Chapter XXII. Jesuitical Teachings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this work of plucking out every germ of patriotism which instinctively grows and bears fruit in youthful minds, the Jesuits have been experts, ever since Julius [II and Loyola established a college at Rome to teach treason to the German youth. Time and practice have increased their skill, and their disappointment at being compelled tq witness the triumph of Protestantism, while they have become fugitives among the nations, has intensified their hatred of all free and independent Governments. Leo XII1—not forgetful of his own early training—has signified his purpose to select them as the educators of American youth, so that they may be trained in the religious belief that our national independence is leading us to “libertinism” and ruin; and that they can only serve God rightly by forgetting home and country, and by plucking out from their minds all sense of personal manhood and every ennobling quality; so that, instead of becoming influential citizens of a free and progressive country, they may fit themselves for “uninquiring obedience” to a foreign and alien power, as the Jesuits themselves have done. This country, so blessed by the abundant fruits of the Reformation and of popular government, must not be permitted to turn back to the old paths, which papal and imperial despotism has filled with pitfalls. The principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States must not be supplanted by papal and Jesuit dogmas—such as have been set forth by the ambitious popes and by Loyola, in order to secure the complete triumph of monarchism over popular liberty.

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

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

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

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

Download a PDF file of this article.

Please follow and like us: