope; and that
some smaller monarchical powers also regarded it "with dismay;" and,
in addition, that "many of the cardinals" participated in this alarm
of the sovereigns.[178] Lambruschini, whose election was defeated by
the choice of Pius IX, was undoubtedly at the head of this faction of
cardinals, all of whom, says Trollope, were the "bitter, rancorous, and
irreconcilable enemies of everything that changed, or showed a tendency
to change, anything that had existed under the late pope."[179]

Pius IX was severely tried, and it is not to his discredit that he was
perplexed. He stood between two imminent and threatening dangers--with
Austria supported by other sovereign powers, a faction of retrogressive
cardinals, and the Jesuits, upon one side, and the revolutionists
upon the other. The circumstances would have put to a severe test
the courage and firmness of a more experienced statesman. In the
face of these surroundings he entered upon a series of reforms, the
necessity for which proves how extensive and oppressive had been the
misgovernment of his predecessor, and how little liberty the people
were permitted to enjoy under him. These had reference to measures of
administration, and were designed to improve the public service in the
hospitals, prisons, and religious institutions. Provision was made for
the punishment of fraud and extortion. Useful works were encouraged and
industry stimulated. Some oppressive taxes were remitted. Companies
were authorized to build railroads and to introduce gas. Laymen were
allowed to hold some inferior offices. Partial freedom of the press was
provided for; but it was only partial, inasmuch as papal censorship was
preserved. Infant, Sunday, and evening schools were established. And in
a public circular he announced that he proposed to assemble a Board of
Councilors to advise with in reference to the administration of public
affairs. The names of these were to be proposed by the governors of the
provinces, and he was to select the Board from the number proposed.[180]

If all these reforms were necessary--and that they must have been is
indicated by the fact that they were granted--public affairs were
undoubtedly in a most deplorable condition during the pontificate
of Gregory XVI. But whether they were or not, a glance at them will
show that none of them reached the questions which brought on the
revolution. They were, in an essential degree, necessary measures
of domestic policy, and whatsoever valuable results may have been
produced by them, they still left the entire temporal power in the
hands of the pope, so that the people would in the future have nothing
to do with making the laws, but would be bound to obey such as the
pope alone should dictate. And in order to make any advance towards
constitutional government impossible, the proposed Board of Councilors
were to be practically selected by the pope. This Board was considered
by the papal party as a great concession to the people, but it was
only relatively so; that is, it was one step in advance of the old
system previously existing. The public were disposed to accept it
from the pope, if not the belief that it would produce beneficial
results; and consequently its first meeting was hailed with anxiety.
Its probable action was discussed with more freedom than Rome had been
accustomed to, as even the limited freedom of the press had caused a
considerable increase in the number of newspapers, and a corresponding
desire to discuss public questions. The inevitable effect of such a
discussion was to invite public attention to the fact, which soon
became apparent, that, instead of the Board of Councilors being such a
reform as the people had hoped for and expected, its actual meaning was
to perpetuate the temporal power of the pope, and to prevent, so long
as that existed, the possibility of constitutional government. Whilst
matters were in this unsettled condition, Pius IX--unfortunately
for himself--was prompted, either at his own or the suggestion of
others, to remove all doubt from the subject by informing the Board
of Councilors, in a speech, that he had "_not the slightest intention
of lessening the power of the pontifical sovereignty_," and that the
Councilors had nothing to do "_beyond giving an opinion when asked to
do so_." At a subsequent time, in a proclamation issued by his cardinal
secretary of state, he announced that the only progress he proposed
to authorize was "within those limits determined by the conditions
essential to the _sovereignty and the temporal government of the head
of the Church_."[181]

The old issue was thus revived by the pope himself, in such form and
with so much directness that everybody understood it. Discussions of
it immediately became common in the public assemblages of Rome. If the
extreme revolutionists were able to excite the people by their eloquent
and stirring appeals, it was unquestionably owing to the unwise and
injudicious avowal of his purposes by the pope. If he had permitted
his administrative reforms to work out their legitimate results,
they might have strengthened his cause and that of the papacy. But
he failed to do this, and thereby increased, rather than diminished,
his own embarrassment. He soon realized the necessity of adopting
precautionary measures to suppress a popular tumult in the event that
the people could be held in check in no other way. For this purpose
he created a "civic guard," which was understood to mean, and in fact
was, a military force, to be moved against the people whensoever he
deemed it expedient. It was in reality a papal army, "to consist of
every male inhabitant throughout the States of the Church, between
twenty-one and sixty, who possessed property, or kept a shop, or was
at the head of an industrial establishment."[182] This measure could
not be viewed in any other light than as immediate preparation for an
aggressive military movement against all who did not submit to the
papal policy--in other words, as a contemplated act of war. Looking
at it as such, the pope's cardinal secretary of state, who did not
favor it, resigned his office, withdrew from the papal service, and
left the pope to the counsel of others. This conspicuous secession
from his cause necessarily produced the most serious results, and was
mainly influential in exciting all the discontented. Those who had been
induced to acquiesce in the measures of the pope, with the hope that
they would lead to pacification, were then brought to realize that
there was no longer any real ground for this hope. On the other hand,
they could see nothing in them but what indicated the purpose of the
pope to maintain his temporal power by means of civil war, if he should
find that necessary. The issue, consequently, became too distinct and
direct to be longer evaded or misunderstood; and from that time the
unification of Italy and the abolition of the temporal power became the
watchwords of all who desired a constitution, as they soon after became
also their battle-cry. At a public assemblage to celebrate the birthday
of Pius IX, processions of people, marching through the streets of
Rome, prepared tablets with these mottoes, among others, upon them:
"Liberty of the press!" "_Banishment of the Jesuits!_" "Abolition of
arbitrary action on the part of the police!" "Codes of useful and
impartial laws!" "Publication of the acts of the Consulta!" "_Faith in
the people!_" As a shower of rain prevented the public exhibition of
these tablets, they were sent to the cardinal secretary of state, so
that the pope should be enabled to interpret the mottoes upon them and
understand their meaning and significance. In every direction the signs
of popular discontent increased.

It has been said of Pius IX that he was "vainglorious," which is
unquestionably true. This quality is not inconsistent with integrity
of purpose, but often unfits its possessor for efficacious action in a
great crisis. It causes one to rely too much upon personal influence
and popularity, as was the case with him. When he met assemblages of
the people, he addressed and bestowed benedictions upon them with
apparent self-satisfaction, supposing that their shouts were intended
to express unbounded veneration for him, whereas they were the result
of respect for his sacred office, which restrained many who desired to
see the temporal power abolished from openly and publicly avowing it.
Those who appealed to and played upon his vanity misled him. Who these
were it is not difficult to tell. They were the allied sovereigns, who,
in obedience to the policy of the "Holy Alliance," had dictated the
measures of Gregory XVI, and maintained them by the arms of Austria,
the retrogressive cardinals, and the Jesuits--the latter, as always,
thrusting themselves forward, ready to strike, whensoever a blow was
needed, at the cause of constitutional government. This powerful
combination was enabled to dictate to the kind-hearted pope, by appeals
so artfully made that he became as pliable as wax in their hands. Under
their controlling influence he composed his Council of Ministers to
aid in administering public affairs, exclusively of ecclesiastics;
thereby teaching the people that they could have no part whatsoever
in those matters which immediately concerned their temporal welfare.
To such an extent was this method of procedure carried that it soon
became evident that Italy was, in fact, governed by foreign and alien
influences, to which the pope had allowed himself to become entirely
subjected. As Austria stood at the head of these influences, the
Italian people regarded her with both suspicion and dread. And when
the Austrian army was moved into Modena, thereby inducing the belief
that the military occupation of the States of the Church was intended,
the popular indignation became so great that the people demanded of
Pius IX that he should declare war against Austria, notwithstanding
her immense military strength. The circle of influences surrounding
him was now growing more and more complicated, evidently adding to
his embarrassment. He knew that he was under the suspicion of Austria
because of his former tendency towards liberalism at the beginning of
his pontificate, but could not venture to break his alliance with her,
being assured, if he did, that it would lead to movements elsewhere
in the Italian States that would shake the papacy to its center, and
inevitably cost him the loss of his temporal power, which he dreaded
more than all else.

These complications created others, which added to the uncertainties
of the future. Under the existing emergencies a skillful statesman
would have found a broad field for the display of ability in escaping
the pitfalls before him. But Pius IX was not a statesman in any
sense, and knew but little of public affairs as they existed in the
Italian provinces, except what centered in the papacy, and nothing
of international relations, except that as pope he was tied to the
car of the reigning sovereigns, and was compelled, _nolens volens_,
to share their fortunes. If he had possessed broad and comprehensive
views--sufficient to have enabled him to see beyond the narrow circle
in which he was moving--he might have realized that, whilst the people
of Italy were willing and anxious to award him full credit for such
reforms as he had introduced, they fell far short of the popular
desire, because they did not reach the evils complained of, which had
existed so long as to have become festering sores. He might also have
seen that it was not a mere fitful fever of excitement which led to the
demand for the expulsion of the Austrians, but the fixed and resolute
purpose of an incensed population that they would no longer submit to
the degradation of being held in subjugation by foreign bayonets. A
skillful pilot would have pointed out to him the method of avoiding
shipwreck; but he could find no such pilot among the ecclesiastics
who were trained in the same school as himself, and he would have no
other. To them he submitted everything, as his only advisers; and yet,
at the same time, he seemed to suppose that, in his own personality,
he possessed the power to suppress the most violent popular tumult. He
frequently addressed assembled multitudes in Rome, and never failed
to elicit "_evvivas_" and other tokens of personal respect, but
neglected to observe the significant fact that, underlying all these,
the sentiment most deeply imbedded in the popular mind was expressed
by such cries as these: "Viva Pio Nono, _solo_!" "Hurrah for Pio
Nono, _without his advisers_!" "Hurrah for _Italian independence_!"
and others of like meaning. At one time he quieted the people by
assuring them that he was on good terms with the King of Sardinia
and the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and that he would soon replace his
ecclesiastical advisers by laymen. At another time he endeavored to
impress their minds with the idea that the security of the papacy was
not seriously threatened, because there were "_two hundred millions of
brothers of all languages and all nations_" upon whose assistance he
could safely rely! What degree of sincerity accompanied this avowal,
it is not necessary to inquire. It would seem, however, to have been
suggested by a heated imagination as the best means of rounding off
an eloquent period, for which Pius IX acquired deserved celebrity.
One would scarcely think that a statesman with a practical mind could
have expected to satisfy the supporters of his policy that all the
Roman Catholics in the world would come to their defense against the
patriotic Italians who were demanding to be relieved from foreign
aggression, and the abolition of the temporal power, with a view to
their own national independence. Nor is it probable that any other man
but Pius IX would have risked such an avowal in the face of the facts
that the Roman Catholic populations of the three great nations, France,
Spain, and Portugal, and other smaller States, had secured their own
independence by the very methods he was condemning. Preposterous as the
suggestion was, it may have quieted the apprehensions of some whose
unenlightened minds and passive indifference to results were the fruits
of the retrogressive policy of the papacy. But there were numerous
others whose intelligence enabled them to see through the thin disguise
and gauzy eloquence of the pope, and to comprehend the leading thought
which burdened his mind. And especially may it be supposed that this
result was produced when Pius IX immediately followed his boastful
promise of assistance from the whole "two hundred millions" of Roman
Catholics throughout the world, by saying that Rome was safe "_as
long as this Apostolic See shall remain in the midst of her_!"[183]
Thoughtful people, understanding when he spoke of the Apostolic See
in this connection that he meant only the temporal power and kingship
of the pope, rightfully interpreted this declaration as opposed to
Italian independence and as a denial of their right to a constitutional
form of government. And such, in fact, it was, as became more apparent
every day. Even the most illiterate soon came to comprehend it, and to
understand the actual condition of affairs. At an immense assemblage
in the Quirinal a few days after, the people again shouted "_evviva_"
for Pius IX, and immediately after cried out, "_Italy, freed from the
Austrians!_" "_A Constitution!_" "_Down with the priests!_" Being
stirred by these popular shouts, and being doubtless led to believe
that his personal popularity was unbounded, he exclaimed, with the
utmost energy and emphasis: "Be faithful to the pontiff. Do not ask
what is contrary to the Church and to religion! Certain voices, and
certain cries reach my ears, proceeding not from the many, but from the
few, _which I neither will nor can admit_!"[184]

Events which might have moved somewhat tardily before, were, after this
explicit declaration of the pope in favor of the Austrians and against
a constitution, hastened into great activity. Everything demonstrated
that the people were acting under the influence of a settled conviction
that all their best and dearest interests required that they should
establish an independent constitutional government at whatsoever cost.
And the resoluteness with which the purpose to accomplish this end was
formed and maintained by the Italian people will fully appear in the
sequel of their history, which furnishes a conspicuous instance of the
manner in which the example of the people of the United States reacted
upon the modern populations of the European States.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 169: De Montor, Vol. II, p, 780.]

[Footnote 170: Life of Victor Emmanuel. By Edward Dicey. Putnam's Sons,
New York. Page 65.]

[Footnote 171: _Ibid._, p. 132.]

[Footnote 172: De Montor, Vol. II, p. 781.]

[Footnote 173: De Montor, Vol. II, pp. 783 to 793.]

[Footnote 174: Life of Pius IX. By Trollope. Vol. I, p. 98.]

[Footnote 175: Life of Pius IX. By Trollope. Vol. I, p. 108.]

[Footnote 176: Life of Pius IX. By Maguire. Page 22, and note.
Trollope, Vol. I, p. 135.]

[Footnote 177: Maguire, p. 28.]

[Footnote 178: Maguire, p. 29.]

[Footnote 179: Trollope, Vol. I, pp. 146-147.]

[Footnote 180: Maguire, pp. 28-29. Trollope, Vol. I, p. 167.]

[Footnote 181: Trollope, Vol. I, pp. 173 and 194.]

[Footnote 182: _Ibid._, p. 197.]

[Footnote 183: Trollope, Vol. I, pp. 216-218.]

[Footnote 184: _Ibid._, p. 220.]




CHAPTER XVII.

TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE OVERTHROWN.


When Pius IX suffered himself to be betrayed into the emotional
remark quoted in the last chapter--that he neither could nor would
admit such modifications of the laws as the people desired--he made
a fatal mistake. It placed him in direct opposition to the expulsion
of the Austrians, the creation of a constitutional government, and
an independent Italian nation. He must have been grossly deceived by
his ecclesiastical advisers if he did not know that the popular mind
had become intensely aroused by the desire to see all these things
accomplished, that the revolution had no other meaning, and that
everything transpiring indicated unmistakably that pacification was
impossible without them. He would have known, upon a little reflection,
that the true Christian faith of the Church, as taught by the apostles
and "the fathers," was, in no proper sense, involved in any of these
propositions; that they had the approval of millions of Roman Catholics
throughout the world, and a vast majority of the Italians, and that
by employing his pontifical authority to ingraft upon the faith the
odious Jesuit doctrine that it was heresy to deny the temporal power
and kingship of the pope, he was not only doing violence to the honest
convictions of these multitudes of Christians, but was endeavoring to
convert the Church, as the representative of the whole body of its
members, into a machine for the perpetuation of monarchism, and the
suppression of the right of popular self-government.

To say to the people of Italy, as he did, that a constitutional
government established by them would violate the divine law, in
the face of what such governments had done elsewhere in the
world--especially in the United States--was, besides being an act of
weakness on his part, an arraignment of the popular intelligence of
the world. Such a doctrine was only endured in the Middle Ages because
the multitude were trained to servility and obedience, and held in
that condition by the united authority of Church and State. But its
avowal at the middle of the nineteenth century could be understood in
no other sense, even at Rome, than the expression of a desire to see
the period of human progress brought to an end by the permanent triumph
of imperial power. It was the mapping out for the modern progressive
nations such a policy as would, by destroying their constitutions,
subject them to papal domination throughout the vast domain of faith
and morals; for if, as he declared, the two hundred millions of Roman
Catholics scattered through the world were to become subject to his
summons to defend the temporal power of the pope, they would thereby
become the creatures of his will and the passive instruments of his
power. There were very few so ignorant as to be misled by his appeals
for the continuance of his own monarchical and absolute power, and
therefore his attempt, by the aid of the Austrians, to put stronger
rivets in their chains, only made them the more resolute in the
determination to break their fetters entirely.

As each day passed, the people became better acquainted with the
opinions and purposes of Pius IX. Yet, with commendable patience,
they submitted to his repeated censures, on account of their real
love for him, no less than their veneration for his office. If he
could have comprehended them fully, mingled emotions would have been
excited in his mind--those which spring up when the cords that reach
the sympathies of the heart are touched, and such as pride, vanity,
and ambition invariably engender. But, apart from the emotions he may
have personally experienced, he was controlled by circumstances against
which he was powerless to contend, because the existing complications
had been produced before his time, by combinations which recognized
no sympathy for popular suffering, and had become strong enough to
master even the papacy itself. Possibly his natural tendencies may
have inclined him to break the bonds which held him in the grasp of
the monarchs and the Jesuits; but he was as unable to do this as a
child is to tear away from the arms of a strong man. He was, in fact,
scarcely himself, but the victim of others far less scrupulous, who
lulled or aroused his passions and vanity at their pleasure, no matter
what fate befell him, the Church, or the people of Italy. If he looked
beyond Italy, he found the great military and monarchical power of
Austria holding him by the throat, and tightening its grasp every day.
If he looked at Rome, where he ought to have had wise counsels, he saw
himself surrounded by a corps of ecclesiastics whose minds--howsoever
otherwise enlightened--were dwarfed from the want of practical
knowledge of the world and practical experience in the management of
affairs, and who saw in human progress only that which placed a curb
upon their own ambition and a limit to ecclesiastical authority. But in
whatsoever direction he turned his eyes, he was haunted by the specter
of Loyola, which flitted through the recesses of the Vatican at all
times, ready "to whet his almost blunted purpose" whensoever he became
wavering and irresolute. The popular cry of "constitution" sounded like
a death-knell to all these advisers, with whom a war with Austria and
an independent Italy were sacrilegious violations of the divine law. We
should not, therefore, censure Pius IX too severely when we find him
surrounded and hedged in by such influences as these, which few men
would have strength enough to resist. No matter what glories clustered
about his sacred office, he was human like other men.

War with Austria soon became the popular cry; and when the people of
the provinces were apprised that the pope did not favor it, they began
at once to look in another direction for assistance. The relations
between Austria and Sardinia had long been hostile, and it was natural
that they should look to an alliance with Piedmont, then armed, for
the protection the pope refused. When Pius IX became sufficiently
composed to anticipate even the possibility of such a step as this, he,
probably for the first time, was made to realize how rapidly dangers
were gathering and thickening around the papacy, and how incompetent
he would be to encounter them, if the popular vengeance, aroused by
his indifference and neglect, should be turned against him. He was,
accordingly, induced to yield again to the better impulses of his
nature, and attempted to turn away the public wrath by additional
measures of reform. There were some political prisoners who had not
been included in his amnesty, and these were pardoned. He also had the
walls pulled down which separated the Jews from the other parts of the
population. But these measures, although important, were of slight
consequence so long as the Jesuits were permitted to remain in Rome.
Their society, was regarded as a cankerous sore eating at the heart
of society, with an appetite too voracious to be appeased. They had
been driven from every city in the provinces, and were followed by a
degree of popular odium which would have dispirited any other body of
men. But so far from that effect having been produced upon them, their
knowledge of the disrepute in which they were held had the effect only
to intensify their hatred of everything that tended to aid the cause
of the people in their efforts to secure a constitution. Having found
shelter in Rome, they crowded around the pope, practicing all their
arts in playing upon his vanity, inciting his passions, and turning him
against the people. At last the measure of popular odium which rested
upon them became so great that Pius IX was awakened to a consciousness
of their dangerous presence, and he _drove them out of Italy_. It
required some courage to do this, but it would have required infinitely
more not to do it, inasmuch as the detestation in which they were held
was well-nigh universal among the people, large numbers of whom were
disposed to attribute to their influence alone much of what was done
by the pope. Their expulsion, under the circumstances, was, therefore,
creditable to Pius IX, not alone because it was done in deference to
public opinion, but because it indicated that he had become apprised
of their evil influences, and was desirous to avoid them.

It can never be known, of course, to what extent the Jesuits molded the
opinions of Pius IX. But as they had employed the whole period after
their re-establishment in endeavoring to dictate to all the popes, and
were eminently successful with Gregory XVI, it may fairly be supposed
that the unsuspecting and impressible mind of Pius IX was unable to
detect their cunning, and consequently became influenced by them.
Taking into consideration everything bearing upon their relations with
him, in so far as they can be now known, the conclusion is inevitable
that their expulsion from Italy by the pope was not only the result
of imperative necessity, but the highest possible evidence of their
unworthiness. This is the natural and unavoidable inference from the
fact itself. Nevertheless, he had already gone so far in attempting
to enforce doctrines which the people attributed to the Jesuits, that
even their expulsion did not relieve him from the suspicion of having
already yielded too much to them. On this account he may have derived
more harm than benefit from it. Whilst they remained in Italy they
served as a shield, protecting him, in a large degree, from public
censure; for as the people loved him and hated them, they had to stand
in the front and receive the full force of the indignation that fell
upon him after their departure.

When the Jesuits were out of the way, and it came to be seen that
Pius IX still adhered to their obnoxious doctrines with regard to an
independent constitutional government and the religious obligation to
maintain the temporal power of the pope as a tenet of faith, he found
himself, far more than before, unable to escape the public criticism
and reproof. If he had pursued his course up to this time without
having given due consideration to possible results, and was then for
the first time brought to reflect upon them, it is not easy to see
how he failed to realize that he had gone too far, and had put it out
of his power to arrest the current of events then rapidly hastening
to the very results he deplored the most. He had probably never
suffered himself to regard the people as a power to be dreaded; for,
besides knowing their inclination to be faithful to the Church and
their personal esteem for him, he was manifestly influenced by the
belief that the combinations between Church and State were sufficiently
powerful to suppress any popular uprising in favor of constitutional
government. If these ideas occupied his thoughts, he must have become
satisfied, after he had expelled the Jesuits, that he had been deluded
by them, and that they had been the real authors of his misfortunes. It
is not probable, however, that his excitement subsided sufficiently for
calm reflection. Nor is it likely that anything occurred to awaken him
from his dream of security until he discovered that his renewed effort
at reform had no other effect than to assure the Italian people that
their independence could be achieved only by abolishing the temporal
power of the pope by means of an alliance with Sardinia. He had
unwisely made the issue with his own people, and was no longer able to
control it.

The imminence of war led to sending Italian troops to the frontier to
drive out the Austrians; and as Pius IX could not take part in such a
war because he considered himself "the father of all the faithful"--the
Austrians included--he begged the Emperor of Austria to withdraw
his troops, and sent a nuncio to the King of Sardinia, inviting
his co-operation in forming a confederacy of Italian republics,
_with the pope at its head_! The emperor refused to comply with his
request; and the king had no leisure to devote to impracticable and
visionary schemes with such an enemy as Austria near at hand, ready
to strip him of his territories and convert Sardinia into an Austrian
dependency. The Austrians, becoming incensed at the movements of the
Italian troops, announced that they would treat them as bandits and
brigands, and threatened to invade and desolate the Italian provinces.
The Italians, therefore, having failed to obtain any assistance or
encouragement from the pope, although he insisted that he was their
rightful king and they his subjects, and being left to deal alone
with Austria, had to make choice between war and degradation. Under
these circumstances they could not fail to realize that everything
pertaining to their future prosperity and interests commanded the
former--their pride forbade the latter. Hence, the war from that time
was, upon their part, in self-defense. And it was not difficult to see,
from the beginning, that with such an adversary as Austria to contend
against, and the pope resisting rather than aiding them, the Italians
were compelled to rely upon their alliance with Sardinia, which by that
time had become separated from the influences dictated by the "Holy
Alliance," and was rapidly becoming an important and independent power.

At the battle of Novara, between Austria and Sardinia, Charles Albert,
the Sardinian king, was defeated with terrible loss. He immediately
abdicated his office and turned over the crown to Victor Emmanuel, his
son, who so conducted affairs as to make himself influential in the
great movements that led to the peace of Villafranca, and by skillful
statesmanship to procure from the Austrians the recession of Lombardy
to Sardinia. The military strength of Sardinia having been thus
increased, greatly encouraged the Italians, and in order to counteract
the influences which were tending to an alliance between them and
Victor Emmanuel, the proposition to create an Italian confederacy, with
the pope at its head, was revived. But the Italians, who had become
unwilling to submit to the dominion of an absolute monarch any longer,
resisted this scheme, from the conviction that it would still keep
them at the feet of their old masters. And to make this resistance
more effective, several of the Italian provinces transferred their
allegiance to Sardinia, thus increasing her strength beyond what it had
ever been, and adding to her importance as a military power.

The attitude occupied by Sardinia after these accessions, introduced
into the politics of Europe a new and most important question--whether
these revolted Italian provinces should be compelled to return under
the temporal dominion of the pope, or be allowed to settle their own
position and destiny for themselves? Although this question involved
the principle of self-government, it was considered as having somewhat
an international aspect, and consequently attracted the notice of other
powers beside those immediately interested. Louis Napoleon had, in
the meantime, made himself Emperor of France, and being fully imbued
with the "Napoleonic idea" of his own importance, ventured to suggest
to Pius IX, by way of advice, that it would be well for him and the
Church to let the revolted provinces "go in peace." The pope, however,
scornfully rejected this advice, and declared that he preferred death
to such degradation--in which it is fair to suppose he was sincere. But
his refusal settled nothing, having only invited renewed resistance
to his policy among the Italians. It led, however, to such results
that the right of the Italian provinces to unite with Sardinia,
if they deemed it expedient, was recognized. This was a practical
question, as it involved the right of the people of each province to
remain under the rule of the pope or not at their pleasure. As was
to be expected, Pius IX considered this as a death-blow aimed at his
temporal power, and, consequently, anathematized it severely. From the
papal standpoint he could not have done otherwise. And yet, if he had
rightfully interpreted the passing events, he could have seen that the
temporal scepter was rapidly passing out of his hands, and that severe
measures upon his part, instead of preventing, would only hasten that
result. The violence of his resistance was responded to by Parma and
Modena, both of which provinces were annexed to Sardinia. Tuscany and
the Æmilian provinces followed by the votes of an immense majority of
the people. Other provinces also followed their example. And thus, by
means of these important accessions, Victor Emmanuel was enabled to
signalize his reign by converting Sardinia into _the Kingdom of Italy_.
This measure of attraction having been presented to the Italians, soon
became an enthusiastic rallying-point, and the Two Sicilies, under
the lead of Garibaldi, united with Sardinia by a popular vote nearly
unanimous. Umbria and Ancona did the same. One by one, therefore, these
Italian provinces, filled with Roman Catholic populations, separated
themselves by solemn votes from the temporal dominion of the pope,
and left Pius IX to mourn over his rapidly-sinking fortunes, and to
repent--if his excited passions allowed of repentance--over the folly
which had produced that result.

The Government of Sardinia, without unnecessary delay, enacted such
laws as were demanded by this new condition of affairs. Victor Emmanuel
endeavored, consequently, to open negotiations with a view to bring
about a reconciliation between the two powers, spiritual and temporal.
This proposition involved, necessarily, the separation of Church
and State, and was designed to define the respective spheres and
functions of each, so that in the future there should be no conflict
or rivalry between them. Victor Emmanuel was a Roman Catholic, and
neither expressed nor entertained the desire to impair, in any degree
whatsoever, the spiritual authority or independence of the pope. Nor
did any such desire prevail among the great body of the people who had
aided in bringing about the new order of things--they still remaining
Roman Catholic, as they had always been. All that he and they desired
was to make the State independent of the Church in the enactment and
administration of temporal laws, and to leave the Church, with the pope
remaining its head, independent of the State in spiritual affairs.
If in this a model for imitation had been needed, it would have been
found in the form of government constructed by the people of the
United States, which must have influenced those conducting Sardinian
affairs at all events to the extent of separating Church and State.
But Pius IX could not consent to this without being unfaithful to the
cause of the papacy, as distinct from the welfare and best interest
of the Church, which manifestly required that he should conciliate,
and not further antagonize, the Roman Catholic populations in whose
behalf the proposition of the Sardinian Government was made. Instead
of conciliation, however, he--with a mind singularly constituted and
curiously erratic--surrendered himself entirely to the dominion of
his passions, and, in order to condemn that form of government and
to rebuke the amicable spirit exhibited by Victor Emmanuel, issued a
pontifical allocution, which may well be called "_brutum fulmen_,"
because it was made entirely harmless by the violence of its language,
as well as by its inconsiderate and intemperate assault upon the
leading principles which prevail among modern nations. Inasmuch as this
allocution was intended to be an official announcement of the faith
maintained by him upon the politico-religious questions involved, and
was of so recent date, it deserves special consideration, because of
its direct bearing upon the question of restoring the pope's temporal
power. Where else shall we look for papal doctrines but to the
infallible head of the papacy?

He accused the new Government of Italy with "attacking the Catholic
Church, its wholesome laws, and all its sacred ministers"--an
accusation which lost its force by the excess of its misrepresentation,
as the facts just detailed abundantly show. The burden of this
attack was the proposed separation of Church and State; but, besides
other matters of which he complained, he specially designated civil
marriages--such as are provided for by the laws of all the States
of the United States--which he said "encouraged a concubinage that
is perfectly scandalous." He meant by this that the issue of all
marriages solemnized otherwise than by the Roman Catholic clergy are
bastardized by the unchristian and illegitimate character of the
ceremony. And with the express view, doubtless, of fully explaining
himself upon the vital question then pending, he announced his claim
to "_civil authority_"--that is, his right to wear the crown of a
temporal king--by declaring that he and his successors never can be
"subject to any lay power," but must "exercise, in entire liberty,
supreme authority and jurisdiction over the Church" in all its
entirety. His idea--more than once repeated by him, and affirmed by
his successor--was this: that, in whatsoever country the Church shall
have a footing, it shall not be governed by the temporal laws of the
State in conflict with its interests, but only by the Canon laws which
it has itself provided, and which confer upon the popes plenary and
sovereign power to define what they may do and require of others within
the domain of faith and morals, along with the coercive power necessary
to secure obedience. Seemingly unconscious that he was placing himself
in the track of the popular storm then sweeping away the props upon
which the papal throne had long rested, he fancied that his "apostolic
authority" would yet enable him so to direct its course as would
prevent the final wreck of the temporal power. Putting on, therefore,
his full papal armor in imitation of some of his predecessors, he
endeavored to upturn and destroy the new Government of Italy by the
thunder of his anathemas. He, accordingly, abrogated and declared "null
and void, and without force and effect," all its laws and decrees in
conflict with his claim of supreme and absolute authority over both
spiritual and temporal affairs throughout the whole of Italy, including
the provinces annexed to Sardinia! It requires a very inventive
imagination to conceive of an act of more supreme folly than this
useless allocution.[185]

If Pius IX had been less perturbed, and calm enough to reason
logically, he might have observed how fatal to his own conclusion
was an important confession made by him in this official allocution.
Without seeming to comprehend its full meaning and force, he declared
it to be "a singular arrangement of Divine providence" that the pope
"was invested with his civil authority" _at the time of the fall of the
Roman Empire_; that is, during the latter half of the fifth century,
and nearly five hundred years after the beginning of the Christian
era. In this he admits--certainly by necessary implication--that
during all the long period preceding that event, the affairs of the
Church had been conducted without the assistance of a temporal monarch
at Rome or elsewhere, and by spiritual authority alone--by bishops
who looked after religious and not political affairs.[186] He must
have been guilty of a singular omission of duty if it did not occur
to him to inquire why so great and radical a change in the management
of Church affairs had not been made before the fall of the Roman
Empire, but had been deferred until that particular period. It is easy
enough to understand how the popes may have become kings in a purely
temporal sense, after that event; but that was not the question he
was considering. His object was to show that when the Roman Empire
fell, the temporal power was divinely added to the spiritual power of
the pope, and, therefore, that it would violate the divine law if he
were deprived of the crown of temporal royalty, which the popes of the
primitive times did not possess. A little calm reflection might have
enabled him to see, in the light of his own statement, what fallacy
there is in the pretense that belief in the Divine establishment of
the temporal power is a necessary and essential part of true religious
faith; for if it had been the Divine purpose that Christianity should
not exist without it, that purpose would have been fulfilled long
before the fall of the Roman Empire. The concession of Pius IX must
consequently be taken as fatal to the claim of temporal power as
necessarily pertaining to the cause of Christianity or to the Church as
a religious body. The primitive Christians had no knowledge of it, and
the fact that they had not--which he concedes--suggests such a contrast
between what the early Church was immediately following the apostolic
period, and what it became after the papacy was established by means
alone of the temporal power, as to show conclusively that the papal
pretense of sovereignty must have been the result of usurpation.

The condition of the European nations at the period here referred
to--although certainly not designed for that purpose by the chief
actors--was favorable to the cause of Italian independence. The
jealousies and rivalries among the sovereigns had brought them into
such relations as to require immense standing armies to keep watch over
each other. Austria was not only one of the most restless, but the most
arbitrary of the great powers, and soon found it necessary, of her own
accord, to withdraw her armies from Italy, in order to protect herself
against attack at exposed points within her own borders. The removal
of this formidable adversary greatly encouraged the whole populations
of the Italian peninsula, among whom the desire to become united with
the kingdom of Italy became almost universal. After Venetia, by a vote
practically unanimous, decided to do so, the revolutionary spirit was
greatly aroused. There were, however, among the revolutionists, some
who were so enthusiastic as to demand a republic, which, for a time,
somewhat threatened the cause of independence. All of these favored
the new Government under Victor Emmanuel to a longer continuance of
papal rule, but desired to dispense with a king entirely, preferring
that the entire political sovereignty should be vested in the people.
These readily rallied at the call of Garibaldi, and made preparations
for attacking Rome. In the meantime, after the withdrawal of the
Austrians, Louis Napoleon--acting under a species of infatuation which
he never could well explain, and nobody could fully understand--had
sent a large body of French troops to Italy to protect the temporal
power of Pius IX, and hold him upon the throne, it having been fully
demonstrated by this time that nothing but foreign military force
could do so. The Garibaldians were defeated by the French, which
event, although it produced a temporary sadness among the patriotic
Italians, did not intimidate them. The course of events among the
sovereigns favored their cause to such a degree that there are far
better grounds for saying that they were providentially designed to
abolish the temporal power than there are in support of the pretense
that it was divinely established at the fall of the Roman Empire, or
at any other time. Louis Napoleon had his own affairs to look after.
His stealth of the imperial crown of France had given fresh spur to his
ambition, but his perfidy was so flagrant that even among the stanchest
monarchists he was held in contempt. His self-conceit made war between
Prussia and France inevitable; and when that event was brought on, he
realized, probably for the first time, that he had been engaged in the
ignominious work of preventing the independence of Italy, and forcing
the Italian people to accept a king they had almost unanimously decided
to reject. Whether he fully realized this or not, his necessities
compelled him to withdraw the French troops from Italy, and to leave
Pius IX without the support of foreign troops, who had stood guard
over his temporal crown during every hour of his pontificate. The war
between Prussia and France was a terrible blow at Pius IX, but an event
of incalculable value to the cause of Italian independence. And when it
led to Sedan, the capture of Paris, and the loss of Alsace and Lorraine
by France, Victor Emmanuel steadily kept his eyes upon the unification
of Italy, which even Pius IX understood to mean the abolition of the
temporal power.

Victor Emmanuel again had an opportunity of acting frankly towards
the pope and fairly with the Church. He endeavored to explain himself
in a letter to Pius IX, wherein, "with the faith of a Catholic" but
"with the dignity of a king," he declared that it was not his purpose
to impair or interfere with the spiritual authority or independence
of the pope, and that he would maintain these with his troops; and,
counseling him to recognize the stubborn facts which confronted him
and which he was powerless to change, he urged him to accept this
as the only practical and possible solution of the difficulties
surrounding him. He closed his appeal in these words: "Your holiness,
in delivering Rome from the foreign troops, in freeing it from the
continual peril of being the battle-field of subversive parties, will
have accomplished a marvelous work, given peace to the Church, and
shown to Europe, shocked by the horrors of war, how great battles can
be won and immortal victories achieved by an act of justice, and by
a single word of affection."[187] Here, in an eloquent and touching
appeal, the king implored the pope to "give peace to the Church," well
knowing, as he did, that the only purpose of the revolution was to get
rid of the temporal power and establish a constitutional government,
and that if this question were disposed of by the acquiescence of Pius
IX the vast multitude of Roman Catholics then in arms would return
to their homes and be content to live in peace and quiet under his
spiritual dominion. The issue was a single and a simple one, which
could not be misunderstood; and that it should be made so clear that
even the commonest mind could comprehend it fully, Victor Emmanuel
accompanied his letter with a statement of the terms which he proposed
for adjusting the relations between the Church and the State. They were
these: All nations should have free access to the pope; all Churches in
Rome to be neutralized; ambassadors to the pope to enjoy full immunity;
the cardinals to retain their revenues and immunity; the salaries of
all military and civil functionaries to be paid as before; and the
bishops and clergy throughout Italy to have "the full and absolutely
free exercise of their ecclesiastical functions."

It would be hard, if not impossible, for a liberal mind to find
fault with these propositions. They were so generally accepted as
fair that any comment upon them is unnecessary. They encountered no
objection--except from those who preferred that the pope should remain
an absolute temporal monarch, with full power to make and unmake all
the laws--to a constitutional government representing the people.
They were made by a Roman Catholic king, representing and speaking
for several millions of Roman Catholic people, and, besides being in
a conciliatory and kindly spirit, bore upon their face conclusive
evidence of sincerity. If they had been accepted by the pope, the true
faith of the Church would have been untouched, and the pope in the
full possession of all his rightful and necessary spiritual powers.
The Church, in fact, would have been brought back to its primitive
condition before the fall of the Roman Empire. But Pius IX, instead
of reciprocating the generosity of the king, mourned over the "deep
sorrow," which filled his "life with bitterness," and, at the same
time, treated the propositions of the king with intense scorn. He was
then the first pope, in all the long history of the Church, who had
been allowed authoritatively to avow his own personal infallibility.
He had convened the celebrated Council of the Vatican, in which, but
a few weeks before, the Jesuits had succeeded in having him declared
infallible by the passage of a decree dictated by himself, and secured
by the suppression of debate, against the protest of a number of
bishops, including several from the United States.[188] Having obtained
this victory over the liberalism of the Church, and thus thrown himself
completely into the arms of the Jesuits, and preferring an alliance
with them to union with millions of Roman Catholics who favored a
constitutional government, he made it impossible to take a single step
towards conciliation, or to carry on even an amicable discussion with
the king. He manifestly felt as if no human power had the right to
demand or to expect conciliation or discussion from an infallible pope.
The Council had affirmed his universal sovereignty, and had encouraged
him in the belief that he possessed the power of omnipotence, so that
those who refused obedience to him were under the curse of God. The
time for debate, therefore, had passed with him, and no longer were
thoughts of peace and conciliation to be entertained. Consequently, he
is represented by a friendly pen as having, with an air of imperial
majesty, broken off the official interview with the envoy of Victor
Emmanuel, by expressing "the full measure of his scorn and indignation"
in these expressive words: "_In the name of Jesus Christ, I tell you
that you are all whited sepulchers!_"[189]

There was nothing then left for Victor Emmanuel but to advance his
troops, and take possession of the city of Rome, in the name of the new
kingdom of Italy. He delayed no longer. After crossing the frontier
of the papal territory, his army engaged in several skirmishes with
the Zouaves of the pope, but met with no serious resistance. On the
20th of September, 1870, orders were given to attack the city. Two
breaches were soon opened in the walls, and as the victorious Italians
entered, the papal troops retreated, and Pius IX took refuge in the
castle of St. Angelo as a fugitive from the city where, but a short
time before, a decree of his personal infallibility had been forced
through a packed Council by such methods as no other body of men in
the world would have submitted to, and to which it is not likely they
would have submitted but for the influences of the Jesuits. The pope
having fled and made himself a voluntary prisoner in the castle of
St. Angelo, the remaining duties pertaining to the papal Government
devolved upon Cardinal Antonelli, who still called himself Secretary of
State. This consisted of a formal and puerile protest in the name of
the fugitive pope, wherein he declared that nothing done by the kingdom
of Italy had conveyed any rights whatsoever against the dominion and
possession of the pope, and that the pope "both knows his rights, and
intends to conserve them intact, and _re-enter at the proper time into
their actual possession_." All that can be said of this is, that,
whilst practically it was mere unmeaning bravado, it fully set forth
the policy and purposes of Pius IX, by which he expected, with the
aid of the two hundred millions of Roman Catholics in the world, to
destroy the new Italian Government, and bring the people again under
papal dominion. Strange fatuity, made the more strange by the fact
that these announcements proceeded from the first pope whose personal
infallibility had been approved by conciliar decree!

The possession of Rome and the flight of the pope made it necessary to
put in operation the machinery of the new Government. Accordingly, a
temporary Government was formed and provision made for taking the vote
of the whole population to decide whether or no the people were for
or against the "unification of Italy." At this vote an overwhelming
majority decided in favor of the new Government--thus indicating that
even if the people had hitherto been persuaded to believe that the
kingship of the pope had been of Divine creation, they had become
enlightened enough to understand that Providence had permitted it
to continue long enough; and that as it had succeeded in separating
the Western from the Eastern Christians, and splitting the whole
into rival and warring factions, the time had been reached when, by
a new dispensation, the spiritual department of the Church should be
purified by stripping the pope of his imperial authority and enlarging
the sphere of his spiritual functions and duties. Realizing that God
governs the world in all things by his providences, and casting their
eyes over the nations to see where the largest degree of prosperity
and happiness prevailed, they were awakened to the conviction that, as
these had been produced where Church and State were separated, the
Divine wisdom had been displayed by pointing out to them a like measure
of relief from their existing grievances. Taught by their own instincts
to believe that the shifting dispensations of God's providences were
only so many methods of exhibiting his sovereign power, and that
as he had permitted their forefathers and themselves to bear the
burden of the papal temporal power for centuries, it was natural for
them to conclude that he had at least indicated to them the duty of
exchanging it for that liberty and intellectual development which free
constitutional governments had assured to other peoples as the means
of making them happier and more prosperous--better able to appreciate
and discharge the duties which pertain to citizenship as well as to
Christian life. God had tolerated their misfortunes only in the sense
in which he has permitted slavery to exist; but they could not be
persuaded to believe that he intended longer to perpetuate them by his
providences, any more than can the people of this country consent that
the former existence of slavery here overthrew the fundamental truth
set forth in our Declaration of Independence, that the inalienable
right to freedom and civil equality is derived from the natural law.

A very large majority of the aggregate vote cast in the provinces
having been in favor of the new Government--the negative vote having
been less than two thousand--it became necessary to adjust the future
relations between the Church and the State so that they could exist
harmoniously together, each in full possession of its proper functions.
Accordingly, the pope and all the papal authorities were notified that
the utmost liberality would be displayed toward the Church, and that
there would be no interference with it whatsoever except the abolition
of the pope's temporal power, and such provisions in regard to temporal
affairs as that rendered necessary. It is only necessary to observe the
leading provisions made by the new Government to show their liberality
and to demonstrate the folly of their rejection; and to realize how
much the Church has lost by the unwise and infatuated policy of Pius
IX, it is sufficient to observe that there is no Government existing
in the world to-day from which the same conciliatory terms could be
obtained. Not all of them could have been obtained, even then, from any
other but a Roman Catholic population.

The policy of the new Government was set forth as follows: The pope
was to be left entirely free to exercise all his spiritual rights as
before; he was to continue to possess "the prerogatives of a sovereign
prince," and his court was to be provided for with that view; he was
to be secured "a territorial immunity," limited, of course, within
bounds to be defined, wherein he should be free and independent of the
State; all the prelates, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, and those in
ecclesiastical orders, who should be summoned to Rome by the pope, were
to enjoy immunity from civil interference; the pope was to be permitted
to communicate with foreign powers and the Church throughout the world,
and to have special postal and telegraphic service at his command; all
the representatives of foreign powers at the court of the pope were to
enjoy perfect liberty; freedom of publication and communication were
assured; the pope was guaranteed "full liberty to travel at all times,
and at all seasons, in and out of the country," and was to be treated
and honored as "a foreign lay sovereign" throughout Italy; his "royal
appanage" and the members of his court were to be furnished by the new
Government, which should also pay the debts of the pontifical States;
and the liberties of the Church and the spiritual independence of the
pope were to be fully and amply guaranteed.[190]

These fair and liberal provisions had reference only to the changed
relations produced by the abolition of the temporal power. They
involved a purely political question, except as it had been made
politico-religious by the doctrine of the Jesuits, which Pius IX had
adopted, to the effect that it was a necessary part of the faith of the
Church that the pope should be a temporal monarch. The Roman Catholic
population of Italy having rejected this doctrine, and demanded the
expulsion of the Jesuits because they taught it, these provisions were
the result of their desire to leave Pius IX in the full possession
and enjoyment of all his spiritual powers. It was intended by them to
provide merely for the new condition of affairs, and to recognize the
kingdom of Italy as an accomplished fact, neither to be controverted
nor changed. Victor Emmanuel, as a firm and consistent Roman Catholic,
was not disposed to do anything less, and his obligations to the
Italian people would not allow him to do more. But Pius IX, still
continuing to sorrow over the destruction of the "old _régime_," and
clinging to the Jesuit idea that God was offended because he had
lost his temporal crown, refused to be reconciled. Bemoaning the
incompetency of the people to decide what was right and what was wrong
in affairs of government, and the inevitable ruin which he imagined
would follow their attempt to be governed without a pope-king, he
again hurled his fiercest anathemas at the new Government, and at the
heads of all who had aided in its creation. And having done this,
the controversy was brought to an end, leaving it well understood
that Church and State had been finally separated in Italy by a Roman
Catholic population, and that Pius IX would not be reconciled to the
loss of his temporal sovereignty which that separation occasioned, or
to anything short of his restoration to absolute royal power. There
were other acts necessary to complete the entire drama, but these would
draw us off into fields crowded with a multitude of combatants. We are
now concerned only with the conflict about the temporal power, and the
bearing of that power upon the right of the Italian people to have a
voice in the construction of the Government, and the passage of such
laws as their own welfare required. That was the only issue between the
Italians and the papacy--between Victor Emmanuel and Pius IX. If the
latter had adhered to the convictions of his own mind when he first
introduced measures of reform, and had followed the kindly dictates
of his own heart, many heartburnings and bickerings might have been
avoided, and the Church might have escaped a serious and staggering
blow. The contestants upon both sides were attached to the Church, its
history, its traditions, and its faith. A calm discussion between them
as to what it had or had not taught with regard to the temporal power,
would have made it clear that it did not involve any essential article
of the Christian creed, and they might thus have been led to see that,
as this power did not exist in the apostolic and primitive times,
there could not rightfully exist in the changed condition of the world
anything to render it absolutely necessary to the existence and growth
of Christianity in the present age. But when Pius IX suffered his mind
to be impressed by the teachings and doctrines of the Jesuits, and
allowed them to mold his pontifical policy, passionate declamation took
the place of calm discussion, and made reconciliation impossible.

And now, when those most devoted to the Church look back upon this
conflict, and realize upon what a multitude of their Christian brethren
the papal anathemas are still resting, because of their refusal to
assent to a dogma of faith which strikes at the foundation of free
constitutional government, they can not fail to observe that, whilst
the blow has fallen heavily upon the Church, the Jesuits alone have
achieved a triumph. They laid the foundation of this triumph by
extorting from Pius IX--at a time when his unsuspicious nature was
easily imposed upon--his celebrated Encyclical and Syllabus, whereby
he declared that freedom of speech, of conscience, and of the press
were errors which the Church could not tolerate; that the Church must
be the sole judge of its own jurisdiction, and possess the power of
coercing obedience within the circle it shall assign to itself; and
that it never can become reconciled to, or agree with, the "progress,
liberalism, and civilization" of the present age. By this he placed a
barrier between the papacy and all the leading modern nations, which
the Jesuits are striving hard to overleap, but can not; but which can
only be broken down by that Christian charity which ennobles the
nature of its possessor, and teaches that God has implanted in the
hearts of mankind a spirit of brotherhood which no creeds or dogmas or
ceremonies should be permitted to extinguish.

But Pius IX added to his sufferings by the pretense of hardships that
were not real. He was allowed to return to Rome unmolested, and to take
up his residence again in the Vatican. He called himself a prisoner,
and induced others to do so, thereby setting an example his successor
has imitated. But he was not a prisoner, except when he, of his own
accord, shut himself up in the castle of St. Angelo. He was, up till
the close of his life, free to go wheresoever and when he pleased.
There was no restraint imposed upon his actions. No indignity to his
spiritual office or to his person was allowed. He could open and close
the doors of the Vatican at his own pleasure, and admit or exclude
whomsoever he pleased. He enjoyed the utmost liberty of speech and of
writing, and bestowed praise or censure at discretion. But instead
of enjoying the real liberty guaranteed to him by the laws of the
Government upon which his pontifical curse was resting, he wore his
life away by useless complaining, and by sending forth additional
anathemas, which indicated only that his vanity was ungratified and his
ambition disappointed. He died at last, not broken-hearted--for he was
always a spiritual sovereign--but with the melancholy consciousness
that his pontifical arm had become too feeble to bear up the temporal
scepter which many of his predecessors had grasped so tightly. It would
be hard to write his life well and faithfully; it was so impulsive,
varied, and feverish. His purposes were honest, his affections sincere,
his generosity unbounded, his nature kindly and sympathetic; but he was
as powerless to drive back the storm that beat upon the papacy, as a
seaman is to check the speed of the winds when the storm is raging. And
now that he has appeared before the final Judge, who is infallible, it
might be appropriately engraved upon his tomb that he was a good priest
but a poor and incompetent statesman.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 185: Appleton's Ann. Cyclo., 1866, p. 674. "The pope had lost
all his bygone sympathy for the popular cause, and was only too willing
to secure his restoration to the Vatican by the aid of an Austrian
occupation of the Romagna, and of a French siege of Rome." (Life of
Victor Emmanuel. By Dicey. Page 118.)]

[Footnote 186: During the progress of the Italian revolution, the
present pope, Leo XIII, then Cardinal Pecci, wrote a pastoral letter
"On the Temporal Dominion of the Popes," for the express purpose
of maintaining that dominion. Referring to the period of its first
introduction, he said it had been "_consecrated by eleven centuries of
time_." Neither he nor Pius IX has been able to fix the time, except in
general and indefinite terms, differing, as they do, several hundred
years, yet both infallible! (Life of Leo XIII. By Bernard O'Reilly.
Page 200.)]

[Footnote 187: Maguire, p. 470. Appleton's Ann. Cyc., 1870, p. 410.

After the occupation of Rome by the Italian army, the citizens were
required to decide by the form of a plebiscite, whether or no they
favored union with the kingdom of Italy, when the popular vote was
133,681 in favor of, and only 1,507 against it. Victor Emmanuel
thereupon signified his loyalty to the Church in this strong and
expressive language: "As a king and as a Catholic, while I hereby
proclaim the unity of Italy, I remain constant to my resolve to
guarantee the liberty of the Church and the independence of the supreme
pontiff." (Life of Victor Emmanuel. By Dicey. Pages 317-318.)]

[Footnote 188: Eight Months at Rome. By Pomponio Leto (Francis
Vitteleschi). London Edition. Page 212.]

[Footnote 189: Maguire, p. 473.]

[Footnote 190: Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia. 1870. Pages 414-415.]




CHAPTER XVIII.

PAPAL DEMANDS.


At the death of Pius IX he left to whosoever should succeed him, as an
official inheritance, the decision of the question whether or no the
Church should acquiesce in and become reconciled to the abolition of
the temporal power of the pope, or be agitated and possibly further
disrupted by the demand for its restoration. In the meantime Italy had
become an organized nation, and was so recognized throughout the world.
The capital, after several removals, had been established at Rome, and
legislative chambers were assembled almost within the shadow of the old
senate-house of the Cæsars, under the checks and guards of a written
Constitution, to enact laws for and in the name of the Italian people.
A king existed, but without absolute power, and had attained great
popularity on account of his eminent fitness and recognized fidelity
to the trusts committed to him. It, consequently, required but little
practical knowledge of affairs to foresee that the future peace and
welfare of the Church depended, in a large degree, upon the policy to
be pursued with regard to the temporal power--which no longer existed,
but had been abolished by Roman Catholic populations, who had, with
great deliberation and extraordinary unanimity, taken the right to
manage their own political affairs into their own hands, in imitation
of the example set them by the people of the United States. Thoughtful
minds were inspired by the hope that moderate, wise, and conciliatory
counsels would prevail with the new pope, whosoever he might be.

The occasion rendered it necessary that the distinction between the
Church as a Christian organization, and the papacy as a magisterial
power over temporals, should be observed; that is, that the ability of
the former for Christian usefulness was left unimpaired, whilst the
latter was only designed to make the pope an absolute monarch over
the Italian people. Nobody understood this better than Pius IX, and,
therefore, the year before his death he signalized the first important
exhibition of his infallible authority by issuing a decree amending
the Confession of Faith, which had been prescribed by Pius IV nearly
three hundred years before, and an "allocution," or authoritative and
_ex-cathedra_ epistle to the clergy and the Church, with regard to the
relations existing between the Church and the Government of Italy. The
former concerns only those whose faith is influenced by it; the latter
concerns all the progressive nations, and none more than the United
States.

In this allocution he accused the invaders of his "civil
principality"--that is, of his temporal power--with riding roughshod
over every right, human and divine; with the attempt to undermine
"all the institutions of the Church;" and characterized the act of
establishing the Italian kingdom as one of "sovereign iniquity"--a
"sacrilegious invasion." He complained that the ministers of religion
"were deprived of the right of disapproving the laws of the State
which they considered as violating those of the Church"--which was
equivalent to asserting it to be a principle of faith that he and the
clergy should be permitted to defy any law of a State which he and they
considered violative of their prerogative rights. He pointed out "the
shameful and obscene spectacle" to be seen in Rome, in "the temples
erected in these latter days to dissenting worship;" in "schools
of corruption scattered broadcast," and in "houses of perdition
established everywhere"--thus intending, undoubtedly, to intimate what
his meaning was when he said in his Syllabus, a few years before,
that the Church could never be reconciled to the spirit of progress
prevailing among the progressive nations. He insisted that the pope can
not exist in Rome except as "a sovereign or a prisoner"--which has
been disproved by all the subsequent years of actual experience--and
that there can be no "peace, security, or tranquillity for the entire
Catholic Church so long as the exercise of the supreme ecclesiastical
ministry is at the mercy of the passions of party, the caprice of
Governments, the vicissitudes of political elections, and of the
projects and actions of designing men"--meaning thereby, in plain
words, that the pope must be so supreme wheresoever his clergy are
as to require them to execute his decrees, notwithstanding the laws
of Governments shall expressly provide otherwise. He expresses this
idea with equal plainness by saying that the pope "can not exercise
full freedom in the power of his ministry" scattered throughout
the world, so long as he "continues subject to the will of another
party;" in other words, that he must be free to require his clergy,
wheresoever they may be, to obey him and not the laws of any Government
in conflict with his will. He congratulates himself that the "whole
Catholic people," everywhere, are united with him in supporting all
these propositions, and makes it known that he expects them "to take
in hand the cause and defense of the Roman pontificate;" that is,
the restoration of the temporal power and kingship of the pope. He
expresses the belief that the attachment shown to him by the multitudes
of pilgrims who visit Rome "will go on increasing until the day when
the pastor of the universal Church will be restored at last to the
possession of his full and genuine freedom"--which he can not enjoy
without the crown of absolute monarchy upon his head. And with a view
to the accomplishment of this, he instructs all the ministers of the
Church, everywhere, to "exhort the faithful confided to them to make
use of all the means which the laws of their country place within their
reach; to act with promptness with those who govern; to induce these
latter to consider more attentively the painful situation forced upon
the head of the Church, and take effective measures towards dissipating
the obstacles that stand in the way of his absolute independence."[191]

All this is plain and emphatic--not susceptible of misunderstanding.
It makes the restoration of the temporal power of the pope, so as
to make him king of Italy against the positive and expressed will
of the people of that country, a politico-religious question, and
commands the faithful in every part of the world to form themselves
into a politico-religious party to influence the Governments of their
respective countries to contribute to that result. This counsel is
given in face of what the world knows to be the fact, that the temporal
power can not be restored without war--without drenching the plains of
Italy with blood, in order to force upon the people of Italy a king
whom they have repudiated by their highest act of sovereignty.

This allocution was among the first fruits of the pope's infallibility,
and makes known with distinctness the method dictated by Pius IX
for reconstructing the papacy. At the time of its issuance he had
encountered so many embarrassments without the ability to resist them
successfully, he could scarcely have expected that his hopes would be
realized during his pontificate. He was confronted by the existence of
a kingdom, still Roman Catholic but not papal, within the limits of
which Rome was included, and no man knew better than he that what he
sought after would have to await the formation of a politico-religious
party beyond the limits of Italy, and among the peoples of other
nations, strong enough to coerce the Roman Catholic people of Italy,
at the point of the bayonet, into obedience to the papacy they had
repudiated. Therefore this infallible allocution may properly be
considered his last pontifical will and testament, whereby he devised
all his right and title to the temporal power to his successor; or
perhaps it would be more apt to say, as the politicians do, that it was
intended to be the main plank in the papal platform. How far it became
so we shall see.

When, after the death of Pius IX, the cardinals assembled in Conclave,
February 17, 1878, their first official act was specially significant.
It displayed a settled purpose to hold the wavering, if there were
any, to the policy of Pius IX with reference to the restoration of the
temporal power, and to make that the test of fidelity to the Church;
in other words, that his successor should be pledged to carry out that
policy, and elected with that express view. The cardinals, therefore,
entered into an agreement among themselves to confirm and maintain
all the protests made by Pius IX against the Italian Government. This
agreement was to the effect that they "thereby renewed all the protests
and reservations made by the deceased sovereign pontiff, whether
against the occupation of the States of the Church, or against the
laws and decrees enacted to the detriment of the same Church and the
Apostolic See;" and that they were unanimously "determined to follow
the course marked out by the deceased pontiff, whatsoever trials may
happen to befall them through the force of events."[192]

It may fairly be supposed that Cardinal Pecci was the projector of this
plan of procedure, as it is stated by his biographer that he "stood in
the foremost place at the head of his brethren." At all events, he,
together with the other cardinals, was pledged to it. When, therefore,
he was elected pope--as he was soon after--and took the name of Leo
XIII, he accepted the pontificate under the solemn obligation so to
employ all his powers and prerogatives as to regain the temporal power
his predecessor had lost, upon the distinct ground that fidelity to the
doctrines and faith of the Church required it.

In view of the result to be thus attained, the election of Leo XIII
was unquestionably wise. Besides possessing the highest intellectual
qualifications--being, in fact, one of the foremost men of the present
time--his Christian character is pure and without a blemish. He is
cool, calm, and deliberate in considering great questions, and not
apt, as Pius IX was, to be misled by indiscreet advisers, or entrapped
by enemies. His passions seemed well restrained, and he brought to
the duties of his high office abilities far exceeding those of any
of the eminent men who composed the College of Cardinals. There is
not a sovereign in Europe of whom he is not the equal, if not the
superior, in all such qualities as fit a man for rank, station, and
authority. In the rightful and proper sphere of his spiritual duties
he is "_sans peur et sans reproche_." But when he ventures to depart
from that sphere, and employ the authority of his high office to reopen
a political issue already closed, to deny to the people of Italy
the right to regulate their own temporal affairs, as those of the
United States have done, and prescribes or approves a plan of Church
organization which shall measure the value of a professed Christian
life by the depth to which its possessor shall sink in the mire of
politico-religious controversy in those countries where Church and
State have been separated, he presents himself to the world in another
and different aspect. If, by imitating others who have grasped after
kingly crowns, he sees proper to lay aside the rightful weapons of
his spiritual ministry, and arm himself and his followers with such
as pertain to the strife of politics, there can be no just ground of
complaint against those whose policy of civil government he assails,
if they shall arraign him and them at the bar of public opinion, and
challenge his and their right to disturb the peace by scattering the
seeds of discord among them.

The people of Italy achieved their independence by revolution, and
decided to separate Church and State, and that they would not have the
pope for their king; they put an end to the absolute monarchism of the
papacy, and substituted a constitutional monarchy, with such checks and
guards as they deemed necessary to their own protection. In doing this
they exercised the same power of popular sovereignty as the people
of the United States, when they decided that no king should ever rule
over them. In each case the act was intended to be final--not subject
to reversal by any earthly power. Neither country, therefore, has the
right to plot against the quiet and peace of the other; nor have the
populations of either the right to do so. All this is forbidden by
the law of nations, and if knowingly tolerated would be, by that law,
just cause of war. If a politico-religious party should be formed in
Italy to change our institutions by reuniting Church and State, and
substitute a king in the place of the people in the management of
public affairs, it would incite the spirit of resistance in every loyal
American heart. And if a politico-religious party, formed under any
plea whatsoever, shall be permitted to combine in this country for the
avowed object of reuniting Church and State in Italy, and compelling
the people of that country to accept the pope as an absolute sovereign,
in the face of the result they have accomplished by their revolution,
wherein do we escape condemnation by the law of nations? The question
whether or no any people shall exercise the right of self-government is
political, not religious. This has been decided by the people of the
United States. Consequently, to demand of them that they shall reverse
this decision, violates the spirit of their institutions, and mocks at
their authority.

No liberal and fair-minded people questioned the right of Pius IX to
declare himself infallible, or that of others to concede it to him, in
matters purely spiritual. Nor is this same right denied to Leo XIII.
But when he extends his infallibility so far as to include authority
over the fundamental principles of civil government, and thus seeks to
imperil the fortunes of the modern progressive nations where Church and
State have been separated, it should not be expected that those who
share those fortunes in common will sanction his imperial assumption
by direct affirmance or by silent acquiescence. The age of "passive
obedience" has passed, and is not likely to be revived so long as
the Reformation period shall continue to bear its rich and abundant
fruits, like such as spring from the popular institutions of the United
States. The fundamental principle upon which all such institutions rest
is the separation of Church and State; for without that there can be no
freedom of religious belief and no such development of the intellectual
faculties as fits society for self-government. Every assault upon this
great fundamental principle must be resisted, no matter under what
pretense it may be made or from what quarter it shall come. When it was
assaulted and condemned by the vacillating and irascible Pius IX, it
was in far less peril than now, when the calm and sagacious Leo XIII
has become the general-in-chief of the aggressive forces. The former
was not even master of himself--the latter is master of vast multitudes
of men.

The election of Leo XIII caused general satisfaction outside the circle
of Church influence. He was regarded as a representative of the highest
enlightenment, and this gave rise to the hope that he would become
reconciled to the existing condition of affairs in Italy, in order to
pacify those members of the Church who had wrenched from his immediate
predecessor the scepter of temporal sovereignty. A more favorable
opportunity for pacification could not have existed; and if it had
been accepted in a conciliatory spirit, the rejoicing would not have
been confined to the Italians alone, but would have been well-nigh
universal. But little time elapsed, however, before there were signs
indicating that, instead of throwing oil upon the troubled waters, he
preferred that they should remain in agitation. Two facts now conspire
to account for this: First, the agreement made by the College of
Cardinals to adopt the principles and adhere to the policy of Pius IX;
and, second, his Jesuit education and training. Both of these facts
are stated by his biographer, and the last with such particularity as
to show that when he was only eight years of age he was separated from
his family and placed under Jesuit care, and that his education was
obtained at the colleges of that society at Viterbo and at Rome.[193]
If the world had known, at the beginning of his pontificate, how
solemnly he had pledged himself to his brother cardinals before his
election, and how his youthful mind had been trained and fashioned
by the Jesuits, it is not probable that anything would have been
anticipated, or even hoped for, beyond what has transpired; for the
skill of the Jesuits is displayed in nothing more effectually than in
the indelible impressions they understand so well how to make upon
young and undeveloped minds. Although the question to be decided seemed
simple enough to the general public, both in the United States and
in Europe, yet to the Jesuits it was of supreme importance; for with
Church and State separated in Italy, and with Rome as the permanent
capital of a kingdom independent of the pope and submissive to the
popular will, their society would be crushed by the weight of public
odium resting upon them. During the progress of the controversy and
before the abolition of the temporal power, Pius IX had been compelled
to expel them from the States of the Church on account of this odium
existing in Italy; but they rallied again, with their unabated energy,
after his successor had been chosen, doubtless realizing how readily
a mind trained and disciplined under their system of education would
yield to their demands. For a time Leo XIII seemed to be hesitating,
as if in the issue between liberalism and retrogression there was
some middle ground. But the Church and the world did not have long
to wait before the issuance of his first official encyclical letter,
which put an end to all hopes of reconciliation or compromise. In this
celebrated document the war upon liberalism and progress, as recognized
by the modern nations, was continued with increased and Jesuitical
violence--"war to the knife, and the knife to the hilt." There was
no longer any hesitation or faltering, but the distinct avowal of
the purpose to revive the papacy, by the restoration of the temporal
power, and to carry on the conflict until the world shall be turned
away from all modern civilization and back towards the Middle Ages.
His biographer takes special pains to make this plain, so that the
encyclical may be interpreted according to the pope's intention. After
stating that there were those who expected Leo XIII "to devise a _modus
vivendi_ with the masters of Rome and Italy," and reconcile the Church
and the papacy to "modern society and its exigencies," he boastingly
proclaims that the encyclical "woefully disappointed all who fancied
or hoped that a pope could reconcile the revealed truth of which he is
the divinely-appointed guardian, the righteousness, justice, and divine
morality which flow from the revealed law of life, with the awful
errors, the unbridled licentiousness of thought and word and deed, the
iniquity and the immorality which are cloaked over by their pretended
civilization."[194]

This learned biographer does not intend that the pope's encyclical
shall be misunderstood; and when he thus indicates the "awful errors,"
the "unbridled licentiousness," "the iniquity and the immorality,"
which have been scattered over the world by modern progress and
civilization--which he characterizes as "pretended" and not real--he
manifestly understood the mind and motives of the pope, as he also
did the issue which the papacy has made with all the most enlightened
peoples of the world, and, more especially, with the prevailing
popular sentiment in the United States. We must consequently accept
this arraignment of our form of civilization as intentionally and
deliberately made. And that he understood this issue as not confined to
Italy alone, but as universal in its character, he proceeds immediately
to show that the pope "speaks with authority to all mankind, the light
imparted by his teaching illuminates both hemispheres."

But this encyclical itself leaves no room to doubt with regard to the
universality of jurisdiction and authority claimed by the pope. Almost
at the beginning it announces that he considers himself called upon,
by virtue of his spiritual sovereignty, to decide matters of general
import, and not merely such as are understood to pertain to the Church
of Rome or to the people of Italy. Regarding himself as possessing this
unlimited jurisdiction because he occupies "the place of the Prince of
Pastors, Jesus Christ," he asserts pontifical authority over the whole
world, in these words: "From the very beginning of our pontificate we
have had before our eyes the sad spectacle of the evils which assail
mankind from every side." And, accordingly, he makes his purposes known
by drawing a sad picture of modern society, "impatient of all lawful
power," and threatened, in consequence, with anarchy and dissolution,
on account of its "contempt of the laws of morality and justice." All
this, to his mind, has arisen out of the lawless spirit of revolution
which modern peoples have invoked to free themselves from the crushing
weight of imperial and absolute monarchism, which he proposes to revive
in Italy by the re-establishment of the temporal power which the people
of that country wrested from the hands of his immediate predecessor by
revolution. What we, somewhat triumphantly, call patriotism, liberty,
and natural right, he denounces as "a pestilential virus which creeps
into the vital organs and members of human society, which allows them
no rest, and which forebodes for the social order new revolutions
ending in calamitous results."

Against these threatened calamities he felt himself constrained, by
virtue of the universality of his spiritual dominion, to warn the
world, especially that part of it which has voluntarily brought what
he considers affliction upon itself, by separating Church and State
and establishing freedom of religious belief, free speech, a free
press, and free popular government. He seems to have allowed his mind
to become disturbed and agitated by this gloomy condition of affairs,
because it has been produced by the rejection of the pope's divine
right to regulate whatsoever sentiments and opinions he may deem to
be within the circle of his spiritual jurisdiction. "The cause of
all these evils," he says, "lies principally in this: that men have
despised and rejected the holy and august authority of the Church,
which, in the name of God, is placed over the human race, and is the
avenger and protector of all legitimate authority;" that is, that no
authority whatsoever, whether of governments, peoples, or individuals,
can be set up against it as rightful or legitimate. Then, looking
down from this high pinnacle upon the disturbed and raging elements
below, and sorrowing because his temporal dominion has been lost, he
enumerates some of the principal causes which, in his opinion, threaten
to wreck the happiness and welfare of society. Among these, he makes
conspicuously prominent the following: Overturning the constitution
of the Church by laws in force "in most countries;" obstacles to the
"free exercise of the ecclesiastical ministry," which those laws have
created; "the unbridled liberty of teaching and publishing all manner
of evil;" depriving the Church of "the right," which he considers
irrefragable, to "train and educate the young;" and, far from being
least in magnitude or importance, the sacrilegious violation of the
Divine law by the abolition of the pope's temporal power and imperial
sovereignty over the Italian people. This enumeration was manifestly
made, as may be implied from the language of his biographer, to enable
him to point out more clearly to "the Catholic hierarchy" in all parts
of the world, "toward what purpose their common zeal must be chiefly
directed;" that is, what he expects them to contribute toward turning
the world away from these modern innovations upon the papal policy, so
that it may be carried back to its condition during the Middle Ages,
when the papal supremacy was maintained by the terrible tribunal of
the Inquisition. That he prefers that period, with its ignorance and
superstition, to the present, with its advanced enlightenment and
prosperity, is plainly and emphatically avowed in these words: "If
any sensible man in our day will compare the age in which we live,
so bitterly hostile to the religion and Church of Christ, to those
_blessed ages_ when the Church was honored as a mother of the nations,
he will surely find that the society of our day, so convulsed by
revolutions and destructive upheavals, is moving straightway and
rapidly toward its ruin; while the society of the former ages, when
most docile to the rule of the Church and most obedient to her laws,
was adorned with the noblest institutions, and enjoyed tranquillity,
riches, and prosperity."[195]

This is strange infatuation to be indulged in during the nineteenth
century, when human energy is taxed to the utmost to give increased
velocity to the car of progress, and to outstrip all previous ages
in placing checks and guards upon the ambition of temporal monarchs.
It requires but little research to learn that the "blessed ages" to
which Leo XIII refers, and gives such marked preference over the
present period, were especially distinguished by the ignorance and
superstition of the multitude. History is crowded with evidences of
this. Maitland--who is highly appreciated and often quoted by papal
writers on account of his criticisms of Robertson, the historian--says
that "the ecclesiastics were the reading men and the writing men;"[196]
but does not pretend that such was the case with the peasants or common
people, as the bulk of the populations were called. There is nothing
better established than that no facilities for learning were afforded
them, and that they were kept down at a common level of ignorance, so
as to reconcile them more easily to submission and obedience. This is
shown by the picture of society drawn by all the early chroniclers,
especially by Froissart and Monstrelet, as well as by the more modern
historians, Hallam, Robertson, and Berington. The men of learning and
letters belonged to the "upper classes," for whom alone colleges and
schools were provided. The people, as such, were left uninstructed,
in order to make them passively obedient to the authority of Church
and State, which were united by ties they were powerless to break.
They were forced--with but little less severity than was shown to
the captives of the Pharaohs who built the pyramids, the temple of
Karnak, and other Egyptian monuments--to serve taskmasters in erecting
magnificent palaces, cathedrals, and churches, designed for display
by those whose vanity and pride made them oblivious to the fact that
they were the product of unrewarded labor, and did not contain a
stone or marble block not stained by the tears and sweat and blood of
numberless humiliated victims. But all these unrequited victims were
ignorant, and therefore obedient--obedient, and therefore happy! But
Leo XIII, exulting at this reflection, instructs the modern nations
that the curse of God is resting upon their progressive advancement,
and that he, in Christ's name and place, is divinely empowered to
turn them back to those "blessed ages," because, if they do not,
"they must, by corrupting both minds and hearts, drag down by their
very weight, nations into every crime, ruin all order, and at length
bring the condition and peace of a commonwealth to extreme and certain
destruction."

To escape these dreadful consequences, and save modern society from
keeping open the gaping wounds it has inflicted upon itself, he makes
known his pontifical purpose in these words: "We declare that we shall
never cease to contend for the full obedience to our authority, for the
removal of all obstacles put in the way of our full and free exercise
of our ministry and power, and for our restoration to that condition of
things in which the provident design of the Divine Wisdom had formerly
placed the Roman pontiff." Having thus instructed all the faithful that
whatsoever prohibits him from acquiring all the power and authority
"formerly" possessed by the popes, must be resisted and put out of
the way, whether it be constitutions, laws, or customs, he declares
to them, by way of encouragement, that the world shall have no rest
until this is accomplished; "not only because the civil sovereignty
is necessary for the protecting and preserving of the full liberty
of the spiritual power, but because, moreover--a thing in itself
evident--whenever there is a question of the temporal principality of
the Holy See, then the interests of the public good and the salvation
of the whole of human society are involved." His enthusiasm is always
heightened, and his eloquence of style becomes captivating, when
his mind displays its power at the contemplation of that "temporal
sovereignty" by which he hopes that he and his successors shall bring
all mankind within the bounds of the pontifical jurisdiction, so that
they shall have no care for this or a higher life but what is involved
in the duty of passive and uninquiring obedience. It is when this
enthusiasm fully possesses him that he seizes upon the occasion to give
the word of command to his ecclesiastical army in all parts of the
world; as when he tells them they must display their "priestly zeal
and pastoral vigilance in kindling in the souls of your [their] people
the love of our holy religion, in order that they may thereby become
more closely and heartily attached to this chair of truth and justice,
accept all its teachings with the deepest assent of mind and will, and
unhesitatingly reject all opinions, even the most widespread, which
they know to be in opposition to the doctrines of the Church."

This instruction is comprehensive enough to include all, both priests
and laymen. It has the merit of simplicity, requiring only obedience
to the pope, the full "assent of mind and will" to all the doctrines
he shall announce, and the rejection of "all opinions" in opposition
to them; no matter if their submission shall involve disobedience to
the constitutions and laws under which they may live. He descends
also to particulars, and prescribes a course of conduct for all his
subordinates--like a commanding general laying down the plan of a
military campaign. They must obtain the control of education, so as
to "scatter the seeds of heavenly doctrines broadcast," in order
to save "the young especially" from the deadly influences of State
and public schools, where, according to his teaching, the method of
education "clouds their intellect and corrupts their morals." They are
required to instruct their pupils "in conformity with the Catholic
faith, especially as regards mental philosophy," as taught by Thomas
Aquinas and "the other teachers of Christian wisdom." They are to make
exterminating war upon the "impious laws" which allow civil marriages,
because those thus united, "desecrating the holy dignity of marriage,
have lived in legal concubinage instead of Christian matrimony." And
lastly, and no less imperatively, all are to be instructed in the
indispensable obligation "to obey their superiors."[197]

But Leo XIII has not been content with these distinct avowals of his
pontifical opinions and purposes. He has chosen to give emphasis to
them in other official methods. After the death of Cardinal Franchi,
his secretary of state, he appointed Cardinal Nina to that place.
Whether he considered the latter not sufficiently instructed with
regard to his opinions, or availed himself of the occasion to express
anew and more explicitly the principles of his pontifical policy, there
is no means of deciding; but whether the one or the other, he addressed
to him an official communication, wherein these principles were made
known with perfect distinctness. Still contemplating "the very serious
peril of society from the ever-increasing disorders which confront us
on every side," and "the intellectual and moral decay which sickens
society," in consequence of its having thrown off allegiance to the
temporal power of the pope, he arraigns as prominent among the existing
evils the separation of Church and State--precisely that condition
of things which exists in the United States more distinctively than
anywhere in the civilized world. Upon this subject--which involves so
much that is absolutely fundamental in free popular government--he
says: "The chief reason of this great moral ruin was the openly
proclaimed separation and the attempted apostasy of the society of
our day from Christ and his Church, which alone has all the power to
repair all the evils of society." And referring to the manner in which
the pope had been "despoiled" of his temporal power, he admonished him
"to consider that the Catholics in the different States can never feel
at rest till their supreme pontiff, the superior teacher of their
faith, the moderator of their consciences, is in the full enjoyment of
a true liberty and a real independence;" that is, that Roman Catholics
everywhere are expected to contribute immediate and active aid in
bringing about the restoration of the temporal power, so that "the
progress made by heresy" may be arrested, and "heterodox temples and
schools" shall be destroyed.[198]

There is nothing in all this, or in anything officially done by Leo
XIII--howsoever earnestly it may be rejected by liberal minds--that
should detract in the least degree from the estimate in which he
deserves to be held by all who appreciate upright conduct and the
consistent observance of Christian virtue. For these his life has
been eminently distinguished, and when its end shall have been
reached--fears of which are expressed at the time these words are
written--he will well deserve a lofty niche in the papal mausoleum
among the greatest and best of the pontiffs. If his opinions and
utterances were to be estimated alone by his personal integrity
and private virtues, the force of any criticism of them would be
materially lessened. But they belong to and are an essential part of
the papal system which he represents and is bound by the necessities
of his position to maintain against everything in conflict with it.
What he has said, and so frequently repeated, is echoed back from
the tombs of those of his predecessors who fought their battles with
liberalism and progress when the forces which defended them were weak
and the papacy was strong. He could not break a single thread in the
net which encompasses him, howsoever anxiously he might desire it,
and is consequently constrained to carry on the battle waged by his
predecessors until final victory is won or the flag of the temporal
power is sunk out of sight forever. His task grows harder and harder
every day; for now the progressive forces are growing stronger
while the powers of the papacy, lessened by the loss of temporal
sovereignty, are steadily waning away. He is struggling against the
patriotic sentiments of mankind, like a strong man battling with the
waves of a tempestuous sea. Although the light of modern progress is
not permitted to penetrate the walls of the Vatican, and he is shut
in behind impenetrable screens especially to keep it out, he ought,
nevertheless, to know that those to whose prosperity and advancement
it has contributed are unwilling to acquiesce in its extinction, or
to sit silently by when it is attempted. Whilst his arraignment of
civil institutions which have grown up within the circle of this light
may be well attributed to the papal system he officially represents,
he has expressed his desire for their overthrow in such terms of
censure and rebuke as to excite the suspicion that he is moved by an
uncompromising and unconciliatory spirit. Whatsoever he has shown of
this may rightfully be assigned to his Jesuit training and education.
Having been placed under the care of that scheming and insinuating
society before his opinions were matured and whilst his youthful mind
was unable to detect their sophistry or their cunning, they were
enabled to mold him to their purposes, as the softened wax is impressed
by any seal. Any intelligent investigation of his pontifical policy,
in so far as it involves the relations of the papacy to existing civil
governments, will demonstrate this to all whose faculties have not been
dwarfed by the same system of education and guardianship. We see every
day, in the natural world, conclusive proof that "as the twig is bent
so the tree is inclined."

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 191: Appleton's American Cyclopedia. 1877. Pages 677 to 681.]

[Footnote 192: Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 299.]

[Footnote 193: O'Reilly, pp. 52-53.]

[Footnote 194: O'Reilly, p. 328.]

[Footnote 195: O'Reilly, p. 333.]

[Footnote 196: The Dark Ages. By Maitland. Page 461.]

[Footnote 197: O'Reilly, pp. 329 to 341.]

[Footnote 198: O'Reilly, pp. 344 to 350.]




CHAPTER XIX.

PRESENT ATTITUDE OF THE PAPACY.


The opinions and utterances of the pope concerning religious duty are
considered, at least by his army of ecclesiastics, as commands which
are to be obeyed at the peril of pontifical censure. Among these the
learned biographer of Leo XIII is a conspicuous example. He not only
exhibits his own zeal in behalf of the restoration of the temporal
power in defiance of the expressed will of the Italian people, but
ventures to speak for the whole body of the Roman Catholic population
of the United States. With unflagging eloquence he says: "For we
Catholics from every land, thronging to the tomb of the holy apostles
and to the home of our common father, bear back with us to our own land
the memory of the humiliation he endures, of the restraints put upon
his liberty, of the rudeness and insults offered to ourselves; and _we
resolve that the day shall come when the pope shall be again sovereign
of Rome_." And addressing his appeal to our Protestant people,
he continues: "Even in our own great Republic will not the quick
American sense, and the instinctive love of justice, and the passion
for freedom of conscience, soon be made to perceive that the dearest
religious rights of our millions of Catholics, the dearest interests
of civilization among the heathen, demand that the pope, the great
_international_ peacemaking power of the world, _should be sovereign in
the city where he has reigned for eleven hundred years_?"[199]

This appeal surpasses in extravagance and hyperbole anything we are
accustomed to hear: it would constitute an admirable exhibition of
word-painting if recited from the rostrum. We, in the United States,
have made the toleration of all forms of religious belief a fundamental
principle of our civil institutions, and the present Constitutional
Government of Italy, by the abolition of the temporal power of the
pope, has, in imitation of our example, done the same thing. When,
before that, did religious toleration exist in Rome? What pope ever
gave it the sanction of a papal decree, or recognized Protestantism
as worthy of anything higher than his fiercest anathemas? Let the
millions of persecuted victims of pontifical and inquisitorial
vengeance--Albigenses, Waldenses, Huguenots, and Netherlanders--answer
from their graves. And yet the American people are appealed to,
because they maintain "freedom of conscience" as inseparable from
their national existence, to plot against the present Government of
Italy--established by the Italian people for themselves--in order to
restore the temporal power of the pope, so that he may again possess
authority to condemn this same freedom of conscience as heresy, in
order to bring about the unification of religious faith throughout the
world! We attribute our marvelous advancement--which has no parallel
among the nations--in an essential degree, to the separation of Church
and State. But Leo XIII has told us that because of this we are in
rapid decay; and that unless we reunite ourselves with the Holy See of
Rome, and obey him and his successors--occupying the place of Christ
on earth--our ultimate ruin is inevitable. What does this reverend
biographer mean when he invokes the aid of our tolerant spirit to
re-establish an authority which, for centuries, has been exercised in
behalf of religious intolerance? Are the followers of the pope the
only people in the world entitled to freedom of conscience? It is
abundantly secured to them and all others in the United States and in
Italy as well. Nevertheless, in the face of this, we are invited to aid
in restoring the temporal power of the pope in Rome, so that he may be
empowered to turn back the modern nations from their present progress
toward the "blessed" Middle Ages, and thus secure ultimate triumph
to the spirit of religious intolerance! Can those guilty of such
inconsistencies be serious? Or is their seriousness merely simulated,
as means to an end?

What have we to do with the pope as an _international_ peacemaker?
Why does he become so merely by wearing the crown of a temporal king
in Rome? There is but one answer, which was undoubtedly present in
the mind of his reverend biographer; that is, because, by means of
his imperial authority as the head of the Church, he may extend his
spiritual jurisdiction and dominion over such temporal affairs in
any part of the world as relate to spiritual matters, as he at his
own will and discretion shall decide. In order to understand this we
need go no further than to Leo XIII himself, whose Jesuit training is
easily discernible in all his doctrinal teachings. His idea of the
temporal power which shall give full liberty and independence to his
spiritual power, is this: that wheresoever, among all the nations,
he shall consider it necessary to interfere with and direct the
course of temporal affairs in furtherance of his spiritual duties and
obligations, he may do so at his own discretion; and where they impede
the freedom of his pontifical policy, he shall have the divine right
to resist or disregard any constitution, law, or custom which shall
stand in his way. To a mind like his--with its faculties developed
under Jesuit supervision, and filled with the metaphysical subtleties
of the Aristotelian philosophy, the sophistries of Thomas Aquinas, and
the scholasticism of the Middle Ages--this, doubtless, appears plain,
simple, and conclusive, in so far as his spiritual relations to mankind
are concerned. It may possibly be that he supposes himself not to have
mistaken his relations to the United States and to the Roman Catholic
part of our population. This may be, in view of the fact that he can
have no other but an imperfect knowledge of our form of government, our
laws, and civil institutions. His learned biographer, however, can not
shield himself behind this same plea of ignorance. As a citizen of the
United States he must know that any conspiracy formed in this country
to procure the restoration of the pope's temporal power in defiance of
the Constitutional Government of Italy and against the expressed will
of the Italian people, would violate our neutrality laws as well as the
law of nations, be offensive and insulting to the kingdom of Italy,
a disregard of our treaty of amity with that power, and a flagrant
cause of war. He does not seem moved, or willing to have the papal car
arrested in its course, by any of these considerations, manifestly
considering them as mere trifles when weighed in the scale against
the triumph of the papacy over popular government. Ignorance of our
institutions may excuse Leo XIII; but a citizen of the United States,
whether native or naturalized, should understand better the duties and
obligations of citizenship.

When the "Holy Alliance"--as explained in a former chapter--conspired
to prevent the establishment of popular government upon the American
Continent and in Europe, and to secure the universal triumph of
monarchism, the President of the United States announced that if
these efforts were extended to the Spanish American States, they
would be forcibly resisted by the military power of the nation. It
has hitherto been supposed that this met the full approval of our
people, and that this approval has neither been withdrawn nor modified.
Yet, in the very face of this, we now find ourselves confronted by
the proposition--boldly and authoritatively made--that a portion of
our citizens shall organize themselves into a party, under religious
sanction, for the sole purpose of forcing an absolute temporal monarch
upon the Italian people against their consent, thereby upturning the
Constitutional Government they have established, and placing the United
States on the side of the "Holy Alliance," and in direct opposition
to the popular right of self-government! To say the least, this
proposition insults the national honor; and, accompanied as it is by
the assertion that it involves religious duty, and that everything
contrary to it is heresy, it involves, upon our part, the obligation
to guard well all the approaches to our popular liberty. It puts the
spirit of toleration to a hard trial when our "freedom of conscience"
is made the shelter for papal or other intrigues against itself; and
when it is availed of as the means of entangling us in alliance with
the papal temporal power, which, during the thousand years of its
existence--with exceptions too few to change the general rule--has
maintained the absolutism of monarchy as a religious necessity, and
has never ceased its demand for universal spiritual sovereignty and
dominion. Is it to be forgotten that we are living in the nineteenth
century, in the foremost rank among the advancing nations, and that
there are obligations imposed upon us by that fact we have no right to
disregard or disobey?

An incident is related by his biographer wherein Leo XIII indicated the
imperiousness of the papacy and his own ideas of individual freedom, as
well as that of the press. It exhibits him in the attitude of denying
the right of individuals either to entertain or express opinions of
their own concerning the papacy, its rights, duties, or prerogatives.
He alone, among all mankind, is divinely endowed with this authority;
and when his opinions are made known, "every knee shall bow" in humble
acquiescence and submission. This is the kind of faith which prevailed
in the Middle Ages, and to which we are invited by Leo XIII to return,
in order to be rescued from the yawning gulf into which the modern
nations are hastening as punishment divinely inflicted upon them for
having impiously dared to separate the State from the Church! At the
height of papal imperialism it was expressed by the saying: "When Rome
has spoken, let all the world be silent."

When a little more than a year of the pontificate of Leo XIII had
passed, "a Congress of Catholic writers and journalists" assembled in
Rome. They are represented to have come "from all countries," with the
desire "to take advice from the Holy Father on the line of conduct to
be followed by the Catholic press in treating of politico-religious
questions," including, of course, the restoration of the pope's
temporal power. Whilst, of course, other matters might have been
included in the conference, that to which it had most direct reference
was the course which the public press should pursue with regard to this
great question, which absorbed all others; that is, whether the kingdom
of Italy should be accepted as an accomplished fact, and the loss of
the temporal power acquiesced in, or the power of the press should
be employed to agitate the question of restoration, and to demand it
as a right divinely established. Those present were not all united
in opinion. Some "insisted on coming to terms with the revolution;"
that is, upon not involving themselves in traitorous plottings against
the Government of Italy. What was said by these we are not informed,
but whatsoever it was, the pope must have been highly incensed, for
it is related that he gave them "a severe rebuke;" in other words,
that he indignantly disapproved of their suggestion. This was done by
telling them they had no right to entertain individual opinions at all
upon such a subject, but were bound to obey and execute his commands,
without the least inquiry whether they approved or disapproved them in
their own consciences; that is, that they were not allowed to think
for themselves, but were bound to implicit and submissive obedience to
him. He expressly told them they "must not presume to decide in their
own name and by their own light public controversies of the highest
importance bearing on the circumstances of the Apostolic See, nor seem
to have opinions in opposition to what is required by the dignity
and liberty of the Roman pontiff." The reason he assigned was the
entire and absolute sovereignty which the temporal power, added to the
spiritual, gives the pope over all Governments, peoples, and opinions,
because "there is no power on earth which can pretend to be superior
or equal to it in the legitimacy of the right and title from which it
sprang."[200]

This was a "rebuke" indeed! These writers for the press must have been
seized with consternation at finding themselves in the presence of such
a sovereign--so august and irresponsible. They, doubtless, supposed
that duty to their own consciences and to the public enjoined upon
them the obligation to deal fairly and frankly with their patrons, by
laying before them such opinions as they honestly entertained, and such
reasons in support of them as really existed in their own minds. These
are the legitimate fruits of the liberty of the press, as is shown by
the fact that in countries where this liberty is maintained, there is
no class of people more independent than public journalists, or whose
views, on that account, are more appreciated and influential. It is
not stated that those who assembled in Rome, "from all countries," to
seek advice from Leo XIII were of a different class. We are told only
that to their inquiries he returned "a severe rebuke," and commanded
them not to "presume to decide in their own right and by their own
light" anything concerning the papacy, but to employ their journals in
communicating to their readers the opinions expressed by himself in
such manner as not "to seem to have opinions" of their own!

Here we are furnished by the present pope himself a practical example
of what papal sovereignty and dominion mean; that is, the preservation
to himself of the right of doing and saying whatsoever seems proper
in his own eyes, and the denial of it to all others. Does anybody
need to be told whether this is tolerance or intolerance; whether it
means intellectual liberty or bondage, a free or a muzzled press?
This absolute censorship over the press was intended to be universal;
not only because, in his opinion, what he does and says must be so
by virtue of the universality of his spiritual power, but because
he was addressing public journalists "from all countries," who were
expected to take home with them, and obey, his pontifical commands.
Unquestionably he intended to avow a general principle, alike
applicable everywhere and to all--whether in Europe or America--so
that wheresoever a pen of the faithful shall be employed in conveying
intelligence to the public, "bearing on the circumstances" and
condition of the papacy, there is but one possible legitimate use
to which it can be applied; that is, to announce what the pope does
as infallibly right, and what he says as infallibly true--censuring
and condemning all else. He who uses it must not "presume to decide"
anything or any question for himself, or appeal to his own conscience
to ascertain its convictions, or "seem to have opinions" of his own;
but must consider himself as surrounded by Egyptian darkness, until a
ray of light shall break upon him from Rome. Until then he must remain
deaf to any appeal for information, and "like a lamb, dumb before his
shearer." This would undoubtedly give to the pope the liberty for which
he is striving, but it would enslave all others brought within the
circle of his spiritual jurisdiction.

That which can not escape observation in these opinions of the pope,
is the extent to which he carries the doctrine of papal infallibility.
In common acceptation among the bulk of Christians who accept the
teachings of the Church at Rome, that doctrine is regarded as applying
only to matters concerning religious faith, and not to matters of
fact. These differ from the Jesuits, who insist that it includes both
faith and fact; that is, everything spiritual in its nature, and such
temporals also as pertain to the spiritual. Leo XIII takes the Jesuit
ground, for facts would be necessarily mingled with faith in the
politico-religious matters submitted to him by the Congress of editors
and writers. When, therefore, he commands that all he shall do and say
concerning the restoration of the temporal power and the interests of
the papacy, shall be accepted as infallibly right and true, not to be
called in question by any, he conclusively shows the effect of his
early Jesuit education and training. And since he expects all Roman
Catholics to accept this doctrine as a necessary part of their faith,
it is specially important for the people of the United States to
understand the extent to which he expects it to be carried wheresoever
his spiritual authority shall reach. We are plainly and expressly
told that it includes "politico-religious questions," and this is
affirmed by him in the incident related by his biographer. The Jesuits
themselves could say no more, and are careful not to say less in their
definition of papal infallibility, for fear that some inquisitive minds
might discover loopholes in the doctrine through which individual
opinions might escape, and thus give approval to liberty of thought, of
speech, and of the press, and to the forms of popular government which
they underlie.

The pope does not intend to be misunderstood, and therefore takes
pains not to leave the least doubt with regard to his opinions upon
the great question of the right of a people to establish and maintain
a government separated from and independent of the Church--as was done
by the people of the United States when they formed their Government,
founded upon their own will. He well knows that all governments of this
character have been the result and are the fruits of the Reformation,
and therefore, when he found it necessary for him to address a letter
to the Archbishop of Cologne, touching affairs in Germany, he denounced
them as "socialistic," or, in other words, as threatening to the
peace and happiness of society. That he might not be misapprehended
with regard to the character and forms of government he intended to
condemn as of this character, he assigned "the sixteenth century"
as the period when the seeds out of which they grew were sown, well
knowing, as all intelligent people do, that the right of the people
to govern themselves by laws reflective of their will then began to
take root. That period is specially odious to him on account of the
results foreshadowed by it, and because he sees in it the germs of
those measures of public policy which have acquired such growth and
strength as to undermine the pope's temporal power--without which the
world seems to him to be given over to the dominion of evil. Intending
therefore to show--what is manifestly a fixed purpose in his mind--what
he regards as the source of the ills which threaten to overwhelm modern
society with ruin, he availed himself of the occasion of his episcopal
letter to the Archbishop of Cologne to say: "Hence, an impious thing
never dreamed of even by the old pagans, States were formed without
any regard to God or to the order by him established. It was given as
a dictate of truth that public authority derives from God neither its
origin, nor its majesty, nor its power to command--all that coming,
on the contrary, from the multitude; and that the _people_, deeming
themselves free from all divine sanctions, _consented only to be ruled
by such laws as they chose to enact_." And following these opinions
to their logical consequences, he pictures the condition into which
society has been thrown by such institutions as the people have created
for themselves by separating Church and State--as in the United States.
He thus draws the sad and deplorable picture: "By spreading such
doctrines far and wide, such an unbridled licentiousness of thought
and action was begotten everywhere, that it is no wonder if men of
the lower classes, disgusted with their poverty-stricken homes and
their dismal workshops, are filled with an inordinate desire to rush
upon the homes and the fortunes of the wealthy; no wonder is it that
tranquillity is banished from all public and private life, and that the
human race seems hurried onward to ruin."[201]

In contemplating the picture of modern prosperity and progress--that
which is to be found mainly, if not only, where monarchs have been
dispensed with or their hands tied by constitutional checks and
guards--he imagines nothing discernible but "unbridled licentiousness
of thought and action"--nothing but desolation, decay, ruin, death!
In this way he accounts for his anxiety to regain the temporal power
which the Italian people took away from Pius IX, so that by obtaining
perfect liberty for himself as both a spiritual and a temporal monarch,
he may disperse his ecclesiastical forces throughout the world, and so
reform it as to get rid entirely of that "impious thing" called popular
government, and teach the people that by assuming to make their own
laws they have reached the borders of a gulf from which the papal arm
alone can rescue them. Are these utterances of Leo XIII to be accepted
as infallibly true, as he required those to be which he made to the
public journalists who went all the way to Rome to ask his advice? In
both cases the questions involved are politico-religious, and as he
commanded the latter to have no opinions of their own--nor seem to have
any--even Jesuit ingenuity and sophistry can discover no distinction
between them. In the one case as in the other his meaning is clear
and unmistakable--that these matters are all within his spiritual
jurisdiction, and that whatsoever he has said or may hereafter say
concerning them must be accepted as expressing the will of God. This
conclusion can not be escaped, nor does he intend that it shall be; for
instead of leaving his meaning to be discovered by reading between the
lines, it is plain, palpable, and distinct. His eloquent biographer
does not mistake him. When the same questions were discussed by him
in an encyclical, and the same arguments substantially repeated, this
eminent divine rapturously affirms that his utterances "were like the
second promulgation of the law on which rest the foundations of the
moral world."[202]

It thus appears, plainly and palpably, that the modern nations are
confronted by the fact that the pope has denounced the making of laws
by the people--that is, self-government--as an "impious thing," which
inevitably leads to "unbridled licentiousness of thought and action,"
and is hurrying the human race "onward to its ruin,"[203] and that,
with his own sanction and pontifical approval, the faithful are
instructed to liken his commands upon this and other kindred subjects
to the promulgation of the law to Moses in the mount! What more
important and interesting question could be submitted to the modern
progressive nations, and especially to the United States, than this?
It is an arraignment of the chief fundamental principle of our civil
institutions--a proposition to remove the corner-stone upon which our
national edifice is resting. Our fathers separated Church and State
deliberately and wisely, and more than a century of experience has
assured to us a degree of prosperity unsurpassed anywhere in the world.
Yet the pope--considering this the triumph of evil, of the State over
the Church, and of Belial over Christ--invites us to come within the
circle of his spiritual jurisdiction, so that every law of the people
conflicting with the Canon law of the Roman Church shall be blotted
from our statute-books, and our limbs bound with chains forged in
papal workshops. If he could achieve this result, he would still admit
our right to manage such of our affairs as did not conflict with the
interests and policy of the Church over which he presides; but such
as did, he would assert the spiritual and divine power to regulate
himself. He would be content that we should carry on our industrial
pursuits, sow and harvest our grain, build our houses and barns,
construct our roads, and pursue our ordinary occupations in peace. But
he would add tithes to our taxes, deny the right of civil marriage, put
a stop to the erection of Protestant churches, plant his pontifical
foot upon every form of dissenting worship, and demand in the name
of religion that he should be recognized as both a spiritual and
temporal monarch over every foot of soil set apart for the uses of the
Roman Church, and over every devotee of that Church, in so far as its
interests and necessities should require. And to make it sure that all
these things should become lasting and perpetual, he would close all
our school-houses, and turn all our teachers adrift, so that the minds
of the pupils should be molded by Jesuit influence--as his own was--in
order that the _blessed_ period of the Middle Ages should be revived,
and all memory of the Reformation be blotted out forever.

The pope's biographer, in order to show his readiness for the part
he has to play in this revolution in our affairs, takes occasion
to disavow and repudiate, in explicit terms, the doctrine of the
natural equality of mankind as set forth in our Declaration of
Independence--seeming to suppose that when the proper time shall arrive
some modern pope may be found who will declare that immortal instrument
null and void, as Innocent III did the Magna Charta of England. He
makes his disavowal in these words: "The _inequality_ which exists
among men living in society arises from nature and its Author, just as
from Him comes in the magistrate the right to rule, and in the subject
the duty to obey."[204]

It is not to be supposed that this sounds well in any American ears.
The author takes advantage of the general sentiment that all things
have their source in God as their author, and assumes from this that
because men are differently endowed by nature, intellectually and
physically, they are therefore, by the laws of nature, politically
divided into a superior and inferior class--the former to rule, and the
latter to obey. This is the papal theory of society and government;
but, from the standpoint of modern advancement, it will readily be
seen that it contains two capital errors: it mistakes social for
political inequality, and perpetuates the power to rule in one class,
and the obligation to obey in the other, leaving the latter no chance
of changing its condition of inferiority and submissiveness. It fails
to observe that what men do in social intercourse is one thing, and
concerns themselves and immediate associates only; whereas, what they
shall do in civil and political intercourse is another thing, and
concerns the community of which they are members. It does not follow,
because they do not in their intercourse with each other enjoy social
equality, that they should not share alike in political equality, in
order thereby to promote the welfare of all. The contrary is far
more reasonable and just--that civil and political equality shall
prevail, in order that the whole of society may be brought, as nearly
as possible, to the common ground of social equality; that is, that
the opportunities for equality should be open to all. This is the
progressive theory of government. But the papal and retrogressive
theory, as set forth by Leo XIII and his biographer, is opposed
to this, for the reason alleged by the latter that God and nature
established "_inequality_," in order that the right of the superior
class to govern, and the obligation of the inferior class to obey,
shall remain perpetual. This fallacy was successfully maintained during
the Middle Ages, and so long as Church and State remained united,
because monarchism possessed sufficient power to enable the ruling
class to hold the multitude in inferiority. But as the example of
Christ, during his humanity, demonstrated that men could lead pious
and Christian lives without regard to the character of the governments
which ruled over them; that, in fact, civil governments can have no
rightful authority over internal religious convictions--the influence
of that example opened, through the Reformation, the way to such
enlightenment as pointed out the necessity for return to primitive
Christianity, in order to fit communities, organized as States, for
equality of rights under governments of their own in so far as all
things pertaining to their general welfare were concerned. This
equality is not confined to aggregated communities alone, but extends
to the individuals composing them in all matters not relating to the
good of the whole. Among these, made prominently conspicuous under
the civil institutions of the United States, is the natural right of
each individual to worship God as his own conscience shall dictate,
without interference from any quarter, so that by enlightenment he may
realize the full sense of his own personality, and thereby increase his
ability to add to the common stock of prosperity. Experience has shown
that this could be accomplished in no other way than by disuniting
Church and State; and therefore we, in this country, are well assured
that the framers of our Government acted wisely in doing this, by
assigning to the former the spiritual, and to the latter the temporal
sphere, as was the case during the lives of Christ and the apostles.
In furtherance of this end it became necessary that our Declaration
of Independence should establish the proposition, as a fundamental
principle, that all men are entitled, by the law of nature, to perfect
equality of rights, and while our sense of security may lead us to
bear with some degree of patience the papal censure of this principle,
they are mistaken who argue therefrom that we can be persuaded, upon
any conditions, to exchange that principle for one involving civil and
political inequality, which the papacy recommends to us as alone in
conformity to the divine law as the pope interprets it.

When the pope tells us that "unbridled licentiousness of thought and
action" results from governments by the people, and that thereby
"tranquillity is banished from all public and private life," and "the
human race seems hurried on to ruin," he manifestly allows his zeal to
outstrip his discretion. This arises out of his position, as well as
the desire to regain the temporal power lost by his predecessor. He
overlooks the fact that the most prosperous among existing nations are
those where Church and State have been separated, and clings to the
idea that he can not be reconciled to this prosperity without violating
the divine command. One reason he assigns for this belief is that the
"licentiousness of thought and action" which he considers the outgrowth
of civil institutions responsive to the will of the people--where
Church and State are separated--has excited the "lower classes" by
the "inordinate desire to rush upon the homes and the fortunes of the
wealthy." He certainly did not desire to be understood as intending
to incite these "lower classes" into anarchy; but careful reflection
would have enabled him to see that by announcing to them that those who
have separated Church and State, and constructed popular governments,
have sinned by breaking the divine law, he furnished to these "lower
classes" who are obedient to his teaching, an argument by which many
of them would readily justify themselves for rushing "upon the homes
and fortunes of the wealthy." If disobedience to the papal decrees is
heresy, as multitudes of popes and ecclesiastics have declared; if
heresy may be lawfully suppressed by the extermination of heretics,
as Innocent III instructed the faithful, and the Council of Constance
decreed; if dissension from the faith of the Roman Church has the curse
of God resting upon it, as Leo XIII has himself affirmed, there are
those of these "lower classes" ready to become the avengers of the
divine wrath by rushing "upon the homes and fortunes of the wealthy,"
under the pretext that they are wrongfully deprived of their rightful
share of property, which God designed for the common uses of mankind.
It is said that there are bandits not far from Rome who follow the
capture of their victims by crossing themselves before the image of
Mary; and while Leo XIII has no sympathy with these, and would readily
aid in punishing them as outlaws, yet he can not fail to realize, in
his calmer moments, that when he expresses "no wonder" at their acts
of outlawry, because they are perpetrated upon those who are guilty of
"unbridled licentiousness" and the sin of heresy, he suggests to them a
pretext of which they are not slow to avail themselves. Manifestly he
has suffered himself--like many other good and Christian men--to go too
far.

The danger lies in the excess into which the pope and others who are
intent upon the restoration of his temporal power, are betrayed by
the peculiar conditions surrounding them. There can be no denial of
the fact that this is a politico-religious question, and there is no
attempt to deny it. Politically it involves the conversion of the pope
into a king over the Italian people, not only without their consent,
but against their protest. There can be no question more important to
any people than this; for it directly involves their right to be free,
independent, and self-governing. But it is made to assume a religious
aspect by reason of the fact that the pope and his followers assume it
to be a necessary part of the divine plan that the head of the Church
shall be--whether the people of Italy consent or not--an absolute
temporal monarch in Rome. This they make an essential part of religious
belief, and everything contrary to it heretical. Consequently,
whatsoever institutions recognize the right of the people to make their
own laws and select their own agents to administer them, are placed
under the ban of the papacy. This brings the papacy in conflict with
all the modern nations which have separated the State from the Church;
and as the pope can not maintain the papal theory without arraigning
them as violators of the divine law, he can not avoid excesses without
seeming to abandon, in some degree, his claim to temporal power. This
politico-religion directly assails one of the fundamental principles of
our Government, and the effort to induce any part of our population to
accept it as religious faith, necessarily antagonizes the Government
itself; for, although the question primarily and practically concerns
the Italian people alone, the growth of this sentiment in this country
could have no other tendency than to threaten our popular institutions
and the right of self-government with ultimate overthrow. In the very
face of this, the biographer of Leo XIII, and undoubtedly reflecting
his sentiments, ventures to refer to the present Constitutional
Government of Italy, in these words: "The occupation of Rome is an
_international_ wrong, which _all Catholics are bound to denounce and
oppose until it is done away with_."[205]

This language is express, direct, emphatic. There is not the least
obscurity about its meaning; and having the approval of the pope
and of his American cardinal, together with his official blessing,
it is undoubtedly intended to instruct every Roman Catholic in the
United States that he shall treat the loss of the temporal power as
an international question; and that the whole body of the faithful
shall organize themselves into a politico-religious party, to bring
the Government to interfere for its restoration; and not to cease the
agitation, no matter what consequences shall follow, until this shall
be accomplished. This is a serious matter--too serious to be passed
by idly or inconsiderately. The restoration of the pope's temporal
power is exclusively a foreign question, because it involves alone the
question how a foreign people shall govern their own domestic affairs;
whether, in other words, they shall govern themselves or have a king
forced upon them, with absolute imperial power in his hands, to govern
them at his own will and without their consent, as their ancestors
were governed during the Middle Ages, and themselves also, until,
imitating the example set them by the people of the United States, they
grasped the scepter of government in their own hands by a patriotic and
successful revolution. The Government of the United States has neither
the right nor the power to interfere, any more than it has the right
and power to dictate the successor to the throne of England upon the
death of Queen Victoria, or who shall be the pope of Rome when Leo XIII
shall die. Besides, by the separation of Church and State, this country
can not have, by legal sanction, any politico-religious questions to
agitate and disturb the nation, and put its peace in peril. This had
been sufficiently done throughout the world before our institutions
were formed, and to guard against its repetition here, our fathers
properly and wisely excluded all such matters from the domain of
American politics. The attempt to introduce them now can have but one
meaning--the desire to unsettle the work so wisely done and thus far so
patriotically maintained.

We must not permit the pope or his apologists to mislead us by the
pretense that they do not propose to interfere with purely political
questions, as they understand them. If deceived themselves upon
this point, we should be careful not to be deceived by them; for it
requires but little intelligence to foresee the evil consequences
that would inevitably follow the introduction of politico-religious
questions among us, especially such as tend to involve us in dangerous
controversy with a foreign and friendly power. It would, beyond any
reasonable doubt, lead to the formation of a politico-religious
party, and incite tremendous and threatening commotion. The people
would then be required to re-decide questions long since settled,
as they supposed, finally. Such a controversy could have but one
end, which might, however, have to be reached through turmoil and
strife, if not tribulation; for the people would not be likely to
decide themselves incompetent for self-government, or to acquiesce
in the pope's jurisdiction over the fundamental principles of their
Government, or to see their own authority so narrowed as to embrace
only the administration of local and inferior affairs. If this battle
is to be now fought, it has not been invited by the people of the
United States. They are satisfied with the fundamental principles
of their institutions as they are, and those will find themselves
mistaken who shall endeavor to make their tolerance the fulcrum upon
which the papal lever may rest, in order that they may be carried back
to those "blessed ages" when unquestioning obedience to the pope,
upon whatsoever subject he chose to embrace within his spiritual
jurisdiction, was considered the highest duty of citizenship and the
only road to heaven.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 199: Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Pages 365-366.]

[Footnote 200: Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 368.]

[Footnote 201: Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Pages 371 to 374.]

[Footnote 202: Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 377.]

[Footnote 203: The preface to the Life of Leo XIII is dated at Rome,
where the work was submitted to him. His cardinal vicar, in a letter to
the publishers, says it had "the encouragement, the approbation, and
the blessing of his holiness," and was prepared "from authentic and
authorized documents, with the concurrence and the direction of persons
high-placed near the sovereign pontiff." It has also the special
approval of Cardinal Gibbons. See introductory letters.]

[Footnote 204: Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 378.]

[Footnote 205: O'Reilly, p. 471.]




CHAPTER XX.

THE CHURCH AND THE STATE.


No injustice should be done to Leo XIII. If his position as the
official head of a great Church were not sufficient to shield him
against unfairness, his eminent Christian virtues should do so. Before
his election to the pontificate he had acquired the reputation of being
conspicuously great. He was, undoubtedly, the ablest defender of the
prerogative rights of the papacy among the entire body of cardinals;
and this distinction was well deserved. His arguments were then
addressed mainly to ecclesiastics, and were designed to encourage them
in their efforts to extinguish the revolutionary spirit which pervaded
the Roman Catholic populations of Europe.

Now that he has become pope, the circle of his influence is enlarged so
that it reaches the whole body of the Church of Rome through the medium
of his hierarchy and priesthood; of whom it may rightfully be said,
without intending offense, that they have no other spiritual work to
do but what he assigns to them. That they may be fitted for this they
have been deprived of all share in the responsibilities which pertain
to the conduct of human affairs--all participation in the active
operations of society and all those domestic associations which excite
generous and kindly emotions and give to life its greatest charm. They
are, consequently, molded by him into a compact organization, held in
cohesion by the power of a common purpose, with the special design of
assailing, in every part of the world, whatsoever he shall decide to
be under the ban of his pontifical displeasure. With such a force at
his command--unitedly resisting what he shall direct them to resist,
and defending what he shall direct them to defend--he constitutes
such a power in the presence of the nations as exists nowhere else.
Reaching, therefore, vaster multitudes of people, and possessing more
potential influence than any other man in the world, nothing should
be permitted to impair our obligation to become acquainted with his
present pontifical opinions and purposes, as well as with the habits of
thought which prepared him for his present eminent position. It can not
be rightfully complained that his pontifical opinions are interpreted
in the light of those previously entertained and expressed by him--more
especially since his biographer has made such liberal use of them to
prove his fitness to become the potential head of the Christian world.

While cardinal, he availed himself of frequent opportunities to
denounce the Italian Revolution as sinful, and supported all the
measures designed to suppress it. He aided Pius IX by his advice
and counsel, and defended the entire series of his pontifical
measures--condemning as heresy every professed form of Christianity
that did not recognize the obligation of obedience to the pope as a
divinely-appointed temporal sovereign. He regarded all other Churches
besides the Roman as impiously pretentious--having no legitimate
right to exist--and consequently as under the Divine displeasure. As
he considered unity of Christian faith essential to the unity of the
Church, and the temporal dominion of the pope as absolutely necessary
to both, he employed much of his time as cardinal in supplying the
clergy of Perugia with arguments against the revolution, and in
pointing out both its spiritual and temporal consequences. As part of
his pastoral work he insisted that the destruction of the temporal
power of the pope would necessarily and inevitably lead to infidelity
and atheism, because it would open the door to the toleration of other
religions besides the Roman. This, in his opinion, would inaugurate the
reign of "irreligion and libertinism," for the reason that there was
no middle state between obedience to the pope as an absolute temporal
monarch, with complete authority over the faith and consciences of his
subjects, and the ruin of society. He divided society into two classes:
one faithful to Christ, and therefore obedient to the pope; and the
other representing Belial--that is, Satan--because of the refusal of
that obedience. Upon all these points his meaning was plainly expressed
in eloquent and faultless style.

Although differing from Pius IX with regard to the duration of the
temporal power--fixing it at "eleven centuries," and not as obtained
at the fall of the Roman Empire, several hundred years previously--he,
nevertheless, considers it a "divine institution," conferring upon
the pope the "supreme and governing power in spirituals." Before
explaining, however, what he intends by "spirituals," he insists
that whatsoever they are, they can not become subject to any human
interference or limitation in any part of the world, but must be
everywhere complete and plenary. Upon this point his biographer assumes
to assist him, by interjecting between his sentences, as a key to his
meaning, the idea that the temporal power is "incarnate in a manner in
the Roman pontiff;" that is, that in some strangely mysterious way, it
so permeates the pope as to be made providentially inseparable from his
personal as well as official existence! But, seeming not to realize the
ridiculousness of his bold hyperbole, he omits to explain why this same
power was not incarnate in the popes before they placed crowns upon
their own heads at the fall of the Roman Empire. Perhaps he imagined
that the incarnate principle was in its germ during the first ages
of the Church, and that the process of its development into absolute
imperialism was not complete until the peaceful alliance between
the Eastern and the Western Christians was sundered by the invading
armies of Pepin and Charlemagne, when these sovereigns imparted a
portion of their royal prerogatives to the popes and protected them
by military force. Whatsoever meaning may have been intended, it is
manifestly designed to convey and enforce the sentiment as part of
the doctrinal faith of the Church, that because the temporal power
"maintains in their unity and integrity the Church and religion,"
therefore it is divine, and confers superhuman authority upon the pope
over the sentiments, opinions, and conduct of mankind. "Besides," said
Leo XIII, while yet Cardinal Pecci, "can it be intelligible that the
living interpreter of the divine law and will should be placed under
the jurisdiction of the civil authority, which itself derives its own
strength and authority from the same will and law?" To this question
he attempts no specific answer, but his meaning was well understood
by those to whom it was addressed; that is, by the ecclesiastics
whose minds had been molded by the same training as his own. It is
this: That as the authority of the pope and that of the State are
both derived from the same divine law, and as the pope alone is the
"living interpreter" of that law, therefore the State must accept
and obey what he shall declare as "the voice of God." Continuing,
however, he embraces this same meaning in equally expressive terms.
Happiness in this life he considers the only means of procuring
higher happiness hereafter, and therefore the pope as "high priest"
has "received from Christ the mission of guiding humanity toward the
everlasting felicity;" that is, there is no other true religion than
that announced and maintained by the pope; that all other forms are
false and heretical; and that those who do not profess it will, in the
great and unknown future, be cast into utter darkness, to weep and wail
and gnash their teeth forever. And then, basing his conclusion upon
this hypothesis, he breaks out in this ejaculation: "See, then, what
upsetting of ideas it would be to make the high priest of the Catholic
Church, the Roman pontiff, the subject of any earthly power;" as if God
had so endowed all the popes--even Alexander VI (!)--with the faculty
of inerrancy, that they alone, of all the ages, have had the mysteries
of nature and revelation revealed to them! He never permits this idea
of universal papal sovereignty to escape him without so expressing
its meaning as to show that wheresoever or into whatsoever country
he shall assert it, it can not become subject to any other law than
that which the pope himself shall prescribe. It requires but little
scrutiny to see that what he intends is, that when the pope sends
his ecclesiastical representatives into any part of the world, his
instructions must be to them a code of laws which they must obey at
every hazard, although it may become necessary to violate whatsoever
conflicting laws the civil authorities may enact. If the people of
the United States were to submit to this, from the moment they should
do so they would cease to exist as an independent nation, and their
progressive prosperity would wither and die under the spiritual tyranny
of papal Rome, as other republics have hitherto withered and died
under the temporal tyranny of imperial Rome. And thus that ancient
city which, by its iniquities, became the Babylon of the apostolic
times, would again acquire the power to rebuild by unrewarded labor
the monuments upon her seven hills, and to exult at the decay of the
present progressive nations, as her great prototype did when she looked
out upon the miserable but obedient populations who swarmed throughout
the valleys of the Tiber.

Leo XIII lays down his premise with such assumed authority as not to
admit of challenge, and logically argues from it certain satisfactory
conclusions, without pausing to inquire whether the premise itself is
true or false. In this respect he imitates some logicians who seem not
to realize the difference between assumption and proof. For example, he
insists that Christ established an independent Church and a dependent
State, so that the former does not exist in the latter, but the latter
must exist in the former, in its condition of dependence. He overlooks
the fact that States existed before the Church, and that instead of
interfering with their temporal affairs Christ paid tribute to them,
and recognized the independence of each in its own proper sphere--the
one spiritual and the other temporal. The spiritual obedience he
exacted was to the divine law, in order to promote the spiritual
welfare of individuals and consequently of society; the temporal
obedience was to make secure the political rights of citizenship,
including those of person and property. He did not consider States
as capable of rewards and punishment in another life, but as mere
aggregated communities who could bring them to an end by abandoning
their territories. Therefore, he left the State to its own temporal
government, independently of the Church, and not only obeyed its laws
himself, but enjoined the obligation of the same obedience upon his
disciples and followers; that is, of rendering "unto Cæsar the things
that are Cæsar's." He gave equal independence to the Church, so that
by administering to the spiritual welfare of individuals the temporal
welfare of the State would be advanced and the common prosperity the
better secured. And thus, by also rendering "unto God the things that
are God's," the general welfare of the State would rest upon firmer
foundations.

History, during all the ages since Christ, well attests the character
of his plan. For more than five hundred years the Church and the State
acted independently of each other, neither encroaching upon the sphere
of the other, and Christianity progressed until paganism disappeared
before it. When the ambitious popes brought on a conflict that
separated the Western from the Eastern Christians, and accepted the
crown of temporal dominion from Pepin and Charlemagne in consideration
of the pontifical ratification of the former's treason to France, the
world was plunged into the darkness and stupor of the Middle Ages,
and they became enabled to employ their power of absolute monarchism
to compel obedience from the State to the Church and the Inquisition,
to produce unity of religious faith. When the cloud of popular
ignorance became so dense as to be scarcely penetrable, and such popes
as Alexander VI could assert their own infallibility with impudent
impunity, and burn at the stake those who denied it, the necessity
for reform became so urgent that the period of the Reformation was
ushered in with such violence that the papacy, aided by the Jesuits,
was powerless to arrest it. And when the Reformation gave birth to
Protestantism, and enabled it to culminate, through the influence
of free religious thought, in the civil institutions of the United
States, such impetus was given to the liberalizing spirit of progress
that monarchism in both Church and State would be hastened to its
final decay, were it not that Leo XIII has thrown the great weight
of his Christian character into the scale in favor of it and against
the progressive spirit which has advanced the world to its present
condition of prosperity and happiness. Those who advise us to turn
back from this prosperity and happiness toward the Middle Ages, under
the pretense that they are produced by the triumph of irreligion and
licentiousness over Christianity, are, to say the least, counselors of
evil.

Leo XIII reasons within a narrow circle; or, rather, within a number
of circles, reaching always the same conclusion, that whatsoever is
adverse to the papacy must be opposed until it is put out of the way.
His spiritual power must be as comprehensive as he desires to make
it--including whatsoever of temporals he shall decide necessary to
its free exercise, or to the interests of the Church; and within this
circle his jurisdiction must be so full, complete, and independent,
that neither Governments nor communities nor individuals can place
any limitation upon it, or violate the rules and principles he shall
prescribe, without heresy. He is always explicit upon questions
concerning the relations between the pope and Governments--never losing
sight of the idea that he must be absolutely independent of them; so
much so that while they must obey him when he shall think proper, in
behalf of the Church and religion, to command their obedience, he
shall be under no obligation to obey any of their laws which he shall
consider in conflict with his pontifical plans or the interests of the
Church. "He must be free," he says, "to communicate without impediment
with bishops, sovereigns, subjects, in order that his word, the organ
and expression of the divine will, may have a free course all over
the earth, and be there canonically announced." Here, again, he gives
prominence to the idea that he is the only interpreter of the divine
will, coupling with it the additional one, that not only bishops, but
sovereigns and peoples everywhere, must recognize and obey it; for
obedience is necessarily implied, inasmuch as his commands would not
have "free course" without it. No Government must possess the power
to prohibit this, because he acts canonically; that is, his decrees,
being an embodiment of the divine will, become part of the Canon law,
which, having thus the stamp of divinity upon it, must be universally
recognized and obeyed, no matter what Governments may do or say to the
contrary. Practically it is the same as if he had said that the laws of
all the Governments, touching matters embraced within his pontifical
jurisdiction, must give way to the Canon law, because they are human
and it is divine.

There are many methods of illustrating the effect of this papal
doctrine which will occur to intelligent minds; but at this point one
is sufficient. In the United States we have separated Church and State,
and based our civil government upon the principle of toleration for
differences of religious faith. But by papal decrees and the Canon law
all this is declared to be heresy, and placed under the pontifical ban.
Hence, the sovereign spiritual power claimed by Leo XIII, as pope,
gives him the divine right, in the face of all our Constitutions,
National and State, to anathematize the heretical form of our
institutions, and to impose upon all who recognize obedience to him the
obligation to oppose this heresy, and to eradicate it whensoever it is
expedient to undertake it. Involved in this there is, also, the claim
of additional power to reconstruct our Government so as to unite Church
and State, and subordinate the latter to the former, by putting an end
to all religious differences, and establishing the religion of the
pope--whatever that is or may be--as the national religion.

But Cardinal Pecci--now Leo XIII--expressed himself more plainly and
emphatically upon these points, in assigning the reasons why the pope
should possess, and exercise throughout the world, this extraordinary
spiritual sovereignty. It is necessary, he said, in order that the pope
may be empowered "to keep off schism; to prevent the spread of public
heresies; to decide religious disputes; to speak freely to rulers and
peoples; to send nuncios and ambassadors; to conclude concordats; to
employ censures; to regulate, in fact, the consciences of two hundred
millions of Catholics scattered all over the earth; to preserve
inviolate dogmas and morals; to receive appeals from all parts of the
Christian world; to judge the causes thus submitted; to enforce the
execution of the sentences pronounced; to fulfill, in one word, all his
duties, and to maintain all the sacred rights of his primacy."

Having thus enumerated these extraordinary powers of the pope--such as
exist nowhere else in the world--he goes a step further by defining
the relations between the papacy and those Governments and peoples
that have taken away, or refused to recognize, the existence of these
powers. In this he refers, primarily, to the kingdom of Italy, which
had committed the offense of abolishing the temporal power of the
pope and separated Church and State; and, secondarily, to all other
Governments throughout the world where the union between Church and
State is forbidden; that is, where Governments of, and for, and by the
people have been established. "Here, then," says he, "is what they
are aiming at by taking from the pope his temporal power: they mean
to render it impossible for him to exercise his spiritual power."
This goes to the bottom of the question, and states plainly the idea
present in his mind; that is, that the spiritual power, being superior
to the temporal, necessarily includes it to the extent he shall think
proper to assert--limited only by his pontifical discretion--so that
the latter must to that extent be kept in subordination to the former,
and obey its commands. For example, the pope considers it his duty to
send an army of ecclesiastics to all parts of the world, and to exact
from them implicit obedience to himself, so that wheresoever they
shall find temporal laws forbidding them to perform their spiritual
functions as he shall define them, he and they must be endowed with
sufficient spiritual power to enable them to disobey those laws and
set them aside when it becomes expedient to do so. He assumes that
"every Catholic"--no matter where he is--accepts this as part of his
religious faith, being instructed that the pope must possess such power
over both spirituals and temporals as shall make him independent of
every Government upon earth in all such matters as he shall declare
to be within his spiritual jurisdiction. Quoting some obscure "lodge
of Carbonarism in Italy," in order to show that where the pope does
not possess the power he claims for him, irreligion, infidelity, and
immorality must, of necessity, prevail, he declares that "it is no
longer matter of policy; it is matter of conscience" to remove out of
the way all impediments to papal supremacy, and that every Christian
must stand by the pope in order to put down the enemies of religion,
who are designated by him to be those who have taken away from the pope
or deny to him any or all of the above enumerated powers.

He does not fail to make his denunciation as comprehensive and sweeping
as possible, by characterizing as "irreligion and libertinism" the
progressive advancement of modern nations, which prevails where Church
and State have been separated. He attaches this character to all
these, because, according to him, they are not faithful to Christ,
or the Church, or the pope. He denounces the revolution in Italy as
"the result of conspiracy, deception, injustice, and sacrilege,"
merely because it abolished the temporal power of the pope, without
the least impairment of any single principle of religious faith that
can be traced back to Christ, to the apostles, or to the primitive
Christians. What seemed to him to be one of its deplorable and most
odious consequences was the loss of power by the pope in consequence of
the provision which placed the clergy upon equality with other citizens
in regard to civil duties and rights, and made them responsible to the
laws of the State, precisely as they are in the United States. This is
a point upon which neither the pope nor the clergy will compromise,
otherwise than upon compulsion. With them there is no heresy more
flagrant than compelling the clergy to comply with any law requiring
them to do what the pope forbids as prejudicial to the Church. The
right of the pope to require of them disobedience to any such law,
and their right to disobey it, is what they call independence, which,
according to them, can not be impaired without violating the divine
law. They submit to this in the United States, and wheresoever Church
and State are separated, but always with the unchangeable purpose of
securing, in the end, complete triumph for the law of the Church over
that of the State. Hence, when, as the result of the revolution, the
law of Umbria placed the clergy upon an equality with other citizens,
and made them responsible to the laws of the State, as they now are
in the United States, it was denounced by the present occupant of the
papal chair as a sacrilegious violation of the divine law. Is this
requirement any less "sacrilege" in the United States than in Umbria?
The degrees of latitude and longitude do not vary the meaning of the
divine law; but the difference in conditions may account for simulated
acquiescence in the one case and open protest in the other.

He saw also, in the "diffusion of pestilential books, of erroneous
doctrines, and heterodox teachings" another cause for the pontifical
curse, inasmuch as it impaired the power of the pope to place
restrictions upon the freedom of the press, which has opened the way
to liberalism and made the crowns of kings insecure. But that which
he condemned more than all, and considered the source of innumerable
ills, was the fact that Church and State were separated, and each
confined to its own distinct and independent sphere. Referring to the
law of Umbria which required the clergy to accept this--as the clergy
in the United States are required to accept it--he said: "They are
offered, as the basis of reconciliation, to accept _the condemned and
false system of the separation of Church and State_, which, being
equivalent to divorcing the State from the Church, would force Catholic
society to free itself from all religious influence." He manifestly
intended to impress the minds of all who acknowledged obedience to
the pope, whether in Europe, the United States, or elsewhere, with
the sentiment that the only true religion in the world required, as
a matter of faith, that Church and State should be united, with the
latter subordinate to the former in whatsoever concerns faith and
morals, and that where they have been separated their union should be
restored. Having thus made this the solemn religious duty of "every
Catholic" throughout the world, he has thereby placed himself, and
is preparing them to be placed when the proper time shall arrive, in
direct hostility to the principles which prevail in all modern liberal
Governments, including that of the United States.[206]

In all this there is no disguise--nothing equivocal. Nor is there
any reason why there should have been, inasmuch as these admonitions
were addressed to a population reared and educated in the faith of
the Church at Rome, for centuries obedient to the commands of the
pope and his clergy, and in whose minds there was supposed to linger
such sentiments of reverence for the papacy as would, if vigorously
appealed to, stimulate them to demand the restoration of the temporal
power. Therefore, the foremost man among the clergy--he whose eloquence
stirred the heart and whose virtues were universally acknowledged--was
chosen as the champion of the papal cause. But for events which
have subsequently occurred--more especially his election to the
pontificate--and the tolerant spirit which pervades our institutions,
it is not probable they would ever have reached the people of the
United States. And even now, since they have done so in the pope's
biography, there are scarcely five out of every hundred thousand of our
population who will ever read them, or, if they do, will turn aside
from the multitude of their pursuits to investigate and scan them
closely enough to discover their true meaning, plainly and fairly as it
is expressed. By such investigation and discovery they would see that
Leo XIII considers the following propositions irrevocably settled as
religious dogmas: That God provided for the Italian people a form of
civil government subject to the absolute dominion of the pope, as the
only one that can be religiously tolerated; that revolution to set it
aside and establish a popular and constitutional form of government in
its place, violates the law of God, and is heresy; that self-government
by the people is an abomination which can never obtain the sanction
and approbation of the papacy; and that the people of Italy, in order
to remain faithful to the Church, should continue forever obedient
subjects of this imperial absolutism, no matter how severe its
oppressions may become, or how much they may desire to rid themselves
and their children of it. And it will be observed that the condition of
Italy, in rebellion against the temporal absolutism of the pope, serves
him to illustrate the principle which lies at the bottom of all his
reasoning; that as God governs the world in equity, and has provided
this imperial absolutism for that purpose, with the pope to preside
over all that is spiritual and whatsoever temporals shall involve
spirituals, therefore all other forms of government are founded upon
"irreligion and libertinism," especially such as make the whole body of
the people the source of civil power.

The integrity of Leo XIII is not questioned by any one. But he might
be liable to the suspicion of insincerity if he had been personally
enabled to contrast the present improved condition of the people of the
United States, which has been reached within little more than a century
of time, with that of the peoples who have for more than twelve hundred
years been compelled to submit to the authority and spiritual dominion
of the papacy. At all events, it is difficult, for minds impressed
by the influences of free popular government, to appreciate either
the force or merits of his arguments, when he attempts to make the
temporal indispensable to the spiritual power, and asserts the divine
right to maintain it when possessed, and the duty of acquiring it when
not possessed, as equally indispensable parts of religious faith.
The fact that the Italian people--otherwise devoted to the Church of
Rome--repudiated this doctrine both politically and religiously,
should have impressed his mind with its want of adaptability to the
present condition of the world, distinguished as it is either by some
form of progress or the popular desire for it among all the nations.
Yet, instead of coming to some terms with this progressive spirit
among the Italians--which needed only acquiescence in the loss of
the temporal power--he was constrained by the united pledge of the
College of Cardinals, at the time of his election, to persist in the
protesting and aggressive policy of his immediate predecessor. And as
he could not turn back without an entire abandonment of the temporal
power, he has been likewise constrained to define the extent to which
this power, if restored, must be recognized, as a matter of religious
faith, beyond Rome and the States of the Church. Without this, the
faithful would have been left to suppose that the restoration was
designed only to force an absolute temporal monarch upon the people
of Italy without their consent, and, therefore, that no religious
motive for it existed. Consequently he defined the universal faith
to be that, by the restoration of the temporal power, the pope would
become again so absolutely sovereign and independent of all Governments
that he could not "be placed under the jurisdiction of the civil
authority" anywhere in the world, so that whatsoever he shall command
in his "mission of guiding humanity," he must be obeyed, no matter
what any civil authority may provide to the contrary; that is, that
the laws of every State, in conflict with such religious dogmas as he
shall announce, must become void and inoperative in so far as they
may impede the measures directed by him. Entering upon particulars,
he does not shrink from the responsibility of declaring, as we have
seen, that the pope must have power to prevent schism and heresy, which
includes the means necessary to suppress them; that is, to put an end
to Protestantism and all that it has produced. He alone must decide
"religious disputes," and every question involving dogmas and morality,
and what he shall determine concerning all these must direct and guide
the consciences of all "the faithful" throughout the world. And he
shall have the right "to enforce the execution" of whatsoever judgment
he shall pronounce, no matter whether against Governments, communities,
or individuals. The word "enforce" is his own, evidently employed with
a full understanding of its import; for the completeness of his style
shows that it is not his habit to waste words, or to use them without
deliberation. He could not have intended a resort to force as a primary
remedy against heresy, but probably considers it justifiable when
circumstances render it necessary, as in the cases of rebellious and
obdurate heretics whose defiance of papal authority becomes flagrant.
It is desirable, however, to follow him further, in order to become
entirely familiar with the practical working of his doctrines, as
he himself applied them to the state of affairs with which he was
directly concerned, in carrying on the battle with "irreligion" and the
revolution.

When the Archbishops and Bishops of Umbria deemed it proper to protest
to the Piedmontese Government against its infringement of papal
rights, Cardinal Pecci was chosen by them as specially fitted for that
delicate and important work. As the population of Piedmont were Roman
Catholic, and there had been no attempt on the part of the Government
to interfere with what they considered the established faith of the
Church upon strictly religious points, this protest was mainly intended
to express opposition to the laws which regulated the relations of the
clergy to the State, by requiring them to obey the public statutes, as
they are required to do in the United States, and in such countries as
have disunited Church and State. Up till that time they had been an
exclusive and independent class, with privileges and prerogatives not
enjoyed by the mass of citizens--such as exemption from taxes and from
the support of the Government--and to the change in these relations
this protest was intended to apply. The laws then existing were
considered an irreligious invasion of the liberty of the clergy; that
is, of their right of exemption from all governmental obligations.
Consequently the feeling upon the subject became very intense among
the clergy, as was to be expected after so many years of license and
indulgence; and it furnished Cardinal Pecci with the opportunity of
making an admirable display of his intellectual powers and eloquence.
Without preface, he came to the question directly in these words: "It
is a grievous error against Catholic doctrine to pretend that the
Church is the subject of any earthly power, and bound by the same
economy and relations which regulate civil society. The Church is not
a human institution, nor is it a portion of the political edifice,
although it is destined to promote the welfare of the men among whom
it lives. It affirms that from God came directly its own being, its
constitution, and the necessary faculties for attaining its own
sublime destiny, which is one different (from that of the State), and
altogether of a supernatural order. Divinely ordered, with a hierarchy
of its own, it is by its nature _independent of the State_."

He makes the whole superstructure of his argument rest upon the
foundation that as the constitution and all the faculties of the Church
came from God, therefore it must of necessity have a "hierarchy of its
own," and entirely "independent of the State;" that is, the clergy
must be bound to obey the pope, and released from all obligation to
obey the laws of the State, unless they also shall be approved by the
pope. To require from them this obedience to State laws, "invades,"
according to this protest, "the sacred province of the priesthood,"
as well, also, as "the rights and liberties of the Church," because
it tempts them "away from the due subjection to their superiors," who
are governed only by the pope and the Canon law. And, in order to
show that the Church can not tolerate liberalism in the form of the
freedom of religious belief or of the press, this protest deplores
the "licentiousness of the theater and the press, and the continual
snares laid to surprise pious souls, to undermine faith by circulating
infamous pamphlets and heterodox writings, and by the declamations of
fanatical preachers of impiety;"[207] in other words, by Protestantism
and Protestants.

Cardinal Pecci dealt more directly with the "irreligion and
libertinism" of the present age in a Lenten pastoral "on the current
errors against religion and Christian life." He here expressed himself
with severe intolerance against those who proclaim that "_man is free
in his own conscience; he can embrace any religion he likes_;" that is,
he condemned the freedom of religious belief. He could not have done
otherwise without causing his fidelity to the papacy to be suspected.
Consequently, he made his meaning perfectly clear, so that none of
the faithful could mistake it, and doubtless because the freedom of
conscience is necessary to popular government, which, in serving the
pope, he was obliged to condemn. Nevertheless, he was driven to the
necessity of admitting that man is created "free and gifted with
reason," but sought to break the force of the admission by insisting
that this natural freedom must be subject to restraint, because God
has imposed obligations upon him and dictated laws for him which he
is bound to obey. He, however, gives no latitude to the individual
and makes no allowance for his private conscience, but considers him
incompetent to decide for himself within the scope of religious laws,
and as fit only for obedience to authority; that is, the Church at
Rome, and the pope who may, for the time being, preside over it. In
setting forth the manner in which God has made known his laws for
the direction and government of individual consciences, and how he
requires them to be obeyed, he insists that they are only such as the
Roman Church has announced, and that the natural right of the human
reason to its freedom must be restrained into obedience to them, so
that the only liberty of thought or conscience to be allowed must be
that which centers in this obedience. To him any other freedom than
this violates the divine law, and is heresy. But he plainly involves
himself in the absurdity of supposing that to be freedom which is the
very reverse of it; for there can be no proposition more palpably
true than that a man has no freedom of thought or conscience when
constrained, by a force he is powerless to resist, to exchange his own
opinions for those of others. It may well be doubted whether opinions
formed under the dictation of authority are in fact such. Fear of
consequences may induce acquiescence in them, or even their avowal;
but as the laws which govern the mind and conscience have no agency
in their production, they are simple utterances of the lips which are
not responded to by the heart. This must be the case with enlightened
minds, except where pre-existing opinions are changed by the force
of argument and new enlightenment. The papacy understood this, and
therefore kept in ignorance the populations within the circle of its
influence and jurisdiction; and Cardinal Pecci, instructed as his mind
was upon general topics, was unable to conceive any other methods
of human thought than those instilled into his mind by his Jesuit
education, and which his official position made it necessary for him to
maintain.

Controlled entirely by the idea of unresisting and uninquiring
obedience to authority, without any regard for the dictates of
individual conscience or the suggestions of reason, he announced the
logical result of his own and the papal teachings in these words: "Nor
is it left to the free will of man to refuse it, or to fashion for
himself a form of worship and service such as he pleases to render."
It does not require a man of learning to understand this; it is plain
and palpable to any ordinary mind. He could have chosen no words more
expressly condemnatory of the freedom of conscience; nor could he have
more formally arraigned the people of the United States for having
asserted the right of every man to worship God as his own conscience
dictates, and having made that fundamental in their institutions and
necessary to their existence. According to him this is heresy, because
it draws the people away from obedience to the pope; and no man has
the right to refuse this obedience, or "to fashion for himself a form
of worship or service" which the pope shall condemn! He is immeasurably
shocked at the idea that men should be permitted to entertain and
express different religious opinions, and to reject the teachings of
the pope, to whom alone implicit obedience is due! He had too much
character at stake to disguise anything upon this point--leaving that
to others in free countries, where the pretense of toleration may be
maintained with the hope that it may ultimately pave the way to papal
intolerance. Continuing, therefore, the same undisguised denunciation
of the freedom of conscience, he says: "It would be not only impious,
but monstrous, to maintain every form of worship is acceptable and
indifferent, that the human conscience is free to adopt whichever form
it pleases, and to fashion out a religion to suit itself." It is not
necessary to comment here upon this bold and defiant assault upon our
civil institutions. But it is well to remark that it ought to tinge the
cheeks of those in this country who, in one breath, profess obedience
to the pope who uttered the language here quoted, and in the next talk
glibly about their advocacy of the freedom of conscience, which he has
condemned as "impious" and "monstrous"--as an unpardonable offense
against God!

He then proceeds to speak of the relation of the State to the education
of the young, by saying that it is "not called upon to discharge this
great parental duty, but to keep the natural educators in their work,"
by permitting it to "be carried on under the direction of the Church,
the depository and teacher of religious doctrines." This is as if he
had said that the State shall be forbidden to participate in the work
of education even to the extent of teaching patriotism to its youth,
for the reason that such State education has the tendency to substitute
love of country for fidelity to the pope; and for the further reason
that all education that can be tolerated should "be carried on under
the direction of the Church" and confined exclusively to "religious
doctrines." He expresses the same idea more fully by insisting that
all other kinds of education are "devoid of all the external practices
and duties of the Christian faith, and calculated to familiarize young
people with 'freedom of conscience' and indifferentism;" that is, to
encourage them in the belief that popular freedom is worth striving
after, and that people are more prosperous and happy when governed by
laws of their own making than by those dictated by the ambition of
those who claim that they alone are divinely chosen to govern mankind.
He sees nothing in such religious liberty as our institutions establish
but "irreligion and libertinism," to which it has given rise, and
against which he strives hard to enlist all the supporters of the
papacy.[208]

From the papal standpoint his arguments are sound and logical, because
the general enlightenment of the mind, which enables it to investigate
and understand the causes of things, and makes it competent to form
conclusions of its own, tends to create self-reliance and opposition to
oppressive laws; and has, on these accounts, been odious to the popes
ever since they acquired temporal power and made the Church, by means
of it, the most potent instrument in maintaining monarchism. Therefore
the student of history finds that the papacy has grown weaker as the
world has increased in enlightenment. But from the standpoint of our
free institutions, both his positions and reasoning are radically wrong
and indefensible, because they assail the freedom of conscience which
our institutions guarantee to every individual, and our common-school
system, which is more responsive to the public sentiment and will than
any other measure of our public policy. The plain and manifest import
of what he has said is this: That if he were allowed full liberty in
this country to dictate what shall and what shall not be regarded as
true religion, we would have neither freedom of conscience nor public
schools. And this, by his subsequent elevation to the pontificate,
constitutes to-day, the greatest if not the only danger which threatens
our free, popular form of government.

By his election as pope, Leo XIII occupies a different position from
that filled by him as Cardinal Pecci. In the latter he defended
the papal doctrines and recommended them for strict observance by
the faithful; in the former he dictates and commands, allowing
no discretion and submitting to no disobedience. Therefore it is
manifestly proper, as well as necessary, that we in this country
shall know to what extent the religious doctrines of the cardinal are
embodied in the authoritative teachings of the pope. In this latter
capacity he has undoubtedly flattered himself, as Pius IX did, that
he has at his back and subject to his command, two hundred millions
of obedient subjects throughout the world, and has, consequently,
availed himself of his first consistorial allocution to prepare them
for submission, by announcing that he has been chosen "to fill on earth
the place of the Prince of pastors, Christ Jesus!" He must have known,
when these words were traced by his pontifical pen, that Christ was
never the pastor of an organized Church with a constitution of either
spiritual or temporal government; that when the primitive Churches were
established by the apostles, they were independent of each other; that
none of these ever had a bishop or a presbyter with temporal power in
his hands; that this power was not acquired until after the fall of
the Roman Empire, according to Pius IX, and not until several hundred
years later, according to himself; and that even then it was wrenched
from the people by the aid of ambitious monarchs and their armies,
and maintained by the false and forged "donation of Constantine," the
pseudo-decretals of Isidore, and other means long since repudiated
in all parts of the world, and not now defended except by the most
mendacious. Yet, with this knowledge in his possession, he strangely
complains that the "Apostolic See" has been "violently stripped of its
temporal sovereignty" in disobedience of the divine law--pretending
thereby that Christ exercised and possessed such sovereignty when upon
earth, and that he, as his only representative, is his legitimate
successor!

His mind must have been overflowing with exhilaration, when, giving
full play to his imagination, he fancied himself thus elevated above
and superior to all other human beings. But, like many others who
indulge in similar flights and "build castles in the air," the excesses
of his fancy were checked by the conviction that the world was, at
last, a practical reality in what concerns its welfare, and that the
Italian people, who had for many centuries submitted to papal dominion,
would not permit him to place the crown of temporal royalty upon his
head. Seemingly saddened by this melancholy conviction, he found
himself constrained to announce to his "venerable brothers" of the
episcopacy that the papacy had been "reduced to a condition in which it
can in no wise enjoy the full, free, and unimpeded use of its powers,"
well knowing that it had not been deprived of any of its spiritual
authority except that involved in his right to wear a temporal crown
and govern the people arbitrarily as a temporal monarch. And then,
under the stimulant of hope, he imposed upon them the religious
obligation to labor for the restoration of this lost temporal power,
by reminding them how gloriously Pius IX had served the papacy by his
efforts "to re-establish the episcopal hierarchy" in Scotland, in
the face of the Government of England and the religious sentiment of
the Scotch people. Under the influence of these mingled emotions of
despondency and hope, his pontificate commenced. What fruits it is
destined to bear are hidden in the womb of time. What he intends to
accomplish, so far as he can, it is the duty of the civilized world to
understand, not by what any cardinal, archbishop, bishop, or priest
shall say, but as he himself has chosen officially to announce it. No
other man upon earth besides him has the right, according to the papal
theory, to prescribe a single tenet of religious faith, because he
alone occupies the place of Christ upon earth!

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 206: Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Pages 200-214.]

[Footnote 207: Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Pages 219 to 222.]

[Footnote 208: Life of Leo XIII, pp. 230 to 239.]




CHAPTER XXI.

THE CHURCH SUPREME.


In all the encyclical letters issued by Leo XIII, he has exhibited the
restlessness which may fairly be presumed to have been produced by
discomfiture at finding the difficulties in the way of restoring the
temporal power increasing rather than diminishing. This is in no way
surprising, inasmuch as all the faculties of his mind are absorbed by
contemplation of the means of producing that result, his pontifical
influence not being necessary to enforce the recognition of any other
principle of faith. He is too intelligent not to realize that there
is a strong tendency among the laity of the Church toward "liberal
Catholicism"--especially among those who are sharing the advantages
of free and popular government, like those in the United States--and
that if this tendency is not checked by official rebuke in some way,
the present age may destroy all hope of re-converting the pope into a
crowned king and leave him forever hereafter in possession of spiritual
power alone. Being unable to persuade himself that this ought to be
acquiesced in, he steadily persists in trying to bring all peoples
and nations within the circle of his pontifical jurisdiction, in so
far as matters involving faith, morals, and discipline--as he shall
define them--are concerned. Hence we find him often announcing the
principles by which all the Roman Catholics throughout the world are to
be governed in their relations with civil institutions. And, in order
to show that he is unwilling to abate any of his own claims to official
royalty, he invariably assumes the attitude of a universal guardian,
and, consequently, employs the language of authority. He, manifestly,
continues now to speak in the same spirit which heretofore prompted
him to affirm "that the false wisdom or philosophy which the last three
centuries have followed _must be set aside_, and Christian wisdom and
philosophy made the light of education.... Religion, Christianity,
Catholicism, must now come with the steady, unfailing lamp of her
divine philosophy, _extricate social order from its mortal peril, and
lead it back to the old paths_."[209] The remedy is evidently plain
and simple to his mind--merely this, and nothing more--that the modern
world shall return "to obedience to the Church," by the "_docile_
acceptance of the teachings of _the one divinely-appointed authority
on earth_"--who is now himself, and after him to be his successors.
What strange infatuation it must be for one so enlightened as Leo XIII
undoubtedly is, to suppose that he can so wield the scepter of his
spiritual authority over the nations as to cause them to "set aside"
their present progress and prosperity, and be led "back to the old
paths!"

He omits no opportunity to renew his claim of spiritual authority over
"the life, the morals, and the institutions of nations"--that is,
over their constitutions and laws--to the extent of requiring them to
conform to "the precepts of Christian wisdom" as promulgated from the
papal throne. Such nations as shall do this he recognizes as having
claim to permanent existence; such as do not, possess only illegitimate
power obtained by usurpation. To "set aside" the latter--especially
when they have so disregarded "Christian wisdom and philosophy" as
to separate Church and State--he evidently regards as a duty, not
only incumbent upon himself, but upon all who accept his teachings
as infallibly true. To enforce this obligation, therefore, to make
the pope, and not the people, the sovereign source of civil power in
all that pertains to faith--as the restoration of the temporal power
does--he maintains the proposition that Roman Catholics everywhere
owe their first duty to the Church, and, after that, allegiance
to the State; that is, they are not bound to obey any law of a
State which requires them to do anything prejudicial to the Church.
Consequently, his pontifical teachings concentrate in this: that
when he shall officially declare that any law of a State conflicts
with the divine law, their primary duty is to obey him, although, by
so doing, they shall violate the law of the State. And, in order to
assure this, he requires them to obey their bishops, and the bishops
to obey him. While he recognizes the right of States to regulate such
merely secular affairs as concern the common and ordinary interests of
society, the spiritual authority he claims over them is sufficient to
enable him to interfere with and regulate at his own discretion such
matters as are within his spiritual jurisdiction, as he shall define
it, because "the Church is the mistress of all nations." From this
sovereignty--which breaks over the geographical boundaries of nations,
as if none existed--he derives the right of the Church to "concern
herself about the laws formulated in the State;" that is, to interfere
with political questions which involve the interests of the Church.
And this interference is justified upon the ground, not only that it
is promotive of the welfare of the State, but because, in the absence
of it, the States sometimes transcend their just powers by encroaching
upon the rights of the Church--as they do by separating Church and
State, and prescribing an independent sphere for each. This last
offense is, with him, unpardonable, because they who commit it--as the
people of the United States have done--"tear asunder civil and sacred
polity, bound together as they are in their very essence."

These religious doctrines are not alone the official utterances of
Leo XIII. They are inherent in both the papal and Jesuit systems,
neither of which can exist without them. The Jesuit theory is that no
legitimate rights can be acquired under any constitution or law which
violates the divine law as the pope shall interpret it; and that the
violation of such constitution or law is neither treason nor rebellion,
because, being null and void, they can impose no just obligation of
obedience. The authoritative utterance of these doctrines now, and
the requirement of obedience to them, constitute a grave and serious
fact, which should arrest universal attention. For obvious reasons
they demand this attention from the people of the United States more
than from any other peoples, because the freedom and tolerance of our
Government allow their promulgation, notwithstanding their manifest
and direct tendency to encourage traitorous plottings against our
popular institutions. Looking only to our own time--the pontificates
of Pius IX and Leo XIII, to say nothing of such popes as Gregory
VII, Innocent III, and Boniface VIII--we find the well-defined papal
policy to condemn as violative of the divine law these fundamental
principles of our institutions: The separation of Church and State;
the freedom of conscience and religious belief; the liberty of speech
and press; the subjection of ecclesiastics to obedience to the laws
like other citizens; the people as the exclusive depositories of
political power; the refusal to concede to the pope the potential
power of conferring upon bishops and clergy the prerogative right
to manage church property in contravention of the laws; and last,
but far from being least, our common-school system as it prevails
in every part of the country. A man, therefore, must be stupid if
he can not, and willful if he will not, see that, according to the
religious doctrines announced by Pius IX and Leo XIII--omitting other
popes--all these great, fundamental principles of our Government,
and all the laws enacted to preserve them, are held to be impious,
and so in violation of the divine law that they may be rightfully
resisted whensoever the pope shall find it expedient so to command.
What question of greater magnitude and importance could command the
attention of both Protestant and Roman Catholic citizens of the United
States? It is a direct blow aimed by a foreign and alien power at the
very foundation of our civil institutions. If it has been incited by
the indifference of Protestants, they, being apprised of this, are
bound by the obligation of patriotism to rebuke it. If the pope has
acted only upon the Jesuit theory that the laity of the Church are
only animals, and fit only for passive obedience to their superiors,
who assume to be their masters, they will prove themselves unworthy of
American citizenship if they do not assert their manhood sufficiently
to teach the pope that it would be a higher offense against divine
justice to plot treason against a Government they have sworn to support
and defend, than to disobey one from whose head their own religious
brethren plucked a temporal crown, and who is now endeavoring to stir
them up to a war against those same brethren in order that his lost
crown may be restored. They who ask this, and all their aiders and
abettors, have doubtless been encouraged by a knowledge of American
and Protestant tolerance, as well as by the desire to reduce our
Roman Catholic population to the humiliating condition of professing
allegiance to the Government, while, at the same time, they cherish the
hope of its ultimate overthrow by some mysterious providences not yet
revealed. To indicate the ground upon which this hope may rest, the
country is every now and then reminded of the estimated number of Roman
Catholics it contains--varying from 8,000,000 to 12,000,000--as if all
these could be rightfully counted upon the papal side in a war upon the
most cherished principles of the Government, just as plantation-slaves
were formerly counted before being put to work in the fields. How far
they are destined to disappointment in this remains to be seen. But it
is confidently believed--with assurance, indeed, somewhat exceeding
belief--that they have been misled by the false and delusive hope of
converting the multitude of Roman Catholics in this country into mere
unthinking machines, subject, as if they were all Jesuits, to passive
and uninquiring obedience to an alien authority which assumes the
spiritual and prerogative right to turn "back to the old paths" all the
modern progressive nations, as if God had deputed to him alone this
extraordinary and plenary power over the interests and happiness of
the whole human family. While we are waiting patiently to see what the
future shall reveal with reference to these matters, the Protestants of
the United States can not be released from the obligation of preparing
for whatsoever exigency the future shall present. Every avenue of
approach to the citadel which has thus far guarded their constitutional
and popular rights, must be carefully guarded. They should not be
indifferent to the slow and insidious methods of approaching that
citadel which Jesuit ingenuity has contrived and is still contriving.
Nor should the popular eye be turned too far away from Leo XIII; for if
he, too, has no sinister object in view with regard to our cherished
national principles, why, "in the name of all the gods at once," does
he not leave the United States and the other modern nations to conduct
their own affairs without his perpetual interference? Why do he and his
ecclesiastical representatives so unceasingly thunder in our ears the
awful penalties that await us for the infidelity of Protestantism, for
the separation of Church and State, for the toleration of diversities
of religious belief, and for our "godless" common schools?

It requires but limited intelligence to see that the Jesuits alone--and
not the Church--would gain if the principles and policy of Leo XIII
should become established. They would see in such a result cause for
rejoicing that the work of their society had been so well done when
the youthful and plastic mind of Joachim Pecci had their doctrines so
indelibly stamped upon it that now, when he has become pope in his
old age, he seems to keep himself alive by the stimulating hope of
successfully employing them to arrest modern progress and civilization,
and turn the nations back "to the old paths." The Jesuits already
exhibit signs of exultation, arising, manifestly, out of the belief
that the pontifical favor and patronage bestowed upon them has caused
the world to forget their history; how they endeavored to fix disrepute
upon the Church by their conduct in India, China, Paraguay, and
elsewhere; how they disobeyed the peremptory commands of some popes,
and endeavored to degrade and humiliate others; how they were compelled
to obedience only by the severest methods of reproof; how they were
expelled from every Roman Catholic country in Europe, and from Rome
by Pius IX, during the last years of his pontificate; how they were
suppressed and abolished by one of the best of the popes for crimes
that could not be condoned; how they abused and vilified his name and
memory in order to justify their refusal to obey the authoritative
commands of the Church; and how their revival was excused alone upon
the ground that they were better fitted than any other body of men in
the world, by habit, education, and training, to become warriors in the
cause of political absolutism.

But a still more flattering cause of Jesuit satisfaction is doubtless
found in the fact that Leo XIII--faithful to his early impressions--has
assigned to the members of that society the special duty of becoming
the educators of the young, and is sending them into all the countries
of the world, and especially those where Protestantism prevails, for
that particular purpose, well instructed, beforehand, in the obligation
to maintain such a system of education as he established in Perugia,
so that every mind seduced by its influence may be brought to the
religious belief that Church and State must be so united that the
State shall be subordinate to the Church; that there is but one form
of true religion in the world, and all else is heresy; and that no
Government can have the divine approval which does not recognize the
pope as possessing the sovereign power to dictate its policy in so far
as all matters touching faith, morals, and discipline are involved.
Evidences of this settled purpose are constantly crowding upon us.
Scarcely a day passes without some fresh attack upon our system of
common schools--a method of education which has the popular approval
in a far greater degree than any other part of our public polity.
These are called "godless" schools because they are not permitted by
law to teach that the Roman Catholic religion is absolutely true,
and all other forms of religious belief false and heretical. It is
alleged that they are the nurseries of vice and immorality, and that
they send out young men and women into the world to propagate error
and libertinism, and sow the seed of moral and social decay. Every
now and then some fanatical priest--unable to keep his passions within
reasonable bounds--threatens the members of his congregation with
excommunication for sending their children to the public schools, and
allowing them to become contaminated by false teaching and association
with Protestant children. The American people, consequently, are
required to decide whether their system of common schools shall live or
die, whether the competent and distinguished corps of American teachers
shall be expelled, and the doors of our school-houses be thrown wide
open to the Jesuits. Why should the Protestant part of our population
remain indifferent when these insults are so impudently flung in their
faces? They have deemed it wise and better for themselves, and out
of kindly deference to their assailants, to prohibit the teaching of
any system of religious belief in their public schools, or the levy
of any tax for that object; and, in order that Church and State shall
remain perpetually separated, they have provided for this inhibition
by constitutional provisions--both National and State. To the Jesuit,
therefore, all this is "godless," and the Government is "godless" for
separating Church and State, and the Protestant people are "godless,"
rapidly hastening to inevitable ruin in this life and to fearful
punishment hereafter!

There ought to come a time when this controversy, forced upon the
people against their will, shall cease. Our public schools are
designed for training and educating American citizens--those who are
to perpetuate our institutions when existing generations have passed
away--and it is no special wonder that those who do not come up to the
full measure of American citizenship themselves, and desire that others
shall not do so, are seeking to destroy them. Notwithstanding they are
fully protected in the right of maintaining and conducting their own
private schools in their own way, without the least interference from
any quarter, they have presumptuously, if not insolently, inaugurated
a relentless warfare upon our whole system of public education,
because our common schools are nurseries of patriotism, and keep
alive in the minds of our children the obligation of obedience to
the Constitution and Government as they are. If the system we have so
long cherished were weakened materially by this malignant warfare, it
would be the just cause of serious alarm. But everything occurring
creates a contrary belief, by giving assurance that it continues to
disseminate influences fast reaching the most remote and obscure
places in the country, causing the popular heart to rejoice at the
victories it has already won over ignorance and vice, and manifesting
that it possesses established power sufficient to assure continued
growth and complete triumph. Nevertheless, it is well and important
for us all to know what attitude Leo XIII occupies toward our common
schools, and what kind of education he proposes to establish here in
preference to that we have cherished so highly. In this way it will be
plainly seen that his first and highest object is the extermination
of Protestantism, by putting out of the power of those who obey him
implicitly to become American citizens in the sense and meaning of
the Constitution of the United States. He knows nothing of the nature
of this citizenship or of the obligations it imposes. As a foreigner
and alien, ignorant of our language, Constitution, and wants, his
chief object is to create here a politico-religious party, held in
unity by the desire to restore to him his lost crown as a religious
duty, so that when he shall have succeeded in that he may bring us
all within his spiritual jurisdiction, and deal with us accordingly.
This accomplished, the history of the papacy for more than a thousand
years proves that the next step would be to treat our nationality as
a fiction and our boundary-lines as merely imaginary, so that instead
of our present independence we should be reduced to an inferior and
submissive department in a vast and universal "Holy Empire," with its
crown resting upon his own head, and, after him, upon the heads of his
successors.

Not very long ago Leo XIII sent to the United States an official
representative in the person of Mgr. Satolli, nominally Archbishop of
Lepanto, in Greece. He is called a "delegate," but in view of the
fact that he fully represents the pope, as his other self, and that
his powers are so complete and plenary that no appeal can be taken
from his decisions, it is more appropriate to call him a vice-pope.
He is said to be a learned and discreet man, and it is doubtless
true that he deserves all the compliments otherwise bestowed upon
him. He had not, however, been long in this country before he found
that there were divisions of sentiment among the Roman Catholics
with reference to our common schools, some sending their children to
them, notwithstanding the instructions of their priests not to do so,
and others refusing because they considered them "godless;" that is,
infidel. This devolved upon him the duty and necessity of deciding
a question which had hitherto baffled the most ingenious minds--a
question made more difficult by the fact that it involved either the
approval or disapproval of well-established and popular measures of
public polity. His decision is entitled to consideration, and should be
closely scrutinized, inasmuch as it is claimed for it that it is the
final solution of a great and puzzling problem. The statement of it
which follows, is taken substantially from that made by himself to the
archbishops at a meeting held by them in New York.

He claims for "the Catholic Church" both "the duty and divine right"
of teaching religion to "all nations," and of "instructing the young;"
that is, "she holds for herself the right of teaching the truths of
faith and law of morals in order to bring up youth in the habits
of Christian life." Nevertheless, "there is no repugnance in their
learning the _first elements_ and the _higher branches of the arts and
natural sciences_ in public schools controlled by the State," which
protects them in their persons and property. "But," he continues, "the
Catholic Church shrinks from those features of public schools which
are opposed to the truth of Christianity and to morality;" wherefore
he insists that every effort shall be made, both by the bishops and
others, to remove these "objectionable features." And he recommends
that the bishops and the civil authorities shall agree "to conduct
the schools with mutual attention and due consideration for their
respective rights;" that is, that the schools shall be under their
joint control, so that teachers "for the secular branches" shall be
"inhibited from offending Catholic religion and morality," and the
Church be permitted to shed her "light" by "teaching the children
catechism, in order to remove danger to their faith and morals from any
quarter whatsoever."

This was adroit, but not satisfactory. Although it was understood
that Mgr. Satolli's decisions were to be final, this created such
disaffection that it was found necessary to submit the matter to the
pope, against whose opinion, when officially promulgated, there could
be no protest. Leo XIII deliberated upon the matter for some time,
and received from the American prelates arguments upon both sides.
He, however, reached a conclusion which he communicated to Cardinal
Gibbons in an encyclical dated May 31, 1893, which constitutes one of
the latest papal utterances. Besides its numerous recitals, some of
which do not bear directly upon the subject, he distinctly approves the
decision of Mgr. Satolli, because it had been approved and recommended
to him by the archbishops at their meeting in New York. He expresses
great admiration for the people of the United States--especially the
Roman Catholic portion of them--and says that he had sent Mgr. Satolli
here in order that his "presence might be made, as it were, perpetual
among the faithful by the _permanent_ establishment of an apostolic
delegation at Washington." This he probably considers a precautionary
step; for, as Mgr. Satolli can not have any official relations with
our Government--Italy being represented by a minister appointed by
the king--he can remain as a "permanent establishment" at the Capital
of the nation, so that he may not only watch the course of events,
but be in readiness to become an apostolic minister plenipotentiary
whensoever, by the aid of the faithful outside of Italy, he shall be
able to snatch the crown from the head upon which the Italian people
have placed it, and put it upon his own!

The approval of Mgr. Satolli's decision, however, has this important
condition attached to it by Leo XIII: "That _Catholic schools are
to be most sedulously promoted_, and that it is to be left to the
judgment and conscience of the _ordinary_ to decide, according to the
circumstances, when it is lawful and when unlawful to attend public
schools." This is a most significant condition. In the first place, it
takes away from the parents the right to direct the education of their
children, and places it in the hands of the ordinary, who officially
represents the papal power. In the second place, it leaves the papal
condemnation and censure still resting upon our system of common
schools, and only removes it, here and there, from such local and
particular schools as the ordinaries of the Church may find acceptable
to them. And in the third place, it is a positive and unqualified
affirmance of what multitudes of priests have said, that our schools
are "godless," and that, in order to counteract their irreligious
influences, "Catholic schools are to be most sedulously promoted."

But there is another condition attached by Leo XIII which is equally
significant as that just named. It is due to him that this should be
stated in his own words. He says: "As we have already declared in our
letter of the 23d of May of last year, to our venerable brethren, the
archbishop and bishop of the province of New York, so we again, as far
as need be, declare that the _decrees which the Baltimore Councils_,
agreeably to the directions of the Holy See, have enacted concerning
parochial schools, and _whatsoever else has been prescribed by the
Roman pontiffs_, whether directly or through the sacred congregations,
concerning the same matter, are to be steadfastly observed."

Whatsoever powers the pope may have intended to confer upon Mgr.
Satolli--whether those of a vice-pope or of a mere legate--it is
certain that he did not intend to lessen his own. These are plenary,
and therefore his pontifical decisions are absolutely binding, because
he is infallible! In order, therefore, to ascertain the relation to be
hereafter borne to our common-school system by the Roman Catholics
of the United States, we are required to look to the decision of
Mgr. Satolli as qualified by the conditions attached to it by Leo
XIII. Taking the whole together, it amounts to this: That God has
specially appointed the Roman Catholic Church the educator of the
young; that where another system of education is set up against that
prescribed by the Church, it is necessarily sinful and heretical, and
may be rightfully overthrown and destroyed; that the Church system
of education requires that the pupils shall be taught religion,
and, first and always, that there is no other true religion besides
that which the Roman Catholic Church teaches; that notwithstanding
this, a Roman Catholic child may, as a matter of either necessity
or expediency, be sent to the public schools of the States, merely
to learn "the first elements," reading, writing, and ciphering, and
"the higher branches of the arts and natural sciences," mathematics,
chemistry, engineering, etc.; that the Roman Catholic Church shrinks
from the idea that the intermediate branches should be taught the
children, for fear they should discover that the Protestant nations
are more prosperous and happy than the Roman Catholic; that when Roman
Catholic children are sent to the public schools, efforts shall be
made to procure the appointment of Roman Catholic teachers to instruct
them in their religious obligations and duties, and specially to the
effect that Protestantism is heresy and diversities of religious belief
offensive to God, and consequently has his curse resting upon it; that
the "objectionable features" of our school system must be removed by
plottings within the schools necessary to that end, so that instead
of being free they shall be made Church schools; that so long as the
children are not taught the "catechism" they will remain "godless"
and heretical; and that if in any of the schools the children shall
be taught that the State ought to continue separated from the Church,
or that differences of religious belief should be tolerated, or that
our Protestant institutions must be preserved as they are--all or
either of these things must be considered as "offending Catholic
religion and morality." Thus far Mgr. Satolli; but the pope adds
the peremptory injunction that Roman Catholic schools must be "most
sedulously promoted;" that is, they must be set up in rivalry to our
common-school system, so that the antidote may root out the bane; that
the ordinary, and not the parents, shall decide what children shall be
permitted to enter the schools; and that, in interpreting the decision
of Mgr. Satolli, it must be done in accordance with the decrees of the
Baltimore Councils and the rules "prescribed by the Roman pontiffs."

This settles nothing, and leaves the whole question ambiguous. It is
Jesuitical, because it "palters with us in a double sense," by keeping
"the word of promise to our ear," while breaking "it to our hope." In
referring to the Baltimore Councils as their guide, the faithful find
themselves instructed to omit nothing within their power to pull down
the common schools, and build up Church schools in their places, for
the reason that the former are irreligious, and the latter alone have
the divine approval. And they find also that they are instructed by the
second Council of Baltimore that their children are to be taught, as
an essential part of their religion, that the State is not independent
of the Church, and that "all power is of God," so that whatsoever the
State prescribes not obedient to the law of God is not binding upon
the citizen, and that the Roman Catholic has such "a guide in the
Church;" that if the State shall require of him anything inhibited
by the Church, he must obey the latter, and not the former.[210] But
independently of this, the pope commands that these same faithful shall
interpret the decision of Mgr. Satolli in the light of "whatsoever else
has been prescribed by the Roman pontiffs."

This is indefinite. There have been over two hundred and fifty popes.
Many of these have been good, some bad, but these latter forfeit
none of their infallible ecclesiastical authority by being bad. To
whom, among all these, shall the inquirer defer, when he investigates
what they have commanded with reference to education? Many of them
have asserted, _ex cathedra_, that the exclusive right to educate the
young has been divinely conferred upon the Roman Catholic Church, and
Leo XIII, in his recent letter to the American Cardinal, makes that
assertion unequivocally. It is not believed that any pope ever asserted
the contrary. Therefore, this general and sweeping qualification of
Mgr. Satolli's decision either destroys its effect absolutely, or
leaves it to uncertain rules of interpretation. Thus viewed it leaves
the school question just as it stood before Mgr. Satolli came to this
country.

But Mgr. Satolli himself provides for two school systems, which, as he
regards them, are the rivals of each other, because he, like Leo XIII,
considers the Roman Catholic Church as having had divinely conferred
upon it the right of educating and training the young. But Leo XIII
makes this idea of more prominence when he commands "that Catholic
schools are to be most sedulously promoted." It all, therefore,
amounts to this: that wheresoever there is a Roman Catholic who can
not avoid it, he may send his children to the common schools for the
sole purpose of having them taught "the first elements, and the higher
branches of the arts and natural sciences;" but in all the intermediate
departments of education, they must be under the exclusive charge of
those appointed by the Church to be their instructors in religion.
Hence, not only is there to be a continued rivalry between the schools,
but between the systems as well. In the common schools the pupils are
taught that our popular form of government is calculated to promote
and preserve the general welfare; that our fathers acted wisely and
well when they separated the State from the Church; that laws which
require universal conformity to any particular form of religious
faith, are not only unwise but violative of natural right; that those
people who govern themselves by laws of their own making are happier
and more prosperous than those who suffer themselves to be governed
by monarchs and princes; and that the regulation of public affairs by
constitutional governments is better for society than where they are
regulated at the will of any one man. In the papal schools--perhaps
within a stone's-throw of the common schools--the pupils are taught
that each one of these propositions is heresy, and that both those who
teach and those who accept them as true are under Divine condemnation.
In the common schools the teacher enforces what he says by the example
of the United States, gives instruction in our Revolutionary history,
explains the provisions of our National and State constitutions
which make the people the only source of public law, and stimulates
the patriotism of his pupils by urging upon them the necessity of
perpetuating our institutions in their present form for the benefit
of their posterity. In the papal schools the teacher is required,
when he denounces all these provisions of our institutions as heresy,
to enforce what he says by instructing his pupils that innumerable
infallible popes have so declared, and that they will offend God if
they do not accept what they have announced as absolutely true, and in
order that they may not be suspected of error by their youthful pupils,
they need go no further back among the popes than to Pius IX and his
"Syllabus" of 1864, wherein, after pointing out seventy-nine modern
errors which he condemned--including "public schools" where teaching
is "freed from all ecclesiastical authority"--he adds still another by
declaring that it is impossible that "the Roman pontiff can and ought
to reconcile himself to, and agree with progress, liberalism, and
civilization as lately introduced." Or, if it shall be found necessary
to go further back than Pius IX, he need but refer to the celebrated
encyclical of his immediate predecessor, Gregory XVI, issued July 15,
1832, wherein he declared that those who maintained that God could
be rightly served by men of different religious faiths, "will perish
eternally without any doubt," if they do not repent and "hold to the
Catholic faith;" that it is "false and absurd" to pretend "that
liberty of conscience should be established and guaranteed to each
man;" that "the liberty of the press" is "the most fatal liberty, an
execrable liberty, for which there never can be sufficient horror;"
that writings which are "destructive of the fidelity and submission due
to princes" are to be condemned, because they enkindle "the firebrands
of sedition;" that "divine and human rights then rise in condemnation
against those who, by the blackest machinations of revolt and sedition,
endeavor to destroy the fidelity due to princes, and to hurl them from
their thrones;" that "constant submission to princes" necessarily has
its source "in the holiest principles of the Christian religion;" that
they are criminal in the sight of God who "demand the separation of
Church and State and the rupture of concord between the priesthood and
the empire," that is, the State; and that the union of Church and State
is feared and opposed by the advocates of liberty, because it "has
always been so salutary and so happy for Church and State."[211]

If, however, the pupils in these papal schools should indicate the
suspicion that these official proclamations of doctrine by Pius IX
and Leo XIII had not the sanction of earlier popes, their teachers,
especially if Jesuits, will take delight in instructing them that these
two last popes, at the foot of the list, are following strictly in
the footsteps of some of the most conspicuous of their predecessors.
And then they will dwell eloquently upon the magnificent pontificates
of Gregory VII, Alexander III, Innocent III, Boniface VIII, and
others equally ambitious, but of less strength of will. The task will
be an easy one to explain the history of these great popes and the
politico-religious principles they succeeded in grafting upon the
dogmas of the Church. They will instruct them how Gregory VII plucked
crowns from the heads of disobedient kings, released their subjects
from their allegiance, and placed other and obedient kings in their
places; how he claimed the right as pope to dispose of kingdoms,
because "the spiritual is above the temporal power" to so great an
extent that all people "should murder their princes, fathers, and
children if he commands it;" and how he made monarchs, princes, and
peoples tremble before him, as if he, by virtue alone of his pontifical
power, were master of the world. And they will show them how Alexander
III released the German people from their allegiance to Frederick
Barbarossa, and compelled that proud emperor to kiss his foot, lead
his horse by the bridle, and submit to having the papal heel planted
upon his neck; and how Innocent III declared, by solemn pontifical
decree, that the English _Magna Charta_ was null and void, because it
laid the foundation of popular liberty, and excommunicated all who were
concerned in the patriotic work of obtaining it; and how Boniface VIII
decreed, in his bull "_Clericis laicos_," that lay governments "have
no power over the persons or the property of ecclesiastics," and that
those who shall impose tithes, taxes, and burdens upon them, without
the authority of the pope, "shall incur excommunication;" and how he
also decreed, by his bull "_Unam Sanctam_," that the Church--that
is, the pope--holds in her hands both the spiritual and the temporal
swords, with the power to compel the latter to be used for and in the
interest of the former; that the temporal sword is, therefore, "subject
to the spiritual power," and that it is "an article of necessary faith"
that "every human being should be subject to the Roman pontiff."

It requires but little intelligence to see wherein the difference
consists between these two systems of education--the one expanding, the
other dwarfing the intellect. If, however, each improved the intellect
alike, the public schools are entitled to the preference for the reason
that they instill into the minds of the pupils the great fundamental
principles upon which our Government is founded; whereas those who
attend the papal schools are instructed that the most essential
of these principles are the fruitful source of heresies, and,
consequently, of ills to the human family. The two systems, therefore,
remain in conflict--just as they have hitherto been--and the greatest
question the present generation is called upon to decide is, Which
shall triumph? With those of us who desire to maintain our popular form
of government, this question does not involve religious faith. But with
the defenders of the papacy and followers of the pope it does. And,
consequently, those who are willing to form a politico-religious party,
pledged to restore temporal power to the pope, even at the possible
hazard of a war with Italy, and entangling alliances with other
European powers, are promised a crown of eternal glory; while those who
are seeking to maintain our institutions as our fathers framed them are
anathematized for the sin of rebellion against papal authority.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 209: Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Pages 482-483.]

[Footnote 210: The pastoral letter of this Council can be found
in Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia for 1866, p. 677. Its meaning is
plain--that the Church is superior to the State, and must be obeyed
by the State, in all such matters as the Church considers within its
jurisdiction.]

[Footnote 211: The Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs. By De Montor.
Vol. II, pp. 783-793, where this encyclical is given at length. This
work has the special approval of the Archbishop of New York.]




CHAPTER XXII.

JESUITICAL TEACHINGS.


Inasmuch as Leo XIII has considered himself entitled, by virtue of his
spiritual power, to prescribe authoritatively the relations which his
followers in this country are hereafter to sustain to our system of
public-school education, it is proper for us to inquire wherein the
system he proposes to have introduced differs from our own. In this way
we shall not only be able to understand the contrast between them, but
discover why he gives the preference to the papal or Jesuit system.
At the beginning of this inquiry, we are relieved from any trouble
by his biographer, who tells us that while Cardinal Pecci, "he drew
up, in 1858, a constitution and rules for an academy of St. Thomas
Aquinas, which was to extend its benefits to the whole of Umbria," and
that since he became pope he has "made the philosophical method of St.
Thomas the guide of all Catholic teachers."[212]

Thomas Aquinas lived in the thirteenth century, long before the
Reformation, when the world was shrouded in the almost total darkness
of the Middle Ages, and when obedience to despotic rulers, both
spiritual and temporal, was considered the highest duty of life. Church
and State were united, and the former governed the latter with "a
rod of iron." Liberty of thought was suppressed by the fagot and the
flame. He was a voluminous writer, mostly on theological subjects,
and as he treated these in accordance with the system maintained by
the popes--from whom all authority emanated--he was called the "Angel
of the Schools," "Angelic Doctor," "Eagle of the Theologians," and
"Holy Doctor." He was canonized in 1323, about fifty years after his
death, by John XXII, the second of the popes who reigned at Avignon in
France, at a time when, according to De Montor, "the Church languished
in fearful anarchy."[213] These circumstances do not conspire to show
his fitness as a guide for any system of modern education, especially
that existing in the United States. The theology of the Middle Ages,
which he vindicated, filled the world with superstition; and now, after
the ignorance of that period has been dispelled by the light of the
Reformation, there are none who desire to see this superstition and
ignorance revived, except those who, like Leo XIII, consider the times
before this light began to shine as the "blessed ages."

This reverend biographer of Leo XIII says that the "false education"
and "antichristian training" of the young, which prevails in the
United States and among the liberal and progressive peoples of the
world, must be done away with, abandoned, and "Thomas Aquinas must
once more be enthroned as 'the Angel of the Schools;' his method and
_doctrine_ must be the light of all higher teaching, for his works are
only _revealed truth_ set before the human mind in its most scientific
form."[214] This prominence was not given to the doctrines of Aquinas
as "revealed truth" without due consideration of their importance to
the papacy. They were specially taught in the schools of Umbria, under
the auspices of Leo XIII. When he was archbishop, and since he became
pope, he has made them the universal guide of "Catholic teachers"
throughout the world. In obedience to the command of Loyola himself, in
his lifetime, they were also made "the basis of the entire curriculum
of philosophy and divinity" in all Jesuit colleges and schools, and
have thereby become an absolutely necessary and indispensable part of
Jesuit education. It is thus made entirely clear that, whatsoever else
Leo XIII may or may not have accomplished during his pontificate, he
has authoritatively commanded that the _doctrines_ of Thomas Aquinas
shall be instilled into the minds of all, both young and old, who may
be brought under the influence of the papal system of education, in the
United States as well as elsewhere. It is by this system, therefore,
that he proposes to supplant our common schools, so that the end sought
after by Loyola may be accomplished; that is, the destruction of all
popular governments. It will require only a brief examination of these
doctrines to explain fully the purpose of Leo XIII in making them an
indispensable part of Roman Catholic education in the United States, as
well as to show that the papal theory of civil government is founded
upon them as "revealed truth."

In the first chapter of this volume reference was made to Balmes, a
Spanish priest, who achieved the reputation of being "the boast of
the Spanish clergy" and the ablest defender of the Jesuit doctrines.
His mind was well stored with the philosophical teachings of Thomas
Aquinas, to the study of which he devoted a number of years, adopting
the interpretation put upon them in the commentaries of Bellarmine and
Saurez, both of whom were Jesuits. He died in 1848, about the breaking
out of the great revolutions among the Roman Catholic populations of
Europe; but before that time had occupied himself in earnest efforts
to turn back the tide which then threatened to overwhelm the papacy.
His principal work designed for this purpose was intended, as stated
in the first chapter, to counteract the influence of Guizot's treatise
on civilization, which had produced very perceptible impressions upon
the most enlightened minds of Europe in favor of Protestantism over
Roman Catholicism. His special object, therefore, was to demonstrate
that the reverse of what Guizot insisted upon was true, and that Roman
Catholicism was the real source of all existing enlightenment and
civilization. Having written entirely from the Jesuit standpoint, his
arguments with regard to the obligation of obedience to the laws of
civil governments were based entirely upon the doctrines of the "Holy
Doctor," as he called Thomas Aquinas. This may be justifiably inferred
from what he says in highly eulogistic praise of him near the close
of his work.[215] The doctrines he sets forth are commended to the
people of the United States in the preface to the American edition of
his work, where it is said that he has exposed "the shortcomings, or
rather evils, of Protestantism, in a social and _political_ point of
view," and that "the Protestant, if sincere, will open his eyes to the
incompatibility of his principles with the happiness of mankind."[216]
As this learned work has been extensively circulated in this country
for the purpose here expressed, we are justified in accepting its
doctrines and teachings, in both "a social and _political_ point of
view," as accurately expressing the opinions of Aquinas with regard
to the right of civil governments to require obedience to their laws
from all who live under them. And it is necessary for us to know and
fully understand what these doctrines of Thomas Aquinas are, in order
to become familiar with the "curriculum of philosophy and divinity" in
Jesuit colleges and schools, and with the principles authoritatively
prescribed by Leo XIII as "the guide of all Catholic teachers." When
we shall have accomplished this, we shall be better able to decide
whether or no it would be prudent and wise to exchange the course of
studies now prosecuted in our public schools for this papal and Jesuit
curriculum; whether our American schools shall be presided over by the
spirit of the sainted and "Holy Doctor" or remain as they are, under
the care, protection, and patronage of the American people.

Balmes quotes Thomas Aquinas to prove that "human laws, _if they are
just_, are binding in conscience, and derive their power from the
eternal law, from which they are formed."[217] But he makes their
justice to depend entirely upon their conformity to the divine law; in
other words, applying his doctrine practically, as the pope possesses
the only legitimate power upon earth to decide what the divine law
allows and what it condemns, therefore to him alone must the justice
or injustice of all human laws be submitted; and his decision, when
made, is final and must be universally obeyed. Hence the obligation of
obedience relates only to those laws which the pope shall decide to be
just, while those he shall decide to be unjust shall be disregarded or
resisted, or where open resistance is impracticable, may be plotted
against and overthrown in whatsoever mode is most expedient. In order
to illustrate and give emphasis to his meaning he asks: "_Are we
to obey the civil power when it commands something that is evil in
itself?_" Answering he says: "_No, we are not_, for the simple reason
that what is evil is forbidden by God; now, we must obey God rather
than man." He then supplements this with another question: "_Are we to
obey the civil power when it interferes with matters not included in
the circle of its faculties?_" He answers again: "No, for with regard
to these matters _it is not a power_." And this limitation upon the
civil power he explains further by affirming that the spiritual power
of the Church--which is lodged exclusively in the hands of the pope,
who stands in the place of God--has always served to "remind men that
_the rights of the civil power are limited_; that there are things
beyond its province, cases in which a man may say, and ought to say, _I
will not obey_."[218]

The application of this doctrine, as thus laid down by the "Holy
Doctor," affirmed by Balmes, and stamped with pontifical sanction by
Leo XIII, to the condition of affairs under our civil institutions,
is plain and simple and easily understood. It is unnecessary to
repeat at this point the fundamental principles of our Government
which Leo XIII, Pius IX, Gregory XVI, and numerous other popes have
condemned and anathematized as heretical and violative of the divine
law. According to their pontifical teachings--announced _ex cathedra_
from the "chair of St. Peter"--the American constitutions and laws
which require obedience to any of these or to all of them, not only
require "something that is evil," but transcend the faculties of the
Government by encroaching upon those which God has made to pertain
exclusively to the Church, or to the pope as its divinely constituted
head! Therefore, according to Thomas Aquinas, to Balmes, to Leo XIII,
and to the Jesuits, they are not to be obeyed, because "God, rather
than man," must be obeyed. Leo XIII is not, of course, bound, as an
alien and spiritual ruler of the Church, to obey them; but by requiring
that these doctrines shall be taught in all Roman Catholic schools in
the United States, he assumes the spiritual and prerogative right to
require of all in this country who obey his teachings, to violate their
allegiance to the Government because it maintains these sinful and
unjust constitutions and laws. This is perfectly logical--as palpable
as that two and two make four. But Balmes--still following Thomas
Aquinas--does not stop here.

He repeats, that unjust laws are "not binding on conscience, unless for
fear of creating scandal or causing greater evil; that is to say, that,
in certain cases, an unjust law may become obligatory, _not by virtue
of any duty which it imposes_, but from _motives of prudence_."[219]
This reduces the obligation of obedience to the low standard of policy
and expediency, and recognizes nothing whatsoever as due to the dignity
or authority of the Government which exacts it. This doctrine is purely
Jesuitical, and the method of stating it could scarcely have been
improved upon by Loyola himself. No equivocal words are employed to
disguise the actual meaning; it is distinct and palpable. It is this,
nothing more nor less: that if a human law, whether a constitution
or a statute, is unjust because it violates the divine law, then
they who so regard it may, by simulated obedience to it, compromise
with injustice and wrong, and even sin, for the sake of some future
advantage! It is exactly as if it should be said to a nation or a
State that its constitution and laws are heretical and atheistical
because they violate the law of God, but that they will be submitted
to only until the means of setting them aside can be obtained. This
doctrine, as applied to such ordinary domestic laws of a State as
relate to property and the general management of public affairs, is
counteracted by the enforcement of such laws by the proper tribunals.
But it is otherwise when the obnoxious provisions are embodied in
fundamental principles, such as the separation of Church and State,
the freedom of religious belief, the popular source of all political
power, and other principles upon which Government structures are based.
In cases of this character--that is, where the principles are embodied
in constitutions, and are thereby made fundamental--obedience becomes
a mere cover to conceal the secret purpose of ultimate rebellion
against them; or, rather, of ultimate treason against the Government
itself. It is a practical exemplification of the demoralizing doctrine
that "the means are justified by the end." This is the doctrine which
the Jesuits openly and boldly inculcated in India and in China, when
they became Brahmins and worshiped idols, and persisted in these
unchristian practices in contemptuous defiance of the repeated mandates
of the popes, until their absolute suppression and abolition became
a necessity to the Church. But in these times and in this country,
somewhat more of caution and circumspection is required, because,
even where there is perfect freedom of religious belief, "motives
of prudence" forbid that this un-American doctrine shall be openly
proclaimed. The motive, however, that existed then is the same that
exists now; that is, to accomplish by indirection and stealth an
ulterior end which "prudence" requires to be hypocritically concealed.
It is these same prudential motives which dictate that Protestantism
shall be, for the time being, recognized as an existing and influential
power, but with the secretly cherished purpose to deal with it as an
unjust and illegitimate power, subject to entire overthrow whensoever
these "motives of prudence" shall exist no longer!

Thomas Aquinas announced his theological doctrines with perfect
freedom, because in his time--the Middle Ages--the sovereignty of the
popes was undisputed; and Balmes was but little less restrained in
repeating them in Spain when his great work was written. With neither
of them were "motives of prudence" so controlling as they now are among
those who accept their teachings in the United States. Therefore,
Balmes was careful to point out the method of determining when laws and
constitutions are so unjust that they may be covertly disobeyed, by
evasion or otherwise, while ostensively acquiesced in. He says: "Laws
may also be unjust in another point of view, when they are _contrary to
the will of God_;" and "with respect to such laws it is _not allowable,
under any circumstances, to obey them_." All Governments guilty of the
offense of enacting such laws are to be considered as having usurped
faculties which do not belong to them, and are to be told flatly and
unequivocally, when "prudence" will permit it: "_Thy laws are not laws,
but outrages; they are not binding in conscience; and if, in some
instances, thou art obeyed, it is not owing to any obligation, but to
prudence._"[220]

Applied practically, this papal and Jesuit doctrine amounts to this,
under our civil institutions: that one who has taken the oath of
allegiance to our Government is justified in not feeling under any
obligation to obey the Constitution and laws, in their American sense
and spirit, but only in so far as may comport with the ulterior purpose
to violate both, to whatsoever extent their principles shall conflict
with the divine law as defined by the pope. The proposition is easily
illustrated. The Constitution confides to the Supreme Court of the
United States the duty and authority to decide upon the validity of all
our laws when they are alleged to be invalid. That tribunal has, ever
since the beginning of the Government, recognized Church and State as
separated, the absolute freedom of religious belief, and the people
as the sovereign source of political power, all of which is obedient
to the Constitution. Anything to the contrary would undoubtedly be a
step in the direction of upturning the Government and putting an end to
the Republic. Yet this Jesuit doctrine, derived from the theological
principles of Thomas Aquinas--which we are told are "revealed
truth"--not only authorizes, but encourages as Christian duty, an
appeal from the Supreme Court to the pope, and obedience to the latter
instead of the former. Leo XIII, Pius IX, and Gregory XVI, in our own
time, and many other popes before them, have decided--and the former
holds himself in readiness to repeat the decision when necessary--that
the Government has no rightful jurisdiction over matters which concern
the Church or the papacy--whether that jurisdiction is conferred by
the Constitution or by fundamental laws--but that they are exclusively
within the circle of the pope's spiritual jurisdiction. Upon the
authority of this doctrine, therefore, Leo XIII, with the Jesuits to
back him, proposes to obtain the mastery over the people by reversing
the decisions of the Supreme Court; and interferes with the working
of our Government to the extent of instructing citizens of the United
States that disobedience to certain of our fundamental laws, as the
Supreme Court has interpreted and the people understand them, is
an absolute religious obligation, and that obedience to him is the
service of God! With entire unanimity the framers of the Government
separated Church and State, and made that central and controlling
among the principles which underlie it; but Leo XIII solemnly avers,
from his pontifical throne in Rome, that this violates the divine
law, and is such "libertinism" as is leading society to ruin. Thus he
brings himself in direct conflict with our institutions, which would
inevitably topple and fall if he were obeyed and his principles were
substituted for ours. And, in order to secure the object he seeks
after, he has commanded that the doctrines of Thomas Aquinas shall be
taught as "revealed truths" in all Roman Catholic colleges and schools,
so that the children of all the Roman Catholic citizens of this country
shall be so educated as to be prepared for the union of Church and
State, and the subordination of the latter to the former, whensoever
"prudence" shall warrant him or his successors in commanding it. If
this does not propose to erect an alien and antagonistic Government
within ours, upon the principle that "the Church is not in the State,
but the State in the Church," it would require the introduction into
our language of a new set of words to tell its meaning. That it makes
religion the pretext for gradually undermining our civil institutions,
any man can see who has intelligence enough to travel away from home
without an attendant. Those engaged in this work--no matter who they
are or where--are the sappers and miners of an aggressive army.
At the command of the pope and Jesuit general--both in Rome--they
are striving, day and night, to reduce the whole body of our Roman
Catholic population--from the bulk of whom they conceal their actual
purpose--to the low and humiliating attitude of Jesuit emissaries, with
no sentiments, opinions, or thoughts of their own, but the mere silent,
passive, and uninquiring slaves of papal and imperial authority.

After laying down the foregoing general propositions, based upon
the teachings of the "Holy Doctor" and "Angel of the Schools,"
Balmes--guided by the same authority--proceeds to explain the
circumstances which justify resistance to the civil authority of
Governments. In order to make himself explicit upon this important
subject, he designates a class of Governments which he calls _de
facto_; that is, such as are formed by revolution against legitimate
authority, and are able to maintain their existence against all
opposition, like that of the United States. These, according to him,
have no right to exact obedience to their civil authority or laws,
merely because of the fact of their existence. Not having been founded
upon the principles of the divine law, as defined by the infallible
popes, and, consequently, not being _de jure_, they are to be regarded
as illegitimate; and, on that account, no obligation of obedience to
them, in so far as they violate the divine law, can be created even by
an oath of allegiance. They are only to be obeyed "from motives of
prudence," until _de jure_ or legitimate Governments can be substituted
for them. In his view, a Government which possesses the right to
require and enforce obedience to its laws, must have the legitimate
authority to command; and this it can not acquire unless it conforms to
the divine law as the pope shall define it. "Consummated facts"--that
is, the actual existence of an independent _de facto_ Government--can
not confer this right, no matter how well and permanently established
it may be. The period of its duration, whether long or short, is of no
consequence; for, by the Canon law doctrine of prescription, no length
of time can be set up against the Church or the pope. Nevertheless,
as those who pay obedience to the pope are sometimes compelled to
live under the protection of what he calls _de facto_ and not under
_de jure_ Governments, he recommends Jesuitical obedience to them
although illegitimate, because "resistance would be useless," and
"would only lead to new disorders." It must be observed, however,
that this obedience involves policy and expediency merely, and not
the obligation of duty. It is only to be yielded when unavoidable, in
consequence of the fact that the illegitimate authority is too strong
and well-established to be overcome. It would be otherwise if it were
too feeble to defend itself against aggression. And to enforce these
doctrines and principles more thoroughly as religious dogmas, he states
the fact that when the Archbishop of Palmyra wrote a book to prove
"that the mere fact of a Government's existence is sufficient for
enforcing the obedience of subjects," the "work was forbidden at Rome,"
and placed, of course, upon the Prohibitory Index.[221]

He refers very sparingly to the methods of resisting illegitimate
or _de facto_ Governments. As the exponent of doctrines approved by
the Jesuits, the infallibility of the pope was accepted by him as
the doctrine of the Church, although it had never been so decreed or
accepted by the whole Church. This was necessary to his main premise,
which was that as the pope represented God on earth, all the power of
the Church must, from necessity, be centered in him, so that whatsoever
he declared the divine law to be must be assented to as such by all
the faithful. If the pope possessed that power then, he possesses
it more emphatically now, since his infallibility has been made a
part of the faith, and, therefore, all who accept that doctrine are
bound to do whatsoever he shall command with reference to submitting
to or resisting the constitutions and laws of civil governments
whensoever his jurisdiction, as he defines it, shall be invaded by
them. Consequently, the true Church teaching is, that the pope alone is
permitted, as the sole earthly interpreter of the divine law, to decide
whether Governments are _de jure_ or _de facto_, and what constitutions
and laws are to be obeyed or disobeyed; and no appeal is allowed from
his decision. With this final arbiter of the fate and destiny of
nations constantly present to guide the faithful, through the agency
of a vigilant and watchful hierarchy, the teachings of Thomas Aquinas,
the Jesuits, and divers popes, they are required to cultivate, with
the utmost diligence, the habit of obedience to papal authority, so
as to keep themselves in constant preparation for future emergencies.
What those emergencies shall be will depend upon the progressive
Governments themselves, and, in this country, upon the people; who
should not, even seemingly, acquiesce in any measures of either Church
or State, priests or laymen, which shall unsettle or endanger any of
the fundamental principles upon which their civil institutions are
planted. There is no room in this country which can be appropriated as
a burial-place for popular government; but there is room for the still
further outspreading of the influences of the form of government which
is now sending its light over the world, advancing civilization where
it exists, and creating it where it does not.

Gathering the papal doctrines from these sources, authoritatively
commanded by Leo XIII to be considered as the foundation of all Roman
Catholic education, a man must stultify himself not to see that the
fundamental principles of our Government can not enter into and become
a part of that education. The Roman Catholic youth are forbidden by the
papal system from accepting as true the principles of the Declaration
of Independence, or of the Constitution of the United States. Both
of these instruments would have to be excluded from Roman Catholic
schools, or the pope be disobeyed. Or if introduced there, the pupils
would have to be taught that they contain irreligious principles,
which the Church had always condemned, and still condemns. The Jesuit
preceptor would tell them that the American Revolution was a sin in
itself, because it was rebellion against the existing principles of
monarchical government, which alone have the divine approval; that all
men are not created free and equal, because some are born to command,
and others to obey; that governments do not derive their just powers
from the consent of the governed, but the multitude of the governed
are bound to obey their superiors, and they the pope; and that when
our fathers appealed to "Divine Providence" for the support of our
national independence, their appeal was blasphemous, because the
pope, who represents God on earth, has anathematized the principles
they have announced. And with the Declaration of Independence thus
disposed of, they would be further instructed that the first article
of the amendments to the Constitution is null and void, because it is
the duty of the Government to establish the Roman Catholic religion
by law, inasmuch as it is the only true religion ever revealed, and
the Protestant religions are false and heretical; that these false
religions ought to be prohibited by law, and that the freedom of speech
and of the press should be so far restrained as not to allow the Roman
Catholic religion to be assailed, the authority which the pope claims
for himself to be questioned, or the Roman Catholic priesthood to be
subjected, like other people, to obedience to the public laws.

Upon the great work of building for themselves and us a Government
based upon the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the
United States, our fathers entered, as we verily believe, under the
protection of Divine Providence. Are we prepared to have the youth of
this country taught that this is such delusion as can only exist in the
minds of "the dreamers of unprofitable dreams?" Unless we are, we must
discard the advice of any alien power, either spiritual or temporal,
hostile to the progressive spirit which has thus far assured our growth
and greatness, and promises still greater progress and development in
the future. A century of experience has taught us that the founders of
our Government were not only skillful builders, but wise and prudent
counselors. When they shunned the pathways along which other nations
had wrecked their fortunes, they, as we believe, displayed a degree of
wisdom never excelled in the previous history of the world, by building
up a system of secular government which centers in the hands of the
people--a free, intelligent, and patriotic people--entire sovereignty
over the laws. There can be no attack upon any material part of that
system, without assailing this popular sovereignty, and denying to the
people the right of self-government.

When, therefore, we are told--as the Jesuits now tell us--that these
secular institutions created by our fathers are sinful and heretical,
because they violate the divine law as Leo XIII, Pius IX, and Gregory
XVI, in our own time, and numerous other popes before them, have
defined that law, we are confronted by the alternative of either
resisting this assault in some effective method becoming to ourselves,
or of consenting to the papal policy of retrogression, which proposes
to lead us back into a condition of humiliating dependence upon an
alien power which teaches that popular governments contravene the
divine law, and have the curse of God resting upon them. We are no
longer left to surmise this, or to draw inferences with regard to it,
which may be ingeniously and Jesuitically met by the pretense that they
proceed from Protestant prejudices. The doors have been thrown open so
wide by our liberalism and toleration that the ultimate end which the
papacy seeks after is not brooded over in silence as it formerly was,
but is plainly and distinctly avowed, so that it will be our own fault
if we fail to discover the points at which our civil institutions are
assailed.

Our Government has been so well and wisely constructed that it does not
interfere, in any respect whatsoever, with the freedom of conscience.
On the contrary, it is protected by constitutional guarantees, which
we preserve with the most assiduous care. But the papal assailants of
some of its most cherished principles avail themselves of this freedom
to justify their united exertions to restore the temporal power of
the pope, well knowing that if that can be accomplished so that his
authority could be established here, as they desire it to be, he would
exercise his prerogative right to deny this same freedom of conscience
to all except those obedient to himself, and would arraign us at the
bar of the Roman Curia, because under our constitutional guarantees we
tolerate all the varieties of religious belief.

Without the least disguise, these same assailants openly declare their
purpose not to slacken their efforts until our system of popular
education is entirely uprooted from the foundation, and our public
schools are converted into papal conventicles, where the disciples of
Loyola shall have supreme rule and be permitted to plant the principles
and theological doctrines of Thomas Aquinas in every youthful mind.
This accomplished, they would expect that the coming generations,
instead of deriving patriotic instruction from the example of those who
founded the Republic, would bow their heads in absolute and uninquiring
obedience to all the doctrines and dogmas of the pope--substitute
the decrees and encyclicals of the popes and the Canon law of Rome
for the Constitution and laws of the United States--and, discarding
entirely the admonitions of our Revolutionary fathers, would accept
as infallibly true whatsoever the pope should declare concerning the
relations between the spiritual and the temporal powers; that is,
between the Church and the State.

In this work of plucking out every germ of patriotism which
instinctively grows and bears fruit in youthful minds, the Jesuits have
been experts, ever since Julius III and Loyola established a college
at Rome to teach treason to the German youth. Time and practice have
increased their skill, and their disappointment at being compelled
to witness the triumph of Protestantism, while they have become
fugitives among the nations, has intensified their hatred of all free
and independent Governments. Leo XIII--not forgetful of his own early
training--has signified his purpose to select them as the educators of
American youth, so that they may be trained in the religious belief
that our national independence is leading us to "libertinism" and
ruin; and that they can only serve God rightly by forgetting home and
country, and by plucking out from their minds all sense of personal
manhood and every ennobling quality; so that, instead of becoming
influential citizens of a free and progressive country, they may fit
themselves for "uninquiring obedience" to a foreign and alien power,
as the Jesuits themselves have done. This country, so blessed by the
abundant fruits of the Reformation and of popular government, must not
be permitted to turn back to the old paths, which papal and imperial
despotism has filled with pitfalls. The principles of the Declaration
of Independence and the Constitution of the United States must not be
supplanted by papal and Jesuit dogmas--such as have been set forth by
the ambitious popes and by Loyola, in order to secure the complete
triumph of monarchism over popular liberty.

The sentiment of patriotism is well-nigh universal among the people
of the United States--Roman Catholics as well as Protestants. The
former have the same desire as the latter to participate in making
the laws that govern them. Their Italian brethren had this desire so
intensely that they resorted to revolution, and thus secured it in the
only possible way by abolishing the pope's temporal power. Why, then,
should they be urged, with such untiring tenacity, to restore again
this temporal power and revive its evils? Why should it be demanded
of them that they organize into a politico-religious party, obedient
to a papal envoy from Rome, and pledged under the solemn obligations
of religious duty to reverse the judgment of their Italian brethren,
and fasten upon them a burden they have thrown off? Why should they be
required to accept a religion which teaches that mankind are by nature
unequal, with some born for dominion and the multitude for obedience
only? Why should they be commanded to treat as sinful and heretical
civil institutions which now protect them and increase their temporal
happiness? Why should it be continually sounded in their ears that the
divorce of the State from the Church, religious liberty, the freedom of
speech and of the press, are such offenses against the divine law as
must not be condoned in this life, and will not be forgiven in the next?

These questions are not idle, but are full of meaning to those to
whom they are addressed, and could be multiplied almost indefinitely.
They are sufficiently suggestive to show--what there are few so blind
as not to see--that the existing agitation about the rights of the
Church, and the passionate declamation employed by the Jesuits to
maintain it, have but a single object--the re-conversion of the pope
into a temporal and imperial ruler of the Italian people, against their
consent. This--with these agitators--must be accomplished at every
hazard, no matter what other consequences may follow. It is inculcated
as religious duty, which can not be neglected without disobeying God!
All the obedient, therefore, are commanded to take part in it, in
disregard of all human laws forbidding the people of one nation from
interfering with the domestic affairs of another. The reverend author
of the pope's biography--speaking for and by the express authority of
Leo XIII himself--says that the abolition of the temporal power "is
an _international_ wrong which _all_ Catholics are bound to denounce
and oppose _until it is done away with_."[222] This is the command of
the pope, authoritatively uttered in imperial tones. It is sent out
to all the Roman Catholics throughout the world, who are required by
it to defy the laws of the countries which protect them, because they
are mere human laws, and to restore absolute monarchism to the pope,
because the divine law provides that mankind shall be ruled by kings
and not by themselves.

The Roman Catholic part of our population are seemingly content as
they are, in their peaceful and quiet homes, where, with their wives
and children around them, they are secured by Protestant laws in the
right to worship God unmolested and according to their own consciences,
as well as in their pursuit after happiness and prosperity. Are they
prepared to place all this in jeopardy, to minister to the pride and
vanity of those who assume to be their rulers, who know nothing of
domestic joys, or peaceful homes, or such sympathetic affections as
grow out of the tenderest relations of life, or of the laughter and
chattering of innocent children, which make the heart glad? All the
means that learning and eloquence and authority can employ will be
invoked to make them so; and it is considered one of the most effectual
of these to instruct them--as the pope's biographer does with singular
complacency--that the Church at Rome has been always found upon the
side of free thought in religion and popular self-government in civil
affairs! And to maintain this marvelous assertion, he boastingly
claims that the great English _Magna Charta_--the foundation of our
civil and religious liberty--was written "_with a Catholic pen_;"[223]
when he must have known, and undoubtedly did know, that Innocent
III--who claimed, as Leo XIII does, to be "God's vicegerent," with the
apostolic power to build and destroy nations, to plant and overthrow
kingdoms--cursed and anathematized that charter because, as he said,
it violated the divine law; declared it to be null and void for that
reason; excommunicated its authors and defenders as heretics; and
said that if that charter had been carried to Rome it would have
been consumed in flames kindled by a common hangman, as would also
have been the bodies of the earls and barons who extorted it from a
craven-hearted king. The decree abolishing the temporal power of the
pope was also written by a Catholic pen.

Nevertheless, it is true--and no fair-minded man will deny it--that
there have been multitudes of Roman Catholics in all parts of the
world who have been intense lovers of civil and religious liberty,
and who have defended their cause with courage and fidelity. There
are many of these in the United States--men who every day feel the
warm and friendly grasp of Protestant hands. With all patriotic
Americans the welfare of these is close akin to their own. But how
many of these have been found upon the papal throne, or among those
who claim the divine right to dictate the religion of the world, and
exact implicit obedience from its professors? The echo which comes
back from the pages of history is--How many? If Leo XIII is one of
them, the announcement of a fact so important to the world should
come from himself, not from others who exhibit no letter of authority
which commissions them to retract, in his name, his well-matured
and frequently-expressed official opinions. If he has--now that his
mind has become matured by the reflections of a long and well-spent
life--found that the separation of Church and State and the freedom of
religious belief are not violative of the divine law; if he has become
convinced that a government "for the people, of the people, and by the
people," like that of the United States, is not heretical,--then let
the announcement of these facts come directly and authoritatively from
the Vatican. There are multitudes of Roman Catholics in this country
whose hearts would leap with intense joy at such an announcement,
and Protestants would hail it as a sure harbinger of future concord,
peace, and quiet among all classes of professing Christians, such as
existed among the Protestants and Roman Catholics of Germany before
the social atmosphere was contaminated by the poison of Jesuitism.
Thousands who are inclined to acknowledge the pope's authority over
their consciences, within the proper circle of his spiritual domain,
would prize an encyclical to that effect, as if each letter were of
gold or precious stones, because it would prove to the world that Pius
IX was moved only by his own impulsive nature and excited imagination
when he declared that the papacy could not become reconciled to, "and
agree with, progress, liberalism, and civilization" as they prevail
among the modern nations. But until this has been done--regularly and
authoritatively--he must be judged alone by the record he has made,
and of which his enthusiastic admirers boast as if every word uttered
by him was written with the pen of an angel. If the Protestants of the
United States still find in these either an open or concealed attack
upon the most cherished principles of their Government--the separation
of the State from the Church, the freedom of religious belief, of
speech, and of the press, the popular right of self-government--they
can not be rightfully accused of intolerance when they announce their
determination to stand by and maintain these principles to the last.
This they must and will do, as their fathers did before, against all
the combined powers of the world, no matter from what arsenals their
adversaries shall draw their weapons. Nor should they forget that
"eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 212: Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 151.]

[Footnote 213: De Montor, Vol. I, p. 495.]

[Footnote 214: O'Reilly, pp. 482-483.]

[Footnote 215: Balmes, pp. 411-412.]

[Footnote 216: _Ibid._, p.v.]

[Footnote 217: _Ibid._, p. 320.]

[Footnote 218: Balmes, p. 326.]

[Footnote 219: Balmes, p. 328.]

[Footnote 220: Balmes, pp. 329-330.]

[Footnote 221: Balmes, p. 333.]

[Footnote 222: Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 471.]

[Footnote 223: Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 409.]




CHAPTER XXIII.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.


There are few things so important to the people of the United States
as that they shall intelligently understand what consequences will
inevitably follow the successful termination of Mgr. Satolli's mission
to this country in his capacity of deputy-pope. If he shall succeed
in breaking down our system of common schools, or in drawing away
from them all the children of our Roman Catholic citizens, and in
the general or partial substitution of the papal for the American
system of education, what will follow? There is but one answer to this
question, which is, that _religion_ will be taught in the schools; not
the religion of Christ, or the apostles, or the martyrs, or that which
prevailed throughout the Christian world for the first five hundred
years of our era--up till the fall of the Roman Empire--but that which
originated in the ambition of emperors and popes, and culminated in
such a union, of Church and State as required that the popes should be
temporal monarchs, with plenary power to rule over the consciences of
mankind. That is what Leo XIII is striving after, and what he has sent
Mgr. Satolli to the United States to accomplish. And it was to achieve
this that Pius VII united with the arbitrary monarchs of the "Holy
Alliance," and re-established the Jesuits; and Pius IX forced through
the Vatican Council of 1870 the decree which declares that all the
popes who have ever lived and all who shall hereafter live, are, and
must be, absolutely infallible. This doctrine of papal infallibility,
therefore, is hereafter to constitute the great fundamental feature in
every system of Roman Catholic education, the central fact from which
all intellectual culture shall radiate, as the rays of light do from
the sun. What it is requires no learning to explain, and what effect it
would have upon our institutions, if taught in all our schools, it does
not require the spirit of prophecy to foretell. That it would undermine
and destroy them is as palpable as that poison diffused throughout the
body will, if not removed, produce death.

The struggle between the popes--that is, the papacy--and the Church
as an organized body of Christian people, for a conciliar decree of
the pope's infallibility, was continued through a period of more
than a thousand years, during which some popes exercised it without
authority as a cover for persecution, and to justify their unlimited
ambition; others to assure themselves of impunity in the commission
of enormous crimes; while others, influenced by honest Christian
instinct and sentiment, repudiated and condemned it as demoralizing
and antichristian. The Church suffered most when this struggle was at
its highest, as is evidenced by the seventy years' residence of the
popes at Avignon; the forty years' schism; the claim of the pontifical
seat by John XXII, Gregory XII, and Benedict XIII, at the same time;
the imprisonment of John XXII by the Council of Constance; the burning
of Huss and Jerome at the stake; and the general demoralization of
the clergy, to say nothing of other things with which all intelligent
readers of ecclesiastical history are familiar. When the Church
recovered from these and other afflictions, it would be tedious to
enumerate; it was done by the influence of the good and unambitious
popes, together with that of the great body of its membership, who
combined to rebuke the claim of infallibility, because it was founded
upon the vain assumption that a mere man, with the passions and
impulses of other men, was the equal of God in wisdom and authority.

When this decree was obtained by Pius IX from the Vatican Council,
twenty-three years ago, the Jesuits won their proudest triumph since
their restoration. It made no difference with them, or with Pius IX,
or with their obedient followers, that Clement XIV was decreed to have
been also infallible when he suppressed them by a solemn pontifical
decree, reciting how they had disturbed the peace of the Church and
of the nations by their multitude of iniquities, nor how one act of
infallibility could be set aside and abrogated by another. Not even
a single thought was incited by so inconsequential a matter as this,
because everything was centered in the great object of achieving a
triumph over liberalism and modern progress, upon the Jesuit theory
that "the end justifies the means." Pius IX was present in the Council,
and one of the enthusiastic defenders of the decree afterwards gave
full vent to his extraordinary imaginings by declaring that the souls
of all present were "overwhelmed by the brilliant effulgence of the
sun of righteousness and eternal truth, reflected to-day from one
_greater than Moses_, the very vicar of Christ Jesus himself."[224]
It is not surprising that an author like this should have become the
historian of such a Council, but it is a little so that his book
should have been published in this country about two years after, in
a form so cheap as to assure it a large circulation among our Roman
Catholic population. The motive of this, however, manifestly was that
the volume should become educational in the papal schools, to take the
place of the histories which point out the advantages we have derived
from Protestantism, and at the same time stamp the impression upon
the minds of old and young, that the pope, as the only guardian and
dictator of true Christian faith is and must continue to be--no matter
whether as a man he possesses good qualities or bad--a "greater man
than Moses," because he is infallible and Moses was not. This character
of the work is well established by the fact that, among the deplorable
evils of the times, it specifies the usurpation of the education of
youth "by unbelieving seculars;" that is, by those who, notwithstanding
their professions, know nothing of true religion because they are
Protestants; and by the further fact that the chief remedy for these
evils pointed out by him is the establishment of the "pope's sovereign
power over the world;" and by the still additional fact that, when
referring to those Roman Catholics who live under the protection of
Protestant institutions, he adds: "The Church has ever regarded it as
a matter of importance that the laws of those civil powers, to which
her spiritual children are subjected, should be formed in perfect
accordance with her own laws;"[225] that is, that as the pope has at
last, after more than a thousand years of hard struggle, been decreed
to be infallible, they shall not be considered by "the faithful" as
binding upon their consciences unless approved by him. And then,
establishing it as the foundation-stone upon which the superstructure
of the papal system rests, that the Church "has ever proved herself
the most powerful bulwark of the temporal power of temporal princes,"
he proceeds to instruct those who had not then learned what was meant
by the pope's infallibility, in what sense the Church expected them to
accept it. His words should sink deeply into the mind of every citizen
of this country who desires to know what principles of government would
be instilled into the minds of American youth if Mgr. Satolli and his
Jesuit allies should succeed in destroying our common schools, and
substituting for them parochial or religious schools. Here is what he
says:

"The Church may not wish to interfere in the purely secular concerns
of other States, or in the enactment of purely secular laws, for the
government of foreign subjects, but she _claims a right, and a right
divine, to prevent any secular law, or power, being exercised for
the injury of religion, the destruction of morals, and the spiritual
ruin of her children_. _She claims a right to supervise such laws, to
support, their use, if salutary, to control their abuse. In the domain
of morals, it is the province of the Church to reign._ Wherever there
is moral responsibility, it is her prerogative, by divine commission,
to guide and to govern, to sanction, to command, or to condemn, to
reward merit, and to punish moral delinquency."[226]

And, in further definition of infallibility, he says:

"The Council will vindicate _its authority over the world_, and prove
its right, founded on a divine commission, to enter most intimately
into _all the spiritual concerns of the world; to supervise_ the acts
of the king, the diplomatist, the philosopher, and the general; to
circumscribe the limits of their speculative inquiries; to _hold up the
lamp which is to light their only path to knowledge and education_;
_to subjugate human reason to the yoke of faith_; _to extinguish
liberals, rationalists, and deists by one stroke of her infallibility_.
Infallible dogma is a brilliant light, which every intellect must
recognize, whether willingly or reluctantly.... _The Church claims its
right to enter the world's domain, and recognizes no limits but the
circumference of Christendom; to enforce her laws over her subjects;
to control their reason and judgment; to guide their morals, their
thoughts, words, and actions_, and to regard temporal sovereigns,
though entitled to exercise power in secular affairs, as _auxiliaries
and subordinates_ to the attainment of the end of her institution, the
glory of God and the salvation of the immortal souls of men, and to
secure for them their everlasting happiness. And this order of things
she regards as true liberty--_Ubi Spiritus Domini ibi libertas_."

He insists that the Church has the right to intrude "_into the social
relations of the general community of worldings_;" and has also the
"_right to supervise the lectures of the professor, the diplomacy
of the statesman, the government of kings, and to scrutinize their
morality and punish their faults_."

Referring to the union of Church and State, and the manner in which
politico-religious opinions are brought within the papal jurisdiction,
he says:

"Political theorists nowadays presume so far as to proclaim the
right of secular States to be what they call free and independent
of the Church's laws; that is, they profess to take _their temporal
governments out of the Church_ in which God intended to place and to
bless them, and to consecrate them in and through the Church. There
are even those who have the temerity to advocate the deordination of
a Church dependent on the legislative enactments of a secular State!
Statesmen know the objects of your transitory existence: it is to
enact secular laws, for secular jurisprudence, and for the secular
commonweal, and then to live in the Church; to co-operate with the
Church; to be sanctified through the Church; and by this happy union to
enjoy the reciprocity of the Church's influence over the consciences of
your subjects, which is the solid foundation of their loyalty and your
stability; and to assist the Church in promoting what is useful for
saving their souls, which should be to you also an object of paramount
solicitude. Is the world, then, come to this!--that social diplomatists
should _sever the State from the Church_, or domineer over Christian
society? Is nature to separate from grace, and set up a dynasty for
itself? No, no; _Quis separabit?_ The _holy alliance of Church and
State constitutes the union of the soul and body--the life and vigor
of Christian society_! It is time that a General Council shall teach
statesmen this salutary lesson, and that they may not put their foot on
the steps of Peter's throne; that it is their duty to co-operate with
the Church; and that in all matters appertaining to the order of grace,
their position is, to _sit down and listen respectfully before the
Church's teaching chair_."[227]

Nothing short of the importance of the matters involved in the doctrine
of the pope's infallibility, and the consequences which are expected
to follow it, can justify such lengthy extracts from a single book.
But these considerations do, for the reason that as books like this
are seen by few, and read by still fewer, a better opportunity for
understanding the objects to be accomplished by them is furnished by
this method to both Protestants and Roman Catholics. Multitudes of the
latter are deceived and misled into the belief that the doctrine of
the pope's infallibility is necessary to the Church, whose Christian
teachings they revere; whereas, if they, by intelligent instruction
and thoughtful reflection, were assured, as the fact really is, that
it pertains alone to the power and authority of the popes--that is,
to the papacy, and not the Church--it is believed they would neither
assent to it themselves, nor allow it to be taught, as a necessary
dogma of faith, to their children, either in schools under the auspices
of the Church or elsewhere. It would be unfair to them to doubt that
they would reject it, if assured, as these extracts would assure them,
that infallibility requires the destruction of every form of popular
government in order that a grand papal confederation may be constructed
for the government of the world, under the sole dominion of the pope.
They would, upon proper investigation, see and know that the Council
which passed the decree was not a representative body with authority to
bind their consciences, but that it was, on the other hand, composed
of those who were indebted alone to the pope for all the authority
they possessed, and that he could strip them of their robes at his own
pleasure in case of disobedience to his commands. And they would learn
also that instead of the decree having been passed unanimously by the
whole Council--as they have been instructed--there were 157 absentees,
who withdrew because of it, leaving those only to vote who were in its
favor; that, in point of fact, it was a conflict between the Church,
as it had existed under more than 250 popes before Pius IX, and the
papacy, and that the victory was won by the latter, to the discomfiture
and regret of vast multitudes of their devout Christian brethren in
all parts of the world. The Council consisted of 692 members. There
were but 535 present when the decree was passed, showing, as stated,
157 absent. Of these, 63 of the diocesan bishops and representatives
of what are called "the most illustrious sees in Christendom," signed
a written protest against papal infallibility. Of those present,
533 voted for the decree, and 2 against it--one of whom was from the
United States--but these were so carried away by the excitement that
they gave in their adhesion. Many of the absentees had left Rome in
disgust, having signified their opposition before leaving. On the day
of the vote, there were 66 in Rome who refused to attend the session.
Among these were 4 cardinals, 2 patriarchs, 2 primates, 18 archbishops,
and the remainder were bishops. The result, consequently, was a mere
triumph of the majority over the minority, as occurs in legislative
bodies. The pretense of unanimity is without foundation, except as
regards the votes actually cast. To compare a result thus obtained to
the direct intervention of Providence, in imitation of the delivery
of the law to Moses, indicates the possession of an exceedingly high
faculty of invention; it borders closely upon delusion. Therefore, it
may well and appropriately be said that the description of the scene
by the author, from whose book the foregoing quotations are extracted,
has, in calling Pius IX "greater than Moses, the very vicar of Christ
Jesus himself," so far transcended the bounds of reason as to make
their author appear like one who lives only in an ethereal atmosphere.
There is no authority for saying that he is a Jesuit; but if he were
found in companionship with one known to be so, it would be puzzling to
tell which was "the twin Dromio," because, beyond all doubt, they would
be "two Dromios, one in semblance."

What was expected to be accomplished by the decree of the pope's
infallibility, by solemnly declaring that God had but one
representative upon earth, and that he was so endowed with divine
wisdom that he alone could prescribe the universal rule of faith,
and was endowed with sufficient authority to enable him to exact
and enforce obedience to his commands? Let the thoughtful mind,
desirous to obtain a satisfactory answer to this question, ponder
well upon the teachings of universal history--the birth, growth, and
decay of former nations. Upon innumerable pages he will find it
written, more indelibly than if it had been carved upon metal by
the engraver's tool, that, from the very beginning of the Christian
Church at Rome--whensoever that was--papal infallibility had never
been recognized or established as a dogma of religious faith. If the
Apostle Peter was the first of the popes--as alleged--then, up till
the pontificate of Pius IX, there were two hundred and fifty-eight
popes, to say nothing of the numerous anti-popes. There were, besides,
numerous General and Provincial Councils, beginning with that at Nice,
under Constantine, in 325, and ending with that of the Vatican, in
1870--the period between the two being one thousand five hundred and
forty-five years. And yet, during all this long, protracted period,
there is not to be found, among the articles of religious faith
announced from time to time by the Church, one single sentence or
word or syllable which requires it to be believed that the pope is
infallible! Is all this history mythical? Has it led "the faithful"
into error and sin? Were only those popes obedient to the divine law
who believed themselves infallible, and acted accordingly, while
those who did not were heretics? Why were General Councils necessary
to obtain the universal consent of the Church, if the popes were
infallible and could decree the faith of their own accord? When popes
disagreed--as did John XXII and Nicholas III and Innocent III and
Celestine and Pelagius and Gregory the Great--upon important questions,
how were they to be decided?[228] Were the popes who denied their own
infallibility destined to be cut off in eternity from the presence of
God for their heresy? Edgar enumerates eight of these who directly
disaffirmed their belief in it,[229] and there were many others who
did not affirm it. Were all these heretics? And were also the great
Church historians, such as Launoy, Almain, Marca, Du Pin, Bossuet,
and others--and the whole body of French or Cisalpine Christians--all
heretics? And what is to be said of the General Councils of
Pisa, Constance, and Basel, all three of which denied the pope's
infallibility in terms of strong condemnation? It would be easy to
multiply these questions; but it is sufficient to say that if the popes
who denied infallibility were heretics, then the line of apostolic
succession is broken by the removal of several important links in the
chain, and the attempt to trace back the present Roman Church to the
apostolic times, and to the Apostle Peter, is an entire and humiliating
failure. And it is an unavoidable inference from a long line of facts,
well proved in history, that but for the unfortunate alliance between
the ambitious popes and the Jesuits to build up and strengthen their
power at the expense of the Church, the Christian world of the present
day would have taken no interest in the prosecution of that inquiry.
The Church is of less consequence to the Jesuits than their own
society, and as they have invariably condemned it when not upon their
side, so there has been no time since the death of Loyola when they did
not consider its humiliation by them as promotive of "the greater glory
of God," when thereby their own power and authority could be enlarged.

When Pius IX, in 1854, signalized the close of the eighth year of his
pontificate by issuing his decree to the effect that thenceforward
the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary should be accepted as a
dogma of faith, he acted of his own accord and without convening a
General Council. It is fair to say, therefore, that he considered this
an act of infallibility, then, for the first time, put in practical
execution. It was, doubtless, an experiment, practiced with the view to
ascertain whether or no it would obtain the approbation of those whose
consciences were to be influenced by it. The experiment was successful,
and inasmuch as it involved only a question purely of a _religious_
character, no special or injurious consequences followed. Protestants
did not regard themselves warranted to complain of it, for the plain
reason that the religious faith of Roman Catholics concerned themselves
alone. Pius IX, however, intended by this decree something more than
merely to add a new dogma to the faith. Undoubtedly, his object was
to employ this exercise of infallible power, so that, if accepted with
unanimity by the membership of the Church, that might be considered
such an indorsement of the doctrine as would justify him in convening a
General Council, and having it decree that, not himself alone, but all
other popes, both good and bad, were infallible.

This is not said reproachfully, but rather to indicate the shrewdness
and sagacity practiced by him to influence the large body of believers
in the Church. The whole history of the papacy at that time proved
that it was essential to its future success that the doctrine of
infallibility should be extended beyond mere questions of religious
belief, so as to embrace other matters connected with the revolutionary
movements then in progress in Europe, which were threatening to
undermine, if not destroy, the papal power; that is, the temporal
power of the pope. Revolutionary disturbances are always threatening
to those against whom they are directed, and Pius IX, believing, as he
undoubtedly did, that such as then existed in Europe were directed,
or would be if not checked, against his temporal power, deemed it
necessary to obtain, if possible, the sanction of a conciliar decree to
the exercise by him of new powers in addition to those then universally
conceded to him over religious questions and affairs. Thus he designed
to obtain the express or implied assent of the Church to his exercise
of jurisdiction over _politico-religious_ matters, in order that he
might be enabled to promulgate such decrees as would, through the
agency and influence of "the faithful" among the different European
nations, arrest the progress of the revolutionary movements, and
save his temporal power. Hence, when the decree of infallibility was
interpreted by him in the light of these events and his own purposes,
he had no difficulty in concluding that it had given him jurisdiction
over all such _politico-religious_ questions as bore, either directly
or indirectly, upon the spiritual or temporal interests of the Church
in all parts of the world. That his successor, Leo XIII, agrees with
him in this interpretation no intelligent man can deny. If he were not
influenced to do this by his desire to regain the temporal power which
was taken away from his predecessor, his education and training by the
Jesuits would impress his mind with the conviction that a temporal
crown upon his head is a positive necessity, in order that he may
promote "the greater glory of God." Consequently, when it is thus made
too plain and palpable to admit of fair denial, that the infallibility
of the pope is the chiefest and most fundamental dogma of faith--the
foundation of the whole system of papal belief--it is positively
obligatory upon us, in this country, to understand its full import and
meaning. If anything were required to make this obligation more binding
than it is, it is found in the facts now confronting us, that our
public schools are pronounced "godless" because this religious dogma
is not taught to our children, and that it is taught to Roman Catholic
children in parochial schools, mainly under Jesuit control.

Tedious as the evidence already adduced may seem to be to those
who look at such matters as these only by casual glances, it
is indispensable to a thorough knowledge of the truth that the
politico-religious matters which this decree has brought within the
jurisdiction of the pope should be plainly and distinctly made known.
Without this knowledge, our tolerance may seem to invite dangerous
encroachments, by the Jesuits and those obedient to them, upon some of
the most highly cherished principles of our Government. We have seen,
from one papal author, what is meant at Rome by a religious education,
and shall, in the next chapter, see cumulative proof from another,
probably more influential.

From this latter author, even more distinctly than from the former,
we shall see how absolutely we should be subject to the commands of
the pope; how we should be domineered over by his ecclesiastical
hierarchy and their Jesuit allies; how all our actions, thoughts, and
impulses, would be held in obedience to ecclesiastical and monarchical
dictation; and how we should have, instead of a Government of the
people, one under the arbitrary dictatorship of a foreign sovereign,
who can neither speak our language nor understand our Constitution
and laws. We might be permitted to manage our secular affairs--such
as relate to the transaction of our ordinary business--but in
everything we should consider as pertaining to the Church or himself,
he would become our absolute and irresponsible ruler. Church and
State would be united, and all the measures provided by the framers
of our Government for the protection of our natural rights--such as
the freedom of religious belief, of the press, and of speech--would
be destroyed. Free government would be at an end, and a threatening
cloud would hover over us like the pall of death. We should be turned
back to the Middle Ages, and all the fruits of the Reformation would
be lost, without the probability of ever being afterwards regained
by our posterity. A careful scanning of what follows will show that
this picture is not overdrawn. And if it is not, the obligation to see
that these calamities shall not befall us, rests as heavily upon the
Roman Catholic as it does upon the Protestant part of our population.
A common spirit should animate the hearts of all, no matter what their
religious belief, and stimulate them to joint protest and mutual
defense. Those who brave the dangers of navigation upon the same vessel
at sea, must, when the storm rages, unite together in heart and hand,
or run the risk of sinking in a watery grave. So it is with those whose
lives and fortunes and earthly interests are under the protection of
the same civil institutions; if they become divided into angry and
adverse factions, under the dominion of unrestrained passions, they
invite the spoiler to undermine the foundations of the fortress which
shelters and protects them.

That the Jesuits, in the war they are now making, and have always
made, against civil and religious liberty, constitute such a spoiler,
history attests in numerous volumes. Wheresoever civil government has
been made obedient to the popular will, they have labored indefatigably
for its overthrow. To that end monarchism has been made the central
and controlling principle of their organization--so completely so that
their society never has existed, and could not exist, without it.
They warred malevolently upon the best of the popes, and defied the
authority of the Church for more than a hundred years--never abating
their vengeance, except when the pontifical chair was occupied by a
pope who submitted to their dictation. They are, to-day--as at every
hour since the time of Loyola--compactly united to destroy, as sinful
and heretical, all civil institutions constructed by the people for
their own protection, and substitute for them such as are obedient to
monarchs and their own interpretation of the divine law. And now, when
the pontifical authority is vested in a pope whose youthful mind was
impressed and disciplined by their teachings, and they stand ready to
subvert every Government which has separated the State from the Church,
and secured the freedom of conscience, of speech, and of the press,
and are straining every nerve to obtain the control of our system of
common-school education, so as to instill their doctrines into the
minds of the American youth--the times have become such that all the
citizens of the United States, irrespective of their forms of religious
belief, should form a solid and united body in resistance to their
un-American plottings.

Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, who signed our Declaration of
Independence, was a Roman Catholic, but not a Jesuit. He loved his
Church, and adhered to its faith, which did not then require him
to believe that its pope was infallible; and with his mind filled
with patriotic emotions, he stood by the side of Thomas Jefferson,
Benjamin Franklin, and fifty-four other patriots, and united with them
in separating Church and State, in establishing a Government of the
people, in guaranteeing the absolute freedom of religious belief; and
when he and they looked upon the great work they had accomplished,
they solemnly declared that it was in obedience to "the laws of nature
and of nature's God." He who now insists, as the Jesuits do, that in
all this he violated his Christian conscience by offending God in the
perpetration of an act of heresy, not only asperses unjustly the memory
of this unselfish patriot, but wounds the sensibilities of every true
American heart. At the time our independence was established Pius VI
was pope. He had not been declared to be infallible, and the Jesuits
did not exist as a society under the protection of the Church; for they
had been suppressed for their innumerable offenses against the Church
and the nations, by his immediate predecessor Clement XIV, and were
wanderers over the earth, seeking shelter under heretical princes and
States, where they were allowed to plot against the Church. The pope,
therefore, possessing only _spiritual_ jurisdiction, did not pronounce
a pontifical curse upon our infant institutions, not only because they
were not within that jurisdiction, but because they secured, by proper
guarantees, the freedom of religious belief to Roman Catholics. He
had his hands full in attempting to deal with the French Revolution,
over which he supposed his jurisdiction to extend, because France
had, for several centuries, recognized the spiritual dominion of his
predecessors and their right to regulate its faith. Consequently, he
took the side of Louis XVI against the people of France, and denounced
the Legislative Assembly, and avowed his purpose to maintain all the
prerogative rights of the "Holy See." He, accordingly, issued an
encyclical proclamation, in which he condemned the efforts of the
French people to establish a Republic, and the Legislative Assembly,
in these words: "That Assembly, after abolishing monarchy, _which is
the most natural form of government_, had attributed almost all power
_to the populace, who follow no wisdom and no counsel, and have no
understanding of things_." He further instructed the bishops that all
"poisoned books" should be removed "from the hands of the faithful by
force and by stratagem." He declared that "the _priesthood and tyranny
support each other_; and the one overthrown, the other can not long
subsist." He denounced the liberty after which France was striving, in
imitation of our Revolutionary example, as tending "to corrupt minds,
pervert morals, and overthrow all order in affairs and laws," and the
equality of man as leading to "anarchy" and the "speedy dissolution" of
society.[230]

And inasmuch as this same pope, Pius VI and the present pope, Leo XIII,
have been solemnly decreed to be infallible, incapable of error in
matters of faith, and standing in the place of God upon earth--and Leo
XIII has never repudiated these teachings of Pius VI or many others
of like import by other popes--and the decree of infallibility has so
enlarged his spiritual jurisdiction as to bring all politico-religious
matters throughout the world within its circle, and the Jesuits have
been re-established under their original constitution as it came from
the hands of Loyola, and are still full of life and vigor, which they
constantly display in their tireless efforts to control the education
of American youth, the obligation imposed upon all our people, of every
religious creed, to discover in what direction we are drifting, is
positive, absolute, and indispensable.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 224: The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Page
272.]

[Footnote 225: The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Page
10.]

[Footnote 226: The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Page
11.]

[Footnote 227: The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Pages
12 to 15.]

[Footnote 228: Ecclesiastical History. By Du Pin. Vol. XV-XVI, p. 260.]

[Footnote 229: Variations of Popery. By Edgar. Page 188.]

[Footnote 230: Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs. By De Montor.
Vol. II, pp. 461 to 470.]




CHAPTER XXIV.

THE CHURCH AND LITERATURE.


It is of the highest importance that the papal interpretation of the
decree of infallibility should be understood. This can be ascertained
only by obtaining information from authoritative sources, from those
who bear such relations to the pope as entitle what they say of the
intentions and purposes of those charged with the administration of
Church affairs, not merely at Rome but elsewhere throughout the world,
to the highest consideration. In the absence of any direct avowal sent
forth from the Vatican, the next best evidence is embodied in the
papal literature, manifestly provided to explain the character of such
teachings as it is designed to introduce into Roman Catholic religious
schools in the United States, and into our common schools, provided
Mgr. Satolli should make his mission here a success. The conscientious
"searcher after truth"--whether Protestant or Roman Catholic--will find
himself well rewarded for whatsoever labor he may expend in this method
of investigation. If he be a Protestant, he will see that all the
principles of Protestantism, religious and civil, are threatened; and
if he be a Roman Catholic, not belonging to the ecclesiastic body, he
will be likely to discover that his silence is construed by his Church
authorities into acquiescence in politico-religious opinions which his
conscience repudiates and condemns.

During the progress of the Italian revolution in 1868, a work appeared
in Italy from the pen of P. Franco, wherein the relations between the
Church and secular Governments, as well as individuals and communities,
were elaborately discussed. This work was evidently authoritative, and
if it did not have the special approval of Pius IX, it undoubtedly had
that of those high in position at the Vatican. It had two controlling
objects: _First_, to check the revolution, and to bring the Italian
people into a proper state of obedience to the pope, as a temporal
monarch with absolute authority; _second_, to prepare the way for the
acknowledgment of the infallibility of the pope, which was then in
contemplation. It failed in the first, because that involved the civil
and political rights of the Italian people, which they had determined
not to leave longer under the dominion of irresponsible monarchical
power; and aided, it is supposed, in accomplishing the second, because
it was asserted and believed that it had reference only to matters of
religious faith. At all events, the passage of the decree encountered
no direct resistance from the Italian people, as it would undoubtedly
have done if they had supposed it intended to counteract and destroy
the influences of the revolution, in so far as they affected their
political rights.

After the decree was passed, it was considered important that this
work of Franco should be translated into the English language, so
as to bring all English-speaking Roman Catholics to the point of
accepting papal infallibility, both as an accomplished fact and the
only true religious faith; and to convince them of the enormous sin
they would commit by refusing to do so. Lord Robert Montagu, a Roman
Catholic member of the British Parliament, became the translator,
following the original, as far as he considered it expedient, upon
points of religious doctrine, and adding some reflections of his own.
It was published in London in 1874--four years after the passage
of the decree--in order to create English opinion in favor of the
restoration of the temporal power of the pope, and the recognition
of his infallibility. This work has 428 pages, almost every one of
which contains assertions designed to prove that the spirit of the
present progressive age is offensive to God, and that mankind can be
saved from eternal perdition in no other way than by conceding to the
pope the universality of dominion which it claims for him, and which,
if granted, would overturn every Government existing in the world,
and, first of all, the present Government of Italy. It is almost
impossible, within a reasonable compass, to explain anything more than
his general ideas, and such of these only as are intended to show how
the powers and authority of the Church and the pope--made equivalent
terms by the decree--are viewed by those whose position and character
entitle them to speak knowingly and authoritatively. For the want of
such information as this volume, and others of the same kind, contain,
multitudes of good-intentioned people, both Protestants and Roman
Catholics, are misled.

He attributes the present "spread of false principles," now prevailing
in the progressive nations, to two causes: _First_, "modern
civilization;" and _second_, "freedom of conscience," or "the right
of private judgment." He considers all who "respect every religion"
as guilty of "formal apostasy;" and says that "Catholics certainly
are intolerant, and so they ought to be," because "if a Catholic is
not intolerant, he is either a hypocrite, or else does not really
believe what he professes."[231] He insists that when a contest shall
arise "between an ecclesiastical and a lay authority, the Church
knows infallibly that it belongs to her to determine the question,"
not only over "spiritual matters," but "whether the point in dispute
be a spiritual matter, or necessarily connected with a spiritual
matter." Hence he argues, in explanation, that "therefore the temporal
authority must be subordinate to the spiritual; _the civil authority,
and its rights and powers, must be placed at the absolute disposal of
the Church_;" that is, the State must obey the pope in whatsoever he
shall command or exact. Consequently, says he, "the Church, whose end
is the highest end of man, _must be preferred before the State_; for
all States regard only a temporary or earthly end. If, then, we have
to avoid an _imperium in imperio_, it is necessary that _the temporal
State should give way to the eternal Church_;" that is, the laws of
the Church must be obeyed before those of the State. He is careful to
designate the duties of a secular Government like ours as follows:
"Let it look to the civil and criminal laws, its army, its trade, its
finance, its railways, its screw-frigates, and its telegraphs; but let
it not step out of its province, and, like Oza, put forth its hand to
hold up the ark of God." To make the Church free, the pope must be
absolutely independent, and not "in the power of any Government--with
the control of education, and the right to 'administer and dispose of
her own property.'" Referring to a free Government, such as that of the
United States, he says: "_A State which is free from the Church is an
atheistical State; it denotes a godless Government and godless laws,
... which knows nothing of any kind of religion, and which, therefore,
determines to do without God._" In order to avoid confusion, the State
must be subordinate to and dependent upon the Church, because, "_by
separating Church and State, you cut man in two, and make inextricable
confusion_," and because also "a separation of Church and State is the
destruction both of the State and the religion of the people." And so
he argues that "the State can not be separated from the Church without
commencing its decadence and ruin;" wherefore "the State must _obey_
the legitimate authority of the Church, and be in subordination to the
Church, so that there may be no clashing of authorities, or conflict of
jurisdictions."[232]

He fiercely denounces secret societies, such as the Freemasons, but
strangely omits the Jesuits, whose proceedings have always been
sheltered behind an impenetrable veil. All such as are not favorable to
the papal demands he calls the "slaves of the devil," and represents
them as belonging to "the synagogue of Satan," only for the reason
that they do not bow their necks to the pontifical yoke--a method of
denunciation as persistently indulged in by such writers, as if Christ
had commanded the passions of hatred and revenge to be cultivated, and
not suppressed. Referring to the bulls of Clement IX, Benedict XIV,
Pius VII, and Leo XII, excommunicating all who show favor to or harbor
them, he declares that any oaths they may take are not binding. He does
not base this upon the conclusion that they are not authorized by law,
and are merely voluntary, but upon the third canon of the Third Council
of Lateran, which applies to all oaths of whatsoever character, and
provides that "it is _not an oath, but an act of perjury, when a man
swears to do anything against the Church_;" as, for example, our oath
of naturalization and allegiance, which requires fidelity to heretical
institutions, and the maintenance of the atheistical principle, which
requires the State to be separated from the Church.[233]

The "liberty and independence of the pope in his spiritual government,"
he makes to mean "not only the liberty and independence of his own
person, but also that of the numerous great dignitaries of the Church
who assist him, and of the officials and ministers and _employees_ of
every order whom he requires, and who are required by the numerous
ecclesiastical institutions which surround him, and which extend their
operations over the whole world." In this extraordinary and pretentious
claim there is no disguise--not even equivocation. All appointed by
the pope, including a whole army of employees, of every grade, are to
be exempt from the operations of the public laws of all Protestant
Governments and answerable alone to the pope! Let the friends of
popular government mark well the reason for this universality of the
pope's absolute jurisdiction over the world. It is this, that "if any
Government were to have jurisdiction over them, except that of the pope
alone, or if any Government were able to impede their action, then the
pope would have less immunity and freedom of action than an ambassador
of the meanest power in the world," because he could not compel them
to obey his laws and commands--that is, the Canon law--instead of those
of the State. And he carries this idea of antagonism between the laws
of a State and the Canon laws, to the extent of the excommunication of
the former for "sanctioning some antichristian principle;" such, for
example, as the separation of Church and State, secular education, or
civil marriages. In any of these cases, "_that luckless State may find
itself confronted by the two hundred million Catholics in the world,
and the God of armies, who protect the Church_!"[234] And because these
"two hundred million Catholics"--which exceeds the actual number by
twenty-five million--do not protest against such vain threats as this,
the Church authorities interpret their silence to mean approval, and
thus they convert their follies of one day into the infatuation of
the next, and finally into positive hallucination. This distinguished
author furnishes many additional evidences of this--evidences
sufficient to convince any unbiased mind, beyond any ground for
reasonable doubt, that the Jesuits obtained complete triumph over the
pope, and he over the Church.

All independent Governments claim and exercise the right to regulate
and manage their own affairs, and when this right is lost, from
whatsoever cause, their independence is brought to an end. Yet this
author lays it down as a settled principle of ecclesiastical law that
the Church--that is, the pope--possesses the exclusive authority to
decide its own jurisdiction over spirituals and temporals. After
averring that "the Church alone is competent to declare what she is
and what belongs to her," he affirms the doctrines announced by the
celebrated Syllabus of Pius IX, and charges those who do not accept
these teachings with renouncing the only true faith. "The pope,"
says he, "can not sanction indifferentism or _liberty of worship_,
nor _civil marriages_, nor _secular education_; he can not concede
_liberty, or rather license, of the press_; nor recognize _sovereignty
of the people_; nor admit the necessity of the 'social evil;' nor
legalize robbery and murder"--thus placing some of the essential
principles of our Government upon a level with the most flagrant
crimes. He characterizes "the daily paper" as the "common sewer of
human iniquities," and considers popular government such an abomination
that the Church must not be silent wheresoever "_a false principle--the
sovereignty of the people_"--shall prevail. Hence, in order to correct
these evils and extirpate these heresies, the "_priests must enter
into politics_," because the Church "has a right and duty to meddle
in every question, in so far as it is in the moral order"--giving, by
way of illustration, "trade, commerce, finance, and military and naval
matters." If a State shall do anything to hinder the accomplishment of
any of the supernatural ends sought after by the Church, it must be
reduced to subordination, as "it is the duty of the superior society to
correct it." Hence "_religion must of necessity enter into politics_,
if government is not to become an impossibility." And, surveying the
whole field occupied by the modern nations, he admonishes society to
avoid a republic, and adds: "Let the form of government be a republic,
and you will then endure the horrors of the democracy of '89, or of the
Commune of '71; for a nation will assuredly plunge itself into misery
as soon as it attempts _to govern itself_."[235]

He devotes a chapter to liberty, in which he says "liberty of thought
is, in fact, the principle of disorder and uncertainty, and a license
to commit every crime." He condemns "liberty of speech," "liberty of
the press," "freedom of worship, religious liberty, or equality of
Churches," and declares that "freedom of worship, or religious liberty,
is a false and pernicious liberty."[236] But being compelled to realize
that Roman Catholics are allowed freedom of religious belief and
worship in Protestant countries, he finds himself constrained to make
an explanation. In doing so, however, he makes a startling exhibition
of Romish and Jesuit intolerance, wheresoever the power to enforce it
is possessed. What is to follow from his pen should command the most
serious attention from all American readers, whatsoever their religion.
His book was not written and published under influences favorable to
the liberty of the press, but under papal auspices exclusively. It is
fairly to be presumed that he was chosen by the proper papal authority
for the purpose, and that so far from its having been placed upon the
"Prohibitory Index" it has the highest papal sanction. He says:

"Thus it is that Catholics, in some countries, ask for liberty of
education, liberty of worship, liberty of speech, liberty of the press,
and so forth; _not because these are good things_, but because, in
those countries, the compulsory education, the law for conformity of
worship, the press law, etc., enforce that _which is far worse_. In the
Egyptian darkness of error, it is good to obtain a little struggling
ray of light. It is better to be on a Cunard steamer than on a raft,
but if the steamer was going down the raft would be preferable. So it
is _relatively good, in a pagan or heretic country, to obtain liberty
of worship, or religious liberty_; but that choice no more proves that
it is absolutely good, and _should be granted in Catholic countries
also_, than your getting on a raft in mid-ocean proves that every one,
in all cases, should do so. _Still less does it follow that, because
liberty of worship is demanded in Protestant countries, therefore it
should be granted in Catholic countries._ To deny religious liberty
would be contradictory of the principle of Protestantism, which is
the right of private judgment. _But the principle of Catholicism is
repugnant to a liberty of worship_; for the principle of Catholicism is
that God has appointed an infallible Teacher of faith and morals."[237]

He proceeds, with marvelous complacency, to argue that Protestants have
no right to be intolerant toward Roman Catholics, because "they have
no business to imagine that truth is on their side," and "lies and
errors have no rights;"[238] but Roman Catholics have a right to be
intolerant towards Protestants because truth abides only with them.

The liberty of the press is especially denounced. It is called "the
most hurtful of liberties," and restraints and "checks should be
imposed upon the press." It is condemned as "a crime," and, it is said,
"there is no right to a freedom of the press." In order to prove how
hard the popes and Councils have struggled to put a stop to "telling
lies in public" by "newspaper editors," he cites the "strict orders"
issued by the Lateran Council, under Leo X, that nothing should be
published which the bishops did not approve; and the renewal of these
orders by the Council of Trent. He then enumerates the following
popes, who prescribed rules and injunctions to prevent these commands
from being evaded: Alexander VII, Clement VIII, Benedict XIV, Pius
VI, Pius VII, Leo XII, Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, the last of whom is
represented as saying that "the freedom of the press is 'detestable'
and 'execrable;'" and lastly, Pius IX, in the seventy-ninth proposition
of his Syllabus.[239]

He expresses the most sovereign contempt for the people and to the
principle of fraternity which unites them in a mutual bond for the
establishment and maintenance of their own civil and religious liberty.
"As dogs have their bark," says he, "and 'brindle cats' their mews, as
horses have their neighs and donkeys their brays, _so have the populace
their cries_." He continues: "Dirty democrats overthrow those who are
above them, in order to leap into their seats and oppose all other
dirty democrats."[240] He condemns the idea of the sovereignty of the
people, as it is established in the United States, in the severest
terms. Where this maxim prevails, according to him, "no government
would be possible," because everything would be in "fearful disorder,"
for the reason that "men have always lived in submission," and every
society should continue to have "a permanent authority over" it. And
as this authority must have its derivation from God, the pope must
be this permanent ruler, because he alone represents God. He draws a
picture of the people performing the "juggling trick and acrobat feat
of functioning the office of sovereign." He mocks at the "supreme
wisdom in the legislation of tinkers;" the "far-sighted prudence in the
commands of clodpoles, hucksters, and scavengers;" and the "docility
and readiness to obey in their beer-wrought, undisciplined minds."
Classing all peoples who have established Governments subject to their
own will, as included in the false picture he has drawn, he avers "that
the people possess no authority, and as they have it not, they can not
delegate it." "The sovereignty of the people, on the contrary, is the
origin of every sort of evil, and the destruction of the public good
or 'commonweal.'" "The people can not ever understand the principles
of justice; they have lost, behind their counters, the little sense of
right they had."[241]

In the chapter from which these extracts are taken, there are a couple
of sentences intentionally passed by as worthy of special notice and
comment. They are pregnant with meaning, and especially interesting to
us in this country, in view of the fact that Protestants are regarded
as rebels against the Church, and are, as a class, still held to be
within its jurisdiction, and subject, like sheep that have strayed
away, to be brought back into the fold again. These questions are asked:

"If you refuse to recognize the authority of Christ in the Church, how
can you expect your subjects to recognize your authority in the State?
_If it is lawful for you to revolt from the Church, it must be lawful
for others to rebel against the State?_"[242]

Whilst this does not openly assert the right of Roman Catholics to
revolt against Protestantism and Protestant institutions, it not
only suggests, but leaves it to be inferred. Everybody knows that
Protestantism was the fruit of a revolt against the authority of the
Church at Rome. According to this author, and the teachings of that
Church, no just rights were thereby acquired, because none can grow
out of resistance to its authority. Consequently, Protestantism has
no right to exist, and it is the duty of the Church to reduce it to
obedience--that is, to destroy it--whensoever it can be accomplished.
Hence the suggestions of the author include two propositions: First,
that as Protestantism is rebellion against the Church, it has set
an example which may be rightfully followed in rebellion against
itself; and, second, that if Protestantism has, by its rebellion
against the Church, established civil institutions which the Church
considers inimical to itself, "it must be lawful" to rebel against
such institutions until they shall be made to conform to the interests
and welfare of the Church. Hence, as his theories advance, he denies
that any such thing as _nationality_, as understood by all modern
peoples, can have any rightful existence, because "it is opposed to
the Church's precept of submission to lawful authority;"[243] in other
words, it is opposed to the right of the infallible pope to ignore
all the boundary-lines of States, and make himself the sovereign and
universal dispenser of the governing authority of the world within
whatsoever jurisdiction he himself shall define. In the same connection
he condemns the doctrine of _non-intervention_ among nations, and
insists that it is their duty to interfere with the affairs of each
other, for the reason that "Christian charity commands men and nations
to come to the rescue of each other."[244] "Mutual help," says he, "is
a fundamental duty of Christianity; and therefore non-intervention
must be a principle belonging to paganism."[245] This doctrine is
manifestly employed to convince all Roman Catholics throughout the
world that it is their duty to bring, not only themselves, but the
Governments under which they live, to the point of interfering with
the affairs of Italy, by force, if necessary, in order to secure the
restoration of the pope's temporal power. In so far as it applies to
the United States it advises that our non-intervention laws shall be
disregarded, because, in enacting them, the Government usurped a power
which did not belong to it, inasmuch as it tends to results prejudicial
to the sovereign rights of the pope. In furtherance of the same idea,
he strenuously resists the doctrine of what is known as _accomplished
facts_--what the French call _fait accompli_; that is, the recognition
of the independence and nationality of a Government which has been
successful in maintaining itself, as the kingdom of Italy has done,
by revolutionary resistance to the arbitrary temporal power of the
pope. Therefore, as the present Government of Italy is an "oppressive
tyranny," has acquired no rights, but has shown "only crime upon crime
in a never-ending chain of iniquities," the "old order of things," with
the pope as a temporal monarch, possessed of absolute power to dictate
all the laws, should be returned to.[246]

We must follow this author somewhat farther, because, before closing,
he reaches a point absolutely vital under civil institutions like
those of this country. He devotes over a dozen pages to "_liberal
Catholics_," in order to prove that, as the Church must necessarily be
intolerant, liberalism is one of the forms of heresy. "To be Catholic
with the pope, and to be liberal with the Government, are contradictory
characters; they can not exist in the same subject;"[247] because
the former involves that which is true, and the latter that which is
false, where the civil constitution does not conform to the papal
ideas. Such "liberal Catholics" as "put their faith in _liberty of
the press, representative government, ministerial responsibility_,
or the like"--as all foreign-born Roman Catholics who have taken the
oath of allegiance to the United States have sworn to do--"_betray
not only an ignorance or oblivion of what is vital to religion, and
of the principles which Christianity requires in Governments and
constitutions; but also a most false and pernicious opinion_." And in
expressing his amazement that there are any in the Church so liberal
towards a Government that is entirely secular and not subject to the
dictation of the pope, he asks this question: "Is it not a matter of
marvel that any one should imagine himself to be a Catholic, while he
is _liberal with the Government_?" He recognizes no authority for the
government of society but that of the Church, because conformity to the
law of God can be obtained in no other way; and therefore he says: "If
this idea of authority is contradicted, counterbalanced, or checked
_in the constitution of a country_, then _the Government is founded on
a basis which is opposed to reason, to nature, and to the Christian
faith_." And for this reason, "_modern constitutions have therefore
put themselves into direct antagonism to the Catholic religion_."[248]
Consequently, he continues, "every honest man, in every country, now
sighs out a new prayer to his litany: From a Legislative Chamber,
'good Lord, deliver us!'"[249] He insists that fidelity to the Church
consists in the observance of all the dogmas set forth in the Syllabus
of Pius IX, and thus enumerates these important propositions contained
in it: The 55th condemning the separation of Church and State; the
limitation of the rights of Governments declared by the 67th; the
liberty of worship condemned by the 77th; the freedom of the press
censured by the 79th; civil marriage reprobated by the 65th to the
74th; secular education, which is called usurpation, proscribed by
the 45th to the 48th; oppression of the clergy denounced in the 49th;
and "all the principles of liberalism, of progress, and of modern
civilization," declared in the 80th, "to be irreconcilable with the
Catholicism of the pope."[250]

With a few more brief comments upon "civil marriage," the
"secularization of education," and the Jesuits, this extraordinary book
is brought to a close by admonishing the faithful not to permit their
children to receive "a godless education" in such public schools as are
authorized by the laws of all our States--because all education should
be under the supervision of the Church--and by announcing in serious
and solemn phrase, that "_Protestantism has filled the world with
ruins_!"[251]

What an extent of infatuation must have incited this last remark! There
need be said of it only that, in former times, there were powerful
Governments subject to the dominion of the popes, but all these have
passed away--not a single one is left. Protestant Governments have
risen out of the ruins of some, and are now rising out of those of
others of them, and all these are happy, prosperous, and progressive;
whilst the pope himself, with the vast multitude of his allies
assisting him, is devoting all the power given him by the Church to
persuade them to retrace their steps and return to the retrogressive
period of the Middle Ages. The author of the work to which so much
space has been appropriated, is one of his conspicuous allies, far
from being the least distinguished among them; and for that reason
the doctrines he has announced in behalf of the papacy have been
set forth at unusual length. This having been done, in order that
what he has said may be thoroughly comprehended, it needs only to be
further remarked here, that, according to what he has laid down as the
established religious teachings of the Roman Church, with an infallible
pope at its head, it is impossible for any man to maintain those
teachings and at the same time be loyal to the Government of the United
States. There is no escape from this; but before further comments upon
this point, there are other evidences to show how, since the pope's
infallibility was decreed, the lines of distinction between the popular
and papal forms of government have been so distinctly announced that
it requires very little sagacity to distinguish them, and even less to
realize that they can not co-exist in the same country.

A reverend educator attached to St. Joseph's Seminary, Leeds, in
England, has, since the Vatican Council, also entered upon the task
of instructing the English-speaking world what are the only relations
between civil Governments and the Church which an infallible pope can
approve. His views were first communicated through the columns of the
_Catholic Progress_, a periodical of extensive circulation; but they
were deemed to be of so much importance and such an essential part
of the permanent literature of the Church, that in 1883 they were
published in book form so as to assure more general reading. This book,
entitled "The Catholic Church and Civil Governments," contains but
little over one hundred pages, and, being in cheap form, has found its
way to the United States, where it is expected, of course, that its
teachings will inoculate the minds of all the faithful, and furnish
instructors to conduct education in religious schools. What it is
expected to accomplish will be seen from the following references to
its contents.

At the opening of the volume the reader is apprised beforehand of what
he shall expect in the way of doctrinal teaching. It is dedicated
to the present pope, Leo XIII, who, besides being designated as the
vicar of Christ, is addressed as "The Christ on earth!"--not as man,
with the faculties and frailties of human nature, but as God himself!
Although the author is not represented as a Jesuit, it may well be
inferred that he is one, from these blasphemous words, which shock the
sense of Christian propriety, and ought to excite indignation in every
intelligent Christian mind.

He starts out by assuming that the present pope "is still a king," and
that "he exercises a real authority over his subjects, irrespective of
the country to which by birth they belong."[252] In this he agrees
with the Italian P. Franco, and the English statesman Lord Montagu,
that the principle of nationality can not be permitted to prevail
against the pope in his march to universal dominion--that State lines
and even ocean boundaries amount to nothing. Upon this hypothesis he
bases the assumption that the Church "is a public society, a kingdom, a
divine State," and possesses "the power of public jurisprudence."[253]
Elsewhere he calls this "external power to legislate;" that is, to
pass laws binding the consciences of her subjects, to take means to
insure those laws being put in exercise, to be herself the judge of
the sense of her laws, to punish them that trespass against the laws,
and to bring them into the right path by coercion.[254] He endeavors,
by various modes of statement, to establish the proposition that the
Church is "independent" of all civil Governments, until he reaches
the point of positively asserting it;[255] assigning as the reason
that the "Church is the continuation of the authoritative presence
of Jesus Christ in the world."[256] Turning away, only for a moment,
from the idea of a "universal Christendom"--unlimited by the separate
nationality of States--he draws a melancholy picture of the condition
of the world, unless this independence of the Church shall be fully
recognized. "Once grant," says he, "that the Church is subordinate
to the civil State, and there will ensue a complete upsetting of the
scheme of salvation, an entire submersion of divine truth, a total
overthrow--nay, an utter destruction--of the kingdom of Christ."[257]
"She knows that no earthly power can bind her," nor can she "swear
fealty, or own allegiance to any other sovereign," which propositions
he proves by the Syllabus of Pius IX.[258] Hence, he repeats, "The
Church is a perfect society, and independent of the State;"[259] and
emphasizes it by declaring "that _the State is in the Church_, as a
college is in the State."[260] She has "the right of way. She has the
right to enter every kingdom in the world, to set up her tents, to
propagate her doctrine, to make subjects, ... to reign in every corner
of the earth,"[261] and "_to use the weapons most suited to accomplish
her object_."[262] She "is bound to use the means most conducive to her
spiritual end," and "the illuminating spirit" that guides her "shows
her the advantage of sometimes making use of _temporal_ means." Besides
fasting, abstinence, excommunication, and interdicts, "even more severe
measures have occasionally been found to be very salutary." She "is
justified in using _extrinsic coercion_ whenever it promises to be a
help," according to "the principle of the coercive power," asserted by
Pius IX in the twenty-fourth proposition of the Syllabus. Primarily
these coercive measures are to be employed against "only the members of
the Church;" but are subject to be employed at the discretion of the
pope against all baptized persons. "Once baptized," says he, "then the
Church has over them all the rights of a parent."[263] This includes
baptized Protestants, who, by the decree of the Council of Trent, are
considered as sheep gone astray, but still within the jurisdiction of
the Church.

The Church, he insists, is subordinate to the State in nothing, but
the State is "subordinate to and under the guidance of the Church
in all matters which touch, even incidentally, upon the moral life
of the State."[264] The State "is bound not to institute any law or
sanction any custom which can in any way hinder the Church in gaining
her supernatural end," and "is bound to aid the Church by a _material
assistance_ whenever she deems such assistance necessary."[265] "At
the present day there does not remain one truly Catholic State."[266]
But this does not release them from the obligation of obedience to the
Church, because the "greater portion of their subjects are baptized,"
and "baptism enrolls a man among the children of the Church; and hence,
in spite of their denying the claims of their true spiritual Master,
they are, as Christian States, still bound by one obligation; namely,
to refrain from establishing any law which is against the conscience of
their Catholic subjects."[267] Therefore the Church must "be obeyed by
her subjects, _with or without the good-will of the civil power_."[268]
"The Church has a right to carry out her divine mission in every land,
and to do so, if need be, _in spite of the civil power_."[269] "The
Church sends her ministers throughout the world," "independently of
the favor or permission of the temporal powers," and invests them with
"absolute power."[270] When the pope assigns them a duty, "he gives
them a right to carry out that duty _in the teeth of every earthly
power_."[271] "For the civil power to endeavor to hinder the Church
in the exercise of this right is a crime. It is to resist God."[272]
He claims for the Church the right to go into all the countries in
the world, with or without their consent, and "there to establish and
unfold herself, to set up her machinery" in whatsoever way she may deem
expedient.[273] "Hence," says he, "the Church has a right to erect
her hierarchy, to set up her tribunals, to hold her synods, to open
schools, to found colleges and convents, and especially to be free
and unfettered in her communications with the pope. She has a right
to spread the faith, and _needs not to sue for leave from any earthly
power_."[274] "And this right the Church can never lose. It can never
become obsolete. No length of time can prescribe against it;"[275]
that is, no Government can exist long enough to acquire the right to
mature a system of laws which the pope may not rightfully command to be
resisted and set aside, when he shall decide that the interests of the
Church require it to be done.

Before closing, he treats of the separation of Church and State, and
justifies the condemnation of it by Pius IX in the Syllabus, and says
that "after such a declaration of the supreme pastor, _no true Catholic
can hold that politics and religion ought to be utterly separate_."
But not content with the authority of Pius IX upon this point, he
adds that of the present pope, Leo XIII, whom he represents as having
lifted up his voice "to teach the world that, while the Church and the
civil Governments are orders distinct in their origin and in their
nature, it is the will of heaven that _religion lend its aid to the
State, and that the State should support religion_;"[276] that is, the
Church and the State should be united together, and each aid the other
in maintaining its authority, so that, by their joint alliance, they
should be able to render a Government of and by the people impossible.
In order to accomplish this and the other objects pointed out by him,
he represents that the Church "brooks many affronts, and suffers many
wrongs, and makes herself _all things to all men_"--as the Jesuits did
when they worshiped idols in China, and became Brahmins in India--so
that she may bring all nations and peoples under her dominion, and the
pope become the ruling power of the world, "independent of all civil
Governments," and "subject to no earthly ruler."

Thus we have, in plain and authoritative language, a complete portrayal
of the only form of government which the pope can approve. If he seems
to be reconciled for the time being to any other form, it is merely
because it is expedient to do so, so that by being "all things to all
men," in obedience to Jesuit teaching, he may thereby make himself
surer of ultimate triumph. Every man who shall take the pains to scan
the foregoing evidence will find in it ample proof of the fact--to say
nothing about other independent Governments--that the papal system is
more antagonistical to the civil institutions of the United States
than to any other in the world. Whatsoever professions to the contrary
may be put forth, it is a palpable truth, absolutely incontestable,
that the fundamental principles of our Government are the subjects
of constant and vindictive assault by the papal party--the followers
of the pope--in and out of the United States. The framers of our
Government secularized it by measures which resulted in separating
Church and State, but the pope and his hierarchy, aided by the Jesuits,
fling in our faces the accusation that, in doing so, they violated
the divine law which it is their religious duty to restore. We have
established a nationality of our own, recognized by all the nations of
the earth, but they tell us that it possesses no authority to impose
the least restriction, by any laws it can enact, upon the power of the
pope or his army of ministers and employees within the borders of our
own territory. We have guaranteed freedom of conscience, or diversity
of religious belief, but they confront us with the charge of heresy on
account of it, and openly avow their purpose to destroy this guarantee
by employing the combined powers of Church and State to unify their own
religion, to the exclusion of all others, by laws above and superior to
our Constitution. We have secured freedom of speech and of the press,
and have provided for civil marriages, and for the secular education of
our children at the public expense; and they tell us that, on account
of these and other equally important measures of public policy, we
have become a "godless" nation, living under "godless" laws enacted
for "godless" purposes, and that they have been divinely appointed to
perform the holy duty of exterminating all these evils, in order to
save us from the destruction inevitably awaiting us on account of them.
One is required to give but a single moment to reflection to be assured
that if the pope, by the aid of his hierarchy and the Jesuits, shall be
permitted to achieve the results for which they are now so anxiously
seeking, and acquire such dominion as they desire in the United States,
our free institutions must come to an end. They can win success only
by our defeat. Papal government can only prevail here when our present
civil institutions shall be destroyed.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 231: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Introduction, pp. 1 to 5; text, pp. 42 to 47.]

[Footnote 232: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Pages 122 to 136.]

[Footnote 233: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Pages 139-140.]

[Footnote 234: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Pages 193 to 196.]

[Footnote 235: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Pages 201 to 238.]

[Footnote 236: _Ibid._, pp. 311 to 316.]

[Footnote 237: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Page 318.]

[Footnote 238: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Page 319.]

[Footnote 239: _Ibid._, pp. 328-333.]

[Footnote 240: _Ibid._, pp. 338-339.]

[Footnote 241: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Pages 361-365.]

[Footnote 242: _Ibid._, pp. 356-357.]

[Footnote 243: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Page 375.]

[Footnote 244: _Ibid._, p. 381.]

[Footnote 245: _Ibid._, p. 382.]

[Footnote 246: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Page 387.]

[Footnote 247: _Ibid._, p. 395.]

[Footnote 248: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Pages 396 to 398.]

[Footnote 249: _Ibid._, pp. 400-401.]

[Footnote 250: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Page 406.]

[Footnote 251: _Ibid._, p. 427.]

[Footnote 252: The Catholic Church and Civil Governments. By Rev. John
Earnshaw. Preface, p. vi.]

[Footnote 253: _Ibid._, pp. 18-19.]

[Footnote 254: _Ibid._, p. 26.]

[Footnote 255: _Ibid._, p. 31.]

[Footnote 256: _Ibid._, p. 33.]

[Footnote 257: _Ibid._, p. 34.]

[Footnote 258: _Ibid._, p. 44.]

[Footnote 259: _Ibid._, p 45.]

[Footnote 260: _Ibid._, p. 46.]

[Footnote 261: The Catholic Church and Civil Governments. By Rev. John
Earnshaw. Pages 48, 49.]

[Footnote 262: _Ibid._, p. 51.]

[Footnote 263: _Ibid._, pp. 52-53.]

[Footnote 264: _Ibid._, p. 64.]

[Footnote 265: _Ibid._, p. 67.]

[Footnote 266: _Ibid._, p. 68.]

[Footnote 267: The Catholic Church and Civil Governments. By Rev. John
Earnshaw. Pages 69-70.]

[Footnote 268: _Ibid._, p. 71.]

[Footnote 269: _Ibid._, p. 76.]

[Footnote 270: _Ibid._, p. 77.]

[Footnote 271: _Ibid._, p. 78.]

[Footnote 272: _Ibid._, p. 79.]

[Footnote 273: _Ibid._, p. 82.]

[Footnote 274: _Ibid._, p. 83.]

[Footnote 275: _Ibid._, p. 84.]

[Footnote 276: The Catholic Church and Civil Governments. By Rev. John
Earnshaw. Page 99.]




CHAPTER XXV.

INTRIGUES AND INTERPRETATIONS.


One of the most conspicuous manifestations of the spirit now prevailing
among the leading nations, is that all of them are struggling to go
forward and not backward. Italy, in this respect, does not constitute
an exception to this general rule, as her present prominent position
in Europe abundantly testifies. Hence, every sensible man well knows
that the Government now existing there can not be overthrown, so that
the temporal power of the pope can be restored, except by another
revolution or by the military invasion of a foreign power. Which of
these remedies it is the purpose of the papacy to invoke can only be
conjectured. But since one or the other of them must, from necessity,
be in contemplation, it is essentially important that the true relation
which the dogma of papal infallibility bears to the temporal power
should be well understood, in order to see--what will be apparent to
any careful investigator--the impress of the Jesuits upon the papal
policy, and that, but for them, the Church would be left to the
enjoyment of its religious faith, without disturbance by any of the
nations.

The temporal power was always an enemy to the peace of the
Church--rending it into hostile factions--separating the Eastern from
the Western Christians, and introducing feuds and strifes and schisms
between popes and anti-popes, cardinals and clergy, and those who
followed them in their long and angry conflicts. Before this tremendous
power was usurped, and papal ambition was incited by the desire to
possess it, the Church of Rome embraced within its fold almost the
entire Christian world. Now, however, it finds itself representing
only a minority of those who profess Christianity.[277] All this, and
more than this, has been accomplished by restless and ambitious popes,
who, defying the example and all the admonitions, not only of Christ
himself, but of all the primitive Christians, entangled the Church in
vicious alliances with potentates and kings, in order that they might
wear crowns of temporal royalty themselves, and give increased strength
and vigor to the principles of monarchical government by keeping the
multitude in superstition, ignorance, and inferiority. And when, in
the present enlightened age, there is no excuse for not knowing the
wars, the bloodshed, the persecutions, and the misery, which followed
this unholy alliance between Church and State, in order to create and
preserve the temporal power of these usurping popes, he must have but
little regard for the welfare of the human race who would again afflict
any part of the civilized world with these or kindred calamities. The
Roman Catholic people of Italy have, of their own accord, removed them,
and those who are now seeking to reafflict them by alliances with
foreign and alien powers, make themselves disturbers of the world's
peace, by seeking to embroil other peoples and nations in dangerous
combinations for such a purpose.

It is not easy to overestimate the importance and seriousness of the
issue involved in the proposition' to restore the temporal power of
the pope--whether in its relations to Roman Catholic or Protestant
populations. In so far as the former are concerned, it involves
the conversion of their religious faith into the illiberality and
selfishness of Jesuitism; the sacrifice of the ancient faith of the
Church to the principles of a society which boasts that it has plucked
out of the hearts of its members every vestige of human sympathy and
affection, and has spent the whole period of its existence in sowing
seeds of strife and contention, and in so opposing the acknowledged
authority of the Church when employed to curb their worldly ambition,
that one of the best and most enlightened of the popes was constrained,
by a sense of duty to the Church and to the Christian world, not
merely to suppress them, but to declare, infallibly and _ex cathedra_,
that the suppression was forever. To Protestants it presents but
two alternatives, either to cast away all the rich fruits of the
Reformation, or to rebuke the attempt to encroach upon the rights the
people have acquired after centuries of conflict with monarchical and
arbitrary power. Both these propositions command the most serious and
thoughtful consideration, especially by citizens of the United States,
where the form of government is designed to conserve all religions, and
enable those who profess them--no matter how variant and conflicting
they may be--to live in amicable and peaceful relations with each
other. No intelligent mind can reflect upon the indisputable proofs of
history and the philosophy they teach, without realizing that, with
regard to this issue our own course is plain, clear, and unmistakable.

The ambitious popes--such as Gregory VII, Innocent III, and Boniface
VIII, as well as others before and after them--acquired and maintained
their temporal power by a long series of coercive and oppressive
measures. In order to give these measures a religious sanction, they
usurped the functions which pertained to the claim of infallibility,
not only without the consent of the Church, but in face of the positive
rejection of that dogma by several Councils, and against the almost
unanimous sentiment of the multitude of Christians. The general polity
of the European nations, under the dominion of monarchical power as it
was united in Church and State, was favorable to them, as it kept the
people in ignorance of their natural rights, and too feeble to assert
them by revolution, if they had resorted to that remedy. Thus held in
subjection, their non-resistance was held to be acquiescence in their
own humility. Taking advantage of this, popes and other kings, as the
allies of each other, asserted their divine right to govern according
only to their own united will, and endeavored to establish the
infallibility of the pope as a dogma of religious faith, in order to
retain and increase their monarchical power. Thoughtful and intelligent
Roman Catholics denied and repudiated this doctrine, but were powerless
to relieve the multitude from the severity of this joint rule, because
the entire coercive power was in the hands of those whose ambition was
promoted by it, and who kept themselves in constant readiness to employ
it whensoever their interests, both spiritual and temporal, were placed
in jeopardy. If history does not prove all this, it proves nothing.

When the Reformation period began, and the popes and the clergy refused
the necessary reforms in the Church, those who supported that great
movement detached themselves, in large numbers, from the papal party,
but continued to assert their unfaltering fidelity to the primitive
Christian faith. The reigning authorities were thus confronted with
a disintegrating Church, occasioned by their own refusal to reform
acknowledged abuses--some of which were so flagrant as to furnish a
reason to the Jesuits for the recognition of their society. It was
not an easy matter to arrest this disintegration after the treatment
of Luther by Leo X, and the difficulties were increased by the
circumstances connected with the Council of Trent, as well as by the
proceedings of that body. There are many evidences of this. Prominent
among these is the fact that the popes were opposed to a General
Council, mainly because of the fear that it would refuse to affirm
their assumption of infallibility, which would necessarily tend to
weaken their hold upon temporal power. But for the Emperor Charles
V, it is not probable that a Council would have been then held. He
repeatedly urged upon the pope the necessity of convening one, but
without success. He was coquetting with the Lutheran Protestants in
Germany by means of his celebrated "_interim_" and otherwise, in
order to strengthen his armies by accessions from them. But, at the
same time, he cherished the hope that a Council would contrive some
method of inducing his Lutheran subjects to reunite with the Church,
from which they had been driven by the usurpations of the papacy and
the acknowledged vices of the clergy. His main purpose, however, was
to make the union between the Church and the State so indissoluble as
to maintain and perpetuate the monarchical principle as protection to
both. Finding the popes unyielding in their opposition to a General
Council, he ordered a national one to be held at Augsburg, in his
own dominions, to consider and decide upon such matters concerning
the Church as he deemed expedient. Clement VII was then pope, and
it required but little reflection to assure him that if the emperor
succeeded in holding a National Council in Germany, it would, with
almost positive certainty, reaffirm the decisions of the Councils of
Constance and Basel, rejecting the dogma of infallibility, and thus
inflict a dangerous and probably fatal wound upon the papacy. He
was completely checkmated by the emperor, and nothing was left him
but to call a General Council to supersede the National Council at
Augsburg. It was a game of statecraft between rival contestants for the
supremacy--neither having been restrained by any higher motives than
those which have their birth in personal ambition. As for the pope,
he preferred that the disintegration of the Church should continue
rather than run the risk of having his infallibility denied by a
General Council, and the possible loss of his temporal power which
that denial would have threatened. All this is sufficiently indicated
by the impediments thrown in the way of the meeting of the Council
by the popes. Clement VII died four years after making the call, but
without fixing the time for its assembling. His successor, Paul III,
was constrained to fix it for 1537, and to designate Mantua as the
place. But this did not exhaust all the expedients for delay. Mantua
was objected to for reasons not fully explained, and Vincenza was
substituted. The time was accordingly postponed one year, until 1538.
No meeting having then occurred, it was again fixed for 1542. Still,
however, in order to gain more time, it was transferred to Trent, where
it did not assemble until December 13, 1545--thirteen years after it
was first called by Clement VII. Its last session was held December 4,
1563--eighteen years after it first assembled, and thirty-one years
after it was first called--more than a generation of time!

During all these years the popes were striving after the surest method
of perpetuating their claim of infallibility as the means of preserving
their temporal power. While it is to be supposed that they, at the
same time, desired to save the Church from overthrow, they so blended
its cause with their own ambitious ends, that the Council, instead of
being reformatory, was unable to accomplish anything more than the
inauguration of a counter revolution to suppress the Reformation,
which, by that time, was becoming more formidable everyday. The pope,
Julius III, and Charles V had a common interest in keeping Church and
State united, in order to ward off successfully any blows that might be
aimed at the principle of absolute monarchism. But, apart from this,
the pope had a separate and distinct interest of his own, in trying
to secure, beyond the possibility of loss, the imperial rights and
prerogatives of the papacy. Embarrassed as he was, with the eyes of all
Europe centered upon him, he was compelled to look for support in every
direction, and found no contribution to the papal pretensions likely
to become more valuable than that offered by the Jesuits, who were
then in readiness, under the lead of Laynez, their general, to devote
themselves to whatsoever work should be necessary to extinguish the
spirit of revolt against the monarchism of Church and State.

Remembering the services rendered by Loyola to the cause of absolute
monarchy, and knowing that the central feature of the Jesuit
constitution was specially designed for the advancement of that cause,
the pope resolved to bring the united and compact body of Jesuits to
his aid, by enlisting them as an army to defend the tottering cause
of the papacy. The main object of Loyola during his life had been to
drive back the tide of the Reformation; and, although he had signally
failed in this, he exhibited such superior qualities as a general
and commander of men, and had so succeeded in imparting these same
qualities to Laynez, his successor, that the pope determined to send
the latter as one of his legates to the Council, clearly indicating
that he was both unwilling and afraid to trust the interests of the
papacy in the hands of those who, by the existing organization of
the Church, were intrusted with its administrative authority. He
undoubtedly considered that the most certain, if not the only method
of preserving the papacy, as distinct from the primitive Church,
would be the infusion of Jesuit spirit and courage into the ranks of
its defenders. We have heretofore seen how Laynez had succeeded at
the French Council of Poissy in restricting the right of discussion
to ecclesiastics alone, and it is fair to presume that the knowledge
of this dictatorial spirit commended him to the pope. At all events,
he was specially favored and distinguished as the representative of
the pope and the Jesuits at the same time--a union that had but a
single signification; that is, that the pope had accepted the Jesuits
as his allies in preference to any of the existing monastic orders,
because, as can not be doubted, the latter occupied the field of
religious labor, while the former considered religious professions
and practices as the stepping-stone to the acquisition of riches and
temporal power. Thus favored above any other member of the Council,
Laynez courageously entered into the contest between those who defended
and those who denied the doctrine of the pope's infallibility, and
exhibited his great ability in supporting to the utmost the extreme
claim to spiritual and temporal sovereignty which such popes as Gregory
VII, Innocent III, Boniface VIII, and others, now declared to have been
infallible, had for centuries maintained in defiance of the enlightened
sentiment of the whole Christian world. During the long and tedious
sessions of the Council, it had been getting farther and farther
away from such conclusions as would satisfy those who desired to see
the integrity of the Church maintained; and it was not until the time
for its closing sessions was approaching that Laynez announced the
Jesuit doctrine with regard to the infallibility of the pope, and the
authority and power it would confer upon the papacy. Although, contrary
to the expectations of the pope, he did not succeed in procuring the
affirmance of his doctrines by the Council--for if an effort had been
made to embody the pope's infallibility in the articles of faith, the
negative decisions of the Councils of Constance and Basel would have
been repeated--yet he did succeed in assuring the papacy that its
most formidable allies were the Jesuits, upon whom it could then and
always thereafter rely to fight its battles in behalf of that dogma,
as well as the temporal power, and whatsoever should become necessary
to give strength and permanency to the principle of monarchism in the
government of both Church and State. This having been accomplished,
together with as much infusion of Jesuitism into the Creed as could
then be safely ventured, the pope considered the papacy saved, at least
for the time being, and dissolved the Council.

If this Council had been promptly called and convened when demanded
by Charles V and the numerous body of Christians, much that has since
transpired to the injury of the Church might have been avoided. One
result would almost certainly have followed--the reaffirmance of the
doctrine of the Councils of Constance and Basel by a denial of the
pope's infallibility. What a multitude of evils would then have been
avoided by the Church! With the question of infallibility disposed
of by adhering to the ancient faith, which assigned it to popes and
Councils combined as the representatives of the universal Church,
composed of the whole body of Christians, the events then transpiring
in Europe indicate that the prevailing sentiment in favor of reform
would have been strong enough to check, if not to arrest, the progress
of Church disintegration. That accomplished, the question of temporal
power would have been left as a mere domestic one to be settled alone
by the Italian people; the ambition of the popes would have been no
longer tempted by the desire to acquire universal sovereignty over the
world; their meddling with the temporal affairs of the nations would
have been rebuked; harmony and concord might have prevailed among all
Christians, no matter what their differences of religious faith; all
controversy about freedom of conscience would, in all probability, have
ceased; the people of every nation would have been left to manage their
own affairs in their own way, and there would, doubtless, have been
ushered in such a period of general prosperity and contentment as it
has required Protestantism to introduce, in despite the resistance and
anathemas of the papacy, reigned over by disappointed popes.

But the doctrine of the pope's infallibility, as announced by Laynez in
the Council of Trent, deserves to be well scrutinized, in order that
its true and actual meaning may be comprehended. He who shall prosecute
the laborious research necessary for this, will not be surprised to
find that it required over three hundred years of controversy within
the Church before the papacy was enabled to create a sufficient number
of obedient and submissive prelates to approve the Jesuit teachings
of Laynez, as the Vatican Council of 1870 did by decreeing, not only
that the pope then reigning, Pius IX, was infallible, but that all the
other popes from the beginning--good, bad, and indifferent--were also
infallible! It will, however, excite no little astonishment when he
reflects that this was done in the nineteenth century, in the face of
the popular enlightenment now prevailing, and that such a period was
selected for this Jesuit and papal triumph over the Church--which is
neither more nor less than placing the future destiny of the Church
under Jesuit control, with the helm of the ship which bears its most
precious treasures guided by the followers of Loyola and Laynez and the
Jesuit generals who have succeeded them.

The language employed by Laynez in this celebrated Council--speaking
for the pope as his specially empowered legate--is not only
expressive, but will be startling to some who may now learn it for the
first time. It should be well scanned and considered by citizens of
the United States, especially by those Roman Catholics whose silent
acquiescence in what the papacy has been and is now doing, causes
them to be regarded as approving what, in their honest consciences,
vast numbers of them do not approve. On October 20, 1562--after the
Council had been in existence seventeen years without settling the
question whether bishops acted under Divine appointment or were the
mere passive creatures and instruments of the popes--Laynez addressed
the assemblage in a carefully-prepared and elaborate speech, which
the historian says occupied "more than two hours." The occasion was a
great one for him and the Jesuits--in the nature of a turning-point in
his and their history. It was the first time during the existence of
the Church when the voice of a Jesuit was heard in a General Council,
and the first time when the general of that society had been made
the special legate of the pope. It was also the first time when the
Church had openly turned its back upon the ancient monastic orders
by giving preference to a society expressly organized in antagonism
to them, for the avowed reason that they were unfitted by corruption
for rendering efficient service to the Church. Laynez was equal to
the occasion--his speech having been, as all agree, a grand display
of eminent ability. He pointed out the difference between the Church
and human Governments--the former having been built by Christ, and the
latter by human societies. Upon this premise he then developed the
papal and Jesuit theory by saying: "That while Christ lived in the
mortal flesh, he governed the Church with an _absolute monarchical
government_, and being about to depart out of this world, _he left the
same form_, appointing for his vicar St. Peter and his successors, to
administer it as he had done, giving him _full and total power and
jurisdiction, and subjecting the Church to him, as it was to himself_."
This was a bold announcement of the infallibility of the popes--of the
religious dogma that each one of them, in himself alone, possessed
the "full power and jurisdiction" of an absolute and irresponsible
monarch. This declaration extorted both praise and censure--the latter
especially from the Bishop of Paris, who denounced it as having
been invented, within fifty years before, in order that its author
might gain from the pope a cardinal's cap; thus showing how well and
distinctly it was understood that Laynez was the mouthpiece of the
pope, and was merely echoing his opinions. Notwithstanding this rebuke,
Laynez was not discomfited--for he well knew the potency of the power
behind him--but proceeded to establish the proposition that Peter, like
Christ, was an _absolute monarch_, by an argument which has ever since
answered the same end; that is, because Christ said to him: "Feed [that
is, _govern_] my sheep [_animals_, which have _no part or judgment in
governing themselves_.]" Then, insisting that Christ intended this
relation to subsist between the Church and "the Bishop of Rome, from
St. Peter to the end of the world," he also declared that Christ,
in addition, "gave him a privilege of _infallibility in judgment of
faith, manners, and religion_, binding all the Church to hear him, and
to stand firmly in that which should be determined by him." With the
view of expressing more distinctly this pre-eminence of the pope over
the universal Church he continued: "The Church can not err, _because
he can not_, and so he that is separated from him who is the head of
the Church, is separated also from the Church;" that is, none can
remain within its pale who do not accept as infallibly true what the
pope shall command with reference to faith, manners, and religion. And
in order to give completeness to the papal and Jesuit system he was
explaining, he humiliated the bishops by placing them, along with the
other "_animals_," at the feet of the pope. He insisted that as "the
apostles ordained bishops, not by Christ, but by St. Peter, receiving
jurisdiction from him alone," therefore their powers and functions were
conferred upon them, not by the divine law or will, but by the pope at
his own will and pleasure--thus making them his creatures, mere agents
to do his will, ready at all times to yield implicit and uninquiring
obedience to his commands, and bound to accept the will and law of God
as he shall instruct them.[278]

This palpable perversion of the words of Christ, which are of plain
and simple meaning, has been since so persisted in, that multitudes
who do not obey his command to "search the Scriptures" for themselves
have accepted the papal and Jesuit interpretation as infallibly true.
What he said--"_Feed my sheep_"--can not be tortured into the meaning
which that interpretation gives to the words. The English word "_feed_"
signifies only to supply or furnish with food for nourishment. In the
Latin Vulgate edition of the New Testament the words of Christ are thus
expressed: "_Pasce oves meas_." The word "_pasce_" signifies exactly
what the English word _feed_ does; so that the translation now accepted
by the most enlightened portion of the world is precisely accurate.
But Laynez, it will be seen, so perverted the word _pasce_, or _feed_,
as to make it mean "_govern_;" whereas, if the authors of the Vulgate
edition of the New Testament had intended to convey any such idea as
that, they would have employed either the word _guberno_, or _impero_,
or _dominor_, or _rego_, either of which means _govern_.[279] But he
was, manifestly, looking more anxiously after the interest of the
papacy and the welfare of his society than a correct interpretation
of Scripture. The principles of the Jesuit constitution were deeply
imbedded in his mind; and inasmuch as he was taught by these that the
multitude of mankind should be reduced to the degrading standard of
absolute obedience to superiors, his assumption that all the members
of the Church were "_animals_," without either the right or capacity
to govern themselves, and therefore completely subject to the mastery
of the pope, was a legitimate conclusion from his premise. What he
evidently designed to accomplish was to infuse into the doctrines of
the Church the fundamental and most distinguishing principle of the
Jesuit constitution--that which makes monarchism the chief corner-stone
in all spiritual and temporal government. He was the companion and
confidant of Loyola, and undoubtedly considered himself as executing
the purpose for which the society was established by him; that is, to
bring the Church, through and by means of the papacy, to the point of
casting off all the influences of the ancient monastic orders, and
relying alone upon the Jesuits for its main defense in its conflict
with Protestantism. In this he was serving the society as its general,
while as the legate of the pope he was serving the papacy--manifestly,
however, the first being his chief object. Considering only these ends,
he omitted to notice the important fact that Christ, when addressing
"a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered," had
instructed them to "search the Scriptures" for themselves, because
therein they would find those things which testify of him.[280]

The Council of Trent did not decree the infallibility of the pope,
and would have failed in the attempt to do so if it had been persisted
in, on account of the popular odium in which that doctrine was held
after the schisms brought on by the papacy had rendered it absolutely
necessary to the life of the Church that the Councils of Constance
and Basel should expressly deny and condemn it, by declaring that a
General Council, as the representative of the Church, was superior to a
pope. This was especially necessary with regard to the former of these
Councils, for the reason that the pontifical throne was then claimed
by Gregory XII, Benedict XIII, and John XXIII, so that no one knew who
the true pope was. But as John XXIII had possession of the office, he
was tried by the Council upon "fifty-five heads of accusation," and,
having been solemnly deposed, Martin V was elected in his stead, and
constitutes one in the line of papal succession.[281] In the face of
these well-known facts, however, the Council of Trent, under the artful
manipulations of Laynez, with the pope to back him, went as far as it
could in that direction, without arousing the popular indignation. The
legates of the pope--headed by Laynez--would willingly have passed a
decree of the pope's infallibility, yet there were a number of bishops
who were not prepared to accept the Jesuit theory, that instead of
deriving their jurisdiction and authority from the divine law, it was
derived solely from the pope. Besides, the representatives of the
monarchs and princes were unwilling to concede to the pope the temporal
authority which the doctrine of his individual infallibility was
intended to embody in his spiritual sovereignty; for it was easy to see
that, if admitted as part of the faith, they would hold their kingdoms
and authority at his pleasure.

Although no direct vote was taken in the Council of Trent by which
the advocates and opponents of infallibility could be numerically
determined, the whole proceedings prove that the foundation was there
laid, by its final action, for the ultimate triumph of the Jesuit
doctrine. Laynez did not win the complete victory he hoped for, but
obtained advantages of which his society continued to avail itself
for three hundred years, when their triumph became complete under the
pontificate of Pius IX. During that protracted period the fortunes
of the Jesuits were shifting--favored by some popes and opposed by
others--but during all these years the society clung, with the most
stubborn tenacity of purpose, to the teachings of Laynez, as announced
in the Council of Trent. Notwithstanding the members were held in
almost universal odium in all the enlightened nations, and the society
was tried, convicted of numerous public crimes, and suppressed by one
of the most distinguished of the popes, and found shelter from the
popular indignation under protection afforded them by the enemies of
the Roman Church, they at last succeeded in being re-established to
serve the "Allied Powers" in the defense and preservation of absolute
monarchism. Thus regaining a share of their lost influence under the
fostering care and patronage of the papacy, they ultimately became
enabled, only about two decades ago, to hold the pen and steady the
nerves of Pius IX when preparing the decree of his own infallibility
and that of all the popes "from St. Peter to the end of the world."
Nor were the popes themselves idle during these three centuries of
conflict between progress and retrogression, enlightenment and ignorant
superstition. Like skillful politicians, as many of them were, they
employed the appointing power confided to them by the Church to create
a large body of cardinals and bishops, who were held together, like an
army-corps, by solemn oaths of fidelity to the papacy. The march of
this ecclesiastical army was slow from necessity, because those who
had been supposed to be mere "animals," were gradually brought within
the light of the Reformation. But it was steady, nevertheless, for the
reason that the stake played for was great, and the courage imparted
by the Jesuits was stimulating. At last the forces were sufficiently
consolidated, and the cardinals and bishops sufficiently submissive,
to hazard the fortunes of the papacy upon a single cast of the die.
Accordingly, the Vatican Council of 1870 was brought to the point of
decreeing the infallibility of all the popes as the last resort, in
order, if possible, to drive back the waves of the Italian Revolution,
and rescue the temporal power of the papacy from impending destruction,
and make its future secure by engrafting a repudiated Jesuit dogma upon
the settled and recognized faith of the Church.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 277: In Bartholomew's late "Atlas of the World," the
professing Christians are thus given:

 Roman Catholics            175,000,000
 Protestants                110,000,000
 Greek Church                90,000,000
 Other Christian sects       20,000,000
                            ----------
      Total Christians      395,000,000]

[Footnote 278: History of the Council of Trent. By Sarpi. London
edition. 1676. Pages 571-573.]

[Footnote 279: Laynez so far succeeded in influencing the papacy by
his method of interpreting Scripture, that both the Douay or Roman
Catholic Bible and the Rheims Version of the New Testament contain
an explanatory note whereby the papal meaning of the words "_Feed
my sheep_" is given as infallibly true. It is there said that by
these words Christ conferred upon Peter "the _superintendency_ of
all his sheep, and consequently of his whole flock; that is, of his
whole Church." This does not go quite to the extent that Laynez did,
by converting the word _feed_ into _govern_, but so nearly so as
to make a distinction almost without a difference. The Latin word
"_pasce_" does not mean either to govern or to superintend--nor does
the Greek word bὁσκε, but simply to feed. If Christ had intended to
say to govern or superintend, he would have employed a word having
that signification, which in the Vulgate would be either _curatio_
or _procuratio_. He meant, therefore, spiritual food only--advice,
counsel, instruction--excluding entirely the idea of either governing
or superintending the opinions or consciences of any of the flock.]

[Footnote 280: John v, 39: "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye
think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me."
The words of the Latin Vulgate are, "_Scrutamini Scripturas_," and
of the Greek, "Ερευυἁτε τἁϛ γραφἁϛ." Each means something more than
"_search_ the Scriptures"--that is, examine diligently, scrutinize--and
the language is that of command. In order to change it into the
mere statement of a fact, the Douay or Roman Catholic Version, and
the Rhemish Version--which latter has the "imprimatur" or special
preference of Archbishop Hughes, of New York, in 1869, and was printed
under his direct auspices by the "Catholic Publication Society" of
that city--each contains an explanatory note as follows: "_Or, you
search the Scriptures_;" that is, that Christ merely announced to
those present that they did so. This was manifestly done in order to
base upon it the admonition which immediately follows: "'T is not a
command for _all_ to search the Scriptures, but a reproach to the
Pharisees" for not receiving him of whom the Scriptures testified. This
perverts the plain meaning; for at that time Christ did not mention
the Pharisees, nor did he afterwards do so until he was teaching in
the temple. And it was accomplished by adding the word "_or_" to make
the note of equivalent meaning with the text, and the word "_you_," so
as to make it appear that what Christ said was intended for only those
he then addressed, and not for all mankind; whereas he undoubtedly
intended the latter, so that each individual shall understand what they
testify of him. The command is general, because the object is to edify
and purify the conscience, and if he meant that others should search
them for us and we accept as infallibly true their interpretation of
the testimony, the effect would be to weaken, if not destroy, our own
sense of personal responsibility. Christ could not have meant this,
with reference to matters which concern the eternal welfare of the
soul.]

[Footnote 281: De Montor, Vol. I, pp. 566-573.]




CHAPTER XXVI.

CONCLUSION.


The triumph achieved by the Jesuits in the Vatican Council of 1870,
by the passage of the decree of papal infallibility, inspired the
most excessive enthusiasm among the ecclesiastical defenders of the
temporal power. They vainly supposed that it was a special intervention
of Providence to drive back the revolutionary tide and overwhelm the
Italian insurgents who were seeking merely to establish their right
to enact such laws as bear upon their temporal interests, leaving the
ancient faith of the Church, as their fathers had maintained it for
centuries, entirely undisturbed. Pius IX was present in the Council,
and when the event was announced, excitedly exclaimed, "_Consummatus
est_," considering, says the impulsive narrator, that Peter had spoken!
The same author, as the historian of the Council, continues: "At
that instant a terrific thunderstorm burst over the Basilica. It was
occasionally enveloped in profound gloom, and the forked lightning
darted through and made darkness visible, and peal after peal of
thunder rumbled over the Council-hall and towering dome. All were
awestruck at the convulsion of the elements, and at the _mysterious
breathings of the Holy Ghost, whispering, The pope is infallible_!"[282]

If, at the seemingly inauspicious moment here described, when nature
exhibited herself in frowns rather than smiles, the excitement had
subsided sufficiently for calm deliberation, some fear of the Divine
displeasure might have been kindled in view of the blasphemous pretense
that a mere man, with all the impulses, passions, and ambitious
vanities of other men, was the equal of God in all spiritual and
temporal matters which concern the moral conduct of society and
Governments, and the eternal welfare of the human soul. No body of men
ever assembled before, in the course of all the ages, had ventured to
announce so palpable a perversion of the teachings of Christ, whose
whole intercourse with mankind was designed to teach meekness and
humility as the distinguishing characteristics of a Christian life.
Nearly nineteen centuries of the Christian era had passed without the
consummation of such an infringement upon the primitive faith; and
minds not filled with strange infatuation would have been likely to
see in the thunder, the lightning, and the clouds, the manifestation
of Divine displeasure rather than to have compared the scene--as this
writer does--to that in the mount when the tables of the law were
delivered to Moses. But no such deliberation then existed, nor did
it attend the proceedings of the Vatican Council. The decrees were
prepared beforehand under the dictation of Pius IX--like those made
ready by Innocent III for the Lateran Council in 1215, assembled to
condemn the pretended heresies of the Albigenses, to give renewed
strength to his temporal power, to gloss over his usurpations, and
give papal sanction to the horrible persecutions of the Inquisition.
No amendments were allowed. An attempt was made to strike out the
anathema, but as that would have been a surrender of the coercive
power, it failed. The Council--as heretofore stated--was far from being
full when the final vote was taken, many members having voluntarily
withdrawn to signify their opposition to the decree, after having
failed in every expedient to defeat it. Apart, however, from this want
of unanimity, it is pretended that this doctrine of infallibility
has been concealed, in some mysterious way, in the deposit of faith
for all the years since the time of Christ, and not revealed,
notwithstanding the untiring exertions of the ambitious popes to obtain
its recognition! And all this, without seeming to realize that to say
of this doctrine, as well as that of the Immaculate Conception, that
belief in both is absolutely necessary to salvation in the next life,
is equivalent to alleging that the millions who have died without the
belief of either, and the other millions who have expressly denied
and denounced both, have been, and will be forever, excluded from the
presence of God!

This is a practical age, and the people of the United States,
considered collectively, are conspicuously a practical people. They
have become so by virtue of the fact that their political institutions
have been so constructed as to require the personal participation of
each citizen in the management of public affairs. But if the pope is,
in fact, infallible, and possessed rightfully of the jurisdiction
over faith, morals, and conduct, which that doctrine assigns to him,
then the popular supervision over their affairs ends at the point
where the papal and Jesuit supervision over them begins. Then, instead
of continuing in the forefront of the progressive and advancing
nations, we shall occupy an inconspicuous place among those by which
progress is condemned as infidelity. The pope himself, who has sent
Mgr. Satolli here to instruct us, seems to have forgotten--and there
are multitudes of his obedient followers who care not to know--that
the most that his ambitious predecessors, Gregory VII, Innocent III,
and Boniface VIII, could accomplish by virtue of their assumption of
infallibility, was to divide the membership of the Church into rival
and infuriated factions--the Cisalpines and the Ultramontanes. The
former adhered to the religion of the Gallican Christians by limiting
the pope's supremacy to spirituals alone; while the latter, as he
now does, extended it to absolute spiritual sovereignty to such a
degree over the world, as includes all temporal matters concerning the
interests of the Church and the papacy. The Ultramontanes traced this
absolute sovereignty back to the lines of policy pursued by several
of the most distinguished of the popes, but particularly to the bull
"_Unam Sanctam_" of Boniface VIII, while the Cisalpines repudiated
the authority of that bull. This issue gave rise to a protracted
and angry controversy, which continued up till the Vatican Council
of 1870, when Pius IX, more successful than any of his predecessors,
was enabled to profit by his alliance with the Jesuits, and secure
the triumph of the Ultramontanes. This he accomplished by causing the
Council to revive the dogmas of all the popes who had gone before him,
including, of course, Gregory VII, Innocent III, and Boniface VIII,
in so far as they concerned faith, morals, and all religious duties
and obligations. In the "Dogmatic Constitution," which authoritatively
announces the infallibility of the pope, and was issued under the
immediate personal auspices of Pius IX, special pains are taken to
declare that this doctrine rests not only on the "testimonies of the
sacred writings," but on "the plain and express decrees" of "the
Roman pontiffs, and of the General Councils,"[283] notwithstanding no
previous Council ever passed such a decree, and those of Constance and
Basel expressly decided the exact reverse. Here, it will be observed,
the popes are grouped together by the use of the word _pontiffs_ in
the plural, leaving the present to be compared with the former faith,
by searching among the numerous constitutions, decrees, encyclicals,
allocutions, and bulls of all the popes enumerated in the calendar of
the Church. Thus the Ultramontanes and the Jesuits find their faith in
the bulls and policy of Gregory VII, Innocent III, and Boniface VIII,
but especially in the bull "_Unam Sanctam_" of the latter; and as they,
with Leo XIII at their head, represent the victorious party in the
Church, there can be no excuse for not knowing the religious doctrines
of that party as they are embodied in the infallible utterances of
that celebrated bull, and are now employed to justify the restoration
of the pope's temporal power, and the enlargement of his spiritual
jurisdiction in the event of their success.

There has been an evident disinclination among the papal writers to
publish this bull entire, so that its precise purport may be understood
by the average reader. As an excuse for not doing so, De Montor, the
authorized historian of the popes, says, in his biography of Boniface
VIII, that "neither at Rome or elsewhere" is it "any longer officially
mentioned."[284] Although this was said before the Vatican Council
decreed the infallibility of all the popes, of course including
Boniface VIII, yet the concealment of the plain and obvious meaning
of this bull was not excused even then; for the reason that its whole
object was to define the relations between the spiritual and the
temporal powers; and, consequently, furnishes the highest official and
_ex cathedra_ evidence of the faith of the Church as then maintained
by its chief functionary, whether he was or was not infallible. If,
however, he was infallible, as the Vatican Council of 1870 has decreed,
then it is conclusively proved that the bull "_Unam Sanctam_" sets
forth the true faith as recognized by the Ultramontanes, the Jesuits,
and all those who accept the popes as infallible teachers and guides.
The suppression of the most material parts of this bull by De Montor
and other papal defenders, is but a feeble attempt to disguise the
censure commonly visited upon its author; although what he did was
openly and boldly to avow what Gregory VII, Innocent III, and other
popes had substantially proclaimed before, in the regular execution
of their pontifical functions. De Montor follows De Maistre, and is
content, like the latter, to state some of its conclusions, omitting
the most prominent and important. Among the concessions he has made
is an enumeration of those who are subject to excommunication, as
follows: "All heretics;" "All who appeal to future Councils"--that
is, who deny the pope's infallibility; "Those who cite ecclesiastics
before lay tribunals;" "Those who usurp the territory of the pope's
sovereignty;" and, although he ventures to say, "The rest of the bull
is unimportant,"[285] the plain fact is, that both he and De Maistre
have omitted any reference to its most prominent parts, made now more
prominent by the solemn decree of the Vatican Council that he was
infallible. Whatsoever may have been the object of this suppression
previous to the action of the Vatican Council--and that there was some
special object there can be no reasonable doubt--the conditions have
since changed, so that Boniface VIII, when announcing the faith to the
whole Church, was as much infallible as Pius IX, or Leo XIII, or any
of their predecessors. We have seen that the decree of infallibility,
by its express terms, embraces all the "pontiffs," among whom Boniface
VIII played a most important and conspicuous part. Therefore, what he
said concerning the relations between the spiritual and the temporal
powers, which necessarily involves the faith, all who assent to the
doctrines of the Vatican Council are obliged to recognize as infallibly
true. Consequently, all modern peoples--especially those of the United
States--are interested in understanding what have been the doctrinal
teachings of those popes whose potential influence, like that of
Boniface VIII, has shaped the course of the papacy. If it could once
have been said, with seeming propriety, that each one of the popes
spoke and acted for himself, and with reference to the period of his
pontificate, that time no longer exists; for, since the decree of
infallibility, the faithful are obliged to recognize each one as having
defined the faith by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, no matter
whether it concerns the conduct of nations, peoples, or individuals.

The bull "_Unam Sanctam_" was specially intended to define the faith,
and, therefore, what it contains concerning the relations between
the spiritual and the temporal powers should be scrutinized with the
utmost care by those who think that the popular form of government is
conducive to human prosperity and happiness. Especially should this be
done by the people of the United States, who attribute their wonderful
growth and development to the separation of Church and State, and
the subsequent escape from the multitude of ills inflicted upon the
European nations by papal and ecclesiastical dominion, not the least of
which were justified by this celebrated bull of Boniface VIII, to say
nothing now of like assumptions of power by other equally ambitious
popes. The learned and impartial Gosselin has given this bull in these
words:

"The gospel teaches us that there are in the Church, and that
the Church has in her power, _two swords_--the spiritual and the
temporal--_both in the powers_ of the Church; but the first must be
drawn by the Church, and by the arm of the sovereign pontiff; the
second, for the Church, by the arms of kings and soldiers, _at the
pontiff's request_. The temporal sword ought to be subject to the
spiritual; that is, _the temporal power to the spiritual_, according to
these words of the apostle, 'There is no power but from God; and those
that are, are ordained of God.' Now the two powers would not be well
ordained if _the temporal sword were not subject to the spiritual, as
the inferior to the superior_. It can not be denied that the spiritual
power as much surpasses the temporal in dignity, as spiritual things in
general surpass the temporal. The very origin itself of the temporal
power demonstrates this; for, according to the testimony of truth,
_the spiritual has the right of appointing the temporal power, and of
judging it when it errs_; thus also is verified in the Church, and the
ecclesiastical power, the oracle of Jeremias: 'Lo, I have set thee this
day _over nations and over kingdoms_.' If, therefore, _the temporal
power errs_, it must be _judged by the spiritual_; if the spiritual
power of inferior rank commits faults, it must be judged by a spiritual
power of a superior order; but _if the superior spiritual power commits
faults, it can be judged by God alone, and not by any man_, according
to the words of the apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth all things,
and he himself is judged of no man.' This sovereign spiritual power
has been given to Peter by these words: 'Whomsoever thou shalt bind,'
etc. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth this power so ordained by God,
resisteth the order of God."[286]

It is not necessary to a correct understanding of this extraordinary
official proclamation that its language should be closely scanned.
It is an emphatic and obvious assertion of complete pontifical
jurisdiction over nations, and everything connected with their measures
of internal policy which pertains to the interests and faith of the
Church, or places the least limitation upon the powers and prerogatives
of the popes. It reduces all peoples into a condition of absolute
inferiority, and recognizes the pope as the common arbiter of all human
affairs, and not responsible to any human tribunal. Its main purpose
was to weld Church and State so closely together that they could never
be separated, so as to render any form of popular government, like
that of the United States, impossible. It has been locked up among
the secret archives of the Vatican for six hundred years, along with
other pontifical bulls of like import, where it might have remained in
oblivion had not the Vatican Council of 1870 decreed its author to have
been infallible, and thus dragged it into the full light of day, to
guide and direct the footsteps of other infallible popes. It does not
require a vigorous imagination to conceive of the joy experienced by
the Jesuits when they witnessed the efficient support thus given to the
cause of monarchism, and with what bright hopes they looked forward to
the time when the papal dominion shall become universal, and no other
form of religion be tolerated, except that proclaimed by Boniface VIII,
when "he declared it to be heretical to say that any Christian is not
subject to the pope."[287]

All the Jesuits accept as absolutely true the doctrines announced by
the bull "_Unam Sanctam_;" otherwise they would not be true disciples
of Loyola. But whether or no others of the faithful consider it
binding upon them as an act of infallibility, depends, of course,
upon the teachings of the Church, or of the pope, who, in his single
person, represents the Church. About three years before the decree of
infallibility was passed, and in order to mold opinions in its favor,
a work, emanating from the oratory in London under papal auspices,
was published, wherein the subject was discussed with thoroughness.
Its title was, "When does the Church Speak Infallibly?" and the
answer was given with satisfactory clearness. In 1870--the year the
decree was passed--a second edition of this work was published for
general instruction. The author is very explicit, and has undoubtedly
expressed the belief maintained by the papacy with entire correctness;
for if he had not done so, his work would not have been printed and
circulated under Church approval. He does not hesitate to maintain
his propositions by pontifical proofs as far back as Leo I--more than
eight hundred years before Boniface VIII--from which, of course, it
may fairly be inferred that no matter when a pope may have lived, his
_ex cathedra_ definitions of faith are to be considered infallibly
true, independent entirely of the late decree of the Vatican Council.
He lays down the general proposition that infallibility "extends
over all truths which have a bearing upon the faith, and upon the
eternal welfare of mankind," and enforces it by showing that Pius IX
declared that infallible teaching was not confined merely to "points of
doctrine," but embraced also whatsoever "concerns the Church's general
good and her rights and discipline."[288] Besides these, he enumerates
as within the papal jurisdiction, the "general principles of morality;"
"dogmatic and moral facts;" "the precise sense of a book, or passage of
a book," and its conformity to truth; "discipline and worship;" "the
condemnation of secret and other societies;" "_education_;" "particular
moral facts;" "_political truths and principles_;" "theological
conclusions;" and "philosophy and natural sciences."

Within this broad and almost unlimited range of subjects pretty
much everything is included which concerns either individuals or
society--even matters which pertain to nations and States as such. As
regards the special subject of education, every system is embraced,
because that involves dogmatic and moral facts, which gives to the
Church the "right to judge them;" and "the faithful are bound to submit
without appeal to her judgment upon these systems." As to political
truths and principles the doctrine is equally plain, that so long as
the nation or State is in harmony with the Church, acting in obedience
to its commands, the latter will not interfere with it; but when it
is not, and contravenes the divine law as the Church interprets it,
"that moment it is the Church's right and duty, as guardian of revealed
truth, to interfere, and to proclaim to the State the truths which it
has ignored, and to condemn the erroneous maxims which it has adopted;"
that is, to condemn it as heretical and illegitimate. And in order to
make it clear that this power over the State is unlimited, he refers
to the Syllabus of 1864, of Pius IX, to prove that the Church has
"the right to distinguish error from truth in the domain of political
science."[289] And before concluding he deems it necessary to caution
the faithful against any appeal to their own intelligence upon "so
abstruse" a subject as infallibility, by admonishing them "that none
but a professed theologian has a right to an opinion upon it;" that
is, that absolute and uninquiring obedience to authority--even if it
reduces mankind to the condition of stocks and stones--is the highest
Christian duty.[290]

Unquestionably the decree of infallibility runs back to the earliest
ages of the Church, going behind and including the whole period of
the Middle Ages, which Leo XIII calls the "blessed ages" of faith
and obedience. Therefore, the bull "_Unam Sanctam_" was within the
infallible jurisdiction of Boniface VIII, and must be recognized as
expressing the true papal faith; that is, what the Vatican Council
intended should be so considered. If papal infallibility means
anything, it means that he was as incapable of sin or error in the
administration of his office as Pius IX or Leo XIII, and, consequently,
that his doctrines were absolutely true when announced, and remain
so to-day. "_Semper eadem_"--always the same--is the papal motto. It
must mean also that his doctrines are as much a part of the faith,
as maintained by the papacy, as was the decree of the Immaculate
Conception by Pius IX, or any other act or decree concerning the faith,
of any of the popes. It can make no difference that the decree of the
Immaculate Conception was approved by the Vatican Council, because
it took effect before that Council met, by virtue of the recognized
power and authority of the pope. And, besides, its approval was not
necessary to its validity if Pius IX was infallible, because any _ex
cathedra_ act of a pope is considered so binding that even the dissent
of a Council will avail nothing against it. Hence, the faithful
everywhere are held obliged to accept as part of the faith whatsoever
any pope has declared, or shall hereafter declare, within his
infallible jurisdiction, relating to the Church, the papacy, States,
or Governments, and especially to the important subject of education.
Without this, the doctrine of the pope's infallibility would have no
practical meaning.

It remains, consequently, for those whose minds shall be impressed
by the foregoing well-attested facts to consider, with all possible
seriousness, the relations which the infallible pope must, from
necessity, sustain toward our civil institutions, so long as he shall
insist upon the extent of jurisdiction over them which is now claimed
to be conferred by that papal pretension. If this consideration shall
be given by a Roman Catholic citizen of the United States, sheltered
and protected by our laws, he will surely discover that he is now
required to abandon the ancient faith of the Church he has venerated
through life, and substitute for it a new faith which hitherto his
conscience has rejected, and which required more than a thousand
years of controversy within the Church and close alliance with the
revived Jesuits to accomplish. If it be given by one "native and to
the manner born," whose instinct and education attach him to the form
of government which separates the State from the Church, and makes
the people the primary source of political authority, he will find
himself confronted by the proposition of a foreign power to change the
character of our institutions, so that Church and State may be united,
and the latter made subordinate to the former. And this will devolve
upon all such as duly appreciate the benefits of civil and religious
liberty, the obligation--not to practice intolerance or to deprive any
of the just rights of citizenship--but to defend, with the necessary
firmness and courage, all the fundamental principles which were
consecrated by the lives and labors of those who laid the foundations
of our Government. We can not afford to have this country ruled over
either by Leo XIII, who was the pupil of the Jesuits in early life,
or by the Jesuits themselves, who worship Loyola as a saint. We have
multitudes of Roman Catholics among us, both native and foreign born,
whose Christian integrity and conduct commend them to our confidence
and fellowship, and many of these are intelligent and instructed enough
to see that if Jesuitism were eliminated from the faith they are
required to accept, there would be no cause of disturbing strife left
between them and their Protestant fellow-citizens, but each individual
would be left to worship God according to his own conscience, and no
human authority would "dare molest or make him afraid."

We can not and must not permit the followers of Loyola to enforce
here the principles of Gregory VII, Innocent III, Boniface VIII, and
other popes, who dethroned kings and released their subjects from the
obligation of obedience to the Governments under which they lived, upon
the pretentious claim that, by virtue of their infallibility, they
were the sole representatives of God upon earth, and had the divine
authority "of appointing the temporal power." We can not and must
not consent to be included within the circle of any foreign temporal
jurisdiction, or within such spiritual jurisdiction as the papal
doctrine of infallibility stretches out over the temporal affairs of
all the nations. We can not and must not allow the Stars and Stripes
to be removed from the dome of our national Capitol, and the papal
flag, with its cross and miter and without a single star, to be floated
in its place. We can not and must not mix ourselves up with the affairs
of the European nations, either to restore the temporal power of the
pope, or change the relations which the Italian people bear to their
Government. For we can not do any of these things, or suffer them to
be done by others, without breaking down the barriers and removing the
landmarks left by the fathers of the Republic, and thereby changing
our own bright national inheritance into an inglorious bequest to our
children.

We must not forget the claim of jurisdiction over the people of the
United States which the pope now makes by virtue of his assumed
infallibility, and which has caused him to send Mgr. Satolli to this
country--without diplomatic recognition and without our knowledge and
consent--to instruct us that our form of government is heretical, and
may for that reason be removed out of the papal pathway, like other
heresies; and that our common schools are nurseries of vice because
they do not teach that Protestantism is also heresy, with the curse
of God resting upon it. To comprehend the nature and character of
this jurisdiction and the claim of pontifical supremacy out of which
it grows, it is only necessary to remember that the Council of Trent
assumed authority over Protestants as well as Roman Catholics, and
thereby established a precedent which Leo XIII has not been slow
to follow. That assemblage held all baptized persons, no matter by
whom the ceremony was solemnized, to be within its ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, and although Protestants are considered as rebels and
apostates against the authority of the Church, they are regarded
as amenable to her laws, and may rightfully be required to obey
them--peaceably if possible; but if not, then by coercion when it shall
become expedient to attempt it. They are likened to sheep who have
strayed from the fold, and as belonging to the Master they have left;
and to soldiers who desert their flag, and are subject to arrest and
punishment by their superiors. The Protestant people of the United
States are, therefore, in the papal sense, excommunicated heretics, and
their Government is heretical because it has separated the State from
the Church. Consequently, the Jesuits maintain, by their peculiarly
subtle method of reasoning, that both the Government and the Protestant
people of the United States are within the circle of pontifical
jurisdiction, and, therefore, that the pope has the divine right, as
the only infallible representative of God, to deal with this country
according to his own discretion.

Both they who teach this and they who accept it as an essential part
of _religious_ faith, lack the true American spirit, whether native
or foreign born--that spirit which presided over the councils of
"the fathers" when they framed our Government, and which has given
it strength and vigor, as well as beauty, for more than a century of
time. They are manifestly prepared to see the world turned back toward
the Middle Ages, when the destinies of all the civilized nations were
subject to the arbitrament and will of the popes; when the State was
held in subjugation by the Church; when kings were dethroned and their
subjects released from the obligation of allegiance to them, in order
to bring all the nations into conformity with the principles and
policy of the papacy; and when the masses of mankind were regarded
as mere "animals," possessing neither the capacity nor the right to
govern themselves by laws of their own making. To accomplish these
results they insist that there shall be absolute "unity of faith,"
and that everything which stands in the way of this is heresy and
must be destroyed. In order to this they claim, as a dogma of faith,
that the popes shall have free and uninterrupted access, through
their hierarchy, to every nation and people in the world, so that
heretical Governments may be destroyed and heretical people brought
under papal dominion. Herein they indicate a desire to see revived in
the United States the discord, strifes, and wars which scattered ruin
and desolation over the fairest portions of Europe, which constrained
France not to permit the bull "_Unam Sanctam_" to be published within
her borders; Spain to modify it, and the leading nations--especially
those acknowledged to be Roman Catholic--to eliminate from all papal
bulls such features as threatened encroachments upon their rights and
independence.

The Protestant people of the United States can not imitate these
latter examples by resorting to harsh and severe measures of defense
and protection. The civil and religious freedom they have established,
as the foundation of their institutions, must remain universal. No
man's conscience must be restrained, and no man's just rights invaded
or diminished. Freedom of thought, of speech, and of the press, must
remain the chief corner-stone upon which the national edifice shall
rest. But in order to perpetuate these great rights, so essential to
each and every citizen of the Republic, our common-school system, as
now prevailing, must be sheltered and protected from Jesuit assault.
We should even go further, and heed the counsel of Madison--one of
our wisest and best Presidents--when, in one of his messages to
Congress, he invited attention "to the advantages of superadding to
the means of education provided by the several States a seminary
of learning, instituted by the National Legislature," whereby the
feelings, opinions, and sentiments of youth may be assimilated, and
thus constitute a wall of security against foreign influences which
can never be removed. And whether this shall be accomplished or not,
duty to both the present and the future requires us to remember what
the great Pope Clement XIV said in his bull suppressing the Jesuits
by absolute extinction "_forever_," that "care be taken that they
have no part in the government or direction of the same"--that is,
the schools--because "the faculty of teaching youth shall neither be
granted nor preserved but to those who seem inclined to maintain peace
in the schools and tranquillity in the world." He knew the Jesuits
far better than it is possible for us in this country ever to know
them; and whether his act suppressing them was or was not one of
infallibility, it constitutes a lesson of history which ought not to
be forgotten. And while, in our treatment of them, we can do nothing
at war with the liberal and tolerant spirit of our institutions, or
unbecoming to ourselves, we should remember that

 "Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just;
 And he but naked, though locked up in steel,
 Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted."

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 282: The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Boston
Ed., pp. 270-271.]

[Footnote 283: Vatican Decrees. By Gladstone. Page 159.]

[Footnote 284: De Montor, Vol. I, p. 476.]

[Footnote 285: _Ibid._, pp. 477-478.]

[Footnote 286: The Power of the Pope During the Middle Ages. By M.
Gosselin. Vol. II, pp. 233-34.]

[Footnote 287: De Montor, Vol. I, p. 476.]

[Footnote 288: When does the Church Speak Infallibly? By Thomas Francis
Knox, of the London Oratory. Pages 53-54.]

[Footnote 289: When does the Church Speak Infallibly? By Thomas Francis
Knox, of the London Oratory. Page 55, etc.]

[Footnote 290: _Ibid._ p. 118.]




INDEX.


   A.

   Alexander, Emperor, expelled Jesuits from St. Petersburg and
   Moscow, 246.

   Alexander VI, Pope, grant of, in Brazil, 168.

   Antonelli, Cardinal, assumed control of papal Government, 322.

   Andelot, Francis d', a leader of the Huguenots, 92.

   Augsburg, National Council ordered at, by Charles V, 467.

   Austria, invaded Italy, 285;
     established a garrison at Ferrara, 290;
     declaration of war against, demanded by Italians, 302, 308;
     relations of with Sardinia, hostile, 308;
     requested by Pius IX to withdraw troops from Italy, 311;
     refused to withdraw troops, 311;
     withdrew troops of her own accord, 318.

   Aquinas, Thomas, teachings of, recommended by Leo XIII, 343, 407, 408,
   410, 412, 415, 418;
     a theological writer in the Middle Ages, 407, 413;
     canonized by Pope John XXII, 408;
     doctrines of, taught in Umbria, 408;
     doctrines of, as cited by Balmes, 409-418;
     justified disobedience to civil power, 411, 414;
     defines _de facto_ Governments as not being founded on divine law
     as interpreted by popes, 416-418.

   Auvergne, nobility of, interposed in behalf of the Jesuits, 106.


   B.

   Balmes, Jesuit writer, condemned Protestantism in answer to Guizot,
   16, 409;
     died in 1848, 409;
     his arguments based on doctrines of Thomas Aquinas, 409-418.

   Baltimore Councils, decrees of, approved by Leo XIII, 399, 401,
   and note.

   Basel, Council of, denied the infallibility of the popes, 436, 467,
   470, 482.

   Bavaria, Duke of, persecuted Protestants, 123;
     Jesuits refused free access to, 264;
     Jesuits enter surreptitiously, 264.

   Benedict XIII, Pope, confirmed decree of Cardinal de Tournon and bull of
   Clement XI against Jesuits, 215.

   Benedict XIV, Pope, ordered investigation of charges of Portuguese
   Government against Jesuits, 188;
     issued two bulls condemning Jesuits for idolatrous worship, 215.

   Boniface VIII, Pope, maintained temporal power by oppressive measures,
   465, 469.

   Bourbon, Anthony de, a Huguenot leader, 92.

   Brazil, Portuguese possession of, 168.

   Brussels, revolution in, 278.


   C.

   Campion and Parson, Jesuit leaders, visit England and pretend to be
   Protestants, 141.

   Carroll, Charles, signer of Declaration of Independence, a
   Catholic, 440.

   Cano, Melchior, his opinion of Loyola, 75;
     his warning, 76.

   Catherine de Medicis, commanded Parliament to ratify letters-patent to
   Jesuits, 102;
     her treachery to French Huguenots, 105;
     withdrew from Council at Poissy, 107;
     refused to sanction Protestant places of worship. 111;
     conspired with Jesuits to suppress religious worship, 112.

   "_Catholic Church and Civil Government, The_," by Earnshaw, extracts
   from, 457-461;
     speaks of Leo XIII as "The Christ on Earth," 457.

   "Catholic Emancipation," contest in England about, 69.

   Cavalho, Sebastian (See Pombal).

   Charles Albert, King of Sardinia, defeated at battle of Novara, 312;
     abdicated crown in behalf of Victor Emmanuel, 312.

   Charles III, of Spain, expelled Jesuits from his dominions, 221.

   Charles V, progress of Jesuits during reign of, 81, 84;
     his colonization in South America, 168;
     compelled the assembling of Council of Trent, 466;
     ordered National Council at Augsburg, 467;
     had a common interest with Julius III in union of Church and State, 468.

   Charles IX, of France, controlled by Catherine de Medicis, 5.

   Charles X, of France, 273;
     refused Jesuits control of colleges and schools, 273;
     issued edict to prevent the assembling of Chamber of Deputies, 276;
     driven from the throne, 276.

   China, the failure of Xavier to enter, 165;
     Jesuits worshiped Confucius in, 197, 206-209;
     Church investigated conduct of Jesuits in, 210-215.

   Christians, number of, in the world, note, page 464.

   Church and State, united under monarchism, 18;
     separate in United States, 18, 344, 356, 358, 373, 414;
     separated in Italy, 19, 334, 337;
     separation of, considered heresy by Jesuits, 21;
     separation of, embodies the American idea, 26;
     union of, insisted upon by Jesuits, 29, 37;
     union of, maintained by ignorance of the people, 341;
     separation of, opposed by popes, 391;
     views of Catholic writers upon, 431;
     Charles V and Julius III had common interest in maintaining them
     united, 468.

   Cisalpines, opposed temporal power and repudiated the _Unam Sanctam_
   of Boniface VIII, 481.

   Clement VII, Pope, opposed to National Council at Augsburg and calls
   Council of Trent, 467.

   Clement XI, Pope, appointed Cardinal De Tournon to investigate Jesuits
   in China and India, 212;
     confirmed the decrees against Jesuit ceremonies, 214.

   Clement XII, Pope, confirmed bulls of previous popes against
   Jesuits, 215.

   Clement XIII, Pope, successor to Benedict XIV, 189;
     continued the investigation of Jesuits ordered by Benedict XIV, 192;
     resisted the Parliamentary decree against Jesuits, 219;
     issued anathemas against countries opposed to Jesuits, 222;
     sought the aid of Maria Theresa, 223;
     implored clemency of the sovereigns, 223;
     promised to abolish the Society of Jesuits, 224;
     his death, 224.

   Clement XIV, Pope, 225;
     continued investigation of the Jesuits, 226, 228-230;
     suppressed the order of Jesuits, 216, 227, 231, 238, 241, 253, 254,
     394, 429, 441, 465, 493;
     his death by poison, 227, 233.

   College of Cardinals, February 17, 1878, agreed to maintain protests of
   Pius IX against Government of Italy, 333, 336.

   Cologne, Archbishop of, letter of Leo XIII to, concerning affairs in
   Germany, 355.

   Coligny, Admiral de, a leader of the Huguenots, 92.

   Condé, Prince of, leader of the Huguenots, 92, 100, 106.

   Constance, Council of, decreed the extermination of heretics, 362;
     denied the pope's infallibility, 436, 467, 470, 482;
     deposed John XXIII, and elected Martin V pope, 476.


   D.

   Daurignac, defense of Loyola by, 35, 37.

   Declaration of Independence repudiated by biographer of Leo XIII, 359;
     establishes the principle of perfect equality of rights, 361;
     truth of principles of, denied by papal system, 419;
     signed by Charles Carroll, a Catholic, 440.

   "Dogmatic Constitution." See Infallibility.


   E.

   Elizabeth, Queen of England, efforts to stop Protestantism renewed
   during reign of, 133;
     preferred the reformed religion, 135;
     accused of being illegitimate, 136, 146, 149;
     declined to send ambassadors to Council of Trent, 136;
     imprisoned Mary, Queen of Scots, 136;
     papal indictment against, 136;
     pronounced guilty of heresy by the pope, 137;
     the pretended authority of Pius V over, 137;
     charged with leading a licentious life, 140;
     declined to marry Philip II, 144;
     was disposed to prefer Roman Catholicism, 144;
     retained thirteen of Mary's counselors, 145;
     first attack upon her crown made by Henry II, of France, 145;
     issued a conciliatory proclamation, 146;
     her proposition rejected by Catholic bishops, 149.

   England, contest in, about "Catholic Emancipation," 69;
     quarrel between Henry VIII, King of, and pope, 130;
     Henry VIII excommunicated, 131;
     Jesuit
   spies sent to, by Loyola, 131;
     _Magna Charta_ of, declared null and void by Innocent III, 359;
     Roman Catholic bishops of, decline to attend coronation of Elizabeth,
     147;
     Parliament of, repealed statutes of Mary, 148;
     Catholic bishops of, reject proposition of Elizabeth, 149;
     Radicals of, excommunicated by Pius VII, 266.

   English College, established at Rome, by Jesuits, 134.


   F.

   Ferdinand IV, of Naples, Jesuit sympathy for, 259.

   Ferdinand VII, of Spain, abolished the Cortes, 260;
     restored the Inquisition, 260;
     death of, 262.

   Ferrara, garrison established at, by Austrians, 290.

   France, Parliament of, compels Jesuits to surrender their constitution,
   49-50, 194, 218;
     universities of, condemn infallibility, 70;
     opposition to Jesuits in, 89;
     Parliament and universities of, oppose Jesuits, 96, 102, 104;
     Gallican Christians of, oppose Jesuits, 90;
     influences of the Reformation in, 92;
     persecution of Protestants in, 92-93;
     Inquisition in, established by Cardinal Lorraine, 94;
     letters-patent admitting Jesuits to, granted by King of, 95;
     letters-patent admitting Jesuits to, rejected by Parliament, 95,
     102, 103, 105;
     Council at Poissy, 101, 106;
     Jesuits admitted to Paris conditionally, 110;
     Parliament of, denounced Jesuits, 219;
     Jesuit demand to control education in, refused by Charles X, 273;
     conspiracy of Catherine de Medici and Jesuits to suppress freedom of
     religious worship in, 112;
     Jesuits refused free access to and surreptitiously enter, 264;
     concordat of Pius VII defeated by Catholics of, 265;
     Democrats of, excommunicated by Pius VII, 266;
     election of Chamber of Deputies of, in 1830, 275;
     the war between Prussia and, a blow at Pius IX, 319;
     Legislative Assembly of, denounced by Pius VI, 441.

   Franchi, Cardinal, death of, 344.

   Francis I, executions for heresy during the reign of, 92;
     refused Jesuits free access to France, 264.

   Francis II, persecution of Protestants by, 93;
     induced by Catherine de Medicis to issue new letters-patent admitting
     Jesuits to France, 103.

   Franco, P., Catholic writer, on relations of Church to Secular
   Government, 443-456;
     designates free governments godless, 446;
     denounces Freemasonry, 446;
     declares oaths against the Church not binding, 447;
     asserts supreme authority of the pope, 447;
     says priests must enter politics, 449;
     denies right of religious liberty, 449;
     denounces liberty of the press, 451;
     condemns sovereignty of the people, 451;
     considers liberalism a form of heresy, 454;
     enumerates important propositions of Syllabus of Pius IX, 455;
     opposes
   education in public schools, 456.


   G.

   Gallican Christians in France opposed Jesuits, 90.

   Garibaldi united the Two Sicilies with Sardinia, 313;
     defeated by the French, 318.

   Gladstone, his list of heretical popes, 68-69.

   Germany, the Church in, attacked by Loyola, 36, 114;
     influences of Reformation in, 73, 115, 117, 128;
     Roman Catholics and Protestants in harmony in, before entry of the
     Jesuits, 115, 127;
     Jesuits establish colleges in, 122;
     opposition to Jesuits in, 263;
     hatred of Jesuits shared alike by Catholics and Protestants in, 265;
     concordat of Christians of, refused by Pius VII, 266;
     persecution of Protestants in, 124;
     the Illuminati of, excommunicated by Pius VII, 266;
     letter from Leo XIII to Archbishop of Cologne concerning affairs
     in, 355.

   Gibbons, Cardinal, encyclical of pope to, approving decision of Satolli
   upon school question, 398.

   Guizot, French historian, replied to by Jesuit writer, Balmes, 16, 409.

   Greek Church, number of members of in the world, note, page 464.

   Gregory VII, Pope, maintained temporal power by oppressive measures,
   465, 469.

   Gregory XVI, Pope, elected 1831, 282;
     no personal enmity to, 282;
     requested Louis Philippe, of France, to send army to Italy to punish
     Catholics, 284;
     relied upon pledges of the Holy Alliance, 284;
     request of, to Louis Philippe, declined, 284;
     invited the Emperor of Austria to invade Italy, 285, 289;
     his encyclical letter announcing his pontifical policy, 286, 403;
     claimed infallibility, 288;
     re-established pontifical authority under Austrian protection, 290;
     died 1846, 291.


   H.

   Henry, King of Navarre (Henry IV), a leader of the Huguenots, 92;
     represented Huguenot sand Protestant sentiment at Council of
     Poissy, 106.

   Henry II, of France, opposed the Reformation, 92;
     executions for heresy during reign of, 92;
     granted letters-patent to Jesuits to enter Paris, 95;
     attacked the right of Elizabeth to the crown, 145.

   Henry VIII, of England, his quarrel with the pope, 130;
     visited his vengeance upon both Protestants and
     Catholics, 143.

   "Holy Alliance," the, and Pius VII, 249-271;
     met at Verona, 261;
     combinations arising from, maintained the Netherland's Government, 278;
     organized to suppress the right of self-government, 280, 350;
     relied upon by Gregory XVI, 284;
     relations of to Pius IX, 296;
     looked upon with disfavor in France, 284.

   Huss, John, burned, 428.


   I.

   India, idolatrous worship of Jesuits in, 196-206;
     Jesuit converts in, 202;
     Jesuit baptisms in, in 1737, 203.

   Infallibility, doctrine of, declared by Conciliar Decree, called
   "Dogmatic Constitution," in 1870, 19, 321, 427, 428, 471, 478;
     dictated by Pius IX, 68, 321, 427, 480;
     the consummation of the Jesuit plan, 19;
     rejected by Italian people, 20;
     Jesuit arguments on, 21-23;
     condemned by universities in France and Spain, 70;
     opposed by Gallican Church, 89;
     claimed by Gregory XVI, 288;
     Jesuit interpretation of, 354;
     interpretation of Leo XIII of, 354;
     struggle between Church and papacy about, 428;
     decree of, the proudest Jesuit triumph since their restoration, 428;
     defined by Catholic writer, 430;
     decree of, not passed unanimously, 433, 480;
     never recognized as a dogma of religious faith, 435;
     denied by Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basel, 436, 467, 470, 482;
     results to be expected from, 438-439;
     incompatible with American citizenship, 456;
     divided the Church into rival factions of Cisalpines and
     Ultramontanes, 481.

   Innocent III, Pope, declared Magna Charta of England null and void, 359;
     instructed the faithful to exterminate heretics, 362;
     maintained temporal power by oppressive measures, 465, 469;
     dictated decrees of Lateran Council, 480.

   Innocent X, Pope, his questions to Congregation of the Propaganda
   concerning Jesuit idolatrous worship, 210;
     his decree against Jesuits, 211.

   Isabella, of Spain, proclaimed
     a liberal constitution, 262.

   Italy, revolution in, 1870,19;
     abolished temporal power, 19, 22, 24, 464;
     separated Church from State, 19, 334, 337;
     established constitutional form of government, 19;
     Jesuits driven from, 19, 309, 337, 393;
     Carbonari of, excommunicated by Pius VII, 266;
     revolutions in, 282-294;
     invaded by Austrians, 285;
     Austrian garrison established at Ferrara, 290;
     people of, demand Pius IX to declare war against Austria, 302;
     kingdom of, formed by Victor Emmanuel, 313;
     Austrian armies withdrawn from, 318;
     unification of, established, 323, 329;
     capital of, established at Rome, 329;
     freedom of belief fundamental principle of government of, 348;
     aid of Americans sought by papacy to secure restoration of temporal
     power in, 348;
     form of government of, condemned by Leo XIII, 378;
     law of Umbria condemned by Cardinal Pecci (Leo XIII), 376.


   J.

   Jane, Princess, espouses Jesuit cause at Saragossa, 81.

   Japan, visited by Francis Xavier, 162-165.

   Jerome, burned, 428.

   Jesuits, the, founded by Loyola, 32, 49;
     the enemies of civil and religious liberty, 28, 439;
     consider the separation of Church and State heresy, 21;
     insist that Church and State shall be united, 29, 37;
     opposed to intellectual progress, 49;
     monarchists, 66;
     general of, has absolute authority, 38, 40, 45, 47, 48, 51-62;
     general of, equal to God, 32, 40, 51, 55, 57, 58, 59, 70, 71, 72;
     authority of general superior to pope, 72;
     efforts of, to restore temporal power, 24, 27, 28;
     expelled from Rome by Pius IX, 19, 309, 337, 393;
     in the United States, 25, 29;
     intrigues of, at Saragossa, Spain, 76-83;
     opposed at Toledo, Spain, 84;
     entered Portugal, 86;
     established college at Coimbra, 86;
     acquired immense wealth, 86;
     opposed in France, 89;
     resisted by Gallican Christians, 90;
     letters-patent granted to, by Henry II, 95;
     opposed by University of Paris, 96;
     driven out of Paris, 96, 220;
     established colleges at Clermont and Pamiers, 99-100;
     at Council of Trent, 108, 469;
     admitted to Paris conditionally, 110;
     conspired to suppress freedom of religious worship in France, 112;
     exerted their influence in Germany through the schools, 120;
     established colleges in Germany, 122;
     persecuted Protestants in Germany, 123-124;
     sent as spies against Henry VIII, 131;
     visited Scotland and Ireland, 132;
     established English college at Rome, 134;
     their education of English youths, 134, 139;
     _Semper eadem_ the motto of, 138;
     sent to England from French seminaries, 140;
     Campion and Parson sent to England from Rome, 140;
     first important mission of, was to East Indies, 153;
     King of Portugal sent the first of, to South America, 170;
     established monarchical government in Paraguay, 171, 173;
     the _Reductions_, or Jesuit State, established in Paraguay by, 174;
     their conflict with Portuguese Government in Paraguay, 178;
     suppressed in Paraguay by Pombal, 181-194;
     became Brahmins in India, 196;
     worshiped Confucius in China, 197, 206-209;
     converts of, in India, 202;
     baptisms of, in India, 203;
     society of, suppressed by Clement XIV, 216, 227, 231, 238, 241, 253,
     254, 394, 429, 441, 465, 493;
     banished from Portugal, 218, 291;
     denounced by French Parliament, 219;
     expelled from European countries, 221-222, 393;
     resist the brief of suppression, 239, 257;
     in Russia, 239, 242-247, 254;
     re-enter Parma and Sicily, 245;
     expelled from
     St. Petersburg and Moscow, 246;
     re-established by Pius VII, 236, 247, 249, 250, 252, 253, 259, 427;
     property of, in Rome restored to them, 259;
     reintroduction of, into Spain, 260;
     again driven out of Spain, 262;
     opposed in Germany, 263;
     surreptitiously enter France, 264;
     demanded control of educational institutions in France, 273;
     welcomed at Austrian court, 285;
     influence of, over Pius IX, 310, 327;
     instrumental in procuring decree of infallibility, 321;
     interpretation of infallibility by, 354;
     condemned United States institutions as heretical, 420;
     threaten their public-school system, 421;
     order of, and not the Church, benefited by pope's policy, 393;
     duty of educators assigned to, by Leo XIII, 394, 422;
     theory of, maintained by Leo XIII, 390;
     decree of infallibility, greatest triumph of, since their
     restoration, 428;
     the Church of less consequence to, than the society, 436;
     seeking to control common schools, 440;
     find their faith in bulls of Gregory VII, Innocent III, and Boniface
     VIII, 482;
     the constitution of, exposed by French Government, 49-50, 194, 218.

     Julius III, Pope, authorized Loyola to establish German college in
     Rome, 121, 422;
      had common interest with Charles V in union of Church and State, 468;
      formed alliance with Jesuits, 468.

   John III, of Portugal, his colonizations in South America, 168;
     sent the first Jesuits to South America, 170.

   John XXII, Pope, canonized Thomas Aquinas in 1323, 408.

   John XXIII, Pope, deposed by Council of Constance, 476.


   L.

   Lateran Council, decrees of, dictated by Innocent III, 480.

   Laynez, accompanied Loyola to Rome, 44;
     successor to Loyola, 102, 107-108;
     at the Council of Poissy, 102;
     went to Council of Trent as legate of the pope, 108, 469-478;
     remonstrated against erection of Protestant places of worship in
     France, 111;
     announced the doctrine of infallibility in Council of Trent,
     470, 471, 472-475;
     perverted the Scriptures, 473, and notes, pages 474, 475.

   Lefevre, accompanied Loyola to Rome, 44.

   Leo, XII, Pope, 271;
     demanded clergy of France be made independent of government, 272;
     his demand condemned by Louis XVIII, 272;
     anathematized Protestantism, 272;
     death of, 274.

   Leo XIII, Pope, election of, 333, 336;
     possesses high intellectual qualities and Christian character,
     334, 345, 366;
     his education and training Jesuitical, 336, 346, 349, 354, 383;
     his first encyclical reasserts temporal power, 337-345;
     instructions of, to priests and laymen, 343;
     recommends teachings of Thomas Aquinas, 343, 407, 408, 410, 412,
     415, 518;
     hostile to public schools, 343, 358, 391;
     condemns civil marriage, 344, 358;
     commands obedience to superiors, 344;
     appointed Cardinal Nina his Secretary of State, 344;
     condemns separation of Church and State, 344;
     theories of, expounded by his biographer, 347-365;
     rebuked the Catholic press, 352;
     censorship of the press by, intended to be universal, 353;
     letter of, to Archbishop of Cologne, concerning German affairs, 355;
     his views when Cardinal (see Pecci);
     arguments of, upon temporal power, 370, 372;
     condemns form of government in Italy, 378;
     defined universal faith to be absolute sovereignty of pope, 379;
     alarmed by liberal Catholicism, 388;
     assigns to Jesuits the duty of educators, 394, 422;
     seeking to create a politico-religious party in United States, 396;
     sent Mgr. Satolli to United States, 396;
     approves decision of Satolli upon school question, in encyclical to
     Cardinal Gibbons, 398;
     conditions of, attached to approval of Satolli's decision, 399;
     approves decrees of Baltimore Councils, 399, 401;
     demands that Catholic schools must be promoted, 401, 402;
     doctrines of, in sympathy with Jesuit theory, 390;
     maintains the government has no rightful jurisdiction over Church,
     415;
     striving for temporal power, 427;
     addressed as "Christ on earth" by Catholic writer, 457.

   Lorraine, Cardinal of, established the Inquisition in France, 94;
     established Jesuit seminary at Rheims, 140.

   Louis Philippe, 276;
     requested by Gregory XVI to send army to Italy, 284;
     declined request of Gregory XVI, 284.

   Louis XV, convened Synod of the clergy, 220;
     annulled decree of Parliament against Jesuits, 221.

   Louis XVI, aided by Pius VI, 441.

   Louis XVIII, invaded Spain, 262;
     refused to allow Jesuits to openly enter France, 264;
     agreed to concordat of Pius VII, 265.

   Loyola, Ignatius, founder of the society of Jesuits, 32, 49;
     claimed equality with God, 32, 40, 51, 55, 57, 58, 59, 70, 71, 72,
     97;
     represented as possessing miraculous powers, 32, 155, 164;
     his life written by Rabadenira, 32;
     the suppression of the Reformation and extirpation of Protestantism his
     avowed purpose, 33, 93, 469;
     his shrewdness, 34, 50, 71, 72;
     defended by Daurignac, 35, 37;
     his argument to Paul III, 36;
     attacked the Church in Germany, 36;
     the ambition of, 37-38, 67;
     his society not necessary to Christian faith, 39;
     started as missionary to Holy Land, 41, 43;
     duplicity of, 42;
     his expedition to Palestine a failure, 43;
     asked the pope to approve his society, 43;
     named his order "_The Society of Jesus_," 44;
     his society approved by Paul III, 48;
     neither a theologian nor learned, 50;
     worshiped as a saint, 63, 490;
     Melchior Cano's opinion of, 75;
     triumph of, at Toledo, Spain, 85;
     opposition to in France, 89;
     established German college in Rome, 121, 422.


   M.

   Madison, President, advised education of youth in science of government,
   15, 493.

   Magna Charta, of England, declared null and void by Innocent III, 359.

   Maigrot, Bishop of Conon, forbade
   idolatrous ceremonies of Jesuits, 212.

   Martin V, Pope, elected in place of John XXIII, 476.

   Mary, Queen of England, marriage of to Philip II brought calamities to
   England, 142;
     statutes of, repealed by English Parliament, 148.

   Mary Queen of Scots, imprisoned by Elizabeth, 136.

   Maximilian Joseph, of Bavaria, denied access to Jesuits, 264.

   Monroe Doctrine, 350, note, page 262.

   Montagu, English statesman maintained temporal power, 458.

   Morales, sent to China to investigate Jesuits, 210;
     banished from China, 210.


   N.

   Napoleon I, 258; letter of, to Pius VII, concerning temporal power, 269.

   Napoleon III, advised Pius IX to let the revolted provinces go, 313;
     sent troops to Italy to protect temporal power, 318;
     withdrew troops from Italy, 319.

   Netherlands, the, Government of, maintained by the Holy Alliance, 278.

   Nina, Cardinal, Secretary of State to Leo XIII, 344.

   Nobili, Jesuit missionary to India, 198;
     assumed the character of a Brahmin, 199;
     summoned to Goa to explain his conduct, 205.


   O.

   O'Reilly, biographer of Leo XIII, expounds the theories of the popes,
   347-365;
     repudiates the Declaration of Independence, 359;
     maintains Thomas Aquinas must be taught in schools in United
     States, 408.


   P.

   Palmyra, Archbishop of, book of, forbidden at Rome, and placed on the
   Prohibitory Index, 417.

   Paul III, Pope, issued bull approving the Jesuits, 48, 216;
     assembled the Council of Trent, 67, 467;
     excommunicated Henry VIII, 131;
     endeavored to induce Charles V and Francis I to invade England, 131;
     solicited aid of Loyola against Henry VIII, 131.

   Para, Bishop of, appointed delegate to Cardinal Saldanha, 190;
     suspended Jesuits from functions of confessors and pulpit, 190.

   Paraguay, Jesuit government in, monarchical, 171, 173;
     Europeans prohibited entering, 173;
     reductions established by Jesuits in, 174;
     character of government in reductions, 174-177;
     conflict between Jesuits and Portuguese Government in, 178;
     Jesuits suppressed by Pombal in, 181-194.

   Paris, Bishop of, denounced infallibility, 473;
     university of, opposed Jesuits, 96;
     Jesuits driven out of, 96, 220;
     Jesuits admitted to, conditionally, 110.

   Parson, Jesuit leader, visited England with Campion, and pretended to be
   a Protestant, 141.

   Passionei, Cardinal, Secretary to Benedict XIV, 188.

   Pecci, Cardinal (Leo XIII) elected pope, 333, 336;
     denounced Italian revolution, 367, 375;
     considered temporal power a divine institution, 368;
     upon spiritual sovereignty of the pope, 373;
     condemned the law of Umbria, 376;
     chosen to protest to Piedmont against infringement of papal rights,
     380;
     condemned freedom of conscience, 383;
     claimed education should be under the direction of the Church, 384;
     drew up constitution for Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, 407.

   Peter, Apostle, alleged to have been the first pope, 435, 436, 472,
   473, 478.

   Philip II, his marriage to Mary, Queen of England, brought calamities to
   England, 142;
     hatred of, for Protestants, 143;
     his proposal of marriage to Elizabeth refused, 144.

   Philip III, approved the Jesuit State in Paraguay, 174.

   Philip IV, favored Jesuits in Paraguay, 174.

   Piedmont, formed an alliance with Sardinia, 308.

   Pisa, Council of, denied the pope's infallibility, 436.

   Pius V, pope, pretended authority of, over Elizabeth, 137.

   Pius VI, pope, sustained the decree of Clement XIV, 237, 240;
     condemned the efforts of the French to establish a Republic, and the
     Legislative Assembly, 441.

   Pius VII, pope, re-established the Jesuits, 236, 247, 249, 250, 252,
   253, 259, 427;
     authorized the order of Jesuits in White Russia, 244, 254;
     relations of to Holy Alliance, 249-271;
     his concordat to Louis XVIII concerning temporal power, 265;
     his concordat defeated by Catholics of France, 265;
     refuses assent to concordat of German Christians, 266;
     excommunicate liberal Christians in France, Germany, England, and
     Italy, 266;
     rejected proposition of Napoleon concerning temporal power, 270;
     death of in 1823, 271.

   Pius VIII, pope, elected 1829, 274;
     circular letter of, to "the bishops of Christendom," 274.

   Pius IX, pope, 291;
     possessed excellent personal qualities, 292;
     accepted as a reformer, 293, 297;
     his election by Conclave of Cardinals, 293;
     his decree of amnesty, 294;
     his popularity, 296;
     relations of, to the Holy Alliance, 296;
     compelled to expel Jesuits from Rome, 19, 309, 337, 393;
     rejects overture of pacification from Victor Emmanuel, 23, 321;
     declared infallible, 321, 427, 428, 471, 478;
     dictated the doctrine of infallibility, 68, 321, 427, 480;
     his decree establishing the Immaculate Conception as a dogma of
     faith, 436;
     important propositions of his Syllabus enumerated, 455;
     his reforms aimed to perpetuate temporal power, 299;
     his declaration of temporal power, 300 created a "Civic Guard," 300;
     his vanity, 301;
     demanded by Italians to declare war against Austria, 302;
     not a statesman, 303;
     his declaration
   in favor of the Austrians, 305;
     influences of the Jesuits over, 310, 327;
     adhered to doctrine of temporal power, 310, 315;
     requested Austria to withdraw troops from Italy, 311;
     requested co-operation of Sardinia in forming a confederacy with pope
     as ruler, 311;
     rejected advice of Louis Napoleon, 313;
     condemned new Government of Italy, 315, 326;
     took refuge in Castle of St. Angelo, 322;
     returned to Rome, 328;
     his death, 328;
     his allocution amending the Confession of Faith, 330-332;
     condemned public schools in Syllabus, 1864, 403.

   Poissy, Council of, 101, 106;
     Laynez at, 102.

   Pole, Cardinal, opposed introduction of Jesuits into England, 132.

   Polignac, Prime Minister of Charles X, 276.

   Pombal (Sebastian Cavalho), suppressed the Jesuits in Paraguay,
   181-194.

   Popes, opposed to separation of Church and State, 391;
     number of, 435;
     opposed to a General Council, 466, 467;
     maintained temporal power by oppressive measures, 465, 469;
     strove to perpetuate infallibility, 468;
     condemn principles of United States Government, 391, 411, 419, 420,
     461.

   Portugal, Jesuits enter and acquire immense wealth, 86;
     establish college at Coimbra, 86;
     possessions of, in India, 153, 154;
     king of, sends Xavier to India, 154;
     possession of Brazil, 168;
     Royal Council, 1757, 183;
     government of, prepared statement of grievances against Jesuits, 184;
     Jesuits suppressed in, 218, 291.

   Protestants, number of, in the world, note page 464;
     of the United States excommunicated in the papal sense, 492.

   Protestantism, condemned by Balmes, 16, 17, 409;
     its extirpation the purpose of Loyola, 33;
     the controlling power in human affairs, 33;
     anathematized by Leo XII, 272.

   Prussia, war between France and, a blow at Pius IX, 319.

   Public-school system assailed, 16, 394, 421;
     pope hostile to, 343, 358, 391;
     division of sentiment among Roman Catholics in United States
     concerning, 397;
     decision of Satolli on, 397;
     Satolli's views of, approved by pope, 398;
     condemned by Pius IX, 403;
     Jesuits striving to control, 440.


   R.

   Rabadenira, biographer of Loyola, 32.

   Reformation, the, its suppression of Loyola's purpose, 33, 93, 469;
     its influences in Germany, 73, 115, 117, 128;
     influences of, in France, 92;
     events transpiring in Europe during, 124-127.

   Roman Catholics, appealed to by Jesuits to restore temporal power, 24;
     revolutions in States of, 267, 268;
     revolutionary fervor increased under Leo XII, 271;
     conflict in Italy was between papacy and, 285;
     in United States instructed that
   loss of temporal power is an international question, 363;
     estimated number of, in United States, 392;
     number of, in the world, note, page 464;
     sentiment concerning common schools divided among, 397;
     schools of, must be sedulously promoted, 401, 402;
     required to teach doctrines of Thomas Aquinas in schools, 412, 415,
     418;
     patriotism of, in the United States, 422, 490;
     multitudes of, lovers of civil and religious liberty, 425.

   Roman Catholic writers, Congress of, at Rome, 351;
     rebuked by Leo XIII, 352;
     disinclined to publish the bull "_Unam Sanctam_" of Boniface VIII
     in full, 482.

   Rome, Bishop of, acquired title of pope in the sixth century, 22;
     Jesuits expelled from, by Pius IX, 19, 309, 337, 393;
     property of Jesuits in, restored to them, 259;
     Victor Emmanuel enters, 23, 322;
     Pius IX fugitive from, 322;
     Pius IX returned to, 328;
     capital of Italy established at, 329, 337;
     English college established in, by Jesuits, 134;
     German college established in, by Loyola, 121, 422.

   Russia, Jesuits in, 239, 242-247;
     Jesuit order authorized in White Russia by Pius VII, 244, 254;
     Jesuits expelled from St. Petersburg and Moscow, 246.


   S.

   Saldanha, Cardinal, appointed visitor and reformer of the Jesuits, 189;
     banished the Father Superior of the Jesuit "Professed House," and
     caused arrest of two Jesuits in Brazil, 190;
     appointed the Bishop of Para his delegate in South America, 190.

   Saragossa, Jesuit intrigues at, 76-83.

   Sardinia, hostility of, to Austria, 308;
     formed alliance with Piedmont for protection, 308;
     invited by Pius IX to co-operate in forming confederacy of Italian
     republics with pope as ruler, 311;
     declined to co-operate with Pius IX, 311;
     became separated from influences of Holy Alliance, 312;
     crown of, abdicated by Charles Albert, 312;
     Victor Emmanuel became king of, 312.

   Satolli, Mgr., deputy pope, sent to United States by Leo XIII, 396;
     decision of, upon school question, 397;
     results to be expected from success of his mission, 427.

   _Semper eadem_, the Jesuit motto, 138;
     the motto of the papacy, 489.

   Spain, universities of, condemned infallibility, 70;
     Jesuits in, 75-85;
     Jesuit intrigues at Saragossa, 76-83;
     opposition to Jesuits at Toledo, 84;
     acquired possessions in South America, 168;
     king of, prohibits Europeans entering Paraguay, 173;
     invaded by Louis XVIII, of France, 262;
     Jesuits driven out of, 221, 262, 291.

   Syllabus of Pius IX, important propositions of, enumerated by Franco, 455.


   T.

   Temporal power, abolished in Italy, 19, 22, 24, 464;
     Jesuit efforts to restore, 24, 27, 28;
     Napoleon's letter to Pius VII, concerning, 269, 270;
     doctrine of, maintained by Pius IX, 299-301, 310, 315;
     Union of Sardinia and Italy, death-blow to, 313, 319;
     Louis Napoleon sent troops to Italy to protect, 318;
     abolished, 324, 329;
     its restoration sought through aid of American people, 348;
     restoration of, would convert pope into a king, 362;
     not acquired until after fall of Roman Empire, 386;
     its abolition asserted to be an international wrong by Leo XIII, 423;
     an enemy to peace of the Church, 463;
     importance of issue involved in restoration of, 464.

   Trent, Council of, assembled by Paul III, 67, 467;
     Jesuits at, 108, 469;
     Elizabeth declined to send ambassadors to, 136;
     forced to assemble by Charles V, 466;
     called by Clement VII, 467;
     Laynez announced doctrine of infallibility in, 470, 471, 472-475;
     did not decree infallibility, 475;
     assumed authority over both Protestants and Catholics, 491.

   Tournon, De, Cardinal, condemns Jesuits in China and India, 212;
     his arrest and death, 214.


   U.

   Ultramontanes, advocated temporal power and policy of bull "_Unam
   Sanctam_" of Boniface VIII, 481, 482, 483.

   Umbria, law of, condemned by Cardinal Pecci (Leo XIII), 376;
     archbishop and bishops of, select Pecci to protest against the
     infringement of papal rights by Piedmont, 380;
     doctrines of Thomas Aquinas taught in schools of, 408.

   _Unam Sanctam_, bull of Boniface VIII, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 488,
   493;
     disinclination of papal writers to publish in full, 482.

   United States, policy of, to separate Church from State, 18, 344, 356,
   358, 373, 414;
     Jesuits in, 25, 29;
     maintains the right of self-government, 335;
     freedom of conscience a fundamental principle of, 348, 360;
     people of, appealed to by papacy to restore temporal power in Italy,
     348;
     estimated number of Roman Catholics in, 392;
     principles of, condemned by popes, 391, 411, 419, 420, 461;
     institutions of, considered godless by Jesuits, 395, 462;
     patriotism of Roman Catholics in, 422, 490;
     infallibility inconsistent with loyalty to, 456.


   V.

   Vatican, Council of the, declared Pius IX infallible, 321, 427, 428,
   471, 478;
     decree of infallibility by, not unanimous, 433, 480.

   Verona, Congress of "Holy Alliance" met at, 261.

   Victor Emmanuel, conciliatory letter of, to Pius IX, 23, 319, and
   note, page 320;
     entered Rome, 23, 322;
     his overture of pacification rejected by Pius IX, 23, 321;
     becomes king of Sardinia, 312;
     formed Kingdom of Italy, 313.


   W.

   Washington, President, advised education of youth in science of
   government, 15;
     his warning against foreign influence, 31.


   X.

   Xavier, Francis, his mission to the East Indies, 153;
     sent to India by King of Portugal, 154;
     character assigned to him, 154;
     visited Goa, 155;
     represented as performing miracles, 155, 156, 159-160, 161, 164;
     claimed for him that God gave him the "gift of tongues," 156, 165;
     established Jesuit college at Goa, 157, 158;
     went to Malabar, 159;
     his claim as the "Apostle of the Indies" unsubstantiated, 162;
     visited Japan, 162-165;
     his gift of tongues a "transient favor," 163, 164;
     failed to enter China, 165;
     his death, 166;
     miraculous account of his remains, 166.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 61731 ***