CHAPTER 2

It has come to be an axiom among all the advocates of free government, that "error ceases to be dangerous when reason is left free to combat it." But those who support the cause of imperialism maintain the opposite of this-that the public mind and conscience are enlightened only in proportion as they are submissive to some superior governing power, sufficiently strong to hold them in obedience.

The contest between these opposing theories is one between intelligence and ignorance. In the one case, society is recognized as being entitled to govern itself by laws of its own enacting-founded upon its own will. In the other, this right is entirely denied, and it is regarded as being fitted only for that conditionof inferiority which shall reduce it to an unconsciousness of its degradation. The civil institutions of the United States are constructed upon the former of these theories. Wheresoever civil institutions have existed in obedience to the dictation of the papacy, they have been constructed upon the latter. Protestantism, with all its elevating tendencies, is the legitimate offspring of the one. Decrepitude, decay, and disruption have been the natural fruits of the other. These cousiderations must be kept in mind, in examining the claims now set up in behalf of the papacy, in order that we may have a clear view of what we are required to surrender, and understand the character of the millennial feast to which we are invited.

When Pope Pius IX., in 1867, convened all "the prelates of the Catholic world" in Rome to witness the ceremony, of canonizing saints-to which their presence was not at all necessary-and assigned as one of the reasons for the convocation "the extreme peril which threatens civil, and, above all, sacred things," (1) thoughtful men-as well Roman Catholic laymen as Protestant-wondered why so much expense should be incurred, and so mujch labor performed, for an object which would, of itself, confer no good upon Christianity or the Church. And when these same Roman Catholic layman had their attention then called-many of them for the first time-to the now celebrated Encyclical and Syllabus of the pope, and saw their tendency to arrest the progress of the nations, and turn them back toward teh Middle Ages, many of the most intelligent of them did not hestitate to express their surprise. Some of them put one construction, and some auother, upon the language of the pope; while yet others, better informed of the motives of papal action, attempted, by imperfect translations and false construction, to give it a meaning wholly at variance, with what is now concealed, on all hands, to have been his design. But when the late Vatican Council enacted the decree which made papal infallibility, for the first time, a dogma of religious faith, and threatened with anathema a11 who should refuse to recognize the pope as incapable of all error in matters of faith and morals, all furtherdisguise was thrown aside, and the world was awakened to the that these measures were but the inauguration of a deliberately concerted effort to make the papacy a power so absorbing and omnipotent that all nations and peoples should be held by it in abject, passive, and humiliating subjegation.

It would be an unjust reflection upon the acknowledged intelligence and sagacity of the papal hierarchy in the United States to suppose that they did not understand, from the beginning, the end the pope had in view, and the object he desired to accomplish. Their relations to him, and their dependence upon him for their official positions and dignity, require that there shall be no concealment between them. The kind of obedience they pay him renders it necessary that they shall furnish him with the most un- doubted assurance that they are always ready to execute whatsoever he shall command, in the domain of faith aud morals, without stopping to inquire what human laws or institutions are in the way, except so far as it may be necessary to contrive some method to evade or overleap them. All this is required by the official oath taken by each of them. By it they create an allegiance to the pope considered higher aud more binding than any earthly obligation. It obliges them to be "faithful and obedient" to him; to "defend and keep the Roman papacy and the royalties of St. Peter;" to do whatsoever they can to "increase" the papal "privileges and authority," and to "persecute and oppose" all "heretics, schismatics and rebels "who shall, stand in the way of making" the rules of the holy fathers, the apostolic decrees, ordinances, or disposals, reservations, provisions, and mandates," the fouudation upon which all human institutions shall rest.(2)

These American prelates took the earliest occasion, after the appearauce of the Syllabus, to show, not only that they fully comprehended its meaning, but that the pope's reliance upon their fidelity to him was not misplaced. In this extraordinary document it is asserted, with dogmatic brevity and terseness, that it does not appertain " to the-civil power to define what are the rights and limits within which the Church may exercise authority;" that its authority must be decided upon by itself, that is, by the pope, and exercised "without permission and assent of the civil government;" and that, "in the case of conflicting laws between the two powers, the laws of the Church must prevail over those of the State.(3) Here, every thing is plain-nothing equivocal. The subordination of the State to the Church, and the substitution of the papal hierarchy for the people in enacting and enforcing such laws as the pope may think necessary for the Church, are distinctly and emphatically asserted. There is no room for misconstruction of the language. And it must be observed that the pope is speaking alone of civil "rights and limits," and the authority which "the Church may exercise" in referenee to them; that is, over that class of temporalities holding the Church to be, in these respects, above the state, and having the right, as its superior, to command and enforce obedience. It requires but a moderate share of intelligence to see that the principle here asserted is in direct antagonism to the theory of American government, and that, if established, it would violate one of the cherished provisions of the Constitution of the United States and of the Constitution of every State in the Union. The American hierarchy understand this perfectly well. Whosoever else may shelter themselves behind the plea of ignorance, they can not. And yet this knowledge imposed no restraint whatever upon them, in the expressiou of their submissiveness and obedienee to the pope. They considered themselves as owing their first and highest allegiance to him, as the representative of "the royalties of St. Peter," and did not hesitate to avow it : of all this, they have themselves furnished the most satisfactory evidence.

The second National Council of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy of the United States met at Baltimore in October, 1866-nearly two years after the Encyclical and Syllabus were issued. It was composed of seven archbishops and forty bishops, besides a number of the superiors of religious orders, and was presided over by Archbishop Spalding, of Baltimore, as "apostolic delegate" representing the pope, and thus going to the assembly as much weight and influence within its jurisdiction as if the pope had been personally present. In theory it represented the great body of the Roman Catholic laity in the United States; practically, it took no note of them or of their opinions. It was assembled for a special work-to respond to the Encyclical and Syllabus; and it did it, to the "great comfort and consolation" of the pope. It would have been unnatural for him to have felt otherwise at thus seeing the ranks of the papal arms closing up, and at knowing how well he had succeeded in inauguratinn a conflict between the imperial dogmas of the papacy and the fundamental principles of American government.

In the pastoral letter issued by this Council, the relation of the Roman Catholic Church to the government and laws of this country is discussed. There is a tone of ecclesiastical anthority and command employed by its authors which tends to show an impression existing in their minds that they were addressing an anditory not accustomed to question their authority or controvert their propositions. Hence, they proceed, without indirection, to lay it down as an axiom in the science of all government, not to be disputed, that the civil power is never absolute or independent. Inasmuch as "all power is of God," there must exist some delegated authority upou earth, which, representing God, must constitute the tribunal of last resort. Upon this tribunal alone all absolute power is conferred, no matter what the form of government. If it be a monarchy, the king must be held in subjection to it; and if a democracy, the people must be taught that it is above them. With this as the beginning-point of their theory, substantially expressed, though not in these words, they declare that obedience to the civil power of government "is not a submission to force which may not be resisted, nor merely the compliance with a condition for peace and security ; but a religious duty founded on obedience to God, by whose authority the civil magistrate exercises his power." This power of the civil magistrate, being subordinate and delegated power, they insist,"must always be exercised according to God's laws." And, therefore, "in prescribing anything contrary to that law; the civil power transcends its authority, and has no claim on the obedience of the citizen," because it "never can be lawful to disobey God ;" or, as a necessary and logical result, those to whom, as custodians of his power on earth, he has delegated the divine right to govern: Founding their theory of government upon this idea, they proceed to show how differently the principle operates in "the Catholic system" and in the Protestant system. In the latter, according to them, "the individual is the ultimate judge of what the law of God commands or forbids;" while in the former, "the Catholic has a guide in the Church, as a divine institution, which enables him to discriminate between what the law of God forbids or allows;" so that when the Church shall instruct him that any particular law of the state is contrary to God's law, he is thereby forbidden to pay obedience to it. According to the Protestant system, in their opinion, the state is exposed to disorder and anarchy, because the authority by which it is governed has no warrant for its character as divine. The reverse they insist to be the case in the "Catholic system;" and, therefore, because it has this divine authority in the Church and not in itself, "the state is bound to recognize" the Roman Catholic Church as the sole depository of the delrgated power to decide what laws shall be obeyed and what disobeyed; for the obvious reason that the world, in order to obey God, must recognize that Church-that is, the pope and his hierarchy-"as supreme in its sphere of morals, no less than dogmatic teaching.

It requires no pause for reflection to see how directly a "Catholic system" of government, thus constructed, would conflict with the existing civil institiutions" of the United States. Nor do we need a prophet to tell us that the establishment of such a system here would be followed by their immediate destruction. To permit a church-any church-to decide upon the validity or invalidity of our laws after their enactment, or to dictate, beforehand, what laws should or should not be passed, would be to deprive the people of all the anthority they have retained in their own hands, and to make such church the governing power, instead of them. Yet,understanding this perfectly well, and, evidently, contemplating the time when they might possibly be able to bring about this condition of affairs these papal representatives directly assail a principle which has been universal in all our State governments, from their foundation that which regulates by law the holding of real estate by churches and other corporations, and requires them to conform, in this temporal matter, to the statute-laws of the States. To this there could be no reasonable or just objection, had they invoked the rightful power to change alter amend or even to abrogate the obnoxious laws for this would have been only the exercise of the admitted right of free discussion secured as well to them as others. But they, manifestly, had no such idea in view, inasmuch as, according to them, that method of procedure belongs to the Protestant and not the "Catholic system" of government. To exclude the impression that they design to look to any other authority than that of the papacy for the relief they seek, they take especial pains to say that they "are not as yet permitted legally to make those arrangements for the security of church property which are in accordance with the canons and discipline of the Catholic Church!" that is, that the canons and discipline of their Church, issued from the Vatican at Rome, by the pope and Roman curia, are not permitted to override and nullify the laws of the States! The plain import of this is, that all the laws of the States concerning the rights of the Roman Catholic Church, and regulating the manner in which it shall hold and enjoy property, have "no claim on the obedience" of the Roman Catholic citizen, because they are not "in accordance with the canons and discipline of the Catholic Church" and the papal decrees. Such a system of government, put into practical operation, would amount to this, that conformity to the "canons and discipline" of that Church would be the test of all laws, and none would be binding except those pronounced obligatory by the pope. The "divine right" of the pope to govern the people, through his hierarchy, would be fully recognized, and the right of self government wonld be at an end.

The right of holding real estate and accumulating large wealth, after the manner of the Roman Catholic Church and monastic orders of Europe, the American hierarchy regard as of so much importance to the success of their ecclesiastical organization, that this Baltimore Council declared that to withhold it is to deprive their Church "of a necessary means of promotion the end for which she has been established." They declare that "she can not accept" the principles upon which the American laws are based "without departing from her practice from the beginning," because "they are the expression of a distrust of ecclesiastical power." And, to leave no doubt whatever about their meaning, they insist that the States have no more right to impose on their Church "a system of holding her temporalities, which is alien to her principles," than they have to "prescribe to her the doctrines she is to teach;" and they solemnly enter their "formal protest" against all such legislation, notwithstanding the laws they protest against exist in all the States, and embody a principle deliberately con- sidered and approved by the American people.(4) It is incompatible, they say, "with the full measure of ecclesiastical or religious liberty," to deprive them of the right of holding whatsoever amount of real or other property they may acquire in the United States, by purchase, devise, or gift, and of governing it by laws of the pope's or their own enacting, independently of the laws of the States, to which all Protestant churches and people pay cheerful obedience; thus showing that they wonld have each archbishop within his episcopate, and each bishop within his diocese, and each priest within his parish, a temporal prince, with the sceptre of royalty in his hands, although he might not wear its crown upon his head.

One would expect to see, in a document of this kind, a statement of some serious grievance against which relief was sought, something that would at least excuse, if not justify, the attempt to introduce into our government a foreign element of authority above the people. But the only "practical results" complained of are, first, the taxation of their church property; and, second, an attempt made by the State of Missouri, after the end of the rebellion, "to make the exercise of the ecclesiastical ministry depend on a condition laid down by the civil power;" that is, by requiring them to conform to the laws of the State, in furnishing evidence of their loyalty to the Government. From the nature of these complaints, it would seem that they were only employed as a pretext, merely affording them an opportunity of making known to the pope how cheerfully they responded to the doctrines of his Encyclical and Syllabus, and with what confidence he might rely upon them in doing their share of the work necessary to arrest the progress and advancement upon which this country had entered.(5)

The intentions of men are frequently made known far more satisfactorily by their surroundings, the contemporaneous events with which they are identified, the parties to which they are attached, and their connection with other individuals, than by the language they use. By reference to these we are furnished with a rule of interpretation which does not often mislead, although it is not altogether infallible. Therefore, when it is considered that these prelates who assembled at Baltimore recognize, to the fullest possible extent, their obligation of obedience to the pope; and when it is remembered that the pope had, but a little while before, announced his views of the relations which should exist between the Roman Catholic Church and civil governments, the conclusion is unavoidable that they desire the adoption, in this country, of their theory of government, based upon their ideas of the "Catholic system." To assign to them any other motive, after the distinct and emphatic avowals they have made, would be an impeachment of their integrity and sincerity which is not designed. It is supposed that they occupy ground cautiously and deliberately selected by them, and are fully prepared to take all the consequences which attach to their position. There is, at all events, no misunderstanding what they desire to accomplish. Nor should there be any misconception of the immense power they wield over multitudes of men in this country, in moving them backward or forward, to the right or left, as the pope shall direct.

We are not left in any doubt about the nature of the terrible struggle now going on between the modern nations aud the papacy. These hierarchs at Baltimore comprehended it fully, when they entered upon an explanation of the difference between the Protestant system of government, with the people as the source of civil power, and the "Catholic system," with the pope as its only source. Having voluntarily yielded to the papal pressure by the frank avowal of their preference for the latter; and having no excuse, on the plea of ignorance, for not understanding what it has hitherto done for the world, they must be considered as desiring to see the Christian nations, including the United States, carried back to the condition they were in when the papacy was at the zenith of its power; when kings were ignoble enough to lay their crowns at the feet of the pope; when popes disposed of kingdoms at their pleasure, by imposing or releasing the obligation of allegiance as the reward of fidelity to themselees, in the one case, or of disobedience, in the other; and when ignorant fanaticism and superstition were so universal that the Christian world dreaded nothing so much as the terrible thunders of excommunication. Why should any body wonder: that Pius IX. was gratified to see things going in that direction, and, especially, to see such flattering signs that the most liberal and advanced nations might become the first to turn back, and thus enable him to gain in them what he had lost where the "Catholic system" had been on trial for centuries? He would have possessed less sagacity than is assigned to him, had not the promise of these faithful subordinates to vindicate all his asserted prerogatives excited in his mind ardent hopes and flattering expectations of the future of the papacy. He could easily see that they were ready and willing to defend the theory which he considers the chiefest among all the fundamentals of government; for no matter what the forms of government, whether monarchical or republican, it makes him its absolute and indenpendent ruler in all things belonging to the domain of faith and morals. The avowal is plainly made, in support of this theory, that submission to civil authority is founded alone upon obedience to God and is not to be obeyed when otherwise! Therefore, it is proposed that the Roman Catholic citizen of the United States shall be carried along step by step, in the following process of training the duties of citizenship: he shall be brought to recognize his Church as the only custodian of God's law; that the pope is infallible and therefore as the vicegerent of God, has plenary and sole power to interpret that law, and can not err in its interpretation; that he shall find his only "guide in the Church" in deciding whether he shall obey or disobey the civil laws of the state that the pope is the infallible representative of all truth in the world, and infallibly employs all the power and authority of the Church; that, as he can not err in any thing concerning faith and morals, he must, in their domain, be implicitly obeyed; that, as the pope is infallible as the chief instructor in doctrine and duty, his prelates are also infallible as his subordinate workers; that the pope as he shall speak through the mouths of these prelates, must be obeyed absolutely and uninquiringly-all his utterances being taken as the voice of God, coming directly from his throne in the heavens; and that infamy in this life and eternal damnation in that to come will be the inevitable doom of all who shall impiously reject these teachings. A citizen thus trained, disciplined, and humiliated would become, necessarily, a mere machine in the hands of superiors, who would allow him to obey those laws only which the Church-that is, the pope-should decide to be consistent with the commands of God; and would require him to resist and oppose those which should be decided to be otherwise. If the laws requiring the Roman Catholic Church to hold property in subordination to them, and in the same way that Protestant churches do, are forbidden by God s law, as interpreted by the pope and placed in the canons and discipline of that Church-as the Baltimore Conncil declares-they must be swept out of the way or violated with impunity, so that the Church itself, and all ita monastic orders, and all its societies, may hold property to an unlimited amount, and make all the laws which shall govern its acquisition and enjoyment, without any regard whatever to the legislation of the States or to their rights and dignity! With this achieved, the hierarchy would be far along upon the road that would lead them to their final triumph-the mastery-over the people. The pope, as the source of all authority in the Church, would put forth his royal edicts and decrees in regard to their church property in this country, prescribing how they should acquire, hold, and enjoy it, and these edicts and decrees would take the place of all our State statutes upon that subject! This would build up at Rome an imperialism that would reach out further over the world than did that of the Caesars, and might become far greater and more injurious to mankind.

When the pope was informed of the assembling of this council, and the obedient spirit it exhibited, he caused his cardinal secretary to dispatch an answer expressive of his apostolic joy and satisfaction. He directed the facts to be published in the official journal of his court, "for the edification of his Roman people and the faithful at large;" so that they, who had been striving after a government founded upon their own consent, could realize how ready the people of the United States were to give up such a government in exchange for one constructed upon the paternal plan which prevailed at Rome, under his pontifical auspices. And, seemingly aroused to the highest point of rejoicing at the work the Encyclical and Syllabus had thus far accomplished, he declared that his mind was excited by the hope that, by means and through the influence of what the council at Baltimore had done, "a new impulse and continued increase to religion in the United States will result."(6) What the pope meant by this may be derived from the fact that the cable dispatch sent to him by the archbishops and bishops who composed the council, expressed only their wishes for his long life, with the preservation of ali the ancient and sacred rights of the Holy See."(7) There was no reference to any of the ordinary dogmas of religious faith, as there could be no doubt about their fidelity to them. There was no agitation in the Church rendering such reference necessary. The issue made by the Encyclical and Syllabus between tha papacy and the progressive modern nations was the only one which immediately concerned the pope and the Church: This involved the existence of his temporal power, which the Italian people were only then prevented by the presence of French troops from taking away from him: Consequently, when they declared their desire to see "all the ancient and sacred rights of the Holy See" preserved, tbe pope was at no loss to know what they meant: He understood them as indorsing all the claims he had set up in the Encyclical and Syllabus, including that of temporal and ecclesiastical sovereignty, and his right to require that the evil governments of the would should conform to "the canon laws and discipline" of the Church. Therefore, the idea he intended to convey was this: that the religion which had received a "nets impulse" in the United States was that which taught the subordination of all civil governments to the Church and the papacy! It was not the true religion which was exemplified in the life and example of Christ, and which has its foundation in universal charity and love; but that which places the pope above all kingdoms and peoples, and requires every human being to pay him homage and fidelity: The facts before him tended naturally to draw from him the rapturous expression of his hope. To see his followers in the United States stepping so hastily into the front rank of those who were ready to -battle for the "ancient" rights of the Holy See-when kings, under the idea of "divine right," received their crowns from the popes-must hate excited in his mind the most profound gratification: One can readily suppose that, in his pontifical enthusiasm, he looked forward, exultingly, to the time when governments and constitutions and laws would be reconstructed so as to conform to the papal model, and when there would be snatched from the hands of the people, wherever they possess it, the power to make their own laws; or to enforce any which he or his successors shall declare to be contrary to faith and good morals. To an old man of kind heart and generous sympathies, it must be terribly crushing, to see such bright hopes and flattering anticipations suddenly dashed to the ground, as were those of Pius IX. after they had been thus excited, when Rome, by the act of the Italian people, became their capital. Shall the tide of retrogression, thus arrested in Italy, by a Roman Catholic population, be permitted to set in again in the very heart of the Protestant nations?

The reason assigned for the preference of the "Catholic system" over the Protestant is the incapacity of the people to-govern themselves, and to take care of their own civil affairs - an argument as old as tyranny. The Baltimore Council tells us that by recognizing, as we do in this country, "an authority" to govern, "which has no warrant-for its character as divine, and no limits in its application;" the nation is exposed to "disorder and anarchy;" and the concession to the Roman Catholic hierarchy of the right to separate their property from the mass of that belonging to other churches and people, and to govern it by their own laws, or by the canon laws of Rome, is demanded upon that express ground. With these prelates, Protestantism thus tends to the disruption of the whole social fabric, because it confers upon each individual the right to decide what shall be the form of his religious belief, or whether he shall have any; and conducts all civil affairs without referring it to the pope, or his ecclesiastics, or to any church authorities whatever, to decide what laws shall be obeyed and what resisted. The issue is a plain one - easily perceptible to the most ordinary comprehension. The two systems stand in direct antagonism with each other. The Protestant has separated the State from the Church; the papal proposes to unite them again. The Protestant has founded its civil institutions upon the will of the people; the papal proposes to reconstruct and found them upon the will of the pope. The Protestant secures religious freedom; the papal requires that every man shall give up his conscience to the keeping of ecclesiastical superiors. The Protestant develops the faculties of the mind by inciting the spirit of personal independence and manhood; the papal crushes out all this spirit by its debasing doctrine of passive obedience and submission. The Protestant has put the world upon a career of progress and prosperity; the papal desires to arrest this career, and turn it back into those old grooves which have led so many nations to wreck and desolation. The issue is made,between these systems in so bold and manly a manner, that, its authors are entitled to that consideration which the possession of high moral courage always excites in generous minds. They can, therefore, have no just cause to complain of either intolerance or persecution if, finding ourselves in the possession of free and popular institutions which we have solemnly declared to be inalienable, we shall employ like courage in their defense; or even if, in maintaining their integrity, it shall become necessary to point out the contrast between these opposing systems to the extent of showing that the Protestant and popular system was necessary to lift the world out of the corruption and degradation into which the papacy had plunged it. If it is a species of hallucination to suppose that such institutions as we possess are better suited to our condition than any that the pope, as "King of Rome," or any of his ecclesiastical subordinates, or any ecclesiastical tribunal whatever, would be likely to substitute for them, we are not yet quite prepared to see it dispelled. If we abhor kingly or papal imperialism, or imperialism in any of its variety of forms, and cling to institutions established in the face, and in defiance of it, we should be unfaithful to our convictions, and unworthy our position among the nations, if we did not rebuke, in fit and indignant terms, any attempt, by whomsosver made, to fetter us with its chains, or to plant its iron heel upon our necks.

He must be stone-blind who does not see, in the light of these and other facts occurring almost daily, that Protestantism has been formally arraigned by its vindictive and unrelenting enemy; that it has been put upon its trial before the civilized world; that judgment of condemnation has already been pronounced against it; and that the arm of the executioner is only stayed until the limbs of the victim can be so tightly bound as to make its resistance unavailing. Its open adversary and accuser is the papacy, which, unwilling to submit to the necessity that has wrought ont its own defeat among those who are most, familiar with its enormities and oppressions, now assails it courageously; but impudently, in the citadel of its greatest strength. The loss of his imperial crown in Rome has dispelled the joy of Pius IX., and driven him into a frenzy of excitement and passion; and, availing himself of the license afforded by the tolerant spirit of American laws and institutions, he is rapidly transferring his best drilled and disciplined militia(8) to the United States; and, claiming to be clothed in the robes and with the anthority of divinity, he demands, in the name of Deity; that we shall bow down before him in passive sub mission, and accept his commands as if uttered by a voice from heaven. We, who believe that Protestantism is sheltered by Divine care, must not remain unresisting under an attack so imnmediate and formidable, nor sit still while a judgment may be taken, by default, against us. A commanding sense of duty requires that we should look this haughty and imperious adversary full in the face, understand his machinations, strip him of his disguises, unravel his plots, and meet him at every point of attack. If we shall remain insensible to any of the obligations of this duty, now that the battle-cry is sounding in our ears, it may be too late after the storming-party has mounted the walls of our fortress, pulled down our flag, and planted that of papal and ecclesiastical absolutism upon the grave of popular institutions.

What does Protestantism mean? What necessity gave it birth? What has it done for mankind? What would be the condition of the world if it were destroyed? These are questions we should not fear to discuss, and which we are bound to discuss, now that it is denounced, in our very faces, as heresy and infidelity, and we are insolently told that duty and man requires its total extermination, and the erection of a "Holy Empire" wheresoever its principles prevail and its institutions exist. We must not sink into indifference, nor permit the fear of consequences to slacken our exertions in a canse of such transcendent importance to ourselves and our children. If our fathers had been easily intimidated, we should have had no such government as we now possess. If we shall prove less courageous than they the heritage they have left us may not pass to many generations of our descendants. Some of the proudest governments of the earth have already fallen; there are none that may not fall.

(8)When Pope Pius VII. re-established the Jesuits, after their suppression by Clement XIV., he called them the "Sacred Militia" of the Church.

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page