Front matter (continued 10)

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:

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:

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:

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 Huguenots and 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, 418; 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.